An Atheist-Evangelical Dialogue?

Am I the only person in the United States who believes that a dialog between nonbelievers and evangelical Christians might help both sides identify some mutual concerns and even the occasional area of agreement?

In order for such a meeting to take place participants would have to submit to a few ground rules. The atheists, agnostics and anti-theists must promise to refrain from excessive smirking, snarky asides about an “imaginary friend,” and the use of profanities (whether expressed verbally or via manual gestures).

The evangelicals, for their part, would have to swear upon a Bible that they would not ask the nonbelievers if they experienced any traumas in childhood. Nor could they make any efforts at soul salvation (even perfunctory ones) or request that all join hands in prayer by meeting’s end.

As long as the leaders and polemicists of evangelical and secular America can agree to these simple and discourse-inducing protocols the possibilities of an enriching dialog -- OK. Bad idea. Forget it.

Then again, outside of the best known and loudest representatives of both camps, there are thousands of evangelicals, atheists and agnostics toiling in the obscurity of universities and theological seminaries. By training and by temperament nearly all scholars are perfectly capable of following the guidelines mentioned above. Would the media show any interest in their conversation? And would the professors bore the screws off of every chair in America if they did?

In any case, many nonbelievers, though not necessarily all, are committed liberals. One of the pregnant stories of 2008 concerns the expected emergence (or defection) of non-traditionalist evangelicals. These kinder, gentler, centrists and progressives are deeply concerned about poverty, the environment, solving the AIDS crisis, exploring the possibilities of human embryonic stem cell research (which some can disassociate from abortion), among other issues. That’s something to talk about, is it not?

Not everything is politics, of course. The professors might point out that some strains of nonbelief -- especially the more aggressive, less touchy-feely, French varieties -- share a rather jaundiced view of human nature. The idea that mortals are not repositories of virtue surfaces in works as early (and as central to the syllabus of secularism) as Voltaire’s Candide and as recent (and spectacular) as Michel Houellebecq’s The Elementary Particles.

With their constant emphasis on the depravity, sinfulness, and corruption of humanity evangelical Christians can, at the very least, engage these themes. Of course, there will be utter, total disagreement on the root causes of the human "fallenness" (and the cures). But the theology of Evangelicalism and the bibliography of nonbelief are capacious enough to generate this and many other studies in compare and contrast. Without such a dialog we are left only with the rants and caricatures of the unlettered.

By Jacques Berlinerblau |  October 9, 2007; 8:45 AM ET
Share: Email a Friend | Technorati | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Dobson Warns Republicans; Democrats Glimpse Rapture of Their Own | Next: Nine Republicans. No Biblical Citations. Why?

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.

Based on the discussion above, it would appear that a meaningful dialogue between atheists and believers is in fact impossible - and the reason is simply that the atheists are such jackasses that they're unwilling to even try.

These guys would seem to reinforce the worst stereotypes that people have of the arrogant, obnoxious atheist who mindlessly worships at the altar of "scientism."

Posted by: Huh? | November 2, 2007 1:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"If we're going to discuss something of value to believers and atheists, I'd think it would be something "real world" - - What do we have in common? How do we get beyond our differences to work on something together in the common lifetime we've been given?"

I'd like to see you pull this trick off. You asked someone to talk about "what do we have in common?" after telling him that you are absolutely not going to take the time to let him tell you what he believes.

Does anyone see the absurdity of this? How the *?/!#^

Or are you clairvoyant? (Or maybe just so bleeping good at stereotyping people that you always know what they think without asking?)

No wonder he gave up and walked away.

Posted by: Anonymous | November 1, 2007 4:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Great site!
824eb8f5d4bf73ce5c0158516f6f4897

Posted by: Alex Fetcher | November 1, 2007 6:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I have dropped out of the conversation for a while because I have been so busy in prison. Gang activity is on the rise and prisoners and staff are less safe. I would love for all people of good will to cooperate in making the prisons more humane and reforming the USA’s penal system and its laws. Far too many people are in prison. Far too many minorities are in prison. Come to prison and witness many of the USA’s failed social experiments.

E Favorite:

You stated, “The fact that NT Wright makes a very tight case for the resurrection being factual based his exhaustive and nuanced analysis of ancient texts doesn’t convince me, considering his use of a 2,000 year old, oft translated book of myth as his main reference and the inconvenient fact that resurrection is physically impossible.”

I just wanted to point out that N.T. Wright and other serious biblical scholars do not rely upon translations. They engage in serious textual criticism to arrive most likely reading of the original text.

Jed Rothwell:

Strictly speaking, it is impossible to prove that an effect does not exist just because you do not observe it after many tests.

Your statement demonstrates my point about falsification.

Peace,
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 23, 2007 11:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos - I know from another discussion on another thread that you believe in the supernatural. If I've misunderstood and that is not the case, I can’t imagine why you wouldn't have said that by now.

If we're going to discuss something of value to believers and atheists, I'd think it would be something "real world" - - What do we have in common? How do we get beyond our differences to work on something together in the common lifetime we've been given? Not an esoteric discussion about metaphysics or comparative religion. Not my forte, in any case. Maybe you can find other atheists to discuss these issues with you.

Posted by: E favorite | October 19, 2007 9:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"I've compared your belief in the supernatural to astrology and alchemy"

Yes, without taking the time to ascertain what those beliefs are.

You have characterized my faith as "belief in the supernatural" - without once asking if I in fact believe in the supernatural (and if so, what I mean by "natural" and "supernatural").

You have characterized my faith as being based on "myths" - without once asking me whether I take any or all of the accounts you mention literally.

You have characterized my beliefs as superstition - again, without once asking me what those beliefs are.

You've said there's no sense in talking to me, because "those things don't happen" - without once asking which of "those things" I believe in.

You don't know what I believe, or what kind of Christian I am. You don't know if I believe in a blind-watchmaker God wound up the universe and stand apart from it, a God that tinkers with history through every day miracles, or a God that's immanent in and co-extensive with the natural universe and never alters the natural order through miracles, because His will IS the natural order (all of are conceptions of God that are held by various Christians). You don't know if I believe in miracles, or the verbal inspiration of the Bible, or the parting of the Red Sea. You don't know if I believe in literal devils in red suits with pitchforks or a universal principle of evil in the hearts and minds of men. You don't know, don't care, and have told me that you won't listen even if I offer it up uninvited.

Yet you're absolutely confident in describing my beliefs as supernatural, superstitious myths that are equivalent to astrology and alchemy.

You've asked for other topics to discuss - and I've tried to respond. What the Wiccan world view can say about our different perspectives, and how it can be a window into a meaningful discussion between us (or Daoist world view, or Buddhist world view). How we can begin to talk about and explore our different world views based on the physical evidence of cosmology. What each of us considers to be "evidence" and what kinds of reasoning are valid based on it. What your metaphysical assumptions are - and how they differ from mine. Heck - I've given you multiple opportunities to explain what evidence convinced you to become an atheist. I understand that you have no interest in that - I've tried to engage you in a discussion of what that sort of discussion is important for our society.

You seem to have a warped sense of honesty. It's not "dishonest" for you to LISTEN to anything - it's only dishonest if you say that you agree when you don't.

I truly don't understand you. You've entered a blog discussion on how to have a dialogue between atheists and believers, and all you've done is:

1) Say "nope, not interested, no point, ain't gonna work anyway;"

2) Denegrate not only the conclusions of believers, but state across the board and without qualification that NONE of them can present ANY evidence or offer ANY insight that could be of ANY possible value;

3) Follow up with "but hey, isn't there anything else you guys want to talk about other than atheism and religion?"

What did you have in mind? Politics perhaps? Sports? The weather?

Or did you just want to talk to other atheists ABOUT believers? Why do it here - and what do you expect that to accomplish?

If there's anything "dishonest" that you're doing, it's joining a discussion on the topic without having any real interest in a dialogue between atheists and believers.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 19, 2007 6:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I've compared your belief in the supernatural to astrology and alchemy. I am being intellectually honest in doing so. I know you don’t like it, but there it is. As a close atheist friend occasionally said to me when I was a believer, “Those things just don’t happen.” That’s why it’s easy for me to respect someone who can come to that conclusion independently, as a child.

I have no desire to talk you out of those beliefs (I think they may fall away, over time) or to tell you any more about why I’m an atheist. It would really be dishonest of me to listen to an exposition or defense of your supernatural beliefs as if I were taking it seriously. I’ve asked you if there’s anything else worth discussing – 3 times now, and haven’t gotten an answer. If the only discourse you can have is a discussion of evidence for the supernatural, then we’re out of luck.

Posted by: E favorite | October 19, 2007 5:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

E Fav,

you say you're willing to talk about physical evidence, but you want to censor how it's discussed.

To take one simple example, I suggest that it's worthwhile talking about the logical implications of the physical findings that the universe had a definite beginning in both time and space - and you cry foul because you consider that to be metaphysics, supernaturalism or superstition. That's not a matter of your looking at the physical evidence, while I obstinately close my eyes to it - you're simply unwilling to listen to any interpretation of that evidence other than your own. There is a universe, it had a beginning, and so did time itself - if that's not physical evidence, then what is? At the end of the day, you might not like the logic I may apply to it, but that's another issue.

Yes, I did read the courtier's reply. It's amusing enough comedy, but did you really think it was a rebutal of any particular position? At most, it strikes me as a clever ad hominem attack that says "I think your arguments are irrelevant." You've already said that.

I apologize if I offended you - but honestly, you've equated my reasoning to astrology and alchemy.

Do you really think you can maintain any moral right to criticise anyone else as close-minded, unwilling to critically examine their own beliefs, or unwilling to talk about the evidence while at the same time saying "if you hold position X, then I'm not going to listen to your evidence, reasoning or conclusions?"

What kind of believer do I want to be? One who's willing to reach out and talk to people who disagree with me. One who's intellectually honest, one who understands the basis for what he believes, and one who stays curious. One who modifies his beliefs based on what he learns.

Do I always meet that standard? Of course not - I can get as testy as anyone else, and just as caught up in my own point of view. But that is my personal standard, and why I keep trying to talk to people who disagree with me (even when they initially express no interest whatsoever).

Besides, I tend to think of it this way. If I'm misinformed, being open-minded and willing to talk to people can cure the problem. But if my mind is closed and I'm unwilling to talk, the fact that I happen to be unusually well informed about this issue or that isn't going to open my mind.

I'll drop this (I have real work to do, anyway). But good grief, man! All in the world asked was for you to say "o.k., as a courtesy to you, I'll tell you why I'm an atheist, then let you tell me what you believe and why you believe it. Then, if you manage to say anything interesting, we'll compare notes and talk calmly about where we agree, where we disagree and why."

Actually, no - this started with Jacques' proposed ground rules for a civil discourse. At the very beginning I just wanted to pursuade you that saying something along those lines to intelligent believers would be a good idea in principle.

Posted by: Demos | October 19, 2007 2:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos: "Show me new evidence, though, and I’ll listen."

I thought it was clear that I meant physical evidence. And I haven’t refused to talk – we have been talking. I just expressed lack of respect for your belief in the supernatural (and you recently expressed your lack of respect for my position on your position). If you have feel we have some religious issues besides that, or in spite of that, worth talking about, I’d like to hear what they are. If intellectual arguments and textual evidence for the supernatural is what you want to discuss, then, I agree, there is nothing more to talk about.

“…you're not talking about Wicca any more. What happened? Did you find Wiccan beliefs less acceptable once you learned that many Wiccans have metaphysical views that differ significantly from yours?”

No and I’m not interested in analyzing Wicca any more than other religions. My views, and theirs, are as expressed on the Starhawk discussion I referred you to. By the way, did you read the courtier’s reply that I posted here earlier?

“…don't you ever again have the temerity to accuse believers of being close-minded, unwilling to look at the evidence, unwilling to engage with the views of others, or unwilling to challenge their own beliefs. You've lost that right”

And please don’t tell me what to do or what rights I’ve lost. You’re neither judge nor jury. Frankly Demos, your last statement sounds like projection. Remember, you called me close-minded; I called you misinformed.

While I’m pondering what kind of atheist I want to be (and it is something I think about), I hope you ponder what kind of believer you want to be.

Posted by: E favorite | October 19, 2007 12:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Show me new evidence, though, and I’ll listen."

Really? But you've told me repeatedly that you aren't going to listen to anything that a theist may say in support of his positions. As a result, you're never going to see that "new evidence." Not to put too fine a point on it, you don't know what I believe, or what evidence convinced to to believe it. Why? Because you didn't ask, and refused to talk when I offered the dialog.

I notice that you're grouping metaphysics in with astrology, religion and alchemy - and that you're not talking about Wicca any more. What happened? Did you find Wiccan beliefs less acceptable once you learned that many Wiccans have metaphysical views that differ significantly from yours?

I think we have a lot to talk about - but you're unwilling to talk.

I apologize if you thought I was offering a single, simple dichotomy in personalities - my intent was to illustrate the ways in which personality can affect the way we act and think more than ideology does (though some of these traits are related, such as open-mindedness and curiosity).

What I think about you doesn't matter. The question "what kind of person do I want to be" is a very individual one, and must be answered by each one of us. But the answer involves more than the intellectual positions that we adopt. Saying that you want to be an atheist and a secularist is only a partial answer - what kind of an atheist do you want to be?

Don't answer me - answer yourself. If you don't like dichotomies, use continua (answers like "somewhat open-minded," "fairly doctrinaire" or "tolerant of most things except . . . " may work better for you than either/or dichotomies).

But whatever those answers may be, don't you ever again have the temerity to accuse believers of being close-minded, unwilling to look at the evidence, unwilling to engage with the views of others, or unwilling to challenge their own beliefs. You've lost that right.

Posted by: Demos | October 19, 2007 10:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos: “why so many people (who are just as smart and well-informed as you are), are convinced that there are aspects of reality that physics may not address.”

Don’t know – not even sure if many people think of it that way. Would like to see some research on the subject. I feel the implied answer is -- because there must be something to it. But a strong opinion held by many people is not necessarily correct. I think the answer could also be- because people have an inherent need to believe. Of course the need doesn’t make the belief real; it just means the need is real. That’s why research is called for.

Yes, I am close minded about metaphysics, just as I am close-minded about astrology, the benefits of slavery and the ability of Lucky Strikes to give me pep, vim and vigor. Show me new evidence, though, and I’ll listen.

Which kind of person do I want to be? – I don’t accept your dichotomy, so I can’t say.

Here’s something for you – We’ve spent considerable time establishing what we don’t respect about each other. I don’t respect your supernatural beliefs. You don’t respect my close mindedness about your supernatural beliefs. Considering that, What do we have to talk about?

Posted by: E favorite | October 18, 2007 10:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

E Fav,

You say that you're open to the perspective of neo-pagans because it doesn't "defy nature" - which neo-pagan beliefs? Only those of neo-pagans who do not believe that there's any spiritual aspect to reality, or any meaning or purpose beyond inert matter and the forces studied by classical physics? Or do you really take the beliefs of most neo-pagans seriously?

If you're open to a neo-pagan concept of reality that includes any spiritual aspects, or any purpose and meaning beyond pure matter and physical forces, then how do you separate that from astrology, alchemy, supernaturalism or superstition? (And do you really think that no Christian thinker can, in your words, respect nature and delight in it?)

Do you really mean to suggest that a non-reflective, "born atheist" who just went with atheism because it felt right, without giving it any serious thought or consideration is worthy worthy of intellectual respect - but no non-atheist is, regardless of how carefully they've weighed the evidence and though through all the issues involved? That's absurd - you're in essence saying that someone's a more respectable thinker simply because they guessed right!

I object to your equating me to an astrologer, an alchemist or a young earth creationist without knowing what I believe, or why I believe it. You do seem remarkably close-minded - particularly where any form of Western religion or Western metaphysics is concerned.

I've intentionally avoided trying to score debating points off of you, or catch you in some sort of logical trap in order to "win" an argument. I want a real dialog, one that promotes understanding, rather than a contest.

I'm not trying to convert you. But I would really, really like for you to ask yourself why so many people (who are just as smart and well-informed as you are), are convinced that there are aspects of reality that physics may not address. They may be Wiccans, Daoists, or Buddhists (or even Christians) - but they are well aware of Darwin, and the power of modern science to explain the physical universe and produce amazing technical feats.

But you won't even enter the discussion, because you equate anything other than a bare materialism with astrology and alchemy.

I once read, and believe it to be true, that open-mindedness versus narrow-mindedness, warmth versus harshness, curiosity versus intellectual self-satisfaction, and tolerance versus pharisaism are matters of personality rather than ideology. I do believe this to be true. You find rigidity, intolerance of dissent, narrow-mindedness and doctrinaire ideologues on both ends of the political spectrum (and in the middle, for that matter). You also find open-mindedness, curiosity, tolerance, warmth and genuine affection for people at both ends of the spectrum. The same personality types are found across the philosophical and religious spectrum as well.

I'll leave you with one last question.

Which kind of person do you want to be?

Posted by: Demos | October 18, 2007 4:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos, “Yours does seem to be an atheism that's closed its mind and its ears” - to an extent that seems to me unhealthy.”

Do you think an astronomer should listen to the arguments of an astrologer without mentioning that he thinks the arguments for astrology, no matter how sophisticated and nuanced, are no longer relevant?
A chemist to the arguments of an alchemist? An evolutionary biologist to a young earth creationist?

Regarding Wiccans – I thought I’d made it clear that I’m open to neo-pagans’ perspective. Its beliefs do not defy nature. Paganism respects nature, in fact, and delights in it.

By the way, there are atheists whom I respect who did not go through the long research and introspection period that I did. I call them “born-atheists.” Though they may have been exposed to religious teachings, they could tell from the beginning it was made-up stories because of the fantasy and impossible events involved. I asked one friend, if when being taught religion as a kid, she just said “No!” But that was not her reaction. Instead, she thought to herself, “What? You’ve got to be kidding!” but didn’t mention anything about it to others.

FYI - I posted the coutier's reply before seeing your response this AM

Posted by: E favorite | October 18, 2007 11:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos – I meant to attach this last night – I read it awhile back, and just thought of it again during our conversation.

The Courtier's Reply [to criticism of the Emperor's New clothes] - the aftermath of a fable – by PZ Myers, Posted on: December 24, 2006 at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php, spoofing a review of Richard Dawkins’ book, “The God Delusion”

“I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk.

Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.

Personally, I suspect that perhaps the Emperor might not be fully clothed — how else to explain the apparent sloth of the staff at the palace laundry — but, well, everyone else does seem to go on about his clothes, and this Dawkins fellow is such a rude upstart who lacks the wit of my elegant circumlocutions, that, while unable to deal with the substance of his accusations, I should at least chide him for his very bad form.

Until Dawkins has trained in the shops of Paris and Milan, until he has learned to tell the difference between a ruffled flounce and a puffy pantaloon, we should all pretend he has not spoken out against the Emperor's taste. His training in biology may give him the ability to recognize dangling genitalia when he sees it, but it has not taught him the proper appreciation of Imaginary Fabrics.”

-----------------------------
There’s more detail at the website referenced above.

Posted by: E favorite | October 18, 2007 10:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

E Fav,

We have gone round and round. But what have I asked you to do? Simply to grant me enough respect to say "sure, Demos, you're smart and honest enough that your ideas are worth listening to - tell me why you're a theist and I'll take the time to listen."

Unless I'm mistaken, you've ruled that out categorically at the very start, by saying that any theist's conclusions must of necessity be irrational, and the theist himself is disregarding or missinterpreting the evidence that you rely on.

That's been the entirety of the discussion. We've never engaged on the substance - what I actually believe, why I believe it, the evidence I see to support it, and the potential difficulties I see in my own positions. I've tried to persuade you that it's worth talking about, and you've said "no."

Why didn't I go ahead and lay out my case for the existance of God (or anything else, for that matter)? Because I don't waste my time talking at someone who says "no, I'm not going to listen to anything you have to say about that." It seems much more productive to persuade them to talk first. Unfortunately, we couldn't get there.

I'm not offended - disappointed, but not offended.

Let me, in turn, be honest with you. Yours does seem to be an atheism that's closed its mind and its ears - to an extent that seems to me unhealthy. This closing of the mind is the one intellectual position that I do not and cannot respect.

All questions of "respectability" aside, it's also unfortunate. You suggest that the positions of the most thoughtful believers may still be "mightily short on evidence" - that could well be true, but you'll never know. I learn from people I don't ultimately agree with - often more than I do from people I do agree with, because they challenge me more.

Totally aside from Christianity, theism or anything else associated with traditional Western religion - did you take some time to think about why a Wiccan might have a pantheist view of reality? If my accusation of closemindedness stung at all, you might want to think about how you reacted to a non-Christian point of view that's different from yours.

Posted by: Demos | October 18, 2007 10:10 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos – I’m sure you were an excellent college debater. I feel now we’re going round and round and it’s not serving either of us well. I have carefully weighed the evidence – looking back, I’ve weighed it longer and harder than needed because I was fascinated by the process.
What I found is that the evidence is lacking. If new evidence is presented, fine, but it’s not going to be an impressive argument, it’s going to be real evidence.

In terms of “plac[ing] the positions of even the most thoughtful and nuanced believers in God outside the realm of intellectual respectability” That’s not it – these positions may be loaded with intellectual respectability and still be mightily short on evidence.

I feel continuing to discuss this with you on a theoretical basis is somehow unhealthy – as if acknowledging that there is something still to talk about – that your position of belief in supernatural beings is a worthy topic for discussion because you can engage on an intellectual basis. And I don’t believe that’s so.

Just tonight, a friend recalled a Presbyterian minister uncle who was on the ecumenical council when transubstantiation was up for discussion. My friend was astounded that his uncle was getting his way paid to Rome for such a spurious and irrelevant mission.

That’s the way I feel about this. Believe what you want – just don’t force it on me (which you haven’t) or try to engage me in further conversation about it. And please try not to be offended when I don’t take it seriously. It may not meet your standards of respectfulness, but it certainly is honest.

Posted by: E favorite | October 17, 2007 11:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

E Fav,

"At some level, you seem to think that a putting up good argument deserves respect in and of itself, irrespective of its conclusions. Well, I could respect your ability to argue, but if you don’t have facts on your side, I still don’t respect your position. I don’t respect a position arrived at by disregarding or misinterpreting evidence."

No, I don't think that "putting up a good argument" deserves respect (I was a debater in college - that's easy) - but taking the time to carefully think through and weigh the evidence on a subject does. If I blow you off because you've reached a conclusion that I am convinced is wrong, then I'll never know what facts you have on your side - or the evidence that you've found me misinterpreting.

I noticed that you didn't directly respond to my definition of "respecting your position" - in fact, you seem to disagree with it. You still seem to want to place the positions of even the most thoughtful and nuanced believers in God outside the realm of intellectual respectability; you also seem convinced that you've explored the issues well enough to know not only that there's no possibility that they could be correct, but that they're so seriously ignornign or misrepresenting the evidence that it's not even a matter on which reasonable people could disagree.

"I can respect the fact that they’ve given a lot of thought to what they believe, but still may not respect their conclusions on religion because I think the conclusions are faulty – overlooking fact and rationality, in favor of supernatural beliefs and believing myth as fact and not taking historical and archeological records into account. Thus I do not respect their position on religion as a careful and considered one. It’s not just that I disagree with it. I think it’s an example of an intelligent person disregarding the evidence (in some cased not even looking at it) to believe something they want to believe."

I think you're leaping to assumptions here. You're writing off the positions taken by any theist as not being "careful and considered" because you've assumed that they're disregarding the evidence (and perhaps not even looked at it).

I find it particularly interesting that you single out history and archaeology as areas in which theists must be ignoring the evidence. These are areas of study where scholarly results do the most to illuminate the texts of the Bible - and while they may challenge the some of the more naive interpretations, they really do help inform the faith of people who take the time to sit down and really think about it. You mention N.T. Wright as an example. I understand that you dismiss the texts he studies as myth because you're convinced that the claims they record are impossible - but he's a good example of someone who's bringing serious historical scholarship to the question of the basis of Christianity.

I'm getting the impression that you're hung up on the words "supernatural" and "irrational." It's interesting that you describe the Wiccans as having "no supernatural beliefs." Do you mind exploring this a bit?

I avoid using the dichotomy between "supernatural" and "natural" in these discussions, because the way it's understood today is misleading. It's cleaner philosophically, and less loaded to talk in terms of the physical universe. I'm not using this in any special sense - the physical universe consists of matter and energy as studied by physics.

A key question is whether the universe consists only of matter and energy, or whether there is more. Wicca can be an interesting portal into this discussion. You're going to find a wide variety of Wiccan beliefs about divinity (the wikipedia article on Wicca is a good place to start) - some of which you may find surprisingly theistic.

Many of the Wiccans on the thread you pointed out expressed more of what I would describe as a pantheistic view. In other words, God is the universe (or the universe is God, if you'd prefer). Explore this one a bit. It allows you to say that God is Nature, and Nature is God. While there's as much diversity among pantheists as among any other religious group, many of them embue nature with more meaning and purpose than simply inert matter and the forces of classical physics. They see a spiritual basis underlying reality.

Note that they would not describe that as "supernatural," but rather as part of the reality that constitutes Nature/God. In that view, reality, Nature or the universe (pick the term you prefer) consists of more than the observable physical universe - it also has a spiritual dimension.

What's my point here? Wiccans who take a pantheistic view of reality are addressing a serious philosophical question about the nature of reality - and coming up with an answer that encompasses more than the physical universe, without resorting to the supernaturalism or superstition if Halloween or a bad horror movie.

Daoists do something very similar, as do most Hindus and many Buddhists. While they are not all technically pantheists, they all see spirit or mind as part of the essential nature of reality. They'll also all reject a characterization of their beliefs as "supernatural" or "superstition" precisely because of that understanding of mind or spirit as an integral part of reality.

They don't see science as in any way contradicting this view of reality, and they'll accept any and all of the findings of modern physics regarding the non-spiritual aspects of reality - the physical universe, in my terms.

Christians are more likely to use the term "supernatural." Why? Because they make a distinction between the physical universe - which they understand to be created - and the non-physical creator. But the underlying question is the same: what does reality ultimately encompass - matter and energy, or spirit or mind as well? I

I sense that you may be more comfortable with a Wiccan, Daoist or Buddhist answer to this question than you would be with a Christian answer - because you understand the Christian answer to depend on supernaturalism. Is that correct, or am I misreading you?

If so, ignore Christianity for now - think about the pantheistic Wiccan. Try to understand how the Wiccan might see a spiritual basis to reality, without creating any fundamental contradiction with modern physics. You may not agree - but it's a more sophisticated and intellectually serious approach than you might think.

As for the SUV, I'd suggest that you should lighten up. No one's family situations are truly identical, and it would be a poorer world if we were all the same. Besides, Bob may be buying his hybrid so he can feel morally superior, while Mary may be focused on transporting her kids. This sort of "what's best for me and my family" decision is almost always grey.

Posted by: Demos | October 17, 2007 4:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hello Demos --
Fitting my point of view within the model you provided -- I can respect a person’s intelligence and honesty and good faith, irrespective of any other of their other attributes.
I can respect the fact that they’ve given a lot of thought to what they believe, but still may not respect their conclusions on religion because I think the conclusions are faulty – overlooking fact and rationality, in favor of supernatural beliefs and believing myth as fact and not taking historical and archeological records into account. Thus I do not respect their position on religion as a careful and considered one. It’s not just that I disagree with it. I think it’s an example of an intelligent person disregarding the evidence (in some cased not even looking at it) to believe something they want to believe.
I do think I might learn something useful about them (e.g., how their reasoning process for religion differs from their reasoning process on other issues) by exploring their position, and I know I won’t end up accepting their final conclusions, because I’ve already done my own extensive historical, literary, and archeological research. My mind will change if the evidence changes. Absent evidence, the most sophisticated, nuanced argument is just that – a sophisticated, nuanced argument, -- whose conclusion I do not respect.

At some level, you seem to think that a putting up good argument deserves respect in and of itself, irrespective of its conclusions. Well, I could respect your ability to argue, but if you don’t have facts on your side, I still don’t respect your position. I don’t respect a position arrived at by disregarding or misinterpreting evidence.

In another attempt to explain , I’ll use a non-religious example. Let’s say two very intelligent, upstanding citizens with the same family responsibilities, same income and same commute think long and hard about buying a new car. Bob decides to get a hybrid and Mary decides on a big, SUV. I respect both of them in many ways, but I don’t respect Mary’s decision to buy the SUV. I think she’s harming the environment, providing a bad example to her children, crowding the highways and spending money that she’d be better off using in a more responsible way. She’s probably heard all that before, just by keeping up with the news. If we’re close enough friends, I’ll probably tell her some of that. She may already know my feelings, assuming she consulted me when mulling over her decision. It’s the kind of thing people talk about freely in our society, but their sentiments are clear – I like you and I respect you in many ways, but not when it comes to car choice. I think you’ve made a incorrect choice based on the available information.

Regarding Unitarians – yes – it’s easy for me to respect them, for the same reason I respect pagans – no supernatural beliefs. “Intellectual rigor” is not an issue for me in religion – in fact it can get in the way, putting the focus on interpretation and analysis instead of on quality and veracity. The fact that NT Wright makes a very tight case for the resurrection being factual based his exhaustive and nuanced analysis of ancient texts doesn’t convince me, considering his use of a 2,000 year old, oft translated book of myth as his main reference and the inconvenient fact that resurrection is physically impossible. You still have to believe in miracles to accept his position.

Posted by: E favorite | October 17, 2007 9:06 AM
Report Offensive Comment

D.W. Van Winkle wrote:

"'That seems likely, since he never responds to prayer.'

. . . Concerning your comments on prayer, I wonder how this statement is subject to falsification."

Piece of cake. You can test it by experiment, the way the Templeton Foundation did. This has been done many times, and the results always come up null. Strictly speaking, it is impossible to prove that an effect does not exist just because you do not observe it after many tests, but as a practical matter that is the best proof you can ask for. We can say with high confidence that prayer does not work.

Another test is observational. Some people pray and others do not. Some nations have more believers than others. There is no evidence that nations with more atheists suffer from more disease, bad luck, depression or any other problem that prayer is said to cure or ameliorate. On the contrary, people in distressed nations and districts are more likely to be religious than people in well-off and happier nations. If you believe in God, you might conclude that He punishes people for praying! I think it is more likely that people resort to religion because they are distressed, unhealthy, uneducated, powerless or superstitious, and since God does not exist, their prayers have no effect on their circumstances.

Posted by: Jed Rothwell | October 17, 2007 8:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

E Fav,

it's an interesting thread. Have you given much thought to why do you seem to find neo-paganism easier to respect than other religions? Does it have to do with the content of their beliefs, or something you see in neo-pagan culture? As a thought experiment, would you find Unitarian Universalism any harder to respect than neo-paganism.

I ask because, without intending any disrespect to Starhawk or anyone else, neo-pagan theology doesn't strike me as any more intellectually rigorous than most other religious traditions. I'm wondering if there's something else you're reacting to - perhaps that neo-paganism (and Unitarian Universalism) is less tied to a set of specific truth claims than other, more "theological" religions such as traditional Christianity.

Posted by: Demos | October 16, 2007 5:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi, Demos - Good to hear from you. I'll get back you to tomorrow. Meanwhile, you might be interested in reading the Starhawk thread: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/starhawk/2007/10/a_pagan_view_of_death/all_comments.html

I'm having a similar discussion there with pagans and have mentioned the discussion you and I have having.

Posted by: E favorite | October 16, 2007 4:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi, Demos - Good to hear from you. I'll get back you to tomorrow. Meanwhile, you might be interested in reading the Starhawk thread: http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/starhawk/2007/10/a_pagan_view_of_death/all_comments.html

I'm having a similar discussion there with pagans and have mentioned the discussion you and I have having.

Posted by: E favorite | October 16, 2007 3:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

E Fav,

I thought I had told you what I respect about your atheism. I respect:

1) Your intelligence;

2) Your honesty and good faith;

3) The fact that you have thought about what you believe, and have reasons that you are convinced are good and sufficient to support atheism is the correct conclusion - in other words, I respect your position as a careful and considered one; and

4) The likelihood that I can learn something useful from exploring your position, even if I don't at the end of the day end up accepting your final conclusions.

In my mind, this is all just simple common sense - by and large, other people are as smart, honest and thoughtful as I am - and common courtesy. We really do learn more from listening than from talking - and you can learn from almost anyone, if you just take the time to ask the right questions and really listen to the answers.

You also asked about my using the phrase "crass superstition." In response, your comment was "Those are definitely your words not mine. Is that what you think atheists think about believers?"

In all honesty, yes it is. Let me tell you why.

I was responding to your prior post to me. I'd suggested that you seemed to be "respecting" positions that you had not finally ruled out in your own mind, but not respecting ones that you'd become convinced were not correct. You disagreed with that characterization (and that's fair - I may have gotten it wrong) by saying:

"It’s not just coming “to a final conclusion in [my] own mind” it’s separating fact from fiction/myth/dogma/irrationality. It’s not, “you say tomato, I say tomahto,” it’s fact vs fiction. Go ahead, believe that a virgin gave birth and a man rose from the dead and ascended bodily into space without asphyxiating. I don’t respect those supernatural beliefs, no matter how much time and thought you put into them."

"Crass superstition" was my paraphrase for "fiction/myth/dogma/irrationality" - again, there may be a better way to summarize this. But at core, the point of view that you and most of the other atheists have expressed seems to be an extremely dismissive one, and does seem to equate all religious belief (no matter how thoughful or nuanced) with a rather thoughtless and irrational superstition.

I'm going to take the risk of putting words in your mouth again here, but it seems to me that this is at the root of your unwillingness to "respect" the position of a deist or theist, or see any value in understanding how they came to that position.

Posted by: Demos | October 16, 2007 10:33 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos, I think there is much to be learned via thoughtful people with whom I disagree. You and I and Rip and others have been having such conversations I think. I would not refer to you and Rip as people caught up in crass superstition. Those are definitely your words not mine. Is that what you think atheists think about believers?

Earlier, I asked what you respected about my atheism. Could you address that?

CHIP – Jeff is a sweetheart of a guy in person, and possibly even sweeter in costume!

Posted by: E favorite | October 15, 2007 2:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Believer,

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll put them on my list of books to read. This is a subject that is of great interest to me.

Peace,
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 15, 2007 9:53 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Rip,

on the issue of theodicy, have you read the books on the subject by Gregory A. Boyd? They are "God at War: The Bible & Spiritual Conflict" and "Satan & the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy." They build on each other, so it's probably most helpful to read "God at War" first, and then "Satan & the Problem of Evil."

Anyway, Boyd's approach was very helpful for me. I think you'd find it a bit different from many others you may have read.

Posted by: Believer | October 15, 2007 9:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

E Fav,

you said something very telling - "I RESPECT your right to come to a different conclusion, but I don’t respect the conclusion." But what I'm suggesting is both more and less that that - and the analogy I drew to my Dad was intended to illustrate the difference.

Some of his conclusions I disagree with on a "no way, no how" level. He grew up in a different time and place (on all sorts of levels, WWII vs. Vietnam, Swing vs. Rock, small town vs. suburb etc.), and his life experiences have colored how he views the world - to the extent that there are some things we'll almost certainly never agree about.

But there are reasons for his positions, coming out of his experiences, his thoughts, and his values. There may be things he simply can't see, but that I can (just like there are almost certainly things that I can't see, but that my son can). Even so, he's not willfully blind - and there are almost certainly things that I just can't see that my dad can see quite clearly.

So what am I really suggesting? When I "respect" his position it doesn't mean that I agree with his conclusion. It does mean that I:

1) Acknowledge that he came to it honestly, in good faith;

2) Understand that's he's as intelligent as I am (and, in his case, much wiser);

3) Recognize that however mistaken he may be, he's not being willfully blind; and

4) Recognize that if I take the time to understand how he came to his conclusion, as well as watching how he reacts to my reasoning, then I'll leave the conversation knowing more about the underlying issue than I did coming into the conversation.

That's it. That's what "respecting your position" means. And that's the sense in which I respect your atheism - and the sense in which you seem unwilling to respect my belief in God.

Why do I care? There are a couple of reasons.

1) I really do want to know the truth. But to get there, I need the help of thoughtful people who disagree with me to explore the issues and do the whole thesis, antithesis, synthesis bit. Thoughtful religious people have been reading and talking to atheists since before the Origin of the Species was published, and we've been thinking about what science means for our faith. Listen to Rip - he may be mistaken, but does Rip really seem caught up in crass superstition? Talking to him could be interesting and informative to anyone.

2) We need it to promote understanding in our society. We're way too polarized and suspicious of each other.

Posted by: Demos | October 15, 2007 9:34 AM
Report Offensive Comment

E Fav, I just might check that party out. Is J Wismer as abrasive in person as he is on various atheist forums? I realize it's his group and I wouldn't want to introduce myself to people by clocking him. *laughs*

Posted by: Chip | October 14, 2007 10:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Rip – thanks for the explanation – it does seem quite intellectual. I wonder about just one thing – the religious experiences you mention. I wonder (but don’t expect to figure it out here) how they differ from my experiences that I’d call numinous or transcendent, for lack of better terms. They were not at all God or religious centered, though I was a believer when I’ve had them – over a period of many years. I wouldn’t be surprised to have more of them.

I think its fascinating how people interpret them differently. To me, they felt good – real good, and were generally accompanied by insights, which I sometimes followed up on through reading and research. But they were never religious.

Posted by: E favorite | October 14, 2007 10:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

E Favorite:

What happened? I came to recognize in myself that there were both intellectual and volitional issues for my rejection of theism. I am not universalizing this, I am merely trying to explain my non-religious and then religious experience. I came to recognize that there were more intelligent versions of theism than the one I rejected [I think that Richard Swinburne, The Coherence of Theism articulates a more intelligent version of theism although I agree with Dawkins that his treatment of theodicy is particularly weak]. I came to believe that there were good historical grounds for believing in the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth [N.T. Wright, “The Resurrection of the Son of God” articulates this position well.]. I have had and continue to have religious experiences that cause me to believe in God although I recognize that my conception of God does not match the actual God.

I am familiar with David Hume’s arguments against miracles but found that even J.L. Mackie (I believe this is in his “Miracle of Theism”) thinks that Hume’s position is too radical. If memory serves me correctly, I recall that Mackie argues that if someone predicted something exceedingly unlikely over which they had no control at t1 and this took place at t2 this could be a miracle.

I have not found the traditional arguments for the existence of God to be very compelling. This is especially true of the cosmological arguments. Since I do not have access to parallel universes one in which God is active and one in which God is not active, I don’t find natural theology to be all that helpful.

I am familiar with Lessing’s ugly ditch. I don’t believe that theological beliefs are necessary beliefs to use his terminology so that I base my contingent beliefs upon the contingent beliefs of history.

If I ever give up theism, it will probably be over the issue of theodicy.

Jed Rothwell:

“If God is unimaginable, how do you know you are imagining him correctly? Perhaps he is a wicked sadist, the way he is portrayed in the Old Testament. Perhaps he does not care at all about people. That seems likely, since he never responds to prayer.”

I don’t believe I said ‘God is unimaginable. I suggest you reread my post. Concerning your comments on prayer, I wonder how this statement is subject to falsification.

The transcendence of God may appear to you to be an escape clause but I suggest you read Eastern Orthodox theology which has always stressed apophatic theology. It was not something invented by theist as an escape clause to be used in arguments with atheist.

I do not find your comments about the Hebrew Scriptures compelling. I find it best to interpret the Hebrew Scriptures in their proper historical and literary context. An important context is ancient Near Eastern literature. The complaint that the Hebrew Scriptures are deficient strikes me a bit like criticizing J.S. Bach because he did not play jazz.

Peace,
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 14, 2007 8:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Chip - I just noticed your post about the friend you lost over fundamentalism. Sorry it turned out that way.

PS - The beltway atheists are having a halloween party a couple saturdays from now - check it out.

Posted by: E favorite | October 13, 2007 11:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

D.W. Van Winkle wrote:

"By definition, God is greater than humans can imagine. God’s wisdom excels human wisdom."

That is not a definition, it is an escape clause. It means that however strong the atheist argument is, you can wiggle out with a non-response by claiming that God is unimaginable.

If God is unimaginable, how do you know you are imagining him correctly? Perhaps he is a wicked sadist, the way he is portrayed in the Old Testament. Perhaps he does not care at all about people. That seems likely, since he never responds to prayer.

"Yet there must be some type of correspondence between God and humans’ understanding of God so that God might be recognizable to humans."

Since people describe God in countless different and contradictory ways, this means God simultaneously has countless different personalities. He loves people; he hates people; he wants us to be happy; he wants us burn our children in a sacrifice; he wants us to accept people of other religions and homosexuals; he wants us to kill them. This cannot "correspond" to anything.

"Even Abraham in his argument with God over the fate of Sodom & Gomorrah was able to tell God that surely the judge of all the earth must do right."

Such stories are mythological nonsense. They cannot possibly be true. They are interesting fiction about what what people fear, and the violence some people hanker after.

"This suggests at least a rough correspondence between the human conception of good and God’s conception of good."

God's conception of good includes everything from burning people at the stake to feeding them, depending on which chapter of the Bible or other holy book you select. God, as depicted in religion, has no sense of good and evil, since he both demands and condemns the whole range of human behavior, including genocide (savagely wiping out the other tribes in Israel). You cannot conclude anything at all about God based on the Bible, because he is portrayed with every known human foible, sin, and virtue. Obviously he was invented by many different people, because different people have different and incompatible ideas about what is good and what is evil.

Posted by: Jed Rothwell | October 13, 2007 1:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hello Rip, you say: "I am a theist now but was once an atheist because of the way the evidence seemed to be at the time"

Could you tell what changed in the evidence or in your perception of the evidence?

When you say "theist" I'm assuming you're referring to Christianity and that you believe in the supernatural God and supernatural events of Bible stories. Please let me know if I have this right.

Thanks

Posted by: E favorite | October 13, 2007 10:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos & E Favorite

A theistic position may always appear foolish even if there is such a being as God. Theism exists in dialectic between the knownnesss and the unknownness of God.

By definition, God is greater than humans can imagine. God’s wisdom excels human wisdom. This is expressed poetically in the Hebrew Scriptures in this way. As far as the heavens are above the earth, so far are his thoughts and ways above those of mortals (my paraphrase).

Yet there must be some type of correspondence between God and humans’ understanding of God so that God might be recognizable to humans. Even Abraham in his argument with God over the fate of Sodom & Gomorrah was able to tell God that surely the judge of all the earth must do right. This suggests at least a rough correspondence between the human conception of good and God’s conception of good.

If this is the case, by necessity, theism will always be based on a cumulative case argument. There will always be weaknesses in the theistic position since humans are incapable of reducing God with out remainder.

It seems to me that cumulative case arguments do not yield unquestionable certainty. This is the case in theology and physics as well as many other disciplines.

I respect those who come to different conclusions on complex cumulative case arguments in other fields. Why shouldn’t I do the same with theism and atheism? I am a theist now but was once an atheist because of the way the evidence seemed to be at the time.

Peace,
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 13, 2007 9:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos: “It seems that you like for believers like me to "respect" your atheism in the sense of treating it as an "acceptable choice," but at the same time want to express your own complete lack of respect for ANYTHING we've thought about or considered in the process of coming to our convictions.”

No, if you don’t respect my atheism, that’s fine. I know many believers don’t respect it – for instance the ones who tell me I’m going to hell. This includes one of my oldest and closest friends. I have to say, our relationship doesn’t seem to have changed one bit since this exchange. We talk and laugh about things as we always have and continue to stay in touch, as much as before. We respect and love each other – but don’t respect each others views about religion. Part of the basis of our long term relationship is being honest with each other. I think it would be disrespectful to change that.

I’ve thought about religion too. I RESPECT your right to come to a different conclusion, but I don’t respect the conclusion. But what do you care? If you feel strongly about something, how important is it to have universal respect for it. Why not accept that some people feel differently?

I recall going to an acquaintance’s violin concert. It was horrid. I wish I could have slipped out afterward, but having no choice, when she approached me, I commented on the great effort it must have been to accomplish such a feat. It was the best I could do. I’m not that good an actor. If she had asked me if I liked it, perhaps I could have managed an insincere “On yes” but I think she would have seen through it. I’m not opposed to gracious, little white lies. They have their place. But I like to avoid them, and when it comes to a really important issue like religion, I’m not going to lie about it when put on the spot.

“This seems to be the nub of your argument - that because you can't agree with an idea, you can't respect a person's belief in it” No – it’s that I can’t respect the belief if I think the idea is not factual and ultimately harmful to the person holding it as well as to society as a whole.

It’s not just coming “to a final conclusion in [my] own mind” it’s separating fact from fiction/myth/dogma/irrationality. It’s not, “you say tomato, I say tomahto,” it’s fact vs fiction. Go ahead, believe that a virgin gave birth and a man rose from the dead and ascended bodily into space without asphyxiating. I don’t respect those supernatural beliefs, no matter how much time and thought you put into them.
But If you live your life in a rational and responsible way, I do respect you.

Unlike your feelings about your Dad’s opinions about certain things, I think that when it comes to religion, most people have been fooled. I say “most” because I consider that there might be other factors I don’t know about. What I do know is that so much of what people firmly believe is not factual.

If you feel so strongly about your decision to hold Christian beliefs, I don’t see how an atheist’s lack of respect for those beliefs would be so important.

I understand (I think) that you respect my stance on religion in a way I don’t respect yours. What is it you respect about it and what do you think is lacking with it or wrong about it?

Posted by: E favorite | October 12, 2007 10:05 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Should have been:

"“You have just told me that if I don't AGREE with what you think, I can't RESPECT what you think.”
Nope – you put those words right in my mouth."

Then tell me what you are saying. This seems to be the nub of your argument - that because you can't agree with an idea, you can't respect a person's belief in it.

Here's what it sounds like - you can respect any idea that you haven't made a settled decision on (such as behavioral therapy versus cognitive therapy), but if you have come to a final conclusion in your own mind (such as in the case of free-trade or abortion rights) then you can't respect any differing view.

Posted by: Demos | October 12, 2007 5:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"You have just told me that if I don't AGREE with what you think, I can't RESPECT what you think.”

Then tell me what you are saying. This seems to be the nub of your argument - that because you can't agree with an idea, you can't respect a person's belief in it.

Here's what it sounds like - you can respect any idea that you haven't made a settled decision on (such as behavioral therapy versus cognitive therapy), but if you have come to a final conclusion in your own mind (such as in the case of free-trade or abortion rights).

I think you misunderstand what I mean by "respect." It's not the same thing as agreement. I disagree with my father about a number of things - but he's a very thoughtful, deliberate, and frankly wise man (he should be by now - he's old enough, and he had to put up with me when I was a teenager).

On any particular issue, at the end of the day, I may end up on the opposite side from my dad. But what he has to say is always worth listening to and thinking about, because he has perspectives and insights that I don't. When I don't agree, the process of talking with him informs and deepens my thinking, and makes me work out what I really do believe.

I also have to recognize that however mistaken he may be, he didn't get to that place lightly nor in a foolish manner. Whatever his mistakes may be, his overall approach is careful and thoughtful and there's something to be learned by following him through it.

So, do I respect his ideas? When I disagee with him I may say that he's mistaken, but I'd never characterize his reasoning as foolish or ill-considered. Is that a matter of politeness? No - it's a matter of simple honesty. He makes mistakes like anyone else - but he's not easily fooled, and he's certainly not never rash or thoughtless.

I'm honoring you with that same respect - even though I am convinced that you are "misinformed about an important issue." But to tell you the truth, you're making it difficult. It seems that you like for believers like me to "respect" your atheism in the sense of treating it as an "acceptable choice," but at the same time want to express your own complete lack of respect for ANYTHING we've thought about or considered in the process of coming to our convictions.

To be blunt, tell me that you don't agree with me, and point out where you're convinced I may be mistaken. Disagree openly and vigorously, calmly and politely tearing down anything you like. But I've spent over 40 years thinking about Christianity, science, philosophy, and other religions - trying to sort out what I believe, what I don't believe, and what I simply don't know. Don't tell me out of hand that absolutely nothing of that could possibly provide you with a useful additional insight or point of view, or be of any other value to you. In essence you would be telling me that I'm not only mistaken, but that my intellectual journey has been so poorly conducted that I couldn't possibly have learned anything of interest or value in the process.

If you are going to take that approach, then I'm not going to be able to continue to respect your atheism - because it will then be an atheism that's closed it's ears and it's mind against any differing point of view.

As an aside, drinking is of course another matter entirely - you're talking behavior there. And yes, there are behaviors that I don't have any particular respect for.

Posted by: Demos | October 12, 2007 5:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos: “Would you really be comfortable if I said "I can respect a lot about you, but not your rejection of free-trade? Etc….."
Yes to all. You wouldn’t even have to preface it with your otherwise high respect for me. The thing is, on most any subject but religion, respect wouldn’t even be expected. You can disagree openly, tearing down another’s fondest notions, without concern about offending people at their core.

“What if I said, "I can respect a lot about you, but not your support for behavioral therapy as an alternative to cognitive therapy?"
That’s OK, but these examples seem like more of a preference for one of two acceptable choices. It would fit better if it were, say, support for corporal punishment as an alternative to staying after school.

“What if I said, "I can respect a lot about you, but not your support for abortion rights?"
Yes – that works well – two opposing viewpoints. Again, I probably wouldn’t put it that way in conversation, but if expected to show respect (as with religion), I wouldn’t.

I don’t go around telling people what I don’t respect about them, but if they demand respect for something that I think is absolutely not worthy of it (like supernatural beliefs), I’d be dishonest to provide it.

“You have just told me that if I don't AGREE with what you think, I can't RESPECT what you think.”
Nope – you put those words right in my mouth.

“Do you really mean to tell me that I'm wrong, and that because I disagree with it, I CANNOT respect your atheism?”
Nope – maybe you actually do respect my atheism. For my part, I respect your right to believe in supernatural beings, but I don’t respect the belief – I think you are misinformed about an important issue.

OK – here’s an extreme example. I respect your right to drink too much alcohol, as long as you don’t drive drunk, beat people up or otherwise endanger or harm others. However I don’t think it’s wise for you to overdrink and I don’t respect your overdrinking.

Hope that helps

Posted by: E favorite | October 12, 2007 4:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

E Fav,

and I remain baffled by you. Let's put this in any context other than religion.

There are people with serious, deep divisions over politics. Each believes the other is fundamentally and profoundly mistaken over the best course for the country to take. But they respect each other's intelligence, understand the considerations that drive the other's conclusions, and respect both the way they came to their convictions and the way they hold them.

Would you really be comfortable if I said "I can respect a lot about you, but not your rejection of free-trade?" Or, "I can respect a lot about you, but not your rejection of school choice?" Or, "I can respect a lot about you, but not your support for controlled growth to fight urban sprawl?" Or, "I can respect a lot about you, but not your support for the inheritance tax?"

That sort of attitude is exactly why our politics are so poisonous these days - we think that to in order to honestly disagree, we MUST disrespect the reasoning and convictions of people on the other side.

Or, let's go in another direction. What if I said, "I can respect a lot about you, but not your support for behavioral therapy as an alternative to cognitive therapy?" Or, "I can support a lot about you, but not your support for the Montessori method over more traditional forms of education?"

We could think about morals. What if I said, "I can respect a lot about you, but not your support for abortion rights?" Or, "I can respect a lot about you, but not your opposition to the death penalty?"

E Favorite, all kidding aside - I want to ask you to stop and think carefully here. You have just told me that if I don't AGREE with what you think, I can't RESPECT what you think.

I am not just trying to respect your beliefs, and the reasons for them, I do in fact respect them - even though I don't agree with them.

Do you really mean to tell me that I'm wrong, and that because I disagree with it, I CANNOT respect your atheism?

I refuse to live that way.

Posted by: Demos | October 12, 2007 3:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos - I think we've been down this road before -- I can respect a lot about you, but not your belief in invisible supernatural beings and the stories that go along with them.

I think people with those kinds of beliefs are misinformed. I can understand how you might have gotten there and why you might hang on to those beliefs -- I held them once too. I respect your right to have the beliefs and to practice them, as long as they don't impinge on me or society, but I don't respect those beliefs.

Posted by: E favorite | October 12, 2007 2:18 PM
Report Offensive Comment

E Fav,

I like talking to you, too. But I do think you're needlessly cutting yourself off from some interesting discussions. Granted, you and I disagree about some of the key claims of faith - but that doesn't mean that I can't better understand the reasons behind your lack of belief, and you can't better understand the basis for my faith. I'd bet real money that we'd both find that the other is intelligent, thoughtful, and at least tries to be intellectually honest - and, that while we don't agree with each other, that we can understand and respect the other's convictions.

Imagine how much more productive this discussion would have been if, say, a third of the participants had been able to get to that point.

Come to think of it, that's really what Jacques started out suggesting that we try to do.

Posted by: Demos | October 12, 2007 2:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anonymous wrote:

"If Jed really believed that Dawkins had indisputably and forever disproven . . ."

Nothing is ever proved or disproved indisputably or forever. You can never rule out the possibility that new evidence might arise. For example, God might exist and he might stop the sun in the sky for an hour today. But that is highly unlikely.

". . . why the heck would he care whether or not Dawkins was some sort of "expert" in the theology of ANY religion?"

I care because it help society when we rid ourselves of mistaken ideas.

". . . why would I have to know more about astrology than an astrologer before I could say that I don't believe it?"

Anyone who does not believe astrology knows more about that subject than an astrologer. The first and most important fact about astrology is that it does not work, and there is no basis to believe in it. Everything that an astrology supposedly "knows" is baseless nonsense. Theologists think that they "know" a great deal about their subject, but all of their information is imaginary. It is fiction, without proof or substance. Their attempts to prove that God exists are easily disproved. They are experts only in the sense that a professor of English fantasy literature such as "The Hobbit" is an expert an non-existent beings. The difference is, the professor knows that Hobbits do not exist, whereas theologists have the illusion that their subject matter is real.

"(And would it even be POSSIBLE, given that I have a full-time job and family responsibilities of my own?)"

Dawkins can master theology more readily and with less effort than theologists can because he has the relevant knowledge, which is in biology and evolution. It often happens that people outside a given field have better knowledge than the experts in the field. Watson was able to disprove the protein-theory geneticists with much less effort than they put into their theories, because he had the relevant and correct knowledge -- of DNA.

The hallmark of an improved theory is often that it is easier to master, and easier to understand, and much shorter than the old theory it displaces. Dawkins does not need 30-years of effort or 1,000 pages of closely argued, detailed exposition to disprove theology. He can plow through the entire field in a few chapters, much the way Watson demolished protein-theory genetics with a single journal paper a few pages long.

People often mistakenly feel that a complicated sounding, difficult, closely argued hypothesis must have more merit than a brief, easily understood one. The opposite is often true. The most important theories often seem self-evident in retrospect. When T. H. Huxley first read Darwin's theory, his first response was "why didn't I think of that?!?"

When you look at the confused swamp of claims and counter-claims of religion, the outrageous and contradictory moral conclusions -- slavery is good, slavery is bad, homosexuals should be killed, no they shouldn't -- and the endless infighting between sects, the grotesque claims of swans raping women and women giving birth without having sex -- this whole miasma of preposterous supernatural, superstitious foolishness -- it makes your heart sink. How can anyone master this, or make head or tail of it? The answer is wonderfully simple, and cuts away all of the difficulties: the whole subject is fiction, like a novel or the ancient Greek Myths. It is a figment of the human imagination. That explains everything. Why search for a better explanation?

Posted by: Jed Rothwell | October 12, 2007 12:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos - I and other atheists are interested in talking to you, and we do talk to people like you quite frequently, though not about religion. You probably won't know you're talking to an atheist, because they won't let on and often blend quite easily. When people say they don’t want to talk to Christians, I think they mean about God and the supernatural elements of the creed. They know it’s a dead end, because it ends with a proclamation of faith. I believe because I believe. This is not normally considered a fair debating tactic, but it’s the one I’ve seen used the most in religion.

I would also talk about aspects of religion with you, but if the discussion turns to the perceived reality of the supernatural, I would have to make it clear to you in all honesty that I don’t believe it, that I’ve thought about it at great length and have my good reasons for not believing it. I think to do otherwise would be disrespectful and dishonest.

Posted by: E favorite | October 12, 2007 12:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

E Fav, I had a very similar experience earlier this year with a friend (now former) who I'd known for over twenty years. He went through some rough times last year, losing his job and his mother. He found solace in the church. I don't know what his disposition towards religion had been previously but I was happy for him that he found a sense of community. I stopped being glad for him when he became a very different person. He started to attack my atheism, my opposition to the war, and my relatively liberal philosophy. He started parroting the Christian nation rhetoric, and right wing talking points (word for word). He began to equate secularism with an attack on his rights as a Christian. His right to what, exactly?

We had a very heated argument about the pledge of allegiance one day. I feel very strongly that it should be restored to its original form and I got barraged with the Christian nation rhetoric. He told me that kids who don't believe in god can just not say that part, or sit quietly at their desks. He couldn't see that belief in god had nothing to do with being a good citizen or that the pledge should be pluralistic - something that everyone can say without having to omit parts. I was shocked by how vehement he was about it. I explained to him the disposition of the founders towards Christianity (and that the author of the original pledge happened to be a socialist). I gave him tons of founding fathers quotes from their writings and letters elucidating their views about religion. I suggested books he could read. He wanted none of it. He thought it was all lies and fabrications. It was bizarre. He had become someone I didn't know anymore, and someone who no longer respected me or my rights.

That kind of thing went on every time we talked. I told him finally that if we were to remain friends then we had to steer clear of any discussion of religion or politics, but the next time he called me he launched right in again like I'd never said anything at all about it. He'd become Jerry Falwell and Rush Limbaugh all rolled up in one highly annoying person, like a scene out of invasion of the body snatchers. I imagined him pointing at me and doing that "not one of us" shriek. We're no longer friends. I finally just couldn't take it anymore.

Rip, "I think whenever the church has attempted to become a state church, it has failed to be the church. It made far too many compromises of its core values with Constantine etc. State churches are polluted by the love of power. As I said in an earlier post, I believe that the folly of the gospel is that the love of power has been subverted by the power of love. Christians are the ultimate perverts when they revert to the love of power."

I couldn't agree more. I really have no issues with Christians for whom belief is just a personal faith and who have no compunction to take over the world or force their values on anyone else. Unfortunately for a great many (and seemingly more and more all the time) it's instead about the worst kind of "us versus them" tribalism. That's what I find repugnant, dangerous, and very worrying.

Posted by: Chip | October 12, 2007 12:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jed's off his nut again. Admitting on the one hand that Dawkins doesn't examine the "broader topic of Christian theology," but then claiming on the other hand that he's "demonstrably an expert in Christianity!" (The exclamation mark is, inexplicably, his.)

It makes you wonder. If Jed really believed that Dawkins had indisputably and forever disproven the existance of God (as he seems to believe), why the heck would he care whether or not Dawkins was some sort of "expert" in the theology of ANY religion? What would make someone need to keep telling themselves that their intellectual heroes know more about EVERYTHING than ANYONE else? It makes no sense - why would I have to know more about astrology than an astrologer before I could say that I don't believe it? (And would it even be POSSIBLE, given that I have a full-time job and family responsibilities of my own?)

Posted by: Huh? | October 12, 2007 11:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Jed's off his nut again. Admitting on the one hand that Dawkins doesn't examine the "broader topic of Christian theology," but then claiming on the other hand that he's "demonstrably an expert in Christianity!" (The exclamation mark is, inexplicably, his.)

It makes you wonder. If Jed really believed that Dawkins had indisputably and forever disproven the existance of God (as he seems to believe), why the heck would he care whether or not Dawkins was some sort of "expert" in the theology of ANY religion? What would make someone need to keep telling themselves that their intellectual heroes know more about EVERYTHING than ANYONE else? It makes no sense - why would I have to know more about astrology than an astrologer before I could say that I don't believe it? (And would it even be POSSIBLE, given that I have a full-time job and family responsibilities of my own?)

Posted by: Anonymous | October 12, 2007 11:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos:

"Jed, you're making crazy claims about Dawkins. Read the book again; he's reviewing what he understands to be the primary arguments for diety and what he believes are the roots of religious faith - not the broader topic of Christian theology."

Yes, that's right. But if the primary arguments for the deity are wrong, then everything that follows is wrong too, and there is no need to discuss the details.

To give an example from another field, in "The Double Helix" Watson describes a meeting on genetics he attended before he discovered DNA. Researchers back then thought that cellular reproduction and genetics were controlled by proteins, so they presented many elaborate and incomprehensible theories as to how this might work. All of these complex ideas were wrong -- completely false -- because the premises were wrong. Once you know that genetics are controlled by an acid (DNA) you can dispense with all discussion of protein-controlled genetics. Once you establish that God does not exist, and that even if he did you prove experimentally that he never affects any outcome or listens to any prayer, then however elaborate your theology may be, it is a house of cards, and it collapses completely.

"You like him better than the preachers you've heard precisely because you agree with him."

Well, naturally. When I agree with a hypothesis, I prefer it. Who doesn't? If I find a better hypothesis, or convincing experimental proof that God does exist, I shall prefer that instead. I go with whatever is most convincing.

"That's fine - but don't try to make him out into some sort of expert in Christianity or church history."

He is demonstrably an expert in Christianity! He understands it far better than any Christian believer, because he can explain how and why it came about, and why it cannot be true.

A person who explains something better than the established experts is the real expert. When Watson explained genetics better than the protein-theory experts, that made him the expert, and it proved that they were fake experts in a non-existent field. So are all theologians.

Of course Christian morality and history remain, and they are important and worthy subjects. But I agree with Jefferson that the supernatural claims are false, and unworthy of enlightened, modern civilization.

Posted by: Jed Rothwell | October 12, 2007 11:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Jed wrote:

“That is nonsense, and Sagan should have been ashamed of himself. If there is no evidence for a phenomenon in nature, and its absence does not cause any puzzles or leave unanswered questions, then the default assumption must be that it does not exist. If that were not so, we would have to accept countless absurdities such as Russell’s orbiting teapot, fairies, and other unfounded notions. Science must have a method of eliminating hypotheses and narrowing down the possibilities. People sometime predict the existence of a subatomic particle because there is a gap in the theory, or there are unexplained phenomena. But there is nothing in nature that calls for the existence of God. On the contrary, all of the natural laws appear to make His existence superfluous if not physically impossible”

Spoken like a true philosophical materialist. As opposed to the operational materialism where science lives. The default position in science and the study of material reality, is not that if our theory doesn’t need it, and we can’t find it, it isn’t real; it is “We don’t know.” And frankly, I don’t care. Any deity that has no measurable impact on the physical world where I really live is irrelevant to me. I see no point whatever in getting all lathered up and fighting about, well, nothing.

Posted by: Stapleford | October 12, 2007 11:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Rip,

there's nothing to be sorry for!

It does sound like you've had a lot of interesting experiences - it's not surprising that they'd affect the way you see things.

Posted by: Believer | October 12, 2007 11:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Believer:

I am sorry for assuming that you identified yourself as an evangelical. As I noted earlier, I am uncomfortable with this term because of its ambiguity. I don’t favor evangelical #5 as a proper definition of the term but noted that this was the way it seemed to be used in the comments. Like you, I prefer the name Christian.

I perhaps need to clarify my citizenship. I am a native born citizen of the USA although my parents have lived in Europe for part of my life. My wife, children and I lived in the UK for three years. I have traveled in Europe and the Middle East (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel and the occupied territories).

I believe that it is my educational and life experiences that have led me to see things from a different perspective.

Peace,
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 12, 2007 11:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

D.W. Van Winkle wrote:

"'Religion is fundamentally not about ideas. It is based on feelings, like art or dance. It is a kind of instinct, like sexual attraction, and if you don't have it, then you don't feel it . . .'

I am concerned that your ideas may entail some sort of religious determinism. While this might make Augustine and Calvin happy, I do not find it plausible. I guess I have not been determined to believe it."

Well, it is just an observation, or hypothesis. I could be wrong, but I get a feeling that some people have an inborn inclination to believe, and others do not.

"For some people, I believe that arguments do make a difference and that some change their viewpoint on the basis of evidence. For example, Anthony Flew changed his mind and became a theist. . . ."

Perhaps people who change from one side to the other have a weak instinct for religion, which can be enhanced or inhibited. They might be swayed by arguments, or by the circumstances of their upbringing. This would be analogous to a bisexual man who inhibits his homosexual urges and lives happily married to a woman.

Someone here wrote:

"Atheism, per se, gives you no real reason to care what I think or to reach out to me."

I quite agree. Atheism has no moral content, and recommends no action. If you want moral guidance you must look to moral philosophy. You do not need to believe in God to be moral – and you could make a case that religion often poisons morality. But the assertion that God does not exist carries no moral implications, and tells us nothing about how we should live or be happy or treat other people. Atheism and science have no more moral content than the Windows operating system does.

Stapleford wrote:

"That is why I liked the Sagan book. He kept to the idea of proving the idea of a deity – which one cannot do – or disproving one; which one also cannot do. . . . We don’t know, and we cannot know."

That is nonsense, and Sagan should have been ashamed of himself. If there is no evidence for a phenomenon in nature, and its absence does not cause any puzzles or leave unanswered questions, then the default assumption must be that it does not exist. If that were not so, we would have to accept countless absurdities such as Russell’s orbiting teapot, fairies, and other unfounded notions. Science must have a method of eliminating hypotheses and narrowing down the possibilities. People sometime predict the existence of a subatomic particle because there is a gap in the theory, or there are unexplained phenomena. But there is nothing in nature that calls for the existence of God. On the contrary, all of the natural laws appear to make His existence superfluous if not physically impossible.

We DO know and we CAN know a great deal about the laws of nature and how the universe came to be, and evolved. A deity is very unlikely at best, and since it explains nothing, if your goal is to understand the nature of physical reality, you should relegate it to a distant non-entity, or dispense with it completely. In particular we know with 99.99999% certainty that God cannot or does not answer prayers, and He never changes the outcome of disease, or prevents accidents or injustice. These claims have been tested by experiment, and they are wrong.

Earlier, I suggested that theologians should not believe in God. "The problem with most theologians is that they believe God exists, and this is manifestly wrong." I was kidding. I do not think theologians should be disqualified just because they are religious. That would not be fair. After all, if we discovered that a professor who teaches ancient Greek mythology secretly worships Zeus, we would consider that a harmless eccentricity. We would not fire him because he lacks objectivity. We would say he has gone a little overboard, but it enlivens and makes memorable his lectures. We should have the same open-minded attitude toward people who teach modern religion and yet who still believe in it.

I would draw the line at a professor who teaches Aztec religion who wants to perform a human sacrifice. Or, in another field, a professor of 20th century German history who is an enthusiastic Nazi.

Posted by: Jed Rothwell | October 12, 2007 11:07 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"This does not describe me or any atheist I know."

Well, E Fav, I'm not sure that I ever said I was directing this at you. There have been a lot of pretty startling things said by atheists on this blog, though, in posts that really do show little or no real familiarity with Christians. You may well be one of the good guys - but this is the impression I've gotten from the more radical atheist voices in the discussion.

""Atheism, per se, gives you no real reason to care what I think or to reach out to me.” Where do you get that? It sounds like the old Atheists have no morals” argument. Please explain."

This is not a moral argument at all - and I apologize if you've taken it as such. But surely you've noticed several atheists say that they really have no interest in talking to Christians, that they really don't care what religious individuals believe, that believers can do whatever they want as long as they leave non-believers alone? If there is no God, and if our faith or non-faith is completely irrelevant to the universe or our personal destiny, it becomes a purely aesthetic question such as "who would whip the other's butt - Beowulf or Aragorn?" Given unbelief, it really doesn't MATTER what I think about God, because he's not there to care. If you think the question is meaningless, then there's really no motivation to discuss it other than as a minor intellectual diversion, or as a form of social bonding.

If you think the question is meaningful, though, THEN you have a reason to want to talk about it.

No where in that is the "Atheists have no morals" argument.

Jed, you're making crazy claims about Dawkins. Read the book again; he's reviewing what he understands to be the primary arguments for diety and what he believes are the roots of religious faith - not the broader topic of Christian theology. You like him better than the preachers you've heard precisely because you agree with him. That's fine - but don't try to make him out into some sort of expert in Christianity or church history.

"A trivial example comes to mind -- many people think that "God helps those who helps themselves" is from the Bible."

Yep, and lots of people got all they know about physics from Star Trek and Star Wars. People who take their faith seriously, like the millions who read the Bible on a daily basis, know better.

Haven't you seen the equivalent howlers from surveys of what Americans know about science, or American history, or politics?

Posted by: Demos | October 12, 2007 11:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Rip,

I never described myself as either a Fundamentalist nor an Evangelical - I was just describing what they believe and how they think. While I understand evangelicals, and have some sympathy for their point of view, I don't see myself as an evangelical. I attend a small non-denominational congregation, and prefer to avoid any label other than "Christian." Surveying church history, it seems to me that labels have done more harm than good. (I will describe myself as being fairly traditional or conservative theologically because it helps people understand my perspective, but my allegience is to Christ, and not to any particular theological movement or church hierarchy.)

I do get the sense that I'm probably a bit more conservative than you are in some respects, but that's hard to judge based on our brief conversation, and there's not a single conservative/liberal divide - I could easily be more conservative than you on some issues, but more liberal on others.

I agree that the dead sea scrolls were a wonderful discovery, and we're learning a lot from them. Very traditional, conservative scholars are as excited by them as anyone else. Again, I don't think the real point of conflict has anything to do with particular scholarly methods per se, but with attacks on Biblical inspiration (some of which are real, and some of which are merely perceived).

From what I've seen, the real rubicon in discussioins about inspiration is whether scripture is reliable when it comes to matters of faith and practice. People split hairs all the time over the finer points of infallibility versus inerrancy and so on, but what really strikes at the heart of faith is whether or not we trust the Bible when it comes to our understanding of God and how we should live. Which side people fall on that question will have a tremendous influence on how they understand their faith.

You note that "For some it seems to me that grace is as cheap as a life at Auschwitz" - I agree with you, and that is a disturbing point of view. Even if you see grace as a free gift (which I think is a scriptural idea), it came at the price of Christ's sacrifice. To treat it as something cheap is to devalue that sacrifice. Biblical "faith" also demands a very real allegiance - without that, you're just "playing church."

As for "American individualism," I'll take a pass on the discussion. I'm American, and likely have a different cultural point of view than you do. However, I will agree with you that the Biblical concept of "church" does involve mutual love, support and dependence.

As an aside, you mentione that you "thoroughly disagree with the religious right on almost every issue. But if the definition of evangelical is evangelical #5, I guess I have to expect this."

The definition of evangelical is not #5 - though lots of politicians on both sides of the spectrum would like for voters to believe that it is (each side has their own reasons for wanting this).

Posted by: Believer | October 12, 2007 10:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Chip:

Thanks for responding to my posting.

I agree with everything you have said about the media. I don’t see an excluded middle here. I also think it sensationalizes the news and puts up straw men against Hitchens. As I said in an earlier post, I find Dawkins “The God Delusion” to be a much stronger advocate of the atheistic position. I am only about 1/3 way through it but I greatly appreciate his discussion of atheism and probability.

“Tell me you don't want to teach my kids creationism, or make them pledge allegiance to the Judeo-Christian god, or deny them rights if they happen to be gay, or block scientific research that may one day save their lives, or limit their freedom of expression, right to privacy, ability to redress their grievances, or eavesdrop on them if they happen to have friends in Europe. You get the idea. If you're out there, speak up, loudly and often. Please.”

I easily take this pledge with reservations about certain forms of stem cell research. I would be surprised if The Anabaptist churches would have difficulty taking this pledge with the reservation I mentioned about certain forms of stem cell research and there may well be a diversity of viewpoints on this issue. Many of the mainline Protestant churches could take this pledge with or without the previously mentioned reservation.

I do believe in the right to life and therefore am opposed to abortion and capital punishment and certain forms of stem cell research. I am also concerned with the quality of life for all and favor universal health care etc. I am not sure when life begins but with all questions of life, I prefer to err on the side of caution. Because I believe that it is government’s role to protect life, I will attempt to influence policy here as elsewhere. I do not believe that it is government’s role to teach religion.

I think whenever the church has attempted to become a state church, it has failed to be the church. It made far too many compromises of its core values with Constantine etc. State churches are polluted by the love of power. As I said in an earlier post, I believe that the folly of the gospel is that the love of power has been subverted by the power of love. Christians are the ultimate perverts when they revert to the love of power.

I unreservedly believe in the necessity for the free exercise of religious and non-religious belief. Atheism does not disqualify anyone’s human rights. I have no difficulty voting for an atheist for the highest office in the land if I am convinced she/he is of good character, intelligent and wise. I don’t play the Euthyphro card and smuggle in theism in my definition of good character. I much prefer this candidate to the person who currently occupies the office. Perhaps for this candidate reality and facts might make a difference.

To my mind, if Christians took their values seriously, they would work to influence the government so that it would provide a safety net for all residents of the USA. I am very grateful that while I was in England, I and my family were able to have access to socialized medicine and my sons even received a child allowance which was instituted to fight malnutrition.

I will speak out when given the opportunity but I spend most of my time working with the USA’s failed social experiments in the prisons. If you want to see the results of our failed drug policies, institutional racism, lack of proper care for the mentally ill and the poor; visit the prisons. I recognize most prisoners are there because they have committed a crime (according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 5.9% are innocent). They have made poor choices and helped to create poor characters. But the broader society bears no small amount of responsibility too.

Peace,
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 12, 2007 10:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

There be those having stood up in past centuries to the present whom have defended human rights. That all able to live free from persecution as fear,that all equal in the eyes of GOD as ALLAH. With courage as self sacrifice, they challanged teachings of christianity,as atheism, humanism, moralism,loyalism,catholicism.In todays world on hearing such rantings as ravings that come from believers as non believiers alike,be it Pope,as the Flat Earther's foundation, or "Killemall" the Israeli anti inhumanity society.Todays youth be much wiser,giving but one word, "Bullshit".

Posted by: ANONYMOUS | October 12, 2007 9:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I had a most frustrating phone conversation last week with one of my oldest friends, who insists this is a “Christian nation,” settled and founded by Christians for the purpose of allowing them to practice their religion. When I told her she’d been mightily influenced by the religious right over the past five years, she mightily denied that she’d been influenced at all – this is simply what she knew from history. Then I reminded her that in the numerous classrooms we had shared, the founders’ (vs the settlers’) religion or personal religious views were never discussed (something I just realized recently) and that we had both learned that the US was formed as a secular democracy. Then I told her what I had recently learned – that Jefferson was a deist who pulled all the miracles (which he didn’t believe in) out of the Bible to make a much smaller “Jefferson Bible” focusing on the humanitarian teachings of Jesus. That Franklin was a Unitarian, not believing in the Trinity, that Washington didn’t take communion and stopped going to church altogether when the pastor told him not receiving the Eucharist set a bad example to other parishioners.

Did that have any effect? No? She set off on a tangent about how bad she’d look in a burka and how I should be more concerned about Islamic influences. Fear and Ignorance. Makes me want to scream.

Posted by: E favorite | October 12, 2007 8:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Bravo, Chip - That piece is worthy of publication - Maybe WaPo would see fit to feature it somewhere.

Posted by: E favorite | October 12, 2007 8:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Rip, I absolutely believe that the media plays a role in shaping our perceptions, but because our media exists to sell advertising to be targeted at a populace that's a Christian majority, I don't believe it goes out of its way to show Christians in a bad light. I think there are just a lot of Christians who do fine at that all by themselves.

People believe the Christian nation myth due in part to the fact that the media panders to it (see the CNN clip I posted). How many people know that "under god" wasn't added to the pledge of allegiance until 1954 due to heavy lobbying by the Knights of Columbus?... that the way it read originally as "one nation, indivisible" was in response to the civil war and about not letting the country be divided? And that changing it to an assertion of Judeo-Christian monotheism creates just that kind of division? Or that "In god we trust" ended up on our money the same way, replacing the humanist motto "from many, one"? Somehow "our way or the highway" doesn't have the same ring to it, you know? How many people have you heard utter the banality "the Constitution says freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion," and on and on and on.

I'm not anti-Christian. I'm pro pluralism, pro freedom, and pro secularism, and I've become painfully aware over the past decade of just how virulent and widespread the Christian right's movement against those things has become, and how long its been building... How determined it is, and how successful it's been in corrupting our secular Democracy. Now we have Patrick Henry College which exists solely to turn out Evangelical foot soldiers to fight against secularism (as if it's a bad thing!), and we have the Bush administration installing fundamentalist dominionists throughout the government, 150 from Pat Robertson's law school alone, whose mission statement states that it's aim is to "equip Christian leaders to change the world". Change it into what?! If the last 7 years are any indication, no thanks!

These days I'm finding it very difficult to see evangelical Christianity as benign. I know that's not fair, but I can't help it. I know that evangelical Christianity is hugely diverse and not monolithic, but that doesn't change what's happening, or its source. The political climate, the war, the trampling of civil rights, and the other misdeeds of the Christian right... I'm starting to feel like this isn't my country anymore.

I'm seriously disillusioned and angry about what's happening, and I'm finding it very hard not to see evangelical Christianity as a force that isn't for good... not mine anyway. It's an unfair generalization, I know, but it's how I feel, and how I think many other atheists are feeling these days. I don't want Christians to change the world, thanks. I'd like to live in the secular democracy that I signed up for... the one listed in the brochure that's under glass in the rotunda of the National Archives.

I'm sure a lot of Evangelicals are pretty pissed off about these things too, and as the tide turns against the Christian right then I'm sure that people like me will find it easier not to generalize, and not to see it as monolithic. If I gave the impression that I'm opposed to dialog, I'm not. I think a lot of us really desperately need to hear from liberal evangelicals who support secular government, and who embrace a live and let live philosophy. Those voices have been painfully absent, so please, make yourselves heard.

Tell me you don't want to teach my kids creationism, or make them pledge allegiance to the Judeo-Christian god, or deny them rights if they happen to be gay, or block scientific research that may one day save their lives, or limit their freedom of expression, right to privacy, ability to redress their grievances, or eavesdrop on them if they happen to have friends in Europe. You get the idea. If you're out there, speak up, loudly and often. Please.

Posted by: Chip | October 12, 2007 12:43 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Stan: “Today, snarky atheists drive believers nuts in part because human bonfires are just not an option. Since they cannot legally murder us, they must be content with asking us not to insult their silly belief system”

Thanks for the brilliant insight

DEMOS: “”my suspicion is that most of the loudest atheists trashing believers have convinced themselves, largely through lack of any real familiarity, that traditional Christians are either simpletons, blindingly ignorant and backwards, or willfully blind”

This does not describe me or any atheist I know. I’d say at a least 3/4s of us were once Christians ourselves, and do not think of our friends and family in those stark terms. The ¼ who are born atheists, have dealt on a daily basis with people who have religious beliefs. Though we atheists have questions about the beliefs, we are observant and experienced enough to know that religious beliefs don’t describe the total person.

“Atheism, per se, gives you no real reason to care what I think or to reach out to me.” Where do you get that? It sounds like the old Atheists have no morals” argument. Please explain.

Posted by: E favorite | October 11, 2007 11:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

JED ROTHWELL:

I enjoy your contributions.

You stated,

“I think a person must have a certain kind of mind, or inborn talent, to feel a sense of the supernatural -- or even to feel longing to believe in God. I do not long to believe in God any more than I long to climb high mountains. I am terrified of heights! Yet people do enjoy climbing. It must be an inborn talent, like being able to carry a tune. Those of us who are missing whatever instinct or mindset or hormone that gives rise to the sense of supernatural do not know what we are missing. It is like being colorblind; you can't even imagine being able to see the color, any more than we humans can imagine seeing flowers in the ultraviolet the ways bees do.

Religious people should realize that asking an atheist to worship is like asking a homosexual person to engage in heterosexual sex -- or vice versa. We don't feel drawn to it. We don't feel the urge. You say: "doesn't it make you feel wonderful to sing out in praise of the Lord!?!" If I were to answer honestly, I would say, "No, it gives me the creeps!" It is kind of ikky, and embarrassing to watch. Especially in some religions when people kneel and debase themselves as "worthless sinners," or when they cry and carry on, I find it exactly like watching S&M pornography -- which is a turn-off for me. The only difference is that the sadist holding the whip is imaginary.

My guess is that dialog fails not because there is an intellectual gap, and not because ideas are misunderstood. Religion is fundamentally not about ideas. It is based on feelings, like art or dance. It is a kind of instinct, like sexual attraction, and if you don't have it, then you don't feel it, and no amount of persuasion, therapy or learning will evoke it in you. You can't make an atheist feel religious awe any more than you can make a pure heterosexual feel homosexual love.”

I am concerned that your ideas may entail some sort of religious determinism. While this might make Augustine and Calvin happy, I do not find it plausible. I guess I have not been determined to believe it.

For some people, I believe that arguments do make a difference and that some change their viewpoint on the basis of evidence. For example, Anthony Flew changed his mind and became a theist. Note, it is not necessary for my argument that he changed his mind for the better. It is sufficient that he changed his mind on the basis of what he perceived to be evidence.

Peace,
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 11, 2007 9:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Chip

You stated,
“What is the public face of Christianity these days? It's people like Falwell and Dobson. It's people trying to pass laws to deny equal rights to gays. It's people making the claim that this is a Christian nation founded by Christians (when it was actually founded by Deists who were quite hostile towards Christianity). It's John Ashcroft. It's Antonin Scalia. It's George Bush Sr. saying to a reporter while he was running for president that atheists shouldn't be considered patriots or citizens. It's Roy Moore and his 10,000 pound ten commandments monument, and people weeping and wailing when it was removed, like the evil secularists were going to storm their homes and eat their babies if they couldn't have their territorial marker on the courthouse lawn. It's the School Boards in Kansas and Dover, PA. It's the current Bush starting wars because he believes god wants him to. It's people who think stem cells have souls, and that Terri Schiavo's husband is a murderer. This is not foaming-mouthed people wearing "the end is nigh" placards on street corners. It's the mainstream America that we live in today.
I know that doesn't represent all Christians, and surely not even a majority of Christians, but thats what we see, and it doesn't tend to make people feel optimistic about being treated fairly and with tolerance. If Christians truly want to find common ground with atheists then they need to fight those things within their own ranks. They need to support secular government and scientific progress. They need to embrace pluralism and speak out against the bigotry of the "Christian nation" crowd. Then maybe more atheists will be ready for a dialog. In the meantime you're likely to hear a lot more ranting from frustrated people who are finally saying enough is enough and standing up for themselves.”
Do you think the media report religious matters objectively or do you think they sensationalize them by finding the most ignorant proponents of the Christian faith? I especially dislike the spokesmen (yes I chose men instead of people) for the Christian faith to debate Christopher Hitchens so that he looks like an intellectual giant.

I thoroughly disagree with the religious right on almost every issue. But if the definition of evangelical is evangelical #5, I guess I have to expect this. Don’t assume they speak for all Christians. They may speak for evangelicals #5 but not for many Christians.

Peace,
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 11, 2007 8:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Sorry if this is a double post; it was not clear whether my first post went up.

Jed writes: Being a believer means you necessarily think that non-believers are wrong. Maybe not doomed, but wrong. Non-believes say there is no elephant. I repeat: the moral is THERE IS NO ELEPHANT OUT THERE. You just said that believers insist there is one. The two points of view cannot be reconciled or papered over.

Not at all. Personally, I am an agonistic. I don’t know, and I don’t pretend to know. I don’t know, and I don’t care, whether or not you are wrong, or whether the theists are wrong. That’s a key difference I suppose: I DON’T CARE. And the Buddhists my daughter came to know in Laos were believers, but they didn’t care, either: They did not insist that there was an elephant; if there was one, he/she/it would come to be known; if not, who would care? As I think you said in a previous post, whatever floats your boat.

You said: “I am pretty sure there is no God, and Dawkin's arguments for that point of view are not difficult to follow. They are easier to understand than chemistry, evolution or Japanese grammar. You say religion is a complex and unknowable subject, but it is no harder than any other aspect of anthropology.”

Dawkins’ arguments are simpleminded. They are easy to understand, of course. Somebody once said that for every difficult, complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, easy, and wrong. Neither Dawkins nor Harris understands religion, or the impulse towards religion. Personally, I liked the Sagan book, published just recently from notes of a lecture series he gave in the 1980’s. In it, he attacks the arguments for a god – all that I ever heard of, and many that I’d never heard of – and demolishes them all, on scientific grounds. Fine. He stays on clear, scientific grounds. What Dawkins and Harris do is venture into the bog of philosophy. Phaw. Leave philosophy to philosophers. You can’t prove of disprove a “god.” If folks want to do the “leap of faith” thing, fine, long as they leave me alone.

Jed writes: “I do not know about Harris, but Dawkins and the anthropologists know that religious beliefs vary widely. Dawkins describes how and why they became complex. Yes, religion is "vastly complex" but so are other human constructs such as language and law, or literature and music. Complexity has no bearing on whether religion is right or not. Religions share in common belief in the supernatural, so they are all wrong. There is no evidence for the supernatural. It is most likely a figment of the human imagination. It does not matter how you express the idea, or whether you accept a dozen different religions as being parts of the elephant, or whether you think it compels peaceful loving behavior or savage 9/11 attacks -- it is all, without exception, incorrect. There is no elephant, period. Not one hair, not even the smell of elephant.”

Quite true, that one cannot prove that there is any part, tittle, or hair of an elephant out there. Or that there is not. That is why I liked the Sagan book. He kept to the idea of proving the idea of a deity – which one cannot do – or disproving one; which one also cannot do.

But keeping to the idea of an elephant: If one has failed to grasp any part of one, that does not mean it is not there. Nor does the fact that you’ve grabbed something or other that you wish to define as part of an elephant mean that it IS there. We don’t know, and we cannot know.

Posted by: stapleford | October 11, 2007 8:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Believer

“well, like so many things, the issue of higher criticism gets tied up in the way it's used, and the claims people make for it. To begin with, I'm not aware of any serious Christian thinker - fundamentalist or not - who doesn't accept basic textual criticism. In fact, the more importance you place on the inspiration of scripture, the more importance you're likely to place on reconstructing the original text.”

This is a fair generalization but I have seen scholars who are agnostic about inspiration painstakingly reconstruct the original text on the basis of imperfect copies and versions. I am not sure that it easy any longer to separate lower (textual) criticism from higher criticism (questions of authorship etc.). The book of Jeremiah creates special problems. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, the Septuagint (LXX) [the earliest Greek version of the Old Testament/ Hebrew Bible] was viewed to be an inferior text to the Massoretic Text (MT) [the standard Hebrew Text of the Old Testament/ Hebrew Bible]. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls show a Hebrew original upon which the LXX is based as well as a Hebrew text which agrees with the MT. If memory serves me correctly there is even another edition of the book of Jeremiah which is independent of the LXX and MT. This means that the production of prophetic books was a much more complicated process than has been traditionally assumed. It is almost as if the LXX and Dead Sea scrolls have caught fossils of the text in its evolutionary growth. The inspiration of individuals does not seem so compelling. Now the texts may be inspired but I don’t think this rules out Higher criticism.

“What drove fundamentalism is the abandonment by modernist Christians of time of any meaningful concept of inspiration. This abandonment was associated with the form criticism of the day. Much, if not most, higher criticism today starts with the presupposition that the texts are entirely human constructs - which is not a position that most traditional Christians can accept.”

I think the primary text on inspiration is 2 Tim. 3:16 which alludes to the creation story in Genesis 2. Just as God breathed the breath of life into Adam so that he could do his job (tending the garden) so too God has breathed the breath of life into the Scriptures so that it fulfills its function (instructing the faithful in matters of theology and conduct).

"If you're tired of the language of conversion, then you're probably not an evangelical. I'm not sure of that, though, given what you do say.
The evangelical idea of conversion isn't a particular ritual or emotion, but the idea that to become a Christian you make a personal commitment to Christ (instead of a commitment to a creed, church hierarchy, faith community, or anything else). The relationship is between you and Him, and occurs at a specific time when you make a clear decision to commit your life to Him. Creeds, per se, are discounted as part of conversion - evangelicals understand the commitment to be to a personal lord, rather than to a theological theory (though theology is important to them).
I agree with you on the importance of faithfulness - that's a key theme in the New Testament. I don't think it's inconsistent with the idea of being saved on the basis of faith alone (at least, Paul didn't seem to think so). The Biblical conception of faith incompasses much more than intellectual assent - it includes trust and commitment. After all, pistis can be translated, depending on the context, as either faith or faithfulness."

I am not opposed to personal commitments but I am very tired of claims of faith that are not matched by action. For some it seems to me that grace is as cheap as a life at Auschwitz (to borrow a line from a song I'm writing). I am also tired of American individualism.

I ‘m not sure our differences are substantial but our perspectives seem to be different. James and Paul sometimes seem to have different perspectives.

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 11, 2007 8:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jed writes: Being a believer means you necessarily think that non-believers are wrong. Maybe not doomed, but wrong. Non-believes say there is no elephant. I repeat: the moral is THERE IS NO ELEPHANT OUT THERE. You just said that believers insist there is one. The two points of view cannot be reconciled or papered over.

Not at all. Personally, I am an agonistic. I don’t know, and I don’t pretend to know. I don’t know, and I don’t care, whether or not you are wrong, or whether the theists are wrong. That’s a key difference I suppose: I DON’T CARE. And the Buddhists my daughter came to know in Laos were believers, but they didn’t care, either: They did not insist that there was an elephant; if there was one, he/she/it would come to be known; if not, who would care? As I think you said in a previous post, whatever floats your boat.

You said: “I am pretty sure there is no God, and Dawkin's arguments for that point of view are not difficult to follow. They are easier to understand than chemistry, evolution or Japanese grammar. You say religion is a complex and unknowable subject, but it is no harder than any other aspect of anthropology.”

Dawkins’ arguments are simpleminded. They are easy to understand, of course. Somebody once said that for every difficult, complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, easy, and wrong. Neither Dawkins nor Harris understands religion, or the impulse towards religion. Personally, I liked the Sagan book, published just recently from notes of a lecture series he gave in the 1980’s. In it, he attacks the arguments for a god – all that I ever heard of, and many that I’d never heard of – and demolishes them all, on scientific grounds. Fine. He stays on clear, scientific grounds. What Dawkins and Harris do is venture into the bog of philosophy. Phaw. Leave philosophy to philosophers. You can’t prove of disprove a “god.” If folks want to do the “leap of faith” thing, fine, long as they leave me alone.

Jed writes: “I do not know about Harris, but Dawkins and the anthropologists know that religious beliefs vary widely. Dawkins describes how and why they became complex. Yes, religion is "vastly complex" but so are other human constructs such as language and law, or literature and music. Complexity has no bearing on whether religion is right or not. Religions share in common belief in the supernatural, so they are all wrong. There is no evidence for the supernatural. It is most likely a figment of the human imagination. It does not matter how you express the idea, or whether you accept a dozen different religions as being parts of the elephant, or whether you think it compels peaceful loving behavior or savage 9/11 attacks -- it is all, without exception, incorrect. There is no elephant, period. Not one hair, not even the smell of elephant.”

Quite true, that one cannot prove that there is any part, tittle, or hair of an elephant out there. Or that there is not. That is why I liked the Sagan book. He kept to the idea of proving the idea of a deity – which one cannot do – or disproving one; which one also cannot do.

But keeping to the idea of an elephant: If one has failed to grasp any part of one, that does not mean it is not there. Nor does the fact that you’ve grabbed something or other that you wish to define as part of an elephant mean that it IS there. We don’t know, and we cannot know.

Posted by: stapleford | October 11, 2007 8:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos wrote:

"Dawkins knows much more about religion than most believers"

'Really? Do you really, really think this? That Dr. Dawkins has devoted his life to ethology, evolutionary biology, and popularizing science, and has STILL had time to learn more about religion than men and women who've devoted their entire academic careers to it?'"

No, I meant ordinary believers. Churchgoers and people who consider themselves Christians. Obviously not ministers or theologians. He describes many of the errors they make about their own religion. A trivial example comes to mind -- many people think that "God helps those who helps themselves" is from the Bible.

"I'd argue that you're seriously misreading him - Dawkins rejects the concept of deity, and as a result pays almost no attention whatsoever to Christian theology."

Evidently you have not read his book, "The God Delusion." He pays close attention to Christian theology, but he disagrees with it.

You may not like what he has to say, but you should not mischaracterize his assertions. He does quote the Bible extensively, chapter and verse.

He also discusses it from the psychological point of view, as you say. Perhaps you have only read article by him written that aspect of religion.

Dawkins' writings may be many things, but they are not a serious study of the content of religious beliefs comparable to, as you put it, a "Bible study book."

His book is miles ahead of any Bible study book in my opinion. It hits the nail on the head. He has a deeper and better understanding of the content of religion than any minister or preacher I have ever heard. But of course, I feel that way because I agree with his rebuttals to the Bible. You probably would not agree with him.

"Why is it so important to you to defend Dawkins as some sort of expert on all of the world's religions?"

I am recommending him, not defending him. He needs no defense from me! He does not appear to be an expert on the content of all religions, only Christianity. I do not see much about Asian religions in his book. He is an expert on the social evolution of religion -- but as you point out, that is divorced from the content.

"Why is it important to you to defend anthropology textbooks as exhaustively covering the content of religion? After all, that's not their purpose - anthropology textbooks are intended to discuss anthropology."

Religion is an important part of anthropology. I know lots of anthropologists, and I am fond of the subject. They know the rituals, they are sympathetic to the believers, they report what the believers say and do. What better guide can you ask for? If you ask a devout conservative Christian to describe a Shinto belief, you are likely to get a garbled and highly prejudiced view, because the Christian will sincerely believe the Shintoists are heathen. You have to ask someone who is trained to be objective.

"You'd expect them to focus on the sociological aspects of religion . . .

Nonsense. I would expect them to spell out the rituals and beliefs in detail. I have read dozens of books in which they do that.

". . . it doesn't make sense to expect them to make an in-depth study of the theology of any religion in particular . . ."

Evidently you have not read much anthropology either. Again let me suggest that you need not agree, but you should not mischaracterize this literature.

"I have no problem with scientists joining in on a discussion of religion - but to argue that you can learn more about the content of religious belief from a biologist than from a theologian is like arguing that you can learn more about literature from a chemist than from an English professor."

I know a few hundred chemists. (I work for them, as an editor.) Some of them know more about literature than your average English professor, and a few of them write much better prose books than most professors do, including fiction and nonfiction. Sometimes people from outside of a field have more insight than the established experts.

I had read Dawkins' biology, and I was impressed. I did not realize he was also a student of theology. But he is, and he beats the experts hands down in my opinion. I was surprised and impressed.

The problem with most theologians is that they believe God exists, and this is manifestly wrong. They start off with the wrong assumptions, and go nowhere after that. They are like the biologists prior to 1952 who were trying to figure out how cells reproduced, without knowing the structure of DNA. All of their work turned out to be useless and mistaken -- a waste of time -- because their initial assumptions were wrong.

Theology, in order to serve any purpose or reach any valid conclusions, must begin with factual truths, such as the fact that supernatural events never occur, and books are written entirely by people, based on their own imaginations alone. As Believer put it, "Much, if not most, higher criticism today starts with the presupposition that the texts are entirely human constructs - which is not a position that most traditional Christians can accept." In other words, they cannot accept the truth.

Posted by: Jed Rothwell | October 11, 2007 6:57 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos, I've been lucky in my life. I've known many liberal, thoughtful, and open minded religious people. I was raised by two of them. But my experience isn't everyone's experience.

I'd hazard a guess that the majority of non-believers are still in the closet. Why? They're afraid of being alienated from their friends, family, and community. They're afraid of repercussions in their place of employment. They're afraid of opening up their children to ridicule and bullying. I know people who are pressured into participating in prayer circles at work and don't dare complain about it because they're afraid they'll lose their jobs.

Have a look at this video from CNN from earlier this year. This is the kind of attitude that atheists have to contend with (and notice they didn't even bother to include an atheist on their panel). The intolerance and ignorance is mind-boggling: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPHnXrU5JzU&mode=related&search=

What is the public face of Christianity these days? It's people like Falwell and Dobson. It's people trying to pass laws to deny equal rights to gays. It's people making the claim that this is a Christian nation founded by Christians (when it was actually founded by Deists who were quite hostile towards Christianity). It's John Ashcroft. It's Antonin Scalia. It's George Bush Sr. saying to a reporter while he was running for president that atheists shouldn't be considered patriots or citizens. It's Roy Moore and his 10,000 pound ten commandments monument, and people weeping and wailing when it was removed, like the evil secularists were going to storm their homes and eat their babies if they couldn't have their territorial marker on the courthouse lawn. It's the School Boards in Kansas and Dover, PA. It's the current Bush starting wars because he believes god wants him to. It's people who think stem cells have souls, and that Terri Schiavo's husband is a murderer. This is not foaming-mouthed people wearing "the end is nigh" placards on street corners. It's the mainstream America that we live in today.

I know that doesn't represent all Christians, and surely not even a majority of Christians, but thats what we see, and it doesn't tend to make people feel optimistic about being treated fairly and with tolerance. If Christians truly want to find common ground with atheists then they need to fight those things within their own ranks. They need to support secular government and scientific progress. They need to embrace pluralism and speak out against the bigotry of the "Christian nation" crowd. Then maybe more atheists will be ready for a dialog. In the meantime you're likely to hear a lot more ranting from frustrated people who are finally saying enough is enough and standing up for themselves.

Posted by: Chip | October 11, 2007 6:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos,

You made a couple of points in your post of October 11, 2007 4:35 PM that I want to respond to.

First, agreed, America is not monolithic. The Vietnamese and the Iraqis can inform us about that. But Conservative Christians absolutely are the leading voices in the newspapers of our country. The New York Times' and Washington Posts' journalists transformed themselves into mere stenographers to the politicians, military brass, and energy/weapons corporations that control the country. Conservative Christians are responsible for placing many stenographed fundamentalists on local school boards, in city councils, state governments, and the three branches of the federal government. Conservative Christians were crucial to the election (twice) of an executive branch which operates on the assumption that military solutions are the only solutions. And it's not working out very well. Though their modus-operandi does make a tiny minority of Americans very wealthy, it puts me at risk. Like America, Conservative Christians are not monolithic, but they are wreaking a huge amount of damage and must be opposed. This is why many liberal atheists are so aggressively focussed on Conservative Christians.

This is linked to the another point you made: atheists do not have any reason to care about what you think, nor have they any reason to reach out.

I do care what others think. My security depends on others' security. It boils down to mutually assured survival.
However, I can trust neither the Money nor the God Party to make reasonable decisions on my behalf. I must make up my own -- self interested -- mind about who the 'enemy' really is, so to speak.

The way I see it, the Conservative Christian backed US government has created one debacle after another, each raising the level of physical risk to themselves and myself. Justifiable hatred of several decades-long US foreign policies -- enthusiastically supported by Conservative Christians -- concerns me. I'll identify one foreign policy issue here. Conservative Christians and the Bush administration are thumping the tocsin for an attack on Iran. Let's visit some temporal, relevant events related to this matter. In 1953, the US and UK violently overthrew the democratically elected government of that country. Was that not an act of war? Then, the US kept the Shah in power for 26 years. Was that not a 26 year long act of hostility? The US now surrounds them with troops, bombers, tanks, aircraft carriers, and constantly issues threats, even tactical nuclear threats. The US is the worst violator of the NPT, but shamelessly uses the treaty to beat the Iranians over the head regarding their nuclear programs. Given the US track record towards Iran over the last half century, they'd be damn fools not to go all out to acquire nuclear weapons asap.

I care what believing Iranians think. Iranians have never threatened me. The US, led by the party of Conservative Christians, constantly threatens them. If Conservative Christians in the US would just stay home on election day, we would not be standing before this abyss. (An attack on Iran is likely to benefit Americans even less than the unprovoked attack on Iraq has.)

There is very good reason to make life extremely unpleasant for Conservative Christians -- and other believers in the US who will not challenge them -- if for no other single reason than to make it more difficult for them to kill a million people in an act that could only be characterized as pure stupidity and viciousness.

This debate is all about politics and war, not theology.

Posted by: STAN | October 11, 2007 6:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"These people misunderstand their own disciplines;

or, they do not understand religion;"

These two accord quite, quite well with my personal experience. Most preachers look pretty foolish when they try to discuss science - and most scientists look just as foolish when they try to address religion. It's HARD to be a polymath.

"Dawkins knows much more about religion than most believers"

Really? Do you really, really think this? That Dr. Dawkins has devoted his life to ethology, evolutionary biology, and popularizing science, and has STILL had time to learn more about religion than men and women who've devoted their entire academic careers to it? I'd argue that you're seriously misreading him - Dawkins rejects the concept of deity, and as a result pays almost no attention whatsoever to Christian theology. Either that, or you have an extremely limited understanding of the scope and content of religious belief. (Or perhaps you think the man never sleeps?)

Dawkins' writings may be many things, but they are not a serious study of the content of religious beliefs comparable to, as you put it, a "Bible study book."

Why is it so important to you to defend Dawkins as some sort of expert on all of the world's religions? Why is it important to you to defend anthropology textbooks as exhaustively covering the content of religion? After all, that's not their purpose - anthropology textbooks are intended to discuss anthropology. You'd expect them to focus on the sociological aspects of religion - it doesn't make sense to expect them to make an in-depth study of the theology of any religion in particular - much less all of them. It's absurd to expect them to cover a religion in the detail that a theological work or student of divinity would give it - or even a basic commentary on the Bible.

I have no problem with scientists joining in on a discussion of religion - but to argue that you can learn more about the content of religious belief from a biologist than from a theologian is like arguing that you can learn more about literature from a chemist than from an English professor.

Posted by: Demos | October 11, 2007 6:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos wrote:

"Most of the most vociferous voices seem absolutely convinced that all of modern science and scholarly thought is obviously on their side . . ."

Well, most physicists and nearly all biologist are atheists. That leads to one of three conclusions:

These people misunderstand their own disciplines;

or, they do not understand religion;

or, modern science supports atheism.

"Could they all have had traumatic experiences at the hands of abusive Christians? I guess so . . ."

Certainly not! I do not know any atheists who have had traumatic experiences, and I know lots of atheists. (Hundreds -- all scientists.)

"What speculations run through my mind when I think about it? One of the first is that, protestations notwithstanding, most of the loudest critics of Christianity (or Judaism, or Islam) don't have any real familiarity with thoughtful believers."

This is nonsense. Dawkins knows much more about religion than most believers, and his book is chock full of extended quotes from the Bible and from modern theology. He presents religious arguments presented carefully and in full. Anthropology textbooks describe many different religion in great detail. Since most religions are mutually exclusive, except for pairs such as Shinto and Buddhism, the authors cannot believe in all of them.

"They say they do, but I can't recognize myself or any of the people I worship with in their descriptions."

There are none so blind . . .

"When they talk about their knowledge of religion, most times they mention books they've read - generally on the psychology or sociology of religious belief, rather than the beliefs themselves."

I doubt there is anything more than psychology, but in any case, this statement is wrong. Dawkins and the anthropologists describe the substance of belief in as much detail as any book that advocates religion, such as a Bible study book. Dawkins lays out dozens of major arguments made by famous mainstream believers to prove that their beliefs are true, and that God exists. And then he demolishes those arguments. He does not distort these arguments, simplify them, or leave out salient details. I have read some of the original texts he quotes from, and verified that.

"They seem to be fixated on a lunatic fringe of people who foam at the mouth on street corners - a bit like an English major forming his understanding of engineers on the last days of Howard Hughes."

Dawkins quotes mainly mainstream experts in religion, not the lunatic fringe. Perhaps some of these other authors quote the lunatic fringe.

Anyway, the lunatic fringe is dangerous and the mainstream is benign, but they equally wrong. Their arguments boil down to the same absurd assertions, such as the notion that you should have faith in things without evidence. Lunatic fringe faith healers who defraud people and advise them to forgo medical treatment are dangerous. Mainstream ministers who pray to cure disease are useless, but harmless. Prayer has no effect whatever on the course of the disease, unless you tell the patient you are praying for him, in which case it hurts his prognosis slightly, probably because he worries more. That is what the Templeton Foundation studies revealed, which was a useful public service.

Posted by: Jed Rothwell | October 11, 2007 5:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Rip,

well, like so many things, the issue of higher criticism gets tied up in the way it's used, and the claims people make for it. To begin with, I'm not aware of any serious Christian thinker - fundamentalist or not - who doesn't accept basic textual criticism. In fact, the more importance you place on the inspiration of scripture, the more importance you're likely to place on reconstructing the original text.

What drove fundamentalism is the abandonment by modernist Christians of time of any meaningful concept of inspiration. This abandonment was associated with the form criticism of the day. Much, if not most, higher criticism today starts with the presupposition that the texts are entirely human constructs - which is not a position that most traditional Christians can accept.

Again, however, most thoughtful Christians are not opposed to examining the origins of the texts. For instance, it's pretty clear that the Torah was compiled from earlier source materials (sometimes it even cites specific sources, such as the Book of the Wars of Jehovah). What were those sources? When was it finally cast into its current form? Most conservative Christians will talk to you about that - if you don't insist on using it as a hammer with which to beat down the idea of divine inspiration.

If you're tired of the language of conversion, then you're probably not an evangelical. I'm not sure of that, though, given what you do say.

The evangelical idea of conversion isn't a particular ritual or emotion, but the idea that to become a Christian you make a personal commitment to Christ (instead of a commitment to a creed, church hierarchy, faith community, or anything else). The relationship is between you and Him, and occurs at a specific time when you make a clear decision to commit your life to Him. Creeds, per se, are discounted as part of conversion - evangelicals understand the commitment to be to a personal lord, rather than to a theological theory (though theology is important to them).

I agree with you on the importance of faithfulness - that's a key theme in the New Testament. I don't think it's inconsistent with the idea of being saved on the basis of faith alone (at least, Paul didn't seem to think so). The Biblical conception of faith incompasses much more than intellectual assent - it includes trust and commitment. After all, pistis can be translated, depending on the context, as either faith or faithfulness.

Posted by: Believer | October 11, 2007 5:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Having said that, do you stop to wonder why the atheists here feel the way they do? Do you think it's just because they're bad people or because their opinions have been formed by their individual experiences?"

Yes, Chip, I do wonder why people react the way they do - though I wouldn't cast it in the quite same terms that you do.

It really does puzzle me. Most of the most vociferous voices seem absolutely convinced that all of modern science and scholarly thought is obviously on their side, and that anyone who can't immediately see that is being willfully blind. They say that they have no doubt whatsoever about their atheism, and seem pretty convinced that the tide of history is on their side. It seems hard to believe that they feel, at least consciously, intellectually insecure or persecuted.

Could they all have had traumatic experiences at the hands of abusive Christians? I guess so - though many of them describe a very different path to skepticism or atheism. And while a lot of people are upset by politically active conservative Christians, we aren't exactly living under the Taliban here in the U.S. - you can still say anything the heck you want without fear of legal or physical abuse.

So, while I have a great deal of sympathy for people who've experience real religious abuse (and know and love several who've been there), but I somehow doubt that explains most of the rancor in discussions between believers and non-believers.

What speculations run through my mind when I think about it? One of the first is that, protestations notwithstanding, most of the loudest critics of Christianity (or Judaism, or Islam) don't have any real familiarity with thoughtful believers. They say they do, but I can't recognize myself or any of the people I worship with in their descriptions. When they talk about their knowledge of religion, most times they mention books they've read - generally on the psychology or sociology of religious belief, rather than the beliefs themselves. They seem to be fixated on a lunatic fringe of people who foam at the mouth on street corners - a bit like an English major forming his understanding of engineers on the last days of Howard Hughes.

When you push back on it a bit, many critics talk about the books they've read about the psychology or sociology of religion. That's fine - but it's a far cry from actually understanding the substance of what religious people believe. It's also a bit offensive - think about a Christian who didn't think your world view was even worth asking about, but wanted you to sit still to be psychoanalyzed.

Bottom line, my suspicion is that most of the loudest atheists trashing believers have convinced themselves, largely through lack of any real familiarity, that traditional Christians are either simpletons, blindingly ignorant and backwards, or willfully blind.

You talk about "the most hated, most misunderstood, and most marginalized minority in the United States" - it's clearly an emotional issue for you. I am sorry for any hurt you've experienced.

But America is not monolithic, and the American experience is not as clearcut as this survey might lead one to think. Most Americans claim religious faith. But as so many on these blogs love to point out, the picture is very different in our universities and laboratories. Conservative Christians are not the leading voices in the newspapers of record in our country, nor is conservative Christianity particularly strong in the intertainment industry, or in most of our major urban areas.

I can understand how an atheist might feel like a stranger in a strange land. Oddly enough, perhaps, a conservative Christian can feel that way also on a university campus, reading a leading newspaper, going to the movie theatre or in downtown New York, San Francisco or D.C. We're just like atheists in this respect - our feelings have been formed by our personal experiences.

That's why I think it's so very important to actually talk to each other. I disagree with you, but I don't think that you're "bad people" as you put it.

There may be one difference between believers and atheists that you might want to think about. Atheism, per se, gives you no real reason to care what I think or to reach out to me. Central to Christianity is the idea that knowing the truth about God isn't just an intellectual exercise, but that it matters to our lives. Thoughtless or arrogant Christians can be motivated to approach people in a disrespectful, demeaning, or obnoxious manner (which is not truly "Christian") - but for the rest of us this creates a powerful motivation to try and engage in meaningful dialog. We are convinced that questions of God, morality and the nature of mankind are not just interesting diversions, along the lines of "what was the REAL Trojan war," but that they are issues where the truth matters.

Posted by: Demos | October 11, 2007 4:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Stapleford wrote:

"Second, it is NOT true that being a believer means that you necessarily think non believers and believers in other deities are doomed. Think of the six blind men and the elephant. The moral is not that there is no elephant out there . . ."

Being a believer means you necessarily think that non-believers are wrong. Maybe not doomed, but wrong. Non-believes say there is no elephant. I repeat: the moral is THERE IS NO ELEPHANT OUT THERE. You just said that believers insist there is one. The two points of view cannot be reconciled or papered over.

". . . but that your small human mind can grasp only a small piece. If somebody else has hold of a different piece, fine. No one can 'grok in fullness.'"

I disagree. I am pretty sure there is no God, and Dawkin's arguments for that point of view are not difficult to follow. They are easier to understand than chemistry, evolution or Japanese grammar. You say religion is a complex and unknowable subject, but it is no harder than any other aspect of anthropology.

"Which brings me to point third; the point at which I think Harris et. al. go most widely astray: Just as Western and Middle Eastern religion runs the gamut from Bishop Spong to Martin Buber to James Dobson to Osama, and all points in between, so religion itself is vastly more complex than just Western and Middle Eastern religions."

I do not know about Harris, but Dawkins and the anthropologists know that religious beliefs vary widely. Dawkins describes how and why they became complex. Yes, religion is "vastly complex" but so are other human constructs such as language and law, or literature and music. Complexity has no bearing on whether religion is right or not. Religions share in common belief in the supernatural, so they are all wrong. There is no evidence for the supernatural. It is most likely a figment of the human imagination. It does not matter how you express the idea, or whether you accept a dozen different religions as being parts of the elephant, or whether you think it compels peaceful loving behavior or savage 9/11 attacks -- it is all, without exception, incorrect. There is no elephant, period. Not one hair, not even the smell of elephant.

At least, it sure seems that way to me, but I could be wrong.

In any case, the atheistic view cannot be equated to religious views. It is not, in any sense, a matter of degree, or groking in full or in part. There is no continuum of belief that leads from one religion to another and finally to atheism. Atheism stands apart from all of religions, and denies and negates each and every one of them, of every stripe, every culture, every set and subset. Contrary to what some believers claim, it is not a substitute religion, because it recommends no doctrine or set of morality, and makes no claims about most issues important to religion, and makes no demands whatever on the non-believer.

Posted by: Jed Rothwell | October 11, 2007 4:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Stan wrote:

"Mike, I think that one reason that "On Faith" posts are so focussed on atheism is because they have always been sure of their entitlement to undeserved respect, and atheists refuse to oblige."

Amen! Plus, atheists are on the best-seller lists these days. It must be frustrating. It must feel like being a white racist after the 1963 voting rights act passed, or like being a playground bully after someone beats the crap out of you.

Religion has suffered other setbacks and bad press lately, such as that unfortunate incident when fanatics flew airplanes into buildings. Naturally most religious people in the U.S. disavowed it. Even some of Islamic leaders did, sort of, unofficially, when speaking in English, with a wink and a nod. In Indonesia, support for Bin Laden has fallen from 58% to only 37%. In Pakistan it is only 51% percent, and 60% in Jordan (Washington Post).

The 9/11 attacks made this "respect for religion" business terribly confusing, even for believers.

Some Christian fundamentalists say Islam is not religion, but others, such as Bush, say Islam is actually peaceful and lovey-dovey, and we should all respect it. Evidently Bush does not know much about people in Indonesia or Pakistan. Bush and the inclusive, moderate, liberal religious leaders and Dear Abby ask us to respect Islam, but millions of Islamic followers want to kill us -- or forcibly convert us. Not a whole lot of respect on their side! It must give the moderate Christians a headache.

Posted by: Jed Rothwell | October 11, 2007 3:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Stapleford says:

'Interesting discussion. Seems to me that so far, the believers who are posting here are more accepting and open minded than the professed non believers. The non believers, or atheists, seem to have the sort of stereotypical, black-and-white view of believers that I found so irritating in Sam Harris’ book.'

Not at all,

Here is a relevant post from another thread that I hope will convince you otherwise:

Hello Daniel,

I always enjoy your posts on these threads. You are a Christian, but are thoughtful, and recognize the foolishness of trying to convince others to acquire your beliefs.

Now, in response to my following question to Susan: ‘I take it that you do not believe that god exists. But, can you say that the likelihood that the universe spontaneously sprang into existence from nothing is greater than the likelihood that God exists?

Or, can you say that the likelihood that the universe has always existed on an infinite timeline, from negative infinity to the present time, is greater than the likelihood that God exists?’

You respond that such questions are inherently absurd, because if I understand you correctly, this information is forever locked away from humans, just as is similar information about the nature of God.

You may be right. I certainly never expect to have the answer to these questions in my life time, and perhaps no human will ever acquire this information. But we know that there is no greater urge ingrained in the very fabric of our being to seek answers to these questions: who are we, where did we come from, what are we doing here, etc.

It is no wonder that Susan did not respond. How could she? All we can say as atheists/agnostics is that I don’t know; but based on the evidence available to me, I don’t believe that God exists.

Just as you, I believe, have decided that you don’t know either, but you have always lived in a Christian family, and see no reason to change your beliefs.

I really don’t believe that we are that far apart.

You seem to have some ideas about atheists/agnostics attributing our, and the universe’s, existence to chance, that I don’t believe are correct. We believe that we and the universe are evolving according to laws of natural selection and other physical laws of nature; e.g. gravity, momentum, etc., that are understandable to a certain degree.

You look deeper and conclude that we do not truly understand the underlying cause of these laws; e.g. ‘force at a distance’ (gravity and electromagnetism) and never will. This knowledge is forever locked away from us. I am not ready to accept this. You, being a physicist, know that our greatest minds (astrophysicists and others) are striving mightily to answer these questions and are making progress with new theories such as String Theory and M-Theory. We will see what they find out, unfortunately probably not in our life time.

And also, since it is my expectation that this is the only life we will ever have (no afterlife and no reincarnation), I will probably never know the answer to these wonders. But as Susan says on another thread, I will just have to make the most of the knowledge that I can acquire and things that I can experience during this ever so brief lifetime.

It’s not all that bad a life is it?

Posted by: Rick | October 11, 2007 3:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Interesting discussion. Seems to me that so far, the believers who are posting here are more accepting and open minded than the professed non believers. The non believers, or atheists, seem to have the sort of stereotypical, black-and-white view of believers that I found so irritating in Sam Harris’ book.

Perhaps that is because the sort of believers that are posting here are atypical. Perhaps your stereotypical fundamentalist/evangelical is not the sort that would be reading the Post in general, or Dr. Berlinerblau in particular.

But I’ve found that most real believers can’t be fitted into the Harris/Dawkins/Hitchens stereotype.

Three points out of many:

First, I thought the preacher fellow did an excellent job of answering the question, “Is the Bible true or false?” The answer is no, and yes. Sure, it’s mainly Mythic literature, as he says, and folk legend, that conveys to believers a deeper, more powerful, Big T Truth than any merely factual account could do. Making it out to be just a factual account, as the Fundamentalists try to do, robs it of its mythic power.

For those who are interested in a really readable account of how, when, and by whom, the Bible was put together should read Jonathan Kirsch’s book “The Woman Who Laughed at God.” In the oldest writings, Moses isn’t clearly a monotheist, even. His god is the strongest god, but not the only one.

Second, it is NOT true that being a believer means that you necessarily think non believers and believers in other deities are doomed. Think of the six blind men and the elephant. The moral is not that there is no elephant out there, but that your small human mind can grasp only a small piece. If somebody else has hold of a different piece, fine. No one can “grok in fullness.”

Which brings me to point third; the point at which I think Harris et. al. go most widely astray: Just as Western and Middle Eastern religion runs the gamut from Bishop Spong to Martin Buber to James Dobson to Osama, and all points in between, so religion itself is vastly more complex than just Western and Middle Eastern religions.

My daughter spent a year in Laos – a Buddhist Communist nation – and sent this account of the Evangelical onslaught on Luang Prabang:

“They swarm out of the woodwork come Christmas, bearing freakish plastic trees that spin and shriek tinny pinged carols. Their scheme is simple – buy businesses and force the employees to attend church and listen to preaching and wear elf costumes. Or they’re fired. Sort of the “my God writes a paycheck better than your God” principle.
The only glitch in this system is that Buddhism inculcates the implicit respect for all other major world religions, which are each seen as another valid view of enlightenment. In Malaysia, the Buddhist residents bow in passage before a mosque, Hindu temple, or church (and hypothetically synagogue if they had any), and here the unmitigated expanse of wats are full of paintings and sculptures of Hindu gods hanging out in Nirvana with the Buddha and Bodhisattvas.”

”So with good humor the Lao have turned the forced Christmas infusion into a new myth, one of a mad dwarf from Finland named Santa, who has long white braids and brings candy to foreigners once a year. They drink, they feast – for the Lao possess an admirable attitude that there are no bad holidays and having another occasion to celebrate is in itself an occasion to celebrate.”

Posted by: Stapleford | October 11, 2007 2:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Miller wrote:

"Atheists really need to pay attention to this because it's possible to lose your faith but retain the oppressive psyche wrought by it -- at that point, all the pissy chatter about the easter bunny won't do you any good. . . ."

Let me revise my response, which is confusing.

Good point! Some people who give up religion do seem to retain the oppressiveness.

Along the same lines, perhaps some of extremist atheists, who go around trying to convert others to their point of view, started off as religious people. . . .

Of course many religious paper are not oppressive or oppressed. They are fine, and I wouldn't want them to change.

Dawkins begins his book by saying that if you are religious but you feel wrong about it, and you suspect your beliefs are untrue, then you should not fear becoming an atheist. I heartily agree! If you are inclined to atheism, you should embrace it. Be true to yourself.

Somewhat unlike Dawkins, I say that if you are truly religious and you find it fulfilling, by all means stick to it, even if at times you suspect it may not be true and it is irrational. You are right: it is irrational, but so what? So is baseball. So is love. Who says you gotta be rational all the time? Enjoy life and stop fretting about such things.

Posted by: Jed Rothwell | October 11, 2007 2:42 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mike, I think that one reason that "On Faith" posts are so focussed on atheism is because they have always been sure of their entitlement to undeserved respect, and atheists refuse to oblige.

Back in the good old days of the 16th century, mere suspicion of heresy was grounds for burning a human being alive. Today, snarky atheists drive believers nuts in part because human bonfires are just not an option. Since they cannot legally murder us, they must be content with asking us not to insult their silly belief system.

Personal experience with religious conservatives have proven to me that the religious right would very much like to re-instate that wholesome 16th century practice, but they've got too much work to do just to move US culture back to where it was before the Scopes Trial.

It must be infuriating.

Posted by: STAN | October 11, 2007 2:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I wrote:

"Because a fear of death or a fear of the often-overpowering sexual agency operates at a register of our identities that does not obey rational conceptualization ... therefore it's pointless to argue about god as though it were a glitch in the programming or genetic code."

Quite right. And it is cruel and uncultured. If religion is programmed by genetic code, but not in my code, why would I ridicule it? . . ."

That should be hypothetical: "Even if it turns out religion is programmed into the genetic code . . ." or "Even if we assume religion is programmed . . ."

I am not asserting that it is necessarily genetic, although it seems to be.

The fact that something is genetic, or inborn, does not make it less admirable. Bravery, genius and kindness are inborn, but no less valuable for it.

Sex and love are inborn and completely biological, but that does not make them any less profound.

Religion appears to have no value to those of us on the outside who do not feel it, but that's true of sex and love and many other emotions. You have to be on the inside. You have be the organism experiencing the emotion. People at religious services do not draw up a list of logical reasons and proofs on a blackboard the way they do at a physics lecture. They say "you have to feel it! Open your heart!" It is an appeal to emotion, like a painting or a symphony. Needless to say, religion has often been represented quite effectively in paintings and music. Any cultured atheist will grant that Handel's "Messiah" is moving and splendid. It is a heartfelt masterpiece of fiction, like "Hamlet" or the "Adventures of Huckleberry Finn."

. . . I suppose a religious person who actually believes in God and the supernatural would be nonplussed by my point of view. They would think I am belittling it by comparing it to "Hamlet," even though I consider "Hamlet" to be the pinnacle of human achievement. Obviously I am forced to conclude that religion and religious artworks cannot be literally true, and I treat them as "nothing more" than emotion or great works of art. Religious people demand more from me. They want me to actually believe the content is. That is like asking me to believe that Botticelli's painting "the Birth of Venus" depicts an actual event!

Religious people should realize that the most they can hope for -- the closest meeting of the minds we can achieve -- is the measure of respect a cultured person pays to a great work of art. That's a lot of respect by my standard, but compared to the commitment to faith that many religious people feel (and demand from me) it is nothing. That is the gap we cannot close.

Of course, some religious people, such as Unitarians, are delighted with that level of respect and wouldn't dream of asking for more. But most, I think, would not be satisfied.

Posted by: Jed Rothwell | October 11, 2007 2:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Karl Miller wrote:

"I didn't say that fear, sex, death, should compel you to belief in god -- I said that religion takes root in these fears and desires and that's why it maintains its sway over people."

Right, I understood that. I think you meant that fear and death or the beauty of nature often give rise to a feeling of awe and a sense that God exists. Even the hardest atheist has experienced that sensation. My point is that throughout history there have been atheists who feel the awe but no sense of the supernatural. Some people just do not connect the two.

"Because a fear of death or a fear of the often-overpowering sexual agency operates at a register of our identities that does not obey rational conceptualization ... therefore it's pointless to argue about god as though it were a glitch in the programming or genetic code."

Quite right. And it is cruel and uncultured. If religion is programmed by genetic code, but not in my code, why would I ridicule it? People enjoy religion. Moderate religion does not harm me. The ability to sing with perfect pitch and the ability to climb mountains is also genetically programmed into some people. I do not go around making fun of those people because I happen to be tone deaf and acrophobic. On the other hand, I never watch movies of people climbing mountains because they scare the hell out of me. I can't imagine why people think mountain climbing is attractive or heroic, but some do, and that's their business. I cannot imagine why people revel in getting on their knees, feeling guilty, confessing sins, or singing praises to the fact that sunlight makes plants grow, but they do. As long as they don't force me to join them, or pay them tax money, it is 100% okay with me.

"All of those things may be, as you say, "natural" -- but that's why they're such innocent bait for any claim to the supernatural. Kudos to you if you don't fall for it . . ."

Honestly, I can't take credit for "not falling for it" any more than I can take credit for not falling off of cliffs because I am afraid to climb them. I couldn't "fall for it" even if I wanted to.

"People can change, but only through unremitting examination of the history of ones attachments, fears and desires . . ."

Why should people change? Perhaps they should change from extreme religion to moderate religion -- we don’t want them crashing airplanes into buildings -- but I see no advantage to giving up religion altogether if you are inclined to believe it.

"... but it would get to the roots of where different disorders fester."

I do not think you mean that religion is a disorder, but in any case I would never say that it is. Moderate religion is at worst a mild eccentricity, or a harmless coping mechanism.

"We make very little progress arguing from the top-down -- as though god were the keystone concept that, once removed through rhetorical surgery, would cause the entire destructive edifice to collapse."

An interesting point. Indeed, people can embrace religiosity without God, as in some rarified Buddhist sects and ethical systems such as Confucianism.

"Atheists really need to pay attention to this because it's possible to lose your faith but retain the oppressive psyche wrought by it -- at that point, all the pissy chatter about the easter bunny won't do you any good. . . ."

Good point! Perhaps some of extremist atheists, who go around trying to convert others to their point of view, started off as religious people. Those of us who never felt religion in the first place feel no desire to abolish religion, except in the extremist forms.

"Again, I'm an atheist. I'm not going down the list of reasons to believe -- I'm just saying that god/faith/religion will continue to haunt all of us . . ."

It does not haunt me. It is interesting. I enjoy religious art and music. The extremist stuff is spooky, I agree.

"People keep talking about how emotional this debate is -- as though that were a bad thing. Well, it's a bad thing right now because I can only see two emotions being exercised: aggression and fear."

Not in me. I am not a bit aggressive and I do not fear moderate religious people. Mainly I am curious about them -- and about everyone, and all beliefs, and all walks of life.

"If, as we claim, atheism is one way back into a more fulfilling engagement with life . . ."

I don't know about that. I do not see how lack of belief can be fulfilling. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby, and it does not teach you anything about geography.

I suppose . . . On a few occasions, when I have witnessed the tragic deaths of children, or attended the funeral of a murdered man, I have felt very glad to be an atheist. Some of the religious people suffered an extra load of grief and distress. They kept asking "why did God do this to us?!?" and "What have we done wrong, that we deserve this?" It is such a relief not to blame oneself for tragedies, and not to expect any special treatment from the laws of nature or the course of disease.

". . . we need to do more than badger people for getting a math problem wrong."

Quite right. Logic and rationality have nothing to do with it. Religion is emotional, like love or art. You wouldn't ask a lover to justify his passion with logic, and you surely would not try to dissuade him, badger him, or cool his ardor because you happen to feel no attraction to the woman!

Posted by: Jed Rothwell | October 11, 2007 1:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos, as I long time participant in the On Faith blog and many other interfaith discussion forums I can say that in my experience the participants in this particular thread are in no way a representative sample of believers or atheists. Having said that, do you stop to wonder why the atheists here feel the way they do? Do you think it's just because they're bad people or because their opinions have been formed by their individual experiences?

If you want to have a dialog you have to first accept that people may have very legitimate reasons for feeling the way they do, even if you wish they didn't feel that way. In essence you're doing exactly what you're accusing the atheists of. It's a little ironic that the gist of your argument is, in fact, "you just can't talk to these people."

As a Christian you're not a member of the most hated, most misunderstood, and most marginalized minority in the United States. Atheists are. I saw a poll recently where a large majority of respondents stated that atheists are the least trustworthy, most immoral, and most likely to commit crimes, of any group listed. When you've spent your life dealing with that kind of bigotry it doesn't tend to leave you very hopeful about productive dialog. It makes you just want to be left alone. Like it or not, that's the climate we're in. That's the obstacle that believers such as yourself who would like a dialog have to contend with. First you need to have empathy for why atheists are so cynical. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying it is what it is. And as that poll demonstrates, it cuts both ways.

Posted by: Chip | October 11, 2007 12:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Believer

Higher Criticism

I don’t understand why Christians should be so afraid of higher criticism. If Moses wrote the Torah, Isaiah of Jerusalem wrote for all 66 chapters of Isaiah and Daniel was written during the Babylonian exile, surely evidence will demonstrate that this is the case. If not, why retain these beliefs? It seems to me that beliefs which are not open to the test of falsification should be as few as possible (I seek to avoid the dilemma of logical positivism. I cannot prove my statement about falsification logically but I do note that all who engage in argument embrace this at least in theory. If everything is a non-falsifiable believe why bother with dialogue). In my experience, British Evangelicals are not so frightened by higher criticism.

Conversion

Perhaps because of antinomianism, I have grown tired of the language of conversion. I am afraid that Protestants have driven a wedge between faith and action. In both testaments the words for faith and faithfulness are the same.

I prefer to focus upon apprenticeship to Jesus. This does entail faith but does so with out diminishing the importance of faithfulness. I note that in Matthew 25 the separation of the sheep and goats is not made on the basis of a conversion experience or creed.

Peace,
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 11, 2007 12:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

JED ROTHWELL,

I didn't say that fear, sex, death, should compel you to belief in god -- I said that religion takes root in these fears and desires and that's why it maintains its sway over people. Because a fear of death or a fear of the often-overpowering sexual agency operates at a register of our identities that does not obey rational conceptualization ... therefore it's pointless to argue about god as though it were a glitch in the programming or genetic code. All of those things may be, as you say, "natural" -- but that's why they're such innocent bait for any claim to the supernatural. Kudos to you if you don't fall for it, but don't mistake my point here as some validation of religion.

People can change, but only through unremitting examination of the history of ones attachments, fears and desires -- and that line of inquiry can benefit both atheists and believers. It may not immediately lead to a categorical refutation or affirmation of god's existence ... but it would get to the roots of where different disorders fester.

We make very little progress arguing from the top-down -- as though god were the keystone concept that, once removed through rhetorical surgery, would cause the entire destructive edifice to collapse. It doesn't work that way. God and religion begin at the foundation of the Subject. We must turn our attention there and stop wasting time on what is, by everyone's admission, a futile debate.

Atheists really need to pay attention to this because it's possible to lose your faith but retain the oppresive psyche wrought by it -- at that point, all the pissy chatter about the easter bunny won't do you any good. It's just not the way we're built.

Again, I'm an atheist. I'm not going down the list of reasons to believe -- I'm just saying that god/faith/religion will continue to haunt all of us (in one way or another) until we look beneath the surface conflict (1+1=3) and dare to engage the emotions at play. That's a different kind of labor than the affectless, dour, borderline-autistic strategy taken by Sam Harris.

People keep talking about how emotional this debate is -- as though that were a bad thing. Well, it's a bad thing right now because I can only see two emotions being exercised: aggression and fear. If, as we claim, atheism is one way back into a more fulfilling engagement with life, we need to do more than badger people for getting a math problem wrong.

Posted by: Karl Miller | October 11, 2007 11:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Rip,

It's unfortunate that the term "fundamentalist" has become a generic epithet that we throw around against anyone we think is overly rigid or dogmatic in their beliefs (whatever those beliefs may be). It actually has a very specific meaning that's grounded in the history of religion.

The "fundamentalist" movement was rooted in a late 19th century response to growing modernistic tendencies in many Christian groups. Members of the movement felt that modernists were denying the essential teachings of Christianty. In particular, they objected to forms of higher criticism that they understood as denying the inspiration of scripture. In turn, they reacted by actively advancing what they believed were the fundamental truths of Christianity.

The term gained currency from a series of books entitled "The Fundamentals: A Testimony To The Truth." They expressed a very traditional understanding of scripture and inspiration, and the theology was very solidly Protestant.

In your schema, they could probably be best described as Protestants falling into group #4 - orthodox Christians (those who affirm the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed with or without the filioque clause), who believe we should imitate Christ, and affirm the inerrancy of the Bible.

Evangelicalism is something different - it's more a theological orientation and style of Christian worship and service. Most evangelicals are Protestants, and most are conservative. There are, however, both Catholic and liberal (and liberal Catholic) evangelicals.

Evangelicals are characterized by an emphasis on evangelism and a personal experience of conversion, and take a very Bible-oriented approach to their faith. They typically also have a strong conviction that Christian faith is relevant to at least some current cultural issues.

You probably have to be in at least category #3 to be an evangelical. The key questions to ask would be: is evangelism a key part of my understanding of the Christian way of life; is a personal conversion experience a part of my understanding of what it means to be a Christian; and do I believe that Christianity has something of important to say to todays society? If your answer is "yes" to all three, then you may well be an evangelical.

Posted by: Believer | October 11, 2007 9:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment

It seems inevitable that discussions like this eventually deteriorate into pigeonholing and finally into stereotyping, thus defeating the purpose of the discussion. That's too bad.

The challenge, as I see it, is to bring the stereotypers to a state of non-aggression toward those with whom they disagree, and non-defensiveness of their own positions. The temptation, at least on my part, is to confine myself to discussions with people like Believer and others who seem to be more apologists than proselytizers.

I was told yesterday evening that people like me lay the groundwork for conflict (he said "war") simply by bringing up positions that differ from his. Much of the discussion above would seem to support his statement, thus my initial desire to confine myself to thoughtful people like Believer. But doing so would not accomplish anything, would it? I've encountered many over the years like the fellow who accused me of rabble rousing. One of the things he had in common with the others was a sympathetic audience. When I've been able to spend some time with him without his supporters cheering him on, he's often morphed into a more reasonable person.

So the challenge remains, at least for me, to get past ridicule, aggressiveness, defensiveness, and the closed minds that believe that those are legitimate tools of discourse. I have to admit at this point that I'm not always motivated by some devotion to intellectual integrity, or a desire to infect others with a sense of decency; it's satisfying and enjoyable.

Posted by: Frank | October 11, 2007 9:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The posters seem to use the term evangelical in at least one of the following ways:

1. A theist
2. A Christian theists
3. An orthodox Christian (those who affirm the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed with or without the filioque clause)and who believe she/he should imitate Christ
4. Members of class 3 who also affirm the inerrancy of the Bible
5. Members of class 4 who also support right wing politics.

Does anyone wish to offer further clarification? Of course these classes are not mutually exclusive.

As I said in an earlier post, I don’t know if I am an evangelical. I am if it is defined as #3 but am not if it is defined as #4 and definitely not as it is defined as #5. I actually wonder if #3 and #4 are incompatible with #5.

Peace:
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 11, 2007 8:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I'm an atheist. I don't see why i should sit down with a believer to discuss my future. I thought that the Costitution was supposed to protect me from having to do that very thing.

Posted by: Fernando Luna | October 11, 2007 7:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Once again, Mr Berlinerblau conflates "believing" with "theism"!

And so, once again, he mis-characterizes ontological naturalists as "non-believers".

Just as do theists - of various sorts - so do naturalists - of various sorts - think & live by webs-of-beliefs. The question is, no doubt, which webs are verifiable, falsifiable, and ultimately vindicated by the well-being they underwrite for humankind in the course of contingent events.

One could hope for better from a scholar at a 1st rate university, a responsibility for getting the critical categories of a serious dialectic - aka "dialogue"? - in order. Maybe he should spend some time in conceptual dialogue & enquiry with his colleagues on the philosophy & theology faculties. Then he could - possibly - enlighten his readers about the conceptually legitimate way to carry on the on-going debate between - & critical discussions about - the theists & the naturalists.

Posted by: Civic Humanist | October 11, 2007 7:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

There is little possibility of real dialogue because too many people are benefiting from the mutual hostility. On the evangelical side, you have zealots like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and their clerical allies scaring the "faithful" with an imaginary conspiracy by godless secularists to persecute religion and impose their wicked agenda on the culture. On the atheist side you have unscrupulous ruffians like Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris manufacturing celebrity and making pots of money by labelling religious people as ignorant barbarians while assuring their credulous followers that they are all educated, enlightened, and scientific. Influential agitators on both sides have no interest in substantive dialogue because their celebrity and their comfy incomes depend on keeping the conflict going. Not much chance of mutual understanding here as long as we let these people dominate the discussion.

Posted by: Stefan | October 11, 2007 7:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Why does the Post devote the bulk of the "OnFaith" blog to athiesim? A small percentage of American citizens are athiests, yet athiesim seems to be the subject of almost every OnFaith article?

My guess is that, while most Americans are not athiests, most Post managers are. Like all of the Post's coverage on any subject, the primary goal is pushing the liberal agenda.

Posted by: Mike | October 11, 2007 7:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Great wrongs done within the story the unfolding of human Spiritual Development,now be groupings as individuals whom oppose other, with an venom. It be the mounting problems for humanity,require a truce, as giving concentration to the picture as a whole.Thus put aside personal grievance,as dispute. The future be so demanding,it requiring that all give of their best,many hold opinion of working together, a viewpoint of, common sense.

Posted by: ANOUNYMOUS | October 11, 2007 7:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Thanks, Rip, When I read over my post to try to figure out what offended you, I figured that passage might be it. I'll try to be more clear. Using "people" instead of "you" would have done the trick in this case.

I'll be interested in your take on The God Delusion, et al, when you have a chance.

JED ROTHWELL - there's so much in your post, I don't know where to start. Thanks for laying it all out. Unlike you, I can relate to many believers' reactions because I used to be a believer myself. I don't feel that way anymore, but the memory is still there. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that I have a revulsion to some religious practices that don't affect you one way or the other.

Posted by: E favorite | October 11, 2007 12:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Thanks for your clarification. I took the second person pronoun as a reference to me.

I have not read “The Bible Unearthed.” I certainly would consider reading it. With my work in prison, I do not have as much time for reading. I am interested in the topic but it is a complex problem with multiple interrelated problems that need to be solved.

For example, was all Hebrew literature written during the Persian period? If so, how can one account for archaic Hebrew poetry that resembles Canaanite poetry more than most Biblical Hebrew? If someone during the Persian period wrote it in a deliberately archaic style, how did they know so much about the ancient Near East to be able to use words and grammatical structures that are similar to ancient Canaanite and Babylonian literature? Can I really isolate pre-monarchical poetry from monarchical poetry, exilic poetry and post-exilic poetry? How can I apply this to Hebrew prose?

In terms of the material unearthed by archeology, which scholars are correct in their analysis of styles of Hebrew pottery and city gates and other artifacts? How is the best way to relate strata from one tell to strata from another one? How do I relate these relative chronologies to form an absolute chronology? Has the tell been correctly identified?

What degree of certainty can be legitimately assigned to each proposition? What degree of certainty does the entire system enjoy?

Right now, I am busy reading about the problems of prisons and prisoners and the problems prisoners have with the successful reentry into society.

I am also working to establish a non-profit and am working with prisoners who have many issues. How do I work with someone who attempted suicide on Saturday?

I don’t have a lot of time to devote to the dialogue. I’ll tune in when I can, but often I can interact only during breaks. As I mentioned in an earlier post, right now I am reading Dawkins, “The God Delusion.”

Peace,
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 10, 2007 11:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I am sooooo disappointed when my posts are screened and discarded.

Posted by: Hrolfr | October 10, 2007 11:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Couldn't care less about the goofy evangelicals as long as they stay in their vile little world.

I have a problem with those who would attack the US Constitution.

Just curious:
If this is a christian nation, why is it that christianity is not part of our foreign policy?

You silly evangelical republicans. Buying an empty bill of goods in both your temporal and spiritual worlds.

Posted by: Hrolfr | October 10, 2007 11:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Why are we leaving the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny out of this discussion - surely we should give all the faith-based mystical creatures equal time - who among the disbelievers can prove they do not exist?

Posted by: Colin | October 10, 2007 8:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Why does the WP continue to waste time beating this dead horse? This pandering to the most intellectually backward stratum of Americans is the oldest - and the most gutless - form of PC. Religion's tyranny over the mind of man (What did you think Jefferson was talking about?) was overhrown forever the moment Galileo looked through his telescope and saw (among other things) that Venus had phases like our moon, proving, beyond all possible doubt, that the Church's Authorized Version of the Universe was wrong.

It is generally thought that Marx/Engels' oft-quoted "opium of the people" was a very rude thing to say, and it was, no doubt, meant to be. But they were certainly right; it has always been used by every ruling class throughout history to keep the ruled quiet and docile. But it also refers to religion'a undeniable beneficial effect of easing the misery and dulling th pain of the poor at a time when only the rich could afford real opiates. So maybe Marx/Engels' judgment was more charitable than it was meant to be. But now even the poor have access to hard drugs so no one, rich or poor, needs religion anymore.

Posted by: Caspar Fomalhaut | October 10, 2007 8:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

In my experience, only a minority of atheists engage in "excessive smirking and snarky asides" against believers. I have no problem with a ground rule against such juvenile behavior. But in return, believers must eliminate all doctrines about eternal damnation, a hateful notion that says that anyone with the "wrong" religious belief deserves to suffer for eternity. Any religion that even considers such doctrines has no interest in the kind of dialogue Berlinerblau seeks.

Posted by: Tonio | October 10, 2007 8:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Karl Miller:

"To talk about god, faith, religion (or its absence) is to talk about our relationship to existence, our fear/love of death/dark/sex, and our capacity for aesthetic projection . . ."

Of course I am familiar with this idea, and I know that in the past people drew a strong connection between god, faith and religion on one side, and our relationship to existence, fear/love, death, sex and so on on the other.

But honestly, I don't get it. I see no connection between the supernatural and things like fear, love, sex and death, which are all natural. Of course I feel a sense of awe, joy, beauty, sexual longing and so on, but it never evokes a sense of the supernatural. I feel the mystery and wonder of nature, but I am sure it is all a product of natural laws -- which is fine with me. Frankly, I do not understand why anyone would even want there to be a God.

To give an example, I am crazy about trees. I spend hours looking at them, and I grow lots of them on some land I own, which I am leaving in my will as a public park. A religious friend who was assisting me once remarked, "how can anyone look at such wonderful trees and doubt that God exists?" I was bemused, and thought "of course that's how people feel, but it never crossed my mind."

I think a person must have a certain kind of mind, or inborn talent, to feel a sense of the supernatural -- or even to feel longing to believe in God. I do not long to believe in God any more than I long to climb high mountains. I am terrified of heights! Yet people do enjoy climbing. It must be an inborn talent, like being able to carry a tune. Those of us who are missing whatever instinct or mindset or hormone that gives rise to the sense of supernatural do not know what we are missing. It is like being colorblind; you can't even imagine being able to see the color, any more than we humans can imagine seeing flowers in the ultraviolet the ways bees do.

Religious people should realize that asking an atheist to worship is like asking a homosexual person to engage in heterosexual sex -- or vice versa. We don't feel drawn to it. We don't feel the urge. You say: "doesn't it make you feel wonderful to sing out in praise of the Lord!?!" If I were to answer honestly, I would say, "No, it gives me the creeps!" It is kind of ikky, and embarrassing to watch. Especially in some religions when people kneel and debase themselves as "worthless sinners," or when they cry and carry on, I find it exactly like watching S&M pornography -- which is a turn-off for me. The only difference is that the sadist holding the whip is imaginary.

My guess is that dialog fails not because there is an intellectual gap, and not because ideas are misunderstood. Religion is fundamentally not about ideas. It is based on feelings, like art or dance. It is a kind of instinct, like sexual attraction, and if you don't have it, then you don't feel it, and no amount of persuasion, therapy or learning will evoke it in you. You can't make an atheist feel religious awe any more than you can make a pure heterosexual feel homosexual love.

You might argue that the number of people who profess belief in God varies from one society to another, so the behavior can be taught, or encouraged, and it is not purely instinct. But I expect that most churchgoers in highly religious societies are only going through the motions, and they have no strong, genuine religious feelings. The natural ratio of believers is probably ~30%, as it is in Europe. Before the sexual revolution, many homosexual people successful disguised their behavior, and feigned attraction they did not feel. I expect that many churchgoers do the same sort of thing.

In a previous message, I wrote that it may be best to leave well enough alone, and not try to bridge the gap. That was partly a joke, but partly serious. Modern, enlightened people feels that we should not go around trying to force people to change their sexual orientation, or any other deep-seating instinct. It can't be done, and we would not want to do it if we could. By the same token, and for exactly the same reasons, I see no advantage whatever to persuading people to give up the religious instinct, or to take it on.

Posted by: Jed Rothwell | October 10, 2007 7:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Surely, Frere Jacques, you are dreaming again?

Evangelicals do not want to be cosy with atheists! Our antipaty for atheists isn't intellectual, it's visceral. We like atheists just the way they are, which means they are so easy to hate.

I dare say, Frere Jacques, if atheists were not so obviously evil and empty and dark, evangelical Jews and Christians would have had to invent them.

Omnipotent God has saved us from that ignominy.

Posted by: DaTourist | October 10, 2007 6:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

When the country is teetering on the brink of losing Constitutional government, thanks to the Republicans, whose "base" of true believers is composed of committed Christianists, then, alas, close to everything SHOULD become politics.

Let the believers throw those guys out of the temple, then we can talk. Until then, they're just enablers.

Posted by: lambert strether | October 10, 2007 6:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Religion is not just a flawed equation and faith is not some rhetorical hiccup. God cannot be explained away or validated by reason, so any "debate" on the subject quickly degenerates into a contest of wills. I'm an atheist and I'm tired of it.

There can be no dialog about god/religion until both sides open themselves to a psychoanalytic and/or aesthetic mode of cognition.

Religion has less and less to do with an accurate history of (or forecast for) existence. People are beginning to see that it has less and less to offer as a source of morality. But religion persists because of the profound libidinal tie satisfied by reverence and obedience, not because it gives us any concrete knowledge or fact.

And it's not enough to say (as Sam Harris does, like an obsessive-compulsive mantra) that religion is irrational or that god was man-made. It's like trying to win a debate about Hamlet by saying "it's not real, some guy named Will made it up." Most of our mental labor is performed with the sanction of (and in service to) our feelings. Until we incorporate that into the discussion, we're going to hear nothing but A=A and 1+1=Jesus and so on.

If atheists and evangelicals are going to learn anything from each other, they need to suspend the dead-end existence-of-god question and look instead at the relationships, desires and emotions served by either proposition. But this requires a concession from both camps: that the conflicts of the psyche are more determinative and compelling than any claim to reason, rhetorical prowess, etc.

To talk about god, faith, religion (or its absence) is to talk about our relationship to existence, our fear/love of death/dark/sex, and our capacity for aesthetic projection -- all of which are prior to reason and exceed its grasp and none of which require faith or god to engage honestly.

By condensing all of the above into a binary choice (god or no-god) religionists and rationalists prove nothing -- they do, however, demonstrate their own desire to short-circuit troubling and potentially liberating explorations of the inner world.

Posted by: Karl Miller | October 10, 2007 4:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hello Rip, I think there may be some confusion -- when I said “There are numerous ways to look at it. Some think this. Some think that; either way is OK (and of course you’ll want to believe what you already think is true).” I wasn’t referring to how YOU think, but hypothetically about how people who were presented with several acceptable options might choose the one that already fits their beliefs.

I don’t doubt that you’re a fine scholar. All the more reason to ask you questions about biblical archeology. I’m sorry if I offended you. I assume you’ve decided not to address my questions. If that’s right, how about addressing these instead – Have you read “The Bible Unearthed?” If not, Would you consider reading it and if not, why not?

Thanks

Posted by: E favorite | October 10, 2007 4:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Mark:
Yes you have it right on the Reed Sea/Red Sea.

E Favorite:
You do not understand the way I think. If you do, don't bother reading any of my other comments since you apparently already know what I think.

When I complete my book on Biblical Archeology, I will let you know.

Until then, I rely upon the education I received at Cambridge University (Ph.D.) my experience as a professor for 21 years, the meetings of the British Old Testament Society, the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature.

Peace,
Rip

PS. If you want to know how I think, go to Google scholar. Google my name and read my articles. I have not done my scholarship in a corner. I have published them in international journals so as to invite informed international dialogue.

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 10, 2007 3:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Mark:
Yes you have it right on the Reed Sea/Red Sea.

E Favorite:
You do not understand the way I think. If you do, don't bother reading any of my other comments since you apparently already know what I think.

When I complete my book on Biblical Archeology, I will let you know.

Until then, I rely upon the education I received at Cambridge University (Ph.D.) my experience as a professor for 21 years, the meetings of the British Old Testament Society, the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature.

Peace,
Rip

PS. If you want to know how I think, go to Google scholar. Google my name and read my articles. I have not done my scholarship in a corner. I have published them in international journals so as to invite informed international dialogue.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 10, 2007 3:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

E Fav... Just to correct... Blow me down but, based on reading some of his other essays, the essayist does appear to be a card-carrying athiest or at least a less/non-religious person.

He always tends to state his own position rather ambiguously but the more I read the more he appears to be non-religious. I simply took his religiousness for granted due to the tone of the essay and particularly the way he wrote of the "root causes of the human "fallenness" (and the cures)."

As an atheist he likely agrees with me that we are not fallen but are risen, a view I gather you and I do not similarly share.

Posted by: Mike in Reston | October 10, 2007 2:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Daniel,

I think that you make too much ado about atheists/agnostics claiming that we and the universe around us are an accident.

I say that I am atheist/agnostic but do not think that we are an accident, and I don’t think that others think that either.

We think that either: (1) something, as yet understood, brought our universe into being, or (2) it has existed forever.

The evolution process that is observable in the fossil record follows certain ‘laws’ of natural selection such as survival of the fittest to a certain point in our development, then higher level social laws, such as ‘the golden, rule’, civil law, or search for knowledge at higher levels of social development. For example our search for knowledge may lead us to evolve larger brains in the future. This is not a random process.

You make a good point about not knowing the fundamental source of the natural laws, like ‘force at a distance’ associated with electromagnetism and gravity. This does not mean that atheist/agnostics are ‘doing harm’ by searching for an understanding of these natural laws.

Posted by: Rick | October 10, 2007 2:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Daniel wrote:

"We are often told by proponents of the theory of evolution that all is accident . . ."

No, we are not. The people who say that know nothing about evolution. It is driven by natural selection, which is as different from accident or chance as anything can be. Calling it "accidental" is like saying "the cat accidentally ate the bird instead of the cactus." Predation is not an accidental lifestyle, or something cats chose eons ago, or something designed by an intelligent entity, and every organ in the cat's body is shaped by the demands of predation.

I suggest you read some elementary textbooks on evolution, or one of Dawkin's books, which are very well written.

Posted by: Jed Rothwell | October 10, 2007 1:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Anon... I didnt say I "can't talk to a believer unles he/she agrees that they are wrong." I do however want them to be able to admit that there is a slim chance that they might not be 100% right. Dialog requires acceptance of the possible validity of the other person's position. If a "believer" cant admit that a "non-believer" (and vis-a-versa) might be even slightly right then there is no dialog.

E Fav... I never said the essayist was a believer. I referred only to religious and non-religious people. I did assume that the essayist is a religious person based on the fact that he is the "program director and associate professor of Jewish Civilization at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University." The fact that he refers to evangelicals as "they" does not mean he is non-religious, it just means he is not an evangelical. Of course I could be wrong and he could be a card-carrying athiest, but I doubt it.

Posted by: Mike in Reston | October 10, 2007 1:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Just to play devil's advocate --

Have you considered the reasons why it may be better not to have a dialog? Here are some good reasons to shut up and mind your own business, instead of trying to bridge the gap:

I see no benefit to converting believers into atheists, or vice versa. They wouldn't want to be like us, and we surely do not envy them! And why reduce cultural diversity?

Belief is a personal thing, as believers often say. So, as Mencken put it: "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." Even if you think someone’s wife is ugly or his religion is absurd, why say so? Why upset him? (Most atheists, on the other hand, do not care what you think of atheism. It is like criticizing a bachelor's wife. They have nothing invested in non-belief.)

From the outside, religions all seem about equally improbable. Ancient Greek mythology does not seem any weirder than Christian mythology. Lydia being raped by a God in the form of a swan is not less believable (or repulsive) than the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus, or Jesus raising the dead. Most modern religions promote good and discourage evil along roughly the same lines, although a few still endorse abhorrent premodern practices such as treating women as chattel. All are culture-bound. Debating which is better is like debating whether Japanese, Chinese or Italian food is better. It is a matter of taste.

Traditionally, believers and atheists have kept apart, and I think it is best to leave well enough alone.

Posted by: Jed Rothwell | October 10, 2007 1:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"I think you do like the idea of believing, though – just my opinion."

And we're all entitled to our opinions. You may be right, on some level. I also hate the idea of dedicating my life to something that's false.

I suspect that many non-believers like the idea of being free-thinking skeptics. (In part, because I'm a bit of a contrarian in some other areas, such as politics, and see the appeal myself.)

We all try to rise above our own prejudices - and we really can't have a meaningful discussion if we spend all our time trying to psychoanalyze each other. I've seen that lead nowhere over and over ("you're just saying that because of your parents," "no, you're just saying that because you can't stand the idea of submitting to any moral authority," "no, you're just buying into a mindless a myth to make yourself feel better," "no, you're just buying into a pseudo-religious scientism because it reinforces your feelings of intellectual superiority" - after a while, it starts sounding like schoolkids shouting "yo mama," "no, YO mama")

Posted by: Believer | October 10, 2007 1:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Believer: “Are there things I can't explain, and questions that are still open for me? Absolutely. But I don't approach my faith blindly, and I have no interest in trying to believe something I know to be false.”

I think you do like the idea of believing, though – just my opinion. "Belief in Belief" Dan Dennett would call it. It’s as if you don’t have to try – it comes naturally. I however, when faced with the poor or non-existent historical evidence and noticing how clergy obfuscated or even lied when questioned about it, couldn’t possibly continue to believe. It was a house of cards that came tumbling down. Plus, the supernatural was always hard for me to take.

MIKE IN RESTON – The essayist is not a believer.

Posted by: E favorite | October 10, 2007 12:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

BGONE,

Thanks, no worries on my end. But I am careful about the company I keep, and am in no need of even an innocuous deity.

I was asking the question of believers, whom I knew would not answer. I did not ask it because I knew there would be no response, I asked because the issue is one of the larger obstacles to friendly dialogue between the opposing camps.

It seems this conversation was only intended -- appropriately so -- for teachers and students of theology, who's expertise seems irrelevant to to question of a respectful dialogue. Why did you bother, Mr Berlinerblau?

Posted by: STAN | October 10, 2007 12:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

This is a great laugh. I've read multiple non-believer posts that say they can't talk to a believer unles he/she agrees that they are wrong. That's beautiful!

Posted by: Anonymous | October 10, 2007 12:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"This is at the heart of the point I was trying to make. When it comes to religious belief it's very difficult to say anything contrarian without eliciting a knee-jerk reaction from the believer. I think my statement was quite reasonable, and a factual representation of one facet of religious belief systems that makes engaging in dissenting discussion difficult and problematic, and with many people, impossible. Rather than respond to my statement you just chose to take offense. Doesn't that rather prove my point?"

No, Chip, it does not. Jacques suggested that dialog between believers and non-believers should be based on a couple of simple rules of respect and civility. The believers who responded said, in essence, "what a great idea!" A disconcertingly large sequence of posts from non-believers in essence said "no way," and included a series of claims about the motives, thinking and behavior of believers that boiled down to "you can't talk to those people- they aren't rational."

Yes, I described those statements as "polemics" because, in my judgement, they were unjustified ad hominem attacks. You don't see them that way.

Fine.

But let's get back to the context of the discussion, because I want to challenge you directly here.

Let's start with something that should be objectively verifiable. How many of the professed believers responding to Jacques' suggestions have said "yes, we want to talk civily" and have proceded to try and do so (and, to be fair, how many have said - "no, you simply can't talk to those atheists?").

Now, on the flip side, how many of the professed non-believers have said that either they have no interest in talking with believers, or have attacked believers as being unwilling or unable to have a civil dialog?

Having surveyed the results of this discussion, here's my challenge. Based on the evidence of this series of blog posting, which group is best described as having an attitude or a view of the other side that "makes engaging in dissenting discussion difficult and problematic, and with many people, impossible?"

If your answer is "believers," then I want to go back to the themes I identified and ask you . . .

Do you agree that:

1) Believers, because of the very nature of their faith, cannot respect the views of non-believers;
2) Believers are intellectually dishonest - they can't be trusted;
3) Believers are too self-righteous to honestly listen to anyone else;
4) Believers are simply unwilling to talk with non-believers;
5) Believers want to seize control of society and oppress non-believers; or
6) There seems to be a lack of interest in real dialog among many atheists.

If so, what have I, or any other professed believer said on this blog that would support any one of those assertions?

We're glad to talk; look at the record above - we're not the ones saying "you simply can't talk to those atheists."

Posted by: Demos | October 10, 2007 12:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jacques,

Your last paragraph reveals the root cause of the conflict.

You and other "religious" people insist that humans have fallen from grace or from a relationship with god or whatever.

What you cannot see is that people who do not believe in some superior being that formed the universe and our little corner of it do not consider themselves or their fellow humans "fallen".

Since we are not fallen in that view, we see no need for a "cure" defined by religious people. It is a given that we do not believe your theology so why should we accept your, or any, "cure".

Now, you are free to believe you are fallen and removed from your particular diety, but let the rest of us believe we have risen from millions of years of struggle and pain to the current form.

Could I be wrong, and you be right? Of course, but it is my belief that I am more on the right, logical and measurable side of the argument. But notice, I (and probably most non-religious folks) do admit that we might be wrong. However, until religious people are willing to admit there may be errors in their world view, there can be no true dialog

Posted by: Mike in Reston | October 10, 2007 12:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"I do have just one question about how you arrived at that - was it via your own reading and church attendance, or did it also involve taking academic or church sponsored classes?"

All of it. I'm well into middle age by now, and I've had many years to study and think about what I believe. My family was religious; I went to church as a child, and actually considered entering the ministry at one point. I minored in Bible in college (my major was mathematics, I picked up a second minor in speach, and was on our school's intercollegiate debate team). I grew up watching the space race, and was fascinated by science and technology (long time Scientific American subscriber). As I've gotten older, my interests have shifted more to history and archaeology (maybe old guys naturally gravitate towards old things - or maybe it's just easier to keep up with than technology), particularly military history, ancient history and, for reasons I don't entirely understand, historical linguistics (the whole business about the possible relationships between language families and what they might tell us about pre-history is fascinating to me).

So, I spend waaaay too much money on books about ancient Mesopotamia, Greece, Egypt, Israel, and Rome. Not to mention waaay too much money on books about genetics and human history, the history of the early church, the history of Judaism, early Greek and Roman religion, the history of Bible texts and translations, the interactions between the early Christians and the classical society around them, the relationship between science and faith, and of course Bible commentaries and analysis (Jewish and Christian). On average, roughly 80% of the books come from Borders, Barnes and Noble or Amazon.com. I do buy 10-20% from more traditional religious publishing outlets.

Bottom line, I'm a reasonably well educated, committed layman who genuinely wants to know and understand the foundations of my faith. I teach in the education program of my local church, and bring all of this to my discussion of the Bible. Could I be wrong? Sure - I'm almost certainly wrong about numerous details (who isn't), and could be wrong about some big important things, too. Have I been affected by my background and the people around me? Of course - who isn't? Are there things I can't explain, and questions that are still open for me? Absolutely. But I don't approach my faith blindly, and I have no interest in trying to believe something I know to be false.

Posted by: Believer | October 10, 2007 11:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment

God is an opinion.

Non-believers accept this. Believers do not.

But science stops at about one-billionth of a second during the expansion of the Big Bang. Before that is... opinion.

While I have listened to many scientists and non-believers openly talk about the limitations of science or understanding of how things are they way they are, I have not heard people of faith express this openness.

Religions depend, for their existence, on brand differentiation. The god of the Jews must be different than the god of the Christians or the god of the Muslims for the franchises to exist.

While secularists can, and do, accept that "there are more things on Heaven and Earth...” I have not heard religionists express any equivalent qualifier.

If religionists can accept the limitations of their faiths, as secularists have accepted the limitations in their's, then perhaps a meaningful discussion can ensue.

Posted by: Don Wallbaum | October 10, 2007 10:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

God is an opinion.

Non-believers accept this. Believers do not.

But science stops at about one-billionth of a second during the expansion of the Big Bang. Before that is... opinion.

While I have listened to many scientists and non-believers openly talk about the limitations of science or understanding of how things are they way they are, I have not heard people of faith express this openness.

Religions depend, for their existence, on brand differentiation. The god of the Jews must be different than the god of the Christians or the god of the Muslims for the franchises to exist.

While secularists can, and do, accept that "there are more things on Heaven and Earth...” I have not heard religionists express any equivalent qualifier.

If religionists can accept the limitations of their faiths, as secularists have accepted the limitations in their's, then perhaps a meaningful discussion can ensue.

Posted by: Don Wallbaum | October 10, 2007 10:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Yes, you are the only person who thinks the evangelical communiy has anything to offer the non-belevers in their perverted love of death!

Posted by: Chaotician | October 10, 2007 10:30 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Reminds me of a video I saw of two college students going door to door for 'Atheism'. It was hysterical until one self proclaimed 'Christian' started swing at the boys. It was a prank, but it still exposes the fact that when evangelicals come to my door, it is not my opinion they are interested in. Religion of any kind stops a thinking mind. This, I believe is its only purpose. Thinking and self examination suck.

Posted by: robin kelly | October 10, 2007 10:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment

At the University of Maryland in College Park, my fellow students and I formed a group called Students for Separation of Religion from State (SSRS) with the intent of creating just such a dialogue between believers and non-believers. Our premise is that the combination of politics and dogma leads to bad policy and insincere faith. Neither side wants these outcomes, so we have common ground. Our group is modest, but if every campus could muster the patience for a fair conversation about the first part of the First Amendment, we might have progress. Our group was inspired by Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), but we find that AU is focused on fighting religion rather than finding common ground.

Posted by: Kyle Gustafson | October 10, 2007 9:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

It would be nice....really though, the believers do have a market on "truth" and they are not capable of respecting what is not "truth" based.
If the believers can be tricked into supporting greed, capital punishment and war, then the prospects for dialogue with those who have no such gullibity and faith seems slim...worth a try though and I appreciate your optimism/ niavete...

Posted by: herbert davis | October 10, 2007 9:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment

BUD...The asking GOD of proof of existance be a hard one, as your request be fully justied in the "Akashic Records",such records hold details of each individuals Spiritual Account, as rules of engagment,that be held in Spiritual Debate. GOD,fully bound to answer your question beyond reasonable doubt,you having been humble in your approach,asking of a type of proof,not absolute. As proof there a just GOD your humility having earned 13 bonus points to your Spiritual Record.

Posted by: ANONYMOUS | October 10, 2007 9:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Anyone who goes knocking on doors telling people they must start thinking like them or there will be devine consequences is not tolerant. Atheists do not do this. Atheists do not go out of their way to demean religious people unless the religious people get into their faces by knocking on doors, trying to teach the atheist's children "creationism", and forcing their religion into secular events like high school football games, etc. Dawkins and his "attacks" are a defensive reaction and not a secular offense to convert the religious. As we see evangelicals push their devine beliefs as truths that are so true that they are taught in schools, then it is time to fight back, which Dawkins and others are doing.

As for coming together for social needs, this is done all the time at soup kitchens, homeless shelters and other secular charities. However I see religious institutions acting like frats and sororities, only working together with others of the same religion. I would like to see religious institutions link up with other religious institutions to work toward the common social good and invite everyone, including atheists. But I find that to be rare. The fraternity mentality is a big obstacle to not just the religious and atheists working together, but different religions working together. If that does not change, and I do not expect it to, there is little hope. The onus is on the religious to think outside of their religion, for a change.

Posted by: Fate | October 10, 2007 8:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Bud - While I have doubts, I'd like to see attempts at such a dialogue too and would especially like to hear more from "Frank" above who seems to have managed this type of dialogue in the context of his 12 step group that includes believers and non-believers.

Frank - how about some details?

Posted by: E favorite | October 10, 2007 8:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Am I the only person in the United States who believes that a dialog between nonbelievers and evangelical Christians might help both sides identify some mutual concerns and even the occasional area of agreement?

No, your not. As a non-believer, I constantly attempt to see the other side, to keep an open mind. As an agnostic (a very mis-understood term), I take the position that I simply do not know what is out there in the great beyond, and yes, I do raise an eye-brow at those who swear they do. I need some type of proof, that's just the way I work. But it is Evangelicals who refuse to see the other side. By definition, they are not permitted to even entertain notions that go outside or against their faith. They risk eternal damnation and a life-time in Hell if they do. They are locked into a single mindset and not permitted to even search for the key to unlock it. A dialog? Sure, but I sense such a dialog would be very one-sided with one side refusing to seek any type of middle ground (I'll let you guess which one). Can issues such as the ones you mention be addressed by both side? Sure. But it would have to be done outside the confines of religion for the reasons I presented earlier. That then begs the question: who would need religion for this type of discussion to take place?

Posted by: Bud | October 10, 2007 7:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

"I find dialogue difficult. Evangelical Christians have a habit of quoting a verse from the Bible which for them has complete authority and ends debate while for me it has no authority at all."

Undeniably true. While at the same time, nonbelievers have their own habit of pummeling believers mercilessly with the crude rhetorical blunt implements of sarcasm and mockery.

Berlinerblau's whole point is that this is precisely the type of behavior we need to put aside so that we can engage in a dialogue that generates less heat and more light.

Smugness and certitude, sarcasm and mockery all make VERY poor exemplars (let alone advertisements) for the respective philosophies that employ them so freely!

Prospective converts to either camp must surely look at these behaviors and conclude, "a plague on both your houses".

Posted by: locomoco | October 10, 2007 7:21 AM
Report Offensive Comment

All this time I thought Jozevz cheated and used a Random BullShit Generator but it turns out he gets his laptop drunk. That is alcohol abuse. Please get yourself drunk and pass out before posting so many yards of horse crap.

Posted by: ender | October 10, 2007 7:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I find dialogue difficult. Evangelical Christians have a habit of quoting a verse from the Bible which for them has complete authority and ends debate while for me it has no authority at all.

Posted by: David Gwilliam | October 10, 2007 5:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I find dialogue difficult. Evangelical Christians have a habit of quoting a verse from the Bible which for them has complete authority and ends debate while for me it has no authority at all.

Posted by: David Gwilliam | October 10, 2007 5:57 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Atheism is a term which is all the rage these days and is typically used to describe oneself as antireligious (particularly anti the great monotheistic religions) and pro scientific, but I find the term does more harm than good in describing that revolution still uncompletely effected and which when decisively effected will be far greater than political revolutions such as the French or American: namely the revolution from religion to science, the scientific revolution which has by no means been completed.

Atheists these days are fond of speaking of themselves as being in possession of the facts and not believing in imaginary beings, etc.--that we should be empirical, fact based--but they fail to observe that science is dependent on a continued faith in the possibility of truly useful, life enhancing truth out there which is a rarified and critical, reasonable outgrowth of a belief in God. There is as little proof that science will continue to enhance our lives as there is for the existence of God, but still we believe--and must continue to believe--in the progress of science.

But modern atheism threatens to undermine science as much as religion. By this I mean atheists acting "scientific" and discarding the notion of God and then substituting words such as "accident" etc. to describe our origins. I say "scientific" because there is as little proof all is accident as there is for the existence of God. What we have here between modern atheists and the religious is a war of hypotheticals with one side saying "God" and the other all too often saying "accident" thus setting up a conflict which can be described as religious optimism versus philosophical pessimism and of course science threatens to be totally discarded.

We need to navigate the honest middle course, the course which is critical, rational and optimistic, which is religion gradually moving into science and science gradually and intelligently reassuring religion that the moral outlook will not only not be compromised but actually enhanced by science. The religious rites of bringing man closer to God must be transformed into rites of the methodology of science and pursuit of truly useful and life enhancing truth. But of course this pursuit of truth requires as much faith as a belief in God and cannot properly be characterized as atheism, let alone the pessimism which often masquerades as atheism and an intelligent response to religion.

A simple example of our needing to be positive, optimistic and scientific: We are often told by proponents of the theory of evolution that all is accident, that man has been formed by the environment, etc. but the mechanism of evolution must ever more clearly be articulated and underpinned by an optimistic philosophy because what we do know of for certain is that man has evolved from being a niche creature to become virtually master of the earth and in all probability he will have to evolve more before he becomes capable of regular interstellar travel. In fact, we must take command of our evolution, and this is compromised by saying all is accident or we have been formed by the environment, etc.

I reject atheism because quite simply too often it is as poor an outlook for moving toward a scientific view of the world as the very religion it purports to defend science against. And it makes a mockery of the very evidence we have of the scientific revolution so far--how it arose. The fact is the scientific revolution arose by man's increasing confidence in being able to discover God-like and truly useful truth all around him, not by an abrupt rejection of anything remotely connectable to religion let alone God.

To be fair, modern atheism is so confused and so mixed with various strands of thought because of the hostility of religion to science, and science still trying to be born, and the backward and forward motions of political processes between this great and overarching struggle. But we should know by now. We have enough philosophy, science, political philosophy, etc.--not to mention religious upbringing--to be able to honestly articulate the conflict and describe the direction in which we are heading.

I declare myself quite simply more scientific than religious and totally discard the term atheist. I believe in the scientific search for truth--that God wants us to apply ourselves and to move honestly and nobly toward the truth with ever more sophisticated methods. Furthermore the truth is a rewarding truth and not an all is accident world, or a world which will run down according to the second law of thermodynamics. And it certainly is not an atheistic world where there is no God, all is accident and atheists even if not believing in accident still are too stupid to recognize that the scientific search for truth is a more refined search for God...In short, I reject the atheists. They seem too simple and/or pessimistic to speak of truth let alone chart a future course for man. And without a doubt the world we live in today is not one where we should be simple let alone pessimistic. On the contrary, by whatever means necessary we should have a profound hope in man.

Posted by: daniel | October 10, 2007 5:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Professor Berlinerblau

A brilliant idea! The well being of the human race being dependent on mutually beneficial interdependance, we must learn to find common ground with all and learn from the other in order to mend our ways and grow towards being better human beings, and take better care of each other.

I wish you all success in organising such meetings in your university first! Even if the idea may sound odd to some at the moment, I'm sure it will gain more acceptance when all parties concerned begin to realise the benefits that could come out of it.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | October 10, 2007 4:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment

BEGONE...I liked your post you be an natural born preacher,I would be willing to wager a few shekals you having spent many an life a thumping the bible teaching sinners the errors of their ways.The burning bush being energy in its purest form before the material creation,such being the "light of GOD" "but not GOD"..the effect of such light is a cleansing of the brain.Hence what moses was seeing was the light of his own spirit, as within or as without as the case may be,however the effect of seeing such would give him an amount of enlightenment,the other example was Saul later known as Paul,whom saw the light as such on the way (I think journey to DAMASCUS)such must have been a shock to Saul at the time being an non christian,it was not that he went blind with the experience, rather washed away doubts and for a time left him speechless,which later making up for in the praising GOD. With ever ongoing Spiritual development,in time all gradually experience,"Seeing the Light"it part of,our Spiritual journey unto "Enlightenment".

Posted by: ANONYMOUS | October 10, 2007 2:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Stan, you ask, "Please inform me if I am mistaken. Again, can I be a non-believer, and not go to hell?"

Not to worry.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is what the sacred scriptures really say. Only non believers will avoid hell. Moses murdered an important Egyptian, took it on the lam and then recovered form his miserable life by selling his soul to a being on fire with the fire that burns but does not consume. You know, the kind of fire hell is made of. They faith that thing in the fire was God.

Sale of soul brings the big money to the seller, like Moses who became the most important person that ever lived. Evangelical ministers are Moses imitators. The ones that are good at convincing the multitudes to follow them make the big money, as promised. Their followers pay Devils fee for the minister's soul and Devil gets all their souls as a bonus. They think they're buying a ticket to heaven, salt in the wound.

All faith is in ministers you know, pope, Billy Graham, and their contemporaries. No one really faiths God. It's ministers that you are rejecting and not God at all. That's the right thing to do no matter what the reason.

If you feel the need for a God find yourself a nice Tiki God. It's a lot safer. Keep clear of the ones on fire with hell fire for sure.

Posted by: BGone | October 10, 2007 1:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Jacques...You as I accepted God as Allah into our life many, many,lifetimes ago,in such we not having had to find God as Allah,it be rather in the growing of understanding as experience,that in such balance capable serving the Almighty,as to the best of our ability.Being on Earth in the human form,no easy task,the human struggle being dire,we have been very fortunate,compared to the suffering that many go through,it heartbreaking. Reading such you may feel an need to be on one's knees as thanking the Lord.Jacques,there no need to being on one's knees to the Almighty, having the right in standing if so wish.You be right of course,that peoples have a code of understanding as respect unto each other,such"common sense" at present these being troubled times for humanity on our journey of SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT as unto our eventual SPIRITUAL ENLIGHTENMENT.On a planet earth, Malice, Hate, Fear, Injustice,has reached an peak,the situation now can only but improve. The key in SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT..be its balance in understanding,as experience.They be as wings on the plane.Humanity has come a long ways, now being it on our journey home,as yet having some ways to go.Meantime,it being wise,all humanity, working together.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 10, 2007 12:31 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos, you wrote "So Chip, let's not pick a specific word to describe these attitudes ("polemics" or anything else). I've taken all of these quotes from the posts above - aren't these themes that are being expressed by the non-believers responding to Mr. Berlinerblau's call for dialog? Do they show any sort of intellectual, moral or personal respect for the non-believer? Are they in any way helpful?"

This is at the heart of the point I was trying to make. When it comes to religious belief it's very difficult to say anything contrarian without eliciting a knee-jerk reaction from the believer. I think my statement was quite reasonable, and a factual representation of one facet of religious belief systems that makes engaging in dissenting discussion difficult and problematic, and with many people, impossible. Rather than respond to my statement you just chose to take offense. Doesn't that rather prove my point?

If we're talking about discourse between believers and non-believers then it seems to me the only topic of that discourse is going to be the fundamental disagreements between the two groups, otherwise why would it be characterized as an exchange between evangelicals and atheists instead of just a discourse among people? We aren't separate species. Now obviously I think discourse is important, informative, and can lead to better understanding, which is why I'm a frequent participant in the On Faith forums, but I don't consider dissent or disagreement or even criticism as disrespectful. I think walking on eggshells based on the notion that other people are too fragile to handle being disagreed with to be what's disrespectful and unproductive. I consider dissent vital for inspiring people to think critically about their own ideas.

Posted by: Chip | October 10, 2007 12:17 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Rip: "Origen argued for Satan’s repentance. An infinite punishment for a finite offense has never made sense to me. Surely such an idea is manifestly unjust."

Thanks, Rip. Your observation is right on. And Origen had a head on his shoulders for sure (if arguably self-deprived of his other one, though this story may be apocryphal). I think the 3rd Council was way too eager to link him with the later Arianists just so they could kick his rascally tail out of the canon.

Much to my astonishment (since we agree on little else) the current Roman Pope evidently shares my fondness for Origen! Mirabile dictu...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1823651/posts

Origen's story offers a hint that many of us (though not all) might find more common ground if we got away from the polarizing "nonbeliever" and "religious" labels and focused on spirituality instead. That allows a much broader definition which doesn't demand unanimity.

Posted by: locomoco | October 9, 2007 11:32 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The cool thing about undirected posts is that serial offenders never fail to identify themselves.

It's margaritaville time. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

Ta-ta.

Posted by: numi | October 9, 2007 9:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The topic of non-believers in hell has been mentioned in earlier posts.

To myself and many others, this is the core of the mutual respect problem. The concept of heaven and hell is at the core of theist belief. Mutual respect is out of reach because theists' conviction in the atheists' destiny in hell is contempt defined. And it warrants an equal degree of contempt in return.

I ask Mr. Berlinerblau and all Christians/Jews/Muslims: how can one be a Christian/Jew/Muslim and simultaneously not be convinced I will burn in hell? How can you view me with such profound hostility and disrespect, and not expect to be treated in kind?

I know Christians who have said "I never said anyone will go to hell", but many use terms such as "lost", or "fallen". Or they remain silent on the subject. In any case, I believe all -- and I do mean all -- theists hold this belief, silent or not.

Please inform me if I am mistaken. Again, can I be a non-believer, and not go to hell?

Posted by: STAN | October 9, 2007 9:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Numi -

As you wish.

I'm in the middle of being schooled by Rip who is answering a question that I have long held. Sorry if it's beneath your consideration as a valid discussion. On the other hand, I just might learn something today.

Why not put me in your kill file and have done with it?

Posted by: Mr. Mark | October 9, 2007 9:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Rip -

Thanks for the reply. Let me see if I've got it straight:

1. The Hebrew words mean "reed sea," no chance whatsoever that the words can mean "red."

2. The Greek translation gets it wrong and mistranslates "reed" as "red"

3. The Vulgate also gets it wrong

Do I have it straight?

Thanks.

Posted by: Mr. Mark | October 9, 2007 9:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

RIP - thanks for your explanation. It’s giving me a sense of how you teach and possibly how you think or rationalize this for yourself: “There is little consensus in biblical archeology. There seems to be a minimalist school which says that we can know nothing of Israel’s history prior to the Persian period. There is a maximalist school that says that the patriarchs were historical figures.”

To me, this is like saying, “There are numerous ways to look at it. Some think this. Some think that; ether way is OK (and of course you’ll want to believe what you already think is true).”

You ask, “…how do you know that ‘the Bible unearthed’ is correct”? And I ask, how do you know it’s not? Are you curious to check it out? Do you put it in the mix with the minimalist and maximalist schools without looking at it? Do you treat it as another possibility on a par with all the others? Is there is any evidence that would impress you and alter your current perspective, or do you think you’d stay with “there’s little consensus in biblical archaeology” irrespective of additional evidence. Another question, what is your evidence for there being little consensus in biblical archaeology?

I know this is a lot and though I’d like responses to these questions, truly, I’d be happy if you just gave them some thought.

NUMI - I hope you're not talking about me when you say: "Of course, if your goal is self-validation by way of juvenile 'gotcha' interogations, then I suppose you are succeeding. Aren't you special?"

Is there something juvenile about biblical archeology discussions? Do you think others involved in the conversation are patient too, or only Rip?

Posted by: E favorite | October 9, 2007 9:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment

As expected.

Again, why does it matter? I'm sooo interested in your reasoning, or lack thereof.

Posted by: numi | October 9, 2007 9:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Mark

The Hebrew yam sûp means reed sea. Scholars debate its precise location as well as the location of Sinai and the route of the wilderness wanderings. The Greek translation of the Old Testament (the LXX) rendered this eruthra thalassa which may refer to the Red Sea as well as the Indian Ocean. The Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Vulgate) rendered this as Mare Rubrum (Red Sea).

The reason I read Genesis 1-11 as myth is because that is what I think the literary genre is. It is the type of literature that dictates how I read it (if I interpret it correctly).
The world as portrayed in Genesis 1-11 is asymmetrically related to ours. Humans make moral choices that have consequences like our world but it is a different world in which snakes talk, there is a tree that conveys eternal life, snakes walk upright prior to Gen. 3, the world experiences a universal flood, and all people speak the same language. This is a world in which semi-divine beings have sexual intercourse with human women (Gen. 6:1-4). This may be a jab at Gilgamesh who was part god and part human.
The narrative world in Genesis 12ff. is a world much more like the world in which we live. It does not resemble so much the myths of the ancient Near East.
The Bible is filled with all kinds of different literature. There are psalms, love poems, proverbs, prophetic oracles, parables, historical narratives (but even here is a preached history instead of a critically reconstructed history), jokes, dialogues etc. With any literature we ask ourselves what are we reading as we ask ourselves what does it mean. We do this so often it becomes almost second nature. It is not until we live in another culture do we recognize that there are cultural clues that we pickup upon that tell us what type of literature we are reading. The difficulty with reading any ancient text is that we have to figure out the literary genre as we try to interpret it.

Peace,
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 9, 2007 9:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Numi -

If you don't feel like participating in a particular discussion, then opt out.

If people are interested in responding to what *you* want to get out of this blog, they will.

Relevancy is subjective.

Plenty of bandwidth to go around.

What's the problem? I hope you're not a control freak.

Posted by: Mr. Mark | October 9, 2007 9:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I fail to see how these tedious Bible validation questions adhere to the stated goal of this blog.

Rip: You've got considerably more patience than I.

I would be much more interested in discovering the positions of the various believers on this thread concerning the importantant issues of the day. You know, like, oh, Iraq, or health insurance for kids, or global warming. Stuff like that. Stuff that really matters.

Of course, if your goal is self-validation by way of juvenile 'gotcha' interogations, then I suppose you are succeeding. Aren't you special?

I fear this thread has been invaded by a bunch of Objectivist nincompoops.

Once again - how relevant?

Posted by: numi | October 9, 2007 9:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment

This has been an interesting series of comments. Predictably though, it has devolved into argument rather than Decalogue.

Someone early in the series made the point that others could not persuade her to change her beliefs, and she would probably not be able to change the beliefs of others. This is true. In the years that I've been engaging with believers no one has come close to convincing me, and vice versa.

That's why the only thing we can hope to achieve, in my view, is an understanding, and maybe, an appreciation for each others' beliefs. If we quit arguing in favor of our own views and belittling the views of others, people are more likely to listen more respectfully. At least that's what I've found.

By the way, Believer, thanks for your kind comments.

Frank

Posted by: Frank | October 9, 2007 8:59 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The Fool in His heart says there is no Tinkerbell

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2007 8:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr Mark:

"At present, I am sure that the exodus cannot be proven by archeology."

There is a historical record of a person leading twelve tribes of foreigners out of Egypt, across a sea of reeds, to the wilderness where they built a tabernacle, worshiped, and sacrificed to a ball-of-fire God. By day that God tagged along in the clouds and at night it only glowed through the clouds. That individual was also followed by Pharaoh.

The essential actions of Exodus were all done. Things like immunity from snake bites, water from rocks, manna from the shy, miracles and so on can be garnered from the writing or added by the ignorant or hoaxers.

When the DA gets that kind of evidence the poor boy goes to prison for a long time.

The individual who did all those things in Exodus also did everything Jesus is credited with doing, offered bread to God, chased the money changers out of the temple of God and claimed to be the son of God. She was accused of blasphemy for claiming to be the son of God because she was a woman. She was disrobed and humiliated in public, convicted and died on the Egyptian version of the cross in the usual 3 hours. She claimed that she would rise from the dead. More that I can't recall at the moment perhaps.

I repeat, When the DA gets that kind of evidence the poor boy goes to prison for a long time.

There is little doubt that the Bible stories originated as attempts, 1,000 years later to translate her story. Josephus did a lot of editing and codgitating to come up with a history of Jews that never happened. Judah was occupied by a foreigners, first and foremost the Egyptians and later several others from the time the first word of history was written until 1947. The rest of the Bible is the work of editors and latter day saints, Epistles, Revelation etc.

http://www.hoax-buster.org is a bulls eye. There is a 90%+ fit between Amenophis IV and both Moses and Jesus. The differences can be chalked up to the need for miracles, to give God power and definition I guess. Of course there is the ignorance of those who would translate her story from hieroglyphics. Methinks they looked at the pictures and just guessed at most of the words. They couldn't read her name or that of any other which accounts for the use of all "descriptor" names in the Bible.

Revelation got part of the words correct, i.e. "the Amen the faithful and true witness" and "the second death." Amen - short for Amenophis and "the second death" unique to ancient Egyptian religion that taught those who disobeyed Pharaoh would be intercepted between this life and the next and fed to "Eater" the hybrid critter in the underworld, (is the underworld under the flat earth?).

The atheists are so far ahead of evangelicals I don't see much in the way of an intersection for them to meet. No one represents atheists anyhow does anyone? I do see a 2004 type event with Chris Matthews of "Hardball" sham where we only discuss based upon the Bible being the word of God. That's not a debate. It's the liars club meeting, "can you top this one" type of thing.

Fiction is rarely pure, usually based upon some real history. The Bible is fiction if so stated and a hoax when claimed to be the word of God. To us it is not a hoax, only evangelicals. If they know it is then they are criminals for several reasons.

Posted by: BGone | October 9, 2007 8:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Rip -

Thank you for your response to E Fav.

I have a question. You wrote:

"When I taught, I did not speak of the parting of the Red sea. I did speak of the stories of the parting of the Reed Sea. Red Sea is an early translational mistake that has just stayed with us. I used stories in the plural because it seems that there are two versions of the parting of the Read Sea combined."

I've heard this before, but I don't quite understand it. Are you saying that the Hebrew word for "red" is so similar to the Hebrew word for "reed" that it was mistranslated? One could see that happening in English as the difference between the two words is one less or more letter "e," but does the same hold true for Hebrew?

As I don't read Hebrew, so I'm hoping you can provide an answer. Thanks.

You also write: "I did teach that Gen. 1-11 is mythic literature."

This brings us to a conundrum that we non-believers have trouble understanding: who decides what and who in the Bible is mythic and what is historic? If the Genesis story is mythic, then why shouldn't we consider the entire Bible to be mythic, including the personage of Jesus?

I know this isn't the kind of question that can be adequately answered by a sound bite, but is it possible to give us a cogent answer that isn't too philosophical or vague?

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Mr. Mark | October 9, 2007 7:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment

E Favorite: My point is how do you know that ‘the Bible unearthed’ is correct. There is little consensus in biblical archeology. There seems to be a minimalist school which says that we can know nothing of Israel’s history prior to the Persian period. There is a maximalist school that says that the patriarchs were historical figures.

There are generally three models for the Hebrew habitation of Canaan. One is conquest the other is immigration and the final one is revolution. I taught all of these as possible solutions for how the Hebrews came to be in the land of Canaan and pointed out their strengths and weaknesses.

When I taught, I did not speak of the parting of the Red sea. I did speak of the stories of the parting of the Reed Sea. Red Sea is an early translational mistake that has just stayed with us. I used stories in the plural because it seems that there are two versions of the parting of the Read Sea combined.

I did teach that Gen. 1-11 is mythic literature. It is the Hebrews interactions with the creation and flood stories of the ancient Near East. It is best to read Genesis 1-11 as a dialogue with ancient Near Eastern mythology. Claus Westermann, GENESIS 1-11 is very helpful here as is Prichard’s ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN TEXTS and William Hallo and Lawson Younger Jr. THE CONTEXTS OF SCRIPTURE Vols. 1-2 (Brill).

Let me see, are theists (or at least evangelicals) supposed to treat Genesis 1-11 as historical and scientific literature? What evidence is there for to support this? Again as I ask what a text means, I must ask myself what I am reading. It is a strange kind of scientific literature that does not agree on its chronologies. Gen 1-2:4a the rest of chapter 2 contain two separate creation stories that do not agree chronologically. Don’t read it in the NIV. They fudge the translation and make the verb tenses past perfects. There is nothing in the Hebrew to justify this. Even the King James Version gets this right.
Peace,
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 9, 2007 6:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Numi wrote to me:

"I am NOT trying to convert anyone to atheism nor am I likely to be converted the other way."

Neither am I.

"This is about finding common ground and perhaps a way forward to a better America and maybe even a better world."

Well that is admirable, but I do not think there is much common ground to be found. I do not think religion has any power to lead us to a better world, or to improve society. It would be best for everyone if it faded away over time, although I would hate to see such rich cultural diversity vanish. I think it is best for atheists to ignore religion, except in rare cases where extremists try to usurp their rights. (Most religious people would not do this.)

Sometimes we should to admit that we have strong differences with other people, and there is no common ground and nothing much to discuss. Life is not always agreeable, people are not always nice, and we do not always get along. The only thing Americans must share in common is respect for the Constitution and the laws.

"At least, I thought that was the point. Was I wrong? I hope not."

Not wrong, but naïve, and you are looking for a meeting of the minds that cannot occur. You might as well ask an astronomer to find "common ground" with an astrologer. Their belief systems are 400 years apart, and irreconcilable. I realize that some scientists believe in God, but most do not, because the two worldviews are so radically different.

"You seem very much an A-B-C nonbeliever to me."

Yes, I am afraid I am. I do not like to be doctrinaire, and I agree there are many unanswered questions and gray-areas, but frankly I find religion is a sterile. It offers no answers to life's persistent questions. Religion as a source of morality and literature is okay, but the supernatural claims are mistaken. (Of course a lot of religion is barbaric and horrible. The business about stoning people to death because they gather sticks on Sunday or engage in homosexual behavior is beyond the pale.)

I am convinced that prayer either works in some objectively measurable fashion, or we must conclude that it does not work at all. I simply cannot put aside the experimental method, or imagine that it does not apply to this one phenomenon for some inexplicable and unstated reason.

First, I simply cannot accept the notion that miracles occur and "the laws of the the universe [are] annulled in behalf of a single petitioner, confessedly unworthy" as Ambrose Bierce put it.

Second, every other question about nature can be addressed by experiment. Indeed, no other method has ever worked. If, as the wise Rabbi implied, prayer has any effect at all, at any level no matter how subtle -- even only as a way of bringing peace of mind -- then there has to be method to objectively detect and measure this effect. People have tried to measure the alleged benefits of prayer many times over the centuries, and they have found nothing. Not a trace of evidence in favor of "faith" has been found. I must conclude that God is either nonexistent or he isn't listening. I suppose He is nonexistent but I have no strong feelings about the issue.

Posted by: Jed Rothwell | October 9, 2007 6:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment

See Professor Borg's book, Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings. But did the historic Jesus and the historic Buddha really say these analogous "sayings"? Or were the sayings embellishments created by the scribes (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul) to create a god for the peasants? Ditto for Buddha's biographers/scribes?

e.g. ; 264-. Widow's Mite: (1) Mark 12:41-44 = Luke 21:1-4 has an equivalent "Buddha" saying but has been judged by some NT exegetes as not being a saying of the historical Jesus but a later embellishment.

Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | October 9, 2007 6:16 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Thank you, Believer, for your clear presentation of what you believe. I appreciate your interpretation and analysis of the text. I'm not going to question you or challenge you on it.

I do have just one question about how you arrived at that - was it via your own reading and church attendance, or did it also involve taking academic or church sponsored classes?

Posted by: E favorite | October 9, 2007 6:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

RIP: “What evidence do we have for this [Jews being in Canaan during exodus]?” See the table on page 114 of “the Bible Unearthed” showing 3 waves of settlement from 3,500 BCE to 586 BCE. Exodus is dated from 1,500 to 1,200 BCE.

See also page 188, 2nd paragraph from the bottom: “The process that we describe here is, in fact, the opposite of what we have in the Bible: The emergence of early Israel was an outcome of the collapse of the Canaanite culture, not its cause. And most of the Israelites did not come from outside Canaan – they emerged from with it. There was no mass Exodus from Egypt. There was no violent conquest of Canaan. Most of the people who formed early Israel were local people – the same people whom we see in the highlands throughout the Bronze and Iron ages. The early Israelites were – irony of ironies – themselves originally Canaanites!”

This came as a surprise to me too, so I checked it out and found that the authors are highly respected academicians, their findings agree with findings of other respected scholars and that only fundamentalists who use only biblical texts disagree in any substantial way. I even went to a Conservative Jewish Sabbath service to find the reference in their Tree of Life book. It stuns me that new archeological findings at Stonehenge make the front page and the evening news, but Biblical findings stay in archeological and theological circles.

Rip also says: “You asked me how I took it and I told you. My answer does not necessitate the drowning of the Egyptian army and the wandering of 1.5 million people.”

Mr Mark’s question was how you teach it. So I ask, do you mention the parting of the Red sea and the wandering in the desert? If so, do you clearly say it’s a myth? Do you state clearly that anything in the bible is considered myth? (e.g., Genesis, talking snake) Also, what do you make of what I’ve presented here? Are you going to check out “The Bible Unearthed?” (I found it at Borders)

Posted by: E favorite | October 9, 2007 6:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"The Buddha said very much the same thing as Jesus about finding your own way and making up your own mind."

What statements of Jesus do you have in mind here? I don't remember any verses about "finding your own way" or "making up your own mind." Could this be one of those "cleanliness is next to godliness" quotes that everyone "knows" is in the Bible? "Love your neighbor" - yes. "Seek ye first the kingdom of God" - yes. "Turn the other cheek" - yes. But make up your mind and do what feels right? Not so much.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2007 5:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Considering all that, I’d be interested to know what you believe from that test. That is, what you believe is factual and what you believe as a matter of faith."

First of all, I don't dismiss the texts themselves. The question of inspiration is a divisive one, and it's probably not useful to go too deeply into it here. There's a fairly wide diversity among Christians in how it's understood. But those who do believe that the Hebrew scriptures are in some sense inspired may wrestle with what they mean, and how they should best be interpreted, but they won't dismiss them entirely.

So, I do believe that the ancestors of the Israelites had a spiritual encounter with God. The texts represent their understanding of that encounter, and what they understood it to mean for themselves and their descendents. I do believe that there was a history of oppression, and that they understood themselves to have been liberated by Jehovah. It's hard to understand how the texts would have originated otherwise.

Something in that experience bound them together into a tribal confederacy, and eventually developed into a national consciousness. A careful reading of the text indicates that it was a rather diverse group that was brought together - in addition to the family of Abraham, the text talks about a mixed multitude that left Egypt with them. Interspersed with the concern about religious purity and avoiding bringing idolotry into the community are examples of outsiders marrying into the group.

I also believe that there was an extended period before the dream of a land of their own was realized. Again, this is reflected in the texts - there's a period of wandering, a period of infiltration and warfare, and an extended period of divided tribes led by "judges" and living under the domination of various more powerful groups in Palestine.

I suspect you and I would part company on the details - but looking at the history and archaeology doesn't frighten me. A careful reading of the text reveals a surprisingly nuanced story - as well as some serious theological points. Sometimes the secular study of the ancient world throws up some intriguing possibilities - for instance, would a semitic Joseph have been welcome in an Egypt ruled by the Hyksos? Then Egyptologists will revise their chronology again, and the dates won't seem to line up any more. Given time, they'll be revised yet again - and we'll gain some other insight into where the Hebrew scriptures came from, and what they mean. As I said before, though, it's probably too much to expect to line them up cleanly and neatly. After all, we're not talking about relatively recent history like Napolean or even Charlemagne, but a time-depth more comparable to the Trojan War.

Posted by: Believer | October 9, 2007 5:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Rip -

Thanks for the answer, though I'm still not clear as to whether you view the Exodus story as fact or fiction. I was hoping for a simple yes or no. I think you gave me a "maybe." :)

BTW - I agree with you on the warring factions in Biblical archaeology being far from tame. There's a reality TV series in there for some enterprising individual. Or perhaps Vince Mc Mahon could set up a few tag-team bouts on the WWE?

Posted by: Mr Mark | October 9, 2007 4:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Biblical archeology has warring camps that make the dialogue between theist and atheist look tame. Perhaps what makes it so intense is the supposed political significance of archeology for modern Middle Eastern politics.

I don’t think there is much evidence that the Hebrews were living in the land of Canaan (to avoid a political term like Palestine/Israel) the whole time they were supposedly in Egypt. What evidence do we have for this? Scholars even question when one can legitimately speak of Hebrews. You are correct that I have no records of the Hebrews wandering in the wilderness for 40 years. The trouble with ancient history is that we don’t have enough texts. The trouble with modern history is that we have too many.

Biblical scholars have long recognized that the numbers of Israelites cannot be 1.5 million. There have been arguments as to how to translate the Hebrew term that is often rendered ‘thousand.’ Perhaps the writers wanted to convey the idea that all Israel participated in the Exodus. I am uncertain of their intention. It is likely that both the numbers and glories of the story may have increased in the telling and retelling of the Exodus story.

You asked me how I took it and I told you. My answer does not necessitate the drowning of the Egyptian army and the wandering of 1.5 million people.

Evangelicals need not be as literalistic as you might like. Perhaps we need to define the term evangelical.

Peace,
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 9, 2007 4:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

One last post before I sign off for awhile. So far, I have found this discussion to be worthwhile and interesting.

E favorite: My point is that Black/White questions are, by nature, polarizing and not at all conducive to forging a nuanced approach to common problems. Not productive - unless you just have to always be right, of course.

Jozevz: Meds? And your shift key seems to be sticking. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

MR MARK: Holster that bludgeon, pardner. There's a lot more grey there to be seen. Let it out.

G'day all.

Posted by: numi | October 9, 2007 4:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Thomas Baum:

Good post. The Buddha said very much the same thing as Jesus about finding your own way and making up your own mind.

Very undogmatic dudes, the both of them.

Posted by: numi | October 9, 2007 4:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi, Numi - You say: "Mr Mark, I'm not sure that your black/white questions are terribly useful except to use as a club."

Could you give me an example of one of his offending black/white questions?

One question of his I found was this: "Do you read the story of the Exodus as a historic fact? Yes or no? If yes, what evidence do you have to back it up? If no, do you teach/preach it to your congregation as a fact or a fiction?"

Is this what you meant? And if so, what do you think is problematic aboutit? For instance, how would it be different from asking an English prof if he taught the Merchant of Venice as fact or fiction?

I realize it's put in black and white terms, but it seems like a pretty important question that really shouldn’t be that hard to answer.

Posted by: E favorite | October 9, 2007 4:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos said:

"But we're not going to get there unless we agree to the "civil" and "respectful" part (and the stuff I'm talking about above doesn't meet any minimum standard of personal respect, and in some cases pretty clearly fails any minimum standard of civility as well)."

I thought the comments you quoted were much friendlier than those that have been directed at me as a free thinker by evangelicals over the years. You're right, however, that civil discourse would require laying aside the temptation to snipe. Clearly, it would be a very tough challenge for both sides.

Posted by: Skeptimal | October 9, 2007 4:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Numi writes:

"MR MARK:

I'm not sure that your black/white questions are terribly useful except to use as a club. In my experience, the world is infinitely grey (more than 256 shades, that's for sure)."

I agree that the world is painted in shades of grey, and I would never ask a scientist/realist such - as you call them - black & white questions. However, I am asking these questions of people who follow the b&w precepts of religious faith. In their case, I think that such questions are entirely fair and warranted.

What do you propose? That I offer up the grey areas of existence as a tool to justify their black & white philosophies? Just asking.

BTW - I don't see such questions as a "club" as much as I do a bludgeon. :)

Posted by: Mr Mark | October 9, 2007 4:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jed Rothwell:

One of the features of discussion is that listening is as important as talking (or writing in this case).

I am NOT trying to convert anyone to atheism nor am I likely to be converted the other way. This is about finding common ground and perhaps a way forward to a better America and maybe even a better world.

At least, I thought that was the point. Was I wrong? I hope not.

You seem very much an A-B-C nonbeliever to me.

Posted by: numi | October 9, 2007 4:11 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Actually if the atheists and the evangelicals would civilly talk to each other, some of them would find that they have a lot in common with each other. One group doesn't believe that Jesus is Who He is and some in the other group doesn't believe what Jesus came for, lived and died for and taught while He was here. Some, in both groups, are trying to shove their beliefs down other people's throats while Jesus offered an invitation. Some, in both groups, are telling other people how to live their lives and what to think while Jesus said to look at your own life and to think for yourself. Some, in both groups, seem to be on a personal power trip. Some in both groups would probably be very surprised if they would actually read what Jesus said and taught and thought about how it would apply in how they lived rather than telling others to live that way. "These are hard sayings", is just as true today as back then, it is much easier to tell the other how to live than to do it yourself. Take care, see you in the Kingdom. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Posted by: Thomas Baum | October 9, 2007 4:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Rip & Believer:

Thanks for your responses. We are already forming a basis of understanding. Where it may lead, I know not.

While it is true I am a nonbeliever, I have been a student of both religions and history my entire life. And still am.

Somewhere along the way, I came to the conclusion that personal morality need not be coerced by the threat of punishment or the promise of reward. What might be termed 'good' behavior seems to me to be its own reward and a practical way of getting along in the world. This viewpoint is, perhaps, a reflection of my engineering mentality.
Form follows function.

I claim no special insights or knowledge as I have found much to admire in the teachings of many past philosophers, including both Jesus & the Buddha, and many others.

My basic operating principles are 1) the Golden Rule, and 2) actions speak louder than words. Why? Because they work well in my life and always have. I see these principles, not as commands, but as really useful and productive suggestions.

No snarkiness intended, just laying a foundation for what might be called a personal 'moral' atheism.

MR MARK:

I'm not sure that your black/white questions are terribly useful except to use as a club. In my experience, the world is infinitely grey (more than 256 shades, that's for sure).

I think it is necessary for each of us, in order to live a full and meaningful life, to find our way from the back of the cave (the darker aspects of our human nature) to a place next to the fire.

Posted by: numi | October 9, 2007 3:50 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I question whether this dialogue is possible unless both sides have high level training in logic and logical discourse. The use of circular logic where the Bible is the proof that the Bible is true is illogical, but since it's the only proof an evangelical has, how can they admit to even something as simple as a point of logic?

There also has to be a understanding of scientific method and how theories are developed, proven to some point, and evolve into more complete theories.

Until everyone in the discussion can admit that INTELLIGENT DESIGN IS NOT REPEATABLE SO EXPERIMENTATION FOR OR AGAINST IS IMPOSSIBLE, how would a group agree on basic rules for discussion of teaching biology and evolutionary theory in schools?

I have many evangelicals in my immediate family. In fact my mother and three siblings are all evangelical. My brother is a pentacostal minister, and there are three more of them that are first cousins. And with all that fire power, I can have them on their knees praying for my lost soul(or maybe for their own faith) within thirty minutes, because they are not dumb people, and know there is no proof for ancient works of the imagination if except within the ancient works themselves.

We all get along just great, by agreeing not to bring up the subject anymore.

After 40 years they know better.

Of course, like most evangelicals, they are closet racist that believe in America's manifest destiny, so I get to call out their morality on a regular basis.

It's so much fun being the atheist conscience for a religious group.

Posted by: ender | October 9, 2007 3:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Rip & Believer -

Thanks for your comments.

However, when I speak of archaeological evidence for the Exodus, I'm not referring to texts. Texts, of course, are always open to interpretation.

Rather, I'm referring to the lack of archaeological evidence to support the idea of the Jews leaving Egypt and wandering the desert for 40 years. Where are their garbage dumps? Where are the pottery shards and other evidences of roughly 1.5 MILLION people wandering a desert for 40 years? We have evidences of cities and hamlets, tribes and their camps that dot the holy land. But the evidence of an exodus? To date, nada.

Let's couple that to the fact that there is no evidence - written (outside of the Bible) or physical that the Hebrews were ever slaves in Egypt. Yes, the typical Xian believes that even the great pyramids were constructed on the backs of Hebrew slave labor (thanks for the myth, Cecil B!), but such a fantasy is given the lie by both the archaeological evidence in Egypt and the records kept by the Egyptians themselves which prove beyond any doubt that these monuments were public service projects that were constructed for and by the Egyptians themselves, not by slaves.

When one thinks about it, it's a racist conceit to saddle the ancient Egyptians with the label of taskmasters and torturers of the Jews, just as it is racial glorification to imagine that the mouse that roared (Israel) defeated the greatest economic and military power of its day (Egypt) purely on the strength of a god who "chose" them to be "his" people above all other people.

As to the Exodus and the wandering that followed - are we to believe that the Jews wandered for 40 years in the desert when the trip from Egypt to Canaan was and is only about 2-weeks' travel by foot? If god was their co-pilot, he needed a different map!

It seems to me that the entire crux of the argument that the Jews were god's chosen people and that he "gave this land to" them rests on the bondage and exodus from Egypt to that promised land. If it's all a myth - which it most certainly appears to be - then the acknowledgment of the myth AS myth pretty much destroys the foundations of the religion, or at least the entitlement-to-specific-land aspect of the religion.

That in and of itself has consequences that resonate to this very day. Indeed, to this very moment.

Any thoughts?

Posted by: Mr Mark | October 9, 2007 3:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Believer: “We're talking about the distant past, and a text that was not intended to be an objective history in the sense that we think of it today.”

Considering all that, I’d be interested to know what you believe from that test. That is, what you believe is factual and what you believe as a matter of faith.

Thanks.

Posted by: E favorite | October 9, 2007 3:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Jay: " Would one want to deny that there are great life lessons and moral/ethical implications found in reading works that are fictional? "

Of course not, but these works are presented upfront as fiction (e.g., Tom Sawyer), fairy tale (e.g., The emperor’s new clothes) and myth e.g., Hercules). I’d be pretty pissed if a trusted teacher taught me Greek mythology or Aesop’s fables as if they were factual and then I found out later that they weren’t.

RIP – The Exodus story is not dependent on the vagaries of Egyptian record keeping. There is also no evidence of the Hebrews or any group being in the desert for 40 years (You’d think they would have left a few pottery chards), no evidence of a drowned Egyptian army and lots of evidence that the Hebrews were living in Israel/Palestine the whole time they were supposedly in Egypt. By the way, there is evidence in Egypt of other dissident groups there when the Jews would have been – the Jews are the only ones not mentioned. Please check out “The Bible Unearthed” by archeology scholars Finkelstein and Silberman. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684869128/ref=olp_product_details/002-1878591-2519231?ie=UTF8&seller=

I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that you already know most of what I’ve written above. You seem like a very intelligent, sincere Christian clergyman. I know others like you who reluctantly acknowledge the Exodus myth when pressed, but routinely try to head off further questioning about it a vague comment like yours about Egyptian record keeping.

Posted by: E favorite | October 9, 2007 3:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Mark,

I would second Winkle's comments. We're talking about the distant past, and a text that was not intended to be an objective history in the sense that we think of it today. (That doesn't necessarily imply that it's fiction or per se "false" - it simply has a particular purpose, point of view, and literary form, just as an autobiography would today. Autobiographies can be invaluable sources - but they aren't objective histories in the same sense that a biography written by an impartial observer might be.)

History and archaeology give us tremendous insights into the Hebrew texts, and help us understand the setting. But due to the distance in time, there's likely a limit to how closely we can tie it to the written texts. There are problems with dates, with the names of tribes and places, and with the fact that the Hebrews were not exactly prominent people at that time.

I'm convinced that the general physical and cultural setting described in the Hebrew texts is plausible given what we know of the ancient world. But, I suspect that's as far as it's going to be able to take us. I'm also convinced that something of significance must have occured to create the self-image as a people that's expressed in the Torah. I doubt we're going to find a stela that gives an Egyptian account of what that was, though

Of course, it would be cool if someone were to find a little brass plaque that says "Moses slept here"

;-)

Posted by: Believer | October 9, 2007 3:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Rip: “Furthermore, the best Christian theology always relies on Scripture, Church tradition, reason and experience”

I’m aware of that, having most recently been an Episcopalian. They never talked about going to hell. Sort of avoided the topic, probably for the reasons you give. Nonetheless, there it is in the Bible. Seriously, it seems to me that if this belief is no longer extant, there would be a better way for God (assuming there is one) to let us know besides having theologians work it out generations later. I wish it were possible for theologians to just say something to the effect of “Don’t worry about what the Bible says. That’s outdated. Modern moral people don’t think that way anymore.” Truly, I wish Christians could take the good things from the bible (e.g., sermon on the mount) and form a nice community that includes those things, but does not limit itself to them and doesn’t tie itself in knots trying to make the Bible make sense in the 21 century.

Rip again: “I hope your comment did not indicate that I was trying to hide my belief.”

Not at all.

Posted by: E favorite | October 9, 2007 2:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Mark

My quick answer is that I read Hebrew narrative as Hebrew narrative. It has it own conventions. I suggest M. Sternberg, THE POETICS OF BIBLICAL NARRATIVE (Bloomington, 1985).

At present, I am sure that the exodus cannot be proven by archeology. I also don't think it can be disproved by archeology. The Egyptians were not well known for their objective reporting.

It seems unlikely to me that the Hebrews would select a story of their national origin as an enslaved people. It reminds me of Australians I have met who tell me that they are descended from criminals. This seems more credible than those who claim they were descended form those sent to guard the criminals.

The earliest reference we have to the Hebrews outside of the Bible is the Mer-ne-Ptah inscription. This is a royal inscription by Pharaoh Mereneptha dated in his 5th year (1220 BC) which mentions the defeat of various cities and peoples in Palestine, including Israel. The hieroglyphic determinative for people rather than a land is used with Israel. This suggests that Israel was not yet permanently settled and had only recently arrived in the land.

Peace,
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 9, 2007 2:48 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Numi wrote:

"I once attended a public talk (Faith vs. Magic) by a very wise rabbi. He described fundamentalists as A-B-C believers. Insert tab A into slot B and fold along line C. Voila! It's a magic trick and it always works. Faith, he said, is another matter altogether. Much more difficult as there is no magic involved with no real certainty of success."

On the contrary, magic is the only way faith could work. And success is out of the question: faith must always fail, because the universe is governed by immutable laws of nature that never respond to our hopes or thoughts.

People have looked carefully for signs that prayer or faith affects the outcomes of events such as illness but they have not found a trace of evidence for this hypothesis. No doubt the Rabbi was wise, but he was wrong. Wise and well educated people have often been wrong.

This is the crux of the matter. It makes no difference how many words you use, or how complex your explanation is, or how ancient, wise and respected the idea of faith may be -- it is manifestly incorrect. It has been tested and found wanting. It is a defunct theory, like the caloric theory of heat. There is nothing more to be said, and nothing left to debate. Religious people might say that I am oversimplifying, but simplicity or complexity have no bearing on the discussion. It makes no difference how complex & subtle the argument is, or how many hundreds of pages it takes to express the idea. If the premises are factually wrong, the whole argument is wrong.

I have no antipathy whatever toward religious people, including most fundamentalists. I respect them as individuals. But I see no point to debating with them. The whole discussion is over before it begins: faith either works or it does not. For someone like me, the only way you can prove that it works is by experiment, the way the Templeton Foundation tried to do. People have been trying similar experiments for centuries, but they have found nothing, so I conclude there is nothing to be found.

Frankly, I do not see the utility of discussion in either direction --

Words are unlikely to change the minds of a religious person, and I for one would not want to dissuade religious people. I see no harm in their beliefs, even though I think they are mistaken. Religious people who are curious about atheism should read the books by Dawkins and Jacoby.

Going the other direction, if religious people want to convince atheists, I suppose they should conduct more Templeton Foundation style experiments. A million, million more words would never convince me that faith is anything other than wishful thinking. I have no use for words, or carefully crafted arguments, or subtle philosophy. My mind does not work that way. But one good experiment would instantly convince me!

Religious people sometimes say that the effects of faith cannot be measured by the tools of science even in principle: you cannot detect the additional good health, wealth, happiness, peace of mind, or other benefit that comes to you from prayer. Some say it is sacrilegious to try to detect such benefits. In that case, as far as I can tell, the benefit does not exist. Praying and faith seem pointless, because even if God does exist (which seems highly unlikely to me for various reasons), it is certain that He never responds to prayer, and He never rewards the religious or punishes atheists. I conclude that He doesn't care what we think, and that I have no reason to care whether or not He exists.

I have never seen any evidence that religion promotes morality or respect for the law, or other civic virtues. On the other hand, many churches do good works, and socializing with groups of people outside of work on weekly basis seems like a good idea. I would not want to discourage anyone from doing this sort of thing. I assume it would be just as effective to do good works and participate in social events without invoking any supernatural beliefs.

Posted by: Jed Rothwell | October 9, 2007 2:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Hi Mr Mark,
THanks for your question. Honestly, there were numerous aspects of the text that i struggled with often in terms of how to teach/preach them. I found myself more often than not in the company of theologians like Paul Tillich, attempting to offer the text as literature--some of it written as prose, some as poetry, and myth in the broader sense of the term (e.g. Joseph Campbel). I attempted to teach my congregants the value of myth in that myths point to deeper struggles, issues and ultimate concerns of human beings.
I think the fact/fiction dichotomy plays into the hands of a fundamentalist mindset in itself--though I doubt that is your perspective.
Would one want to deny that there are great life lessons and moral/ethical implications found in reading works that are fictional? just wondering.

I also enjoyed and appreciate your response, Rip. Good points.

Posted by: Jay | October 9, 2007 2:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Apparently some people have a greater difficulty suppressing their sense of disbelief than others, I don't know - I've never had any problem letting my sense of disbelief have its way with me.
It seems also that many of the believers, particularly those who desire power, are not only intent on suppressing their own sense of disbelief, they seem quite ready and willing to supress mine as well.

I have no arguments with the believers in astrology or the phsychic news network or whatever ... I never sense their gathering together in large numbers to vote in some law that mandates astrology, that forces it down other children's throats, that oppresses the un- or non-believer ... I simply don't care what they say or do. If they want to have a conversation with me regarding their beliefs I wouldn't feel any need or desire to belittle them, the most I would say is: "Isn't that curious?", the same kind of thing I would say if they asked me if their clothing maked them look fat.

But until the christians in particular in this country stop following Dobson and Robertson and all those power-mad monsters, or the christians who don't like them anymore than I start demanding their own freedom from these people - I have to deal with the fact that it is the body of believers who make these monsters possible.

I will treat you and your treasured and sacred beliefs in the same manner I treat those of the astrologers, as soon as I feel you aren't dangerous to my existence.

Posted by: K | October 9, 2007 2:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment

There's very little that these two groups will ever agree on.

The best that can be hoped for (a triumph over experience if it happens!) is for them to talk to each other quietly, slowly, non-interruptedly, and in well-modulated tones.

Then they can depart, each with its beliefs unchanged and intact, but leaving a residue of civility.

Posted by: Norrie Hoyt | October 9, 2007 2:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Was Jesus a liberal or a conservative or something else altogether?"

Something else altogether. His message was, in fact, understood by the Romans as a revolutionary threat. But remember what he said "my kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." He also said, when asked about taxes, "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" - not exactly a motto that we can easily imagine falling from the lips of Che Guevarra.

As described in the New Testament, Jesus called for both an incredibly high level of personal morality and holiness, and a incredibly high level of concern for others. He also called for a complete devotion to God.

Too many of us today pick and choose those parts of his message that resonate with us personally, and ignore the rest (or find some excuse to denegrate them as not part of the "true" message of Jesus). So, many conservatives focus on the call to personal morality and holiness, and neglect the concern for others. Many liberals focus on His concern for others, interpreted as a "social gospel," and neglect what He had to say about personal morality.

We see this play out over and over again: one group stresses, for instance, His message about sexual morality while doing little or nothing for the poor, while another ignores sexual morality and focuses on concern for the poor. The truth is, Jesus' message encompassed both.

If we read the New Testament carefully, there's something to challenge each and every one of us. Social justice, family values, business ethics, personal holiness, commitment to God - none of us get's it all right (which is also part of the message and, according to the New Testament again, why we need Christ).

Posted by: Believer | October 9, 2007 2:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

NUMI
Jesus was most definitely a radical. It is worth reading N.T. Wright’s works to see how Jesus fits into his political context. Modern Pauline scholarship also shows that Paul was politically radical. The terms like ‘savior’ and ‘Lord’ which were applied to Jesus were and are exceptionally subversive. If Jesus is savior and Lord, Caser is not. Furthermore, if Jesus is savior and Lord, George Bush is not. All empires are pretenders to the throne.
Peace,
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 9, 2007 2:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Rip -

Thanks for the response.

Since I begged the question of "what do we read it as?", here's a question to get us started:

Do you read the story of the Exodus as a historic fact? Yes or no? If yes, what evidence do you have to back it up? If no, do you teach/preach it to your congregation as a fact or a fiction?

Thanks in advance for your response.

Posted by: Mr Mark | October 9, 2007 2:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I have faith that there is some force that created everything. I find it impossible to believe that this power made itself known to an ancient person and created a contract with them that members of their tribe were in alliance with the power and all others were not. Instead, it is probable that these stories were invented to create a powerful caste who would endure as a social authority.

Definitions of human origin and lessons in human conduct by the ancients are the basis for religion. Humanity had the unique ability to think abstract thoughts and develop rational schemes. This difference from other animals was obvious to mankind. This difference presented the obvious question as to why this difference existed. All social beings had one sort of authority, a group leader to direct their activities. Humans required an additional type of leader, the authority who answered the unanswerable questions. The passing of this body of knowledge and authority created a line of authorities. This authority and the line of group activity leaders reinforced the continuity of a tribe over generations. The volume of lore built into a massive database that defined the tribes relation with the creative power that originated Life, their history as a people and the rules of conduct under which their society functioned. These definitions and rules were in the form of stories of individuals and their interactions. This lore was an oral history and the ability to memorize the history and apply its lessons to daily life formed the job requirement for the position. The group leader for activities required physical strength, the group leader for tribal lore required intelligence. When the ability to write evolved, the lore was transcribed into print and the lore became fixed. It also became the basis for modern religions.

Since that time, a related body of knowledge developed called empirical science developed. The ability to experiment and tally results and propose theories based on the results grew over time. Unlike the tribal lore, the assumptions of science were not fixed. New experiments might determine new theories. This malleable set of assumptions grew into many branches and the results of the experiments led to changes in the lives of humans who transformed themselves from farming societies into modern post-industrial societies planning Mars missions and experimenting with the human genome, et al technical achievements.

On the other hand, the tribal oral history built from the dawn of thinking remained fixed at the moment they were written. These became religions and several dominated after millennia of wars, migrations and mergers of tribal populations. What they have in common is an explanation of a power who created the world and life and humanity and the relationships between them. The explanations are not based on science because they pre-date science. Another aspect they require is that they are accepted as truth based on blind faith.

That the religions provide a rational basis for human interaction and conduct is their principle authority. Despite their differences, they universally proclaim that murder, stealing and other maltreatment of fellow members is bad. They proclaim that fidelity, helpfulness and respectful interaction with fellow members is good. Their stewardship of their society is authorized by an historical event that created a partnership between the power that created everything and the founding member of the religious authority. The faith of the tribe in this event, in the explanations of the unknowable origins of everything, create the basis for the continuance of the authority.

Science has repeatedly found explanations that run counter to the tribes' explanations. Some of the scientists were killed for blasphemy. Other scientific explanations were explained as different versions of the same story. Others were ignored. Still others were used as proof that another religion is false. But as science has grown and the body of experimentation has been validated and extended itself, religion has been shown as folklore of primitive people trying to explain the unknowable.

The fact is that the origin of everything remains unknown. The answers may not be determined for millennia to come. But the power that created everything is probably not the power described by the tribal shaman on a dusty plain in ancient times who was trying to impose order on the perceived chaos in giving an answer to the unanswerable question, "Why are we here?"

2,000 generations ago a man and his wife left the tribe in what is now Ethiopia and started wandering. When he and his descendants stopped wandering, the world was peopled. That gene is in every human of every color in every tribe on every continent practicing every religion.

Religions offer us models of ideal behaviors that are correct, but the matters of faith that authorize them are merely self-serving vehicles to perpetuate their power over people. That there is power that humans can tap into to find strength to overcome adversity or to commit horrible atrocities is not a suitable reason to use the religions as a weapon against other people. This power of good and bad is not God and the Devil, but a continuum that we tap into everyday for better or worse or somewhere in between. Let the good principles guide us in our interactions, but let's disallow the authority to commit our actions against others based on the authority's contract with the unknowable personality of the unknowable power that created everything.

Posted by: R V Gammill | October 9, 2007 2:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr. Mark
I acknowledge you did not ask me, but I would like to respond. I am an ordained Christian Minister. I work with prisoners in a maximum security prison in Washington State. I am a retired University professor. You can google my name to see examples of my work. I do not apply one standard of truth for the pulpit and another for the academy. I do, however, seek to attend to the needs of my congregation.

Whenever I teach or preach, I seek to use the text responsibly. I never hid or hide from my students or congregation the difficulties involved in interpreting the Scriptures.

You state that many parts of the Bible were fictions unsupported by history, archaeological and geological evidence.

Your statement begs a question. Before we ask what a passage means, we have to ask, ‘What do we read it as?’”. Certainly it would not be appropriate to read Hebrew narrative as if it were modern scientific literature or even modern historical literature. This of course entails that it has little scientific value and perhaps even limited historical value for the modern critical historical reconstruction of the ancient Near East.

Peace,
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 9, 2007 2:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To get a ball rolling, I have a question for the believers on this board? And I mean this in a completely unsnarky way. Was Jesus a liberal or a conservative or something else altogether? And, please, this is not meant to start a debate about the historical validity of Jesus the person. That's a whole other discussion.

Personally, I think Jesus was more liberal than conservative and more revolutionary than liberal. I am, of course, applying a modern understanding of the terms to an ancient situation. In the context of his times, I think his message could have easily been considered a revolutionary threat. After all, the Roman empire was not exactly a warm fuzzy.

Anyone?

Posted by: numi | October 9, 2007 2:06 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Dear Jay -

I would be interested to know if, "in [your] experience as a former evangelical minister," you knew that many parts of the Bible were fictions that were unsupported by history, archaeological or geological evidence. If so, did you go out and preach these lies as "gospel truths," or did you find a work-around that acknowledged the specious nature of many Bible stories?

I look forward to your reply.

Posted by: Mr Mark | October 9, 2007 1:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I believe it may help also to note the difference between evangelicals and the fundamentalist movement that has taken over much of the evangelical religous world--monoplizing the dialog, firing professors from seminaries and universities for not passing a litmus test of belief, etc. In my experience as a former evangelical minister, there remains a difference between those people of faith who affirm the fundamentals of their faith and those who adopt a fundamentalist-political mind-set.
You will find some in the former "camp" open to genuine, respectful conversation with non-believers. However, the political, take no prisoners-approach of fundamentalism may not be truly open to such conversations. After all, they are not truly allowed to budge one inch from the fundamentals which they believe and hope to have everyone else believe.
I don't intend to cast ALL fundamentalist in this light as I have seen my family members who are fundamentalists come to open up to other views in terms of at least talking with others about issues related to women's rights (and these are the family members who considered Jerry Falwel to be too liberal. HA). HOwever, I simply want to note that the world view and political nature (both micro and macro in terms of religious institutions and national politics) creates a huge hurdle to dialog.
Conversation is not necessarily high on the list, but control and purging insitutions like Southern Seminary certainly do remain top priorities.

Posted by: Jay | October 9, 2007 1:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Rip Van Winkle, E Favorite:

Regarding eternal damnation for nonbelievers--there is plenty of room for dispute about what is said in the Bible about this. There is one verse that I know of that could be interpreted to threaten eternal damnation, but that's a questionable interpretation when you read it in context.

In the nineteenth century, there were many American evangelicals who were universalists--which meant that they believed that "God will save every person." Every person. Not just believers, and not just those who followed moral codes. In my opinion there's more Biblical support for the universal salvation view than the eternal damnation view.

In the nineteenth century, evangelicals were also at the center of many progressive movements, including the abolition of slavery, women's rights, decent wages, etc.

So things have not always been so different on the US side of the pond from the British side. I wonder what changed, and when, among US evangelicals. Or perhaps it's only the public perception that changed?

Peace,
Rachel

Posted by: Rachel | October 9, 2007 1:33 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Angela B,

I indeed am a Christian (of the "New Reality" at the moment). I was bred, born and brainwashed in Catholicism ( K-12 Catholic schools).

Things like limbo, original sin, physical resurrections, miracles, ascensions and assumptions were always troubling concepts.

Enter the NT exegetes starting about 200 years ago.

Read many of their books (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html and consulted a Catholic theology professor/friend about their conclusions. Surprisingly, the professor teaches (at a major Catholic university) much of what the NT exegetes have concluded about the historical Jesus, miracles and prophecies but with the conclusions based on a differsent set of parameters. www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2

Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | October 9, 2007 1:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

E Favorite:
John R. W. Stott, Rector of All Soul's church in London espouses an annihilationist position in his EVANGELICAL ESSENTIALS: A LIBERAL-EVANGELICAL DIALOGUE. Clark Pinnock, John Wenham, Philip Hughes and Steven Travis also argue for this position. It has been the historical position of the Adventist Church. Even some of the church fathers were bothered by the notion of eternal damnation. Origen argued for Satan’s repentance.

An infinite punishment for a finite offense has never made sense to me. Surely such an idea is manifestly unjust.

Before I make reference to a text such as the New Testament, I always seek to reconstruct the original text on the basis of the imperfect manuscripts which have been preserved and I want to interpret it properly in its literary, social and historical context. Furthermore, the best Christian theology always relies on Scripture, Church tradition, reason and experience.

I make the previous remarks merely to demonstrate that the dialogue is important.

Peace,
Rip

PS. I hope your comment did not indicate that I was trying to hide my belief.

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 9, 2007 1:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I like the idea of a 'adult' dialog. I'm not sure of it's practicality, however.

As a 'centrist' atheist, I find myself positioned squarely in the 'whatever floats your boat' camp. Through the years, I have been associated with many non-dogmatic believers. I have never found the association to be difficult as mutual objectives superseded any believer/non-believer litmus test. Results have trumped motivation.

I once attended a public talk (Faith vs. Magic) by a very wise rabbi. He described fundamentalists as A-B-C believers. Insert tab A into slot B and fold along line C. Voila! It's a magic trick and it always works. Faith, he said, is another matter altogether. Much more difficult as there is no magic involved with no real certainty of success.

On a continuum of belief/nonbelief, I would place religious fundamentalists in the same category as militant anti-theists. They are mirror images of one another and one will never understand, or seek to understand, the other. In either case, motivation is paramount and results be damned. Call it the triumph of form over funtion, if you wish. It is the way of all fanatics.

Fortunately, the vast majority of both believers and non-believers seem to fall somewhere in the wide, diverse middle. That is where any dialog can begin. It will necessarily mean ruthless exclusion of stiff-necked fanatics from both camps so as to avoid inadvertantly insulting the well-meaning and much larger middle.

I'd be willing to give it a go but be forewarned. Keep your certitudes and magical thinking to yourself. I just may know more about religion than you do.

Ain't that a kick in the head?

Posted by: numi | October 9, 2007 1:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"Demos, is it possible that characterizing all of those statements as polemics might be part of the problem?"

O.k., help me here then - how would you characterize them? Or maybe we don't need to. The themes I see expressed by these quotes are:

1) Believers, because of the very nature of their faith, cannot respect the views of non-believers; ("Can people place a value on anyone (or their opinions) they perceive to be deserving of eternal damnation and punishment?"; "The fatalistic, Manichean terms in which evangelicals see the world seem to prohibit meaningful dialog," "If one engaged me in a religious discussion,I would have to be blunt,and that never goes down well with believers,who think it's rude to be blunt.
It would be like talking to a hypnotized person, or a schizophrenic,")

2) Believers are intellectually dishonest - they can't be trusted; ("But you'll excuse me if I don't trust the religionists any further than I can throw them.")

3) Believers are too self-righteous to honestly listen to anyone else; ("Their general level of mendacity seems to be matched only by their self-righteousness")

4) Believers are simply unwilling to talk with non-believers; ("What we need isn't for atheists to talk to evangelicals, what we need is evangelicals to talk to ANYONE")

5) Believers want to seize control of society and oppress non-believers; ("Evangelicals, unlike mainstream Christians, aren't content to practice their religion and bring it to others who show and interest: they want to seize control of the government and institutions of society in order to compel everybody else to follow their way," "... religious systems are specifically created to vilify dissenters. Casting the "others" as a scourge to be converted or shunned is central to almost all religious systems, and evangelical Christianity in particular," "Mr Jacques, isn't your goal to find the next puppet president to front the running of the kingdom of God , earth by the evangelical ministry while we anxiously await the return of Jesus to claim His throne, king of kings?" "Religion is the great enemy of democracy.")

6) There seems to be a lack of interest in real dialog among many atheists; ("I don't want to talk to christians,especially evangelicals.")

So Chip, let's not pick a specific word to describe these attitudes ("polemics" or anything else). I've taken all of these quotes from the posts above - aren't these themes that are being expressed by the non-believers responding to Mr. Berlinerblau's call for dialog? Do they show any sort of intellectual, moral or personal respect for the non-believer? Are they in any way helpful?

There has been one atheist who supports the idea of civil, respectful discourse between believers and non-believers. I want that as well - and I think every other self-proclaimed Christian in the discussion has expressed the same desire. But we're not going to get there unless we agree to the "civil" and "respectful" part (and the stuff I'm talking about above doesn't meet any minimum standard of personal respect, and in some cases pretty clearly fails any minimum standard of civility as well).

Posted by: Demos | October 9, 2007 12:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Angela B proves my point of a Xian who knows nothing of her own religion's history.

I suggest Angela B do some research of her own. She can even limit her research to credible Biblical scholars if she wishes. Abraham wasn't a myth? What comic book histories are you reading?

Posted by: Mr Mark | October 9, 2007 12:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Rip VW: "In a previous post someone (E Favorite I believe) mentioned eternal damnation. It is hard to find a British evangelical who argues for such a position. Why are things so different on this side of the pond?”

Interesting – more indication that people will change their beliefs (or hide them) to adapt to their environment. The bible, I’m pretty sure, promises eternity in hell for anyone who doesn’t accept Jesus as their savior. I’ve seen many Christians here “on Faith” - evangelical and otherwise - inform non-believers that this was their inevitable fate. I’ve had friends tell me that – not even in a mean way (at least by tone of voice) – just as stating a fact or expressing a concern. Meanwhile, when the discussion is not about religion, everything is fine. They can be completely reasonable and respectful.

DEMOS: the people you quote are representative of that opinion. Thank you RACHEL for pulling out quotes with alternative views. I’m hopeful too that a respectful dialogue is possible, someday.

ANGELA B – If you want to know the source of “Concern’s” information, please check his first link – it goes to a NY Times article reporting on the work of academic archeologists that has been accepted by the Conservative Jewish leadership and included in the archeology section of latest edition of their “Tree of Life” books found in all Conservative Jewish temples. PS, Abraham is “myTHical,” not “mySTical.”

Posted by: E favorite | October 9, 2007 12:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To The Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

Where do you get your facts from? First and foremost, I would say without a shadow of a doubt you were never a Christian. 1. Abraham was not a mystical character; read historial and archaeological accounts on the tracing of his son; Issac; 2. Have you ever read the Bible (old and new testament) also, they're are more than 1,000 prophecies in the bible and most of the books including Isaiah and Daniel were written before Jesus was ever born and if you research the propheicies, all of them can be proven and they are documented if anyone ever took the time to research this. Also, Calvin, Spurgeon and Martin Luther opposed the man-made ordinances and other diabolical misuse of the doctrines in the Bible by men who were reedy, covetous, and wolves in sheep's clothing and were tried, and persecuted for their beliefs on "sound" doctrine, salvation by grace and not by god works and the greed of the Roman Catholic church to build St. Peter's Vasicular. They were by no means crazy; they stood their ground in the midst of the persecution of the very people who had appointed them. Before you start hallucinating and making up stuff, do your research before you speak on doctrine and other truths that you know nothing about.

Seek and you shall find....

Posted by: Angela B | October 9, 2007 12:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

D.W. van Winkle

Just for the record, I said 'most or many'. I did not say all. I know too many evangelicals to regard them as monolithically anything. Full disclosure: My father was a quite militant atheist, and my mother was a young earth fundamentalist when they met. They made it work for 52 years until my father died in 1998. So, I do understand the dialog thing very well.

The right to life movement is heavily populated with Protestants who regard many birth control agents as abortofacients. Indeed, the agents they oppose are those most effective. Those opposing effective birth control are not some small minority - they are a large and outspoken group. Without being able to discuss all ways to reduce the number of abortions, the conversation would be pointless.

Posted by: DZ | October 9, 2007 12:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

To The Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

Where do you get your facts from? First and foremost, I would say without a shadow of a doubt you were never a Christian. 1. Abraham was not a mystical character; read historial and archaeological accounts on the tracing of his son; Issac; 2. Have you ever read the Bible (old and new testament) also, they're are more than 1,000 prophecies in the bible and most of the books including Isaiah and Daniel were written before Jesus was ever born. Also, Calvin, Spurgeon and Martin Luther opposed the man-made ordinances and other diabolical misuse of the doctrines in the Bible by men who were Greedy, covetous, wolves in sheep's clothing. Before you start hallucinating and making up stuff, do your research before you speak on doctrine and other truths that you know nothing about.

Seek and you shall find....

Posted by: Angela B | October 9, 2007 12:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment

I am a religious person, but not an evangelical. I am delighted with Jacques’ proposal and with many of the responses so far. I think we have a starter here.

I do hope it's a time to talk. Unlike Demos, I'm seeing the seeds of dialogue on both the "religious" and the "nontheist" side of the discussion. It is hard to say how many of the people speaking from the "religious" side here are evangelicals, whether traditionalist, centrist or progressive.

I'm just going to feed back a few lines here:

Believer: “it requires genuine respect for each other - not just an agreement to avoid saying certain inflammatory things in particular forums”

Justin Stanley: “Evolutionary theories … rich with threads common to religious theories of human nature: the long hard struggle to attain something like freedom of will in the face of fleshly temptation, the tension between selfishness and altruism…”

Frank: “Concentration on spiritual matters, even when one does not believe in the supernatural, turns out to be pretty beneficial.”

Flies: “How can non-evangelicals reach out to evangelicals?”

Skeptimal: “Neither side, even if they wanted to, can completely shut out the other....the angrier members of both sides would lose interest once they couldn't call each other names.”

Believer: “I want to talk with thoughtful non-believers like him - there are things that I can learn, and it forces me to really think about what I believe. “

D.W. van Winkle: "I hope the list of participants is not confined to the universities and seminaries. Hopefully it can include those involved in churches and prison ministries….I would much prefer a Dawkins’ style of debate than a Hitchens’ one. I find Dawkins to be clear and insightful."

I wonder if Old Bob could manage to ask his question as an inquiry rather than a rhetorical device: “Can people place a value on anyone (or their opinions) they perceive to be deserving of eternal damnation and punishment?” An inquiring mind might ask, “Do all evangelicals believe that all those who believe differently deserve eternal damnation and punishment? If not, what is the range of evangelical beliefs on this question? If so, how does such a belief affect the respect they hold for atheists and others with different belief?”

A good moderator might be able to lead follks to convert many of the rhetorical questions into open inquiry.

Posted by: Rachel | October 9, 2007 12:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment

"I have never understood how other Christians can ask others to change their minds in the light of further evidence without being willing to change themselves."

Those of us who're thoughtful don't. We are, of course, just human - like anyone else. That means that we generally think we're right - otherwise, we would have already changed our minds (Christians aren't alone in this).

But by and large, even American believers aren't obstinate know-nothings - they're friends, neighbors and co-workers like anyone else. Unfortunately, they've been told over and over that science and liberalism are the enemies of religion - most often these days by scientists and liberals. Unsurprisingly, many have come to believe it - and to distrust not science (after all, Christians fly planes and use computers like anyone else), but the motives of scientists and atheists who use science to ridicule their faith.

Posted by: Believer | October 9, 2007 12:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Perhaps a good starting point would be for religionists to actually read any or all of the "atheist" books that are currently on the best-seller lists, ie: those by Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens.

I say this because while it appears that the vast majority of atheists have an in-depth knowledge of religion (especially the Christian variety), it also appears that the religionists haven't bothered to explore the standard atheistic positions, at least if the posts on this blog are any indication.

How are atheists to enter into a respectful dialogue with religionists when we face people who not only don't have a clue as to our positions, but whose knowledge of the Bible pales when compared to the Biblical knowledge held by a garden-variety atheist? Let's face it, we atheists spend as much or more time educating the typical Xian on the tenets of their faith - not to mention the a-historic aspects of their Bible stories - as we do espousing our atheistic philosophy.

At this point, it seems to me that respect is a one-way street flowing from atheist to religionist.

As a starting point, I would volunteer to enter into a dialogue with any "Early Earth" Xian provided they could offer proof that they have 1) a basic working knowledge of evolution, cosmology and geology, and 2) a basic respect for science across the board.

Or is that too much to ask?

Posted by: Mr Mark | October 9, 2007 12:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos, is it possible that characterizing all of those statements as polemics might be part of the problem?

Posted by: Chip | October 9, 2007 12:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment

E Favorite, I offer a few quotes from above.

"Can people place a value on anyone (or their opinions) they perceive to be deserving of eternal damnation and punishment? That would include those who are non-believers or even different believers."

"But you'll excuse me if I don't trust the religionists any further than I can throw them. Their general level of mendacity seems to be matched only by their self-righteousness . . ."

"What we need isn't for atheists to talk to evangelicals, what we need is evangelicals to talk to ANYONE. The fatalistic, Manichean terms in which evangelicals see the world seem to prohibit meaningful dialog."

"Evangelicals, unlike mainstream Christians, aren't content to practice their religion and bring it to others who show and interest: they want to seize control of the government and institutions of society in order to compel everybody else to follow their way."

"No amount of dialogue can change the fundamental unattractiveness of Evangelicalism and the unfairness of its position vis a vis nonbelievers, who are entirely uninterested in oppressing or interfering with Evangelicals so long as they respect everybody else's autonomy."

"Mr Jacques, isn't your goal to find the next puppet president to front the running of the kingdom of God , earth by the evangelical ministry while we anxiously await the return of Jesus to claim His throne, king of kings?"

"Religion is the great enemy of democracy."

"Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions)."

"... religious systems are specifically created to vilify dissenters. Casting the "others" as a scourge to be converted or shunned is central to almost all religious systems, and evangelical Christianity in particular."

"I don't want to talk to christians,especially evangelicals."

E Fav, what do you make of these comments? Are they really non-representative? There sure are a heck of a lot of them already.

Can you really pull any equivalent polemics on the part of believers from the discussion above?

Posted by: Demos | October 9, 2007 12:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The fundamental problem with a dialog between evangelicals and atheists and agnostics stems from their different world views. Devout believers see the bible (or other holy book) as a revealed truth beyond questioning. In addition, many also see non-believers as doomed people in need of saving. On the other hand, non-believers do not accept these beliefs and resent others forcing their values on them. They either see religion as delusion -- or something that unprovable.

These differences lead to a whole series of political and social clashes. Evangelicals are moved by their religion to use the political system make society "more moral" by banning abortion, limiting gay rights and restricting speech they find offensive. Non-believers resent the intrusions that come from a belief system they do not share.

Despite these differences, dialog is not hopeless.

One reason is human nature. Although we have different beliefs and values, there is a great deal that we have in common. For example, virtually everyone wants health, peace, a decent income and a better world to raise our children. These commonalities and interests can be a base to create a dialog. For example, believers and non-believers both may dislike war, mass poverty, endemic disease and (increasingly) environmental degradation. Dialog can bring both sides together and improve society.

There is another compelling reason to embrace dialog -- there is no decent alternative. A lack of dialog can lead to a culture war where power dangerously gravitates to bitter extremes. In some countries, this could even cause bloodshed. In some other places, it has stifled creativity and competitiveness. Even in a diverse such as the United States, our culture wars have greatly polarized our politics.

In the end, there is only dialog. We need to remember our shared humanity and to avoid the venom and ridicule that reduce trust. Atheists are not evil heathens going to hell and believers are not deluded followers of fairy tales. We are all members of the same human race.

Posted by: Eric T | October 9, 2007 12:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment

For those interested in a survey, at present, I am a Christian. I believe that it is important to remake our mental maps so that they correspond to reality. When I am persuaded that something else is better, I will change my allegiance and live in the light of that truth. I have never understood how other Christians can ask others to change their minds in the light of further evidence without being willing to change themselves. Of course the case for and against theism is a cumulative case and all of us use a suspense account so that we don’t question everything at once.

In a previous post someone (E Favorite I believe) mentioned eternal damnation. It is hard to find a British evangelical who argues for such a position. Why are things so different on this side of the pond?

Peace,
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 9, 2007 12:14 PM
Report Offensive Comment

For those interested in a survey, at present, I am a Christian. I believe that it is important to remake our mental maps so that they correspond to reality. When I am persuaded that something else is better, I will change my allegiance and live in the light of that truth. I have never understood how other Christians can ask others to change their minds in the light of further evidence without being willing to change themselves. Of course the case for and against theism is a cumulative case and all of us use a suspense account so that we don’t question everything at once.

In a previous post someone (E Favorite I believe) mentioned eternal damnation. It is hard to find a British evangelical who argues for such a position. Why are things so different on this side of the pond?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2007 12:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Like Big Mack I wouldn't know what to say to an evangelical.On the few occasions I have chatted to one,I kept my lip buttoned to avoid an argument.
If one engaged me in a religious discussion,I would have to be blunt,and that never goes down well with believers,who think it's rude to be blunt.
It would be like talking to a hypnotized person, or a schizophrenic,we just wouldn't connect.
Nothing good could come of it.
Be like Dawkins talking to the pope.

Posted by: Billie Haines | October 9, 2007 12:07 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Demos: "Every non-believer, with one exception (unless I've missed a second one), has said "nope, not interested, there's no point in talking with those poor deluded fools who want to rule the world and oppress us enlightened free-thinkers.""

I don't see that pattern at all. I see some in either camp not taking a stand, but rather asking questions and posing concerns. I see some who take a stand without revealing their belief position. And of course, your quote above is paraphrasing of your perception of the nonbelievers' position, not their joint stated position. In contract, I see a lot of variety in the responses.

Most interesting and hopeful to me, is Frank's experience. It suggests that when believers and nonbelievers meet in the context of a shared vulnerability and sense of camaraderie, open and productive dialogue is possible.

Posted by: E favorite | October 9, 2007 12:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Response to DZ.

I appreciate your identification of your previously anonymous email. Damn, I hate the way that computers do just what we tell it do and not what we want it to do.

Maybe one of the rules for such a dialogue is that real names should be used. It is too easy to be reactive when veiled.

Why should you assume that all evangelicals are opposed to birth control? The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church may oppose birth control (I am uncertain if all branches of the Eastern Orthodox church oppose it) but I have not found this to be the case with Protestants.

I know that this was just an example, but perhaps it exemplifies the need for a good dialogue.

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 9, 2007 11:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Response to DZ.

I appreciate your identification of your previously anonymous email. Damn, I hate the way that computers do just what we tell it do and not what we want it to do.

Maybe one of the rules for such a dialogue is that real names should be used. It is too easy to be reactive when veiled.

Why should you assume that all evangelicals are opposed to birth control? The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church may oppose birth control (I am uncertain if all branches of the Eastern Orthodox church oppose it) but I have not found this to be the case with Protestants.

I know that this was just an example, but perhaps it exemplifies the need for a good dialogue.

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 9, 2007 11:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I have reconsidered my previous post.

Although the fundamentalist modernist controversy has not helped, the biggest problem may be the illegitimate marriage of evangelicalism with right wing politics. As I mentioned elsewhere, Christians have lost their way in the quest for Cultural hegemony. The way of the world is the love of power. The way of Christ is the power of love. The church will be most influential when it incarnates the love of Christ. The more Christians revert to the love of power instead of the power of love, the more perverted they become. The folly of the gospel is the folly of the power of love instead of the love of power.

Peace,
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 9, 2007 11:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Mutual respect is always a good thing, but of what benefit is dialog if both parties are asked to pretend they don't disagree in such fundamental ways? It's exceedingly difficult to present a dissenting view and find receptive ears among believers for a simple reason... religious systems are specifically created to vilify dissenters. Casting the "others" as a scourge to be converted or shunned is central to almost all religious systems, and evangelical Christianity in particular.

On any other subject people have no problem disagreeing, even stridently, without feeling that they're being attacked personally, but a central aspect of religious belief is the notion that the beliefs are sacrosanct, and that to challenge them is to heartlessly attack the believer. As an outspoken non-believer I can't count the number of times I've been told that I'm a terrible person for challenging people's "sacred and cherished beliefs," and not just by believers. How does one begin to dismantle social taboos that have existed for thousands of years? It's impossible to have a truly respectful dialog with people who've been taught since birth that disagreeing with them is inherently disrespectful regardless of how daintily the eggshells are trodden.

Posted by: Chip | October 9, 2007 11:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I was too quick on the click. My apologies. The Anonymous post is mine.

Posted by: DZ | October 9, 2007 11:47 AM
Report Offensive Comment

While I endorse the gist of the essay, it strikes me as remarkably naiive. There is SOME common ground between evangelicals and atheists, but not very much. Just beginning a dialog or determining what to talk about are huge obstacles right from the start. The ground rules would need to be much more complex than what is described here.

Let's address Jacques' abortion example. I am perfectly willing to discuss ways to reduce the number of abortions even though I support abortion on demand. BUT, the most effective way to reduce the number of abortions is to ensure access to effective birth control. Most or many evangelicals oppose most of the effective birth control agents. At that point, there is no basis for further discussion.

This example can be extrapolated to many other issues.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 9, 2007 11:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Why can good dialogue occur in England and not the USA? Has the fundamentalist modernist debate ruined the USA forever? Are we going to allow that?

Oxford University has had excellent atheistic and theistic philosophers of religion (for example J. L Mackie and Richard Swinburne). Religious debates are lively at Cambridge.

Intelligence need not impugned and character need not assassinated.

I agree that Schweitzer, and Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen should be read, so too should N.T. Wright.

Peace,
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 9, 2007 11:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

If you step back and look at the comments here, the pattern is startling. It looks like every single Christian who has posted has said "yes, we would like to sit down and have a calm, polite, civil conversation with non-believers."

Every non-believer, with one exception (unless I've missed a second one), has said "nope, not interested, there's no point in talking with those poor deluded fools who want to rule the world and oppress us enlightened free-thinkers."

What's up with this? Is this really consistent with the "Christians are close-minded, unreasonable fanatics" but "atheists are enlightened, open-minded humanists" world view?

Posted by: Demos | October 9, 2007 11:36 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I don't want to talk to christians,especially evangelicals.The conversation can go nowhere,unless we talk football,or hockey.Christians would first have to admit that God is a hypothesis and not a reality.Or at least admit that agnosticism is sensible,bearing in mind that we can't KNOW there is a God.
In my mind religion has all the veracity of astrology,and I am unable to give it any credence.
I imagine christians will feel the same about talking to people who dismiss the God idea,which they have so heavily invested in.

Posted by: Big Mack | October 9, 2007 11:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Evangelicals should first come to grips with the flaws in the foundations and the founders of Christianity.

Once again the flaws:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer (Professor Bruce Chilton in his book, Rabbi Jesus).

Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Posted by: Concerned The Christian Now Liberated | October 9, 2007 11:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment

If religion ISN'T sick why does it have so many doctors?

Posted by: correction | October 9, 2007 11:23 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Mr Jacques, isn't your goal to find the next puppet president to front the running of the kingdom of God , earth by the evangelical ministry while we anxiously await the return of Jesus to claim His throne, king of kings?

King of kings? You mean to say the world will be run by kings when Jesus comes again,, on a cloud? That's not democracy.

Religion is the great enemy of democracy. Has been. Will it stay that way? That is the question.

Has Pat Robertson announced the winner of the 2008 election yet? Sorry, meant to say Dr Pat Robertson.

If religion is sick why does it have so many doctors?

Posted by: BGone | October 9, 2007 11:22 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I for one am interested in such a dialogue. I’m not sure what counts as an evangelical but I always think that people benefit from a respectful dialogue. I hope the list of participants is not confined to the universities and seminaries. Hopefully it can include those involved in churches and prison ministries.

I have recently read Christopher Hitchens’ GOD IS NOT GREAT and am currently reading Richard Dawkins THE GOD DELUSION. I would much prefer a Dawkins’ style of debate than a Hitchens’ one. I find Dawkins to be clear and insightful.

As far as the question about the nature of humanity, I find the narratives of the Hebrew Scriptues to be very insigtful.

Peace,
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 9, 2007 11:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Flies,

it's one of those easy things that's hard to actually do - we just have to actually look at each other as real people, and really listen. We have to understand that people who are as smart as we are, as well-intentioned as we are, and as honest as we are flat out disagree with us - and that doesn't automatically make them dupes, fools or intellectually dishonest. Why is this hard? Because it's threatening. It suggests that we might, just might, be wrong.

Look at some of the more recent posts here. We're talking about "religionists" and "evangelicans" and "making" them read this or that, as if they simply need to be re-educated. We're saying things like "Their general level of mendacity seems to be matched only by their self-righteousness . . ." We've had believers in other discussions on this blog who've made equally foolish and prejudicial statements.

On the other hand, we have people like Frank - (I hope I don't offend you, Frank, but . . .) thank God for people like Frank. I don't agree with him (or my handle would be something entirely different), but he's someone who can really advance a discussion with both believers and non-believers. And I want to talk with thoughtful non-believers like him - there are things that I can learn, and it forces me to really think about what I believe. I hope it helps him think about what he believes as well.

One of the things you said was "What we need isn't for atheists to talk to evangelicals, what we need is evangelicals to talk to ANYONE."

I'd like to challenge you just a bit here. I don't characterize myself as an evangelical, but I do have a very traditional view of Christianity. There are many others like me - evangelical and non-evangelical Christians who take their faith seriously, but who do in fact try to understand and engage the rest of the word - and learn from it. But for us to talk to someone, they have to slow down a bit and take the time to listen. (In return, I promise to listen to you.)

Posted by: Believer | October 9, 2007 11:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I for one am interested in such a dialogue. I’m not sure what counts as an evangelical but I always think that people benefit from a respectful dialogue. I hope the list of participants is not confined to the universities and seminaries. Hopefully it can include those involved in churches and prison ministries.

I have recently read Christopher Hitchens’ GOD IS NOT GREAT and am currently reading Richard Dawkins THE GOD DELUSION. I would much prefer a Dawkins’ style of debate than a Hitchens’ one. I find Dawkins to be clear and insightful.

As far as the question about the nature of humanity, I find the narratives of the Hebrew Scriptues to be very insigtful.

Peace,
Rip

Posted by: D.W. Van Winkle | October 9, 2007 11:19 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Are you kidding, "Am I the only person in the United States who believes that a dialog between nonbelievers and evangelical Christians might help both sides identify some mutual concerns and even the occasional area of agreement?"

There is(are) no nonbeliever representative(s). Good try. I suppose Hitchens, Dawkins or both will be called upon to pound the table, bang the wall and scream, "there is no God." Then the evangelical representatives, all 10,000,000 of them can turn to the camera as say, "I told you so" followed by, "we win. Meeting's ended."

Now try someone like Mr Hunt, http://www.hoax-buster.org You can just mangle him with all your Biblical knowledge but you can't refute his finding and you dare not let his finding go public, (like you can stop it). He comes with faith in God, no table pounding or wall banging, just the facts. Of course he doesn't represent anyone either, just truth that needs no representation, only "a few good men" to spread it, as we seek to bring truth, justice and the American way to government.

Posted by: BGone | October 9, 2007 11:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Evangelicals, unlike mainstream Christians, aren't content to practice their religion and bring it to others who show and interest: they want to seize control of the government and institutions of society in order to compel everybody else to follow their way. Atheists and agnostics believe in the Jeffersonian principle behind the republic, that everybody should be legally free to make their own moral choices, and practice the behaviors that go with them, so long as they are not impinging unreasonably on others in the process. No amount of dialogue can change the fundamental unattractiveness of Evangelicalism and the unfairness of its position vis a vis nonbelievers, who are entirely uninterested in oppressing or interfering with Evangelicals so long as they respect everybody else's autonomy.

Posted by: Rich | October 9, 2007 11:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Neither religion nor freethought is going away in this century, so sooner or later we're going to have to have this kind of conversation. Neither side, even if they wanted to, can completely shut out the other. The only question I have is how long it's going to take for everybody to realize that.

I do think there's common ground in our values, and it would be worthwhile to have the discussion. People ARE capable of following ground rules, and my guess is that the angrier members of both sides would lose interest once they couldn't call each other names.

Posted by: Skeptimal | October 9, 2007 11:00 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The problem with evangelicans is that they believe in an imaginary Jesus. The real Jesus was not the wimpy pacifist of the Gospels but someone who expected an apocalyptic end soon. He was wrong but he was not wimp.

Other things he was not: not God's son; not a saviour; not a redeemer; not what you want.

Make evangelicals read Schweitzer's Quest of the Historical Jesus.

Posted by: candide | October 9, 2007 10:59 AM
Report Offensive Comment

wouldn't it be nice if candy fell from the sky and the dishes in my sink cleaned themselves?

I agree that both parties could benefit from such a dialog but I'm at a loss as to how anyone could actually make it happen.

what steps should we take to bring this dialog about? It seems as though there would have to be a specific goal of such a meeting. Overall this article seems pretty light, offering throwaway suggestions to a tangential issue while managing to avoid saying anything of material consequence.

What we need isn't for atheists to talk to evangelicals, what we need is evangelicals to talk to ANYONE. The fatalistic, Manichean terms in which evangelicals see the world seem to prohibit meaningful dialog. I'm sure atheists would jumpt at the chance.

How can non-evangelicals reach out to evangelicals?

Posted by: flies | October 9, 2007 10:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

I couldn't disagree more, Jacques.

If we take the publication of Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" as a signal event in the emergence of the "new" atheists, then we're only two years into the process. More importantly, we're maybe only 8 months into the period where said atheist nubes and their message gained a foothold in the mainstream media.

I would opine that we nubes have a ways to go before our message gets past the new & dangerous phase and is recognized by the religious as a movement and a philosophy that isn't going away. Your call for civility or whatever amounts to an effort to nip in the bud the increasing strength of the new atheist message. Sorry to say it, but it reminds me of the Republics in Congress who for six years wouldn't allow the Democrats to utter a peep on the floor of the House and Senate, freezing the Ds out of the process entirely, with those same Rs (and their sycophants in the media) ranting only moments after losing the '06 election that Americans were sick of the partisanship and wanted bi-partisanship to rule in DC.

I don't doubt that some day, religionists and realists may become friends and even allies in some causes. But you'll excuse me if I don't trust the religionists any further than I can throw them. Their general level of mendacity seems to be matched only by their self-righteousness, at least if the posts on OnFaith are any indicator.

No, I would need some sign that religionists were willing to work honestly with people who think differently than they. I've got it! How about they first prove that they can get along amongst their religionist selves before pleading that atheists treat them as intellectual and moral equals? Let Sunni lie down with Shia, Lutheran with Fundamentalist, Catholic with Mormon etc before appealing to the atheists for understanding?

Or, perhaps we should put Mr Berlinerblau's atheist/religionist "dialogue" on the same schedule for success as that followed by the religionists? In that case, I'd say we're at least 1500 years away from such a dialogue, though I doubt that the atheists will be starting any religious wars in the interim.

Posted by: Mark Stenroos | October 9, 2007 10:45 AM
Report Offensive Comment

E favorite's comments strike at the heart of almost all religious dialogues. It reminds me of the article in The Onion titled "Pope Intitiates Dialogue with the Hell-Bound," citing his interest in meeting with Muslims Jews.

Can people place a value on anyone (or their opinions) they perceive to be deserving of eternal damnation and punishment? That would include those who are non-believers or even different believers.

Doesn't that make any other issue pale by comparison?

Posted by: Old Bob | October 9, 2007 10:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment

E favorite's comments strike at the heart of almost all religious dialogues. It reminds me of the article in The Onion titled "Pope Intitiates Dialogue with the Hell-Bound," citing his interest in meeting with Muslims Jews.

Can people place a value on anyone (or their opinions) they perceive to be deserving of eternal damnation and punishment? That would include those who are non-believers or even different believers.

Doesn't that make any other issue pale by comparison?

Posted by: Old Bob | October 9, 2007 10:41 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Can nonbelievers mention (in context, of course), that evangelicals worship invisible supernatural beings?

Can evangelicals mention that nonbelievers will spend eternity in Hell because they eschew these supernatural beings?

Posted by: E favorite | October 9, 2007 10:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Who needs a meeting environment to initiate such a dialogue? I'm fortunate enough to participate in atheist/evangelical discussions almost every day, through participation in a twelve-step program in which a Higher Power is considered an essential element of success.

I struggled for years with the issue, since I entered the program an atheist. That experience actually contributed to my success in the program (so far), because I was forced to examine my beliefs closely. Concentration on spiritual matters, even when one does not believe in the supernatural, turns out to be pretty beneficial.

For several years now I've talked about my beliefs (I consider my atheism a positive attribute; it's not simply non-belief) amongst my friends and acquaintances in the program, usually without direct rebuttal on their part, and lo and behold, we usually find broad common ground to occupy on a friendly, productive basis.

Of course this requires scrupulous avoidance of ridicule of the others' positions. Prejudice notwithstanding, ridicule is the single most poisonous factor in any such discourse. Shame on all who employ it; they are being purposefully provocative and consciously (in my view) counter productive.

By the way, I'm a conservative, straight Republican who nonetheless eschews conservative preoccupations with gay marriage, flag burning, stem-cell research, and (obviously) intelligent design. I oppose abortion, but not (also obviously) on religious grounds. I'm married to a devout Roman Catholic woman, whose religious practices I support and occasionally participate in.

Atheism is misunderstood by most people with whom I've discussed spiritual matters. It's especially misunderstood by most atheists in my view. The kind of discourse you suggest would be beneficial to all sides in terms of beginning to alleviate the misunderstandings, if nothing else. It won't happen, though, unless elimination of ridicule from the discourse is a ground rule for such discussions. Who knows? The ground rule might even become a habit, and the habit might become the only culturally acceptable norm.

Posted by: Frank | October 9, 2007 10:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment

There are a handful of interesting books on the subject of evolutionary science and human ethics, with titles like "Sociobiology and Original Sin", "Original Sin and Evil in the Light of Evolution", and "Evolution and Eden: Balancing Original Sin and Contemporary Science"... and there are other titles I'm leaving out, that focus on the same topic from different perspectives. Evolutionary theories on human nature may not be so "amoral" let alone "immoral" as commonly thought, but rather rich with threads common to religious theories of human nature: the long hard struggle to attain something like freedom of will in the face of fleshly temptation, the tension between selfishness and altruism, etc. It must also be mentioned that the authors of the aforementioned books are not solely evolutionary biologists and psychologists but include not a few theological scholars among their ranks as well. I would suggest that the emergence of this "third culture", one that finds religious questions and scientific questions about human nature not to be mutually exclusive, but rather deeply, innately inclusive of one another, provides the most fruitful source for the kind of dialogue that you claim is so sorely needed. Of course, to bring about such a dialogue requires that each side read the others' primary and secondary sources. Ay, there's the rub. (Long time reader, first time poster and really enjoying this blog... but you already knew that.)

Posted by: Justin Stanley | October 9, 2007 10:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Jacques,

I'm convinced that what you're looking for is harder than your ground rules would suggest. For it to work (and it does work among many individual atheists and evangelicals), it requires genuine respect for each other - not just an agreement to avoid saying certain inflammatory things in particular forums.

What do I mean by this? Evangelicals (or any other committed believers, for that matter) have to assume that the atheists they want to work with are people of good will, and that their rejection of religion is not some sort of willful blindness for the sake of living any way they want. We may disagree, but we mustn't assume moral bad faith on the part of the people we disagree with.

In turn, the atheists who want to work with believers have to be willing to assume that those believers are their intellectual equals, and that they are not being willfully blind for the sake of obtaining some sort of psychic baby blanket. Again, disagreement is one thing - but for their to be any real partnership, atheists have to assume intellectual good faith on the part of the believers they want to work with.

Otherwise the civility required by your protocols (which I whole-heartedly endorse, by the way) won't fool anyone. If there's an underlying contempt on either side, then the civility won't fool anyone - ultimately, it will turn into hypocracy.

Posted by: Believer | October 9, 2007 9:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.