Soja, you say “Keeping them in ignorance of a fact of human life is doing them no favour.”

I agree completely.

Then you say: “Children may choose atheism but not before they have learned the good and bad sides of religion.”

I agree somwhat. I think children are born atheists – or agnostics maybe is the better word. They don’t know about religion, anymore than they know about much of anything, except hunger . I think they need to know about religion, without being indoctrinated into any particular one, in much the same way they should be educated broadly in non-religious subjects, without being forced into a career path in childhood.

Finally you say: “Humanism is an integral part of religions, even if people may not do what they are expected to do. Humanists, whether they are theists or atheists, have much in common.”

I agree completely, but I bet there are a fair number of believers who would not want to be associated with humanists. In some cases, out of ignorance and in some cases because they doubt that atheists could possibly have anything good in common with people who are not guided by a transcendent being.

BTW E Favourite, I do admire Professor Daniel Dennett. From what I have read of his views and what others have written about him, he is not an anti-theist like Sam Harris and Professor Richard Dawkins. When he wrote on this forum about the need to educate children well about religion, I expressed my appreciation for him.

Children need to have a choice to reject religions after knowing what it is about. Keeping them in ignorance of a fact of human life is doing them no favour. Children may choose atheism but not before they have learned the good and bad sides of religion. Humanism is an integral part of religions, even if people may not do what they are expected to do. Humanists, whether they are theists or atheists, have much in common.

A theist's explanation for the recent natural disasters in Myanmar and China.

thetrumpet.com: Why Did God Let It Happen?
http://www.thetrumpet.com/print.php?q=5271.0.106.0

Throughout this article,the author give the answer to his question: Why can't atheists see God with in themselves.

The answer is because this idea of "god" is truly "whithin" us. It IS us. It is our own mind, our own voice. It is a construct of our mind that tells us what is right and wrong.
Religion is the external realization of this inner voice.

The inner voice came first. The idea of an external god came second. Believers think it is the other way around.

This is the true difference between Atheists and Believers.

Dear Thomas Baum -

As if your strange imaginings of meeting a triune god in person aren't enough, you've really sealed the deal on your ass-hood by passing judgment on books you haven't read, and that stating that you have no intentions of reading them because you already know what they say because they question your worldview.

I must part company with E Fav and other atheists on this blog who find you a reasonable Xian. Arminius is a reasonable Xain. You, sir, are a delusional ass. Your overly long ramblings on god and meeting god and what you think about god and what other people don't know about god - including your insipid "take care and be ready" sign-off - don't amount to a hill of beans.

You have no standing, sir, to offer opinions on that of which you refuse to educate yourself.

You're closed minded and willfully ignorant, sir, and apparently because - reading between your own posted lines - you had some traumatic experience and promised "god" that you'd toe the Xian line if it got you through said traumatic experience. Now, you're stuck, so stuck - in fact - that you fear even reading anything that might cause you to question your delusion.

It that's not the height of dishonesty - a dishonesty of which YOU are its greatest victim - then I don't know what dishonest means.

You're just as truth deprived as the other Xians against who you rail. They, like you, are stuck in a closed little world of their own imagining, believe that they and they alone hold the secrets to god's love. But unlike you, they at least don't imagine that they've actually met god in person, a belief that is unique to you and you alone on this blog.

The fact that this truth doesn't give you pause is a clear indication that something's amiss, sir, and it doesn't have anything to do with anyone except Thomas Baum.

Good luck. Get some help.

Thomas Baum - what you choose to read is of course up to you. Please though, do not tell others what is in a book that you have decided not to read. If you care care to check on what I've said, then please, just don't mention the book at all. Don't mention that that atheist authors have said certain things just on hearsay.

That would be dishonest and I don't think you're a dishonest person.

I would appreciate if if you let me know what you've decided about what I've asked you to do.

Thanks

E FAVORITE

I was never forced to believe in God but I did believe in God and I believed in God until I met God.

As I said quite a while ago on these postings, when I was in my late teens I walked away from the Catholic Church because it was turning into a religion, so to speak, but I never did stop believing in God.

As I also said, I went to Catholic school for 12 years and looking back on it, after various things have happened to me, the "religion" classes in the lower grades seemed to teach me about God whereas in the higher grades they seemed to be more about religion which, in my opinion, can sometimes get in the way of God.

I would like to clarify what I mean by that: religion can sometimes be just the rules and regulations and the 'this is how the service is to be performed', so to speak, which can be good for some people but it should not be the do-all of what "religion" should be.

I also said that in second grade that I was taught that God is Love and that we are all equal in God's eyes which I still believe are two of the most important things that I have ever learned in my life.

I had no idea that "God is Love" is a literal statement until I actually met God but I accepted it in second grade because I felt loved by my family and friends.

And as far as we are equal in God's eyes that does not mean that we have the same abilities or anything even remotely like that just that we are all made in His Image which is Love whether or not it shines thru well that can be what our life unfolding can be.

As anyone should be able to see there is a lot of "holier than thou" being spewed forth from both theists and atheists and whatever other label people use to describe themselves.

As far as I am concerned teaching someone that they are responsible for what they do is not wrong.

I agree that teaching anyone to be afraid of God is wrong, and also after I met God and the phrase, "The Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" and other "Fear of the Lord" sayings came up, I wondered why anyone should be afraid of God and then in a regular dictionary, I looked up "Fear of the Lord" and it meant: reverence and awe, and with that I could see why "Fear of the Lord" is a good thing.

There seem to be some people that are teaching people to be afraid of God and they call themselves "christian" and I, wholeheartedly agree that this is wrong and that they do not have a clue what they are talking about but to out and out call "religious indoctrination" a form of child abuse is to lump all "religious indoctrination" together and that is, shall we say, a "holier than thou" attitude and I include the "religion poisons everything" phrase along with that.

Does it ever seem that some people, no matter what label they call themself, try their best to tell other's what to think, what to believe and also how to live their lives rather than trying to live their own life?

You mention Richard Dawkins and his book, The God Delusion, I admit I haven't read his book and I am not going to read his book but I have met God, Who is a Trinity and is a Being of Pure Love, and if by his title he is saying people that believe in God are delusional, then I am saying that he is wrong and this is coming from someone who used to believe in God up until I met God.

Does the title of his book mean what I wrote in the above paragraph or does it mean something else?

As I have said, I am a messenger and God will see me thru.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Baum – thanks for getting back to me. You acknowledge: “I, personally, have not read any of the books by the authors who seem to be referred to as the "new atheists" about all that I know about them is what I read on these postings.”

So I hope in the future you won’t say that they want to abolish religion – especially considering that what you’ve read here recently, by people who actually have read the books, is that the authors do not make that statement.

Then you say, “Doesn't at least one of them [new atheist authors] refer to teaching children about God as a form of child abuse?”

No – In his book “The God Delusion, ” Richard Dawkins discusses religious INDOCTRINATION as a form of child abuse – that is, being forced to learn only one religion and being forced to believe in it. Dawkins actually espouses religious EDUCATION for children – meaning learning ABOUT various religions in an objective way, just as you would learn history or any other school subject. For a full treatment of his views on this, I urge you to read Chapter 9 “Childhood, Abuse and the Escape from Religion” pages 309 – 344. You could leaf through it at a book store. It’s in or near the religion section. It’s now in paperback and I think it has a silver cover – just like the hardback.

Thomas – you know God exists because you have personally met him. The way to know what’s in a book is to read it.

Paganplace,

You're exactly right about science attempting to overcome subjectivity and personal bias. Of course spirituality doesn't have to be a rival science. My point is that numerous religions do set themselves up as rival sciences to one degree or another. Any belief or claim about gods or higher powers or souls constitutes a rival science.

How are you defining spirituality, if it doesn't contradict the physically observable or doesn't constitute a rival science? I would define such a spirituality to mean defining one's meaning and purpose.

"A lot of this stuff was never really *intended* to be taught in abstract verbal reasoning of this type, in the first place"

How do we know the intentions of the people who created the myths? Certainly we can read them as allegories or archetypes like Joseph Campbell, but that has nothing to do with the original intentions.

"an atheist saying, 'These religions contradict if I take them each as authorities, therefore they must both be 'wrong.' :)'"

Yes, that argument is the wrong approach. I would rephrase it thus: "These religions make claims of exclusive absolute truth. One may be factually correct and the other incorrect, both may be incorrect, but they cannot both be correct since both claim exclusivity. The solution is to recognize that the concept of exclusive absolute truth is not only unsupported by evidence but also inherently dangerous. This would mean that both religions can be viewed allegorically or metaphorically, where both may be different but valid ways of saying the same thing."

And, yes, Thomas, I know the usual Evangelical response is, 'If your kid were reaching for a hot stove burner, wouldn't you slap their hand away?'

I say, 'Yeah, but I don't teach them their own body, mind, and soul are hot stove burners, either.'

Dig?

Hi, Thomas.

"I, personally, have not read any of the books by the authors who seem to be referred to as the "new atheists" about all that I know about them is what I read on these postings.

"Doesn't at least one of them refer to teaching children about God as a form of child abuse?"

Trust me, it can be.

If I was teaching children, 'Obey Zeus in all things or suffer the torments of Sisyphus, forever,' (not that that's Pagan theology, just reaching for an example,) ...would you call that... Healthy? Wholesome?

If I came into the public schools and proclaimed, 'You're all going to be tortured forever if you don't do and believe exactly as I say, but if you *do,* you get eternal bliss,'

Could anyone but a Christian get away with that?

You teach kids they're being dangled over fires of eternal Hells based on a matter of obedience, and say, 'Take care, be ready for the end of the world,' you may as well lock em in a closet with 'The Day After' on endless loop, or stick em in a lifeboat in the chop and say, 'Hang onto this line or drown!'

Yeah, I think it's abuse, myself, to be honest. Just familiar and acceptable abuse.

Teaching kids they're basically at the mercy of forces beyond their control, say, portraying the world as the familiar life raft and obedience to Christian authority as the only safety, from dying and being tortured forever, well,

Ain't teaching em to swim, even if you say we're all in that boat, that's for sure.

It's not teaching 'love,' or courage and principle and vigor and compassion, it's teaching *fear and helplessness.*

No, it's not 'human will against utter oblivion,' either.

But, yes, what most Christians teach *is* abuse.

Abusers get away with what they do by constructing a story about how the outside world is *worse than what they do, don't dare question it, you're lucky you are even worthy to be confined and threatened like this, all the time, this is 'love,' *

And, frankly, that's probably the kind of thinking that makes them abusers in the first place.

Sound familiar?

Calling it 'God' don't make it OK.

A lot of 'angry atheists' may well be protecting themselves from that, something monotheists trivialize all the time, as though there weren't a good reason for it.

None of this makes that constructed world *real.*

Or disobedience some mere 'rebellion,' as so often trivialized.

You and your Jesus can be *better than that,* Thomas.

Can be. Doesn't mean you can stick a cross on anything, say the world's ending, and justify whatever.

I think you've mellowed out a lot lately, Thomas.

Still wouldn't leave you alone with any kids I was responsible for.

A lot of Christians think clergy abuse is only abuse if it leads to *sex.*

Actually, it goes deeper.

My faith doesn't teach children to be helpless and passive, even in the face of Gods. Or to redirect any resulting fear and aggression toward 'nonbelievers,' who like siblings of abused kids, might reat against the abused for fear of angering the 'almighty father.' That kind of *fear* is, yes, abuse. Teaching *children* that the world might end if they have a natural instinct, which makes them 'ultimately sinful' ...yes, that's abuse.

Constant threats of 'the end of the world, so do as I say,' *that's* abuse.

You can be better than that. But it's not 'persecution' to point that out.

We're not children right now.

Someone else is, though.

E FAVORITE

You wrote, " I think to some believers, a militant atheist is anyone who is openly atheist and who directly questions the veracity of religious beliefs."

That does seem to be right and as you said "some".

You also wrote, " If so, would that mean that Christians who openly profess their faith and say directly that they think atheists are misinformed about the existence of God are militant Christians?"

I would say that with some "christians" from reading what they write and also listening to them, about the only thing that they know about God is His Name.

I think of a "militant atheist" and a "militant theist" as two sides of the same coin.

Anyone trying to cram their beliefs down other people's throats, in my opinion, is no different whether someone believes that God is real or believes that there is no God or believes that God might be real.

I have stated point blank that I have met God and that I have met satan and it doesn't matter to me if anyone believes me or not but I am going to somehow do the job that God gave to me.

I have also stated that: God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof and that it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know, this to me seems like a fairly simple and straightforward statement, does it to you?

From reading different posting on these sights, some, if not all, of the people that call themselves atheists say that they do not need to believe in God to have a moral code and that, by the way, is biblical as it says about God, "I will write My Law on their hearts".

And then, there are some people on these postings that call themselves "christian" that say unless you believe in God, you cannot know how to live the right way, so to speak, some of these people that are trying to cram the bible down other's throats don't even know what it says and besides that, what they are trying to do in forcing God on others is not even close to what Jesus asked His followers to do.

You also wrote, "I know of no movement, even among militant atheists, to abolish religions."

I would like to ask you a question: Do you think that child abuse is right or wrong? Another question: Do you think that child abuse should be legal or illegal?

I, personally, have not read any of the books by the authors who seem to be referred to as the "new atheists" about all that I know about them is what I read on these postings.

Doesn't at least one of them refer to teaching children about God as a form of child abuse?

Granted, there has been and will continue to be wrong, both great and small, done by people claiming to be doing it for God, but that is not even close to what Jesus taught, even tho plenty have used His Name for justification.

But to be honest, haven't people used all kinds of "labels" to justify their actions including but not limited to the "atheist" label?

There has been much good done in the name of religion and there has been much evil done in the name of religion and for anyone to say that it has been only good done in the name of religion or to say that it has been only evil, as in "religion poisons everything", is to be ignoring reality.

Some times people say things in indirect ways but nevertheless say things.

I try to say things as simple and directly as I can as in God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable as in the captives shall be freed and the dead shall rise. It doesn't matter to me whether or not people believe me, my job is to speak, I'm a messenger.

I would like to say something else, after I met God, I really thought that people would like to hear about Him but plenty of people are more interested in their religion than in God.

If God was even remotely like what some of the people that know His Name seem to think that He is, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with Him.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

" E Favorite:

"Paganplace - thanks for the further info/explication of paganism.
Like I said, this survey is not for Pagans. They should be screened out at the beginning and asked a whole different series of questions."

Glad you liked it, Efave....

Sometimes science, of course, is about asking the right questions: if the questions are based on certain presumptions, you end up either throwing out data and getting the answers you expect, or getting data that excludes people who don't fit the questions.

Happens a lot with religious surveys. Everyone not Christian or lapsed-Christian tends to get undercounted... or dis-counted, if they respoind at all. Not that weight of numbers is a priority, except to counter notions we're really all that fringe: best estimates actually run to about 700,000 of us in America, ...and I tend to round that up to a million just on the basis of how many un-contactables I've met.

The questions people ask can skew perceptions, of course. ...I've taken a number of 'scientific' surveys, myself, and the *language* of the questions really skews people into this 'My belief or no belief' sort of frame, and the rest is divisions Christians defined in the first place.

The early Christians were considered *atheists,* really for the same reasons: they ran around disbelieving in Gods and all... except maybe their own.

There's scant difference between disbelieving in most Gods and disbelieving in 'all,' even if a lot of atheists think the whole difference is disbelieving in 'any' and 'one.' Same thought process, if you're asking the same yes/no questions.

Maybe, if we want to study religions, we shouldn't be asking the questions that require sorting out a whole lot of people.

Michael Novak wrote: "As far as I can see, the New Atheists have been slowly executing a strategic retreat. Many seem to admit that there is not now, and can never be, a knock-down proof for atheism. Many seem also to be admitting that, no matter what their skeptical friends write, belief in God is not only here to stay, but also seems to be rooted in human nature itself. It may even provide an evolutionary advantage."

I'm an atheist. I believe there are zero Gods. Although I don't know for certain that there aren't any Gods, I think it's very unlikely. And I believe that there are zero Gods.

Paganplace - thanks for the further info/explication of paganism.

Like I said, this survey is not for Pagans. They should be screened out at the beginning and asked a whole different series of questions

If the evidence cannot be sought "out there" - in other words, if there IS no evidence - then the Atheists can stay atheists, as we usually do. No reason to quail into agnosticism.

(finding this from Tonio: note it's hard to quote onesself in dialogue )

" Tonio:

""(me)Who *said* this was about 'determining the exact nature of the physical universe?'...but who taught you that was what this 'spirituality' thing was really all about?""

"Paganplace, my larger point is that the physical universe and the human experience are separate realms."

Certainly not in my spirituality, neither does my spirituality contradict the physically-observable, as some do. My point was you don't have to set up spirituality as a 'rival science.'

"The first is an "objective" realm and the latter is a "subjective" realm. Those may not be the right terms."

Even when we use our instruments, we're in a subjective realm. Just as 'objective' as we can make it. To postulate that the 'physical' realm is all that exists is claiming a negative. Usefully, for many things, but still claiming a negative.

" The error that creationism makes is in starting with a presumption about the human experience and defining the physical universe to fit that presumption."

Yes. It overreaches and is *anti-rational* in that way. It tries to claim authority where it has none, and is *demonstrably wrong.* This often gets muddied up with claims about whether or not anything 'more' exists, or indeed, if we might theoretically be constrained by equipment that can possibly be built, the nature of our spacetime, or even some theoretical limit of what our minds can perceive or comprehend in a scientific fashion.

""You don't escape being in a story by claiming, 'This isn't a story, it's 'real,' so, thus and therefore...'""

"Would you explain?"

Well, basically, I meant that we all are subject to living in subjective experiences and some form or other of 'mythic consciousness,' ...it's not only not much fun, but dangerous, to think you're immune to this, or that your personal myth is 'objective reality.' Science is a discipline that attempts to overcome as much of this as possible to understand the physical world... not so much be 'anti-spirituality' by leaping to assumptions that subjective experiences are 'bad' and lead to the anti-scientific parts of familiar religions.

"Since human experience is so variable, there can be no such thing as a "final answer." The physical universe is different - whatever its nature, it exists independent of anyone's individual opinion or belief."

I don't believe that the universe is all what we can chart in that manner. I also don't believe the parts we *can* chart are some kind of deception in order to preserve the authority of a book, say. :)

""Theological 'paradoxes' are a lot like scientific ones: there may be no privileged reference points, but who said you had to stand in only one place? :)""

"What would be an example of a theological paradox? I know about the "problem of evil," but that one involves a set of assumptions that appear to have no basis."

Oh, pick a few... what comes to mind, speaking of clocks and rulers in special relativity, is an atheist saying, "These religions contradict if I take them each as authorities, therefore they must both be 'wrong.' :)"

How about for a philosophical one, that vexing Xeno's Paradox, about how one can never arrive anywhere, because at any given moment, no matter how small you divide it up, one has to cross half the distance?

(Some theologians even claim that because this paradox is 'objectively real,' that therefore *God* must exist....)

But, someone came up with the solution: There are no moments. We just defined them, and called them 'objective.'

A mystic coulda told you that. :) Perspective, and all, but that's the kind of thing I was cautioning about.

I'd say, you can't live your life as though you had access to complete 'objectivity,' whether or not that comes from a book or 'Science.'

In fact, much of the trouble of fallacies of book-religion comes from trying to apply that kind of abstract reasoning to a tribe's stories in the first place, using the book for authoritative inputs. ...turns into busy-work for the mind that doesn't necessarily go anywhere before people throw up their hands, say, 'Ah, it's all the same, I'll believe or reject authority, and that's that,' ...of course, that's putting the whole game in 'Authority's hands.

A lot of this stuff was never really *intended* to be taught in abstract verbal reasoning of this type, in the first place, ...some folks ended up misusing the words and stories as a science-substitute, though. This, of course, doesn't demand that only the observable/repeatable world 'independently exists,' any more than 'Only the Word of God, Twenty Eighth Revision' 'independently exists' as reality.

Some habits of thought just frame the possibilities that way.

There's more.

" E Favorite:

"Hi, Paganplace – even as I was writing my survey questions, I was thinking that they probably don’t apply to Pagans – whose Gods really are personal, from what I’ve gathered here, and don’t tell humans how to act or what to expect from them."

Not en masse through priests and prophets in quite the same 'objective authority' way, no, ...certainly, there's very personal accountability for what we do, no, 'Lord or Lady or some devil or book-God made me do it, or commands *you* to'

You're pretty close, but there's been a lot of teaching both to monotheists and monotheist-atheists that the nature of Gods is to prohibit or compel. Pagans see Them as more like family and *guides.* Not so much like judges or kings or lords (when we say Lord and Lady it's really more like in the sense of chiefs than hereditary monarchs in the Church sense) ...or owners or controllers.

The personal bonds and relationships can take a lot of forms, but they're never really in terms of 'All of Mankind must do or never do these things according to this book, cause I say so, or else...'

Kind of a different view... I always find myself saying, 'It's not like this...' cause it's really certain *presumptions* people tend to take for granted, whether they personally believe in a certain God or not...

"As I’ve said here before, I think pagans are born, not made."

Well, we have a similar sentiment. ...I like to say we find our way of viewing things more 'natural,' or 'organic,' really, and a lot of the 'Book-religions' ' notions pointlessly artificial, abstract, and just about as fallacious as do many atheists.

But, it's actually simpler than the words imply, in the usual language. :) Maybe *everyone's* born that way, and someone just comes along and tries to add something else with mechanical insistence. :)

" Their feelings and beliefs are on the inside and never come out as doctrine, but as a individual way of experiencing life."

Also social and communal, and yes, traditional, but all that's in that sort of organic, rather than authoritarian or absolutist way, I'd say. Very American, that way, I think. Still we're individually kind of where the 'buck stops.' (*wagging cigar and doing Groucho,* and where the Buck stops, that's your own business. :) )

" People know they’re pagans (even without having a name for it) in the way people know they’re natural musicians or scientists. It’s something that’s expressed from within and training will only go so far. Does that sound about right to you?"

Well, not too bad. :)

"In my survey, my guess is that most believers would answer “medical attention and prayer” as their preferred way of handling an illness, but would chose “medical attention only” when forced to choose, but then credit both medical treatment and prayer again if there’s a cure."

Fair enough.. Though the 'Forced to choose' in that abstract way is kind of not how we *arrange our thought* in the first place: ...that again, implies a Divine or otherwise distant humanlike intelligence that forces binary choices based on words all the time. :)

Again, presumptions by which many of these arguments are arranged. Notice how what the columnist said has been basically lost in the exact same sorts of 'arguments' as occur any time someone says 'God' and 'Atheist' within an attention span. :)

" I suppose another question would be about placing blame in a negative outcome - ineffective medical treatment or ineffective prayer. My guess is that prayer gets let off the hook every time."

Not always. People who are taught that 'prayer' and 'God' operate by absolutes make much drama about 'losing their faith' (or accusing the pray-er or victim of having insufficient 'faith,') when that kind of procedure doesn't come off perfectly, near as often as you hear them crediting their prayer for perfectly empirically-chartable events.

I think in practice, a lot of monotheists are actually pretty flexible on this sort of thing, just when it comes to trying to prove a point, or a real shock, like a death of a loved one that seems really unfair, or someone holding out for a miracle when there's amoxycillin right up the street, that the absolutist thinking really seems to bite.

In a lot of Pagan thought, the notion of Gods and/or God/dess 'existing' isn't really bound up in that way with such binary things... It's not even really part of the narrative, so to speak.

Doesn't go yes/no (and possibly maybe or both) in a binary way, it's more like Yes, No, Synthesis/Something Else. If that makes sense to you. :)

" I’d be interested to follow the dialogue in response to such findings."

Possibly. You hear a lot of it. Never seems to go too far. :)

Soja,

"I'm glad you don't desire to abolish religions. Mission accomplished as far as I'm concerned."

You had nothing to do with it. It's part and parcel of the U.S. Constitution, wisely conceived.

"As to the rest of your comment, my guess is that you haven't really understood it. Meditate on the article and then you will realize it is only about protecting human rights and dignity, equal rights for all human beings, women because they happen to be human beings. I ought to add a clause for the protection of children, their right to medical help when they are ill."

I understood it just fine. As I said, I don't have any objection to the ideals expressed, including this latter one. They are the same as those of secular humanism. My objection is to the idea of any organized religion inserting itself into political discourse in any way.

If individual members of a religion allow their beliefs to inform their political choices, so be it; but no one should be intoning those choices from the pulpit, or in any public medium designed to influence his "flock."

"The highest ideals of religion are meant to inform political debates and influence policy not as theocracies but as values all humanitarians, whether atheists or believers, can agree upon."

That would be the ideal, but in practice, at least in my country, it doesn't work that way.

"Good willed believers are not the bogeymen and women you imagine them to be. We can all work together peacefully to uplift the human condition. We must."

Clearly you never met Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell - to name just two (of many) of our "bogeymen".

Hello Thom Baum -- I'm with Pam –I know of no movement, even among militant atheists, to abolish religions. If you think there is, please provide the reference. I'd like to see it. I've read all of the recent books by the new atheists and don't recall anything like that.

It may be there you've heard someone say that about the books - perhaps a trusted source -- but I'd caution you against repeating it unless you can locate and post the reference.

I have difficulty even imagining what this attempt to abolish religion would look like. Also, please keep in mind that the term militant atheist is applied to atheists by people who perceived them that way, not by atheists themselves. I think to some believers, a militant atheist is anyone who is openly atheist and who directly questions the veracity of religious beliefs. If so, would that mean that Christians who openly profess their faith and say directly that they think atheists are misinformed about the existence of God are militant Christians?

Soja -

You didn't understand my last post, so I'll explain:

When I used the phrase, "quit while you're ahead," I used it in the sense that you had already maligned atheists by saying that we do things in a "sneaky" fashion. I called you out on that and provided a counter argument showing that some Xians are extremely sneaky. "Quitting while ahead" was a caution to you to think twice about using other pejorative terms to describe atheists (terms like, "sneaky") when any such terms could be shown to apply even more aptly to our Xian friends.

You know the old saying about people who live in glass houses, don't you?

In your case, quitting while ahead may simply mean quitting ahead of the other atheists on this blog piling on and attacking the easy target you provided with your sneaky comment.

Soja - Dennett's idea is one of five he mentions as possible outcomes for the future of religion. It's the one I like best and think is most plausible.

What I like is that it's not "just" a social club - the meaning and purpose is in the particular good work that the denomination focuses on - feeding the homeless, improving the environment, etc. A lot of churches are already doing that - and a lot of churches are already just social clubs. Meanwhile, at present, religious institutions center their services on “worship” and at least pay lip service to the idea of belief in supernatural beings and faith in a particular ancient story as the basis for their existence. In this new creedless system, you get all the good works and social benefits, without the beliefs and without worship as the supposed center of the system, or even included in the group’s activities.

I suppose, building on the idea, it would be ok for people within these new creedless societies to openly believe in the supernatural, as long as it wasn’t the basis for belonging. This would be similar to some Episcopal churches I know of where many people (in one case the rector himself) openly do not believe in God, but are welcomed to participate in religious ceremonies, including taking communion.

Also, Soja, it sounds like in your proposed system, you presume that atheists will be coming forward in some formal way have their views considered, is that right? Somehow, I don’t see that. To me, this gets back to the notion of atheists attacking or retreating. What I see atheists doing now is no longer standing quietly in the background, tacitly allowing the baseless and conflicting beliefs of religions to be more social acceptable than a reason-based approach to life, and I think that coming forward of reason will be the key to the waning influence of religion in the future.

I don't wish to abolish religion, I wish to reform it and transform it. I question the merit of Daniel Dennett's social clubs idea, since religion is about individual meaning and purpose. My proposal for reformation/transformation would be to strip religion of its beliefs about the physical universe, which would be left to science. Individuals would create their own meanings and purposes. Believing that these are created by external agencies is a belief about the physical universe, and such claims require evidence.

E Favorite:

Soja – I assume your amendment to consider Dennett’s idea means you like it. Good!

########################

Dear E Favorite

My amendment simply means that ideas put forward by any stripe of atheist would be considered. But the merit of the suggestion needs to be assessed objectively by the religions via extensive public consultations and input from experts. An idea put forward by Daniel Dennett may be found to be wanting after the process is complete.

Daniel Dennett's idea to turn religions into social clubs which have no real influence on society is something of a wishful thinking on his part. World religions are proof of that. But should religions decide to state that officially would have to go through the process I mentioned. Such a process lends credibility to the rejection of his idea. Religions may adopt parts of his, idea, for instance to add Sabbath and Sunday lunches as mandatory activity after religious services and institute best Good Samaritan prizes for every age group etc. The possibilities are endless and religions are always grateful for creative ideas from clever anti-theists.

I hope that answers your question satisfactorily.

Best wishes
Soja

Pam:

Soja,
Most of your articles are fine, but I don't see them changing much of anything.

The only one I dislike is #5:
"Religions shall abide by the law of the land in which it is practiced and seek reform of any law that is contrary to the principles of human rights and dignity, and equal rights for women and all members of all faiths and none."

If you'd stopped after the word "practiced", it would have been fine, but even though the specifics you mention are laudable, religions dabbling in politics is anthema to me, and not (at least officially) allowed in my country (USA). Doing so can lose a church its tax-exempt status. Politics is simply outside of the purview of religion, and the fact that so many of the religious right in this country are attempting to change that, is exactly why so many atheists are no longer sitting quietly by, but are voicing their concerns in the books we've seen published lately, and on forums like this one.

Contrary to what many believers think, atheists have no desire to "abolish" religions. We just want the religious to keep them to themselves and quit trying to legislate their beliefs.

June 21, 2008 1:41 PM

##########################################

Dear Pam

I'm glad you don't desire to abolish religions. Mission accomplished as far as I'm concerned.

As to the rest of your comment, my guess is that you haven't really understood it. Meditate on the article and then you will realize it is only about protecting human rights and dignity, equal rights for all human beings, women because they happen to be human beings. I ought to add a clause for the protection of children, their right to medical help when they are ill.

The highest ideals of religion are meant to inform political debates and influence policy not as theocracies but as values all humanitarians, whether atheists or believers, can agree upon.

Good willed believers are not the bogeymen and women you imagine them to be. We can all work together peacefully to uplift the human condition. We must.

Best wishes
Soja

Dear Mark

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

As to quitting, I didn't consider myself as being part of this grand debate at all. I'm an impulsive gatecrasher to the party.

But now that you tell me to quit, how could I possibly do that, considering that you are the one who is really ahead? At least aren't we in a stalemate position? Didn't Mr Novak say so in effect in his essay and you have given reasons in the discussion here to disagree with that stand insisting you are the one who is winning?

Not to worry, it takes more than an anti-theist to make me angry. Only anti-theists are angry, remember?

Best wishes
Soja

Thomas,
None of the books that I've read have advocated abolishing religion. If they did, I missed it, and I certainly wouldn't agree with it.

"Abolish" implies legal control - legislating it out of existence. Yes, the authors (and I) would like to see it go away - but through better education, or exposure to better ideas generally, or through people just learning to think more rationally.

You're probably my favorite theist on these boards - there's no malice in you as far as I can see - and I would never tell you that you can't think any way you please. At least, unlike Canyon and Spidey, you've never gleefully described my eventual fate to me. :)

Soja – I assume your amendment to consider Dennett’s idea means you like it. Good!

While I’m overall impressed with your direction for religious reform, I do detect a concern that you’re afraid atheists will try somehow to restrict the practice of religion and that anti-theists will attempt to “abolish” religion. As far as I know, only totalitarian regimes have attempted to do that. Theocracies do the opposite – they force religion. Secular governments, like the US, allow for freedom of religion – to practice or not – and have separation of church and state.

“Anti-theists” and atheists are not organized in any way to abolish religion. Many of us would just like to see it fade. Probably all of us (along with many believers) want to prevent more religious influence in Government. As you know, here in the US, there is a struggle to keep religion out of biology class – a struggle I bet you and a lot of other religious people would support.

You and I may differ on the value of religion, but I think we agree about its place in society – to never restrain human rights.

PS - I figured you were kidding about the "sneaky" stuff.

MICHAEL NOVAK

You wrote, "Thus, the line of defense to which they have more and more frequently retreated seems modest and open-minded. As their reply to the question, “Is there a God?” their new answer is perfect for a bumper sticker: “I don’t know, and you don’t know, either.”

Actually Michael, I do know that there is a God because I have met God and one day God will show the world that on this I am telling the truth.

I read a quote attributed to Carl Sagan which I find interesting and it is "The absence of evidence is not the same as the evidence of absence", could someone tell me if he did say this?

This line of reasoning, the absence of evidence, seems to be some people's whole reasoning for their evidence of absence.

God revealed Himself to me in His Way, I am not trying to convince anyone of this, I am just stating a fact.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

PAM

You wrote, "Contrary to what many believers think, atheists have no desire to "abolish" religions. We just want the religious to keep them to themselves and quit trying to legislate their beliefs."

This is not true, it may be for the majority of people that call themselves atheists but there are some of the more militant ones that want to do exactly that and that being to "abolish" religions.

Some have even written words to this effect in some of the books that they have written, have they not.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Dear Soja -

One more thought.

When it comes to the USA, there's no group that's sneakier than the mendacious and cowardly Xians.

Case in point: the Xians continue their assault on science, urging school systems to teach creationism. At first, they were open about it being creationism. The courts struck that down. Then, they repackaged it as "intelligent design," pretending (well, lying) that it was not religion, but a science. That particular deceit was laughed out of court when one of ID's foundational documents was shown to be an old creationist document that had had the creationist language replaced with design language. Unfortunately for the IDers, their ineptness extends to proof reading, and they missed a few instances where creationism wasn't replaced when they ran their "Find...Replace With" job, and the whole thing emerged as the lying attempt that it really was.

Now, the Xians are floating the lie that there is some "controversy" raging between evolutionary theory and creationism. Of course, there is no such controversy as 93% of scientists dismiss creationism as pure BS. But to the believing public - who can't be bothered with seeking out the truth, preferring to have the "facts" handed to them in the form of pre-packaged lies - the vehicle that gets their fantasy world into the science class is unimportant, as long as it somehow gets there. They are more than willing to be complicit in moving the lies of the IDers forward, and from the looks of it, they all believe the "sneaky" way is the only way they have available to them.

As an atheist, I take offense at Xians like yourself projecting their sneaky and dishonest ways onto me and others. Why don't you quit while you're ahead?

PS: let me know if my post above was too cryptic for you.

Dear Soja -

The world's most-vocal anti-theist is Christopher Hitchens, and not even he argues that religion should be abolished. He takes a similar stand to Richard Dawkins who advocates religion being taught in school on a comparative basis. There's nothing "sneaky" about their positions. In fact, they've outlined them in their recent books for all to see (of course, Soja can't be bothered to read any of the new atheist books and prefers to talk through her hat).

Admittedly, both Hitchens and Dawkins know that were religion taught in school in an all-encompassing, comparative way, that religion's believers would fall off en masse. After all, once you remove the claim from any religion that "my religion is the TRUE religion" and once you judge all religions by the same standard of truth, you realize that none of them contain a shred of truth, at least in their claims for supernatural providence and guidance. Shorn of their god-approved raison d'etre, the god-centered religions collapse under the weight of their own idiocies, stupidities and vulgarities.

Perhaps that's what you consider to be sneaky.

Now, imagine if the above actually happened. What a wonderful world that would be.

But are atheists actually arrogant?

Certainly, to the religious who are not used to having their fantasies openly challenged, the atheist may seem arrogant. After all, the religious imagine that one can actually commit a crime against a non-existent entity - they call it, "blasphemy" - so how much greater must the "crime" be when rational thinking attacks the fundamental beliefs of the living, breathing believer?

However, were the atheist a Yankees fan and the believer a Red Sox fan, the believer would have no problem at all with the Yankees fan arguing that their team was the better team. The believer wouldn't call the Yankees fan "arrogant" for their beliefs - at least not when there exists a plethora of off-color terms available for the Sox fan to throw at the NY fan.

No, they'd simply call them an ardent champion of their team. Arrogance would have nothing to do with it.

Soja,
Most of your articles are fine, but I don't see them changing much of anything.

The only one I dislike is #5:
"Religions shall abide by the law of the land in which it is practiced and seek reform of any law that is contrary to the principles of human rights and dignity, and equal rights for women and all members of all faiths and none."

If you'd stopped after the word "practiced", it would have been fine, but even though the specifics you mention are laudable, religions dabbling in politics is anthema to me, and not (at least officially) allowed in my country (USA). Doing so can lose a church its tax-exempt status. Politics is simply outside of the purview of religion, and the fact that so many of the religious right in this country are attempting to change that, is exactly why so many atheists are no longer sitting quietly by, but are voicing their concerns in the books we've seen published lately, and on forums like this one.

Contrary to what many believers think, atheists have no desire to "abolish" religions. We just want the religious to keep them to themselves and quit trying to legislate their beliefs.

From now on the term "arrogant atheist" should be used instead of "angry atheist."

I see the description "angry atheist" is being tossed about here.

I don't know any atheists who are angry. When it comes to their estimation of the religious beliefs of others, the atheists I know run the gamut from the mildly bemused to the incredibly flustered.

Anger is an emotional state that atheists reserve for something important - like what one feels towards the mendacious and shameful bush administration. The fact that most of the ghouls populating the bush administration are perfect examples of ardent Christians is only incidental to the anger felt, not the cause of said anger.

Religion just isn't important enough to get worked up over to the point of anger.

E Favourite

To continue to elaborate on the amendment to Article Two:

Furthermore, since it is well known that anti-theists try to abolish religions in sneaky ways, by seeming to give helpful advice, religions reserve the right to call their bluff and tell them their advice is nonsense, or quite simply: Mind your own business...or NOT.

OK...I was trying to be funny in a rude way. It was not directed at you or any particular person but at any attempt by anti-theists to abolish religions.

E Favourite

To continue to elaborate on the amendment to Article Two:

Furthermore, since it is well known that anti-theists try to abolish religions in sneaky ways, by seeming to give helpful advice, religions reserve the right to call their bluff and tell them their advice is nonsense, or quite simply: Mind your own business.

E Favourite

In lieu of your post, I have already amended article two of my religious reform charter!

Second article of religious reform:

While religions shall carefully and conscientiously consider all complaints against them & *suggestions* for improvement for them from without, it reserves the right to make final decisions from within after extensive public consultations with its members,; no decision involving major changes shall be made just by those in power or because of pressure and intimidation from outside. All decisions shall be for the greater good of all its members without causing harm to any non-member.

In accordance with amended Article Two of the Religious Reform Charter, Daniel Dennett's suggestion shall be duly considered by all religions. However in accordance with Article Two the decision to adopt or ignore his suggestion is entirely up to the members of each religion.

Soja – further response to your ideas for religious reform:

I have no interest in abolishing religions and I think many atheists feel the same way. I do think (and hope) that supernatural-based religions will fade over time and change into more humanistic forms. Below is my favorite Dan Dennett quote, which I’ve posted before, from his book, “Breaking the Spell – Religion as a Natural Phenomenon” (p33). He suggests an alternative in which:

“Religions transform themselves into institutions unlike anything seen before on the planet: basically creedless associations selling self-help and enabling moral teamwork, using ceremony and tradition to cement relationships and build ‘long-term fan loyalty.’ In this scenario, being a member of a religion becomes more and more like being a Boston Red Sox fan or a Dallas Cowboys fan. Different colors, difference songs and cheers, difference symbols, and vigorous competition – would you want your daughter to marry a Yankees fan? – but aside from a rabid few, everybody appreciates the importance of peaceful coexistence in a Global League of Religions. Religious art and music flourish, and friendly rivalry leads to a degree of specialization, with one religion priding itself on its environmental stewardship, providing clean water for the world’s billions, while another becomes duly famous for its concerted defense of social justice and economic equality.”

I’d be interested in your response to that idea, Soja – and Paganplace too and anyone still posting here who's interested in this topic. I'd really love to hear Novak's response.

Hi, Paganplace – even as I was writing my survey questions, I was thinking that they probably don’t apply to Pagans – whose Gods really are personal, from what I’ve gathered here, and don’t tell humans how to act or what to expect from them. As I’ve said here before, I think pagans are born, not made. Their feelings and beliefs are on the inside and never come out as doctrine, but as a individual way of experiencing life. People know they’re pagans (even without having a name for it) in the way people know they’re natural musicians or scientists. It’s something that’s expressed from within and training will only go so far. Does that sound about right to you?

In my survey, my guess is that most believers would answer “medical attention and prayer” as their preferred way of handling an illness, but would chose “medical attention only” when forced to choose, but then credit both medical treatment and prayer again if there’s a cure. I suppose another question would be about placing blame in a negative outcome - ineffective medical treatment or ineffective prayer. My guess is that prayer gets let off the hook every time. I’d be interested to follow the dialogue in response to such findings.

Soja – thanks for your religious reform list. It’s very good, I think – quite idealistic, and best of all, very humanistic.

"Who *said* this was about 'determining the exact nature of the physical universe?'...but who taught you that was what this 'spirituality' thing was really all about?"

Paganplace, my larger point is that the physical universe and the human experience are separate realms. The first is an "objective" realm and the latter is a "subjective" realm. Those may not be the right terms. The error that creationism makes is in starting with a presumption about the human experience and defining the physical universe to fit that presumption.

"You don't escape being in a story by claiming, 'This isn't a story, it's 'real,' so, thus and therefore...'"

Would you explain?

"Big thing my faith path says is it's OK not to have the 'final answer.' Not *desperately vital* to postulate such a final answer and then convince everyone of it."

Since human experience is so variable, there can be no such thing as a "final answer." The physical universe is different - whatever its nature, it exists independent of anyone's individual opinion or belief.

"Theological 'paradoxes' are a lot like scientific ones: there may be no privileged reference points, but who said you had to stand in only one place? :)"

What would be an example of a theological paradox? I know about the "problem of evil," but that one involves a set of assumptions that appear to have no basis.

It's difficult to organize Novak's argument into something resembling a logical structure, but as nearly as I can it would be: (1.) sometimes people have private emotional experiences which they cannot make public to others. (2.) God is a private emotional experience that cannot be demonstrated. (3.) Since God, whom Novak admits is merely a subjective experience that cannot be found "out there," is equally private, he must exist. But if God only exists as a subjective experience, how is God different from the quite sincere experience of a schizophrenic that he is in touch with aliens? It was reading people like Mr Novak and C.S. Lewis that led me to atheism. Mr Novak is doing a great deal to promote atheism by demonstrating how intellectually vacuous theism is.

A bit of clarification to Muslims and non-Muslims alike why the first article was worded as it was singling out Islam. Islam has been the focus of world attention since 9/11. Osama bin Laden and those who support him would have us believe their ideology is the essence of Islam, which millions of peace loving Muslims tell us it is not. So with that in mind,

First article of religious reform:

Religions shall NOT be abolished, merely reformed.

Hi, Tonio. About to call it a night, here.

"Again, the goal is to determine the exact nature of the physical universe, and if a way of thinking interferes with that goal, I don't see how the way would "work.""

That's why I suggest trying more than one way of thinking.

You speak your biases even in what you said there.

Who *said* this was about 'determining the exact nature of the physical universe?' And who defined *all those terms?*

Not that that's not a worthy endeavor, but who taught you that was what this 'spirituality' thing was really all about?

Book-religious people think they can 'determine the exact nature of the physical universe,' too. That's what you fight over.

But who defined the 'fight?'

Frankly, the columnist who wrote this article was referring to a *human experience,* one that's certainly not so unfamiliar to me, even if I don't leap to the assumption that that means a particular God or even necessarily the forms I live with right now....

Kind of a 'foot in the door' sort of argument, in the case of Catholic clergy. Cause a lot of people are set up to believe 'If there's anything, it's one particular thing, ..or nothing.'

The Zen idea we translate as 'Nothing,' isn't like some black darkness, it's like ....space. Not so much dark as *very clear.* No Thing. No subject, no object. But you can't take that back to where we are now and go, 'See, there's a 'nothing!' I saw that nothing thing!'

Gets spun into some idea that you must therefore 'go to nothing' when your brain conks out. But that's not the point. That's what some are taught to *expect* is the point, and that's not 'proving' anything, either.

Or even telling a story.

You don't escape being in a story by claiming, 'This isn't a story, it's 'real,' so, thus and therefore...'

Big thing my faith path says is it's OK not to have the 'final answer.' Not *desperately vital* to postulate such a final answer and then convince everyone of it.

For one-incarnation-believing mortal people, such as atheists can be, I find there's an awful lot of disregarding the unsatisfactorily-final-word on how to look at the world. Before you even 'try the cognitive model.'

What works, works. If it don't work, do something else. Gods. Predictions are a nice scientific tool, but sometimes I feel like everyone in the world's gotta be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt what's going to happen before they even *try* it.

It's a little like trying to explain parallax: starts off OK, "All right, let's sight on that tree and the Moon... Now, we're going to take a short walk over this way...."

Only it goes to,

"No, prove I should!" :)

Theological 'paradoxes' are a lot like scientific ones: there may be no privileged reference points, but who said you had to stand in only one place? :)

E Favourite:

Soja: I’m delighted to hear that you are for religious reform – can you give some examples?

June 20, 2008 9:47 AM

---------------

First article of religious reform:

Religions shall NOT be abolished, not even Islam.

Second article of religious reform:

While religions shall carefully and conscientiously consider all complaints brought against it from without, it reserves the right to make final decisions from within.

Third article of religious reform:

Religions reserve the right to use any reasonable and non-violent methods necessary to prevent any attempt at eradicating the religion.

Fourth article of religious reform:

Religions shall not violate human rights and dignity in the name of its God. There shall be internal vigilance and disciplinary action against those who do.

Fifth article of religious reform:

Religions shall abide by the law of the land in which it is practiced and seek reform of any law that is contrary to the principles of human rights and dignity, and equal rights for women and all members of all faiths and none.

Sixth article of religious reform:

Religions shall examine their tenets and practices against the noblest concepts of human values as we know them in the 21st century and seek reform from within to confirm with them.

Seventh article of religious reform:

Any religion that finds the above mentioned six articles of religious reform impossible to implement shall consider it their highest duty to self-destruct for the greater good of the human family.

Copyright:
Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia 2008

E Favourite:

Soja: I’m delighted to hear that you are for religious reform – can you give some examples?

June 20, 2008 9:47 AM

---------------

First article of religious reform:

Religions shall NOT be abolished, not even Islam.

Second article of religious reform:

While religions shall carefully and conscientiously consider all complaints brought against it from without, it reserves the right to make final decisions from within.

Third article of religious reform:

Religions reserve the right to use any reasonable and non-violent methods necessary to prevent any attempt at eradicating the religion.

Fourth article of religious reform:

Religions shall not violate human rights and dignity in the name of its God. There shall be internal vigilance and disciplinary action against those who do.

Fifth article of religious reform:

Religions shall abide by the law of the land in which it is practiced and seek reform of any law that is contrary to the principles of human rights and dignity, and equal rights for women and all members of all faiths and none.

Sixth article of religious reform:

Religions shall examine their tenets and practices against the noblest concepts of human values as we know them in the 21st century and seek reform from within to confirm with them.

Seventh article of religious reform:

Any religion that finds the above mentioned six art

E Favourite:

Soja: I’m delighted to hear that you are for religious reform – can you give some examples?

June 20, 2008 9:47 AM

---------------

First article of religious reform:

Religions shall NOT be abolished, not even Islam.

Second article of religious reform:

While religions shall carefully and conscientiously consider all complaints brought against it from without, it reserves the right to make final decisions from within.

Third article of religious reform:

Religions reserve the right to use any reasonable and non-violent methods necessary to prevent any attempt at eradicating the religion.

Fourth article of religious reform:

Religions shall not violate human ri

E Favourite:

Soja: I’m delighted to hear that you are for religious reform – can you give some examples?

June 20, 2008 9:47 AM

E Favourite

I'm NOT for abolishing religions.

Soja

"Try embracing the 'metaphor' and see how the observations sort."

I'm concerned that embracing the metaphor may skew the observations. The goal is to perceive to the best of our ability the universe as it actually exists. Embracing metaphors in looking at the human experience may have some value. But the key point is that the nature of human experience is largely a separate matter from the nature of the physical universe.

"It *really* hangs even the best observers up when they don't realize how much they've been thinking in assumptions."

I would agree - eliminating as many assumptions as possible is an admirable goal in scientific investigation.

"As I say a lot, many atheists may reject 'belief in God,' but they *still* think in the same terms, as if there's an absolute humanlike judging intelligence that cares first and foremost what you believe, and this is therefore vitally-important."

I notice that as well, and that is probably due to the strong influence of religion in the culture. I find myself being influenced by it against my will. I don't consider myself an atheist because I acknowledge the possibility of supernatural life.

"However smart or authoritatively informed we are, we still plug everything we know (or ignore) into a *story.* A framework."

The goal is to look past the stories as much as possible, because they amount to biases or filters for the data.

"'Evidence.' If the 'supernatural' were given to be *repeatable* under laboratory conditions, you wouldn't be calling it *supernatural,* would you?"

Valid point. I really don't have a good all-purpose word for beliefs or claims about intelligences that allegedly cannot be detected empirically. Maybe a better phrase would be "presumption of magic." Such presumptions are vastly different from the study of possible natural causes for unexplained events.

"Seems that your view says, 'Either we're going to find out that this stuff works later, or not, but in the meantime, don't do it till we figure it out, otherwise it isn't happening.'"

Would you explain? My point is simply that presuming that undetectable intelligences are behind unexplained events is unscientific. The "god of the gaps" explanation is like trying to use Silly Putty to fill in the missing pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. Such intelligences may exist, but the possibility doesn't justify the presumption.

"That's why I like to call people on dismissing *reports* of things rationalists ascribe to 'supernatural this, paranormal that,' or to 'spirituality,' or in this case to even *thinking in a different metaphor than the one you're so used to you think it's absolute."

I agree that such reports shouldn't be automatically dismissed. I'm also saying that they should be automatically accepted, either. Presuming that such events can be explained through souls or undetectable intelligences involves too many assumptions.

"Stared at some proof, myself, actually. Of course, if you think making a media circus out of some human beings is worth a million dollars from some snide rationalist demanding 'proof,' I'd just as soon you stayed nice and comfy in Flatland."

What are you talking about?

"But some 'angry atheists' do. "

I can't speak for them.

"Only is fomeone like me ever asks you to do something based on it. I'm only suggesting there's functionality to thinking that way, remember?"

Again, the goal is to determine the exact nature of the physical universe, and if a way of thinking interferes with that goal, I don't see how the way would "work."

"I meant, Know... Nothing... Dig? "

Now I get it. That was part of the point I was trying to make.

Let's put it this way, on the below, Tonio.....

Much effort's spent on establishing whether or not 'God' exists as if an 'absolute answer' to that question were the lynchpin upon the entire universe hangs.

What if it's *not?* What we been doing?

Hey, Tonio. :)

Guess this thread is off the front page, so we can kinda talk without being spammy. :)

Tonio:

"Paganplace, would you explain what you mean by "operative model for further cognition"?"

I mean, 'Try thinking about the universe in this manner, rather than in terms of 'competing absolute truths.' It's not so far from science, especially just lately, as Western science is finally starting to think more in terms of systems and interactions than in terms of isolated, reducible facts, and datasets... but it is a different perspective...

Operative model for further cognition: Try embracing the 'metaphor' and see how the observations sort.

It *really* hangs even the best observers up when they don't realize how much they've been thinking in assumptions. Models. As I say a lot, many atheists may reject 'belief in God,' but they *still* think in the same terms, as if there's an absolute humanlike judging intelligence that cares first and foremost what you believe, and this is therefore vitally-important.

" I recognize that you aren't proposing a model for worship. But I don't understand what you mean by "actually work with it." Are you talking about subjecting your idea to scientific scrutiny?"

Yep, basically. My Gods can do Their own recruiting, should They have a will to, think of it like running the same data through a different operating system, and seeing what you get.

However smart or authoritatively informed we are, we still plug everything we know (or ignore) into a *story.* A framework.

Brilliant people can get hung up when their story ain't flexible enough... How many mechanistic scientists spent years inventing all manner of 'scientific' chastity devices in late Victorian times, without ever once seeming to question why?

Very 'Scientific.' Not so 'rational.'

Myths are things we make, between us in the world. As sure as is a microscope.

""It *works,* whether or not you feel it suits some sense of absolutism in words."

Again, I'm not sure of your meaning."

I know. :)

""That goes for all absolutisms, including 'demanding proof' from monotheists.""

"Evidence, not proof."

Well, 'Evidence' is me being still breathing. 'Proof' woulda been if I got my visions notarized. :)

'Evidence.' If the 'supernatural' were given to be *repeatable* under laboratory conditions, you wouldn't be calling it *supernatural,* would you?

*Reading* used to be considered supernatural. And if you sat down a bunch of illiterates from a pre-literate society in a lab, your grant would run out before a statistically-significant number of them learned the trick of it. :)

Seems that your view says, "Either we're going to find out that this stuff works later, or not, but in the meantime, don't do it till we figure it out, otherwise it isn't happening."

It's like saying, 'Hey, Ice Age people, put down that stick till we chart mechanical advantage!'

Now, maybe big quasi-political engines can make their demands and get a lot of people invested in certain notions, or even ways of thinking... but on an experiential level, you don't last long trying to lean on something that doesn't work.

Language and story and paradigm *frames thought* whatever evidence you plug into it. People who don't want to 'believe' Bush lied to our faces even if you play back the videotape, *won't,* and people who want to *believe* that an interestingly-fried tortilla is 'evidence' of Creationism, *will.*

Someone taught both types to argue about *what* to think, but that mostly hides the possibilities of *how.*

Relativity was always there, ironically-enough not so weird to mystics... just like an old Earth or 'catastophism' or evolution or any number of concepts. In relativity's case, ...just kind of waiting for someone who could come along and do the math, too. But even he got hung up cause he *couldn't accept uncertainty.*

I think relativity's best understood if you can shift perspective and think as if you were *light,* not some outside observer. Speaking of Sagan, I guess. :)

" Absolutism is the enemy of scientific inquiry because it rejects or rationalizes contrary evidence."

That's why I like to call people on dismissing *reports* of things rationalists ascribe to 'supernatural this, paranormal that,' or to 'spirituality,' or in this case to even *thinking in a different metaphor than the one you're so used to you think it's absolute.

"Of course the existence of supernatural life cannot be proven or disproven."

Stared at some proof, myself, actually. Of course, if you think making a media circus out of some human beings is worth a million dollars from some snide rationalist demanding 'proof,' I'd just as soon you stayed nice and comfy in Flatland. :)

(Sorry, that was snide in turn.)

"The issue is whether the existence is likely, and without evidence the likelihood is remote."

Who 'framed that issue?' What the same kind of dudes are doing with politics, these past few millenia, I'd be looking a lot harder at the *'frame'* than the 'scandalous content,' if you know what I mean. :)

"The real difference between science and religion is that the former does not make claims of absolute certainty,"

No, it doesn't. But some 'angry atheists' do.

Who may have a right to be angry, but it doesn't go anywhere. Just builds up the 'frame.'

It's like someone saying, 'What shall we do about the unbreakable chain you're wrapped in, are we strong enough, shall we say we can break it or not break it, it's so heavy, what shall we do, what shall we do?'

Never asked how *tight* the chain was, did they?

(speaking of Zen. Or Paganism, for that matter.)

You could... Err.. Let go? :)

" but instead offers theories that are attempts to explain observed phenomena. If one claims to know for certain that supernatural life exists, then one must be prepared to present evidence other than personal conviction."

Only is fomeone like me ever asks you to do something based on it. I'm only suggesting there's functionality to thinking that way, remember?

"What do you mean by "know nothing"?"

I capitalized the words to try and express some Zen, there. Not 'know nothing,'... I meant, Know... Nothing... Dig?

"I suggest that true uncertainty is better than false certainty."

Yep, any time that choice comes up, I'd agree. :)

"I would much rather know that I don't know than not know that I don't know. (Sounds like the Zen of Dr. Seuss.)"

That's the news form Lake Whoville, where all the turtles are truthy, all the cats are confident, and some of the sneeches are above average. :)

Paganplace, would you explain what you mean by "operative model for further cognition"? I recognize that you aren't proposing a model for worship. But I don't understand what you mean by "actually work with it." Are you talking about subjecting your idea to scientific scrutiny?

"It *works,* whether or not you feel it suits some sense of absolutism in words."

Again, I'm not sure of your meaning.

"That goes for all absolutisms, including 'demanding proof' from monotheists."

Evidence, not proof. Absolutism is the enemy of scientific inquiry because it rejects or rationalizes contrary evidence. Of course the existence of supernatural life cannot be proven or disproven. The issue is whether the existence is likely, and without evidence the likelihood is remote. The real difference between science and religion is that the former does not make claims of absolute certainty, but instead offers theories that are attempts to explain observed phenomena. If one claims to know for certain that supernatural life exists, then one must be prepared to present evidence other than personal conviction.

"If you're ready to Know Nothing, and figure that'll be productive, there you go. Worthwhile, but it doesn't meet your previous conditions. "

What do you mean by "know nothing"? I suggest that true uncertainty is better than false certainty. I would much rather know that I don't know than not know that I don't know. (Sounds like the Zen of Dr. Seuss.)

Oh, dear... I should hasten to point out that a certain comment below *wasn't* making fun of Zen, I learned that from a Zen person: I just added the Boston accent. :)

Hi, Tonio:

" Tonio:

"Paganplace, while your suggestion that the universe may be a living organism is deeply fascinating, and it may be possible, one would have to have some evidence or sign before treating it as anything more than speculation."

Actually, in this discussion, I suggest it as an operative model for further cognition. It's not my need or intention to say, 'Worship this,' only that it ain't so 'speculative,' if you actually work with it.

It *works,* whether or not you feel it suits some sense of absolutism in words. At least it saves brainspace for, say, not having the difficulties I did yesterday getting a conservative Catholic with enough 'science' to confuse himself how, yes, a two cycle lawn mower burns stupid numbers of times more dirty than your car, cause someone made him 'believe' Environmentalists are 'Anti-God,' so anything they say is an enemy of faih, even if that means ignoring the smell of my Lawn Boy's fumes.'

Speculating on *anything* accomplishes nothing unless you get something back from it.

That goes for all absolutisms, including 'demanding proof' from monotheists.

you frame a discussion like that, what are they gonna do: it ends up like this:

"You have no proof!"
"Do so! *Bibleqoutes* "
"Do not! *pointing out that don't prove nothing*"
"Do not!"
"Do so!"

All based on the speculation that knowing absolutely brings more rewards or goodness than accepting some uncertainty, loving it, and getting to work.

"The false dichotomy of agency versus randomness needs to be put to rest."

You just summed up the point I was driving at. :)

"Angel Cortázar, I avoid the word "spirituality" because it implies belief in the supernatural."

Better ease up on the 'speculation,' there. :)

" I would like to establish a naturalistic framework for discussing meaning, purpose, personal identity, wisdom, and so forth."

(aside) I told them we already got one... :)

"A framework that leaves the non-human part of the physical universe to science instead of trying to define that through belief. From my limited exposure to Zen, that seems to come the closest."

Depending on your Zen. But they got a burr up about their minds, too, just in context of, well, Zen. If you're ready to Know Nothing, and figure that'll be productive, there you go. Worthwhile, but it doesn't meet your previous conditions.

Plus side is, less arguing. "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

*Smack upside the head.*

"Get it yet, smart guy?"

:)

"I emphasize that when I say meaning and purpose, I mean that those things are created by individual humans for themselves. Any claim or belief that those things are deliberately created for humans must be subjected to scientific scrutiny like any other claim about the physical universe."

That's an interesting assertion, right there. :)

Well, Efave, on 'certain atheists,' I never did count you as one of that lot. :)

You say, "Never heard an atheist say that. It's more like "My books are not complete. I'm always searching for knowledge. If it's not in my books now, with proper study and research, it hopefully will be someday. I'm fascinated by apparent contradictions in human experience and am always trying to understand it better."

I say, *that's the spirit.* :) I'm a little outside the usual 'Does God exist' debate and all that, of course, but would you believe a lot of Pagans see more than a few Gods and Goddesses as being *patrons* of that very endeavor? :)

I certainly love it. Spirituality doesn't *have* to mean *ever, ever, ever* dumbing down. Which is the point that often seems to be missed by many on both 'sides' of this debate. I mean, hey, not everyone's busy being *cerebral* right now. Some schools of thought, shall we say, teach the *subjective* idea that 'There is One Truth And It Is Authoritative In All...' and a lot of the 'angry atheists' believe that is 'science.'

For fundamentalist book-theists, that One Truth is obviously, 'What We Think This book Says Right Now, Retroactively Forever.'

I love and admire science and reason, really. Use as much of them as I can, even when things are being weird. *Especially* when things are weird.

Cause when someone thinks their Bible or their sense of rationalism 'has it all sorted out,' I'm the kind of person that gets called in when a simple experience breaks their world... Like experiencing any of the things we call a 'ghost.'

Maybe when it's all done, a monotheist will try screaming book verses at a wall to make something that don't really fit in their 'rational' world go away, and a 'science' type will break out the infrared cameras, to try and also 'make the 'that don't fit'' go away, but the freakout is usually the exact same.

Seen it a thousand times... Later on someone might decide that every 'paranormal' thing they ever thought of must therefore be Real With A Capital R, go into total denial, or look for the explanation in *exactly the wrong way.*

This still doesn't address the experience, speaking of untrained fight-flight-freeze responses.

Ever see that show 'Ghost Hunters?' Dumbest thing I ever saw. I suppose reality makes for poorer television, but all these would-be 'experts' dragging out their gear, and it apparently never once occurred to them it could be a valuable job skill to learn how to *not freak out.* :) You could do the same thing with an 'exorcism' of a space. Like no one ever tried that in an old castle in Scotland before. :)

There's a little sort of formula about what most people learn from shows about the 'supernatural,' ... It starts off padding the material to make it seem there's something to it, then at the end, for the longer-attention span crowd, shows there's no real evidence at all, and sums up with a 'We just don't know. Tune in next week.'

What *doesn't* happen, is, anyone questioning whether or not 'proof' is the important part when people are freaking out, or how to deal with that.

It tells a *myth,* one of our favorites in this culture. Verbal 'reason' vs 'The paranormal.'

:)

Stuff for an earlier thing:

" E Favorite:

"Here are some questions I'd like to ask a statistically significant sample of religious believers:

Well, Efave, considering I can throw off 'statistical samples' just by walking into a room, they wouldn't have kept calling me 'clergy' if I couldn't do three or five things at once. :)

Often I find myself praying I or someone else *gets* medical attention, though.

"2. If you had to choose between "Seek medical attention only" or "pray only" which would you choose?"

Kind of a nonsensical question to me, to be honest. Usually I pray or do other things when medical attention is not available, or effective.
Hypothetical absolutes don't even enter into it.

Just hope my prayers are good when I'm like, 'Oh, crap, Bright Lady, I *am* medical attention.'

"3. If the medical illness is cured, in what order would you attribute the cause for the cure?

medical attention
medical attention and prayer
prayer"

That kind of only matters if you divide up the world in a certain way.

Paganplace, while your suggestion that the universe may be a living organism is deeply fascinating, and it may be possible, one would have to have some evidence or sign before treating it as anything more than speculation.

The false dichotomy of agency versus randomness needs to be put to rest. There is no such thing as randomness. Every event has a cause, meaning a preceding series of events. If events were truly random, a pitched baseball would be just as likely to strike the third baseman or the press box as land in the catcher's glove.

Angel Cortázar, I avoid the word "spirituality" because it implies belief in the supernatural. I would like to establish a naturalistic framework for discussing meaning, purpose, personal identity, wisdom, and so forth. A framework that leaves the non-human part of the physical universe to science instead of trying to define that through belief. From my limited exposure to Zen, that seems to come the closest.

I emphasize that when I say meaning and purpose, I mean that those things are created by individual humans for themselves. Any claim or belief that those things are deliberately created for humans must be subjected to scientific scrutiny like any other claim about the physical universe.

"Carl Jung wrote that "God is an archetype", meaning that people are hard-wired to perceive or sense the existence of a god-being."

Norrie, I've heard that and I don't know what Jung was talking about, since I've never perceived anything like that.

"and certain atheists say, 'Nothing outside my books, even if it contradicts human experience.'"

Never heard an atheist say that. It's more like "My books are not complete. I'm always searching for knowledge. If it's not in my books now, with proper study and research, it hopefully will be someday. I'm fascinated by apparent contradictions in human experience and am always trying to understand it better."

Hi, Norrie! Welcome back. :)

And on this:

" Carl Sagan Quote:

"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or you can inoculate....Try science."

Well, with all due respect to Dr. Sagan, one of my personal heroes, one *can* do both. :)

I dunno about some religions, but if a Pagan prayed to save their child from polio, Goddess could be like, "Polio? Again? Didn't I just send like a whole busload of scientists to basically eradicate polio? It's back? What, did you stop listening to them or something?"

Ok, not exactly Lady's mouth to our ears, that, but, still.

Not to say science has *all* the answers, especially corporately-profit-driven as it tends to be, these days, but, yes, 'science' (and public medicine) darn well *did* give us the answer to *polio.* And it's coming back, cause of *anti-science and greed.*

I mean, I'm not above waving some bones and feathers around, ...it's good for some things, very good, but you don't hold your child hostage to 'faith' when a proven tool exists, that you've *scorned* over some ideology or something.

A lot of these folks skeptical of modern science may be willing to take the Isaac and Jacob story and turn it backwards, 'I'll kill my kid unless you save her,' ....but the same people never met a high-tech *weapon* system they didn't like, did they?

These things don't address whether or not there are parts of our life or the universe *beyond* reductive logic, or scientific observation, or our perceptions or reason, ....but there is a difference between 'extra-rational,' and *anti-rational.*

(Or even if there are in fact very functional limits to what our rational minds can actually process, ...you don't analyze, measure, and observe every leaf in the forest to hunt, you *feel* your surroundings, passively and interactively, and let the talking mind do what it does as necessary, without getting in the way. But that doesn't mean you *can't* study a leaf down to the quark, if you really want to. ) ....but there is a difference between 'extra-rational,' and *anti-rational.*

It's not very rational to claim we're not having some very subjective experiences. This doesn't mean science is to be disregarded every time someone comes along with a rationalistic Book-religion substitute and calls it 'The One Truth.... as I interpret it...'

Also doesn't mean that 'Anyone who doesn't limit their beliefs to laboratory conditions can't possibly know anything at all.'

The kind of theists and the kind of atheists that are always at lock-horns are the ones who are competing for the same thing: Thinking that a brain and words can define or constrain the universe. (Sorry, book-literalists, you aren't arguing for spirituality, just a very bad science.)

There's more, that's all. In my rather... vivid, spiritual life, nothing has ever required a *contradiction* of observable science.

And the monotheist v atheist fight is usually about that, 'who gets to say no,' .... Book-religionists say, 'Nothing outside my book, even if it contradicts observable fact,' and certain atheists say, 'Nothing outside my books, even if it contradicts human experience.'

The way to lose one's 'objectivity' in the worst ways is by believing you *have it.* Not recognizing your limitations.

People talk 'proof' in the name of faith, and assert *negatives* in the name of logic.

Could be the world's more like a living being than *either* an artifice like a 'watch' or a 'random chance.'

But it's kind of evolution in action... The arguments that continue tend to be the ones that are best adapted never to be resolved. :)

Here are some questions I'd like to ask a statistically significant sample of religious believers:

1. If you or a loved one had a serious illness, please list the order in which you'd approach finding a cure:

seek medical attention
seek medical attention and pray
pray

2. If you had to choose between "Seek medical attention only" or "pray only" which would you choose?

3. If the medical illness is cured, in what order would you attribute the cause for the cure?

medical attention
medical attention and prayer
prayer

Could be very interesting

Christian:

erratum - I meant to say, "It [hell] always seemED unlikely and wasn't stressed at all at home.

"If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or you can inoculate....Try science."

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."

Arminius writes:

"Mr Mark,

I keep hearing about Hitchens and aliens."

Answered in a previous post below.

"I also read somewhere that he supports the Iraq war. Have I got the right Hitchens? Can you clear this up?"

You are correct.

Hitchens has long supported the Iraq War and has been an apologist for bush's actions in Iraq - which is strange as he has been a very vocal critic of bush on just about everything else.

Hitchens has made clear that he absolutely disagrees with the "love you enemies" philosophy. He has said that one should kill their enemies, especially if they're hell-bent on killing you.

I think Hitchens sees bush's Iraq decision in light of the old broken clock adage (even as Hitchens awaits bush being right for that second time!).

I disagree with Hitchens on his Iraq stance. I'm in general agreement with him on other things. I absolutely agree with him on religion. Those who dismiss his abilities as a thinker, debater and author are whistling past the graveyard.

Like him or not, Hitchens is a more-lucid thinker when in his cups than are the rest of us on our best behavior.

Christian asks: "do you believe in hell?"

A: Not anymore. It always seems unlikely and wasn't stressed at all at home.

and

"Where did you get the idea of hell in the first place?"

A:In church and sunday school - I was raised Catholic.

Now could you answer my questions, according to your beliefs:
1) If I'm not willing [to accept Jesus] -- I go to Hell, right? for eternity.

2) Are you the poster previously known as ceflynline or Anon? Just wondering if I'm talking to the same person and you indeed meant the Christian god when you mentioned "some kind of god."

Thanks. Look forward to hearing back from you

Wikipedia: Theothanatology

"God is dead" is a widely-quoted and sometimes misconstrued statement by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. It first appears in The Gay Science (Die fröhliche Wissenschaft), section 108 (New Struggles), in section 125 (The Madman).

"God is dead" is not meant literally, as in "God is now physically dead"; rather, it is Nietzsche's way of saying that the idea of God is no longer capable of acting as a source of any moral code or teleology. ." This is why in "The Madman", the madman addresses the atheists primarily — the problem is to retain any system of values in the absence of a divine order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead

Christian:

Actually the books I like best by CS Lewis are his space trilogy, and Chronicles of Narnia books. I liked The Great Divorce, Screwtape Letters was fun.

His biography, "Surprised by Joy," was interesting, and really explained how he came to see Christianity as the true belief. "Mere Christianity" was my "meat" as an early believer, but both "Surprised by Joy" and "MC" basically come to the same conclusion, which is not as convincing for me as an adult, and certainly not much now as an unbeliever: that is, the explanation that Jesus' claim of Divinity is so crazy that it must be true.

And, Lewis' atheist friends at the Oxford University described to him that at least the story of a god that had himself crucified for humanity was the most unique story, and therefore one that merited some thought. He took this too as some sort of confirmation that it must be so.

I have to confess to you that CS Lewis isn't quoted by too many apologists on this thread, and probably for good reason.

Dear Christian -

Thanks for the response.

I have already read the CS Lewis books. I didn't find them at all compelling. His ideas have been countered very effectively over the years. He has as many detractors among the Xians as he has admirers.

But you say "C. S. Lewis far outweighs Hitchins in intelligence and logic." On a prima facia level, that's absolutely incorrect as logic cannot be invoked to explain or defend religion. Religion sits outside of logic and reason.

Second: how do you know? I've read CS Lewis. Have YOU read Hitchens' Book, God is not Great?" Be honest - have you read that book? I'm going to go ahead and guess that you haven't.

As far as anyone "making an utter fool of himself in the movie Expelled" - you do know, don't you, that the producers of that film not only lied to all of the atheists who they interviewed, but that they edited the footage out of context and order to make the atheists appear foolish? You also realize - don't you - that NONE of the Xian professors they interviewed who were supposedly "expelled" were actually expelled from anywhere? That none of them was a full professor at the universities in question? That none of them were up for tenure?

That you would offer such a dishonest and mendacious POS of a film as a defense of anything is both pathetic and disgusting.

As far as "we came from aliens" - that just happens to be a much more-plausible explanation than the god delusion. There was just a report this week that scientists have discovered 3 "super Earths" orbiting a sun 42 light years away. Research is beginning to show that rather than the Earth being unique in its ability to support life, that this may be the common state of things in the universe. Just today, scientists announced that they had, indeed, found ice/water on Mars (and they have the pictures to prove it).

And, what do you make of this report from 5 days ago?:

"Scientists confirm that parts of earliest genetic material may have come from the stars

Scientists have confirmed for the first time that an important component of early genetic material which has been found in meteorite fragments is extraterrestrial in origin, in a paper published on June 15, 2008

Scientists have confirmed for the first time that an important component of early genetic material which has been found in meteorite fragments is extraterrestrial in origin, in a paper published on 15 June 2008.

The finding suggests that parts of the raw materials to make the first molecules of DNA and RNA may have come from the stars.

The scientists, from Europe and the USA, say that their research, published in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters, provides evidence that life's raw materials came from sources beyond the Earth."

...http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/icl-sct061308.php.....

If one believes in the Big Bang - and why should one not? - then everything in the universe came from the same spot. We knew that stars are the factories that produce elements. We now know that parts of our our RNA/DNA may well be alien (extraterrestrial) in origin as well.

So, who's the idiot here? Hitchens, or you?

outlawtorn103:

Excellent question.

There's actually an essay in the book "Philosophers without Gods" edited by Louise M. Antony, that I might suggest to you: one of the writers actually addresses the "problem of evil" not as a god's inaction in the context of omnipotence, but more of the evil actually perpetrated by god (ie the Old Testament writings, etc.)

In that scenario, he actually questions whether a follower could morally accept, without great cognitive dissonance, the praise and worship of such a being.

So, I've been wondering:

You've got theists who believe in a supernatural being, and atheists who believe that the supernatural being doesn't exist...

are there people who are like a cross-between the two... as in, someone who believes in a god that they don't like and actively seek to not worship him?

I think that would make for an interesting interview and for an even more interesting comments section.

Mr Mark,

I keep hearing about Hitchens and aliens. I also read somewhere that he supports the Iraq war. Have I got the right Hitchens? Can you clear this up?

Arminius

Mr. Mark,

As for your Hitchins quote, might I suggest you choose a better read? C. S. Lewis far outweighs Hitchins in intelligence and logic and I would suggest any one of his books, but particularly Mere Christianity.

By the way, did you see Hitchins make an utter fool of himself in the movie Expelled? Talk about illogical -- when asked where everything came from in the beginning, do you know what his answer was? Aliens. The man believes in ET!

E Favorite,

You asked whether if you choose not to accept Jesus as your saviour you would go to hell, which makes me wonder ... do you believe in hell? Where did you get the idea of hell in the first place?

Samantha P: “So he hasn’t done all those externally measurable activities such as creating us and the universe (or at least tinkering with evolution), sending plagues, curing cancer patients, appearing in toast, or coming down in bodily form and wandering the earth for 33 years?”

Actually Novak didn’t address any of that. This allows supernaturalists to assume he DOES believe in all of that, because it’s implicit in our culture that anyone who believes in God would believe that. Atheists, of course, notice the absence of the religious story line in a way supernaturalists would not. Wikipedia tells me that Novak is a Roman Catholic, with an M.A. in history and philosophy of religion from Harvard. It would be interesting to ask him straight up if he believes the Catholic story and Catholic dogma. You certainly can’t tell from his essay here.

Norrie - you picked a good one for your return appearance

Hi, E Favorite,

Thanks for your comment.

Yes, it's been a while since I was haunting these haunts. After 16 months of frequent posting, I concluded that, for the time being at least, I'd given and gotten everything that I could give or get from On Faith and that it was time for a sabbatical.

I don't know how much time I'll be spending here in the future, but I expect to be around.

It's good to see your posts again.

So the evidence for God is not 'out there', it is only 'within us'. So he hasn’t done all those externally measurable activities such as creating us and the universe (or at least tinkering with evolution), sending plagues, curing cancer patients, appearing in toast, or coming down in bodily form and wandering the earth for 33 years?

Why do you rule out external verification? There are innumerable ways I could be persuaded that, for example, there is a God called Jesus, e.g. if he came back and did his resurrection trick under laboratory conditions; he wrote 'Jesus is Lord' is big bright letters on the moon; bibles became indestructible; the Pope moved mountains on request or cured amputees with prayer, etc. Sure, there could be alternative explanations but I would certainly be on the way to becoming a christian believer.

Lacking any convincing evidence you instead have to dump the scientific/historical methods (which I suspect you continue to use for any other topic aside from the existence of sky beings), focus on a few positive cognitive faculties and innate urges that you don't understand and claim 'god does it!' Maybe you don't fully understand the urge for revenge, rape, etc. Why not claim those for your god as well? Clearly ‘we are participating in them as an inner’ dark ‘all unbidden’. In any case such appeals to incredulity are really unimpressive. What is impressive is that you won a million dollars for espousing such inane arguments.

Oh my goodness. This article can be summed up in one sentence: God exists because I say so, so there! Sad to see that critical thinking has been tossed aside and personal opinion is passed off as fact.

Freestinker: "I don't begrudge anyone who has found a way to soothe their fears without hurting others."

Neither do I - but when they start to tell me how I should feel about their supernatural being or what's going to happen to me if I don't give their supernatural being due respect, then I respond. It's not exactly "hurting" me, but it's the kind of behavior that I want to discourage people from thinking of as being socially acceptable.

Potter - I agree - the posters have written some great stuff here.

Norrie - great to see you. It's been a while.

Potter wrote:

"Speaking of beating a strategic retreat, how about posting an article and then ignoring all of the comments that challenge it?

I find it interesting how often that happens on this site. I also find it interesting that 99% of the commenters could write a better article than the author."

Potter,

I think that's why Susan Jacoby is so popular here, not only does she write some really provocative essays but then she actually engages with her audience.

Carl Jung wrote that "God is an archetype", meaning that people are hard-wired to perceive or sense the existence of a god-being.

But nothing has ever proven that this wired-up perception of a god-being is accurate.

The fight-or-flight response is also hard-wired. Its activation and manifestations frequently destroy people who contain that wiring.

Ditto for the god-archetype wiring and the people it inhabits, wouldn't you say?

E-Fav,

"I don't know what kind of death it will be - hopefully not horrible or drawn-out. But I just don't know. Most of the time I don't think about it -- it being one of those things I can't do anything about. Making up stories of eternal life doesn't help."

Belief in god(s) may not help you or me, but for those who believe, religion does help. It's hard for me to understand why, but it does help them. I think it just depends on what fears you have and what soothes them. Life is scary at times, so I don't begrudge anyone who has found a way to soothe their fears without hurting others. It is also common to project one's fears and beliefs on others and this is precisely what Mr. Novak has done here.

Strategic retreat my you-know-what! You non-believers are really on a roll. Been very entertaining.

Speaking of beating a strategic retreat, how about posting an article and then ignoring all of the comments that challenge it?

I find it interesting how often that happens on this site. I also find it interesting that 99% of the commenters could write a better article than the author.

Christian writes:

"Jesus came to offer himself as a sacrifice for us precisely because we can't be good enough. He died for you"

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens

Christian - and if I'm not willing -- I go to Hell, right? for eternity.

Are you the poster previously known as ceflynline or Anon? Just wondering if I'm talking to the same person and you indeed meant the Christian god when you mentioned "some kind of god."

Christian writes:

"Jesus came to offer himself as a sacrifice for us precisely because we can't be good enough. He died for you, E. Favorite. You don't need to do anything -- just be willing to accept what he has done for you."

Sounds a lot like the Stockholm Syndrome to me.

E Favorite wrote -
"That’s not just “some kind of god” that’s the Christian god – and he’s benevolent only if you’ve been good enough in this life. He sends others to an eternity of suffering – much worse than anything that happens on earth."

You are sadly mistaken about "the Christian God." He's not "benevolent only if you've been good enough in this life": in fact, it's not possible for us to "be good enough." That's the whole message of the gospel. Jesus came to offer himself as a sacrifice for us precisely because we can't be good enough. He died for you, E. Favorite. You don't need to do anything -- just be willing to accept what he has done for you.

Hello again, ceflynline/Anon, you say that “Any form of hereafter that permits you to deal with the end of here and now is some kind of god. Let’s say you’re right about that. How do you know it’s a good god – a god that will give you an eternal life where nothing bad ever happens again? That’s not just “some kind of god” that’s the Christian god – and he’s benevolent only if you’ve been good enough in this life. He sends others to an eternity of suffering – much worse than anything that happens on earth.

But maybe you don’t think you’re dealing with the Christian God, but some other "kind of god.” If so, then how would you know what’s going to happen after you die, anymore than I do?

As far as 'I' can see? Applying blinders to yourself will not improve your vision. And who are these individuals “retreating” from the atheist to the agnostic argument, if it is an argument? Can you mention any names? Of course, this is a straw man argument, and one that purposely ignores facts. It’s quite the opposite. There have been a whole slew of books out in recent years (Dennet, Harris, Hitchens, Dawkins, etc) taking up the issue of religion and reason, most of which come to the conclusion—among others—that there is no ethical, moral, philosophical, or scientific basis on which man can prove the existence of a supernatural being. And the initial question is not whether people will believe or why they believe, or whether or not it is rooted in evolution or human nature. The question falls on the very basic “truth value” of the proposition. You fail to see this simply because you are not as interested in scientific truth as you claim, or believe everyone is allowed to have their own “objective” or even scientific truth--although I don't know what kind of science you would have to rely on. Yet, it’s humorous to ignore science on the one hand when it contradicts, and then embrace it on the other when or if it suggests an “evolutionary advantage.”

There is no “line of defense.” There is nothing to defend if nothing has been proven to exist. Yes, the burden is entirely upon the believer, not the non-believer. And as to the question in itself, there is absolutely a scientific answer, which is that “based on evidence compiled over several thousands years (has any other question received one tenth as much consideration?), there is not one single shred of evidence to affirm the existence of a supernatural God.” As a matter of philosophy, could there be? Sure. But as Bertrand Russel suggested, there could also be a flying teacup on the flipside of Mars or Venus. The more recent proposition of a flying spaghetti monster with gigantic interstellar noodly appendages drives home the same absurd point. In short, there “could be” any conceivable thing out there in the universe, which cannot be "disproved," because as some of us understand it is not possible to disprove a universal negative. Could it be? Yes, of course. Is it probable or likley, NO. Not at all.

You seem to be recapitulating the old failed ontological argument, which is that if “I” can perceive the existence of God, it must exist. But why stop with God. I have often perceived myself as a superhero and dragon slayer. Who’s to tell me otherwise? Who’s to demolish my own deluded truth value? Has it occurred to you that the “evidence within” could just as easily be a misinterpretation of the echo of one’s conscience?

As to your example of prison literature, that’s not a very authorative experiment by any stretch of the imagination. Rather, it seems to support a more likely theory, which is that man turns to god (aka big daddy) when confronted by his primordial fears. And as many of us know, fear is a very tentative basis on which to construct an omniscient overlord of the universe, particularly in terms of a conclusion reached through reason or the scientific method.

Once you create this God, you still have to explain what or who created that. So again, to answer your question, the source of the light is fear. And if man or any animal were to easily surrender their lives, it would confer a distinct evolutionary disadvantage and their species would probably cease to exist. And the fact that we most come to God in a moment of existential fear would seem to diminish the probability rather than increase it, since, again, we're moving to that position under durress.

Finally, I would admonish you against misusing the word “evidence.” Many of us non-believers have the same, if not greater, existential drive. Fortunately, we did not settle for the God explanation, or science and technological progress as we know it would never have existed.

If there are no atheists in foxholes, then who -pray tell - was manning the foxholes of the "godless Communists?"

Greg -

Great post, but I doubt Novak is listening.

Newsweek Beliefwatch: Foxholes

There are no atheists in foxholes," the old saw goes. The line, attributed to a WWII chaplain, has since been uttered countless times by grunts, chaplains and news anchors. But an increasingly vocal group of activists and soldiers--atheist soldiers--disagrees. "A lot of people manage to serve without having to call on a higher power."

http://www.newsweek.com/id/46411/output/print

It is amazing to me that this post has gotten the traction it has from commentors. To all intents, refuting Mr. Novak's god would like refuting someone else's indigestion. And nothing that canno plausibly be falsified has enough substance to be accepted, either.

As to one commentors notion that death must be terrifying to those who don't believe in an afterlife, why? Why would that be? To us, death is literally nothing. "Where you are, death is not; where death is, you are not." I no more fear not existing after I die than I fear not existing before I was born. And it has the effect of making the here and now all the more precious. This is my immortality--the really live, and never to experience what it is to be dead. It is more than enough.

And as to ultimate redress of injustice, what possible reason could we have to suspect such a thing? Certainly nothing in our environment. As has been noted, thinking that there must be justice in the next life because there is so little in this one is like thinking that because the top layer of crate of oranges is rotten, the ones deeper in must be perfect.

No, we must make our Republic of Heaven right here and now. It will be flawed, it will have no king, and it will depend on each of us to try to make our time in the universe as pleasant and meaningful as possible within reality's constraints. Even if some hope for more, none us should hope for less.

Novak's proof that atheists are beating a strategic retreat? Why, right here in the responses to his column, where 99% of the responses are from atheists dismantling his argument.

I actually found this to be one of the most interesting articles I've read on On Faith recently.

Mr. Novak, here is my question: This inner-light and source of strength that you spend a great deal of the article referring to as God or our connection to God - why necessarily must that be attributed to a supernatural power? I'm not an atheist because I doubt such inner strength exist, I'm an atheist because it makes more sense to me to attribute that inner fire to our biology and not to some unseen deity that dwells within us all.

Scientifically speaking, we are still only children in our understanding of the brain and its inner workings, yet we know enough to realize that it is something much more powerful than we previously thought. As of a decade ago we thought the brain stopped creating new neurons in adulthood and now we know otherwise. There are things like the placebo effect that may seem miraculous at first glance, yet few would argue its origins are extra-biological.

I don't refute any of the examples you give in your article - I know that in moments of extreme duress the body can be capable of so much more than we usually think it capable of. Where theists and atheists differ is not on whether we believe that such examples are possible - we disagree on who to credit for such remarkable behaviors: a god (the nature of which is left to be interpreted by the individual) or ourselves.

St. Augustine and I may both find the fortitude to resist the horrors of a Soviet prison. But while St. Augustine would try to explain something he didn't fully understand with the concept of God, I'd explain something I don't fully understand as some aspect of nature or science that we haven't yet discovered. We would both get the same 'spiritual-esque' feeling and sense of awe - it is merely our explanations for that awe that define us as theist or atheist.

Dude, the emergence of a belief in a god does not mean that that species of living beings has evolved.

The god thing just helps people cope with some kind of "understanding" of things that cannot be explained to them, and the general need of "knowing" something happens after death.

Other than that, it is a huge impediment in the course of evolution to a better state of being, here and now.

Anyone who's read their proof-of-god history is familiar with your Thomas Acquinas argument. The big hole in the argument is the self-centered given you posit - that your imagination, driven by the mixture of your ego and your fear of the unknown to concoct 'answers' to life's mysteries, is so powerful as to be beyond mear human ability. Therefore: God exists! It really is all about you and it is no more proof of a god's existence or a meaningful basis for your "knowing" that a god exists than it is a proof of the existence of Santa Claus or the easter bunny.

It is not agnostics or athiests that push their beliefs on the religious; it is the other way around. Atheists and agnostics, for example, want it left up to personal choice whether one gets an abortion, whether one chooses a gay lifesyle, etc; they want to be left alone when it comes to actions that do not physically or finacially intrude on others. It is the relgious who want to passs laws restricting these freedoms: a marriage is of two people of the opposite sex, there should be no stem cell reseach, etc. Their rationale for their positions on these subjects is that they are contraventions of God's law. The religious want to control thought and belief, not just actions. OK, so prove there is a God. They can't, just as it is not possible to prove there isn't a God. So butt out of the lives of those who don't share your beliefs until you can.

Hi, ceflynline@msn.com, aka Anonymous - don't worry - I won't start spamming your email address, but you might start getting offers from Nigerians refugees.

Meanwhile, how I deal with the fact that I might be next is the simple awareness, based on experience, not to mention knowledge, that I will someday be next, because everyone dies someday.

I don't know what kind of death it will be - hopefully not horrible or drawn-out. But I just don't know. Most of the time I don't think about it -- it being one of those things I can't do anything about. Making up stories of eternal life doesn't help. I do keep my eye on medical advancements on how to extend my earthly life though. that's something I can have some effect on.

Out of the Box

This is almost unbearably idiotic
----------------
ALMOST, but not quite. With a minor adjustment in tome here and there, this section would be perfect for a Seinfeld TV "Special"

Agree about Seinfeld special, but Jerry can do better. This IS unbearably idiotic for all the reasons already posted. Plus, I FEEL it is by the inner light of Reason, the empirical proof of physical stress.

This blog's quality of thought deteriorates apace.

No, I don't WISH that God exist, I choose the axiom THAT he exists. The axiom that he exists and other such axioms, tell me that whatever the circumstances of the deaths of those girls, there is balance for them, their families, and the world at large. But this is far too complicated for a 5k character post to a blog. Suffice it to say that, as a Catholic, my beliefs give me the hope that we do not end at death, and therefore random and bizarre deaths are not just that.

If, as an atheist posits, you are just a random accumulation of chemicals, responding to stimuli, even given your free choice, how do you deal with such a result, other than fear that it might be you next. If here and now is all you have, its guaranteed loss must eventually become particularly terrifying.

Any form of hereafter that permits you to deal with the end of here and now is some kind of god.

Apollo

This is almost unbearably idiotic
----------------
ALMOST, but not quite. With a minor adjustment in tome here and there, this section would be perfect for a Seinfeld TV "Special>"

There are always more questions to be asked. No existing concept seems final. In fact, this unrelenting drive lies at the basis of the scientific impulse. But it arises also in our intellectual lives outside of the habit of science. It arises within the habit of being faithful to reason, even in areas where science itself cannot go.

Ought I to marry this particular person? Ought I to take this job, make this work the center of my life’s pursuits? Is this the right institutional home for me, the community best designed to keep me asking questions and growing morally stronger?

Anon – Building on Hahn’s comments, does it not depress you that a divine providence could have been involved in, or even just aware of the Amish murder? How does the fact that you find it “far too depressing to endure” relate to God’s existence. It sounds like you simply wished God to be true. Is that so?

Soja: I’m delighted to hear that you are for religious reform – can you give some examples?

The anti-atheists seem to be trying to construct a double-bind. If someone says he is an atheist, then he is arrogant, a "fundamentalist" with a closed mind. If that person admits that, no, he cannot know for a certain fact that no god of any kind does not exist, then he is an agnostic who is just denying the highly dubious evidence of Inner Light. So perhaps one thing that is needed is a more precise definition of the god that most atheists reject, and why: There is no cogent evidence for a personal god in line with the gods of the revealed religions. Just as few now believe that a god pulls the sun across the sky in a golden chariot--because we can SEE this is not what happens, and have better explanations--we now realize that a god is not needed to explain biological existence...nor even mental states.

Everything that Mr. Novak interprets as evidence for a god (the kind of god that is so vague and subjective that atheism becomes impossible, which I'm sure was his point) has a very plausible natural explanation. There are drives within us, certainly, that often appear within us unbidden, and can motivate us to great acts of compassion and courage--or cruelty and cowardice. No further explanation than our evolutionary history is required to provide compelling insight into many of those drives.

It would be mistake to deny that we are a mystery even to ourselves, because we are indeed connected to something much, much larger than ourselves. But that something is not "infinite." It is a billions-of-years journey to the emergant property of consciousness. That fact that there are gaps in our understanding provides precious little space for gods, even gods as banal and wishy-washy as the kind Mr. Novak seems to propose.

This is almost unbearably idiotic. I feel therefore it is.

I feel I have a toothache. I am guided by a combination of reason and empirical knowlege to my mouth. I locate the tooth. It aches. Q.e.d.
there is a Dental Dybbuk.

About as shoddy as it gets around here.

If determining the existence of god is ultimately an internal decision then why is it that the religious feel it necessary to impose their 'internal decisions' externally. This were I can see Sam Harris' argument that the religious moderates give cover for the extremists. So, if I internally decide that Allah is god then externally decide to kill non believers, as the Koran and Hadith commands, were will Mr. Novak be on that one. These moderates need to see that ultimately they do have to justify their beliefs and decisions because what they found them on have consequences for the rest of the world.

Novack must have an in with the Publishing Puck.

Amen

Bob:

If anyone sees the Gasoline Genie, could you let me know?
--------------------
Ditto: The Apartment Angel

Preferably, four rooms, under 1300 per month.

Amen

"New Atheists, Old Realities"

Even the title is a stretch. Which are the "realities?"

It seems to me the title alone implies one of many, "old" arguments:

1) At least the "Old Atheists" were more eloquent and nice.
2) All of these arguments have been around for awhile, and there's nothing new under the sun.
3) Let's downplay the significance of the questions that people are beginning to have about the influence of religions, since religions aren't going away. Let's just call them "silly" and be done with it.

And yet...
..we read each day about new charges of harm done in the name of "faith." (Yesterday, another faith-healing based death.)
..we see in the public square our potential leaders wearing their faith as a badge of merit, or running from it like it were a pox on them.
..we watch our beloved country following a faith-mandated president lead us into a new era of distrust, loss of democratic processes, and a pre-emptive war with no clear end.
..we watch as our tax dollars go to unregulated, non-measured "faith based initiatives" without even the opportunity to challenge such distributions in the court of law.
..we see our legislators spend time and effort on "faith celebration" legislation, "Under God" state pledge legislation, and other similar efforts as if McCarthy's ghost were still hovering in the congressional chambers.

Is there any wonder that we non-believers, and believers with some vision for separation of church and state, have become more skeptical, perhaps more vocal, on these issues?

Can we stop arguing about the gods, and start the dialogue on how to live peacefully in a secular (read protected FOR religious freedom, and protected FROM religious tyranny) society?

Those of us who need some delight in being "right"--isn't it enough for believers to delight that non-believers will roast in hell for all eternity for being wrong? Can't believers just let vengeance be God's? Can't the dialogue move on toward real, measurable problems in our society with real, measurable solutions?

Test

If anyone sees the Gasoline Genie, could you let me know?

Amen

knock down proof for atheism? Zero evidence in any form for any god. Your emotional experience in your mind is not evidence of anything except neural transmissions.

I'm not surprised to see this kind of argument from Mr. Novak. He gives no rational reason for his conclusion that our inner impulses are guided by some divine hand. He merely assumes that it's true, based on his own pre-conceived conclusion. Circular reasoning based on assumptions is not reasoning that holds up to scrutiny as a good way to answer the "big questions." Really weak, Mr. Novak.

Farnaz,

As far as I can reason, Tooth Fairy Ed lives in my wallet and possibly yours. Tooth Fairy King lives at my place of employment, from which he mails checks, which are then transformed into Tooth Fairy Ed.

Christine

PS. I used reason to figure this out.

Christine:

RE: The tooth fairy

Where does he live?

A little while ago, my daughter found 1.00 from the tooth fairy.

Although still an atheist, I now believe in the tooth fairy.

She asked me what his name is, and since I hadn't been to Tooth Fairy Church in awhile I forgot.

"Ed," she told me. "Don't you remember? His name is Tooth Fairy Ed."

I noticed that I was thinking. Thinking represents exteriority. Therefore, there must be something greater than both Tooth Fairy Ed, my daughter, and I.

"Where does Tooth Fairy Ed live?" my daughter asks.

More thoughts. Must be God, the Tooth Fairy King.

Does one have to be labeled an atheist if they are Godless?

As far as I can see, the New Atheists have been slowly executing a strategic -- but false -- retreat.
-----------------------
Scroll down and

See better, Novak.

Aplogies to Shakespeare and Lear.

The whole tone of Mr. Novak's article is reminiscent of the famous editorial "Yes Virginia, There is a Santa Claus." It re-defines God as something that exists in people's hearts, even if no place else.

It is conceivable that once humans attained a certain state of cognitive development, we achieved a sense of connectedness, purposefulness, and morality that cannot be explained by physiology.

But "God" as commonly understood is a lot more than that. At the minimum, calling a being a "god" should require that physical laws are sometimes suspended for moral purposes (e.g. healing the sick with prayer).

There may be "higher powers" that act through our hearts and minds. But there is no reason to believe such a power acts through nature.

Yes, there is no proof of atheism, as there is no proof that elves don't live in trees and bake cookies. Atheism doesn't require proof as you ought to know.
Why is it important for some people to rub their belief in other's faces? The writer no doubt believes in his personal god, but is an atheist to all other gods, but somehow that's OK?
Give it up - if you want to spend your weekends in church, good for you, but your claims of "evidence" are silly. People have a sense of "belonging to a larger community"? How is that a surprise when humans (like dogs) evolved as pack animals?
Please, when you find evidence of God, share it, we'd all like to see it. But so far your evidence is no stronger than the young atheists argument that states "Evil is allowed to happen in the world, therefore thre is no god or there is only an evil god"
Yes, your argument is THAT weak!

Are you related to Traitor Bob, Hiatt's neocatholic darling of the Opinion pages?

So some people feel that their sense of community has something to do with god, and some people feel that being curious and making decisions has something to do with god.

I think you really need to reflect on the nature of evidence before you start claiming this as evidence for the existence of god. For example, please reflect on the consistency with your other beliefs. Do you apply this 'feelings' standard to other supernatural phenomena such as aliens, esp, pyramid power, etc? There are millions of people who will claim they 'feel' that various aspects of their lives are influenced by these claimed phenomena. Does this provide one iota of evidence for such phenomena? Of course not.

Furthermore, do you think we should allow doctors or engineers to practice cures or designs based on no empirical evidence but rather just their feelings that they 'know' - 'yes know' - that water pills, or praying, or smearing a person in elephant dung will cure their diabetes. Of course not, and thankfully we mostly prohibit or put in jail people whose practices rely on such irresponsible and dangerous foundations.

I might further add that the 9/11 hijackers knew, 'yes knew', exactly what their god wanted from them. Let's not acquiesce to such a dangerous form of non-thinking. Have the guts to face up to the obvious conclusion from the lack of empirical evidence for your god and stop floundering around in this methodological non-sense.

The "Observer" you mention may or may not be a historic development. Michel Foucault would argue that it is, that it is positioned, that it is interested, i.e., historical. "Reason" doesn't exist in a vaccuum. Only an American trapped in the 1950s would argue that it does. Note the kinds of questions you attach to it.

"Ought I to marry this particular person? Ought I to take this job, make this work the center of my life’s pursuits? Is this the right institutional home for me, the community best designed to keep me asking questions and growing morally stronger?"

You are addressing the self as "Subject" my friend, nothing more, and in an embarassingly naive way.

To think of Reason in a medieval or Renaissnce sense, as a gift from the divine is lunacy im 2008.
------------------------
As for proof, worth reposting:
Novak wrote:

"Many seem to admit that there is not now, and can never be, a knock-down proof for atheism."

Mr. Novak, it's impossible to prove a negative.

Example: Prove that there aren't fairies hiding in your computer.

------------------------------------
A-theism is alive, well, and thriving. Organized religions are, as well, and that is unfortunate since some continue to try to legislate their agendas. As for spirituality, there is nothing wrong with spirituality, which you would have us think interests you. There was plenty wrong with Augustine, but that doesn't interest me. Drawing on him in this argument reveals your bias imperiling its claim to universalism, which is what "believers" inevitably do.

Torture: There were many, like Gramsci, or Primo Levi, or Jean Amery, or Simon Wiesenthal, who never, under the worst circumstances surrendered to the tenets of organized religion. Torture them, do what you will. Did they recognize obligation in the Levinasian sense? Did they think in terms of infinite Obligation to others? In different ways, yes.

Yes.

May I suggest that reading is a good thing for believers, agnostics, and atheists.

Emmanuel Levinas: Totality and Infinity

Mr. Novak,

Your fear of the possibility of losing your faith is palpable. I understand that your terrors are quite real to you but they don't have to control you. There are risks, of course. The realization and admission that there is no evidence of gods and that magic does not rule the cosmos may cost you your family and your community; after all, those people feel the same terrors you do. However, it will allow you to fully embrace your humanity in a way that religious people can never experience.

We live in a volatile time. The ranks of non-believers is growing at an unprecedented rate while religious numbers stagnate. We have reached a turning point; religions no longer have the power to convert in significant numbers. They rely solely on growth from within, and every year the power of reason and compassion chip away members from the cults. As usual with our species, this fact has caused the old guard to shout ever more loudly that WE ARE RIGHT and WE ARE ETERNAL. In doing so, they simply drive more people away.

There is no question that God as traditionally conceived is taking a beating by improvements in human thought--in fact we should perhaps grant to atheists that there is no proof for the existence of God and that God is something made up by the human mind.--And by granting to atheists that there is no proof for the existence of God I do not mean opening the door for countering that there is no proof God does not exist.

With the above paragraph established as a working platform, what we have then is God as a construct of the human mind. The question then becomes should we simply dismiss this construct as unnecessary or is this construct quite persistent even if being merely a construct. My belief is that although God may not exist we humans have to continue believing in God as something of the direction in which we are heading otherwise we have a limited, quite animal-like ideal of ourselves. In other words atheists might dismiss that we came from God, but they cannot dismiss that we humans had better be heading toward God or they are simply saying we are animal-like creatures and cannot be much better than we already are.

God as past can be dismissed by atheists--there is no proof we came from God or that God even exists. But God is a construct of the human mind and human beings are creatures fated to imagine what their futures are to be. And to expect humans to not want to be headed toward God is not only unreasonable should atheists expect such a thing, it will be an utterly failed project on their part. Humanity is an animal species which imagines it came from God, and although this speculation might be incorrect (that humanity has come from God) humans are fated to continue holding the idea of God as the direction in which they are heading or they are quite simply defeatist, willing to accept they are merely animals. If atheists try to eliminate God to that point, leave us wandering animals with no possibility of really improving over what we are now, then of course people will reject what is essentially a nihilistic attitude.

Man might prove there is no God but man is fated to try to become God--or he is simply not man but an animal.

ok, so God is now proved by some inner thing that I can't describe completely, and I should therefore believe in whatever that makes him or her.

don't wait up, I'm off to church

When Buddha was asked whether a Supreme Being exists he was silent. When prodded he rebuked the questioner and said that these questions are not important and actually comes in the way of liberation!

Coming back to the topic! The question that can be asked to atheists is that how can one deny the existence of something that is so ill defined.

If you see the religions of the world, you will see various models of God. However, as you see deeply you would see a slow evolution of the Supreme Being from a creator-dictator "formfull" transcendent God to a formless, immanent "non-dualistic" God with many middle stages.

The author also projects this position. At the end, the God becomes "a mysterious Other (incorruptible and insistent) within". He is quite close to the Hindu Shaiva doctrine except the the Other within is nothing but the One.

To the theist, so if you believe in a Supreme Being and accept that it is an axiom (Anonymous et al) you also accept that it is nothing but a model you only created for (to quote Anonymous)"moral, ethical, or pragmatic philosophy" for everyday existence.

Anonymous also went far ahead to even accept that position. However, Anonymous could not accept that a axiomatic system without God as an axiom can exist that is workable.

He is wrong here. Buddhism and Jainism are religions that do not have God as an axiom and they are very respected axiomatic religions.

Would you respect such system?

Dear Mr Novak

As one who has unwittingly taken part occasionally in the never ending debate: God exists - no He doesn't, with anti-theists on this forum, I find your essay on the topic extremely interesting.

Religions aren't going away but neither is atheism, which seems to have taken the form of a religion among anti-theists. Since some anti-theists feel the need to propagate anti-theism like a religion, it is vital to have people like you writing about the latest trends in the process. Anti-theism has put theists on alert and has offered all of us a chance to look more closely at our own religious traditions (which for me is Catholic) and how we practice them. It has provided an impetus for reform from within religions. In that sense anti-theists do provide theists a great service with their criticism of some of the beliefs and practices which may need urgent reform.

Wishing your book great success and the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit in everything you do!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

There IS an innate need for spirituality, but it is perfectly consistent with atheism and agnoticism. Arguably, atheists can become the most profoundly religious human beings because they attain spiritual insight and wisdom without relying on supernatural beliefs. An exploration of religious atheism can be found here: http://www.atheistprayer.blogspot.com/

Mr. Novak makes it clear that honesty and critical thinking are incompatible with faith in God. Thanks, Mr. Novak.

Paganplace:

You bring up some good points (as my Wiccan wife generally does), but there's a fatal flaw at the base of that discussion:

"I just don't hold to the notion that our sense of 'objectivity' is the absolute arbiter of what the world's about."

You don't hold to it, and I'm not sure of it, but it's the best we have. Actually, it's all we have. Every conversation that diverges from what we might see as that Donaldsonian triangulation moves further from verifiability, and therefore further from truth (if that's to have any meaning).

So while I don't discount that what you believe is a genuine belief (and this goes for all supernaturalists) I haven't seen any reason to think your spirits are there.

Not to say I think less of you. If I did, I'd be writing off my mother and most of my extended family. I'm not ready for that.

Actually, Mr Mark, your sarcasm and elitism is what is old, and I am calling you out on it.

It's YOU and the other atheists that get up in arms about us old evil religionists.

Your continual self assessment of yourself- that your arguments are somehow softballs or hardballs, or whatever you want to call them, is what is amusing to me.

I have over the years met and argued with dozens of atheists over the years. You are all the same , but lately , noticeably, more militant these days.

YOUR ego and elitism is tired, and you don't like it one bit when I call you out on it.

It's amusing to me in one way, but also pathetic.

The assumption that only atheists are "reasonable"
is also amusing to me.

No wonder you can't fit God in your life. Only one person - you can fit in any room you are ever in your head is so darn big.

I call you out due to the fact that you are head elitist around these parts.

Jason:

"The engagement in discourse implies a dedication to reason, but the theists have to, by virtue of their positions, abandon reason at some point"

*raising hand a bit.*

Hey, I'm a theist, ...what we call a 'soft polytheist' but some kind of theist. I don't have to 'abandon reason' or insist on anything contrary to the observable, to form my beliefs; in fact, I've brought reason into some pretty weird realms of experience: I just don't hold to the notion that our sense of 'objectivity' is the absolute arbiter of what the world's about.

Certainly not to the point of claiming to prove a negative, or prove or disprove unfalsifiable assumptions.

Reason, reasonably enough, sets that limit upon itself. (And some theists have made careers out of trying to plug absurd 'givens' into logical arguments ever since, but hey.) When people start trying to insist they *know* the unfalsifiable in the *same way* as reason and observation and thought can know the world.... well, there it gets silly.

Reason may demand we *start* with what we can know about the world. It doesn't demand experience *end* there.

That's different from saying 'this book or this mechanistic view is the all and only in life.'

I say, let's bring all the reason we can. Universe won't break like that. Not 'objectively,' anyway. :)

Mr. Mark:

You're right on the--ahem--Mark. The engagement in discourse implies a dedication to reason, but the theists have to, by virtue of their positions, abandon reason at some point. If sticking to reason is elitism, then elitism is an evolutionary trait. It's beneficial to those who can use it, so theists would be wise to emulate their reasonable forbears and try to be better than others.

Duh.

Dear Reasonable Not Hateful -

Have you ever noticed how every post you address to me amounts to a personal attack and nothing else? Why is that? Are you out of arguments, so you engage in a bit of character assassination so you'll feel good?

Unlike Arminius, Jihadist, Paul C and any other number of theists on this blog - theists who can and do offer an argument and can do so without resorting to personal attacks - you can't seem to contribute a damn thing to the discourse. You don't even defend your positions. Your posts addressed to me are screeds outfitted by your highly developed sense of victimhood and little else.

How many times have I asked you specific. logical, even softball questions and given you a chance to explain your faith, only to receive in return your cry-baby response accusing me of elitism (as if elitism is always a bad thing)? That's not an answer, it's a defensive gesture.

It's all very tiresome. Your last post is no exception.

Hrm, two interesting opinions here:

"I would rather live in a random, chaotic world than a world where a God would LET those Amish schoolchildren be murdered in cold blood by some psychopath."

"I could not logically function knowing that a man could walk into an Amish school, and murder six teenage girls, and accept that it was the workings of random chance, and totally beyond the Providence of God. I would find such a random world far too depressing to endure."

Or... There could be... Complex interplay of cause and effect, with stabler properties out of all possibility tending to remain stabler than, of course, chaotic ones, like living systems, which live pretty stably until they break down and are recycled?

Ie. What if the universe is *alive,* in some way, neither controlled artifact needing a devil to blame for glitches, nor completely random assemblage?

Ie. Not essentially defined by artificially-dualistic thinking?

What if it's like...at least to we the living, like *life?*

There's always that classic 'problem of evil,' ...which is only a 'problem' if you're attached to implications beyond what is put in front of you.

There's plenty in this world I might think 'evil,' but you don't *name* evil that way: that gives it power: ...much evil comes of thinking you know 'evil,' (Isn't that somewhere in your book, there, Abrahamics? Somewhere near the beginning, there? )

But it's not something Wiccans casually toss around, in the way others do. Bush set out, after 9/11 to 'eradicate evil from the world,' and what's gone on, since? Justifying *torture,* and all the rest?

Now we got everyone looking for someone 'more evil' to blame for *doing horrible darn things,* and getting ever more frantic and aggressive about claiming to represent 'Goodness.'

Sure ain't Good.

Now, I don't know what in particular made that dude in Amish country slaughter children: maybe he thought they were 'evil,' or that he was protecting them from some he saw.

But one thing I do know about *calling* people 'evil.' It never ends. And the real danger is, you call someone evil or damned,

A few of em might believe you.

Probably best not to build or justify your world around the concept.

Actually , Mr Mark, I'm one Christian who would relish a new argument or perspective from the atheists. The bulk of atheists like yourself either drag out their tired old assessments of people who believe(the old argument that we were "indoctrinated" as children- one of yours- or that we fear going to hell, so we acquiesce to something that is "illogical"... on and on.

I also note the comments by others calling Novak an idiot, or a stupid bigot.

Sorry, I could not see through the elitism and bigotry that many or most atheists seem to have on this blog. You all protest too much, and your chips on your shoulders are too numerous to count.

Strange article; eloquent and vacuous.

Apparently “God” is nothing more than the word used for an inner sense of morality, curiosity, and a (sometimes transcendent) fidelity to group identity, whatever that group may be.

Really? Is that it? Yet I have all those qualities without lumping them into this vague word. Perhaps another word for all of this is simply “conscience.”

Unfortunately, Mr. Novak’s piece won’t speak to, or perhaps even make sense to, someone who doesn’t already accept his claims.

I don't care what people believe or don't believe, as long as they don't try to make ME or my children believe it either. Why does it bother Christians and Muslims so much Atheists exist? It makes them so mad! Isn't it enough that we're going to hell? Stop torturing us with your fantasies! Go play the harp with your Jesus, the Holy Ghost and GOD. Just STOP trying to convince me that I should want that too. I don't. I would rather live in a random, chaotic world than a world where a God would LET those Amish schoolchildren be murdered in cold blood by some psychopath.

Novak tosses things around, but he's added nothing to the discourse. If we play around with the labels "belief," "knowledge," and "truth" we can claim just about anything and assert its veracity. But that doesn't bring us any closer to truth, or understanding about belief and knowledge.

There is simply no support for belief in the supernatural. No matter how many people "believe" or claim to "know" their supernatural notions are true. Any dialogue about gods and ghosts is just sophistic masturbation until the theists can get past that.

Religions served a purpose in the past to put the fear of God in savage men bent on killing each other, and to try to explain what they could not comprehend about themselves and nature.

But religion also led to the Jihad and suicide terrorists who think there is a wonderful afterlife.

Today, scientific theory says Man is an evolved ape with an intelligent brain, and the universe started with a bang.

Is religion still relevant?

Religions served a purpose in the past to put the fear of God in savage men bent on killing each other, and to try to explain what they could not comprehend about themselves and nature.

But religion also led to the Jihad and suicide terrorists who think there is a wonderful afterlife.

Today, science says Man is an evolved ape with an intelligent brain, and the universe started with a bang.

Is religion sill relevant?

What we have here is a universe of logical theories, with incosistant axioms, competing. We can pick two, and compare them. The essence of the atheistic system is that they reject any axiom of God. The Other theory accepts some axiom of god. Is there any reason to choose one system over another.

Consider plane geometry. there are a number of plane geometries available, most differing over the acceptance of the Parallel Postulate. There are a number of equivalencies for this postulate, but one result, which can also be considered the axiom itself, says that the angles of a plane triangle add up to two right angles. It is possible to construct any number of plane geometries where this is not so. The easiest to understand (but it may be an inconsistant geometry, so beware) is to choose your plane to be the surface of a sphere, with arbitrary poles. On that sphere there is a line whose points are equidistant from each pole, called the equator. should you walk along this equator, and at some point turn ninety degrees and continue walking, eventually you would reach one pole or another. Should you then turn ninety degrees again and continue walking, you would eventually find yourself again at the equator. you could then turn through a ninety degree turn, and, if you turned the right way, return to your starting point. You will have walked a triangle, but the enclosed number of degrees in this triangle would be 270. You violated Euclid's Parallel postulate. Your geometry is also valid, of course, but, if your profession is that of surveyor, you would do well to refuse to accept any geometry but Euclid's.

You may, as you wish, concoct any moral, ethical, or pragmatic philosophy you wish, with God as an axiom, or with no God as an axiom. You will still have to live each day, and make your ethical and moral choices based on your philosophical system. I find that taking God out of my philosophical system would make it as hard for me to deal with my moral and ethical world, as taking the Parallel Postulate out of my geometry would make it difficult for me to measure the size of my lot.

As a Catholic, I accept Aquinas ' proofs of God as considerations of the need for God as axiom, but more importantly, with the identifiable gratuitous evil in the world, I could not logically function knowing that a man could walk into an Amish school, and murder six teenage girls, and accept that it was the workings of random chance, and totally beyond the Providence of God. I would find such a random world far too depressing to endure.

Thomas Theology gives me hope that there really is balance in the next life for that that in this life is so greatly out of balance.

God is axiom, does your axiomatic system function well without that particular axiom?

Mine doesn't

Again, which God? I worship several Gods and Goddesses. They are all as real to me as Jehovah, Jesus, and Allah are to the Jew, Christian, and Muslim. The difference is that the Pagans aren't screaming that their religion is the only one.

Whose God is Michael Novak defending anyway? His ramblings hardly amount to a defense of the Christian God depicted in the Bible. Instead, he argues for a God that exists within one's own consciene rather than from without. So, yes, let's theorize about such a nebulous God. Such a view of God is hardly a significant concern to Atheists. Rather it is the perceived Christian God, or Muslim Allah, and his direct, unassailable words, whether of the Bible or of the Koran.

You know, I was pasted over by the "old atheists". I guess I was not a strong enough non-believer.

BTW, I read an article today about a tiny brain-eating amoeba that killed 6 young mean out west last year. The amoeba enters the noise by way of water, seeks out the brain and eats the brain until death occurs two weeks later. Hummm?

We are God's little gift to existence. Can I get an "amen"?

Do they pay this guy to write this stuff? It's horrible! Bleah....

As an atheist I can never prove the non existence of god to a believer, but a believer can certainly prove the existence of god to me. Just show me one irrefutable miracle, nothing as spectacular as parting the Red Sea, just hover three feet in the air in front of me.

Mr. Novak reminds me of a knight in shining armor. Shining, black armor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

Mr. Novak's reminds me of a knight in shining armor. Shining, black armor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno

Where are the moderate supernaturalists on this thread? Is it only atheists and die-hard religionists? Novak's essay is dogma free and quite vague, so I'd think it would appeal to the more moderate and liberal types.

I wonder if moderates are reading through this and deciding, for whatever reasons, not to respond.

If so, please at least respond to that. Are you reading here? Do you prefer to not respond to the essayist or to the other posters?

Dear GaryD -

Nobody is mocking you for your longing to understand the infinite.

What I - and others - don't understand is why you seem to accept the most-childish, most-simple minded explanation for the infinite that man has ever come up with (religion), when far-better theories about the infinite have been advanced in the intervening centuries?

Surely, the "complexity" of which you speak demands exploring a more-likely explanation of the infinite than that provided by the fearful, ignorant and impotent musings of our ancient selves, as expressed in the stilted dogma and myths of the world's religions.

Let's attempt to understand the infinite, by all means, but let's move beyond the insult to our intelligence that is religion. Let's embrace that which seeks the answer through our best abilities and our truest sense of what constitutes real knowledge.

What is the difference between a god who "does not reside among classifiable, sensory objects in this universe" and a non-existing god?

More than the human mind unaided can begin to comprehend.

Novak wrote:

"Many seem to admit that there is not now, and can never be, a knock-down proof for atheism."

Mr. Novak, it's impossible to prove a negative.

Example: Prove that there aren't fairies hiding in your computer.

What is the difference between a god who "does not reside among classifiable, sensory objects in this universe" and a non-existing god?

Excellent Mr. Novak. In short it is why the pure atheist can never really begin to grasp the complexity that is the believer.

Everything comes at last to that ultimate question:

Do you believe?

And it's twin:

What do you believe?

How limited is the man who believes only what his eyes see and his ears hear and then only of it fits within his own longing to not be bothered by the infinite.

I have an apology to make to Mr Novak.

Like others, I have taken Mr Novak to task for this insipid column. However, Mr Novak provided an all-encompassing disclaimer to this column with his opening words, which were: "As far as I can see..."

As was made crystal clear by his article, Mr Novak cannot see very far at all.

I ask his forgiveness in my forgetting his opening words and in my hopes that reading his long effort would have provided a modicum of insight.

Hopes dashed...yet again.

I think Novak is a pretty cool guy, eh rambles about atheists and doesn't afraid of anything.

Rich writes:

"There may be a grain of truth that believing in some kind of deity is hard-wired into the human brain, given its tendency to objectify"

Its might also be possible that the hard-wiring in our brains is our own evolved sense of confidence in ourselves as rational beings. Assigning this confidence to an external deity may simply be an example of our better selves, ie: our ability to project a humble nature.

We do the same thing all the time in life, like when we do all of the hard work on some project at our jobs, but give equal credit to our co-workers when none is due. The same is true for the flip side, where we discount the real work we did on a project and allow our co-workers (usually the support staff) to take the credit for the success (this is not to say all situations at work fall are represented by these particular examples!).

The same humble nature exhibits itself in the athlete or musician who starts off with average aptitude, works their tail off to achieve the skills needed to excel at their trade, and then chalks their success up to their "god-given talent."

Just my 2 cents.

"Atheists might not believe in God but[...] they are merely defeatist, self-satisfied beings, essentially comfortable with just an animal life. Atheist as not only non-believer in God, but not even man...."

Don't presume to know what atheists think, you stupid brainwashed religious idiot. We've simply looked at the evidence and at the claims made by believers, and have decided it's made up. A myth. Nothing to it. There is no more proof a deity exists then there is for Flying Anvils [tm].

You're just ticked 'cause you're a control freak religious bigot, and atheists aren't.

Michael Novak makes it up as he goes:
"As far as I can see, the New Atheists have been slowly executing a strategic retreat. Many seem to admit that there is not now, and can never be, a knock-down proof for atheism."

Who is this idiot?

There is also, and will never be, a knock-down proof that ANY deity exists, much less the Christian one. The burden isn't on atheists, oh! Confused One. Atheists don't care about your adult Santa Claus. The pressure is on YOU, Novak, to prove your quite unlikely adult version of Santa Claus.

And yes, as long as there are unhappy people in the world, or people that have been brainwashed from childhood by parents and others in the community, of COURSE we'll be stuck with religion.

Doesn't make it believable. Doesn't make it real. It *was* called the opiate of the masses, and it continues that way.

Evolutionary advantage? A lot of these "believers" *don't even believe in evolution.*

Where do you get this crap? There's zero evidence "inside us" that supports some deity. Humans evolved with that ability, and is one of several reasons why humans are superior thinkers.

Doesn't mean they were and are not still afraid of death. Hence, the creation of a deity in man's own image.

There may be a grain of truth that believing in some kind of deity is hard-wired into the human brain, given its tendency to objectify, but the better brains among us have the ability to use the imagination to see other structures from what science has gathered and so far there's no evidence of any kind of deity in the physical world. It must be an ultimate goal of humanity to be liberated from the limitations of how our brains work, not to continue finding excuses for the errors and misconceptions we pass along because of how our brains work...

Everything Rick Wingrove just said...plus...

Michael thanks for continuing to post about atheists....your audience that would normally never be exposed to what an atheist is, is being brought into the discussion thanks to your ranting & raving. I would attribute this to the Bill O'Reilly & Keith Olbermann effect...where Countdown keeps getting better ratings b/c BILL-O keeps dissing on Keith and attacking him.

So please Michael continue to attack atheists...who knows maybe a member of your immediate family might be the next one to join our "little & insignificant" movement.

Wow! Simply put, I reject every premise in your essay as well as every characterization of atheists, atheism, and what the question really is.

Your entire analysis of the existence of god failed to actually address the question of the objective existence of a magical, universe-creating deity but, seemed instead to define god as some sort of warm fuzzy feeling having to do with integrity and an aversion to communism.

Trust me when I tell you that that is not what the Fallwells and the Robertsons and the Ayatollahs are selling. They are claiming a hard-edged entity - a man-shaped deity that is cruel, arbitrary, and vindictive - one who is actively engaged in this universe,deeply meddlesome in the affairs of humans and who requires his followers to occasionally love, and entirely too regularly to kill their fellow humans who don't subscribe to the locally popular brand of lunacy. The Kill commands worry me and it continues in spades on this planet today. And we are just supposed to kake someones word on this?

As an Atheist in America, let me clear up something for you: It is abundantly and persuasively clear to every Atheists that your alleged God does not exist. He is obvious mythology no different than Santa Claus or Superman, and there is not a shred of objective evidence on earth that says different. And I am not sure what 'retreat' you are talking about when the numbers of atheists worldwide and in America are exploding. You need only look at the best seller list for the last couple of years to start getting the notion that your alleged 'retreat of atheism' is a steaming pile of wishful thinking.

Perhaps you take too much unjustified comfort in the acknowedgement by logicians of the obvious, that a negative can never be difinitively proven. You should never imagine that this in any way helps your case. Some Atheists in an effort to be technically accurate, will allow that, since there can be no such thing as a negative proof, they can never, under strict rules of logic, make the claim that god does not exist. However you would be mistake to interpret this as vascillation or weakness, for the same rule makes it impossible to claim that Santa Claus does not exist - or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Zeus or Vishnu or the invisible and undetectable hair fairy that I just made up this very second. And yet, one can, as a logical thinking adult come to the rational and correct conclusion that Santa and Superman and the hair fairy and all the rest do not exist except in the minds of humans.

Of more concern to you should be the fact that neither can you ever make the claim that your alleged god does exist! For this would indeed place a certain burden upon you to prove it.

Think of it this way: Two men go to court. First man tells the judge, 'We have a contract.' Second man tells the judge, 'No, we don't.' The judge will then turn to the First man and say, 'Show me the contract.' The second man does not have to show anything, and the only thing the first man has to do to prove his point is show the contract. Simple, fair, honest, unambiguous proof. What could be fairer than that. And failing that, you've shown nothing.

Proof is even more of a necessity when the adamantly religious start making specific claims and demands. When your god starts tells his followers, for instance, that they have the right to override and veto both my parental desire for my children to not be subjected to your religion, and my Constitutionally protected right to not be subjected to or obligated in any way to your or anyone else's religion, then I am definitely going to need to see something considerably more recognizable as proof than these lame-assed, didn't prove anything, hippie-god ruminations.

Because, if history has a lesson for us, it is that no man likes having someone else's 'one true religion' shoved down his throat. You must know that.

And if there is one thing you absolutely do NOT know, it is that your "best drives" came from some magical sky god telepathing 'inner light' into your skull.

To oof from Daniel. You say I made an invalid assumption and that you have no desire to know it all (as if I said everyone has a desire to know it all). But I did not say everyone has a desire to know it all. In fact I clearly stated that if one does not have a desire to know it all then one is merely defeatist, self-satisfied. Atheists might not believe in God but they had better be trying to know everything--become Gods--or they are merely defeatist, self-satisfied beings, essentially comfortable with just an animal life. Atheist as not only non-believer in God, but not even man....

Always be wary of those who claim to "know" god.

I may not know god, but I do know that claims of certainty about god have lead us down some very dark paths.

I think I'll continue to plead ignorance.

Oof – you mention “the modern 3 gods of the Christians, Jews, and Muslems.” Actually, it’s the same God for all three religions. The Jews started first with their God. They wrote the Bible, aka Hebrew Scriptures, aka the “Old Testament.” Then the Christians came along with the son of that God (Jesus) which the Jews didn’t believe in. They wrote the “New Testament” but also included the Old Testament in their Bible. Then about 5 hundred years later, The prophet Mohammed, received dictation from God – that same Jewish God – of a new Holy Book – the “Koran.” In this book, Jesus is a prophet, but not the Son of God.

I hope that clears it up for you.

Daniel, you make an invalid assumption. I have no desire to know it all. In fact I don't even care to know most of it.

I make no claims about your reasons for believing as you do, as best I can determine that what that belief is. I have no idea why anybody would believe this stuff, it seems utterly silly to me.

Obviously it's not silly to others ... I accept that I'll never know or understand that. I'm comfortable with not knowing that in fact.

You don't seem to mind though describing how other people believe or don't believe as they do, you seem quite sure you know. Well, you don't know. Plenty of people have no desire to seek any gods or spirituality or any of that business.

That's called non-zero, get it?

Mr. Novak made an attempt to speak to atheists, but unfortunately the attempt was confused. This is not to say I believe an argument can be made to atheists which will cause them to retreat to a concept of God that is traditionally held. The only way to speak to atheists is to address them logically and which leads to an updating of the concept of God.

As an example, and which Mr. Novak senses but does not articulate clearly enough, we all are faced with being human and with an insatiable appetite for knowledge. Mr. Novak would call that a yearning for God. An atheist would not. But the atheist is in a dilemma: the atheist must admit he at least has an insatiable yearning, which is a desire to have and know all--a desire which can be described as the desire to be God whether there is a God or not--unless the atheist wants to say his desires do not go that far, in which case his philosophical outlook can be branded as a defeatist attitude, a lack of fortitude,--at best a merely self-satisfied attitude.

There might not be a God in the traditional sense, but in the purely logical sense we humans expect everything for ourselves--we expect to be Gods, we strive for it in everything we do. To not believe this is to simply admit to being an animal with no higher goal let alone divine origin. This might satisfy atheists, but it will never take as a philosophy beyond a few. It is really just a step from nihilism. My belief is that after all the wrangling is done between believers and atheists we will be left with a purer understanding of what we mean by God and ourselves. And I doubt most atheists today not to mention believers today will be happy with the results, but one cannot stop man from thinking and purifying his intellectual life.

Steven, excellent post. The "question about one’s own personal identity" that Novak mentioned could involve God as a metaphor and not an actual being. Saying that gods "do not reside among other classifiable, sensory objects in this universe" sounds like an attempt to isolate god claims from scientific scrutiny, although that is probably not Novak's intention. If gods do exist, and I acknowledge the possibility, we cannot assume that they would have anything to do with humans' personal identities. The nature of the physical universe is a scientific question. The nature of the personal identity is most definitely not. Novak makes the mistake of treating belief as a legitimate tool for determining the nature of the physical universe, which amounts to anti-scientific solipsism. One can contemplate things larger than humanity while respecting scientific integrity - the vastness of the universe is an excellent example.

AlphaHelix:

"And the "feelings" people have are so intensely personal that we have a panoply of religions, of gods, and even within a particular sect you'll have individual believers with their own "feelings" on what god is like. Are they all correct?"

The Wiccan answer to this would be "YES!" How could it be otherwise? No one will, or can, live YOUR life. As snowflakes are made of water, but each is unique, we are made of carbon, and each is unique. Our relationship with the "Light" has to be unique also. I would venture that to atheists it would be the clean, pure Light of rationalism and/or epiricism. And so each believer is true to himself.

Yes, of course God exists. The atheists have not been able to provide conclusive disproof of the existence of God; therefore, He exists. No, that is not at all the same argument as saying that no one has been able to provide conclusive disproof of the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn or of the Celestial Teapot. Moreover, as soon as we allow that God exists, that necessarily means that my God (not someone else's) exists.

"Mojave Guy's Reply: In the argument God is seen as being above the rules of the universe since, after all, He is said to be the creator and as such would be greater than His creation. As far as the St. Thomas text goes he does not leave God out. He leaves Him to be the conclusion of an unanswerable question. I personally find that a humble position for a human to take. Sort of like admitting that we can't know everything."

This answer promotes pure agnosticism - furthermore, you are basically admitting that the argument is fallacious. If God can exist without having a cause, then the universe can, too.

"Mojave Guy's Reply: We know of nothing that did not begin to exist and can only come to the conclusion that all things begin except something which would be greater than the need to begin."

Incorrect. Our knowledge of cause and effect applies only within the context of the universe. We can't apply it to the universe as a whole. And again, there is no reason to think your exception can apply to some undefined thing "God" but not to the universe itself.

"Mojave Guy's Reply: St. Thomas was rather clear about that and, I believe, wrote that we can't know what God is but we can know a little about what He isn't and proceeded to address that."

That is irrelevant. Aquinas' unsupported speculations about "God" must be evaluated in their own right and certainly do not follow from the First Cause argument.

"Mojave Guy's Reply: You seem to have set a biased rule with the first sentence upon which is based the conclusion. Once again the argument sees God as being creator and as such not subject to the conditions and accidents of his creation."

"Everything that exists" is a generally accepted definition of the word "universe". And you are back to special pleading. You can't start an argument by stating a premise which you then immediately violate in order to make your point. That destroys the whole argument.

When I look at what people do, I realize that most people speak the language spoken by the people around them when they grew up. They eat the foods, sing the songs, and believe in the gods present in the air they breathed when they were young.

You can honestly say that people tend to believe in gods. Throughout history, a never ending supply of them.

This is of course no proof that there are no gods, but it does color one's opinion when one hears somebody say that their god is the one and only true god.

If there is only one, and it is real, then most of humanity throughout its existence has believed in the wrong ones. Given the modern 3 gods of the Christians, Jews, and Muslems, how each is sending you to hell for believe in the wrong gods or for not believing at all ... and this god loves you?

This is why many of we atheists use the work "crock" to describe what we see.

Mr Novak launches an attack against "the new athesists" - and with the content of his attack, proves conclusively that he hasn't bothered reading any of the books written by "the new atheists."

Had he bothered reading the same, Mr Novak may have spared himself the embarrassment of offering arguments that the new atheists' books have knocked down with ease and distinction.

This is all getting very tiresome. I'm one atheist who would relish a new argument or perspective from the theists. Mr Novak offers neither.

Thanks for the reply. I find it interesting and would like to comment and hope for further thoughts from you and others. Please see below for my thoughts/questions.

This "proof" depends on a logical fallacy called "special pleading". It goes like this:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. This cause is what we call "God".

Problems with this argument:

- If 1) is true, then it applies to God as well as the universe. So what caused God to exist? Exempting God from the first premise is the fallacy of special pleading.

Mojave Guy's Reply: In the argument God is seen as being above the rules of the universe since, after all, He is said to be the creator and as such would be greater than His creation. As far as the St. Thomas text goes he does not leave God out. He leaves Him to be the conclusion of an unanswerable question. I personally find that a humble position for a human to take. Sort of like admitting that we can't know everything.

- Premise 2) is an unsupported assertion. We have no reason to assume that the universe "began to exist".

Mojave Guy's Reply: We know of nothing that did not begin to exist and can only come to the conclusion that all things begin except something which would be greater than the need to begin.

- This argument says nothing about what God is.

Mojave Guy's Reply: St. Thomas was rather clear about that and, I believe, wrote that we can't know what God is but we can know a little about what He isn't and proceeded to address that.

- The universe consists of everything that exists. So if God exists, God is part of the universe and therefore could not have caused him/itself to exist, that is a contradiction.

Mojave Guy's Reply: You seem to have set a biased rule with the first sentence upon which is based the conclusion. Once again the argument sees God as being creator and as such not subject to the conditions and accidents of his creation.

Glad to help out.

"there is not now, and can never be, a knock-down proof for atheism"

All proofs depend fundamentally on axioms that are accepted without proof. Where these axioms are accepted without question as being universal, they are of the same nature as religious beliefs. Every religion collects advocates of their specific belief system who accept proofs of things in the world based on the fundamental truths. It is not possible for the advocates of one religion to use their truths to prove something to advocates of another religion. In this respect, atheism is a religion like any other. The only way to prove things between religions is for at least one of them to allow that their axioms may be questioned. As far as I know, no organized religion will allow this. This is also true for atheism.

Of course there is no "knock-out proof of atheism", nor has anyone claimed one. You can't prove a negative, nor is the burden of proof on the skeptic.

The closest one can come to a "proof of atheism" is the fact that there is not one piece of incontrovertible evidence, or even any plausible philosophical argument, for the existence of any gods. Novak admits as much when he reduces the so-called evidence for god(s) to "a feeling" that one exists.

Given that, why should we give any effort to "disproving" other people's feelings? People claim lots of nutty things without evidence. Atheists just feel that religion shouldn't be given a pass just because so many people believe in a god or gods.

And the "feelings" people have are so intensely personal that we have a panoply of religions, of gods, and even within a particular sect you'll have individual believers with their own "feelings" on what god is like. Are they all correct? Or only the ones who agree with your particular sectarian view? How can we KNOW, without sharing those "feelings"? It all gets back to evidence.

This is a piece to make believers feel better and not worry about the four or five new books on atheism multiplying and taking over the rows and rows of books on religion in the book stores, including my favorite (and the largest) category, "religious fiction."

Where atheists see a new openness, an ability to speak freely and find other like-minded persons, Novak sees a retreating army, cowering from its inability to provide “knock-down proof” of atheism. Fear not, all ye believers in various Gods, dogmas and superstitions - those newly brash non-believers will soon stop pummeling you with facts, history, archeology and science!

Then he says this: “Do you yourself, Mr. Agnostic, find evidence within your own inner life (in a way that can be replicated by others) that your identity is not fully known until you admit that you participate in a life much larger than your own, drawing you toward becoming more fully developed and greater than you are? In a Light more powerful than the light of your own conscience? The question is about you.”

I’d like supernaturalists to think about this too: “Do you yourself, Mr. Believer in invisible supernatural beings and events, find evidence within your own inner life (in a way that can be replicated by others) that your identity is not fully known until you admit that you participate in a life much larger than your own, drawing you toward becoming more fully developed and greater than you are? In a Light more powerful than the light of your own conscience? The question is about you.”

I would love to hear some responses to this, because, personally, I don’t understand the question. Maybe it’s because I’m atheist, but I don’t think I would have understood it a couple of years ago when I was a Christian, either.

"What of Plato's 5 arguments for the existance of God? (Later brought to the West by St. Thomas) The most memorable being the 'Unmoved Mover argument.' I have yet to hear a counter argument to this and would welcome one as that would at least show that someone out there is thinking. I suspect that there just isn't a way around that one simple proof for the existance of God."

This "proof" depends on a logical fallacy called "special pleading". It goes like this:

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. This cause is what we call "God".

Problems with this argument:

- If 1) is true, then it applies to God as well as the universe. So what caused God to exist? Exempting God from the first premise is the fallacy of special pleading.

- Premise 2) is an unsupported assertion. We have no reason to assume that the universe "began to exist".

- This argument says nothing about what God is.

- The universe consists of everything that exists. So if God exists, God is part of the universe and therefore could not have caused him/itself to exist, that is a contradiction.

Glad to help out.

Mr. Novak is a good writer, but beneath the eloquent prose, he makes the same mistake most believers make when they think about atheists or agnostics. Failure to believe as they (Novak and the others) believe is, in their minds, a matter of ego. They also assume that life has no meaning without God. There is a circular reasoning in both of these mistaken assumptions.

Like most believers, Novak sees a failure to submit to the shamans of his god as arrogance, because you'd have to be arrogant not to submit to god. Why? Because his god says so, and so do all the people who make scads of money saying they speak for his god. Never does it occur to some believers that unbelievers might have reached their conclusions without subscribing to self-worship.

Similarly, the believer says that there can be no meaning without a god to worship. Why? Because the believer equates meaning with religion. The idea that life might have a greater sense of meaning without shrinking the universe down to the size of a human-shaped god is unimaginable to a believer.

Novak says, "A second bit of evidence within myself (evidence that I participate in a wholly other, inconceivable Source of light) is my own insatiable drive to ask questions. Nothing finite satisfies me."

I would say the same of myself (minus the part in parentheses), but how strange to hear this from a theist! I would like to meet a theist with such an insatiable drive to ask questions that he is willing to consider that his own faith might be misguided.

Note to all concerned: The author either does not understand, or has deliberately confused, the meanings of the word "atheist" and "agnostic".

"Atheism" means a lack of belief in a god or gods.

"Agnosticism" refers to the position that knowledge of a god or gods is unattainable.

These two positions are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

To the extent that the author does make actual arguments, he advances the idea that "God" is a product of human minds - an abstract concept with no existing basis in reality. This argument supports the atheist position. So congratulations Mr. Novak, and thank you.

"I am free to tell M. Novak that there is no god. He is free to tell me that God does indeed exist. There is no way FOR EITHER OF US to prove our statements. That's just the way it is."

What of Plato's 5 arguments for the existance of God? (Later brought to the West by St. Thomas) The most memorable being the 'Unmoved Mover argument.' I have yet to hear a counter argument to this and would welcome one as that would at least show that someone out there is thinking. I suspect that there just isn't a way around that one simple proof for the existance of God.

It always amazes me that those wonderful traits we share as being fully human, the wonder and mystery of life, the yearning for knowledge, of meaning, the aches and pains and triumps and defeats that make up life, are categorically used somehow as "god-proof" arguments, or the "there's something bigger than myself" arguments for gods.

And usually, in the same argument, that Vulcan-mindset stereotype is given to non-believers who ascribe exclusively to "reason" or "logic," that portrays a non-believer as some lifeless stick in the mud...devoid of "meaning," incapable of altruism, and shamelessly self-centered.

And I love the claim that somehow there is a "winning" to the argument, that the "New Atheists" are retreating, that there is a resolve to just admit that there must after all be something to all these belief systems, and hurray we win!

I can't speak for anyone but myself: I don't care what people believe, as long as it doesn't dictate or suppress my life or the ones that I love. And if that signifies a "retreat," then, you win! Take the trophy! Have all the gods you want. Just keep them off of my front yard, and clean up your mess when you leave.

Evidence for god(s) detected in post: none
Original or interesting arguments: zero

Scan complete

Well, I suppose if Christians left their demands at that, then the 'burden of proof' wouldn't be on them for their claims.

But those claims aren't generally about the existence of *any* 'God' in the world, but about the existence of yours and yours alone and all the commands and books and doctrines that come with them.

Sometimes, it's *religion* that is the authority trying to get one to sign her name to something that conscience won't allow.

The 'God' of philosophy ..the Divine within, even, can be ascribed to many forms, and that's a different matter from these great abstractions, (I agree with a lot of your assessments, there, Mr. Novak, apart from the usual associations of atheism with soulless oppressive regimes which are often more like religions of their own, if not using the religions they have to work with or represent. The fact is that a lot of 'New Atheists' or whatever, we hear today, are the same as 'old atheists' ...just having less patience toward religions defining 'God,' or in fact, the debate for them.

Frankly, the debate *still* tends to be defined by monotheists, to the extent that even atheists buy the notion that all religions in fact make the same basic claims and have the same agendas of conversion, domination, repression, and suppression of free thought, inquiry, and intellectual endeavor, itself... too often, in fact, denial of the very inner light that some claim as corroboration for claims as to their *specific* God being the one and only...

(Frankly, I find that a whole lot of atheists do in fact argue as though the universe is ruled by an objective humanlike observer who insists on atheism just as monotheists think there's an objective humanlike observer and architect who insists on specific theism. Personally, I don't think that's necessarily a property of the Divine, just part of our experience thereof. To me, the world's alive with spirit, and aware in some way, ...couldn't see it otherwise. )

My experience of the Goddess isn't about proofs or arguments, but certainly experiences. I've been something of a prisoner, myself, and I know that a lot of the angry atheists out there have actually been much-hurt by the claims of those who abuse people's spirits with notions that if any 'God' exists, then their tormentors in particular were right, even if there was no sense of help or comfort or inner light for *them...*

This doesn't make them villains, but, principled in their own way. You guys kind of talk past each other a lot on this sort of issue. Apart from indulging in that vilification, and too-often-seen mischaracterization of the other side, though, I think you've got some good stuff up there that could be used for some communication, there.

Remember not everyone on either side is on a philosophical level, or very good at thinking like that, or in fact, recognizing the limits of the implications of a given argument.

A lot of folks treat Pascal's Wager as defining a good reason to believe in a specific God, for instance, when it really describes, in terms acceptable at the time, that believing in some particular thing out of all infinite possibilities, just *because* some religion upped the stakes, ...well, that describes the classic 'sucker's bet.'

In Pascal's case, I wouldn't think that makes him an atheist, just one interested in the 'right reasons.'

A lot of atheists see the harm done by the recently-rising tide of anti-reason and feel the need to stand up against it. And they're tired of being treated so dismissively or with big threats or to-them-insulting promises of pie-in-the-sky, ...philosophers and religious alike 'struggling with the problem of evil in the world... How can God allow this.'

I think the more pertinent question is, *how can we...*

M. Novak wrote: "... their reply to the question, “Is there a God?” their new answer is perfect for a bumper sticker: “I don’t know, and you don’t know, either.”

This is a mistake. The New Agnostic holds that the burden of proof is not on him; the burden is on others to “prove” to him that there is an object “out there.”"

I'm not sure I see how this is a mistake? As an Atheist (not agnostic), my mindset is that there is no god. This is not a belief, it is my reality. By the same token, a priest, rabbi, imam, whoever would be of the mindset that there is a god. Again, for them, this is not a belief, it is a fact...a central fact in their reality.

If M. Novak is looking for one belief system to encompass everyone, then one side does indeed have to shoulder the burden of proof. However, we are not living in a society that requires this of us. I am free to tell M. Novak that there is no god. He is free to tell me that God does indeed exist. There is no way FOR EITHER OF US to prove our statements. That's just the way it is.

This isn't a court case, and hopefully it never will be. Faith in God is essential for some people. For others, like me, God (in the convential religious sense) is a non-entity.

It actually strikes me that Novak has used this piece as a medium for providing "evidence" supporting the existence of God (or a god), which is ridiculous, really. The observations of philosophers (or even the author's own observations) are not "evidence" of anything. Non-empirical observations (in this case, observations that are subjectively assessed) are simply that - observations.

M. Novak argues that atheists are wrong to demand believers shoulder the burden of proof (which is true). Then he attempts to shoulder this very burden by providing so-called evidence supporting the existence of God (or a god).

Seems that we didn't even need to ask Novak to shoulder this burden.

Craig