All Comments (256)

I don't have a problem with you trying to go to Chicago. I have studied the many maps that claim to show the way, but after careful research have found that they are frauds, they are not what they claim to be, and some lead into some very bad paths, especially that Old Testament map.

I have investigated the claims of those who have claimed to have visited Chicago or to have come from Chicago. I am pleased to report that such claims are not supported by evidence and can be explained in other ways. I am coming to believe that Chicago is as fictional as Camelot. I can't prove it for certain, but I have given up searching for a place that in all likelihood does not exist.

Now, these are my experiences. I respect your right to keep looking for Chicago. I would encourage anyone who is serious about that quest to investigate thoroughly, in their own words, what the critics and skeptics of the maps have to say about them.

Carol,
On your trip, some might tell you that there is no Chicago, but don't pay attention. Others might tell you that it isn't worth the effort, but it is. Enjoy the journey!

Carol,

Be careful on your way to Chicago. There are many hitchhikers who will try to get you to take them to Seattle and tell you that that is the way to Chicago. Best thing to do is not pick up hitchhikers. And I would assume not all roads lead to Chicago either, so if you get lost on the way, maybe the best thing to do is start the trip all over again. But a little word of advice. If you don't know how to get there, you might want to try using a map. Of course finding which map is true is where you might need guidance, but different maps are good to rule out what are true maps or not. And always use the narrow road because the wide road is heavily travelled and no one makes it there on that road. And if you get to Chicago, make sure there are no palm trees, because you might just be in Miami and not know it. Ok, enough is enough. Good luck on that journey. I hope the tank doesn't run out of gas before you get there. By the way, don't stop at the mormon temple in salt lake on the way there...they make you wear funny aprons.... :)

Carol,
I enjoy your comments and applaud you for seeking truth and knowledge. You bring a civil voice of reason to this dialogue.

In my case, I've been a member of the LDS church all of my life. I'm 40 now. I've always tried to be a "good" person and do what was right, but looking back I think I often did the right things but not always for the right reasons (kind of like a student that crams for a test and gets good grades but doesn't truly learn all that he/she could have with real study and application). I find that this is still the case at times, but as I try now to really learn by study and prayer, I feel like I progress more personally than I ever have. It is definitely an ongoing process.

I wish you luck and blessings on your journey and am sure you will find Chicago as long as you keep seeking!

Fate:

Were you abused as a child by any chance? It seems to me that you are a bit hypervigilant in scoping out possible threats and so perceive insults that were not made.

I did not insult atheists. Let me rephrase my purpose here. I would like to know the most efficient route to Chicago from where I presently live in North America. I am not saying that the place anyone else lives is better or worse than where I live. And I am not saying that those who take other routes to Chicago won't get there. They may prefer to take the scenic route. Or they may prefer to scale mountains and run rapids and pretty much make it as hard as possible, thinking the adventure is pretty cool.

In my quest to get to Chicago I do not think it needful to reinvent the wheel or even blaze my own trail. I think it would be useful to learn from others who have tried to get to Chicago or who have even been there. Maybe some know about quicksand along the way and where I could possibly get stuck or spin off the road.

I would like to see the various maps that are printed about getting to Chicago. In evaluating these maps I may decide that some don't provide enough information to be very useful. Some maps may provide so much information that they are not really maps, but just reality, which I negotiate by myself all the time anyway.

I suppose there may be some folks who don't think I ought to go to Chicago. They may not like people who live there or the weather. They may be very angry that Chicago excludes people who want to live in Miami. Nevertheless, I still intend to go to Chicago.

Is that a little clearer...?

Carol,

Hello to you again! May I step into the fray?

I think what you were trying to say to Fate is that you have made no claims as to your present point in the stages of moral development. When I read back through all your posts I have not seen you claim anywhere that you are better or worse than anyone else -- only that you are interested in becoming a better person and are wondering about the most effective way to do that?

I have to say that that's a uniquely unemotional and calculating way to approach spirituality!

You have asked: Does being "saved" as understood in many of the Christian traditions, tend to help or hinder progress, if it could then be interpreted that the person has "arrived?" I have my own opinion, but to be fair, I won't answer for them, as I tend to resent it when they answer for me. But as I understand things, all people within these traditions have to start at the beginning, just like you and me, and move onward from there. As infants we are all selfish, whether we are the son of saint or a street urchin. We have no thought for the needs of others. We progress to recognize others and their feelings, and eventually include more and more within our circle of care. Some people grow to great spiritual heights (Mother Theresa, C.S. Lewis) and others do not, just as in my faith.

You have asked Henry, (I think, maybe you assumed?) if his Buddhist meditative practice has yielded moral progression? I can't tell you that, of course. I didn't read a value judgment in that myself, just an inquiry.

The research (bow, scrape, ha ha) would indicate that those who either pray consistently or practice meditation, evolve through 2 levels of moral development (as defined by various schools of psychology) at a time in life when most people stay at the same moral point for several decades. But that point of stagnation is an individual thing: it could already be highly evolved or it could be reptilian! Where-ever they are at in their early twenties they tend to remain till their 40's or 50's UNLESS they practice prayer or meditation.

So, your question was, I believe: Would that tend to put your average atheist (OK maybe your militant atheist, one who vigorously shuns religion and doesn't wear orange robes) on a path of non-growth for several decades? Well, I don't know for sure. Many atheists do very good things, but whether they are doing those good things within the same limits they were at in their twenties seems a reasonable question. I don't doubt, though, that there is growth WITHIN those levels, or how would they eventually get to the next stage?

As for myself I can tell you this: I was a convert to the Church in my mid 30's and therefore did not serve a mission. Back when I married, my wife and I struggled for a good number of years. Now, when I look at my married daughter and my son-in-law (who did serve a mission) I can see that he is light-years ahead of where I was at his age. He treats my daughter far better than I treated her mother. It took me years to get where he already is.

Carol, those years that he dedicated to serving others, that were filled with fervent study and prayer, put him in a place that I sometimes look at with envy. I wish that could have been me. I can't really say what point I'd be at now without the gospel in my life. I know I wouldn't be a sociopath or anything horrible. (In the LDS Church we believe that everyone is gifted with what we call the "Light of Christ." It's something that tells everyone right from wrong and helps you recognize truth. Maybe you'd say conscience.) And we believe that the world is filled with wonderful people of all persuasions.

So, I'd be a good person because I always was a good person but I have no accurate way of knowing if I'd let my concern for other human beings extend as far as it does now. If the “research” is accurate, I’m saying probably not. I'm still progressing, hopefully. Within the church framework we perform a lot of service for others, and service to others increases our love for others. The portion of my life that is devoted to service is much higher now than it was before I joined the Church. I am NOT saying that non-members are less committed to public service -- only that “I” was less committed to public service!

The Gospel Plan, simply stated, is: Eternal Progression. I hope to someday be far wiser and far more compassionate than I am now -- but it is not a competition with other people. The plan isn’t to beat other people, but to give them a helping hand along the path, so we can ALL achieve our potential.

It’s unfortunate, but some people will view your desire for personal progress as elitist or as a judgment against them. It’s an instant invitation to the accusation: “You think you’re better than me!” when in fact you could conceivably consider yourself to be a troll and them to be a wonderful example of humanity. And you’ll say “Wait, I haven’t said anything about you!” And they’ll say, “Oh yes you did!” I’m not sure if I have an answer for that because it is really their issue.

Well, I do have to work for a living, so more later.

David
I was an alter boy
so unfortunately i had lots of sexual activity when i was young.

maybe the same priest who induced me to have relations with me

will perform the exorcism to purge the gayness out of me.

Allah be praised.

love you (and you didn't sound homophobic, but good to remind people)
henry

HJ,

Ha ha ha!! :)

Actually no, it's because your homosexual! :)

You know, according to catholics (I'm not catholic by the way) you can just purge that gayness right off of ya and then head right over to the pearly gates. I guess it depends on how much gay activity you have done to depend on how long you have to stay. I hope it was just a one night stand Henry. :)

P.S. to readers...I'm not a homophobe...just playing around with my favorite ex-mormon/agnostic/atheist/buddhist/somethingorother. Of course he is the only exmormon/agnostic/atheist/buddhist/somethingorother I know....

Good night to you all. Or good morning...depending on when you read this.

Hi David ole Buddy

it's because i'm gay, isn't it?

Henry,

Any polls for those who think no one can be moral??

I guess my vote doesn't count down there in purgatory huh?

Oh well.

Fate,

I posted a response, but I don't know what happened to it. I hate this site sometimes. Oh well, guess it doesn't matter. The only question I asked is if you think moral relativism is a good thing and also are you an atheist or agnostic or the logical one being and agnostic by knowledge and atheist by faith?

Just curious?

Have a good day, especially to you HJ, I know it's hot down there in hell. Say hi to Hitler for me! :)

American Ignorance of Basic Moral Realities

The Pew Global Attitudes Survey of 2003 reports:
"Majorities in most countries say it is necessary to believe in God to be a moral person. But Canadians and Europeans – both in the West and the East – take the secular view that it is possible to be moral without believing in God. Opinion in the United States is closer to that in most developing countries, where agreement is nearly universal that personal morality is linked to belief in God."

First this bolsters Hitchens' point that American Religious Believers as a class are Ignorant, in this case about morality.

All of us WAPO posters know that religious level of belief has NO correlation with morality, don't we now.

And as this quote illustrates, America is more ignorant than the rest of the developed world. And it correlates with their high religious belief compared to other developed countries.

Anyone want to posit a causal relationship?

I try to live by Jesus' teachings, with varying levels of success, even though I don't believe in a deity; I think lots of atheists do likewise. Who can argue with his message? The problem is that authors like Harris, Hitchens, and you, Mr. Otterson, seem to spend more energy ridiculing their opposites' views than they do trying to dissuade the competing believers from their tendencies toward discord and violence.

I don't care if you believe as I do, Mr. Otterson; I just want you and others of your faith to behave in a manner that reflects a civilized approach to life. Otherwise, you bring distortion and shame to the life and teachings of Jesus.

Follow evolution by following your own DNA (and evolution) at https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/

David wrote: "Ok, I take your assumption and I will make one of my own Fate. You had a bad experience when you were a kid when forced by your parents to go to a Catholic Church and now because you were force fed religion your whole life you are abandoning ( or rebelling I should say) and now hate religion or even the thought of God. Am I correct?"

On the contrary, I love religion, as an institution. It does some real good and I find little in the secular world that organizes for the good of what you would call the soul, to question our behavior. My only problem is the "spirituality" is little more than a child's belief in Santa, with its rewards of toys (heaven) and punishments of coal (hell). I would like to see religions grow up, to understand that morality does not require hellfire to maintain it or heaven to keep us on the path. I find the reward of heaven as silly as a reward of 72 virgins, yet people kill themselves for the later. One has to wonder why Carol thinks *primitive* morality is in the past.

David wrote: "Maybe so, but probably not. So what makes the assumption true of yours that every adult that believes in God was raised with God?"

Well, show me I'm wrong. I'm not saying everyone, but 99%. Ask youself why christians have children who are christians, buddists have children who are buddists, etc. Its not in the DNA you know.

David wrote: "I'll use one of your lines. You have not grown Fate, you have stayed behind with a childish belief that all believers in God were raised that way. And when us believers see that tone, we nod our heads in shame because we know that negative pre-suppositions make you look worse than the intelligence that you think you have.....I don't mean to be offensive of course."

No offense taken. I like these discussions/debates. For an atheist they are easy debates except when the religious play the God card and say that any evidence to the contrary was placed there by God, that God's magic made things that cannot be explained, etc. But in this discussion, the nature of morality is the question and it has been investigated by more than just the religious. I would ask for any evidence you have that the religious are somehow more moral than the non-religious or those who do not have heavenly rewards and hellfire to keep them moral. You can start with prisons and ask yourself why atheists are under-represented there.

David wrote: "You also speak of morals on some level and I wonder where you get your morals from and if you believe morals are absolute or relative? This has always been a question that I can't seem to get an "absolute" answer on from atheists. My position as a Christian is that morals are absolute and are created by God. We have moral laws. We all have broken them. We all still do. So when speaking to Carol about morals, I do wonder how and why you choose your morals if you have no starting point to determine what is moral and what is not?"

Morals are always relative. The Anglican church is today debating the acceptance of gays as is the nation as a whole. You can look at the treatment of women and children over the years as well. The death penalty. Abortion, war, etc. And my favorite, no meat on Friday. Few religions have fixed laws that have not been bent, reinterpreted, etc. One question I like to ask the pro-lifers is what they would do if they were in a burning building with a 12 year old girl and a petri dish with 12 embryos in it, and the pro-lifer can only save one, not both. Most answer the girl would be saved. I then ask whether they would allow scientists to use the 12 embryos to save a 12 year old girl with a terminal disease. This is a moral delemma. It has no easy answer. There is nothing in the bible or koran explicitely providing guidance on what to do in the situation. Yet many evangelicals speak with the authority of God on this matter. Morality has no laws, just the intention of a good result, a result that maintains life, health and prosperity, or what we would collectively call 'good'.

This summer I was at the beach swimming in a rip current and a little girl was behind me. She was beginning to panic. Lifeguards patrolled the beach but none were in sight. I could have ignored her and swam parallel to the beach and saved myself. I knew if I swam toward her she could panic and pull us both down. I swam to her and offered my outstretched hand so she could not grab onto me, just me hand, then I told her to float and kick hard and we swam parallel to the beach until we reached a sand bar. I did not learn that in church. I learned it in a lifesaving class I took in college. My decision to risk my own safety did not involve remembering lines from a book or teachings of a pastor. And I am certain that others would have done the same, and had you been there you could not have determined my religion by my actions. Morality and character are built by experience and knowlege, not by reciting gospels which many have no idea what the meaning is, which is why a sermon is always needed after a gospel reading. And one only needs to see the mayhem in the parking lot after church during football season to understand that attending church has little to do with building morality.

David wrote: "Good day to you."

Good morning.

Carol wrote: "You also assume that I am insulting you and all other atheists. "I" assume that is because you read my post with an angry tone in your neuronal firings, and because you are presently possessed with that adversarial "Me Against You" mindset which I am hopeful that all humanity can rise above, myself included."

No, I read your post and found it insulting, especially the part about atheists somehow being limited in their moral development due to lack of belief. Check out the percentage of atheists in prison and compare it to the general population and you will find the religious filling our prisons. Though I have great respect for the ability of religions to organize for good, I also understand that religion can stunt moral growth and even turn its followers toward evil by justifying evil as being good. Your premise that religion somehow increases ones moral fiber is flawed and is assumed.

Carol wrote: "Now, "I" would suggest that if a religion is making an empirical claim -- that the "world" will definately end next Thursday -- and their language is literal and not symbolic of a higher principle, that you then test it empirically. And if the "world" doesn't end next Thursday (and you really undersatnd their religion in a way that they would recognize), you may conclude that the claim was false. OR, if you are open minded, you may consider the other half of your equation -- that sufficient numbers of people did indeed repent...."

But come Friday, how do you know the world did not begin the day before? You cannot. You cannot test this belief. You must reject it or believe it. You cannot determine its truth as you cannot determine the truth of any religion, only its possibility of truth.

Carol wrote: "I assert that all human beings, religious or not, start at square one, and must pass sequentially
through many stages of moral and spiritual development -- and that certain life "paths" may or may not be more conducive to progress."

You assert an assumption. We do not start at square one. Humans like many other animals have built in moralities. They get honed as we grow and respond to the consequences of our actions and the actions of others. When presented with new situations, many humans act instinctively. Seeing a person drowning does not cause one to reflect on their religious teachings in order to determine what needs to be done. Most people find themselves jumping into a new situation before even thinking. And you may be surprised that atheists are just as likely to risk their lives for another, or to give to charities, or help a neighbor in need. What I find interesting is that no matter the religious background of someone, most people are pretty much the same and you cannot take a person and watch them day by day and determine their religious background. In general Catholics act like Buddists who act like Jews who act like atheists.

Carol wrote: "Often people judge religious people for behavior that occurred eons ago, when the entire world was at a pretty primitive level, morally and spiritually -- and these present peoples are somehow now held accountable for it."

Another bad assumption, that people in the past were "primitive" which therefore means people today are "advanced". Look around. Crime, war, intolerance, and yes, even religious based hate. What do we have today that is new and did not exist in the past?

Carol wrote: "In my quest for a path, I have been asking sincere questions of the LDS (and other) posters here --like a good, rational girl -- and you were burning me as a heretic, I do believe...."

Asking questions is a great way to learn. But you did more than that. You assume atheists are morally stunted. That only through a belief in the devine can a high level of morality be achieved. You should consider that religions only codify natural morality and that those without the guidance of a religion are equally as likely to attain a high morality level without the immorality religions also bring.

Postscript to the general reader:
My apologies for adding another comment so soon, but in finding I can't sleep, much has been on my mind since I've read many of the comments above earlier today, so here I am.

I'll say one thing, there sure are a lot of passionate "atheists". That's OK--I don't blame them. This life tends toward becoming passionate about something, so why shouldn't atheism fill that role?

If Hitchens were to re-word his statement as "religion has fostered much 'unrighteous dominion' throughout history and still does today, and in many cases fosters blind obedience and thus a continuation of ignorance," then I would agree with him.

I would also say I am very grateful for a religion (Mormonism) that teaches against unrighteous dominion, whether in the home or in a church setting or in a country, teaches the importance of a council form of leadership in all settings, and teaches that as Victor Frankl wrote about, people can choose to rise up from feeling like they are a victim (for whatever reason) and make choices that will bring them, ultimately, personal peace and the inner sense that they are choosing to shape their life rather than reacting to what life throws in their path. Ultimately, they can choose to love.

I know many, many atheist choose to love. I do, too, as best I can (imperfectly, but honoring and trying to follow One who had far great compassion than I have). Peace to you all.

SML,
While I wait (figuratively) for Chris to answer about a theory of the evolution of civilization, I had noticed your interesting post about your children not wanting to go to church. I would tell any parent whose children were feeling that way to never "force" or "use unrighteous dominion" to get their children to go to church. I've always felt that way, advised that way to other parents, and practiced that way with my children (who have always gone to church willingly, staying home when they were sick of course). If you felt "forced" to go to church as a child yourself, then I would say the above applied to your parents and it would be a clear "cause and effect" why a person such as yourself would have a latent mistrust of God. I'm sure such has happened thousands of times, and in each and every case I would observe that such a person could be expected to have both a latent mistrust of God and a latent desire to rebel against whatever operated in their life as "unrighteous dominion." In other words, they have grounds for their "unbelief" or whatever from their rebellion took.

Sorry to use the case you brought up as an example, but I think you were making an important point, if inadvertantly. Have a great day, and all the best to your family.

Chris Fox,

argumentum ad populum:

I would say the majority of the world (obviously not 100%) thinks murder is a bad thing, but is that the truth? I believe it is immoral based on a moral set of laws handed down by God. But you do not believe in God, therfore give me a reason why I should think murder is bad especially in light of "argumentum ad populum" and it being a logical fallacy.

Chris Fox,
Nice post--thanks for the input. So I guess you're saying Darwin was wrong, and knew he was wrong, so he "laid low". I assume you have a better theory than his?

Prayer in and of itself does not, I agree, cure anyone of anything, nor do I think prayer by one who has doubts about the whole idea can really be defined as prayer. What if prayer in that instance is primarily inspired by God to provide a framework for mind/body alignment so that the cells in the body and the nervous system, the antibodies, the chemical balance, the glands, and so forth all respond in a facilitative mode to become "well" faster? You would of course say that all comes about whether or not one prays, and I suppose belief in something, whether it be religion-based or whatever-based, is better than an aimless "whatever happens, happens" attitude, but to throw out prayer when it does aid in recovery times, (and I've heard of many cases of immediate recoveries that the doctors could not explain) is to show that your bias is just that--your bias. But you have every right to your bias; I'm fine with it: to each their own.

Parker: distilling out the essence of all that it sounds like "Darwin believed in God" or at least "Darwin believed in the *transcendant* and Darwin is the atheists' "hero." Right?

Sorry but that proves nothing, supports nothing. Einstein had the insight that led to General Relativity but his own dogged belief in determinism and in God prevented him from accepting quantum mechanics and led him to waste one of the best minds of his century one pursuits so trite that Freeman Dyson avoided meeting him at Princeton.

Darwin's evolution theory was not important to his life, he avoided it for 15 years, so don't cite his uncertain and wavering intellectual confidence as evidence of *anything*

Show me that prayer can cure the most trivial ailment of bend the thinnest wire. And google "argumentum ad populum."

HJ, Chris Fox, Dax,

Let us assume, for the sake of getting along with each other, and to see where it leads us, that evolution as postulated by Darwin is true. After all, the scientific community has had plenty of time to think about alternative theories, and has embraced evolution as the definitive answer to how life began on this earth, and how there is so much diversity in the world. What a randomly beautiful thing this world ended up being, with randomly beautiful life forms and a randomly intricate balance of nature!

What randomly beautiful sunsets there are on so many horizons in the world! What randomly beautiful flowers there are in so many places! What randomly beautiful birds, and butterflies! Hooray to evolution for thinking so well of mankind to have provided for us such a beautiful place to live, and for inspiring so many offspring to create a world of beauty for ourselves and for our children!

Hooray to evolution for generating the creative minds of the musical geniuses of history, such as Mozart, Brahms, Handel and Beethoven! Hooray to evolution for generating Michelangelo, Da Vinci, Rembrandt and Renoir! Hooray to evolution for Homer, Hugo and Shakespeare, and for allowing our minds to get a glimpse of the deep meaning of many things! Hooray to evolution for ennobling mankind with compassionate, energizing love—a life-giving force and a life-sustaining wellspring of goodness. Pity the man or woman who does not feel this love as they move through their life, trying to make sense of their existence.

Hooray to Darwin for putting things together for us in an interdisciplinary approach to scientific reasoning, to tell us how we came to be in a world that happened to have just the right combination of chemical composition and placement in the heavens to allow life to form and develop by such a fortuitous chance. What incredible odds there were against it happening, but here we are! Darwin wrote so well, so convincingly, with a very personable, readable style, sort of like a long personal essay. English students would do well to read his work for the sake of learning from his writing style as well as from his ability to win a reader over to his point of view. Others would do well to read his work for the sake of learning what he had to say about some of the complex social implications of a belief in evolution.

If by a belief in evolution we think we are supposed to be in a world where “survival of the fittest,” random chance, and random mutations will always rule, where we should allow nature to take its random course, then we had better realize that the world is more complex than this. Darwin was careful to point it out. Says he: “We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. It is very difficult to say why one civilized nation rises, becomes more powerful, and spreads more widely, than another; or why the same nation progresses more quickly at one time than at another. We can only say that it depends on an increase in the actual number of the population, on the number of the men endowed with high intellectual and moral faculties, as well as on their standard of excellence.” (Descent of Man, Chapter 5)
He also adds: “Obscure as is the problem of the advance of civilization, we can at least see that a nation which produced during a lengthened period the greatest number of highly intellectual, energetic, brave, patriotic, and benevolent men, would generally prevail over less favoured nations.” (Descent of Man, Chapter 5)

Darwin also wrote of the decline of the ancient Greek civilization, which he had studied, because of the decadence that crept into their society. Despite their intellectual advances to greatness, their civilization had not retained its dominance because of this decadence that gradually weakened its power as a nation-state.

Can this lead us to some understanding that may help our world’s social structure learn from the past as we look to the future? Can a belief in evolution help us look to the future and see what course is advisable so as not to repeat the mistakes of the Greeks? The writer believes that it can, if we recognize that our world’s future is collectively ours to choose--not a random circumstance that is beyond our combined abilities to alter.

The study of evolution warns us that if we as the species homo sapiens do not collectively build a benevolent and ethical culture within our society, we likely face a decline by war, lawlessness and loss of intellectual achievement. This decline may take generations, but that is what evolution is all about—change by slight degrees, one year to the next, decade by decade, generation by generation. A thousand years is a drop in the bucket in evolutionary time, but to look at our world today and then imagine what it may be like in a thousand years based on present social and environmental trends is to recognize the need for a collective consciousness that yearns and strives to provide those generations yet unborn with a world that has not declined into an unwelcome, inhospitable place to live and find happiness.

Darwin also wrote in "Descent of Man": "With increased experience and reason, man perceives the more remote consequences of his actions, and the self-regarding virtues, such as temperance, chastity, &c., which during early times are, as we have before seen, utterly disregarded, come to be highly esteemed or even held sacred. I need not, however, repeat what I have said on this head in the fourth chapter. Ultimately our moral sense or conscience becomes a highly complex sentiment-originating in the social instincts, largely guided by the approbation of our fellow-men, ruled by reason, self-interest, and in later times by deep religious feelings, and confirmed by instruction and habit.
It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one important element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase.

We compare the weakened impression of a past temptation with the ever present social instincts, or with habits, gained in early youth and strengthened during our whole lives, until they have become almost as strong as instincts. If with the temptation still before us we do not yield, it is because either the social instinct or some custom is at the moment predominant, or because we have learnt that it will appear to us hereafter the stronger, when compared with the weakened impression of the temptation, and we realise that its violation would cause us suffering. Looking to future generations, there is no cause to fear that the social instincts will grow weaker, and we may expect that virtuous habits will grow stronger, becoming perhaps fixed by inheritance. In this case the struggle between our higher and lower impulses will be less severe, and virtue will be triumphant."

Now, my friends, I say Darwin had a higher intellect than Hitchens, and saw implications in evolution and history that have not been acknowledged or reasonably addressed by most who hold so fast to the theory of evolution as an explanation of how and why our world today is how it is, and how it (and we) got here. I challenge your fixations against all Deistic religions, and cite Darwin as a basis of that challenge. Peace to you, and deep honest thinking.

Rather than calling Hitchens names, let's look at his specific claims. He says religion is
violent: 20 wars in the last 15 years are religion-based, and throughout history hundreds/thousands have been.
irrational: do you call believing in Virgin Births and Red Sea Partings Rational??????
intolerant: can't you answer this yourself???
allied to racism : Mormons excluding blacks, Christians demonizing Jews, etc etc etc
and tribalism and bigotry,: see above
invested in ignorance: who is banning the teaching of evolution in Kansas? Who prosecuted Galileo?
and hostile to free inquiry: see above
contemptuous of women:: women have always been allowed to be leaders of all religious groups, haven't they
and coercive toward children." Oh NO!! Religion never indoctrinates children, does it?

Hitchens is self evidently correct. He gives much more nuance in the whole book, but his clearly generalizing characteristics are overwhelmingly supported by the FACTS.

Remember Facts? Or are you not tied to the Reality Based World, as the Bush admin calls it.?

Dax: Bravo. Thunderous applause.

Nobody ever burned a village because its inhabitants believed in Creationism or the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Carol
I'm getting to like you. Do you ever visit purgatory, where I hang out? I must warn you though: I'm gay, that is if i have any sexuality at all.

Belief in God has no evidentiary support, and God has no natural explanation, so by definition belief in god is superstitious. One definition that is typical says "1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation?\"

God does Magic. he parts the red sea, impregnates virgins without semen, raises people from the dead, all contrary to natural laws, and people believe in Him because they fear the Unknown, esp death.

There MAY be experience and states of consciousness that has no correlation with brain patterns and physical processes, but so far we have no evidence that that is true, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Reality based people like me like evidence rather than speculation.

Buddhism is the most highly evolved spiritual practice in the world, and buddhists do not believe in god if they follow the teachings of the Buddha, who was NOT a prophet. Buddhists and I believe that spiritual development of the highest kind is compatible with the *fact* that our body determines spiritual experience, and our body is made up of molecules.

True buddhists practice loving kindness towards all living things, EVEN religious people (joke).

Buddhists like me are atheists because we see no evidence that God exists. And we don't feel a need for a god to have spirituality and meaning in our lives.

We deal with the world as it is: the reality based world, as the Bush administration calls it.

"Harris argues, lamely, that Adolf Hitler’s maniacal behavior and excesses, even the Holocaust itself, was rooted in his “Christian” belief. Harris also likes to skip past inconvenient mass murderers like Pol Pot and Stalin (neither of whom was exactly known for religious devotion) because they don’t fit his argument."

The author is confused about what is being referred to as "religious wars". Explanation follows:

#1. Its possible for religious people to wage wars rooted in their religious beliefs (e.g. catholics fighting protestants after the reformation ) and its also possible for them to wage wars which have nothing to do with religion (e.g. Spain and Portugal, both catholic fighting over conquest of south America). Religious wars refer to the former, Harris or Hitchens are NOT referring to the latter when they are talking of religious wars.

#2. It follows that same is possible for atheists. Its possible for atheists to wage war inspired by atheism, or wars which have nothing to do with their disdain for religion.

#3. So what would be an atheism inspired war? Let's look at what's the inspiration behind religious wars. A desire to spread the religion, or even an enlightened desire to "deliver" the ignorant and bring them into "light". So an atheism inspired war would also be in similar vain, for example with the primary goal of ending peoples' belief in god and forcing them to see the world of scientific evidence.

Neither Stalin, Pol Pott, Hitler nor the tribes in Rwanda are inspired by the ideology of delivering people from their delusion. Their war efforts were /are not dictated by such concerns. Primarily, if their victims were atheists, they would not have stopped their aggression [Hitler might have still killed atheist Jews, and hence the exception that Harris points out]. This is the main point to understand, religious wars would not have taken place if the other side belonged to the same religion, Stalin, Pol Pott et al would have carried out their murders even if the others were atheists.

Get it?

The author holds out the same thin hope as the free-market zombies and offers the same puddle-ddep argument. The atrocities in faith's name are anomalies, committed by misled or evil men .. yes, and the Crusaders, who sang hymns as they lopped off childrens' heads, were the victims of poor Catechism.

Please.

When another deregulation experiment ends in squalor and pollution and unemployment the "economics" types wring their hands and implore us to deregulate just a little more and this time, promise!, the magic will work.

Nope, sorry Mr. O, but those atrocities are not anomalies, they are the direct result of the sick confidence that comes of crossing the line and believing lies and liars.

As for Mormonism, take a look at antidepressant prescriptions in Utah compared to the rest of the country .. yeah, real good outlook there.

David,
Thanks for your several powerful and insightful comments here. 'Hope your family is well.

Kennyboy,
Please be aware that by lumping all religions together with a blanket statement, you show that you have not bothered to find out what the differences are--and they are very substantive. You have a right to your opinions, but if you are going to make faulty generalizations, the shoe of whom you described will be on your own foot. I sense that at heart you are thinking about these things. I encourage you to read more, think more, and broaden your perspective. Much success to you in this.

Trans-rational thought, also known as true enlightenment, is also referred to as being born-again. Call it whatever you want but if you were truly enlightened one would hope you could be more convincing. I feel so inadequate with my poor rational brain, neither pre-rational nor trans-rational thought make sense to me or even seem any different from one another.

Fate,

Hello Fate, thanks for the comments and I feel an urge to respond to something you wrote to Carol.

" And you wonder why atheists listen to this type of moralizing based on religion and shake our heads and call it harmful. You have not grown Carol, you have stayed behind with a childish belief you inherited from your parents without question."

Ok, I take your assumption and I will make one of my own Fate. You had a bad experience when you were a kid when forced by your parents to go to a Catholic Church and now because you were force fed religion your whole life you are abandoning ( or rebelling I should say) and now hate religion or even the thought of God. Am I correct?

Maybe so, but probably not. So what makes the assumption true of yours that every adult that believes in God was raised with God? I'll use one of your lines.

You have not grown Fate, you have stayed behind with a childish belief that all believers in God were raised that way. And when us believers see that tone, we nod our heads in shame because we know that negative pre-suppositions make you look worse than the intelligence that you think you have.....I don't mean to be offensive of course.

You also speak of morals on some level and I wonder where you get your morals from and if you believe morals are absolute or relative? This has always been a question that I can't seem to get an "absolute" answer on from atheists. My position as a Christian is that morals are absolute and are created by God. We have moral laws. We all have broken them. We all still do. So when speaking to Carol about morals, I do wonder how and why you choose your morals if you have no starting point to determine what is moral and what is not?

Good day to you.

The only problems I have with people of faith is that they believe that the world was built by and is controlled by magic faries who can be influenced by chanting and giving money to people with really bad combovers, and that their faries tell them that all of the other faries followers are wrong although they all believe pretty much the same thing. Given that these represent the core beliefs of the vast majority of the faithful I am led to question their judgement in all areas of life. So when you consider atheists remember that they don't oppose your religious beliefs, they just think you are insane.

Granted that the "millions of Christians who practice their religion know from personal daily experience that they are better people because of it."

Equally so is the fact that the increasing number of believing "naturalists - aka non-theists (!) - "know from personal daily experience that they are better people because of it."

You are what you do. That is at the core of Jesus's teaching. If the Christian church is a bloody mess, intolerant, racist, hatefull, incapable of helping the least among us as Jesus directed that's on the Church not those who point it out. Less talk more walk. I don't believe because you don't even try. Most clurgy seem to be to worried about a fat happy life for themselves than to preach the truth afraid to ruffle feathers. And less preaching more making it all work. Don't be so feel good more do good. Acts, not good talk.

Tiredgirlie,
Since you have pointed out something that others have also, I suppose it might as well be noted that the "On Faith" question provided the statement from Hitchens that was supposed to be read and evaluated. The question did not say, for example, "If you have read Hitchens book, do you agree or disagree with this statement and why?" All it said was exactly what we all read. The statement stood on its own. Yes, it was "out of context," but that is the fault of someone else who made a decision to frame the question the way it was framed. Peace.

Fate:

You make a lot of assumptions:

You assume I have a religion and you also assume which one I belong to. From what...?

You also assume that I am insulting you and all other atheists. "I" assume that is because you read my post with an angry tone in your neuronal firings, and because you are presently possessed with that adversarial "Me Against You" mindset which I am hopeful that all humanity can rise above, myself included.

Now, "I" would suggest that if a religion is making an empirical claim -- that the "world" will definately end next Thursday -- and their language is literal and not symbolic of a higher principle, that you then test it empirically. And if the "world" doesn't end next Thursday (and you really undersatnd their religion in a way that they would recognize), you may conclude that the claim was false. OR, if you are open minded, you may consider the other half of your equation -- that sufficient numbers of people did indeed repent....

I assert that all human beings, religious or not, start at square one, and must pass sequentially
through many stages of moral and spiritual development -- and that certain life "paths" may or may not be more conducive to progress.

Often people judge religious people for behavior that occurred eons ago, when the entire world was at a pretty primitive level, morally and spiritually -- and these present peoples are somehow now held accountable for it.

In my quest for a path, I have been asking sincere questions of the LDS (and other) posters here --like a good, rational girl -- and you were burning me as a heretic, I do believe....

I find it REALLY troublesome that Otterson presents his column as a RESPONSE to something he has not read. Are we supposed to take "on faith" his ability to evaluate Hitchens' arguments without first learning what they are?

Henry James:

I agree with your assertion that there are highly evolved atheists, but I think there is a disconnect when you assume that the belief in God "must" be superstitious in nature, ie, magical thinking.

I think atheists who reduce all experience down to the firing of electrons and the brain patterns in various states of consciousness really evade the wide possibilities behind those states.I also wonder if doing so just makes it plain harder and longer to get to a more evolved point.

I believe you said somewhere that you are a Buddhist, or are trying to go that route (am I mistaking you for someone else?) I can see how that route could lead to spiritual development, but for your average "Science is my God" devotee, would you agree that allegiance to molecules might be a recipe for decades of stagnation -- until that point where friends and family start dying and more universal care sets in (which would include love and tolerance for religious peoples)?

I wonder, because many of the atheists posting here are still very much in the same "Me Against You" mindset that is so prevalent in religious fundamentalism.

Many of the simpler atheists seem to operate on a premise of what "they" think the world "should" be like if God were to exist, as well as what God himself "should" be like. And deviations from that model are considered irrational, which is total hubris, I'd say.

Fate
I should have listened to you earlier.

You make a lot of sense. Most of your ideas are not new to me, but you phrase them very well, and as America's greatest literary critic that is very important to me.

BTW, I HAVE often used you as a character in my novels.

Best to you
and please be nice to me

Henry

Carol wrote: "I think what we have here with the atheists is that they tend to universally lump transrational thought together with pre-rational thought, but they have no choice but to do so, because they have yet to move beyond the stage of development they are in."

I could just as easily say that you are not rationalizing the religion of Last Thursdayism, where the belief states the universe and everything in it including you, your thoughts, everything, was created last Thursday and you have until next Thursday to repent and give all your worldly possessions away to the poor. On the day of the rapture (Thurday) you will be judged on your week on earth. You may laugh, but I dare you to prove in anyway that this cannot be true.

Now, I could accuse you of not having transrational thougth or not having grown enough to believe in this religion and the good it professes. Well, I, as an atheist, don't believe in it either. Are we both stunted in our rationalizations and religious growth? Or are we both facing rational facts, that Last Thursdayism is nonsense? Secondly, even though Last Thursdayism has lofty goals for you and its followers, is it a good thing for those believers to believe in what you and I consider irrational? Was it good for the Heaven's Gate cult?

Now, considering all the religions on earth, I believe in one less than you do. I guess when you add up the hundreds we are both missing out on, our lack of the total religious experience makes us closer to being equal than you would like to think.

Carol continues insulting: "And I do wonder if there is anything they can do to achieve a higher level of moral development, because they seem to regard anything above and beyond where they are personally "at" as hoo-ey."

That is certainly not true. Atheists, like anyone else, continually strive to become good people, better people. They even read the bible and other texts to learn how to achieve these goals as the lessons are good ones, usually. What they do not do is blindly follow religious leaders. They do not look to their books for rationalizations of evil, such as "an eye for an eye" because they have the freedom to exclude such barbaric morality from their character.

Carol, I think you need to look into yourself and determine just how moral a person you are when you consider those outside your religion to be stunted and not as morally developed as you. Read your own insulting words to see what your religion has done for your ego, and how it has separated you from "atheists" as though some sort of separation exists between people of differing beliefs. You are creating a class, transrationalists versus non-transrationalists. Believers versus non-believers. And you wonder why atheists listen to this type of moralizing based on religion and shake our heads and call it harmful. You have not grown Carol, you have stayed behind with a childish belief you inherited from your parents without question. Imagine an adult who believes fervently in Santa. That is how an atheist would view your belief. And when that believer says you better be good or Santa won't come, you just smile and know that being good is self maintained and its own reward. Atheists do not need heaven to be good or hell to fear. Goodness is not owned by the religious. Good is its own reward. Atheists understand this. Its time for you to grow up.

Mike
you win today's Henry James award for Illogical comments when you write

"Gee by your logic- Sitting Bull should apologise to Custer!"

just to begin with
the Christians were going into the Holy Land and intitated the conflict

and

Custer was going into the land of the Indians and initiated conflict

"OD:
If the Crusades were a departure from Christ's teaching, why does the Vatican refuse to apologise for calling them?"
Gee by your logic- Sitting Bull should apologise to Custer!

If you had your head in the sunshine, you might understand that the real 1st crusade occured around 700 when the Muzzies took over "Christian Lands" by the sword.
You must be a product of the current school system- All feelings and no facts. Wise up or start praying to Mecca :-(

Help the 3rd world 1 microloan at a time- www.kiva.org

Carol
i have plenty of spiritual experiences. they just do not depend on believing in superstitions.

i think religious people who don't believe in god are the best kind.

"the atheists" vary widely, by the way.

there are highly spiritually developed believers and highly developed atheists.

superstitious belief in magical gods is not a prerequisite, not a absolute bar.

Just an aside:

It seems the atheist "apologists" here universally err by degrading all spiritual experience to the level of mythical and magical thinking. Whereas it is true that many religious persons are in this stage of development (mythical reasoning) not all spiritual experience fits this mold. It has moved to the rational stage, then through it and beyond to the trans-rational. My own husband would be a model of this (a gifted scientist and physician who is very spiritually evolved).

In their desire to be inclusive, some philosophers have exacerbated this perception (that all religious experience is magical thinking) by elevating very low levels of mythical and magical thinking to the trans-rational level -- giving it an evolved status that it simply does not have,

I think what we have here with the atheists is that they tend to universally lump transrational thought together with pre-rational thought, but they have no choice but to do so, because they have yet to move beyond the stage of development they are in. And I do wonder if there is anything they can do to achieve a higher level of moral development, because they seem to regard anything above and beyond where they are personally "at" as hoo-ey.

And I wonder if they have hosed their own progression in the process...?

Donttypelies ~

My beloved Henry already responded to you the way I would have in your first comment to me.

You further wrote, "The reason that children display acts of kindness and goodwill before knowing anything about Christianity is because they have inherited their attitudes from their parents from the time they are born. Where did their parents develop their attitudes? From their religious ancestors."

I find this fascinating. My good friend adopted a daughter from China. She is a seemingly devout Catholic right now (well, how devout is one at age 9??). Another good friend adopted a son from Africa. He is a faithful Mormon boy, and shows no signs of adhering to his "inherited attitude" at birth.

If I inherited my attitudes from my religious ancestors, then I'd still believe that the LDS religion of my birth was the One True Church. I recall dreading attending church as a child, and I recall my children doing the same each Sunday as I forced them to get ready because we were going to be late for church again. This is a completely different attitude from my father who is as devout a Mormon as you'll find. He lives for his religion which keeps him miserably alive.

I'm pretty glad I don't have that problem anymore.

What is astonishing is the hatred many posters here have for Christians. There is no place for that. I know many athiests, and while I believe they are mistaken, I know that they are good Americans. But here, athiests have contempt for Christians. Why do you hate them? Please don't deny it, read the dismissive, vitriolic comments and the underlying rage is clear. I lived in a Buddist society for several years, and I didn't despise Buddists. I think the angry athiests need to ask themselves where the animosity comes from.