All Comments (77)

Religion by its nature can not be a private affair, so this Pope's "warning" seems a red herring. Religion is the social construct that is DESIGNED to allow groups of people of good conscience to do good in the world, and mostly does this, with occasional completely irrational periods of unconscionable cruelty and evil. (being devised by man, it can do no better)

What is and must be completely personal, and what this Pope seems to fail to understand, is faith. This, the one-to-one relationship with your maker, is an integral part of your makeup and only subject to religion to the extent that you allow it. From this seed all good things germinate. However, if it is kept a secret, and not acted upon (exercised) regularly, it can wither. Faith without works is dead.

GKC writes:

"Mr. Mark - I'm sure you realize that your thesis does not represent the vast majority of mainstream biblical scholarship"

Agreed

"...since the historical, literary, biblical, and non-biblical evidence does not support this stance."

I strongly disagree. I have my sources.

It may take a few more decades, but eventually the religionists are going to have to face up to the fact that 99% of their claims are myths, not even legends. That's the problem with received opinion based on myth - it's always in danger of being revised or chucked altogether.

Limbo or god-induced diseases, anyone?

"It was only later in early church history that the decision was made to create the myth of a corporeal Jesus, a Jesus whose physical reappearance more closely mirrored Jewish tradition and took Jesus out of the realm of the mystery religions."

Mr. Mark - I'm sure you realize that your thesis does not represent the vast majority of mainstream biblical scholarship since the historical, literary, biblical, and non-biblical evidence does not support this stance.

That's for keeping it simple and see you on another thread.

Sincerely,

GK

Dear GKC -

I'll try once more and I'll try to keep it simple.

You wrote:

"Point out one pagan god reference which utilizes a Jewish understanding of "resurrection." And again, by resurrection, we are speaking of the thoroughly Jewish understanding (although not all Jews believed in the possibility of resurrection)that following death, human beings would receive physical bodies not subject to sin and death."

OK, Dionysus. He was the only Greek god who had a mortal parent, just like Jesus who had a mortal parent and a god parent. He also dies and is resurrected, returning to life briefly in human form before ascending to the heavens.

Now, Dionysus is a bit of an exception, for unlike most of the pagan resurrection gods, he did live among men and return - if briefly - in a corporeal body. What you're not understanding is that many early Xians didn't believe that Jesus was like Dionysus, but that he was more like Mithras and Osiris, ie: gods who lived in a spirit world separate from men.

Here's the point - many early Xians, including St Paul, did not believe in a corporeal Jesus. They did not believe that Jesus appeared in the flesh or died and returned in the flesh. Their vision of the resurrected saviour was like unto the many pagan gods who did NOT return in corporeal form as Jewish tradition held would happen. Their vision was of a heavenly saviour who lived, died and was resurrected entirely in the spirit world, appearing to men only as a vision, not as a corporeal being. In this respect. Jesus was very much a mythical figure of his times, for many of the pagan gods I referred to also existed only in the spirit world. Why else does Paul state quite explicitly - and in contradiction to the Jewish tradition you point out - that there are no physical bodies in heaven?

It was only later in early church history that the decision was made to create the myth of a corporeal Jesus, a Jesus whose physical reappearance more closely mirrored Jewish tradition and took Jesus out of the realm of the mystery religions.

Do a bit of searching and you'll see what I'm talking about. A good place to start is the site "Rational Revolution." Check out the articles about Mark as a Religious Allegory and The Jesus Myth.

I agree, we're beating this one to death. See you elsewhere on the blog.

Mr. Mark,

No, that was the correct response to your flawed question in which you commented, "and the messiah of the NT who brought no such peace upon his advent, was executed and resurrected like many of the pagan gods from that era AND who will not establish his era of peace and justice until after the Jews have been annihilated?"

Furthermore, I have no idea what you mean by the last part of your question, "until after the Jews have been annihilated."

Perhaps you should rephrase your question to clarify your point.

I wrote:

"What could be a more-different covenant than the OT covenant of a messiah who UPON HIS APPEARANCE ON EARTH would IMMEDIATELY usher in an era of justice and peace, and the messiah of the NT who brought no such peace upon his advent, was executed and resurrected like many of the pagan gods from that era AND who will not establish his era of peace and justice until after the Jews have been annihilated?"

GKC replied:

"Oh my goodness. Point out one pagan god reference which utilizes a Jewish understanding of "resurrection." And again, by resurrection, we are speaking of the thoroughly Jewish understanding (although not all Jews believed in the possibility of resurrection)that following death, human beings would receive physical bodies not subject to sin and death."

Er, don't you think you should rethink that question? You've rather got it backwards, don't you think? You're making my point for me.

"I'm afraid you're skirting an obvious conflict in your answer, GKC. How do you imagine that you can speak for "most people from modern-day Judaism" when you haven't a clue about the basic tenets of Judaism? What could be a more-different covenant than the OT covenant of a messiah who UPON HIS APPEARANCE ON EARTH would IMMEDIATELY usher in an era of justice and peace, and the messiah of the NT who brought no such peace upon his advent, was executed and resurrected like many of the pagan gods from that era AND who will not establish his era of peace and justice until after the Jews have been annihilated?"

Mr. Mark,

Oh my goodness. Point out one pagan god reference which utilizes a Jewish understanding of "resurrection." And again, by resurrection, we are speaking of the thoroughly Jewish understanding (although not all Jews believed in the possibility of resurrection)that following death, human beings would receive physical bodies not subject to sin and death.

For a sampling, you won't find any legitimate parallels with Osiris, Adonis, Attis, or Marduk. If you put any of these gods in the Jewish concept of resurrection, you leave the world of scholarship since no credible scholars would assert such a proposition even remotely speaking.

Regarding an understanding of the Old Testament covenant, you are confusing the actual Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 12 & 17) which Christianity wholeheartedly embraces with different views regarding the fulfillment of that same covenant. More accurately, Christiainity does believe that through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, the covenant was inaugurated (and is being advanced through the work of the Holy Spirit in the here and now - see the story of Pentecost and the role of the church not to mention the work of the church in present day Liberia!) At the same time, Christianity also believes that the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant will finally come when Jesus appears a second time to complete new creation.

If it's any consolation, Jesus' followers who were from a Jewish context were surprised that the resurrection would come before the general resurrection of the righteous in the person of Jesus, their Messiah (see the gospel accounts for this.) Surprised they were, but in no way, did those early Christians believe that Jesus' resurrection meant that they were now part of a different covenant from the one of their own Jewish tradition.

That's enough for this thread. Time for something different.

Later,

GK

GKC writes:

"Most people from modern day Judaism while rejecting Jesus as the Messiah would not describe Christianity as proposing a different covenant from the old one. Their point of difference is that Jesus is not the fulfilllment of the Abrahamic covenant."

That's an unfounded opinion that you have, GK. Do a little research on Maimonides and you'll find his 13 tenets of Judaism, a few of which are anathema to Xian beliefs.

What about Paul stating that men need not be circumsized to follow Christ. a direct conflict to Judaism?

Simply put, the "point(s) of difference" that Jews point to to support their belief that "Jesus is not the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant" go to the basis of the Judaic tradition and are hardly the "6 of one, half a dozen of the other, I'm OK, you're OK" differences you seem to suggest in your answer.

I'm afraid you're skirting an obvious conflict in your answer, GKC. How do you imagine that you can speak for "most people from modern-day Judaism" when you haven't a clue about the basic tenets of Judaism? What could be a more-different covenant than the OT covenant of a messiah who UPON HIS APPEARANCE ON EARTH would IMMEDIATELY usher in an era of justice and peace, and the messiah of the NT who brought no such peace upon his advent, was executed and resurrected like many of the pagan gods from that era AND who will not establish his era of peace and justice until after the Jews have been annihilated?

So much to type in response to your post Mr. Mark, but the most glaring issue seems to be your interpretation of a two covenant faith rather than a one covenant faith. Perhaps this is due to a misunderstanding of the words, "old," and "new" which unlike our modern definitions, do not refer to "old and done with" and "new and different." Classic Christian tradition proclaims one covenant fulfilled through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Most people from modern day Judaism while rejecting Jesus as the Messiah would not describe Christianity as proposing a different covenant from the old one. Their point of difference is that Jesus is not the fulfilllment of the Abrahamic covenant.

Regarding your rescue operation comment, yes, Christians are peculiar people since we proclaim that there is a particular narrative that shapes who we are and whose we are. Ironically, I have known several people to embrace the Christian faith precisely because of the presence of evil in the world because the particular narrative of the Christian faith contains a time in the future when God will judge the world of evil and restore creation once and for all. On personal note, this anticipation of a day of reckoning by a God who created this world in love is what helps me get through the day after reading in the newspaper that a senior citizen was robbed and killed.

And yet, the Christian hope isn't just about the future when God will finally restore creation completely. It's about the present and people who dare to live out the Christian faith at great risk in a country like Liberia to offer education and the basic necessities of life to a people in great need.

GKC writes:

"The point is that the Christian faith is rooted in the particular narrative of how God is seeking to rescue the world which He created and called 'good' through a particular people and a particular covenant because of the introduction of evil and sin in the world. That covenant was fulfilled through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth."

Of course, there were two covenants - the first was made with the Jews and promised a warrior saviour who - immediately upon his advent on Earth - would usher in an era of peace and justice. The FACT that this particular messiah has never appeared is the prime reason that the Jews don't accept Jesus as the messiah. After all, god made a promise to the Jews, and the Jewish god doesn't break his promises. In addition, the Jews have always discounted the myriad resurrected gods of the pagans (even Josephus rails against them and other false messiahs), which is another reason they reject Jesus whose death and resurrection finds its roots in the pagan religions of the first century and not the Torah/OT.

"Yes, to read this narrative is to see how messy this rescue operation is."

One wonders why an omnipotent, omniscient god would be forced into a "rescue" operation to salvage his own creation.

"Regarding limbo, that's not a doctrine in my faith tradition so you'll need to redirect that question."

But how can you be sure that limbo doesn't really exist...or, at least, existed until sometime late last year when the RCC scrapped it?

"The early church chose these books because they tell the narrative of God's desire to rescue the world culimated in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The books that were left out of the canon deviate from this narrative to varying degrees. Other books can be instructive but are not "authoritive" in the sense of the canonical books. The word, "canon," literally means "measuring stick" which implies that some works will be excluded."

And yet the Apocrypha WAS included in all Bibles until 1855, including the KJV. What's up with that? Perhaps books that spend their entire time speaking of dragons is too much for modern, revisionist ears?

"Reason, tradition, and experience in my denomination are ways of helping us in the interpretation of scripture. "

And there's the problem, for your faith tradition doesn't seem to allow that reason (ie: facts) could lead you to abandon your religion. As long as every single "reasonable" argument is squeezed through your religious POV, you're only going through the motions of exercising free thought and free will.

"But back to my original post...do you still believe that it would be better if Liberia didn't have the church to live out its faith by bringing transformation to their people?"

Yes, I do. In fact, Liberia won't be truly free and open to real transformation until they reject and abandon the superstitions of religion. At present, they're like children for whom the fable of Santa Claus teaches the valuable lesson that it's better to give than to receive. But those children will be better off when they've matured to the point where they realize that such lessons mean more when they come from within, rather than being imposed upon one by superstitious tradition.

"What is the point of being disencumbered of the belief that illnesses are foisted on humans by a displeased god? What is the point of being disencumbered of the belief that unless one tears the still-beating heart from some poor victim's chest the sun will not rise in the morning? What is the point (if you are Catholic) of being disencumbered of the belief that limbo exists? What's the point? I'd think that was obvious."

Mr. Mark - The point is that the Christian faith is rooted in the particular narrative of how God is seeking to rescue the world which He created and called 'good' through a particular people and a particular covenant because of the introduction of evil and sin in the world. That covenant was fulfilled through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Yes, to read this narrative is to see how messy this rescue operation is. Regarding limbo, that's not a doctrine in my faith tradition so you'll need to redirect that question. Yes, God could have shut down the whole creation enterprise altogether but chose instead to redeem and reclaim it. While you use reason to think this through, don't forget that humanity has done a pretty good job of spilling blood without God's help. Rescuing creation has it's blood filled moments as well - like an innocent man hanging on a cross beam.

"Thanks you for being honest enough to state that you "believe" god communicates through "an ancient book," rather than averring that you "know" it to be so. Question: why do you limit your belief that god is communicating to you through "an" ancient book? Why not include ALL of the ancient books that claim the same divinely communicative power? Seems to me that you may be "reading in a vacuum" in this respect."

Mr. Mark - Answer: The early church chose these books because they tell the narrative of God's desire to rescue the world culimated in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The books that were left out of the canon deviate from this narrative to varying degrees. Other books can be instructive but are not "authoritive" in the sense of the canonical books. The word, "canon," literally means "measuring stick" which implies that some works will be excluded.

"Would that Xians would err heavily on the side of reason in your equation. It would spare the world the problems that are created on a daily basis by the Xian's unfortunate penchant for elevating tradition and experience ABOVE the lofty heights of reason."

Mr. Mark - By "tradition" Christians are referring to how the church has wrestled with issues and doctrines over the centuries and of course, varying Christian denominations emphasize the use of tradition in varying degrees. Reason, tradition, and experience in my denomination are ways of helping us in the interpretation of scripture. So your references to God inflicting illnesses on people are seen in the light of the greater narrative of God's mighty acts of salvation. Determining which scripture references are using hyperbole and which texts are metaphorical or which texts are using concrete references needs the appropriate use of reason.

But back to my original post...do you still believe that it would be better if Liberia didn't have the church to live out its faith by bringing transformation to their people?

My friend GKC writes:

"What is the point of being disencumbered from belief in the existence of God?"

What is the point of being disencumbered of the belief that illnesses are foisted on humans by a displeased god? What is the point of being disencumbered of the belief that unless one tears the still-beating heart from some poor victim's chest the sun will not rise in the morning? What is the point (if you are Catholic) of being disencumbered of the belief that limbo exists?

What's the point? I'd think that was obvious.

"We have an ancient book in which we believe God communicates to us and a few of us try not to read it in a vacuum."

Thanks you for being honest enough to state that you "believe" god communicates through "an ancient book," rather than averring that you "know" it to be so.

Question: why do you limit your belief that god is communicating to you through "an" ancient book? Why not include ALL of the ancient books that claim the same divinely communicative power? Seems to me that you may be "reading in a vacuum" in this respect.

"We attempt to use reason, tradition, and experience to interpret it."

Would that Xians would err heavily on the side of reason in your equation. It would spare the world the problems that are created on a daily basis by the Xian's unfortunate penchant for elevating tradition and experience ABOVE the lofty heights of reason.

;)

"Eventually, the DELUSION that god exists will also be "cured," and the world will become disencumbered of it as well."

Mr. Mark,

What is the point of being disencumbered from belief in the existence of God? The President of Liberia (the first democratically elected leader of Liberia) recently thanked the Christian community for making it possible for her country to make a dramatic turn around.

Don't let the prosyltes lead you into an all or nothing proposition regarding religion. For some of us moderates, Christianity actually makes sense in trying to understand who we are, what the future holds, and how we are to live in the here and now.

We have an ancient book in which we believe God communicates to us and a few of us try not to read it in a vacuum. We attempt to use reason, tradition, and experience to interpret it. Sometimes we (Christians) get it wrong and sometimes we actually get it right. It's a marvelous and at the same time, puzzling thing, this thing called "Christianity." But in my 45 years of being a Christian, I can personally attest that it has been more of a marvelous thing.

Respectfully,

GK

Soja writes:

"The idea I'm trying to convey is that religious belief is not a delusion as anti-theists try to make it out to be. The fact that religious belief is integral to human beings has been found worthy of scientific study, and has not been dismissed as delusion or stupidity."

In much the same way, diseases were found to be worthy of scientific study, and when science proposed that people got sick NOT because god was displeased with them (as stated in the Bible and, more specifically, by Jesus himself)but by bacteria and viruses, well, the religious didn't exactly embrace the idea with open arms and minds.

Because of their religious indoctrination, people were DELUDED into believing that their illnesses were god induced and a sign of his displeasure with them. The fact is that people were actually sick, even if they hadn't a clue as to why they were sick. They weren't stupid or deluded into believing they were sick, but they were given deluded and stupid explanations for WHY they were sick. Happily, most of the world has been disencumbered of that delusion.

Eventually, the DELUSION that god exists will also be "cured," and the world will become disencumbered of it as well.

Clinging as you (Soja) are to your religious beliefs, I'd be very careful about whipping up a lot of enthusiasm over science tackling the "god gene" hypothesis. My sense is that you're heading for a huge disappointment and disenchantment down the road.

Dear Mark

I read the article and understandably came to different conclusions than you did. Scott Atran is an atheist but not an anti-theist. So it is understandable that you probably don't agree with him. Anti-theists like Sam Harris and Professor Dawkins have not been applauded in the article either.

The idea I'm trying to convey is that religious belief is not a delusion as anti-theists try to make it out to be. The fact that religious belief is integral to human beings has been found worthy of scientific study, and has not been dismissed as delusion or stupidity. The attempt that is being made to reduce everything to a physical gene alone and survival of the fittest mechanism is a different matter of course. The existence of a mind universe boggling universe, a scientific experiment not yet duplicated by human scientists is proof enough of God's existence for believers.

Geneticist Dean Hamer identified the VMAT2 gene as correlating with spirituality (results have not been published in a peer reviewed journal) and wrote about it in the book:

The God Gene: How Faith Is Hard-Wired Into Our Genes

Please add h t t p and w w w to the following address for viewing the link:

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,725072-2,00.html

Dear Soja -

Did you bother reading that NYT article in its entirety? From you last posts, I very much doubt it.

Link to the article in The New York Times 4 March 2007: Darwin's God by ROBIN MARANTZ HENIG

(Links may not be posted here; to view please copy and paste the address with h t t p and w w w)

nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html

The scientific theory that is in the works is that there is God gene! The 4 April 2006/7 article titled 'Darwin's God' implied that belief in God is the default position of the brain, which is why most human beings have believed in God in one form or another since the beginning of human history. Atheism is an acquired trait. That is the basis for the emerging scientific theory that there could be a God gene although it has not been identified yet!

The science that was once held responsible for taking God out of the human equation, might end up putting God right back where He belongs, but now as a scientific conclusion.

We are living in exciting times!

And Mark, when your time on this side of eternity has come to an end, your anti-theism will be a distant memory, because you will no longer have to believe that God exists, you will KNOW that He does. So take heart! ;)

My dear friend Mark, even adults get bored, not just children!

Dear Mark

Anti-theism is not a religion, although anti-theists would dearly love to propagate it as one. Teaching children to bash religions is not a positive tenet. It would be more useful to children to know that religion is integral to the human psyche and allow them to explore it as Mr Hitchens is doing, since he has no religion he practices to pass on to his children. If in the process children end up not feeling attracted to any religion, it is okay. They will have learned about the powerful motivating force behind most human beings, the moral tenets of religions etc. The moral tenets will serve as knowledge that will shape their conscience even if they don't practice any religion.

Hi Neal!

Thanks for your response and generous words.

As to directing you to an anti-theist blog: you are already infected with the anti-theist virus. I can’t see your condition getting any worse when you read your thoughts echoed a hundred times by others on an anti-theist blog. The chances are high that you would agree with me how boring the eternal debate: God exists-no He doesn’t, can become. One thing that has been established very clearly is that only those theists whose faith was weak to begin with, get “converted” to the religion of anti-theism. Reason can work both ways: lead one away from God or towards God. Atheism is not a religion. Atheists don’t go out on evangelizing missions like anti-theists seem to be doing. Anti-theists are every bit as zealous as the religious fundamentalists they oppose. The irony however is that anti-theism has no tenets at all. How pathetic that a religion should consist solely of bashing other religions!

Professor Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. I don’t take kindly when he extrapolates gene driven animal behavior on to human beings and seems to imply that there is nothing more to human nature than that. A human being is more than just a gene driven animal. Religions have done more work into studying that aspect of human nature. It is wise to take into consideration to what they have to say, considering they have observed human nature and have been interested in the highest good for all, even to the point of offering selfless work, even self-sacrifice, to achieve that end.

Soja wrote:

"I still believe in God and always will!"

I seem to recall those exact words being spoken by me. 35 years later, they're a gladly distant memory.

So, take heart, Soja. There's hope that even you will someday overcome the delusion!

Soja opines:

"You are subjecting your children to a lethal dose of anti-theism, under the maxim "Papa knows best!"

I prefer to look at it as a vaccination.

That said, there's nothing wrong with it being a lethal dosage, just as the right dosage of any medication is lethal to the disease it's treating.

As far as "Papa knows best" - golly gee, there's a radical concept in raising one's kids! I guess it's just we atheists who subscribe to that approach when dealing with our young.

Theists approach it so differently, don't they? Theists always give the scientific/rational side of the argument whilst filling their kids' minds with their religious clap trap, don't they? Doesn't the Xian spend an equal amount of time indoctrinating their kids in the Muslim religion, the better for the children to make their own decisions when it comes to picking the religion they'll follow as adults?

Give me a break.

You also write:

"As to your typical anti-theists arguments, I have heard/rather read the style times without number on this forum in other discussions with anti-theists. Same old, boring, boring, boring arguments! :)"

I ALWAYS get a kick out of hearing that from people who are living their lives based on superstitions that have been passed down for over 2,000 years, superstitions that have morphed into calcified religious dogmae that haven't changed for millenia.

Who, exactly, has cornered the market on "old" ideas? The theists or the anti-theists?

BTW - having a couple of kids, I'm quite used to hearing the "it's boring" rejoinder offered as an argument. It's not an argument, it's an excuse. Say it often enough, and it fairly drowns out any counter argument, at least in the ears of the person screaming "it's boring!"

The thing about the "it's boring" argument? It's expected from children. It wears less well on adults (I'm assuming you're an adult, my dear friend Soja). ;)

Soja John Thaikattil:

I'm finding it more than a little ironic that you would refer me to an atheist's blog to answer theological questions posed to you. Aren't you concerned that I, and anyone else who follows your advice, might also receive a "lethal dose" of anti-theism there?

--"Morality is essentially thinking and acting in terms of long terms, in terms of happiness for everybody, even the weak and vulnerable."

So, god was acting morally when he caused Pharaoh's heart to be "hardened" so that he (who was also Jesus) could then have an excuse to slaughter the vulnerable and innocent Egyptian babies? How "happy" do you think those babies were? Do you think it was moral to stone to death sabbath stick-gathers, or people who dined on shellfish? Are those examples of an eternally true objective morality? Is that the standard you endorse? Is there anything you wouldn't do under god's direction?

--"Animals do not exercise morality."

Human beings are animals.

--"Selfless sacrifice of self and survival of the fittest are contradictory. Why should any animal want to sacrifice itself so that some other animal may live a better life after its death?"

Could it be because the same genes are shared by other members of the same family/tribe/hive and that by sacraficing it's own life an organism's genes have a better chance for survival through the surviving group members?

--"For a human being, sacrifice of the body is not the end of the spirit. Even a human being who does not believe in the afterlife, has the knowledge of an afterlife encoded deep in the psyche, even if it remains unconscious."

If such a duality exists, why do all of the attributes ascribed to one's "soul" appear to be wiped out under the effects of anesthesia? Is it possible that what is common in human psyches is not a "knowledge of an afterlife", but rather a fear of death, a facility to concoct explanations that would deny that reality and a *hope* in an afterlife?

Thanks for your response; though an impressive construct, it seems just more conjecture piled upon previous speculation. It has done nothing to assuage my doubts and certainly not caused me to view your version of hand-waving as any more a rational basis for public law than the doctrines of the FSM.

Hi Neal!

Not to worry about your choice of words. I'm not an over-sensitive touch-me-not plant.

I had been blogging quite a lot on the Sam Harris thread since December 2006. So you will find all your questions to me have been addressed several times on the SH blogs and answered repeatedly every few weeks by one or the other person.

Here briefly:

If selfless were coded into our genes, every single person would be selfless all the time. That is not the case. At least in the world I live in and have lived in, all people are not selfless by instinct. Think of our genes for sex: our desires are all the same, but morality has to be imposed from outside and people differ in the way they exercise their free will to impose morality in handling an instinct that is the same in everybody. Morality is essentially thinking and acting in terms of long terms, in terms of happiness for everybody, even the weak and vulnerable. Animals do not exercise morality.

Any behaviour in an animal or insect that you notice coded into their genes: all behave in exactly the same preprogrammed way. There may be minor variations in response to the environment, but the range of behaviour variation is very small. Only human beings are able to act independent of the environment, fully exercising a free will that animals know nothing about.

Selfless sacrifice of self and survival of the fittest are contradictory. Why should any animal want to sacrifice itself so that some other animal may live a better life after its death? For a human being, sacrifice of the body is not the end of the spirit. Even a human being who does not believe in the afterlife, has the knowledge of an afterlife encoded deep in the psyche, even if it remains unconscious.

Dear Mark

The Old and New Testaments: before and after the birth of Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. Jesus, Christians believe came in fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies to the Jews.

God does not change His mind. We understand Him in varying degrees as our consciousness evolves to understand subtler truths. We change our minds the more we understand God.

You are subjecting your children to a lethal dose of anti-theism, under the maxim "Papa knows best!" Mr Hitchens is not doing that. To his credit, he is encouraging his children to visit places of worship to get a first hand idea of how people worship God in different ways. He does not impose any belief on his children, not even his own form of anti-theism, as you are doing. I admire Mr Hitchens for that. In watching him being interviewed by Sally Quinn, I must say that I was somehow touched by his honesty and courage, his anti-theism notwithstanding.

As to your typical anti-theists arguments, I have heard/rather read the style times without number on this forum in other discussions with anti-theists. Same old, boring, boring, boring arguments! :)

Goes to prove anti-theists can be nice and well meaning persons and yet be quite useless with their anti-theistic arguments. I still believe in God and always will!

Dear Soja -

Thanks for your responses. A few thoughts in no particular order:

Re: the broken clock is right twice a day without doing a thing.

How like unto god is the broken clock! God doesn't exist, so in truth, god doesn't "do" anything either. Yet on a daily basis, it's amazing just how much stuff the faithful ascribe to his "doing."

A team of surgeons works for hours to save the life of a crash victim. Their successful surgery is termed "a miracle" and the family thanks god for the same.

A believer reads the paper and shakes their head at the tragedy of another family that has just lost their home to foreclosure. "There but for the grace of god go I!" the believer thinks to himself. Rarely does he flip the coin and ponder another apparent "god-given" truth, "there BY the grace of god goes that foreclosed upon family."

Re: allowing one's kids to explore religions on their own.

I'm with Hitch on this one. My kids - who are 11 and 14 - are being taught that religious beliefs are superstitions, along with goblins, witches, werewolves, vampires...and others who somehow come back from the dead. I'm not filling their heads with a crap-load of superstitious indoctrination that feeds upon building a sense of worthlessness into them for being - gulp - human.

They're being taught that humans are like other biological life forms on this planet. It's easy for them to see the relationships just as it's easy for them to see the differences. Strangely, they don't have a fear of death, and they don't have nightmares, either.

When they're older, I'll encourage them to explore philosophies, then myths and legends, and then religions. I'll have them start with the Hellenic and Roman religions, so by the time they get to the major religions still operating in this world, they'll have a perspective on what constitutes the power of myth and what passes for "truth" in religious circles (hint: they're the same thing).

Yes - I want my kids to study and understand religions, if for no other reason than to have a point of reference when studying the arts and literature. But what I won't do is lie to them and tell them that there is historic truth to people rising from the dead or parting the seas or walking on water, anymore than there is historic truth in people shape shifting into wolves or flying on broomsticks or drinking people's blood to sustain their "undead" memories (and, I'm NOT speaking of vampires!).

As a parent, I feel it's important to give my kids a rock solid education in what constitutes "truth" and "fact," and what constitutes "fantasy" and BS. From there,they can learn on their own and eventually make up their own minds.

I'm sure yo feel the same about your kids.

Soja John Thaikattil:

I apologize for using the word "invented" in the first paragraph of my last post. It was clumsy, needlessly provocative and an unjustified postulate. Please feel free to substitute the word "recognized", or any other word of your choosing, that concedes the eternal existence of your god for the sake of this discussion.

Two additional questions in an attempt to drag all of that back towards the topic: If it's true that god's intent and nature is as inscrutable as it appears from the evidence, how can it be used as a basis for personal and/or public morality and how much respect does pure conjecture deserve?

Mr. Mark:

I apologize to you as well for butting in to your discussion, but I just couldn't restrain myself after being awaken by church bells this morning and then being confronted with that particular post. I also want to thank you and Chris Everett, Chip, E-Fav, Duckphup and many others here, of all persuasions, who have contributed to my personal journey over the past eight months towards a more rational existence.

Soja opines:

"For a theist, God is like the clock that is not broken and we get to adjust our clocks and compare it to the eternal clock that is always right; we get to compare our values and works to the values and work of the One who lived the most selfless life."

Er, what about when god changes his mind?

Example:

First covenant - second covenant

If the first covenant with the Jews was "always right," why the need for a second covenant?

Soja John Thaikattil:

Please tell me that you don't think we have a gene that makes humans inherently selfish. Did you read more than just the title of Dawkin's book? Do think that altruism was non-existent before gods were invented? Do you not see the obvious survival advantages of aiding other individuals? How do you account for the apparent altruistic behavior of a bee hive or an ant colony?

Regarding selflessness and other attributes of your god:

As I understand it, your god is immutable, eternal and completely self-sufficient. Yet, at some point before the creation of the universe, your god changed; it became discontented with the status quo and decided it needed to create a universe it didn't need.

We are told that your god is omnipotent and omniscient. It must have known, therefore, before it created this universe, that the imperfect humans it created would fall far short of whatever standard it had in mind. Why did it just not create the imperfect universe it didn't need? Why did it not create perfect human beings, if it could only tolerate perfection? What does it say about a god that chose to go ahead with the project in the full knowledge that it would also have to create a place of eternal punishment for the imperfect creatures it couldn't tolerate and didn't need in the first place?

If Jesus is an eternal, indivisible part of the Trinity, how is Jesus not responsible for the slaughter of innocent Egyptian and Canaanite babies as detailed in the OT? How were those babies less innocent that fetuses terminated in abortions? If Jesus is our perfect standard of comparison, why are we, the imperfect creatures he designed, condemned for following his apparent example?

If you choose to answer any of the above questions, can you do so without resorting to the use of the word "mystery"? If you must invoke it, how can you be so apparently certain of your conclusions?

Mark, selfishness rather than selflessness is innate to human nature: survival of the fittest/the selfish gene is built into our genetic makeup, remember? Religion invites us to rise above the limitations of our genes, to rise above our animal nature and be more godlike, a God who is selfless. Some of us could do with a little help to be inspired to be selfless rather than selfish. Being reminded of a God who created and cares for His whole creation and that everything gets judged in terms of its universal value and eternity rather than our own selfish needs and this lifetime alone, helps keep some of us more awake. If anti-theism in itself inspires anti-theists to be selfless, then good for them! But like theists, anti-theists must be judged by their selfless good works, not by their impressive selfless words, especially their generosity in bashing religions.

Mussolini and punctual trains: If getting trains to run on time was the only good Mussolini did, of what use is it to people who do not need trains to get where they want? What about those who need to get to places where is there is no railway track? What about those who do not need to go anywhere at all? Did Mussolini run soup kitchens for the hungry? Or did he give them trains running on time to satisfy their hunger?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day: The broken clock is right twice a day without doing anything at all. The broken clock is right for exactly two seconds every twenty fours, i.e. two seconds out of every 14440 seconds. One would not know when these two correct seconds are if there wasn’t a clock running on time to tell us. The broken clock is wrong 1438 seconds every single day. For a theist, God is like the clock that is not broken and we get to adjust our clocks and compare it to the eternal clock that is always right; we get to compare our values and works to the values and work of the One who lived the most selfless life.

I like the fact that Mr Hitchens allows his own children to explore religions for themselves.

This past April 15th I went downtown to mail my income tax return. Outside the post office, on public property, a local church group had set up a table with the church's name and contact information displayed. They were giving away free stamps to people mailing their returns.

Now I know I'm a suspicious old curmudgeon, but doesn't it seem as though this organization was justifying its status as a tax-exempt "charity" by giving *me* postage that *I* had paid for through previous tax subsidies, so that I could give them even more money via this tax payment? And weren't they also taking credit for this "charity" via their signage, while sitting, rent free, on a chunk of publicly constructed property for which *I* had paid? Should I have done more or less than just mutter profanities by way of declining their generous offer?

When discussing the subjective, how is the opinion of another or, of many, of any consequence?

Further, when discussing the truth, how is a popularity of opinion significant.

We should each examine the evidence for ourselves.

SOJA JOHN THAIKATTIL writes:

"The resistance to religions practicing their faith in any public way, i.e. acknowledging their faith as the basis of their good works, even if they are not trying to convert anyone, seems to be coming from anti-theists, who would have everyone believe that faith in God is the source of all evil in the world. Good works done in public contradicts their pet nonsense theory."

It seems so sad that one would believe that "their faith is the basis of their good works." How little regard one must have for their own decency and humanity to believe that absent their superstitions (ie: faith), they would lack the inspiration or ability to perform good works.

As far as the dichotomy of "good works v evil" when it comes to the religious, I would point out that Mussolini got the trains to run on time...and that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

And, yes, like Hitchens, I am an anti-theist. :)

The resistance to religions practicing their faith in any public way, i.e. acknowledging their faith as the basis of their good works, even if they are not trying to convert anyone, seems to be coming from anti-theists, who would have everyone believe that faith in God is the source of all evil in the world. Good works done in public contradicts their pet nonsense theory.

"Here in the USA, the Red Cross has been screwing up royally."

Mr. Mark,

Yes, I've noticed and I'm with you on what you're saying. On the plus side, our church partners with the Red Cross on various projects for our community and the people from their organization have been outstanding.

And then there was Henry VIII !!!!!

Dear GKC -

Thanks for the response.

No, I haven't heard of that Methodist group. Glad to hear they're doing good things without putting discriminatory exclusions like sexual orientation into their standards for who gets help. The bush administration could learn something from them, as could The United Way in the USA. I refuse to donate to UA as they finance the Boy Scouts of America who went to court to earn the right to openly discriminate against gays and atheists. One needs to research ANY group before sending them money.

Here in the USA, the Red Cross has been screwing up royally. To whit:

"The American Red Cross, seeking to restore a reputation battered by its response to Hurricane Katrina, rapid leadership turnover and faltering fundraising, named a veteran corporate leader yesterday as its president and chief executive.

Gail J. McGovern, 56, a professor at Harvard Business School, will take the helm of the nation's leading disaster relief organization at a time of widespread turmoil. She is the charity's seventh chief in as many years, succeeding Mark W. Everson, who was forced to resign in November for having what the Red Cross called an inappropriate relationship with a female subordinate.

Faced with a $200 million operating deficit spurred in part by dwindling fundraising, the Red Cross recently announced it would lay off one-third of the 3,000 employees at its Washington headquarters. The charity is also restructuring its organization after undergoing scrutiny from Congress.

McGovern has decades of management experience at AT&T and Fidelity Investments. In 24 years at AT&T, she climbed the ranks from a computer programmer to an executive, overseeing 40,000 employees in the consumer-markets division.

The Red Cross board of governors unanimously selected McGovern from a pool of 170 candidates. Bonnie McElveen-Hunter, the board's chairwoman, said she was impressed with McGovern's financial acumen and her commitment to nonprofits. She called McGovern's appointment a "home run."

McGovern will start June 23, leaving Harvard after six years on faculty. Her salary will be $500,000, plus a $65,000 signing bonus."

Nice work if you can get it.

"All of the things churches are doing now could be done by local governments in a more-efficient way. They could all be done in a non-partisan (or ecumenical) way as well, without the preaching that always seems to accompany church efforts to be socially responsible."

Mr. Mark - Have you heard of UMCOR? (United Methodist Committee on Relief) It has received world wide recognition for its ability to respond to disasters around the world in a very timely and efficient manner. The Red Cross highly respects UMCOR and the millions of dollars that pour into relief efforts regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.

There are also many other amazing denominational relief agencies that help organizations like the Red Cross do their jobs even better.

My denomination started the public school system for my county back in the early 1800s. I'm sure they taught the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and Psalm 23 but the point is that they also taught the basics of education so that the school system could develop into what it is today.

In one sense I agree with you that the government should care for these needs and rightly so, but the darn church just won't quit initiating new needs as they come along. I usually think the church is slow but it's nothing compared to the government!

Hi, Mr Mark,

OC CA, huh? Good grief. Well, at least there your county has money. We have it too, but I live in the reddest county in a red state, Cobb Co, GA. No way would they do much about the homeless. Anyway, the homeless know they have no chance here, and go to Atlanta, where they can get help and panhandle at bus stops. Many a dollar have I given...

Well, I thought your governator would do good. Some stuff maybe. But one wonders.

Arminius

Dear Arminius -

I hope this finds you well.

Where I live, there are many after-school activities for teens that are supported by the local government and tax-payer dollars, but I'm in CA's OC where the standard of living is generally higher than most of the country.

I guess it all comes down to what people feel is important. Our public school system (where my two kids are enrolled) has always held the line on keeping the arts vibrant and providing kids with an education beyond the basics. Our idiot governor - Schwarzenegger - is proposing a $5-billion slash and burn in school funding. For our school district, that means that 280 teachers got pink slips. The school system just mailed an appeal asking every parent with kids in the PS to donate $400 per child to avoid the layoffs.

At the same time, Ah-nold is requesting a $7.5-billion INCREASE in funding for prisons.

Now, why is that?

Simple - many of the prisons have been turned over to private companies who run them for a profit. These businesses need a steady stream of prisoners to turn that profit. By cutting funding to schools, Ah-nold is assuring that there will be more under-educated young criminals and fewer college grads down the line to feed the private-sector prison beast. Couple that with legislatures who make a crime out of just about everything, and you have a one-two punch for a seemingly unstoppable cycle of transferring public tax money to the private sector, ie: the wet dream of most republicans.

Destroy the public institutions and let the manipulated market reign! Will we never learn? Apparently not, if Ah-nold has anything to say about it (BTW - he's the guy who said he'd go after the $9-billion that Enron scammed for CA residents, and then promptly reneged on that promise less than a week after assuming office. Perhaps that money could help out our schools? Guess not).

Mr Mark,

First, see my recent post re not all Church charities not preaching. Please don't make sweeping generalizations based on Fundies.

Next, local governments are certainly in a position to do a lot about this. But will they? Will they? So many other important things to do - road repair contracts to friends, raising the county commissioners' salaries, upgrading the traffic lights to screw up traffic even more... get serious, man. Few local governments would do it.

Arminius

"GK Chesterton:

"My community has a lot of teenagers with nothing to do after school which has led to kids getting into trouble and the city government has for a long time about addressing this problem but nothing has been done.

"So along come a bunch of churches in the city to say that they will provide a place for teens to hang out, provide volunteers from the churches, have tutoring, develop relationships with adults for the purpose of giving them better opportunities to succeed in the world."

There's an easier solution: make the churches pay taxes like every other business.

What's the only reason that city and state governments don't provide after school activities for youth? Money. Where does the money come from? Taxes.

All of the things churches are doing now could be done by local governments in a more-efficient way. They could all be done in a non-partisan (or ecumenical) way as well, without the preaching that always seems to accompany church efforts to be socially responsible.

Hi, Paganplace!

I think you should take GK Chesterton at his word. Not all churches, maybe the minority, will run a charity hooked to preaching. Roman Catholics are well known for dispensing aid without sermons, and they are not alone - we Episcopalians do the same.

Arminius

"Well, that's really a mischaracterization of the secular position on a lot of things, ...'living out one's faith in public' is one thing: using government to advance religious agendas, proselytize, and indoctrinate is quite another."

PaganPlace,

Clarification: The youth gathering outreach is not connected in any way to our city government. The church took the lead when the governmental leaders failed to fund an intitiative for this need. The churches said that they would step to the plate to meet the needs of teenagers who need a safe space for tutoring and responsible adult guidance. There is not funding coming from the city government. For that matter, if the government would have taken the lead, I'm positive that many of the people in the church I attend, myself included, would have volunteered our time anyway, while at the same time being respectful of the teenagers beliefs and worldviews.

The goal isn't to proselytize, although how so very interesting that you make that assumption! On the other hand, I think it becomes obvious to the people of that outreach program that the churches are doing this out of their love for God and their sense of concern and compassion for the needs of our youth.

My point in my original post that many posters on these board get nervous about anytime the church goes public continues to be confirmed. I still haven't heard an adequate reason for this but my hunch is that a few bad apples have biased a lot of people against the church. My highly secularized liberal arts education taught me to have an open mind about these things before judging religious movements as well as non-religious causes for that matter. I'm surprised that many posters on these boards don't share the same sentiment.

Sincerely,

GK