Randall Balmer, an Episcopal priest, is professor of American religious history at Barnard College, Columbia University, and a visiting professor at Yale Divinity School. His most recent book is “God in the White House: A History: How Faith Shaped the Presidency from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush” (HarperOne). The “On Faith” panelist has written ten other books, including Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America and Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory: A Journey into the Evangelical Subculture in America, which was made into a three-part documentary for PBS. Balmer was nominated for an Emmy for his script-writing on that series. His second documentary, Crusade: The Life of Billy Graham and a two-part examination of the creation-evolution debate, In the Beginning: The Creationist Controversy, also aired on PBS. Balmer has lectured at the Chautauqua Institution, the Commonwealth Club of California and the Smithsonian Associates and been a visiting professor at Rutgers, Yale, and Princeton. He has published widely in academic journals and his syndicated commentaries on religion in America have appeared in newspapers across the country. He is editor-at-large for Christianity Today. A spiritual memoir, Growing Pains: Learning to Love My Father's Faith (2001) was named spiritual "book of the year" by Christianity Today. He is currently at work on a history of religion in North America.
Close.
Randall Balmer
Columbia University professor, author
Randall Balmer, an Episcopal priest, is professor of American religious history at Barnard College, Columbia University, and a visiting professor at Yale Divinity School. His most recent book is “God in the White House: A History: How Faith Shaped the Presidency from John F. Kennedy to George W. Bush” (HarperOne). The “On Faith” panelist has written ten other books, including Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America and Mine Eyes Have Seen the Glory: A Journey into the Evangelical Subculture in America, which was made into a three-part documentary for PBS. Balmer was nominated for an Emmy for his script-writing on that series.
more »
I think you are incorrect! Secularism may not be good, but religion is certainly bad! It is much safer to depend on ones identity with being a common member of the species than reliance on a God's prietsts to set the rules of behavior! Over and over again, religion, God, has been used to set people outside the scope of a shared humanity thereby allowing for inhuman acts to be done on such hapless souls! Like Nationalism, Tribalism, and other isms, religionism is a fatal human desease!
"I have many friends of divergent faith and we often have theological debates. It is amazing how similar the message given to us by God is. Be good to others, respect each other, treat all as equals."
Charles,
I have many friends with no faith at all and we often have theological debates. It is amazing how similar the message given to us by each other is. Be good to others, respect each other, treat all as equals.
So god(s) seem to be completely irrelevant to those humanistic ideals.
All religions conform to:
1. Make demands on all, not limited to their members.
2. Those who do as demanded are rewarded.
3. Those who do not do as demanded are punished.
---
When you lumped different group together like this you are bounded to be wrong. I can't speak on behalf of all religions be I can say that in the defense of Wicca... We don't
1. Make demands on all, not limited to their members.
2. Those who do as demanded are rewarded.
3. Those who do not do as demanded are punished.
---
When you lumped different group together like this you are bounded to be wrong. I can't speak on behalf of all religions be I can say that in the defense of Wicca... We don't
1. Make demands on all, not limited to their members.
2. Those who do as demanded are rewarded.
3. Those who do not do as demanded are punished.
---
When you lumped different group together like this you are bounded to be wrong. I can't speak on behalf of all religions but I can say that in the defense of Wicca... We don't
1.Make demands on all, not limited to their members.
Wicca has only one set in stone rule: and it harm none, do as you will. This rule distinguishes Wiccans from other people who called themselves Witches who might practice harmful rituals and magick. It is not a Judgement call of other people and is Limited to our members. In fact, Wiccan do not believe in hell and think everyone goes to the same place. So why would we care what other groups do? We do.. We barely CARE what people within our group, hence, why we added to the rule and DO what you will. In other words, although we share many common beliefs, Wiccan are free to create their own path and their own spiritual "demands".
2. Those who do as demanded are rewarded./3. Those who do not do as demanded are punished.
There is no good and evil in Wicca Beliefs. OR Heaven or hell. We do have a Rule called the three-fold law ( closely related Karma). If you think Karma is a punishment and reward system, you just don't understand Karma. Karma actually means Action ( cause and effect). Wiccans and Buddhists are simply being logical when they say that your actions will come back to you. So Wiccans SUGGEST not demand of Ourselves that we only commit actions where the consequences will be helpful to us. This is called Common sense not being a terrorist.
thank you for repeating almost verbatim the definition of religious war I had given in my previous post.
Now that we agree about the definition, let us look at the last 250 years and compare the number of casualties due to true religious wars (according to your definition) to the casualties due to "secular" wars. I claim that the latter outnumber the former by a couple of orders of magnitude (in another thread I made a short list: Napoleonic wars, American civil war, two world wars, Chinese and Russian civil wars in the 20th century, sino-japanese wars, wars in Congo and Rwanda, Iran-Iraq war and so on and so forth.)
The only religion-motivated wars I know of who came even close to any in this list in dimension are the India-Pakistan partition and the Armenian genocide (where religion was only an exacerbating factor). Both of them involve Islam, which is the only one among major world religion in which war does have a theological significance (at least in certain interpretations).
So, if you think I have my head in the sand, I think you are prejudiced by a certain standard narrative of European history common in the US. Religious wars do happen, but religion as a cause of conflict pales in comparison with economic and political motivations, and even with sheer ethnic hatred (which often is camouflaged in religious terms). On the other hand, there are situations in which Christianity did alleviate the effects of war (I know of several episodes in the Italian middle-ages)
Charles: "I have many friends of divergent faith and we often have theological debates. It is amazing how similar the message given to us by God is. Be good to others, respect each other, treat all as equals."
Please consider that the message is so similar because it's inherent in humanity, not sent by God.
Besides, if God sent the message, why not send the same message to everyone, instead of slight variations to people of different religions. This doesn't make sense to me.
thanks. I am a great friend of the concept of "fuzzy logic". So, sqeezing my eyes a little bit, it was clear what you meant, ;-) ! I just finished a piece on the meaning of "Play", so I know that everything "is" within a frame of tolerance, never mathematically "correct"!
Fundamentalist atheism is an oxymoron. One cannot be "fundamentalist" in the belief of the ABSENCE of something: It's just absent, period. "Fundamental" comes from "found". Nobody "founded" atheism. Or maybe I am wrong?
Of course, I personally am a faithful believer in the Holy Reformed Church of the NON-Rabbit-Breeders (NRB). Some people also regard me as a heretic and apostate, since I left the false religion of the NON-Pigeon-Breeders (NPB), who now constantly harass and insult me as being a "fundamentalist". They call me rude, bombastic and intellectually lazy, to mention only a few og the friendlier names they call me!
TO HUMANITY: I've met God and God is a Trinity, a Trinity of Love with a Plan for His creation that one day everyone will be pleased with. I've also met satan and he is not nice at all but can try to come across as mister nice guy, satan is referred to as a deceiver. See you in the Kingdom. Take care. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
Hitchen's is wrong and he is "intellectually" lazy because he abandoned logic for he own brand of zeal.
Bad people doing bad things in the name of religion is no different than bad people doing bad things in the name of country, or clan, or whatever. Bad people do bad things and I can argue that more death has been caused by organized states (country) than by organized religion. The fact that some countries are tied to religion (their own twisted versions mind you) does not mean that the particular faith they say they represent are actually represented.
I am very tired of the argument that because some people, in the name of christianity or islam, or any other faith have done horrific things that my faith is evil or wrong. I have made my lifes journey in studing the scripture of my faith (christianity). I have many friends of divergent faith and we often have theological debates. It is amazing how similar the message given to us by God is. Be good to others, respect each other, treat all as equals. These are tennets of my faith.
Of course people have warped the words of my God to support their own twisted goals. Do you really think the crusades were every about christianity??? Go back and study your history if you do. The reclaimation of the holy lands as it were was a thin veil applied over the economic issues at heart of those wars. Money, titles, power were the real reasons for the wars there.
Of course you have real fanatics that kill themselves and others in the name of religion, but look at who is directing them. It is men/women seeking power, influence etc. They teach these people a warped version of the faith they profess (with them at the center) and use that to control others. Of course, like relegion, it would be nice if people were to seek out the truth themselves. Far to many people rely on others to tell them the "truth". That is the real problem. Ignorance.
Religious scholars that try their best to adhere to their faith and tenets as actually written don't go around killing people. In fact you will find that they go around helping people. Why is that bad, what purpose would it serve to get rid of it. Evil people will just find something else (like nationalism) to twist to their ends.
Posit a polarity. Define the extreme poles as identical; connect in a circle: THEN *SPIN*
Faith makes the world go 'round: Is you G()D or quite the opposite?
A non-essentialist & non-reductivist but nonetheless historically informative definition of 'religion' would have been helpful - - -
X is a religion if X has at least a majority of the following characteristics: . . . . . . . . .
Otherwise claims about the vices or virtues of religion-as-such or a particular religion are worthless and only invite self-serving defensiveness from the so-called "faithful" of all "faiths", religious & non-religious, naturalist & non-naturalist, X & non-X!
As it was once well put, all of us live by "the substance of things unseen, the evidence of things hoped for", that is, that part of each person's web of beliefs in which we each, respectively, put our ultimate trust, only to vindicated or not by living by those beliefs.
carlo
you write
"In my observation, the latter is so much prevalent over the former as to make the whole notion of religion wars almost empty of meaning."
How bout this definition: wars in which religion is the prime motivating factor, or at least an exacerbating factor in the conflict that led to war.
Of course you don't believe in this phenomenon. You don't see how religious belief could create or contribute to a conflict that led to war. Have you read about any of these conflicts? Do you deny that religion was at least a contributing factor.
And again, this list is JUST from the last 15 years (and you acknowldge while discounting half of them because they were Islamic, as if Islam is not the religion of 1.3 of the world's people.)
Take you hea out of the sand, Carlo. Of course, any half bright person knows the interaction between religion and poloitics is complicated and intertwined. Does that obviate the effect of religion? Only if you are related to Pollyanna.
are you trying to say that whenever there is war between two ethnic groups with different religions that is a religious war? Come on!
A religious war is a war that is motivated by religion, i.e. waged in order to promote one's religion and in hatred of somebody BECAUSE of their religion. If you take away all the examples involving Islam (which I already granted is an exception in this respect), there is nothing left to your list except possibly Northern Ireland, which was not a major war at all, and the Croats kicking out the Serbs. Both are pretty minor episodes in the sequence of human slaughter that has plagued humanity over, say, the last quarter of a millennium.
I also have question for you: how you distinguish between the situations when religion determines politics, and those in which politics uses religion? In my observation, the latter is so much prevalent over the former as to make the whole notion of religion wars almost empty of meaning.
See my posts above for "on topic" That one was in response to another blogger here.
Since I'm here may as well: Religion is good fer ya,, just like terbackee. You'll find both in the same area of the country. Regulate one, regulate all.
In all fairness to the Mormons, Utah has the lowest cigarette consumption of the 50 states while Kentucky has the highest with both neck and neck for the most religious. Kentucky loses big time because God lives in Salt Lake City. Is there really a connection between God and religion?
Maybe this is WHY Hitchens is correct and just a little more polite than some people.
Your "hoax" webpages are a bit much but the request for FDA regulation of religion was very "on topic" and interesting.
"Maybe religion should be regulated by the FDA? Addictive agents should be kept away from children? The least we can do is tax it until no one can afford it any more like cigarettes."
William Placher has a review of Hitchens book currently online at www.christiancentury.org
Those of you who are serious about this matter should take a look at it. Among other things Placher contends most of the straw men Hitchens builds up, were issues settled long ago.
Google it up
My theory is that those who practice religion undergo increases in brain endorphins related to this practice. Those who are non-religious do not have such increases.Religion thus provides a pleasurable sense of well being to some individuals and not to others.
---
What you are pointing out is the mechanism through which religion is addictive. All addictive agents cause a release of chemicals in the brain that give a sense of well being. The notion of "drunk with power" comes to mind along with Dr Schuller's "Hour of Power."
Maybe religion should be regulated by the FDA? Addictive agents should be kept away from children? The least we can do is tax it until no one can afford it any more like cigarettes.
Carlo
are you, in your tricky literary way, trying to say that Secular Humanists aren't REALLY peace-loving. Or any more so than the rest of the world, which is demonstrably peace-loving.
Of course Quakers are too - look at Richard Nixon.
In our current war,the more religious the American citizen, the more likely they are to trust and support the war aims and lies of the current administration, and our President who consulted a Higher Father before deciding to go to war.
I guess war and peace are not important enough issues for you to address seriously.
great! I love all these wonderful peace-loving secular humanists. Are you implying that, say, Quakers or Catholics or Methodists or Buddhists have been starting wars left and right? I cannot think of any major war since (at least) the treaty of Westfalia that was started on religious grounds.
And very few even before that. I would grant you that Islam does constitute somewhat of a counter-example, though...
Randall Balmer uses the word fundamentalist as if it was a label well used in reverse: that Hitchens, who argues that there is no god, is also a "fundamentalist." But Hitchens uses a horde of words that strike home because they matter, and he has the rich vocabulary and hefty intellect to advance his thesis. He is very precise with his arguments, but his line is anything but simplistic. I suppose he is saying essentially , "The emperor has no clothes," but in my book, when intellectually challenged, a responder would do better than to hurl epithets of Balmers' kind, and instead, argue Hitchen's points as presented. The burden for Balmer is to prove religious claims that he and other believing types feel are either unassailable or true: these are the real stances of religious fundamentalism.
Wouldn't that be an interesting headline.
And don't show ignorance by calling Stalin and Hitler secular humanists. Look up the definition if you don't know it.
Secular Humanists are NONE of the things that Hitchens lists as characterizing A LARGE NUMBER of religions.
Secular humanism PROMOTES non-violence, rationality, tolerance, anti racism and tribalism and anti bigotry, the opposite of ignorance, and suportive to free inquiry.
Unfortunately there aren't enough of theml. But there are lots, and they are growing.
Religion does largely promote the things that Hitchens lists, sadly.
It doesn't matter what this man thinks.The most important thing is that he prepares to meet The Lord. It is so many like that seem to think that education or an educator will be able to despute the good that is done by people who are involved in some true religion. Men have clay feet and will make mistakes. The true judge of the heart is Jesus Christ and only His opinion is going to make any difference at the time of judgement.
It doesn't matter what this man thinks.The most important thing is that he prepares to meet The Lord. It is so many like that seem to think that education or an educator will be able to despute the good that is done by people who are involved in some true religion. Men have clay feet and will make mistakes. The true judge of the heart is Jesus Christ and only His opinion is going to make any difference at the time of judgement.
right now I am not practicing anything. I am just wasting time posting on this thread. I suspect my endorphines are at a very normal level. I am not feeling any special sense of well-being. Why do I still think that the religious problem is THE crucial human question?
Why is the splash-page headline link labeled "Beware secular humanists" instead of "Beware secular fundamentalists"? The two are quite dissimilar groups...
Why is the splash-page headline link labeled "Beware secular humanists" instead of "Beware secular fundamentalists"? The two are quite dissimilar groups...
I am a secularist, but I believe being a Fundamentalism is not restricted to just being religious, it can be a Fundamental belief in a political system, a country, a race, a sexual preference. Any time the your are fundamentally right and your opponent is fundamentally wrong your are a Fundamentalist.
An easy self test you can take is ask yourself if people who are not "religious /secularist /democrat /republican /communist /black /white /homosexual /straight /feminist /anti-feminist" are wrong. If you feel that way you are a fundamentalist. If you just disagree with some things that people who are ... but agree with other points then you are not a Fundamentalist.
I have read Dawkins and I agree that he is a Scientific/Secularist Fundamentalist. He makes many good points that I agree on about the role of religion, but he also makes many conclusions about religion that I don't agree with.
I have read only parts of Hitchens's book, so I cannot comment much on his claims. But I have read carefully the "God Delusion" (R. Dawkins), "The end of faith" (S. Harris) and "Breaking the spell"(by Dennett).
Dennett's work is worth reading and should not classified with the other two. Although an atheist himself, he does not condemn religions, but calls for a study of religious phenomena so we can deal better with related political and social issues.
Harris is confident that he knows all that's wrong with all religious faith; but his book did not impress me as being a knowledgeable critique of religion. He over-generalizes and exaggerates the case against religion, as does Dawkins in his book.
This does not imply that that their criticisms of the evil and folly of some religions during some periods of their history is false. When they specify the actual guilty parties, Harris and Dawkins make important contributions to the debate regarding the value of religious faith. But their tendency to over-generalize and over-simplify the issues diminishes the value their books could have had.
My theory is that those who practice religion undergo increases in brain endorphins related to this practice. Those who are non-religious do not have such increases.Religion thus provides a pleasurable sense of well being to some individuals and not to others.This dimension of individual being is probably very strongly influened by inherent biological factors. Good, bad or indifferent behaviors though influened by feeling and emotion involve complex cognitive brain functions strongly influenced by cultural forces.
Frederick Vaquer
Pasadena Ca
it sounds like you are weakening Hitchens' statements considerably. He argued that "religion" (whatever that means, see my post above) results in net moral negatives (intolerance, conflicts, ect.) Most of the times. For most people. He seems to know for sure that "religion" does more harm that good and as such should be deprecated.
My theory is that those who practice religion undergo increases in brain endorphins related to this practice. Those who are non-religious do not have such increases.Religion thus provides a pleasurable sense of well being to some individuals and not to others.This dimension of individual being is probably very strongly influened by inherent biological factors. Good, bad or indifferent behaviors though influened by feeling and emotion involve complex cognitive brain functions strongly influenced by cultural forces.
Frederick Vaquer
Pasadena Ca
My theory is that those who practice religion undergo increases in brain endorphins related to this practice. Those who are non-religious do not have such increases.Religion thus provides a pleasurable sense of well being to some individuals and not to others.This dimension of individual being is probably very strongly influened by inherent biological factors. Good, bad or indifferent behaviors though influened by feeling and emotion involves complex cognitive brain functions strongly influenced by cultural forces.
Frederick Vaquer
Pasadena Ca
I think Professor Balmer has misunderstood Mr. Hitchens' argument. There are certainly ambiguities in all religions, because there are ambiguities in all people. 'Secular fundamentalists' as Balmer calls them, argue that religion and religious people are entitled to no honored or privileged treatment because of their religiosity. As an example, the Catholic Pope has no more moral authority than I do in deciding what is a good life. Making moral decisions is hard intellectual work; work best not left to others of questionable motives and authority. Hitchens argument is not that there is no moral ambiguity, but that no person or religion has the market cornered on clarity and they should cease claiming they do.
This article is like every other article in that it really mis-quotes or mis-interprets the latest rash of athiest books.
The gist of the messages these books are sending is not religion = bad; secular = good, it's more along the lines of good people do good things and bad people do bad things but it takes religion for good people to do really bad things.
I think Professor Balmer has misunderstood Mr. Hitchens' argument. There are certainly ambiguities in all religions, because there are ambiguities in all people. 'Secular fundamentalists' as Balmer calls them, argue that religion and religious people are entitled to no honored or privileged treatment because of their religiosity. As an example, the Catholic Pope has no more moral authority than I do in deciding what is a good life. Making moral decisions is hard intellectual work; work best not left to others of questionable motives and authority. Hitchens argument is not that there is no moral ambiguity, but that no person or religion has the market cornered on clarity and they should cease claiming they do.
I think Professor Balmer has misunderstood Mr. Hitchens' argument. There are certainly ambiguities in all religions, because there are ambiguities in all people. 'Secular fundamentalists' as Balmer calls them, argue that religion and religious people are entitled to no honored or privileged treatment because of their religiosity. As an example, the Catholic Pope has no more moral authority than I do in deciding what is a good life. Making moral decisions is hard intellectual work; work best not left to others of questionable motives and authority. Hitchens argument is not that there is no moral ambiguity, but that no person or religion has the market cornered on clarity and they should cease claiming they do.
that a non sequitur. You could very well believe in one God who wants you to give your life for those in error rather than persecute them. In fact, you can even believe in one God who chose that course of action for himself.
"No it doesn't and I'll try to simplify. Science is based on theory and theory is defined by a propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. Look that up for yourself, you'll see I nearly copied and pasted it from the dictionary."
You miss the point entirely. A scientific theory allows predictions based on it to be made and to be tested. As long as these predictions are verified experimentally the theory is accepted. If there is evidence that does not support the theory it is abandoned. For example, it was once hypothesized that the genetic information was stored in proteins and not in DNA (call it the protein-based theory of molecular genetics if you like). The best scientific evidence now indicates that it is DNA and not protein that is the genetic material. Unless new evidence surfaces to show that DNA is not the genetic material, this scientific "theory" will be accepted.
Religion, on the other hand, has its own theory. That you may go to heaven or hell after you die. One way to test this is to hang over a cliff holding onto a branch and then let go. Any takers?
that's a non sequitur. You can believe in one God who believes you should give your life for those who are in error, rather than persecute them. In fact, you can even believe in one God who chose that course of action for himself.
Hitchens has exposed the fact that all Mono-theistic religions - by their very nature - ONE GOD, MY GOD - are intolerant (the source, not necessarily all of the practitioners).
If you truly believe in one God and that all others are in error, and (usually) damned to hell for their apostasy, then it is a very short step indeed towards putting those beliefs into violent action.
While the Enlightenment and other modern movements may have taken the edge off the absolutism of monotheism, the threat will always remain because the intolerant source material for Judaism, Christianity & Islam will always be available to fundamentalists who are looking to put society into full reverse.
Are you saying that people of faith are good BECAUSE of their faith? That they engage in poverty relief, feeding the hungry, marching for civil rights or against war, etc BECAUSE of their religious faith? That they wouldn’t do these things if not for their religious faith? How sad that idea is.
----
The money the collect calling themselves "charitable" goes into their business of fleecing the lame brains, stained glass, TV stations etc.
Let me rub it in, salt in your wound. Your tax dollars goes indirectly to them de facto tithing. Only churches own real estate in the USA. Everyone else, businesses and individuals only rent from the government. The rent is called property taxes. Only the church is exempt. And then there is the tax deduction for "gifts to God." That's indirect tithing. Congratulations on your financial contribution to the cause of faith.
The Bush gang granted them in the neighborhood of 5 billion of Katrina relief money, (under the flag of charity). That's direct tithing.
The good news is the Bible is a proved hoax. http://www.hoax-buster.org has the archaeological roots, found Moses for sure and maybe Jesus in the written archaeological record. That needs to be made public to reveal religion for what it really is, a con game that's actually unlawful in every state and territory in the union.
The other aspect of the politicization of politics is that both religion and the government present everything as all-or-nothing choices with no chance of compromise and never a third option.
So when the churches tell people "Either you embrace this noxious political policy or you are an atheist," many people will say "OK, then I guess I am an atheist."
It is this all-or-nothing fundamentalism that creates atheists. Atheism is not the result of some secular slippery slope, it is the direct result of fundamentalism. The fact that fundies aim for an insulated and paranoid world view that blames outsiders means that their self-destructive cycle will continue.
Mr. EP Thorn (if that is your real name) said,
"Uh... this shows a determined ignorance of science. Science does NOT demand leaps of faith- in fact, it prohibits them. Go read a real book on science, not a creationist pamphlet. The very cornerstone of science is questioning conclusions based on evidence."
No it doesn't and I'll try to simplify. Science is based on theory and theory is defined by a propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. Look that up for yourself, you'll see I nearly copied and pasted it from the dictionary.
In quantum mechanics, evidence can be reproduced on an atom when an action is applied to cause it to behave in a particular manner. What is going on within the atom? No one knows, as there IS NO way to know. So a theory is developed to assist in the explanation. That theory is then tested and used as basis for further theories; so on and so forth. This system works very well as a process for exploration. But as defined, a scientific theory is not fact, when it becomes fact, it is no longer a theory.
Well, religious people do the same thing. They see evidence of (since you bought it up) creation. No one has no way of really knowing what occurred so they assign their own explanations. That is what faith is, belief without fact. When a belief becomes fact, it is no longer faith.
Hmm, what else behaves way...scientific theory!!!
(bytheby, that really burns me with the bible-thumbers, they claim the bible is fact. If that is so, what is the purpose of faith? Isn't that the point, faith? it seems they locked themselves out of the figurative room there)
Why does it make you so angry to think that science, religion (and philosophy) postulate identically? No need to react so strongly. Practice thinking beyond your own nose now and again, makes the day brighter.
Scientists don't stop at what they know as 'fact.' They go well beyond that. Sometimes for great good and sometimes, not so good. A religionist person does the same. They go beyond what they know as facts, sometimes for good and sometimes, not so good.
As for myself, creationism is a myth that has nice place in literature. As a basis for science or philosophical study, it is worthless.
As far as nilihism making one grumpy. I stand by my observation. You seem mighty angry yourself, so hence, my no-fun-at-parties theory is no longer theory, it has become fact.
Please don't make assumptions about anyone. It makes your point less valid & less interesting.
Do you really think that the implementation of Dominion Theology aka Christian Reconstructionism as American legal policy will result in anything but a persecution of the American populace en masse?
"If you don't like religion, fine. Go to science. Both demand leaps in faith. Either accept scientific theory or accept a religious tenet, same thing. Believe in something, because nihilism makes you grumpy and you won't be invited to fun parties."
Really now. There is quite a difference between science and religion. Religion makes predictions that cannot be tested. Science makes predictions that can be tested. I would suggest that if there is any leap in faith, it is religion since it is based on myth and a dependence on the supernatural. I suggest you hang over a cliff holding onto a branch. If you believe in a resurrection, let go the branch. I dare you.
So are you saying that God and religion are a nuanced grey area? That isn’t what the 1st commandment says. It’s pretty black and white. John 14:6? That is pretty damn black and white. Where is the grey area? People are killing and being killed today, right now- because of religion. Why are the Muslims so upset? Because they’ve been fending off the Christians for thousands of years, watched their families slaughtered in the name of Jesus Christ and to a certain extent, since Mr. Bush has ordained himself president, it continues today. The Catholic Church harbors child molesters and is historically guilty of thousands of murders. Here in the US we have that great group of televangelists that scam retirees and lonely people for their last dollar encouraging them to "sow their seed of prosperity with God." I think you could give them better advice directing them to the nearest lottery agent. At least they'd have a chance at something. God is not an ATM, right?
Just as many who’ve done good works in the name of religion, your hospital examples, just as many if not more has be done just because without the attachment. I bought a hungry person a meal today and did not say that it came from God or any Christian derivative because it didn't. They were hungry and I could help because I can work so I earned that money and learned how to perform the job that I have. You can say that I am "blessed" but by that argument, the hungry gentleman is cursed and I thought we were all equal in God's eyes... Unless you're a Mormon or Jewish. Then you're superior to everyone else or one of God's chosen people. What about the rest of us? Didn't Jesus just give us all salvation? Well then all Jews are going to Hell because they don't by the Jesus story. They do say he was a cool dude in sandals so God forbid we suggest all Jews are going to burn in Hell.
I was baptized in a Southern Baptist Church that fired the pastor that dunked me because he couldn’t wrap up a sermon before noon making everyone late for kick off at 1pm.
Have your religion and feel very good about it but stay out of my life and my government. If I want to dance in chicken blood naked under the moon I will. If I want to speak out about it I will. Stop trying to censor the books, movies and TV shows that I want to see because there is just as much murder, hate and rape in the Bible. "We must protect the children!!" Well, be a parent, turn off the TV and get involved in their lives. Don't make me suffer because you can't control what your children read, see or watch.
Pat Robertson, leader of whatever gaggle of weak minded believers encouraging the US Government to assassinate a seated head of state. Wow. Religion is cool man!! Jesse Ventura was spot on
What you are saying is that the super-ego cannot differentiate between the highest patriotic power (the commander and chief, provided he identifies himself with the religion) and the highest religious power, i.e. Jehovah. Right on.
who said that? Personally I have no doubt that you can be good without religious faith. But I do not think you can give ME (or your children, or society at large) any REASON why we should be good.
PS By "reason" I do not mean fear of hell. I mean a comprehensive, non-sentimental understanding of what it means to be human and what is the goal of my existence, if any.
Are you saying that people of faith are good BECAUSE of their faith? That they engage in poverty relief, feeding the hungry, marching for civil rights or against war, etc BECAUSE of their religious faith? That they wouldn’t do these things if not for their religious faith? How sad that idea is.
So, those of us without religious faith can be counted on NOT to feed the hungry, march for civil rights or against the war, etc., because, after all, we can’t be good because we have no religious faith.
It is this kind of thinking that helped me break free from organized religion and the fantasy life that it supports. So I suppose I should thank you for personalizing once again why “religious faith” is such a bad thing.
The very idea that there is one single phenomenon called "religion" is already so incredibly intellectually lazy as to indict Hitchens's seriousness. At most you can argue that there is one set of religous QUESTIONS (who am I? Why am I here? What do I need ultimately?), but it is crazy not to recognize that there myriads of different answers to these questions, ranging from the ridicoluos/criminal to the sublime. We can discuss all the religions you want, but to talk about "religion" is essentially a waste of time to me, and usually just reflects the prejudices of the commenters. Case in point, most of the commenters in this forum identify "religion" with some ver
All Comments (148)
Very good response! Thought you might enjoy this link, it fits right in with your point:
http://www.audienceoftwo.com/mag.php?art_id=750
October 4, 2007 6:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 4, 2007 18:39
I think you are incorrect! Secularism may not be good, but religion is certainly bad! It is much safer to depend on ones identity with being a common member of the species than reliance on a God's prietsts to set the rules of behavior! Over and over again, religion, God, has been used to set people outside the scope of a shared humanity thereby allowing for inhuman acts to be done on such hapless souls! Like Nationalism, Tribalism, and other isms, religionism is a fatal human desease!
October 3, 2007 10:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 3, 2007 10:42
"When I was younger I saw things in black and white - now all I see is a sad, hazy grey."
October 3, 2007 9:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 3, 2007 09:38
Charles wrote:
"I have many friends of divergent faith and we often have theological debates. It is amazing how similar the message given to us by God is. Be good to others, respect each other, treat all as equals."
Charles,
I have many friends with no faith at all and we often have theological debates. It is amazing how similar the message given to us by each other is. Be good to others, respect each other, treat all as equals.
So god(s) seem to be completely irrelevant to those humanistic ideals.
October 2, 2007 3:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 2, 2007 15:00
Bgone wrote:
All religions conform to:
1. Make demands on all, not limited to their members.
2. Those who do as demanded are rewarded.
3. Those who do not do as demanded are punished.
---
When you lumped different group together like this you are bounded to be wrong. I can't speak on behalf of all religions be I can say that in the defense of Wicca... We don't
1. Make demands on all, not limited to their members.
2. Those who do as demanded are rewarded.
3. Those who do not do as demanded are punished.
---
When you lumped different group together like this you are bounded to be wrong. I can't speak on behalf of all religions be I can say that in the defense of Wicca... We don't
1. Make demands on all, not limited to their members.
2. Those who do as demanded are rewarded.
3. Those who do not do as demanded are punished.
---
When you lumped different group together like this you are bounded to be wrong. I can't speak on behalf of all religions but I can say that in the defense of Wicca... We don't
1.Make demands on all, not limited to their members.
Wicca has only one set in stone rule: and it harm none, do as you will. This rule distinguishes Wiccans from other people who called themselves Witches who might practice harmful rituals and magick. It is not a Judgement call of other people and is Limited to our members. In fact, Wiccan do not believe in hell and think everyone goes to the same place. So why would we care what other groups do? We do.. We barely CARE what people within our group, hence, why we added to the rule and DO what you will. In other words, although we share many common beliefs, Wiccan are free to create their own path and their own spiritual "demands".
2. Those who do as demanded are rewarded./3. Those who do not do as demanded are punished.
There is no good and evil in Wicca Beliefs. OR Heaven or hell. We do have a Rule called the three-fold law ( closely related Karma). If you think Karma is a punishment and reward system, you just don't understand Karma. Karma actually means Action ( cause and effect). Wiccans and Buddhists are simply being logical when they say that your actions will come back to you. So Wiccans SUGGEST not demand of Ourselves that we only commit actions where the consequences will be helpful to us. This is called Common sense not being a terrorist.
October 2, 2007 12:12 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on October 2, 2007 12:12
Henry James:
thank you for repeating almost verbatim the definition of religious war I had given in my previous post.
Now that we agree about the definition, let us look at the last 250 years and compare the number of casualties due to true religious wars (according to your definition) to the casualties due to "secular" wars. I claim that the latter outnumber the former by a couple of orders of magnitude (in another thread I made a short list: Napoleonic wars, American civil war, two world wars, Chinese and Russian civil wars in the 20th century, sino-japanese wars, wars in Congo and Rwanda, Iran-Iraq war and so on and so forth.)
The only religion-motivated wars I know of who came even close to any in this list in dimension are the India-Pakistan partition and the Armenian genocide (where religion was only an exacerbating factor). Both of them involve Islam, which is the only one among major world religion in which war does have a theological significance (at least in certain interpretations).
So, if you think I have my head in the sand, I think you are prejudiced by a certain standard narrative of European history common in the US. Religious wars do happen, but religion as a cause of conflict pales in comparison with economic and political motivations, and even with sheer ethnic hatred (which often is camouflaged in religious terms). On the other hand, there are situations in which Christianity did alleviate the effects of war (I know of several episodes in the Italian middle-ages)
September 30, 2007 9:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 30, 2007 21:06
Charles: "I have many friends of divergent faith and we often have theological debates. It is amazing how similar the message given to us by God is. Be good to others, respect each other, treat all as equals."
Please consider that the message is so similar because it's inherent in humanity, not sent by God.
Besides, if God sent the message, why not send the same message to everyone, instead of slight variations to people of different religions. This doesn't make sense to me.
September 30, 2007 12:47 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 30, 2007 00:47
Henry,
thanks. I am a great friend of the concept of "fuzzy logic". So, sqeezing my eyes a little bit, it was clear what you meant, ;-) ! I just finished a piece on the meaning of "Play", so I know that everything "is" within a frame of tolerance, never mathematically "correct"!
September 29, 2007 2:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 29, 2007 14:55
TYPO above
should have been
"as atheist fundamentalists believe his God *is*
(ie non existent).
That is the worst sentence i ever wrote btw, but it's early in the morning for an old guy like me.
September 29, 2007 9:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 29, 2007 09:48
Gerry
I was going to ask your same question.
Prof Balmer's grasp of the concept you point out is *non-existent*, as a-theist fundamentalists (grin) believe his god his.
How did he become a Barnard professor given his sloppy use of oxymoronic concepts?
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Thanks and Peace
Don't start any wars now.
September 29, 2007 9:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 29, 2007 09:46
Fundamentalist atheism is an oxymoron. One cannot be "fundamentalist" in the belief of the ABSENCE of something: It's just absent, period. "Fundamental" comes from "found". Nobody "founded" atheism. Or maybe I am wrong?
Of course, I personally am a faithful believer in the Holy Reformed Church of the NON-Rabbit-Breeders (NRB). Some people also regard me as a heretic and apostate, since I left the false religion of the NON-Pigeon-Breeders (NPB), who now constantly harass and insult me as being a "fundamentalist". They call me rude, bombastic and intellectually lazy, to mention only a few og the friendlier names they call me!
BTW: How do you become a Columbia professorß?
September 29, 2007 6:06 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 29, 2007 06:06
TO HUMANITY: I've met God and God is a Trinity, a Trinity of Love with a Plan for His creation that one day everyone will be pleased with. I've also met satan and he is not nice at all but can try to come across as mister nice guy, satan is referred to as a deceiver. See you in the Kingdom. Take care. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
September 28, 2007 1:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 28, 2007 13:49
Hitchen's is wrong and he is "intellectually" lazy because he abandoned logic for he own brand of zeal.
Bad people doing bad things in the name of religion is no different than bad people doing bad things in the name of country, or clan, or whatever. Bad people do bad things and I can argue that more death has been caused by organized states (country) than by organized religion. The fact that some countries are tied to religion (their own twisted versions mind you) does not mean that the particular faith they say they represent are actually represented.
I am very tired of the argument that because some people, in the name of christianity or islam, or any other faith have done horrific things that my faith is evil or wrong. I have made my lifes journey in studing the scripture of my faith (christianity). I have many friends of divergent faith and we often have theological debates. It is amazing how similar the message given to us by God is. Be good to others, respect each other, treat all as equals. These are tennets of my faith.
Of course people have warped the words of my God to support their own twisted goals. Do you really think the crusades were every about christianity??? Go back and study your history if you do. The reclaimation of the holy lands as it were was a thin veil applied over the economic issues at heart of those wars. Money, titles, power were the real reasons for the wars there.
Of course you have real fanatics that kill themselves and others in the name of religion, but look at who is directing them. It is men/women seeking power, influence etc. They teach these people a warped version of the faith they profess (with them at the center) and use that to control others. Of course, like relegion, it would be nice if people were to seek out the truth themselves. Far to many people rely on others to tell them the "truth". That is the real problem. Ignorance.
Religious scholars that try their best to adhere to their faith and tenets as actually written don't go around killing people. In fact you will find that they go around helping people. Why is that bad, what purpose would it serve to get rid of it. Evil people will just find something else (like nationalism) to twist to their ends.
September 28, 2007 1:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 28, 2007 13:36
I don't want to choose between an attack dog and a lapdog.
September 28, 2007 6:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 28, 2007 06:38
Posit a polarity. Define the extreme poles as identical; connect in a circle: THEN *SPIN*
Faith makes the world go 'round: Is you G()D or quite the opposite?
September 28, 2007 6:04 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 28, 2007 06:04
Is you G_D or is you quite the opposite?
September 28, 2007 5:52 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 28, 2007 05:52
"Placher contends most of the straw men Hitchens builds up, were issues settled long ago."
really? like the virgin birth? The parting of the Red sea? The resurrection?
September 27, 2007 11:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 23:57
A non-essentialist & non-reductivist but nonetheless historically informative definition of 'religion' would have been helpful - - -
X is a religion if X has at least a majority of the following characteristics: . . . . . . . . .
Otherwise claims about the vices or virtues of religion-as-such or a particular religion are worthless and only invite self-serving defensiveness from the so-called "faithful" of all "faiths", religious & non-religious, naturalist & non-naturalist, X & non-X!
As it was once well put, all of us live by "the substance of things unseen, the evidence of things hoped for", that is, that part of each person's web of beliefs in which we each, respectively, put our ultimate trust, only to vindicated or not by living by those beliefs.
September 27, 2007 11:08 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 23:08
carlo
you write
"In my observation, the latter is so much prevalent over the former as to make the whole notion of religion wars almost empty of meaning."
How bout this definition: wars in which religion is the prime motivating factor, or at least an exacerbating factor in the conflict that led to war.
Of course you don't believe in this phenomenon. You don't see how religious belief could create or contribute to a conflict that led to war. Have you read about any of these conflicts? Do you deny that religion was at least a contributing factor.
And again, this list is JUST from the last 15 years (and you acknowldge while discounting half of them because they were Islamic, as if Islam is not the religion of 1.3 of the world's people.)
Take you hea out of the sand, Carlo. Of course, any half bright person knows the interaction between religion and poloitics is complicated and intertwined. Does that obviate the effect of religion? Only if you are related to Pollyanna.
September 27, 2007 10:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 22:40
Henry James:
are you trying to say that whenever there is war between two ethnic groups with different religions that is a religious war? Come on!
A religious war is a war that is motivated by religion, i.e. waged in order to promote one's religion and in hatred of somebody BECAUSE of their religion. If you take away all the examples involving Islam (which I already granted is an exception in this respect), there is nothing left to your list except possibly Northern Ireland, which was not a major war at all, and the Croats kicking out the Serbs. Both are pretty minor episodes in the sequence of human slaughter that has plagued humanity over, say, the last quarter of a millennium.
I also have question for you: how you distinguish between the situations when religion determines politics, and those in which politics uses religion? In my observation, the latter is so much prevalent over the former as to make the whole notion of religion wars almost empty of meaning.
September 27, 2007 10:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 22:13
Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:
See my posts above for "on topic" That one was in response to another blogger here.
Since I'm here may as well: Religion is good fer ya,, just like terbackee. You'll find both in the same area of the country. Regulate one, regulate all.
In all fairness to the Mormons, Utah has the lowest cigarette consumption of the 50 states while Kentucky has the highest with both neck and neck for the most religious. Kentucky loses big time because God lives in Salt Lake City. Is there really a connection between God and religion?
Maybe this is WHY Hitchens is correct and just a little more polite than some people.
September 27, 2007 9:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 21:49
BGONE,
Your "hoax" webpages are a bit much but the request for FDA regulation of religion was very "on topic" and interesting.
"Maybe religion should be regulated by the FDA? Addictive agents should be kept away from children? The least we can do is tax it until no one can afford it any more like cigarettes."
September 27, 2007 6:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 18:46
William Placher has a review of Hitchens book currently online at www.christiancentury.org
Those of you who are serious about this matter should take a look at it. Among other things Placher contends most of the straw men Hitchens builds up, were issues settled long ago.
Google it up
September 27, 2007 5:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 17:32
Frederick Vaquer: wrote:
My theory is that those who practice religion undergo increases in brain endorphins related to this practice. Those who are non-religious do not have such increases.Religion thus provides a pleasurable sense of well being to some individuals and not to others.
---
What you are pointing out is the mechanism through which religion is addictive. All addictive agents cause a release of chemicals in the brain that give a sense of well being. The notion of "drunk with power" comes to mind along with Dr Schuller's "Hour of Power."
Maybe religion should be regulated by the FDA? Addictive agents should be kept away from children? The least we can do is tax it until no one can afford it any more like cigarettes.
September 27, 2007 3:54 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 15:54
Carlo
are you, in your tricky literary way, trying to say that Secular Humanists aren't REALLY peace-loving. Or any more so than the rest of the world, which is demonstrably peace-loving.
Of course Quakers are too - look at Richard Nixon.
In our current war,the more religious the American citizen, the more likely they are to trust and support the war aims and lies of the current administration, and our President who consulted a Higher Father before deciding to go to war.
I guess war and peace are not important enough issues for you to address seriously.
September 27, 2007 3:35 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 15:35
Carlo Here are a few of the religious wars in the last 20 years:
• Palestine (Jews vs. Muslims)
• The Balkans (Orthodox Serbians vs. Catholic Christians)
• Northern Ireland (Catholics vs. Protestants)
• Kashmir (Muslims vs. Hindus)
• Sudan (Muslims vs. Christians and animists)
• Nigeria (Muslims vs. Christians)
• Ethiopia and Eritrea (Muslims vs. Christians)
• Ivory Coast (Muslims vs. Christians)
• Lebanon (Muslims vs. Jews)
• Sri Lanka (Sinhalese Buddhists vs. Tamil Hindus)
• The Caucasus (Orthodox Russians vs. Chechan Muslims)
• September 11 Attacks (Muslims vs. Infidels
does this suffice?
September 27, 2007 2:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 14:46
Henry James:
great! I love all these wonderful peace-loving secular humanists. Are you implying that, say, Quakers or Catholics or Methodists or Buddhists have been starting wars left and right? I cannot think of any major war since (at least) the treaty of Westfalia that was started on religious grounds.
And very few even before that. I would grant you that Islam does constitute somewhat of a counter-example, though...
September 27, 2007 2:42 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 14:42
Randall Balmer uses the word fundamentalist as if it was a label well used in reverse: that Hitchens, who argues that there is no god, is also a "fundamentalist." But Hitchens uses a horde of words that strike home because they matter, and he has the rich vocabulary and hefty intellect to advance his thesis. He is very precise with his arguments, but his line is anything but simplistic. I suppose he is saying essentially , "The emperor has no clothes," but in my book, when intellectually challenged, a responder would do better than to hurl epithets of Balmers' kind, and instead, argue Hitchen's points as presented. The burden for Balmer is to prove religious claims that he and other believing types feel are either unassailable or true: these are the real stances of religious fundamentalism.
September 27, 2007 2:40 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 14:40
Secular Humanist Starts War
Wouldn't that be an interesting headline.
And don't show ignorance by calling Stalin and Hitler secular humanists. Look up the definition if you don't know it.
Secular Humanists are NONE of the things that Hitchens lists as characterizing A LARGE NUMBER of religions.
Secular humanism PROMOTES non-violence, rationality, tolerance, anti racism and tribalism and anti bigotry, the opposite of ignorance, and suportive to free inquiry.
Unfortunately there aren't enough of theml. But there are lots, and they are growing.
Religion does largely promote the things that Hitchens lists, sadly.
September 27, 2007 2:16 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 14:16
It doesn't matter what this man thinks.The most important thing is that he prepares to meet The Lord. It is so many like that seem to think that education or an educator will be able to despute the good that is done by people who are involved in some true religion. Men have clay feet and will make mistakes. The true judge of the heart is Jesus Christ and only His opinion is going to make any difference at the time of judgement.
September 27, 2007 2:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 14:14
It doesn't matter what this man thinks.The most important thing is that he prepares to meet The Lord. It is so many like that seem to think that education or an educator will be able to despute the good that is done by people who are involved in some true religion. Men have clay feet and will make mistakes. The true judge of the heart is Jesus Christ and only His opinion is going to make any difference at the time of judgement.
September 27, 2007 2:13 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 14:13
Frederick:
right now I am not practicing anything. I am just wasting time posting on this thread. I suspect my endorphines are at a very normal level. I am not feeling any special sense of well-being. Why do I still think that the religious problem is THE crucial human question?
September 27, 2007 2:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 14:00
Why is the splash-page headline link labeled "Beware secular humanists" instead of "Beware secular fundamentalists"? The two are quite dissimilar groups...
September 27, 2007 1:59 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:59
Why is the splash-page headline link labeled "Beware secular humanists" instead of "Beware secular fundamentalists"? The two are quite dissimilar groups...
September 27, 2007 1:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:57
I am a secularist, but I believe being a Fundamentalism is not restricted to just being religious, it can be a Fundamental belief in a political system, a country, a race, a sexual preference. Any time the your are fundamentally right and your opponent is fundamentally wrong your are a Fundamentalist.
An easy self test you can take is ask yourself if people who are not "religious /secularist /democrat /republican /communist /black /white /homosexual /straight /feminist /anti-feminist" are wrong. If you feel that way you are a fundamentalist. If you just disagree with some things that people who are ... but agree with other points then you are not a Fundamentalist.
I have read Dawkins and I agree that he is a Scientific/Secularist Fundamentalist. He makes many good points that I agree on about the role of religion, but he also makes many conclusions about religion that I don't agree with.
September 27, 2007 1:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:56
I have read only parts of Hitchens's book, so I cannot comment much on his claims. But I have read carefully the "God Delusion" (R. Dawkins), "The end of faith" (S. Harris) and "Breaking the spell"(by Dennett).
Dennett's work is worth reading and should not classified with the other two. Although an atheist himself, he does not condemn religions, but calls for a study of religious phenomena so we can deal better with related political and social issues.
Harris is confident that he knows all that's wrong with all religious faith; but his book did not impress me as being a knowledgeable critique of religion. He over-generalizes and exaggerates the case against religion, as does Dawkins in his book.
This does not imply that that their criticisms of the evil and folly of some religions during some periods of their history is false. When they specify the actual guilty parties, Harris and Dawkins make important contributions to the debate regarding the value of religious faith. But their tendency to over-generalize and over-simplify the issues diminishes the value their books could have had.
Balmer's criticism is partly on target.
September 27, 2007 1:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:52
My theory is that those who practice religion undergo increases in brain endorphins related to this practice. Those who are non-religious do not have such increases.Religion thus provides a pleasurable sense of well being to some individuals and not to others.This dimension of individual being is probably very strongly influened by inherent biological factors. Good, bad or indifferent behaviors though influened by feeling and emotion involve complex cognitive brain functions strongly influenced by cultural forces.
Frederick Vaquer
Pasadena Ca
September 27, 2007 1:52 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:52
Dan Duffy:
it sounds like you are weakening Hitchens' statements considerably. He argued that "religion" (whatever that means, see my post above) results in net moral negatives (intolerance, conflicts, ect.) Most of the times. For most people. He seems to know for sure that "religion" does more harm that good and as such should be deprecated.
September 27, 2007 1:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:51
My theory is that those who practice religion undergo increases in brain endorphins related to this practice. Those who are non-religious do not have such increases.Religion thus provides a pleasurable sense of well being to some individuals and not to others.This dimension of individual being is probably very strongly influened by inherent biological factors. Good, bad or indifferent behaviors though influened by feeling and emotion involve complex cognitive brain functions strongly influenced by cultural forces.
Frederick Vaquer
Pasadena Ca
September 27, 2007 1:48 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:48
My theory is that those who practice religion undergo increases in brain endorphins related to this practice. Those who are non-religious do not have such increases.Religion thus provides a pleasurable sense of well being to some individuals and not to others.This dimension of individual being is probably very strongly influened by inherent biological factors. Good, bad or indifferent behaviors though influened by feeling and emotion involves complex cognitive brain functions strongly influenced by cultural forces.
Frederick Vaquer
Pasadena Ca
September 27, 2007 1:46 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:46
I think Professor Balmer has misunderstood Mr. Hitchens' argument. There are certainly ambiguities in all religions, because there are ambiguities in all people. 'Secular fundamentalists' as Balmer calls them, argue that religion and religious people are entitled to no honored or privileged treatment because of their religiosity. As an example, the Catholic Pope has no more moral authority than I do in deciding what is a good life. Making moral decisions is hard intellectual work; work best not left to others of questionable motives and authority. Hitchens argument is not that there is no moral ambiguity, but that no person or religion has the market cornered on clarity and they should cease claiming they do.
September 27, 2007 1:45 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:45
This article is like every other article in that it really mis-quotes or mis-interprets the latest rash of athiest books.
The gist of the messages these books are sending is not religion = bad; secular = good, it's more along the lines of good people do good things and bad people do bad things but it takes religion for good people to do really bad things.
September 27, 2007 1:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:44
I think Professor Balmer has misunderstood Mr. Hitchens' argument. There are certainly ambiguities in all religions, because there are ambiguities in all people. 'Secular fundamentalists' as Balmer calls them, argue that religion and religious people are entitled to no honored or privileged treatment because of their religiosity. As an example, the Catholic Pope has no more moral authority than I do in deciding what is a good life. Making moral decisions is hard intellectual work; work best not left to others of questionable motives and authority. Hitchens argument is not that there is no moral ambiguity, but that no person or religion has the market cornered on clarity and they should cease claiming they do.
September 27, 2007 1:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:32
I think Professor Balmer has misunderstood Mr. Hitchens' argument. There are certainly ambiguities in all religions, because there are ambiguities in all people. 'Secular fundamentalists' as Balmer calls them, argue that religion and religious people are entitled to no honored or privileged treatment because of their religiosity. As an example, the Catholic Pope has no more moral authority than I do in deciding what is a good life. Making moral decisions is hard intellectual work; work best not left to others of questionable motives and authority. Hitchens argument is not that there is no moral ambiguity, but that no person or religion has the market cornered on clarity and they should cease claiming they do.
September 27, 2007 1:27 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:27
Doug Barr:
that a non sequitur. You could very well believe in one God who wants you to give your life for those in error rather than persecute them. In fact, you can even believe in one God who chose that course of action for himself.
September 27, 2007 1:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:22
"No it doesn't and I'll try to simplify. Science is based on theory and theory is defined by a propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. Look that up for yourself, you'll see I nearly copied and pasted it from the dictionary."
You miss the point entirely. A scientific theory allows predictions based on it to be made and to be tested. As long as these predictions are verified experimentally the theory is accepted. If there is evidence that does not support the theory it is abandoned. For example, it was once hypothesized that the genetic information was stored in proteins and not in DNA (call it the protein-based theory of molecular genetics if you like). The best scientific evidence now indicates that it is DNA and not protein that is the genetic material. Unless new evidence surfaces to show that DNA is not the genetic material, this scientific "theory" will be accepted.
Religion, on the other hand, has its own theory. That you may go to heaven or hell after you die. One way to test this is to hang over a cliff holding onto a branch and then let go. Any takers?
September 27, 2007 1:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:20
Doug Barr:
that's a non sequitur. You can believe in one God who believes you should give your life for those who are in error, rather than persecute them. In fact, you can even believe in one God who chose that course of action for himself.
September 27, 2007 1:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:19
Hitchens has exposed the fact that all Mono-theistic religions - by their very nature - ONE GOD, MY GOD - are intolerant (the source, not necessarily all of the practitioners).
If you truly believe in one God and that all others are in error, and (usually) damned to hell for their apostasy, then it is a very short step indeed towards putting those beliefs into violent action.
While the Enlightenment and other modern movements may have taken the edge off the absolutism of monotheism, the threat will always remain because the intolerant source material for Judaism, Christianity & Islam will always be available to fundamentalists who are looking to put society into full reverse.
September 27, 2007 1:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:14
Lane:
Are you saying that people of faith are good BECAUSE of their faith? That they engage in poverty relief, feeding the hungry, marching for civil rights or against war, etc BECAUSE of their religious faith? That they wouldn’t do these things if not for their religious faith? How sad that idea is.
----
The money the collect calling themselves "charitable" goes into their business of fleecing the lame brains, stained glass, TV stations etc.
Let me rub it in, salt in your wound. Your tax dollars goes indirectly to them de facto tithing. Only churches own real estate in the USA. Everyone else, businesses and individuals only rent from the government. The rent is called property taxes. Only the church is exempt. And then there is the tax deduction for "gifts to God." That's indirect tithing. Congratulations on your financial contribution to the cause of faith.
The Bush gang granted them in the neighborhood of 5 billion of Katrina relief money, (under the flag of charity). That's direct tithing.
The good news is the Bible is a proved hoax. http://www.hoax-buster.org has the archaeological roots, found Moses for sure and maybe Jesus in the written archaeological record. That needs to be made public to reveal religion for what it really is, a con game that's actually unlawful in every state and territory in the union.
September 27, 2007 1:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:10
The other aspect of the politicization of politics is that both religion and the government present everything as all-or-nothing choices with no chance of compromise and never a third option.
So when the churches tell people "Either you embrace this noxious political policy or you are an atheist," many people will say "OK, then I guess I am an atheist."
It is this all-or-nothing fundamentalism that creates atheists. Atheism is not the result of some secular slippery slope, it is the direct result of fundamentalism. The fact that fundies aim for an insulated and paranoid world view that blames outsiders means that their self-destructive cycle will continue.
September 27, 2007 1:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:09
Mr. EP Thorn (if that is your real name) said,
"Uh... this shows a determined ignorance of science. Science does NOT demand leaps of faith- in fact, it prohibits them. Go read a real book on science, not a creationist pamphlet. The very cornerstone of science is questioning conclusions based on evidence."
No it doesn't and I'll try to simplify. Science is based on theory and theory is defined by a propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. Look that up for yourself, you'll see I nearly copied and pasted it from the dictionary.
In quantum mechanics, evidence can be reproduced on an atom when an action is applied to cause it to behave in a particular manner. What is going on within the atom? No one knows, as there IS NO way to know. So a theory is developed to assist in the explanation. That theory is then tested and used as basis for further theories; so on and so forth. This system works very well as a process for exploration. But as defined, a scientific theory is not fact, when it becomes fact, it is no longer a theory.
Well, religious people do the same thing. They see evidence of (since you bought it up) creation. No one has no way of really knowing what occurred so they assign their own explanations. That is what faith is, belief without fact. When a belief becomes fact, it is no longer faith.
Hmm, what else behaves way...scientific theory!!!
(bytheby, that really burns me with the bible-thumbers, they claim the bible is fact. If that is so, what is the purpose of faith? Isn't that the point, faith? it seems they locked themselves out of the figurative room there)
Why does it make you so angry to think that science, religion (and philosophy) postulate identically? No need to react so strongly. Practice thinking beyond your own nose now and again, makes the day brighter.
Scientists don't stop at what they know as 'fact.' They go well beyond that. Sometimes for great good and sometimes, not so good. A religionist person does the same. They go beyond what they know as facts, sometimes for good and sometimes, not so good.
As for myself, creationism is a myth that has nice place in literature. As a basis for science or philosophical study, it is worthless.
As far as nilihism making one grumpy. I stand by my observation. You seem mighty angry yourself, so hence, my no-fun-at-parties theory is no longer theory, it has become fact.
Please don't make assumptions about anyone. It makes your point less valid & less interesting.
Regards, Anonymous (not my real name)
September 27, 2007 1:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:06
Do you really think that the implementation of Dominion Theology aka Christian Reconstructionism as American legal policy will result in anything but a persecution of the American populace en masse?
September 27, 2007 1:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:06
"If you don't like religion, fine. Go to science. Both demand leaps in faith. Either accept scientific theory or accept a religious tenet, same thing. Believe in something, because nihilism makes you grumpy and you won't be invited to fun parties."
Really now. There is quite a difference between science and religion. Religion makes predictions that cannot be tested. Science makes predictions that can be tested. I would suggest that if there is any leap in faith, it is religion since it is based on myth and a dependence on the supernatural. I suggest you hang over a cliff holding onto a branch. If you believe in a resurrection, let go the branch. I dare you.
September 27, 2007 1:01 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 13:01
Mr. Balmer,
So are you saying that God and religion are a nuanced grey area? That isn’t what the 1st commandment says. It’s pretty black and white. John 14:6? That is pretty damn black and white. Where is the grey area? People are killing and being killed today, right now- because of religion. Why are the Muslims so upset? Because they’ve been fending off the Christians for thousands of years, watched their families slaughtered in the name of Jesus Christ and to a certain extent, since Mr. Bush has ordained himself president, it continues today. The Catholic Church harbors child molesters and is historically guilty of thousands of murders. Here in the US we have that great group of televangelists that scam retirees and lonely people for their last dollar encouraging them to "sow their seed of prosperity with God." I think you could give them better advice directing them to the nearest lottery agent. At least they'd have a chance at something. God is not an ATM, right?
Just as many who’ve done good works in the name of religion, your hospital examples, just as many if not more has be done just because without the attachment. I bought a hungry person a meal today and did not say that it came from God or any Christian derivative because it didn't. They were hungry and I could help because I can work so I earned that money and learned how to perform the job that I have. You can say that I am "blessed" but by that argument, the hungry gentleman is cursed and I thought we were all equal in God's eyes... Unless you're a Mormon or Jewish. Then you're superior to everyone else or one of God's chosen people. What about the rest of us? Didn't Jesus just give us all salvation? Well then all Jews are going to Hell because they don't by the Jesus story. They do say he was a cool dude in sandals so God forbid we suggest all Jews are going to burn in Hell.
I was baptized in a Southern Baptist Church that fired the pastor that dunked me because he couldn’t wrap up a sermon before noon making everyone late for kick off at 1pm.
Have your religion and feel very good about it but stay out of my life and my government. If I want to dance in chicken blood naked under the moon I will. If I want to speak out about it I will. Stop trying to censor the books, movies and TV shows that I want to see because there is just as much murder, hate and rape in the Bible. "We must protect the children!!" Well, be a parent, turn off the TV and get involved in their lives. Don't make me suffer because you can't control what your children read, see or watch.
Pat Robertson, leader of whatever gaggle of weak minded believers encouraging the US Government to assassinate a seated head of state. Wow. Religion is cool man!! Jesse Ventura was spot on
September 27, 2007 12:56 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 12:56
What you are saying is that the super-ego cannot differentiate between the highest patriotic power (the commander and chief, provided he identifies himself with the religion) and the highest religious power, i.e. Jehovah. Right on.
September 27, 2007 12:50 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 12:50
Lane:
who said that? Personally I have no doubt that you can be good without religious faith. But I do not think you can give ME (or your children, or society at large) any REASON why we should be good.
PS By "reason" I do not mean fear of hell. I mean a comprehensive, non-sentimental understanding of what it means to be human and what is the goal of my existence, if any.
September 27, 2007 12:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 12:43
Are you saying that people of faith are good BECAUSE of their faith? That they engage in poverty relief, feeding the hungry, marching for civil rights or against war, etc BECAUSE of their religious faith? That they wouldn’t do these things if not for their religious faith? How sad that idea is.
So, those of us without religious faith can be counted on NOT to feed the hungry, march for civil rights or against the war, etc., because, after all, we can’t be good because we have no religious faith.
It is this kind of thinking that helped me break free from organized religion and the fantasy life that it supports. So I suppose I should thank you for personalizing once again why “religious faith” is such a bad thing.
September 27, 2007 12:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2007 12:32
The very idea that there is one single phenomenon called "religion" is already so incredibly intellectually lazy as to indict Hitchens's seriousness. At most you can argue that there is one set of religous QUESTIONS (who am I? Why am I here? What do I need ultimately?), but it is crazy not to recognize that there myriads of different answers to these questions, ranging from the ridicoluos/criminal to the sublime. We can discuss all the religions you want, but to talk about "religion" is essentially a waste of time to me, and usually just reflects the prejudices of the commenters. Case in point, most of the commenters in this forum identify "religion" with some ver