All Comments (38)

Dr. Jackson wrote: "Today, American atheists speak of science and reason as the preferred alternatives to religion"

Preferred?

I'd prefer that an entity with infinite wisdom was watching over us. I'd prefer not blink out of existence when I die. I'd prefer to live a harmonious, eternal life with my family, friends and even those who considered me their enemy.

Yet, as much as I would prefer these alternatives to what science and reason tells us about our world, I do not believe they are true.

The more we learn about the universe we live in, the more it conflicts with the notions of an Abrahamic God. The more we learn how our minds work, the more clear it's become that we mistake concepts, created to understand our own experiences, for reality.

You continue to believe these things are true, despite significant empirical evidence to the contrary. I do not.

What I prefer is irrelevant.

Dr. Jackson wrote: "And God knows best."

Unassailable, indeed.

Give me a break - Garyd,

"Atheist are essentilly trying to remove from life every possible reference to a theistic interpretation of events in public life"

Do you have such a splendid example of a theistic interpretation of events in public life? The Iraq war is one, plus a few others (Crusade, 30 years'wear etc) recounted ad nauseam.

Yes, wholeheartedly I would fight superstition in politics. Knock on wood, Garyd!

Atheist aren't trying to put forth an unassailble truth? Don't make me laugh. That very thinking is one of the reasons for the clash of of the two sides.

Atheist are essentilly trying to remove from life every possible reference to a theistic interpretation of events in public life apprently under the notion that it offends there sensibilities and yet you aren't assaulting religious thought and religious freedom? Give me a break.

Look the least number of religious view points the government can accomdate is one - the atheistic one.
The government should and must be neutral among all religious views. That means that it should have no trouble whatever with the placing any and all religious paraphenalia of any religion on public property. That's not what we have today.

What we have today is the notion that all religious views - especially Christian ones - save those of atheists are verboten in the public arena.

Nietzsche recognised that there was a risk that atheism could simply supplant one dogmatic orthodoxy with another. While he was happy that the will to power of Christianity (the will to nothingness) was being replaced by the will to power of reason (the will to truth), he believed that our lives ought to be an experiment and it was vital to question 'the value of values'.

'God knows best' is sticking with the old orthodoxy. If you truly think the problem on both sides is unassailable authority, the matra 'God knows best' will get us nowhere.

Whoa. What a giveaway:

"This brings me to my first point. American blacks did not respond to the abuses of religion with rationalistic atheism because they understood, instinctively, that the most liveable world for them would be one in which there was always an authority above and beyond the dominant group to whom they could appeal."

Nuff said.

Promise people that one day some higher authority will make it all right, you could literally end up worshiping the justification for what enslaved you.

Dr. Jackson.
Reason is having a problem, thiking of how to rectify it, and the ramifications of the rectifying actions, so you will make the correct decision. You can be Jewish, Christian, Athiest, black, white, red or yellow, and still reason. There is no prerequisite. It has nothing to do with religion or race. A person can be the most religous and the most reasoning of all. So let's all reason how all religions and races can find a way to live together.
Jeff

CBC:

I have come to expect theists to feel threatened by atheism. I suppose it is an artifact of the phenomenon of belief without reason. But it makes little sense to me. Why should another's lack of belief, even that of one's own children, be threatening?

============================================

Huh? I have only felt threatend by fundamentalist theists. Never humanist theists.

For only fundies think their belief system is more important than our Constitution and democracy.

In my opinion -- humanist theists should fear fundamentlists theists as well (and I think a good number do.)

The 9/11 terrorists were MUSLIM fundamentalists ya know. (I think most Muslims are moderates and just fine.)

PS. A number of my Christian "fundi" friends and acquaintances have told me all Muslims are terrorists...and should all be killed, yada yada.

(Yes, I have some Christian fundi friends -- many are even nice people when you can get them off their hates... be it gays, Muslims, women's lib, Hillary Clinton...)

Yours,

"Greg – we are not saying you have to PROVE God first for “YOU” to believe in a God...We are saying you have to PROVE God first only if you try and impose YOUR belief system upon us."

Excellent, Warp10! I wouldn't limit that to just claims about God. When dogma claims that people are sinners, people who don't subscribe to the dogma have every right to criticize the claim.

Greg, you make a very good point about the scientific method. We seem to forget that what is called "proof" in science refers to a hypothesis that has withstood numerous attempts at falsification. The scientific method is designed to disprove a hypothesis rather than prove it per se. Now how do you disprove someone's claim or belief that a Supreme Being awaits them after death? I don't think we can. We can choose not to accept that claim on the basis of own "plausibility structure", to borrow Berger's phrase. But these claims are not subject to the scientific method.

PS.

On Mr. Dennett's essay (where my earliest posts were made) -- I was on record STRONGLY opposing a label such as "Brights" for atheists.

And I hurled stones at this concept side by side theists there. I refuse to take this label for myself. Period!

(with all due respect to Mr. Dennett -- I think this label is for fundies. I hope he drops this.)

Greg, Enjoyed seeing you here.

Let me clear up what I think are some very popular misconceptions. (Thanks for opening up the topics.)

#1 You see, it is simple to make the argument "prove it" for matters that are not subject to proof."

Greg – we are not saying you have to PROVE God first for “YOU” to believe in a God.

We are saying you have to PROVE God first only if you try and impose YOUR belief system upon us.

Only then is the burden of proof on you.

I assure you, that you hold the same standards. Say, if someone insisted to you that fairies existed, you would likely argue they would need to prove it before YOU believed it.

I have had friends who were so depressed, a belief in God made them happier. I would never dream of discussing theology (or belief in fairies--whatever) with them in this case.

#2 “I do reject the notion that slaveholders were pecularly religious -- the problem again with the big brush”

If you look at history -- Most slaveholders considered themselves very good Christians. Think of it – the South to this day is still heavily in the Bible thumping camp.

This doesn't mean all Christians were for slavery. I thought I was being careful to note that many Christians opposed slavery! If I did not – let me make that clear here:. Quakers were opposed to slavery from the very beginning. Most of the Enlightened thinkers who opposed slavery were either Christians or Unitarians (deists.) There were a large number of (usually moderate and liberal) Protestant and Catholics who opposed the institution of slavery. Indeed – to have had a Civil War against slavery – there had to be Christians to fight in it!

#3 “Now weren't Stalin and Lenin atheists? Didn't they kill millions”

Absolutely. They were fundamentalist atheists.( see #4) They had a dogma that everyone had to believe in an “invisible hand” ruling society towards a worker’s utopia for the future. Disbelievers were treated as heretics. Marx and Lenin were revered as prophets. Marxism (at least as employed in Russia) was a form of religion with a spiritual force running it – not unlike how Buddhists are a religion without a formal god.

Russia had a cruel tradition under the czars that brutally treated people. The Stalinists continued this tradition under a banner of atheism.--fundamentalist atheism.

#4 And now my last point. I see the world – divided up-- not according to religion (religious vs non-religious). To me, It is more relevant to classify people first and foremost according to their moral philosophy – i.e. humanism vs. fundamentalism.

Let’s take Christianity first. Christianity is split into two camps according to their moral philosophy. Christian humanists stress God’s goodness and mercy. The Golden Rule is an important principle to Christian humanists.

Christian fundamentalists stress God’s authority and strict obedience to His laws; Harsh punishment (including hellfire) is viewed as justification for disobedience. Fundamentalists usually believe in the possibility of a utopia on earth by enforcing harsh social laws—to try and create one.

This same demarcation applies to all the religions (and types of atheism) in the world There are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and atheist humanists. Just as there are Jewish, Muslim, and atheistic fundamentalists.

Secular humanists hold the happiness and spiritual fulfillment of all individuals – and a protection fo their rights from authoritarian elites as their goal. (See some excerpts from the Humanist Manifesto – below which lays out the moral philosophy.)

I already gave you an example of fundamentalist atheists with the Stalinists. I would put atheists who follow Ayn Rand as their ideal in this category too. (For example, I – like many secular humanists-- personally despise Ayn Rand’s philosophies.)

When viewed along these lines, it is the authoritarian philosophies (of all religions and atheisms) that have created the Inquisitions, Crusades, and yes communist regimes to try and create heavens on earth. Hells (not heavens) were typically the result.

Many people can hold some mixture of the two of course. Other people are neutral/indifferent in regards to any moral philosophy. But the principles still apply.

In summary – I hold a lot more in common with religious humanists – than I do with atheist fundamentalists. (Religious humanists have been on record to say the same, in reverse.)

Therefore I think the lines are drawn incorrectly -- instead of religion vs atheism; I think the demarcation along the plane of morality --humaniism vs fundamentalism-- is much more meaningful.

Yours,
WarpTen

=============================================
Just as an FYI – below are excerpts from the Humanist Manifesto:
*We are committed to the application of reason and science to the
understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

*We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.

*We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

*We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.

*We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race,
religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, or ethnicity, and strive
to work together for the common good of humanity.

*We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future
generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

*We believe in enjoying life here and not and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.

*We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

*We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principle are tested by their consequences.

*We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

*We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings."

( The above statement of principles and values was set down by the organization of the Academy of Humanism--whose membership has included,among others: Steve Allen, Isaac Asimov, Sir Alfred J. Ayer, Francis Crick, Stephen Jay Gould, Paul MacCready, Sir Karl Popper, Carl Sagan, and Andrei Sakharov.)

"my purpose was to suggest that atheists who insist on demeaning theists do so without any scientific basis to support their position either."

Greg, the difference is that atheists don't threaten to kill theists for believing in deity, or threaten them with eternal damnation if they don't recant their beliefs. That's why I don't understand why a believer would feel threatened by someone else's lack of belief, as CBC asked.

No, S. Landry, I fully understand the scientific method. You are wrong in that science does use the method to prove hypothesis via testing the hypothesis. After a week of this thread on various opinions, atheists do seem to always end up arguing about proof. I simply pointed out that "proof" is not always available. The scientific method is only as useful as the availability of tools to measure the hypothesis. Thus, some hypothesis we're currently working under (such as the Big Bang Theory) can't be proven because we don't have sufficient scientific tools to measure whether they're a law or a theory. That said, my purpose was to suggest that atheists who insist on demeaning theists do so without any scientific basis to support their position either. So just be nice in the debate, because you're side is acting on faith as well, albeit a different kind.

I appreciate the temperate nature of this conversation.

Regarding anti-theism, I think there are good reasons for atheists to feel threatened by those who promote theism. That our leaders can make momentous decisions to sacrifice our children's lives and the lives of other innocents not on the basis of supported reasoning, but on the basis of faith should be abhorrent to everyone. Even for the faithful, who's to say what faith might be used in the future to justify our country's actions in your name?

I have come to expect theists to feel threatened by atheism. I suppose it is an artifact of the phenomenon of belief without reason. But it makes little sense to me. Why should another's lack of belief, even that of one's own children, be threatening?

Let's all encourage our children to think, question, love and tolerate.

S. Landry writes to Greg:

“Importantly, the method theists use cannot be used to dissuade fundamentalists from believing in the most dark and dangerous parts of their religion. How can you use the method you used to arrive at your faith to argue against a Christian who wants to stone his non-virgin bride to death?”

Oh dear! Atheists charge believers with ignorance. Yet they themselves are not wonderously wise as the above shows.

Has Mr Landry never heard a phrase asking who will “cast the first stone”? Does he know it originated in the New Testament—John 7:53-8:11—where Yeshua expressly forbade the crowd to stone an adulteress:

He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee?
Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.

The New Testament charges the Christian to do just the opposite of Mr Landry's charge (slander?). Jesus has saved the woman and sent her away, unharmed. He does not condemn her, he does not judge her...

AMEN BROTHER JACKSON WELL REASONED

"Today, American atheists speak of science and reason as the preferred alternatives to religion. But neither science nor reason can be the real basis of any "vision" of society, of what we hold to be morally right, meaningful or 'sacred'. In fact, THE insight of post-modernism (though it was pointed out centuries ago by the likes of al-Ghazali) is precisely that, in the world of morality, reason can only operate in the interest of values already present. As such, in most of our conversations about right and wrong, the "reason" we invoke is rarely (if ever) the pure, unadulterated power of the human faculties. It is, rather, history, lived, internalized, normalized and then forgotten as history."
Perhaps that's because atheists and materialists have an impoverished conception of reason. I'd rather try to develop a fuller idea of reason like Plato or Kant (or for that matter Averroes), than revert to the idea that values can only be imposed by a willfull tyrant of a God as al-Ghazali and Kierkegaard did. Because we our current views might be mistaken on certain counts does not mean we have to re-embrace the mistakes of yesteryear,

Re: Greg

So many people don't get this, but it really is simple.

It is not about proof, one way or the other (there is a god or there isn't). Science doesn't deal with proofs except in the case of mathematical inference. What science works with is an objective method to separate fact from fiction. It applies this method to obtain evidence of claims that are made.

If you apply this method to the existence of any of the particular gods that are posited by modern or ancient religion, no evidence supports them to a sufficient degree, and there is a great deal of evidence that seems to refute them.

Many theists then state, well you can't apply that method - you must use faith (or some other word). The problem with faith is that it fails to discriminate between fact and fiction. Using it as a tool to identify what set of religious beliefs is true and which is false leads to none of them being eliminated, even though they are mutually exclusive. Moreover, it seems that the peculiar brand of religion that any given person has "faith" in depends almost solely on the circumstances of their birth and rearing.

So this isn't about proving anything in my view. It is about evidence, and a method for deriving truth. Put simply, theists do not apply a proper method for determining truth to their beliefs.

Importantly, the method theists use cannot be used to dissuade fundamentalists from believing in the most dark and dangerous parts of their religion. How can you use the method you used to arrive at your faith to argue against a Christian who wants to stone his non-virgin bride to death? This is what makes the debate important.

It seems to me that WarpTen is getting close in the post at 7:41 PM.

Neither science nor reasoning can explain the Bible if it were/is a purely political concept to influence and control a group of people. Just as we don't know exactly what the writer(s) had in mind in writing the Pentateuch, (or writings attributed to Moses) the 'prophets' etc. that later wrote didn't know either; and probably didn't know as much as we know today.

Once you start considering that it was/is a political document then a lot more things start to 'make sense'. Then when you realize it was mostly made up and those that made it up knew it was made up and pushed it for some reason then it gets easier to get through the "sticky wickets" and realize what probably has gone on.

I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is a different and another matter. It would also appear that when things are done to 'muddy the water' or put disrepute on Jesus, that it is turned by some force to a positive for proclaiming the gospel of Jesus. That's an observation without scientific tests being made. But people like the Christmas story. And humanity seems to have a built-in concept of there being God somewhere. The observation may and probably does apply to the why of the Bible itself.

I'm not one that thinks that God should have designed and built a better universe or even that a better universe is possible given the current design of humans on earth. But if evil is attempting to take over the earth then it would seem that the time tested statement 'that God helps those that helps themselves' should be remembered.

Mr. Smith, why should people who believe differently than you be subject to ridicule? Because they can't prove God? Because you believe they should be ridiculed. Why is that? Not sure I get it. No, I can't prove God exists, and you can't prove he doesn't. (I know, for the last week in this forum all I've heard is as the proponent of the proposition, I have to prove it.) No, I don't. It is not subject to proof and we all know that.
Can you prove what happens to a person's consciousness (I say soul) after death? Surely something happens, either it all ends, or it doesn't. What happens. No, I won't accept the statement from you that nothing happens because you can't prove nothing happens. If you are going to posit the belief that nothing happens, then prove it. Can you prove it?
You see, it is simple to make the argument "prove it" for matters that are not subject to proof. Prove there is an edge to galaxy. Prove what the center of the earth is like. As I noted days ago, 100 year ago no one could prove blackholes existed. In fact, they couldn't even fathom them. Yet the surely existed, for we have now proven it. All I have to do to make th esaem argument to atheists about the entire subject is to let them say it first -- there is no God. Then I say prove it -- oops, can't. So, lets move beyond the "prove it" phase to more productive discussion.
Hey Warp 10, good to hear from you again. I do reject the notion that slaveholders were pecularly religious -- the problem again with the big brush -- bad people of all kinds commit bad acts -- yes, even atheists. Now weren't Stalin and Lenin atheists? Didn't they kill millions. No, again I say it is power and greed that forment most of our tragedies. Even among those who profess belief. You see, I can easily say that those who acted to kill maim and murder in the name of God had no more clue about religious faith and belief than some one who has no belief. They might spout chapter and verse, but they are not true believers. Anyone can profess belief, wear a robe or carry a bible -- that does not make them faithful to the Word, does it? You know for yourself that Jesus did not teach such behavior and in fact, specifically rejected it. So, I close by noting that faith is not the problem-- people are. If not faith, then some other excuse would have been used to steal land, take slaves, commit atrocities. Bad people do bad things -- they don't need a reason.

Prof. Jackson: "Ultimately, it seems to me that contemporary American atheism is an attempt to supplant the UNASSAILABLE authority of religion with the UNASSAILABLE authority of reason."

Another point which I did not make,

Exactly WHICH authority of religion is UNASSAILABE?

There are roughtly 20,000 sects of just Christianity alone -- and that's before you go off into the myriad sects in the other religions.

Since your area of speciality includes Islamic studies -- perhaps you are Muslim.

Regardless: ALL RELIGIONS CAN'T ALL BE TRUE? -- BECAUSE THEY CONFLICT WITH ONE ANOTHER.

In the old days -- they used to have MASSIVE religious wars to determine which one was the REAL authority.

It didn't work -- there was just destruction.

The Enlightment (on whose principles this country was founded) determine reason and science were better alternatives that the old days of religious wars.

I realize the terrm Islam means "to submit" -- hopefully that doesn't include one's reason and intellect.

(Your point of view -- which I do reject- starts to make sense if you do believe one should subject their intellect.)

John Locke (key founder of the Enlightenment) had this to say why reason should rule over authority and revelation:

"if strength of persuasion be the light which must guide us; I ask how shall any one distinguish between the delusions of Satan, and the inspirations of the Holy Ghost?"

Prof. Jackson: Ultimately, it seems to me that contemporary American atheism is an attempt to supplant the UNASSAILABLE authority of religion with the UNASSAILABLE authority of reason.

This is a mistake many religious writers make when talking about atheism. They start with the concepts of their own faith and try to fill in the blanks with atheist ones. "The devine mind is infinite; but the human mind is limited." "Instead of the ultimate authority of God, they have the ultimate authority of Man."

Reason is not unassailable. Reason is limited. Every atheist except a quack knows that. The limitedness of human reason does not imply God's existence or ultimate authority.

Once again I find myself completely lost in Mr. Jackson's rhetoric, which I'm sure is my fault entirely. Anyway, to respond to the question. . .

First, the question:

"Atheism is enjoying a certain vogue right now. Why do you think that is? Can there be a productive conversation between believers and atheists, and if so over what kinds of issues?"

Here's my (humble) response:

I don't think "vogue" is accurate; perhaps "on the rise," is more to the point.

The reasons are:

1. We are better educated.

2. Science is more easily available to greater numbers of educated people.

3. Religions offer no real indications of any emerging (global) future; in fact, they only create more violence and cultural fragmentation.

4. The Bush Administration's abuse of "faith based politics" to advance a radical right agenda, which has created an umitigated global distaster and even meanaces the Constitution.

5. We are a secular democracy and we all know that.

6. Important thinkers, who oppose irrationalism in the public sector, are publishing and speaking more openly to the issue.

7. Finally, we don't need to be "atheist" to hold any of these views. If there is no God, there can be no "atheist". The burden of proof is always on the "believer," regardless of the belief.

And:

No, there cannot be a productive conversation, as demonstrated here, between people who insist on irrational beliefs, as opposed to reason, and those who don't. That is why we have the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Thank you.

Professor Jackson writes: "...in most of our conversations about right and wrong, the "reason" we invoke is rarely (if ever) the pure, unadulterated power of the human faculties. It is, rather, history, lived, internalized, normalized and then forgotten as history."

The professor seems to be arguing that atheists have no basis on which to contribute to conversations on what is right and what is wrong. And yet he cites just a few of the myriad examples where religion has been used as a justification for gross injustice. This goes on to this day. Certainly, atheists have access to the same history as anyone else.

I could be misreading what that passage means because it is really not clear to me what he is trying to say. He does not say what the rules of engagement of the "dialog" is that we are supposed to have. However, I absolutely agree with his characterization of the unholy alliance between fundamentalist religion and current political power.

It needs to be said again that atheism is not a "response" to anything. I was not raised in a religion as a child, and as an adult I simply do not believe in God, especially not the jealous personified god of the three major monotheisms.

(Made a lot of typos. Said opponent instead of proponent in one place as an example. Oh well.I am putting this out fast.)

Hi Ashley, these quotes are for you:

The Christian's Bible is a drug store. Its contents remain the same; but the medical practice changes.... The world has corrected the Bible. The church never corrects it; and also never fails to drop in at the tail of the procession -- and take the credit of the correction. During many ages there were witches. The Bible said so. the Bible commanded that they should not be allowed to live.

Therefore the Church, after eight hundred years, gathered up its halters, thumb-screws, and firebrands, and set about its holy work in earnest. She worked hard at it night and day during nine centuries and imprisoned, tortured, hanged, and burned whole hordes and armies of witches, and washed the Christian world clean with their foul blood.

Then it was discovered that there was no such thing as witches, and never had been. One does not know whether to laugh or to cry.... There are no witches. The witch text remains; only the practice has changed. Hell fire is gone, but the text remains. Infant damnation is gone, but the text remains. More than two hundred death penalties are gone from the law books, but the texts that authorized them remain. -- Mark Twain,

"For all slaveholders with whom I have ever met, religious slaveholders are the worst. I have ever found them the meanest and basest, the most
cruel and cowardly, of all others. It was my unhappy lot...to belong to a religious slaveholder...He always managed to have one or more of his slaves to whip every Monday morning." --Frederick Douglass (as quoted from his 1845 autobiography)

*"Whenever I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally." --Abraham Lincoln

Mr. Jackson,

“Today, American atheists speak of science and reason as the preferred alternatives to religion. But neither science nor reason can be the real basis of any "vision" of society,”

I suppose I should feel complimented you appear to assume only atheists follow science and rationality. But I think you have looked at this all wrong (and would give some theists a little more credit too...)

Science is a method for obtaining knowledge of the physical world. It is not a morality system. Atheists must choose a philosophy (just as with theists) for their morality system. **

Also, religious groups generally have no issue with science and reason– until this conflicts with a strongly held and cherished religious belief. Many (if not most) religious groups are not anti-science in the main.

An interesting example of seeing a conflict between science on religious views was in regards to Slavery.

In the seventeenth century, slavery was held by most Christians to be sanctioned by the Bible. (The Quakers were a wonderful exception.)

However, the view that the Bible sanction blacks to be slaves/servants lasted even into modern times….

Why, I remember how even my own religious mother taught me as a young child that-- because of the curse of Ham in the Bible -- it had been the destiny of blacks to be subservient to whites. (Now-- my mother was not a racist and said this with no malice. She had been “taught” this by her very religious parents.)

As I leaned later (reading a science book by Isaac Asimov) the race of Ham is never explicitly identified in Genesis-- so its association with Africans was purely arbitrary.

The myth of Ham appeared to be invented to assure good Christians that the horrors of slavery (which enriched other Christians) was sanctioned by God.

This was easily justified because the Bible appeared to sanction slavery. The Ten Commandments neither forbade slavery nor torture; nor did any other biblical verses directly forbid slavery or torture. Even the Golden Rule was easily twisted by slavery proponents. You see if YOU were born an ignorant black, wouldn’t you want a master to take care of you?

It was during the Enlightenment, that an emphasis on science and reason came into vogue. Evolution was often used as rational evidence against enslaving an entire race – for it taught that all men were descended from apes; thus there was no natural hierarchy to support superiority of whites over any other race. A study of the human genome (much later) would find little to no discernable difference between the races.

The Enlightenment (and its emphasis on science and reason) was a powerful force towards fighting the pro-slavery opponents. Religious individuals were definitely influenced by the Enlightenment, as one can see in the writings of the early American fathers (who struggled with themselves how to justify excluding Africans from being treated equal to whites.)

But the point is that the religious AND nonreligious used rationality and science to abolish slavery.

Now – you accurately point out that the majority of blacks are religious. Yes, they converted over the centuries into the same religion as their American masters (same as the Mexicans and South Americans to the Spaniards.)

But today, there are some atheist blacks; just as a minority of whites are atheists. Are they just rebellious is your thesis? How simplistic.

No. This is not about authority. This is about a search for truth. An emphasis on science and rationality should not be demeaned in searching for truth. Most theists would argue they are not opposed to science and rationality either in the main.

It is philosophy (not science) that determines one's moral system. My basis for morality is a philosophy called humanism (which values all human life). Secular humanism has many parallels with religious humanism.

Many atheists and theists (including Christians) do not ascribe to humanistic philosophies--but instead look authoritian morality system. (the all powerful god vs the merciful god in the Bible is the dividing line betwen the two.)

If I were attempting to label people, I would
draw the line between fundamentalist and humanists -- with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist and atheists falling in both camp. Stalinist communists are an example of fundamentalist atheists who demanded authoritarian models for behavior.

I think it is the authoritarians that have mucked up the world -- not an overreliance on science and reason.

It was the humanists (including humanists) that fought to help abolish slavery. Many a religious humanist would seriously look at the evidence from science and rationalisty when combining it with their faith.

Yours,

WarpTen (a scientific term.)

(Apologize this was written quickly)

The church of this country is not only indifferent to the wrongs of the slave, it actually takes sides with the oppressors.... For my part, I would say, welcome infidelity! Welcome atheism! Welcome anything! in preference to the gospel, as preached by these Divines! They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny and barbarous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke put together have done!
-- Frederick Douglass, "The Meaning of July Fourth for the Negro"

Sherman Jackson, like most other panelists on "On Faith", mischaracterizes atheism. How can so many supposedly accomplished individuals speak out confidently on something they obviously know nothing about?

Professor Jackson's main mistake is here: "Today, American atheists speak of science and reason as the preferred alternatives to religion. But neither science nor reason can be the real basis of any "vision" of society, of what we hold to be morally right, meaningful or 'sacred'."

You are comparing apples and oranges. Neither atheism nor religion are the basis of a "vision" of society. Religion doesn't pick up the garbage; it is merely an aspect of one possible society. The alternative to religion in society isn't atheism, it is secular humanism - the embracing of reason, ethical behavior, and justice, and the rejection of religious authority.

In fact, to whatever minor extent which western religions have become more moral in the last two centuries (for instance, the rejection of slavery by most Christians and the much more recent rejection of white supremacy by many Christians), they have done so by incorporating secular values and ignoring doctrine. Of course, religious values continue to lag far behind secular ones. Many Christian sects are as despicable in their condemnation of homosexuals as their predecessors were in their attitudes towards blacks. Black congregations are no exception. And many Islamic communities are at least a century behind the secular world in their attitudes towards women.

Atheism is not a reaction to anything.

What most of us believe (I'd guess) is very simple. The method you must use to arrive at your "unassailable" truth cannot provide a consistent basis with which to distinguish anything. The same method you use to establish your religious "truths" can be used to demonstrate anything, just as they are used repeatedly to prove that Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or a hundred other religions are "real." This is often missed, so I'll repeat it. Consider how you "proved" your religious beliefs to yourself (or how you "know they are true"), and consider how anything could be proven in this way. Now consider how science proceeds - it gathers evidence and establishes likelihoods. It then continues gathering evidence, never stopping, always trying to disprove what it believes. It therefore always arrives at our current best answer, but never considers any answer the final answer.

In this way, it is the only method we know of which can consistently separate truth from falsehood, and which can correct itself when it is wrong. If you apply this method to your religion - any religion - they are shown to be one of the least likely conclusions we can draw from the evidence around us.

It is as simple as that. Atheism is not a reaction, it is the logical conclusion of the evidence we have all around us.

Dr, you left out one that I'm sure Muslims don't want to hear but can't avoid. The Bible, the basis in fact for your Gods is a proved hoax. All the things you skated around, slavery being one are easy to overlook. Only the Japanese have never been enslaved as a group. Overlooking the hard fact that you have no basis in fact for God overwhelms all other arguments.

That is why atheism is surging. All the others, evangelical abuse of everything from law to children only gives them reason to become vocal.

The information proving the Bible is bogus was at least a decade old and not intended to be published on the false notion that religion makes people moral. The evangelicals and espeically Muslims have put that baby to bed big time.

All religion is Devil worship, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul proves that. Proof the Bible is a fraud is done to the standard for proving literary hoaxes on a different page in the same book.

So, I'm reading along.....taking it in (it is a bit rambling, ya know) and I'm trying to get the point....and.....hmmmm....a COMMONGROUNDRULE?.....not bad......ok.....then.

There it is.

After ALL the well-thought out (I am assuming this isn't a "gut" piece) info and such....the LAST SENTENCE THAT COMPLETELY CUTS ME OFF FROM ANY NEED TO "FIND A COMMON GROUND" with the writer...

"And God knows best"........

AAAARRRRGFGGGGGGHHGHHGHGHGHHGHGHGHGHGHHGHGHGHGHGGH

Until the term "god"is understood as:

HAS NO SEX
HAS NO LIFE (AS A HUMAN WOULD UNDERSTAND)
HAS NO AGENDA

We just ain't gonna be able to sit down on this like ADULTS and discuss the situation.

IT IS UP TO THE "CHRISTIANS" TO "GET IT". NOT the other way around.

It is all FAITH-based on your end.

Prove me wrong.

i tell you what professor Jackson, i'll go you one better. you seem to want 'respect' from us atheists above all. i guess like the respect you beleivers show for each other. let's test it, shall we?

your christian friends believe that only through the sacrifice of god's one and only son can we be saved. all who deny this are damned. like you. and me.

you believe that crap? really? i suspect not. so what's your 'respect' really worth?

just a little straight talk.

this guy really winds me up.

apparently he's muslim, not christian, but i don't really care. chocolate or vanilla, even with a cherry on top, i'm lactose intolerant.

sir, i don't believe your god(s) have any more reality than does the ancient egyptian pantheon. get it? that's not another religion. it's not faith based.

okay, in the future, please let people define their own (dis)beliefs and we'll get along fine.

Andrew,

"I do know for myself that when I include regular spiritual practice in my life, I am more productive, happier, and more present. I'm a better parent, partner, and wage-earner (as a scientist!)."

I am happy for you that you find the incorporation of spirituality makes you happier and more productive. But, it's a different thing for you to claim that the propositions of your spirituality are true descriptions of reality. If you don't make that claim, fine. If you do but have no evidence for it, you should be ridiculed.

It's also important to realize that one can achieve life balance without resorting to non-empirical commitments or practices.

well, preacher, if you start out by telling us atheists what it is that we believe and maintainingg that only through religion can we find meaning, then no there really isn't much to talk about.

as i note that the black evangelical church leads the charge against gay rights and women's right to choose, i would suggest that african americans have done themselves no favor by their acquiesence to the (tax except) black priesthood you represent. just a thought.

has anyone noticed the incredibly limited knowledge of athisists exhibited by the on faith panelists. whether it's cal thomas or this guy, there's an utter refusal to even address the atheist' positions with any degree of intellectual honesty. for shame.

B-Man Sez:

"Pleaaaaase....Atheists are not trying to put forth an unassailable point of view!!! They are simply speaking up against those who are, and who are doing so without the slightest shred of evidence, and whose "point of view" runs contrary to all known physical and natural laws."

It seems to me that this rhetoric is internally inconsistent (perhaps even irrational?), in that with triple exclamation marks, and the use of terms like "slightest shred" and "all known" clearly suggest an absolutist point of view.

I do know for myself that when I include regular spiritual practice in my life, I am more productive, happier, and more present. I'm a better parent, partner, and wage-earner (as a scientist!). Do I understand the reasons for this and it's true nature? No. It is not entirely rational, but it works for me and I don't push what I do on others. I'm sure there are athiests who have their own means of achieving centered, focused lives.

My point is that B-man's strident response to piece outlining a thoughtful, theistic man's point of view atheism only serves to annoy and polarize those who with a theistic outlook. This stridency is in reponse to a writings that acknowleges limits on faith and implies that the authority of religion is assailable to some degree. I don't find B-man's stridency productive.

Welcome to the forum, Dr. Jackson.

There are several problems in your posts.

First, what you call contemporary American atheism is not "an attempt to supplant the UNASSAILABLE (the emphasis is clear without the caps) authority of religion with the UNASSAILABLE authority of reason." Contemporary atheism simply demands two things: 1) Anyone who asserts the existence of a metaphysical 'entity' in the public square must meet the burden of providing objective evidence for such 'entities' and if they fail to do so they deserve the ridicule reserved for alchemists and worshipers of Thor or Zeus; 2) Anyone who grounds normative claims on baseless descriptive propositions and advances them as a social or universal imperative must be confronted with the rule of reason as the presumptive condition for any subjective or universal morality.

In addition, the professor claims that: "What is missing in the discussion, however, is that those who cannot reason...or whose internalized, normalized history is not recognized may be no better served and no less subjugated by a regime of reason than those who cannot or do not believe are by a regime of belief." (internal quotation marks omitted)

You worsen this convoluted sentence with a conflation of categories. The putative utility of religion (especially for a sub-group) is not an indication of its truth. Your claim, thus, amounts to a confusion of the useful with the true. A rather amusing quasi-Kantian strategy.

If my style in this post is slightly obscure, it's because I was attempting a mild parody of the professor's pretentious writing.

You unwittingly provided one of the best definitions of religion and metaphysics I've ever read: "silly little mental associations that have no basis in reality."

You also claim that American blacks rejected the primacy of reason because they understood it to be "little more than a thin veneer for control." There are too many problems with this claim including its failure to exclude other plausible accounts for the supposed rejection of reason (for instance, the fact that the slaves themselves brought with them and were already ensconced within a world-view where metaphysics and religion, both of which make claims without substantiating them with inter-subjectively verifiable evidence). But, the main problem, is that religion itself was the actual and thick veneer for control. It's interesting that you keep using the utilitarian calculus as justification for the truth of religion. It's also sad. And illogical.

The fact that contemporary response to the tyranny of religion is different from antecedent responses to more severe and more egregious use of religion tells us nothing about the rationality of previous responses or the current one.

You also claim that: "Today, American atheists speak of science and reason as the preferred alternatives to religion. But neither science nor reason can be the real basis of any "vision" of society, of what we hold to be morally right, meaningful or 'sacred'."

Science is the superior descriptive alternative to religion because it is amenable to objective verification. Reason is the superior normative alternative to religion because it is the default condition once we give up the real estate broker in the sky and because it allows for the compromise - as opposed to religious dogmatism and exclusion - that is more congenial to social intercourse.

As for religion being the source of morality, you are deluded if you make this claim with a straight face. From one of religion's greatest hits: "Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." Samuel 15:3

Don't even get me started on similar passages in the Qu'ran. The connection between religion and morality is historical and accidental; it is not essential.

Finally, and most importantly, where is the objective evidence for god's existence? Until you and other religionists provide one, I have nothing but contempt for your fairies. And will treat them as such.

Pleaaaaase....Atheists are not trying to put forth an unassailable point of view!!! They are simply speaking up against those who are, and who are doing so without the slightest shred of evidence, and whose "point of view" runs contrary to all known physical and natural laws.

Dr. Jackson, you write: "All of us are a combination of beliefs and rationalizations. What we need, however, is a better set of "Rules of Engagement," via which the limitations of both faith and reason can be duly recognized and through which we can arrive at a better accommodation of both in the public space."

Some elaboration on what the current "rules of engagement" are as you see them and why they are inadequate would add interesting precision to your argument.