New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | September 22, 2004

Cathy Young takes the G and D out of G-d.

Comments

|9.22.04 @ 4:15PM|#

I was with you, Cathy, until the last line:

Unlikely though it is to happen, a moratorium on God talk might level the playing field.

Exactly HOW would this moratorium be enforced? Is this just a "nice to have" and not a general proscription that should be taken up by Congress or someone else?

Either way, good article.

|9.22.04 @ 4:24PM|#

Perhaps an interesting question to ask political candidates during their debates - "Do you accept a talking snake, people living to be 900 years old, and a man who was more unkillable than the star of a horror film franchise as being factually and historically accurate?" If the answer is "yes", then the person is insane and is not qualified to be the LEADER OF THE F*CKING FREE WORLD!!!

Note - this is not a religious question, so it does not violate the "no religious test" in the Constitution. This is question grounded on common sense about reality.

|9.22.04 @ 4:25PM|#

Hans-

When in doubt, just assume that a Reason staff writer who says "X would be nice" means "People voluntarily deciding to do X would be nice, and obviously coercing people to do X would be horrible."

See, the folks writing at that magazine dedicated to "free minds and free markets" just assume that caveats like I included above should be unnecessary in a magazine dedicated to, you know, free minds and free markets.

Why is it that so many people here see "X would be nice" and automatically assume that the writer is pushing for an act of Congress?

|9.22.04 @ 4:35PM|#

Atheists of the world! Unite! Cast off your chains.
Yea, verily!

|9.22.04 @ 4:39PM|#

The role of religion in politics hasn't changed *that* significantly. The major difference is that the mutual antipathy between Catholics and Protestants has faded. Kennedy had a "religion problem" not because people feared he would be too religious, but because they feared he would be too religious about the wrong religion. These days, most Americans don't care if a person is Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, as long as he's honestly religious.

|9.22.04 @ 4:48PM|#

ROME -- A woman was killed Wednesday when a nearly 7-foot-tall metal crucifix fell on her head in a small town in southern Italy, police said.

Maddalena Camillo, 72, was walking in the main square in the village of Sant'Onofrio when the crucifix toppled from a monument being restored for a religious celebration, police said.

|9.22.04 @ 4:56PM|#

which would be a sensible answer if one ignores how many religions exist outside of those three particular flavors.

i don't quite see a jewish president anytime soon.

|9.22.04 @ 5:13PM|#

thoreau,

Because that's what you'd expect from just about everyone else in the world...

Leather Face|9.22.04 @ 5:15PM|#

"and a man who was more unkillable than the star of a horror film franchise as being factually and historically accurate"

Which man are we talking about ?

|9.22.04 @ 5:23PM|#

Tangentially: it's just occurred to me that libertarianism and religious belief may have some natural affinity. (I may be coming late to this realization.)

The key is that belief in the transcendental is generally humbling, and incompatible with exalted views of the capabilities of humankind, perhaps both moral and utilitarian. I guess that some religious doctrines are more or less explicit about this, but it seems to me that for any form of transcendentalism, belief in it should rationally engender this kind of humility. (I do not think there is an inherent contradiction in rationality and belief in the transcendent; doesn't agnosticism allow them to co-exist?)

Such humility should logically induce a healthy skepticism about human institutions. I see that skepticism as close to the core of libertarianism.

It is unfortunate, of course, that believers sometimes justify their own endeavors or other beliefs by claiming a transcendent power is behind them. It's quite ironic, as this is just the sort of human failing that divine faith should predict.

|9.22.04 @ 6:02PM|#

These days, most Americans don't care if a person is Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, as long as he's honestly religious.

... or can give the appearance of being honestly religious. And dhex is right - Jews are out. Except maybe Jews for Jesus.

|9.22.04 @ 6:23PM|#

After 9-11 I honestly thought, for a little while anyway, that America would finally realize how dangerous and evil religion is. I'm still trying to figure out how one as cynical as I am can still be so naive.

|9.22.04 @ 6:46PM|#

I think its somewhat silly to believe that any policy justified by invoking God's name is actually done in earnest. It's just a handy excuse that people are naturally afraid to question. Bush or anyone else would institute the same bad policies even if there were no religion; they would just use another excuse. If anyone actually made policies outof their Christian faith,and actually thought about "what would Jesus do," they would probably be libertarian.
Religion simply isn't the problem. It's bad policy at the root of it.

|9.22.04 @ 7:02PM|#

If anyone actually made policies outof their Christian faith,and actually thought about "what would Jesus do," they would probably be libertarian.

Speaking as a Catholic, I would love to agree with you. However, I can't. The Gospels, like the rest of the Bible, contain enough ambiguities, contradictions, and translation issues to keep people arguing forever over "what would Jesus do?" And that would be true even if everybody was in the same denomination.

Also, to Jennifer: If there were no religion, we'd probably find some other reason to go around fighting each other. Religion itself is not the cause of the world's problems. For every person who believes "God wants me to blow up this pizza parlor/invade this country/stone this woman/destroy this tower/kill that abortion doctor/insert-other-atrocity-here", there's somebody who believes that God is all about peace and love.

In the end, religion reflects humanity, complete with its achievements and follies, sins and mercies, wars and peacemakers, beauty and ugliness. Depending on how you look at it, that is either religion's most redeeming or most damning aspect.

|9.22.04 @ 7:09PM|#

lowdog-

True, but the context was one of the few places where people don't think that their every whim should be the subject of legislation.

|9.22.04 @ 7:25PM|#

I'm beginning to believe Cathy Young is a bot, based on her writing style and output schedule.

|9.22.04 @ 7:37PM|#

Thoreau-
True, human evil will survive no matter what, but without religion it would at least be harder to find others willing to do your dirty work for you. I could probably find a few people willing to kill my enemies if I tell the people "God wants these folks dead;" it would be a lot harder if I had to say "I want these folks dead, but I'm not willing to risk prison, which is why I want you to do my dirty work for me."

|9.22.04 @ 7:37PM|#

Jennifer said:
"I'm still trying to figure out how one as cynical as I am can still be so naive."

Jennifer, how 'bout I rent you my screen name for just 99 cents a pop? Cavanaugh could keep track.

|9.22.04 @ 7:45PM|#

Jennifer,
There we go again: having simultaneous climaxii... uh, posts.
It's because we both understand the best things in life are free: climaxii and religion.
Both worth the price?

... willing to do my own "dirty work."

|9.22.04 @ 7:49PM|#

eli,
Have you read Cathy Young's autobiographical, "Born in Moscow"?

I recommend it. Da!

|9.22.04 @ 8:30PM|#

Tales from the campaign trail:

I once appeared on a UHF-TV public affairs show when I ran for local office, along with several of my opponents. The host/interviewer was the head of a local social services non-profit. Near the end of the hour, she sprung this on the candidates: What religion do you follow? I thought this extraordinarily inappropriate, as I knew that at least one, if not two on the panel were at least ethnically Jewish, and the default status of the assumed audience for the show - African-American Protestants - led me to think that the host was trying to put some candidates - one AA, another the son of a prominent minister - in a good light. I hope there wasn't any anti-Semitism rearing its ugly head.

My answer: I was raised in the Catholic Church, attended Catholic schools and graduated from the local Jesuit University. I never actually declared whether I believed what I was taught or not.

BTW, it is NOT.

I'd like pols to answer, Since the Constitution forbids religious tests, I'd like to remain in its spirit, and decline to answer that question. Demanding an answer could be made to look like bigotry, which it sometimes is, and sometimes isn't.

Kevin

|9.22.04 @ 8:37PM|#

I know thoreau, but some people are just so stuck with that. I'm the other way around, because I'm a small 'l' libertarian, and an idealist, so I just never understand how someone actually believes the government can be efficent and is working in 'our' best interest.

|9.22.04 @ 8:46PM|#

Larry E

I do not think there is an inherent contradiction in rationality and belief in the transcendent; doesn't agnosticism allow them to co-exist?

They can possibly co-exist- but it ain't necessarily rational...

|9.22.04 @ 9:11PM|#

"After 9-11 I honestly thought, for a little while anyway, that America would finally realize how dangerous and evil religion is."

Is it? Yes it can be, but so can a lot of other non-religious beliefs as our friends Mssrs. Stalin and Mao aptly demonstrated.

There is nothing in herently "evil" about religion. It is indisputable that in addition to the litany of atrocities that can be rightly ascribed to religion a similar list of advancements and windfalls occur due to religion. Religion has helped millions upon millions of people survive and perservere through unimaginable hardships. Religion is responsible for the vast majority of the arts, even, indirectly, modern arts like rock and roll. Religious organizations consistently top the charts of non-governmental charitable contributions. Religions have been a major force for evil throughout the history of the world, this is true but they have also been a major force for good at times.

That's no reason to believe in god, of course. My main problem with religion is not that it's "evil," just that it is unnecessary. Yes it can, at times, grow into a force for misery and suffering but that's true of any ideology including libertarianism.

I also think that a secular atheist politician who refused to be browbeaten into submission on the subject would do just fine in a national election as long as he conveyed a sense to the public that he nevertheless possessed a sense of elementary morality. Where politicians get in trouble with religion nowadays is by treating like the rest of the issues: as an issue to finesse and tip-toe around. If you're going to be Catholic be Catholic. If you're going to be Jewish be Jewish. If you're going to be secular, than be secular.

|9.22.04 @ 9:22PM|#

"After 9-11 I honestly thought, for a little while anyway, that America would finally realize how dangerous and evil religion is. I'm still trying to figure out how one as cynical as I am can still be so naive."-Jennifer, that had to be one of the SILLIEST staements I've seen in a while. The Liberty you enjoy was created in a RELIGIOUS nation... review your history. Any way, Religion is dangerous, and WHO has killed more people, the Inquisition or the Gulag and Pol Pot? I would say, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot have wrought more havoc than any two or three religions combined.
Overall, this is one of the SILLIEST threads I've seen here. A vast majority of Americans religious or spiritual. Atheists represent a tiny minority of people. This article and thread seem foolish for this reason, imagine... "If ONLY this nation had 100 million Lance Armstrongs. The Automobile Lobby cvould be broken." or "If ONLY most Americans were Vegan, the Meat Lobby could be broken." Or "If only a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his arse when he jumps."
To hear a bunch of market oriented people complain that their "edsel" won't sell is hilarious. While you're at it extol Beta over VHS, too. The American political market is distinctly religiously oriented so those operating in it had best conform or expect low volume sales.
Finally, many of the Atheists I've met, only really on the Internet, really couldn't get elected because they are so damned arrogant and superior in their beliefs and actions. So, you need better "brights" whilst you're at it. Check out Lileks' discussion of the Matrix:Reloaded and his commentary on "The Church of No Particular Belief" and where that generally gets you.

|9.22.04 @ 9:25PM|#

"After 9-11 I honestly thought, for a little while anyway, that America would finally realize how dangerous and evil religion is. I'm still trying to figure out how one as cynical as I am can still be so naive."-Jennifer, that had to be one of the SILLIEST staements I've seen in a while. The Liberty you enjoy was created in a RELIGIOUS nation... review your history. Any way, Religion is dangerous, and WHO has killed more people, the Inquisition or the Gulag and Pol Pot? I would say, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot have wrought more havoc than any two or three religions combined.
Overall, this is one of the SILLIEST threads I've seen here. A vast majority of Americans religious or spiritual. Atheists represent a tiny minority of people. This article and thread seem foolish for this reason, imagine... "If ONLY this nation had 100 million Lance Armstrongs. The Automobile Lobby cvould be broken." or "If ONLY most Americans were Vegan, the Meat Lobby could be broken." Or "If only a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his arse when he jumps."
To hear a bunch of market oriented people complain that their "edsel" won't sell is hilarious. While you're at it extol Beta over VHS, too. The American political market is distinctly religiously oriented so those operating in it had best conform or expect low volume sales.
Finally, many of the Atheists I've met, only really on the Internet, really couldn't get elected because they are so damned arrogant and superior in their beliefs and actions. So, you need better "brights" whilst you're at it. Check out Lileks' discussion of the Matrix:Reloaded and his commentary on "The Church of No Particular Belief" and where that generally gets you.

|9.22.04 @ 9:31PM|#

Dude, you've made your point. Now please turn caps-lock off ?

|9.22.04 @ 9:37PM|#

Joe L,
The purpose of Hit and Run is to make each topic and its posts sillier than the previous.
You are mistaken that this is the silliest. I'm sure Cavanaugh can back me up here.

Back to your little drawing board 'til you can come back with something truly silly.

|9.22.04 @ 9:48PM|#

Posting For Jesus, you're wrong, most posts and threads are simply dull or repetitive... "Dubya's a GOOFBALL!" "Nu--HUH, is not, and any way Kerry is a Pinko-Commie Jane Fonda-Lover..." or an involved discussion of marginal tax rates or some such...and don't you forget it, you Pinko-Commie Jane Fonda Loving Faggoty-Assed LIBRULL Nyah so there!
Top THAT dude!

|9.22.04 @ 9:56PM|#

Joe L. wrote:
"The Liberty you enjoy was created in a RELIGIOUS nation... review your history."

Oh really? Take a look at this site:

http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html

Joe L. continues:
"Any way, Religion is dangerous, and WHO has killed more people, the Inquisition or the Gulag and Pol Pot? I would say, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot have wrought more havoc than any two or three religions combined."

OK Joe L., communism is worse than religion. You'll get no argument from me on that point. However, many (certainly not all) religious people are all too eager to impose their religion on others. That these religious bigots are less evil than communists does not mean that they are not evil. They pose a greater threat to my liberty than communists currently do.

|9.22.04 @ 10:00PM|#

"However, many (certainly not all) religious people are all too eager to impose their religion on others. That these religious bigots are less evil than communists does not mean that they are not evil."-Can't help you if you can't see the difference between the Mormons on your doorstep and the Gulag, dude...

|9.22.04 @ 10:02PM|#

Joe L.,

The Liberty you enjoy was created in a RELIGIOUS nation... review your history.

Perhaps, but out of principles which are starkly in contrast with much of the religious talk we see today. Furthermore, the Founders were hardly of one mind on the subject of religion, or its benefits. So the subject is far more nuanced than you allow it to be.

Any way, Religion is dangerous, and WHO has killed more people, the Inquisition or the Gulag and Pol Pot?

That's a fairly silly question, given the fact that far more people were around kill during the 20th century than at the time the first Inquisitional courts were founded in the 13th century. The fact that anyone was made to burn to death during the Inquisition, or the Protestant witch crazes in the British Isles or Germany is bad enough; I'm not quite sure where body count makes these acts of barbarism less worse than the barbarism perpetrated by Pol Pot or Stalin or even the United States. Indeed, if you "review your history," you'll find that English Civil War and the French and German Wars of Religion were nasty, barbaric affairs, which the Founders did much to learn from. In a word, yours is the silly argument - it does not consider the massive population differences over the time periods discussed, and it perpetrates a sort of moral relativism that I thought the religious eschewed.

Atheists represent a tiny minority of people.

So what if we represent a tiny minority of people? Does or should that by itself exclude us from the public square.

The American political market is distinctly religiously oriented so those operating in it had best conform or expect low volume sales.

Your argument essentially boils down to the old fallacious saw known as argument from popularity. To be blunt, a libertarian need not argue for government interference at the same time they argue that a popularly held belief is stupid, erroneous or otherwise unjust. Indeed, you practice by implication the same sort of murderous politics that you say you despise.

|9.22.04 @ 10:08PM|#

"The Gospels, like the rest of the Bible, contain enough ambiguities, contradictions, and translation issues to keep people arguing forever over "what would Jesus do?""

True, but I think the story of Adam and Eve is pretty straight forward about the freewill bit. In fact, I can't really think of anywhere in the Bible that actually promotes any kind of forcing of will outside of the family unit. There would have to be a lot of coincidentally placed translation errors or what have you to change that.

So, yeah, it's pretty hard to determine exactly what Jesus would do in every context, but it's fairly clear that he's all about the individual. The debate over the differences in translations, ambiguities over the text, and condradictions would probably only result in people disagreeing in which particular way the gov't should be limited.

Any tyrant who has caused strife in the name of the Bible has assumed that the authors meant to put "Make sure everyone" in front of any command. The Bible only tells you (pretend the word 'you' was italicized) how to behave. So no, Jennifer, religion isn't evil, people are.

|9.22.04 @ 10:09PM|#

"So what if we represent a tiny minority of people? Does or should that by itself exclude us from the public square." Dude you're not excluded... you confuse electoral success or acceptance with exclusion.
"Indeed, you practice by implication the same sort of murderous politics that you say you despise." Again perspective.. it's important. I don't see my friends loading "Brights" into the transports any time soon for transportation to the konzentrationlager.

|9.22.04 @ 10:17PM|#

Joe L.'s argument boils down to this:

Religions are better; they only killed x amount of people out of a smaller population than the communists did out of a much larger population.

I wonder, the true way to measure the difference would be to look at per capita deaths in the European wars of religion and various persecutions. Now as I recall, the witchcrazes (according to Robin Briggs) during the years leading up to and beyond the Reformation and counter-Reformation (1450-1750) some 50,000 people were executed for being a witch (about 25% of these were male). And much these executions were concentrated in particular areas such as the Bishopric of Bamberg or the Duchy of Westphalia or southwestern Scotland. Remember this is out of a population that only in 1750 reached 163 million, and only accounts for execution for witchcraft (not to mention significant numbers who died during the actual wars fought in Europe over religious belief, most of which saw mass executions of opposing adherents, iconoclasm, etc.).

|9.22.04 @ 10:21PM|#

Joe L.,

Dude you're not excluded... you confuse electoral success or acceptance with exclusion.

I'm not confusing anything; I'm calling you on your silly and stupid argument by popularity. And now I'm asking you to back up your other silly and stupid arguments.

Again perspective.. it's important. I don't see my friends loading "Brights" into the transports any time soon for transportation to the konzentrationlager.

That's beside the point and is a non-sequitor; this has everything to do with your notion of majority rule.

|9.22.04 @ 10:25PM|#

Anon,

Religion is no more evil than any other form of collectivism. Indeed, one of the things that religion and communism have shared historically is their general historical tendency to back government coercion so as to enforce their own particular moral code.

|9.22.04 @ 10:30PM|#

Joe L.,

I don't see my friends loading "Brights" into the transports any time soon for transportation to the konzentrationlager.

That's of course because religion has in many ways been de-fanged and put on a leash in America, its not because religion is somehow benign. Indeed, many of the Founders of this nation realized this, and thus worked to make sure that religion would not be allowed to harm the freedom of individuals as it had done in Europe.

|9.22.04 @ 10:33PM|#

Joe L.,

This is basically what I think of religion:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6074380/

In the broadcast, Swaggart was discussing his opposition to gay marriage when he said �I�ve never seen a man in my life I wanted to marry.�

�And I�m going to be blunt and plain: If one ever looks at me like that, I�m going to kill him and tell God he died,� Swaggart said to laughter and applause from the congregation.

|9.22.04 @ 10:50PM|#

There's a picture of God linked at Atrios.

|9.22.04 @ 11:18PM|#

"Can't help you if you can't see the difference between the Mormons on your doorstep and the Gulag, dude..."

I never said anything about Mormons, or others, who go door to door to promote their religions. The use of persuasion to promote religion is just fine. The use of government or other force to promote religion is not.

|9.22.04 @ 11:21PM|#

"I don't see my friends loading 'Brights' into the transports any time soon for transportation to the konzentrationlager."

Nor do I see any of my atheist or agnostic friends ramming airliners into office buildings.

|9.22.04 @ 11:54PM|#

True, but I think the story of Adam and Eve is pretty straight forward about the freewill bit.

Actually, even that's really open to interpretation. If one approaches it from the mainline Christian idea of God then it's true that it's perfectly straightforward. But if you look at it from the Gnostic perspective on God, which is about as reasonable if one is only considering the Old Testament, then the story takes on an entirely different light. The problem is that so much of the Bible was written by people who shared the same cultural background. This means that a lot of the really obvious cultural stuff wasn't written down because the writers assumed that the reader would already be familiar with it. This is why reading the Bible requires a lot more education than can actually be found in the Bible, and constitutes the major reason the Church kept the Bible in Latin for so long, if one wants to ascribe a benevolent reason to that particular action.

|9.23.04 @ 12:39AM|#

Stupidest. Column. Ever.

This is great:

"But is it not equally outrageous that, on today�s political scene, a secularist figure cannot express his views honestly without committing career suicide? Unlikely though it is to happen, a moratorium on God talk might level the playing field."

Hmm, what else don't I like? Perhaps we should tell liberals to stop with all the talk about expanding healthcare, because how can I as a libertarian say that health care ought to be paid by individuals without committing career suicide? Or those darn conservatives ought to stop talking about how bad drugs are, because how can I as a libertarian promote legalization without committing career suicide?

It would be great if those we opposed just shut up wouldn't it.

|9.23.04 @ 12:40AM|#

Stupidest. Column. Ever.

This is great:

"But is it not equally outrageous that, on today�s political scene, a secularist figure cannot express his views honestly without committing career suicide? Unlikely though it is to happen, a moratorium on God talk might level the playing field."

Hmm, what else don't I like? Perhaps we should tell liberals to stop with all the talk about expanding healthcare, because how can I as a libertarian say that health care ought to be paid by individuals without committing career suicide? Or those darn conservatives ought to stop talking about how bad drugs are, because how can I as a libertarian promote legalization without committing career suicide?

It would be great if those we opposed just shut up wouldn't it.

|9.23.04 @ 12:46AM|#

"many (certainly not all) religious people are all too eager to impose their religion on others. That these religious bigots are less evil than communists does not mean that they are not evil."

Stupidest comment ever. Its EVIL for people to try to convince others to agree with their way of thinking isn't it. Especially those libertarians who keep trying to IMPOSE their beliefs on me. I wont take it I tell you.

Personally, I think religion is no more inaccessible to non-followers than any other ideology. To try to convince people to agree with your ideology isn't imposing anything on anybody. To try to get the ideology's tenets imposed by law is no different than what any other ideology does. To disqualify one subset of ideology from the political realm is illiberal and intolerant.

|9.23.04 @ 12:50AM|#

Reg,

Its fairly obvious that the author meant imposition by force. Quit being purposefully obtuse.

|9.23.04 @ 12:52AM|#

True, but I think the story of Adam and Eve is pretty straight forward about the freewill bit.

Not really, since much of Genesis is used to back-up the claims of Calvinists.

|9.23.04 @ 12:56AM|#

But is it not equally outrageous that, on today's playing field, a racist figure cannot express his views honestly without committing career suicide? Unlikely as it is to happen, perhaps a moratorium on racial-issue-talk would level the playing field.

raymond|9.23.04 @ 12:56AM|#

I think the story of Adam and Eve is pretty straight forward about the freewill bit.

I do, too. God wanted people to stay stupid and obedient. When they decided not to, he punished them by giving them freedom.

(Actually, I think His injunction against eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a ploy. Reverse psychology. Like the English teacher who tells his students, "Whatever you do, do NOT read the Canterbury Tales. It's full of sex. You DO NOT want to read this!")

(btw, Is it any coincidence that "amygdala" contains _all_ the letters you find in "Adam"? I think not.)

Is that what you meant by "straight forward"?

|9.23.04 @ 5:58AM|#

For those who pointed out "it's not just religion that's bad--the Communists and Nazis were too!" I'd like to point out that the Commies and Nazis were evil precisely because of a trait they share with religion--the requirement that followers accept, on faith, something that cannot be proven. Communism requires faith in the idea that all people will become all gooey-eyed and in love with their fellow man as soon as society is tweaked just a bit, Nazism requires faith in the idea that blue-eyed blondes are superior to all other people whilst Jews are inferior.

ANY philosophy which requires one to elevate blind belief over reason will lead to catastrophe sooner or later.

|9.23.04 @ 10:32AM|#

I think the story of Adam and Eve is pretty straight forward about the freewill bit.


Free will for Adam and obedience for Eve? After all, Adam could not accept his equal in terms of Lilith.

fyodor|9.23.04 @ 11:12AM|#

"But is it not equally outrageous that, on today�s political scene, a secularist figure cannot express his views honestly without committing career suicide?"

Okay, okay, enough with all the freaking out about this. Cathy overplays her hand by calling it "outrageous." It's not outrageous, just kinda dumb. IMO. Because it's dumb to judge someone that way. I could go into why, but I think it's pretty self-evident. But there's worse things too, so there's really no reason to be outraged. Short people have a tougher time getting elected too. People having the freedom to express their dumbness just isn't all that outrageous. But to compare this statement to saying the same thing about racists would seem to indicate that you think electing a secularist is on a par with electing a racist, which is pretty damn dumb.

|9.23.04 @ 11:17AM|#

"I'd like to point out that the Commies and Nazis were evil precisely because of a trait they share with religion--the requirement that followers accept, on faith, something that cannot be proven."

Jennifer, please prove to me that all people are created equal, and have inalienable rights.

"We hold these truths to be self evident..." is a statement of faith. A faith I wholeheartedly subscribe to, but a faith nonetheless.

|9.23.04 @ 11:28AM|#

"To try to convince people to agree with your ideology isn't imposing anything on anybody. To try to get the ideology's tenets imposed by law is no different than what any other ideology does."

Bingo. Secularism and theism alike have a role in political discourse, but neither should institutionalized in law. It is as illogical to legislate submission to secularism - most communist states did just that, after all.

While at present it seems unlikely that a secular President could be elected, there is some history of unaffiliated and Deist Presidents:

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/List_of_U.S._Presidential_religious_affiliations

|9.23.04 @ 11:29AM|#

"Nor do I see any of my atheist or agnostic friends ramming airliners into office buildings."

Come on now. I have atheist and religious friends. None of them from either category have ever rammed an airliner into so much as a 7/11. Who was the last Presbyterian to ram an airliner into an office building?

|9.23.04 @ 11:32AM|#

Joe wrote: Jennifer, please prove to me that all people are created equal, and have inalienable rights. "We hold these truths to be self evident..." is a statement of faith. A faith I wholeheartedly subscribe to, but a faith nonetheless.

Rational human beings (the writers and signers of the Declaration of Independence) came to the rational conclusion based on analyzing their studies of philosophy, human affairs, politics, history, sociology, and science (and yes, religion) that human beings are "Created" equal (whether you believe that Creator is God, a Deistic God as many Founders did, or nature). This priciple can be logically supported by facts and sound reasoning that are grounded in objectively verifiable tests. See "Political system = Communism; Soviet Union" for a test which shows what happens this is not the case.

Faith is believing in supernatural claims from 5,000 years ago, from 2,000 years ago, as well as today, and accepting these claims without any evidence or even in spite of evidence to the contrary.

The "faith" you cite in "We hold these truths to be self-evident" (which I think is a mis-application of the word "faith") is not faith in any way that religious faith is.

|9.23.04 @ 11:45AM|#

JJB,

I used to have a roommate who assured me that the entirety of Catholic teaching could be arrived at rationally, and did not require a leap of faith.

The founders did not say, "These truths can be arrived at through reason..." The said that no reason was necessary, becasue the truths are self-evident.

Even if they had done so, simply assuring me that "smart people came to these conclusions rationally" doesn't even begin to approach the level of proof.

|9.23.04 @ 12:04PM|#

"ANY philosophy which requires one to elevate blind belief over reason will lead to catastrophe sooner or later."

Why do you think that? There are plenty of catastrophes among both religious and non-religious sects/societies. There are also plenty of religious sects/societies that have not ended in catastrophe. The Amish, for example, are very happy, harmless people.

|9.23.04 @ 12:18PM|#

Reg merely takes orders from the Master of Purposely Obtuse: joe.

Rather than refine, expand, or adjust the intent of Jennifer's post, our visiting dickhead attacks a brief construction of language. There is a choice between trying to understand and picking out flaws. In a limited blof format, linguistic flaws are abundant. We are not working with editors, nor spending hours in rewrite. We are just trying to communicate our thoughts at the moment. joe habitually takes the easy route of contrary argumentation. His great service is to remind us all that these are transient comments, not polished and eternal testimonies.

|9.23.04 @ 12:19PM|#

OK, so it appears Gary Gunnels has gone the way of Jean Bart (at least, I haven't seen anything from him in a while). Based on posting patterns, sentence structure, Gunnelesque statements (like "I'm not confusing anything; I'm calling you on your silly and stupid argument by popularity. And now I'm asking you to back up your other silly and stupid arguments."), and e-mail address, I'm assuming Jason Bourne is his new identity?

Back to the topic of the thread (or at least what has become the topic of the thread): do atheists honestly believe that they don't sometimes hold important beliefs that are maintained on faith without any decent evidence, let alone anything close to proof? They may not be as obviously irrational as some of the kookier religious dogma (insert your favorite example here), but I don't know anyone who doesn't have at least a couple of his or her own articles of faith they hold for convenience, mental and emotional health, etc.

Incidentally, I'm myself an atheist - a "soft" one, as I learned from Jean Bart back before his unfortunate bout with multiple personality disorder. But I'm tempted to go back to Catholicism sometimes when I hear some of my fellow athiests bloviate about how rationally superior they are and how evil religion is. But then I hear some Christians say I can't be a moral person because I don't believe in God, and it seems there's no room at that inn either. So I drink.

|9.23.04 @ 12:22PM|#

Mainly because the Amish are willing to abandon their faith when necessary--for example, deciding that modern technology isn't so bad when it can be used to cure ailments that faith, or faith-mandated 18th century technology, cannot.

|9.23.04 @ 12:26PM|#

By the way, my last post was meant to follow the statement about how the Amish have not yet come to tragedy. As for Joe's claim that "all men are created equal" is a matter of faith; well, perhaps he's right, but it is NOT something which requires faith elevated over reason. In other words, you can believe all men are entitled to certain basic rights without closing your eyes to various in-your-face facts. You can't do that with the Bible.

|9.23.04 @ 12:28PM|#

"Faith is believing in supernatural claims from 5,000 years ago, from 2,000 years ago, as well as today, and accepting these claims without any evidence or even in spite of evidence to the contrary."

Is there a name for this fallacy - defining a term by a tangential detail, so that your own behavior could never fall under that definition, despite having all of the central attributes of that term?

Another example is, "America's invasion of Iraq, overthrow of its government, appointment of a friendly regime, commitment of troops to keep that regime in power, and use of Iraq's territory as a base from which to project power throughout the region, couldn't possibly be imperialism, because we don't fly the American flag over their government buildings or make their schools teach in English."

|9.23.04 @ 12:29PM|#

"I used to have a roommate who assured me that the entirety of Catholic teaching could be arrived at rationally, and did not require a leap of faith."

Having just read the Catholic voter guide, I find that amusing.

http://www.catholic.com/library/voters_guide.asp

Proof that any old thing can be rationalized, I suppose.

|9.23.04 @ 12:43PM|#

Why did the Amish pick the mid 1800's as a stepping off point, technologically speaking?

I mean, when they quit moving forward their technology was state of the art for that era.

That seems whacky to me.

|9.23.04 @ 1:03PM|#

"I'd like to point out that the Commies and Nazis were evil precisely because of a trait they share with religion--the requirement that followers accept, on faith, something that cannot be proven."

So does having a favorite football team. The actual important detail that the Nazis and Communists shared was the lack of respect for individual dignity, which can be held with or without the belief that it comes from God.

'Another example is, "America's invasion of Iraq, overthrow of its government, appointment of a friendly regime, commitment of troops to keep that regime in power, and use of Iraq's territory as a base from which to project power throughout the region, couldn't possibly be imperialism, because we don't fly the American flag over their government buildings or make their schools teach in English."'

So it's OK to commmit this fallacy if you're arguing with the right winger in your head, I guess.

"Why did the Amish pick the mid 1800's as a stepping off point, technologically speaking?"

I've wondered the same thing many times.

TWC|9.23.04 @ 1:39PM|#

Reg, libertarians have good reason (pun intended) to beat up on religion, but it goes well beyond simple revulsion.

For many of them a nightly check under the bed to make sure Jimmy Swaggert ain't there is as routine as brushing their teeth before bed. And that preoccupation (sometimes bordering on obsession) sometimes spawns a vision that sees more of a threat from the religious community than really exists.

It's like being from Southern California and living in constant fear that one day you'll wake up and discover that the Bear flag has been replaced by the Flag of
Atzlan.

If the link doesn't work click on TWC.

|9.23.04 @ 1:41PM|#

Jason Bourne,

When I first read your excerpt from the MSNBC article about Jimmy Swaggart, I was chilled to think that people would laugh at a comment like that. But after reading the full article, I realize Swaggart was saying that he would be so beside himself he would lie to God, which is impossible. It was the lying to God part that brought out the laughter, not the killing a gay man part.

Now, the way that he made that "joke" was one of the more insensitive, and in my opinion, stupid, ways anyone could have done it. I don't believe most Christians, even Fundamentatlist Christians, would think that is a very funny joke, but not being able to tell a joke is not a crime.

I wonder how Swaggart would react if he were living in a predominately Muslim country, and a nationally televised Imam said something like, "You know, if a Christian approached me on the street and evangelized Christianity to me, I would kill him and tell Allah that he died." And Swaggart thinks that his words aren't an insult and that they wouldn't offend anyone? Puuuhleeeez. For someone who has supposedly devoted his life to helping other people, he demonstrated a surprising lack of empathy.

I'm sure there are plenty of Fundamentalist Christians who look at this and shake their heads in disbelief, just as I look at some of the statements people from American Atheists make and shake my head in disbelief. It's just too bad that the people who are genuinely helpful, regardless of their belief or nonbelief get so little public recognition.

|9.23.04 @ 1:48PM|#

What I want to know is when they'll be a place for *me* in the public arena.

I'm really sick of smoke filled boardrooms and what not. Sure it's nice to run things from behind the scenes, but just once I'd like to run on my own merits.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm meeting Stalin and John Wayne for drinks at the Pound and Pence.

|9.23.04 @ 1:53PM|#

Stop the presses! Something went over JDM's head!

Shocking.

James Blakey|9.23.04 @ 2:00PM|#

Wouldn't a comparison of presidents from a much earlier error show that we have gone from presidents who really aren't that religous, or put on public plays of religiosity to the pious clowns we have today?

Weren't most (a lot, some) of the founders, Deists or Unitarians? How would the fly today?

From the 1908 campaign:

http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/rants/0915almanac.htm

President Roosevelt appointed Taft his successor and the Republican Party nominated him to opposed William Jennings Bryan in the 1908 elections. Taft hated politics and only felt it his duty to run. At the time, an "anti-Catholic" movement was beginning in the US. Bryan's party had raised rumors that Taft's wife was a Roman Catholic � but the smear backfired when it developed that she wasn't and never had been.

Next, Bryan latched onto Taft's Unitarianism � a belief that God was not subdivided into three parts but was a unitary whole � and declared that "the American people would never elect a man President who disbelieved in the virgin birth and the divinity of Christ." This, in spite of Article VI, section III of the Constitution of the United States, which says, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United States."

Nevertheless, it was Bryan's third defeat for the presidency. Once president, Taft's opponents tarred him with favoritism toward the Roman Catholic Church because he had allowed nuns wearing religious garb to teach in government schools on Indian reservations. His detractors pointed to his contrary policy concerning clerical teachers in public schools. In defending this decision, while standing for re-election, Taft said his policy was to "encourage all the Churches wherever he could do so without making any invidious distinctions."

I think a long dead William Howard Taft is a much better choice than Bush, Kerry or even Badnarik.

James Blakey|9.23.04 @ 2:08PM|#

Wouldn't a comparison of presidents from a much earlier error show that we have gone from presidents who really aren't that religous, or put on public plays of religiosity to the pious clowns we have today?

Era not error.

More wisdom from Taft:

http://www.allthingswilliam.com/presidents/taft.html

Anti-Semitism is a noxious weed that should be cut out. It has no place in America.
~ William Howard Taft, Speech (1920)

I do not believe in the divinity of Christ, and there are many other of the postulates of the orthodox creed to which I cannot subscribe.
~ William Howard Taft, Letter to Yale University

I have come to the conclusion that the major part of the president is to increase the gate receipts of expositions and fairs and bring tourists into the town.
~ William Howard Taft

No tendency is quite so strong in human nature as the desire to lay down rules of conduct for other people.
~ William Howard Taft

The world is not going to be saved by legislation.
~ William Howard Taft, The President and His Powers (1916)

|9.23.04 @ 2:11PM|#

"Stop the presses! Something went over JDM's head!"

Yes. *My* head.

joe, you're at least good for some smile-inducing irony.

|9.23.04 @ 2:19PM|#

Still nothing to add?

Didn't think so.

|9.23.04 @ 2:22PM|#

For the, er, "differently abled" (that's you, JDM):

I wasn't trying to ascribe that idea to anyone in particular, but to provide an example of the fallacy I was talking about. Hence, the appearance of the phrase "Another example is..."

|9.23.04 @ 2:29PM|#

"the American people would never elect a man President who disbelieved in the virgin birth and the divinity of Christ." This, in spite of Article VI, section III of the Constitution of the United States, which says, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United States."

I see the irony, but isn't it apples and oranges?

The fact that I couldn't get elected dog catcher around here has no bearing on my ability to actually run for that office.

|9.23.04 @ 2:50PM|#

OK, I promise everyone else on the thread to do just this one more, then stop hijacking the thread.

"I wasn't trying to ascribe that idea to anyone in particular, but to provide an example of the fallacy I was talking about."

Ohhhhhhh! Thank God you explained what you were trying to do! I was verrrry confused! What would I do without the guiding hand of your extraordinary Genius! Forgive me, sir, for not rising to the level of your powerful debating techniques. I will at once remit myself to the local community college for some remedial classes in rhetoric.

|9.23.04 @ 2:59PM|#

Scott:

Rather than belief, how about faith? Faith is like agnosticism in that both say "it isn't proven true ; it isn't proven false." Agnosticism then says "I choose to act without assuming it is either true, or false". Faith says "I choose to act assuming it is true."

There's no logical contradiction with reality there. It's rational.

_larry

|9.23.04 @ 3:12PM|#

or, you could stop trolling, and try to contribute something to the discussion.

|9.23.04 @ 3:53PM|#

Shawn Smith,

When I first read your excerpt from the MSNBC article about Jimmy Swaggart, I was chilled to think that people would laugh at a comment like that. But after reading the full article, I realize Swaggart was saying that he would be so beside himself he would lie to God, which is impossible. It was the lying to God part that brought out the laughter, not the killing a gay man part.

Yeah, sure. :)

raymond|9.23.04 @ 3:56PM|#

As for Joe's claim that "all men are created equal" is a matter of faith; well, perhaps he's right, but it is NOT something which requires faith elevated over reason. In other words, you can believe all men are entitled to certain basic rights without closing your eyes to various in-your-face facts.

Could reason not have convinced the slave-holding Founders that their slaves were "men"? Could reason not have shown them that women, too, were "men"?

Reason certainly doesn't convince a whole lot of people in the US today that "unalienable" doesn't mean "alienable", or that the person on death row is also a man - whose right to life must not be violated.

A reasonable man (one with lots of fire power) might assent to the proposition that "Might makes right." (Reasonable, or Rumsfeldian. ) It's perfectly reasonable to believe that big strong bright white guys are Übermeschen while the rest of us (ie, you) aren't. Survival of the fittest and all that. If it makes sense in the animal kingdom, why not in that area of the animal kingdom inhabited by man?

Or perhaps we are all products of our genes or environments, fooling ourselves into thinking we possess free will when, in fact, what we do is predetermined.

(btw, I don't assent to the idea that "all men are entitled to certain basic rights". I believe that our rights are part of our nature. There's an immense difference.)

One can tell what a person believes by how he acts. I've chosen to believe in the principles of the Declaration of Independence and in the vision of Man which underlies them. Reason played a role in that choice. Reason also allows me to see the other possibilities, though.

I think assent is always a reasoning act. The reason may be faulty, but that's another problem.

|9.23.04 @ 6:42PM|#

The problems with faith, especially over reason include the following:
1. every single advance which most people believe has made our lives better, whether it be technological or sociological, has been vigorously opposed by men of faith. We're all familiar with various religious doctrines sanctifying slavery, the low status of women, the killing of people with different religions or tribal backgrounds, et cetera. While there are a lot of good-in-a-modern-sense religious people around these days (including many regular posters here), those people don't have good qualities because of their faith, but in spite of it.

Religious faith made it difficult to discover the principles of air pressure and the invention of the barometer; the Church considered such work subversive and heretical because they involved creating a vacuum, which Faith told the Church could not exist.

Can anyone think of a plausible reason why a scientifically primitive but essentially secular society might make it legally dangerous to experiment with the funny qualities air can have if it is trapped inside a little glass tube? Or discover that moons orbited Jupiter? Or suggest that disease is caused by germs, not evil spirits?Or any of a thousand other such examples?

Ed|9.23.04 @ 9:59PM|#

I realized there was no God when I was twelve.
I had always had my doubts...
What is taking the rest of the world so long?


Jesus satire for the Guilt-free and Unafraid:

raymond|9.24.04 @ 12:45AM|#

The problems with faith, especially over reason...

Faith and ritual are as much a part of human nature as reason or the fundamental rights.

Human beings can't not believe stuff. Reason often uses faith-based first premises to reach its conclusions.

Take scientists and the healing properties of various unicorn bits. Take getting on an airplane.

Modern science works for me. (While the idea of humours in the blood worked for the Greeks, I'm willing to go along with germs. - even though the only "proof" of their existence (insofar as I'm concerned) is the insistence of "experts".) And in 100 or 1000 years, people will look back and find my faith amusing. "Speed of light! Isn't that a HOOT?" "Bacteria? You've GOT to be KIDDING!" "Evolution? How cute!"


While there are a lot of good-in-a-modern-sense religious people around these days (including many regular posters here), those people don't have good qualities because of their faith, but in spite of it.

Oh, I don't know. I'd rather hang around with people who truly believe that "Love your neighbour as you love yourself" is the Law just because Jesus said something like that than with a social darwinist.

|9.24.04 @ 6:06AM|#

Raymond-
Good thing your friend is either ignorant enough or hypocritical enough to ignore the ninety percent of the Bible that says things like "kill the homosexuals" or "sell your kids into slavery" or "murder the guys in the next town over."

I don't understand the mindset of anyone who'd say "I admit ninety percent of this is wrong, but the other ten percent is not merely correct but divinely inspired! I, of course, pick and choose which parts I believe and which parts I don't."

Any answer to my question concerning the dismal record religions have in dealing with science via trying to outlaw it? Any reason why a secular government would attempt to outlaw antibiotic research, or the use of a telescope to make discoveries in astronomy?

HUman progress happens in spite of religion, not because of it.

|9.24.04 @ 11:24AM|#

Jennifer, how about a non-religious society (or individual) that decides nothing should to keep the poor from starving, because they've reasoned that we're better off with fewer poor people?

Ever read any Peter Sanger? The resources that get wasted on imperfect babies...

|9.24.04 @ 11:34AM|#

Joe-
What has that to do with anything? I said religion causes problems; I never said lack of religion automatically solves them.

By the way, how do YOU decide which parts of the Bible are the divine word of God and which parts are best ignored? I assume the part where Jesus said he has come to rip families apart is in the 'ignore' pile, along with the pro-slavery anti-woman bits.

Has anyone figured a serious answer to my question about why a secular society would want to outlaw scientific advancement as religious societies have? Somehow I doubt it.

|9.24.04 @ 11:35AM|#

Jennifer,

What about a rational, faithless society (or individual) who reasons that we're better off letting the poor starve, because we're better off with fewer poor people?

Have you ever read any Peter Sanger? All those resources wasted on keeping imperfect babies alive...totally irrational. Such a shame we have this irrational attachment to every single human life.

|9.24.04 @ 12:10PM|#

Jennifer,

I would say people who are extreme advocates of the precautionary principle along with the neo-luddites would tend to slow down scientific and technological progress. Neither of those movements are necessarily based on religious belief. I know of no society that (currently) takes those positions as their majority opinion, however.

|9.24.04 @ 1:47PM|#

Jennifer,

You seem to have a rather comically restricted view of religion based on your notion of how religious people have to address/deal with the Bible. Being religious, per se, offers no information about how to interpret the Bible. As you're presumably aware, there is a very broad continuum of ways that Christians, Muslims, and Jews interpret the Bible or various parts of it. Seeing all or part of it as metaphorical or "divinely inspired" rather than infallible and eternally true doesn't make anyone ignorant or hypocritical (and no, "divinely inspired" does not necessarily imply factual accuracy).
I was raised Catholic, and the core of Catholicism as I was taught it at the various churches I attended during my childhood and adolescence was found in the gospels and the teachings of Jesus. The goofy old testament stuff (with all the fantastic stories and self-contradiction) was there at times in services, but the gospels were always taught as the fundamentals of the faith, and those fundamentals were all about love of neighbor, compassion, humility, etc. We even sang a hymn called "They will know we're Christians by our love," not "They'll no we're Christians by our opposition to birth control, stem cell research, and homosexuality." I never once heard any opposition to any of those things during my relgious upbringing/education. It was not exactly some terrible collectivist Ayn Randian nightmare, and it certainly had nothing to do with any form of luddism. I'm no longer a believer, but the central message I was taught was a pretty sound one. And many people have and will continue to use it, or variations of it, to help make themselves better people, contrary to your incredible blanket statement that "those [religious] people don't have good qualities because of their faith, but in spite of it."
It has certainly been abused by various people at various times in history, but I don't know what philosophy, theology, or belief system hasn't been. That doesn't mean it's inherently bad. And all technological advancements have most definitely not been "vigorously opposed by men of faith." They have been vigorously opposed by _some_ men of faith - a rather important and not terribly complicated or subtle distinction. The same goes for religious justifications for slavery, subjugation of women, etc. And of course some of the most ardent abolitionists were "men of faith," and their justification was explicitly religious.

You also seem to have a very selective recollection of history, since you seem to be ignoring the fact that the large majority of scientific and technological advancements have been made by people who were religious. And Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have, among their many traditions, a tradition of valuing knowledge and understanding of the natural world as a way to glorify God. Obviously the ideal hasn't been accepted by all members or always practiced throughout history, and it's not at all hard to find gross violations of this principle in each major religion. But it's also not hard to find examples of its proper application.
And regarding secular governments/societies who've opposed scientific advancement, perhaps you're familiar with the proud history of genetic work under Stalin in the Soviet Union. The broadly accepted (and largely accurate) genetic basis for inheritance and evolutionary change was denounced as "reactionary and decadent," and scientists who didn't abandon it and accept the already-discredited version accepted by the Party were often imprisoned or "disappeared." If you're not familiar with it, it would be worth your while to look up Lysenko, among others. I know you've already dismissed examples related to communism and Nazism because they share qualities that you consider characteristic of religion. I don't know why that argument makes any more sense than saying that religion has gotten into trouble when it develops institutions that are characteristic of communism or Nazism. It seems to me the most reasonable and realistic approach would be to say that human institutions run into problems when a centralized organizational structure with a large amount of power and little transparency or accountability is formed. That phenomenon is neither inherent in nor unique to religion.

|9.24.04 @ 3:12PM|#

J-
You description of Soviet Lysenkoism once again proves my point--it's bad for people to believe anything without proof. There was as much proof(i.e., none) for what the Soviets were pushing as there is for what people of faith are pushing now. And I include secular Luddites in that category--they believe, without a whit of evidence, that lack of technology will improve the human condition.

|9.24.04 @ 3:52PM|#

Jennifer, the above post is a giant copout. Soviet Lysenkoism was entirely reason-based. They used their rational facilities to reason from the best information they had. You're post amounts to, "Oh I don't support BAD reason. I support GOOD reason. You know, where the reasoning is done well and the information people start from is reliable."

Well, you know what? I support GOOD religion, not BAD religion. And one of the reasons for my support is that its principles can serve as a break, a touch of humility, on arrogant logocentrism like yours, or (to answer your question) Peter Sanger's.

BTW, if I had even a shred of a hint that you were actually interested in learing about the Bible and the truth it contains, I'd be happy to discuss it with you. But since there's no better way to look dumb than to argue with someone determined to play dumb, I'll pass.

|9.24.04 @ 4:07PM|#

I support GOOD religion, not BAD religion.

Actually, I kind of like Bad Religion. They have some OK songs.

|9.24.04 @ 4:14PM|#

Joe-
Are you kidding? According to Lysenko, plants were good little Communists who would gladly share the resources present in soil; therefore, there's no need to pull weeds out of a garden. Where did this 'information' of theirs come from?

Incidentally, I used to be a devout Christian; reading the Bible (beyond the few Sunday-school stories my teacher gave me) is what made me lose my faith. C'mon, four Gospels with three different versions of the last words of Jesus? Having a lustful thought is the moral equivalent of acting on it? And I figured if Paul was right and God hated women that much, he should've made humans reproduce asexually.

raymond|9.24.04 @ 4:47PM|#

You're arguing against something I didn't say, Jennifer.

the ninety percent of the Bible that says things like "kill the homosexuals" or "sell your kids into slavery" or...

That's simply not accurate. Not at all.


I don't understand the mindset of anyone who'd say "... I, of course, pick and choose which parts I believe and which parts I don't."

Everybody picks and chooses everything he believes in. Even people who think they share the same faith don't believe the same things. Take Christians, for example:

type I: God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.

type II: I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

(There are other types.)

Even scientists disagree on what data mean - according to their beliefs. Read this, for example.

Any answer to my question concerning the dismal record religions have in dealing with science via trying to outlaw it?

Ignorance and fear are not strictly religious traits. Very often, I find, people use religion to defend their own positions. It's not the religion which is to blame. It's the human beings. (I think our problems with terrorism are pretty good evidence of that.)

Any reason why a secular government would attempt to outlaw antibiotic research...

Or stem-cell research? I can think of very good humanist reasons not to permit that particular kind of research.

Has anyone figured a serious answer to my question about why a secular society would want to outlaw scientific advancement as religious societies have?

Mengele carried out several interesting scientific experiments, some of the data of which are used even today, I understand.

Most modern secular societies would not allow experiments in the science of eugenics. Many secular societies outlaw animal experimentation.

-it's bad for people to believe anything without proof.

Relativity has not been proven. Evolution hasn't been, either. Yet, people accept both theories. Bad?

Euclidean geometry, with all its proofs, doesn't really work (in certain situations), so someone or other had to come up with nonlinear geometry. Quarks, positrons... Heck. No one has ever proven the existence of electrons to my satisfaction. And light? Is it a wave? Is it a particle?

What a weird bunch of beliefs. And yet, they work. In present, knowable circumstances.


ps - Did men walk on the moon? Prove it.

|9.24.04 @ 7:02PM|#

Raymond-
Nice way to deflect my arguments by changing them ever-so-slightly.

I deliberately avoided bringing up stem-cell research because I know there are valid non-religious reasons to oppose it; I asked instead about antibiotics, which were indeed opposed by many religious denominations back in the day. Interfering with the will of God, don't you know.

I talked about the banning of scientific discoveries like the four Galilean moons of Jupiter; you respond by talking about the murders of Dr. Mengele.

You claim the Bible doesn't call for the death of homosexuals? Or selling disobedient children into slavery? Your Bible must be radically different from the one that's been in general acceptance during these past 1,600 years.

And for all your sophistry, you are most likely intelligent enough to appreciate and even recognize the qualitative difference between the evidence in favor of evolution (fossil evidence, genetic evidence, the appalling evidence of various disease-causing bacteria who have in the last few decades evolved a resistance to the drugs we've been using to fight them) versus the evidence in favor of any particular religious faith (Scrolls written by a tribe of Bronze Age raiders roaming through Palestine; magical golden plates nobody else ever ever saw; an angel goes to the Arabian Peninsula and dictates something to a supposedly illiterate warrior).

So seriously, I would appreciate it if you could find any reason why such useful or innocuous discoveries should be suppressed, if not to prop up a mystical worldview which turned out to be utterly wrong about a lot of fundamental facts.

And if Joe is still here, I would still like to know he determines which parts of the New Testament are to be taken literally, and which parts are not. I assume he disagrees with Romans and the Revelation about gay people being wicked, and I also assume he believes divorce is a non-mortal sin in at least some cases, say a woman leaving an abusive criminal husband. And he'd probably let them talk in church, too, despite Paul's abhorrence to the idea.

And, of course, I could ask similarly barbed questions about practically any organized (or disorganized) religion, if I knew enough about its scriptures.

Whoa, seven o'clock. Gotta go.

|9.24.04 @ 8:01PM|#

raymond,

<pedantic>

Relativity has not been proven. Evolution hasn't been, either. Yet, people accept both theories. Bad?

That statement seems to be confusing the mathematical notion of "theory" with the scientific notion. Relativity, Evolution, Quantum Mechanics, etc. will never be "proven" the way mathematical theorems are proven. All scientific theories are simply explanations for some natural phenomena and for which, because of the large amount of supporting evidence, we can lend temporary assent. Any scientific theory can be overturned if new contradictory evidence is verified, but mathmatical theorems are overturned only if their proof is found to be faulty. I believe many scientists will tell you if you want proof, do Math, and if you want understanding, do Science.

Euclidean geometry, with all its proofs, doesn't really work (in certain situations), so someone or other had to come up with nonlinear geometry.

Well, actually, Non-Euclidean geometry came about because for multiple centuries mathematicians where trying to prove the Parallel Postulate by using only the other four. Nikolay Ivanovich Lobachevsky tried assuming a different parallel postulate that contradicted Euclid's, proving several theorems (a book's worth) and found trigonometry that didn't agree with what people knew about trig at the time (~1820s). That work became Non-Euclidian Geometry, which was then LATER used to describe new observations.

...no one has ever proven the existence of electrons to my satisfaction.

Do you have a competing explanation for all the repeatable observations made with respect to supercollider experiments? Do you even care? Kenn Amdahl wrote a book several years ago, There Are No Electrons, which described electronics for the interested layman, and proposed little green partaay-ers as a way to describe what we see in electronics circuits. An interesting, fun little book in my opinion. Of course, we can now "image" atoms using atomic force microscopes and scanning tunnelling microscopes, the former of which you can construct yourself (it's been done as a high school science project.)

And light? Is it a wave? Is it a particle?

I would say that under certain experimental conditions, we see effects that would be consistent with light being a wave, and in other experimental conditions, we see effects that would be consistent with light being a particle. But I am only a barely interested layman on the subject, and if you're really curious, I'm sure you can find much better explanations. Heck, you may already have them, and the question was rhetorical. In that case, I'm sorry for taking your time. thoreau? Any explanations?

Did men walk on the moon? Prove it.

What would constitute "proof" in this case? If we could construct a large enough and accurate enough telescope, we could probably see the footsteps if they were left on the side facing Earth. Of course, if you don't want to believe that men walked on the Moon, you would probably say that the telescope was modified, or the footsteps look like natural depressions, or whatever. Chances are, if you don't want to believe that men walked on the moon, or you just don't care about the subject, it's not worth your time or money to put in the effort to answer that question to your satisfaction. Again, if that question is simply rhetorical, I'm sorry for taking so much of your time.

</pedantic>

|9.24.04 @ 8:12PM|#

JDM wrote:
"Come on now. I have atheist and religious friends. None of them from either category have ever rammed an airliner into so much as a 7/11. Who was the last Presbyterian to ram an airliner into an office building?"

JDM, you're right. A tiny minority of religious people is capable of such a horrific act. It was not my intent to lump all religious people in with a few fanatical terrorists.

However, Joe L. raised examples of such evil secular movements as communism and Nazism. I merely meant to point out that our terrorist enemies seem, for the most part, to be motivated by religion.

raymond|9.25.04 @ 3:56AM|#

Jennifer -

I deliberately avoided bringing up stem-cell research because I know there are valid non-religious reasons to oppose it;

That's not the way it works, Jennifer. If you're arguing that secular societies do not do X, you can't come back and say, "Oh, I didn't mean _that_ X. Or the other X. Or any of the Xs that disprove my generalisation."

"All men are created equal."

"Oh, I don't mean HITLER! I mean men I like. NICE men. All NICE men are created equal."


You claim the Bible doesn't call for the death of homosexuals?

I don't mean to be snippy, but you have actually to read what I've written. Nothing I've ever said could be taken to present or endorse such a claim. "Ninety percent of the Bible" doesn't say stuff like that.


And for all your sophistry, you are most likely intelligent enough to appreciate and even recognize the qualitative difference between the evidence in favor of evolution ... versus the evidence in favor of any particular religious faith

"Evidence" is not "proof".

And, of course, I could ask similarly barbed questions

They're about as barbed as dandelion fluff.

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

Shawn -

I believe many scientists will tell you if you want proof, do Math, and if you want understanding, do Science.

But many scientists will understand what I'm driving at when I say "evidence =/= proof", right?

I found reading this page very educational. For one thing, it reminded me that I fall into the "most non-scientists" group. For another, it says this (which is what I was driving at in the first place):

Theories are always open to revision if new evidence is provided or directly contradicts predictions or other evidence. As scientists do not claim absolute knowledge, even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be incorrect if new data and observations contradict older ones.

Do you even care [about the existence of electrons]?

lol. Nope.

Chances are, if you don't want to believe that men walked on the moon, or you just don't care about the subject, it's not worth your time or money to put in the effort to answer that question to your satisfaction.

Exactly my point. We choose the level of evidence we are willing to accept to call something "true". We assent to what works for us.

Again, if that question is simply rhetorical, I'm sorry for taking so much of your time.

It was rhetorical (as was every question I asked in that post) , but I truly appreciate your taking your time to respond. If that's what being pedantic means, heck. I wish I were pedantic! It must be so much more satisfying than being a... sophist.

|9.25.04 @ 10:55AM|#

raymond,

Thank you for responding to my most. The link you provided was quite interesting, and explained science in a far more eloquent way than I did in my first paragraph.

As for being pedantic, there are plenty of situations where I have learned, after much experience, to STFU. It looks like this was not one of them. :-)