Heretical Harridan Remembered: She put the "0" in G-d

New at Reason: My tribute to Madalyn Murray O'Hair.

Comments

[Eric]

TJ,
Again, that's my point. To say there is no god requires a god-like knowledge of the universe. Like Asimov, one may suspect there is no god, but there's no way to KNOW it. In fact, humans can't know that, because we don't (and never will) know everything there is to know about our world.

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

When people make the comments that you have made about atheism, well it becomes fairly certain that (a) you have not really thought much on the topic, and (b) since that is the case, aren't really aware of what atheism is and is not.

"Religon requires people to open their minds and accept something that is not seen or heard. Atheism allows people to close their eyes and shut their ears, and then say there's nothing to see or hear."

This is such a canard; yes religions are so open to non-canonical, heritcal doctrines. That sound is me laughing at your pathetic attempts to insult and otherwise label atheists as close-minded.

[cdunlea]

Well, Ike now knows what the deal is. Rest in peace.

The problem with atheism is that it posits something: no god exists, perod. Never has, never will. But in an age where undefinable concepts such as "dark matter" and "dark energy" exist, where scientists know these things are real but cannot prove them, the claim that everything outside our sensory perception is an illusion and false is becoming increasingly naive.

To put it another way, radio wave theory was postulated in the late nineteenth century, but until Marconi you couldn't prove it to the proverbial housewife in Peoria.

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

"Again, that's my point. To say there is no god requires a god-like knowledge of the universe."

Please do try to discern the differences between weak and strong atheists. Your ignorance is so telling.

[Mark S.]

Religon requires people to open their minds and accept something that is not seen or heard."

Yeah believers are soooo open minded. Tell that to all the "pagans," "heretics," and--yes--atheists they've tourtured and executed over the centuries.

"Atheism allows people to close their eyes and shut their ears, and then say there's nothing to see or hear."

I quote Teller (of Penn & Teller fame--yes, he CAN speak): "Atheists do look for answers to existence itself. They just don't make them up."

[Jean Bart]

cdunlea,

"The problem with atheism is that it posits something: no god exists, perod. Never has, never will."

Please, would you also learn the difference between weak and strong atheists.

My goodness the level of prejudice and ignorance being displayed here by the theists is so revealing.

[Eric]

Eric: You may as well go "learn" about every other religion on the planet. Of course you can't literally believe in every religion because they are inconsistent. So the fact that a religion exists clearly cannot imply that its beliefs are true as that would lead to contradictory conclusions.

Isn't a little silly for theists to visit a site called Reason anyway?

[cdunlea]

Weak and strong atheists? Do I detect the scent of the Animal Farm here? Reminds me of the arguments described by Solzhynitsyn between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks after the Revolution.

Using pejoratives to define belief levels is akin to what every other faith-based organization in history has done, religious or otherwise. "Belief in the church/party/Supreme Leader is enough." Once you go down that road, you are a faith group, no matter the content of your beliefs.

[Jean Bart]

I also wonder why this woman is considered to be the prophet of atheists or some such; I am an atheist, and yet I have not read a single book of hers, or been to a meeting of her organization, or had anything to do with her or her group.

I think Eric does demonstrate how awfully ignorant most people are of atheists and the degree of bigotry and prejudice they have against them; we are the unclearn apparently and not fit for society (at least in America).

[joe]

For those of you who do not believe Atheism is a belief system, there is a DoD-approved athiest symbol soldiers can specify be inscribed on their headstone at Arlington National Cemetery. It looks like an atom with an A in the middle. A handful of patriot graves bear this symbol.

If atheism was always a lack of belief, then why wouldn't the soldiers have just left it blank?

"I dunno" is the answer of an agnostic. "There is no god" is the answer of an atheist. I suggest, JB, that a better word for your "soft atheism" is agnosticism, and you should drop the word "hard" from your "hard atheism" term.

[Shannon Love]

By using judicial fiat, O'Hair and others in similar cases created the modern social conservative monster. By short circuiting the democratic process she destroyed the slow but organic reform then underway and created and intense feeling of injustice and oppression in a large class of people who were otherwise largely politically inert. The long term effect of these actions could well be a deep and formal entrenchment of religion in the our political lives as the activist Judiciary is replaced or overruled by amendments.

The rule of elites never last.

[Jean Bart]

cdunlea,

"Using pejoratives to define belief levels is akin to what every other faith-based organization in history has done, religious or otherwise."

They aren't pejoratives at all (indeed a strong and weak atheist have no issue describing themselves as such - I am a weak atheist for example); and it is interesting that instead of actually doing a bit of research, you run with whatever cockeyed notions come to your head. Instead of maintaining your ignorance, please do go and do a bit of research on this.

[cdunlea]

And no, being an enthusiastic reader of Reason is hardly incompatible with having a theist belief system. Thomas Jefferson, Erasmus, Newton, Kant, and Einstein were all theists of varying degrees and types, but no one could reasonably consider them anything but rational men.

[Jean Bart]

joe,

Weak and strong atheism are the commonly used words amongst atheists; if you have an issue with that, well, big deal. And agnosticism is not weak atheism. An agnostic does not say that they do not believe in god(s); they claim that they do not know. A strong atheist states that not only does he not believe, he knows that God does not exist.

The ignorant theists here tend confuse strong atheists with all atheists of course; well, and this is rather circular I realize, because they are ignorant.

[Mark S.]

Shannon: OK, then what SHOULD have been done?

[Jean Bart]

Strong atheist: Does not believed; also knows that god(s) do not exist.

Weak atheist: Does not believe that god(s) exist.

Agnostic: Does not know whether god(s) exist; does not believe either way.

In the future, Eric, et. al., please at least inform yourself of the basic terminology involved in discussing atheism and atheists.

[TJ]

Eric,
"one may suspect there is no god, but there's no way to KNOW it."

Just because a thing cannot be proven to be false, does not mean that thing is true. I don't require formal proof of the non-existance of a great many silly things. Like god.

If I told you that last night space aliens visited me and told me there was no god, would you believe me? Why not? Do you have a "god-like" knowledge of the universe?

[cdunlea]

Jean, perhaps instead of living in your tower and insulting those of us not at your perfected Nirvana-esque state of wisdom, you could perhaps define these terms of weak and strong for all us little people. It is clear that more than a few of us are unaware of the terminology you embrace.

Are you saying that a weak atheist is, essentially, an agnostic? Are we sparring over semantics here?

[Jean Bart]

Strong v. weak atheism: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathq_strongweak.htm

Atheism FAQ: http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html#atheisms

Why I am forced to do your own research for you, you lazy bastards, is beyond me.

[Jean Bart]

cdunlea,

Perhaps you could get off your lazy ass and do some research.

[Jean Bart]

cdunlea, Erc, etc.,

BTW, these are not particularly exotic definitions and terms within the community of atheists; they are commonly used and are not considered insulting or pejorative. The fact that this is the case demonstrates that you are likely wholly ignorant of the topic of atheism and writing about this topic from your ass.

[JJB]

Joe wrote - "I dunno" is the answer of an agnostic. "There is no god" is the answer of an atheist. I suggest, JB, that a better word for your "soft atheism" is agnosticism, and you should drop the word "hard" from your "hard atheism" term.

So are you an agnostic with respect to invisible, immaterial pink unicorns? Of course not. If you were asked if you believe invisible, immaterial pink unicorns existed, you'd likely have a response comparable to the Asimov quote from above.

Eric's contention - "Again, that's my point. To say there is no god requires a god-like knowledge of the universe. Like Asimov, one may suspect there is no god, but there's no way to KNOW it. In fact, humans can't know that, because we don't (and never will) know everything there is to know about our world."

Well, according to Eric, we should all just curl up in the fetal position for life because we can never all there is to know.

Atheism does not claim to know all there is to know about the universe. However, it doesn't accept claims without evidence, especially claims that go against all the known and observable physical laws of the universe.

Back on topic:

I was raised Reform Jewish, and when I first intellectually decided that I might be an Atheist, I did a Yahoo search for "Atheism" to learn more about this. The first site I found was American Atheist's website. Reviewing the site confirmed my intellectual conclusion that I was an Atheist. For that, I am grateful to Madalyn Murray O'Hair, as this was the first resource that made me realize that while I'm in a minority, I'm not alone. After reading more about her life, I find she is one of the figures in American history that I greatly admire. She stood up for freedom from religion (which translates into freedom of religion as well) in repeated hostile environments. She faced death threats, property damage, threats to her children, etc. All because she was right - she was persecuted for being in a minority and for being right.

[Eric]

Jean Bart,
Aren't we touchy today.
My original remarks about atheism were measured, polite, and reasonable. I called no one names and cast no aspersions. You've responded with juvenile name-calling and insults.

To paraphrase, "By the quality of their arguments ye shall know them."

[cdunlea]

Jean, thank you for clarifying that. I can see why you label yourself a weak atheist, as it seems to be a reasonable position. A strong atheist by any other name is a moron. You can believe that X does not exist because you cannot see, hear, touch, or communicate with it and no tech we have will do that either, but to say you "know" it doesn't exist is impossible. Apparently it is a shade more certainty than an agnostic.

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

Let me give you a few examples of your "polite" and "reasonable" commentary:

"It is, by definition, a close-minded doctrine, since it refuses to recognize anything outside the sphere of its own limited experience."

"Atheism allows people to close their eyes and shut their ears, and then say there's nothing to see or hear."

Your comments were design to insult. That someone was offended by them should not be surprising. Yes, I admit I allowed you to troll me; but no further will that occur.

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

And if you are ignorant, you are ignorant; there is nothing particularly wrong pointing this out, indeed, it is really quite neccessary. If you don't like being ignorant, well, that is an issue for you to fix.

[TJ]

Shannon,

The problem is, this country was founded on secular ideals. The Bill of Rights (as it's commonly interpreted) states that the goverment must avoid the promotion of religion. Ms. O'Hair simply wanted the government to follow the rules. This was bound to piss off a bunch of Christians, whose religion requires them to proselytize, until all the heathens are converted (thank god they don't all heed the call). Thus there will be this tension in the country, until these Christians "back off", or the government gives in. I know which way I'm voting.

[Eric]

Jean Bart,
Again, those comments were directed at a doctrine or idea, NOT at an individual. Such mild rhetoric is hardly the stuff of insults. Much stronger stuff has been said about religon and Christianity.

[bcook]

"Why I am forced to do your own research for you, you lazy bastards, is beyond me."

perhaps because no one gives a shit about the differences between athiests who are pretty sure there's no God and athiests who are really sure there's no God.

you sound like a Scientologist desperately defending his clams, dude.

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

That is such a rank lie; if atheism is "close-minded" then so are atheists. Your comments were clearly intended to insult atheists personally.

As to what has been said about theists and the like, so what? Are you now trying to parade about this discussion the logical fallacy that "two wrongs make a right?"

[cdunlea]

BTW, I don't feel particularly compelled to research a topic when its chief proponent refuses to divulge the esoteric meaning behind his terminology, then wields it like a stick to beat the rest of us with. It's a lot easier to conclude you're just throwing up a straw man to defend an untenable position. It's not my job to look up weak and strong atheism if I don't introduce it.

[TJ]

Cdunlea,
"A strong atheist by any other name is a moron"

If certainty in the unprovable defines a moron, than by that same logic, so is anyone who believes in god.

The phrase "hoist by your own petard" comes to mind.

[Jean Bart]

bcook,

If you don't find the distinctions meaningful, fine. As to my "clams," I am making non, except that atheists are a very diverse set of people, and that despite Eric's attempts to label all atheists as "close-minded," were are nothing like that at all. I neither expect nor desire to make a theist an atheist; those sorts of decisions, are to be frank, personal and individual. I can say, however, that such an attitude has not always been common amongst theists.

[Jean Bart]

cdunlea,

"I don't feel particularly compelled to research a topic when its chief proponent refuses to divulge the esoteric meaning behind his terminology, then wields it like a stick to beat the rest of us with."

Another rank lie; I have done nothing but divulge its meaning; and done so repeatedly.

"It's a lot easier to conclude you're just throwing up a straw man to defend an untenable position. It's not my job to look up weak and strong atheism if I don't introduce it."

Please do look up the definition of what a straw man is and is not. 🙂

[Jean Bart]

TJ,

You are right on track. Strong theists have the same issues as strong atheists do.

[Jean Bart]

cdunlea,

And if your entire argument is that its alright for you to comment on things that you have no knowledge of, well, that's fine I suppose; ignorance is bliss I have read; of course that makes you a fool, but fools can be good for entertainment purposes.

[Eric]

Jean Bart,
Not gonna let you cast aspersion on my comments. Assigning characteristics to a doctrine does not automatically assign those characteristics to those who follow that doctrine. Sorry you can't see the difference.

[Mark S.]

"The problem is, this country was founded on secular ideals. The Bill of Rights (as it's commonly interpreted) states that the goverment must avoid the promotion of religion."

The trouble is that although our government was founded by secularists, it was populated by religious nutters. Dan Savage said it best: "We got the Puritans, while Canada got the French."

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

"Assigning characteristics to a doctrine does not automatically assign those characteristics to those who follow that doctrine."

If atheism is categorically "close-minded" (and that is the implication of your statements), then how, pray reveal, could an atheist not be "close-minded" by neccessity?

[TJ]

JB,

"Strong theists have the same issues as strong atheists do."

In the sense of a formal lack of proof regarding the existance of god, I suppose so. However, there are so many other reasons to reject Christianity that I label myself a strong atheist, with respect to that religion.

For instance, if there is / was a "god", why should we suppose all the strange and fantastical behaviour Christianity ascribes to him / her / it?

As Einstein said: "I wonder if there is a god, did he have a choice (in the creation of the universe)"?

[Mark S.]

Shannon: I think the flaw in your argument is that you assume that society would eventually embrace a more secularist veiwpoint if O'Hair had done nothing. I don't see history as this Whiggish march to "our illustrious selves." History is full of twists and turns.

We don't know what would have truely happen if the issue never reached the Supreme Court. Maybe things would have turned out as you said, or maybe the holy rollers would have found something ELSE to get angry about (they seem to like that). Who can say?

[Jean Bart]

Eric,

How does one come to being an atheist, without being "close-minded" in other words, when the so-called doctrine is "close-minded?" At best your comment allows for naive or deeply mistaken atheists; it does not allow for atheists of good conscience, atheists who have come to their decision via reasoned and open processes.

Or to be more blunt, if I were to write that "theism is closed-minded," I would expect you, the theist to be rather insulted by such a statement. Indeed, I would, never, ever state such a thing; in fact, I believe theists have very valid, reasonable reasons for taking the stance that they do. I simply disagree with them. Which makes one wonder; who is really "closed-minded" here? 🙂 I think, to be frank, its you.

[TJ]

"The trouble is that although our government was founded by secularists, it was populated by religious nutters."

Oh yeah. Can I hear an amen to that!

[Douglas Fletcher]

Okay, now let's talk about sex.

[Shady O'Grady]

For those of you who think that strong atheism is as unreasonable as a religious doctrine, I would point out that there are logical arguments that can lead one to believe that there is no god. The paradox of omnipotence and omniscience is one of them, many more are spelled out in a wonderful book, Atheism: The Case Against God. Of course, these arguments are dependant on the definition on gives of "god".

"You actually prove my point. How can I recognize something outise my sphere of experience? Easy - by learning about it. After all, I can never experience the Middle Ages, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist."

Eric, this analogy does not seemlessly follow into the idea of knowing god, does it?

[B.P.]

JB -- If you introduce new and exotic terms to the debate, it is indeed incumbent upon you to go ahead and define them if there is any confusion (which, admittedly, you did, while complaining about having to do so).

Or you can just call someone ignorant 25 times or so (while claiming that calling such person ignorant was not meant to be offensive and simultaneously taking extreme offense at a similar call by such person... good grief!)

And the icing on the cake -- a jab at someone for a typo, while following it up with a couple of typos. Geez, I need to redirect my energy in this life.

--fellow soft- weak- nonmilitant- whatever- atheist

[J. Alexander Lowman]

cdunlea said: "But in an age where undefinable concepts such as "dark matter" and "dark energy" exist, where scientists know these things are real but cannot prove them, the claim that everything outside our sensory perception is an illusion and false is becoming increasingly naive."

But if scientists can't prove dark matter and dark energy, how do they "know" these things are real? Sorry, but it's far from certain that these things DO exist. But just as I am an atheist who wouldn't be shattered if someone could finally prove there is a god, I wouldn't be shattered if they finally discover dark matter exists, but I would be surprised.

[Jean Bart]

B.P.,

"If you introduce new and exotic terms to the debate, it is indeed incumbent upon you to go ahead and define them if there is any confusion (which, admittedly, you did, while complaining about having to do so)."

I did so; and I complained about the laziness of some individuals. I have expectations of people when they comment on a subject; if they do not live up to them, then I can tell them so. And to be frank, the difference is that I am talking about an individual and his/her actions; I am placing a broad label on all theists (or any other group).

Shady,

Yes, its a rather dense and inapt analogy.

[Russ]

Eric's comments make it abundantly clear that atheists still have work to do just to be accepted.

I'm starting to gain a greater appreciation for how gays must feel.

I wonder if the "faithful" fear that their kids will be turned into atheists if they let them get too close to one of us?

[TJ]

B.P.,

"Strong" and "weak" atheism qualifies as exotic terms? I would suggest that if you aren't familiar with these terms, and you are thinking about posting on a blog about atheism, just save everyone the trouble and hit the back button now.

[Jean Bart]

Correction:

I am not placing a broad label on all theists (or any other group).

[Pavel]

Regarding strong vs. weak atheism, if someone could explain the critical difference between "I don't believe that X" and "I know that not X".

1) What's the difference between believing that not..., and not believe that...

2) How exactly would you claim to believe something without claiming to know it.

I personally prefer the Brights version of atheism more succinctly defined as naturalism and a disbelief in supernatural explanations.

Although I essentially agree with the strongest of atheist claims, there's a big reason I, and I suspect many others, don't like to identify as atheists. Most atheists I've encountered grossly misapprehend religion and its importance. They're generally logic and science oriented people. And they treat theism as some sort of failed extension of science.

Richard Dawkins (especially with his last book) is a fine example of this. He claims religion is a scientific theory like any other, except it is wrong in its predictions.

I see this as woefully inadequate. Religious claims are generally holistic and broad worldviews and should be responded to in kind.

[Jean Bart]

Pavel,

I think you create a false caricature of atheism and atheists that is as deeply flawed as Eric's. Its certainly not the atheism I identify with, nor the majority opinion of the atheists I know.

[Jean Bart]

Pavel,

As to strong v. weak atheism, well, one can ask the following:

What is the difference between believing something to be true (or false) and knowing something to be true (or false)? A strong atheist claims that they know god(s) do not exist; it is a more absolutist claim that what a weak atheist states. As a weak atheist I merely state that I believe god(s) do not exist; it is a far more provisional statement in other words.

[God]

I blessed you minds that are be capable of dismissing random assertions. I am very dissappointed.

[kmw]

Oh, the pain. This is exactly why I keep my lack of theism to myself. Most of the US population believes in a god for emotional, not rational reasons. And they can?t distinguish between logic and fallacy if their life depended on it.

Of course, they?re all too quick to tell you you?re a worthless person before telling you how closed minded you are.

[joe]

Jean Bart, I have written nothing about atheists or atheism that could remotely be considered impolite. I even wrote a laudatory sentence about the good that Ms. O'Hair has done. The sum total of my failings has been to be unfamiliar with your terminology, and suggest that it is less than clear. In short, I have done nothing to justify the pissy, petty flaming you have spewed at me.

Knock it off, or I'll shout German at you, and snicker at your soiled drawers, you unhygenic excuse for a hairdresser's bitch. You may flame with all justification.

[Jean Bart]

kmw,

One of the reasons why I am leaving my position in America is due to the hostility towards atheists I experience here; and I live in New England.

[some guy]

joe,

the symbol you descibe is that of the American Atheists organization. It could be that the DoD, not knowing any better, thought that the symbol represented ALL atheists. Possibly the soldiers chose the symbol solely to stand apart in death from the rampant theism of the US armed services they had to endure in life.

I don't see how the refusal to posit the existence of a higher being is a belief system, though.

[TJ]

Pavel,

I am very much a "logic and science oriented person". I don't "treat theism as some sort of failed extension of science". I treat religion (Christianity) as a bizarre fable.Some of the fable is entertaining, some of the fable is disgusting, some of the fable is ridiculus. Just like the Greek or Norse myths.

However, some people use religion to make specific claims that are testable with the scientific method. Those that are interested should test these claims and publish the results.

Some people use religion to claim that their worldview is supported by god, and that anyone without that worldview is inferior. If this is an example of a religious claim that is a "broad worldview", I agree that it should be responded to "in kind". Whatever the hell that means.

[Dan]

There's a reason few people accept atheism. It is, by definition, a close-minded doctrine, since it refuses to recognize anything outside the sphere of its own limited experience.

Like the saying goes, atheists just believe in one fewer gods than Christians do. Pretty much no matter what your religious faith may be, there are tens of thousands of gods you don't believe exist. For example, it was once widely believed, in Greece, that many gods lived atop Mt. Olympus. Today, in Christian Greece, virtually nobody believes that. Closed-minded? Perhaps.

At the same time, it assumes a total knowledge of everything in the universe, enough to proclaim that there is nothing else out there. I'm sorry, that just doesn't seem reasonable to me.

All of the gods that humans believe in either interact with humans or have in the past, directly or indirectly. It doesn't require a "total knowledge of everything in the universe" to discuss the existance or non-existance of such gods anymore than it requires a "total knowledge of the world" to prove or disprove that Parisians live in Paris. There may well be some "god" living on Mars, with powers only to affect Mars and Martians -- although that would be a poor sort of "god", in my opinion. However, even if such a deity did exist, it wouldn't change the fact that the Christian God doesn't. 🙂

[Jean Bart]

joe,

Well, first, I never used the words "soft" and "hard" to describe the differentiation between atheists; so where you came up with those I can't say.

Second you tried, rather foolishly, to lecture me on the terms I may and may not use.

Third, if you will notice my statement concerning "ignorant theists" was not addressed specifically at you; which is why I dropped the comment into a seperate statement, and made it a general rather than a specific one. If I want to insult you, I'll do it deliberately. So fuck off. 🙂

[Russ]

Pavel,

Your question about the difference between "I don't believe in the existence of God" and "I know that there is no God", is an important one.

The scientific method follows the following process.

As a question: "Is there a God?". Pretty basic so far.

Formulate a falsifiable hypothesis: "There is no God". This is falsifiable because any single observation that provides evidence of a god will immediately cause us to reject the hypothesis. We cannot use the hypothesis "There is a God.", because any observation that does not provide evidence of divine existence would be insufficient to reject the hypothesis. You would need an infinite number of non-sightings before you could conclude that the hypothesis should be rejected.

Devise an experiment that can lead to rejection of your hypothesis: "To experiment I will observe every available scenario where the existence of a god can be observed. I would have to reject my hypothesis that there is no God, if in any circumstance or occasion, the existence of a God is observed."

Make a prediction of the outcome of your experiment: "If there is in fact no God, then no existence of such a god will be observed."

Record observations: "To date, in all of my observations, no existence of a god has been observed".

Test your hypothesis: "I cannot reject my hypothesis that God does not exist, thus I cannot believe that God does exist."

This is quite different from saying "I know that God does not exist" which would require actual evidence of non-existence... something quite impossible to attain.

Does that help?

[TJ]

JB,

Regarding leaving America, you might try the Pacific Northwest. Highest percentage of unbelievers out here, according to the polls. Must be all those high tech workers :-).

[Jean Bart]

TJ,

Well, I believe it is time for me to return to Europe; I have been living in America for approximately ten years now. I like America a great deal; but being an atheist in America is not a particularly easy task. But I have other reasons such as my aging parents and I want to retire within five to six years so as to work on our family winery and it is easier to prepare for this if I am working in Sweden.

[dhex]

jean bart - i'm sad to say it, but the majority of self-proclaimed atheists i have come in contact with personally - as opposed to electronically - have pretty much been complete nitwits. reflexive fundamentalism isn't attractive past the age of 19 or so (religious or secular). this is as opposed to people i know who either don't believe in god or don't care - they could be actively grouped as atheists or agnostics or lapsed/apostate catholics/muslims/jews depending on who is doing the grouping.

and though i can remember catching a shitload of flack in middle and high school (public no less) from both teachers and students, i can't really say i've ever experienced any discrimination beyond that, and i'm more or less open in regards to my personal belief structure, or lack thereof. i'd be curious to hear some stories.

for what its worth, i'm getting married next month in a catholic church. i had to have the "are you sure you don't wanna be one of us" talks with the officiating priest, but he's still doing the marriage. my wife in training has to sign one of those "i shall endeavor to make the offspring catholic" but beyond that he wasn't too bad. it probably helps that i'm well-versed in catholic theology, the last 30 minutes of our 1 1/2 hour conversation was on the "cloud of unknowing."

[TJ]

dhex,
"the majority of self-proclaimed atheists i have come in contact with personally - as opposed to electronically - have pretty much been complete nitwits."

Thats a real shame. I have had just the opposite experience, and I have met a lot of atheists, most here at work. Perhaps I live a sheltered life, working in the scientific / engineering community.

"i shall endeavor to make the offspring catholic"
Just one of the reasons I got married in a civil service. My wife would have decked the priest.
Or laughed until she wet herself. One of the two.

[SM]

Jean Bart,

Will you continue to post on Hit & Run once you return to France ? If not, then where will you find a regular diet of ugly Americans to insult ? 😉

[garym]

Eric,

Knowledge of the Middle Ages, to cite your example, is not knowledge outside of experience. True, what I have experience of is not the Middle Ages; it is experience of accounts and, in a few cases, personally viewed objects left from that time. It is also experience indirectly derived from the direct experience of people who lived in that time, or who have direct experience with materials from that time.

If your claim is that atheism is based on denial of anything outside direct, personal experience, how do you account for the fact that virtually all atheists regard some historical accounts as valid, and acknowledge the existence of places we have never visited? What does your claim that atheist epistemology permits only personal observations of the subject matter rest upon, given that few if any atheists either assert such an epistemology or live by it?

What I reject is claims of that which cannot be exprienced, which by the nature of the thing being claimed has no supporting evidence in the range of anyone's experience. That was what I assumed that you meant: that God is something that transcends human knowledge, but that we should accept God's existence nonetheless. If you're claiming that atheism relies on the rejection of all indirect information, I have no idea how you arrived at that conclusion.

[Pavel]

Jean Bart,

Re: weak vs. strong. I think I understand what you're saying. "Believing" sounds less commital than "knowing." However, I can't think of any example where it makes any difference whatsoever. Unless you can think of a case where you would make claims of believing things that you don't know or know things you don't believe.

I don't know about your particular epistemology, but I don't believe something unless I think it both true and justified, and therefore knowledge.

It's like those people that say "Well I think that X" instead of just saying "X." It's meaningless rhetorical humility.

TJ,

I didn't mean to make generalizations about all self proclaimed atheists, nor claim that some religious beliefs aren't scientifically testable.

What I am claiming is that most atheists I know seem too content to lump together every kind of theism and give it a pat "atheist" response. Maybe not you, maybe not your atheist friends, but in general, I see this tendency.

Logic and science are great, but they have to be couched in a deeper cultural and social understanding of the root reasons for theism's popularity in different parts of the world. For atheism to have any effect, in my view, it has to have as many versions as there are versions of theist belief.

[Jean Bart]

SM,

Well, I can continue to post yes; but I don't think I insult Americans for being Americans. Some Americans are simply jerks; I think this is true of any nationality. 🙂 Anyway, France has a lot of Americans living there, so if I want to find one to insult I simply am required to go to the cafe. 🙂

[Shady O'Grady]

dhex,

I guess it is really not that difficult to live among the opium-addicted masses if you take part in all of their rituals and act exactly as a theist. Most theist don't really know what they are supposed to believe anyway, so that would not make you and them much different.

On the other hand, if you are bothered by the fact that we live in a country that mentions god on our money, in our schools, at the begining of every action of every branch of our government then it is harder to accept the hyper-religious status quo. I was in a court case a month ago and I was asked to swear on the Bible. I did it, because i figured chances are the tight-ass judge was a christian and I didn't need him thinking about my decision to decline. I actually wrote the ACLU about it afterwards, they told me they weren't interested. The fact that the one instution that is supposed to be studying our rights under a microscope would accept swearing on ONE RELIGION'S SCRIPTURE at the begining of judicial proceedings is proof positive that we still live under religious rule.

[J]

dhex,
"the majority of self-proclaimed atheists i have come in contact with personally - as opposed to electronically - have pretty much been complete nitwits."

I?m sad to say I?ve encountered a fair number of this sort of atheist too. Too often, they?re more than willing to paint all theists with a very broad brush as suckers/yokels/weak, stupid sheep. But then, I?ve also encountered a fair number of theists who fit the same description with regard to their religious beliefs or lack thereof.

Even on this thread we had early on a statement about atheism being ?close-minded,? and this was followed by ?this is such a canard; yes religions are so open to non-canonical, heritcal doctrines? (presumably sarcastic?) and ?yeah believers are soooo open minded. Tell that to all the "pagans," "heretics," and--yes--atheists they've tourtured and executed over the centuries.? All of those statements seem to me to be way too broad. It?s almost stupidly obvious to point out that, yeah, people have done some pretty nasty stuff in the name of some god, and yeah, some religions or religious groups are absurdly rigid/dogmatic/orthodox/etc. But it seems just as obvious that a lot of good has been done in the name of god too, and (at least in my experience) some religious groups are comfortable with or even actively encourage ?difficult? questions about faith or non-faith.

This is one reason I look forward to Cathy Young?s columns so much; she seems to try very hard to sort out the valid/positive aspects of each side. On rare occasion I think she goes a bit far with this, but better to go a bit too far than to come up way short?.

[SM]

Dan,

"Like the saying goes, atheists just believe in one fewer gods than Christians do"

Good point. I suspect that Eric's "open mindedness" & readiness to accept points of view outside his own "limited experience" is constrained by the doctrines of his particular religion (some denomination of christianity i'm guessing). I doubt he is going to be very open to the possibility that the greek pantheon is "the real thing" and everything else is a myth ? Am i right, Eric ?

"There's a reason few people accept atheism."
There could be all kinds of good arguments against atheism but numbers don't prove anything.
To paraphrase Antole France - just because 25 million people believe something foolish doesn't make it any less foolish.

[dhex]

TJ: well, maybe it is due to where you live/work. and i'm not saying all atheists, but rather the american atheist style of "hey, i'm an atheist! don't got no funny myths here! whoo! rationality! WHOOO!"

they're on par with most fratboy-esque fundamentalists. in fact, if they could ignore each others' theological obsessions for a moment, the two groups would probably find a whole hell of a lot of common ground. being nitwits, for instance.

FWIW, my wife-elect wanted the church wedding because of a rather complicated and convoluted sense of form. it's about as religious as admiring a work of art. i think she may regret that decision now, but since we're not planning on children the joke's on the church. one of many, i'm sure...

i do, of course, feel like a fucking heel giving money, however little, to the rockville center diocese (some of the more creative applications of aiding and abetting child abusers came out of there) but there are some arguments you cannot win.

pre cana was an interesting time, until the whole "apostate/agnostic/not completely on our team but he seems like a nice guy" script kicked in when i mentioned i was not practicing/agnostic/spiritually apathetic. having never been confirmed, most catholics seem to view me as some sort of rubicon...so close, yet so far...

if anything, i recognize that everyone's doing what they have to be doing at that moment in time - i.e. they can't help themselves. it's somewhat patronizing towards the catholics, but it beats outright scorn in my book.

[dhex]

"The fact that the one instution that is supposed to be studying our rights under a microscope would accept swearing on ONE RELIGION'S SCRIPTURE at the begining of judicial proceedings is proof positive that we still live under religious rule."

shady...i think you should have refused, personally, but that's just me. i don't think it would have mattered one way or the other, you would just have sworn on yourself or whatever. you gave in because you were scared about consequences, real or imaginary, and making assumptions that the world around you is populated by people unwilling or unable to transcend their personal opinions for the sake of their office.

as for the rest of it, you're full of shit. yes, we have an ostensibly religious culture. which is not the same as religious rule. it's not even fucking close. we symbolically pledge a flag as well, yet i don't particularly feel compelled to act a certain way around flags. i don't salute them either, being specifically opposed to the worship of objects on the grounds that it's fucktarded. but even that doesn't interfere in my life, nor does it engender ill will from others.

viewing such things as coinage and the words of politicians(!?!?) as evidence of an overtly religious cultural force at play is tantamount to viewing washington dc's architecture as proof of the pagan vulgarity of our government.

thinking of most of the population as sheeple is a great way to paint yourself into a tiny, bitter little box. it's how the fundies got so hung up on SRA and the wickedness of rock music and modern culture in the first place.

besides, if you're smarter than the rest of them, then surely you're smart enough to carve out a space for your ego and your life amongst the sheep and ignore their bleatings.

[Shady O'Grady]

I should have called it a de facto religious rule but I stand by my words. These artifacts have more than sybolic significance when we are moving towards faith-based government subsidies and banning gay marriage on moral reasoning. We have a president who is guided by god. We have a president who is guided by god. Its not supposed to be a religious rule on paper, yet...

I had thought about the swearing in factor and I had always thought I would refuse, I knew it was my right to do so. But when it came down to it and $1200 was in the balance, I didn't, and I will give you my split second reasoning. The vast majority of the country is christian, that is a given. People identify with others on conscious and subconscious levels, that is true too. A non-christian judge would be used to people swearing, so I did not think it was a possibility that it would be a detriment. Swearing on the Bible could only help, even if by a miniscule amount, so I did.

But lets not look at my cynical ploy to gain the judges favor and look at the act of swearing. What is the government saying here, what is the assumption? That someone must be accountable to the christian god if they are to be expected to tell the truth. It wasn't very long ago in some parts of this country that an atheist was not allowed to give sworn testimony. It wasn't very long ago that the ten commandments were displayed on just about every public building in the south. As a nation, we are not intellectually that far past that point. From your perspective we may be in a religoun-free environment. When it comes to religion, I am in that tiny, bitter box, you are too. Being jolly about our plight does not change that.

[Shady O'Grady]

Tell a veteran's grop about your unwillingness to pledge to the flag and see how much ill-will you will engender. I am guessing you, as all of us, hide these feelings.

From a historical perspective, when it comes to religious people I don't think it is prudent to assume that they will be tolerant. Why should they? Their belief system is diametrically opposed to mine.

[Russ]

As far as conforming with the prevailing religious customs goes, I'm entirely indifferent.

If I'm asked to place my hand on a Bible, I couldn't care enough to object. It might as well be a Tolkien novel... an irrelevant but action-packed work of supernatural fiction.

I wouldn't object to getting married in a Church, if my partner felt strongly about it. Heck, at dinner, I even bow my head politely as people say 'grace'. Granted, I don't join in, and if asked to lead the prayers I decline. I would expect them to respect my beliefs as much as I respect theirs.

While I don't particularly like to see reference to God on my money, I find that it spends just the same. Given the choice, I'd remove it, but it's not really worth the effort.

I don't sing national anthems, but that has more to do with my lack of patriotic fervour than any specific divine references contained therein.

If you don't believe in god, then why should you care if others do. As long as they aren't forcing you to conform, or harassing you for your beliefs, I couldn't care less.

[Critic]

It's very simple, really.
Theists, UFOlogists, conspiracy theorists, etc. allow the arbitrary to rule their thought processes. "God exists" is an arbitrary, unprovable statement. That many adult theists cling to their childish beliefs is fascinating. Too bad so many millions have been tortured and executed throughout the millennia because they dared to disagree with the mystical majority.

[Shady O'Grady]

Russ,

I feel that you have been cowed into complacency. Would you accept any old crap on our money? Where would you draw that line? That christianity is the ostensible state religion is a bad thing, anyone who believes in the establishment clause should agree with that. That you (might) believe that, yet accept the status quo is complacency.

[Russ]

Critic,

"'God exists' is an arbitrary, unprovable statement."

Actually, it's a provable statement. A single appearance of God... perhaps at the next Superbowl Halftime Show in front of an audience of millions... would conclusively prove that God exists.

The problem with the statement is that it cannot be disproven, and as such, it can't form a legitimate hypothesis. How many non-appearances would it take to prove that God does not exists? It can't be done.

Is theism a childish belief? No. It's an irrational belief. The characteristic of irrationality can't be attributed solely to children. Adults are entirely capable of clinging to many irrational beliefs outside of religion, long after leaving childhood.

Lots of perfectly normal people cling to entirely irrational beliefs. (eg. "I'll be able to retire on my social security benefits.")

[Shady O'Grady]

You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof lies with those making the positive assertation. In this case, "god exists" would be the positive assertation.

Until the pope fesses up we should all be weak atheists.

[Russ]

Shady,

You're right. It is complacency.

Basically, I find that it's not worth the time and effort to fight against things that don't affect me.

I don't think that coins should say "In God We Trust", nor should the president close every public address with "God Bless America". However, I'm not one to go into hysterics every time I hear a reference to God.

As far as money goes, I'm much more concerned with the fact that the government can print up as much as they please, that I could ever be with the specifics of what is written on it.

It's a lot easier to be an atheist if you don't get bent out of shape about the small stuff.

Now if someone told me that the laws would apply differently to Christians and "others", yeah, I'd get up in arms about it. But until then, I've got bigger things to worry about.

[Corvid]

Too bad so many millions have been tortured and executed throughout the millennia because they dared to disagree with the mystical majority.

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot weren't part of the "mystical majority," and they tortured and executed millions -- including many who were killed for their religious beliefs.

[TJ]

Shady,

"When it comes to religion, I am in that tiny, bitter box, you are too."

Out here in the Pacific Northwest, polls show roughly 20 percent non-believers. It's not that tiny a box. Be of good cheer. 🙂

dhex,

"...american atheist style of "hey, i'm an atheist!"

Never seen a cube wall with a poster saying "talk to me about atheism". Have seen more than a few saying "talk to me about finding god". Something about that proselytizing clause in the bible that the atheist "bible" lacks.

When is the last time an atheist showed up at your front door with a handful of literature?

[Steve in CO]

Paraphrased Dave Berry:

I asked the old man if there was a God, and he said, "yes of course."

I believe it is true because Santa Claus would never lie.

😀

[Dan]

the majority of self-proclaimed atheists i have come in contact with personally - as opposed to electronically - have pretty much been complete nitwits.

There's a fairly simple explanation for that: it's pretty nitwitted to go around proclaiming yourself to be something that makes you a social pariah. It's like publically admitting you solicit prostitutes -- millions of people do it, but it's not something you'll win friends by owning up to

Most of the people who go around in public proclaiming their atheism are out to Prove Something; like most folks out to Prove Something, they're frequently annoying. Most atheists just prefer to stay off people's religious radar and live their lives.

[Steve in CO]

Agnostics go door to door, passing out question marks printed on flyers. When asked what they are doing, they just shrug.

😀

I am somewhat of a retired militant atheist, I am tired of the fight ... my philosophy is something like this:

God doesn't deserve to exist. A god would either be capricious or uncaring; either incapable of intervention or unwilling, in other words, either not very powerful (not god-like) or an asshole.

[Dan]

Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot weren't part of the "mystical majority," and they tortured and executed millions -- including many who were killed for their religious beliefs.

Oh yes, do let's have the "Stalin v. Christ" Genocide Debate for the nine millionth time.

Yes, communism killed countless people pretty much wherever it held the reigns of political power, and religion killed countless people pretty much wherever IT held the reigns of political power. What's the point in arguing over which has the higher body count? Isn't the sensible conclusion to draw here that both communism and religion make for lousy governmental systems?

[Steve in CO]

Here here Dan! Three cheers to secular democracy!!

🙂

[dhex]

o'grady - i really just don't think it impacts my life that much anymore. it's part of having a different opinion/political bent/lifestyle/flavor of ice cream. in god we trust on our currency is an appeal to the past - so is the use of latin. latin was once the language of the church. it was also once the language of an empire. should we shun it as a symbol of a religion keeping a secret tradition or as a symbol of imperialism or militarism?

it's neither. it's a habit. a cultural hangover, if you will. i don't have a lot of fond feelings for the bulk of the western tradition, but i don't feel like i'm in a box. i work with religious people all day long, jews christians muslims etc etc etc. church type folk.

maybe it's an east coast phenomenon, or just nyc. but people who get up in other peoples faces about shit is pretty rare. i've had all of one JW visit and it took about 45 seconds out of my life. takes longer to delete spam from my email.

if that's a box, it's not so bad after all.

pushy atheists exist, and they're annoying as anyone else with a belief system to sell. going along with social customs once or twice a decade doesn't kill anyone, least of all me.

fwiw, having grown up in a home of a veteran and having seemingly dozens of military men in my family, i've had the flag discussion with them. my feelings on the subject come from living with them, talking with them and hearing their own opinions. i won a vfw essay contest at the end of HS and wrote my essay largely on that. even when you hold what people might consider crazy, irrational or offensive beliefs, most of the time, so long as you're not an asshole, most people aren't going to care enough to tear you a new one. people who go running around screaming "i'm a libertarian! i'm a fuckin' libertarian, yoo ha!" get treated like crazy assholes because, outside of the merit of their political beliefs, they're acting like crazy assholes.

[T Bone]

Communism is a religeon - one is required to have faith in a future utopia in exchange for idealistic behavior in the present. One is not allowed to distrust the ideology. There is good vs. evil. The list goes on.

But on topic, it just me or is talking about athiesm just boring? (I'm a weak athiest myself. Aren't we just talking about a negative?

Lastly, one thing thing I'd like to get over to Christians is this: faith (in the Kierkegaardian sense) - the leap into belief and it's palpable effects - the thing that should be central to your religeon and your conduct as a Christian (ie, the only thing that has not been destroyed by Occam's razor and the scientific data) - what is it? I would argue (from many things, including experience) that it is merely the belief in a logical absurdity. Given that every other of our experiences fit nicely into a logical framework, believing firmly in "A='A" creates confusion, then elation as the absurdity spreads out via your brain calculating its implications. Resolved are logical thinking's most terrible results: death; the lack of central importance of your existence; the lack of an authoratative structure of Meaning.

It's a logical drug.

[joe]

"Isn't the sensible conclusion to draw here that both communism and religion make for lousy governmental systems?"

Let me add a fourth cheer for secular democracy. As Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this earth" and "Repay to Caesar that which is Caesar's. Repay to God that which is God's."

I wish more of my fellows got this.

dhex, I liked this. "if anything, i recognize that everyone's doing what they have to be doing at that moment in time - i.e. they can't help themselves." You can tell me my ginger ale's flat, but I'd still rather not die of thirst.

[Overlord]

If there is a God and there is a heaven, then Madalyn Murray O'Hair has a lot better chance of being in heaven then most of the bible-thumping bigots who hated her. Anyway, God bless her, wherever she is or isn't.

[Eric]

I don't consider O'Hair much of a hero. She played a part in chasing God (and, one could argue, morality) out of the public schools, and the ultimate success of that venture remains to be seen. Have our schools improved because of that? I don't think so.

O'Hair was also wrong. There's a reason few people accept atheism. It is, by definition, a close-minded doctrine, since it refuses to recognize anything outside the sphere of its own limited experience. At the same time, it assumes a total knowledge of everything in the universe, enough to proclaim that there is nothing else out there. I'm sorry, that just doesn't seem reasonable to me.

[fyodor]

I saw morality running away screaming from the public schools after being chased out, so I tripped it up and hogtied it and now I've got it captive in my basement. I'll release morality (back to the public schools or to anyone else who wants it) for a suitable ransom.

[richard]

O'Hair and L. Ron Hubbard shared the same vision for pimping religion that made them millionaires and suckered thousands out of their savings. O'Hair should be remembered for her lawsuits, but also for her looting that led to her death. She is no hero. She was a common thief...just like Hubbard. Her atheism wasn't pure...she just worshipped the almighty greenback.

[garym]

Atheism isn't a "doctrine," any more than a-Bigfootism or a-SantaClausism is a doctrine. It's simply getting an illusion out of the way so that we can focus on the realities of life.

How exactly would you go about recognizing something outside the sphere of your own limited experience? There are all kinds of things outside my experience, but the only way I can recognize them is to add them to my experience. Theism which claims an unexperienced, unknowable being in charge of the universe is simply claiming to have knowledge without evidence. If anything is "close-minded," that is.

Chased morality out? O'Hair achieved a moral triumph by making government schools (to which kids are forced to go) to stop imposing the majority religion on kids. For this, I applaud her, and I hope that bully God is still running.

[Fred]

How is it that she couldn't call God to action (being struck dead by lightening) but Ned Flanders can? "Flanders to God, Flanders to God. Get off your cloud and save my Tod."

[JB Allen]

garym -

I appreciate your point about removing the majority religion from public education. But doesn't that raise the question as to whether public schools should even be allowed at all? How can public schools NOT indoctrinate students into some form of values system, religious or otherwise?

[JB Allen]

garym -

I appreciate your point about removing the majority religion from public education. But doesn't that raise the question as to whether public schools should even be allowed at all? How can public schools NOT indoctrinate students into some form of values system, religious or otherwise?

[joe]

O'Hair helped remove the corruption of government coercion from the religion that happens to be this country's majority. For that reason, Christians should appreciate her legacy and bless her.

[Eric]

garym,
You actually prove my point. How can I recognize something outise my sphere of experience? Easy - by learning about it. After all, I can never experience the Middle Ages, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Religon requires people to open their minds and accept something that is not seen or heard. Atheism allows people to close their eyes and shut their ears, and then say there's nothing to see or hear.

[TJ]

I haven't read O'Hair's books, but I would be disappointed if she labeled
her personal philosophy "atheism". I say this because what atheism means
to me, and the atheists I know, is lack of belief in god. Period. Atheism
may denote a certain scientific worldview, but that's as far as it goes.
Christianity, for that matter, is not a philosophy, though it contains
elements of several philosophical models within it.

Eric,
"Atheism ...it assumes a total knowledge of everything ..."

You seem to lack a dictionary. Allow me to help.

From Websters:

1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

In my experience, it is strictly a religious crutch to need the assurance
that "god made it that way" whenever one encounters a confusing bit of
the universe. Most scientists, and indeed, most atheists are comfortable
saying "I don't know" about many, many things.

Now, as a scientific atheist, I realize that one cannot formally "prove"
that god doesn't exist. It is a logical fallacy to attempt to prove a
negative. So let me just quote Isaac Asimov:
"Emotionally I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God
doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to
waste my time."

[Mark S.]

Eric: Which morality? Although we can agree that actions such as theft, murder and rape are "immoral", there are secular reasons for such beliefs. You don't need a God to condemn murder. However, when it comes to other "moral" issues (sexuality, bioethics, humanities place in society) then you're going to find not everyone agrees with what you think is right and wrong. As long as there are too sides to an issue, it should not be the business of the schools to cram anyone's morality down our children's throat.

As for the validity of atheism, let me ask you this: Who's trying to sell mankind a bill of goods: atheists or those who think that an ancient Nazarene con man...errr I mean carpenter... could walk on water, heal lepers, and raise the dead?

JB Allen: One thing at a time, JB. One thing at a time...

[MALAK]

Screw the religious nonsense! Jean Bart: This vineyard you mentioned, any chance the fruits of your labors could be purchased by an amateur oenophile on the north side of the 49th parallel? What type of wine is produced? I am curious . . .

[dhex]

i can't drink wine, but i am really digging the topical change in this thread.

[joe]

As you may have concluded from my politics, I prefer Reds to Whites, although I can put up with Whites if they're sufficiently sweet.

[Hannibal]

Which wine goes best with Baby Jesus?
("Holy infant, so tender and mild.")
I'd guess a nice Cab.

[nobody]

Hannibal,

I thought you were the Chianti type.

[Jean Bart]

MALAK,

We are part of a co-operative; however, if you find a wine with a label including "C?tes du Rh?ne Villages" then you are drinking wine from our area. You will find that most of the wine produced in the region (the southern Rh?ne) are red wines; Rhonis Grenach, Cinsaut, Mourv?dre, Syrah and Carignan are some of the more popular varities grown. One of the most famous appellations from the region is the Ch?teauneuf du Pape. For white whines from the region try "Domaine Pelaquie Laudun" - Luc Pelaqui? (the owner) is a personal friend and he makes a fabulous white.

[joe]

dry white or dessert wine?

[Jean Bart]

joe,

You may wish to try the dry white first.

[Mona]

Terrific thread; sorry I missed it when it was ripe. Jean Bart did a fine job pointing out to Eric how facile were his notions. And let me also endorse that weak and strong atheism are commonly used descriptors among non-theists. I'm a non-theist, a weak atheist, and I also subscribe to the philosophy of the Brights, altho I balk at calling myself "a Bright."

Myself, I find that few people are unwilling to accept me for my lack of belief, but neither am I in people's faces about it. Pervasive religiosity doesn't terribly bother me, altho crap like so-called scientific creationism does, as do faith healers and psychics. Sometimes I *do* want to just scream at people to fucking get a clue and try applying some reason.

But I also am convinced the religious impulse is hardwired and that religious belief performs important functions for both the individual and the culture. I'm not sure that if every American woke up tomorrow lacking a belief in any deity that we'd thereby automatically be a better place. I can even envision that the dislocation would make us worse.