The Root of All Evil?

"Perhaps. But secular humanist meetings are essentially nonexistent, and therefore irrelevant. They have nothing to meet about. Belief in non-belief is a hard sell, since it produces no transformed lives." Don't dodge her argument. "If secular humanism had been demonstrated to be a life-transforming philosophy, one should expect to find SH churches everywhere, because people would flock to it to find meaning and purpose in their lives. But there are none, because it’s spiritually bankrupt." Who cares... just because something sounds nice or is comforting or inspires one to do "good" things doesn't make it TRUE. cfrench

Andrea: "Sure, but wouldn’t it be pretty much the same if you knew that those guys were coming out a secular humanist meeting?" Perhaps. But secular humanist meetings are essentially nonexistent, and therefore irrelevant. They have nothing to meet about. Belief in non-belief is a hard sell, since it produces no transformed lives. If secular humanism had been demonstrated to be a life-transforming philosophy, one should expect to find SH churches everywhere, because people would flock to it to find meaning and purpose in their lives. But there are none, because it's spiritually bankrupt. Secular humanism is essentially nihilism, packaged with a pseudo-spiritual gloss. Most people recognize this. GilDodgen

nusallah: When a ‘revealed text’ can be Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto, the priesthood can be party officers, the moral claims can be any claims whatsoever, and the exclusionary moral communities can be party or government membership, you’ve established that there’s a great deal in common between religions and just about any identifiable group that has or will exist. That is not true. Within Communism, The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital were treated precisely as revealed, universal truth. Communism most certainly made moral claims, and all communist regimes encouraged cults of personality as deity figures. What's more, as interpreted by the "priesthood," the "revealed" claims were by definition true. All the elements of organized religion, including moral fervor among its adherents, were present in Communism (for a particularly extreme example, see North Korea, which has elevated the cult of personality to the realm of the supernatural). Nazism, as a tribal/pagan phenomena, didn't make universalist moral claims, but Mein Kampf was treated as gospel truth, and Hitler attained the status of a deity. Many historians view both as religions, because it is difficult, unless one insists that a supreme being be the only qualifier, to describe the characteristics of a religion while excluding Nazism and Communism. The point at hand is that focussing on the atheism of either (far more questionable for Nazism, BTW) is to focus on by far the least important aspect. Had Marx the sense to invoke supernatural imprimatur, would things have been any different? frisbee

“If you were walking down a dark street at night in a bad part of town, and a group of young men emerged from a building and started walking behind you, would you be comforted to know that they just came from a Bible study?” Sure, but wouldn’t it be pretty much the same if you knew that those guys were coming out a secular humanist meeting? Or for that matter, out of the local chess club? Of yoga class? On the other hand, what if you are a black person walking at night in a seedy, white part of a Southern town? Would you fear young men coming out of the local secular humanist meeting more or less than young men coming out the local Christian fundamentalist church? What if you were a transvestite - who would you fear most? Unfortunately it’s not that clear-cut, I think. Andrea

frisbee, My categzorization of certain belief systems as B/M was solely to point out that there is a great deal in common between religions and Nazism/Communism. All have their revealed texts, priesthood, moral claims, and inevitable creation of exclusionary moral communities. When a 'revealed text' can be Mein Kampf or the Communist Manifesto, the priesthood can be party officers, the moral claims can be any claims whatsoever, and the exclusionary moral communities can be party or government membership, you've established that there's a great deal in common between religions and just about any identifiable group that has or will exist. Though I would agree with the contention that atheistic belief systems, especially when institutionalized, have great potential (even inclination) to mimic the negative traits of religion in every conceivable way. nullasalus

tinabrewer-another name for "old news" is "history". Nicely put and point well-taken as is your whole post. Because of the points you mentioned, I think that all believers of any persuasion should daily make this simple statement, "I could be wrong." bj

#19 jwrennie: I actually think the real problem with Dawkins’ POV is that he believes in the perfectability of man. That is abslutely not true. Whatever problems you may wish to attribute to Dawkins, the perfectability of man is not one of them. frisbee

nullasalus: I think we agree here. My categzorization of certain belief systems as B/M was solely to point out that there is a great deal in common between religions and Nazism/Communism. All have their revealed texts, priesthood, moral claims, and inevitable creation of exclusionary moral communities. The presence, or absence, of a supernatural being is not particularly important when it comes to the consequences. tinabrewer: You mean, like this? frisbee

bj: another name for "old news" is "history". While I certainly agree that in general religion plays an overwhelmingly positive role in terms of developing the ethics of a people, I think that by its very nature (something revealed, something subjectively experienced, something open to various interpretations) it is vulnerable to gross misuse/abuse, and that this vulnerability should never, ever be forgotten or overlooked. tinabrewer

All politics is religious in nature. All law is the imposition of someone's morality, and a person's morality is dependent upon their answers to "Where did we come from? What is the purpose to my existence? What should I be doing? What is real? Is this all there is?" jaredl

To Gil Dodgen: Congratulations, I'm glad you have found faith and meaning. I understand the apologetic nature of this webblog, hence the numerous mentions of Dawkins. But, I don't think the demonization of all atheists as a class is helpful. Dawkins, on the other hand, is to be opposed vigorously due to his just plain rude attacks on religion. It is possible to be an atheist but admire religion for it's utilitarian results in society. He is certainly not that kind of person. As to the frequent mentions of the sins of Christianty in the past (crusades, etc.), that is really old news. What matters today, which where we all live, is the present incarnation and nature of the Christian religion. The good outways the bad and to negate that effect presently and in the history of this nation is just to make a mistake. In America we have no state religion, but that doesn't mean that the Christian religion hasn't shaped the soul of this country. It has. bj

frisbee, Revealed religions are also Baroque/Monarchic. All B/M belief systems, when they get their hands on government power, become murderous. It just so happens that the Nazis and Communists got their run in the 20th century, when their predatory reach could meet their grasp. The point of bringing up Soviet Russia, Mao's China, eugenics and other points of athieistic infamy is primarily to answer several common claims against religion. But the most important one for this topic is that religion - Christianity in particular - is a unique enabler of terror, death, and oppression. That the Nazis and Communists - with strong atheist representation in the Nazis, and practically total uniformity of it among the Communists - were 'Baroque/Monarchic' misses the point. It's enough to show that the rejection of so-called 'myth and superstition' does not preclude individuals or even whole regimes from committing barbarous, murderous acts. That atheist individuals or groups can become 'Baroque/Monarchic' is a strong theist rebuttal to the usual claims of innate reason and rationality of the negative view. As for the B/M nature of so-called revealed religions - I would argue that just about any strongly held belief, when held by people in a powerful governing role, can take on such a nature. The Christian (or even muslim, or - in some examples - buddhist) capability to do so as well says more about human nature than the faiths themselves, really. nullasalus

jwrennie:

They deny that the problem with man is that he is fallen and sinful and in need of a savior, and instead that man is just misguided. That is radically different from the message of Christ and the Gospel. Man cannot fix his own problems.

Anyone who thinks that he is "basically good" is completely out of touch with his sin nature. It was this realization (Christians call this the conviction of the Holy Spirit), that initially led me to reconsider my worldview. Christianity is totally antithetical to the popular contemporary view that "I'm okay and you're okay, and all we need is more self-esteem." Christianity is the ultimate in politically incorrect thinking. It teaches that I'm not okay, should be honest enough to admit it, and that self-esteem is pride and the root of many sins. I certainly don't claim to have conquered all of this, and that's why I go to church every Sunday. Church is AA for recovering sinners, and I'm one of them. GilDodgen

"What’s wrong with that?" The problem with Dawkins and others ideas of mans perfectability is that at base they embrace a notion that man is basically good and can fix his own problems through education or the proper redistrubtion of wealth, or the right sort of legal code. They deny that the problem with man is that he is fallen and sinful and in need of a savior, and instead that man is just misguided. That is radically different from the message of Christ and the Gospel. Man cannot fix his own problems. jwrennie

Dawkins shoots at too many targets, when his real point is against the predations of universalist, revealed, religions. As mike1962 notes above, Dawkins should really keep his powder dry with respect to Christianity, and probably could well spend some time reading Pope Benedict's speech at Regensburg. Contemporary Christianity is almost wholly benevolent, and shows no signs of atavism. The Bible does indeed contain passages that would be considered perfectly awful if anyone actually paid attention to them anymore. But they don't, and (extremely rare exceptions notwithstanding) aren't going to. Islam, however, is an entirely different kettle of fish. The very essence of the Q'uran makes it nearly impossible to ignore clear divine directions that make Mein Kampf appear benign in comparison. A poster above attributed the slaughters of Nazism and Communism to atheism. While superficially obvious, that is incorrect. Both Nazism and Communism are examples of Baroque (that is, elaborate, extensive and convoluted) Monarchic (argument from solely from authority) belief systems. Revealed religions are also Baroque/Monarchic. All B/M belief systems, when they get their hands on government power, become murderous. It just so happens that the Nazis and Communists got their run in the 20th century, when their predatory reach could meet their grasp. It is to Christianity's benefit that it has never really held the reigns of power. Anyone care to guess what will happen if the mullahcracy gets its hand on nuclear weapons? Also, it is impossible to ignore the fact that believers are much more charitably active than non-believers. But claims to moral superiority are overblown. frisbee

Prager asks: “If you were walking down a dark street at night in a bad part of town, and a group of young men emerged from a building and started walking behind you, would you be comforted to know that they just came from a Bible study?” Absolutely. Match. Game. Point, if by "religion" Dembski means modern Christianity. A few hundred years ago some Bible students would have had no problems hanging you by the neck until you were dead for various things we would laff at today. mike1962

Prager asks: “If you were walking down a dark street at night in a bad part of town, and a group of young men emerged from a building and started walking behind you, would you be comforted to know that they just came from a Bible study?” :lol: perfect! DaveScot

I am a Christian, but I sympathize with a lot of the things Dawkins says. Saint Augustine said it perfectly. cfrench

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn... [i]f they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books." -Saint Augustine cfrench

Dave, You are absolutely right about the limitations of the study I cited. I cited it to answer the challenge "is there any evidence that atheists have a lower marriage rate than religious people?''. Of course they do, less than a third that of the overall population. The much smaller studies, the infamous Barna polls which are used to make the claim that atheists have a lower divorce rate than the religious, are using a raw figure of divorce/1000 individuals. This is obviously skewed by the very much lower marriage rate of atheists. However, other data is available from the Barna Group which lumps these categories much more closely:

Among those who have been married, more than one out of every three (35%) have also been divorced. One out of every five adults (18%) who has ever been divorced has been divorced multiple times. That represents 7% of all Americans who have been married. ... The research revealed that Boomers continue to push the limits regarding the prevalence of divorce. Whereas just one-third (33%) of the married adults from the preceding two generations had experienced a divorce, almost half of all married Boomers (46%) have already undergone a marital split. This means Boomers are virtually certain to become the first generation for which a majority experienced a divorce. ... Among married born again Christians, 35% have experienced a divorce. That figure is identical to the outcome among married adults who are not born again: 35%. ... “If we eliminate those who became Christians after their divorce, the divorce figure among born again adults drops to 34% - statistically identical to the figure among non-Christians.” ... Yet the survey found that the percentage of atheists and agnostics who have been married and divorced is 37% - very similar to the numbers for the born again population.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:4lhgabXpvTIJ:www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx%3FPage%3DBarnaUpdate%26BarnaUpdateID%3D170+atheists+divorce+less&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=safari There is still some ambiguity in the wording. The first quote I provided gives the overall meaning to their phrase "married". It means one who has been married. Without access to their raw data, and not finding any such resources, I have to assume that this is not a shorthand for "all marriages" and that it does not take into account the fact that some of those "married" who've experienced a divorce have not, in fact, experienced multiple divorces. The poll is not oblivious to this fact, as it does cite that "(18%) who has ever been divorced has been divorced multiple times " (23% for born-agains) but the versions I have read do not give an accounting of this. Also, the 50% of marriages ends in divorce is a faulty statistic based upon comparing the marriages in one year to the divorces in that year.

But researchers say that this is misleading because the people who are divorcing in any given year are not the same as those who are marrying, and that the statistic is virtually useless in understanding divorce rates. In fact, they say, studies find that the divorce rate in the United States has never reached one in every two marriages, and new research suggests that, with rates now declining, it probably never will. The method preferred by social scientists in determining the divorce rate is to calculate how many people who have ever married subsequently divorced. Counted that way, the rate has never exceeded about 41 percent, researchers say.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:31nJBD6AA1IJ:www.divorcereform.org/nyt05.html+divorce+rates+misleading&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=safari Again, the same ambiguity in the wording, however, as this does not allow that a person who has been married and has been divorced may well have several failed marriages behind them. I'd like to assume that researchers are just giving us a shorthand and that this has been accounted for, but I can't claim that. Charlie

Gil, Thanks for the invite. Our family worships at Saddleback already, but someday I might stop by and say "hi". Perhaps we could grab a cup of joe at IHOP across the street. Lurker

cfrench:

Secular is “non-Christian.” More broadly, it’s non-religion. This is what Dawkins promotes, not necessarily “militant atheism.”

Dawkins does indeed promote militant atheism. He even castigates people and organizations (even the NCSE!) that refuse to openly attack people of faith and their beliefs. DaveScot:

Atheists certainly form atheist organizations and it’s those that Gil was asking about.

That's correct. I was referring to organizations that are explicitly formed on the basis of positive atheism. There may be some charitable operations comparable to Safe Harbor, formed by these groups, but I am not aware of them. littlejon:

from no.1: ex-Militant atheist, wow praise God. (jpark320) No, surely not. The original post said that the impetus came from studying evidence, not revelation.

I said that my conversion came from many sources, too numerous to outline in a brief post, but one of them was reason and examination of the evidence. There was also C.S. Lewis (and others), a Christian friend, Scripture, much reflection, my five-year-old daughter, and yes, the influence of the Holy Spirit. Christian theology teaches that no one can convert anyone else, and that no one can be solely reasoned into faith (although the influence of others and reason can be tools to that end). True conversion is only possible through the influence of the Holy Spirit. So, jpark230 gives credit where it is due. One person who had a big influence on me back in my atheist days was Dennis Prager, a religious Jew and talk-radio host who is a great defender of Christianity (like Michael Medved). Prager makes an interesting point: When someone commits a horrible, heinous crime, many people ask, What could have made this person go so bad? Prager says that it's no mystery why people do evil. As vpr commented: "Jesus said the problem is with man’s heart." The real question is, What makes people do good? Prager asks: "If you were walking down a dark street at night in a bad part of town, and a group of young men emerged from a building and started walking behind you, would you be comforted to know that they just came from a Bible study?" Lurker:

Hey Gil, Can’t believe I work about 1/2 mile from your church and drive by it almost daily when I go to Target. Small world!!

Come by and worship with us! We hold services at 8:30 and 10:30 AM every Sunday. And please introduce yourself. I'm the guy who plays keyboards in the praise band. GilDodgen

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. jaredl

Near as I can tell the only people these organizations are interested in helping are other atheists. Dave, Near as I can tell most charitable Jewish organizations are only interested in helping other Jews. Ditto for Muslim organizations. Cross-cultural charity is a peculiarity of Christianity, particularly Catholicism. When was the last time you heard of the Buddhists building a hospital? At the same time, I'm not sure your dismal of "secular" is "not atheist" is as strong as you'd like it to be. Many charitable secular organizations exist and it is often philanthropically better to have fewer, larger organizations than many, smaller ones (which is why Buffet is roundly applauded by the non-profit sector for giving all his money to Gates) because it cuts down on administrtive costs and increases charitable output. Atheists, who are few in number, might find that current secular organizations fit their charitable goals and support those existing ones. One would need to look at charitable giving of atheists and compare that to religious people. That "atheist" charitable organizations do not exist really tells us little about the motivations of atheists. mjb2001

cfrench, "Secular is “non-Christian.” More broadly, it’s non-religion. This is what Dawkins promotes, not necessarily “militant atheism.” Why would atheists or agnostics be compelled to found religious organizations to do their charitable works? They wouldn’t… that’s why secular organizations apply here. You make atheism out to be religion, it’s not… hence Dawkins’ views on religion." Dawkins doesn't promote militant atheism? Dawkins doesn't treat atheism as a religion? All I can say is, you apparently don't read much Dawkins. nullasalus

Quick Fact: Atheists killed more people in the last century than all of the crimes of 2000 years of "church" history combined. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html Jipitea Moonbean

cfrench, "There are plenty of secular organizations that do charitable works: http://www.aclu.org/" I'm actually pretty sure there are some secular organizations that do charitable work. Or at least I was, until you chose the ACLU. Really, if that's the best you have to offer, you may as well cite the Better Business Bureau - quite a stretch from the charity the original post was talking about, unless you're trying on purpose to get some eye-rolling. :) As far as "Be Ye perfect" goes, that was a command - strive for perfection. But it says nothing about the perfectability of humans - certainly not in the way Dawkins seems to see it. nullasalus

Secular is "non-Christian." More broadly, it's non-religion. This is what Dawkins promotes, not necessarily "militant atheism." Why would atheists or agnostics be compelled to found religious organizations to do their charitable works? They wouldn't... that's why secular organizations apply here. You make atheism out to be religion, it's not... hence Dawkins' views on religion. cfrench

cfrench, Yep, that humble ACLU organization that is dedicated to feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and housing the homeless: http://www.amazon.com/ACLU-vs-America-Exposing-Redefine/dp/0805440453/sr=8-1/qid=1161963653/ref=sr_1_1/102-7612294-5856927?ie=UTF8&s=books Ekstasis

Hey Gil, Can't believe I work about 1/2 mile from your church and drive by it almost daily when I go to Target. Small world!! Lurker