Entry details

Younghusband
Author

Younghusband

Date

December 25th, 2006

Tags

Comments

24 Comments so far.
Add yours.

Xmas doubt edition

Two articles I ran across today on popurls seemed to have impeccable timing: Christmas Eve. The first is an LA Times piece called 10 myths — and 10 truths — about atheism by Sam Harris, an authour on the topic of faith. The article states that “87% of the [US] population claims ‘never to doubt’ the existence of God” and “fewer than 10% identify themselves as atheists.” He goes on to tackle some of the most common criticisms of atheism, many of which seem similar to Darwinism. I myself am not religious, but I don’t call myslef athiest as I consider the existence of supreme beings a possibility (such as in alternative dimensions etc) which has not been scientifically unproven yet (at least to my knowledge).

The second article points to a 1947 FBI memo labelling the Christmas classic film It’s A Wonderful Life as evidence of communist infiltration of the motion picture industry! Apparently they thought that the film denigrates the “American values” of wealth and free enterprise while glorifying the “anti-American value” of the triumph of the common man. I guess in those days there was no such word as “playa-hater.”

Merry Xmas.

Comments to this entry

Dan tdaxp
December 26, 2006
1:31 am
The LA Times piece is a poorly though-out article, but typical of atheist ravings.

Really, the author is making two contradictory points
a) atheism is justifiable through scientific means
b) atheism has a normative component
Younghusband
December 26, 2006
4:43 am
I don't understand how those are contradictory.
lirelou
December 26, 2006
5:21 am
While the article made some salient points, it also engaged in stereotypical thinking. Indeed, it reminded me of my daughter's "all Gays are artistically inclined gentle people who don't commit crimes such as sexual assault" arguments from her college years. I have met enough arrogant, bigoted atheists to understand that not all base their beliefs upon reason. For some, their atheism is expressed with as much fervor as any religious fundamentalism. But, of course, I have met intelligent, reason-based atheists who do shine the light of reason upon their views. My limited experience has been that the former outnumber the latter. But then, that's about the percentage of my experiences with religious believers.
Shades of Miguel de Unamuno's "Don Manuel Bueno, martir". (A "nivola" about an Atheist Catholic Priest whose shining example converts an anti-religious Communist to ???")
lirelou
December 26, 2006
5:22 am
Sorry, that was "San Manuel Bueno, Martir".
Dan tdaxp
December 26, 2006
5:33 am
Is does not imply ought, my dear Younghusband.

Science is a method for explaining variation in dependent variables through proper use of independent variables. It is a substantive field.

Morality is a method for determining which actions are better than others. It is a normative field.

There is no intersection between the two.

Now, one might say that atheism (belief in no God) is scientifically justifiable, as no valid operationalization of God has been proposed, and thus in the interest of parisimony the concept should be dropped. Of course, then one has to drop all of normative criticism as well.

Or, alternatively, one might say that atheism has a moral component, as some actions are self-evidently more virtuous than other. Of course, then one has to drop the presumption that one is operating from scientific principles.
LWong
December 26, 2006
5:57 am
The LA Times piece is a well though-out article, a clear, concise explanation of a godfree worldview.

>>Dan tdaxp -
>>Really, the author is making two contradictory points
>>a) atheism is justifiable through scientific means
>>b) atheism has a normative component

Really? What is the basis of your assertion?

lirelou -
Sure there are atheists who are outspoken to the point of arrogance. However, I would argue that the "latter" far outnumber the "former." Perhaps you should check out the local secular humanist or Brights group.

Lawrence Wong
Rational, Scientific and Godfree
Younghusband
December 26, 2006
5:58 am
I must admit, I have never met anyone that describes themselves as an "atheist." I have met a number of agnostics, and a self-described Islamic Extremist, but no atheists. I think what lirelou points out is similar to Harris' point #3, that "Atheism is dogmatic." It seems that some atheists _can_ be dogmatic. I can certainly beleive it. Did you see the Canadian Liberal leadership convention? Any moron can be dogmatic.

Turning to Dan's description of substantive vs. normative, I don't think the "myths" were seperated into those neat categories. It might help if he did seperate the criticisms to outline what exactly atheism is. For example, Harris tries to defend atheism's "lack of morality" by saying that the morals are learned through both genetics and culture. In other words, morality is picked up through other means and responsibility for it should not be foisted upon atheism (or any other religion, which isn't so exemplary anyways).

So, should atheism be discussed as one or the other? Or can there be two parallel discussions?
Younghusband
December 26, 2006
6:11 am
I guess "I was wrong...":http://www.mutantfrog.com/2006/12/25/christmas-in-japan/
LWong
December 26, 2006
6:12 am
Younghusband -
Atheism is very often equated with irreligion or non-spirituality in Western culture. Or worse, Satanism or communism in the past.
At best, it suggests the absence of or lacking in whatever.

The term Bright has been coined and in use for some time. I prefer the term Godfree - free from the believe in supernatural deity/deities.
Mutantfrog
December 26, 2006
7:48 am
I decided "non-religious" was too pussy, so why not go for it? Now, I could always say that I am "agnostic" if I want to avoid getting into an argument with some religious person. After all, agnostic literally just means "unknowable," which I accept is true as a factual matter. There is no possibly way for me to verify the existence or non-existence of God, gods, spirits, demiurges, 12 dimensional overlord squid, etc. But still, I am faithless enough so I feel slightly dishonest saying anything besides atheist.

I don't like "Godfree" either. There are too many different kinds of superstitions and beliefs that can't exactly be called god related, so I think it's best to just deny them all in one go.
Curzon
December 26, 2006
7:55 am
I'm a post-modern Atheist who is a devoutly practicing Anglican Christian. Personally, I think labels are too stupid to really care about.
Darron
December 26, 2006
8:00 am
I must confess that I am in seminary and soon to be a pastor in a Christian church. I read through the article and was interested in the author's points. Not because I lend them much credance, but it is interesting to see what the other side is up to :). Fundamentally, he raised the issue of what scientific proof do we have about the existence of God outside of the Bible? Well, the answer is none. Paul addresses this in Romans and Luke records Paul's debate with the non-believers in Athens where he exposes the absurdity of their belief in an unknown god, but this would require one to accept on faith that the Bible is authentic and accurate. Outside of the Bible, we don't have any proof of any of this.

The author did misrepresent some tenants of Christianity. This one stuck out to me; He said it is more moral to help some poor person out of concern for their plight than for a fear of judgment or an expectation of reward. Jesus was clear when He said that those who do it for a reward will receive their reward on earth. He was also clear when He said that those who do it in expectation of judgement will eventually fall away and stop doing what it right. The reason Christains, or anyone, should help is out of love for their fellow man. Jesus said what you have done for the least of these, you have done for Me. Another point which stuck out is his contention regarding Christian belief about Jesus. It doesn't matter if He has a beard. He probably does because most pious Jews do. He was born of a virgin and did rise from the dead. Can I prove it scientifically? No, but you can't disprove it.

So, how does one reconcile the apparent inaccuracies of the Bible with modern science? That's a great question. 1. The Bible is a story, not a science book. 2. The Bible is God's revelation to man in man's context. (Basically, God put it in terms we could understand and relate to. Ever wonder why all science fiction movies and books have some symbolic elements of life on earth? If they didn't, we couldn't relate to them) 3. The Bible is not written to the modern western-scientific mindset. If it were, there would be charts, diagrams, power point slides, etc in the Bible. As it is, the Bible was written over a course of thousands of years to people who didn't know nearly as much as we do. Yes, God dumbed down the science because the original audience would have been lost. Fundamentally, the Bible is a story about God's plan for our lives. All people can relate to a story, not all people can relate to a scientic lecture or a discussion of philosophy.

Finally, why doesn't God give us a sign that He's here? Jesus addressed that as well, but then again, you would have to read the book.

I'll leave you with a story as to God's view of humanity and our free will to accept Him or reject Him. I have a son, he's 10 years old. I watched him come out of his mother and have loved him unconditionally for the last decade. I dearly love him. In fact, if someone broke into my house, I would gladly lay down my life to protect his. I have poured a lot of time, effort, and energy into teaching him to be successful in life and not make some of the same dumb mistakes I did. I want him to respect me, love me, and honor me with his life. I don't want him to do that because I forced him to, no, I want him to do that because he freely chooses to honor me and live a life worthy of the training I gave him. I will set him free in a few years because I have no desire to control him, I want him to be his own man. I will be hurt if he never calls me and I will be ever so happy if he comes home and says, Thank you Dad for taking care of me and raising me correctly, I love you for it. Remember, he's free not to come home, but I pray he chooses to remember me.

Because God loves each of us and wanted to set us free, a little boy was born in Bethleham 2000 years ago. May God bless each and every one of you this Christmas.
Mutantfrog
December 26, 2006
8:13 am
I didn't say I care. But I do have a lot of time to kill at work today. It's totally cool if you're into religion just for the pomp and circumstance, the ritual. I think Alan Moore said it best:
When I was 40, I decided to become a magician, for various reasons. Most people get to 40 and have a midlife crisis, and that's just boring. They bore their friends by going around saying, "What's it all about? What's the point?" I thought it might be at least more entertaining to go spectacularly mad and start worshipping a snake and declaring myself to be a magician. It's been immense fun.


Of course, if you're into religion for the belief, that's cool too. It's only the proselytism that pisses me off.
Curzon
December 26, 2006
8:40 am
Darron: Thanks for the contribution. Additionally, the Bible as not the word of God but _inspired_ by God and written and translated by a variety of imperfect men.
Younghusband
December 26, 2006
8:41 am
Like Mutantfrog I am all about freedom of choice. I think religion serves a function important for millions of people around the world. That's cool. As long as I have my freedom not to believe, that's all that is important to me. I am not trying to attack or defend either theism or atheism. I am just interested in people's choices.

@Curzon, I never really did get that. We'll have to get together sometime and get all metaphysical and shizzle. ;-)
Dan tdaxp
December 26, 2006
1:15 pm
If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won't discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.

We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn't make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.




LWong,

For the author's claim that athiem is scientific, and his bizarre, ad hominem justification of this,see point 5. For his claim that atheism has a normative component, and his dance with words to true to say this while sticking to positivist facts, see point ten.

On what basis do you claim you are rational?

Younghusband,

Razib defends his atheism.

Curzon,

I like you're writing a lot, but your point about labels reminds me of a 13 year old who says is ism is not believing ism. It's a meaningless statement with a clever polish.
Darron
December 26, 2006
4:21 pm
thank you everyone for allowing a decidedly different point of view to be expressed.

Curzon: I believe you are partially correct. The Bible is the inspired word of God as given to the original authors. Yes, they are imperfect men but we can have a high degree of confidence that we have the original copy as intended by God. The best example we have of this is the Dead Sea Scrolls. Prior to this finding, the earliest copy of Isaiah that we had was from 400 or 500 AD. The Dead Sea Scrolls had a copy that went back (reliably through modern science) to approximately 500-600 BC. That was not very long after the prophet originally wrote it. What we found is that over the course of a thousand years, there were only six changes between the copies. Those changes were very minor. They were the equivalent in English of the Canadians saying cheque and Americans saying check. It's the same word just spelled differently. Since we know we have the Word of God as He intended, the real challenge becomes interpretation and application. That's why there has been so much division within Christianity over the last 2000 years.

Dan: I think you are quoting the original author, but there is a myth that the Bible condones slavery. It does not. Paul addresses this in many of his writings. The Old Testament (OT) allowed for proper treatment of slaves because it was culturally accepted. This was the influence of polytheism from Egypt during the Israelite internment there. The New Testament (NT) discusses the emancipation of slaves in several verses. Infact, Paul wrote the epistle of Philemon asking for the slave owner to spare the life of a runaway slave. Just like polygamy was once culturally acceptable, the NT actively discourages it. With respect to your assertion that the Bible is bursting with celebrations of cruelty both human and divine; I wholeheartedly disagree. There is judgment from God for un-belief under the OT and punishment for sin. God gives people the freedom to not believe, but they will still be judged and ultimately punished for their sins. The human cruelty is well recorded. This doesn't mean it's God's will, that's why Jesus wept in John 11:35.

Younghusband & Mutantfrog: I agree that we should all have the freedom of choice. What fun would it be if God made us all a bunch of mind-numbed robots going around doing good all the time? I'd be unemployed. I respectfully disagree that you should not care about who's right and who's wrong. If I'm right, things don't bode well for you come judgment day. If you're right, I look like a fool my entire life preaching a Gospel that is meaningless. According to your belief (from what I have discerned in this post) we still end up in the same spot. I heard a joke from an atheist once which went something like, "it's good to believe something about God just incase I'm wrong when I die." I found humor in his thinking. He wasn't thoroughly convinced of his atheism.

Mutantfrog: You mentioned the proselytism irritating you. If the Jehovah's witnesses show up at your door, tell them you are Catholic. They will run! I agree that evangelism (reaching the lost) can be irritating at times because I hated it before I became Christian. I would encourage you to understand that they are freely expressing their beliefs as we have the freedom to do in this country. If you want to mess with their faith, tell them Jesus was married and that the gospel of Judas is real. I'll bet they leave you alone after that.

Respectfully submitted, Darron
Dan tdaxp
December 26, 2006
4:35 pm
Darron,

Yup, I largely agree with you. I was quoting the original article only because of its notable absurdity.
Sonagi
December 26, 2006
6:20 pm


The ones in Michigan never ran away, even when I flashed copies of Catholic Digest.

I agree that evangelism (reaching the lost) can be irritating at times because I hated it before I became Christian. I would encourage you to understand that they are freely expressing their beliefs as we have the freedom to do in this country.

I agree. The fundamental belief of all Christians is that the divine Jesus died a horrible, slow death and rose again to restore eternal life for all humanity. If you really believe that, you ought to be thanking Jesus every minute and doing your utmost to spread the Gospel so that all might be saved. I don't believe it and that's why I left Christianity, but I respect the sincerity of those who proselytize. It takes courage and tenacity to have doors slammed or literature thrown back in your face. No need to talk about Jesus' siblings or the Gospel of Judas. Just a polite, "No thanks, I'm not interested" suffices.
Sonagi
December 26, 2006
6:22 pm
The original quote from Darron was left off the above post:

If the Jehovah's witnesses show up at your door, tell them you are Catholic. They will run!

The ones in Michigan never ran, even when I flashed copies of Catholic Digest.
Sonagi
December 27, 2006
3:21 am
Curzon said:

Personally, I think labels are too stupid to really care about..

I prefer the word "descriptor." Descriptors are helpful as long as they are not limiting. Knowing a person's ethnic, religious, national, educational, and professional background helps us put that person's words and actions into meaningful context. No matter how objective we strive to be, our worldview is shaped by our personal background and experiences. The danger lies in making assumptions, stereotyping, or dismissing a person's ideas owing to a particular characteristic.
Dan tdaxp
December 27, 2006
4:32 am
Sonagi,

I agree with your defense of the word "descriptor" -- though I would defend the word "stereotype" too. Before it was hijacked by the PC police, a stereotype just meant a carried-over impression. We form stereotypes because they tend to be true.
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » “There are no atheists in a foxhole”
December 31, 2006
4:44 am
[...] Xmas doubt edition [...]
Kevin
December 31, 2006
9:10 am
"Religion is opium for the masses"
-Karl Marx