Atheism is in Trouble? No, Christianity Has Already Lost
Atheism is in trouble. You can tell because its most eloquent spokesmen are receiving icily critical reviews in the very mainstream press that Christians often dismiss for liberal bias.
Source: Christianity Today
Let me get this straight: because conservative, evangelical Christians dismiss the mainstream press as "liberal," the presence of negative reviews of an atheist's book about religion proves that atheism is in trouble? In the real world, this would instead indicate that the press may be less anti-Christian and pro-atheism than the conservatives originally assumed; but rather than reconsider the original assumption, for the editors at Christianity Today this is actually a reason to imagine that something has changed.
The scientific and rational approach is: new evidence the contracts old assumptions means rethinking our old assumptions and revising what we believe in the light of new evidence. The faith-based approach is: my traditional beliefs and assumptions couldn't possibly be wrong, so new evidence means that other people are lying, have changed, or that something else is amiss with the rest of the world; I certainly don't need to engage in any critical reflection on my positions.
If you're wondering why it's "trouble" for atheism that select reviewers wrote negative reviews in some of the mainstream press, don't ask Christianity Today — they don't think it necessary to provide such crucial information. Like the Bible itself, it seems that you're just supposed to take their pronouncements on faith.
You can also tell that atheism is in trouble because it is becoming increasingly intolerant. In the past, atheists (or secular humanists or freethinkers) were often condescendingly tolerant of their less-enlightened fellow citizens. While they disdained religion, they treated their religious neighbors as good-hearted, if misguided.
With this, the editors make two glaring errors: first they pretend that being critical of religion and religious beliefs is "intolerant," then they pretend that atheists today are somehow less "tolerant" than atheists of the past. It would be easy to support such a claim if it were true: just cite examples. Instead, all we get are generalizations and bare assertions. Once again, I suppose readers are just supposed to take it on faith. I would like to think that most readers would prefer to have evidence whereas the editors don't think the readers care, so which of us is really treating Christians with condescension?
Christians have long disdained what Eagleton calls the "mealy-mouthed liberalism which believes that one has to respect other people's silly or obnoxious ideas just because they are other people's." But we have also understood it to be a safeguard in civil society. Despite its vapid quality, such liberalism has been a blessing.
So, Christians have shared the attitudes that they ascribe to atheists like Harris and Dawkins whenever it has concerned others' "silly or obnoxious ideas," but now that Christians themselves are subject to the same treatment, such attitudes are suddenly contrary to the needs of civil society? I'm not sure how else to read this passage: it starts out agreeing with dismissing the position of respecting every belief, no matter what it is, but suddenly turns around and insists that this position is important to civil society. It's "vapid," but also a "blessing." What?
Perhaps this is just a way to express the idea that these Christians feel entitled to a level of respect they don't intend to grant, and have never tried to grant, to anyone else. This is convenient, since an abundance of civility is very conducive towards maintaining the status quo and ensuring that those in power aren't challenged too strongly. How often have those in privileged positions complained about "uppity" minorities who are "too rude" in how they challenge traditional privileges and discrimination?
Michael Klaas writes:
The argument I most often hear coming from those who dislike Richard Dawkins and the ideas of new atheism is not that he’s misguided, nor even that he’s wrong at all, but rather that he’s mean. This complaint comes from left and right, religious and non-religious alike. ...
Consciousness raising is often necessarily abrasive. And Dawkins is right to mention feminists as being the vanguard of this kind of social activism. It’s a way of channeling anger and fear constructively in order to have one’s voice heard and taken seriously.
My mind immediately recalls memories of my work as a male ally to the Women’s Alliance at my old college campus. At one of the annual Take Back the Night marches, the women had decided to use some provoking chants that were nothing if not abrasive. The men on Greek Row had a verbally angry response and even a bit physically aggressive one as well. The incident made the local papers and from there sparked a conversation on women’s safety on campus and all of its corollary issues.
The women were upfront, they were clear and, yes, maybe even a bit rude, but what they weren’t was ignored. What’s more, the wake-up call of the abrasive comments was necessary to get people thinking and talking about the important issue of safety. Suddenly, people were forming opinions where before they had none. People sought information and studied the matter more thoroughly. Where before there was a terrible silence about rape and molestation there became space in which constructive action could be taken.
Representative Barney Frank was interviewed in Seattle during the WTO protests that turned violent back in 1999. He said something that irked me back then, but I think is true today. “Sometimes it’s necessary for the radicals to get out and make a ruckus,” he said, “so that a productive debate can happen among the general population.” In essence, he was saying that rabble-rousing makes space for constructive dialogue.
People are demanding more "civility" and "respect" from atheists like Dawkins, but this civility and respect can only have the effect of helping perpetuate the traditions and structures of power which atheists like Dawkins are fighting against. People are talking about and giving so much attention to what Harris and Dawkins have to say precisely because such authors are being abrasive, insistent, direct, unapologetic, and even a bit rude. People are having conversations today about atheism and religion which they weren't having 5 or 10 years ago, and that is arguably due more to the style and attitude of people like Dawkins, not the content of their specific arguments.
Atheists today aren't sticking to the scripts or roles so graciously assigned to them by religious authorities. We aren't limiting themselves to the tired old expectations which religious believers have of atheists: that we'll simply go along to get along, that we'll refrain from pointing out what seems obvious to us in order to avoid giving offense, and that we'll "respect" religion, religious beliefs, and theism simply because they are common or traditional. Atheists are refusing to privilege religion generally or Christianity in particular, applying the same methods of criticism and skepticism which everyone applies to most beliefs they don't already agree with.
Christian critics of atheism consider this forthrightness a sign of "panic," but in reality it's a sign that we're just not interested in having our roles dictated to us by them and their insecurities. We're going to be direct, critical, and unapologetic — even if that sounds rude to people who have become far too comfortable with and accustomed to their stations of privilege or rank. If anyone is "panicked," or merely just getting worried, it's the religious theists who are suddenly faced with strong criticisms which their religious leaders have not prepared them to address, much less rebut.
Everyone needs to be forced out of their comfort zones now and again in order to get them to wake up a little and think about things from a different perspective, even if they never stop disagreeing with it. Well, religion is one huge comfort zone that too few people ever get woken up from — certainly not by their own religious leaders and never by atheists who simply "play nice" because they are afraid of not being popular with all the cool kids. Atheists today are already so widely despised that they may be the only ones left to shake people out of their complacency, but still the Voices of Religious Authority insist that we not rock the boat...
The new atheistic rhetoric betrays panic, another sign of weakness. Atheism knows that it is losing both arguments and the global tide. Stories of the global vibrancy of religion are everywhere trumping the grand narrative of evolutionary progress.
Aside from the nonsense of treating atheism like it can "know" anything, notice how the editors of Christianity Today fail to allow for any regional differences in the development of religion on this planet. Yes, it's true that religion is "vibrant" and even growing in many areas, but the editors here act like this is a condition that is global. In reality, it's not — and where it's not happening is precisely in those areas where atheists like Harris and Dawkins are best known: the West.
The West is where they live and where they work. The West is also where religion is generally on the retreat. The editors of Christianity Today certainly know this. At the very least, they must be aware of evidence for it and even if they disagree with the conclusion that religion is retreating, it's dishonest not to mention and address this.
One-in-five members of "Generation Next" say they have no religious affiliation or are atheist or agnostic, nearly double the proportion of young people who said that in the late 1980s.
Nexters are among the least likely to attend church regularly: 32 percent attend at least once a week compared with 40 percent of those over age 25.
Nearly two-thirds of Nexters (63 percent) believe humans and other living things evolved over time. By contrast, Americans over the age of 40 favor Creationist accounts over evolutionary theory.
Nexters are the most tolerant of any generation on social issues such as immigration, race and homosexuality.
Nexters are among the most likely to say the will of the American people, not the Bible, should be a more important influence on U.S. laws.
And just 4 percent of Gen Nexters say people in their generation view becoming more spiritual as their most important goal in life.
Source: Humanist News Network
America today is apparently not very far off from where Europe was about two generations ago, though our progress might be a bit quicker due to different conditions. To be fair, developments like this can't be attributed to the arguments of atheists like Harris and Dawkins. Atheists' arguments may play a role as people become more distant from traditional religion and start to wonder whether it's worth believing in any gods or not, but the creation of such distance is due to larger cultural forces — specifically, science and secularism.
Steven Weinberg writes:
I have often heard the remark (once from an American priest) that it is not so important what one believes; the important thing is how we treat each other. Of course, I applaud this sentiment, but imagine trying to explain “not important what one believes” to Luther or Calvin or St Paul. Remarks like this show a massive retreat of Christianity from the ground it once occupied, a retreat that can be attributed to no new revelation, but only to a loss of certitude.
Indifference, not atheism, is the real enemy of religious theism and indifference is encouraged by secularism — not indifference to morality or suffering, but indifference to religion and gods. In a secular culture, people don't need religion. We don't need churches and priests to get married, to learn how to be moral, to understand the universe, to look for guidance, to get counseling, or any of the other functions that religious institutions used to provide.
The more secular a culture and society is, the less important religion becomes overall. This, of course, is what has so many religious leaders so upset — they recognize their loss of power, prestige, privilege, and authority in Western culture. We don't need churches, synagogues, priests, bishops, or even gods. I doubt that the editors of Christianity Today are completely unaware that more and more people are coming to this realization and I wonder if their editorial is sign of how desperate they are to hold on to what little cultural relevancy they have left.
Comments
Excellent article Austin!!! I am going to link to it from Goosing the Antithesis. And honestly, I have felt the same way: Atheism has already won. The snowball is rolling downhill and there is no stopping it. Enjoy the ride!
Great article–well said. I contrast your enthusiastic point of view with some other atheists who seem to be feeling the intimidation of the religious majority.
It’s important to realize that OF COURSE the religious are going to be upset. That’s the point. There is no other reaction one could expect from them. So we atheists need to stay the course, and one day these ideas will reach a major social tipping point.
We may even reach a point in the future where the majority are atheists but still practice religious rituals for their entertainment value. Or the majority may become functional atheists and not admit it–like the 24% of the U.S. population who believe in a “distant god” who “launched the world” but has no involvement or relevance to human affairs. [Baylor University Study, 2006]
We are not limited to 5% or 10% as many have thought. Much wider swaths of the population are basically atheists in all but name.
Atheism has never been in trouble since the first human smelled a con. People have always been in trouble if they speak up against the household gods including nationalism, one world order, capitalism and happy faces.
It is certainly comforting to know that religion is losing ground in the West. The Enlightenment will not be undone by religion.
We are now in the Space Age and it’s time that religion has caught up with that fact. They need to trade in their sandals and robes and get in line for a space suit. There simply is no room for primitive religious superstition if mankind is ever going to make progress.
Religion is all bunk. -Thomas Edison
Evolution rules, science proves, and creationism fools! My maxim.
What a waste of time. The only reason critics “spill ink” is because Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens have such flawed and rediculously already debunked hundred year old arguments. The only reason Christianity is losing ground is because people have not really researched it and haven’t realized the pathetic mistake atheism is and how tragically it undercuts itself.
Then you should find it easy to show how easily debunked those arguments are.
If that’s true, it should be easy for you to demonstrate it.
There is plenty of science in religion if you look in the right places. Start at Trinity College, Dublin — The Book of Kells.
This is just the beginning of a demonstration, don’t underestimate just how much data there is out there to undercut your position, Mr Cline.
The fact is, we will all find what we WANT to find, and only great people will not dismiss what proves them wrong. You sir, are most biased — as am I.
What exactly do you mean by that?
What position do you mean and what data do you think undercuts it?
Feel free to cite something that proves me wrong.
There is plenty of science in religion if you look in the right places.
What exactly do you mean by that?
What I mean by that, sir, is if you follow three of the oldest (still current) religions back, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, you’ll find that they actually intersect on several levels, one primarily being the birth of Christ, though Islam obviously does not recognize the “saviour” status that Christianity does (Islams call Christ ‘Isa’). Given the two time-lines of the religions, you will find that the dates correlate and they are as old as they say they are. This is one point for all three religions, though in this case I choose to focus my efforts on Christianity, and therefore as a testament (forgive the pun) to the validity of the age of the Bible. Obviously, you’re more interested in the content however, so lets cross-reference — you put faith in the IRS that they have your taxed amount correct when checking with social services, so put your faith in the cross referencing of the Qu’ran with the Bible: Abraham existed and was essentially known as the father of nations, founding the Israelites, Ishmaelites and Edomites through his offspring (one of whom was Mohammed), which gives us the modern day Abrahamic relgions, keep this in mind for a moment. Also remember that the Qu’ran also speaks of Jesus’ resurrection, see passage Surah 19:33. These correlations are hard to negate. You may at this point say “this is heresay and speculative” which of course, you have every right to, but the fact is you have no more evidence of your claims than I do of mine, except for the fact the demographics seem convenient, two prominent religious powers fighting even today, yet they still agree on a common thread, the third, the Jewish faith stand by this also and though not being in the spotlight, still have an enormous following.
Judging by statements like “Feel free to cite something that proves me wrong”, I’m thinking when you’re asking me for hardened facts to stare you blindly the face, am I right? Sir — wars have been fought and many million people die over the fact we don’t have an obvious and clear answer, all we have is speculation, literature and faith, some even claim to be touched by the Holy Spirit, but am I right in assuming you would shrug this off as a personal or psychosomatic experience?
I can’t prove you wrong Mr Cline- and I wont try. I can’t think of anything more unbecoming of myself than to engage in a debate where my sole purpose is to gloat and adopt an “I’m right” mentality, and that is the position I’m referring to. By “undercutting” your position, I’m referring to details listed above as an example which cast a shadow of a doubt on the absolute certainty in atheism that you appear to hold so dear. What you should do sir, is keep an open mind and don’t be so closed to the idea that there is no such thing as absolute certainty and allow for the possibility that people really are touched by the Holy Spirit and accounts of the Bible happened exactly as they are written.
1. Neither does Judaism.
2. Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Confucism, and Taoism are all still current.
No, we have to do our own calculations about the correct taxable amount and correct tax rate.
Why, unless they can be shown to be independent sources?
Again, unless they are independent sources, they aren’t “correlations” at all.
Demographics? Are you trying to suggest that the number of people who believe something is at al relevant to determining an proposition’s truth-value?
I’m asking you to support your assertion. If you can’t, I expect you to apologize and retract it.
Then I expect you to retract you assertion about there being data that undercuts my position, whatever that’s supposed to be.
I don’t hold atheism “dear” nor do I have “absolute certainty in” atheism. I am simply an atheist: I don’t believe in any gods. Why? Because I see no reason to bother.
Maybe you should consider the value of asking people question about what they really think before making assumptions?
I’ll be happy to entertain that possibility as soon as anyone can provide any reason to think it might be true. Citing alleged correlations between two sets of documents of disputed origin and which are not clearly independent doesn’t qualify.
Oh, and where is all that “science” that you claim is “in religion”?
First of all, I must congratulate you on amusing me on so many levels, you’ve chosen to rebut a few really irrelevant points, like the IRS and the fact that Judaism doesn’t recongize the Christ as a saviour. I see insecurity right there, lets just get down to brass tacks here, okay?
I see only one point that I need to respond to here
Why? Because I see no reason to bother.
For someone who sees no reason to bother, you have certainly put an incredible amount of time, effort and energy in getting people like myself to either keep quiet or ensure you have the last word, so to speak– that seems like a lot of bother to me, sir. I would suggest you get your priorities right. You have an incredible aptitude for debate and tinkering with words, perhaps you should consider a degree in literature instead of thinking yourself that important that I need justify my beliefs to convert you. If you wish not to believe any justification I may present to you, that is your choice, but I know my beliefs and my foundations are strong — nothing you say will rattle them. You may think me a fool, sir, but I think of you someone who is crying out for a saviour — either that, or an arrogant man blithely bathing in ignorance (and I think we both know which)! I will neither retract my assertion nor apologise for it, we live in a country that is free, people are allowed to believe whatever they wish to without fear of persecution or slander, I am asserting my faith without apology, and given I am harming noone, there is little you can do to stop me.
Thankyou for your time, it has been a most illuminating discussion.
If the points were irrelevant, why did you bring them up? Could it be that with so main points being flawed and false, your overall case is severely damaged? Indeed, what was your original argument anyway?
Insecurity lies in pretending that most of what you wrote doesn’t matter after it’s all been rebutted, not in taking the time to do the rebutting.
That’s a pretty serious accusation. I’m sure you can support it by showing where I have tried to keep people like yourself quiet or prevent you from having the last word.
Perhaps you can take the time to consider the difference between the “bother” of believing in gods and the “bother” of addressing the arguments, claims, and accusations of people who happen to believe in gods.
I think I do; that’s why I don’t bother believing in any gods.
Thanks, but I already have a couple.
I never said that you need to justify your beliefs to convert me. I do, however, strongly suggest that you need to support your claims and accusations if you are going to take the time to write them here. It’s a matter of ethical and intellectual honesty.
It’s pretty arrogant for you to assume that I do not wish to believe, and that I would not believe any argument you present.
So, it sounds like you nothing I write would cause you to even reconsider your position. It seems to me that you are projecting, then: you’re closed-minded and assume that I must be as closed-minded as you. I’m sorry to disappoint, but I”m not closed-minded. I’ve changed my mind on this matter before and, given the appropriate evidence/arguments, am amendable to change again.
I feel the need to add that when a person declares themselves immune to all evidence, arguments, and logic when it comes to holding some position, they are effectively declaring not only that their position is irrational and unreasonable, but also that they don’t are about the truth. People who care about the truth are willing to change their minds if the situation warrants.
Do I need a savior?
Is it a characteristic of a fool who insists on holding on to belief no matter what the evidence?
Is it a characteristic of a fool to arrogantly assume they know the minds and desires of people they don’t know and have never met?
I’m ignorant of many things — Chinese literature, for example, and Indonesian cinema. If you can point to anything relevant here that I am ignorant of and should not be, feel free.
Then you should support it. A refusal to do any of the three is a sign of extreme intellectual and ethical dishonesty.
True, and the same freedoms allows others to point out that when a person makes public accusations, they need to support those accusations or retract and apologize for them.
You are also making unsupported accusations without apology. That is unethical.
Unsupported accusations cause harm.
Indeed. I wish I could say you are the first Christian who makes unsupported accusations, then runs away without retracting and apologizing. Indeed, it’s rare that I find a Christian who even understands how or why it’s wrong to make unsupported accusations.
why did you bring them up?
They’re called similes (IRS) and examples (other religions). I was trying to prove a point. I’m sorry you didn’t see that. (By no means can anyone call me too arrogant to apologize, I will do so freely when I am wrong.)
Insecurity lies in pretending that most of what you wrote doesn’t matter
See above
I’m sure you can support it by showing where I have tried to keep people like yourself quiet or prevent you from having the last word.
People have commented above and you do little but tear their sentences above word by word as if you are some sort of omniscient being. You will now claim you are merely asking them to support their argument and back up what they claim, but what you’re forgetting is it is called FAITH, sir, and according to Websters Dictionary, FAITH is defined as:
firm belief in something for which there is no proof
To which I’m strongly convinced by your retort will be something along the lines of thinking us all fools.
Perhaps you can take the time to consider the difference between the “bother” of believing in gods and the “bother” of addressing the arguments, claims, and accusations of people who happen to believe in gods
Bother is bother as far as I’m concerned. You can’t be bothered putting any faith or trust in religion (ANY religion) but you can be bothered scrutinizing those who do. Why not just adopt a “live and let live” attitude?
I do, however, strongly suggest that you need to support your claims and accusations if you are going to take the time to write them here.
I’m glad you say strongly suggest– sir, there are many things I strongly suggest of you, none of which I have any confidence you would ever take advice in, so in your own words, I cannot be bothered. However, in regards to writing them here, my two cents is worth just as much as yours is on the internet — Why shouldn’t I?!
It’s pretty arrogant for you to assume that I do not wish to believe, and that I would not believe any argument you present.
A fair enough statement, but I’ve yet to see proof of otherwise.
So, it sounds like you nothing I write would cause you to even reconsider your position. It seems to me that you are projecting, then: you’re closed-minded and assume that I must be as closed-minded as you.
Not at all, sir. Quite the opposite, you see, I am a scientist of biology and nothing pleases me more when I am proven wrong, because advances are still advances. The only difference is, from what I read of you and your history, (I see you focused purely on skepticism at one point), you’ve made solidifying your mindset an art.
I feel the need to add that when a person declares themselves immune to all evidence, arguments, and logic when it comes to holding some position, they are effectively declaring not only that their position is irrational and unreasonable, but also that they don’t are about the truth. People who care about the truth are willing to change their minds if the situation warrants.
Please see above. Advances are advances, and I am more than happy to be proven wrong if it finalizes in one way or another a working hypothesis.
Is it a characteristic of a fool to arrogantly assume they know the minds and desires of people they don’t know and have never met?
This is also a fair point, though what I have been able to read of you (you have quite an online presence), I think I can fill in your character, this would be counterproductive however as we’re meant to be debating justification instead of “getting personal” so to speak.
I’m ignorant of many things — Chinese literature, for example, and Indonesian cinema.
Wonderful examples, I’m not even sure what to think here!! -Relevance??
Then you should support it
I am supporting my faith by questioning your lack thereof. Faith, son. Faith. That’s all the support and justification I need provide.
True, and the same freedoms allows others to point out that when a person makes public accusations, they need to support those accusations or retract and apologize for them.
That’s interesting — I’ve never heard of anyone HAVING to apologise because they couldn’t support their claims. I’d hate to see these ideals in politics, especially around election time, hey??
Unsupported accusations cause harm.
Only in the case of defamation, otherwise very little harm is done in speaking out. As far as I’m aware, I am defaming noone.
Indeed. I wish I could say you are the first Christian who makes unsupported accusations, then runs away without retracting and apologizing. Indeed, it’s rare that I find a Christian who even understands how or why it’s wrong to make unsupported accusations
I am by no means, running away, sir. And being a scientist, I fully understand and comprehend the ramifications of making unsupported accusations, however I hardly feel the ramifications here justify the lengths you’ve gone to make point. You see, and here is justification enough to hopefully make you realise a few things:
People NEED spirituality. Do you research, the amount of persons who have been swayed from taking their life due to unwinnable or very morbid circumstances due to faith are countless. What have you to say to these people?
When people despair, and they need faith to get them through another day, what have you to say to these people?
When people feel better after being prayed for or blessed, what have you to say to these people? Here certainly I’m willing to entertain a placebo effect however I don’t think the chemistry here is relevant in regards to the faith that these people have. The fact is, their faith has served them well, incredibly well and I don’t think it’s up to you to question that faith — it’s not your place. Let people believe what they want, or better yet, NEED to believe to get by, and either be happy for them, or let them go in peace. Either way, you’re the one doing harm by casting doubt.
Good day.
And I demonstrated that they didn’t prove the point you wanted.
Critiquing a person’s argument point-by-point is hardly an example of trying to keep people quiet. Please try again.
This does not exempt people from their obligation to support their claims and accusations
You said it, not me.
So, you don’t see the difference. Why not?
Do you also fail to see the difference between not bothering to believe communism but bothering to critique the claims and arguments made by communists? Do you fail to see the difference between not bothering to believe libertarianism but bothering to critique the claims and arguments made by libertarians? Presumably not, unless you make some sort of special exception for theism, but what might this failure say about your reasoning skills?
Because those who adhere to gods and religion insist on promoting those beliefs publicly. Are you seriously suggesting that people who disagree have some obligation to keep their disagreements and criticisms to themselves?
I don’t critique any beliefs or ideologies which no one makes an effort to publicize and promote publicly.
Then you have no business here. The comments here exists for discussion and conversation, but that can’t happen when a person lacks the ethical and intellectual character required to back up what they say.
Yet you just got done saying that nothing could convince you to even reconsider your position, much less regard it as wrong. One or the other statement must be false. Frankly, I think that your first declaration of being immune to all counter-evidence and arguments to be the more honest and truthful one, given how much you’ve written against the appropriateness of public criticism of publicly-made religious claims, arguments, and ideas.
A person who welcomes being proven wrong also welcomes comment, criticism, and disagreement. A person who values truth welcomes comment, criticism, and disagreement. The only reason to disparage public criticism and disagreement is the fear the truth doesn’t quite match up with one’s favored ideology and so one worries about being proven wrong.
Well, I guess that’s all you have — you have no positive evidence or arguments and nothing on which to base your position, to attacking others is the only directly left to you. Unfortunately, that isn’t a productive tactic because you can’t “question” my lack of faith unless and until you can provide some substantive reason why I should have the sort of faith you do. You’ve all but admitted that you can’t, which may be why you have been reduced to personal attacks and accusations — thinly veiled, but there nonetheless. To put it another way, you can’t defend your message or critique my message, so all that’s left is to attack the messenger and insist that the messenger should keep quiet.
Perhaps you’ve never had enough interest in publicly supporting your claims and accusations.
Yes, we’d all be so much worse off with politicians who had to support or retract their claims and accusations.
You haven’t stopped posting, but writing on and on without actually supporting the substance of your claims and accusations is, on an intellectual and substantive level, running away.
Prove it.
Oh, wait, I suppose this is just another article of faith for you. Convenient, isn’t it?
I’d allow that perhaps some people need “spirituality,” depending on how that is defined, just as some people need insulin or anti-depressants. I question, though, whether the need is somehow inherent or merely cultural conditioning. I don’t expect you to care, though, because that would require evidence and arguments rather than relying on whatever “faith” happens to make you feel better about yourself.
One could say the same about a wide variety of beliefs — political, economic, social, philosophical, etc. Should we all just stop disagreeing with and critiquing any ideas, claims, accusations, or ideologies simply because someone might derive some benefit from it and so might be “harmed” If they realize how wrong they were or even just might have been? Of course not — that’s absurd.
Such a suggestion can only come from someone who is frightened of criticism but who lacks the ability to counter criticism directly; so, instead of engaging in substantive discussion, they find some passive-aggressive means for getting others to stop their critiques entirely. “I can’t support what I’m saying or counter your arguments, but I want you to just shut up because disagreement with me makes me feel bad.”
More significant, though, is what I wrote above: you have no business here if you’re not going to support your claims and accusations. These comments exist for conversation and discussion, not for religious theists to spout off, proselytize, or otherwise just make a spectacle of themselves by saying things that they can’t or won’t substantiate. It’s a waste of everyone’s time.
If you want to make useless claims without supporting them, then start your own blog. You’re not adding anything here except as a bad example (which I suppose I should thank you for).
I believe I can sum up your entire passage in two main categories:
The fact that abhor criticism, (which I don’t, and this could be classed as a personal attack in itself) and that I’m personally attacking you, (which I’m not).
In fact, the challenge of even getting you to put your faith in something (anything) is quite unique, I don’t believe I’ve ever met someone with a belief system so jaded. (And no, that wasn’t a personal attack, by Websters Dictionary, Jaded is defined as being worn down, worn out or weary — even you cannot deny your faith in anything is almost non-existent, ergo worn-out.)
So, in your own words, try again.
I might add here, you’re quibbling with semantics which appears to be a consistent waste of my time, and the word prove is antonymous with the word faith, so please indicate the suitability of continuing this discussion if you’re entirely closed to the idea of the latter.
To understand you clearer though, in your statement I question, though, whether the need is somehow inherent or merely cultural conditioning, would you be referring to an evolutionary dependence on spirituality induced by a faith system being woven into culture, because if that is the case, thats alot of cultures to account for.
That would be another faith statement, made without the ability to support it with evidence and argument.
You’ve never met me, so once again you’re just making as statement of faith.
And it is because you have no interest in supporting your claims or accusations with evidence and argument that I said you have no business here. Future faith-based comments from you will be summarily deleted.
As I already told you: if all you want is to make claims without supporting them, start your own blog. The comments here are for discussion, which isn’t possible for people unable or unwilling to support their claims and accusations.
Bravo Deane, well said, sir.
Dear Austin,
I read your blog with some interest, though I would like to address some of the issues brought up by Dean rather then comment specifically on the content.
As a Christian I have a faith in an omniscient God, though I have that faith and I believe strongly in it to the exception of any other belief I have no way of proving definitively to anyone else that the God I believe in is real. I believe because of personal experience and because I believe the words of Christ when he declared himself to be the Son of God. However that belief cannot be expressed in imperical terms as can a belief in the laws of science.
The mistake that Deane has made is in trying to approach the discussion with you from the point of view that it is a theological debate. A theological debate is by definition a debate about God and religious beliefs, what you and Deane have been having is discussion between a God fearer and a God denier or in other words somebody who has a belief and somebody who doesn’t. In my experience it is not easy to have a constructive argument surrounding these positions because you are trying to argue the case for two diametrically opposing positions, neither of which can be scientifically proved.
Deane, trying to argue the veracity of the Bible really doesn’t expedite the argument at all, I can provide plenty of archaeological examples that corroborate the Bible’s account of history and while this may prove the historical veracity of the Bible it still doesn’t help me prove that the God of the Bible is real. (Austin, I have chosen not to include these examples as at the present time I don’t have my notes with me and I do not want to provide something from memory that could be disproved.)
Arguing the case of creationism v the belief in evolution is an example of a debate that can be had constructively because both sides are debating what is essentially scientific theory (depending on you worldview) and they have at least some commonality on either side. (Yes I do believe that creationism can be called a “scientific” theory, I look forward to your comment on this position Austin.)
As far as a reason to be “bothered” about believing God I can only add what I said to a Buddhist the other day, “If you are right and I am wrong what have I lost? I have led a good constructive life combined with a love of Christ. By obeying the supreme commandment to love my neighbour as myself I have helped others in their journey in this world, sure I might have wasted some time in meditating on the word of God, etc, but relaxation is always good for the human mind anyway. On the other hand if I am right and you are wrong, you’re in a spot of bother.”
I hope that doesn’t sound to trite and simplistic.
While I reason that to my belief system atheism is a danger I do appreciate the opportunity to debate and discuss the issue. Although I should add that nothing is going to convince me to change my mind and I am sure that nothing will convince you without what I would call divine revelation and what I’m sure you would call “proof.”
I have brought faith into my comments because it is the only way I can truly substantiate my own belief in God, I have endeavoured not to make any unsubstantiated claims and if I have misrepresented anything you have said Austin than I apologize in advance.
Looking forward to your response.
“In other words”? Those two sets don’t mean the same thing.
Depends on how “god” is defined.
What’s to comment on? You’ve simply made a claim and unless or until you can substantiate it, there’s simply nothing to say.
If you do wish to support your claim, though, you should do so in the forum because it’s not on topic here.
Pascal’s Wager, about the worst possible apologetics argument in existence.
To any belief system, dissenting from any of that system’s most basic premises is a “danger.”
If there is nothing that could possibly change your mind, then almost by definition your position is held without reference to evidence, reason, or logic. Your position is necessarily irrational and this makes pretty much any attempt at substantive discussion impossible. Real discussion has to be about evidence, arguments, reasons, and logic, but that first requires that a person’s position actually be connected to evidence, arguments, reasons, and logic.
If, however, one’s position is entirely reliant on faith, no discussion is ultimately possible. Faith cannot critique any other positions, whether they are based on evidence or some other faith. Critiques would require some reliance on evidence, arguments, reasons, and logic — but no position that dispenses with them can suddenly bring them back into the mix when criticizing others.
I think this idea of science and religion/faith is important to this argument, as people argue over whats right and whats wrong, can one not consider their co-existence?
One argument Ive come across in regards to evolution and creationism, is that the ‘7days of creation’ coincide with the evolution of life across the worlds billion years of existence.. for what humans can conceive is limited to our abilities and our capabilities to perceive reality. I cannot prove this possibility as equally as you cannot prove it to be absent of the qualities of creation, but rational thinking can be an equal avenue to considering truth as empirical evidence.
What is your evidence that evolution is not a form of creation? What is your evidence that god does not exist?
atheism is an equal form of faith.
And what is my evidence? tell me what is yours? not a rhetorical question, tell me your evidence, I’m curious about how you came to your conclusion, because believe me Ive had a life time of thinking if God exists with numerous times of doubt, fear and non belief. I have no doubt that if I had your experiences in life, Id come to your same conclusion. Consider the possibilities of those outside of yours.
Ive come to realise that some forms of understanding/observations/evidence whatever to wish to call it, only be seen/accessed/considered via the passageway of belief. The idea of ‘transcendance’ which christians, buddhists, all religions and spiritualists may refer to as a form of evidence for the existence of something greater than themselves. Can you prove that nothing can exist outside our understanding?
you cannot, as equally as I cannot prove there is. But what of experiences? what is real does not necessarily have to be confined to scientific observation.
Anything that can be rationalised by the individual as their unique experience of what is true, is as equally valid as anothers. At the same time what you choose to believe, becomes true to you, and yet it seems you believe that this should be true to all others aswell. To close yourself to consider only one avenue of what is true is to seperate yourself from the possibilities of what is infinite, there is no awe without belief!! whether thats relevant or not, I threw it in there.
I have read the you yourself were once a christian, and Im assuming that youre experience of that was negative. I have also had negative experiences with religion, for a mind that constantly questions. having said that some experiences were positive. Regardless of my views I have on faith, I believe the one should never stop questioning.
A belief in God is not a one way thing, their are infinite pathways, infinite conceptions. One example is a book I came across called the ‘DNA of God’ a christian who reconciled faith with science. Empirical evidence is not the only form of knowledge, our experiences provide equal grounds for truh
I believe that rationality is crucial to any argument, which is why i wanted to ask you to rationally consider your postion as ‘anti faith’ what lead you to this believe, and why cant others beliefs be equally as valid? Why attack them as invalid, when they are only invalid to you? some forms of ‘proofs’ are only available through the pathway of faith… faith in the possibilities.
There is a heart within this crazy world that cannot be explained in our words, in our understandings and our limited perceptions of reality, that comes with letting go of our need to ‘prove.’We open up avenues that exist beyond ourselves. I believe in That Jesus, whether you call it love, God.. whatever you call it, came to show us that there is a beauty to this world that we have lost sight of- and emptiness, which is not hard to see in this world.
Deane Summed up an idea of this beautifully. If believing brings to someone hope, a sense of purpose that they did not have before, if believing helps someone find a sense of value and worth, then its validity to those individuls is already proven.
Sorry, ‘An’ Emptiness. Jesus/love as a light in the dark.