Atheists Must Deal With the 'Problem of Good'

Managed Hosting, Colocation and Data Center Services by victoryushchenkonashpresudent ...

I am neither theist or atheist. I am me. I believe in personal responsibility and good.
I do not subscribe to others views/teachings but formulate my own.
I believe in respect and I trust you will find no slur upon any other in my post.
For me the argument of god or no god is irrelevant, for an answer one way or the other, will not change my commitment to analyse and formulate a good and appropriate response to all situations as they occur. I try to employ an open mind at all times but find this to be a continual effort as knowledge/prejudice is a comfortable state in which to rest.
I have read all the posts in this thread and found it extremely interesting and if for no other reason, I would like to thank N. Thomas Wright for making it happen.
When the universe becomes perfect and all living beings live in harmony and peace, only then will the universe become meaningless but I for one, will not rest until it does.
In my humble opinion, we all must deal with the problem of good...

First, let me just say that I can certainly sympathize with some of the "atheists" who have read Bishop Wright's essay, and have taken it to be an insult of some sort.

Although, what I think is happening here is really a communication issue, more so than an issue of false assumptions and insults. It must be noted that after reading many of the comments on this page I have to say that more than half the atheists present, know very little, or practically next to nothing of religious belief, specifically Christian belief. Which could be largely due to the fact that most atheists are specifically hostile towards the Christian religion more so than any other, with the possible negation of Islam. This is not an assumtption! One only has to read the apostles of atheism, such as Marx, Freud, and Russell to see just how resolute the atheist mission is.

Now, let me just say that I do not believe that atheist are any worse or more horrible than,unfortunately, most religious believers. Neither are they any less, or more, intelligent than any theist. As a matter of fact it perplexes me to hear atheists speak of rational and logic, when atheism is largely belief in nothing, meaningless existence essentially. Would this not presuppose the absurdity of even having the conversation?

For that matter, lets just say the atheists are right. Which would mean we can just cancel the whole mucky matter. As a matter of fact, I think we should all go commit suicide, rather than waste our time in this meaningless universe!

Ta ta!

Clarification: Comparing them meaning, of course, that the substance of their messages align rather well, despite their supposedly diametrically opposed views of the existence of God.

There's nothing like this kind of discussion to show better than any argument the similarities that emerge between certain kinds of atheism and certain kinds of theism. It's been my experience that atheism/theism centered upon the existence of an external supernatural being usually manifest themselves in the same way: name-calling, dogmatism, condescension, superstition even, and certainly violence. When theists/atheists see themselves as equally a part of something big that they don't fully know but engage in with a spirit of understanding, love, and humility, the manifestations are often a recognition of the sacred. Compare Camus and Dostoevsky, the latter of course maintaining that without God all things would be lawful (though not a direct quote, it's strewn throughout The Brothers K), and the former maintaining virtue despite atheism. Our argument shouldn't be whether something external exists, but what life and love and other people demand of us and what that says about the world as a whole. Or something like that. Something that isn't name-calling!

Dear Bishop.

Has a person who represents a religious organisation who's mission i9t is to 'preach' the gospel, and "Go make disciples of all nations' teaching them all that I have commanded you." and considering there are literally thousand of Evangelical crack pots (Admittedly not your particular flavour of Christianity) who seek to do all they can to save the rest of us from the fires of hell, it does seem rather rich of you to write "It’s clear there are some atheists out there who have even more of a mission to unconvert believers than most believers have to convert them!"

I am afraid I do not see why atheists should not be able to go on offensive, or is it somehow uncivil of us to share our world view and to seek to pursuade others of its rationality and deesirability, is that something only religious belivers are allowed?

I also find is surprising that you should write something as meaningless as "That the people who are most vehemently angry against belief (whether Christian or otherwise) are people who are really anxious, sometimes even frightened, about the possibility that there might be a God, that Christianity might be true, or whatever."

You mean we may not be angry because religion seeks to attack our civil rights - a fine example of this at the moment is the C of E, signing up to the the RC's campaign to "Obstruct Sexual Orientation Regulations".

The Archbishops of York and Canterbury have written "The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning.", I find such a statement shocking, and wonder if the Chuurch has learnt anything at all.

Tell me, if a Christian organisation, and some evengelical universities in USA have this policy, believe that people of mixed race should not marry - does this mean that in good conscience this allows them to descriminate by refusing to allow people into their universities who are in a mixed race relationship?

Should religious organisations be allowed to refuse to exploy women, if they think women should be at home?

Surely, you would say this is wrong, but why? As the Archbishops said "The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well meaning."

It is this hypocrisy, and this willingness to claim special exemption for prejudice and bigotry which annoys many unbelivers. The history of Christianity is full of such examples.

So the suggestion that atheists, who promote atheism, are doing so because they "are really anxious, sometimes even frightened, about the possibility that there might be a God, that Christianity might be true, or whatever." is just so much rubbish.

Are Christians who promote Christianity (and as a Bishop - that surely must include your goodself), "really anxious, sometimes even frightened, about the possibility that there might not be a God, that Christianity might be false, or whatever."

I think this is purely a smokescreen by theistic apologists because they realise once they debate the merits of theism over atheism, than they have already lost the battle.

Again you write further intellectual fluffy nonsence when you say "Sometimes this is because they have been badly hurt in their upbringing by foolish or wicked people using religion as a mask for their own manipulative or abusive behaviour."

I cannot believe that someone who must have some intelligence to have reached your position, would write such stuff.

We know that there is a psychological tendency for people who have been abused to feel that they are responcible for the abuse, and thus, in their mind, clear the abuser of ultimate blame.

Is this not what some Cristians do? Sickness, illness, abusive parents - surely the world cannot be so cruel - thinks the Christian. They must be someone to love me? - ah God. But then God is all loving, why would God allow these terrible things to happen to me? - oh, it must be because I am a sinner, and so God is not ultimately to blame for the bad things that have happened to me.

Such psychological arguments are just so much empty speculation - surely Bishop the reason most atheists are atheists is because they find theism to be illogical and that religion is reactionary and opposes progress on women's rights, gay rights, the rights of children etc.,- for example "Obstruct Sexual Orientation Regulations"

You ask, why is there love, beauty etc., well even if there was no satisfactory answer to that in a atheist world - and I think there certainly is, and Dawkins explains it quite well - that still would not change the fact that in a world created and governed by a omni-benevolent God, they should be so much suffering? Why Tsunami's? Why cot-deaths?

One does not have to have an alternative view that works to know one is being told nonsence. For example I may not know what the cause of Global warming is, but if someone tells me it is caused by eating peas on Fridays - I can be certain they are speaking nonsence, without having to first have an alternative explanation.

Same with evil in your world view. This universe was created by an all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God, yet there is so much suffering and pain? Surely no loving person, who is all powerful and all knowing, would allow such things.

The fact that your God does is proof he cannot be what you claim for him.

Now for your next piece of nonsence

"And the atheist needs to be invited to contemplate the negative results, as well as the apparently positive ones, of the great push towards atheism in the last two centuries...."

You mean God belief has done so much good in the world - inquisition, progroms, crusades etc.,?

Now you are right that God is not the only ideaology that people 'can sell their souls to the devil for'. It is the dogmatic belief that I am right, and you are wrong that, if unchecked, leads to massacres.

Now God belief cannot free itself from Dogmatism. If 'God' says something is right - then who are you or I to disagree.

'God says' is not an invite for dialogue.

So let us not pretend that God belief is not dogmatic ideology.

When people follow a dogmatic ideology, not based on religion, then as appalling as that is, in an atheist worldvire, one can understand why we live in a universe where such things happen.

However, Why would Jesus (God), who taught his disciples that "By your love they shall know that you are my disciples." have disciples who have butchered and mamied millions during the centuries - and still do to this day?

If I was Jesus (God), I would have something to say about that - and in a theist world we would expect God to make his opposition obvious (After all he is all powerful), but instead we have silence - which is exactly what in an athiest world one would expect.

Finally you point to religious experience: I am none plussed? Which religious experience would that be?

Would that be St Dominic's and Bernard Gui's religious experiences which led to the slaughter of thousands by the inquisition.

Would this be St Francis Xavier's religious experience, the man who requested the inquision be established in Goa - and then went on to witness the death of thousands of Hindu's, who were burnt at the stake, hundred's at a time, in what were sweetly called "acts of faith."?

Or would this be Moses' religious experience - when he ordered the death's of hundreds of Jewish men and boys in God's name (After God spoke to him no less), because they had worshipped the Golden Calf?

Religious experience comes in so many varieties, with some claiming that their religious experience is true but that persons religious experience is false, or satanical. Any 'truth' claims based on religious experience is worthless.

And religious experiences can easily be induced by drugs, or starvation, or the hypnotic repeating of ritual actions? To claim this is proof of God seems incredible. It is proof of the power of the human mind's imagination.

You end with the classic line "the dialogue between believers and atheists needs to be ... courteous".

Let us see, in this article you say atheists should not want to promote atheism - only religions should be promoted. If atheists do want to promote atheists they are somehow fanatcis, or bitter (possibly both). You say atheists

1/ are really scared God exists

2/ may have been abused in someway as children

3/ Want sex and drugs, and not God.

4/ Are not humble enough to repent and/or admit that there religious elders were right.

Gee Bishop, I have a real warm comforting feeling that you really want to try and understand why I think atheism is a more rational worldview then theism.

Do you really think people are taken in by such hypocrisy - you don't want people to "simply rant and shout", a noble goal - and one I share.

But is your post here, though I am sure spoken gently, and with no shouting at all - not a rant and an attack on atheists? Are you really saying to atheists, "Let's discuss honestly and openly why you hate God? Suspect God exists? Want sex and drugs and not God? Do not want to repent? Do not want to be humble and see that your Sunday school teacher was right?

Gee, I wonder why I feel slight cheesed with your condescension? Whatever could the reason be.. must simply be that I am an atheist.

Must be that, surely Bishop, may be the Sunday School teacher lost her temper with me to many times???????!!!

nogods

Mr. Wright said:

"I have often noticed – this isn’t an argument, merely an observation – that the people who are most vehemently angry against belief (whether Christian or otherwise) are people who are really anxious, sometimes even frightened, about the possibility that there might be a God, that Christianity might be true, or whatever."

I'm curious as to how you have made this observation? I am one of those atheists who is an "activist", I have a website, post on forums, etc. But, its not that I have any current fear that Christianity might be true, its that I USED TO have this fear. I used to basically believe "Pascal's Wager", that you should be a believer "just in case", but, the harder I tried to be a believer, the more illogical I found it and the harder to believe it became. Its that I wasted so many years chasing after fool's gold that is why I'm an "activist".

Mr. Wright said:

"Sometimes it’s because they moved from their traditional Catholic or Protestant (or Jewish, or whatever) home base at the same time as they discovered ‘the wider world’ (which usually means drink, sex and so forth), and are anxious that if they ‘admitted it was all true after all’ they’d have to go back to the beginning, admit that Mum and Dad were right after all, and become, in effect, a good little Sunday School child once more – a prospect too frightful to contemplate for any self-respecting adult. . ."

I know you are a respected author, but, well, you just are blabbering complete nonsense. Its like you have never actually talked to an atheist and think you can read our minds. Which I get all the time from you theists. Its very annoying.

But, let's dispel some myths here. I'm an atheist. I'm married, only once, for 16 years. I was virgin when I got married. Now, I confess it was more because I was a high school looser than any great moral choice, but, it is still a true statement. Been married 16 years. Never been intoxicated even once in my entire life. I have no weird kinky sex thrills that I gotta deny God so that I can get my kicks, okay?

Also, there was a study by a Christian organization, I can't find the link, but I'll try to dig it up. But, the findings of this study was that non-believers were more moral than believers. Non believers have lower divorce rate than believers. Per capita, we make up the lowest totals of prison inmates. We give a higher percentage of income to charity. And remember, this was the conclusion of a study funded by a Christian organization.

As far as this bit about how I might find I need to admit mommy and daddy were right, well, I grew up in a non religious home. My parents made some occasional references to belief of some sort, but very very rarely. We never attended church, not once. I sought out religion on my own, perhaps due to influence of friends who were religious. I started to attend church regularly in my 20's after never having gone to church before -- ever.

So, what happened after that was, I just read apologetics. I haven't read yours, sorry to say. But I read Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel, Charles Colson, Charles Swindell, and others. And, I just eventually concluded its all a load of nonsense. That's it. No great, "gee, I gotta have kinky sex so I'll pretend God isn't real" nonsense.

So, when I read your attempt to mind-read the atheist, I know you are completely full of baloney. Which, makes me suspect the theist's mind reading act is just an act to cover up their own insecurity of their own beliefs. Talk to an atheist before writing about us, okay?

I think we need to see thatBishop Wright's comment about atheism and the excesses of the USSR etc, is not directed towards individual atheists. Atheist commentators often point out (we've had a few here already do so) the Crusades, Inquisition etc, as an indication that there may be something rotten at the heart of the Church. That doesn't mean that every individual believer is a violent fanatic, just that there are systemic problems regarding the ideology and institutions that Christians have set up. The Bishop is pointing out that the philosophy of the 'Enlightenment', which was supposed to set us free from violence, has also at times degenerated into ideologically motivated violence (eg. destroying the church because it challenges the authority of the secular state).
It's more fruitful to be critical of our own beliefs than the beliefs of others.

With all due respect, we owe some to the Bishop. Atheists have too often claimed a monopoly on the "look at the violence your ideology has produced" argument.

He is asking us to consider: has the track record of atheism and the secular state been much better in the short time we've seen its rise since the Enlightenment? This is a serious question - with sobering implications. At the very least, it is worth consideration.

Many people are acting no better than those they denounce so vehemently. What is felt by some to be Wright's reductive dismissals of atheism are responded too with equally (if not more) dismissals. Without the attempt to see where Wright is coming from, this is hardly much of a conversation. Especially when he sets it up as a personal observation.

yes i got that the meaning was if humans are doing the attaching then theyre the impetus behind the action

"our name implies a certain eschewing of the company of people?"

May I introduce you to the concept of ironic humour? ;-)

Truth is I am a but hermitic by nature; there are times when I need solitude.

But A Hermit's life is a busy one, filled with family, friends, work, hobbies, occasional travel, performances with my band....so the name is a little joke of mine...

"so humans created good then?"
"Good" is the word we use to describe those things of which we approve.

umm well- your name implies a certain eschewing of the company of people?

so humans created good then?
ok

"well hermit- i guess you are witnessing good reasons to eschew the company of the masses right here, eh?"

Not sure what that means...?

"why put oneself through it then?"

It's called self defense...if someone is telling lies about what I believe I feel obliged to set the record straight.

"why is there such a thing as beauty and kindness and value and good?"

Those are values human beings attach to the things which make their lives better. No need for mystery there...

"thanks for your reasonable answer"

I always try to be reasonable. Just ignore the bullies who have nothing to contribute but insults; there are always a few on both sides, but they're like little dogs yapping at passersby through the fence. Really not worth getting upset about.

well hermit- i guess you are witnessing good reasons to eschew the company of the masses right here, eh?

why put oneself through it then?
when i encounter a piece that overtly insults my self identification- well- i will make an attempt to be the most mannerly i can and give a good example-

you also have given valid reasons without rancor-

i am starting to take a little pride in the responses of any who can control their anger enough to express intelligent and interesting ideas-

also he does raise a good point- why is there such a thing as beauty and kindness and value and good?

thanks for your reasonable answer

As for bad manners, Victoria, once again it is the Christian who is being insulting and rude here. Bishop Wright concludes that we become atheists either as a result of some trauma or through indifference and laziness. I did not "simply drift" into unbelief, nor was I scarred by some awful experience, but Bishop Wright seems incapable of considering the possibility that some of us became atheists after careful, honest consideration of the facts, of scripture and of ourselves.

Then he calls us Communists!

How can we can have the "courteous, listening and careful dialogue" the Bishop claims to want when he starts out with insults and misinformation like that?

It's very disappointing...

"why do atheists again i lament- feel that they have the right to tell others how their thinking process should work?"

I don't know, Victoria; maybe it's just self defense. Why do Christians feel they have to threaten us with eternal torment if we don't share their beliefs?

what possible evidence would the bishop be able to give?
didnt you understand when he said " i have noticed" that he wasnt postulating an evidence laden theorem- but making a subjective personal observation?
self evidenced by the statement opening with "i have noticed"?

he said good not god.

why do atheists again i lament- feel that they have the right to tell others how their thinking process should work?
do you have some manifesto?
am i to believe all atheists have similar thought processes?
why come to a clearly christian site with the expectation that the christian speaker will think in a way that meets your expectations?

i dont go on atheists panelists responses and criticize their lack of faith-

its just not good manners.

"atheists don't bother about the problem of Thor and alchemy"

I don't know Edward; that hammer thingy of Thor's scares the hell outta me...

Bishop Smith,

"I have often noticed – this isn’t an argument, merely an observation – that the people who are most vehemently angry against belief (whether Christian or otherwise) are people who are really anxious, sometimes even frightened, about the possibility that there might be a God, that Christianity might be true, or whatever."

Readers, notice that the good bishop provides absolutely no evidence for this assertion. Bishop, you should be embarrassed for engaging in this kind of sloppy thinking.

Second, you are right that atheists need to deal with the problem of god. Were it not for religion's intrusion into the public square, we'll all live and let live. After all, atheists don't bother about the problem of Thor and alchemy.

oops; the comment by "Atheist" above, was me...

"See too, the massive negative results of the greatest experiments in atheism the world has ever seen – the USSR with its Gulag, and Mao’s China"

Oh good; let's trot out this tired old lie; that'll really help us have a respectful dialogue...

Two points:

1) "Communism" is not synonymous with "Atheism"

2) Colonial Christian rulers (like Belgium's King Leopold II) are probably responsible for just as many (if not more) deaths than those "godless Commies".

Oh, and just for good measure (and a bit of pre-emption) Hitler was NOT an atheist...

Victoria, you write, ". . . the emotional reactionary and negative responses by atheists towards anyone who doesnt share their view of the universe . . . illustrat[es] the bishops points"

I could not agree more. It reminds me of an atheist t.v. show I watched many years ago wherein the hosts would rant so long and hard in a monologue format that I was sure they were going to have aneurisms.

i am becoming increasingly disheartened by the emotional reactionary and negative responses by atheists towards anyone who doesnt share their view of the universe- by such behavior you are rather illustrating the bishops points-

it does little to initiate dialogue becasue im afraid to express my opinion for fear of being picked apart-

tolerance is something we all need more of
peace

Jason

A very brilliant and scintillating rebuttal on your part. You have restored my "faith" in the inability of the average religious zealot to reason.

Typically the rebuttal goes like this, "Oh yeah!! well you will burn in Hell you atheist, the Bible says so!!"

But yours works just as well.

I am now thoroughly chastised and will repent forthwith.

www.atheistactivist.org

Arthur,

Thank you for demonstrating once again that non-Christians are morons.

Wow. What nonsense. I liked the bit about "the problem of good" and especially more the issue of the "existence" of "things" like beauty, love, and meaning (almost as if the author is suggesting that such 'things' actually have the tangible quality of coporeal 'existence' and are not the manifestations of the thinking minds trying to describe the relation between oneself, others, and objects). What a way to just brush aside two and a half milleniums of philosophy. A mere few hours on wikipedia reading up on the ancient to modern philosophers will cause one to laugh at this complete mockery of intuitive thought.

To Jove,

"...native Americans. They were a pack of heathen savages..."

Aren't we all.

John

At last a rational individual. I admire your moral code. A pity the simplicity of it will be over the heads of the more dogmatic fundamentalists. But I think even many religious can understand and relate to it.

Someone comments: From my experience teaching university students in the United States, most theists more or less consciously and more or less confusedly subscribe to some version of divine command theory, believing that things acquire value because God wills or commands them. Now divine command theory is a very primitive and confused foundation for ethics.

Hi, Commenter,

This ethical theory is not typical of the ethics found in Catholic universities for the last 600 years or so. The ethics generally favored in Catholic universities has been natural law ethics based on Aristotelian and Stoic natural law ethics. These days such systems are called "fact based" theories because they appeal to the facts of human nature, not to arbitrary choices of God. True, God chose to create human nature, but that being the case the moral laws are principles which don't change so long as people are people.

According to Catholic moral teaching these moral laws are discoverable in two ways: through ordinary human experience (we discover through experience that lying and cheating, etc., don't make us flourish) and through revelation.

This does not mean that all of God's commands are unchangeable. His command that every seventh day should be set aside for the good of man and for worshipping God *could* be changed because human nature does not require anything so specific. He could have chosen every 6th or 5th day, or no day at all.

If anyone is interested in a fine presentation of natural law theory, read Alasdair MacIntyre's classic "After Virtue". It has renewed interest in natural law ethics in universities other than the Catholic ones.

Ann O.

PS I realize it wasn't a complete robbery of native Americans. They were a pack of heathen savages and God was brought to them in exchange for their gold.

Dear Bishop:

The Anglican church does the original mass just like Roman Catholics. When you hold the chalice with what you believe is the body and blood of Jesus do you ever wonder where the gold used to make it came from? Could it be part of the loot taken by Sir Francis Drak when he piratted Spanish ships hauling it from Latin America to Sapin?

I believe that is the case, the chalice used to hold Jesus is made from robbed gold. I also notice your use of the word "good" in your essay title. Perhaps you would elaborate on how "good" it was to receive gold taken from it's rightful owners to praise God.

Maybe we could right that wrong at the same time we strive to return gold taken from Jews by Nazis. I'm sure Jesus would approve. Don't you expect Jesus is against robbery to say nothing of the million of murders involved in the robberies.

Thank you.

Good is easy.

I live by the "Platinum Rule":
"Be lawful, be fair, and so long as no one is hurt by it, treat others the way they want to be treated."

That totally trumps the bible's version (which has been twisted by child molesters, etc.) and it was written by an atheist - me.

Because of it, I get to enjoy life free to take responsibility for my own actions, free from fear of punishment, free to do good things because I want to, and free to forgive myself for mistakes.

I can understand why so many people want to disprove religious dogma. The various dogmas attempt to define people by making claims about humanity and the natural world. I personally find the doctrine of Original Sin horrid and noxious. But I don't understand why so many believers want to disprove atheism. From my reading, atheism rejects supernatural existence and the afterlife, but makes no claims about humanity itself. Atheism doesn't threaten people with eternal damnation if they believe in deity.

I agree that atheists must confront the `problem of good,' i.e. of gaining insight into the foundations of ethics. However, I think that this challenge presents itself to theists just as much as it presents itself to atheists. From my experience teaching university students in the United States, most theists more or less consciously and more or less confusedly subscribe to some version of divine command theory, believing that things acquire value because God wills or commands them. Now divine command theory is a very primitive and confused foundation for ethics. One may, for example, consult Plato's Euthyphro for pretty conclusive proofs that actions never acquire goodness because someone has commanded them (whether the person having commanded them is very powerful or omniscient or omnibenevolent is irrelevant here. Even if an extremely powerful very benign and wise emperor commanded an action, that action would not become good *just because* that emperor commanded that action.) Of course, many believers are influenced by other, more sophisticated and rational ethical considerations than brute divine command theory, but as far as I can see, divine command theory has a rather crippling influence on many people's ethical thinking, and this is one of the pernicious effects of theism.

Adopting a religion-based ethics has a tendency to blind believers to truer, more sophisticated, and more reality-oriented ethical thought. Often, religious people are therefore under the mistaken impression that, if atheism were true, there would be no foundation for morality. This has often been shown to be false, for example by Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, and again by enlightenment philosophers such as Kant. The attempts of these philosophers to confront `the problem of good' are in my experience not only more sincere intellectually, but also overall more successful and satisfactory than the available religious accounts.

Anonymous needs to know that there have been more death-bed conversions than in any other circumstance. Saddam Hussein's apparent conversion is directly related to his impending execution, just as the prospect of the American invasion caused him to destroy his remaining WMD. Self-serving statements by tyrants can't gloss over the evil of their deeds. Neither can appeals to religious tenents redeem those who have abused their authority to commit crimes against others. Some of the greatest evils have been committed by those who thought they were following the path to democracy and enlightenment. The reign of terror following the French, Russian and Chinese revolutions were part of the growing pains of societies trying to make the transition from tyranny to democracy.

Carl Jung said that the phenomenon of the 20th century dictators, and all the misery they wrought, was due to Western man losing his transcendance because of the short-sightedness of the superintellectuals.

History shows that the replacement of religious values with intellectual values leaves us without a moral compass. Religious values without moral values justifies any number of crimes against humanity.

Nicholas, your seizing on some commenters (all basically anonymous) and using them to characterize all non-believers is a poor form of argumentation known as "nutpicking."

No one speaks for "atheism" or "non-belief." Non-believers have even less in common with each other than all theists (who believe an extremely diverse range of things). All we have in common with each other is that we DON'T have a PARTICULAR thing in common with each other (God beliefs).

Some non-believers think believers should stop believing. I would think that most probably don't care one way or the other. Myself, I don't want to convert anyone in our out of their religious belief. But I do oppose claims and attacks made about factual matters and people. I think often people on your side of things confuse one for the other.

For instance, you claim that atheists have a "problem of good" to solve. But atheists don't have any problems to solve particular to atheism, because atheism isn't a particular ideology in and of itself, just the lack of a particular one. I've never heard a convincing answer from theists on the very same question regardless: many many things in life, especially vaguely defined metaphysical ones, are mysteries to everyone. I think philosophers in general, believers and non, have taken a decent crack at questions like this, and I don't have any particular problem in my daily life, nor contradictions, in appreciating beauty or having value for things even if I cannot explain exactly what values are. No one seems to be able to. We just have them. Trying to dump the issue onto atheists as a way to scoff at us doesn't quite seem sporting.

Truth?

The recognition of reality. Not Arbitrary, not immaterial, something verifiable.

An abstract concept based observed concrete facts and proven with repeatability.

Truth is a human concept, much like good and evil.

A bird or other animal would not understand the concept of good an evil. But it would understand Hunger, warmth, pain, comfort, and fear.

The abstract concept of a Glass or Cup or Bottle holding water when held in a certain range of positions is a truth. It is also a truth that it will pour out of any such receptacle unless accted opon by another force.

It is called concept formation. The base is the Law of Identity.

The problem comes in in that there is no set concept for "God". It seems to have no consistency of agreement for what it is. Even among it's various adherents. As such it is not testable or demonstrable in anyway. It is also not falsifiable. If the evolutionary theory were to be proven false, or the laws of physics it would be a simple matter. Have an ant spontaneously turn into 400 ft tall elephant flap it's ears and then fly away. This would disprove Evolution, the laws of Thermo Dynamics, the Cube squared law, Gravity and a host of others. it would upset a lot of scientists and engineers, and mathematicians but after verifying it they would come to accept that there understanding of the universe needed up dating or a total revision.

If something comes up that could shake a believer in their god all they do is either put up blinders , or change their definition to be something else or say ultimately, "Well God is outside Reality, time ....." or what ever.

Which is to say that God is not a "recognition of reality"

To Jason Bradfield

You wrote:

"Secondly, you’re never going to get “evidence” for the existence of God because you’re an empiricist. Of course you’re not going to find any empirical evidence for an immaterial God…duh."

im·ma·te·ri·al Pronunciation (m-tîr-l)
adj.
1. Of no importance or relevance; inconsequential or irrelevant.
2. Having no material body or form.

Nice to Know that even some Christians feel God is IRRELEVANT.

"I have often noticed – this isn’t an argument, merely an observation – that the people who are most vehemently angry against belief (whether Christian or otherwise) are people who are really anxious, sometimes even frightened, about the possibility that there might be a God, that Christianity might be true, or whatever."

No, atheists are anxious about the *fact* that human beings are continuing to destroy each other because of their conflicting fairy tales.

BREE:

Atheism with respect to external anthropomorphic gods is one thing... but denying the relevance and role of immaterial life/mind is quite another.

Hi, Bree,

Thanks for a very cogent post. ISTM that many of the arguments concerning the existence of God are often predicated on the assumption that only material things are real. This was the big problem for David Hume, the English guiding light of the Enlightenment. He looked for mind among the colors, shapes, odors, sounds, etc. of the empirical world, and, of course, he couldn't find them there because mind is not dimensional, at least not in the same sense that those realities are. And to justify science he looked for "necessary relationships" among those sensory data, and, of course, he couldn't find any of those either. (Odd how those in the Enlightenment tradition pick and choose among Hume's powerful arguments. Sigh.)

It amazes me how American higher education doesn't address such questions for all the students. It is one thing not to offer theology courses. It is another not to offer courses on the foundations of science for at least the science students. If there were such requirements perhaps we wouldn't have these arguments that go nowhere -- and can't go anywhere -- about finding God in the cosmos. There's a lot of Enlightenment blather in non-philosophy courses about freeing the mind from the ancient superstitions but very little about the naive nonsense of philosophers like Hume -- who is to this day the guiding light of the Enlightenment tradition.

Ann O.

Atheism with respect to external anthropomorphic gods is one thing... but denying the relevance and role of immaterial life/mind is quite another. The latter stance is neither logical nor scientific. Evolution and "sexual selection" were able to occur precisely because of the driving activity of life/mind. Nothing but life/mind seeks more expression/experience of life/mind. Life must be somehow inherent in any nonlocal, non-deterministic reality such as ours (if it exists at any point within it...).

So..."atheists" may avoid one kind of confusion, only to rest in another. Religious folks often have some things correct... pulling toward an "ideal of good" (though sometimes in highly imperfect human ways). Atheists often have some things correct... pulling toward evidence and reason as the correct basis for belief (though sometimes with a "holier than thou" attitude).

Thing is, there is experiential evidence that reasoning minds do exist, and they are, in fact, utterly superfluous to "material reality." Neither ancient wisdom nor modern science ALONE tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Bishop Wright said: I have often noticed – this isn’t an argument, merely an observation – that the people who are most vehemently angry against belief (whether Christian or otherwise) are people who are really anxious, sometimes even frightened, about the possibility that there might be a God, that Christianity might be true, or whatever.

I want to ask the Bishop under what circumstances these observations were made. It may well be that if a believer has experienced a significant crisis of faith, they may very well be anxious, at least until the crisis is resolved one way or the other. Apparently, some people who have rather dreadful experiences with their faith or those who have inculcated them into it, do have anger issues when they emerge from its grasp.

Yet I have never known an atheist who was "angry" or "anxious" as a result of their atheism. Every atheist I have known (maybe 100 or so) had a relatively uneventful "awakening" that grew slowly or dawned suddenly. And once they awakened to the lack of evidence or need for a god, they simply moved on.

Questions of "evil" and "good"? These are essentially ethical questions and need no god as an answer. "Goodness" is natural, and despite the presence of "evil" in this world, manages to win out often enough for species to survive and for social animals, such as humans, to thrive.

"In fact, the dialogue between believers and atheists (and please note that the nature of ‘belief’ itself changes according to which God it is you believe in – this is very important) needs to be as courteous, listening and careful as all other dialogues. I look forward to it and hope that this website will be a step on the way!"

If it is a question of "which" God, then isn't presenting a choice itself a way of acknowledging that no one knows the answer -- the question is not whether there is a God (or some super power or force) but whether your God is the true God. Or indeed, a God at all.

I read that Saddam Hussein has issued a letter calling on the Iraqi people not to hate the Americans and invoking the embrace of God as a martyr. He writes, according to the translation in the article in The Post, "I say goodbye to you, but I will be with the merciful God who helps those who take refuge in Him and God won't disappoint any honest believer."

So, Bishop Wright, as between you and Saddam Hussein, who is the honest believer and who has the true God?

I would bet that you condemn Saddam Hussein and treat his statements of belief and his "self-surrender" to God a phony act -- indeed, you begin your article by talking about "foolish or wicked people using religion as a mask for their own manipulative or abusive behaviour."

How do we tell that Saddam Hussein is foolish or wicked and being manipulative or abusive and you are not? The "you" in the preceding sentence is not Bishop Wright personally, but every "you" who declares that he or she has a handle on the truth in the most unprovable of propositions.

If you are looking for respect and a civil dialogue, it seems to me that a good place to start is to respect the opinions and beliefs of all.

I find it just as distasteful that people who believe in God condemn aetheists or people of other religions as that aetheists use vituperative language about the beliefs of those who believe.

Yet, if we are being fair, there is a long history of people who believe in a religion being abusive about coercing all others. And, as you point out, the Soviet Union and China were abusive towards those who believed.

In the final analysis, we should let people be free to believe or not believe and leave religion or aetheism out of politics.

Anonymous,

No mission to convert? Hahaha….how about watching the “Beyond Belief” conference videos and the little squirmish they had over whether or not atheists should employ Biblical language with fence riders to make evolution more appealing.

No, you guys are not evangelists…yeah right. Heck, you guys look like any other religious group…conferences, evangelism techniques, debates, and even doomsday prophets. (Sam Harris) By the way, a fellow ‘atheist’ called Harris that.

Furthermore, my problem with you is that you can not even account for the concept of ‘truth’, much less tell me what is true and what is not.

Secondly, you’re never going to get “evidence” for the existence of God because you’re an empiricist. Of course you’re not going to find any empirical evidence for an immaterial God…duh.

Third, you said, “The universe behaves in accordance with certain laws”.

Prove one scientific law.

Poor Bishop Wright. Almost no one is going to church anymore in the U.K.. I've read that many of the churches have almost no active membership.

I agree with Dawkins that it's pathetic that the god-believers thinks it's only a god that makes them do good things. If that's the only reason you do good, then I'd be wary of you when I was in a vulnerable situation.

As for the so-called tragic experiments of China and Russia -- is he forgetting what his land did in Dresden? Does he think British colonial rule was beneficent? Does he think Britain attained its colonial wealth without shedding innocent blood? Look at what the good Christian U.S. did in Vietnam and does now in Iraq. As for the French Revolution, is he advocating a return to monarchical rule? Does he think the poor were treated well by the Christian monarchs?

Is he aware of the studies that show a positive correlation between prejudiced beliefs and religious beliefs? And the inverse relationship between intelligence and religious belief?

The problem of "good"? Neither Good nor Evil is a problem for Atheism. To me it has never addressed it. Both are terms related morals and ethics. An ethical code is independent of any Veiw as to whether we should approach the world, universe, existence or what ever as either supernatural or natural.

I choose first to believe that the world is knowable, and understandable, that it is not dependent on the whim of a supernatural being, or beings. I do not believe that by power or virtue of my mind, or prayer that some entity is going change the laws of the universe for my benefit.

Good is not a problem. Nor is Evil. Choose a philosophy of life that allows you to coexist with others and to prosper without exploiting or being exploited. There are many codes and philosophies to choose from. I suggest as a basis it should be rational, non contradictory, and recognize that all human have the same and equal rights. Choose wisely or one will be assigned to you by default.

There will always be those that seek to exploit others to their own ends. Many are religious, some are probably even atheistic. But that does not mean that being an atheist actually makes you evil, despite passages in the bible and Koran to the contrary.

For some reason the religious, devout, and to me superstitious seem to take great offense at those who manage to lead good and ethical lives without a belief in storm gods, Angels or faires, or any mythical creator beings.

I'm troubled by some of the implications of Bishop Wright's essay, mainly his challenge that atheists must reconcile themselves with tragic "experiments" like the USSR and China. Do believers have a monopoly on what is good and peaceful in the world? Have we forgotten such unpleasant episodes as the Inquisition and the Crusades?

While religion has been a mechanism to define the limits of morality, it has also been used as justification for some truly immoral acts. I wonder how this complicates Bishop Wright's understanding of atheism and, as he claims, its often negative results?

Belief in God does not stop believers from doing evil. Meanwhile, altruism or enlightened self-interest can motivate non-believers to do good. So what intrinsic linkage is there between good behavior and religious belief? Secular Japan and Skandinavia have far lower crime rates than the most church-going sections of America. And, oh, Mr. Wright, what if there is a God, but the one revealed by Mohammed? Do I see your hair stand on end? Seems that would worry you more than that there be none at all. Theists bicker and jihad more with eachother than with nonbelievers. The difference is that most nonbelievers disavow violence, whereas theists, believing they have pure truth, feel mortally threatened by dissenters or rival beliefs.

Norrie:

"Most people get it right: they are quiet agnostics who know inside themselves that they have no idea of whether there is a "God" or not."

I think you are being kindly optimistic -- I think many are agnostic and recognize their belief -- but many really do hold the absolutist positions that they 'know'.

Sigh.

Bishop Wright,

Let's see, you account for the development of an atheistic position as stemming from one or more of the "4 D's"; 1. DAMAGED: Atheists have been damaged by their early experiences at the hands of unscrupulous religionists etc, and since they cannot seem to help themselves, being children and all, they are to be pitied all the more. No wonder they are ALL so darned angry! 2. DRIFTING: Atheists have just sort of well, let themselves slide into unbelief, maybe like a neglected garden is overrun by weeds, poor things. 3. DELUDED: Atheists have become deluded by those bad men, Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld, and are simply throwing out the baby with the proverbial bathwater. They will return to the believing fold when sanity is restored to the seat of government. So, be patient with them. 4. DEFAULT: Those poor atheists are simply maintaining the default philosophical position of the 19th century, intransigent buggers!

Then you go on to extol the manifold benefits of civil discourse on this topic, which should be "courteous, listening, and careful."

Please pardon me if I doubt your sincerity on that last bit.

I think the author needs to clarify the meaning of convert. Unconvert?

A question bishop. How do you know it's God you are leading the lambs to worship? Atheists can't prove there is no God. Is that your answer?

Interpretation 1501, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is as legitimate as any other interpretation of the Bible and better than saying Almighty God can't get His way without trickery and killing firstborn sons. It's clear you dispute. Where's your counter argument?

What if God gave you a sign? Would you recognize it? If you did would you do what God is telling you to do? Are you now doing what you believe, have faith God wants you to do?

"I have often noticed – this isn’t an argument, merely an observation – that the people who are most vehemently angry against belief (whether Christian or otherwise) are people who are really anxious, sometimes even frightened, about the possibility that there might be a God, that Christianity might be true, or whatever."

This is the language that Scientologists use against their critics. I'm not joking. They ask critics of Scientology "What are YOUR crimes? You must have something in your past that you're trying to cover up for you to be coming after us!"

It's not a coincidence, since the only different between Christianity and Scientology is a couple thousand years.

Gerry,

On what basis are you reasoning?

Veritos

A critique of Dawkins' latest book can be found here:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html

Christians and atheists are two sides of the same coin. They both spend their lives setting forth positive beliefs for which there is no evidence.

Most people get it right: they are quiet agnostics who know inside themselves that they have no idea of whether there is a "God" or not.

By the way, if you are going to start throwing around the "atheists are killers" motif, you are obligated to explain the Crusades, witch trials, the Spanish Inquisition, and a number of current religious based problems in the Middle East. I don't think you want to go there. As an aside, I really hate it when journalists talk about "sectarian violence" when an equally accurate term would be "religious war".

Jason has posted this same comment on every one of the forum boards. LOL! You'd think he could at least TRY to tie it into the different points each contributer has articulated. Sheer laziness not to.

"The Christian has to deal with ‘the problem of evil,’ but the atheist has to deal with ‘the problem of good’ – that is, if the world is completely random, a chance collocation of accidental atoms, why is there such a thing as beauty, as value? "

Sigh. The world isn't "completely random", nor are the creatures that inhabit it. You need to learn a bit about the mechanisms of astronomy, geology and biology, not to mention natural selection.

"Value" is not unknown to other animals - in fact, it's how sexual selection takes place. The peahen chooses the male with the most spectacular tail to sire her young, because ancestral peahens who did that, left more offspring (the more spectacular tail is a sign of physical health, which equates to genetic health). The springbok female chooses the male with the largest territory and harem because the ancestors who did that raised more viable offspring. Large territory means a better food supply and a larger herd means more to hide among (safety in numbers).

"Beauty" has much the same roots. A place is beautiful because it looks like a comfortable and bounteous place to live. A green valley with a winding brook vs. a muddy plain dotted with puddles of polluted water. A beautiful woman (from a man's point of view) has the look of health (symmetry; smooth skin and good color; lush, shiny hair; bright eyes; white teeth) and the attributes that suit her for childbearing (wide hips; large, firm breasts; long legs that denote sexual maturity). Sure, we see beauty in other things (like sunsets), but this is collateral. The basic function is to maximize our chances of leaving offspring.

Look, I am not trying to convert anyone, but I find your fairy tales to be a completely absurd cosmological world view, even if they let you teach it at Oxford and Cambridge. My position has nothing to do with guilt over something my parents did, politics or anything else. I simply do not believe in the existence of God -- certainly not a personified king-like God who demands worship by his subjects, and most certainly not in the Trinitarian mumbo-jumbo that is the official doctrine of your church. But, to each his own -- a position I can hold as long as people don't start trying to force stories about women and talking snakes to be the core of our science curriculum. In Britain you are mercifully free of that, for the moment. In the US, where Christian conservatives have a powerful political impact on every aspect of social policy, it requires a forceful response.

Once again, On Faith provides a religious bigot a forum to spew his ignorant, belittleling misrepresentations of atheists.

Here's some truths to counter Mr. Wright's lies and prejudices:

1. I, and most atheists I know, have no mission to convert unbelievers. Our "mission", if we have one, is to promote truths about the natural world in education and public discourse. It's your problem if these truths conflict with religious lies you hold dear.

2. I, and every atheist I have ever known, have no fear or anxiety that some goddess may actually exist. The probability that any of the gods man has created actually exists is so phenomenally small that is is not worth consideration.

3. Some atheists, though not myself, have negative personal experiences with religion. Some atheists, including myself, like sex and like alcohol. Some atheists, though not myself, are afraid to tell their parents they are atheists because they have seen the bigoted reaction people have towards us and don't wish to risk this reaction from their own families.

None of these things are the reason we are atheists. I, and every atheist I know, are atheists because there is no evidence for gods.

4. You claim atheism has been the default mode for Westerners for over a century. How exactly does that mesh with the fact that the USA, Canada, and almost every European country is over 80% Christian?

5. "The Christian has to deal with ‘the problem of evil,’ but the atheist has to deal with ‘the problem of good’ – that is, if the world is completely random, a chance collocation of accidental atoms, why is there such a thing as beauty, as value? (A hint: Dawkins’ valiant attempt to say it’s all about selfish genes and memes and things really doesn’t answer the question.)"

It's obvious you've never read Dawkins, and you have no understanding of the processes which govern the natural world. The world is NOT merely a random collection of atoms. The universe behaves in accordance with certain laws. Among these laws is evolution. One of the aspects of biological evolution is natural selection, which is decidedly not random. In fact, natural selection was the first and so far only real alternative to total randomness as a means of producing biological complexity.

Since you have no understanding of evolutionary concepts, you can't possibly be able to judge whether genes, memes, and other natural processes are sufficient to explain beauty. In any case, preaching "goddoneit" repeatedly isn't an answer anyway, so you don't even have an alternative to offer.

Why don't you take a break from posting here, Mr. Wright, and actually try to learn something about atheists, instead of repeatedly infantilizing us?

Jason, the whole well-known logical chatter could equally logically finish in the phrase:

If you want to give up sanity, stop being an atheist.

Funny conclusion you are jumping at by drawing God out of your sleeve. Every spaghetti monster preacher could use your whole piece for his purpose.

Gerry

(sigh)...why does it ALWAYS come down to atheists being *afraid* that there IS a god? Why can't folks of Mr. Wrights sort even *consider* that we just aren't convinced by the "Because the Bible says so" argument? But no. Everything comes down to US being afraid of the mere existance of God. (head shaking sadly...)

Nature in itself is purposeful. The four atomic forces (gravitation hasn't been completely understood yet), the cosmos, the evolution - these OBJECTIVE observations IN THEMSELVES - and their limits! - represent miracles of reason and beauty so unfathomably greater than any additional stories about this or that god.

The horrible crimes in history you mention can be understood both including or excluding a "purposeful" god. I find it a little bit below reasonable argumentation to claim that the crimes mentioned have anything to do with godlessness. The religiously motivated genocide crimes start in the Old Testament (Samuel etc.) and continue up to this day (Bush chatting with god about Iraq, reminds me of Saul and the Amalekitans, not to mention the Islamic fights in the Near East and Africa...)

I don't mind anybody believing in God or Allah or any other god. I might like or dislike him for any other reason than religion. I only don't want anybody trying to proselytize me.

Gerry

Men like Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Clark, especially, have demolished atheism years ago. I have yet to see the atheist answer to the works of Gordon Clark.

http://trinityfoundation.org

As Bahnsen demonstrated in his debate with Gordon Stein, the atheistic worldview cannot account for the preconditions needed for any rational discourse.

Gordon Clark said it this way:

Every statement, even if particular, depends on the law of contradiction. Truth and error are incompatible. If all marhoucals are rhinosaps, there cannot be a single marhoucal that is not a rhinosap. We do not have to inspect the infinite number of the latter in order to assure ourselves that none can be found. Given the premise, we do not need to examine even one. That O ab cannot be deduced from A ab is a necessity of logic. And if our minds are not so constructed, we can never distinguish truth from error. But empiricism furnishes no necessity, no universality, no all, no none.

Indeed, it furnishes no some either. Whether the logical form be universal or particular, the proposition must have a subject term. All dogs are vertebrates; some dogs are black. Suppose now that the subject term, dogs, had five meanings. This is not unusual for English words. Consult Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. Look up the words fast, curb, domestic, race, land-not to mention love, emotion, grace, religion, and virtue. Each one will have possibly four, five and sometimes six different meanings. This frequently introduces considerable ambiguity, with the result that an argument, apparently logical, is actually fallacious. The fallacy can be avoided, sometimes with a bit of trouble, by specifying meaning one, meaning two, and meaning three. But there is a deeper problem. Suppose a given word has an infinite number of meanings. The word fast would then mean every word in the dictionary from the article “a” to “zyzzogetan,” plus an unimaginable greater number. “Fast fast fast fast” would mean, “Today is last Tuesday” and “Washington discovered America in 1066.” That is to say, a word that means everything means nothing.

***** But this which is so obvious could not be deduced from any finite number of observations. It is a principle which must be accepted even before the term “observation” could be given any meaning at all. Therefore the use of any single word in an intelligible sentence depends on an a priori principle. *****

No blank mind could ever discover this principle. One could phrase the principle as “a word, to mean something, must also not mean something”; or, “if a word means everything, it means nothing.” Like the law of contradiction, it is a way of maintaining the distinction between truth and falsehood. And this distinction is the basic element in the image of God.

____

in fact, scientists themselves have seen the problem:

Albert Einstein, for example, speaking of our knowledge of the universe, said: "We know nothing about it at all . . .. The real nature of things, that we shall never know, never."

The British philosopher Karl Popper wrote: "We know that our scientific theories always remain hypotheses... In science there is no knowledge, in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth."

Popper went on to say: "It can even be shown that all [scientific] theories, including the best, have the same probability, namely zero."

Paul Feyerabend, in his book Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, writes:

"On closer analysis we even find that science knows no ‘bare facts’ at all but that the ‘facts’ that enter our knowledge are already viewed in a certain way and are, therefore, essentially ideational. This being the case, the history of science will be as complex, chaotic, full of mistakes, and entertaining as the ideas it contains, and these ideas in turn will be as complex, chaotic, full of mistakes, and entertaining as are the minds of those that invented them."

Bertrand Russell, certainly no friend of Christianity, stated it this way:

"All inductive arguments in the last resort reduce themselves to the following form: "If this is true, that is true: now that is true, therefore this is true." This argument is, of course, formally fallacious. Suppose I were to say: "If bread is a stone and stones are nourishing, then this bread will nourish me; now this bread does nourish me; therefore it is a stone, and stones are nourishing." If I were to advance such an argument, I should certainly be thought foolish, yet it would not be fundamentally different from the argument upon which all scientific laws are based."

___

Bottom line: All scientific experiments commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent.

If you want to give up sanity, become an atheist.

BISHOP WRIGHT:

Sometimes this is because they have been badly hurt in their upbringing by foolish or wicked people using religion as a mask for their own manipulative or abusive behaviour. Sometimes it’s because they moved from their traditional Catholic or Protestant (or Jewish, or whatever) home base at the same time as they discovered ‘the wider world’ (which usually means drink, sex and so forth), and are anxious that if they ‘admitted it was all true after all’ they’d have to go back to the beginning, admit that Mum and Dad were right after all, and become, in effect, a good little Sunday School child once more – a prospect too frightful to contemplate for any self-respecting adult.

ANN O.: Good morning, Bishop.

ISTM that you're describing many of the Boomers. Not that they are likely to be atheists. On the contrary, they are often generic believers who have simply rejected the specifics of what their parents taught them. Now that they are having children, I find that they are becoming more mature about these ultimate questions. I used to teach philosophy, and in their immaturity their ultimate issue was most often: is it OK to sleep with your girlfried/boyfriend? This is an important question, of course, but only distantly related to the question of whether or not there is a God and whether or not He has spoken to us about it or anything else.

I didn't find most of the Boomers to be insulting. On the contrary. What I find difficult on this list is trying to keep to the subject matter with people who are here mainly to insult my beliefs and reasons for my beliefs -- and to insult me, myself. No, certainly not all of the non-believers here are rude. Not at all. And there surely have been some rude Christian fundamentalists. It's amazing to me how many insults per post there are here. (If I were a sociologist I'd be inclined to count them :-)

How ironic -- during the Enlightenment intellectuals on *both* sides spoke seriously and civilly with each other. The biggest skeptic of them all, David Hume, even stayed a while at a Jesuit college talking with the Jesuits. I've read only his early works, but in them he certainly didn't insult the individuals who disagreed with him -- he just presented his arguments. So when self-styled "Enlightenment" people on this list start their diatribes, I can only wonder why they think they are part of that tradition

I saw Richard Dawkins on the Colbert Report recently and was impressed with him as a person. He seems totally committed to truth, though he is woefully ignorant of philosophy and theology of any sort. He even said a couple of times that he would "love to believe in God" but his evidence doesn't permit him to. He seemed quite sincere when he said it.

Which brings me to the other side of the coin: why hasn't Western higher education taught students the difference between name-calling and evidence, and why hasn't it given students even a rudimentary education in philosophy and religion? True, a few kids opt to take such courses, but in most schools they aren't part of the curriculum. However, I read recently that Harvard is considering putting religion in as a required subject. I just wonder how much theology their teachers will know, given that for generations now there has been no serious widespread teaching of theology in the universities. I attended a secular college myself and theology wasn't even offered. There was a course in the Bible as literature. Sheesh.

Anyway, thanks for making your great scholarship available to us. Perhaps the internet will help over-come the deficiences of university education.

(I'm reading your new book "Evil and the Justice of God". It's fascinating concerning sin, but my big problem -- and, of course, the big problem of many atheists -- is the problem of the suffering of innocents. I do hope you'll write on that someday. Not that I hope for a clear solution in this life. Sigh.)

Ann O.

This column is gibberish. To respond to the question:

I don't think "vogue" is accurate; perhaps "on the rise," is more to the point.

The reasons are:

We are better educated.

Science is more easily available to greater numbers of educated people.

Religions offer no real indications of the emerging (global) future; in fact, they only create more violence and cultural fragmentation.

The Bush Administration's abuse of "faith based politics" to advance a radical right wing agenda, which has created a global distaster and meanaces the Constitution.

We are a secular democracy and we all know that.

Finally, we don't need to be "atheist" to hold any of these views. If there is no God, there can be no "atheist". The burden of proof is always on the believer, regardless of the theory. This is what public debate means.

"And the atheist needs to be invited to contemplate the negative results, as well as the apparently positive ones, of the great push towards atheism in the last two centuries: the French Revolution, as soon as it got rid of God, did quite a lot of killing, including of its own people – a funny thing, that, considering the Enlightenment was supposed to be a way of getting rid of religion and so getting rid of violence. See too, the massive negative results of the greatest experiments in atheism the world has ever seen – the USSR with its Gulag, and Mao’s China . . ."

And the theists' hands are not stained with blood? Tell me who is righteous.

Dawkins is in fact capable of "productive conversation." Here are two examples I've found:

http://www.pugnax.org/2006/11/taking-edge-off-dawkins.html

We are all atheists to some degree...some of us have just dismissed more gods than others...