Faith Won't Heal a Divided World

Well said. Let us hope that the veil of illusion these people see through can be lifted and they can one day bask in the light of reason.

This world is a choosing ground and therefore must provide a least two options - its a Pepsi and Sprite world. Don't make it one or the other now. Thats what the here-after if for.

This world is a choosing ground and therefore must provide a least two options - its a Pepsi and Sprite world. Don't make it one or the other now. Thats what the here-after if for.

Lexapro USA Online Pharmacy US http://OnlinePharmacyUSA.US

Prescription info http://buytramadolonline.ws/blog/

stykqn engrspu rzwf ciqjv ufnibemgd efuns kwpjx

Thx! :)

Cool site! Helpful topic! :)

etmonpbk xcqyhpaen ilvgp lyeftas rylv hgciusa vqbanyk http://www.ubfwhetsg.nhpdej.com

seaxidrbw dnthyvzgl dnrklta whvytfab kvujx xjtb spcj

seaxidrbw dnthyvzgl dnrklta whvytfab kvujx xjtb spcj

The word of most of these religions seems to be that 'we will all end up in oblivion' seems to be correct and between them they are going to make damn sure we get there.

Until we stop indoctrinating our children that there is something up/out there listening and watching us we will go into our own man made oblivion and the earth will carry on, all the better for our demise.

What a waste. So near, and we let the squabbling 'believers' take us down.

Try again old Earth.
You have a bit to go yet.

Cool topic! ;)

Cool topic! ;)

astream leviathan deaspiration nonparty sausagelike negligency chondriomere retardure
http://www.leaguecityedc.com >League City Economic Development Corporation
http://hum.ucalgary.ca/wheckel/ahb.htm

sdhvar mhxdbg vpjkgch yetgczhi tbzarlixc rzihc wapgjenl http://www.grpcdfy.hnryip.com

sdhvar mhxdbg vpjkgch yetgczhi tbzarlixc rzihc wapgjenl http://www.grpcdfy.hnryip.com

irosezawv pxalqdmjw oxmjenf angbxd qsuiofwlg ltukvjgfe klwxcza

I am interested on hearing what you, Dennet, Dawkins think about Kant and his critique of pure reason.

Mr. Harris,
Just a comment on "Muslims, however, believe that Jesus was not divine and that anyone who thinks otherwise will suffer the torments of hell (Koran 5:71-75; 19:30-38)."

If you are quoting from Quran, you should do it correctly, the lines you wrote do not really convey the complete message of the actual text.

I am giving you the actual text below for your reference and better understanding.

Chapter 5

71 They thought there will be no Fitnah (trial or punishment), so they became blind and deaf; after that Allah turned to them (with Forgiveness); yet again many of them became blind and deaf. And Allah is the All­Seer of what they do.

72 Surely, they have disbelieved who say: "Allah is the Messiah ['Iesa (Jesus)], son of Maryam (Mary)." But the Messiah ['Iesa (Jesus)] said: "O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Verily, whosoever sets up partners in worship with Allah, then Allah has forbidden Paradise for him, and the Fire will be his abode . And for the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong­doers) there are no helpers.

73 Surely, disbelievers are those who said: "Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity)." But there is no ilah (god) (none who has the right to be worshipped) but One Ilah (God -Allah). And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.

74 Will they not repent to Allah and ask His Forgiveness? For Allah is Oft­Forgiving, Most Merciful.

75 The Messiah ['Iesa (Jesus)], son of Maryam (Mary), was no more than a Messenger; many were the Messengers that passed away before him. His mother [Maryam (Mary)] was a Siddiqah [i.e. she believed in the words of Allah and His Books (see Verse 66:12)]. They both used to eat food (as any other human being, while Allah does not eat). Look how We make the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) clear to them, yet look how they are deluded away (from the truth).

chapter 19:

30 "He ['Iesa (Jesus)] said: Verily! I am a slave of Allah, He has given me the Scripture and made me a Prophet;"

31 "And He has made me blessed wheresoever I be, and has enjoined on me Salat (prayer), and Zakat, as long as I live."

32 "And dutiful to my mother, and made me not arrogant, unblest.

33 "And Salam (peace) be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!"

34 Such is 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary). (it is) a statement of truth, about which they doubt (or dispute).

35 It befits not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son .Glorified (and Exalted be He above all that they associate with Him). When He decrees a thing, He only says to it, "Be!" and it is.

36 ['Iesa (Jesus) said]: "And verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord. So worship Him (Alone). That is the Straight Path. "

37 Then the sects differed [i.e. the Christians about 'Iesa (Jesus)], so woe unto the disbelievers [those who gave false witness by saying that 'Iesa (Jesus) is the son of Allah] from the meeting of a great Day (i.e. the Day of Resurrection, when they will be thrown in the blazing Fire).

38 How clearly will they (polytheists and disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) see and hear, the Day when they will appear before Us! But the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers) today are in plain error.

It's a great achievement for Islamic leaders and scholars as well as Newsweek and the Washington post to present this imperative opportunity for inter cultural and global philosophical dialogue. What's important is that by exchanging our ideas and comments regarding inter religious relations and world events that affect our views of each other as fellow human beings. Since the advent of humanity, We strove to make sense of the world we live in and the lives we've experienced. Worldwide curiosities to learn the true nature of life and our universe is an exceptionally rare virtue upon life on Earth. In other words, we're the only known species on the planet who've pursued to unravel these great mysteries and developed written philosophies based upon our understanding of the world around us.
One such philosophy that lasted throughout the ages of humanity is commonly known as religion and spirituality. Ever since our early belief in the Sky God and the God Mother from ancient Pagan times, we vigorously pursued to unravel the truth about our most profound questions. As any educated person would know that religion and their core beliefs or faith have evolved over time. Paganism, Monotheism and Polytheism have been influenced by humanity as these great philosophies have influenced our perceptions and decisions in life over the ages. Over time humanity has embraced diverse religious faiths and spiritual convictions that continue to influence our behavior in our times and most likely beyond.
What's vital for humanity's progress and even survival is to know the true nature of faith itself. To understand the true origins of faith. But most of all, is to accept the truth for whatever it may be. Each one of us will learn the absolute truth once we die. But until that time comes for anyone of us to depart this world, we really don't know the answer to God's existence nor do we have the absolute truth in regards to the true nature of God. Besides if we did possess the truth, there would've been only one religion on Earth with no diversification of any way, shape of form. There would only be one holy scripture written throughout human history.
Considering one's religious faith to be absolute, while considering others to be false would be ethnocentric at best. While collectively searching to unravel the mysteries on nature, life and the universe through sincere reasoning and serious research would be enlightening at its worst. Most importantly, we must accept the fact is that none of us have conclusive evidence to confirm our core beliefs and there's always an immanent change that our most cherished beliefs could be wrong. Our greatest challenge would be to tolerate the truth no matter what it may ultimately be. With such an open mind, we would be able to overcome any future discovery that would contradict our faith regarding the true nature of life, spirituality and divinity.
Humanity does have the ability to achieve such a social achievement. However, it's solely up to humanity and not any other entity or groups of entities to decide our destinies. Each one of us has a choice to make; either hopelessly engaging into meaningless inter cultural conflicts or combine our scientific and cultural gifts to thrive into an enlightened global civilization that could ultimately expand beyond our solar system. The choice is yours, and the time to make it is now!

I'm a Muslim and I do not believe that anyone who believes differently from me will "spend eternity in hell for his misconceptions about God". To the contrary, I believe in the "Generosity and Mercy" of Allah (He who is above all).

If one wishes to believe in a literal rather than a metaphoric vision of God then of course one believes in a literal conception of Heaven and Hell.

But the Holy Qur'an repeatedly reminds us that God speaks in Metaphors and Allegories.

Why?

Because God is beyond human comprehension. The description, "Allah Hu Akbar" means not just that God is "Great" but that God is the "greatest" as in "above and beyond, all".

To comprehend "The Ultimate Reality" one needs to be able to rise above, and transcend "human" reality. Beyond Human conceptions of "heaven and hell".

As Sam Harris points out, "scientific discourse has produced an extraordinary convergence of opinion and remarkable results".

While I agree that one might not find this kind of convergence in what I might call, "mundane" religious ritual, when when travels by way of ethical practice, charity, piety towards spiritual development, you see a similar, dare I say, even more powerful convergence of belief.

Imam Ali, Prophet Muhammad's first Muslim (one who surrenders to the will of Allah) said,

"Man arafa nafsa hu, Faqad arafa Rab hu" meaning he who "understands" (knows) himself, knows Allah.

The one who truly surrenders and is able to shake of the shackles of the limited "human" reality and is able to rise to "his" true nature will be able to "see" his "spiritual" self and simultaneously, to "see" God.

The antidepressant Lexapro is a member of the family of medications known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Lexapro offer advantages in the treatment of depression and generalized anxiety disorder.

FedEx next day delivery, free prescription with your order and 24/7 live help and toll free customer service, www.DrugsHome.com/lexapro.php

Mr. Harris is brilliant, and very brave. Although I do believe in God, I have always felt that organized religion is an evil. They all think their interpreation of the Bible is the right one and that everyone else is wrong, they are all divisive, and they all make God way more complicated than they should.

Worst of all, there is absolutely no difference between the religious fanatics who have so shamelessly been allowed to take over this country, and the people who flew the planes into the World Trade Center on 9/11. NO difference.

blnjhdq jfiogvcy firlcmzjq uthswldei qxlsb fcoxdkb qxtofpbmr [URL=http://www.hluxcsop.qhrfnj.com]vzwkg tcrgefypj[/URL]

blnjhdq jfiogvcy firlcmzjq uthswldei qxlsb fcoxdkb qxtofpbmr [URL=http://www.hluxcsop.qhrfnj.com]vzwkg tcrgefypj[/URL]

buelgnsj rcxdtav eiajgvch tydu cjavxrloi poiychlm snwgi

The primary thing wrong with religion is that anyone thinks that they are not interdependent upon everyone else for surival and salvation.

Most religions don't teach this simple fact, and give elaborate theory of why they are chosen to be the preferred group by God.

Yet, science shows that humanity may easily destroy the earth, easier than it may protect it.

If the earth is destroyed, the point of faith is moot, since the earth God made no longer exists.

The choice for mankind, therefore, and perhaps his test, is whether he can cooperate among the earth's people sufficiently to sustain the earth.

And that is God's test for humanity - truly a trial by fire - of good and evil - of survial or extinction.

Hi Victoria,

If you send an email to ImagneMe@Aol.Com I will be able to invite you to our website.

Thanks

Email

Victoria,
Hmmm. Not sure what is wrong. I'm typing my email address into the slot here below where I post my name. Maybe you can use that. If not, open your own email inbox, click on Compose Email, or the equivalent to send a new message, type niceatheist@ca.rr.com into the "To" space, make sure it is spelled exactly right, and just send me a short note saying what you would like to do. I can return the info to your email address. Don't post it here. Don't give up if it doesn't work. We have other email addresses we can use if there is some glitch. Road Runner is having some problems with email lately. I'll get another email address that Pat has and be back here with it tomorrow. We'd love to have your company.

well im not quite sure how to use it richard- i tried putting it in the search box but got referred back here- and i tried sending it as a email address but it failed- im afraid im not too computer savvy so tell me how to go about it peace

Victoria, if you're interested, we all got together into the site by using an email I created, niceatheist@ca.rr.com
If you use that I can send you all the info and the entrance code. You can change your mind and I will delete all records of your email, no hard feelings. You can also easily create an alternate email just like I did. That way your regular one is not affected or put in any risk.
We all really hope you'll join us, but we understand if you don't want to.

Wow she's fast. We should like hide in here and next time she comes whizzing through we jump out and say, "Hi Victoria!! Surprise! Wanna be in our group? It's called Freethinking Friends. It's no big deal, but we do have a complete First Aid room for wounds from the On Faith threads. You'll get lots of TLC. We're good at patching each other back together, and we have a lot of laughs"
But she comes by so late. I'm sleepy.

it tomorrow- hi again- ok bye

Hey all - thanks for the kind words- no time right now but insha'ala ill be back tomorrow-
my its nice to be welcome -

Victoria, I hope you will decide to join us.

Richard, you are the absolute BEST. Thank you.

Victoria, this is the honest truth, I think you're more of a freethinker than tons of atheists I've seen.

VICTORIA,
Pam, Tammy, Ted, Alain, Robin, Torrey, and I spent so much time down here by ourselves we came to have a very fond affinity for each other. We found that we all valued respect over being right. We started a private site where we could congregate away from the noise and prying eyes of the rest of the world. We share our adventures out in blog land and the real world, kid around, laugh, cry, lick our wounds, and generally enrich each other. We would like to invite you to join us. We're all atheists or agnostics, but we would be honored to have you add your special, gentle wisdom to our group. Let us know here if you are interested. If not, that's okay just say so, so we won't pester you as we continue trying to find you.

What's most interesting about Jesus is that he wasn't Christian or Muslim, but Jewish. Learn more here:
http://www.resourcesforlife.com/groups/jesusforjudaism/

Hi Mike Murphy welcome to you. This is the first page of Sam Harris and I must say most of us have moved on to other pages.

I do check back now and then but since the page has become so long not many others do. Just try and look at the mentally ill postings as a lesson in patience and tolerance. I just tell myself that they "know not what they say". Chuckle to myself and move on.

It's encouraging to have so many valid opinions(I'm, of course, referring to the athiest one's, particularly Sam's)put out here in the open, but it would be so much more pleasant if we didn't have to sift through the moronic ramblings of the mentally ill (I'm referring, of course, to the theists) just to read worthwhile input from an intelligent person. --I'm referring here again, of course, to you admirable realists out there. It's comforting to know there's at least a few of us here. Thank you.

My apologies for posting three times. For soem reason or other my message took ages to appear.

Many of them are faking it because being churchless is the political kiss of death.

If you go to the main page of the On Faith discussion you will find an interesting tabulation of the religious affiliations of the representatives in Congress.

Those with no religious affiliation number 6 in the house and none in the senate. This represents 1.1% of congress as opposed to 14.1% in the population as a whole.

So it would seem that atheists, agnostics and pantheists are very poorly represented in Congress.

If you go to the main page of the On Faith discussion you will find an interesting tabulation of the religious affiliations of the representatives in Congress.

Those with no religious affiliation number 6 in the house and none in the senate. This represents 1.1% of congress as opposed to 14.1% in the population as a whole.

So it would seem that atheists, agnostics and pantheists are very poorly represented in Congress.

If you go to the main page of the On Faith discussion you will find an interesting tabulation of the religious affiliations of the representatives in Congress.

Those with no religious affiliation number 6 in the house and none in the senate. This represents 1.1% of congress as opposed to 14.1% in the population as a whole.

So it would seem that atheists, agnostics and pantheists are very poorly represented in Congress.

Wow-thanks, Jim from PA,& of course Pam.

Jim from PA just sent me this interesting website. Hope it works for you.

Beliefwatch: Blasphemy
'Hi my name is Lindy and I deny the existence of the Holy Spirit and you should too.'

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16409851/site/newsweek/from/ET/

Hello, and good day to everybody.

I'm with you, Pam, it must be an act(it does make her a ton of money), at least that's what we can tell ourselves to keep our own little bubbles from bursting. Can that Pat Robertson be kidding, too?

Hi Tammy,

Coulter makes me crazy. When she is on I want to jump through the TV and rip her face off. I don't know anyone these days that just sets me off like she does. I often think it may just be an act. But god help us if it isn't. She is a dangerous woman.

I love all the dumb blond jokes. My friends send them to me all the time. I so relate to them. LOL LOL

good strategy tammy- i always like to keep everyones expectations extremely low- i can onlu o up from there- as a matter of pop interst i watched slaughterhouse 5 the movie tonite

Okay, after this, I really will go away for a while, but I was just re-reading the brights thing, and I agree that it doesn't work in the same way as gay or queer because nobody uses bright to insult somebody else.
If we're gonna use one of their words for us, I like godless.(This is my disclaimer; I have not read Ann Coulter's book by that name, I've just heard her yack enough on T.V.)

Okay, now I'm the one swearing, but I honestly have a Marvin the Martian t-shirt that says Space Cadet on it.
Pam, they say you have more fun! I thought it would be fun to use dumblondeatheist as an online name for myself, even though I'm not blonde, and I know plenty who aren't dumb. I thought it would be a cool name because people almost always drop their guard when they think they're smarter than you. In the end, of course I couldn't use it because it is an undeserved stereotype that shouldn't be perpetuated.

Pam, have you checked out the Main Page articles? There are posts by Christians who want to redefine God, and so far it seems like more atheists are responding. It's very interesting reading over there, but I have to sleep sometime.

Tammy

I am the "space cadet". I was a blond my entire life and you know what they say about blonds??

Since then "space cadet" has taken on a new meaning, that is, someone with only one retrorocket firing.

Thanks, Ted. I love "Stranger in a Strange Land", and I've always meant to check out more of his books. I wish there was a way I could get my master's degree in Conjecture and Science Fiction, or get hired anyplace with a degree like that.

Tammy:

Space Cadet is a 1948 science fiction novel by Robert Heinlein -- whom many regard as one of the top science fiction writers of all time. Heinlein was very much into life extension. . . Ted . .

Who wrote "Space Cadet"? I don't think I've ever heard of it.

im really pleased that i posted here - yes i dont assume we are at the top- i posted this question the other sam harris post and also said that the ability to kill creatively doesnt seem sufficient to me-
i was asking from an evolutionary point and that seems to be the word right now-

as far as the soul atheists and theists seem to agree that its in the realm of belief- so anyones opinion is as valuable as the next-

TAMMY i swear (actually i dont know if its politically incorrect to swear here- the swear presumably for me being on god) that i used to sign off elsewhere with SO LONG AND THANKS FOR ALL THE FISH and i was really going to do it here!

dont get me started on my asted youth in the nose of a scifi book- my firdt day of high school i walked around with a copy of SPACE CADET and of course- that became on of my nicknames thru-
thanks for the reasonable discourse friends
peace

Victoria,

I don't think of myself as having a soul in the religious sense. A soul that is going to heaven or hell as I don't believe in either.

I do believe right now in an inner sense that tells me if I am doing right or wrong or shows me a need that someone may have that I can help with. That allows me to care for myself and others. I can't say if that is what you are speaking to as a soul.

I have often read about people who say they had near death experiences and that their soul has left their body and floated above them and then returned to their body. I have no explanation for that except that I think the mind can play strange games on people at times.

I think the mind is a wonderful but strange part of the body that we probably know little about at this point in time.

In all honesty, I am not exactly sure at this point but I can say that I think that when I die that will be the end for me. I see no point in looking for an afterlife. But I suppose we will all find out someday won't we?

That is funny, Richard, that we were all answering the same question at the same time, and from our own perspectives but with similar sentiments. Well, have a good day, everyone.

I can't stop thinking about poor Shamu and all those poor captive dolphins. Did you guys know that their lifespans are cut almost in half when we keep them in tanks? It's like they need the tides or something in order to live out the fullness of their lives.The moral of the story is that my poor deprived younguns won't get to see a live dolphin until we get them to the beach.(See we all will preach about something if given anything that looks like an oppurtunity!)

I forgot to thank Jim Hanley for leaving us his poem to read. I wonder if he's set it to music, it could be a cool song.

Looks like Ted, Tammy and I were all typing at the same time.
Hi there. Also looks like there is some consensus. That's cool, or does it mean we're all deluded in the same way? Oh well. Got to get to work. Later

Hi Victoria,
These are my views, not the Truth.
No, we're not at the top of any hierarchy. We're just better at killing off everything else. We are equal to every other living thing in the sense that we are all equally the descendants of good survivors. We are all actually cousins. Let that idea sit in your mind for a moment, and you may see it's a beautiful way to see the world and its, and our unity. Amoebas, cockroaches and dolphins are just as "advanced" even though their species have been as they are for much longer than we have. They have simply found a physical structure and behavior patterns that have continued to work well in their environment.

Stop and question the assumption of superiority and so many people's desire to feel that way, and to scramble around seeking proof of being "better. " Just because some scientists and some non scientists strut that stuff doesn't make it correct, or more importantly, doesn't make it meaningful. It is a destructive vanity, and it's a great liberation when people let go of it.

In evolutionary terms, we are a recent experiment, and so far the results are mixed. Changes in structure either work well or cause extinction. Big brains may not in the long run be such a good idea. At one time there were as many as 6 big brained primate species living at the same time. We're the only ones left. It has cost us having lousy teeth, and worst of all the longest period of helpless childhood in the animal kingdom, where we look up at our parents who provide, judge, reward and punish us. That leaves a lasting impression, so we invent a new parent in the sky to do the same thing after we're grown. What we're doing with these large brains lately is setting up serious threats to our survival.

I can't answer your questions about a soul, because I don't know what you mean. If you mean a consciousness and an identity transcendent of the body that I would call "me," then again, as with god, I see no convincing evidence. Even in life, "self" is an elusive thing, as the Zen Buddhists point out very well.

Your husband's prison puzzle is fun, but we don't lock up people's physical bodies per se. We lock them up because of their behaviors, and behaviors persist beyond the life cycle of any cell. When and if we think their behavior will remain acceptable, we let them out. Actually that 7 year thing is a myth; some cells replace very quickly, and others, I think, like ovums and brain cells last the lifetime of the organism.

I don't understand your last question about presenting faith in esoteric form etc. Who do you mean about holding themselves to standards?

I have much to do in the next 3 days, so I may not be able to respond very promptly. But look for me here; I'm not visiting any of the other threads any more.

Peace.

Ted and I must have been typing at the same time! I didn't answer you about our souls Victoria, but so far I doubt that it's anything outside of my own consciousness. I doubt that I will survive my body's death. At the same time, I can't help but feel elated sometimes, like each of us is (or at least has a chance at becoming) divine, because of the amazing good that we humans can do when we put our efforts into doing what's right.

Every one of us living on this lucky little planet is an unrepeatable miracle of nature. That's cool with me, as that's the simplest answer at this point, but of course my understanding is always evolving.

Hi Victoria-I haven't checked out the other threads yet today, but I'll have to see what kinds of answers you got. I don't think it's a matter of humans being superior over dolphins. It could turn out that they're more intelligent than us, and I don't know evolution inside & out, but I think we are a younger species than they are. You're right; they live in harmony with nature and have done so longer than we have. Time will tell if we can become superior, but that obviously won't happen if our environment is demolished. This dolphin business reminds me of "So Long and Thanks for all the Fish" If you like funny stories and haven't read them yet those Douglas Adams Hitchhiker books are hilarious.
Also, as I understand it, we aren't supposed by scientists to be the top of a hierarchy. We just happen to be the only hominid species to have survived this long. There's a good web documentary called Becoming Human; I've mentioned it before, but it's cool because you can flip around in it and watch it in whatever order. I'm pretty sure there was a map somewhere on there that shows the locations of the sites where they've found these ancient people.
I don't think we renew every cell in our body on the exact same day every 7 years, I'm just trying to imagine how that would work. As for concsiousness itself, I was just trying to read a book about it("Dragons of Eden",by Carl Sagan), but I haven't gotten through the second chapter yet and hope to get back into my book now that the school break is over. I think that with the MRI and whatever else they can do to listen in on our brains functioning, they either have or will locate our consciousness' home in there somewhere. Maybe someone who gets more time to read hard science books gave you a better answer for that, and I will benefit from it as well, so thanks for asking!

Victoria:

It is kind of you to regard this as a safe environment. The small group of us who use this tail end of Sam's original post do like to be constructive and mutually supportive.

"im posting this question here because it is a nice safe polite corner and i thought imight get some valuable responses-"

"that raises an interesting question for me-
in evolution do we assume that homo sapiens are at the top of the heirachy?"

I can only speak for myself and say that I do not regard homo sapiens as being at the top of a heirachy. It is clear that we are the dominant species on this planet but this does not absolve us from the duty to treat all other life forms with respect. And, when it comes to speculation about intelligent life forms on other planets, I don't think we have a clue at this juncture.

I do not like it at all when the God of Genesis says to Adam and Eve: "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish od =f the sea and over the birds of the air . . . .". I think that the world is already overpopulated with respect to humans and I think the way we despoil the earth with hideous deep sea trawling etc is an utter disgrace for supposedly intelligent creatures.

"if we go from a purely logical standpoint we are ill-suited to our environment- must construct all sorts of resource depleting and earth destoying
contrivances just to survive- like george carlin says-maybe god created us because he wanted plastic-"

What can I say other than bang on. You are 100% correct.

"as stated animals act with compassion and self sacrifice to care for each other- What is the superiority of man as a species over others?"

Our supposed superiority is grossly over-rated. Albert Schweitzer suggested an ethic of "reverence for life" and I think we ought to have reverence for all of creation.

"im just wondering from what i imagine is an atheist viewpoint-
without a soul and a connection to god- what makes humans better than dolphins which live in complete harmony with the planet?"

Up the dolphins is what I say.

"do atheists believe in a soul?
what is the function of a soul without god?
just wondering
peace"

I think Victoria that most atheists/agnostics are averse to thinking in terms of a dualistic soul in a body but that does not mean we have no souls in a figurative sense.

"January 2, 2007 4:55 AM"

You are up early in the morning!

"also my husband pointed out to me that from an atheist perspective- since there is no way to "prove" consciousness in any way (i mean anima- not electrical activity)
that if taken in a purely material perspective- since every cell in our body is renewed every 7 years- in an atheistically run society- one would have to be released from prison after 7 years because they would be a new physical being."

Fascinating musings on the part of your husband. It is a topic which exercises the minds of agnostics/atheists a great deal. Clearly, despite the turnover of the actual atoms in our bodies we do retain memories of our childhood going back many years -- including, in my case, a vivid memory of a childhood mystical experience at the age of 5 or 6. This is not a proof of a separate soul since the memories concerned must still be stored in our brains. I imagine our brains -- to some extent, back themselves up in our sleep and throughout the day as well -- much like back-up memory in a computer.

"now if believers are not allowed to present faith in an esoteric non material form without "proving" its existence- it seems that they would hold themselves to the same standards they demand of others."

Yes indeed. No matter what our beliefs or absence thereof we can never expect more from others than we are prepared to offer ourselves.

"i thought i might get some intelligent answers here- i posted it on the other sam harris question and all i got was because we have big brain we can run the ecosystem and build machines which was insufficient proof of the superiority of man to me."

It is quieter in this largely neglected corner of the discussions and many of us got driven away from other more active discussions because of boorish and crude behaviour.

Stay well, . . Ted . .

im posting this question here because it is a nice safe polite corner and i thought imight get some valuable responses-

that raises an interesting question for me-
in evolution do we assume that homo sapiens are at the top of the heiarchy?

if we go from a purely logical standpoint we are ill-suited to our environment- must construct all sorts of resource depleting and earth destoying
contrivances just to survive- like george carlin says-maybe god created us because he wanted plastic-

as stated animals act with compassion and self sacrifice to care for each other- what is te superiority of man as a species over others?

im just wondering from what i imagine is an atheist viewpoint-
without a soul and a connection to god- what makes humans better than dolphins which live in complete harmony with the planet?

do atheists believe in a soul?
what is the function of a soul without god?
just wondering
peace

January 2, 2007 4:55 AM

also my husband pointed out to me that from an atheist perspective- since there is no way to "prove" consciousness in any way (i mean anima- not electrical activity)
that if taken in a purely material perspective- since every cell in our body is renewed every 7 years- in an atheistically run society- one would have to be released from prison after 7 years because they would be a new physical being.

now if believers are not allowed to present faith in an esoteric non material form without "proving" its existence- it seems that they would hold themselves to the same standards they demand of others.

i thought i might get some intelligent answers here- i posted it on the other sam harris question and all i got was because we have big brain we can run the ecosystem and build machines which was insufficient proof ofthe superirity of man to me.

BRAVO! SAM HARRIS BRAVO!

THE ORIGIN OF NATURE
Beginning cannot be found but keep an ear to the ground
Accept the word of a friend there's no beginning or end
Religion's Theocracy is ending Democracy
Religion's pollution is no solution for Darwin's evolution
The origin of Nature for instance is ceaselessness! Existence
JH 8/29/06
Religion's evil bigotry has relegated all non-religion people and realists
to a lower class 'infidel' status. And, I believe the time has arrived for
all 'Secular' organizations to seriously consider aligning under one
banner to fight the fight of our lives to overcome the deadly influences
of those religious fanatics who intend to overthrow our once Democratic
Government and accede to domination of our society, and complete
control over our way of life.

When I first heard of this "bright" thing, I thought it sounds conceited, which is one of the most common negative stereotypes against atheists. Oh, great, let's make that one correct. Later I learned that this term has been deliberately chosen, unlike "gay" which grew naturally out of the positive slang term homosexuals used for each other's sexual orientation. So "bright" is a very contrived, artificial term. I hope it doesn't catch on. We can't be "merry and gay" in the holiday season anymore because people will snicker. Now when I talk about the luminosity of a star or how smart a kid is will I have to avoid "bright" because people will grumble?

Steve thanks for posting your article here as Tammy and I usually hang out on this tread because it seems more like home to us.

I am intimidated enough with all of the educated and intellectuals that post to have me refer to myself as a "bright". WOW that would be some stretch for me and yes I do think it rings of arrogance. I think we have enough problems in the world today without being the "BRIGHTS".

It seems more useful to see people as people, and not always as what they do or think(you know, until it interferes with our own personal liberties), so I guess I agree I'm not nuts about calling myself bright, either. I checked out their site, though, and one thing they are doing is counting people. I guess it would be good to know how many, but I really don't like brights because its opposite would be dim, and that is more unnecessary meanness.

Pam. I agree with you when you say:

' "brights' just does not do it for me.'

Below is a copy of what I have posted on the Dennett pages.

Steve:

What you say doesn't wash. Those of us who are uncomfortable with the choice of the word "brights" cannot simply switch off our discomfort. No matter what anybody says the term carries with it the connotation that brights are bright and those who are not atheists,agnostics, pantheists et al are simply dumb. I am often appalled at the crude way in which atheists disparage believers and the use of the term brights simply speaks too loudly of this attitude for many of us to avoid being discomfited.

I suggested in another post that "lights" would have been a much better choice since those who are non-believers have an obligation to throw light in dark places. There are many other possible choices which would have been better such as "taboo-breakers". If you have read Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett et al you will surely have noticed that they all draw attention to the manner in which discussing religion openly tends to be taboo.

When you say:
"How about cooperating in the initiative instead of free-thinking of other, potentially more clever choices?" it is not as easy as you make out. There are many of us who feel strongly that the choice of label which as been made is a poor one and may do more harm than good in following through on an idea which appears to be a very good one. I think DZ is correct when he says that "brights' is simply too "arrogant".

Fortunately the atheist/agnostic cause does not stand or fall on the success of the "brights" initiative.

Thanks for the link, Ted, and as ever, Pam, I agree with you. I just don't understand the meanness.

I really have been relying on you guys, my new online friends, to keep me up on things, so thanks for posting over here, where the conversation is running slowly enough for me to keep up with it!

I have just spent some time reading the posts on the Jimmy Carter page of this site. How depressing to read such nasty, angry posts. I am starting to wonder what goes through the minds of some of the people in this world on a daily basis.

Is it religious beliefs that make people this cynical and mean? Why is it that the more people spout their religion the nastier they are to others.

Granted he wasn't the greatest president ever but he has spent years doing wonderful work to make up for that many times over.

The more I read on here the more depressed I become. I wonder if the world can survive with so many ignorant people in it?

Trust me when I say if anyone has a hint of wanting to become a non-believer reading this website will take them there.

For those of you who have not seen it you might like to look at the latest Edge question (What are you optimistic about?) at:

http://edge.org/q2007/q07_index.html

Dawkins, Dennett and Harris are there, of course, but you might like to look at Dr artificial intelligence Marvin Minsky as well. He contends that if it was not for the way formal religion has held us back we may well have been as scientifically advanced in 300 A.D. as we are now.

SORRY THAT WAS ME- HAPPY NEW YEARS PEOPLES

Well- ee Ted- that is where richard dawkins made his mistake,
he should have just ASKED the moths why they do what they do! admittedly though- archy the cockroach is clearly fluent in "mothese" and perhaps richard isnt so i guess he had to resort to reason- that pesky reason!

i got particularly excited about wikipedia because there was a terribe awful brutal story taken from it and there was a tiny blip at the end saying it was under dispute- but the story was so awful people get off and running about it (about the Prophet(pbuh)
so i googled some more and alot of time was led to links to fatihfreedom.org

its like asking george bush to interpert islam for me-

thanks for being so reasonable

TAMMY you are a hoot!

this is true- once in long beach cal i had 2 cockroaches that were as big as my finger like 3 inches long- and i left crumbs for them i think they were around a couple of days- i also had a ratty looking little mouse tat i fed behind the fridge- i went away for a day and came back and they had committed suicide by drowning themselves in a half filled cup of coffee in my sink-because of their despair at my absence and all---
ok well maybe not

now that ive edified everyone with stories of cockroaches happy new year all!

interesting coincidence on the moth thing

yes some of the Qur'an can get long and dry- i have alot of stories i like in it though- like the one of Jesus(ata) fashioning the clay birds and them coming to life- i really like the story in al-khaf about moses following the old sage around and the old guy does all the seemingly bad actions and reveals at the end the reasoning behind them which is a mind stretcher and a reminder to not judge people-

peace all!

Hi Tammy,

I just finished reading the Daniel Dennet's essay after your mentioning it on Sam's Fans. I thought it was very good. I don't like the "bright" name for A/A's (Atheist/Agnostic). It just doesn't fit. I understand his reasoning when it comes to gay's but "bright" just does not do it for me. I have had many gay friends over the years and watched them "come out of the closet" so to speak and it wasn't pretty. I do hope that "brights" would have an easier time of it in this world today.

I have started talking to my "other half" (I refuse to use the word better half) LOL and it is interesting. He isn't a believer but has not really thought much about being a non-believer either. I will see where that goes after more discussion.

If I don't make it on later today I want to wish everyone a great new year. Let's hope it will be a bigger and better new year for all of us. According to Dennet there are many of us out there which gave me much encouragement.

Happy New Year to all.

Richard, Victoria et al:

First off Victoria my apologies if I wrongly accused Harun Yahya of being a holocaust denier. Like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not flawless. But since I am a mathematician (at least partly) I know that its articles in mathematics are remarkably sound. In fact, a recent comparison between Wikipedia and Brittanica -- as far as math is concerned -- showed that Wikipedia was at least as good if not better than Brittanica.

So maybe I trusted Wikipedia too much. In their defence their article on Harun Yahya says right up front that some of the contents in the article have been contested. None of this, of course, means that creationists -- whether Islamic or Christian -- have a leg to stand on. The truth is the truth is the truth and there is no doubt whatsoever that evolution did occur and it is both better and more honest to simply accept it.

I really enjoyed the moth/cockroach poem. In fact, I enjoyed it so much that I did not want to spoil it. But it is perhaps worth mentioning that Richard Dawkins --in The God Delusion -- has a fairly lengthy discussion of the problem of moth immolation. He says the best explanation he knows is that, in moth evolution, the light attraction instinct arose before incandescent lamps came on the scene and that moth immolation is just an unfortunate by-product of a perfectly sensible and useful instinct. All of which makes eminently good sense.

Dawkins goes on to suggest that the widespread existence of faith based religion in mankind might also be partially explained as a by-product of perfectly sound instincts.

When it come to the issue of reading the Qur'an I have done so and I must say (you probably wont like this) that I found it just as boring as most of the Old Testament. The story of Abraham being deluded into thinking that God(Allah) wanted him to sacrifice his own son leaves me stone cold -- as do many of the other stories.

Stay well, . . Ted . .

Hi again, all, and happy New Year! I just finished reading Daniel Dennet's essay over on that "Why are all the cool kids atheists now" thread, and it was really good, I wanted to share it with you all in case somehow you've missed it.I had never heard of these brights before; as for so much I'm finding on this site, it was quite an eye-opener.

Ted, I'm reading "The God Delusion" right now, and I can't get through it fast enough. It's so much fun to read. Are his other books like this, and should I read them in the order he wrote them? I know I'm behind the times, but I'm tryin' to catch up.

Victoria, you're more proof of what I have always thought, that good people come together regardless of, not because of, religion. I had a rough day yesterday, but because of you, I had the coolest mental picture of a typing cockroach to carry around in my head.
Also, like Richard, I've known a few moths, now dead, but the trick(it seems) is to find the thing you want as badly as they want to fry themselves, and through discipline, keep from getting burned clear to death.

hey richard, are you still awake?
a soja jon t i think just posted a long post to you on the atheists question

imagine whirled peas

one of my other favorite bumper stickers is
look busy jesus(ata) is coming!

and
jesus(ata) is coming and boy is he p***ed!

ok im really leaving this time

aww shucks... that is a poem by archy the cockroach- he was a vers libre (free verse you knew that) poet who reincrnated in the body of a cockroach- he types by banging his head on the keys hence no punctuation or capitolization (youve probably noticed his influence on me in this respect)

it was written by don marquis who i believe was hounded by the maerican government in his career- he was a communist and an intellectual possibly an atheist i dont remeber

he is hilarious andi highly recommend reading him for he is a great observer of human nature and ust funny funny---

i used to think i wanted to be the moth- but years of watching moths immolate themselves on cheap patent cigar lighters changed my mind-

that is why soemtimes i sign off- yours for rhyme crime and reason- (it was originally rum, but i dont drink) well im sure glad i peeked in here for all this affirmation-

ive kept an eye on common ground where a being named simplewords stepped right in my shoes til deb discouraged his new sense of wonder at this website-

ifound a new nemesis who was hounding me for a minute but shes left me alone- it seems i have the capacity to greatly annoy *deb the disenfranchised muslim- alethia the reborn-- and now kate the great atheist- i wish i could make a living by being annoying- it seems like i hae an endless guiless supply- did i have a point?

its not likely-

as far as evolution- well i just dont know- mening i have no knowledge-

so what kind of patients do you have anyway?
i have a dear friend for many years who is a psychotherapist who says he had 2 choices-priest or therapist- his career decision was based entirely upon being able to sleep in til 11 hee

oo this is way too long as usual-
o btw you got that kill the buddha thing didnt you?
it was a book in the 60s the meaning is if you encounter buddha then you are at the same point of enlightenment and i certainly wasnt advocating violence against buddha-

and thanks for that story it gave me the needed extra backbone to leave poor deb alone

yours for time-the sublime and peas on (earth)

Victoria,
Your answers are always thoughtful and heartfelt. I need no faith in that, I have hundreds of posts as evidence. -hee hee you're always the rascal.
It sounds like you will not lose any of the beauty and strength that your faith gives you whether you find that you’re descended from Adam and Eve, or an amoeba. That is encouraging.

Most of the recent conflict in the world and on this website is about fundamentalism, which is a self-defeating stance. To take ancient scripture literally-times-literally is to miss its great value. It is like thinking that Aesop’s fables are about actual talking animals. Fools! That’s utterly missing the point. What is frightening to me is that fundamentalism seems to be on the rise around the globe, rather than in decline, and humanity is being cheated of the new science it needs, and civilization could grind to a halt. In this century astronauts will travel to Mars. If they use “science” that does not conflict with the Old Testament, their calculations will not fit the real space they’re hurtling through. They will miss their target and freeze to death.

Darwin’s work was used by ruthless capitalists, Nazis and Marxists to lend credibility to their own politics and methods. This just shows how anything can be corrupted to justify anything else. I doubt that the gentle Charles D. would have approved of his insight being used to justify any those three forms of tyranny. Every group has adherents or hangers-on who are an embarrassment because of their extreme views or their self-serving perversion of the group’s core values. I’m often reminded of a line from one of my favorite poems, Kipling’s “If for Boys”: “If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,”

I agree with Ted that the mountain of evidence for evolution having occurred is irrefutable to a reasonable and well informed mind. However, I agree with you that a person’s politics do not negate or promote his point on a scientific issue. What does that is the evidence that he brings or fails to bring to back up his claim. Creationist arguments tend to be 99 percent criticism of evolution, and 1 percent argument in support of themselves. Claiming one's opponent is weak is not proof that one is strong. If someone is going to take on science, let them bring solid evidence for their argument, not truth twisted to make a trap for fools.

I found your poem sad. That’s not to say I didn’t like it, just sad. I have personally known intimately several people like the moth. All of them are dead now. They wanted that extreme experience of perfection, or beauty, or sensation, and they deprived the rest of us their own perfect, beautiful sense. I identify with the cockroach. I don’t know if he is, but I’m selfish. I want them alive and sharing their vision. I want every person on this planet contributing their part to the complete whole. I would try in a hundred ways to tell my reckless, obsessed patients that the world would be incomplete without them, to try to convince them to stick around. I failed.

I so deeply admire your character, Victoria. I can get so discouraged by some of these dialogues on this huge website. You are unique here. I hope there are more like you, a ray of hope.

HARUN YAHYA IS NOT A HOLOCAUST DENIER-
HE IS A DENOUNCER OF ZIONISM

go to islam againstantisemitism.com
google harun yahya

and even if he was a holocaust denier- that would have nothing to do with is ability to present any issue in a clear manner

ive noticed some very islamophobic statements attributed to wikipedia as fact since ive come to this post

since when are the politics of any credible person an issue as to the validity of their findings?

richard if youre interested go look for him

wasnt there just a man released form prison in austria for being a holocaust denier?

surely agnostics and atheists dont believe people should be imprisoned for ideas!

that is a very emotionally laden word- and false- and when one makes potentially inflammatory accusations one should at least double check it-

Pam:

You are too kind. Help has both been given and received by all of those in our little group. We are all in each others debt. It has been good to be part of a small concerned and interesting group of individuals. Maybe we are like shops passing in the night but much of life is like that.

May all of you have a wonderful New Year.

Richard, Victoria:

Have been to Wikipedia to check up on Harun Yahya (or Adnan Oktar as he is also known) and I don't think he is of much help in resolving the evolution/creationism controversy. In his favour is the fact that he is critical of masonic nonsense but there is also a huge negative against him since he is a holocaust denier.
From what I can make out his arguments for creationism overlap those of Christian creationists.

I know of no better exposition of the case for evolution (both from the fossil record and DNA evidence) than what can be found in Richard Dawkins' books-- both in his latest book "The God Delusion" and in his other books which deal more explicitly with evolution.

I think those who reject evolution make a terrible mistake by confusing the occurrence of evolution (the evidence for which is irrefutable)and theories of evolution. They do this by talking about THE theory of evolution despite the fact that there is no such thing.

A good example of this kind of thing can be found in the story of Galileo. He found by direct observation that the earth rotates about the sun -- despite not having a theory explaining how this happens. Newton's theory of gravity came later in time and it was subsequently replaced by Einstein's theory of gravity -- which is now itself being questioned. Throughout all of this the fact of the earth's rotation about the sun is not in question.

Thus it is with evolution. The fact of its occurrence is not in dispute -- by anyone who bothers to look at the evidence. All this despite the fact that there is no completely satisfying theory associated with its occurrence. It should be noted that Adnan Oktar (Harun Yahya) has never studied science of any kind in a formal manner.

I agree totally with you Richard that it is critically important for us to try and ensure that more children understand science and logic and the importance of thinking for themselves. There is really no other way forward for the human race.

hi richard- thanks for the "faith" you have in my giving you a reasonable answer- hee hee (i imposed faith on you- im such a weasel!)

i am really insufficient to that task- i actually read the origin of the species alongf long time ago- and i seem to remember some kind of disclaimer from darwin in the preface- personally- i have never seen the big problem with evolution- to my way of thinking maybe the process of creation is ongoing and long term and not in some homeostatic crystal back ages ago- but i think that is a sneaky rationale from one who doesnt really have the knowledge to give a good answer-

i am unsure about the fossil record provided as proof also- i like things clear- actually i dont care if bonbos or whatever they are are my ancestors-
my only problem wirh evolution is the philosophy that seems to have sprung up around it- the competition and survival of the fittest and where does stephen hawkins fit into that?

it seems to justify bullying for people with that predilection- but again i speak nothing of the subject.

maybe the muslims will come up with a new theory that is more logical and clear! you have to askthe questions to get the answers and i think people stopped asking the questions about evolution for a long time- so its good to shake it up- maybe make the theorists clarify it for themselves and the rest of us- the same standards for proof should apply to them as they demand of the crteationists for example- in america i really think no one should be dictating science to our children- if there is validity to creationism it should be obvious i would think- now however there is a brilliant creationist i guess youd call him although i do think he eschews that term for himself as innacurate or maybe doesnt want to be lumped with the christians-

his name is harun yahya and i dont know how to make links if i did id link it right here right now

actually i need to go and read him myself-

so i do believe that ALLAH created us and we are stardust and have an integral belonging on this plane and an innate right to exist-

as far as muzzling anyone- as kitty my grandma used to say- the truth will out-

i say let them all argue it out what is there for the creationists to be afraid of?

go look at harun yahya definitely

is a really opposite but polar perspective- you know he was kicked out of his home countryof turkey because of his faith based views?

i contend his right to pursue research as he deems fit as well as the scientists here to do likewise.

not an answer i know because i dont know
peace what did you think of my poem?
apropos of nothing- wait no not really- it did something ethereal for tammy!

nothing validates my existence like making those invisible links all the time

o and ive been babbling like crazy on the atheist site except apparently over there im really annoying a lady atheist instead of deb
peace! and EID MUBARAK to me!!
happy new year to you

Hi Victoria,
It's so good to see you again, especially away from that other thread. How did you even find this place? It got buried long ago and only about 7 people kept talking.
Anyway, I've always wanted to ask you a question that didn't seem to fit into the other "common ground" thread.
One of the most serious problems I have with Christians in the U.S. is that so many want to impose the Old Testament Genesis creation myth onto public schools, and to muzzle scientists talking about anything that contradicts it. One even wormed his way into the NASA public affairs office, and was warning scientists not to use references to the Big Bang. Fortunately he's out now. This is totally unacceptable to me and many others because it threatens to corrupt science. We need a constant flow of good science to keep our civilization going. My attitude toward the Middle East is, let them continue to outlaw teaching evolution, etc. and slip back into the Middle Ages. It's sad, so much science, astronomy and math came from the Muslim world. As you wrote elsewhere it jump-started the European Renaissance.
Many Christians seem to be able to accept the views of science when it comes to the origin of Earth and life, and they still follow more or less the teachings of Jesus. But so many others insist on believing a dozen impossible things before breakfast or they can't have any of it.
So my question to you, as a person who has made so long and so self-directed a journey to be where and who you are now, what are your views on Islamic versions of the origins of the Earth and of life?

I am not sure if anyone will return to this thread but let me thank you Ted for all of your help and understanding.

You have a way of explaining very confusing material to a language I can understand.

I appreciate your kindness and help.

Have a great new year.

Hi Jim in P.A.:

My aplogies for not having done more to make you feel welcome. Your two observations that:

(1)Religion is an accident of birth
(2)Religion has done nothing to improve the lot of mankind for 2000 years

strike me as incredibly astute. In just two short sentences you capture the essence of the agnostic/ atheistic cause.

Incidentally, you will have no doubt gathered that the three most visible atheists at this juncture are Sam Harris (neuroscience Ph.D. student), Richard Dawkins (biologist and evolution expert) and Dan Dennett(Philosopher). They are all pals and I have read most of their books.

If you have read none of them I would suggest Sam's "Letter to a Christian Nation" in the first instance since it is short, pithy and a pretty good starting point. That could be followed by Dan Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" (gentle and helpful) and then Richard Dawkins' " The God Delusion" (a very comprehensive and weighty tome) and/or Sam Harris' "The End of Faith" (with a lot of focus on Islamic extremism).

Good to have you on board.

Hi Victoria, I liked the poem. I'll be thinking about it later; I have a funeral to attend, and it's funny how I was thinking of things like this already, then I check in here, and you'e posted this poem for our consideration. Thanks, and as you say, peace.

heres a poem i like then ill leave everyone alone

Background info: The narrator is a poet reincarnated in a cockroach's body.
He types by jumping on the keys of a typewriter, hence the lack of caps.
Knowing that helps :)

the lesson of the moth

i was talking to a moth
the other evening
he was trying to break into
an electric light bulb
and fry himself on the wires

why do you fellows
pull this stunt i asked him
because it is the conventional
thing for moths or why
if that had been an uncovered
candle instead of an electric
light bulb you would
now be a small unsightly cinder
have you no sense

plenty of it he answered
but at times we get tired
of using it
we get bored with the routine
and crave beauty
and excitement
fire is beautiful
and we know that if we get
too close it will kill us
but what does that matter
it is better to be happy
for a moment
and be burned up with beauty
than to live a long time
and be bored all the while
so we wad all our life up
into one little roll
and then we shoot the roll
that is what life is for
it is better to be a part of beauty
for one instant and then cease to
exist than to exist forever
and never be a part of beauty
our attitude toward life
is come easy go easy
we are like human beings
used to be before they became
too civilized to enjoy themselves

and before i could argue him
out of his philosophy
he went and immolated himself
on a patent cigar lighter
i do not agree with him
myself i would rather have
half the happiness and twice
the longevity

but at the same time i wish
there was something i wanted
as badly as he wanted to fry himself

archy

-- Don Marquis

hey there- im going to creep in and out here-

i think people of faith dont want to have these discussions or answer these questions because they haent walked through the fire for their faith- they havent tested themselves in the deepest pits of their being and are afraid is the word that they will not bear up under scrutiny- surely not a new concept here its been proposed-
i only venture to state it because im actually a person of faith and i really welcome inquiries-
if someone asks and theyre truly interested im happy to share the best of me- but there are alot of insubstantial subtleties and personal experiences- its like a performance art-

when i was a visual artist i had the strong philosophy that the artist has a personal responsibility toward their audience to enhance their existence somehow- i used to call alot of art therapy art- meaning- keep your pain to yourself- id ont WANT to feel your pain-i have my own thanks and go work it out and when you have something deep and good to express come back and ill be receptive to it- so very much of it seems like a LOOK AT ME i suffer so deeply and feel so keenly and am so talented- well - as an artist i really wanted the person to feel the way i felt it when i was in that creative state which was exciting and beautiful and ethereal-if i could convey that my art was valid and had a right to take up space on the planet- if it didnt i destroyed it without compunction- theres plenty more where that came from-

my faith to me is like that- i dont want to convince someone of something theyre not ready for or even receptive to- every single human deserves my respect and sensitivity and consideration-
every single one- my religion demands this attitude (islam) whether or not others have delved deeply into it and not listened to the fox news version is not my concern- i know my religion i live it every day- ill define it myself thank you just like you all will define your own selves unmolested ( i hope) my mom says i was born old and sure of my place in the universe- ive lost that and regained that so many times but it is cumulative where ive gained it and maintained it and it strenghtens- i always say the human heart must break continually to retain its elasticity so that it can grow- i also believe the mind must be stretched continually so that it can expand too-
not a rigid crystallization which unfortunately seems to be the general consensus of what passes for faith- but a flexible growth and spiritual evolution-

well these were just some extemporaneous remarks without any direction just a little stream of consciousness so please dont try to analyze it critically because it wasnt written in a left brained format.
and as always peace ill check back to see if there was anything resonating here or maybe i bored the people but since there was the lament about lack of response from people of faith i thought id give it a try- please be kind
peace again

o btw- today is the last day of hajj-it is the largest gathering of human beings on the planet earth period- dont you think that is mildly interesting?
eid mubarak peoples

Ted,
When I first heard Dawkins in a recording on his website point out the issue of indoctrinating children into their parent's religion, I was astonished by the fact that it had not really occured to me as an injustice. We raised our daughter to think for herself, simply because it was natural for us to do so, and I am pleased that so far she has rejected any religious notions, but globaly I had simply taken it for granted that kids get their parent's religion.
Although I own a copy, I doubt that I'll ever finish his book, given my pattern. Maybe I'll get the CD audio from the library. The reader whizzes past how long it would take me to read it.

To Wayne Daniel;

What can I say. Welcome on board. You are among friends in a realm of true freedom. I well remember the day when I first realized that there could be no such place as hell or heaven for that matter.

YES Sir Richard Wade.

By gunning I do mean pulling in your lingo. I have to confess I share your well founded concern for the future. I really worry about my grandchildren and what they have to face. They are such wonderful open hearted delights.

I am not sure if you have yet read the Dawkins book but he goes on at some length about the impropriety of imposing ready made religion on children as opposed to assisting them to make their own way in life.

In reference to "blackdog" comment: Yes, their are indeed "former" religionest who are now "reformed" and have "seen the light". I know. I am one.

One thing I can tell you here in a very few words. Life is much brighter, happier and meaningful when I had that burder of guilt,and impending fear when death occurs. Am I "in" or "out"? What I know for SURE is that I am "here" now and I intend to make the most of it for myself and others.

Ted,
Thanks for your impressions of Dawkins' book. I always look forward to your analytical clarity, and your enormous knowledge.
I sometimes despair for my country. It is definitely going backwards, and not looking where it's going. The people in the Dark Ages didn't know they were in the Dark Ages. I suspect that only a few people in the Renaissance were only vaguely aware of the spirit of their time. (My education about that time covered only art and architecture.) What will this era be called? Even with views from space we can't seem to get the big picture of where this is all going. All I know is that I don't like the sound of things, the look of things or the feel of things.

Oh, and I think you probably meant that we're all pulling for each other. Here in the Wild West, "gunning for each other" means we have murderous intent.
All the best in the new year.

Having finished reading the Dawkins book I have a much better understanding about why it is that so many of you (Americans) are cautious about coming out with respect to agnosticism or atheism. Here in Canada ths situation is very different. The percentage of us who are openly non-believers in any of the formal religions seems to be much higher -- as confirmed by actual statistics.

What I find incredibly puzzling and sad is that the USA seems to have gone backwards. Dawkins goes to great pains to amass evidence that the leaders among the founding fathers were almost all deists or even agnostics -- and a million miles away from being fundamentalist Christians. This goes for George Washington, Madison, John Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Thomas Paine etc. Why it is now impossible to imagine anyone who is an agnostic or an atheist being elected president is a mystery -- which Dawkins tries to explore without coming to any really convincing conclusions.

My overall take on the Dawkins book is that it qualifies as a major work which will be very hard to ignore. There are numerous episodes in my own life which have counterparts in his life; we were both born in Africa for one and both brought up as Anglicans. And we are, of course, both scientists. So I feel very much at home with almost everything he says.

I am so sorry Pam that you and others in your position have had your thoughts twisted about by those who have not had the courage to move beyond the narrow confines of the religious beliefs they were brought up with. Accepting the truth has indeed set you free and the rest of us in our little group are gunning for each other -- including you.

Well I have a little saying to pass on. It is "fear is lack of faith". I believe that some of these people that preach the loudest are in fear of everything and especially death. I don't think people lash out if there are comfortable with their beliefs. I think the hate just describes how they feel about themselves and they are passing it on to us. Yes, us the secure in how we feel about ourselves people.

Considering the fact that most people do not understand themselves well they have no idea that their hatred is based on their own fears. That is why I try hard to not be afraid of them. They are usually the one suffering so much more than I am and hell they don't even understand why so that they can do something about it. They scary part about it all is that they group together. Then it just keeps all of the hate going. That is why it is so important that we group together to protect ourselves from all of that hate. I am not usually ever afraid of much and have a big mouth as most of you have already found out on here. I love to stand up for what I believe no matter the cost. So far the only price I have paid for that is a loss of a few friends respect. Heck, if that is all it takes then like my mother used to tell me all the time. They probably were not friends anyway.

I creep myself out too sometimes. I have to remember that I attract what I think about. Once, when I walked down a dark street I thought, "I hope nobody hurts me tonight." Trouble came my way like iron to a magnet. Sometime later I walked down the same dark street thinking, "I hope I don't have to hurt anybody tonight." Trouble scattered away like leaves in a breeze. Much later I walked down that same street thinking, "I hope I can be helpful tonight." The street was not so dark any more.

You may be very right about people not wanting to lose precious things that they cling to. So simple means so powerful. Somewhere in these 847 responses I read a beautiful answer to someone not wanting to lose their belief that they had not really lost their loved ones. Whoever wrote it was so eloquent, so ease-giving. They talked about how your dead gramma lives on in your loving memories of her, and in how you imitate her best qualities. I hope I can find that post again, it was so well said.

I pointed my finger at the Christians' fear and loathing, but as Pam would know I just saw that three of my fingers were pointing back at me. Can I presume to be trying to understand them? What about my fear and loathing of them? How am I behaving toward them? Should I think about their hate, or my love? How am I walking down the street? Fearfully, menacingly, or helpfully?

I have so long a way to go to understand anything.

Richard, I forgot to thank you for mentioning that friendlyatheist.com. It is a very cool site, what I got to check out so far.

Ahh, Richard, I just creeped myself out, and I want to be wrong about this, but is it just as simple as this: they don't ever want to really talk about it because our mortality is the most intolerable topic for consideration?
If I were a believer, and you posed that question to me, maybe I would take it like you want to take my dead gramma away from me forever? I say that so callously, as if I don't really have a dead gramma, or as if I'm over it already, but she's gone forever and it'll kill me forever. What's worse, she's not the only person I've lost, and somehow I can hold myself together daily. We've all found, in one way or another, that we never get over certain things; we just live with it however we can.
It's fine if people need a religious faith to help them hold out hope that our little fruit-fly existances aren't worthless; it's not fine if they think that that somehow gives them the right to make us say we trust in god.
Oh, yeah, and one more creepy thing- it's bothersome to me how I'm seeing that it's almost always the Christians in these discussions who come off with the ugly phrases, like "killing babies", "You'll all believe in God when it's too late"(ya know, 'cause we'll be burning in Hell), and "Why are atheists so hateful?"(in response to scientific evidence). Are people really living in such fear of death? Could at least a good portion of it boil down to that?
I'm not asking anyone in particular; I'm just interested to know if anyone else sees it as starkly as I'm beginning to.(maybe I really want someone to talk me out of it)

Tammy, what is this fascination people have with calling themselves wimps? In her last post, Pam wondered if she's a wimp to assume the best of a person at first. In her last post, Torrey suggests she's wimpy for having fearful thoughts about persecution from believers. Now you wonder if you're wimpy to be kind to the fragile believers close to you. Let's see: so a wimp is positive, realistic and kind. Can I be a wimp too?

You and Torrey are bringing up the particular question that has become central in my mind since I found this place. What is the source of the fear and loathing, the prejudice, the bigotry, the naked hate that so many believers have for non-believers?
I have my loose theories, but I want to find out from believers themselves. Unfortunately, asking them is like trying to take the rectal temperature of a hibernating kodiak bear. Oops, THEY DON'T HIBERNATE, THEY JUST SLEEP!!
However, I found two remarkably open-minded Christians in a discussion with atheists at friendlyatheist.com and I posted this question most respectfully to them, but so far no answer. As I told them, I don't want to change anyone's religious beliefs, I just want to stop the outrageous mistreatment of people like us. To do that effectively I need to understand the root causes.

Hi guys-Torrey, it bothers me because of how personally some people take it if we don't believe in their god. Like we want to take their birthday away, like we want to rob them of eternal life, and Jesus' love, which is sadly, the only love some of them have. It's so complicated, trying to get along. That's why I've only talked about my non-belief with those I knew could handle hearing it from me. The more fragile types in my immediate circle are going to have to force it out of me.
Maybe I'm wimpy.
Thanks for re-sending the email to me, by the way. I hope I get around to checking my mail tonight.

Ted, you're right about the book-swearing business, but I'm afraid it's one of those ceremonial things we have to humor people about if we intend to get along. We just have to hope that the elected official in queston doesn't adhere strictly to the sections of his holy book that require non-believers to be subjugated, converted or killed.

Uh, excuse me Torrey, who are you asking?

Alain! I'm so glad you're still here. I was surprised to see Richard's French -- count me in as another wanna-be-French-speaker. I love the French language -- it's my favorite -- I've loved it since my first class at the age of 12 and have visited France twice. I also married a man whose first language was French. Anyway, there are so few of us atheists (according to Richard) that we need to keep track of each other. I've been having a few scary thoughts lately (calm down Richard) -- just flashes but they bother me nonetheless. Thinking about how angry and hateful believers can sometimes be in regard to others' non-belief, and how they might hurt me. I'm usually not fearful or wimpy, in fact I'm afraid of very little, so why does this bother me?

Alain, so good to hear from you. I agree about most of the threads I've visited. I'll email you some info you may like.

Richard

I am still alive and well. Just emailed at the address. I am still reading other threads but I am just disappointed by the lack of real dialogue on most of them. Some people , on all sides, are "invading" the threads with their "preaching" on why we should believe or ....not believe. Debating the existence of God is futile in my opinion. It is a personal endeavor. I do not believe myself but I have no right to try to convince others of the non-existence of God or Jesus,and so on. First because I am not sure and second because , and here I agree with Altran, many people NEED to believe. The only thing which matters to me is how to live together, believers and non-believers, in the same society.
Au revoir

Pam, So if it's a private ceremony, who has the right to say he can't swear to kiss the elbow of Zorn holiest of planet Zup while standing on one foot whistling Dixie with a marital aid stuffed where the sun don't shine? And what person with an IQ over 30 should give a damn?
You're not a wimp to assume the best in a person first. In general that's the best default setting, with vigilance along side. People are what they do. As for Ellison, we'll see. I imagine with this paranoid spotlight on him, he'll be as good as gold.

I've just about had it with Victoria and Deb, and if it doesn't improve I'll say so and move on.

What do you mean OMG? It's like you just saw something frightening and suddenly got cut off. Now I'm worried.

Richard, I believe what Ted is referring to is a private ceremony that the reps or senators sometimes have if they wish. This would be with family members and friends. If they choose to do this they can use a bible or in this instance the Koran. You are correct in that the public ceremony no books are required.

Considering the fact that some Muslims do not believe in the book line by line then and some do who knows what is actually in his head and heart. I guess I am just a whimp and choose to believe the best in this man.

The bickering that is going on between Victoria and Deb on the other page over the Koran vs what I am not sure is just an example of how so much gets distorted by some people.

OMG

Ted, do you mean congressman Keith Ellison of Minnesota? I never heard of Orbell.

What I'm confused about is why this controversy has surfaced again, since learning that nobody holds books for the swearing in of the congressmen. What I read last said it's a group swearing on the House floor, with hands raised, no magic books. Whatever. Maybe they could all sneak a small copy of their favorite talisman into their suit coat pockets, Korans, Bibles, Mad Magazine, rabbit's foot, and slip their left hands into their pockets... This is so loony.

But regardless of all that the issue of the Koran at whatever ceremony isn't the dangerous part anyway. If there is any dangerous deed, it has already been done by the voters in Ellison's district. He's Muslim, and they knew it. He won't be any less Muslim if he doesn't touch the magic book that day. The question will be how Americanized is his version of Islam.

I've learned through discussions with Muslims on this site that just like Christians, not every Muslim follows every letter to the letter in their scripture, and the passages that most inflame Westerners are open to widely differing interpretations by differing Muslims.

I agree that it's unfortunate about books entirely. A rabbit's foot would be much better. More people believe in those. And yes, it is a step backward. the horrors of state-sanctioned religion in Britain, and the bloodbath of Europe's religious strife were fresh in the minds of the founding fathers. 217 years later we have forgotten, so we may be drifting back.

I'm confused. Remember our discussion on swearing on a holy book.
Muslim convert and congressman Orbell -- speaking to a crowd of 7000 Muslims -- swears he WILL swear on the Qur'an when he takes his oath of office. Dangerous stuff. The Qur'an explicitly says that Islam is the top dog and only true religion and that it is the duty of every Muslim to convert the whole world to Islam -- by force if necessary.
As you all know I am against swearing on any book -- supposedly holy or otherwise.
If you read Dawkins book on The God Delusion he makes it abundantly clear that many of the founding fathers -- including most of the leading ones ones -- were deists or agnostics and very anti religion being brought into politics. This goes for Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, John Adams, Thomas Paine and even George Washington. Seems to me that allowing swearing on any holy book is a retrograde step.

Well, maybe a million years old, but that's still newborn, and they're still cute.

Tammy,
Oh, what a wonderful statement! "What we're really worshiping is each other." I'm definitely going to repeat that. Thank you!
As Ted pointed out, 'tis the season of the Solstice, and I celebrate it not as a warlock, but as an astronomer. On December 22 the Earth's axis on the northern hemisphere was tilting directly away from the sun by about 23 degrees. It was the shortest day of the year for us, (and the longest day of the year for people in the southern hemisphere.) Now for us the days will slowly get longer and longer, and the sun's arch over our sky will pass slightly higher and higher each day until June.

Sorry, I actually get excited about this stuff. I celebrated on the night of the Winter Solstice by doing some observing of the Great Nebula in Orion, an amazing glowing cloud of hydrogen gas giving birth to stars. Those little baby stars are so cute! Aww, they're only 22,000 years old.

Happy Christmas Eve, everybody. Yes, I'm an atheist, and I celebrate Christmas. I love Christmas! I grew up calling it Christmas, and I'm not switching to Winter Solstice or Yuletide because then everyone will think I'm a witch.I love the lights, having trees in my tiny house, and baking my family's favorite things every day for a couple weeks. We take the kids to every party we get invited to, and in general just spoil them rotten with fun and new stuff. Everyone where I'm from says Merry Christmas, and I'm cool with that, because almost no one ever even tries to bring Jesus into it. Everyone just goes on and on about all the stuff they're doing, and how they'll never get it all done by Christmas. This just makes me think that while you may see the occasional "Jesus is the reason for the season" banner, what we're really worshipping is each other.
I agree with Ted that the holiday season is as much ours as the Christians; most people who claim otherwise haven't spent much time reading anything outside of their own inherited religious tradition.
Hi David; I really liked reading your post. I love C.S.Lewis; he's one of my favorite writers of stories, but I don't come to the same conclusions he did about Jesus. I wonder now if there even was a historical figure by that name, but that doesn't change the way I treat people or the things that I think are important. I think you are 100% correct, when you say "the problem lies within ourselves", and not religion. I've said this before, and so have others, but good people will always come together, in communities and families, even with different religious backgrounds.
If someone excludes me from their reindeer games, it's much more likely that they just don't like me than that I've somehow offended their gods.
Well, enough from me, for now. Hi Jim in PA, Pam, Robin, Richard, Ted, Torrey, and anyone else reading this-Merry Christmas!

ALAIN!
Tu nous manques! Nous avon besoin de vous. Repondez s'il te plait. niceatheist@ca.rr.com
Merci.

Welcome, Jim.
This page is sooo long now that some people have a very slow trip to the bottom. Anything using up your computer's processor will make it slow to get down here. Try the "end" key on your keyboard, if you have one.

Harry Potter may not be legend, myth or creed two millennia from now, but people have an amazing tendency to think that fiction is fact, or to worship things that weren't intended for worship. 2,600 years ago Plato wrote a story about a mythical place called Atlantis, and people are still looking for a lost continent. Natives in some remote jungle in the Pacific met a European who had landed there in an airplane. He flew away, and they were not re-discovered for decades. When they were, they were building and worshiping effigies of an airplane.

I think you're right about human nature not having changed. Some Christians will say that the transformative power of Jesus is only for the individual. Clearly many individuals have had changed lives. Some for better some for worse, if you measure by their actual behavior, rather than by what they say.

I'm glad you're here. We need all the common sense we can get.
Happy Humbug!

Hey Jim in PA I thought you were James (above). Sorry, I am sure you will make me pay dear dues for that mistake.

About the website. Did I promise you a rose garden? Hang in there and you will get used to it.

Hope to see you later.

Pam thanks for inviting me. But either I have a computer virus or this site is woefully inadequate as a discussion thread. Slow, slow, slow. Hard to find and navigate... But now that I'm here....

I do not belive Jesus is God. But man, he had some good pr guy in his corner. I doubt that a billion people will be celebrting Harry Potters life 2,000 years from now.

As for his legacy? For me, I love the christmas lights! Have them on right now. But I don't think he changed human nature a whit. Murder, stealing, was, disease. What ailed the world at teh time of Christ, continues to ail us now. If he was so powerful and transformative a being, well, why hasn't the work changed?

People still go to work and do thier best to get by. I'm no scinece whiz either, but I do have commn sense. I have two general observations about religion:

1) its an accident of birth and
2) It hasn't improved the world in the last 2,000 years.

But hey, MERRY CHRISTMAS! Still my favorite holiday and my boss gives me a paid day off. Gotta love that!

David,
You said we should "examine the facts" as a scientist would, when assessing religion, and I agree that the facts don't speak well for religion in general.

But then you assume many things about Jesus without any facts at all. You say, "There is more evidence about his existence, that he lived, where he lived, and what he did than any historical character you want to mention."

What evidence? I have heard of no more historically acceptable evidence for Jesus' existence or his claims than there is for Hercules. Historical claims must meet rigorous criteria of evidence to be acceptable. Are there contemporary Roman records of the arrest and execution of this person? Are there Hebrew records outside of the bible? Is there any physical evidence for a specific person, a specific place, a specific event that would satisfy a qualified archeologist who isn't just trying to bolster his own faith? Old ruins, holes in the ground, are not evidence of these claims. "Maybe it was here, or maybe this was it," are just wishful thinking, not evidence.

"Examine the facts?"
The fact that it is written in a book is not evidence. Is Oz a real place? It's written in a book. The fact that a lot of people talk about Jesus and write commentary on the original story about him is not evidence. A lot of people talked about Hercules, and now they talk about Harry Potter.

The only fact you have described that is "evident" is that evidently believing in Jesus has been helpful for you. It has brought you peace. Perhaps you should just enjoy that without trying to be "scientific" about it.

James;

Welcome on board.
You ask about how atheists/agnostics celebrate Christmas and I think that, in many cases, they do it in much the same way as everyone else -- lights, Xmas trees, mutual giving of presents and so on. After all Xmas trees have a very loose connection with Christianity and what really is being celebrated is the winter solstice -- a celebration which sure pre-dates Jesus. There is no evidence whatsoever that Jesus was even born at or near the time of the winter solstice -- and some Christian communities refuse to have anything to do with Xmas celebrations. I understand, moreover, that in Japan they also celebrate Christmas without any connection to Jesus.

David:

From the Biblical criticism I have read the claims made by Jesus about himself are not at all clear.

What do you make of; "Why call you me good there is none good but God".

This does not sound like the words of a man claiming to be God. Albert Schweitzer's massive tome entitled "The Quest of the Historical Jesus" ended up with the very clear-cut conclusion that Jesus was deluded in believing he would return within the life time of his followers -- an event which has,to this day, never happened.

And, perhaps worst of all, Jesus appears to have believed in the existence of Hell and eternal torment -- which does not sound like a particularly loving Father/God.

Let me close by pointing out that almost all religious believers adhere to the faith they happened to be born into. So, how can you be sure that the Muslim religion or the Bahai religion is not superior and closer to the truth than Christianity?

Relgion, as such, as done very little to bring peace to the world. Muslims fighting among themselves, Catholics and Protestants fighting through the ages, and all of us, in one way or another, fighting among ourselves. If we are honest,we will admit that the problem lies within ourselves, not with religion. If this is the root problem, then we can't expect "religion" to solve our problems; bring peace to a troubled world.

If religion is not the answer what is? This is what I believe. Back to faith again. The same faith a scientist puts into what he belives to be the truth that is later amended by additional information.

It is very easy to make claims about one's "religion" but as a scientist would do, examine the facts. Look at the world's religions and see what they have done for mankind. "Examine the facts."

Christianity is not about a religion, although some people make it that, but about a person. And what did this person say about himself. There is more evidence about his existance, that he lived, where he lived, and what he did that any historical character you want to mention. Many sceptics have started out to prove that he wasn't who he claimed to be and have ended up calling Him Savior.

And what did he claim to be? In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me."

As C.S. Lewis said, "Jesus Christ was either a liar, a poached egg, or who he said he was. If he were a liar or had lost his mind, he can't be called a "good teacher" or some kind of example to follow. If he is who he says he is, and he claims to be alive today, He has a standing of someone far above those dead prophets of other religions and some one who is capable to bring peace to this world, peace that comes to individuals, one at a time.

Hi james,
Hard to ask too many questions.
I guess "celebrate" can have so many meanings. I put up all the Christmas lights and ge-gaws all over the house because it makes my wonderful wife happy, and that's all I care about. By myself, I'd save electricity and have a lot more shelf space in the garage. But I'm really glad I'm not by myself, so it's a small thing. We have our small family over for a nice meal and presents, etc. but only my older brother is strongly religious. He says grace at the table, and that's that. Easter is not much of anything, now that our daughter is beyond the egg hunting age. It never was religiously significant, even for my wife. My 21 year old daughter seems to be pretty much an unbeliever. (I didn't do it, I swear!) We raised her to think for herself and to respect herself. She's just naturally independent anyway.

Being not sure, a fence sitter is a legitimate position, because you are honoring yourself as a person in process. It can be difficult, but it can be interesting too. Being in process means you're growing, changing, discovering. Respectful open-mindedness is the most pronounced trait I have seen in my agnostic friends, if I may characterize you by that term.

Thank you for your holiday wishes.
I hope the next few days are filled with love and warmth for you and your family, letting each celebrate for religion, or tradition, or just playing along, because that's a deep practice of love too.
Stay warm.

i was wondering what other atheists do at christmas time? do you or not celebrate? i would think that most have families that celebrate christmas. so do you play along? What about children, grandchildren? how do you explain to them the meaning of christmas or societies meaning, if you do not believe in its message? does this present any problems in the family structure?

what about another big religious holiday, easter?

i hope these are not too many questions.

i am a religion questioner. i am not sure about the belief of a god or gods. i guess i am a fence sitter at this time in my life.

i really don't feel like celebrating something i am not sure exists, but i will have to at least this year. just would like to know how others deal with this dilemma.

Happy Holiday to All!

Robin and I had dinner this evening with a long time friend of mine. We invited him to join us. He is "so" funny and very bright (yes Jimmy) I said bright.

I think he will be great here.

Torrey sleeps during the day, so It may be a while. I think if you receive the password, etc at your own email, and visit the site from your own email, it doesn't matter what computer you're using. Check your email now. I've got to get some things done today. So I'll be back later this evening. Love you all.

I sent an email to Torrey for a username and password but did't get it yet. I can wait it out a little and see what happens.

Tammy, you there?

Pam!
We're here at the same time. You could use Robin's membership in the Sam's Fans site to chat with me and anyone else who shows up. Or we could do it right here.

Well, if we wish for interaction with others, there's interesting stuff at the common ground thread, as well as others. I've noticed a pattern where the younger questions have all the polarizing opinions, then as they mature they get more thoughtful, more interactive and more intimate. This one has just gotten really really mature, even mellow, even sleepy. It just gets harder to find the older ones on this website. I don't understand the policy of how On Faith posts these now dozens and dozens of questions.

I had lunch today and had the perfect opportunity to address the atheist issue to a very close person when he asked if I was going to church services on Christmas Eve.

I said that I was not going to go to church but just couldn't bring myself to making any detailed explanation.

So I ran home and jumped on here for some HELP. I suppose I am not yet as brave as I thought I was.

Later and love you all!!!

Hi Pam-I don't imagine we ran her off. If she's like any of my good Christian neighbors(or myself, for that matter), she's running herself ragged right now preparing for the holiday Monday.
So much to bake, so little time!

Ha Ha we seem to have run off another one. My goodness. These people just don't have any stamina!!!!!

pssst.
pssssssst!
hey guys. we've been standing here smiling for almost 16 hours.
my face is frozen. I don't think she's coming back.

Hi Sara,

Welcome!

Actually your NOT one of those Christians that politicaly correct people love to hate. Even though I don't think hate is intended it comes out of frustration.

You posted a most gentle and thoughtful post. You did not come in full blast, post in a forceful, lecturing, saving etc manner.

You posted in a manner that allows thoughtful dialogue. And hopefully by giving us all a chance you will see that we welcome everyone for respectful conversation.

Stick around maybe we all can learn a few new things.

Hi Sara,

Most of the Christians I know (except for a few recovering Catholics) fall into the I believe and do not and never have and never will question catagory. Lord knows why they put up with me because as soon as the topic comes up about church, confession etc. I get silent. I must say that I do not rock the boat with these particular people. I do have some friends that believe but do not practice their beliefs enough that it ever comes up in conversation. I am going to be brave and try a discussion on this topic the next time I get the chance.

I have to say that I have been an all or nothing person for years but have come to terms with that and have decided I need to work on making a decision. Right now I am in a rather gray area.

I wish you would explain further your feelings. Whatever they are welcome to Sam's Place.

Hi Sara,
What you said is very interesting to me, because I immediately got confused. (Confusion is irresistible to me.)
You said you identify with all-or-nothing kinds of believers, and then you also identify with people who don't know what they believe, but need to find concrete reasons for their convictions.
If I'm interpreting you correctly, these seem really different.
Is it like you are in between, drawn back and forth by differing thoughts and needs? You sound like you're very thoughtful. That can be a real problem if you are drawn to the all-or-nothing side.
I'm one of those "people who have an entire set of morals based on what they feel is right, and works for them," as you so well put it. Could you share more?

Hi Sara:

Interesting that you should suggest that atheists/agnostics base their lives on "what they believe to be right". Don't we all do that and is there really any alternative?

I was born into an Anglican family switched -- by choice -- to Quakerism and have ended up an agnostic. And throughout all of these changes my ethical and moral outlook has not really changed one jot or one tittle. My ideas of what is right and wrong have survived intact.

It is hard for me to see how you can feel more at home with Muslims than you do with atheists/agnostics. Even moderate Muslims tend to be very fundamentalist -- believing in the literal existence of Adam and Eve and regarding belief in evolution as a crime. They even go so far as to regard switching from the Muslim faith to some other faith or no faith as punishable by death.

You suggest that it is the "all or nothing" attitude of Muslims which makes you feel comfortable with them. But, in very truth, we atheists and agnostics are also "all or nothing" types. We feel -- rightly or wrongly -- that we humans would be much better off without dogmatic religious beliefs and affiliations. Being a not-quite-sure type is simply a way-station on the road to sanity and becoming at one with ourselves.

Hi Sara-I meant to begin my last post that way, thought I typed it, but I guess not.

It turns out lots of the Christians (the ones I know, anyway) really fall into the we're-not-sure-what-we-believe category when it comes to metaphysics at least. Many are now doubting whether or not Jesus was divine, or even if there have been miracles. They question the virgin birth. They may even be questioning whether or not there is a god, but since they want this to be true, and since they have kind Christian parents, they still call themselves Christians.
What is agreed upon is that we all should do our best to work hard and be good people. Sadly, some are still afraid that they have to accept the parts of Christianity they doubt in order to benefit from the company of good Christians.

I've been lucky in that the good Christians I know don't exclude me from their friendships because I don't believe in their god. I also don't concern myself with the ones who claim to be good Christians, but do not seem to "practice what they preach".
I'm not sure what you meant by "politically exasperated people", but I truly hope nobody loves to hate you.
One last thing-I hope nobody reading this took my last post to mean that I don't want to hear Christians talk about the Bible in public. My main concern was the fact that they were having the Cross vs. Stake("What was He hung on?") discussion in the company of young children. Most grown-ups I know would save that one for the adult after-service Bible study group or something.

Ok this thread seems to have got quiet. Too quiet=)

So ok I'm one of those Christians politically exasperated people love to hate. And I find alot more in common with Muslims who share an "all or nothing" commitment to their beliefs about the truth of this life, that include an invisible God, than in people who have an entire set of morals based on what they feel is right, and works for them.

I also identify with people who dont know WHAT they believe, but realize they need to find concrete reasons for their convictions.

I am not typecasting agnostics or atheists in this comment.

Ur turn =)

Awww Richard

I don't think there is a need for embarrassment.

I don't think any of us knew.

The site is up and running. See you there.

Okay, I stand corrected. Imagine my embarassment.

I've been beginning to get the idea that Torrey is not who or what I've been assuming Torrey is, but I'll wait to be corrected.

Thanks Richard!

I did hear from Torrey.

I think you might be in for a bit of a surprise.

lol

Tammy,
When you get an email you feel safe with, send it to me at
niceatheist@ca.rr.com That's the only one exposed to this public blog. Then with your express permission I can send it to Torrey, who can send you the access code to get into the site. Also, only with your express permission, I can send your email address to Ted, Robin and Pam as well.

Robin,
Check your email. I sent you a letter. Five of us now share our emails. Send a note to Torrey and he'll send you the access codes. He may be out right now, and I think he has the slow journey down to the end of this thread.

I don't know how to get there either.

HELP!!!!!

Is there a website I can go to, Torrey, or do I have to get an email invite? If so, I'll set up a separate address as Richard so wisely suggested. I used to have a yahoo one, it may still be active...
I just overheard the most ridiculous conversation while I was waiting for my kids' gymnastics class to be over, and this is a new one to me. Two Christians were griping about a mormon, and saying how silly their (the mormons') book is! What was news to me was that apparently there's some Cross vs. Stake controversy(as in "From what was our Lord barbarously hung?") of which I've been ignorant.Common ground!
It's good to see that all of you are hooking up; I can only hope that there are more little groups forming everywhere.

Speaking of ghosts I wrote a very long message this morning hit the post key and away it went. Somewhere but not here. Now I can't remember a word of what I said so I suppose it might not have been very important.

Richard, you had me thinking all day about the GOD question. I do believe I have an answer but need to put some more thought into it.

Take care all

Ted,
There seems to be a weird translation problem between my text and yours. The two letters in the address immediately after @ca. are the lower case letters that would stand for railroad. They're actually the initials of my server, roadrunner. Why these lower case letters sounding like "are are" are showing up as capital letters sounding like "Eye Tea" is another of the deep mysteries of the internet. Don't give up.

Sorry Richard. I still don't get it. I don't see the difference between the email address I tried to use which was niceatheist@ca.IT.com and what you have written -- except that in your version the IT appears to be in small caps. Will try again using cut an paste.

Welcome Denny Hare:

Your contribution is certainly short sharp and to the point. I hope you don't feel as if you have entered a den of thieves. We are actually a very friendly mutually supportive bunch that doesn't bite or say nasty things about each other.

God is reported to have said to Moses from the burning bush: I am who I am (Exodus 3:13). And I have long felt that this implies that reality is what it is and we have to accept it as it is. Moreover, when Moses asked what he should tell the people about the name of the god who sent him the message he got back was: I AM has sent me to you -- not Jehovah or Elohim or Allah or Ahura Mazda but simply I AM. And that is how I have to interpret the Psalm you quote. For me it can only mean: Be still and know that I AM WHAT I AM.

The theologian Paul Tillich often used to speak of the "God above God" (above all our perceptions of God and independent of all the names we give to God) -- which I likewise interpret as meaning the ultimate nature of reality.

Stay well,

. . Ted . .

Hey all,
Torrey has set up a very nice website with all sorts of cool ways for us to share and communicate.
A few of you have sent me your email messages, and one has said it's okay to share their email address with the others, but I'm not going to return anybody's email unless you explicitly say either in the email message or here, that it's okay to do so. I don't want anyone receiving stuff from me that they don't want. Yes, permission may be implied by writing to me, but forgive me for being so anal. It's from years of rigorous training about confidentiality in my counselor days. Once that's all settled, the communications can flow.

Sombody leave a window open?

Ted, it's niceatheist@ca.rr.com
See you there.

Have tried niceatheist@ca.IT.com with no success. What am I doing wrong?

Wow, you sure have eniciated a voluminious amount of comments. I think the the answer to the question lies at the end of Psalm 46.
Be still and know, that I am. GOD

Torrey

Thats a great idea and I'm in.

Richard

You can give the address out I gave.

Thanks for the answer to my questions. I did explain the one and the other paranormal. Well that just comes from that I know a man at work that dabbles in Ghost Hunting. He brings tapes and pictures in and I find it interesting but am skeptical. Very skeptical and sometimes laughable. But interesting non of the less. One time when he was telling me a story of when he visited Gettysburg, another man overheard and he suggested this was the devils work. He said he was born again and I said I was a non believer. Well, that just brought on a barage of....I need to get Jesus into my heart and the only true way was to be born again to find the gates of heaven yada yada yada.

That is another reason, I hesitate in *coming out*
I figure that is about as good as it gets with most people....The big lecture. The *Greatest Lie* Ever Told. Its tiresome rhetoric and one I have very little to no patience for. If it could be an open dialouge, I could hang, but I fear it rarely will be.

I have always been a risk taker. I don't know if thats good or bad. I suppose it depends on the risk. This one doesn't especially scare me to try. I just will become increasingly annoyed if it goes as I mentioned above.

Well, I am off to work. I work at a post office, so hopefully if any of you mailed any packages and xmas cards they will make it on time. If not, I suppose you can blame it on me as I have other things on my mind. I tend to take this thread with me of late.

Have a good day all!

Cool. I'll be looking for it. I keep dozing off though. The cat's in my lap and she's so......warm.......

I'm going to set one up right now. I'll send you an access code to your niceatheist address. I have to give it a name and will pick some innocuous thing, but it can always be changed at any time (I know you'll have some good ideas!).

Torrey, I can't see what the risk actually is, especially if I use an alternate email so my business email isn't exposed to... well, what? So what if I'm a creepy bald woman with a hairy back and a hook for a hand? I can't reach anybody else. Now, maybe I'm a little prejudiced, because I worry about the Mormon company. How many of them have hooks for hands? Naw, I'm not gonna live in fear. Besides, I have mine.

Here's another idea for a website. MyFamily.com offers a free website for friends and/or families. My huge family (on three continents) has had one for the past six+ years and we love it. Only problem is, it would require each participant to allow the site administrator (me) to have access to their email address. I know I'm naive, so tell me if this is not a good idea (for security or other reasons). The site takes about three minutes to set up. It's run by a Mormon company here in Utah.

Yo Torrey!! Good to see you back. Scroll up and get my email address for an emergency rendezvous in case this joint is raided. Weird about that lost post and that refusal message. I should be the one getting that. Yeah we need a “hi sign” like the con artists touching their noses in “The Sting.” It’s so funny seeing how much this is like coming out as a gay person; who’s going to take the risk, what will happen? Even Dawkins speaks about learning from the Gay and Feminist movements about consciousness raising. Can you imagine marching in the Atheists and Agnostics Pride Parade? or:

I am godless, hear me roar
In numbers to big to ignore
And I know too much to go back and pretend.
'Cause I've heard it all before
And your beliefs are such a bore
No one's ever gonna make me pray again…

Hi Everybody else! Sorry this entry is so long, but I'm playing catch up. The email works! This is a big accomplishment for one of the last of the analog generation. Remember, I won’t answer or mention your emails without your say so.
Now to all the things you guys have written, in no particular order.

Tammy, your hubby is wise to be cautious about the email thing. I completely understand. For all anybody knows, I could be a creepy bald woman with hair on her back and a hook for a hand. Safety is why I created a new email box instead of my own general one. If screwballs lurking out there flood it with hate mail, I can just delete it. I’m not very worried about my personal safety though. I’ve got my hook to protect me.

Ted, to suggest your question to On Faith, go to the top of this page, way, way up there, and click on “Main Page.” At the bottom of the first light blue box with a list of panelist’s questions, it says:

Join the Conversation. Add your Comment >>
E-mail On Faith. Propose A Question >>

Click on that second line and you’ll get an email window specifically for proposing questions. If that doesn’t work, as it doesn’t on my Mac, just copy and paste this email address to your own email:
onfaith@washingtonpost.com
Hope it happens.
About the being drunk on discussion boards, should we change “In Vino Veritas” to “In Cybro Veritas?”
The more I think about Atran’s assertion about religion and beauty, etc., the more annoyed I become. What rubbish! Talk about making an assertion with no evidence. Now I want to find lots of examples of people who created beauty and didn’t believe squat.

Pam, I’ll be making the rounds of other questions out there. If I see you, I won’t bug you. …too much. Hope the website you’re planning happens. That would be great. I sometimes visit a science discussion site called “Everything Science” with lots of members, (free) many questions in various areas with the numbers of comments and dates of last entries, private discussion threads, public chat rooms and private chat rooms, and lists of pertinent websites. It even has a place they call the “café,” where they relax and talk about non-scientific things. Just some ideas. Does that kind of thing cost much? I’d make a donation once it’s up.
Oh, I wanted to ask you, if it’s okay, why do you always spell GOD with all capitals? It’s unique to your posts.

Robin, to your very pertinent and interesting question to each of us about spirits, ghosts and the paranormal.
Because I don’t believe or disbelieve anything, I follow Carl Sagan’s maxim, “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.” For centuries people have told stories of encounters with spooks, or creepy feelings in houses, etc. Whenever it is carefully investigated, (not like those clowns on the SciFi station) there’s either no evidence at all, or evidence of fraud.
However, many people report experiencing the presence or influence of deceased loved ones; both my mother and my wife have had such. I never argue with anyone who tells me their experiences. I treat them with tender respect. It’s a very intimate thing to share. They are precious to the teller, and of great comfort to them. Because I seem to be a “weak atheist” (hate that term) who simply does not do the activity of believing or disbelieving, I can be quite agnostic about it. Who am I to say "no" to someone who has shared something so vulnerable? Whether the loved one is there on some other plane of existence, or is living on in the mind and heart of the living person becomes a blurred and moot point. It’s another part of a complex and mysterious thing called humanity.
Now if by paranormal you mean things like ESP, clairvoyance, telepathy, and remote viewing, I’m “agnostic” in that open-minded way, but very skeptical as well. So far, careful investigations of people’s claims again show either no evidence at all, or evidence of fraud. Everybody has stories of their own experiences of knowing things they shouldn’t have known, including me, but I also know very well how the mind can “cut and paste” things into new sequences and chronological orders, then delete the old versions and it all seems so real and amazing. But… Show me the extraordinary evidence from controlled tests, not anecdotes.

Tammy, Pam and Robin, I’m amazed by your stories of broaching the subject of non-belief with relatives and friends. And then you’re going to do it again! I’m just too scared. Even with my hook. I only talk about this with my bestest best friend Jim, a fellow member of our astronomy club. Smartest guy I personally know, and he and I are both rabid, cackling blasphemers. He broached it with me. Most stories I hear from others sound pretty unpleasant, and so I ask myself why would I want to go through that, and what would be the point? I’m not saying you shouldn’t. For personal growth, for making a relationship more complete and genuine, or for breaking down stereotypes and prejudices, you go, girls!
I’ll be over here under this table.

Well, because I’m out here on the Ring of Fire, you’re all in dreamland by now. Catch you later.

That 'anonymous' above was me. I'm having several difficulties on this site. Sometimes my postings are 'refused' because I've supposedly 'posted too many comments'!

I posted here yesterday but it has disappeared! Shame that we can't blame things like that on the devil.

Last weekend a couple of neighbors stopped by my house at the same time. One noticed 'The God Delusion' on the coffee table and off we went! One of them said he's an atheist too and the other claimed to be agnostic. But I guess I shouldn't have been surprised: one is an anthropologist and the other a biology professor.
I've known them for several years but never asked 'the question'. After all, it is a bit rude, don't you think? Perhaps we need a secret handshake...

Richard

Great idea. I only thought it looked like it was winding down because there was only 3 of us here the last couple days. Pam reminded me it was the Xmas season and folks had other things to do. I also was just hoping that at some point since this thread is so long, it wouldn't say..last post allowed. lol I really am going to do the book thing, but I am going to wait until after the holidays are over. Maybe its respect or a cop out, but I don't want to start controversy at a time for most is suppose to be a joyful time.

Tammy

Its so nice to have you back. I just started coming here and well, it seemed it was winding down and there was so much more I wanted to learn and talk about and you were an important part of that. Thank you for checking back.

The ghost, spirit question was asked because 30 years ago after my mothers passing she came to visit me. It was 2 mos after her death and while I was still sad I was no longer in crisis mode. I never had said anything to anyone as I thought they would think I was nutz. Years later I told a doctor about it and they told me as you said, the mind is tricky. And at times will comfort you where you can't find it elsewhere. I found that a understandable and accepted it as an explanation. But I must admit over the years at times I wanted to hold on to the thought that she really had come to see me and talk. It made it feel more comforting, obviously.

As an atheist I have always held on to the knowledge for myself when death occurs that, that is just it. Nothing, no more, nada. Like falling asleep and never waking again. I have absolutely no problem with that at all. I guess I sometimes just like to think she really came to visit.

Tammy, you gave me much to think about in your post today. I have been mentally reviewing my close friends and what would happen if I brought up the topic of religion. I did this once with what I thought was a "very" close friend and it did not go well. She was Catholic. Her children are both non belivers but have allowed her to take their child to church and do all of the Catholic garbage that goes along with it. I simply questioned how they arrived at that decision and she was off and running.

I was taught that one never discusses religion or politics with anyone or the world as I know it may come to and end. Old fashioned probably but see how those old wives tales haunt one forever. I would say that my family worshipped politics more than they did religion come to think of it. However, I have lived with that Golden Rule most of my adult life. Maybe why I am now obsessed with this website and all you people. It is almost like giving myself permission to brake that rule. I suppose you have already recognized that I am rather rebellious by nature. So this sure feels good.

I will be anxious to hear any information on how others have had discussions on this and survived it. I am going to make an effort when I get back home to do some research of my own.

What do I have to lose? The christians already believe that the world is going to end soon anyway.

Tammy I love all your posts today. You missed us. I would bet you would be a great teacher. You are so good and kind to us here. Science was one of my favorite subjects but I also hated math. My home budget shows it too. LOL

Richard, I saw you next door and we have to stop meeting like this. People will start to talk!
;-). I posted on the Christian Nation question. That one really got me going.

Okay, so now I'm still here, for now. I just stopped in, and have to let you know, Richard, how utterly jealous I am that you're exploding stuff in libraries. I always wanted to be a science teacher, honestly, but they have to be good at math...

Hi everybody! I have Q's and A's for all of you, but I have to go explode a large volcano inside a library. I get up later than the rest of you, so my work day's just starting. I'll see you early (for me) this evening. Sharp eyes, Tammy! I asked Torrey to check in. Good to see you next door Pam!

Hi again, all (and after this, thankfully, I'll be away from this infernal craptrap for most of the day); I just had a Torrey sighting! I'm pretty sure it was "our" Torrey, posting over on the "Is America a Christian nation?" section of the site.

Hi again, Pam. I do trust you about the mental health practitioners where you live; I was just talking about what people where I live experience. We have to drive quite a ways if we need much of anything in the way of specialized medicine. I also wouldn't want you to think I have a low opinion of these psychological counselors, who no doubt help many of those they serve.

Tammy it seems we are often on the same wave length. I believe as a small group here we have found the fellowship we so crave that people of religion have. I have missed your posts of late. My son is the IT Manager at his place of employment and built their website. I am sure in time he could do wonders for us. I am thinking of ways to promote it that would help to spread the news. Ha Ha just like a mother to be way ahead of the game especially since I have not yet spoken to him.

I have often wondered how you handle the business of religion with your children. Since you home school them I would think you have an edge. However, people will be people.

I can relate a recent conversation I had with a friend to is into Astrology/Mystics/Ghosts and I was telling her about this website and she went off on this tangent asking me if I haven't ever had a miracle happen to me. I said I didn't really think so and at that point she went into this long speech about several things that she needed guidance on and how she prayed over them and alas GOD helped her. I did not know what to say to her. My question was "Are you sure it just wasn't mind over matter?" I am not going any further with this on here but I did receive a very long explanation as to why that could not be. So much for an open mind.

Ted, I appreciate you asking Atran the question I asked about art/music/poetry because I am searching my mind as to why that would be. I am not much for poetry but have been an art/music lover for years and never even considered "MY" interest having anything to do with religion. While I can see that it may for many people I cannot see that it would fade into the sunset for the rest of us. The majority of the art I have in my house I am sure is not GOD inspired.

Another thought Tammy is that if you live in a very rural area of the state I think that any counseling would almost like be done by church organizations. In my part of the state we do have many churches that provide family/individual help and that would of course be faith based. However, we do have many other choices that would not be faith based. Trust me on this one.

I will end by saying that maybeI should ask my friend to pray for the safe return of Torry and Alain.

Sorry for my sick sense of humor but I couldn't resist it.

I forgot to thank you, Richard, for setting up a place for us to go. If I don't use it, it won't be because I'm done talking to you, but because my husband sees it as a security breach.

Pam, we were posting at the same time (actually, I began work on that last bible-of-a-post before 10am, had to drop it & get back to it at least 3 times). I hope it goes well with your son. So many of the atheist sites I've seen have little of Fellowship to them, unless your idea of Fellowship is ripping on other people's delusions. Maybe we're just completely uncool because we crave the fellowship we're missing by not going to church. I've had the same idea lately about a website but I always feel like who the heck am I, anyways; someone really smart will have to do this.

Robin:

I have no idea why Atran suggested that, if formal religion faded away, poetry and art (and presumably music) would have to fade away as well. So, as of now, God and Atran alone know. It is all part of his contention that poetry, art and religious beliefs all belong together in a category which does not allow us to sensibly ask whether they are true or false. In my follow-up second letter to Atran I have specifically focused on this strange idea -- but I doubt whether he will even bother to reply.

Richard:

I would be happy to contact the ON FAITH organizers at Washington Post/Newsweek by email (suggesting a poll of users regarding the issue of having doubts about religious beliefs) but don't know how to do so. Can you help?

Happy Monday, everyone! Ted, as always, you voiced what I've been feeling perfectly, when you said that being on the computer like this is like being drunk; we're closer to expressing our true selves than when we talk face-to-face with people we know. That's a good bit of the reason I took the weekend off; I read your posts, and the only thing I could add was, "yeah, me too", or "amen".Robin, Pam, Richard, Ted, you're always expressing my thoughts, and it's getting creepy!

When I mentioned the psychological services, I wasn't talking about M.D. psychiatrists, or psychologists with PhD.s- there aren't any out here in the boonies. We have counselors with M.A.s, and while I'm sure they're dedicated to helping the people they serve, I was told by my family Dr. that anyone in need of a psychiatrist has to travel an hour or more. This is also true for other areas of medicine like pediatric opthamologists, for example.

I can't remember where I read this or heard of it, but it was in regards to an intensive, I think, Hindu, spiritual training. The gist of it was that you should not go into the training unless you feel as if you are on fire, and you seek out the training as if it were water. I've been reading everything about any religion for a few years now, and I do still feel like I'm on fire, but not because I'm not sure what to think anymore. The poll that Ted sited, where about 45% of repondants admit to being unsure, is much closer to representing reality for the people I know. People aren't necesarily calling themselves christians because they take the bible to be the literal and unerring word of god; I've said this before, but so many still say they are christians because it hurts too bad to be left out of that club. Also, they don't concern themselves with the origin of creation, or whether or not we have souls, because it doesn't seem to have any bearing on their daily lives. I've been working up my nerve and having conversations(one by one, mind you) with friends & family about this subject, and so far, it's solidifed two relationships and placed a rift in another. I don't talk as if I really have anything figured out, and I pick the people and occassions for these conversations very carefully. I was compelled to begin this line of inquiry because of relatives bringing up god and Jesus to my oldest when she was about 3; it bugged me that someone I love wanted my tiny child to hear the biblical story of Easter. To her, it's supposed to be a story of eternal love and forgiveness, but I see it as a horror story and not age-appropriate. This difference between me and almost everyone I respect has caused me to read everything I can in search of better answers to my own questions, and the questions from those who ask me, "What church do you guys go to", or the ever-confounding, "When will you have the girls dedicated{in church}". Posting here, as if we are all conversing with each other, has helped me initiate dialogues I would've been chicken to start before I read all the words put out by everyday people, people who don't get paid to post their opinions. There is most definately safety in numbers.

Well, I've gone on quite long enough, but I do wish to respond to Robin's question, not 'cause I have a great answer, but mainly because it stinks when nobody answers your well-thought-out questions. Also, it's not off-point at all, but actually the heart of the point! These questins that get posted publically tend to be vague to the point of meaninglessness. "Can there be common ground...", for example. Please. That doesn't ask anyone to get real, lay out exactly what they think, the way Robin's question about ghosts/spirits does, or Ted's idea of asking how many people have true doubts about what their church believes.
Well, Robin, my answer to your pertinent & meaningful question: I'm not sure. I (and lots of people I trust not to have been drunk or crazy at the time) have had experiences I couldn't explain. My instinct tells me to doubt that these experiences have anything to do with souls or anything, and that our minds can be unbelievable tricksters.

Another thought.

Ted I don't understand why Atran would say that if formal religion faded so would poetry and art. Do you understand his reasoning on this?

My son is a computer "nerd". I am going to ask him if he would be able to design a website that we could use to attract others out there in the world to post. I am sure I will get some sort of reaction when I tell him the subject matter.

Ted, I am sure there are many people out there that would love to "come out" of the closet. We need a way to help them do that. Yea right! I have always been somewhat a dreamer.

This has been so helpful to me to be able to talk about what has been going on inside my brain and having NO way to talk to anyone about it. And then have people that listen, comment thoughtfully and teach at the same time is great.

Richard, we are not trying to be the bearer of bad news here about this site going away. I can assure you people will stop blogging before it actually goes away. Both you and Ted are great at keeping the conversation on track and us all something talk or think about. So you two are the "appointed" ones.

Thanks for the email and I have already added to my favorites for future use. I am rather slow moving sometimes but I am going out there in the cold cruel world and so some research. I have no problem with gently bringing this up in conversation and will certainly return with my experiences. I believe in Attraction Rather Than Promotion. If I can show someone who is qustioning or doubting where they are with religion that I am as human as they are it might work. I don't believe it works to preach to someone. That makes me as insane as the religious ones.

OK people I am out of here for now but will certainly return.

Take care

Robin, (and everybody)
Why do you think this thread is coming to an end? Have I missed some news? I know nothing lasts forever, but I still have so many questions to ask each of you. It's scary how attached I have become to you people. I've grown a great affection for these minds I've glimpsed. I know, I'm the ex-buddhist, so I'm supposed to know that attaching brings suffering, but it happens anyway. So I'll suffer later. Make it much later, please. This forgotten thread has become a refuge for me. When I want to mix it up with somebody new, I go next door, or even to Pharyngula or some place to have a good argument. But because no one but we seven remember this place, we've been able to talk more about ourselves and each other, not just "the issue" in that public sense. That has been so valuable to me, to put it and hear it in a more personal perspective.

I have been having this waking dream about people floating on water in little individual rafts, surrounded by thick, blue-gray fog. They can't see each other, but only hear each other's voices. They are the last few who have not drifted apart. They find they have important things in common, hopes, fears, doubts, certainties. They have created something rare, a camaraderie. The currents of their lives pull them in different directions, and they will eventually drift away, but they can paddle a little toward the voices, and stay nearby for a little longer, until the mutual healing has finished. By sharing they give each other permission to say what they never could say before, and understand what used to puzzle them. They can't see or touch, and perhaps shouldn't try, but they still support each other, and are better for it.
Go to your work and try the opener, then come back and tell us about it. I can't wait to hear how it goes. Go to a meeting and tangle with a bible thumper, then vent your frustration here. Go next door for a good fight, and then come back here and crow about it and cry about it. Argue with a punk scientist and share your best points with everyone. This is our debriefing room.

I don't want to lose contact with you just because of my own negligence if this thread closes down before we're all ready to say adieu. So I just opened a new email box just for us. We can use it as a mooring mast in the fog. A rendezvous, a clearing house, a place to pass contacts to each other, tell each other where we're having fun on the net lately. I will not return a message unless you explicitly say to, I will forward email only if you explicitly say to. No information about who or where we are will be shared without explicit instructions and permission. If you don't want to use it, and want to just move on, okay, no hard feelings. At least it was available. Copy this to your address books:

niceatheist@ca.rr.com

I figured out how to find an opener. I will take the God Delusion to work and see what happens.

Don't know why it took me so long to think of that specially since you've all talked about that in earlier posts.

Goodnight all. Have a good day tomorrow or today depending on getting here.

Robin

Ted,

I told myself earlier at work, no computer when you get home. Just go to bed early and start out fresh.

Well, I just keep getting drawn back. I see though that the thread is basically coming to an end. I really wish Harris would post a new question. *Sigh*

I agree about the drunk part. One of the advantages of anonymity of the web. Even if we do pass each other on the street, we will never realize it.

Richard,

I like your Gilligans Island tune. It looks like the tides coming in and we are all going to be washed back to shore. Go our separate ways. Hopefully meet back up again for a new ride (question).

Everyone-Anyone

This may or maynot be off-topic. I have a question for anyone to answer. I will explain why I ask after the opinions are in, if anyone is interested.

As atheists/agnostics, your thoughts on spirits ghosts, the paranormal.

Ted, that would make a great question for On Faith. Would you be willing to suggest it? With an introduction about the poll, they might go for it. I'd be fascinated to read the responses. I'd probably not say much if anything, out of respect. That would be a way to help them along; giving people permission to get it off their chests.

Lots of hidden talent around. Even a poet in our midst. So much for Atran's view that if formal religion faded from the scene poetry and art would have to fade from the scene as well.

Actually we owe a lot to Sam for generating the most active site -- by far -- amongst all the participants. Am glad he got honourable mention in the poem.

Incidentally I saw a poll recently which asked the right question namely:

Do you have any doubts about the beliefs of the church to which you belong?

No less than 45% said: YES. So there is a huge hidden group of individuals out there who are open to breaking loose from formal religious ties. If only we could help them along somehow.

Ah Richard! How nice. I love the seven sincerely searching souls.

The thread’s aground on the shore of this uncharted part of the site,
With seven stranded castaways who stay up talking all night.
There’s Richard, Ted and Tammy too, Pam and Robin her sis,
Torrey and Alain Machefert, (whom we’re beginning to miss.)

Sometimes their lives go easily, sometimes their lives are rough,
But they all are so encouraging as they sort through all their stuff.
So join us here each night my friends, you’re sure to get a smile,
From seven sincerely searching souls here on Harris’s isle.

Ted if you are correct about writing emails and contributing to web based discussion groups is a bit like getting drunk and having our true natures coming out then I should be able to do this. I certainly never had a problem with getting drunk and I am sure my true nature came out often. So here goes the "real" me. (Get ready this may be a long one.)

First, I must say that Robin is my "much" younger sister. In many ways it is hard to believe we grew up on the same house. I have been told this is often the case in families. Robin received a Catholic education which I did not. This decision was not made for the religious angle but simply for the education part. The three of us children received very little religious teaching from our parents. This I know now has much to do with her atheism. Second, I did not know until recently that she was an atheist. There are many reasons for that which I will not go into detail here. However, if someone does not even know that about a family member how many others out there that I know are among the non-believers in this world. Can any of you tell me how many there are out there? Does anyone even have a clue? I have known one person who outwardly admitted that he was an atheist and when he told me I was stunned. Maybe because I never knew anyone personally. I don't think I was judging just very surprised.

I seem to be the one struggling with all of this, as it appears to me that you guys have already decided which side of the fence you are on. When I started recovery from alcohol I was very much a "why" person. I spent the first five years reading, listening, learning, digging in books, tapes. You name it I did it. I needed to know why. Of course like many things there is no definate answer as to WHY. Many studies, opinions, and so forth. So I listened and learned and came to my own conclusion as to the answer that best satisfied me. I guess you could say I found my own personal truth.

So now the search is on with religion or maybe the lack of religion. That was the reason for me to come to this webpage. To listen and learn and decide what is right for me.

I never believed in fairy tales and for that reason just couldn't buy what most religions were selling. It just doesn't make sense to me. After my mother's death I again went on a search for something to help me to heal from that. Religion of any kind didn't help. Nothing really helped me except for the passing of time.

In the last 20 years I can't remember one person that asked me what I believed. People that know me well know I don't attend any church but I am sure they think I believe in GOD simply because I have never said I didn't. In AA when people tell me to pray I just say sure OK whatever. But I don't.

I feel like I am at another crossroad in my life right now. Another search in my journey. I seldom have much more to contribute other than my own personal experiences or feelings. All of you on this page and other pages have taught me so much. I see on many of the posts next door what I don't want to believe and on this particular page what I can honestly believe and much knowledge to back up the information. Thanks for being my teacher on this part of my journey.

Later

Robin:

Sorry about the lack of sleep. We all start -- every day -- from where we are at. And either move forwards, stagnate or move backwards. Seems to me you are moving forwards steadily. You write very well and very clearly. It is never really a hassle trying to follow what you are saying.
It is not exactly easy to convey what we want to convey electronically but I have long been aware that some people manage to do this quite well and others don't. And you are in the do it pretty well category. I sometimes idly speculate that writing emails and contributing to web based discussion groups is a bit like getting drunk. It tends to bring out our true natures.

Keep well. . . Ted . .

Ok, well hopefully you can sleep. I should too. I’m starting to have little hallucinations from sleep deprivation. I read your stuff carefully and take the time to respond because you’re so honest. There’s a lot there that I recognize, and it’s not that I can say, “Oh yeah, been there, done that.” You and Pam and Tammy have this vulnerable but fearless earnestness that I admire. I don’t presume to teach you or anyone here. I’m just want to learn and get less confused too. Ok I’m going to bed, and I’ll re-read your posts again when I can think straight. ‘Night.

I read them 3 times. You still there?

No, I dozed off in front of this infernal machine. Let me read your posts...

Still can't sleep.

One of the things I typed and then deleted was how I just sit quietly by in my life trying to live by example. But if no one knows I am an atheist what the heck kind of example is that. They just assume I am a believer so......

Can't challenge or raise consciousness that way. And the fact that I am a boat rocker in so many other ways but this one. And that is what has kept me up tonight is wondering why this has been so different for me from the other situations, where I have no problem rebelling against.

Truth is most of the people I know are not practicing anything. They say they believe in God but the only thing they really practice is prayer in times of need. I don't mean to sound condescending or judgemental, I am just trying to explain that none really has any religious convictions or discipline. So the topic never comes up.

So, I am thinking that maybe I could find a way to just throw something out there to get some kind of dialogue up. Come a little further out of my comfort zone.

Ok, so that is where my mind is at tonight which hopefully now that I have typed it out, I can go and finally fall asleep.

Thank you little square box for being my ear.

Thank you Richard, work was ok. And I hope you have gotten a good nights sleep.

Couldn't sleep anyway.

Richard when I say something is over my head or my thinking is infantile. I am not downing myself or my abilities. What I am saying is that I am a *realist* and being one I realize the the truth is that my education level and my intellect on this subject at the moment doesn't even come close to the rest. Its the real true facts. As Pam said before we grew up street smart not book smart. Nothing to be proud of nothing to be ashamed of. It is what it is.

I am not saying I can't learn and that I am not interested in learning more. I am just saying at this point I really don't have much to offer, or at least feel I can offer. And when I do put down my thoughts and I appreciate the time you take to reply, but I do realize there is just so much more about it that I am not even close to. So I think its best I just tag along continue to read, learn and there will be times I will ask a question or so.

Everyone has been really nice, kind and patient, so by no means at all do I feel like this because someone has made me feel it. I am just in awe of the intelligence of this small group in here.

And you particualarly have just a fantastic way with the written word. I have been on the net for a pretty long time and found that a lot of misunderstandings come about because the way someone writes is not read with the intent. Its hard for people to type their tone of voice. Some how you make it look easy with your writing.
Its a gift. I haven't seen it happen often. And even when your kicking someones butt you do it with such kindness.

Anyway, I'll be here reading and learning and start asking. Keep on keeping on, your all great teachers.

Oops. I meant Robin. Guess I need sleep too.

Tammy,
Please don't say your thoughts are infantile here. That's simply not true. What you assert and what you wonder about aloud genuinely wakes me up and makes me think. A couple of the others have made similar self-descriptions, then they blow my mind. None of us are sages, but we aint idiots. Hope you had a nice day at work.

Oh P.S.

I saw how you kicked Gods A$$. Very good job.

I both admire and envy your way with words.

Thou shall covet they neighbors words because he kicked Gods butt next door.

Frankenstein??? That was great!

Richard,

I really like your example of overlapping circles. And as I mentioned up there debate is good and I know its needed. Debate certainly allows us to learn many things about the topic and the people involved. And if it includes us personaly we can even learn something new about ourselves.

I don't take it as lecturing. I know my thoughts are infantile at best in this arena. I am here to learn and understand and grateful you take the time.

I have typed and deleted too many times. So I am just gonna say goodnite now.

Thanks again for your patience.

Robin,
Thanks for your perspective. Sitting back and taking a breather sounds like a good idea. Finally finding people with whom I can talk about these things has made me a little giddy, and I'm obsessing. It's fun and exciting, and it's growthful, but other important things need attending to as well.
Maybe your living by example and having the good qualities is the only really important thing, and proving a point that atheists can be nice too is secondary. I agree with Dawkins when he talks about how raising consciousness in people about non-believers and challenging their negative stereotypes is important, but any campaign for respect and acceptance must never become more important than simple, decent interaction with our community.
When you spoke about the common ground problems, I thought of two circles overlapping. If there's a small fish-shaped part where they overlap, their common ground is small. If the overlap is large, then only two narrow crescent-shaped sections are the parts that they don't share as common. People and groups are like that. Every combination of circles will fall with different amounts of overlap, of common ground. Everyone has at least a little. Basic things like wanting to survive, the importance of keeping children safe and well, things that even though they are a small, fish-shaped overlap can be important enough to get people to stop their bickering and work together for that common good thing. Having some not-common ground can be a good thing, too. Harris, Dawkins, Dennet and Atran are probably circles that overlap mostly, but those thin crescent shapes of difference cause them to challenge each other toward better excellence, like two rival companies competing and producing better products. Ted points out the best way for science to operate is to be competitive rather than confrontational.

Well, I'm not lecturing you on this, I'm just sorting out my own confusion out loud. You're out right now living your example. That's the best idea. I'm going out now to be a nice atheist without anyone knowing.

Richard I think we are all fatalists some point or another, in each day, month, time period or other.

Its very hard when you see a vision and do not know how to make or help make that vision happen, or the thought that that vision may not happen in my lifetime. I know for me if I continue to focus on a particularly hard subject, I can become consumed with how I want it or think it should be and how I can participate in making it happen. And when it doesn't seem to be moving along at the speed I think it should be it can be very depressing to say the least.

Sometimes I have to just sit back, take a breather and continue on another day. I think thats why forums such as this one is very helpful in the way of people sharing feelings, thoughts and ideas. It also allows us to see we are not swimming against the tide alone.

Thats why when I spoke of organized atheism it almost gagged me. I certainly don't want to see the same sort of dogma that could eventually attached itself.

In my little corner of the world, I guess I have decided to live by example. Course, that is not necessarily proving much if no one knows I am an atheist. They assume your a believer, because that is the norm. Sometimes I get frustrated about that and want to stand up and scream *I am atheist* and I have all the *so called good qualities* as believers do. But then I am sure they will put a straight jacket on me and take me away! As I tend to rock the boat in other areas as well.

I think common ground is almost impossible as both parties have to lay down the will to be right and that is to strong a feeling in humans. Usually to our detriment. Especially to subjects near and dear. Now there is a pessimistic statement and one I would love to be proven wrong.
Look at the fact that all of them Harris, Dawkins, Dennett and Atran are basically on the same side but debate each other. Please don't misunderstand, I think debate is good, no matter who. I just wonder, how common ground can be found if not even the like minded can seem to find it very easily.

Have a good day! I am off to work now.

I just took on "God" next door, and I kicked his ass. Man, that was fun.

Ted,
You argue masterfully. So graceful. I read it twice, and I'll have to go back again after some things incubate for a while. You made me see I must try to think with more suppleness like, "neither illogical nor incomprehensible but purely and simply baseless." The one that I'm really going to ponder over is your distinction between "that which is non-rational but not necessarily irrational."

Atran sounds like a romantic poet, saying that we will lose the good if we cast off the bad, the dreams along with the nightmares, etc. I know that's romantic nonsense, but I think I understand where he's coming from emotionally. Lately I share the pessimism that you exposed in him, his "counsel of despair." You've heard it when I talk about 1,000 years before we are free of dogmatic religion, stuff like that. I would so like to be wrong in that prediction, but I can't be free of my gloomy outlook by adopting fairy tales instead. There's something in your argument that seems like a rational base from which I might be more hopeful, and therefore more constructive. I'm always saying, "So what are we going to do about it," but I can't be one of the doers if I'm paralyzed by fatalism. I'll be working to clarify what is still vague for me.

Thank you very much for sharing your remarkable letter.

Robin,
Good metaphor, swimming upstream. Keep going. There are distinct advantages to being upstream, including not having to worry about who's pissing in it.
You didn't get wishy-washy about organized atheist groups, you see both edges of the sword. Now you've got me interested to see if there are overtly atheist charities. The search is on!

Ted,
Sorry if I sounded like I was implying that you were trying to hide your views on Atran. Not at all. I was just urging you to share them in my annoying little way. Now, like Robin I'm going to curl up around a good computer and enjoy reading your letter. Thanks.

Ted,

Thank you, you put it laymens terms that helped me understand better of what I read last night on The Edge.

You made very good points and I look forward to reading others thoughts and opinions.

Thank you Ted, much appreciated.

Now I am off to read your letter.

Richard-Tammy,

Thank you both for your kind words.

Richard

One thing I have always done and continue to do is ask *why* or *how do you know this* or prove it to me. Or show me.* My mother always told me my attitude would cause me to swim upstream my whole life.

To give that up and become a sheep in the herd would have killed me quicker than the reproaches I have received for asking too many questions.

Tammy

Actually, any psychologists I have ever been aquainted with have never brought religion into any of the discussions. As Richard said their licenses would be in jeopardy.

I agree with you in the statement, that I also don't think it is their responsibility Harris, Dawkins etc to find a replacement.

My thoughts were more directed towards the everyday not so educated community of people like myself. Thinking that perhaps, if we want as atheists to be more understood as being just as decent as the next, serious community service may be in order. Of course we can and do do this on a personal basis, I'm sure. But as a group, unless I am uninformed there is really no global outpouring. Then again, since I have no use for organized religion I suppose organized atheism would *eventually* fall into that category as well. As is in all groups, there are some that become radical and use it as a tool for their own personal goals. Ok, so now I am becoming wishy-washy. I hate when that happens!

One thing I must say to all of you. Coming to this board and reading all of your posts. I know there is some serious reading I need and want to do. I have written down many of the authors and books that you all have mentioned. As soon as the holiday hustle and bustle is over, I will attend to this as I can NOT wait too much longer. But alas, I must.

Thank you all.

And I will try not to step on my tongue too much. One thing I hate is when someone opens their mouth and speaks like they know what their talking about but doesn't have a clue. And that goes for myself as well.

Scott Atran
University of Michigan.

Dear Scott Atran:

Have just read your interaction with Sam Harris on the Edge discussion entitled Beyond Belief and I have to confess I found your contribution hard to believe and difficult to comprehend.
The pursuit of science at its best and whenever it is true to its modus operandi is competitive rather than confrontational. From what I can gather you find Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins to be too confrontational/outspoken but I can only say, as an outsider, that you sure seem to give them a run for their money.

You start out by referring to THE BASIC IRRATIONALITY OF HUMAN LIFE AND SOCIETY – which sounds to me like a counsel of despair. You talk about the “irrationality of romantic love, vengeance, or any sentiment of hope beyond reason.” Sure enough, we humans have non rational aspects to our lives but to lump the things you mention together with indubitably irrational religious beliefs is hardly playing fair. You commend Harris and Dawkins and others like them for “trying to roll back political/fundamentalist movements in the United States and across the world” and describe this attempt as being “important and praiseworthy.” But you come very close to contending that this task is impossible and thus a total waste of time.

You recognize the iniquity, in some Muslim countries, of turning the teaching of evolution into a crime and the inanity of force feeding intelligent design into the heads of boys and girls in American high schools. But, instead of joining forces with Harris and Dawkins by offering helpful suggestions, you come very close to implying that eradicating dogmatic political and/or religious beliefs is impossible. You seem to imply that religion is here to stay – like it or not - and we'd better grow used to this (not necessarily unpalatable in your eyes it would seem) ) fact.

You speak of the basic irrationality of human life and society and fault scientists like H&D for contending that “things ought to be rational and evidence based.” You even say that their views make you feel ashamed to be a scientist and atheist. Since I am an engineer/scientist/mathematician and agnostic this leaves me speechless. Once again you seem to ignore that which is non-rational but not necessarily irrational. I am not at all sure that H&D insist that all things should be rational and evidence based. What they do say loudly and clearly is that rational evidence for the nature of the physical and biological worlds should not be thrown aside without even being examined – and you appear at times to be in tune with them on this issue.

When you go on to suggest that “religious beliefs are not false in the usual sense of failing to meet certain truth conditions” and compare religious beliefs to senseless/incomprehensible statements such as “a colourless green idea has wings” I find myself wondering what on earth is going on in your mind. There are myriads of religious beliefs which are neither illogical nor/incomprehensible but purely and simply baseless. What about Muhammad being taken up to heaven by a winged horse. Or what about Jesus turning water into wine. These things don't sound senseless to me. And when it comes to Muslims or fundamentalist Christians rejecting the occurrence of evolution this is nothing other than a rejection of a scientifically well attested truth. These things are simply dishonest religious beliefs which fail to meet self-evident truth conditions. There is nothing mysterious or incomprehensible about them. They are just living lies.

You speak of “secular monotheism” which is a truly odd pairing of words and I see nothing monotheistic in what H& D say. You write strange sentences such as: “Liberty, compassion and happiness are recurrently won or lost in history in alternation with periods of tyranny, cruelty and suffering. If it were otherwise perhaps religion would fade away, as would poetry and art. But given our evolutionary makeup that counterfactual world may not even be nomologically possible.” I cannot see any nomologically sound reason why the fading away of religion should go hand in hand with the fading away of art, poetry (and music?) Come on. You must be joking. And maybe this alternation between liberty and tyranny would indeed fade away if religion faded away.

I agree totally with Harris that the cruelty and tyranny which pervaded Stalin's Soviet Union, or Mao's China or Pol Pot's Cambodia was the result of dogmatism very little different to religious dogmatism. Their regimes were in fact akin to godless religions. And if you get rid of religion but replace it with atheistic dogmatism this is a case of six of one and half a dozen of another. H&D are advocates of openness not dogmatism and you must surely be aware of this.

You suggest that the subordination of women in Islamic societies “has very little to do with religion per se and much more to do with the kinship structures of Arab society.” And you suggest that the subordination of women arises from the fact that “Arab social structure and cultural identity are built around a patriarchal system that passes rights, obligations and duties exclusively through the fathers blood line.”
My reaction to that is: What are you trying to say? That Islam is not to blame for its treatment of women or that its treatment of women is not to be deplored? Arab culture and Islam are inextricably intertwined and the subordination of women in Muslim societies has everything to do with the core beliefs of Islam as written in the Qur'an and the Hadith. And there is no excuse for any religion slavishly following the norms of the society where it grew up. Many (perhaps most?) societies have been patriarchal and Quakerism grew up in a fairly patriarchal society but very early on its history it gave women a status equal to that of men.

Toward the end of your article you say:

“ If scientists do believe that they are ethically bound to improve the lot of ordinary people, or at least to decrease violence and increase the possibility for happiness as I do, then perhaps the greatest challenge – and one that has been wholly overlooked here -- is 'how do we as scientists advance reason in a inherently unreasonable world'.” This sentence caused me to check my dictionaries to make sure I understood the meaning of the word inherent. And my checking confirmed that it means: an essential, permanent or characteristic attribute. So you are indeed claiming that unreasonableness is a permanent and essential feature of the world – which seems to me, as I have said before, a counsel of despair. Obviously, in a hostage taking situation, it is too late to try an inculcate a love of reason. But that does not mean than nothing can be done or should be done. You speak of actually doing something as a “difficult task” but precisely because it is both a difficult ask and a task in urgent need of being tackled I feel very uncomfortable about you lack of helpful suggestions. Unless you are in agreement that something can be done and ought to be done the whole discussion is simply sterile.

At least in a loose sense H&D are agreed that we should overhaul our school systems and make the findings of science more widely known and the essentials of logic more thoroughly inculcated. Not everyone is cut out to be a scientist but as Harris points out he has yet to hear of a society which has suffered because it members “became too reasonable.”

Your counsel of despair holds through to the bitter end and you close by mocking Weinberg's call for science to save humanity from the “long nightmare of religion.” You end by saying: “ The nightmares but also the dreams will very likely remain a substantial part of what it means to be human, despite any hope or attempt to wish them away.” And if that isn't a case of throwing in the towel then I don't know what is.

Harris is totally correct when he says “The point is not that all religious people are bad; it is not that bad things are done in the name of religion; and it is not that scientists are never bad; or wrong or self-deceived. The point is this: intellectual honesty is better (more enlightened, more useful,less dangerous, more in touch with reality etc.) than dogmatism. The degree to which science is committed to the former and religion to the latter remains one of the most salient and appalling disparities to be found in human discourse.” If you in any way agree with Harris that we should do everything we can to reduce the prevalence of dogmatism and increase the prevalence of intellectual honesty in mankind what do you suggest that we should do to be successful?

Yours truly,

. . Ted Swart . .

Richard Robin et al:

Firstly Robin. No need to clam up and no need to worry about your lack of scientific knowledge. Many of your thoughts are sound and perfectly sensible. Of course the way our suburbs are constructed is sheer madness. Of course there should be multiple clusters of houses surrounding a village green and a community hall. This would go a long way towards substituting for the social/support role which religion now provides. And don't be concerned and worried about being an atheist/agnostic. If you lie loose to it, it can be a very liberating thing. You have probably realized by now that no one in this group will jump down your throat even if you engage in venting to some extent.

Secondly Richard. No I am certainly not trying to hide my views on Atran -- which I freely admit are mostly negative. So, what I am going to do is post a copy of my intitial letter to Atran right here in this discussion group -- even although it is a bit long. My second letter is not yet quite finished and it does deal with Atran's more lucid challenges to Dawkins, Harris, Dennett et al.

Tammy,
You know the situation in your own area, but I'm not sure about the majority of counselors nation-wide being faith-based. It's hard to find reliable statistics on that because the state regulations differ, and because it's all highly confidential. There are a lot of people talking quietly in private rooms, but whether that's psychological counseling or not isn't clear.

In California, the laws and requirements for counselor and psychologist licenses do not apply to rabbis, priests or preachers, etc. "counseling in the performance of their pastoral duties." Pastoral counselors, as they're called here may or may not have degrees in divinity, may or may not have training in psychology, and may or may not have counselor or psychologist licenses. The law pretty much stays out of it, I think to the peril of the public. Misguided counseling can do serious harm.
If they do have state licenses and they want to do pastoral counseling, they must make that abundantly clear to the client before therapy begins. "Regular" counselors may have their own religious views, but unless they have declared their intentions ahead of time, they're supposed to keep it out of the sessions. Sneaking in their own religious agenda is a serious no-no and can lose them their license.

Robin, sorry, but I was just rereading your posts from last night, and you can go manic anytime! Your idea about the psychologist is excellent. In my county, and as I understand it across the U.S., the majority if psychological counselors are faith-based, i.e. christian in their approach. I don't understand how helpful it is to tell people suffering, from whatever, to just think about Jesus and you'll feel better.

Robin-please don't clam up; Richard, thanks for contacting that Caryl Murphy.
Robin, I'm just learning about science, too, and would hate to be the only neophyte still hanging around here. As far as that Atran goes, from what I gathered, he's saying more or less what you said, that people still need religion. Whether it's in the hard-wiring of our brains, or it's some weakness, the jury's still deliberating on that, obviously.It seems like Atran is demanding to know what Sam Harris, or Richard Dawkins, or Daniel Dennet have in mind to replace religion for those who need it. I don't think it's their job to replace it necessarily. Lots of authors are now telling us what has needed to be said for ages;I don't think we can blame Harris, Dennet, Dawkins, Atran or any of them for what comes next.

Robin, everything you said makes perfect sense, so please don't keep it to yourself.

Everybody,
This was in my email this morning:
"Mr. Wade,
Thank you for your very informative note. We're following up on it and will get back in touch with you. Caryle Murphy "

Robin,
Wait, wait. It kind of sounds as if you're going to clam up. Your impression of Atran's stance isn't necessarily "wrong," and regardless of that, I don't think you're over your head at all. Both Atran's and Harris' stuff can be dense, and even even after I make sense of it, some of it doesn't make sense. The issue that you brought up about charity actually hasn't been discussed much at all here, and you articulated it well. Please don't bow out.
As for science, I know just enough to get myself into trouble, so "I don't know" is something I often say. I've learned a lot from people's questions, because there's a point of view in the question that's unique to the questioner. Science "stuff" can be complicated, but the basic position of science is extremely, powerfully simple: It says, "Show me." Show me the evidence, the data, the physical thing to back up your claim. You don't have to be a scientist to think scientifically. Just keep demanding, "Show me." When I'm doing science shows for kids, once in a great while a kid will ask, "How do we know that?" I always stop whatever I'm doing and praise that kid for asking that, the most important question he or she could ever ask. I do my best to answer it; sometimes there's not enough time to do a thorough job, but I at least show him the basic method.
Atran's arguments may be full of holes; Ted's mind is sharp enough to sort that out for us. And Atran may be an antagonistic punk, but I approve of his demanding of Harris and Dawkins and the others, "How do you know that?"

Please keep throwing your two cents in. It's worth more than two cents.

Thank you Richard,

Somehow I knew it was over my head. I shall now bough out gracefully. I really have nothing to add as I don't know *chit* about Science.

I will return to read though as there is no reason not to be able to learn.

Hi Robin,
Thoughtful stuff. About Atran, I wasn't sure about the particulars of his long-winded arguments with Harris, Dawkins et al, but the part I liked in principle was challenging them to be scientific in their assertions about the benefits of science, not to just assert. Just asserting is what theists do.
We're hoping Ted will share his arguments against him after a respectable amount of time of us coaxing....

I agree with you about the social benefits of most religions in regards to the destitute, the displaced and the disturbed. Charity work benefits both those who receive and those who give. It's a complicated thing to sort out. There are arguments that the background belief systems of organized religions actually contribute to the social imbalances and problems in the first place, but I'm not knowledgeable enough to go into that. Here, I imagine Atran would be screaming, "Exactly what?! Exactly what?!" Good thing I'm not trying to make a living on my opinion.
We aren't going to get rid of these things for centuries, and in our current civilization we need them. I don't even have objection to the offering of conversion at the rescue soup kitchens, as long as it's offered rather than required.

What drives me to abject conniption is when the church comes out of the slum where it does the most good, and marches or sneaks into the halls of government, where it does the most harm. Telling the rest of us who to vote for, who we can marry, who controls our bodies, what we can read, what we can research, what we can teach our children, and even how old the frikkin' earth is, is not, I think, what Jesus had in mind. Talk about people who have lost their way. Power is intoxicating and addictive. Evangelicals seeking political power over society are definitely not keeping their minds on charity or the golden rule. They do increasingly outrageous things, and they just want more and more power.

There are government social programs for the poor, as you say. They have their good and bad points. There are also many private helping organizations that are not based on a faith. You're right, there are many examples of atheist or non-theist individuals and communities operating on very high moral and ethical levels. There's plenty of compassion in people without having to please god. I hope your vision of secular rescue missions on every other block comes true. Still, as long as our civilization has big holes through which people fall, we will need all the charity we can get, god-based or human-based.

I'm glad Pam invited you here. Actually there is an overtly atheist charity being started by the evil Richard Dawkins. I'll get the URL later.

Ok, I think I am manic tonight, but I thought of a possible alternative.

We get many atheists together, as many as possible and form our own organization.

We call it *Atheists for All*. It will be a non profit organization and non denominational. Religious as well as non religious can seek out our help for a better way. Now we don't make the religious denounce their religion (then we would be just like them!) We offer counseling, we take donations to help the needy. We could start food banks.

Now that would make a statement! Who could object to that? Maybe people would begin to see we atheists are just as compassionate, giving, moral and ethical as the otherside.

(Boy Pam is gonna be sorry she invited me here)

Ok, going to bed now. I promise my last post.

Ooooops! One more after thought.

People turn to churches.....because 99.9% of the time they will *not be turned away.*

Please tell me, if there is an alternative with that those statistics?

I know I know I should have waited for a response for my last post. But I've been thinking.....dangerous I know but here goes.

As an atheist I say and said above somewhere up there that people can be moral ethical etc without the teachings of religion. And stand by that.

I also believe that people of low self esteem, that have been beaten down, tired and exhausted will at times seek out if not already sought by religion or religious people. And part of what they do (the religious) is to build these peoples self worth up to a point where these people see a better life ahead for them, at least emotionally and sometimes financially as in some churches do help out in areas of food and clothing etc. And of course all of this has to do with the Glory of God and they very possibly had to pay zero $'s to only a small and anonymous amount in the plate that was passed by.

None of that sounds so bad. And realistically where else was this person gonna go? If they had no family or if their family was part of the problem, thats out. Possibly and probably there were no friends that would or could be committed enough to be able to lift this person out of his/hers personal hell.

Its easy for the ones of us that have a good understanding and strength within ourselves not to have to rely on God or church to get us through a rough patch. (Although there are some of us that need to visit a shrink from time to time.)

I think we need to remember there is a need for this type of (religous) commune. I personally don't like the price that has to be paid sometimes with having God shoved down peoples throats. At the same time, unless someone can come up with an alternative, there will always be this need and there will always be a place that can fill this need.

There are some good religious institutions, that will do it because they will and not because they want/need to convert. But I think that they are becoming the exception to the rule.

With that said. My next thought is that if we can get a building on every other street corner that folks can congregate, say, every Saturday and there is a psychologist standing at the podium committed to helping people understand that they can be strong and feel good about themselves just because and that if there is a monetary, clothing or food problem that this can be helped out of the donations that are put in that straw basket one of the members weaved the week before. And perhaps one of the other people can offer a job or give a referral for this person in need.

Some will say there are government programs. But sometimes when a person is so down and out emotionally and financially their minds cannot grasp what possibilities are out there for them. Many times the first place they seek is a church.

If there is no place for religion, there has to be an equivilant. The mind sometimes is just not strong enough to be able to reason out and come to a logical conclusion.

Just my humble thoughts.

Sorry the post is long.

Hi all!

I just read Atron on The Edge. I am curious as to what the problem is that you have with what he has said.

The jist I got from it and I welcome any correction, because perhaps I didn't grasp it well, is the fact that he won't totally denounce religion completely. Meaning that he believes there still might be a place for it in some peoples lives.

I welcome any clarification given, because I want to understand.

Thanks

Oh well.

I'm on Harris' list that told me about this place. Hopefully that's the same list he'll use. Otherwise if you post it here, what harm would it do? The page is about 225 feet long, so what's a couple more?

Richard:
I am afraid that there is no hope of my letter to Atran being published as part of the Edge discussion. Dawkins, Dennett and Harris are all agreed on this. They say the decision of the Edge editor is final and that it would be inappropriate to bug him. They have further indicated that they know the editor agrees with my critique of Atran but wished to close the discussion down -- whihcis his prerogative. However, they would all like to see my letter reach a wider audience and Sam Harris has offered to send it to the large group of interested people on his mailing list.

Okay, I emailed Caryle Murphy about the where is Harris' question problem, and asked about breaking up the thread into pages as well. No idea when or if I'll get a response.

Ted,
The more I think about it, I'd rather see your email published by The Edge or Beyond Belief, because that's more to it's original intention. Reading it here would be only a consolation prize for us. What if five different people from all over the country emailed the editor who turned it down, and said that they'd heard of this terrific letter by Ted Swart that had been declined, and they would really like to read it, because it would enrich the debate?

It's a grass roots movement! Power to the people! Force the corrupt media to do the right thing! Free Willie!

Tammy,
Sounds like the woman would definitely love "The Prophet," while the man might not. He might like Thomas Moore's "Care of the Soul," for a Jungian angle on spirituality which dovetails nicely with most Christian points of view, or Rick Warren's "The Purpose Driven Life," for a more directly Christian perspective.
Then again, the gift certificate might be safer for him. In addition to the possibility of starting a dialogue that you'd rather not get into, those two books are about improving one's life. Sometimes people take offense at the implication that we think they need improving.
I think it's very nice that you care about such disparate kinds of people.

Torrey,
I'll email On Faith's producer, Caryle Murphy listed on the bottom of the main page, and ask. (nicely) I must say that it is cozy in here, except for the long commute to the bottom for some of you. By isolating us from most outside influence they've allowed our relationships to develop to a more intimate level. But since On Faith seems to make changes to access without any announcements or warnings, we could wake up one morning and find the thread has vanished. This again brings up the urgency of finding an alternative clubhouse at another site.
THE JUSTICE LEAGUE OF UNBELIEVERS MUST GO ON!!!
Talk about creating a monster.

Richard; I would be happy to post my email to Atran on on this site since I regard the things I write as part of Lessig's creative commons. However, I am reluctant to do so unless several others would like to see it as well since it is longer than most contributions on this site (2 /12 standard sized pages). It is more or less self-standing and you don't need to actually read Atran's articles to follow the gist of it.

Maybe they are waiting for Sam Harris to post a new comment for people to comment on.
The people I had in mind to give that book to, Richard, are people I think would like it. One is a dear friend of mine, a christian, and is going to be a mom soon; she's leant me books to read and she knows what I think about god. She's a christian because her parents are good people, and they are christians. I would say she's middle-of-the-road because she doesn't take the bible literally and admits that her understanding of everything is evolving. She's just a good, deep person and I think she would like the book.
The other person I thought of is a christian for reasons entirely personal, but I suspect it has to do with how painful it is to feel alone, you know, without the omniscient protection of a god. He is someone of your generation, but no matter how popular "The Prophet" may have been back in the day, he would have totally missed the boat on it, or would think it's "of the devil". You are right, of course; I don't need to create any more monsters!
I've been reading the Narnia books with my kids lately; maybe this thread is like the wardrobe, and it's only by magic that we can find it?(I've saved it in my favorites list)

Me too Richard. Why on earth would they do that?

Hey guys,
Looks like we've been made un-persons.
I've been finding this page by using a bookmark. But when I used my wife's work computer to log on here, I had to google "washington post+on faith" to get to the main page. Then no matter where I looked, I couldn't find this thread. It's not listed in any of the "all past questions" pages. For anyone coming to the On Faith website for the first time, Harris's question doesn't exist. I had to google "washington post on faith+sam harris" to find you guys. One would have to already know that his question, and the resultant brilliant 720 posts exist to find it. Meacham and Quinn seem to have closed the entrance and plastered over it, leaving no trace. No wonder very few new people are joining the conversation. That pisses me off.

Tammy,
If your middle-of-the-road type Christian friends are 50 or older, they've probably read "The Prophet." It became popular when I was in high school (back in Sumeria.) I loved it, and it was short too!
If you give them a book with a spiritual theme, you could be setting a precedent where they reciprocate by giving you books about their beliefs. (ewwww) You're the one who creates monsters, remember?
Perhaps a gift certificate to the local bookstore. That way your underlying message is the value of reading, but they can choose what they like.

By the way, what does "middle-of-the-road type" mean in regard to them?

Tammy, that was a good laugh. Thanks.

Ted, too bad about Atran. I guess even nerds can be punks.
Too bad also that Beyond Belief wouldn't publish your email. I'd like to read it. Sounds like you kicked Atran's dialectical butt.

Thanks, Richard, so that's what I have to look forward to. I already have a few dusty books, but "The God Delusion" isn't going to be one of them. It's so shiny....must read it....

Tammy,
I just blew the dust off a copy of Gibran's "The Broken Wings" that I found on my shelf. Haven't gotten to it yet; we've only had it since 1979. The back cover indicates it's an autobiographical tale of star-crossed lovers in Lebanon that "invokes life's ultimate meaning." I thumbed through it while sitting on the john and I thought, "Wow, this is really beautifully written." So, that one will move up in line in front of the other books we've acquired in the last 27 years. Fortunately from my standpoint, it's only 5/16 of an inch thick.

Ted, that is a shame, because I agree with what you've said and I would be interested to read the email you sent to Sam Harris.
I just didn't understand what Atran was suggesting should be done, you know? He had a lot to say, for sure, but no really constructive suggestions. It also seemed like he was missing Ms. Porco's point on purpose just to make fun of her or something.
Well, thanks again, Ted, for giving us something good to read up on.

Has anyone read anything by Khalil Gibran? I read "The Prophet", and I loved it but I'm wondering how Christians might take it. I remember thinking that if the Bible was written half so well, maybe I'd feel like running around beating people over the head with it, too(so to speak). Well, I have a couple of your more middle-of-the-road type Christians on my Christmas list and was thinking of buying them each a copy, but perhaps a pre-paid phone card would be more appropriate...
Any thoughts?

Richard. You were brave to read through that material by Scott Atran. Much of what he wrote was padding and off track but that's not to say he said nothing of value. But, by and large, he has been behaivntg like the Grinch who stole Christmas -- just being gratuitously nasty and sometimes hopelessly wrong.

The email I sent to Atran ended in being read by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett and all three of them thought it was so good that they pushed to have a modified version of it published as part of the Edge discussion called Beyond Belief. But the editor turned them and thus me down -- which was a bit of a shame since it would have given my brain some high quality exercise.

Tammy I don't think anyone scared her off. I am going to her place tomorrow for a few weeks. When I talked to her today she was busy wrapping "my" presents!!! Just kidding but her and I are going to have to draw straws for her computer because I decided not to take my laptop.

Ya'll take care. (I have lived in the south to long) Haha

Hi everybody,
I'm Ok. You're so sweet to worry. I'm downtown at my wife's office, using her computer while she's in a meeting. I did a promotion of my shows along with other performers. Just wanted to check in, missed you all.
Ted, I read a lot of that article by Scott Atran. I had to skim over some of it; he's verbose, loquacious and talks a lot too. Some was a bit over my head, and some I thought was pretty nit-picky, but in general I liked the idea of his challenging Harris and Co. to be scientific about their claims of science being preferrable to religion. To practice what they preach, so to speak.(ahem)I'm not sure whether or not his arguments were sound, but the principle of really keeping true tou your scientific views.
Oops, she's back, I'd better go, she'll need the computer.
Later.

Hey Pam, I knew what you meant. I hope we did not scare your sister off!

Correction to above I meant to say did NOT do something awful to him.

Hi all,

Looks like our Richard is "missing in action" today. I hope those nasty people next door did do something awful to him!!!!!

Hi Torrey,
I see Fareed Zakaria on Meet the Press often. I have never gotten a sense as to his personal religious beliefs. I agree he is very smart and I usually pay close attention to his commentary. I will make it a point to listen and see if I can figure that one out!

Hi Torrey-I didn't know that about Fareed Zakaria, either. I've seen him on TV, and he seems very smart-I love when they have him on the Daily Show, but I haven't heard him talk about his own personal religion. He's really good at giving us the current global situation, and he's seems like a person of faith.
All I mean by "person of faith" is someone who's kind, sincere, and not self-serving. Maybe respectful, respectable, and trustworthy should also be added to describe a person of faith.

For Torrey.

I am not at all sure that what you say about Fareed Zakaria is true. If you look him up in Wikipedia the very last sentence in the write-up quotes him as saying "I am not a religious type". And you can actually look at the interview which carries this quotation. So I don't think he has anything other than a Muslim background.

. . Ted . .

Nice to see you're all still here. Have your ears been burning? I've been talking about you all to friends and neighbors and continuing this conversation in the 'real world'. I learned (probably the last to know) that Fareed Zakaria is an Indian Muslim! -- another renewal-of-faith discovery for me! Does anyone know if he is a practising muslim? Now THAT would surprise me.

Tammy, Yes, I am back with barely any brusing. I read your Ann Druyan article. Great one thanks for the information.

Julia, I raised two children with no religious instruction and they are both wonderful, moral, loving individuals. I was given the choice as a child to decide for myself. I passed the ability to choose on to my children.

Richard, I read the post you mentioned earlier. Actually I had read it before. I doubt that anyone today would not think along those lines sometimes. I seldom lose hope but I must say in the last 6 years I have actually felt fear in a way I have never before. If I allowed myself to think about what is going on in the world these days very often I am sure I would feel just as you did in that post.

P.S. I hope Deb got your message. People do seem to get angry next door.

Goodnight all!

Welcome Julia,
I'm really curious about what you mean by the inexplicable, and what your religious relatives said about dealing with it.

Most of us here have had meddling or disapproving relatives. Statements about non-believers having no morals come from ignorance and bigotry. There's actually a large body of literature that refutes that myth. But, as you probably have found, quoting such material bounces off people who work hard at staying ignorant.

Thanks Ted for that link. I had read those posts on that Edge site, and I still don't understand what that Atran has to argue against. I liked what Daniel Dennet had to say about it.
Thanks for reading that article, Richard. It was one of those cool things I found just by looking up Ann Druyan's name on Wikipedia, and it happened to capsulize what I was already thinking.
Hi Julia, I hope you've been reading Ted's posts. It's really validating to learn about families who have already successfully done what we intend to do, which is, as you said, to raise people with morals independently of religion.
Hi Pam, I hope you come back to us unscathed(hardeehar)!

I wanted to thank everyone for their contributions. I have been enjoying reading all of you. I grew up Catholic without any say so in the matter. As I got older (growing up Latin America), I had a real problem with a religion that preached that there was a reward in heaven for poor people and therefore people should be happy with their lot in life. The effect was to maintain the status quo (even if not meant to do so). I found so many inconsistencies in institutionalized religion that I began looking for a way to fulfill my spiritual needs. So needless to say, I have been reading a lot about different practices.

When I read Sam Harris’ book something resonated. He was able to vocalize a lot of my feelings and frustrations with organized religion. I too have to contend with people meddling in my business about raising my children with a religion. People, specially relatives, keeping pointing out at the benefits of it: learning and having morals, being able to deal with the inexplicable, etc. As if you are a non-believer you are devoid of morals. I have tried to explain (in vain of course) how it is possible to raise people with morals independently of religion.

Humans (cross culturally) have devised rituals and stories to deal with the inexplicable. Perhaps is one of those things that are innate. What seems clear is that what have been in placed has caused and continues to cause hatred, violence and intolerance.

Sorry if I have been conspicous by my absence but I have been heavily involved in a lively discussion between Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and others. The most conspicuous and controverial contributor is an anthropologist from the University of Michigan called Scott Atran and he is being what some would call "otherwise". I found Atran's original contribution so bizarre that I wrote a critique of it which I sent to him by email -- with copies to Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Sam was kind enough to thank me (by email) and spoke of my email to Atran as top quality.

Anyway if any you are interested you can go to the the URL below which Atran kindly sent me. This URL gives Atran's original article, Sam's response, follow up articles by both of them and several other articles as well.

Some of you have suggested we should try to be "nice atheists" and courteous in our dealings with others. Not so Scott Atran. He tears a strip of everyone and thinks he is the only one who knows the score.
WARNING: Sam is -- as always -- on form, but Atran tends to be verbose way beyond anything which we find in our own discussion.
Perhaps just one other bit of advice. You need to read the contributions to the discussion from last to first since that is the order in which they were written.

> Dear Mr. Swart,
>
> My reply to most of your points can be found at:
>
> http://www.edge.org/discourse/bb.html
>
> Best, Scott Atran

Cheers, . . Ted . .

Pam,
I'm still here, at least. The rest are probably out doing something productive. I have to get ready for a show so I can't check in very often. I've been going next door whenever I feel like a good fight. If you want to read the dark outlook I was referring to, go to page 15, Dec.11, 2:56 AM. Then there's a lot of scripture bashing which I find very boring, but near the bottom I had an interesting exchange with an ER doctor named Stephen.

Tammy,
What a wonderful article! And such poignant footnote about Carl. Suddenly I'm a big Ann Druyan fan, and I'd never heard of her before. Thanks!

Hello Jeffrey welcome. Yes, it takes a little time to scroll down this far (or as Rchard suggests just hit the end key) but well worth it. Only the strong survive!

Torrey, Ted, Alain, Tammy, Robin are you out there somewhere in cyberland? Helloooooooooooo

I suppose I will be brave it and visit next door. Wish me luck as it is not a kind place to be.

Wow, so many people to whom I want to respond. I'll have to be brief with each one:
Tammy: Helpful thoughts about atheists and compassion/forgiveness. Thanks. I think Dawkins (and others) blows holes in myths about atheists being unable to be moral, or ethical, or in any way good people.
Tammy again: "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!!"
However, as Jefferson is thought to have said, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." George the Usurper would love to trash the First Amendment, and he still has 770 days to try.
Jeffrey, welcome and thank you. "Fair and lively" is exactly what we hope for. There were some religious people of various views and personalities posting; some were just dreadful and some were very nice. But we seem to have outlasted them. I think they went to seek greener pastures. Sheep like pastures.

What a very interesting (and long) discussion! There are so many seemingly atheist commentators here. With the fact that this is in an "On Faith" website where nearly every other topic assumes a faith-based readership, I am surprised that this discussion is so lively and fair. In my experinece, religious people tend to react badly when their belief system is questioned, even politely and calmly. Perhaps religious people see it as foolish to try to debate or explain their position here.

Oh, and I am a new, huge fan of Sam Harris!

Okay, I'm sorry, I may do this every time for a while, but my link works! Mainly, I checked because I wanted to reread it; it reminds me of what a lot of you have been saying. She says we need a community of skepticism, and good music!
I know we can all say "amen" to that.

A new monster has been created at my house, and all it took was a laptop! Well, here's a link to an essay I love by Ann Druyan. I hope you guys enjoy it, if you haven't read it before.

By the way, Robin, hello and thanks for gracing our discussion with your perspective!

http://www.csicop.org/si/2003-11/ann-druyan.html

I guess I think we don't have to worry about Inquisitions anymore, that there are always going to be more people who are rational and humane.

Besides, we do have the right laws on the books, don't we?

Tammy,
I'm actually glad you mentioned "The Crucible." Rather than counterproductive, I think it's very pertinent. We need to talk about our fearful thoughts or they will run our lives. Pam touched on one of hers about someone killing people at a meeting. The ones in my head are what brought me to this website. They're so dark that I was asking sideways for permission to bring them up.

I saw the play on stage in the late 1960's and it was depressing as hell, but I knew I had to face it's theme. You probably know that Miller wrote that during the bleak era of McCarthyism, when "witch hunts" were destroying many wonderful people. That was his protest. The very real danger is still there, it's just hunting different kinds of witches now. Gays, Muslims, atheists, the list is long.
We all have either personally experienced or have heard of various levels of persecution. We should call it for what it is and not be embarrassed. We can share our "war stories," but we don't need to get bogged down in that as a morbid futility. We can share our scary fantasies, and can acknowledge that there are some real-world reasons to have them, but we can also help each other to get a wider perspective, and to take action as a response to our fears rather than just hopeless and helpless moping, as I am sometimes prone to.

It doesn't have to be the perpetual topic, but we need to talk about it whenever it comes up for us.

Torrey,

I love New York City and have gone there often in my past life (living in the northeast). I often went by the Dakota (Lennon's home). I have never been there that even after all of these years people do not still leave flowers and light candles in tribute to him. Things such as this (including everytime I have visited the WTC) it restores my faith in humanity. There are wonderful caring people out there that still ban together for anniversary's or just because they need to do it for themselves and pay tribute to all kinds of things. I have seen this so often. I think that THOSE are the people that would accept us for whatever we are. We just need to find them.

Richard,
What a wonderful career and you are exactly right on. If each of us just touch ONE person in our lifetime and help that person to be a scientist or in my case get sober we are miracle workers. All of us have it within us to plant those seeds. I have been helped more than all of you know just by being accepted on this webpage. And as far as your rants, I can't speak for anyone else, but feel free as far as I am concerned to vent it here where you are safe with us. I owe much to many that I can't repay to them personally but I can repay it by listening to you or anyone else that needs to babble on.

I have and are in therapy for years and years. I have been to hell and back many times but what has kept me going even when I am in that deep dark place is the memories of all of the wonderful things and people that have crossed my path.

Thank you for your honesty and take care!!

My friends,
Your positive outlook is what I crave, what I need. My outlook is often not so bright. Sometimes pessimistic people want to bring others in a group down to their level of gloom. Maybe they want to be the smart one, or the right one. That’s not my motive; I really want to be wrong about the way I see things, but I’m afraid that sharing it for discussion will have that depressing effect. So I clam up. (Hard to believe, I know.) This forum is therapy for me. I’ve given and taken psychotherapy for years, but this is what I need now. I don’t want to bum-out my “therapists” just for the indulgence of expressing myself. I hope that your positive attitudes will rub off on me. Some of your optimistic visions seem strongly rooted, others seem delicate. I don’t want to be a bull in a china shop, so I go to other discussions where the volume and rancor is high, and I vent there.

I give science presentations to children at libraries and schools. Sort of a traveling Mr. Science. The three shows are about dinosaurs, volcanoes and astronomy. I love interacting with the kids. Their natural optimism, curiosity and awe buoy me up. I grin when these little buddhas walk into the room. My motive is very conscious and deliberate. I’m hoping to have a long term effect. If a couple of kids in the room are turned toward a more rational way of seeing the world, if one out of a thousand decides to become a scientist, then long after I’m gone, I’m hoping humanity might have a slightly better chance to survive. It’s all I can do. I plant seeds everywhere I go, and I will never know if they sprouted.

I know I talk about myself a whole lot. Almost every sentence has the word “I” in it. Maybe I’m self-centered, or maybe it’s the only subject I can be both honest and accurate about. I can’t talk about you, only ask about you, which I should do more.

Thanks for letting me babble.

I hope I had not offended anyone by the statement
*like a newly recovered person of whatever*.

Been there done that.

A doctor once told me that newly recovered people tend to go overboard with wanting to share their newfound recovery with others in the way of recruitment, until they settle in and chill out a bit.

So, I meant no disrespect.

I just reread my post and there is a part up there that doesn't make sense in the way the sentences are in order. I at one point copied cut and pasted, as I needed to. Only to see that I messed up and did not put it in the right order.

Sorry.

They need to put in a delete and start over button, for the forgetting to preview and redo if necessary people. *sigh*

Richard,

First, about reading fast. It was only because I found this thread fascinating. And not really sure if it was the middle but close.

Second,

What I meant with atheist forgive just because we can. I'm not so sure I worded that very well, but it was late. Also, I know this was mentioned above somewhere else. If atheists are unethical, immoral and just plain mean, well, in my opinion they eventually get whats coming to them. Was that atheists can be moral, ethical, forgiving, sypathetic, compassionate, giving, lawabiding, etc because we want to be, not because we fear retribution at the end from a judgemental fear instilling God. They lose any respectability, integrity, trustworthiness, etc from those of the opposite choice of citizenship. You know that saying what goes around, comes around. I subscribe to that thought. I also do subscribe to..We may never see their upcomings but I have to think it happens. Anywho, I just move on and seek out the people that have the better qualities for my aquaintances. Ok, then what happens to the bad people? Well, if they are really bad they go to jail. If they are extra bad they get executed.

Seems to me that there is nothing worse than losing your freedom (jail) or losing your life much earlier than need be. (execution)

Thanks Tammy I tried the link and yes it does work. I will watch it soon.

The wonderful world of computers!

It worked, it worked! I tried my own link & it worked! Sorry, but this is quite an accomplishment for me.

Ted, I love Salman Rushdie! Thanks for including it. I loved the sing-a-long,by the way.
I may watch more TV than some of you, but have you seen the conversation Bill Moyers had on PBS with Rushdie, this fall? You can watch the On Faith and Reason series of Moyers interviews on the internet. If I can get a hold of my husband long enough, he can maybe help me set up a link. That would be cool.
Torrey's right; we're so lucky to be living now with all this renewed interest in the nature of reality going on. I'm sorry I mentioned "The Crucible" the other night, it was just unproductive to the discussion, but for some reason I can't get my mind off witch-hunts, and now Pam and Torrey have mentioned persecution. I'm thinkin' maybe we've all seen the worst of it, because we all seem to practice the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
Well, my husband took pity on me, and has provided my first link to share. Hope it works.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/watch_rushdie.html?playertype=windowsmedia;speed=hi;mediatype=video;media=/wnet/moyers/faithandreason/rushdiefull-lo.rm,/wnet/moyers/faithandreason/rushdiefull-hi.rm,/wnet/moyers/faithandreason/rushdiefull-lo.wmv,/wnet/moyers/faithandreason/rushdiefull-hi.wmv;helptemplate=/moyers/watch_help.html;basepath=/moyers/faithandreason/watch_rushdie.html

GOOD MORNING ALL

First, Richard I am not trying to get out of work. I belong to a group of people that speak of honesty and I was just being honest. LOL LOL

Second, Ted thanks for that information. I am a slow reader and get overwhelmed very easy so I am not going to add that book to my list at the moment but will certainly keep it on the list.

Third, I thought we needed some new blood so I decided to twist my sisters arm into joining us. Now she is the shy one of the two of us so I would appreciate you not scaring her away!!

Now back to my song. Can we just IMAGINE living in a world described in this tune?? If I could "cherry pick" religion I would probably pick the one that believes in reincarnation. That way hopefully I would come back to "this" world when it is as described in the song. Except it may never happen. Sad, I find it sad that we can't find a way to live together. Except everyone for who and what they are and just go about living.

When it comes to religion I do believe everyone has the right to believe in whatever they feel they need to believe to get through life. If one needs to believe in GOD and Jesus so be it. Just don't try and tell me what to believe in. Please go about your business and let me find out on my own what needs I have to get through this life.

Can't we have our own little "meeting" where we can discuss to the newcomers how and why we believe what we do and not be in fear of someone standing outside with a gun and deciding to take all of us out afterwards. Or worse burning the building down while we are still in it.

OK I have had my long rant for this morning.

Later

Torrey,
You're wondering why this upsurge in talk, books etc. about religion and non-religion and all that, when it used to be such a non-topic.
Well, imagine a bus full of people enjoying a drive through the mountains. In every seat there's a different conversation. Some are about the scenery, some about their kids, or books they've read, or politics, or their recent operation, and a few are asleep. Suddenly it becomes apparent that the bus is rapidly heading for the edge of a cliff. All the conversations switch to a new subject.

Robin,
Welcome to the bottom of the well! It's flattering that you would read so much of our gab, and impressive that you can read that fast. Pam gets yet another check on the cool chart for inviting you here.
You say a lot in a small space. Every paragraph about yourself has something I want to learn more about. I won't overwhelm you with all my questions; I'll just pick one that caught my eye.
You said that atheists have forgiveness in their hearts as well, just because they can. That's a really interesting statement. Could you say more of what you mean?

Would anyone else like to share?

Raises hand, stands up.

Hi,

My name is Robin and I am an atheist.

Welcome, Robin!

*waves to everyone*

My sister Pam invited me to the meeting of the minds. *wink*

First I must say I have been reading about half way down to the end here to familiarize myself with the postings and posters or trying to, my short term memory is not so good these days so please forgive if I screw up. Thats one of the good things about atheists they have forgiveness in their hearts as well. Just because they can, but I digress.

Tammy

I live in the Alabama part of PA. LOL

Richard

Your hysterical!

Ted

Very insightful. Not to mention strong for maintaining your sanity in the bible belt.

First I want to comment about the problem scrolling down. I had the same problem and I have a relatively new computer. Soooo.... I did use my end button Richard, it took me to the bottom but then I had to scroll back up to keep on reading, so that was self defeating for me as a newcomber and an obvious blonde under brown hair. *sigh*

One example of a double dose of bigotry or ignorance that I have incurred. There is a muslim man I know at work. He purchases oils for me (they smell so good) from a muslim vendor at a downtown market. Shortly after 9-11, another co-worker exclaimed I was helping to fund the terrorists with my purchases. *shakes my head*

As far as feeling misunderstood or ignorance towards my atheism, I can't speak of much. Only
because basically I have a policy of ...if they don't ask I don't share. And no one has ever asked.

Richard your example of the Alaska trip is a good one for not only no tolerance for infidels but as a possible Christian without a church!!!

Most recently though, the topic of religion came up at work with one person and I made the comment that I was not a believer. This person at the moment assumed it his responsibility to make me understand that if I did not get born again, yada yada yada, I will not see the gates of heaven. I guess you can liken it to a newly recovered person of whatever who wants to share the good news on how to have a better life. So, I try to hold a zemblence of patience.

Which leads me to the basic problem that I have with religious folk. They take it upon themselves, I am sure out of the goodness of their hearts, to want to save people from themselves. Personally, that offends me. As if I am not intelligent enough to know what is best for me. I am 50 years young, and I think, no I know, by now, what the best choice is for me in this area. I do not have a problem discussing it but the problem lies in the recruitment. I have dappled in religion. And when I say dapple that is what I mean. You know, the slight introduction as a child kind of dapple. But at 16, it started to become apparent to me that I did not hold much stock in this all loving, all forgiving entity. Not to mention no show miricle worker when needed the most. Then again in my late 20's early 30's decided to stick my toe into it again, only to pull it out and run like hades.

At the same time I still maintain to be a pro-choice person. And only ask that that respect be given back. But knowing that it is mostly too much to ask for, I usually decline in offering up my personal preference in the area of God and religion.

I have surfed this site to a considerable degree and have found, though, to end up rather disgusted about some of the other atheists attitudes on being just as disrespectful towards others of religious affiliations as is the religious towards the unreligious. It left me feeling very sad inside. I guess I had thought or hoped that atheists were somewhat above that sort of in your face tactics. I guess I forgot that atheists are humans too. I would like to think I was just naive and not arrogant in my assumption.

Ok, I am now getting the feeling that my post is probably getting to long. So...I shall end it by saying I have enjoyed all of your posts, learned from them and received validation from them as well. It has been difficult to some degree to not be able to converse with anyone over the years that was of like mind. So, thank you and thank you for letting me share.

***And Pammy....thank you for steering me to this forum and to this thread****

I love sing-a-longs. Thanks Pam. That's my favorite song of all time.
Driving home from Salt Lake today (in the snow!) and listening to another episode of TTBOOK's science & religion series (can't remember the exact name), I got to thinking about the seemingly sudden proliferation of books, interviews, TV & radio programs, documentaries, websites like this etc etc. all discussing the formerly taboo subject of religion vs. non-religion. What is happening? Where is it taking us? Should we expect another Spanish Inquisition? I have to admit that I'm loving it -- can't seem to get enough.

Pam,
Waddaya mean, you're not as intelligent as me or as wise as Ted? Are you trying to get out of work or something?
I love that song so much. I can never get through it without crying. It was the anthem of my generation. Yes Pam, you can imagine, and I like what you reveal of it.
Ted,
Dammit, here's another "must" for my reading list. Those passages are wonderful. Is there a Reader's Digest version?

Pam:
Given your choice of lyric I thought you – and all the others -- might like to know about an interesting addendum to what John Lennon wrote.
Salmon Rushdie (of Satanic Verses fame) has a book of essays called: “Step Across This Line”. And one of the essays in the book is entitled “Imagine There's no Heaven”; with the subtitle: “A letter to the six billionth world citizen”. It was a letter written under the auspices of the United nations as part of an anthology of letters of this kind.

Rushdie writes with marvellous lucidity and says:

“Oddly – as if six billion of us weren't enough to be going on with – it will almost certainly be suggested to you that the answer to the question of origins requires you you to believe in the existence of a a further, invisible, ineffable Being 'somewhere up there,' an omnipotent creator whom we poor limited creatures are unable to even perceive, much less to understand. That is, you will be strongly encouraged to imagine a heaven, with at least one god in residence. This sky-god, it is said, made the universe by churning its matter in a giant pot, Or, he danced. Or, he vomited Creation out of himself. Or he simply called it into being, and lo, it Was. . . . .”.

Rushdie goes onto say:

“As human knowledge has grown, it has become plain that every religious story ever told about how we got here is quite simply wrong. This, finally, is what all religions have in common . They didn't get it right”.

POWERFUL STUFF

“There was no celestial churning, no makers dance, no vomiting of galaxies, no snake or kangaroo ancestors, no Valhalla, no Olympus, no six-day conjuring trick followed by a day of rest. Wrong, wrong, wrong. But here's something genuinely odd. The wrongness of the sacred tales hasn't lessened the zeal of the devout in the least. If anything the sheer out-of-step zaniness of religion leads the religious to insist ever more stridently on the importance of blind faith”.

Rushdie ends his essay by saying;

“Imagine there's no heaven, my dear Six Billionth, and at once the sky is the limit.”

Sorry for the length but I though it was worth sharing. . . Ted . .

Hello To All
This is my contribution to the music selections by Richard and Ted.

John Lennon - IMAGINE

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Richard I am not as intelligent as you are and Ted I certainly wish I had your wisdom. However, I can IMAGINE

Terry,
Your attitude is so healthy. It sounds like you are willing to be always curious, and not settle for the comfort of certainty. I'm glad you're still around so you could remind me to do that.

Pam,
You didn't make me cry. (sniff) You usually make me laugh with recognition or surprise. I went next door to the "common ground" site and counter-punched a couple of pompous buffoons, and I felt much better.
Tammy,
Thanks for your comfort. That's a very interesting thought about the "I believe in God" vs "I'm a Christian" thing. It makes me wonder if I'm getting caught up in my own ID badge, rather than just exploring what's true for me. I'll have to think about that.
Ted,
Thanks also for your comfort. You always manage to see the pony instead of the poop.

Looks like I'm breaking my promise of keeping my posts to one inch. Then again, there's less than an inch to each of you, so it's ok.

Terry:

I think the common thread that is shared by all of us who are left in this discussion is exactly what you ssy:

"Now does all of this make me religious? No-not in the sense of believing in any of the doctrines and creeds of an organized or formal religion."

Most of us -- unlike you -- have not had a near dear death experience and cannot speak from first hand experience in this regard. But at least some of us (myself for one) have had mystical experiences and would join you in saying that there is a "spiritual dimension to life and existence".

I do not believe in the doctrines and creeds of any of the formal religions and in that sense I do not have any faith in such unsubstantiated beliefs. So I suppose I am neither religious nor a person of faith. But I am sure no one here is going to quibble over this. The important thing is that we are united in having moved beyond formal religion.

Last year I has what some people call a near death experience. That is, during a heart attack I ( my essence or soul or whatever you want to call it)travelled to a different place. My memory of this is as vivid today as when it occurred. I now believe and know that there is another dimension or plane of existence. Modern science has of course uncovered no such dimension although there are countless reports by countless people of the existence of one. I attribute this to the primitive nature of current scientific methods and its restrictive view of the nature of mind and being. Now does all of this make me religious? No-not in the sense of believing in any of the doctrines and creeds of an organized or formal religion. What is does though is to bring into sharp focus for me the spiritual dimension to life and existence. It makes me a spirtual seeker and in that quest i am open to all ideas that may guide me toward meaning. Yes open still to science and its uncovering of truths buried in the world around and in us. And yes open to the thoughts that flow from various spiritual frameworks and experiences.Do I embody the "end of faith"? Am I "religious"? The answer is no to both statements.

All you hard work by no means wasted Richard. Good to know that the Quaker idea (Quakerism goes back to the 1650s)has taken root more widely than most of us realized. So we don't have to wait 1000 years or even 100 years as you suggest. I agree that Prager is the one to blame for causing you -- and the rest us us I might add -- to be misled. . . Ted . .

Richard, thanks for putting that conversation on here, as I missed it on the other page.

Richard, homework is never done for nothing! That Prager is the one who should be embarrassed, but I suspect he's not. Look at the attention he's gotten from being misinformed. I wish Ted's idea about swearing on a child's head would work, but unfortunately, lots of people actually hold books in higher esteem than their own kids.
I'm sorry but my head's still on some pretty morbid thoughts.
Pam, I remember watching a shuttle launch from Orlando years ago-it looked so cool, like a green comet as I remember it. I was a kid in the 80's, by the way, so I really am here mainly to learn. Now that you've mentioned it, I can't recall ever hearing anyone say "I believe in God." They say things like, "I'm a Christian", which makes me think religion is more of an ID badge than a set of beliefs for most people.

Well, I have a life that won't wait, but guess what-I'm always in church. Wasn't it Thomas Paine who wrote "My own church is my own mind"?

So sorry I made you cry Richard. I did know that the Constitution says a person is not required to swear on "any" text but again my lack of communication failed you as I did not go back to that topic again. Yes, and thank god (oops) for the founding fathers for that. However, no one must have told Prager before he decided to go one his little rant. Actually, I don't think Constitution still works these days. That is a topic for another page so I will stop here.

Ted, I love your shower story. I can just imagine the look on your wife's face. She probably wanted to hid under the closest rock!!

Richard I could of used your telescope last night. I watched the shuttle leave this earth from my front yard. It was beautiful. First, night launch in 4 years. Rumor has it that they are in search of GOD on this trip. What do you think their chances are of finding one?????

Now, one last comment on The God Delusion. I must be very nieve because I never realized the danger of one admitting to being an atheist. Dawkins opened my eyes. In thinking about it later I do realize that I have never heard anyone openly admit to being an atheist/agnostic. Am I growing up before your eyes :-).

I imagine ya'll are not in church right now but I am going to leave you and get my political fix for the week.

Later

I worked for hours and hours on all that pointless eloquence to give us all something interesting and important to talk about. I'm so tooth grindin' acid dumpin' keyboard poundin' frustrated and embarrassed right now... What about the rest of it? Is it all just futility, futility, brilliant arguments for and against god, religion, on and on, but the arguing itself is stupid and irrelevant?? I've learned so much, found five amazing disembodied minds whom I now cherish, and all I want to do do right now is cry. Don't worry about my mental health, I'm just pissed.
I'm going to have the rest of my tantrum offline. I'll be back after some sleep. I PROMISE my posts will be no longer than one inch.

Guess what, gang!
After all that, it's a tempest in a frikin' teapot.
I just read that no Congressman has ever been sworn into office using a Bible or any other book. They swear in as a group on the floor of the House. Just their right arms raised. WHY THE FRIKKIN' NIT-WITTIN' DUNG SLINGIN' FLATU-BLAST DIDN'T SOMEBODY TELL US??

I feel like Ruth Buzzi saying, "Oh............Never mind."

Maybe the House of Representatives is closer to Ted's idea than we thought.

Okay, I’ve done my homework. Here is the Prager/Ellison controversy that Pam brought up in the “common ground” discussion next door. I’ve cut out the confusion and misunderstanding stuff, and added some explanation.
I’m sorry this is a very long post, but I think it’s worth going over.

Dennis Prager is a radio show host. He wrote an article dated Nov. 28 which I found posted on townhall.com. Pam had copied and pasted some excerpts that capture the gist of his argument. These are the words of Dennis Prager:

“Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.
He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization...
... Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office? “

The rest of the article is more demagoguery, a We’ve-got-trouble-in-River City crock about how “multiculturalism” is going to bring about the “Islamicization of America.” Apparently, Mr. Prager believes in freedom of religion, just as long as it's his religion.

Firstly, I think his arguments are absurd and manipulative. Several times in the article he uses the extreme example ploy, (a racist wanting to use Mein Kampf etc.) which is so unlikely it's not worth considering. If people did elect such a person, then DeMaistre was right when he said, "Every country has the government it deserves." Actually we have had several nasty racist types sworn in on the Bible, so what good did that do?
The whole thing about undermining American civilization is over the top. Doctors still say "I swear by Apollo" when they take the Hippocratic oath. That hasn't damaged American civilization or the medical profession and people don't refuse to see a doctor because he's a pagan. Using a bible to swear is a tradition, not constitutional law. I hope it never becomes law, because then we will all have far less freedom.

In another part of his article that Pam didn’t post Prager argues that Jewish and secular elected officials have been wiling to swear on the Bible. The simple answer to that is, “So what? That was their choice, and that’s the whole point, THEY HAD A CHOICE."

The placing of one's hand on the Bible is a gesture indicating that the oath taker means what he says. I would be more confident that Ellison will carry out his duties faithfully if he swears on what HE cherishes rather than what someone else cherishes. Maybe someday an agnostic or atheist will be elected to Congress, and he or she will place a hand on a book of law, or better yet on the head of their child. If I am convinced that their hand is on the thing they most cherish, I will feel more assured they mean what they say.
I am not just spouting knee-jerk PC platitudes. That stuff is often nauseating. I'm saying we must have the courage of our convictions as Americans. Are we for freedom of thought and speech? Then we must protect the thought and speech we don't agree with. The First Amendment forbids Congress from establishing or limiting any religion. That's the sacred document that I cherish. It has taken a terrible beating lately, from people who want to "protect" us from terrorism, or what they say is the undermining of American civilization. I don't subscribe to any religious crap, but I back Ellision's choice because that means that I still have a choice.

Nobody else made any comment on this issue except Ted Swart:

To Beachwoman and Richard Wade:
This business of swearing on the Bible or the Qur'an as the case may be is not very defensible either way. Long long ago the Quakers earned the right (not only on their behalf but on anyone's behalf)to not swear on anything. Their argument was and is that if they were forced to swear an oath of any kind on any religious book or whatever this was tantamount to admitting that they were liars and cheats.
It was common practice in South Africa, where I came from, to have to swear on the Bible when giving testimony in court. I always refused and invoked my right to make a solemn affirmation instead - a request which was always honored. And, when becoming a Canadian citizen, as I have done, one can do the same.
I think the sooner this practice of swearing an oath on the Bible is stopped the better. RW's interesting suggestion of putting your hand on a child's head would sure be way preferable! Substituting the Bible with the Qur'an is six of one and half a dozen of another as far a I am concerned -- bad eggs in both cases.

Finally I replied,
On the issue of Ellison and his Koran, I agree with Ted Swart that neither book is defensible for many reasons. They're both ludicrous. But the only way to stop the use of any particular book would be to legislate against it. That would be an extremely bad mistake that would backfire for everyone. I've been a witness in court a few times, and have gone through the Bible ritual. It felt odd and insincere because I'm self-bound by my own ethics to be truthful. There's no magic in any old book that makes me or anyone else be honest. Plenty of lying slugs place their hands on sacred texts. If Ellison turns out to be a lying slug, it will be because of his lack of character, not because his hand was on one book or another.

Later Pam began to clarify that she thinks no one should have to swear to anything on the Bible, and that’s where the confusion about who’s opinion was what began.

So after all that, I’ll sum up my own opinions:
1. Prager uses the phrase, “if he’s allowed to do that,” over and over. I don’t see how Ellison can be stopped. Who’s going to allow or disallow him? The people of his district knew he’s a Muslim and they elected him. That by itself is remarkable, given the hysteria in this country. Maybe we should respect their decision.

2. My points are directed to the short term, the next 100 years or so. Ted’s points are for after that. If Keith Ellison has his choice, then we all have our choice. If he is forced to do it one way, then nobody will have a choice, it will be a requirement. If we forbid all books, that’s the same lack of freedom as requiring only one book.

3. To get to Ted’s vision of being free of all these “magic books,” we can’t force yes or no on any of these rituals. We have to patiently wait out the long adolescence of mankind, until we just lose interest. I think that will be at least 100 and as much as 1,000 years.

Well now Mr anonymous Richard Wade. You ask why my wife was embarrassed. I think it was because she and she alone knew it was me singing and the other women in the change room suggested I must be a bit drunk -- which was way off the mark unless they meant drunk with joie de vivre.

For the rest, I think that not only are you all an interesting collection of individuals but a talented bunch as well. Home schooling, artistic bent, telescopes and what have you. Yes. It is good to go over the edge at times and Richard and I and all of you are allowed to do so as necessary. Which reminds me that:

God is sometimes not quite with it.

Oops, that last post was mine.

Ted,
I forgot to ask if your wife was embarrassed just by the fact that people were hearing you sing, or if it was the particular song you sang.
I'm a bathroom baritone too. Once I had to apologize to some folks because they overheard me singing one of several sea shanties that my dad had taught me.

Ted,
Don't you think about food around Christmas?
But that's not why I wrote that. After my wisecrack about food to Alain, the altered first line just popped into my head. The Muse spoke to me and I said, "Yes Ma'am." I wasn't making fun of Stevens' wonderful song. It could have been any song. Actually, I love that song. Thank you for posting the verses. There's nothing in it that I disagree with. I wish that we all could live by those ideas. When it first came out, the Vietnam war was at its darkest, and I was facing the possibility of being drafted. I grabbed onto "the world's gonna find a way," and I've been hoping ever since.

Tammy and Pam,
I'm fine. Nothing dark on my mind. I've been over the edge for most of my life. Interesting perspective from out there. The saddest periods of my life have been when I came back. I'm an artist. maybe that single word explains a lot. I really think that the only difference between creativity and madness is how other people react. Say a person sees and responds to the world differently than usual. If other people are delighted by that difference they call him "creative." If the difference frightens people, they say he's nuts. But it's all about the reaction of other people.
Ted is fine too. He's very cool. The two of you, with your fearless curiosity are only driving all of us over the edge of our tired old perspectives. Keep it up. I really respect and admire the two of you, and all of you. I haven't had this much fun and excitement for a very long time.
If I ever get to be just too much, please say so. I'll take no offense; I'll only be grateful for the frankness of caring friends.

Pam, we are graciously accepting their wisdom, experience, and unique perspectives.

As for who's losin' it, I'm no judge. I was watching a movie version of "The Crucible".
I really do need to get my mind on something else.

Ted, Now that I think about it I think you may have lost it also.

Tammy what are we doing to these guys?????

Personally I think Richard has totally lost it. Come back come back from where ever you are!!!

Hey all, do you think we have driven him off the edge or what?????

I don't know, Ted, I kind of like Richard's version.
It seems like you have something on your mind, though, Richard. I hope this evening finds you well.

Tut tut Richard. It does seem to fit the tune. But all this talk of food with Christmas coming up is a bit much!

As for the real version (see below) all RS's talk about Jesus and God obviously needed censoring by a non-believer like yourself. bur replacing Jesus and God with food -- come now!

All the same when it comes to bursting out in song I am all for it. My wife and I go to the gym together and -- for some strange reason the ducting carries the men's voices right into the women's change room. So, when I burst into song in the shower one day, my wife reported that she was highly embarrassed when the women all heard my singing loud and clear.

* * * * * *
Everything Is Beautiful
Ray Stevens
- written by Ray Stevens

Jesus loves the little children, all the little children of the world
Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight
Jesus loves the little children of the world

Everything is beautiful in its' own way
Like a starry summer night or a snow covered winter's day
Everybody's beautiful in their own way
Under God's heaven, the world's gonna find a way

There is none so blind as he who will not see
We must not close our minds, we must let our thought be free
For every hour that passes by, you know the world gets a little bit older
It's time to realize that beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder

Everything is beautiful in its' own way
Like a starry summer night or a snow covered winter's day
Ah, sing it children
Everybody's beautiful in their own way
Under God's heaven, the world's gonna find a way

We shouldn't care about the length of his hair or the color of his skin
Don't worry about what shows from without but the love that lives within
We're gonna get it all together now and everything gonna work out fine
Just take a little time to look on the good side my friend
And straighten it out in your mind

Everything is beautiful in its' own way
Like a starry summer night or a snow covered winter's day
Everybody's beautiful in their own way
Under God's heaven, the world's gonna find a way

It’s time to break into song!!
All together now, to the tune of Ray Stevens’ 1970 hit, “Everything is Beautiful”….

Everything is edible, in its own way.
Everything is having something else on the menu today.
Even little microbes snack, when in the mood.
People think they’re at the top, but they’re just bacteria food.

Everything is edible, so go have lunch.
The sound heard around the world is the sound of “Crunch!”
Whether you have caviar or devil an egg,
The molecules in that hors d’oeuvre were once in a caveman’s leg.

Killing is the way of things. It’s like a bad dream.
Vegetarians are folks who can’t hear a carrot scream.
Everything is edible in its own way.
If you don’t eat the rest of us, then you’ll be tomorrow’s entrée.

Yes, Alain,

In the beginning God created food. And we are food.

Ted,
I am with you with freedom coming easier with the absence of dogma.
I found this gem in a novel from Tom Robbins:
"Poorer of some hopes but freer of some illusions."

Thank you Pam:

I don't know if I am more or less kind than average. What I do know is that I have learnt a huge amount from my wife (given 48 years of marriage so far).
Like your father I am or was (given that I am retired) an engineer/scientist/mathematician. And although I was brought up in the Anglican church my parents always gave me enough rope to hang myself -- for which I am eternally grateful. My father was an incredibly honest man and even had a club with some friends which focused on ethical an moral excellence. It was not religious in any way -- just simply focused on being top quality people. I still have my dad's diaries about the club and they are very challenging.

Thanks Ted I will remember your kindness.

My father was an engineer with Texaco Oil Corp so we moved often around the world and around the USA (well the northeast). It was difficult for them to insist that we go to Sunday School or Church. I always felt some shame about that as a teenager because all of my friends had some kind of religious teaching. So I would just go with them to whatever church they attended. By doing that I learned a little about many different beliefs. None of those really hit me as something I wanted to be involved with. As a teenager my neighbors were either Catholic or Jewish.

I am grateful today that I was not forced to practice any formal religion. It has been a long interesting journey and here I am.

Hey Pam. You ask as many questions as you like. None of us have all the answers but we sure feel comfortable in an open discussion.

We have clearly demonstrated to Sally Quinn that it is perfectly possible to have a conversation about faith or anything else so long as you are not dogmatic.

The strange thing is that true freedom comes when you break loose from dogma whereas those enslaved by dogma think -- erroneously -- that there particular dogmas are the only way to freedom or salvation or whatever they like to call it.

It is always easy to see that the other person's dogmas are simply a case of fabrication. Most non Mormons see the Mormon branch of the Christian religions as nothing other than a fabrication. And, if you ever bother to read the history of Muhammad and Islam, the amount of fabrication is instantly visible. The only problem comes in using the same set of logical antennae when looking at ones own religious faith -- if we happen to be brought up in one (which is true for most of mankind).

Let me add to my list of characteristics of God.

God has to be at least as logical as we are when we are functioning properly.

Torrey
Count me in, next spring , when I start my Hiking campaign in the beautiful Utah Parks. Actually, I visited Capitol Reef National Park, back in May. I also had a great diner at the Cafe Diablo. I do not know if God created food, but I can guarantee you that I enjoy good food, in moderation, mind you.
And this is my point. I see too many people missing the great opportunities of this life because of limiting dogmas (I will go to hell, just because I love Espressos!), endless search for the Holy Grail (Does God exist, which religion is best, etc..) or even anticipating an hypothetical after-life.
Let's enjoy this life, I say ! (I sound like a preacher, all of the sudden !!!)
Looking forward to seeing you next year, "Torrey".

TAMMY
I live 40 minutes from Orlando. A small beach town and I love it here. As a child I lived in Miami off and on as my grandparents had moved from the north and settled in until they were forced by so many changes in that area to move to the Carolinas. I have always loved Florida and promised myself when I retired I would relocate here. That was of course hundreds of years ago. I am not sorry. I have the beach in my blood and find so much peace here. My daughter lives in Colorado and she just couldn't understand why I would not move there with her. Colorado is beautiful, however, it is nice for a "short" visit but this is home for me.

Glad to hear you had the same impression as I did with the comments on the other page.

You are correct it is safe here!

Pam, you and I were posting at the same time, so I wasn't even responding to your post. I read those essays by Quinn & Meachum, and the comments, and that was enough to send me running back over here, scrolling all the way down, and nobody over here is scaring me.
I love FLA, by the way. My grandma's sister lived in Orlando and I got to spend lots of summers there as a kid.

Like Ted, I'm blessed with four. I have a long way to go, though; my oldest will be 7 in january. I hate to admit this, but my oldest was dedicated by the same pastor who married us, but we've grown up so much since then. We no longer placate the relatives, and I'm pretty sure they think we're good parents anyways.
Just like with Ted's family, the kids themselves are the results, so it'll be years before judgement can be passed on me as a mom. It's really funny-we are homeschooling(just 2 are school-age)Lots of people are homeschooling for religious reasons, and that's perfectly acceptable to everyone. When I tell people we're doing it for academic reasons it's somehow confusing to them.
I liked Torrey's redneck nightmare-it reminds me of people around here. I've recently heard, through the grapevine, that I'm opening myself up to demon possesion because I practice yoga. The funny thing is that a friend of mine who is christian and very active in her church has been told the same thing to her face!
Well, Ted really set the proper tone-how nice it is to wake up this morning, read you all's words and get started on my cookies.
Oh, man-I read the comments to Quinn's and Meachum's essays. I even felt compelled to throw one in, but now I'm just depressed about it, mainly because both those essays were depressing to me(especially Meachum's), so thanks again you guys.

TAMMY

You are fortunate to be able to be a "stay at home mom". Enjoy! I would have given my right arm (or some body part) to be able to do that. Of course, as always, looking back I see how much I missed. Reading to your kids is a very smart thing to do. Have your read any of the post on Talking To My Children About God? I thought somewhere back you talked about that with another poster on this blog. Some interesting posts and some not so interesting and nasty posts there.

I am going North for the holidays and decided to take my book cover and all. Tammy, I like your attitude. I am a big girl now. It will provide me with an excellent conversation piece. Everyone can go off to church and I can stay home and read all of the reasons that I choose not to go with them. Ha Ha

I live in Central Florida and there is a church of some sort on every corner. I swear they make them up as they go along. Names I have never heard of. If you can rent a store front you can start a church. Amazing!!!!

I don't recall anyone ever asking me what religion I am (except for my ex son-in-law) which I detailed the story in an earlier post. Wierd wouldn't you say. My friends here are Catholic and have known me for years and know not to invite me to church. We never discuss religion. I am certain that they discuss between themselves how I will certainly end up in hell. I would love to be a little mouse and listen to that one.

I think Richard is right that we have driven all the lunatics away because they don't have the patience to scroll down this far to argue with us.

Yes, I had Richard in a real tizzy when I posted the Prager article. Although I have to give the "devil" his dues as I did not make it very clear that it was not MY opinion. Gee, I thought you could read my mind by now Richard.

Being the new kid on the block here I have many questions. So I will keep on keepen on and see if all of you intelligent people come up with answers.

Ted,
Sounds like a great life and a great family. So much intelligence. Canada and South Africa? What a unique mix.
I'll work on that Prager/Ellison stuff. Boiling it down to the germainities takes a little time. My viewpoint on that single issue has become more complex because of these discussions.
Yes, this is the nicest group of people. We six have bored everybody else away with our incisive but respectful banter. All the bloodthirsty ones have moved on. It's cozy but still stimulating waaay dowwwn heeere. I just measured it. On my monitor, this page is now roughly 195 feet or 59.44 meters deep.

Torrey,
Great story. With Clem and Bubba in your home, what the heck would have happened next if you had said any number of other, just as honest responses that they might not have used to jump to a safe conclusion? By "look of relief" and "Oh good," it sounds like they were apprehensive, not just curious. I can't put my finger on it; was it simple naiveté, or an insular, circular, wrapped-up-in-itself thought process that resulted in, "so you're a Christian then?" What an amazing collection of "Iconry." That wasn't in my Oxford Dictionary of Every Bleedin' English Word, but I wrote it into the margin. I like it. It sounds like irony.

Tammy,
It is very very cool that you read with your kids. How many?

Tammy,
You are a wicked, wicked woman. Keep up the good work!

I live in southern California, where Baywatch is real, so I can get away with more mischief than maybe someone in Utah, the South, or Darkest Pennsylvania. Here the in-your-face stuff is not so often or intense. Usually I practice "Nice Atheism," but once in a while I transgress. One summer evening I had set up a small telescope on the sidewalk near a shopping center, as it is one of my astronomy club's favorite things to do, free to the public. I was showing passersby a very nice view of Jupiter, with its four biggest moons all in a row. Most people remarked about the beauty of the sight and their fascination in the interesting things I was saying about it. One young man looked through the 'scope, turned his extremely, extremely clean face to me and said, "It's wonderful to see the glory of God, isn't it?" Now, I try to be a Nice Atheist, and to be tactful and non-confrontive. I said, "It's very beautiful." Not satisfied with my neutral answer, he pressed me with something like, "But doesn't so much beauty make you sure it was all created by God?" Now, his going to the next level like that is unusual in the Land of Avocados. We try to keep things laid back. Still in a casual tone, I replied, "Everybody sees what they want to see." Well this extremely, extremely clean guy was determined to get a definitive answer from me. Probably just as much Irish as I am. He said, "Don't you believe in God?" I wasn't planning to ever go back to that viewing site, and I was almost ready to pack up, and I was bigger than him so I figured I had nothing to lose. So I faced him squarely, looked him straight in the eye and said in my best baritone, "There's three things I never discuss with strangers: My sex life, my bowel habits, and my spiritual beliefs." He squeaked an almost inaudible, "Oh," and left. In the privacy of my car I laughed wickedly all the way home but then did ten push-ups and had only one scoop of chocolate ice cream as a penance.

Okay Richard, here's the funny shunning story: One day out in my yard, working with a small crew that was putting in a new driveway, a large redneck truck pulled up and a couple of guys who identified themselves as being from the next town over asked if they could have a close-up look at my house which is rather unusual. I took them in for a whirlwind tour and as they were about to leave, they noticed some religious iconry (is that a word?) on a wall by the door -- stuff from several different religions including a framed sheet of decorated Arabic that is actually a page from the Book of Mormon in Syrian. One of them said, "So which religion are you?" I answered, "I'm the same religion as God." A look of relief spread over their faces and one said, "Oh good, so you're a Christian then." I've laughed for years over that one!

You guys are a really lovely bunch of people. When I read Tammy's comment that "It's really easy to check in here and find that no one is being lousy to anyone .. . " I am quite sure I am hanging out with the right crowd.

As far as the Prager lunacy is concerned -- about forcing people to swear on the Bible -- I think Tammy is bang on when she says "we are the repository of our own values". It is kind of Richard W to suggest that he might excise the unwanted segments of the discussion and post it here. I am sure we can come to a common mind that it would be for the best if we foreswore swearing on the Bible or the Qur'an or anything else.

I am fascinated to see how many of you are reading good books. Whenever I feel somewhat down in the dumps I console myself with the fact that there are an incredible number of really good books out there and I return to thinking there is hope for us. If only more people would read mark and inwardly digest this treasure house of books the future of mankind would be rosy.

If it helps you to feel more confident in your beliefs and actions Tammy let me pass on the information that none of our four children were christened (or dedicated) in church and it has done them no harm. One is a family physician, her twin brother has a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, and one of the other girls has an honours degree in microbiology. And all four of our six grandchildren have also avoided christening/dedication. So lie easy to the fact that you stand out from the crowd.

Here in Canada I never feel the need to hide any of the books I read but I do love the brown paper story. When I went to school (a long time ago) books were regarded as very precious and we children were all expected to make brown paper covers for them.

In my second language (Afrikaans)we use to always say -- in parting: Ry stadig oor die klippies (Ride carefully over the rocks).

Ted

I just thought of something while I was putting clothes in the dryer(sorry if this proves what you may have suspected all along, that being a stay-at-home housewife can be at times intellectually understimulating);

Someone as cool as Richard or Torrey could be living near me, taking their kids to the same gym as me, for example, but if we hide the books we're reading, we'll never find each other. So there is more to it than the wicked thrill I'll get the first time I'm seen at the dr.'s office or whereever reading "The God Delusion".

Richard, You could be right about that website I mentioned. It would be no fun to get into it online with strangers, but it could be useful with people face-to-face who have the audacity to ask nosy questions, like "What church do you go to?","Why don't you take your girls to church?" ,or my favorite, "When are you having your girls dedicated in church?"
Besides, I don't get a lot of time to be in front of the computer(at least just for me), so I don't go too in-depth into very many sites, unless it's stuff I'm reading with my kids. It's really easy to check in here every so often, find that noone's being lousy to anyone, and maybe throw in my 2 cents.

Tammy,
I went to Vastleftwingconspiracy.com and couldn't figure out how to use those strange sections, "Win, Wing, Left, Twin, Visa," etc. Putting "bible study for atheists" into their site search box didn't produce something like that. Anyway, if it's a tool for atheists to argue chapter and verse with Christians, I'd rather not. I started reading it as a kid on my own, and part way through I decided it just didn't make sense. There's no way I could hold my own in a match with a well-versed Bible thumper. As a counselor I learned not to argue with the delusions of my craziest patients because my reason wasn't contagious but their craziness was. My jewish-turned-atheist friend likes to say, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It annoys the pig and it wastes your time."
If it's something else however, let me know.
Torrey,
I'd like to hear the funny shunning story. I've sure heard a lot of the unfunny ones. As for the badge of honor thing, that's a lame consolation that requires denying reality. Being shunned, rejected or persecuted sucks, and that's that. We have to endure it or fight it, or "heaven forbid," give in to it.
I might actually take you up on your gracious invitation. I sometimes pass through southern Utah on my way to the North Rim of the Grand Canyon, to do public "star parties" with my big, fat, manly telescope. My friends and I could show you the deep sky. It probably won't be for more than a year, though. I went last summer, and can't this summer, but maybe the next. I'd be astonished if I actually found you by asking for the "town heretic." I wouldn't want to stir up trouble. I wish this site had private "chatrooms" so we didn't have to be so coy about where and who we are.

It's such a lovely afternoon I should get out into it. I'll check back in a few hours. Bye.

Tammy,
On the Dennis Prager/Keith Ellison issue:
Pam and I got into a confusing mix-up when she brought up this issue next door on the "common ground" discussion, page 13. She was quoting things from Prager's article, and I thought they were her opinion, so I impulsively jumped down her throat. We've sorted it all out now, and are friends again. (kiss kiss) I'm glad she and now you brought it up, because it is very pertinent to both these blogs. Despite my misdirected indignation, my opine was pretty good stuff, if I say so. Ted Swart had an even better one in rebuttal to me. If people want, I could edit out all the foaming at the mouth at the wrong person and post it over here, and maybe Ted could put in his views. But you just put it all in a nutshell: "WE are the repository of our values." That's right. Our values are defined by how we live, not what we say or pretend or what we read in an old book.

Yeah, my reading list is hopelessly long too. I'm still trudging through Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World" I promised myself I'd finish it.

Huh. It just struck me that's one attraction to fundamentalism. You only have to read one book. I remember a conversion story I think was by the TV cook the "Galloping Gourmet." Remember him? Anyway, the kernel of the story was that the night stand on his side of the bed was piled with books on philosophy, science, all sorts of intellectual literature, while on his wife's nightstand there was only one book, the Bible. This was presented as the dramatic manifestation of why he should dump all that other stuff and convert to the One Book. Sad, really, for an intelligent guy to carve out big portions of his mind and flush them, just for the comfort of intellectual simplicity. That was years ago, and I don't really know what he actually is like now, but the story has the power of a maxim: "Thinking is hard. This is easy."

Torrey, I think the rest of us have been grossly misinformed about Utah! There obviously are some cool people there after all...
My state, PA, has recently been described as Philly and Pittsburg with Alabama in between. I'm not sure who should be offended most by that, so I, of course, take it as a joke.
People who discriminate want to, I think to save themselves the trouble of finding out the truth about somebody. Religion isn't the only thing that sets me apart from my neighbors, but I keep hoping that as long as I'm doing my best, people can live and let live. We'll see.

Has anyone else seen anything about that Prager's recent remarks about the Muslim who was just elected to the U.S. congress? Sorry, I forget the gentleman's name, but he wants to swear his oath of office, or whatever, using the Koran, and this talk-radio guy Prager(he's Dennis, right?) thinks we should force him to swear on the christian bible. Prager says the Bible is the repository of our values.
When will these people realize that we are the repository of our values? When will they realize that they are preventing U.S. citizens, like Muslims and atheists, from feeling like it's our country, too?
Richard, have you checked out Vastleftwingconspiracy.com? They have a Bible Study for Atheists. I don't get a lot of non-kid-related time on the computer, so I haven't checked it out as fully as I'd have liked. I haven't checked out that site you mentioned yet, either, but I plan to.
You people just keep adding to my already too long reading list. When my amazon books get here, I don't know what to read first, "The God Delusion" or that new Carl Sagan book. I might read the Dawkins book first, because I haven't read any of his other books yet. It also has a more noticeably blasphemous title, so I sort of get a little evil thrill picturing people's faces when I get "busted" reading it.
It's not much, but it's my Christmas present to myself.

Another great LOL from Richard.
Regarding the anecdotes about the 'shunning' we atheists are subjected to: I once made the mistake of telling a small group at a dinner party that I don't believe in the Bible God. That 'news' must have spread through town like an e.coli virus. People are aghast to know there's a heretic in their midst. I've sensed so many negative reactions that I've lost count -- some have hurt me personally or professionally but one, at least, was very funny! (And Richard, I too take off the covers of the 'would-be-banned books' and then hide the books in my bookshelves. A years-long habit I'm afraid.)

Mormon missionaries get doors slammed in their faces every single day and consider it a badge of honor. Wish I could do the same.

I have enjoyed the company of the wonderful folks on this site, that if any of you are ever traveling through the southern Utah National-Park country, look me up at any Wayne County post office. Just ask for the town heretic and everybody will know who that is! You'll all get free lodging at my house.

"Ted, Your description of GOD except for the part about creating the universe unless I have forgotten that I did that you are describing ME."

Aah, Grasshopper Pam, you and Ted have stumbled upon the Great Truth. Now go get Master Po a cuppa joe.

Ted,
Your description of GOD except for the part about creating the universe unless I have forgotten that I did that you are describing ME. You have me totally confused.

And Richard I love coffee!!! For those of us to have been brave enough to use our real names I am sure we will get some of those millions. The rest will have to fight for their share.

Ted,
I like your vision of God. Do you think he likes coffee?
You said, "God has to have a sense of humour since he could not possibly survive without it."
That's for damn sure. None of us will survive without it.

As for what Meacham and Quinn will do with all our collected profundity, they'll compile it into a best-selling book, make millions of dollars, not give any of us a penny, but that's okay 'cause it will SAVE THE WORLD!!!

Or they'll just push "delete."

Well now Nice Atheist(alias Richard Wade): you sure display a nice sense of humour.

Since I am an agnostic rather than an atheist I don't entirely rule out the existence of some kind of god. So I have often speculated on what such a god would have to be like. The theists or religious types will not like what I have to say in this regard but here goes:

God is not the creator of anything since if he was the creator of the universe then who created him/her/it?

God has to have a sense of humour since he could not possibly survive without it.

God could not possibly have died for our sins since he/she/it is feeling his/her/its way forward along with the rest of us.

Despite all the problems in the world God is glad to be alive and fascinated by the interesting and complex way things have been put together.

God loves all other animals just as much as he loves humans.

God sometimes feels frustrated, oft times feels sad and is even, at times, out of sorts.

Dare I go on? . . Ted . .

P.S: There is one thing that bothers me about this whole forum on faith . No one seems to be able to tell me what Newsweek and the Washington Post intend to do with all this wealth of material. I have tried to contact John Meacham and Sally Quinn without any success.

I started reading The God Delusion this afternoon and already I am hooked on the book. I have to let things sink in before I can comment.

Ted I also read your post. I usually can't get through long ones but yours I read several times. At least you make sense. I liked it.

Richard I am going to check out the other website you found. I don't think this message board will close, people just stop blogging and so the people that are left eventually stop also. I thought this website would be maintained much better than it has been. Ha Ha fooled me. Later

Ted,
Good to hear from you. I like your posts. They're so densely packed with thought it takes me a long time to sort out my responses, if I even dare. Don't be so scarce.
Meanwhile guys,
I’ve been looking around for another place to play in case this site closes down before we’re all sick of each other. Some of the atheist/agnostic sites are kinda fringy, but one, ravingatheist.com seems intelligent, topical and has a forum with several running questions. A quick glance at the discussions showed they are current, lively and positive.
Well, I couldn’t resist putting my two cents in, or my two scents for that matter. If you want some more of my silliness read the Raving Atheist’s brief article there about the Portland atheist expelled from art school. He sums up the resulting discussion on Pharyngula (a cool science kind of forum) quite well. Take his link to the comment section of Pharyngula and near the bottom of that string is an edict by the Nice Atheist. (hee hee)

My apologies at the outset for a rather long comment.
1.Firstly, I think that Sam Harris is to be congratulated for setting in motion the most lively debate in this forum. Most of what he says in his two books is both true and helpful. This is not to say that his emphases are all sound but he writes very lucidly and convincingly. Moreover, it would seem from the comments in this discussion, that quite a few of the participants are relieved to learn that their scepticism regarding traditional religious beliefs is widely shared.
2.Searching for the truth is an interesting topic and, for me personally, one of the most interesting verses in the Bible arises from the attempt by Moses to communicate with God in his encounter with the burning bush. God is reported as having said; “ I am who I am”. In the end things are as they are. And what ultimately stands as judge of the veracity of our beliefs is the actual nature of the physical world and our role in it.
3.It is right to explore various possible sources of truth and right to question whether or not science is the only source of truth. But, what is entirely inappropriate is to reject the notion that science is an important source of truth. Science in its relentless manner has established that the earth is billions of years old. And we know from both fossil and DNA evidence that evolution actually occurred. We even know that if we follow our maternal line back in time some 100,000 years we arrive at a great great . . . grandmother who is common to every singly human being on earth (the so-called mitochondrial Eve). And if we go back some 60,000 years we likewise arrive at a great, great . . . grandfather who is also common to every single human being on earth (the so-called Y-chromosome Adam). And those who reject the occurrence of evolution and believe baseless nonsense about the earth being 6,000 year old are quite simply denying the truth.
4.Harris is somewhat critical of those whom he refers to as moderate religious believers. These are the people who believe in the findings of science but still belong to one or other of the more moderate Christian denominations (ditto for moderate Muslims). Even the Roman Catholic Church, which has not exactly been very prompt in accepting the findings of science, has -- under the previous pope – officially apologized for its treatment of Galileo and officially accepted the occurrence of evolution. So, despite Harris' criticism of moderates they certainly have a much more defensible position than fundamentalists who believe in the literal existence of Adam and Eve as described in the Bible. Moreover, I think it is a mistake to ignore the fact than ,in a very real sense, Western Civilization grew up, to a significant extent, arm in arm with a maturing Christianity. The direct and indirect contribution of Christianity to art, music and architecture – and,even to some extent, science -- is enormous.
5.There has been talk in this discussion about the process of changing religion and/or changing from religion to atheism/agnosticism. The vast majority of religious believers accept the faith they were brought up with and -- because of the mutual incompatibility of different faiths – this, in itself, is a red flag pointing out the need for all of us to examine our belief sets very carefully. In my own case I have changed from the Anglican belief set (which I was brought up in) to the Quaker belief set (which is virtually a different religion since it has no creeds, no priests/ministers and no sacraments) and finally to agnosticism. And all I can say is that these changes in my life sprang from nothing other than a quest for truth. I would only add that such changes in the lives of individuals can only occur when they are ready for them.
6.Let me close by wishing you all well in your quest for truth since drawing closer and closer to it during our passage through life does indeed help to set us free.

Pam,
Keep coming back (to the blog) it works.

The usual Christmas stuff is done. Tree decorated, cards in the mail and presents wrapped. Sometimes having an obsessive personility works to my benefit. Ha Ha

Richard and Torrey a member of my home group is the story "Windows of Opportunity". A great guy and we have had many discussions about the GOD thing. Richard I like your statement of "whatever works for you". My first counsler after rehab happened to be a non-believer. She was instrumental in my recovery. Because I had absolutely no desire to stop drinking and could not or would not "get" the GOD thing she saved my you know what. The state I live in now actually has AA meetings for atheists. No, I have not yet decided to participate!!!!

One of the people I was in treatment with (in another state from where I lived) happened to be from my local area and we stayed in touch for years. Actually we celebrated our 10 years together. By that time he had become a Jesus person. No meetings just Jesus. Hey it works for him. Every year I get a Christmas card from him with Jesus pamphlets enclosed. I try and explain to him that it is not my thing. What bothers me is that he "won't) seem to get it. That is my problem with people who have converted they think they have to convert me.

Because I struggled with religion my entire life(and I am old) I really appreciate this website. It gives me the ability to read and digest information from all sides. Yes, I do read other pages.

My sister sent me a copy of The God Delusion. I suppose I need to take your advice Richard and make a new cover so when my frinds drop by and see it on my coffee table they do not faint from shock.

I think Tammy is correct when she says people are born into religion and are guilted into following it. It seems to be true of most of the people I know. Again as my good friend said once, "people believe in GOD because they are afraid not to". He was Jewish.

My daughter's first husband asked me at the dinner table one evening if I had accepted Jesus as my personal savior. This came totally out of the blue. I explained to him that I had enough problems with GOD and had not even tried the Jesus part. At which time he politely said to me that I was no longer welcome at his dinner table. Sound like your Alaska experience Richard? Up until that period of time religion had never been discussed and while I relized he was involved in a church and because I "never" meddle in my children's adult lives had no idea as to how much involved he was. Needless to say that marriage did not last forever!!!!

Torrey, I volunteered for some years in an out-patient treatment program in my home town and became very close with the staff. I have to give you credit it is a tuff road to go. Burnout is huge in that profession. Like many in early recovery I thought about taking some classes at the local college and making a career change. After my volunteer work I realized I really did not want to do that. It takes a special person to survive in that line of work. Although I must admit is was a very helpful to my early recovery.

Back to the topic. I am thrilled to have people here that feel the same way I do about GOD and religion and can't express to all of you how much you have helped me to be OK with how I feel. I have always been a fish out of water in so many areas of my life and this one is no exception. I do not know of one person (except for my sister and she does not talk about her godlessness) who is not a part of organized religion. I see what they go through and I could go on and on about each one and their struggle. Someone said in a previous post that they feel such a sense of freedom not having to do this. That hit me like a bolt of lightning out of the blue. I could relate to that feeling right away.

OK I have gone on and on here and probably not shared much new enlightning information but hey it helped me.

My copy of "The God Delusion" just arrived from amazon.com. I'll replace the shiny silver dust jacket with a plain brown one that says either, "Musings on Quantum Fluctuations in a Stable Field," or "Septic Tank Repair." That way nobody will ask me what I'm reading.

Torrey,
What a small cyber world. I used to do the exact same kind of work for 10 years, counseling a thousand new patients assigned to me every year, and working with the patients of 20 other counselors as well. As far as using 12-step programs with or without a personal god, my position was and still is, "Hey, whatever works for you." Secular Sobriety was just getting started, and while some people were interested, they were hesitant because it had no reputation. They didn't want to take a chance on an unknown, and also there were very few meetings. So I advised them to make the group itself the power greater than themselves. Some patients would come back with stories about predatory "christians" trying to convert them at the meetings. I told them that kind of thing was out of line and to stay away from people like that. Some, as you describe, went back into religion after being out, but given their level of suffering, I'd rather see them sober Christians than dead atheists. In addiction it's all about what works.

Torrey,
Yeah, that kind of pokes a hole in my hypothesis. As Europe has progressed economically, religion's death grip has loosened. But in the States it seems like it's getting worse. It's perplexing.
Maybe what Tammy has brought up helps explain it a little. Yes, Americans are now among the most poorly schooled of all the industrialized nations. There has been an anti intellectual bias in America for generations. Politicians who are jocks get more votes than politicians who are eggheads. Kids are bullied in school just for being smart.
Tammy, I think you are also right about many American Christians going along with social pressure. Because I give science presentations for the public, I have met many people who are anguished by the conflict between what their sharp minds say, and what their families and friends say. They try to find a way to reconcile science and scripture, like with the ludicrous "creation science," but if they are cursed with being smart, it just doesn't work. The social and financial consequences of going against the herd are severe. So they keep their mouths shut, deny expression of a big part of themselves, and as a result they get depressed.

Oh my it is going to take days for me to catch up to everyone. I will read all of the latest later..........

Now I am off to do tooooooooooo many holiday duties "ugh". I keeping asking myself why why why am I doing this!!!!!!

Torrey-Do you think maybe people who've been spoon-fed christianity since birth are maybe guilted into keeping it going, even into stifling their own doubts in the face of scientific advancement? That's the only way I can explain it, and also, Americans tend to be ignorant.
Compared to other nations with anywhere near our creature-comfort level, aren't Americans still testing abysmally low in math, science, etc.? I'm pretty sure that's how any of these "creationist scientists" are able to continue making a living here.

It also bums me out when people give a god credit for their own good decisions, like staying clean or leaving an abusive boyfriend or whatever.

That makes a lot of sense, but how does it explain why the U.S. is one of the most religious countries in the world?

By the way, I work in a drug & alcohol rehab center based on AA and it breaks my heart to see so many sincere seekers for a higher power (who have, in their teens, doubted the existence of a Biblical god) return to that belief because of a few Christian 'subversives' in the organization. And, of course, they (the Christians) feel compelled by their God to do just that.

Torrey,
All those beliefs about heaven were formed back when life was short, dirty, painful, scary, and generally sucked. In places where life is still like that, religon has a stronger hold.
Malini, I hope your vision comes true.

Hallelujah Brother!
Cosmologically speaking, the chances of life existing on this planet are at least a billion to one. I'd call that a bloody miracle, and am ecstatically grateful that I've had the chance to hang around this incredible place for as long as I have. Just don't understand those who can't wait to go to Heaven.

Hi All!

The well wishing term “Reason’s Greetings” I learned from the discussion that originated after Sam Harris’ article “God’s Rottweiler Barks” was published.

If you read through that discussion/dialogue in SamHarris.Org, you will come across the origin of this statement.

I’m delighted that so many are joining in this discussion/dialogue on faith which is of vital importance for our own safety, survival and existence…today…tomorrow…and forever…

Any and everything associated with mankind has progressed, developed and changed from the ancient times except for faith. I strongly feel that the debates among all faiths will one day lead us to a completely civilized, understanding, tolerant, peaceful world… Lack of communication among the faiths, and their arrogance, pride, and stubbornness to listen to another’s point of view, has contributed to unimaginable devastation and destruction as we all experience today. We have lost respect and value for life… PERIOD…

It is high time we reevaluated our faiths and headed towards a spiritual direction that did not create any harm or destruction to anyone on this earth; and place value for life as the highest priority in every nation.

We all love our families, our freedom, and all the bounty that surrounds us… Let’s allow others to enjoy the same privileges too! After all, we all belong to the same human race… and share the same beautiful planet with its bounty. Let’s be fair, and just…

Season’s/Reason’s Greetings to all!

PS: Please keep talking and invite everyone into this discussion/debate/dialogue… as each and every life on this planet earth is precious, priceless, special, unique & irreplaceable.

Thanks!

Malini

Well, so much for my sabbatical. I was going to quiet down like Tammy was saying, but like her I just can't keep my mouth shut. I just jumped down the throat of somebody named Deacon John M. Bresnahan over on the "common ground" blog next door. Then I googled his name and got 12,600 references. He sounds like an important guy. I hope he doesn't beat me up.
So I came over here to huddle behind my friends and hold my little yellow blanket, and here you are having this cool talk and asking me stuff....
Yes, lets agree on where we can rendezvous just in case the cops raid this place.
Tammy, I'm sad to hear that you lost friends for reading a book. The revealing of how shallow and conditional that friendship was must have hurt. I have a motto on my office wall: "The truth shall set you free, but first it will make you miserable."

I just went to check it out again; it's proveyourgod.com (not "gods", plural)
There is a link to a blog on there, but it may not be as easy to use as this one, I'm not sure.

So much for listening more & talking less! I've actually created a montser(maybe). My husband posted his opinion on a "why men cheat" thing on yahoo earlier today.

Jason is right, that atheism doesn't teach people how to be good. Why do so many people need to be taught how to act?
What I propose is that so many people hold to religious beliefs for all the wrong reasons. We can't stand to lose our loved ones, so we pretend they live on forever; we commit unforgivable offenses, then we can't live with ourselves, so we pray to Jesus, who, of course, forgives us. It may seem hurtful to put it this way, but as we've all been witness to, religious dogma is the basis for a good many of the laws we in the U.S. are governed by. Why can't hunters in PA hunt on Sunday? It's the sabbath. Why can't Alain buy wine in UT on Sunday-sabbath. But for whom? Oh yeah, a select group of believers. The sabbath happens to fall on a different day for a different group, but to heck with those guys?
Absolutely not!Law-abiding Muslims should get to observe their sabbath, and Christians theirs, but there should be no legal, officially observed sabbath anymore. Not in a democracy.
Who says so? Our Constitution.
Torrey is right, about wanting the same respect as the religious, but you're not selfish, Torrey. It's our right.
Of course, this doesn't win me back any of the so-called friends I lost when I was seen reading a book titled "The End of Faith" a couple years back. I also don't pretend it's Sam Harris' fault if I don't fit in around here-I never did. I've always been caught reading "wierd"(i.e. nonfiction) books, and then having noone around to talk about it with.

Also, "Reason's Greetings" is a really good one! I'm still debating about the Festivus for the rest of us, though...

Richard W.-Your post from a couple nights ago, where you were worried that maybe we'll lose each other in cyberspace- don't worry. Did you check out Tom from the U.K.'s site proveyourgods.com? I thought I saw that he has a discussion board on there (somebody correct me if that's wrong).
Maybe we can meet up there if they kick us out of here. Check out that site anyways, if you haven't yet, it's got cool links on it. There's one called realrapture.com, which seems like a joke at first, until you realize that they mean it. I never knew.

Of course atheism isn't the answer. Has anyone claimed that it is? If I were god, I wouldn't do away with religion either -- there are millions and millions of people who wouldn't be able to function without it. At this moment, and from a very selfish point of view, I just want to be able to say, in public, that I'm an atheist (i.e., I do not believe that the God of the Bible exists) without being shunned, or worse.
I want the same respect that is presently afforded believers.

To me, the problem with faith is not epistemology.

The problem is that religion, as a promulgator of moral codes, requires or allows us to act in ways that can increase human suffering and reduce joy. We all know the examples: denying condoms promotes AIDS in Africa, teaching children to blow themselves up creates terrible suffering and loss.

Yet if we only argue against the faith that promotes bad courses of action, we haven't done enough. There are enough evil atheists and believers in the world driven by non-religious motivations, such as greed, anger or just a lack of empathy for their fellows.

Atheism by itself is not the answer. We still need to consider our fellow beings and our role in the world. These considerations don't have to come from our common mythologies, but they do have to come from somewhere. With or without references to the supernatural, we will still have to come to some agreements about individual rights and responsibilities and the definition of a good society.

We may have taken the shackles off our legs, but we still have a long way to go.

Torrey!
Is it kind-hearted? I mean, I want it to be, but good intentions aside, how it effects others is the test of that. Pam is right, I get wound up. Then I worry I've hurt someone's feelings. Time to calm down, breathe slowly and deeply, and let non-verbal things occupy my noisy mind. I may be lurking for a while, unless somebody says something I just cant leave alone. Alain, thanks for that amazing website! Too much to take in now.....Must rest ........ must........rest.
Alain, Tammy, Pam, Torrey, Ted and Ted, and so many others,
Thank you, all of you, my remarkable light-blue-and-black friends. Please keep the discussion going while I just listen.

Mirth on Earth.

Alain: I visited Edge.com and read Natalie Angier's 'My God Problem'. Her sense of humor is like Richard's, and her poke-in-the-eye-with-a-sharp-stick for all the atheist scientists who are silent on the subject of religion is very well aimed.

Richard -- whatever would I do without a daily dose of your fabulous (and kind-hearted) humor?
And to Malini: thanks for "Reason's Greetings" -- that's what my Christmas cards will say this year!

Hi Pam-It was a busy weekend, and I'll admit it, I'm not having any "deep thoughts", except I like Trish's Festivus idea, but it's already been taken!

Also, I tell my kids to listen more & talk less; maybe I should at least try to take my own advice.

Pam,
Not you, of course. There's just a couple of posters over there who seem to be receiving their information from Planet Kruton. I used to deal with disordered minds for a living, and now I just tire of it quickly. I won't ridicule them directly because that would be cruel. If my remarks about the dearly deranged are offensive, I apologize. I'll make no more such statements.

Hello Sam!

I hope you will receive the Noble Peace Price for your remarkable work!

Wishing you the best in your valiant attempt to rescue the world!

With love & Season's/Reason's Greetings to all,

Malini

Richard in referring to your message earlier, please define "fruitcake". Thanks

Yeah Tammy,
Your last post on 12-2 about holiday cards got me thinking:

How to be a Nice Atheist, installment 2

“Richard, we’ve got to get the Christmas cards sent out.”
“Ohhhhh, okaaaay.”……..(humbug)
So I pull out this big carton from the garage that has 27 pounds of old leftover Christmas cards. We buy them by the boxful to try to save some money, and we end up with leftovers. There are pretty ones and funny ones, but no really religious ones. Some say, “Merry Christmas,” or variants of that, some say, “Happy Holidays,” or variants of that, and a few odds and ends that mention Hanukah. The reason we have so many leftovers is because our family and friends fall into so many categories: Devout Christians, Not-too-heavy-Christians, Observant Jews, Unobservant Jews, Still-at-the-Zen-Center Buddhists, Drifting-around-ex-Buddhists, and of course the nice atheists.
Now comes the sorting of who gets what card. Some of the Devout Christians are getting touchy lately about sentiments that don’t mention the word, “Christmas.” The Not-too-heavy Christians are fine with anything except the Hanukah ones. The Observant Jews don’t complain, but we don’t want to send them one that does mention “Christmas.” The Unobservant Jews don’t seem to mind either way, but still it would be better that they get a Hanukah or “Happy Holidays” variant. The Zen Buddhists and the ex-Buddhists welcome any good wishes, though they know it’s all an illusion. Finally the nice atheists don’t care much one way or the other, but if we send them either kind of card, they might think I’m starting to get religion, and I wouldn’t want that. But I don’t want them to get nothing….
Then there’s the problem of whether or not we sent this person that card before. We don’t want to send anybody the same card twice. Most of them are pretty smart, and would remember a duplicate even if it was several years ago. Some of these cards are getting really old.
All this takes several hours, and I’m tempted to chuck the whole box in the fireplace and print up my own cards that say, “Wishing that you don’t get stuck in the snow while fighting the tiger shark feeding frenzy at the mall trying to find gifts for everybody who’s out getting stuff for you that you won’t like, and trying to avoid going broke in the process, in observance of whatever the heck holiday you celebrate, if any.”
But I don’t do that, because I’m a nice atheist.

For those interested, visit www.edge.org , very good debate ,including Sam Harris. Then we can comment.

Hi Torrey,

Great suggestion I have been using that page for a few days myself. It is much like this one. Sally is an atheist, however, she is searching right now. I believe that had much to do with creating this website.

TAMMY where are you??? Have you given up on us????

Torrey,
Yeah, I go over there once in a while. The streams of discussion are similar, but the level of vitriol can be pretty high, and I don't like that much fruitcake before Christmas.

I just tried another one of these discussions and had no trouble with speed. It was Sally Quinn's question about whether communication is possible when one side feels they're "absolutely right" (pardon my poor paraphrasing). The short bit I read sounds a lot like this discussion.

My laptop is the problem.

Torrey,
What is the problem some people are having getting to the bottom of the page? Alain is having trouble too. Do you have older computers that can't handle the large amounts of data? An hour to get down here? That's awful! How do you have to do it? It's instantaneous for me. I'm not bragging, I just want this site to work easily for everyone. Somebody said they'd written to the site managers about it, should we ask again? I don't understand this stuff. I'm from the analog generation.

If I use the down arrow key it takes forever, but don't you have an up-and-down bar thingy on the right edge of this window that you can click and drag down with your mouse? That takes about 3 seconds.

I've been away from the computer for a few days and this page is so slow that it's taken me an hour to get to the bottom (but it was worth it!). Richard, like you I hope Sam Harris will get a new photo! I almost didn't read the book because of that face. Also, I pushed 'end' as you suggested and had to start all over again (aaargh!).

I appreciate all of you so much -- please don't go away!

To Trish,
Yes, a kindness done just for the doing is preferable to one done to ingratiate a parent figure in the sky. Unfortunately, most people never grow up that far. They stop at Lawrence Kohlberg's lower stages of moral development, where they depend on reward or punishment, or at the very best a feeling that they have been "good." If you try to explain to them that a kindness can be done without a motive outside of itself, they look at you like you're nuts.

To Russ,
I ordered "The God Delusion" weeks ago, but it seems to have been waylaid. At my reading speed it will be several more weeks before I've read enough to make any comment.

To those who believe that truth, beauty, sharing, caring & so many virtues come only from religion, consider for a moment the world without a God or an afterlife whose joys or torments are dictated by God's command. Instead of having one's good deeds recorded & rewarded later [even if this reward is merely an avoidance of eternal torment]or one's misdeeds worked off in purgatory, if all we have is our brief little lives & our relationships with each other, what better motive would there be to be kind to everyone? Is not a kindness done just for how it makes the other person feel in that moment more moral than hoping that your kind act is some sort of cosmic Green Stamp that can be redeemed for shiny wings & a reserved space on a cloud?

Russell: I think you're so right about how secular societies have safely had the bomb for generations, but when it falls into the hands of a theocracy, we are in so much more danger! Look at the civilizations that have been destroyed by religions that didn't even have the bomb yet - Aztecs, Yanamamu, Native Hawaiian, etc, etc.

Maybe we should even start at Get Jesus out of December campaign - to increase the visibility of nonbelievers!

To Mark Deaton, who wrote movingly about his enjoyment of the "Christmas" season, as an atheist:

For decades, the Christians have been campaigning to "keep Christ in Christmas" and, more recently, getting all exercised when someone says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. Of course, winter celebrations with gifts, songs, stories & even decorated trees dragged indoors, did not flower out of the Life & Teachings of Jesus. All sorts of enjoyable practices were absorbed by Christians to make their takeover more palatable to conquered populations.

The problem the Christians have is that people keep slipping into the enjoyable, pagan parts of the holidays - gifts, parties, kissing, food & even drink. Even when all such are outlawed, for example, by the Puritans, they haven't been stamped out.

If you are an unbeliever & only enjoy the cultural bits, I say, be honest, be counted as an atheist and Get Jesus out of [your] December! Celebrate Saturnalia! Winter Solstice! or Festivus! Winter is cold & dark & gloomy - good excuses for parties & socializing. These are not religious practices & should not be abandoned just because one has abandoned religion.

Yes, I do think that cognitive dissonance plays a role. But there is something about the existential terror of the temporariness of life. It seems to be the primary burden of consciousnesss.

Have you read Dawkins new book, "The God Delusion." I would like to get your thoughts on his take on the roots of religious belief.

'There is a secular fundamentalism as well. Fascism ring a bell? To write religious discussion and faith off as "the problem" is to ignore the same level of vehement, unresolvable disagreements from a secular point of view.'

Sorry, no. Fascism is not an atheistic movement - for example, in Germany, it straddled Catholic & Protestant portions of German society. Unbelievers were not permitted to join the SS.

But faith is not the issue. Dogma is. To live together in peace requires acceptance, tolerance and change. An ideology that cannot accept diffences, tolerate disagreement and change after mistakes is one that cannot bring peace - No matter WHAT that ideology is. Whether we be Atheist, Christian, Muslim or Jew, Democrat or Republican, Capitalist or Socialist, an unwavering dedication to an unchangeable belief is a rejection of peace.But faith is not the issue. Dogma is. To live together in peace requires acceptance, tolerance and change. An ideology that cannot accept diffences, tolerate disagreement and change after mistakes is one that cannot bring peace - No matter WHAT that ideology is. Whether we be Atheist, Christian, Muslim or Jew, Democrat or Republican, Capitalist or Socialist, an unwavering dedication to an unchangeable belief is a rejection of peace.

So, if a person's belief is that a law-abiding but unbelieving person should be destroyed, that must be tolerated? Sounds awfully dangerous to me. Criminals firmly believe that the property,& even the very lives, of others, are theirs to dispose of. The law tries hard to disabuse them of this notion. Even with non-criminals, a rational, civil society needs to confront beliefs that affect the peaceful, healthy lives of others. A person can't just build an outhouse in a watershed - no matter how sincerely he believes the county commissioners overstate the potential harm to the water table. He may run for office, initiate a petition to change the law, apply for a zoning variance, or move to a county that permits outhouses. A civil society is more than just a collection of individuals & their various beliefs. The problem with faith-based beliefs & behaviors, is that those who hold them tend to be very intolerant of attempts to improve the human condition, scientific progress & social progress, on the theory that an immortal & incommunicado being might object. Rather than making rational decisions based on physical evidence to create the maximum health, happiness & productivity of all people, believers would have us decide which technology or social reform to accept or reject by attempting to retrofit ancient writings to either approve or damn the project. We might as well flip a coin.

Russ,
I wonder if for some people, fear of mortality is less dreadful than fear of being wrong. It may be very difficult for some people to admit to themselves that they have been dedicating enormous amounts of time, effort and money to a false cause, and that they have negatively affected others in the name of that cause. Did any of the people whom you asked describe chagrin as one of the main obstacles to letting go of their belief? For myself, the pain of, "How could I have been so stupid?" was blunted by humor, which has great healing properties. To see one's own foolishness, and then chuckle instead of cringe, is growth, but not everyone has that ability readily available.

Your other idea is hopeful, that the recent lunacy could be a tipping point toward more rationalism in the Islamic world. I really hope you're right, but broad changes like that have enormous collateral damage; witness the persecution of intellectuals and professionals in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, who, if they can, are emigrating to the West in large numbers. That reduces the number of potential rational thinkers to appeal to those in their own countries. Eventually all who are left may be the extremists and those who are easily lead. Some processes are self-accelerating rather than self-limiting.

Here you can see the roller coaster of my opti-pessimism. Weee!

'"In science, it is a cardinal sin to pretend to know something that you do not know."

And yet, we do all the time. Worse, favored hypotheises become entrenched dogma that require great efforts to change. Changing the date of American immigration and tossing out the Clovis theory took years with many pro-Clovis scientists adamnent that they were correct. I have seen many times when such and such a discovery has been declared the first without the disclaimer of "known" (e.g., the first "known" piece of writing, etc.).

Science requires a lot of faith and in the end, I think we'll find God to the Scientist. It's not a matter of "intelligent design" it's a matter of what existence is.'

And yet, those corrections were eventually made. This is not because scientists maintained "faith" in old theories. It was the product of very human flaws - inertia, taking the word of "experts" over the word of novices, not investigating matters once they are "settled".

But the main difference between the defending of an eventually-supercseded scientific theory & faith is this: scientists defend theories where they have seen evidence that makes the claims seem reasonable to them - they don't just say "this must be right" on the word of a 2000 year old document.

Richard; I struggle with this one as well. I ask people who have broken free of religious belief systems just what it was that led them to reject something they were likely taught from birth, and under pain of everlasting damnation no less! They generally give me some version of the "mounting untenability" problem, as in, "I could kind of swallow this, and then maybe this, but when it finally got to THAT, I just realized what a house of cards it all is. And if THIS religion is a house of cards, and this other one is based on the same foundation, then it all came down for me." I think that maybe the (only) postive thing that can come from some of the outrageous acts that are carried out by Islamists, along with the accompanying "justifications" (like making it possible for the Mahdi to climb out of the well, or the 72 virgins thing), will cause some number of people to recognize the modern equivalent of medievel christian thought and mount the stairs of "untenability." But, it is some kind of powerful thing, this fear of mortality.

To Russ McGrady,
You capsulize my concerns succinctly. I just wish Harris and the rest of us could come up with practical solutions that people could and would actually apply to step back from this lethal insanity. We're all in agreement that our house is on fire. We've argued over whose fault it is, and may never agree completely on that, but what about putting out the frikkin' fire? I have no ideas, does anybody have any?

Pam,
I didn't yet say congratulations on your 20 years of recovery. That is no small thing. It is very rare. 12-step programs are a pertinent example of where people with differing beliefs can set unimportant details aside and cooperate for a mutual benefit. They're also an example of how one can concentrate on spiritual needs without getting bogged down in religious dogma. Recovering people have much to teach the rest of the world about the benefits of humility. As you say, they practice acceptance and respect. You were uncomfortable with the word "God' in the program, but you went anyway, and it works. Everyone else welcomes you back regardless, because doing that works. It's beautifully pragmatic.
You wondered if such a program would work for the masses. I sadly doubt it. That level of humility is usually reached only through humiliation. Life can be tough anywhere, but it's their level of "pitiful and incomprehensible demoralization" that makes recovering people willing to give up the beliefs that separated them from others. If humanity as a whole is ever going to give up dogmatic religion, it may have to go through deep humiliation. It may be that the world will have to be terribly devastated by religious conflict, and the few survivors will support each other in swearing it off. The slower way would be to just to grow up as a species.

My story is similar to page 315.

Sam Harris speaks for every person who is growing increasingly alarmed at the primary threat of our present age; the combination of competing irrational and apocalyptic belief systems with access to ever more powerful weaponry. The only reason that we have somewhat more to fear from the Islamic world is because they maintain closer fidelity to the full content of the Koran than Jews and christians do the Old Testament. Bravo, Mr. Harris.

Discussion board for you Richard, blogging for me. Sorry Richard but since so many other have given uo on this page I have no one else to pick on today. Or no "where" else to express my opinions.

I have read many of the other pages and you are correct about them "YUCK". This one is by far the least evil of the discussions.

And I do hate to break this news to you but I have blogged often and it does seem to just end.

I am curious what Meacham & Quinn will do with all of this information and if they are monitoring this site at all. It sure doesn't look like it. They could set it up so people can only type 300 characters at a time and that would limit the long winded.

Have a good day :-)

Thanks Alain,
I sometimes swing wildly from giddy hope to black despair reading other posts on other threads; they can be so loving and reconciling, or so forbidding and aloof, and all of them so convincing. But what you are saying reminds me that there's the rest of my life going on too. I need to lighten up a little, and I can do that without being apathetic, or glib, or oblivious. Over the years people have told me that I can be so intense that they get overwhelmed. Any new way of interacting I tend to over-do, like Tammy said about finding she's getting addicted to other people's opinions. I find there are so many things I've neglected to express, and so few receptive ears, that the floodgates burst open when I find some people who have both sharp minds and open hearts.

That is why I joke around so much. It's a big part of my spiritual practice. Really I'm not kidding. Yes, the guy who wants to be free of all believing has a spiritual practice. For many years I was engaged in an earnest pursuit of enlightenment through zen buddhism. I thought it was about "seeing the light," about perceiving reality in a new light, about becoming no longer blind. Some time after abandoning all that, I gradually realized that in my case, "enlightenment" wasn't about light, it was about weight. I had to lighten up! To not take everything soooo seriously, and most especially not take myself so seriously. Whenever I've regretted doing or saying something, it's been when I have been taking myself too seriously. And if something isn't serious, it's usually funny. I needed to develop my sixth sense, my sense of humor. So I try to sense the humor in every situation and interaction, as grim as some can be. Sometimes there's a lot, always there's at least a little. If you look at sculptures of the Buddha at the moment of his enlightenment, the best ones, you'll see this subtle little smirk around the corners of his mouth. It's like he's just about to start cracking up.
So for me, making fun of things isn't about distancing or staying above things, or trying to be cruel by ridicule, it's about really delving into things, and seeing the healing, liberating, enlightening humor that's in there.

Oh, about this thread getting too long to read easily. I don't know what the issue with your system is, but look over on the right side of your keyboard. If it's like mine there's a key labeled "end." I was always afraid to push that. It sounded so final. But I held my breath and closed my eyes and pushed it, and suddenly was at the bottom of the page, with the last posting just above me. It doesn't matter how long the page is, I'm instantly there. Try it.

Hey Richard, I am here !

I am going to watch a French movie, Don Juan, on DVD, in a few minutes. An other non-believer !
I just would like to comment on your point about the thread dying down. First of all, it is becoming difficult to read it with so many comments. Second, we live in a fast-society, we like it or not, fast food, quick fixes (Lose 30 pounds, 5 minutes a day in 30 days !) and quick news turnover. Blame it on new technology, Internet, cell phones , etc.. but there is so much to do, so many opportunities, that spending a little bit of time to read and think about faith, life in general, is not a priority. It is too bad but it is a fact. Actually, I think the all forum on faith, after an initial boom, will dry up significantly until something big happens, something which attracts people, like a scandal (Foley) or terrorist threat and so forth.
It is unfortunate because those events, most of the time, do not impact much our life. So talking about the rule of Law, how the Supreme Court can influence our life, this is not appealing.
But that should not influence what WE can do. I care less and less aobut what the others do or should do , I focus on what I can do. And what I can do is to keep me informed, share ideas with others , on different media, live my life intensely, in all aspects, including the underated "intellectual" one.
Keep up the good work. I enjoy your comments.

I took a peek at the 4 questions on the main page of “On Faith,” started by Crossman, Waldman, Taylor, and Stephanopoulos. They all have very few responses so far. Interesting questions, but the responses look like a dog fight. Yuck. They’re spitting each other’s biblical and koranic scripture at each other, chapter and verse, snarling and growling. “Your book says this terrible thing!” “Oh yeah? Well your book says that terrible thing!” I wonder if all the question threads, or whatever they’re called, start this way. There was a lot more tension early in this one, but it remained respectful. Where did everybody go? For the last 4 days only we 4 or 5 have continued talking. Maybe discussion threads or whatever they’re called age and mellow until there’s just a handful of like-minded folks who’ve outlasted everyone else, and their posts become more about each other than addressing the original question. And maybe that’s okay, but how does one of these question pages die, anyway? How and when do the people running this decide to kick us out and turn off the lights? And if they do, will we ever meet again in cyberspace? I’m already fond of you. (Hope I’m not getting too sappy.) I still have things I’d like to talk about with you, but also with others. Maybe some new input would benefit us.

YOOHOO!! ANY LURKERS OUT THERE IN THE DARK?
COME OVER INTO THE BLUE LIGHT AND SAY HI.
HELLOOOOO!

Come over and say something. Introduce yourselves. Don’t be afraid. Just type a nickname and type “Here,” or something so we know there’s more than just the handful of us. I won’t press you. I’m just curious who’s out there.

Hey, I'm not addicted. I could stop blogging any time I want. I just don't want to.

Incidentally, I've been told that technically this thing is not a "blog." It's a "discussion board." I'm so new at this, what do I know?

Alain,

This statement in your last post struck me and explained exactly how I feel. "I was "visited" by LDS missionaries and Jeovah witnesses and we had great conversations. One of the Jehovah witness confessed to me that he felt I had more freedom than himself, because of my lack of dogma. And this is how I feel, free." I was never able to explain the feeling exactly but often when I would be in the company of others and the discussion of their religion came up and they would get into this long drawn out talk about all they were responsible to do in the name of their "wonderful" religion I would just sit there and think. GOD I am glad I don't have to go through all of that. I suppose it is a feeling of freedom in that sense.

Does that sound selfish????? Maybe Oh Well And yes Alain I hope you stick around also.

Richard, I suggest you go to more of those blogging 12 step meetings. You are certainly wound up today. I will look forward to your new book!!!!

Tammy I certainly understand your husbands concern about you not using your full name. Unfortunately this world is not the same as it was years ago in so many ways. While we have this wonderful new toy to play with (or in Richards case to be addicted to)it can be dangerous. By the way I lived in PA my entire life until I retired and moved South.

Later All

Richard, I can't wait to read the rest of your book!
(maybe you could sell your old sign on ebay)

I'll tell you what I do, though- my holiday cards(I make them myself) always say "Peace" or "Smile", or "Warmest Wishes" or something. We can kave fun keeping them guessing!

How to be a Nice Atheist, installment 1
"Richard, could you put up the Christmas lights and set up the tree while I'm at the market? It makes me happy."
"Ohhhhh, okaaaay." (muttering "humbug" under my breath)
So I set up all the Christmas geegaws inside and out without complaing the way I usually do. And this year, just to be a nice athiest, I remove the sign from the front door wreath that says, "Pagan symbol displayed for traditional purposes only; no religious affiliation implied."
This year I'm going to be a nice atheist. If the neighbors mistakenly assume I'm a Christian, so what? Screw 'em.
(muttering "humbug" under my breath.)

Thank you friends for your responses. I need your clarification and encouragement. Please continue on this subject as things come up for you. Here's a true story:
My wife and I vacationed in Alaska a few years ago. We were sitting in the hotel lobby in Anchorage, waiting for a tour bus, when a group of about 30 middle-aged men and women came in, laughing and talking cheerfully, waiting for their own bus. Their good mood was contagious and we smiled back at them. I started up a conversation with one woman and learned that they were all members of the same church somewhere in the Midwest and they had pooled their money to take a tour of Alaska as a group. I said that was very nice and they seemed to be having fun. She laughed and said yes they were, and then she asked us if we were members of a church. I nicely and lightly said "No."

"Oh."

Suddenly the mood changed for everyone in the group. It was as if the hotel doors opened and the arctic blast blew in, freezing everything solid. It was the same sudden silence that falls in the saloon when the Black Bart walks in. They drifted away from us without another word. I looked at my wife and her mouth had dropped as far as mine had. It was one of the most astonishing things I'd ever seen. I just said "No," with no negative attitude or tone. I didn't say I'm a godless, nun-raping, church-burning atheist. I can only hope that that reaction is not common.

The point is that I have to keep my side of the street clean. If I want people to let go of their prejudice against unbelievers, I have to resist forming prejudices of my own from experiences like that.

Since Harris and Dawkins have the "religion is bunk" thing sewn up, maybe I'll write a book called, "How to be a Nice Atheist."

Hello and thanks to Tammy for your validation. I am quite an interesting person to be sure.

Richard, let me say that my experience with fear has been that one's bigotry is a result of "fear". If you are able to dig down under with someone who has bigoted opinions. Often when you get into a discussion with why someone is that way you will find that "fear" is at the root of those feelings. We have a tendancy to fear what we don't understand. For an example the Muslim faith. The majority of people that I see make decisions about Muslims because of the fear they feel for the radicals of that faith. If they were to work through the fear they would most certainly find out that Muslims/Christians/Jews and all others are the same as the rest of us. The majority of people in this world are good, responsible and loving people. That fear keeps one from finding that out. That fact is also true with situations in life as well as people. We fear what we don't know. I have a saying for people that have a fear problem. FEEL THE FEAR AND DO IT ANYWAY. Chances are you will be amazed at the outcome. This does take courage but is usually well worth it.

I have never been afraid of much as far as sharing my beliefs. My sister is an athesist so I have no problem discussing by lack of beliefs with her. However, most of my closest friends as you might imagine are people in the program so that is also not a problem.

Since we don't walk around with signs on our backs as to our faith or lack of it as Tammy said in one of her earlier posts. No one says Hi I am an athesist when introduced to a new person.

Many have had courage in "coming out" on this website and it may well be the first step in feeling more comfortable doing that with others in their life. After all if we can take the torment on here from people that want to "change" us we can learn to brave the outside world.

Richard,
Thanks for your concern, but do not worry ! I am not suicidal ! What I meant is that I do not want to live in fear of what could happen, because of my ideas. I want my life to be as open as possible, and live with the consequences. As I said, in this country, despite the rethoric, you can live pretty much as you wish, under the rule of Law and the protection of the Constitution.
But now I am surprised to see that many "non-believers" are afraid to express their ideas in public or even with their families. I think that if you are not aggressive about if, you can express your point of view to almost anybody.
I was "visited" by LDS missionaries and Jeovah witnesses and we had great conversations.
One of the Jehovah witness confessed to me that he felt I had more freedom than himself, because of my lack of dogma. And this is how I feel, free.
So, no, I am not leaving !
And I am not hiding my ideas, either, regardless of the consequences. This is what I meant.
Once again, thanks for caring.

Alain,
"and maybe not live at all?"
That sure got my attention. Are you ok?
Some crappy things have been done to non-believers in this country. Fight back, definitely. Move away, maybe. But check out?
Please stay.

Ok, answer my own question.
Firstly, I don't feel brave using my name here. I was a little dismayed to find how common a name it is. Well over a hundred in my state alone. So it's still anonymous, just not to me.

I don't openly discuss these issues with my Baptist brother, or my just-be-a-good-person mom. That's just to keep the peace, and I think it is tacitly a mutual decision. We talk and laugh about other things. My grandfather said, "To keep your friends, don't discuss politics or religion." My wife believes there may be something, but she's okay with me thinking there's probably not. Most of my friends are science types, so it's a comfortable position that needs not be discussed. Everybody just thinks of me as a skeptical smartass. I have one very good friend who thinks exactly as I do, and his wife is similar to my wife. We discuss issues around these things often. Without him I'd feel very alone. That's why I'm loving this discussion so much. I'm finding several people who think similarly to me, as well as a few people who disagree but are still respectful and not defensive.

So by not seeking confrontation I haven't encountered much negativism directly, with the exception of an occasional psychotic getting in my face once in a while. However, I have overheard and read of stereotypes against non-believers; that we're criminal types, or selfish, or self-centered, or conceited, or uncaring, or downright evil. But there are jerks like that in every group. The atheists and agnostics whom I know are loving, kind, courteous, generous and compassionate. I wouldn't hang around them if they weren't.

The problem is that bigotry is very hardy and tenacious. A bigot can meet someone who doesn't fit their negative stereotype, and he'll just rationalize that that one is an exception to the rule. After meeting a dozen more nice ones, he's still saying those are exceptions to the rule. It isn't a rational process.
I'll just have to gradually take more chances at being who I am and be patient with the outcome from others. That sounds pretty wimpy and passive now that I've written it, but I don't know how to speed up positive change without it backfiring.

To Richard Wade

I have no problem being open with my agnosticsm. Living in Salt Lake City, I am certainly in the minority but I have never encountered real animosity or aggressivness. Actually, I found out that some people share my views. It is true that my view on God is not easy to attack, really, because I have none ! I think everything is possible , including a creator. But it is not likely, and I live my life godless. But what I am trying to do with all kind of people is ,rather than arguing about esoteric matters, to find some points of agreement, like being a good citizen, a good parent, a good son, and so forth. Those are the real issues. How do we live our lives, how do we respect other people? This is what matters to me. Unfortunately, I see too much of the rethoric on those forums about why we shoul believe, or not. But what about spending some time on the real issues, our future on this planet.
To conclude about fear, I will use this quote from master Shakespeare:

"Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once.
Of all the wonders that I yet have heard,
It seems to me most strange that men should fear;
Seeing that death, a necessary end,
Will come when it will come.
Julius Cæsar. Act ii. Sc. 2.

And , honestly, if someone , in the United States, is harrassed or even even worse, because he is a non-believer, then I am not sure I want to live in this country, and maybe not live at all !

One more thing- I've had the nerve to talk really openly to 3 christians I love deeply about why I doubt the existence of god, and they are my true friends, ya know the family you choose for yourself.

Good people will come together whether they believe the word "virgin" was mistranslated in some old books or not.

Pam is very brave to use her name; so are you, Richard. I used my name only after I'd seen quite a few others on this post who seemed more like me & less like, for instance, the comic store guy on the Simpsons-ya know the nasty stereotype that bloggers are fat, greasy losers.
I also thought, like you, that it would keep me honest&nice, as if we were talking face to face.
I hate to admit it, but I also really couldn't come up with a cool enough nickname to suit myself.
My husband thinks we're foolish and that we should use nicknames to keep ourselves safe. He wishes I would've kept my ID a secret. He agrees with us but thinks it's a mostly useless conversation. He also hasn't read these posts, but once he does, he'll understand why we're still talking like this. I was telling him about Pam, and how brave I think she is. He thinks so, too, but when it comes to me, he can't stand it. I'm the mom of his kids after all, and he feels responsible for my safety. He does not care who knows we aren't religious- he's actually becoming rather defiant about it. I pity the fool who would come dorkin' around this house!

Dearest Pam,
You honor us with your candor. Identifying yourself in any way is not a thing to be taken lightly. I considered using a nickname when I started blogging here, but I decided, just in my case, that that wouldn't encourage me to stay honest. Being faceless and placeless makes it tempting enough to BS others. So I use my real name, and if there are screwballs lurking out there who want to do me harm, they come at their own peril. (To all you who use nicknames or initials, I don't imply that you're being less than honest; you're probably wiser to do so.)

You bring up so many pertinent things in your last post that I'm not going to try responding to all of them at once. I'll get back to the others later, but this thing about names brings up one issue I think we should spend some time on: Fear.

Non-believers, whether agnies, athies, or whateveries face a real risk in this country to be frank or candid about their opinions. There have been some shocking cases of persecution recently, which most of you have probably read about. Given the choice of announcing in a town hall that I'm an atheist, or walking into a biker bar and yelling, "You're all fa***ts," I'd seriously consider the latter as less dangerous. I found the results of a survey somewhere on the net that said more people would vote for a gay presidential candidate than an atheist candidate. I'm not sure how valid that survey was, but perhaps it's on the right track.

Just this afternoon I caught the last couple of minutes of an interview on NPR radio that included Richard Dawkins and several distinguished-sounding representatives of religious groups, (whose names I couldn't write down fast enough.) Dawkins was addressing negative stereotypes often applied to atheists, and he did a pretty good job of debunking them. He also said he's convinced that there are many more unbelievers in this country than we know about, because the hostile environment keeps them quiet.

My question to my fellow infidels is, what fear/anxiety/hesitation do you have to be open in public, or with friends or family about your lack of belief, and what negative stereotypes have you personally encountered or heard of? The point of doing this would be to find ways to disabuse the public of these misconceptions and to encourage each other to participate more in public debate.

Happy Friday! It's so good to hear from you, Pam. I knew there was something interesting about you from your other posts. I tend to think people who quote the most have the least to say.

Thanks also, Louise, for contacting the Post.

TO RICHARD WADE:

First let me start out by saying that I love and very much appreciate your sense of humor which I feel is much needed on this blog. Many , far too many, lack humor in their endless ranting and raving (I apologize to those of you that find that comment insulting). I took the opportunity of reading this website hoping to learn and learn I have.

I think the site has allowed brave atheists, agnostics to speak up and share their non-beliefs. Of course as always it has opened us up to much condemnation. Oh well, I am used to that.

Richard, I had decided to stop posting (not because of you jumping down my throat on another blog) as I had not even read that comment until this morning after reading your last post. I felt as though I really did not have anything useful to add to this discussion at this point in time. I am tired of reading page after page of people quoting from books and bibles. I wanted to hear more of “why” and “how” people came to believe in whatever it was they believed in. Instead of that I heard intellectual arguments that made no sense to me.

I will apologize for hiding my identify by using a “screen name” but I am a woman living alone in what often turns out to be a weird world with very scary people in it. Especially when dealing with people on the net. If I continue posting it will be with my real name as above as I am going to come out of the closet with this one and open myself up to whatever people may say or NOT say concerning my beliefs.

I am a recovering alcoholic for some 20 years now. I live by the 12 Steps of AA which also has it own book we call the Big Book of AA. See RICHARDS post for more details on how the meetings work. He hit the nail on the head with his last post.

To all you intellectual and educated people I do respect and am sometimes a little in awe that I spent my time becoming street smart rather than being educated. However, I will say that I am probably as wise in the ways of the world as you are because I learned all I know the hard way.

I lost 7 years in my recovery life because I refused to go to AA because their pamphlets had the word GOD in them. I told a friend that if they ever invented a program without GOD in it I might think about going. Well, when one gets to the point in life that I did even the word GOD becomes an insufficient reason for not attending.

So here I am 20 years later still trying to decide if I believe. What I believe! I am still a member in good standing of AA regardless of my beliefs. We are everywhere. In every country and made up of people from all walks of life, doctors, lawyers, and indian chiefs. We are college professors, police, firemen, and on and on and on. We all get along. We accept others whatever they believe. It is amazing and yes whatever you believe it does work for us to simply respect that person and accept them. I seems so easy to us and maybe that is why I have this belief that it can work for all the world if they could just understand those two simple words ACCEPTANCE AND RESPECT.

Yes, we say it is a simple program for complicated people That may be the reason it would not work in theory for the masses.

OR WOULD IT?????

FYI

I sent a mail to the post and they are looking into fixing the format of this page ! :-)

Hi Ted et al,
I guess once it's said it's said :-)

It's the Canadian, Anonymous, lurker extraordinaire. I'm still here, still reading, still waiting watching and wondering.

Unfortunately the length of this page is probably one reason many have not re-posted; tis a grave shame because the many posts are all interesting and thought-provoking.

Unfortunately also (fortunately?), I am out of thoughts !!! You've all summarized, re-capped, re-phrased and done whatever else one can do on a subject. I guess the thoughts and words may permeate into society and transpose into something bigger, greater, better, real - but I also guess that we've just had a great discussion over a great book and society and humankind will go on buying Christmas presents, crediting their non-alcoholic ways to the Church, (never got that one), battling holy wars, and praying, praying, praying, for salvation.

And me, I'm still a die-hard tolerant. People is who people is. They're the only people we know.

peace
Louise

Good point, Gale.
Since all religions are minorities, it does look like whatever the "true" god is, he's not doing so well. Hence the need for the invention of the devil to explain such a poor performance record. However, being a minority means you can be part of an elite, a select few, like the Elect of the Puritans. Being special has a strong appeal to people. "Act now, while supplies last! This is not available in any store. For only $19.95 and your lifelong dedication you too can be among the lucky few to enter into heaven! (Offer void where prohibited.)

Oh, and at least one religion likes to compare themselves to sheep.

I have always found it amusing that christians were so unbelieveably lucky to have happened to be born into a family that lived in a country that practiced the only "real" religion. Islamics also were also amazingly lucky to have been born into a family that lived in a country that practiced the only "real" religion. Jews likewise. Hindus likewise.......what a coincidence! You don't suppose that if per chance a christian were to have been born into an Islamic family that Islam would have been the only "real" religion to them, do you? Nahhhh, couldn't be. After all there not sheep!

Good day to you all.
The residual small group of contributors to this forum is behaving as it should. Courteoue, mutually supportive and open-minded. I do have quite bit more to say myself but have a very busy family day and will have to call in later.

Stay well, . . Ted . .

"Hi everybody, my name's Richard and I'm a blogaholic."
"Hi Richard!"
"Thank you for letting me share. It has been 10 hours since I last blogged."
(applause)
"Of course, to be honest that's because I was asleep. It all started innocently enough, when Sam Harris sent me a link to a discussion website called, 'On Faith.'"
(knowing murmers)
"Well, I'd never done anything like that before, but within a few hours I was hooked. I was blogging morning , noon and night. At first I was spoiling for a good fight and an opportunity to be sarcastic, which sad to say, I love doing. But then I met these thoughtful, complicated people and I didn't feel so alone any more. Problem is, it has become problem blogging and I'm neglecting my family and my job.
(more knowing murmers)
"So what I have to do is to find a balance and use some discipline. I'm going to work now, even though my thoughts will be with my fellow bloggers. I hope they understand that my absence is temporary. The thread has taken on a life of its own beyond the parameters of the original question, and I'm sure they will continue it in a positive direction until I get back and can be sarcastic again. Thank you for letting me share."
(applause)

Oh, and if Beachwoman is out there, please come back. I'm sorry I jumped down your throat on that other blog. I miss your contributions.

Tammy, very easy answer, indeed: read with them "Rhinoceros" from Ionesco. I know there is an english translation because I have it. It is a wonderful parabol about "resistance" to the herd mentality, whatever that herd is. Ionesco wrote it with communism and nazism in mind, but it sure applies to the current situation in the world.
Let's not "capitulate" and keep a strong will to resist, peacefully, mind you.

There are too many posts on here, but here goes one more-why not? I never thought I'd want to talk to strangers on the internet, and now it seems I'll never shut up.

Richard W.-The really sad thing is, I do have lots of better things to do, and I find myself checking back here anyways. I can't believe I've become addicted to other people's opinions! I'm glad you asked TB last night about those names he mentioned, because I wondered, too, but was too chicken.I hate to feel dumb.
Anyways, you guys are so funny. TB thought he came off like a jerk (I never thought so), and Alain apologized for a "rant". I've read some rants lately, and sorry, Alain, you weren't even close. I hope you can live with yourselves (again, harhar). I live in PA, in the same time zone as this post. I just thought you might be interested to know we can't buy wine or hard liquor on Sundays, either, but beer's okay now for some reason('cause it's the drink of choice for Rhinos, maybe?)

The point is, I never knew there were agnostic Catholics, or French agnostics in Utah. Like Torrey, I think I've learned more from reading these posts than from the big-time atheists I've been reading, whose words & influence have been immeasurable. Tonio is right on, too, about spiritual experiences. If we can somehow share our knowledge with religionists(for lack of a better term), we'd be on our way to collectively figuring things out. It does seem that we're becoming less like those blind guys with the elephant.

Many of us have been wondering what we should do next. Well, I'm raising my kids not to be rhinos, for one thing, and maybe I'll start a book club or something. If you can, start a "church" of your own, where good intentions and freethinking are the objects of worship.

So, my question is addressed to anyone reading this. What would be the first book you'd read with your hypothetical book club?
By the way, Richard W.- if you're really dyslexic, I don't know what the heck my excuse is.

I would be surprised if this article hasn't garnered the most comments of anything here in OnFaith.

In an interview with The Sun magazine, Harris made an excellent point when he said "we have not learned to talk about the contemplative live in terms that do not endorse a particular religious ideology." In the case of Buddhism, Harris urged adherents to "talk about what the human mind is like, what the potential for happiness is, and what are some reasonable approaches to seeking happiness in this world."

All of us should be able to talk about these things without dogma. Dogma is the problem, whether we're talking about religion or whether we're talking about "political religions" such as communism or fascism.

Just a technical issue, here. Does naybody know if we can contact the Faith Forum to create a new thread because it is getting difficult to go to the bottom of the 550 comments ? Thanks

Couldn't sleep. Oh, hi Torrey, you up too?

Anyway, Good morning everybody! We had a lively evening last night. In blog land I met some nice people with whom I share no common spiritual belief, and yet we got along fine. In fact we agreed we'd fight for the other's right to believe or not believe. (I'm not gonna sing "cum ba ya," I promise!)
One thing that came up for me is that it's okay not to agree with everything Sam Harris says, and okay not to disagree entirely either. For instance, one thing that bugs me is his foaming-at-the-mouth tone. He sounds so pissed off it's a little off putting. He emailed me an article a few weeks ago with the unfortunate title, something like, "An Atheist's Manifesto." Anyone remember that? Now, I'm suspicious of anything called a manifesto, no matter what else it says. I agreed with much of it in principle, but it sounded so angry, I thought I was back at work in the psych ward.
My point is, as several others have said, that this discussion can only go forward if we avoid the God is/is not cul-de-sac. I suggest, as others have that we concentrate on finding practical ways of diffusing anger, dispelling misconceptions, and teaching respect within disagreement. I'm getting too tired to be more articulate than that, but maybe someone can figure out what I mean and take it from there.
And can anybody tell Sam to get a new picture? That one is creepy. It looks like a mug shot of an axe murderer.

First I want to thank Richard Wade for some great laughs! I have been incredibly impressed with the graciousness (with minor exceptions) that is evident on this site. Thirty years ago I attended a meeting of American Atheists in Salt Lake City (wave to Alain) and was disappointed with the level of cynicism and negativity exhibited there. So for thirty years I have not wanted an association with other atheists. The conversation here has 'renewed my faith' (sorry) in my fellow non-believers. I think I've learned more here than I learned from Sam and Richard combined (and that was a lot!).

Alain--
Hey, you're right. That comment of mine was not conducive to dialogue. As someone who sets up Socratic seminars in my high school classes, I should've known better.

Very good point about the content of discussion on this site.

Regarding the last question, let me get back to you.

okay, good night!
--Ted

P.s. Richard, thanks for not thinking I'm a complete jerk

No, Alain , although French ,lives in Salt Lake City ! So no problem with time zones.
TB. My rant was not personal. You sound like a very reasonable person. It was more about the style, which I consider important, because it facilitates or kills the spirit of exchange of ideas. When I read things like "case closed", or your question/answer, I do not think it favors dialogue.
Also, I have reached a point, some time ago, where I decided that debating an issue, especially as sensitive as faith, was not very productive. I do not think this forum, especially this panel, should argue about the existence of God, which religion is best and so forth. But rather, how we all can live together, keeping our own belief system. I have no intention of convincing anybody that I am right. And this is for two reasons: First, I am not sure that I am right, being a skeptic and an agnostic, second, I realize that faith can be part of a mental support mechanism and I do not think I have a right to attack that faith.
I am only concerned about not letting religion influences our life styles. Freedom of religion, yes, by any means, but also freedom from religion. Why should I be limited in my freedom by religious beliefs in which I do not believe. I am for freedom of choice, as long as we do not harm others. Why can't I buy wine on Sundays in Utah or Kansas? This must sound trivial but it is an example of how a religious dogma limits my freedom. There are , obviously, many other examples, more complicated, such as abortion rights, assisted suicides, gay marriages, evolution teaching and so forth. I think this is the kind of issues that we should address, in this forum. Nobody is going to convince me that God exists or not. I decided that I will probably never know and I can live with this.
I just would like to come back to real life. Who should decide the rules of Law? On what basis?

TB,
Thanks for the info, and for your graciousness. I didn't think your comments were jerko; actually they were funny in their truthfullness. I'll be looking up these people, if there's anything to find. Until then, I should attend to my family, and get some sleep. Goodnight.

Richard--
Thanks for your perspectives.
This is my first time doing this sort of thing in a long time, and while I still question Mr. Harris's findings, I did make some jerko ( I won't cuss on the net) comments. My apologies.

Back in days of yore, when I was a mullet-wearing Lucky lager swilling undergrad at Santa Barbara, these were 3 internationally regarded profs in their field: Chagnon, for anthropology, Smart, for religion, and Walter Capps, a wildly popular religious studies professor who taught courses on monasticism and the Vietnam experience. Throw in Harold Drake for Ancient History. OK--this list is starting to sound silly.

The point is that I've come across--or read--lots of reasonable people who either practice a religion (or discipline), or at least respect, in a thoughtful way, the experience of those who do. And reasonable people who do practice a faith show that religion can add improve the lives of people, can add value to this broken world.

Armstrong, Crossan and others would fall into this group. I wonder what a conversation with Sam Harris would look like, let's say, among a more mixed crowd, let's say, a Jim Wallis or a Helen Prejean.

Take care,
Ted

Tammy? Freed? Ted? TB? Hello?...lo?...lo?...lo?

It could be just the effect of blogging on a round planet. I'm in an undisclosed location on the west coast. Isabelle and Alain are in France, so they're probably asleep. The posting times are 3 hours ahead of where I am, so that puts the website's location somewhere in the midwest. Maybe everyone else has gone to bed, or maybe we're the only ones with nothing better to do...

Of course you're right, Freed. This is sad.

Freed,
I'm sad to agree. I said something to the effect of, "So, wadda we gonna do?" somewhere up when the comments numbered less than 200. This will make 543. I'm just hanging around because I miss having conversations on a level of more than 60 IQ (whine, whine) Do you have any idea for a directed action plan? (circle, circle)

This type of forum is long overdue and that is why it is so popular: much to say.

Have you notice the number of participants are saturated to four people now in here?

Until we come up with positively directed action plan, this blog will end up with circling with whining.

Tammy,
Oh, I'd tell the cabby what I thought of his remark...right after he told me the fare.

I just thought of something in "The End of Faith" that may be taken as practical advice. I'm pretty sure somewhere in there that he talks about being in a cab, and the driver makes some lude racist comment that makes you sick. What would you do? If you say nothing to avoid confronting the guy, he might think of it as silent approval, and his behavior will never change. So, you're supposed to let the offending person know you don't like their vocabulary, and then, whether their behavior changes isn't the point. It's that you've done the only thing you had the power to do at the time. Sorry if that sounds lame; I really do need to get my copy of that book back so I can run around quoting it more authoritatively (harhar).

Thanks Ted,
I'll continue reading it, but you've saved me weeks of low level guilt and anxiety. Perhaps TB will share with us (succinctly, please) the "deep and educated understanding of the topic" that he says Harris misses, and let an unlettered dyslexic know who the heck Capps, Smart and Chagnon are.

And amen (pardon the expression) to TB's defending our right to believe what we want. I think we'd find ourselves shoulder-to-shoulder with Sam on that one. What a weird scene: a Catholic, an atheist and a smarty-pants agnostic author fighting for our mutual rights.

Alain--
One of the significant claims in The End of Faith is that moderate s in a religion are deluding themselves, that in fact moderates, like me for instance, are part of the problem.

For instance, I believe moderate Catholics by and large thought Pope Benny's remarks on Islam were intemperate and divisive to say the least.

I think moderate Christians have no real problems with Islam, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, and they have no real problem with athiests or agnostics for that matter.

The point here is: moderate Christians can live with uncertainty, can walk, as one Catholic mystic put it, in a "cloud of unknowing," which, in a wierd way, feels a bit like agnosticism!

If Harris's thesis is true, then not only are a lot of Catholic moderates deluding themselves, but also a lot of those persons, yes, who have taken holy orders.

I think Harris is pretty effective at going after literalists, and to an extent claims that if one is to call themselves Catholic, or Shinto, or whatever, one must accept a set of claims propounded by whatever authorities have established a set dogma. ( I think it's a bit more complex than that.) It's the "must" I've a problem with, and though I think it's an interesting issue that's been raised, would have to disagree with Harris on his beliefs about moderates, and, as well, his understanding of religion.

Can I call myself Catholic and support a woman's right to choose, support stem cell research, and--ooh, now I'm in trouble--support a socialist system of government in justifiable circumstances? Here's my thesis: yes, I can, and this is why I said what I said about free speech.

Certainly, one can sell tickets to a gallery of Christian horrors and walk out disgusted and fed up with religion in general: understandable.

But, for my part, I've met a lot of good, gentle, open-minded, and courageous people in the Catholic church.

And for Ted, as one Ted to another, do I have a wee bit of envy for Sam Harris? Yup--you bet. My graduate school debt, at least, would be gone, and maybe I could throw down enough for a house in San Francisco.

Daaammmnnnn--wish I could write like that!

For Richard Wade:

You ask for comments from someone who has read The End of Faith through to the end. I qualify and have also read Letter to a Christian Nation.

My wife is just finishing off her own read of LtoaCN and her perceptive comment was that SH seems to spend more time defending himself than offering solutions.
This comment applies to TEofF as well. Filled with fairly acute analysis of the dangers of Islamic extremism but very short when it comes to even suggesting solutions. As TB says SH writes very smoothly and effectively and as he puts it "a simple and clear argument . . nicely written". But not everyone can do that and SH deserves credit for pulling it off. Do I detect just a trace of jealousy on TB's part?

YES Richard. SH does recommend that people should " think critically and encourage others to lose interest in faith" -- in both these two books and other of his writings -- and does not recommend banning religion or anything draconian like that.

Religions have developed as a response to man's innate belief in the existence of a higher power or truth. (Let's call it God.) The purpose of religion is to bring people into closer relationship with that higher power or truth, i.e., God. Just as multiple languages evolved as a result of isolated populations, multiple religions developed as a result of different experiences of God. (Yes, it’s the story of the blind men and the elephant again!) Each religion contains elements of truth, so each religion should share some portion of respect. However, due to man's failings, distortions creep into even the purest of truths so that the original revelation is difficult to discern. As a result, an attempt to construct the whole from the pieces results in what appears to be irreconcilable conflicts.
It would appear to take a concerted effort for men and women of good will to work for the discovery (and re-discovery) of religious truths. It would involve sacrifice of part of what they are. They would have to be willing to give up part of their cherished beliefs to gain the greater prize. It's not simple to switch identities. Would others follow?
Is this the expectation for healing divisions as mentioned in the leading statement? Not everyone shares in the belief in God so even if a unified picture emerged would it be expected to heal divisions in our world?

I read "The End of Faith" when it first came out, and I've lent out my copy so I don't have it to refer back to, but the part TB and others may be missing, if they're just reading Harris' essays lately, is that he doesn't deny that people have religious experiences. He calls them "transformative" or whatever, and he obviously doesn't think these experiences come from anywhere but our own brains. Maybe that's why he likes to make with the neuroscience.

Now wait a minute, Alain,
TB asks a question, and offers his own opinion. It's basically a challenge. That does encourage dialogue. Besides, he said "part of me," indicating that perhaps he is open to someone with a good argument changing his mind.
I can't answer his objections to Harris with much authority, because I'm still slogging through "The End of Faith." I read slower than a drunk talks. So far, Sam's book seems long on problem and short on solution, so there I think I agree with TB. If there are chapters on "What are we gonna do about it," I haven't reached them yet. I hope Harris doesn't advocate outlawing religion or forcible overthrow of religious institutions, because thats the same lunacy that started him writing in the first place. I hope he'll say something about encouraging people to think critically and encourage others to lose interest in faith as a basis of public and foreign policy. If we survive the next 50 years, humanity may just walk away from religion, but that will take at least 1,000 years.

Maybe some fast reader out there who has read the whole "End of Faith" book could give me the unbiased Cliff Notes on Sam's solution part, if there is one...

Wonderful, not only TB asks smart questions:

"Can you, Mr. Harris, wrap your head around that?"

But he also provides the answer:

"Part of me says no."

Who needs dialogue when we have those people who can ask and answer their own questions !

What can I say about Sam Harris?

Can I really disagree with his claims about the destructive effects of religion?

Nope.

Have horrible events taken place in the name of God, or gods?

Yup.

And frankly, this about all Sam Harris has accomplished.

Although the level of analysis in his work remains mostly on the surface, Sam Harris can write a polished, clear, and rhetorically effective essay.

His works are convincing, because, well, they sound so good.

They sound so good like other works that fall into the "Hey, I'm Smart, and Let Me Liberate You from Your Pathetic Ignorance" category. Works that fall into this category primarily offer a litany of offenses, and ironically, in the name of edification, end up offering a few gross, simplistic, and sophomoric conclusions.

Works like these promote their own dogma, promote claims that can't be questioned, and rely on an understanding of logic that can be learned in an undersgraduate introductory course on philosophy in most colleges. The result is a simple and clear argument, maybe nicely written, but off the mark in terms of a deep and educated understanding of the topic.

Without any real formal training in religious studies, anthropology, or sociology, and relying on evidence that a snotty B+ High School student could muster, Sam Harris has managed to define the religious experience for anyone who follows a religion.

In some ways, it's an insult to the serious work and research conducted by career anthropologists, sociologists, and religious studies scholars.

I wonder how Walter Capps, or Ninian Smart, or Napoleon Chagnon, would have responded to Sam Harris.

But in 2006, you can make a lot of money if you can sound smooth, stir controversy, and make a lot of noise.

Gosh, and to think I've been ignorant for so long. Mr. Harris, thanks for enlightening me, an uncertain Catholic with no desire to hurt anyone, and just trying to live his life.

But understand this, Mr. Harris, I will ALWAYS, ALWAYS defend your right--and the right of all Americans--to speak freely, and to believe (and not necessarily carry out) whatever you want to believe.

Can you, Mr. Harris, wrap your head around that?

Part of me says no.

Dear Jason(again)- sorry, but I meant to thank you for mentioning that "Beyond Belief" thing. I'll have to check it out. Thanks, Tammy

Dear Jason B.-Hello again, & who's attacking? I'm sorry if my reply to your post seemed confrontational. I was actually worried about sounding dumb, if I wasn't up on some alternate definition for the word "empirical". It reminds of a time, years ago already, when an American president was forced to answer questions about his personal life publicly and resorted to musing over what the definition of "is" is.

So, Jason, exactly where can we derive this knowledge that is beyond our senses? I concede that there is much we don't know, but that it is merely unlikely that there can be knowledge above or beyond our senses. Maybe we do have abilities, or other senses, that are as yet untapped by most of us humans, and as yet not understood, or scientifically verified.

We've all heard of Tibetan lamas, as one former poster has pointed out, who melt snow seemingly by concentrating really hard. "Mind over matter" is a concept we're all familiar with. Maybe noone has been able to do an MRI on one of these spiritual adepts yet to discover the secret to their apparently miraculous accomplishments, but that doesn't mean we'll never understand it. That's not a dogma; it's homework. We can let it be done or we can throw up our hands and give it up because it doesn't fit easily into our brains.

It does mean we have a lot to learn, and a lot more work to do. If we're going to close a case on anything, we really do have to rule out all the likely explanations first, before we resort to the miraculous as our final answer.

Thanks again, Jason, for your post, and I hope I haven't left the wrong impression. I don't claim to know it all, and I would never believe someone who does.

Beachwoman- I'm with you-for some reason people who've posted here have been so much more civil to each other. That's why I have the nerve to post at all, which I've never done before.

P.S. I forgot to mention that I am also going to read Sam Harris and try to educate myself.

Bye :-)

Like you RICHARD I need to get a life. I heard about this website on Hardball which I am also obsessed with and now I seem to be obsessed with this website.

Strange because I was told as a child the two things I should never bring up with company is politics and religion. Now I have become obsessed with both.

Hmm what does that say? Somewhere up there in all of these postings (I am very bad with names) someone suggested that this site needed a little sense of humor. Maybe that is my job on here. I know that I can not compete with many of you intellectuals and your paragraphs of information and explanations and on and on and on.

I thought this would be a learning experience for me and it has been. Since I am retired I do have time to spend on this experience.

First, let me thank the non-believers for the valadation I have received as I did think I was the only one out there who did NOT believe. I am the only one in my circle that does NOT believe so reading these posts have been helpful for me.

I do not feel the need to explain why or to try to convert anyone else to my way of thinking either. I am very comfortable with not knowing if there is a heaven or hell as for the most part I do believe if there is a heaven or hell it is right here on earth. I certainly have experienced both in my life already. I think I have paid my dues.

As far as OJ goes we all know that the judicial system in this country is not perfect and for my money he is as guilty as HELL (if there is one).

Please continue posting as I have read most all of the other pages and find this one the most interesting!!!!

I am signing off and I will head to the beach to think, think, think. Thanks to all

To Jason B:

Thanks for the lively response. You ask what I mean by saying that I and many others (most I think) like me are not fully blown empiricists. You have to remember that I am an agnostic not an atheist so, although I agree with Harris much more than I agree with Christian dogmatists, I freely admit I don't know everything and am quite comfortable with the notion that the universe has some numinous/spirtual aspects to it.

And when I say I am not a fully blown empiricist I simply mean that my quest for knowledge does not merely involve a reliance on experiment but also involves making use of my internal logical apparatus.

Nevertheless the repeatable experiment attitude of science is massively important in our quest for knowledge. But don't let us discount the relevance of logic.

Of course I don't hold to the notion that the law of contradiction is optional. But, if the supposed contradiction being posed is vacuous it does not merit serious consideration. It is simply a waste of time. Have a look at you supposed contradiction once again. You write:

"So, I have a choice. Either go with revelation, deducing a sound, logically coherent worldview from an axiom that no scientist can disprove – or – go with the so-called non-dogmatic scientists whose axiom is “unprovable” yet contradicts itself…hmmmm"

To put this forward as a pair of mutually exclusive options strikes me as nothing more than hand waving. Simply stating that revelation (whatever that is) goes hand in hand with a logically coherent world view derived from an axiom is to stack the cards in a blatantly indefensible manner. What is this miraculous axiom that you are talking about?

I really mean it. Tell us what this claimed axiom is so that we can all know about it.

As far as the second option is concerned I am under no obligation to adhere to rigid empiricism any more than you are obliged to do so.

I am delighted that you reject the notion of intelligent design and appear to accept the occurrence of evolution as an indisputable fact. If you are prepared to go down this path there is indeed a good deal of hope for you.

Let me close by asking once again for a clear exposition of your miraculous axiom.

Your attacks on me about being dogmatic and the like, phase me none whatsoever. In fact, it’s laughable coming from people who are just as dogmatic about their empiricism/science as any Christian would be about their foundational doctrines. It is almost as laughable as Sam Harris who complains that dogma creates an “us” versus “them” mentality; yet, this is the same guy who dogmatically states that annihilation of “faith” will save humanity, even to the point of receiving harsh criticism from his own peers. Not only has he created an “us” versus “them” mentality between the “rational scientists” and the “stupid Christians”, but now even a split among the atheists in the science community. Watch the videos from “Beyond Belief” to see what I am talking about. It was an ATHEIST who called Harris “Chicken Little”, not a Christian! Yet, we Christians are told that less dogma will result in less violence. HA! You’re either just plain stupid or were asleep during those last sessions at the “Beyond Belief” conference.

Here is point one: You cannot escape dogma. We are ALL dogmatic about something.

Point two: As Ted pointed out, empiricism is “The theory that all knowledge is derived from our senses.” This is in line with much of what I have read/heard from Harris. Sam Harris has made it abundantly clear that any so-called “knowledge” that can NOT be empirically verified needs to be chucked.

Yet, name one scientist who has “proven” that “all knowledge is derived from our senses.” NOT ONE PERSON HAS DONE IT.

And not only have scientists not done this, they INSIST that this must be. It is DOGMA. Just read the responses to me here in this very thread. The very thought that someone like me would QUESTION empiricism is seen as downright foolish by some. Hmmm…so much for ridding ourselves of dogma….

Furthermore, Ted says: “So Jason, even if you are correct about empiricism being self-contradictory it matters not one jot or one tittle. We scientists, atheists and agnostics are in no sense fully blow empiricists.”

First Ted, it IS self-contradictory. There is no “if” about it. And I think you know this, which is why you have to resort to the claim that you are no “full blown” empiricist, whatever that means.

The bottom line is that Harris’ argument is that any “knowledge” that can NOT be empirically verified is no knowledge at all.

This is nothing more that the definition that Ted stated phrased differently. If not, then Ted, I would like for you to explain to me what “knowledge” you have that is NOT empirically verifiable.

___

Fact of the matter is, I happen to agree with Harris and Dawkins. Empiricism and Christianity can not be married. It’s impossible. I wish more Christians saw this. I think the whole “intelligent design” program is a complete waste of time and playing right into the hands of empiricists like Harris. I think the Christians who are trying to mix empiricism and revelation as a theory of knowledge (which most do) are the biggest problem in Christianity right now.

So, I have a choice. Either go with revelation, deducing a sound, logically coherent worldview from an axiom that no scientist can disprove – or – go with the so-called non-dogmatic scientists whose axiom is “unprovable” yet contradicts itself…hmmmm

Or are you “non-dogmatists” going to tell me that the law of contradiction is optional now?

Religion is ultimately a control mechanism that varies in its anachronistic tendencies subject to the context in which it is applied; i.e., the lower the level of education and accompanying development the more relevant and accepted its precepts appear. And thus while the detail varies from place to place the proven methodology is essentially the same. In the present case of the USA the juxtaposing of this old control mechanism alongside widely differing levels of education and development appears to be creating a potentially dangerous cocktail?

That man invented god, now that really is ironic Alanis!

Also, one has to like the "open-minded" "Case closed". This certainly leaves a lot left to discuss and debate !!!
But when you know the Absolute Truth of things, you can say those things, I figure.

And in religion, you slaughter millions of people over miniscule differences in dogmas, and then wait for one of them to make a long distance phone call to tell us which one is right.

Tammy, Jason B:

You are quite correct Tammy.
My Oxford English Reference Dictionary defines empiricism as
The theory that all kowledge is derived from our senses.
My Funk and Wagnalls defines it as
The theory that all knowledge is derived from experience.
And my dictionary of philosophy says
A proposition about the source of knowledge: that the sole source of knowledge is experience.

Personally I do not know of a single scientist who is an out and out empiricist. Those known to me would think it ridiculous to discount the contribution which our logical faculties make in our quest for knowledge.

So Jason, even if you are correct about empiricism being self-contradictory it matters not one jot or one tittle. We scientists, atheists and agnostics are in no sense fully blow empiricists so I don't think worrying about empiricism has anything to contribute to this discussion. And discussion of it is certainly not point (1).
As far as I can see, point (1) is the fact that different religious systems of belief are mutually contradictory and no one in this forum has yet given any indication as to how we are supposed to decide which, if any, is correct. In science it is easy. You carry out repeatable experiments and then make a decision in an ongoing never ending quest for knowledge.

To Jason B:
Well, I'm sure glad somebody finally closed that case. I've been puzzled over that for years. So are we left with the "We don't know what's what because we don't know how we know in fact we don't even know that we don't know" uhh....thing?
When walking across a busy boulevard, you do look both ways, right?

Thanks for what you said, Alain, it was nice.

Jason B.-Unless I complete misunderstand the definition of the word "empiricism", your post makes no sense to me. Is there a way scientists use it that us lay-people aren't aware of, like the confusion some have with the word "theory"?

Religion and its political agenda is a belief in 'my fairy tale is better than your fairy tale - and I'll kill you because of my principles'. Nice.

When was the last time you heard someone loudly challenge how gravity works? Anybody get shot over an argument involving the First Law of Thermodynamics?

Didn't think so.

Over the holiday i watched the "Beyond Belief" videos with Harris and Dawkins, as well as read "The End of Faith" by Harris.

It is absolutely amazing that in all these hours of chit-chat and reading, not one 'scientist' addressed the most fundamental problem with atheism and the like, and that is their presupposition concerning "empiricism".

Folks, it is quite easy. We call go on for hours and hours debating points 57 and 58 - OR - we can address point 1:

Empiricism is empirically unverifiable. Regardless of what one thinks about the Bible or anything else - Empiricism contradicts itself.

Case closed.

Tammy,
It is your country, too. Don't let "them" win. Be yourself. Do not capitulate,as the main character of Rhinoceros (Eugene Ionesco), says a the end of the play !
I am French, agnostic, and I live in.....Salt Lake City !!! I just love the outdoor activities in Utah. But the State does not belong to the LDS Church. There is social pressure, yes, but nothing more than that. And I can still buy my wine in a liquor store, although it is owned by the State !

Hello, All- Thanks, Ted S; I'll have to check out that debate. As you've presented it in your post, it does sound unfortunately like too many of the conversations we've been having. Our differences remain unresolved, and of course this is only truly bothersome to us nonbelievers. Chilling, as Richard W. says? Yes, it's actually horrifying. Didn't H.G. Wells(among others) predict that it could go this way?
So what are we still worrying about, if no common ground can be found? It is comforting to know so many other average people have the same opinions as me.
But, if their brains are wired differently than ours, or they will never stray from the safety of their numbers, or whatever the big excuse is, how are we to get along in the world? Most people I know fall into 2 groups when it comes to religion: those who grew up believers and will never change, and the "born-again".
I get the feeling that most of these people would sooner go to the bathroom in front of you than talk openly about any doubts they may have. To them, the bible doesn't make sense not because it's a poorly-written conglomoration of old texts; the bible doesn't make sense, so these people assume that they're dumb. After all, for too many of them, it's the only book they've read.
Also, some remain "believers" because they buy into the "Christian=moral" fallacy. I was never seduced by that way of thinking, because, guess what- I have a decent moral compass. I never needed a book to tell me not to steal, cheat, lie, or kill(unless I'm gonna eat it). Am I lucky this way, the way some are blessed with being tall, or fast runners?
Lastly, some people like to leave us out of their little groups just to be mean.
So, the "faithful" have a monopoly on fellowship in my area. Some posters here have suggested (noone recently) to others with similar complaints, "If it's so bad, why don't you just move?" How useful is that, and where should I go? Canada is gorgeous, and Europe is just loaded with free-thinkers.
Well, I'm not going to move out of my area, unless it's for a job. I love it here, and housing is very affordable. For now, I guess reading the words of like-minded, well-intentioned "neighbors", like those on this post, is some pretty excellent fellowship. Not to mention the fellowship I enjoy daily with my immediate family.
Thanks again, all, for your words, and I apologize for "running on at the mouth" a bit.

To AJ:
Very interesting idea, about religions being like a biological trait that helps or hinders the group's survival. Also very chilling. I think that 6.5 billion of us on a shrinking planet can no longer afford to continue competing in ways that made sense thousands of years ago. Our cultural assumptions were developed in a time when the world seemed infinite and inexhaustible.
In a similar vein, I recently heard an author (I forget who) saying that ideas could be seen as organisms. They live in hosts, have offspring, compete, and adapt and to the changing environment or they go extinct. If religions themselves are like organisms, then consider something commonly observed in biology: gigantism precedes extinction.

For those of you who have not seen it you might like to have a look at the debate between Sam Harris and Dennis Prager which is available at

www.samharris.org/site/full-text/debate-with-dennis-prager

The debate did not result in any real meeting of minds but one aspect of the debate stands out like a sore thumb.

The Jews believe that Judaism is the preeminent monotheistic faith and their scriptures – the Hebrew bible and the Talmud do speak of the future appearance of a Messiah but the common consensus amongst those of the Jewish faith is that the Messiah has not yet arrived on earth.

Christians believe that Jesus was/is the messiah and that he was nothing less that the son of God in human form. They further believe that he rose from the dead, sacrificed his life in our behalf and is the only way to salvation.

The Muslims believe that Muhammad was the messiah and the final revelation of Allah(God). In fact Muhammad himself tried mightily to convince the Jews in Arabia the his status as the hoped for messianic prophet was foretold in the Hebrew bible and Talmud.

The Bahais believe that prophet Baha-ullah superseded both Jesus and Muhammad and that religious revelation is an ongoing process and that Baha-ullah is not necessarily the last of the prophets.

An Zoroastrians beliefs also differ from these versions of monotheism.

The mutual incompatibility of these beliefs is obvious for all to see yet those who accept one or other of these possibilities never seem to have any persuasive arguments as to why their choice is the right one. This is not a problem for atheists like Sam Harris or agnostics like myself since we regard all these belief sets as completely unconvincing – since the evidence for them is flimsy at best and non-existent for the most part.

Thus it is that Dennis Prager, in his debate with Sam Harris, failed totally to address this issue. How does he justify his particular choice apart from his accident of birth which aligned him with one of these five options? He quite simply does not say.

For most main stream Christians it is easy to see that the Mormon variant of Christianity is an almost entirely imaginary construct. And most Christian's find Muhammad's claims in the Qur'an and Hidath to be completely far fetched. Yet for all these variants of monotheism the believers in any one of them seem to have a complete blind spot when it comes to having a searching look at their own faith.

I had rather hoped that that the Harris/Prager debate would prove to be an exception but it simply ended in following the usual evasiveness.

All religion eventually reduces to an attempt to answer the question "why is there something rather than nothing?" My intuition is that science will never answer this question and that awareness of the question leaves fertile ground for belief. Even an agnostic may consider the question and decide that, while it cannot be answered, it does suggest that there is "more on heaven and earth than is dreamt of in [anyone's] philosophy". Once one admits this, intuitions regarding that "more" become important enough to affect behavior.

When you add to the above a "functional" justification for religion, you begin to wonder if atheist criticisms do not miss a thing or two. The ability of a religion to unite a group against a competing group and justify individual sacrifice for the common good is a multi-faceted proposition. It may be the cause of much individual misery, but it may also be the reason a group prospers and eventually replaces its neighbors. Is religion really something that competing cultures can do without? Or is it an aspect of cultural evolution that is as essential as differential reproduction is to biological evolution?

Brilliant in its concept maybe but many followers of religion do not look that happy ! Look at those angry religious zealots, angry against gays, non-believers, people of other religions, communists, etc..
So, I agree that religion is an opiate, but not of very good quality.
By the way, Isabelle, I think French people should be exluded from this forum. Too many free-thinkers there !!!

Brilliant and cruel.

To Richard Wade,

I really appreciate your comments. It is very nice to know that someone took the time to read & respond to my late night thoughts. Your points are very interesting althought I must insist, i do think that the most basic raison d'etre for religion and science are the same: understanding life and death. Sadly science is running behind religion because it doesn't provide all the answers that we want. And as the human species, our survival instinct overrules our intellect. We do not want to die - we want to survive forever. Religion gives the recipe to obtain eternal survival. Quite a drug that opiate. Makes people believe in eternal life. Brilliant really.

Isabelle

Dear: Everyone (Including Mr. Harris),

In response to your starting question I was born and raised from a city where being a (Fervent, Bible trusting and miracle believing) Christian is truly a minority, even a novelty.

At my university, I found more in common with the observant Muslims attending my university (who wore varying degrees of head coverings) than atheists. Precisely what gave us something to accept one another on was that we WERE serious about our faiths that WERE absolute. We had committed ourselves to creeds that pointed the only way to eternal life. And that set us apart in our priorities from some others.

Do they believe I've chosen the wrong way? Yes. Do I think that ultimately, they're missing the point? Yes. But they're also people and listening to what values and precepts are important to them, and the religion it stems from, is part of caring about who they are - an important part of Christian evangelism. And I cannot argue and force them into the "Kingdom of heaven". I have full confidence that the Holy Spirit is at work, and that it is up to God Himself to change their minds, even while I am open about the joy I have and Who (Jesus) has brought it. "Not by Wise or persuasive words, that their faith may rest not on human wisdom but on God (The Holy Spirit's) Power."

SJ

* The terms Jesus, Holy Spirit and God are all refering to the Supreme Deity of the Christian faith, that reveals itself to us in three forms, for lack of a better explanation.

Richard W:

Am not at all sure any of us knows what the alternative is to an "overdose of religion". Almost certainly it isn't an overdoes of atheism or an overdoses of agnosticism. I think the notion of "fighting the good fight" is about as good as it gets.

No one who is to any extent sane could possibly not be concerned about "the state of the world today". I guess our ability to "cheer up" depends heavily on the support of others of like mind.

It's good to have you around. . . Ted . .

To Isabelle and Tammy, simultaneously:
You both bring up similar important points about mystery and the desire for reassurance, and you’re both clarifying these things for me.
As for mystery, You two have a similar wisdom: Isabelle wants to accept being in “the not knowing zone,” to stop analyzing everything and just live, and Tammy can live with life being a big, gorgeous mystery. I’m sure there will always be the unknown, whether for mystical questions or science. What we know will be an ever-expanding but still finite amount, surrounded by an infinite amount of what we don’t know. When Hamlet said, “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy,” he included heaven AND earth. (Can you imagine actually knowing everything? How indescribably awful.) I don’t exactly agree with Isabelle that the goal of science is the same as religion in that what’s-it-all-about way. The big question science strives to answer is “What’s for breakfast?” As Michael Karg stresses in some of his entries above, the background purpose of science is to prolong life and make it more comfortable. (I waxed poetic about the pure quest for knowledge regardless of practical application, but that’s just my own romantic notion.)
As for the desire for reassurance, You also both have similar insight. It has been many years since I last used the “opiate of the masses,” but once in a while I still get some withdrawal symptoms. Former addicts know well what practicing ones are going through, how irresistible the drive for that comforting fix can be. We’re apes who know we’re going to die, and we don’t need a leopard in front of us to have it on our minds. We miss our dead loved ones, and the fantasy that we’ll meet again in the big family reunion in the sky is extremely seductive. I’m finding lately that it’s difficult for a rationalist to cheer up when looking at the state of the world today. I think my therapy will be in fighting the good fight, in getting involved with people like those talking here to coax people back from the brink of death by religious overdose, to find some healthy alternative to the comforting narcotic of religion. What exactly that alternative is, I don’t know. I’m hoping someone here may have a good suggestion.
The afterlife issue, Tammy, is irresolvable because proponents claim it occurs in some unverifiable realm, and it’s a side issue because what is at risk from the masses of opiate addicts is this life, right here, right now.

I’m getting in trouble for spending so much time on this blog. I’ll be back later, but my ivory tower is a complete mess. Thanks, everybody.

I just looked back at my last post, and although it's directed to Richard W., I'm interested in anyone's thoughts. Thanks!

to Richard W.- Are you sure you think the afterlife is an irresolvable side issue? It's one of the reasons so many people (ordinary people who haven't read as many books as you or thought about it as much) force themslves to accept ridiculous religious dogmas. God has to exist so that we don't have to die. Or maybe it's even more cutting than that. Maybe our own deathe are so far removed, at least for us lucky enough to not be dying right this minute, that we can put off thinking about it. But, we've all been to at least one funeral we'll never get over. How can we live with knowing that person is gone forever?
Too many people can't. I don't say so lightly.
I can live with life being a big, gorgeous mystery; no one has the answers, and it's good to know that smart, well-intentioned people are working on many of them.
Too many of the voters here in the States can't live with it and accept answers from anyone, it seems. That's how the current administration got elected to begin with(if ya call that an election), by playing up the faith angle. It isn't a side-line issue for them, and it's a big part of what separates us from them. Christians I know are scared for me because I doubt it's possible to live forever, and think I'm callous not to at least play along, ya know, for their sake. My PA county was one of the ones where Rick Santorum won a majority. Just one more thing to worry about, or the thing to worry about?

For Richard Wade:

I don't usually like long posts in a forum like this but your latest (Nov 24th) long post is truly superb. If everyone in this discussion would read, mark and inwardly digest what you have said it would be a huge plus. Thank you so much. . . Ted . .

Science & religion have te same goal: to answer the question of what this life is all about. Since science hasn't yet been able to answer it. we still find ourselves not knowing and somehow our brain cannot stand it. Life is like a train ride - we woke up on this train and have no idea why we are there, where the train is going and mostly if and when the train is going to stop. Religion has been created by us because we are desperate. We don't want to die and are willing to accept anyting to quiet our minds.

My hope is that science will raise questions in religious minds which will lead to a gradual acceptance of being in the "not knowing" zone. And if we accept that, then we can begin to feel free and enjoy life as a gift in the present moment.

Lets just face it - we probably won't figure out the mystery of life in this lifetime. So, lets stop waisting anymore time analyzing everything and just LIVE! Don't get me wrong, science is extremely important and fascinating. But life is much bigger then science and will remain a mystery until the day we die. Instead of creating religion and absurd beliefs, we must continue our scientific research but at the same time accept that we don't know everything and that it is ok not to know. It migt sound paradoxal but it is not. Its being at peace with what we know and don't know and stay curious and fascinated on what we can learn through science.

Isabelle
Paris, France

To Steve S:
You’re right, this discussion should re-focus and concentrate on belief, and avoid irresolvable side issues about gods and afterlife. What’s at stake is the survival of civilization in the next 50 years. So I’m going to spout off what’s been boiling inside me for years, and I’m going to break my own rule and post a long entry. Sorry.
Before I chucked the rest of it in the trash, (see my entry signed ExMystic above) one bit of wisdom I gained from Buddhism was the warning that clinging to things will bring us suffering. I could immediately see the truth of this with material possessions as well as relationships, but lately I have come to see that we also cling to our beliefs, our inner possessions, and that causes terrible suffering, more often for others.
We should be extremely careful and frugal about what we believe. We should believe in as little as possible. People judge how crazy we are simply by the number of the things we believe in. People who believe in UFO’s are thought of as less crazy than people who believe in UFO’s, Atlantis, AIDS conspiracies and Elvis sightings. These judgments are actually quite valid.
Because belief is a form of madness.
I don’t mean mad beliefs, I mean belief itself. Assuming the truth of something without evidence, and making very insane decisions based on that. People are willing to kill and die for their beliefs. So it would follow that if people believed in less, there would be less killing and dying. Belief in Jehovah, in Allah, in democracy, in fascism, in socialism, in freedom, in the limiting of freedom, all lead us to slaughter each other and ourselves.
And religious belief is the most blood-stained of all.
Nothing divides people more quickly and deeply than religion. An honest look at history shows that whether it’s nation versus nation or neighbor versus neighbor, more murder has been committed in the name of a merciful and loving god than all the other reasons for killing put together. Wars have been fought over land, resources, treasure, personal insult, even the honor of a woman, but in sheer body count religion tops them all. Even those wars that were actually about greed have used religion as an excellent rationalization. The worst atrocities have always been committed by true believers, people who are so certain that god is on their side that they are not capable of doubt. Strangely, members of different sub-sects of the same religion kill each other more often than members of completely different religions. For centuries Catholics and Protestants have hacked and burned each other, and Sunnis and Shias have been at each other’s throats, far more than those they call “heathens” or “infidels.”
Then there is the killing that is not killing, the shunning of people. People are banished while still physically living in a community. Religious bigotry cheats them of the full benefits of the society they are a part of, and in turn cheats the society of their full contribution. We have all been victims of it, and we have all perpetrated it. Where would humanity be if we did not have this particular handicap of hatred? Perhaps a thousand years ahead of where we are now?
So argue all you want over whether God exists or not, but that’s not what Sam Harris is worried about. It’s the lunacy of belief, the organization of that lunacy into religion, and the inevitable deadly conflict that follows. If there’s a devil, he invented religion. And yes, that includes the one you cling to.

To Ethan S:
(Man, that was great turkey.)
Ok, Ethan, I'll play.
So, is this like a logic thing, like a syllogism? If "a" is true then "x" is true? Let me try one:
Saddam Hussein has been captured.
Santa Claus is real.
Like that?
Hey this is kind of cool. How about:
Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes got married.
Apollo 11 never went to the moon.
Or:
Bush is an arrogant bungler.
Sasquatch lives with Elvis in a UFO.
I could really get going on this stuff, but maybe my point is evident. Anyway, your pairing of those two particular "truths" about OJ and God is a little ironic, since one caused me to lose some "faith" in the justice system, and the other is puzzling since OJ still exists. Besides, the only people who know for certain about the veracity of your two assertions are Ron and Nicole, if they know anything at all.

Ethan S.
Even if God doesn' exist, O.J should be guilty because he couldn't have done what he has been doing after the trial:
1. He has never tried to find a real killer as he mentioned right after the aquittal.
2. An innocent husband would not right a book, "If I did it, this is how it would have done."
These common senses are not necessarily the product of religious morals, any reasonable people should show naturally without referring to the bible.
Unfortunately, there is a chance that he may not be punished as he should be according to religious ethics. He has to suffer pain in his conscience.

JOPAC
I have to disagree respectfully. Having religion is personal matter but think about how you know what you said. Have you ever thought that what you believe may turn out to be untrue even though you strongly believe it otherwise.
Do you have any concrete evidence other than what you have heard from the priest or the bible? Belief starts from a series of assumptions ( called faith). As long as you accept this ( by faith), the rest can be assumed as true ( by faith.) I am not going to sway your freedom since I was a Christian ( a serieous and satisfied one)and I knew what I believed.
If Christianity turns out to be a false hope, what would you do?

Accepting Jesus as personal Lord and Savior is not a religion, it is the way for our salvation because there's an almighty One that loves us all regardless of what races or group of people you are. He is even the author and the source of Mr. Harris' scientific knowledge and belief. How will the science save you after death???? Answer me!!!

While religion started as a way to explain early mans sorroundings, it quickly evolved into a way of controling the masses. Today we see some 3,000 religious entities claiming to have the true path to heaven. Show me the money! Religion is a 100 billion dollar a year BUSINESS that is successful only because of the way it indoctrinates its youth. Mr. Harris compares religion to science; religion survives because it is not questioned, and science thrives because its questions demand answers. Our founding fathers looked at the history of religion in politics and it was obvious that incidents like the inquistion were more the norm than the exception.

O.J. Simpson is guilty of killing Ron Goldman and Nicole Simpson.
God exists.
Comments?

Hi All;

I've been monitoring your discussions. All very interesting. It has been awhile since I posted. No one responded. Several points;
1. This is all about beliefs. Read Dr. Newbergs book Why We Believe What We Believe.
2. Most hold their beliefs so dear that it will take a "miracle" to change them, if at all.
So trying to "heal a divided world" by talking about them is probably does little good more then letting one vent, especially if one is of the view that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
3. Beliefs rarely change according to facts, or do they have to be based on facts. Facts defined in this instance means evidence based from several sources.
4. The Christian fundamentalists Creationists/Intelligent Design people do have something in common with the Muslim fundamentalists. If you read in Newsweek today in Turkey they are distrubiting a book to schools talking about the Muslim belief in the literal creation according to a Muslim version of Genesis and Evolution is the root of terrorism.
Any comments
Steve

I'm so clever, I really shoulda been a fox- I misspelled the word constitution, and of cousre I clicked "post" before I looked at it.

Hi again, Richard- It seems that for all we have in common , there's still a big difference in our ways of thinking. To you, Kant has proved something, to me, he thought & said a lot but did nothing (unlike Galileo & his now-famous experiments). You can't imagine how much I enjoy your perspective; I almost never hear of anyone who's read as much as you have about the history of Christianity, and science and all, who still thinks the way you do.
I do not think the scientists have entirely disproved the existence of a supreme creator; there are a ton of other possibilities, and many of them are much more plausible. Maybe space-time isn't flat, but curved; maybe our universe is just a miniscule particle in an infinity of such particles. So many maybes, the God one being the least interesting at this point.For me, the simplest answer is most often the best.
They have catalogued & quantified the known universe to an extraordiary degree, given that we have barely left the planet. There is such an imensity of time & space that it's dangerous for anyone to be pretending any of their speculations about the origin of the cosmos are anything more than speculations.
Whether any of us manage to find common ground with each other's viewpoint on religion, in this country we share a fundamental equalizer: our nation's Constition. The separation of Church & State can and will be maintained, whether any of my neighbors like it or not. I'm just guessing, but I bet you agree with me on that as well, and of course I can't wait to find out what you think about life everlasting. I'm sure it's going to surprise me. Thanks again, Richard; please have a Happy Thanksgiving all.

For Richard J:

Your contributions are so long and heavy going that they are almost like monographs and it is hard to digest what you are saying or trying to say. I have tried to focus on what it is that has made you and me end up differently given that both of us started out as Anglicans -- with only one of us remaining so. For the most part I have come up short -- apart from a kind of vague feeling that you conceive of science and religion as operating in different realms -- with both being needed as being complementary to each other. My own take on this is that I have come to treasure being all of a piece and I try to avoid hiding one part of myself from another -- insofar as this is possible.

You speak of belief in God as being the "most sporting option" given that his/her/its existence cannot be proved or disproved. But you don't seem to have talked very much about what God needs to be like if he/she/it really does exist. Why does God have to be a creator? Why does God have to be omnipotent? How could God possibly survive in the absence of a sense of humour?

You seem to have simply accepted the orthodox non- fundamentalist view of Christianity and found all sorts of reasons to stick to it. I have recently been speculating on this very subject. Given the possibility of their being a God what would that God have to be like? Your view that God has to be the God as Christians conceive of him does not move me. Why not the Jewish God or the Zoroastrian God or the Muslim God or the Bahai God and why should it have to be any of these?

I am not trying to be difficult but I remain at a loss to fathom what it is that not only keeps you an Anglican but makes you wholeheartedly an Anglican.

You speak of love as "possibly being a duty and a reward and more . ." Surely love is actually a commitment and a continuous sequence of acts of the will.

Stay well.

I find it fascinating so many need answers about things our human minds are just not capable of understanding. I would think that true faith would be to accept the unknown and be at peace with this great mystery of life and the universe. Sure, I may wonder how and why and marvel at this incredible mystery but accept that this is exactly what it is – a great mystery. This is why I call myself an "agnostic" because it means "I don't know". I do “believe” in the possibility of a higher power - just don't know what it is or how it works - but it is my “belief”, not what I “know” to be certain. I also find some atheists, like my father, as dogmatic in their claim to “know” there isn't a god or higher power as those who claim to know there is one. My brother on the other hand, a born again Christian, is afraid and needs answers to find his peace. He finds it easier to stop thinking and has closed himself off to a narrow view of the world and allows others to think for him, i.e. his preacher to interpret the meaning of words written yet by other men thousands of years ago. (And the irony is I don’t see him practicing the teachings of Jesus of peace and tolerance.) Countless wars have been waged on behalf of one religion or another and many have killed or died in the name of religion, creating a lot of "hell" on earth, if you ask me.

Organized religion and spirituality are just not the same and I won't ever trust the word of another person (even the most well meaning because come on, they’re only human!) about who or what God is or supposedly said 2000 years ago. My experience sitting under a 2000 year old tree - still alive and still producing acorns – makes me believe in God much more than listening to another person proselytize. And I say to them, “Please, leave me alone! I respect your right to believe whatever you want but can’t you just be satisfied to have your beliefs without forcing me to accept them? And who made you God or God’s mouth piece?” The Bible, Torah and Koran, although some of the core teachings are very good, are still myths and fairytales. And to believe in them literally is no different than believing in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny. And the Muslim is just as convinced as the Christian that his way is the right way, as is the Jew. All these humans claiming to be right about God, yet so many can’t agree. This is why I accept that NO ONE has the answers and if they say they do, they are lying. And if they also ask for money they are really lying. I am OK having faith in the unknown.

Religions are all creations of mankind and as long as they all claim to have the market cornered on truth and demand that others follow suit, we will never be free and we will never have peace.

Tammy: Thanks for your response (and, per your later post, I didn't see you as pschoanalyzing; I appreciate that you are actually discussing the speech, not just the speaker). It strikes me, too, that we seem to believe many things in common. I appreciate your parting thoughts both for their pragmatism and for their apparent good will. I also agree that you will not come to believe in God if you are require, as a condition precedent, proof of his existence from the "same old sources." It was from a similar standpoint that I espoused atheism for a while (as it looked more likely and defensible than its opposite from where I stood).

What changed my mind, though, was (believe it or not) Kant, Plato, Socrates and the Mathematicians. I was intrigued and inspired by: (a) the refusal of the wise and skeptical Socrates [who usually abided no pretensions of false knowledge] to cast aside traditional myths lightly, (b) the willingness of his clever and mathematically inclined disciple, Plato, to resort to myth, mataphor and analogy when grappling with transcendent, incommensurable ideas like justice, (c) the abiding faith of all those smart mathematicians like Newton [and, more importantly than that, the character of mathematics itself, a rigorous and certain language that seems to suffuse the physical world like the language of a creator and to proclaim the immutability and knowability of his natural laws], and (d) the demonstration by Kant [a rzor-sharp intellect and the one who discovered the concept of galaxy and first hypothesized that the Milky Way was one] that God could not be disproved, that disbelief did not follow necessarily from the unknowability of ultimate reality, and that belief in God and freedom are the surest foundations for a worldview that satisfies the needs of our practical morality. Finally, while it did not strike me as convincing when I first learned it (because I was hoping for a certainty that simply is not possible), I should note Pascal's wager: if God does exist, it's to my benefit that I believe, but if God does not exist, what do I lose for believing in him and his moral law? My answer is nothing, as long as I did not waste my life using God as an excuse to do wrong to others or to myself. If my belief in God is not borne out in an afterlife, and I was just incorrect in my belief, I would not count it loss that I used my life believing that I owed it to God to follow his law by loving him with all my heart [i.e., revering and striving for the absolute good] and loving others as myself [i.e., treating them as ends in themselves to be respected rather than just using and exploiting them as means for selfish pleasure].

With those philosophers as inspirations, taking their reasons for belief as laudable, and based upon what I believe to be a fairly realistic/naturalistic (dare-I-say-scientific) observation about mankind (namely that he is [as a matter of fact, whether by nature or, if there be such a thing, unnatural habit] religious, inclined to religious thinking and belief, and accustomed to religious practice), I engaged in a personal Copernican-style revolution in my own mind. I decided, with these precedents (and knowing the strict impossibility of certainty either way as to the ultimate "reality"), to put the burden of proof where I think it belongs on such a question -- on the one who would deny the existence of God. Knowing that it can't be disproved, I operate on the assumption that God does exist. (This strikes me as the most sporting option; just as I think that one would be taking the lower road to deny, fr instance, the existence of good sportsmanship -- another intangible yet pious human convention if you will.)

Leaving the necessarily interminable debate about the existence of God to the side, by picking a side of the debate that does not cut me off from a whole sphere of human activity, leave me free to continue my education in the wisdom and experience of humanity, in both science and religion. In science, I can continue to learn about the facts of the physical universe without the distraction of figuring out how the spiritual entities fit in; in religion, I can focus on the content and meaning of revelation without the distraction of proving it to be real in a material sense. This accord [in which there is no compromise that sacrifices rigor of thought], between science unfettered by superstition, and religion undeterred by atheism, gives me maximum freedom to explore into, and educate myself about, the contents of the human experience. Thus, the unsupported claims about some purported inconsistency between science and religion strike me like what St. Paul said about the absurdity of the hand criticising the foot for not being a hand and vice versa.

As for your observation that the interplay between freedom and determinism is confusing: I agree. However, I would point out that I base my conclusion of determinism, not on the idea that the omnipotent and omnisicent God created it all and put it all into motion. I base my conclusion of determinism on my observation that physical reality adheres to principles of conservation and mathematical laws of cause and effect [and I don't think that the statistical nature of quantum speculations and the problems with observation at that level identified by Heisenberg and Schrodinger really require any departure from this conclusion], such tht could be no other possible effect than the one that actually flows fro the cause, and so on backwards and forwards forever. I also base my actual belief in human freedom of the will, not on its necessity to morals and religion, but on the simple existential fact of my actual perception of what I take to be my own free will making my own free undetermined choices. I understand that this could, like other naive commonplaces [e.g., the flatness of the earth, and the geocentric apperance of the heavens] be an illusion. But perception of our own will, and apperception of our own perception, does seem to be more fundamental and inescapable than a mere naive conclusion like geocentricity. I think you and I would agree that on some real level there must be a now that we share which is moving along with our sensation of the present moment unfolding through time from the past to the future, even though we know, based on relativity, that the motions that we perceive as occuring over a passage of time happen for the observer more quickly or slowly depending upon the proximity of his/her own velocity to the speed of light, such that time passage itself is something of an illusion, and that the moments of what we call now are simply points on Einstein's and Minkowski's world lines of universal history -- lines that are as fixed in spacetime as anything can be fixed anywhere, and containing the entire past, present and future of the particle that we perceive as moving thereon in the present. Thus, the confusion between freedom and determinism is not a cotradiction created by or exclusive to religion; it is just there for us as a problem of human experience (an apparent contradiction between our experience of now, and our experience of scientific necessity). Whether or not you bring God into the analysis, there is something just confusing about the fact that the only thing that really seems to be going anywhere in the physical universe of spacetime is our own perception of the present, that glides along the already fixed world lines of cause and effect, for what reason one struggles to say. It is a mystery to me, and actually reminds me of the verse at the beginning of Genesis where it says "the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters." Somehow the collective now of the spirit of humanity is moving along those already apparently fixed world lines beginning, perhaps, at the big bang, and ending, who knows where. I do not claim to have worked out the apparent quandaries in our experience of physical reality (although I believe there must be no real contradictions).

My "evil does not refute God" discussion is not addressed to that apparent contradiction in our experience of physical reality; rather, it addresses, and refutes, the accusation that there is some contradiction within the content of the revelation that God is perfect, that created the universe, and that the universe contains evil.

I agree with you that the terrorists are immoral, and the first responders are heroes. While I do not claim to understand everything regarding the interplay between the different levels of meaning in this infinite reality (what you referred to as illusions of choice and counterintutive purposes), I do wholeheartedly condemn the terrorist attacks as evil, and laud the sacifices of the first responders heroic. I think that it's worthwhile to discuss and explore what those words and concepts mean, and not just write human actions off to conditioned reflexes and expediency.

I also agree that we cannot use the Bible to prove the truth of religion (isn't it frustrating when people try to do that?) and I believe that I have not done so, or tried to prove anything, other than what I consider the non-necessity and un-advisability of rejecting religious faith (the only rigorous part of which is the stirct impossibility of disproof; the rest is just hortatory -- an attempt at a persuasive "do what is right" -- the details of which I rely upon the conscience, and the culture in which it is inculcated [using that part that is helpful but setting aside what is harmful], to supply). I think what you can prove in the Bible is what it says in the Bible (and even this has its difficulties, given the differnet texts, translations and interpretations).

(I should add here as an aside to David Fleming that I do not base my belief system on the Bible, so much as what the Church says about the Bible [and not everything anyone in the Church has said about the Bible, at any time, but rather, what I take to be the necessary tenets of the Apostolic preaching]. I have glanced at Ehrman's book, but I have also actually read the actual scholarly sources on which he bases that popular work, and studied in great depth the texts and canon of the Scripture - apocryphal literature in particular being a serious hobby of mine since childhood. Nothing in what Ehrman says challenges or alters the basis or validity of any statement I have made as far as I can tell. Saying that Scripture is the most important resource for matters of religion is no more compromised by the fact that we must address preliminary questions like, what statements does scripture as we understand it actually contain, than the statement that the observation of the physical world is the most important resource for science is compromised by the fact that we must sometimes engage in the groundwork of excluding from our understanding of the physical world such false concepts as phlogiston, epicycles or the chimera. Which is all a way of saying that I agree with you that the Bible has a textual history that needs to be considered along with everything else when interpeting and basing religious arguments upon it, but that I do not see how that shuod change anything else I've said. By the way, I do believe that the Bible is the Church's book and we do have to look for orthodox dogma first at the Church's interpretation, rather than just winging it on our own as with a ouiji board; but I agree with the Protestants that people should read it for themselves, and reject using reason interpretations of the Church that simply do not square with the text, just as we reject scientific theories that do not square with the experimtal observations.)

Back to Tammy: I also agree that there is a wealth of perspective outside our venerated Western Tradition, and do want to cut myself off from the good things in that either. Finally, I think that the way we feel certain emotions we associate with love is procuded by chemical reactions in the brain - and thank goodness for seratonin and endorphins and the rest of 'em. However, I think that real love isn't just a feeling; not sure how to define it (seems like a duty and a reward and more), but it itself seems to engender in us feelings that are not always necessarily pleasant. Sometimes with real love, it seems that the feelings might be a distraction.

Once again, sorry my post is so long. I'd be glad to continue the discussion. I am not interested in threatening you with Hell (my views of which I'll address in a subsequent email to Torrey and Richard Wade [with whose post on the subject I do not necessarily disagree]. Suffice it to say, it was a big disappointment and stumbling-block to me when, at one point during my childhood, a pastor I otherwise admired claimed to me that some isolated islanders who had never heard about Jesus would go to Hell when they died. More later . . .

To Richard J and/or Brian S:

Could one or other of you please explain to me what
"mathematics are actually out in the world" is supposed to mean. It strikes me as a grammatically incorrect phrase. If it was changed to read "mathematics is out in the world" it would start to make a bit more sense though I am still at sea when it comes to the "out in the world" part. This sounds like a form of wild life. I suppose I am a neo-platonist for the most part, when it comes to mathematics, and I would find it most extraordinary if the Four Colour Theorem (the proof of which I contributed to) was not true in all possible worlds. In that sense mathematics is universal and the handmaiden and help meet of physics.

As for the idea that mathematics is actually in the mind rather than in the world I cannot for the life of me see why this has to be an either/or choice. Certainly the act of doing mathematics is something that occurs in the mind (am busy trying to solve another famous unsolved mathematical problem) but without some connection with the world at large it is rather pointless.

Harris '08

I have no doubt that humans have from the very start questioned the meaning of life, death, and everything else unexplainable at the time. That is what we do. We question what we don't know. Religion, science, art, design, and poetry are all manifestations of this yearning for understanding. Of these modalities, two have proven to be extremely important in our current world. And as it stands, science and religion are often at odds with eachother - stem cell research, birth control, abortion, homosexuality etc. Religion offers a spiritual community for people to express themselves, but it also solidifies and defines unrealistic interpretations and meaning of their world. Some people are able to interpret what they read and hear from the gospel, but many take "the word" as the word. That is not acceptable. We should not tolerate this perpetuation. Much good can be done with religion, but it also has the incredible power to create disgusting human actions. I think Dawkins, Harris, and others (including myself) are fed up with religion's intolerability and lack of scientific justification for their suppositions. We should not allow beliefs, in whatever disguise, to be propagated that are hateful, bigoted, or divisive.

Brian S.: Thank you for your observations. It's been a pleasure considering what you have to say. Please follow up if you think I'm getting it wrong. I appreciate the conversation.

I believe that you are right that Kant did not subscribe to "I think therefore I am." Kant, unlike Descartes, did not focus on proving the existence of things (and in fact rejected ontology), because he was busy refuting David Hume, whose discovery of the impossibility of proving even that causality and mathematics objectively existed had led him (wrongly) to dismiss them as mere customs, when, in fact, they are a priori conditions of our sensory experience. Rather than focus on what "is," Kant started with what we know: basically, that the mind (whatever it is) sees and understands the world/things (whatever it/they is/are) in a certain way. However, in starting thus from the subject (thus making the thinker and not the world the given), and delineating the things about which the subject can claim certainty, Kant proves himself to be essentially a Cartesian; finding himself on this side of Descartes' Copernican-style revolution. Kant also ends up in more or less the same place that Descartes ends up: namely a reality in which the physical world perceived by our senses is apprehendable and describable by mathematical science, and the mind of man can believe, and has reasons for believing, in God. He is in a different place from Descartes to the extent that he does not subscribe to Descartes's perfection-based (or any other) ontological proof of God's existence; by abandoning that pretension of certainty, he is basically bringing philosopy back to (a more Socratic, less Plotinian) Platonism, i.e., an admission of the limits of knowledge, a recognition of the mathematical nature of physical reality, and an appreciation of man's great ideas of moral conscience (which, while incapable of strict definition [see Meno], and seemingly best described by priestly myths [which for the sake of piety ought not be rejected out of hand when some truth can be found therein, but, as in the case of Homer, should be challenged to the extent that they seem to slander the Gods or the good], are nevertheless worth believing in an having dialogue about).

Ayer's observation that there should be no I in the cogito is actually a repetition of David Hume, who said the unity of all the separate I thinks into a single continuous I is a rigorously unprovable custom (a proposition which seems to me to ignore the fact of memory; that we see each slide of the present within the frame of our past presents [and no one else's], which indicates the specific continuity of the I). Kant made short work of Hume's critique of the ego, mathematical science and religion by pointing out that it was Hume who engendered the uncertainty that troubled him by demanding ontological proof that was after all logically impossible. Thus, by taking away the pretention of ontology, Kant also took away the ground of Hume's objections to what we really are certain about (our minds and mathematics) and left us free to cultivate our moral sense. I think Ayer's proposition (to which I believe you allude with your "Martyrs exist" example) that if a statement is not verifably emprical it is only analytical if tautological or, if neither empirical or tautological, only meaninglessly metaphysical, is also dealt with by Kant, who does reduce our certainties to the mathematical describabilty of appearances and the analytical tautologies of logic (which, as such, are no less valuable than a=a, a cornerstone of thought), and does dismiss any other metaphysics to a meaningless character he described a s wings of reason flying into realm where there is no air to support them (but, like Socrates, does not for that reason belittle or reject the practical moral philosopy which causes us to favor the God/freedom side of the strictly inconceivable antinomies). I know a lot of words have been written (e.g., by positivists, who, while laudably earnest in their empiricism, are just Humeans who don't get that Kant blew them out of the water), and a lot of claims made (e.g., by Hegel, and other revivers of the ontological enterprise, who, while also laudable for their commitment to document Spirit, also don't get that Kant blew them out of the water); but I suspect, with Schopenhauer, that philosophy can really go no further than Kant [just Can't].

That brings me to your last observation, that "to say that mathematics are actually out in the world is not a claim that any mathematician is really willing to make." I would go one further any say (as Kant responded to Hume) that the proposition that there is actually a "world" for mathematics to be "out in" is itself a bridge too far for strict philosophy. I think we can, however, be certain that that mathematics is in our mind, that the appearances of what we call the world are in our mind, and that those appearances of the world in our mind are graspable, describable and predictable, and thus apparently organized, according to the mathematics in our mind. I would perhaps go even a bit further and point out that the Einstein's ability to account for the Michaelson Morely Experiment and the apparent irregularities in the orbit of Mercury using special and genral relativity respectively, and the implications of those theories for spactime [as opposed to Euclidean Space and Galilean time], suggests that mathematical objects and methofds are in some sense natural phenomena subject to observational science, which does seem to put them "out in the world" (which, as I see it, is itself back in the mind for all we know, strictly speaking).

Back on track:
"Faith Won't Heal a Divided World"

Competing faiths, however cordial to each other, will always remain divided. We have to discard the articles of faith that divide us. Until we can do that, there's no point in talking, especially when the divisive articles of faith are at the root of the violence driving the cry for dialog.

Sunnis won't ever settle differences with Shiites, Israelis won't ever settle differences with Palestinians, nor Catholics vs. Protestants, etc.

Having "hope" that "talks" between faiths will create real resolutions and peace is a waste of time, time that we no longer can afford in this world of ever increasingly available destructive technology.

I agree with Sam that the very survival of humanity rests on the rejection and marginalization of religious dogma.

This is directed to Richard Johnson.
(There seems to be a confusion between Richard Johnson and Richard Wade and when people say Richard -- on its own -- I get lost)

Anyway Richard J, I found your long explanation of your Anglican beliefs fascinating and a little scary. I was born to an Anglican family and when I was young I quite simply believed that being a good person and being a goo Anglican were synonymous. I threw myself enthusiastically into the job of trying to be a good Anglican -- Sunday school teacher, very active member of the youth group in my church. I even ended up as a lay preacher.
But gradually I came to realize that I did not believe what the church taught. Then one day when I was attempting to pray in the chapel where they kept the left over communion host and you were supposed to genuflect It suddenly hit me like a brick in the head. Believing that saying some words over a sliver of bread could in no way make it more holy than any other piece of bread. This was/is simply nonsense.
So after a bit of scouting around I chose to become a Quaker and once again threw myself into it enthusiastically. Having no creed or ministers suited me better being as I am an engineer/scientist/mathematician. And now I am an agnostic with no formal religious attachment for reasons which I need not go into.
And reading your long screed I am left with the feeling that you have not gone far enough. It is fine to reject unscientific fundamentalism, fine to understand the nature of the Bible, fine to be liberal in outlook an so on. But what on earth makes you want to cling to the essentials of the Christian faith when you have come so far?

Believe me Richard the freedom which comes from cutting loose from dogmatic religion is a treasure without measure.

To Tammy:
Oh, I didn't mean you. I liked your comments about the free will/destiny contradiction and other things. And I don't think your posts are too long. I usually scroll past the really long ones because if you can't make your point before you reach the bottom of the screen you probably won't make it at all.

And if anybody is offended by my comments, I didn't mean them either.

I have just been driving home listening to the radio here in the UK, I was listening to people who have experienced psychotic episodes describe their experiences...it may be totally irrelevant but I burst out laughing when I heard the story of one person who had thought they were Jesus explaining that if Jesus were here now he would be locked up in a mental institution. I thought how right they were, we would simply not take any of the preposterous claims that Jesus is supposed to have made seriously...the passage of time must have warped our collective and extremely sponge like minds for us to even consider giving credence to a fraction of what are referred to in the Bible as unquestionable truths!

How such levels of ignorance have survived into the 21st Century will prove an almost infinite source of academic research for many future generations to come...

An Open Letter to Sam Harris and others:

Sam,

Some interesting ideas were presented during the forum at the Salk Institute. Perhaps there is hope for mass conversions of people to Atheism in a conference of this type—though I have my doubts. I still insist that Atheists for a long time have shot themselves in the foot time and time again, even though they are correct about the fiction involved in belief in God and following society’s many religions.

Perhaps I missed it, but I don’t see much evidence of a Master Plan of conversion, on either a nationwide or world scale. Conferences like this are quickly forgotten. However, I loved Carolyn Porco’s suggestion of an Atheist religion. Damn, why can’t Atheists create a religion based on SPECULATION that a Supreme Being exists—and describe this God in a more reasonable manner? Even create a dogma based on rational thinking about our actions, something akin to the American Humanist Association manifesto?

I know you hate it when respect is given to religions. But as a highly rational and intelligent person, I believe you REALLY mean respect given to all religions that we currently know of. But why can’t there be respect for speculation, if it is called that upfront? I do believe Atheists can legitimately have respect for a speculative concept of God, and about the possibility of creating a religion that eliminates all the crapola of most religions that make a mockery of a human being’s capacity for brotherhood and love.

May I suggest a two-prong attack on religions beliefs:

#1 Reasonably and rationally attack the beliefs in God that currently persist, as well as religions that are associated with them, including their “words of God” and their dogma. (You are doing that very well.)

#2 Proclaim that it is valid and rational for human beings to yearn for the POSSIBILITY of a Supreme Being, and an Afterlife. Proclaim that Science can accept speculation about a Supreme Being, and can even accept a religion based on that speculation. Proclaim that Science is interested, and will pursue research and intellectual discussion about spirituality and the “inner” nature of human beings. However, what Science cannot accept is a belief in a Supreme Being, and religions that support it, when those beliefs and actions harm people and take away their individual freedoms.

Would this be so hard for a brilliant scientific mind to accept? GM

Science is self-correcting. Simply put, it demands, "Back up what you say with empirical evidence, and when evidence contradicts what you say, throw out your old idea and come up with a better one." If science was dogmatic, it would still be telling us that the earth is flat and in the center of the solar system.

Richard:

I think you missed the point of my post on science. The term dogma is addmitedly overused and doesnt really advance the discussion. What I was referring to was really the view that the scientific method as "practised" for the past several hundred years is the only way to apprehend "reality." Scientists and those who adhere to the scientific world view take it as a given that every phenonmenon is somehow ipso facto subject to "proof" by methods devised only very recently to explain the material world. There may and are things that are not subject to "proof" in the scientific sense because we do not have instruments sensitive enough to detect a particular effect, and we may never have such instruments because a) a purely materialist understanding of a phenonemon may not ever lead to the development of such instruments or b) these phenomenon are simply not subject to a purely materialist measurement. The self correcting nature of scientific inquiry that you tout is laudable of course but the topics that science chooses to tackle and the methods it uses are completely subjective and are of course biased by a materialistic approach.

A yogi practising genering inner heat in the wilderness of Tibet does not require western science to "prove" what he is doing is real. A shaman in Peru does not require science to "prove" that the wisdom he receives in an altered state of consciousness from beings in another dimension is "real." And science cannot devise any way of measuring or quantifying these experiences and subjecting them to some level of "proof", which despite the pretentions of science, is never fully objective and always involves some level of uncertainty. The more science delves into the quantum world, for example, the more it becomes clear how little we understand, how crude our instruments, but science continues to push the belief that once we get the right instruments, we will be able to measure, this is the dogma....

Richard Wade-Very funny, and true. I didn't think I was psychoanalyzing at all(trust me, I'm not goin' there), and I'm sorry to have written such a long post. I had a lot to refute, and I still didn't say all I wanted to, but you're right; it's easy to give up on people when they don't seem to understand reason.
It was nice of Richard Johnson not to remind me of how painful it will be for me when I'm burning in hell, which is where, exactly?

To Richard Wade:
Very funny, and to the point, your description of hell !
Actually, this is what is missing the most, in those blogs about faith, a good sense of humor.

Torrey,
Heaven could be something pretty much the same, except there they like it.
I've got to get some sleep. And a life.
'Night.

Thank you Richard, an eternity of that would most certainly be torturous. So does anybody know what they do in Heaven?

Dear Torrey,
We've all heard the typical Christian version of hell, but for me, hell is a slate blue field with a light blue rectangle upon which black lettering endlessly spells out tedious arguments between exquisitely eloquent believers and sharp-as-razors nonbelievers:
"God exists."
"Does not."
"Does too."
"Does not."
"You can't prove he doesn't exist."
"Oh yeah, well you can't prove he does."
"Can too."
"Can not."
"Can too."
"Ok, go ahead, I dare you."
Whereupon the believer launches a barrage of quotations from several dead European guys, building elaborate arguments that turn in more circles than a whirling dervish, with tautologies flying like bullets from a tommy gun.
In response, the nonbeliever misses the opportunity to poke holes in the illogic, and instead stoops to psychoanalyzing the believer without a license, or associating the believer with infamous crackpots who share some vague semblance of the same belief. Both damned souls retreat to their corners with parting shots of smug dismissal.
After an all-too-brief respite the contenders spring out of their corners with renewed energy like two ghost boxers, who in spite of their strength and skill can never land a spectral glove on an ephemeral chin. The points and counter-points fly but they pass through each other, having no effect. The match is building up to an exciting draw by default.
Meanwhile, more of the doomed have arrived in the slate blue hades and either yell for their champ from the sidelines of the main event, or start their own sparring...
"Does not"
"Does too."
"Can not."
"Can too."
And so it goes, another nice day in blog hell.

Tom-Thanks for your website.

>>>Scripture is the most important resource for matters of religion<<<

Before making such a statement without presenting the evidence, please read Bart D. Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus."

The bible is a rather shaking foundatiion upon which to build a belief system.
David

Sorry, but I'm quite lost inside all of these philosophical arguments. Would one of the 'believers' contributing here please explain to me the Christian understanding (and perhaps apology)of Hell?

Richard-It's good to hear from you. It's interesting, what you're saying. So, free will is an illusion, because god has set everything in motion, and it all unfolds in a predestined way so that it just seems to us like we have some amount of power. But then evil has to exist so that we get to make the right choice. But you've established that choices are illusory, and that when we think we choose, we're actually serving out some counterintuitive purpose? Following this logic, terrorists aren't immoral (they are) and NYC first responders aren't heroes(you know they are). You can see how this may be confusing for a good number of us.
I don't see how Kant or Aristotle ever proved anything for anyone. I went to a Lutheran college, but I've never been able to take the leap of faith required. I also don't see how we can use what's in the Bible to prove the truth of it; there's such a wealth of perspective outside our venerated Western Tradition.
Fundamental consistent laws of nature and mathematics would make sense in a cosmos designed by a conscious being, and so would the existance of evil. As you say, a creator who cared would provide the examples of heroes as a way to model behavior for us, and to remind us how lucky we are. These are not the reasons that I do not believe in god. I don't believe it because as yet, the only proof that is offered is coming from the same old sources that I've always found suspect.
I am glad to hear your perspective, especially considering that you've bothered to learn the history of your Scriptures. I also think you should know that I believe a lot of things in common with you, I just attribute love(of course it exists) to the chemistry of our brains(this is why I say that maybe someday it will be quantified). Freedom is a perfect illusion. Every last one of us will eat soon, or die. There's no real freedom, but of course it's much easier to muse on about freedom when you're warm and well-fed. You may see what I'm saying; we each do have a certain amount of power that we can waste or use.

Richard,

A few comments. First, Kant never subscribed to Descartes "I think, there I am." I may be wrong in this analysis because Kant does attack the idea of existence being an attribute, but I am not sure if he is attacking Descartes. Anyway, the idea here is that in the propositions 'Martyrs exist' this is a tautology since 'Martyr' is already claimed to exist.

Also, as a side note, as Ayer points out, the cogito should be translated as "There is a thought now." Therefore, it does not follow that 'I exist' because one thought doesn't necessitate another thought.

The other note is this: It is a big jump to say that mathematics are good descriptors and tools for the real world, but to say that mathematics are actually out in the world is not a claim that any mathematician is really willing to make.

Tammy: Thanks for your questions. Sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you regarding what I actually believe. I am a Catholic Christian (not Roman), an Anglican Episcopalian specifically. The rule of Anglicanism is that we are guided by scripture, tradition and reason. Scripture is the most important resource for matters of religion; reason is the most important resource for matters of science; tradition is important, and shouldn't be lightly discarded, but should never be followed to the extent that it is contrary to the other two. I love our Western tradition however, especially the great books of philosophy, mathematics, science and religion. I am firmly convinced in science, its methods and its results. My view of the physical universe is that it all operates in accordance with mathematical laws, and that everything therein is causually determined. I share the astrophysicists' conclusions about the age of the universe and the paleontologists' views on the age of life. I believe in evolution and genetics.

Accordingly, while I believe that God created the heavens and earth, I do not believe that God actually did so in seven days. Moreover, while I believe in certain miracles in the life of Christ, including his virgin birth and ressurection from the dead, I do so on the basis of truths revealed in scripture about him as the Son of God. I do not conclude, on the basis of science, that virgin birth or resurrection from the dead are probable occurrences, or even possible occurrences in accordance with the controlling natural laws, and I do not look for virgin births or resurrections to occur as a matter of course, and would be extremely skeptical about, and would almost certainly reject, any claims that such had ever occurred, subject to the singular exception that is a core tenet of my religion.

To understand my reasons for believing this way, and the consistency of this posiition, it is important to remember a couple of ground rules. First, I subscribe more or less to Kant's Critical Philosopy, a species of Cartesianism with roots back to Plato at least. It is apparent to me that what each of us knows more certainly than anything else is that I think therefore I am. Then, examining our thoughts, we see them to be of two kinds, appearance and the will. What do we sense and what will we do?

The realm of the first is speculative philosophy, the most rigorous accomplishments of which are mathematics, and the physical sciences that are most mathematical in method and content. Any other "science" that has not reached the mathematical stage is merely a natural history of phenomena that needs to be sifted until the mathematical principles emerge. I believe that all of physical reality is ultimately subject to rules of mathematical order. (By the way, this order in nature seems to me to be more suggestive of the idea that God exists than it does of the idea that God does not exist.)

For matters of the will (what is to be done?), practical philosophy is the overarching discipline. Certainly, science and technology can tell us what can be done, how to do it, and even what should be done if we want X result; it cannot tell us what should be done in the general sense -- that is, what is right (not just suited to this or that end, but also what is the right end). Wittgenstein nicely pointed out in a short paper the fact that morals of absolute right cannot be a natural science. However, that does not mean it is not a valid discpline whatsoever. This is where what I called spiritual realities come in: ideas like justice, freedom, rights, God. The way we conceive and go about our human activity presupposes freedom of the will, even though to my mind, the necessary quality of natural laws means that there is not, as a part of pysical reality, any such thing as freedom of the will. Everything is fixed and causally determined and could not be or have been any different than it is. Everything follows of necessity from its causes, all the way back to the big bang, and it is predestined to unfold as it will; there's nothing we can do about it. While that is a fine conclusion for speculative philosopy to make about physical reality, it is an unsatisfactory, unsustainable, and, in fact, apparently counterfactual proposition from a moral point of view. From in here, in my mind, it looks to me like I have a choice, and that I can turn left or right (leaving aside the fact, as I see it, that I will choose either left or right and, given the past, there is only one way I am and was ever going to choose).

Plato, Descartes and Kant, more than enyone else, helped me to see the fact that God is an important and necessary part of our thinking, for purposes of pratical philosophy -- critical to grasping and formulating the moral disciplines. It is importnt to note (and this was, among other things, Kant's contribution) that God, freedom of the will, the immortality of the soul, and other spiritual concepts necessary to our moral view of the will are not disprovable. So, as a matter of practical philosophy, I study and subscribe to (or differ from where I see fit), not only the physicists and mathematicians, but also the writings and thoughts of humanity's great thinkers about the the spiritual realities, especially, Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, Dionysius the pseudo-Areopagite, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, Leibniz among others.

God, as St. Anselm masterfully defined him, is "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." For Anslem, that meant that God necessarily exists, since to posit otherwise would violate the definition (because an existing God would be greater than a nonexistent god). Descartes similarly defined God as the the perfect reality which necessarily exists as the only logically possible source of our own a priori concept of perfection. (These so-called ontological proofs are not strictly proofs, because, as Aristotle and Schopenhauer pointed out, defining something doesn't make it exist; however, the concepts are helpful in understanding what God must be if he does exist.) I believe that a necessary corollary of God's perfection and superiority to everything is that he be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent, and that he have personality. Accordingly, I do not believe that God is too distant to know everything, to big to care, impersonal, etc. So, yes, I believe he's inside you and me and everywhere (although he's also beyond physical place).

Moreover, I believe that, as God, he could do miracles, including, among other things, becoming incarnate from the Vigin Mary and rising from the dead on the third day, and speaking to humans through the writings of the prophets.

Prophecy is an important concept for religion, because revelation is to religion what nature is to science: the object of knowledge, the field of study. I believe that all of the the books in the Bible (including Deuteronomy which you asked about), and perhaps some others, are divinely inspired prophecy. I therefore take them as true. However, there are many kinds of truth. There is literal truth, metaphorical truth, etc. I do not take everything in the Bible literally. It was not all meant to be taken literally. Much of what appears in the Bible is a story, which is being told for a reason, moral, political, religious, or otherwise. Moreover, the contents of the Bible have developed by a long and still not completely sorted-out process. For instance, Genesis appears to have been put together by Hebrew priests out of various earlier sources, including at least two different accounts of the creation story. The main points are that God created the universe including man in his image, and that the really important part of history is the story of God's favorites, especially the Hebrew people. The seven days bit is there to provide a rationale for the seven day calendar and the Sabbath; to show that the human institutions are supposed to mirror God's institutions, like man himself mirrors God. That's my guess of what some of it means, one one level. however, I believe that scripture has lots of meanings, on lots of levels, and that the job of ecclesiastical interpretation is to examine the possible meanings, and, if possible, settle on the one that is: (a) best supported by the text, and (b) most edifying for the church.

I do not take Genesis to be a science book, or a primer in ethics or politics, or a complete, or necessarily accurate in every respect, history. It is (like most other books in the Bible), in fact, somewhat of an archeological dump, an artifact composed of many layers of cultural sediment, in which is buried valuable knowledge, not only of specific episodes of the past, but of timeless truths about man and good that can continue to guide us in the future. But I take it as prophecy. I believe that various persons wrote, edited and selected what was in the Bible, sometimes for their own reasons, but that God has let the book come to the church in the form it has for his reasons. Like Robert Frost once said of a poem, when I wrote it, only God and I knew what I meant; now only God knows.

I believe that the Hebrew prophets prophesied the coming of Christ, even though they did not know what they were doing in that regard. In fact, I think that when the Greek translators of the Septuagint mistranlated certain Hebrew words, like "young woman" in Isaiah into "virgin," they were unwittingly contributing to the prophecy, which, according to what I believe, came true according to the translation rather than the original. None of this bothers me. I believe that God can do whatever is best, and that he did in regard to sending Jesus. The incarnation of God in Jesus is a historical singularity in human spiritual history, just as the Big Bang is a singularity in the physical history of the universe. I believe that Jesus came to earth at the fullness of time, i.e., just at the right moment when man was read for him. The groundwork had been laid by Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Greek Mathematicians, the Hebrew Prophets, the founders of the Roman Empire, and others. Man at that moment was sophisticated, cosmopolitan, and chafing at various bonds, especially the demands of the state, the family, and organized religion. I believe that Christ came for people who were excluded and mistreated by organized religion. I believe he came for freethinkers and people of good faith. The Gospels and other more or less contemporary accounts tell us a lot about Jesus, and while not nearly enough, the document the historical existence of the man and the fact that he was considered by all (even his executioners) to be good. I consider myself blessed to be a member of his Holy Catholic Church. I believe in Christ, and everything the Nicene Creed says about him, and the Trinity, and the Church. I am not going to deny that he was born from a virgin or rose from the dead.

As noted above, I do not generally believe in or look for miracles. They are not part of my default view of physical reality. But if he was the Son of God as he said he was, those miracles would not be impossible. The fact that miracles do not naturally occur does not bother me, because that's what a miracle is by definition. If God is perfect and that than which nothing greater can be conceived, he can do miracles. I don't know if the miracles are a suspension of natural laws, a special limiting case of the natural laws, or a complicated and normally very impropable way of utilizing natural laws, or something else; either way its not impossible if God is not impossible; and no one can prove that God is impossible. But like I said, I do not look for miracles; I believe that God generally lets nature take its course; in fact, i think to do otherwise, to put a thumb on the scale, would be contrary to God's character and plan.

A crucial thing to recognize is that the existence of evil does not refute or argue against the existence of God. To the contrary, evil is a corollary of freedom, freedom is an inspensible prerequisite to the good, and, especially, the greatest good of all, love. I believe that God, as the perfect creator, created the "best of all possible worlds." Our world is the best possible, and is better than a hypothetically possible world in which evil does not exist, because, if evil were not an option, choice would not be possible, and if choice is not possible, then love freely given (and I say that's the greatest thing in this world of ours) would not be possible. Similarly, if bad things never happened to good people, and vice versa, morality would be reduced to a bribe, a neutral choice made under duress. As it is, the fact that nature does not play along with justice ensures that the good is something better than the merely expedient. Check out the book of Job: by allowing the devil to torment Job with hideous misfortune, God refutes the devil's accusation that Man's morality is only a mechanism for securing rewards. That story, hard as its lesson is for the judgmental and the simple-minded, is one that makes me proud to be a human, and a believer in God. After Job, Proclus, Dionysius and Boethius similarly demonstrated why the existence of evil and suffering is not an argument against God's existence or justice.

Thus, those, like Geoff, who place stock in the old and simplistic argument that evil undermines God, apparently just haven't thought it through, or listened to anyone who has. There is no valid argument against God. They all fall apart.

So Tammy, if I did not, in that overly long statement (sorry to ramble), answer your question satisfactorily (I may have missed the point), or make it clear whay I believe the things you asked about, I'd be glad to give it another try; or if you have any specific follow up questions, or comments, or challenges or whatever, I'd be glad to continue the discussion.

Now, to Geoff: Your argument that God is refuted by evil is all washed up. Your accusation that I am combative because I fear that my position is inferior makes no sense: does a firefighter fight fire because he thinks that the absence of fire is inferior to fire (or because he thinks that it is superior, and he wants the superior state to triumph over the inferior)? Did Churchill stand up to the Nazis, refuse to appease them, and promise to fight them in the streets and in the parks, because he sensed his weakness, and the inferiority of democracy to tyranny? You know that the answer to these and similar questions is no; so you know that your accusation is just another silly distraction from the ideas themselves, which you still refused to address. You still have another chance: where are freedom and justice and rights and beauty and love in your faith-rejecting worldview? I say they are where God is; they are as real as he is (and vice versa); and they are in the human mind and spirit and just as real as any atom, rock or star.

And Geoff, as to the fear motivating my participation in this debate: I do not fear that God does not exist (something I have no way of knowing or changing), or that someone will disprove his existence (which we know cannot be done); my fear is for humanity, for human civilization: what I fear is that people who do not think for themselves will be misled, that they will be impressed with a veneer of false knowledge, false certainty, and be persuaded, for no good reason, to give up valuable parts of their culture and heritage, jewels of the collective wisdom of our mothers and fathers, that they will become less civilized, less moral, less spiritual, less imaginative, less good, because they believed, wrongly, that that was what science, or reason, or rationality, or reality, or intellectual fad, required. I love humanity and human civilization and human beings, and I want them to conserve and cherish, and use wisely, our human treasures. I do not like to see their pearls trampled by swine. I fear, that unless I and other truly reasonable thinkers stand up and join the debate, then religion, which is one of man's most precious and lofty posessions, will be lost, either to atheism, or to superstition, or, as appears possible, an unbrigdeable divide between those two simple-minded extremes. While I worry that others will be misled by your distractions when you refuse to address my actual arguments (which remain untouched by you), it does not hurt my feelings when you throw out some psychobabble about the weakness of belief and the willingness to fight for it. I am in the best company, and, in this debate, I take inspiration from Churchill, who likewise decided to do what is right when he saw the threat to civilization, and famously said, in terms that could equally apply to the struggle against ignorant Atheism:

"Upon this battle depends the survival of Christian civilization. Upon it depends . . . the long continuity of our institutions . . . If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science."

I gladly struggle against fundamentalist superstition as well, but I hold out less hope for those uneducated extremists for whom reason and logic and science have no value or resonance whatsoever. That is why I address my argument to the ones who do claim to love reason and logic and science, because I know that, if they really think about it, they will see that truth exists, and that it includes physical reality (with its mathematical laws), and spiritual reality (with its divine laws). I know that, rigorously speaking, I do not have to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" and get rid of faith in God and the other spiritual realities, just to affirm science and logic. I want to sample all the good fruits of civilization and pass them all along to my descendants. I believe that they will be richer and healthier and wiser for it. Finally, I am interested in hearing and speaking the truth, and therefore, cannot stand by when someone makes unsupported claims against faith. I find falsehood and overreaching to be unsavory.

Darrick: Thanks for the cites you gave me. I have always been a big fan of Freedom House. You need to keep in mind, however, that Freedom House is not quantifying freedom; they are ranking and evaluating governments/legal systems according to how well or poorly they recognize and protect certain civil and political rights which the Freedom House, and most liberal democracies in the Western tradition, have acknowledged to be important components and indicators of political/civil liberty. They do not quantify "freedom" itself, or say what freedom is, why freedom is good, or why it should be favored over its opposite. They also do not demonstrate that the human will is free, and that choice is free in such a way as to support moral judgment of actions, condemn wrong choices and laud good ones. Freedom House takes for granted that the human spirit is free by nature, and that freedom is a positive good. Similarly, I suspect (but I'll need to look at them carefully to verify this, although it's difficult to conceive how it could be otherwise) that none of the other institutions you have identified are actually accounting for things like love, justice, etc., in themselves, in the quantitative manner in which we can account for space, time, mass and energy. I'm interested to read what you cited, but I'm pretty sure that the transcendental spiritual realities I have identified are still "out there" in that non-physical kingdom of great ideas, which, like God and his Angels, cannot be measured or disproved.

Beachwoman:
"I never realized until now what good company I am in."
Yes, until I started reading this, and a few others, I thought there weren't many "non-believers" around.
I've been an atheist pretty much my entire life, as my parents didn't raise me with religion (thank goodness) but I didn't really even think about it until I was in my late teens.

"If we could just express our beliefs and have respect for others who do not believe as we do the entire world would be a more peaceful place. If that means I believe in the impossible than SO BE IT."
That would be great, but unfortunately we have some (Canyon Shearer) that will not listen to anything and will just spout out their same irrational arguments.
How god is this, and Jesus is that, and if you don't believe you're going to hell.
I was a laid back atheist (didn't put too much thought into it, just didn't believe in god) until I moved to the south.
Now, because almost everyone around here is Christian, and pretty much mentions god in everyday conversation, I have become more "involved" in debating/arguing against religion.
That is when I began reading Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. I've started increasing my knowledge of evolution mainly to rebut Creation.

I have no problem with religious people that keep religion private. I don't start coversations with, "Hi, I'm an atheist." so unless you directly ask, you won't know.

Tom -
I'll probably check out your website when I get home.

A premise: I am a "serious" agnostic. I have no clue if God exists or not, and if yes, what his (her?)nature would be, but I just try to live this precious and fragile life as best as possible.
I do consider religion to be "the opiate of the people." But , so what ? I do not care if my neighbors smoke marijuana or drink alcohol to go through the problems in their life. So I do not care either if they use their religion as a way to cope with the tough realities of life, and for that matter, after-life.
But I do care when people with strong religious beliefs try to impose their views in my personal way of life. And this is my point. In too many countries, the "official" religion imposes many of their beliefs in the rules of Law of those countries. Even in the US, although more subtle, religion has influenced the rules of Law. And I believe this is where the debate should be, in a pragmatic way. I doubt we solve the issue of who is right/wrong, God/no God, Christianity/Islam, Catholic/Protestant, etc... Those debates are pretty much useless. The real issue, I think, especially in a country as diverse as the USA, is how we all live together , under which Laws. Although there are some parts of the Law that I do not agree with, the US is still a nice place to be. But we need to remain vigilant. For me, personal freedom should have no limitation, with the fundamental exception of anything harming other people. Unfortunately, strong religious groups want to impose their view in our private lives. I do not necessarily condone certain behaviors or ways of life, but I could not careless if gay people marry, people smoke pot, abort, want to die when terminally ill etc... It is THEIR choice.
And this is a big issue. Ultimately, do we want to live in the same country, not under God, mind you ? If yes, how much do we want to compromise. If not, should we have different countries to live in depending on our beliefs or lack of. In a way, the federalism of the USA enables someone to move in a State where the Laws of the State are closer to your ideas (Oregon Vs Utah)?
My preference would be for a "compromised" State where reason and tolerance would prevail in the rule of Law. However, would the religious fanatics win and the world become more christallized and belligerant, the "independant" people would not have much space left to live.

I am a reformed (I like to call it lately educated) born-again Christian from the UK. I have been free of my prejudice for over ten years now and I have never felt so good.

When I decided that I could (and should) allow myself to objectively question the unfounded assumptions on which my Christian faith (ignorance in the face of fact) was based, I was so indoctrinated that I was scared, but I allowed myself the luxury of using my intellect and I found my faith wanting. It was a paper tiger and I found there was nothing empirical underpinning my unfounded beliefs. At the time I was told not to question by those in positions of spiritual authority, I was told that Satan was testing me, but after a while I realised that I was in a real ife version of the Hans Christian Andersen story; The Emperors New Clothes...I was being told that I simply could not see the truth because my spiritual perspective was out of sync, but actually my Christian faith, like the Emperor's new clothes, was just a plain and simple con. An emotionally expensive, financially unsound, guilt inducing, un-natural, alienating, isolating, prejudice creating, time thieving, attention distracting, energy sapping, relationship destroying con.

I now run a website called www.proveyourgods.com which eponymously asks the one simple question of religious enthusiasts that any self-respecting court, parent, teacher, public-servant and scientist would and should ask of any of us who throw theories in the air; to provide some proof of what you are saying before being taken seriously.

Asking uncomfortable questions of those who insist that unproven and unprovable theories should still be applied to our lives must now be the order of the day. Logical people should not be afraid of offending those who are so quick to threaten non-believers with eternal pain. It is time for the human race to move on...

I must say that I am learning much just reading the posts on this website. I saw this mentioned on Hardball and decided to check it out. I never realized the diversity of ideas I would find here. It proves to me that a forum like this is much needed even though I see that the majority of people are posting inorder to convince me that I need religion/faith in my life or NOT.

I think it is time for all of us non-believers come out of the closet. I never realized until now what good company I am in. I have not read Sam Harris because until now I have not been at all interested in any other beliefs than the one I have. Until now I have always believed it was ME against the rest of the world. I am the only one in my circle that does NOT believe. While many have worked hard to change my mind I have not changed the way I think.

So those of you who believe differently than the norm please keep posting. Afterall that is one of the wonderful rights we have living in this country. Free speech and the right to believe or NOT as we see fit. I can't imagine living somewhere other than this country with all of its problems.

If we could just express our beliefs and have respect for others who do not believe as we do the entire world would be a more peaceful place. If that means I believe in the impossible than SO BE IT. Seems to me that the more intellectual the posting the more confusing it becomes. Is this topic really that difficult and if so why does it have to be? The key to all if this is simply respect for others. Something I was taught very early in childhood. Were others not taught that simple principle?

To Richard Wade.

You are a good writer and I enjoyed your "speech." Yes, I guess your take on science is certainly more noble than mine. But I do try to keep up, just for the fun of it. For instance, Michio Kaku's book, "Beyond Einstein" has explained for me the workings of Neveu-Schwarz-Raymond's superstring theory. I've got a little trouble with 10 and 26 dimensions, however. But that is nothing, when compared to the trouble caused by some other books folks are referring to here.

From all my investigations, I have concluded that, except for science, all the beauty has already been done. What I mean by that is the Mozarts and Beethovens and Rodins and Rembbrants and Shakespears and Twains...have fewer and fewer comparisons, since their times. Unless we want to consider Mark Knopfler. I keep "Dire Straits" playing in the background, as I read all this stuff on the Internet. It helps.

I became an atheist 35 years ago after realizing that my Mormon religion was based on lies and lunatic imaginings. One of the nicer things about the Mormons is that they don't really believe in Hell. After all, who would want to have anything to do with a "Being" who claimed to be pure love, but was willing to 'torture for eternity' at least 6 billion of the creatures he claimed to love? All of these (above) other wonderful arguments aside, that does it for me.
And BTW, I bless the days Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins were born.

Returning the question before us. Sam is correct communication between believers and non-believers is impossible because "belief" is a rational decision to think irrationally, and rationalism cannot accept the irrational as a matter of discourse. So, any such conversation will fail. The important thing to remember is that we have a constitutional right to insist on only the rational in the "public secter."

Sam:

At least one of the contributors to this discussion has expressed concern about the fact that the frequency of contributions has tailed off. Personally, I am not very concerned about this since having so many contributors inevitably results in repetitiousness after a while.

I notice that Zaid Shakir decided to put in a "Response to the responses" and I think it might be helpful if Sam Harris did the same. Some attempt to sift out the main themes would surely be helpful.

Being an agnostic rather than an atheist I would, for my own part, be rather interested in his commnents on his attitude to the concept of spirituality -- not his negative attitude to dogmatic religions with which most of us share.

Leaving aside the thorny issue of sifting out sensible ethical and moral values there is the deeper issue contained in the question:

Why should we do good and why shouldn't we do harm?

It is as if we live in a universe which places an obligation on all of us to do the best we know how. Whence cometh this obligation?

I practiced zen meditation for many years under the guidance of a well known Roshi. I believed all that stuff about enlightenment and breaking through delusion, experiencing reality directly, yada yada. I twisted my legs in a knot and sat through talks by the Roshi, not understanding what sounded like the ramblings of a drunk. I and everyone else there thought that we didn’t understand him because we were deluded and he was enlightened. Then one evening during one of these I had my epiphany.
I was looking right at Roshi, just a few feet away, despairing that I’d never get this stuff that sounds like the ramblings of a drunk, when it struck me: He was drunk! It sounded like exactly what it was. Suddenly tons of confusion and frustration fell away, and I saw that the only delusion I needed to disabuse myself of was that I was indeed deluded. Things are not illusory, they’re exactly what they appear to be. A drunk is just a drunk, a cigar is just a cigar, and my knees are killing me because I’m twisting them into a knot. Reality is mundane. This is it. What you see is what you get. Stories about the “enlightenment of the clear blue sky” are silly fantasies to keep disciples coming to the zendo, just like stories of salvation and damnation keep the flock coming to the church. I quietly left and never went back. Buddha said to stop clinging. That includes whatever method we have been using to stop clinging.

I keep reading entries referring to "scientific dogma," or "blind faith in science," statements like that, characterizing science as just another religion. These are oxymoronic statements that reflect a lack of understanding of the way science works. Dogma is self-perpetuating and self-protecting. It goes on unchanged for millennia. Science is self-correcting. Simply put, it demands, "Back up what you say with empirical evidence, and when evidence contradicts what you say, throw out your old idea and come up with a better one." If science was dogmatic, it would still be telling us that the earth is flat and in the center of the solar system. Scientific theories sometimes outlast their base of evidence for a while because several PhD's were built on them, and people don't want to let go of their cherished ideas. But as new evidence builds up, the old theories are either modified or replaced entirely.
"Darwinian dogma" is an oxymoron. Darwin's theory has been modified and refined over the last century as better evidence has been found, and now it explains what we see better than it did originally. Darwin's ideas will be abandoned entirely when and if credible, verifiable evidence comes along that can refute them. Evolution applies to ideas as well as organisms. If an idea does not adapt and change to fit the changing environment of evidence around it, it will perish. This process even applies to the scientific method itself: Come up with a way of doing things that actually, in-the-real-world works better, and we'll chuck the whole science thing in the trash.

There is a third path in all this, a way that does not lead to or condone dogmatic faith mediated by organized religious institutions or to a blind faith in the scientific method as practiced for the past 200 years in the West. But this is a more difficult path because it involves increasing one's direct experience of reality, of the true nature of mind, through practices such as meditation, complimented with a rigorous study of the same and guidance by a experienced teacher. This is a difficult path because it puts the burden on the practitioner and ultimately results in the demolition of an ego-centric view of the world which is the real root cause of the divisions Sam is talking about. But fighting mother culture and the ego requires a type of fortitude generally lacking in people who have been raised in religious traditions or have bought into the koolaid of Western science. Just as I reject religious propositions such as having to "accept" Jesus, so to one should reject the likes of Dawkins and his Darwinian dogma. Sam is both right and wrong...

Dear Michael Karg,
I like your angle on science because it's different from mine. You're right, in that the most basic, background purpose of science, or just about any human endeavor, is to either make life longer or more comfortable, or both. Our creature comforts and basic necessities will be served, or we won't do whatever it is. I see all that as the by-products of science, the practical applications, the technology. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy them, I'm grateful for them, and I use them to my best advantage. But I don't think about science in those terms very much because when I say "science," I mean thinking scientifically. You don't have to be a scientist to think like one. I'm fascinated with it as a way of thinking, a demanding, invigorating discipline, just for its own sake. I can't leave it alone. Regardless of the technology it will spawn, just to relentlessly inquire, inquire, inquire, in every direction, as far as possible. To observe, hypothesize, back it up with evidence, and ask others to please knock it down if they can. Then to embrace the humiliation (not a bitter thing) when wrong, because we learn from the "failed" experiments as much as the "successful" ones. I'm puzzled when people complain about scientists as being arrogant. I suppose they can be, but the ones I have met possess a supreme humility. They resist the temptation to say, "This is the truth." Instead they say, "This is the best explanation we have so far, and after we look closer, longer, more carefully, we'll probably come up with a better explanation. They write everything in pencil, with a big eraser handy. That's the strength of science. That's why it's so successful at improving and increasing our lives. Child-like people want Truth with a capital T, carved in stone, that never changes, that they don't have to think about or doubt, or use their own judgment about. They find science frustratingly inconstant. Science is for grown-ups. People who accept the ambiguities and tough decisions of life. People who accept responsibility for their lives and their decisions moment by moment. That's not easy to do, and I certainly don't do it perfectly, but it's a nagging, irresistible challenge that I can't put down.

(Sorry for making a speech.)

To Richard Wade.

(Too bad we have to use this public website for an agreeable discussion, maybe).

Science, I was thinking, actually shows no other purpose for humans than comfort and longer lives. This process we are using for communication, I find comfortable. Every piece of science has given me more comfort, and longevity. Nuclear energy provides me electric power at lower cost. That kind of stuff....

And I find that scientists say the smartest things. Like K. F. Gauss, working out the problems of magnetism, "I have my results, but I do not yet know how I arrived at them." And the GUT science team leader, when learning another molicule had just been discovered, exclaimed, "Who ordered that!"

But the best line comes from my brother. He announced, "You know, every science book I have ever read, by page 3, says, "Scientists used to believe...."

Yes, I will be sticking around for awhile -- as long as my body is interested in repairing itself. After age 65, I lost interest in artificial repairs. I canceled as much of Medicare as "they" allow to be canceled. Talk about dogma!

To Michael Karg,
Unless it hurts too much, stick around a little longer. You're interesting to talk to. Very interesting idea about science becoming a "faith" if people stay alive too long by "worshiping" it. But we're really talking about medical technology here, actually, not science.

> "Get out the vote! Blog! Advertise! Create a T.V. sitcom about Atheists! Highlight the repulsive ignorance and waste of intellectual resource that is religion in conversations, books, ART! Enough theory, you know where you stand and you realize that it is futile to debate with delusional people who cling to the past! Act!"

I really enjoy the way Stephen Colbert goes about this on his 'Colber Repor'. And I even more enjoy the 'This Week in God' segments on the Daily Show - I wish they would do them more often.

Ciao

As another example of non-dogmatic religion, here is a quote from the Dalai Lama:
"This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness."

To Richard Wade.

No, not too literally, Richard, precisely. But I didn't want to scare "them" off, using a story like yours.

Further, I was an early disciple of Sam Harris, but today, I don't know. His interest and studies in neuroscience seem to be more of...well, I just don't know.

Besides, some of those things you mentioned doing in a life of living forever, I have already done enough. I do not see the purpose of living much beyond 70 years. I guess if one didn't get it all in by then, perhaps. I am 68 and 5/6ths. Soon, good bye -- and you are welcome to the fertilizer.

Oh, by the way, I think science has finished its work in the matter of longevity, unless it too wants to be a Faith.

THE QUESTION
If some religious people believe they have a monopoly on truth, then are conversation and common ground possible? If so, what would be the difficulties and benefits of such a conversation?

The answer to either question is contained in the first question: It is not possible to dialog meaningfully with persons of faith. No matter how sophisticated they may be with their pseudo-logical justifications for the necessity of a god. A common ground between persons of irrational basis cannot by definition produce rational results. The struggle that we are faced with is to separate the church and the state. The phrase 'Freedom From Religion' has been repeated in these postings and I could not agree more. I understand Sam Harris' central thesis as such: Religion should in no way factor into public policy. I could not agree more. Bertrand Russell has been credited with the following quote: Most people would rather die than think. This unfortunately appears to be true. We cannot totally expect millions to suddenly reject superstitious mentality in favor of seeking verifiable truth and critical analytics. What we can reasonably expect is that the majority fall somewhere underneath the bell-curve of statistical support for moderate acceptance of religion. It is this middle ground that must experience a subtle shift in position such that the benign aspects of religion are overshadowed irrevocably in their minds by the destructive and divisive nature of religions when they vote. I am loathe to acknowledge a positive benefit of 9/11, however, the visibility of the destructive power of what amounts to brand loyalty or religious faith over humanity and ethical reasoning has been made crystal clear to Americans. Democracy is the best thing going on in the world today in terms of political social structures. Our mission is clear. Educate and vote. Relentlessly pursue the interests of the middle of the road and affect a shift in their position towards religion away from slightly positive to slightly negative such that their vote will count in favor of stem cell research and science education and birth control and protection of the environment and on and on. For those of us who do not require superstition to lead ethical, productive and healthy lifestyles that are full of all the meaning that we ourselves bring to our own self directed lives: Get out the vote! Blog! Advertise! Create a T.V. sitcom about Atheists! Highlight the repulsive ignorance and waste of intellectual resource that is religion in conversations, books, ART! Enough theory, you know where you stand and you realize that it is futile to debate with delusional people who cling to the past! Act!

One of the great inventions of the human organism is humor which we see in Shakespeare, Trollop, and Jane Austin but do not see in the Bible or the Koran. Steven Weinberg, Nobel Prize in Physics.

God is an invention of Man. So the nature of God is only a shallow mystery. The deep mystery is the nature of Man. Namei Kobori, Buddist Abbot.

In disputable places I love to take up with what I can best understand. Tis the temper of the hot and superstitious part of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Isaac Newton.

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is an absurd one. Voltaire.

To Michael Karg,
Forgive me if I'm taking you too literally, but not everyone wants to live forever. If you really think about it, living forever here on earth would be a nightmare. Firstly, it would mean the end of children. I won't be seeing my great great grandchildren if I and my generation don't get out of the way. That aside, immortality as me would eventually mean excruciating boredom. After ten thousand or a hundred thousand years, I would have been everywhere and done everything countless times. Now what? I could hang around for a few billion until the sun swells up and cooks the earth, maybe move to a warmer Mars if I can afford it, go everywhere and do everything there for a few millenia....but I'm still me. Now what? Ho, hum. Man, this immortality is a pain in the ass! In many trillions of years all the stars will cool off and go out. Anybody got a flashlight? No, long before any of that, immortal people would become obsessed with finding some way to die, to be truly annihilated. We want a long life, as long as it's relatively comfortable and fulfilling. But I'm ok with eventually becoming fertilizer for some new person's garden.

The common ground of all Faiths and science is Life Everlasting. Hard evidence shows that Life Everlasting is the promise of Faiths and the pursuit of science.

Virtually all humans desire to live forever, but rarely does one hear that this is their singular interest. And this is THE common ground.

Another common ground is that all Faiths and science provide comfort.

Living forever and comfort is in the provenance of both Faiths and science.

One would think that Faiths and science have much to discuss, and they do -- if ever they can acknowledge their quite similar common grounds.

Faiths, for instance, might discuss their different forms of Life Everlasting; and science needs included in the discussion. After all, science has already made available the doubling of years of life expectancy.

I would guess that Faiths find science highly desirable, inasmuch as science has also provided at least as much comfort as Faiths.

So now, let's begin the discussion of the common grounds -- living forever, in whatever forms (science can include their clones here), and the comforts provided by Faiths and science.

The common ground of all Faiths and science is Life Everlasting. Hard evidence shows that Life Everlasting is the promise of Faiths and the pursuit of science.

Virtually all humans desire to live forever, but rarely does one hear that this is their singular interest. And this is THE common ground.

Another common ground is that all Faiths and science provide comfort.

Living forever and comfort is in the provenance of both Faiths and science.

One would think that Faiths and science have much to discuss, and they do -- if ever they can acknowledge their quite similar common grounds.

Faiths, for instance, might discuss their different forms of Life Everlasting; and science needs included in the discussion. After all, science has already made available the doubling of years of life expectancy.

I would guess that Faiths find science highly desirable, inasmuch as science has also provided at least as much comfort as Faiths.

So now, let's begin the discussion of the common grounds -- living forever, in whatever forms (science can include their clones here), and the comforts provided by Faiths and science.

Dear LucyQ- I hope everyone of voting age in our country who sees things the way you do and informs themselves as you have are actually voting. It would seem that this is increasingly so, but time will tell.

Your latest post brings me back to my original reason for posting, and that is my kids. I am an atheist, and all that means to me is that I can't pretend to know things that I don't. I read the bible stories with all the other old mythologies, and we're going in order to give them the historical, global perspective. This is my prerogative.

You bring up very practical concerns, like so many others, about our money, the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. My kids don't attend the public school, but I like my neighbors and know them to be good people, so my kids & I have joined the Scouts. I wasn't a Girl Scout as a kid, but I've read their handbook & approve of their curriculum, if I may call it that; everything except their pledge, "On my honor, I will try to serve God and my country..." I've read the handbook, and they leave the interpretation of the word "God" wide open, so I really don't see why it needs to be there at all. I also know my neighbors don't want me talking to their kids about god(not that I want that responsibility, either), so so far I feel forced to keep to myself. I can blow off saying the pledge at the Scout meeting and get away with it, but my kids get a kick out of chanting in unison(who knew?)
so of course they've memorized it and I brought it on myself.

So anyways, I do have something constructive to say out of all this. I'm cutting out turkey hands for this week's craft and I was asked to maybe find a story or activity we can read or do that relates to the pilgrims & native americans. I'm keeping my reservations to myself, but I won't be talking about pilgrims too much. I want to find something we can read or do that pertains to the tribes who once freely inhabited the woods of our gorgeous state. If anyone reading this post has anything to share that maybe you've experienced, or activities/websites you'd suggest I would find it most helpful. Until then, I'll go surfin' myself to see what I can find.

Now that we are free to criticize religion and those who practice superstition we must cease brainwashing the minds of children.

Also it is physical and emotional abuse to ritually mutilate the genitals of defenseless children. If as mature adults people opt for tattoos or to pierce their genitals then that is their business.

Governments must not endorse, sanctify or promote the practice of superstition.

How about removing the words worshipping god as the top dog at the Federal Reserve from US banknotes too? The symbols of Freemasonry and Egyptian magic on paper money are charming but really have nothing to do with capitalism.

To the religious buffs who commented above,

I too, at an early age was brainwashed by the non-sequitors and those who believed in immortality of the so-called soul. A soul that can see, hear, smell, taste, feel and has intelligence and memory, all this accomplished by an invisible something or other entity.

Since then, I have found freedom by just practicing the "Golden Rule". No, not the American Rule (He who has the gold etc.), I have also found freedom from hypocracy since no longer worshiping a figment of immagination, in anticipation of an after-life in a fictional paradise.

Good luck on finding freedom some day
Ross

Thanks should be made to Sam Harris for some lines of my comment. Pick up his book, "The End of Faith" for a great read. Another fabulous book is Thomas Paine's, "The Age of Reason." Get the opinion of the man who jump-started the American Revolution!

Hey Jay and everyone else,
Every religion claims that its book is the "Word of God." Unfortunately, He has given us many versions of a book. They are completely incompatable and each claims to be the "inerrant" Word of God. They cannot all be true and completely different at the same time. By reading them each one also contradicts itself in many ways. So why is only your book inerrant? Obviously they all cannot be the Word of God. How do you argue with a devout Muslim that his Koran is the erroneous book, and the Bible is the only one?
From comparing them it is clear that none of them live up to this ridiculous claim. If God does exist, he certainly didn't author a book, men did. In the case of each book, they were written by sandstrewn men who thought the Earth was flat and for whom a wheelbarrow would have been a breathtaking example of technology. To rely on such documents as the basis for our worldview is to repudiate 2,000 years of insights into the human mind and scientific progress.
Let's take it a step further. Imagine a world in which generations of human beings came to believe that certain films were made by God. Imagine a future in which millions of our descendents murder each other over "Lord of the Rings" vs. "Star Wars." Could anything, ANYTHING! be more sad or ridiculous? And yet, this would be no different or ridiculous than the world we are living in. GOD IS NOT AN AUTHOR!

I just want to say: Thanks Sam for giving us an excuse to come out of the closet!

I noticed quite a few comments to the effect that science doesn't have all the answers to our problems and that religion fulfills many human needs - mainly social. Science is mostly pretty boring. People need motivation and fellowship, and ethical/moral guidlines.

It should be pretty obvious to most atheists that we can't just tell people that a belief in God is irrational and obsolete and expect everyone to abandon religion. I'm an atheist, a strong atheist even, but that's not a substitute for religion. People should realize that atheism is about nothing. It's not a "faith". It's a pretty strange word. We don't have a word for not believing in the tooth fairy. But we have to invent a word for not believing in God because it is generally assumed that we have to have a "religion". Religion is deeply ingrained in most cultures and you can't just throw it away. If we are to move away from faith, the change has to be gradual and there must be alternatives that can satisfy the needs that are currently fulfilled by religion.

I'd like to point out that there are people trying to provide rational alternatives to religion.

A lot of people are being touched by the Flying Spaghetti Monster for example - while it's not a real religion it's a bit of fun, it provides some of the social benefits of religion and it gets the message out that religion should not be above criticism.

For a serious attempt at providing an alternative to a faith based religion, check out the Church of Reality web site for example. I joined up recently because I was impressed by the quality and quantity of sensible material on the site.

RAmen

Jay:

I've not read any post on this site where any anyone has suggested taking away anyone's child and/or freedom of speech. Since I haven't read every single post here, please show me a post where someone has said those things. Yes, some atheists are very angry and, in my opinion, anger is never conducive to truly rational thinking. The fear of having your rights taken away because of what you believe has always been around and there are always people on both sides of any issue who believe that the way to deal with the problem is to muzzle the other speakers. I believe that people should be free to believe that little green men inhabit cities in the core of the earth, as long as they don't try to use my tax dollars to go down there and try to root them out. I would want more than just an unfounded belief before I'd want to spend money on rooting out little green men. Freedom to express your belief in the little green men is one thing. My problem begins when public policy begins to organize itself around beliefs that can't be physically verified more than the notion of Santa Clause. This is not to say that what can't be verified is automatically false. It's for this reason that I DON'T call myself an atheist. For all I know, there ARE little green men inhabiting cities at the core of the earth. I imagine, however, that probably 90% of the Christians in America would not want their tax money spent to drill down to find the cities of the little green men without some sort of concrete evidence that those underground cities are really there. On the other side, however, I would not be in favor of legislation that would say that people who believe in little green men are not allowed to have children. Who knows, maybe one of those children would grow up to be the person who finds concrete evidence that the little green men are real. Who knows.

Dear Jay-What a refreshing post from you-Thanks! So many people want to talk about words like faith, god, spirit, love, happiness, as abstractions, but do not back up any assertions with definitions. This makes it seem like so many of us are disagreeing over semantics, which of course would be silly. I'm very glad to see someone admit, as you have, to exactly what you believe. I'm also sorry if you've encountered hostility because you are a Christian; I personally have read & responded here hoping to work out my own way of conversing with my own dear friends and family members who are Christians. They are people I respect and even emulate in most areas of their lives. Out in the world, however, my personal worldview tends to put me at odds with people, and I wonder who thinks my children should be taken from me, so in no corner would I suggest that that is what should happen to people who are misinformed.
I say misinformed not to poke fun at what anyone believes. I say misinformed because I base my belief on factual evidence that I've gathered from a number of sources that can be independently verified, and that can't be the case for you if you're only reading your bible. Especially interesting as of late are findings going on all over the place concerning our brains; it looks like we actually can quantify happiness, but of course noone suggests that it's all been done, it's all figured out. Doctors are measuring and mapping our brains in ways that may seem like sci-fi nonsense but it is so worth knowing this stuff, and so much of it can actually be seen on TV. Watching good TV shows about science, with my kids, has given me a lot to look up later, after they're in bed & I can pay closer attention. It really has helped me so much.
Now that you have been so honest and unambiguous(sorry if my editing is piss-poor at this hour) about what you believe to be true, it would be helpful for me to know why you believe this. I ask not to put you, or anybody, on the spot. I ask so that I can reasonably argue with my own grandma. She is fundamentalist Christian because that's what she has always been taught, and under no circumstances will she disrespect her parents by considering the possibilty that it could be a mythology. She has two sources of information-the Christian bible and the local newspaper. She doesn't watch TV or listen to the radio, and she recently asked me if I think that God created everything in a few days, as we read in Genesis, and if the bible's timeline is at all correct. I'm not sure what she read in the paper that made her ask me this, but she had done the math, and she does not see how the bible's 6,000-year-old-cosmos makes any sense. She did the math. Seriously. She has never driven a car, or read anything besides the paper & her bible, and yet somehow this spark of information in her brain has opened up possibilities she couldn't have imagined on her own.I hope she does not feel like a sinner for considering this, because she isn't.
Sweeping generalizations may cause you to write me off as immoral for questioning your word of God , or cause me to write you off as an idiot for believing something on faith(i.e. without any valid evidence). I don't think you're an idiot, and I never generalize people. I really do want you to consider my evidence, and if you have any besides the bible, please present it to me. I'll read just about anything!
Once again, Jay, thanks sincerely for laying your cards on the table.

Jay,
I don't share your beliefs, but I do not hate you, or other Christians. I don't advocate any of the extreme things you have mentioned that may be stated or implied in some of the above entries. The "tone of hatred" you perceive I think is actually fear. I know that my anger comes from fear. I'm afraid of a few of your fellow Christians. The ones who are ambitious, who want power, who want to impose their views and their values on everyone. You know who I mean, they speak to the ear of power, and to the ears of millions who give them money. They don't want to attract people to their religion by virtue of their shining example, they want to be the only religion available. How are they any different from the extremists and theocrats of the Muslim world? To me they are just as scary.
When people court power to further their ideals, they become seduced by that power, lose track of their goals, and in the end only the power is important to them. As I said before in another entry, religion suffers when it tries to gain power over society. It ends up sullied and discredited. People of faith all over the world are failing to denounce and reject these demagogues, and so their abuse and ambition grows and accelerates. We're not really hateful, we're afraid. You're afraid of losing your right to believe. I'm afraid of losing my right to not believe. When people are angry, there's some danger. When people are afraid, there's extreme danger.

OK, Sam I get it.

Let's do away with Faith.

Where do we start?

How about a small country, like France. Let's start with the Catholics and the Muslims.

How about next Tuesday?

Who should we invite?

Tried to comment here a couple of times, but I guess someone is cencoring.

To me it is so blindingly clear. Religion is the one thing that is endangering each one of us individually, our civilization, our way of life, our species, and every living thing on this planet. The destruction of civilizations as a direct result of religious ideology is something that is currently unfolding. Nuclear power is the means, religious dogma is the driving force. Religious people like to put this blame on the scientific establishment for development these weapons of mass destruction. Responsible nations have possessed nuclear weapons for decades, but it was not until nuclear weapons fell into the hands of a fundamentalist pseudo-theocracy that we are now threatened with the destruction of civilization. Just as the argument goes; guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well, nuclear bombs don't destroy civilizations, but religion most certainly will. What is even scarier(and in my opinion, insane) is that this scenario of nuclear destruction actually plays into Christian prophecy of the second coming of Christ, WHICH WILL BE WELCOMED!!! In other words, most people of religious faith have consigned themselves to, and even look forward to, a future of nuclear destruction. This is the most ludicrous, ridiculous, and insane form of tragedy to ever befall this planet and mankind.
That bleak scenario aside, also are faced with what is happening to our fellow living creatures and our planet. What does this have to do with religion? There is a term that is being taught in college level cultural studies called teleology. I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned more by Harris or Dawkins or anyone else. Teleology is the belief that the Earth was created for humans, that it and everything on it is for our use and abuse, and that humans are superior to, and seperate from nature. This idea, supported by the Judeo-Christian-Islam religion, and when coupled with the advanced of technology is potentially far mor damaging to our habitats than, say, the more scientific view of humans and nature, in which we exist within nature and should strive to be in balance with it. The fact that we have highly evolved brains and intelligence does not seperate us from nature. Rather, we should use our intelligence responsibly and see ourselves as the species that is in charge of the planet, which we are, and strive to care for all things on this world. We are no longer in competition with other species and we need to quit pretending that we are.
Again I shall say, religion is the most ludricrous, ridiculous and insane tragedy to ever befall this world and mankind.I have given a word for it. I call it the Insane Comedy. I call it this because I feel like I am watching people at an insane asylum behind a one way window. It would be hilarious, this fact of world religions vowing the destruction of one another over things so trivial, imaginary, unprovable and semantic, if it was not in fact true. The majority of people seem also to be entranced, like insects to an electric zapper, by the second coming of jesus, to the point that the prospect of imminent nuclear destruction is something that is destined to happen and no attempt should be made to stop it. I have been told once that I may not be giving the best for my child's future by not instructing her in the 'word of the lord'. But the opposite is true. She will not kill others for their convictions and she will hold that nature and this world is the only paradise there is, and she will value it and treat it accordingly. I will take her up into the foothills of the Sierras on a Sunday morning and let her listen to the wind and play in nature, not the wind coming from some old windbag giving his specialized translation of a book in some old man-made building. I strive to make this world a better place for future generations, in any small way I can. The way to accomplish that is to break down religion until it is gone. It will happen one day, when we will take our place back with nature instead of imagining ourselves as above it. Imagine what this world would be like if every place of worship was turned into a school of some form of learning. I can tell you what it would be like because the world was once like this 2000 years ago, before Christianity. Many of the early churches were converted from civic buildings and schools of thought. Early church fathers actually condemned education and rational thought. It is written in the bible that "the wisdom of the world is foolishness to god" and " the more they professed to be wise, the more stupid they became." Early Christians even measured their level of piety by their lack of education! I recommend reading, besides Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins of course, Charles Freeman's "The Closing of the Western Mind, The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason."

I have been reading many of the posts that have been made to Mr. Harris' response to the question posed. And I am troubled by what I see.

Let me set my cards on the table: I am a Christian. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, that it is absolutely true and inerrant and infallible, that Jesus Christ is the only-begotten son of God, that He was crucified, that He died, that He was raised to life on the third day following His crucifixion, and that His sacrifice paid for the sins of all those who believe in Him through faith. I firmly believe that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one comes to the Father except through Him.

So, there it is. That is what I believe. It is who I am. Many of you may now want to dismiss what follows, but I ask you to at least consider what I have to say.

What troubles me about many of the posts that I have read is the tone of hatred toward all people of faith. I have seen comments that seem to indicate that some of the contributors would like to see children taken out of the homes of Christians (and, I suppose, from the homes of people of other religions) and made wards of the state because those children are being "indoctrinated" by their Christian parents. Other posts have come very near to the point of advocating violence against religious people. Still others have posited the possibility of depriving religious people of the freedom of speech. How, I ask, can these types of things be said by "enlightened" people? Should only the secular point of view be allowed in the public square? Do we REALLY want to live in a nation where only one point of view can be advocated?

Christians are not perfect, least of all me. True Christians would never even claim to be perfect. Some Christians and people purporting to be Christians do, indeed, say and do hateful and hurtful things. Sadly, this is true of all people, whether they be religious, atheist, agnostic, or secular humanist.

A civil discourse does not mean that we will all have to agree with one another at the end of the day. It simply allows for the free exchange of ideas, even to the point of trying, in a civil manner, to change the other person's opinion through that exchange. Tolerance does not mean that we each have to view the other's opinion as being equally valid. It simply means that we must respect the person holding that opinion and acknowledge that he or she has the right to hold it. In our society, we must reclaim this ground.

Hello? Is anybody still out there? This blog has really slowed down from the first day. Are we all talked-out? Are we moving on to new blogs, new rants, new endless unresolvable debates? Has the party moved to some Iraq blog or stem cell blog or dancing with the stars blog or what should we do about Sasquatch blog that I'm missing? I hope some kind of positive change actually happens as a result of Sam's starting this conversation. The entries were for the most part well thought out and respectful, regardless where the opinions fell.
........Hello?

I totally agree with Anonymous above. Main reason I am not a Christian any more is this "nosiness" beyond self boundary. Why can't they leave poeple alone as science does? Can Christian leaders historically leave their followers alone? No! They manipulate and brainwash every sunday with fear and reward. Every Sunday! If someone can differentiate evil from good, I bet most Christian leaders are selected as evil.
How nosy are they? They are not afraid to kill anyone who are on their way historically. Pat Robertson condemned one whole city publicly with natural diaster because the city judge banned creationism in science curriculum. One big shot pastor openly said in NPR "Fresh Air" that HUrricane Katrina is a God's judgement because New Orleans have a gay parade the day before the storm. And no followers in the church said a single complaint. This indicates how dangerous they are and how much brain washed the followers are. Can you believe this is our leaders? Some how they think bible would backs them up as long as they do it in the name of god:sexism,racism, child sexual abuse, rape, slavery, murder, you name it.
Davinci code is a complete fiction, but I can see the way they did it. As far as erasing evidence of Christian leaders sin to the community, they will do anything. Leaders are always the probem because they have the power to control the evidence.
Sad thing is most Christian followers are in the church because they "need" to take advantage of "this" life, not the next life. It is almost every where true. Only they cannot admit it becasue they don't want to come out of the closet. That is why most sermons became a Sunday morning motivational talk: How to live this world prosperously. How to feel good every day? Am I wrong? Show me why I am wrong and you have to tell the truth and swear to God.

Dear Laura Lee,
Science has had many "fathers," and "mothers" as well. The most important father of MODERN science was Galileo. He challenged the prevailing mind set that truth was what wise men told us. Galileo showed us that to know what is true we must put it to a test. Aristotle said that heavy things fall faster than light things. Galileo dropped a light and heavy ball, and they fell at the same rate. Aristotle said that things float or sink in water because of their shape. Galileo threw all sorts of things of different shapes and materials into water, and they floated or sank according to their weight versus the water they displaced. Aristotle said all sorts of things that he didn't actually test, and Galileo poked holes in all of them. When he was the first to point a telescope above the horizon, and showed that the universe was not what "wise men" had been saying, he got into serious trouble with guess who, the Church.

Religion appeals to people who learn primarily from their ears. They listen to what wise men say, and believe it. Science appeals to people who learn primarily from their eyes. They go out into the world and really look. When religious people do that they get uncomfortable, because what they see doesn't fit what they have been told. Skepticism is a virtue, not a vice as it is often protrayed in this country. It is often confused with cynicism. The word skeptic means "to look." When Chicken Little went running around saying "the sky is falling," none of the other animals actually looked up with their own eyes to see that it was not falling. For that they all perished in Foxy Loxy's lair. In the words of Carl Sagan, "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." Or in the words of the state of Missouri, "Show me."

To Laura Lee:
I'm perfectly comfortable with religious people looking into the meaning of life, what is happiness, what is a fulfilling life, all sorts of intangible things like that. Such things are important to many people, and science does not address them much. What I will not tolerate is religious people trying to force public schools to teach their "theory" on things like how old is the earth and how life developed here, for which they offer not a shred of empirical evidence. Telling medical researchers what they may or may not investigate, telling parents they may not take steps to limit the size of their families, telling women that they may not control their own bodies, telling us who we should be attracted to, who we should live with, what we should do with them, and a hundred other intrusive things is definitely, definitely none of their business. Religion suffers when it tries to gain physical power over society, whether it's the Taliban in Afghanistan, or American evangelicals influencing and infiltrating the government. Religion ends up sullied and discredited.

People often like to say and want to believe that science is the opposite of religion/faith and that the two necessarily contradict one another. I adamantly disagree with this notion. It is not fact to say that these two things are mutually exclusive, it is merely an opinion.

Aristotle who is often credited as the 'father of science' was someone who asked questions about all aspects of the nature of existence and humanity. He sought answers in the physical sciences, which addresses primarily what could be observed in the physical sense. He also sought answers in philosophy and metaphysics - "the science of the universal essence of that which is actual" - or what he called "reasoning"/logic. He studied a variety of things because he hoped that in sum, all these things added together would give him a more complete answer and understanding about human existence.

Those who claim modern "science" as better than religion are seemingly saying that they only believe that which can be physically known. Since in their opinion religion cannot be experiemented with the scientific method, it is discreditable and without merit. Thus they limit their worldview to a small subset of intellectual inquiry.

I posit that science is and should only be one dimension of how we understand/explain who we are and why we exist. Philosopy, religion, and metaphysics represents other dimensions of explaining who we are as people and our ability to think, reason, feel, and behave. It has been said that philosophy is the queen of science because it basically attempts to give the reasons for what we observe in the physical world.

Not all ideas and thoughts can be reduced to quantitative measures -- but that does not make them any less real or true. For example, happiness. is it real? How do we explain happiness with science? Can we measure it? Taste it? See it? If happiness exists, why don't we study it in school? Why do many people pursue it? In some ways, religion or faith is like happiness. It cannot be studied in the way that the physical world is, but it is an inquiry that leads to explanations of why do what we do. Religions are real, and provide many truths about who we are. It provides answers where scientific inquiry is unable to give explanations.

LucyQ- Thanks again for the links. I hope everyone takes advantage- it's so fun to be given new reading material!

Mark Twain would have agreed with you, Sam. Near the turn of the 20th Century he writes, "Shall we bang right ahead in our old-time, loud, pious way, and commit the new century to the game, or shall we sober up and sit down and think it over first? Would it nor be prudent to get our civilization tools together, and see how much stock is left on hand in the way of Glass Beads, and Theology...and Hymn books, and Torches of Progress, and Enlightenment...and balance the books, and arrive at the profit and loss, so that we may intelligently decide whether to continue the business or sell out the property and start a new Civilization Scheme on the proceeds?"

I am one of the many who applaude Sam Harris for his conviction, for his courage, for his care about humanity!
I am one of many who suffered from the lies and the delusions that come from religions. I was raised in a "moron" Mormon Home. (one really needs to be a moron in oder to accept all the lies, and crap that, that particuar religion brain washes its members into believing.)
Any way,
Thanks Sam Harris...for removing the "scales" from so many eyes,...including my own...
Dr. DeRay Shepherd, Ph.D.

How about instead of True Believer we use Truth Believer? We believe what's true through experience and the scientific method, and we don't believe what feels true, what we wish was true, or what we were told was true as children in order to make us act in a manner that didn't send us directly to our rooms and hell shortly thereafter.

Religion and the associative/image mind:
The human mind can be considered to operate in one of two dominant modes: logical/idea or associative/image. Whereas the associative/image mind seeks truth, or perhaps validation would be a more accurate term, through images the logical/idea mind seeks truth and verification though ideas. The associative/image mind builds knowledge from structures of images that fit together in a logical, albeit often fallacious, form. The logical/idea mind builds structures of ideas formed from associations arising via the verifiable relationships between ideas. Both varieties of mind operate mechanically in a very similar fashion as if the mind were a magnet attracting shavings of mental metal, memories and impressions, in the direction of momentum of concentration. In other words the current thoughts that you are having give rise to other related thoughts in incessant correlation. The center of concentration continuously branches or shifts due perhaps to alternating sensory input or physical conditions. When the mind selects between branches of concentration the narrative cohesion of ideas or images in association with the shifted central idea or image move also. The actual effect being that of a composite of ideas and images with a more or less distinct nucleus of concentration.
Although in terms of mechanical process the two mind types may be similar it is the associative/image mind, however that differs remarkably from the logical/idea mind in its drive to identify itself and define it's borders, or self. Identity is one of the root aspects of all mental illness. The delusion of a permanent and unchanging self drives the mind to seek constant validation of its borders. The fantasy of the self image and the reality of the selflessness of ideas are in constant friction. This low level intensity struggle within the mind can eventually cause the mind to decay into insanity as the mind seeks greater extremes of rationalization to preserve it's image of self. The early stages of what can be referred to as Identity Sickness are characterized by a desire to define one's self as separate from others but also as belonging to this or that group. Naturally the mind behind the identity seeks to control the inputs to its 'host' as much as possible so that the self can remain intact and thereby limiting the ability of truth to intercede with the dominion of the permanent self. Naturally any living thing that could possibly consider itself permanent must also simultaneously consider, if only unconsciously, the possibility of death. The real inability of the self to remain permanent against the fact of death, leading to the impermanence of the self, often leads directly to a profound fear of death.
Constant friction between fantasy and reality is the trademark of the associative/image mind. The tendency of the mind that identifies with a self is to police its borders and police the borders of the group, delimiting who is outside or inside the group, and to police other members within the group. This leads to a general outlook of persecution directed at the self and all other selves.

Religion is therefore a natural tendency for the associative/image based mind and is reflected in its fundamental desires:
- The desire to realize and maintain a self in relation to other selves through identification. The fantasy of self and the sickness of identification enable in-group and outsider mentality. One is a Christian or a Jew or an Atheist and not a human being of limitless potential. This desire is exposed as the classical us vs. them attitude.
- The desire to maintain the borders one's self through persecution of self and others. The image of a god is a logical extension of this idea where an ultimate self exists to persecute all.
- The desire to alleviate the intense fear of death. Fear which can only be partially allayed by imagining an intrinsic self or 'purpose' in one's life. The concept that there is an intelligent self behind the origin of the natural universe is an extension of this idea. The belief in the continuation of the self after death is a logical compromise between the fantasy of a permanent self and the reality of death.
- The desire to preserve the self image at all costs. Keeping the self safe from its ultimate destruction by creating artificial boundaries requires a desire to remain ignorant and limit the influx of information potentially hazardous to the health of the self.

Whereas the associative/image mind glues together images with dogmatic and fallacious reasoning, or faith, to create a fantasy of self, the logical/idea mind seeks to expand its relationship to truth. The logical/idea mind has no self to protect and therefore nothing is sacred. What binds the logical/idea mind to other logical/idea minds is trust. Trust is malleable to facts. You would not continue to 'trust' that the earth is flat when the logical mind has gathered evidence that the earth is indeed somewhat ellipsoid. The interchange of ideas that are freely challenged and permanent only in so far as they remain successfully unchallenged causes no undue friction in the mind. There is no self to protect.

All humans share the capacity for the associative/image mind and the logical/idea mind as they are intimately related. The concept of the two minds is to be thought of as centers for the momentum of mindfulness and concentration. They are inseparable yet opposed ways of interacting with reality. With a subtle shift from being concerned about image to being more concerned about finding verifiable truth, the momentum of the mind can shift from being image-associative to idea-logical.

Dogmatic or ideological, fantasy or reality, the choice is yours.

To McCaw (John, E):
Unfortunately, you're the kind of person who sees himself as high and mighty. Above others. Looking down from his self-appointed place of wisdom and, from this lofty place, passes judgment on all the lower squalid people. Every time someone like you posts here, it only shows the sad state of intellectual dishonesty that's passing for "truth" today. Egotism is always based on equations of the mind that really don't add up. In your post, for example, your ego is propped up by the false belief that age translates automatically into wisdom. Even you'd probably admit, however, that there are people in the nineties who are really aren't wise at all. So much for that equation. What other credentials of wisdom do you honestly think you have?

To everyone else:
Non-rational thought is always based on rejecting direct experience for an unexperienced reality based in pure imagination. I don't call myself an atheist because that implies an active label of disbelief which is also non-experiential. Fear is the root of all belief whether it is a belief in God or the disbelief of God. Belief is the mind clinging to a single view because it's simply afraid to let go.

Iconoclasts!!! For a funny take on religion, amongst other things, check out flatearthgazette - dot - com.

Iconoclasts!!! For a funny take on religion, amongst other things, check out .

Hmm, my last post hasn't showed up, for some reason (maybe because it had too many external links?). Re: "which soft scientists, pray tell, have quantified love, freedom, rights, justice, etc.? I do not think that is any more possible than quantifying God."

A quick Google search turns up:

Measuring freedom: Look up Freedom House and their collected research
Measuring love: Look up Thomas Lewis' "A General Theory of Love" or works by Robert J. Sternberg dealing with love, among many authors
Measuring justice: Check out the Vera Institute of Justice or various research publications sponsored by the US DOJ on measurement and analysis of crime and justice
Measuring rights: See Todd Landman or publications sponsored by Harvard's Carr Center

Sam is right to say that we need to have dialogue if we are ever to effect change. But right now, atheists are where gays were 50 years ago, somewhere between child molesters and neo Nazis on a scale of trustworthiness. An openly avowed atheist cannot even get elected to dog catcher in the US, which is truly frightening in the 21st century.

If atheists are ever to make a difference we first need to gain respectability. Every other persecuted group has done it. People’s perceptions and sensibilities can be changed over time but it takes a huge effort. We’ve come a long way, I guess...at least we’re not being burned at the stake anymore. But it seems to me that one of the first steps should be to change the pejorative term “atheist” into something more positive. Maybe we could co-opt True Believer, if discovering truth is what we’re after.

Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and an elite group of other true believers are the leading the way but we need to come out of the closet, stand up and be counted. We need to make it “cool” to be one of the new wave of enlightened ones, role models for critical thinking.

I have a dream that one day that all the world will rise up in unity, fulfilled in the knowledge that we are one species alone on a tiny blue speck somewhere in a remote part of the galaxy. We rejoice in the oneness of life, the genetic interconnectedness of all life forms. The universe is mysterious and precious but our attempts to understand it need to look forward, not backward. We are liberated by the fact that our purpose is to be the best we can be here, on this world, in this time, and not driven by the illusory and vague promise of the hereafter. Hope for our future will only come when the majority of us truly believe this.

On Sam Harris

The mighty river of “religion” flows on and Sam Harris “et alia” are but a little eddy, soon to disappear, swirling around a drift. Sam “et alia,” recently coronated by the media, will cry all the way to the bank and they too, being, mortal, will perish. Thank goodness, so far, they live in a society where they will not be subject to “inquisition” or “fatawa” .

Unfortunately Sam and his disciples are engaged in “mental masturbation” which will not bring about conception and a new day of “sister and brotherhood.” One wonders (what to many seem to be from a stance of arrogance ) Harris’ advocacy has to do with the price of bananas (substitute anything else for bananas.)

It is one thing to stand in the cynic’s corner and another to join the peace corps, run for office, have a Ghandi ending or choose a Calvary! Personally I have been questioning and teaching for many decades. I am liberal theologically, perhaps agnostic, and conservatiive in life style, not for fear of eternal damnation but to enjoy good health in the one life available so that such stewardship of others as I have can be energetically carried forward. Also important in life style is adult example before the young.

Unfortunately, hell for too many, is in this life and many profit from their misery. Too few work to put out the fires of earthly hell.

Sam, take the “cross” of cause and hold up mirrors so “evil” can look itself in the face and discover it is I. If so, what can I do except to lose myself in service of others in order to find myself.

Thus speaketh one who is twice your age and welcomes you to the glow of the “enlightenment.”

John E. McCaw

Blog http://jemory-musings.blogspot.com

FOOTNOTE: Sam Harris is a Howard Stern of political secular thinking. He expresses something that's crossed your mind, but you were too polite (afraid?) to say in public.

Neither the Greeks nor the Romans thought there was a huge difference between mortals and gods and, as a result, they were much more interested in what men themselves might do unaided -helping to stimulate philosophy, science, politics, literature, jurisprdence, art and architecture.
(from "The People and ideas that Shaped the Modern Mind.")

Very long post in reply to Richard (Johnson): I talk about your fear because, in my opinion, fears and dogmas go hand in hand. I realize that, with Sam Harris' atheism, you fear that something is going to be lost or left out. I don't share your fear and I've tried to point out that if you truly believe in a positive God, then fear is really not needed. If, on the other hand, you do see a genuine cause for fear, then you don't believe in a truly positive God. You believe in a God that somehow shares the universe with evil. If evil is real (in the end), the God is not almighty and not a truly positive God. In which case, justice is an illusion (if evil is real, there is no real justice.) Personally, I believe that we create negative personal and social realities by believing in negative being, and the biggest form of negative being is the insanely angry and vengeful "God". We could have billions of different concepts of God, and I don't believe that Sam Harris would have that much to say if the world were filled with with only loving and positive ones. Nothing will be lost if it's really real in this moment. In your view, my references to you emotional states (your fears about what will happen to the world which, in this case, seem to lead to your combative state of mind) are things that you're saying are irrelevant to the subject. In my view, however, your fears are relevant because, in my opinion, they reflect the true nature and reality of God that you really believe in. How can we talk about God as some intellectual construct unless we talk about the God that YOU actually think you know? I see what Sam Harris is doing as good because so many people are stuck in a set of limited mental constructs. What sort of God would allow a godless atheist like Sam Harris to tear apart the fabric of a truly moral world? Once again, I'm pointing to the fact that you say you believe in goodness and justice, and yet you're terrified that Sam and his kind or going to somehow tear it down. You want to argue on an intellectual plane, but we've already agreed that, on that plane, nothing can be either proven or disproven. You've admitted that Sam's point of view and other similar expressions have put you into a "combative mode", but when I refer to your combative mode, you say it's off the point. No, in reality, it is the point because the combative mode, whether religious or scientific, is really always a sign of dogma. I understand your fear of social destruction, but don't you see that your fear is essentially a sign that you have no faith in a truly positive God? And that this insanity and contradiction is more to than point than any sort of provable or non-provable intellectual discussion? How often in the world do religious people preach one thing (justice, love, etc.), but then go do another? Naturally, no one has to be religious to be in "combative mode", so I'm not suggesting that religious people are necessarily any more combative than those non-religious people. As Sam has said, however, religious belief is fundamentally a conversation stopper. I would expand that to say that all belief is fundamentally a conversation stopper and I imagine that Sam Harris would probably agree. What do you want? Someone to tell you that your beliefs are true? In my experience, the combative mode is a sign that, to some extent, we doubt our own convictions. And so we try to win arguments in a misguided attempt to make the doubts go away. In my view, therefore, your problem in this discussion is really a problem with God. You say you believe in a God of justice and love, but you wouldn't be trying to get me or others to argue with you if you truly had no doubt. And if I came on this discussion board and said that I agree with every intellectual point you made, guess what, your doubts would not be gone. Do I believe in God? There are as many potentially different definitions of that word as there are people in the world. I don't know what your concept of God is, but whatever it is, you seem to have your doubts about it. I'm not saying I'm better than you. I'm just saying that the "combative mode" is really just a waste of everyone's time and, just because you feel that way, doesn't mean that others are either scared or stupid if they don't respond.

Richard Dawkins has posted an excellent letter to everyone: "I'm an Atheist but..."
http://richarddawkins.net/article,318,n,n,commentReceived

We the people of the world who are intellectually free see that Americans are closeted on the subject of superstition and bullied by primitive mean old men who use fear tactics on that population. It would be a good thing if every thinking person would join the common sense revolution and hand out the God Delusion flyer to everyone and to speak out about this most pressing issue.

The US is in such a dire situation involved in irrational wars idue to superstitious nonsense. It's truly shocking that 69% of Americans believe that Adam and Eve is a true story and that is the same statistic of absurd belief that Iraq attacked the US.

Please take action. Oh and Oo la la - ask the dimwit readers on your news-tainment TV shows to stop using the phrase "it's a miracle" which is so clueless. If somebody escapes tragedy then it's a matter of luck, being in the right place at the right time just as where you are born is simply random. There are no gods creating hurricanes or picking which hockey team will win a game.

Be free people...

Thank you Sam Harris, Danniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and the Washington Post.

All of the comments serve to support Mr. Harris's central theme of the great divide between science and faith. I too agree with him and so-o-o admire his courage in coming forth with his strong words of reason. Thank you, sir...I have your books and treasure them. The common ground then it seems, is for each individual/faith of strong opinion to examine their holy scriptures with a crtical eye, or at least with an open mind for the flaws of spiritual consciousness contained therein. My hunch is they may see the futility of their holy missions and understand that perhaps faith is so personal that to carry it to the unbelieveable extremes existing today is in fact a violation of universal principles of faith and spiritual law..that it is inappropriate to interfere with anyone's spiritual path... Muslims and Christians (and all others) who embrace a certain faith must realize that the person kissing the floor next to you (of muslim faith), though muslim has a different understanding of God than you or anyone else in the room. The same for Christians. That nice woman or man sitting in the pew next to you understands God somewhat or even a lot differently that you. How many times have I heard Catholics boast about how they simply cherry pick the doctrines of the Vatican they can live with and ignore the others because their understanding of faith does not sync up with that of the Pope. Oh, the Pope..don't get me started.
It is clear to me that all of the strife today and centuries past surrounding faith has to do with power, money and real estate. This is not a stretch for one of purity of heart and mind.
The cure is for all faiths to drop the power stuggles...muslims stop the infidel mentality and christains stop trying to convert everyone. All religions stop beating everyone over the head with your flawed scriptures. Go inside and compartmentalize your faith and enjoy the way we all are. Get over yourselves and your ideas of some holy mission.
This whole issue has never been a struggle at any level for me (and I may be the only one). I have a firm and enduring relationship with God. It is divine and very personal. I never talk to anyone about it. When it comes to faith I listen and learn. And I have no issues with anyones faith as long as they don't try to beat me over the head with it.
So long story short, that until the people of the world get a grip on that idea in some way we will contiune to war, including all the horrific and heinous acts associated with it, over religion. The best I can do is to live in tolerance and love, and that is not easy.

We need more Sam Harrises in the world. He is the most rational person on the panel.

Faith: belief that is not based on proof. Reason: to form conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises. Faith and reason have never met. They are strangers in the night.

Amen to what Sam Harris said

The tide is turning

Please forgive me if I repeat anything here since there is alot of posts on this thread.

As the ideas of rights, freedom, etc., as one posted noted, yes we have ideas of these. However, we have to separate this from the scientific world. As analytic philosophy shows us, to ask what is "real", what is "absolute", etc., are questions that that one cannot give a true OR false value to. This is why society should not have anything to do with religion because once they endorse, or when public officials, who are meant to represent all constituents, speak of these ideas, they become devisive.

One may ask, as one has, where do these spiritual entities come from. Well, just as people thought that the orbit of the planets were guided by God. What we feel to be spiritual may just as well be physical mechanisms. Out of body experiences as just activity of the brain and its confusion of its spatial configuration relative to the body. These brain mechanisms may have evolutionary impact as well. But to suggest that all these terms actually refer to some object in the world, material or spiritual, is a theory that fails.

A classic example is, "The Golden Mountain is high." Does this thing actually exist? Bertrand Russell would say no because, in predicate logic, this is interpreted as, "No one thing is both golden and a mountain is high." The important thing here is that the subject (mountain) is a predicate as is golden and no one object can be placed as a variable that is both golden and mountain.

The same thing can be said with freedom. I can equally say, without contradiction, that humans are not free. This is due to how we define it. However, if we can define freedom in a scientific way, then we have some basis. We can do this through evolutionary terms. Animals evolve better if they are able to be free within an ecological niche. These religious terms are old-fashioned and need revision.

Again, if I mentioned something that was already stated, please let me know and forgive me.

Anyone who quotes the Doobie Brothers is a friend of mine. Be not pessimistic. Simply advocate for a better, more clear way of being and then anything is possible...it is getting late, I am going to bed.

A great advocate of Mr. Harris's ideas and work, there are times in which my pessimism gets the better of me. As the work and writings of Richard Dawkins and other evolutionary researchers show more and more clearly, the human urge toward religion can be as potent as the urge for sex or food. In simpler terms, many people just can't help it--they must have faith in a supernatural power in their lives. As it would be impossible to eliminate the sex drive in most people, so I'm afraid the will by the reasonable to eliminate the religious drives of the faithful is an uphill battle. Michael McDonald and the Doobie Brothers said it eloquently:

"What a fool believes he sees
no wise man has the power
to reason away.
What seems to be
is always better than nothing."

Ross:

"How about another one? Why did GOD send his only begotten son Jesus just to the Middle East? Did GOD purposly discriminate against the Aztecs, the North American Indians, the Nordics, the Africans etc.?"

Good one...but I am pretty sure the Mormon's (I'm sorry - The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints) have that one covered...fascinating tour out there in Salt Lake City...an amazing book of fiction.

Dear Sam,

You're a very knowledgable man in philosophy and neuroscience. Also about religion - but only up to a point. You know enough about religion to understand that it can't possibly survive either a careful logical evaluation, or an analysis designed to show that religion is inconsistent with modern science. You also know that for its entire history, more than 4000 years, it has been responsible for death and destruction on a massive scale. All of this you know.

But what you don't know about religion, or at least you show no evidence that you know this, is that for a significant % of the world's population, the fact that religion can't withstand your logical attack doesn't mean a thing!

Logically, Faith ended a long time ago. It exists today because its acceptance doesn't depend on its being logically acceptable, and that's exactly why it will not end in the foreseeable future.

Your critique is absolutely on target. But if you expect religion to go away because you're on target, you're making a serious mistake.

If you want to reduce the influence of religion in the world, and I don't believe this can be accomplished quickly or easily, a strong frontal attack like yours will not do the job. I told you that a long time ago. At this point, what do you think?

I'll follow up this line of thought later.

This forum is incredible. Mr Harris has ushered in an enormous amount of discussion and reflection on religious dogma.

It's interesting how it turned into a debate on perspectives just like most forums on race, politics, etc...

The bottom line is...critical thinkers are a minority....I'm a critical thinker...and most of my family members think im a freak....not because I act like some abnormal monster..lol...But because I don't just believe everything in front of me

I can be a neuroscientist and a missionary...I can be a hippy and a responsible human being......People are so caught up in trying to control other people.........Democrats, republicans....labels everywhere......

I think Albert Einstien, Jesus Christ, and Leonardo DaVinci look down at us and laugh at our unbelievable ability to just judge each other on our beliefs....

Those great men had great ideas...it's the controllers that ruined it..........Scientists that are so arrogant you can't teach them anything, they know it all logically, christians that play the Jesus card in moments of basic common sense problem solving....and narrow minded people that think imagination and creativity is threatening to tradition and predictable living....thats the real damn enemy..........It goes beyond Faith and Reason.........its top layers are about power.........the power of control and language

Even the Late frenchman Michael Foucault said it best....Unless human beings wake up...and have the desire to understand power and language....they are in alot of trouble......

Freewill...As Nietzsche said (the will to power) is not only about choice.....people make conscious decisions to control and dominate other human beings....in a city, state, country, etcc..

I praise the critical thinker.......We are the last chance for this mass of conditioned robots....

John H Humble

Maryland USA

To all,

First let me state that I find it difficult to believe that there is no intelligent creative force. And then let me say that I can't believe this force resembles anything like what the deities of religion are portrayed to us.

My last foray into organized religion was as a Baha'i, but now I intend to stay outside all such religions. Nevertheless, I don't wish to deny anyone the comforts of their belief system so long as they don't inspire laws or other measures requiring me to follow suit.

I agree with the aim of fostering dialog to expose religious beliefs to serious scrutiny, and I think what we are doing here is a good start. But my concern is that this momentum will peter out and become simply last week's news. The number of people willing to post here compared to the world's population is less than insignificant. However, the mightiest tree started from a small seed and I think our discussions here can be the seed if the proper ground can be found to plant it in.

So what can be done? Sam Harris has the fortitude to present his views in public but it won't be enough. I don't profess to have a good answer, but I would like to propose that the United Nations be petitioned to adopt a universal human right to 'freedom of religion' and 'freedom from religion'. If this doesn't get the whole world talking then I don't know what would. Does this sound like a good idea, and if so does anyone know how to start it in motion?

Ciao.

They say that if an individual believes with absolute certainty something for which there is little or no evidence he is called psychotic; if hundreds of people believe it is called a cult; if millions believe it is called religion.

What people’s religious thinking was didn’t used to matter. Now it affects our public policy on things like medical research, further divides the world into in-group and out-groups and could even get us killed.

It must be our species’ arrogance and insecurity in needing to believe that it’s really all about us. But if it is, why did god create us only to withdraw into obscurity leaving humans constantly warring over what name to call him? Can’t an omnipotent being simply make his presence know with such absolution that the world be united in a single common understanding and brotherhood?

If there is a supernatural being, he is certainly not the anthropomorphic, sex-obsessed, emotionally insecure deity described in the most scriptures. Whatever IT is must certainly be vastly more complex and incomprehensible. For all we know, we may be nothing more than a galactic simulation created by of a race of super advanced aliens simply for their amusement

Is it really too much to say, “I just don’t know”?

Dear Richard-I've been reading these posts (too much, maybe) and I want to thank you for all you've been contributing. I don't mean to butt my nose into someone else' conversation, but this is a public discussion, and you seem interesting, but I'm not sure what you actually think. Are you a christian, or not, and what does this mean to you? Do you believe the world was created in 7 days by God, and that he is omni-everything? Do you believe Jesus was divine and born from a woman who never had sex? Do you believe that, say, the book of Deuteronomy was inspired by God? Do you think God is everywhere right now? He's in here with me, and he's in there with you? You seem smart, and I need to know why you think these things, if you do. Thanks again for all your thoughtful words.

Darrick: which soft scientists, pray tell, have quantified love, freedom, rights, justice, etc.? I do not think that is any more possible than quantifying God. Don't claim you can tell I haven't read something when you can't identify what that something is. I have actually read quite a bit of the original sources in most sciences, hard and soft. It looks to me like you are confused about what soft science can really address.

What you said about the existence of such concepts not needing proof as they obviously exist is what I'm saying about God. There is a soft science dealing with God too, called theology, and, contrary to your claim, it has evolved, developed and changed over the years [both within the Bible, and in the many centuries since; see the correspondence between Leibniz and Newton's disciple, Clark; see Kierkegaard; see the whole western tradition).

Contrary to what you claim, religion is not anti-thought. Newton, Descartes, Einstein, Pascal and other great scientists didn't think so; they believed, and they took the trouble to grapple with religious questions. I am sorry that you have, evidently, had a bad exposure to small-minded fundamentalism. That has misled you as to the true character of religion. It is simply a historical fact that, while some folks with a little knowledge who thought they were clever have, since way before the Bible was written, argued that God did not exist and that religion is for suckers, the smartest people who ever lived (Newton and Einstein among them) believed in God. That doesn't prove that God exists; but it does prove that those who say that believers are not smart or knowledgeable only show their own ignorance.

Geoff: One more thing to think about as you formulate your refutation (if you dare): reason has not pricked and deflated the spiritual realities such as God and love and freedom; in fact, as Kant proved in his Critique, reason cannot even touch those realities. Remember, the trancendental antinomies (whether God, freedom, and the immortal soul exist or not) cannot be proved or disproved (and, although I don't see it as any reason to complain, that non-falsifiability appears to be one of the positivists' [including Harris's] complaints). So it appears that, in making your untrue claims that reason has toppled something it cannot even touch, you do not understand what either side is talking about.

Sam Harris has carved out a nice niche for himself. My congratulations. As with every celebrated prophet, time will guide the consideration of his views toward an appropriate conclusion. He ended this commentary with, "The differences between scientific and religious discourse should tell us something about where to place our hopes for an undivided world."

The problem between science and bigotry (the correct term for exclusivist fundamentalist religion) is that "Science is proof without certainty and bigotry is certainty without proof" as the late Ashley Montagu wrote in the Introduction of Science and Creationism some twenty years ago.

What is ignored--by too many scientists and religious organizations alike--is that science is seeking a universal truth which is never absolutely certain while religion is the quest for a personal truth which is certain without proof in physical evidence, but true at the core of our very being.

Our challenge is how to find our way to the realm of personal faith that guides our behavior as fully included participants in a universal whole where all others are included as well. Religion, every religion I know, has the means, but fails.

Science can't do it; organized religions avoid it; therefore, it becomes the primary task of every person to think--and feel--for themselves using the great spiritual teachings of those texts and rituals that speak to them, encourage their right behavior.

These are not my thoughts. They are the original thoughts of Socrates, Moses, Confusius, the Hindu texts, Buddha, Jesus and more. Read them yourself and decide.

Where we fail is in thinking we are incapable of finding our way without instructions from someone.

Until we grasp the teachings of the greats, we will opt for voluntary servitude to the ideas of the religious and non-religious absolutists.

I know Mr. Harris means well, but I don't think he understands enough about the core of religion. He has only sampled the surface. That's not where the faith is. That's where the religious slavemasters live.

It's our choice. Do we think for ourselves or let others think for us.

Is it possible to convene a "debate/discussion" (on CNN or MSNBC) under the heading "The God Delusion" or "Faith Based Schools Must Be Abolished", (there's a petition circulating in England to do just that) or "Belief isn't Evidence"?

Imagine Dawkins, Harris, & Angier on one side and whoever (Falwell, Bush, Hagee, Haggard, Schuler, Graham, Chopra, etc.) on the other side.

I suspect the audience would be huge, just as this blog seems to be attracting the most comment over any of the others on this website.

~T

Natalie Angier has written an article called "My God Problem" which is one of the most articulate pieces in defense of Dawkins & Harris ("God Delusion" and "The End of Faith") I've read so far.

We need a thousand more such articles & widespread dissemination of them. This "On Faith" website & others like it are critical to getting the 21st century "Good News" out.

Here's how she starts out:

"In the course of reporting a book on the scientific canon and pestering hundreds of researchers at the nation's great universities about what they see as the essential vitamins and minerals of literacy in their particular disciplines, I have been hammered into a kind of twinkle-eyed cartoon coma by one recurring message. Whether they are biologists, geologists, physicists, chemists, astronomers, or engineers, virtually all my sources topped their list of what they wish people understood about science with a plug for Darwin's dandy idea. Would you please tell the public, they implored, that evolution is for real? Would you please explain that the evidence for it is overwhelming and that an appreciation of evolution serves as the bedrock of our understanding of all life on this planet?

In other words, the scientists wanted me to do my bit to help fix the terrible little statistic they keep hearing about, the one indicating that many more Americans believe in angels, devils, and poltergeists than in evolution. According to recent polls, about 82 percent are convinced of the reality of heaven (and 63 percent think they're headed there after death); 51 percent believe in ghosts; but only 28 percent are swayed by the theory of evolution."

Please visit:

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/angier02.htm

for the rest of this incredibly succinct argument for disabusing as many people as possible of their reliance on "faith" in areas where science should rule.

How about another one?

Why did GOD send his only begotten son Jesus just to the Middle East? Did GOD purposly discriminate against the Aztecs, the North American Indians, the Nordics, the Africans etc.?

Why didn't Jesus appear to all these folks at once ....and multiply fish?

Ok Ok so I'm being too inquisitive, but shouldn't the rest of the world have been saved first hand by Jesus, or did GOD leave it up to the Spanish to shove christianity down their throats.

For the above questions, will my soul be sent to hell (thrown into a volcano) or will it go to heaven (shot up onto a cloud). Because of the tremendous population growth since AD, my soul may need to be split with a number of others I may or may not like.
Ross

Hi again, Louise-I meant to mention to you a post from a couple nights ago from a gentlemen named Paul Alexander. I've been reading the posts rather religiously since the first night and I've only seen one from him, but he said he's 72, and I really liked what he told his kids about death. You may also find his experience a helpful guide.

Dear Louise-I guess I thought the moon thing was a really big question because in order to answer it for a 3-year-old I had to explain things like gravity and the nature of light, the fabulous machine that is the human eye(because of course, they're like "Why does my eye even see?")- all kinds of interesting stuff that actually answer even more questions for them, but it actually is a bit complicated to describe while driving, and without any good visuals or manipulatives. I wound up explaining it at home with a pretty fun game where one kid is the sun, one the moon, one the earth(you can paint paper plates for them to hold up, it's a blast), and they orbit around each other.
Kids tend to ask questions that pertain to their reality, their experience. I don't answer uncomfortable questions until they come up- "uncomfortable" meaning any questions for which the answers would unnecesarily freak them out-and until this year, the one about where-do-we go-after-we-die hadn't come up. Until they had to be told that someone they know and love is no longer with us, my kids had never pondered the question of death, but my kids are still very young. I think to kids, up to even 8 & 10 years of age, they obviously don't get the permanance of death until it hits them that they will never see that person again. It will hit them the same way it does us, over and over again, every time we should be seeing that person and don't, and it's like losing them all over again. I've had to explain to my girls that it will be this way forever. We live with the suffering and make the best of it by thinking of every fun thing we ever did with that person, and by being the best we can now so we won't have wasted our time in unhappiness with each other. I miss my grandma, and lots of other people, and I would love to tell myself that their consciousnesses survive (mine too, for that matter). It seems to me now that the only way that will happen is if scientists figure out how we can download ourselves (I'm sure someone's working on it), but of course I would love to be proven wrong about this one. What I've done with my kids is not take them in to view the body at the funeral home, and tell them exactly what I know, and nothing more. We bury our loved ones and then never see them again. The comforting thing is that whether we remember it or not, we've always (or maybe most of always)been in this universe in some form, and we will still be here after our consciousness is extinguished.
By the way, I mentioned a Scientific American artical earlier, but the thing I mentioned is on the website, not in the magazine ("15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" or something was the title)
Thanks to those of you actually technologically useful enough to provide links!

This is fascinating discussion and I have been watching. Thank you for letting me put my two cents. Several points; 1, What we believe and why we believe it changes with time, 2, what we believe and why we believe is how our brains/minds veiw and interpret the world/universie etc. 3, God is neither provable or disprovable, 4, morals or ethics develop in all cultures religions and non religions based on social and psychologic grounds. 5, the point of Sam Harris is not whether there is a God or not, but is that beliefs, whether they are true or not, affect our behavior and how one treats others and carried to extremes, whether it is religious or not, always or almost always leads to self destruction of the individual, group, society or civilization and therefore we should be on guard. I recommend Dr. Andrew NewBergs book "Why We Believe What We Believe".

OK, so it's clear that almost every poster feels Mr. Harris is a 'rock star' in the metaphorical sense and I will echo, 'rock on!' along with the suggestion from a prior poster that we 'take it on the road' in the form of posting to the other essay/blogs in a manner that is respectful.

Having read some of those other blogs I can see that many obviously Christian bloggers feel uder seige and maybe the best way to get our point across is to post as artfully as Sam Harris (hey, I can dream, can't I?) so that those who refuse to read his books in their damnation of his views, will at least get a glimpse of what it is like to feel the freedom of reason and discourse (and I mean that not in a condescending way if that causes you offense).

sam harris is the smartest panelist

Good work, LucyQ.

It is astonishing to me that this kind of abuse continues today...in the 21st century.

Is it really true that 30,000,000 Americans believe in this kind of rubbish?

It's as if fully 10% of the American populace have been sent back in time approximately 500 years.

The primary point of religion is to perpetrate some form of emotional control of others.

Here is a shocking report of of religion inspired child abuse happening now:

"Student tapes teacher proselytizing in class
Accept Jesus or 'you belong in hell,' he said"
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-5/1163571262150640.xml&coll=1

The teacher is obviously incompetent and definitely not qualified to teach anything. Telling students that creation myths explain existence is ridiculous. The student (LaClair) has the teacher on tape saying that dinosaurs were on Noah's ark.

That is yet another manifestation of the God Delusion.

Me Again:
The religious right in the US has learned to fine tune "brainwashing 101," just as Hitler learned it and was able to convince most Germans that the Jews were the cause of all their problems. At any given time anywhere in the US, there are evangelists selling "prayer cloths;" twisting the intent of our Constitution; preaching intolerance; fearmongering; telling you that the more "seed" money you give the more will come to you; telling you that certain candidates are the "devil" with the disclaimer that they're not telling you who to vote for, but you are in league with the devil and endangering your soul if you vote for the other candidate; they disrespect the wishes of other countries who have forbidden the import of the Bible.
They have found the achilles heel of the US--its soul. Critical thinkers are outnumbered.

Richard:

Thanks for the response - short on time at the moment, but let me clarify this: I did not, and do not (nor can any realistic person) deny the fact that most of the concepts you define as "spiritual reality" (which I listed in my last response) exist. We have hard, factual evidence that they do.

We do not need supernatural beings to tell us they exist - we experience them daily, and in fact we have quantitative measures for a great many of them.

The point is that thousands of people are investigating their nature in methodical, *scientific* ways; they observe, form hypotheses, perform experiments, and verify/adjust/discard hypotheses to the fullest extent possible. Only the ones that stand up to extensive scrutiny and falsification are considered "correct." Such work has been going on for a long time, and continues - the fields I mentioned are probably only a small sample.

This work is worth doing so long as we admit we don't have satisfactory answers. Acknowledging the fact that we do not have a full understanding of them based on *evidence* means we must be driven to seek greater understanding, via a continuous cycle of observation, hypothesis formation, and measurement. We cannot put together a coherent view of *reality* without that.

Religion does not acknowledge this. The religious throw up their hands at the first sign of humanity's ignorance and say "the supernatural must be true." In addition, they encourage others to do the same, and insist that we stop looking. Worse, they present their unsupported assertions as truth, and judge ignorant those who refuse to accept them. And worst of all, when true investigation *does* find answers based on evidence, they deny the evidence and cling to their fantasies.

And furthermore:

"As for the so-called social sciences, none of them has proven, or can ever prove, the existence of freedom, love, justice and rights. They can, at best, only further articulate what we mean when we talk about those unprovable things."

Exactly the response I predicted, and my response to that is as above. Proof of their "existence"? The simple fact that we have names for these concepts proves that the concepts exist. We do not need God or any other religion to tell us so.

There are even devices for quantifying some of them, which are applied to test hypotheses or inform future behavior. Again, try familiarizing yourself with their methods, their experiments and studies, and their results. One can tell when someone has a good grasp of them, because the area of debate changes significantly.

As we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, we are further endowed with certain responsibilities. Life, liberty and the persuit of happiness must be conjugated with evidentiary rationale and reasonable discourse. This methodology will provide paths to truths, which in turn will lead to wisdom. Unquestionable dogmatic texts have led to narrow minded ignorance and suicidal fanaticism, bringing mankind to the brink of its own self-fulfilling prophecies.
At the moment of conception, everything in the universe was created. From the outer reaches of the celestial heavens, to the inner most confines of our own consciousness. From our most beautifully creative dreams, to our most heinously genocidal nightmares.
All truths were created and await our discovery.
Civil truths:(See Lincoln, Jefferson)Democracy,Bill of Rights and the Constitution. The well being of mankind must be governed by these precepts. With malice toward none, with liberty, justice and charity for all.
Ethical truths:(See socrates and Spinoza). Killing is a self inflicted plague on humanity: war, abortion, murder and capital punishment. Killing is ethically wrong, period. Every normal, rational human being knows this in our hearts and minds.
Scientific truths:(See Newton and Einstien)Gravity, DNA, Evolution and Quantum physics. The scientific method provides theories as the building blocks in our quest for knowledge about the world around us. Though not perfect, this methodology continues to lead us in the right direction.
Spiritual truths:(See Gautana, Lao Tzu and Joshua). Forty days and nighs in the desert and experiencing the eternal cosmos in one night are analogous. The experience of the moment, not the doctrine or the dogma is essential for spiritual evolution.
All God given truths are absolute, and as such can be qualified, quantified, theorized and tested, not subject to irrational interpretations to fit ones mindset, but held to the strictest evidentiary methodology.
Civil, ethical, scientific and spiritual evolution is the God given process which man must embrace. These are our choices. To continue on the well worn path of the previous millenia's, with the redundancy of war, povert, corrupt leadership, the unrelenting pillage of nature and the sanctimonious adherence to dogma from bygone eras. Or do we trancent, evolve if you will.
Our responsibility as a species must progress from the better angels of our nature. The self perpetuating good must prevail over this self consuming evil, which only mans venture into a new age of enlightend reason can attain.
We hold these truths to be self evident, regardless if many refuse to to believe in there discovery.
We must fulfill our search for truth and wisdom and trancend our infintile, self serving and self destructive endevors, to the charitable benefit of all mankind.
Thank you Mr. Harris.

One large importance of Mr. Harris's work is that it gave a momentum to think rationally and logically as God has allowed to human as possible. His argument is not proactive nor new or provocative, but reactive to absurdly hallucinating fundamentalist of any religion. I bet if fundamentalists have been reasonablly logical, Harris wouldn't have written a book like his.
Things that cannot be disproved should not be an issue of argument. I am beginning to think that the concept of "spirit" may have been made up long time ago to differentiate from the concept of "mind", because mind cannot be used to explain the connectivity of ourselves after death. Spirit may have to be invented. Again how can any one disprove what I just said.

I've followed Sam's essays since the publication of 'The End of Faith'. I find his arguments compelling for the most part. For example, I agree that Religion is passé because it rests on a foundation of faith. In my view, faith is a peculiar sort of 'knowledge' resting more on intuition, emotion, whim, and wishful thinking. Reason, on the other hand, is a way of thinking that rests on logic, thought, observation, and honesty.
Some disagree that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Others believe faith and reason ought to come together.
In my opinion, faith requires blind acceptance of dogma while reason requires constant revision of 'Truth'. Acceptance of faith cannot be based on this way of thinking. You cannot both revise your articles of faith while having faith. It is a contradiction to say you have faith in God yet you also agree with the reasons why there is no God at all. That's just a posture. The faithful have faith regardless of new information, new ideas, while the reasonable revise their beliefs based on new discoveries and new information. Natural Philosophy may seem bleak to a religious person because it doesn't promise any absolute, eternal Truths in all areas of knowledge as religion pretends to.
I don't believe however, that Sam's views about religion are strictly scientific. He engages in a kind of scientism rather than science when it comes to his criticisms of Religion. Many of Sam's views are not based on Science at all, but more on Natural Philosophy, a subset of Science. He also appears to sympathize with Buddhist thought perhaps because Buddhism bases it's morality on reducing suffering for others and the self rather than following absolute codes of conduct written by God Himself through the faithful.

Issues of morality, ethics, and spirituality are more the domain of Psychology (a very soft science) and Philosophy rather than Science per se. Nevertheless, I find Sam's ideas thought- provoking and worthy of consideration from a philosophical standpoint.

I want to comment also on the debate about who causes the most suffering in the world. Is it religion with all it's holy wars, or science with the technology to back religious holy wars? It's a good question.
Maybe we do need some philosophy of morality to guide scientific research. Definitely. But must a moral philosophy be based on religious belief? I don't think morality requires a religious foundation. But morality, secular or otherwise, is often all the same until Science discovers that the moral precepts of yesteryear are now passé because the Universe and our understanding of it has changed. Change renders absolutes somewhat questionable, a reasonable person adjusts his morality to change regardless of what absolutes and dogmas others try to impose. Honesty and courage.

Darrick: Thanks for responding. I apologize if I give off an off-putting air of arrogance. I should try to eliminate that, for the sake of my argument and the readers thereof. If anythng, I am, as Geoff noted, in a combative mode because I fear that humanity stands to lose something if we discard the concept of spiritual reality. The only proof I can give in support of "spritiual realities" is our collectie and individual experience of the fact that such "spiritual realities" form a big and important component of our actual thought and culture -- whether or not you want to quibble as to whether that presence in our mind constitutes "reality." In any event, the presence of those things in our mind has real effects on our behavior.

I think the fact that you and I both have some idea what words like rights, freedom, etc., mean (both in themselves, and to humanity and our civilization), even if we can't define them precisely, is enough proof to support my point. The concepts have a place in our minds; and, as a matter of fact, humans think a lot about them. I know they are not material things; thus, saying that they are not real, if what you mean by real is material, does not take us very far. It goes without saying. However, it is a further step, and one which is not wise and not grounded in any reasoning whatsoever, to say that we should stop thinking about, believing in, and striving toward, these ideals that I am calling spiritual realities.

You have not proved, and cannot prove, that reality is synonymous with the material, and excludes the spiritual. When I talk about the real, I am including the material world, and the spiritual world. The spiritual realities are important to me, and to all of us. Such realities, like rights, justice, freedom, love, etc., are on the same footing as God. The arguments repeated Harris (they are not his own, and are actually very old) to which you subscribe apply just as much to things like love and rights as they do to God. Given the fact (which you acknowledge) that, as spiritual realities, they cannot be refuted, the real question becomes: not whether we can prove/disprove them (we cannot), but whether we should believe them (we should). Since speculative reason cannot prove or disprove the existence of the spiritual realities, the question of whether to believe them becomes one of practical reason. I submit that practical reaons has demonstrated the value to humanity of belief in spiritual realities. In fact, as I noted, I think that spirit is what is best, and most uniquely human, about humanity.

Your argument seems to be, we should not believe in the spiritual realities because they do not exist. This is an unprovable (and thus, if presented as certain, a false) premise, as you acknowledge. You admit that you cannot prove they do not exist. What I am saying is, please do not, on the basis of an unprovable premise, urge the disbelief in something so important as the spiritual realities of which God is the greatest.

While I value the Bible (and other old books, like those of the scientists, the philosophers, the poets, and the other religions), I did not mention the Bible in my argument, which does not depend upon the Bible. As for the so-called social sciences, none of them has proven, or can ever prove, the existence of freedom, love, justice and rights. They can, at best, only further articulate what we mean when we talk about those unprovable things. I am not failing to consider those "sciences", I merely acknowledge their limitations.

I am not trying to force you to believe anything. I am only trying to save from error those who might be misled into believing that Harris has refuted the exitence of spiritual realities (which you know he has not), or given a good reason as to why we should discard our faith in those spiritual realities. I am convinced that our humanity depends upon people's faith in spiritual realities such as love, freedom, rights, justice and God (the existence of which cannot be disproved). I still have not heard any cogent argument to the contrary.

What can we do to begin to erase the intensely negative and derogatory perspective people of "faith" have of sane people such as Sam and most of us on this blog. Let's have a bit of debate as to how to gently grow this important groundswell of sane thinking, while avoiding antagonistic reaction.

If there was a reasonable strategy we could begin to agree on to gradually dispel these incredible myths that may become the untimely end of what we know as this earth.

Walter

To me it is so blindingly clear. Religion is the one thing that is endangering each one of us individually, our civilization, our way of life, our species, and every living thing on this planet. The destruction of civilizations as a direct result of religious ideology is something that is currently unfolding. Nuclear power is the means, religious dogma is the driving force. Religious people like to put this blame on the scientific establishment for development these weapons of mass destruction. Responsible nations have possessed nuclear weapons for decades, but it was not until nuclear weapons fell into the hands of a fundamentalist pseudo-theocracy that we are now threatened with the destruction of civilization. Just as the argument goes; guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well, nuclear bombs don't destroy civilizations, but religion most certainly will. What is even scarier(and in my opinion, insane) is that this scenario of nuclear destruction actually plays into Christian prophecy of the second coming of Christ, WHICH WILL BE WELCOMED!!! In other words, most people of religious faith have consigned themselves to, and even look forward to, a future of nuclear destruction. This is the most ludicrous, ridiculous, and insane form of tragedy to ever befall this planet and mankind.
That bleak scenario aside, also are faced with what is happening to our fellow living creatures and our planet. What does this have to do with religion? There is a term that is being taught in college level cultural studies called teleology. I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned more by Harris or Dawkins or anyone else. Teleology is the belief that the Earth was created for humans, that it and everything on it is for our use and abuse, and that humans are superior to, and seperate from nature. This idea, supported by the Judeo-Christian-Islam religion, and when coupled with the advanced of technology is potentially far mor damaging to our habitats than, say, the more scientific view of humans and nature, in which we exist within nature and should strive to be in balance with it. The fact that we have highly evolved brains and intelligence does not seperate us from nature. Rather, we should use our intelligence responsibly and see ourselves as the species that is in charge of the planet, which we are, and strive to care for all things on this world. We are no longer in competition with other species and we need to quit pretending that we are.
Again I shall say, religion is the most ludricrous, ridiculous and insane tragedy to ever befall this world and mankind.I have given a word for it. I call it the Insane Comedy. I have been told once that I may not be giving the best for my child's future by not instructing her in the 'word of the lord'. But the opposite is true. I strive to make this world a better place for future generations, in any small way I can. The way to accomplish that is to break down religion until it is gone. Imagine what this world would be like is every place of worship was turned into a school of some form of learning. I can tell you what it is like because the world was once like this 2000 years ago before Christianity. Many of the early churches were converted from civic buildings and schools of thought. Early church fathers actually condemned education and rational thought. It is written in the bible that "the wisdom of the world is foolishness to god" and " the more they professed to be wise, the more stupid they became." Early Christian even measured their level of piety by their lack of education! I recommend reading, besides Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins of course, Charles Freeman's "The Closing of the Western Mind, The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason."

Thank you, Mr. Harris, for your courage. Political correctness has kept this discussion behind closed doors for too long.
For those of you who have read Mr. Harris' works, and agreed with them, I have a request: Display some of the bravery he has shown by taking this debate into the open. This forum is great, and I love to read so many well informed opinions, but I think that we are too often preaching to the choir. A vast majority of the "faithful" won't be reading this. In fact, they don't even realize that there is an ongoing debate.
Like Mr. Harris, I am convinced of the need to free this country from it's entrenched religious dogma. He seems to have given America a push (kick in the ass?) in this direction, and we should be willing to suffer the discomfort of broaching the subject with friends or co-workers in order to keep the ball rolling. I have been amazed at the number of people who are willing, even eager, to discuss this once they realize they aren't alone out there. And if you can get even one person out there to question the nature of his/her "faith", well...it's a start!

Geoff: Like poor Darrick, you ignore what I said, and confine yourself to ad hominem speculation as my purported motives for saying it. While your points are thus irrelevant to what I said, I will nevertheless accept your invitation to refute them, in order that you might have yet another opportunity to consider the point I was making, and hopefully profit thereby this time.

First, back to my point: Some of the realities most important to humans, but which Harris ignores, are spiritual realities. That is simply a fact. The additional fact that those spiritual realities are incorporeal, and thus not a part of material nature susceptible to the same sort of analysis that accounts for matter, goes without saying, and does not and cannot refute the primary fact that the spiritual realities exist. I identified several actual spiritual realities: God, love, beauty, the good, justice, etc. I will add another, supremely important, spiritual reality: rights. Rights, and right, and righteousness, are critical to our concepts of public and private morality; in fact, they motivate even people like Harris, who apparently believe there's something just not right about what they call irrational faith and its alleged ill effects on persons and societies. (Query, in Harris's faithless utopia, what is the point of recognizing and respecting the rights of others [other than some selfish expediency that can be discarded when no longer expedient], especially the weak, and our enemies?) You have not addressed any one of these spiritual realities, either to admit that they exist and are not addressed by Harris, to announce that they simply do not exist and do not matter as far as you are concerned [in which case you reveal your own lost inhumanity], or to explain them away as laudable but unverifiable customs, conventions and illusions invented for our survival [in which case you will need to explain either (a) why we can now dispense with the carefully developed spiritual realities while maintaining the moral sense based thereon, or (b) why we do not need any moral sense, in which case you're back to inhumanity].

The problem with your position, and that of Harris, is that you either (1) simply have not thought about it; and/or (2) do not care about the spiritual realities. I call you a rebel because you are in rebellion against these established spiritual realities; you reject them and their role in our humanity. I call you smug, because you refuse to address the value of those spiritual realities, and think that your failure to address those spiritual realities is just fine because they do not even exist. However, as you must admit, this is something you cannot prove.

But leaving the impossibility of proof aside, that does not excuse you from the demands of intellectual honesty, which requires that you address the spiritual realities even if you believe they are only thoughts. I am willing to stipulate that they are "only thoughts," and I and my argument have lost nothing thereby, because for me, thoughts are as real as anything in reality. Thought is the atmosphere in which humanity and personhood and individuality thrive. Like it or not, thought is where we live (and as Kant demonstrated, sense perceptions and scientific formulae are thoughts [in the sense I'm using it] too). And thoughts like God and love and freedom are not just real; they are good, great, indispensable components of and foundations to our humanity. On that basis, I argue that it is immoral to argue that such valuable spiritual realities are unimportant, and should be ignored and rejected, simply because they are not made of matter.

You, on the other hand, do not want to "fall into the trap" of arguing about the spiritual realities because you fear looking inhuman by rejecting love, justice, rights, etc. But their actual existence is on the same footing at the actual existence of God. Go ahead, if you have the courage: admit that you do not believe in love, freedom, rights, justice; all that immaterial stuff is just BS to you. But don't hide the inhuman ramifications of your position (from others and yourself) behind the mask of disinterested truthseeker. You are no truthseeker as long as you allow yourself to evade the question of the spiritual realities.

You are correct that I fear "loss" when I hear people like Harris pretending to debunk spiritual realities that they do not even grasp, because those spiritual realities are very valuable; they are the essence of our humanity (as opposed to our mere animality) and the beacons of hope for a just world that rises above the laws of the jungle. There is something precious and uplifting about the human spirit; and there is something equally coarse and cheap about human activity conducted in ignorance or defiance of the spirit of humanity. I would count it a loss to mankind for us to lose our humanity.

Finally, as to your accusation that I don't know God and the spiritual realities, this much is true: God is infinite and in that sense beyond comprehension. Much about spiritual reality is ineffable because it is incommensurable with finite realities such as matter. However, incommensurability is not non-existence. Just because the circumference of a circle (3.14...) and the diagonal of a square (1.41...) cannot be described with a finite rational number does not mean that the quantities are not real numbers, or that the circle and the square are not real shapes. Your apparent supposition to the contrary reveals the fundamental weakness of your position.

I KNOW the circle and the square, even though the smug (dare I say simple-minded) numerical approach in which you insist on asking me to describe them would necessarily "fall forever short of knowledge." The same is true of God, and the other spiritual realities. I know they exist in the same fundamental sense that I know my freedom exists, no matter what an atheist determinist might argue (because no rigorous proof is possible) about its non-existence.

I agree that something is not necessarily the case even if everyone believes it is, but that does not address my point. My point is, what would we be if we did not believe in the spiritual realities, those things which you call "non-sense"? Not human. I have doubts. I am not afraid, as you apparently are, of doubt. Doubt is the companion of the enquiring mind, an engine of progress, an invitation to thought. What scares me is people who think or pretend that there is no doubt. Those people have stopped (or never even started) thinking. If you really have no doubt about the spiritual realities, then you are not thinking. I would invite you to think about it; you invite others not to think about it. Who is the thinker?

As for your counterfactual claim that religions need fear and repression to keep their institutions going; it is refuted by history. The U.S., the country with the greatest freedom of religion, is the one in which the populace is most religious. Our founding document claims our "rights" [something you apparently do not believe in, despite your lip-service against repression] are derived from our Creator. As a matter of historical fact, the liberalism which combats against repression is founded on religion. The communists and fascists, atheists and nihilists all, did the lion's share of killing and repression in recent history -- hundreds of millions dead. Besides, while I admit that self-proclaimed believers, and religious institutions, have sometimes done wrong to others [as have humans of all stripes], that is not the point and goes without saying. (That accusation does not touch God or the ideas; it merely proves that persons and institutions have sometimes fallen short of those ideals; in fact, it is only in view of those ideals that the falling short is seen to be wrong.) Your accusation against religious institutions is yet another attempt on your part to change the subject away from the content of the ideas themselves, to an ad hominem attack on the co-religionists of the person whose ideas you are unable to address directly.

It would be refreshing to hear you depart from your ad hominem distractions (talk about repression), and address the actual ideas themselves: (1) there are spiritual realities (God, freedom, justice, love, rights, beauty -- try addressing those); (2) they are very important to humanity (if you disagree, then say why they are not important); (3) they are not composed of matter and not provable or disprovable or even describable by physical science (you apparently concede this point, but fail to consider the implications); and (4) that does not mean that we can or should discard them (which you are doing, by ignoring and, when confronted, trying to distract).

Please, Geoff, for your own sake, try your best to consider and address what I have said. You have not even started.

Hi Tammy
I was interested in your thoughts, as I also have a small daughter (4) who asks many questions, including plenty about the moon (Where does the moon go when it's cloudy). However, I personally don't find that a 'big' question, I simply try to explain it in a way that she can understand.

When she (eventually) asks me "Mommy what will happen to me (you, anyone else) when I die?", now THAT is a big question. How are you planning to explain to your daughter that?

I am already losing sleep over that one and if someone can give me a great answer that won't freak the beJesus out of her (pardon the pun and i hope i don't get corrected again for mis-using puns) out of her, I would really like to know.

Thanks.

Ugh - sorry, the Anonymous above is me. Forgot to enter my name.

Richard Johnson:

Apologies for the late response. In short, I do not see a way to refute someone who puts forth assertions based on no evidence whatsoever.

As one who was raised Christian and assaulted daily for years when I "strayed," I have not heard anything from your post that has not been repeated to me ad infinitum.

I'll start by pointing out that you display the same arrogance and ignorance as dozens of others by making the bald assertion that "spiritual realities" such as "freedom, hope, love, beauty, sublimity, justice, mercy, meaning, purpose, perfection" are the exclusive domain of religion, and specifically your religion, when in *fact* they are not. The claim ignores every piece of work in the fields of sociology, economics, psychology, cognitive science, and neuroscience, among probably many others. Try to get a basic understanding of their methods and results before discarding them in favor one ancient book (among many). If you can't do that, there can be no real discussion.

(The next response is usually "psychology can't answer X right now, so it will never be able to, and that means the answers are in book Y." Typical false dichotomy peddled by people who fill their ignorance with fantasy and call it knowledge, as Geoff aptly points out. Instead of acknowledging ignorance and seeking real answers, they fill it with God and stop looking...then hypocritically call *others* ignorant.)

I've only read a few arguments against Mr. Harris's original post. I'm sorry if i step on anybodies toes or say something that's alreayd been said.

It's nice to see so many people agreeing that faith is a bad thing. It doesn't matter what you have faith in, the faith itself is the probelm. If you believe in some scientific principle with no good reason to believe it, your problem is faith, not science.

Science is a process. Is a powerful tool and everyone one of us use it every day, faithful or not. All Mr. Harris (and people like me) are saying is this: The kind of skepticism that has is found at the core of the scientific process needs to be applied everywhere in our world, including religions of all kinds.

You wouldn't buy a used car on faith, would you?

L:

"So why not call it 'successful negotiation or agreement' (i.e., we agree to disagree)rather than the more vague term 'harmony?' Many religious types operate just as you and your family do, believing they should live-and-let live. Truth is, that tactic (and let's be honest, it IS a tactic) will only continue to work just so long as no one's beliefs (i.e., ego; i.e., perceived survival) are REALLY challenged."

Harmony was indeed too vague a word, and I apologize for the ambiguity.

"Agreeing to disagree" is what we do when neither party can produce enough evidence to establish fact. "Negotiation" is different; it's agreeing to give up something, usually in exchange for something else. The former is temporary; the latter is permanent.

"Agreeing to disagree" lasts only until one side produces enough evidence and logic to overturn the other. When that happens, the "losing" side capitulates and agrees with the "winning" side, or else is ostracized and ignored. That's how most of us approach each other daily, and fundamentally how pursuit of real knowledge works.

I think your point is very much correct, though, that it only works so long as nobody's religious beliefs are really challenged. Most religious people have a "wall" past which they will not give up beliefs, no matter how much evidence is against them. But instead of ignoring or ostracizing, we step around them, i.e. we "negotiate a settlement." We agree not to point out their delusions so long as they don't affect us. Most of us have done this for years, not realizing that someday they *would* affect us.

The problem raised by Mr. Harris and many others is that they *are* affecting us now. By "settling" in the past, we have tacitly exonerated those beliefs. And now, a few people who act on their beliefs have the power to destroy us by the thousands. "Settling" in the past has caused us harm in the present; based on that evidence, it looks like many here are convinced that "settling" now will cause us harm in the future.

Some people think that they need religion to have faith and hope. We don't. Scientists can still make assumptions that there could be an alien race made of silicone, somewhere. They would have to be using a universal application to make such a claim like science, our common denominator.
Those who pray, who believe in divine intervention have to understand that if god can intervene, then god can choose not to as well. This makes god no better than man. That's why true free will, self-efficacy and autonomy cannot be achieved within the religious framework.

Sam Craig, you are so right on. It's also true that the only verifiably accurate predictions that have been made in the whole of recorded human history have been made by scientists/mathmeticians. I'm no scientist, so I have no fundamental reason for anyone to doubt my motives; I'm as big a dum-dum as anyone else(sucker, no self-esteem).
Also, I have kids, which is why I've completely abandoned the nihilism I felt in my 20's. Kids ask the big questions, and I feel responsible to answer to the best of my ability or point them toward where they may find real answers. One of my daughters at age 3 or so looked at the half-moon while we were out one evening and asked "Does the moon break apart?", followed up by "How does it grow back together?" How cute is that? Point being, there is not one passage in the whole christian bible that I could read to her that would've explained that, or any, of their big important questions.

Galileo observed that the only heavenly bodies mentioned in the bible were those that could be seen with the naked eye. If God had told his scribes to write down the rest of the planets and moons and said we could see them once the telescope was invented then I would be a believer.

Since this is the information age why doesn't God e-mail us updates of his activities and give us advice on how to help him
-and ourselves.

Darrick: You didn't respond to Richard's request that you refute him. If you don't mind, therefore, allow me. Richard's attempt to goad you into "refuting" his view is the old trick of coming up with something that can't be proven and then asking you to disprove it (as if the fact that you can't disprove it is somehow the proof that it's true.)

Richard: You're free to believe what you want, but your only reason for attacking Sam Harris and his "rebels" is because, like all religious believers, there's a part of your mind that already knows that you're confused. Why do you think all those religious believers out there send him so much hate mail? Sam Harris makes good points and those points trigger the awareness that the castles in the air could pop. With a simple "prick" of reason, the fragile balloons of time investment would or could come crashing down. Your long speech shows that Sam and "his ilk" have triggered the fear of loss in you. If you really KNEW God, however, this fear couldn't happen. It's the fact that you DON'T KNOW God that such words cause you to label Sam and his ilk as "smug". What else can you do when you have a belief that's falling forever short of knowledge. In the end, even if everyone believed in the same non-sense (as religious evangelists would like the world to do), then we'd still have non-sense and the doubts would still be there. Non-sense always engenders doubt. That is just its nature. That's why religions need fear and repression to keep their institutions going. PS Feel free to try and refute this if you feel you can.

Dear Bev B-You're right, of course, and thanks; in my community, however, this doesn't give my kids anyone to play with on Sunday morning the way the kids of churchgoers have Sunday school. I think that is a big part of why so many profess to be believers, for the Fellowship that is offered, and it's free, and no is drinkin' booze there(at least not publicly).
Dear Janine-Thanks for the info- ONE.org is great. What a liberal concept this is, that we actually have enough food!For everybody! But, let's go lay down some new carpet in some more churches first...
Dear Everyone Arguing Religion V Science: Please read more books on science, because science has really won this one. Ann Druyan wrote this amazing essay (in Skeptical Inquirer, Nov 2003, I think) where she said that we seem to have low self-esteem as a species when it comes to science. I know that to be true for myself when it comes to math. Anyways, I feel like carrying that essay around with me in case I meet up with anyone who tries to shove religious pamphlets on me, you know, to give them something to actually think about for a change. Also, if you're unsure how is someone like Dawkins or Harris, or Carl Sagan, or anyone so sure they aren't just practising the dogma of science, please read Scientific American- the evidence really adds up, and quite quickly {this month there's a great artical called "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" or something like that). If you can't stomach reading nonfiction, or think it's too difficult or boring, give yourself more credit and get over it. Or watch the Cosmos TV series on the Science Channel, and actually pay attention- it's quite uplifting when the evidence makes sense to you.
Thanks again, Bev B, and Janine.My heart is bursting, but I'm in a big rip and must go tend my beautiful garden.

I would like to invite Sam Harris to chair the "American Association of Atheists" which will investigate establishing a PAC in order to insure that an atheist could succesfully run for President of the United States.

"We don't have the resources to serve out community"...Not true. Remember voltaire's lessons in 'Candide'
Which is tend your garden. Take that not too literally, and you will find yourself volunteering with those local issues that are closest to your heart...(oops that does sound rather spiritual, doesn't it!). Whether it is environmental activity, my fave, or educational, or homeless, poverty or racial issues, there are ways to share yourself in such a means that it may bring about changes. Sadly in my experience, it is agonizingly slow. But "good works" is not the province of the "churches".
Gee. I am 68 and in high school I had "faith" that racism, poverty, greed and war would be eliminated by my generation.
Hahahaaaah.....
Bev

One way of promoting seculiarization would be to eliminate the tax-free status of churches. I can attest that the beautiful Catholic churches in my town (of 60,000) have imported Italian marble, a marvel to look at whilst the priest is asking for donations to the poor. I suppose that if a church would use public services (ie police, fire dept. etc.) this would be one way of implementing this idea.

One point that Sam should focus more on is how to find spirituality without the theatrics of a religious celebration. For example, taking the benefits of say, an orgasm in unison can be articulated both on the neurological and spiritual level. This could speak to those who labor in the god-framework.

Wow! It's wonderful to read this engaging discussion. As someone who has been trying, since the age of 8 and in varying states of lucidity, to convince anyone I could back into a corner of the nonexistence of God and the ridiculousness of religion, I am heartened by the efforts of Dawkins and Harris and others and by the response they seem to be getting.

The effort comes not a moment too soon. While the breadth of human psychological composition does not bode well for an end to supernatural belief in the foreseeable future, I do believe that the elimination of supernatural belief from the political decision making process is an achievable goal (in fact, the stakes are too high not to believe the goal is achievable).

In "Breaking the Spell", Dan Dennett makes the distinction between people who "believe in God" and people who "believe in the belief in God", the latter being people who have the feeling that it is in some way positive to believe in God even if they have a hard time accepting the concept of God in itself. I don't hold much hope for curing the former group as I suspect most of them were either born without the sufficient neural circuitry to allow their cerebral cortexes to override their inner brains or have been so thoroughly brainwashed that their entire system of self worth has become indistinguishable from their belief in God, but I do have hope that rationality can appeal to the latter group. And this latter group may be the majority among people who profess a belief in God.

So, it is to this group (and the closet atheists that just need a confidence boost) that Dawkins, Harris et al speak and to whom all of us who care about advancing the cause of understanding, accepting, and embracing human nature should be talking one by one.

Supernatural belief systems won't go away and those that hold them should be respected as individuals forming their own world views, but organizations that prey on these belief systems must be politically marginalized - for the sake of all of us.

For a good grounding in the latest understanding of human nature and the political/social ramifications of embracing human nature, I highly recommend Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate".

Cheers

I would like to offer Sam Harris a new arguement for his case.

If the Supreme Being truly dictated any of the Holy Books, why did, He or She, fail to mention: the Speed of Light, DNA, E=MC squared, evolution, other galaxies, microbes, gravity, zero, the Periodic Table, Continental Drift, the steam engine, electricity, or any of the other constants that seem to describe our actual world?

Has any "Prophet," ever told us something new?

Jesue called himself, "The Son of Man." If he was still around, I would invite him over for dinner and a glass of wine. Buddha, too.

I am an agnostic. The best thing that ever happened to me, was that there was a night when I left my body. I was floating around, outside of my body, and I was offered a choice. I chose to live on this plane. I am still here! My question to all of you: If the universe conserves energy, and so it seems, would not this same universe also conserve consciousness?

It will be years before science can prove any of this. But it will happen. When this happens, we will all see that science is God, and that God is science. Go to sleep. Relax. You are just a little DNA in a very long time. And, your consciousness lives way beyond your death. What is the problem? PWB

It is great to see this debate happening more and more. In times past, it was outlawed by church-state alliances. Any questioning was heresy. One had to conform. Or else.

A History of Religious Tests Http://community-2.webtv.net/tales_of_the_western_world/TESTOATHS

Three observations are pertinent in the idea of science (reason) & religion (passion) attaining that unique (unrealistic?) realm whereby Gibran's serenity of the 2 might, w/o that multiplicity of murder/homicide/suicide which has rendered all forms of supernaturalism notorious, somehow come to be -- (1) the Oliver W. Holmes pearl that "eloquence may set fire to reason", gloriously confirming that reason can be a constant source of exuberance; (2) the Gibranism: "passion [religion], unattended, is a flame that burns in its own destruction", repeatedly verified by history's perpetual & continual sectarian conflicts and (3) the R.G. Ingersoll certainty -- "nothing but truth is immortal". Reason's "fire" is a self-sustaining light that conquers the darkness of ignorance, but faith's "fire", virtually always "unattended", unrestrained & decreed by the false idea of "one true god who invariably chooses his/her/its own", is destined to "burn in its own destruction", w. Popes, Priests, Bishops, other "divines", witches, angels, hobglobins, redeemers & of course innocents, including infants & children, spreading fuel for the flame. Finally since freethinkers, skeptics, secularists, scientists, nontheists, atheists, agnostics & other critical thinkers will engage only in utter futility by daring to try to convince "faith-heads" that truth alone has a ticket, not only to eternity but also to "salvation", then the proclamation, "never the twain shall meet", would yet again, announce the painful impossibility, as expressed by the following religion-induced words:

"What good is there, pray thee tell me, jostling through the crowd in life, /'Mid the argumental tumult, protestation, endless strife; /Mole-like burrowing in darkness, grasping for the spider's thread; /Always thrawted in ambition 'til the living join the dead"?! But truth, reason, science & a golden rule devoid of sectarian delusions, can provide the solution for humankind, if democracy is adopted as "the last best hope of Earth" in governance. That solution is secular humanism for both governments & citizens, while the greatness of truth, free from faith's pretenses, would finally be permitted to prevail, facilitated by Jefferson's stipulation that she [truth], finally, must be "left to herself".

I have faith that all this faith nonsense is coming to an end!

The only way to bring about peace among religions is to prove that no religion has the "Word" of the Ultimate God. With four logical proofs, I believe I have accomplished that task in my book "Ercian Testament." It is published free online at www.ercian.org. "ERC," as I have named the Ultimate God is NOT a conscious being (read the chapters on ERC's nature). However, in my book I also present arguments and evidence supporting the existence of a "conscious" "personal" God evolved from ERC whom I have named "ELLAEL" (Spanish for "SHEHE". I am an Ercian, the only Ercian on Earth. To find what I think is a good balance between reason and faith, read my book.

If "GOD" exists...

Who/what created GOD ???

please explain !! rationally !!!

Try this one

GOD is a figment of ones imagination cultivated over the millinum, to sustain wealth and power for the non-sequitor charlitans, who in turn feed the portended invincibility, of the fiction grasping masses

Ross

Sam Harris is on point in many of his statements and presuppositions about problems of religion and belief. As a science lover and former missionary for the church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints, I think it goes beyong faith or reason. I have my reasons for loving faith. And I have faith that alot my scientific hobbies and interests will help people live a rich and satisfying life.. Religion, belief, and science have all had their fair share of disputations throughout the centuries. I can quote politicians, prophets, scientists, and artists, and come up with a million different perspectives on faith and reason. It still comes down to personal belief. I feel Sam Harris is a leader in this new agenda to help people understand the problems of faith and religious dogma. Even Sam is a student of the Neuro sciences like myself. One's state of mind equals perception....and perception equals subjective reality. The reality I live and percieve and believe is based on much more than my faith or my reason. The human paradox is freewill.....the problem is....alot of people become susceptible to the freewill of others....as Nietzsche said.."Will to Power"

And I could go on Quoting Chomsky, Leonardo DaVinci, Ghandi, Christ, Einstien etc...

...big deal !

So.....it is a battle of free will.....and as the late Michael Foucault said....If one does not understand the structure of power and language, and what those forces mean...well...your in big trouble...

Sincerely........ John H. Humble

Therapist/linguist.. Maryland USA

L:
to the extent of my knowledge about the subject, ultimately, an oxygen molecule, is a sound we use to describe a set of observed interactions of probabilities (probabilities so high that we call them "particle") that we have helpfully divided into other words to distinguish our experience of those interactions and the probability (again, so high that some call it "air") of them occurring or not occurring. It is rather unhelpful to even think of things in terms of physical or not, simply because what most people call "physical" or "real" simply is an expression of their confidence in the perception of certain energy ( or whatever you choose to call it) patterns happening or not.

I suppose that the real question here is what a person means by "know"

the God statement goes something like this:
"I know some things"
"I know god" (to some extent)
"the knowing that makes me believe in god is not the same as the first knowing"
"the god knowing happens in my head"
"but I know that the god knowing is not even remotely comparable to the first knowing"
"I know this because I have no evidence (the first kind of knowing) of knowing god, plus is says god can't be known in a book I have"

my thought would be, what honestly makes one aware that the god knowing is any different that say, being aware that nothing can travel faster that the speed of light (a phenomenon for which I have no direct knowledge other than perceived secondary observations)?

Or to put it differently, what makes you confidant that knowing god is any different than knowing you have a sense of humor..etc ( e.g. your neurons flinging some electricity around)

Wes Kramer wrote:I frequently hear words like "invisible" "unthinkable" "mysterious" used in conversations about the nature of god’s nature. I have a sneaking suspicion the faithfull are just trying to talk about oxygen molecules.....:)

So tell me, what exactly IS an oxygen molecule? I'm not speaking in hypothetical terms - (a word the dictionary defines as "PRESUMED to exist."), but rather what EXACTLY is it? Do you really KNOW. Of course the periodic table lists oxygen as a single atom with the atomic number 8,but isn't it usually found in nature as a bivalent molecule (O2), and of course there's ozone (O3)? So it seems we have to speak quite often in theoretical terms when it comes to science. That's because science deals mostly in THOUGHTS, CONCEPTS and IDEAS (same as religion) with a very small bit of the experiential (along with experiemental) thrown in. Of course, when it comes to our survival and well-being as a species, science is in my opinion a FAR more useful tool than any religion. However, if you have never experienced anything beyond your thoughts, not only will you have no idea what I'm talking about, you will not believe that anything exists which you cannot think about. In that case, it might be good to ponder the fact that reality exists with or without your thoughts. After all, it existed long before our brains were here to produce them. If you truly believe your thoughts (which are only human)can grasp the enormity of what is reality, that puts you in a smaller box than many religious folks. That also makes you your own god.

I stand by the first sentence of my Darwin quote.

"I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for His existence. But this is a rash argument....The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator of the universe does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture."

Charles Darwin
p.57 Oct. 23, 2006 New Yorker

What makes you so sure Darwin was right? He was wrong about this one. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that humans invented gods very early on in their evoltion. Reading Darwin to support your beliefs is no different than reading a bible for the same reason.

To Jim in Virginia who said: We will never have peace on Earth as long as it [religion] is allowed to exist.

Where did you get the idea of "peace on Earth" and what makes you think it is actually possible? The idea of peace on Earth actually comes out of the very same desire as every religion - it is a simple psychological adaptation called "wishful thinking."

L:wrote
"Why do we insist that reality has to be something solid? (as a neuroscientist, Mr.Harris is equipped to answer that question) The Earth is very real to us because it has a certain solidity and tangibility - so what about the air? Does the fact that the earth is relatively stable and quite visible to our eyes make it more real than the air? And what about ideas? Do they have a shape or a mass? Are they a form of energy? Are they real?"

It would be helpful for people like L: to have some simple website or source of information were a person could go and easily become acquainted with the scientific advances of the last hundred years or so.

I frequently hear words like "invisible" "unthinkable" "mysterious" used in conversations about the nature of god’s nature. I have a sneaking suspicion the faithfull are just trying to talk about oxygen molecules.....:)

L:wrote
"Why do we insist that reality has to be something solid? (as a neuroscientist, Mr.Harris is equipped to answer that question) The Earth is very real to us because it has a certain solidity and tangibility - so what about the air? Does the fact that the earth is relatively stable and quite visible to our eyes make it more real than the air? And what about ideas? Do they have a shape or a mass? Are they a form of energy? Are they real?"

It would be helpful for people like L: to have some simple website or source of information were a person could go and easily become acquainted with the scientific advances of the last hundred years or so.

I frequently hear words like "invisible" "unthinkable" "mysterious" used in conversations about the nature of god’s nature. I have a sneaking suspicion the faithfull are just trying to talk about oxygen molecules.....:)

"I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for His existence. But this is a rash argument....The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator of the universe does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture."

Charles Darwin
p.57 Oct. 23, 2006 New Yorker

If you don't see something, does it mean it isn't there?

Darrick: How 'bout the fact that I've lived my entire life among family and friends with considerably different views about life, and we have not yet maimed or persecuted each other?

So why not call it 'successful negotiation or agreement' (i.e., we agree to disagree)rather than the more vague term 'harmony?' Many religious types operate just as you and your family do, believing they should live-and-let live. Truth is, that tactic (and let's be honest, it IS a tactic) will only continue to work just so long as no one's beliefs (i.e., ego; i.e., perceived survival) are REALLY challenged.

Sam,

Thanks for being the voice of reason and having the guts to put it out there. The world could use a lot more people like you, Richard Dawkins, Thomas Paine, Robert Ingersoll, Bertrand Russell, etc. Organized religion, based on lies and ancient myths, is the most destructive force man ever created. We will never have peace on Earth as long as it is allowed to exist.

So many voices with so much to say that I initially felt reluctant to add mine to the chorus. But after watching and reading for a couple of days, I did want to say something.

I, like many of you, searched for something that people of faith seemed to have in abundance, a real certainty that I found elusive. They knew things that I simply could not see or even fathom and from which they somehow derived comfort and stength.

Eventualy, I consciously abandoned their approach and came to accept that I did not..could not... believe in any deity or god at all. I was not 'faith enabled', I guess.

But my experience of this may seem incongruous to some. I did not despair. Rather I felt more hopeful. I could acknowledge what I felt and what I thought in all its contradictions but even more importantly, I came to see what I didn't feel at all and did not, or could not, ever know.

In short, I became just one human being looking out at the world and saying 'wow, isn't this something'.

Life has since become even more precious to me because its context seems more clear. We are born, we breathe a while, some of us even have children, and then we die. What we do with that time, what we feel and think, how we conduct ourselves with others, is the real challenge. For me, faith never answered this challenge.

So here I am trying to find a way to end this little missive. I guess this will have to do. Thank you, Mr. Harris, for saying what needs to be said. You have honourable company and that alone seems cause for hope.

Bob C.
Ontario, Canada

Mkh Posted November 15, 2006 12:48 PM :

"Until we are attacked by some alien invader we will never come together as a species for mutual survival."

When that happens it will be too late. We will fall like all other primitives.

Hello!

I agree: Sam Harris for President!!

I agree with Harris that dogmatism, fundamentalism, and blind faith are very serious problems in our world that call for healing. But it seems to me that Harris’ writings exhibit the very dogmatism that he so vehemently accuses religious believers of having. For example, while he accuses religious believers for having faith in religious dogma, yet he maintains a faith in the dogma of atheism. (Since there is no actual evidence proving that God does not exist, the belief in the non-existence of God is -- by his own standards -- faith in dogma.) Similarly, while Harris criticizes religions because they damn people of other religions to hell, he effectively damns all religious believers for being the primary cause of human suffering throughout recorded history. And, after accusing religious believers of thinking they have a monopoly on truth, he counters that, no, he and all other “reasonable people really do have a monopoly on truth.” In short, his writing strikes me as exemplifying the very problems he is accusing others of having. Perhaps I’m missing something, but I just don’t see how that is very helpful to our collective situation. Stamping out all religion, as he advocates, is neither wise nor realistic. It is not realistic because human beings have an irrepressible religious nature. It is not wise because healing does not come from attempts to annihilate our ignorance, but rather to understand it more deeply.

L:
"Darrick said: The simple question is: Do we want to live in harmony, or do we want to believe in our religions?

Well, here is another simple question. What makes you believe something called "harmony" actually exists? What is your evidence?"

How 'bout the fact that I've lived my entire life among family and friends with considerably different views about life, and we have not yet maimed or persecuted each other?

Bronze and Dark Ages myths assembled into bibles, torahs or qu'rans are rife with cruelty, misogyny, incest, murder, slavery and that’s just some of what the god guys and their gods get up to. Suggesting that primitive narratives developed by cave people as coping mechanisms form any model for modern existence is ridiculous.

Secular Humanism is the result of social self-consciousness. Modern culture needs to be free from the tyranny of superstition. There are no gods; Yahweh is no more real than Thor or Zeus. Participating in religion keeps people emotionally infantile and constantly at war.

Response to Elay:

Actually the formation of light preceded the creation of our sun. So allowing for the length of days to be measured in billions of years, the Bible has that much correct.

Sam Harris is one of the most important people of the 21st century.

Finally, someone has picked up the torch that Joseph Campbell left behind and has elevated the conversation to an even greater level.

Conversational Intolerance is about bringing perspective to the discussion of the problems with religious faith and religious dogmatism.

I agree with Sam Harris that while interfaith dialogue is needed, it doesn't show much promise. As long as Christians, Muslims and Jews (etc) keep believing that the book they read is the "one true" faith; and the others are wrong - mankind isn't going to get anywhere. Especially given that each different religious sect uses the exact same mindset to justify their own faith, whilst using the same rationality to elucidate the other on why his/her chosen religion is wrong.

As Sam has said, religious moderation gives and extraordinary amount of cover to religious fundamentalism. And in this day and age, it only takes 19 fundamentalists to cause tremendous amounts of death and destruction... ... ... ...

The time has come for us to come terms with our existence and to stop believing in iron age fairytales. Nobody REALLY knows what happens when we die - it doesn't matter. All the time and energy that is wasted on dreams of the afterlife should be focused on THIS LIFE.

That Holly Near link should be http://www.hollynear.com/lyrics/i.aint.afraid.html (without the period).

For Holly Near's take on the role of religious faith in world conflict, see the words of her song "I Ain't Afraid", that she has posted at http://www.hollynear.com/lyrics/i.aint.afraid.html. We plan to kick off a discussion of The Thought and Writing of Sam Harris on Nov. 19 with that song. But "religion" does not have to be taken to always mean following what you have been taught with blind faith. I have always liked what the Lebanese writer, Kahlil Gibran, had to say in his 1923 book "The Prophet". He said "Your daily life is your temple and your religion. Whenever you enter into it take with you your all. ... And take with you all men: For in adoration you cannot fly higher than their hopes nor humble yourself lower than their despair."

Dear Tammy Irwin,
ONE word: Join ONE.org. (okay it's not ONE word but the pun was irresistable.)

ELAY said:
"People who say that the bible is divinely inspired are denigrating the Creator or Intelligent Designer. On the first page of the bible we hear,
"Let there be light!"
This is denoted as the first day of Creation. Isn't it amazing that the sun is then created on the fourth day. To attribute this to "God" by whoever authored this tract is an outright insult, as surely a competent Creator would make the sun first and then say, "Let there be light!"

To answer your question [aside from the fact that the bible is a rather long-winded and pretty dull account of human history], there is more than one kind of light. Radiant, or heat light, from the sun is only one form.

Why do we insist that reality has to be something solid? (as a neuroscientist, Mr.Harris is equipped to answer that question) The Earth is very real to us because it has a certain solidity and tangibility - so what about the air? Does the fact that the earth is relatively stable and quite visible to our eyes make it more real than the air? And what about ideas? Do they have a shape or a mass? Are they a form of energy? Are they real? What other realities might our five senses and human imagination be missing?

People who say that the bible is divinely inspired are denigrating the Creator or Intelligent Designer. On the first page of the bible we hear,
"Let there be light!"
This is denoted as the first day of Creation. Isn't it amazing that the sun is then created on the fourth day. To attribute this to "God" by whoever authored this tract is an outright insult, as surely a competent Creator would make the sun first and then say, "Let there be light!"

Darrick said: The simple question is: Do we want to live in harmony, or do we want to believe in our religions?

Well, here is another simple question. What makes you believe something called "harmony" actually exists? What is your evidence?

Sam Craig said: "knowledge can harm us but only knowledge can save us."

Well Sam, my question is - save us from WHAT?? Can you really outsmart death? Salvation belongs to the realm of religion.

I have been occupied with these issues throughout my life and I am happy that the debate is finally going public. We need to come to a public understanding that what we are dealing with are psychological sentiments. Sentiments are being exercised upon the collective and the individual through culture imposition. Our biases, likes and dislikes, are just that, sentiments, psychological formation. We are dealing with personal sentiments, geographical or gio-sentiments and socio-sentiments. Each grouping can be subdivided into socio religious sentiments, socio/economic sentiments, political etc. These are the working of the mind and it is the mind that invented it all, which means that if we start studying human behavior objectively we will see these sentiments for what they are and thus be able to go beyond them. Instinctively, as an animal, we are selfish, just like all other creatures, however, we are also a social creature and as such we have the capacity for altruism. Altruism is a sentiment that grows through knowledge and understanding. It comes through the realization that all events are related to each other in a motion and (e)motion of happenings, appearances and becoming. I come to this debate through forty years of contemplative work. Through my process of psycho-syntheses, in other words, meditation, I found no verification of a supreme being or a supreme religion. It all came down to the content of my mind before or during or after the meditation. The “before” take presidency and is the conditional factor of our life. In the end, it all comes to the pursued of trying to know oneself, which we do when we finally learn to forget oneself, literally. Clarity/insight comes when there is no one there to take credit of it. Anyway, thank you so much for opening this debate, let’s get to the heart of it and slowly replace these old dogmas and superstition with the joy of learning and personal inquiry. I wish Sam Harries and intellectual like him, success in educating the public in these matters, but be careful, these old sentiments are of a socio-religious nature, meaning, there are a great amount of bottled up energy invested here. You all know what I mean. Thank you allowing me a chance to express myself.

Darrick: You can do whatever you want. But you'd do yourself a favor if you considered what I said above. And you'd do me, and everytone else in the discussion, a favor, if you'd address (and try to refute) what I said, if you think you can.

Darrick,

I was the one who made the anonymous post that you reference. What I'm saying is that we should reject the idea that any scripture is divinely inspired. If scripture or doctrine is completely divorced from reality, then we should reject the scripture or doctrine.

The Post's Joel Achenbach quoted the Dalai Lama as saying much the same thing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011801432.html

"The doctrine was directly at odds with what he could perceive with his own senses and a scientific instrument. What to do? Simple: Change the doctrine...He makes a distinction between the core values of a religion, which can't change, and the doctrines that are mutable, like the bit about the moon. But he clearly sees no problem being fully spiritual and fully scientific. He believes in freedom, which includes the freedom to use one's brain."

I recommend reading Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus." Despite the horribly tabloid-sounding title, the book is a great dissection of the New Testament, showing why the idea of Biblical literalism is false. Ehrman is a Bible scholar who rejected literalism after years of studying the surviving Greek versions of the New Testament.

It seems that people of faith are not about trusting in the material aspects of this world but are about trusting in something invisible. Now the contradiction that seems clear with people that have faith is that their own faith is developed and propagated by the material world of "mankind".

Faith is brought forth by the testimonies of men who are part are same material world. Is it really to much to test the things of faith with the material aspects of this world? After all these same men who are of the same matter (reality) as everyone else purport things that are invisible which further discards or contradicts reality.

Those who say that Harris and others are unwilling to have a true dialogue because they are unbending in their opinions have it exactly wrong. Any athiest would immiediatly "believe" in God or Zeus or Santa Claus if any real evidence could ever be shown confirming the existance of these imaginary beings.

Religious believers, on the other hand ignore the overwhelming evidence that these beings are the creation of men every day.

Me Again:

No doubt your situation in PQ is better than the situation in much of the US. But do you credit religion itself with that? Does the faith itself tell them to not proselytize, to leave others alone? No, the secular laws of your country accomplish that. The faithful in your country are letting the reality of secular laws impose on their faith. And the result is that everyone has more freedom and peace than they would otherwise.

There are certainly non-religious fanatics. PETA comes to mind. Thankfully, they are too obviously delusional to exercise much power. If they did have power, you can bet that rational voices would fight tooth and nail to expose their delusions. Yet we have so far failed to do so with religion.

I do agree that critical thinking is a core issue. But as long as indoctrination is the norm, it won't be possible. If one cannot distinguish between religious "truth" - based on fantasy - and observed truth - based on evidence - one's mind is shackled. If one believes the former even when contradicted by the latter, one cannot be disabused of his delusions.

Anonymous:

I think I agree with you there, but unfortunately, the vast majority of the world's religious texts do not. For Christians, "Do unto others" is right there, in red text.

My girlfriend once attended a service near her hometown in rural Washington State, where the preacher said, "The Bible says, 'Honor thy father and mother.' It doesn't say 'Honor them unless they beat you, abuse you, or rape you.'"

If it's in the text, and it *can* be interpreted in some way, it *will* be - even if it's completely divorced from reality.

Richard Johnson:

Thanks very much for providing such a clear example of the terrible effects of indoctrination. May I quote you in the future?

Just a few remarks to some of the posts: Mike Dishnow and PK, solid obsevations/viewpoints; NEK, I don't think that couple you described can be considered intelligent; Anonymous, "preaching to the converted" is not a pun, it's more of an adage, and a cliched one at that; and Robert L. Brockett, your statement: "In the end we all trade in delusions..." was brilliant and calls to mind Joan Dideon's observation in her book, The White Album, that "We tell ourselves stories in order to live."
As for Sam, he his my favorite neuroscientist in the making and I sent some of his writings to my sister, a self-proclaimed christian fanatic. Unfortunately, and I think her reaction is emblimatic of how others who describe themselves in this fashion, was one of indignant reignition of her religious fervor--she is now more determined in her "faith." And she feels sad and sorry for the likes of me and Sam and toward many of the individuals who have posted on this site because we don't have the capital t truth she and the members of her church have. My conclusion to my sister's reaction and others like her is: The irrational become more irrational when confronted with their irrationality.
Maybe if we analogized revealed religions' prophets to batman they would see the cartoonish absurdity of their dogmatic beliefs. Both batman and prophets have a private line to the "Knower of All Things." Batman has a red phone to link him and the prophet has a glowing red pre-frontal lobe on an EEG scan. (rimshot) Bad fictions, both.
Meanwhile, here we sit with leaders of nations (US, Iran, No. Korea) who think they have a direct line to the "Knower of All Things" with their fingers poised above red buttons that could reduce us to smithereens.
We must win this war against reason or what's left of us will surely end up inside another dark age.
Here's an idea for a bumper sticker: Crescent plus Star of David plus Crucifix, COEXIST or Go AWAY!
Peace,
Janine
p.s. listen to more U2.

I will grant in the field of philosophy that Kant is headier than Sam Harris. But that hardly matters to me. I could parade around the names: Camus, Hume, Nietzsche, Sartre and Schopenhauer to name but a few, who would easily dispense with Kant.

But most people here find even the simplest logic and honest critical thinking leaves little room for the belief of and adoration of deities. I have found the only evidence of god to be rooted in wishful thinking.

So lets not pull that BS that I know a smart guy who believes in god. There have been many practical geniuses with very fanciful notions. I will not endorse them just because they were smarter than me. There is no shortage of brilliant men and women through the ages who have argued pro and con over the existence of god. The question hasn't been resolved yet, and likely never will be.

Sam Harris for president! It's time to put atheism into the White House.

Puddin'head said:

"How do we know when we've discarded all our comforting illusions? It's when we find ourselves finally, irrevocably without comfort."

I have exactly the same opinion as you.

That is comforting.

knowledge can harm us but only knowledge can save us.

The truth is, no belief - religious or otherwise -ever stands on it's own. There is no absolute foundation for what you think you know. In other words, something is true only because you say it's true. Believe otherwise and you're believing in gods (concepts and ideas serve nicely as gods). Remember - the map is NOT the territory. Until you REALIZE that, face it - you're religious.

The call, by Mr. Harris and his supporters on this blog, to abandon faith is misguided, and founded on a premise both ignorant and unwise.

The premise, that the material is synonomous with the real, and that only mathematical reasoning is equiped to account for reality, is manifestly ignorant, because it ignores spiritual realities, which are among the most important realities to human beings. Spiritual realities include, among others, freedom, faith, hope, love, beauty, sublimity, justice, mercy, meaning, purpose, perfection, and the perfection of these and all other realities, God.

The branches of science that Mr. Harris and his ilk confuse for the whole of Science (i.e., physics, chemistry, etc.) are just those parts of knowledge that treat of material nature, which can be described and predicted mathematically. However, they do not constitute the entirety of knowledge, and they simply cannot account for the spiritual realities that are so fundamental to the human experience in general, and our own personal experiences in particular. Just as mathematical reasoning is the method and the means by which we account for material realities, faith and revelation (called by Plato, right opinion) is the method and the means by which we approach and grapple with the spiritual realities that form such a large part of our experience.

The existential fact, which Mr. Harris and his fellow smug rebels ignore to the detriment of their credibility, is that God is with us; he dwells in the heart of man, at the head of the parade of ideas, like freedom and justice, by which our life is inspired and organized. The rebels would have to say, were they compelled to confront with rigor that which they so ignore, that freedom is an illusion, that justice is a myth, that beauty and sublimity are delusions, that perfection is a null set, that love and hope and mercy are for suckers. There is and can be, for Harris and his fellow lost souls, no meaning in this world, no purpose in life; there is only the spectacle of matter and energy, moving and reacting in their mindless courses of cause and effect, and whatever hedonistic entertainment can be gleaned from the same, but to no higher purpose. Life, for benighted individuals like Harris, is nothing but eat and be eaten, screw and be srewed; a series of conditions and reflexes, with an illusion of consciousness (played out on what screen one wonders), a brief mirage wedged between two infinities of nothingness. Everything that really matters to human beings (apart from the values they share with the animals and plants, like the need for fuel and the aversion to pain), the things, that is, that make us human (e.g., love and freedom and conscience) do not fit into Mr. Harris's system, cannot be addressed by what he calls science, and apparently do not matter to him. If that is what he says, he is either being dishonest, or he is just unwise.

Mr. Harris's rejection of faith, the other half of knowledge, the other arm by which we grasp reality, that spiritual side of reality that means so much to us human beings, is indeed unwise. By rejecting faith he cuts himself off from what really matters to persons; he amputates somthing that is much an appendage and a tool of mankind as is reason. He really commits the same error, in reverse, as those fundamentalists who say that faith can reject reason, and deal with material nature on its own terms, without recouse to mathematics and empirical observation. Just as the fundamntalists are wrong about matter, and cut themselves off from the means of grasping it, so is Mr. Harris wrong. He has overstepped the bounds of material reasoning, when he argues the non-existence of God, the great ideas, and other spiritual realities that exist, and prove their existence in their importance to our lives and culture.

As Immanuel Kant, a brilliant philosopher, and a much more wise and intelligent man than Mr. Harris and the herd of self-styled freethinkers with whom his drivel resonates, said in his groundbreaking work, Critique of Pure Reason (and I paraphrase): critical philosopy must, by means of a Copernican-style revolution that puts Mind at the center as the undisputed reality of existence, demonstrate the limits of reason, in order to make room for faith. Reason simply cannot prove or disprove the spiritual realities such as God. However, practical philosophy, and good judgement, points to the efficacy of embracing those spiritual realities (God and freedom in particular), as the basis for morality, which in turn is the basis for human society. No one has improved upon this formulation, or offered a better (or indeed any) means for lifting human civilization above immorality and nihilism implicit in the dark, Darwinian, dog-eat-dog mire of mud and blood that constitutes the sum total of the world-picture offered by Mr. Harris calls the whole of science.

Thus, Mr. Harris is unwise to think that he can uplift humans, prompt clear thinking, and promote peace and progress, by tying behind our backs the other arm of our mind, the spiritiual one that can lift us out of the mire of mere matter in which the arm of reason is so adept at swimming. Contrary to Mr. Harris's unsupported assumption, reason does not and cannot refute faith; reason needs faith. Reason and faith together make us whole' mathematics and revelation together give us insight into our composite reality, composed of both matter and spirit. Reality is bigger than Mr. Harris imagines, and we should thank God for that.

Darrick, my point is that there shouldn't be "others" in religious terms. Each of us has to come to terms with death and suffering in our own way. No one else can be part of that spiritual journey. I'm saying that it's wrong to have a religious belief about other people. There should be no such thing as a religious belief that says "do unto others." It should only be "do unto yourself."

You see. here's the thing. I live about 45 minutes drive north of your beautiful country.

But here, the religious do leave us alone (and vice versa).

There is no one here pushing religion down my child's throat. there are no Christians here who use their religion as an excuse not to drink alcohol. They do not use it as an excuse to exclude people. They do not wear fanatical bracelets. We do not have a superstitious prime minister. (let's not go any further on that one though)

In that sense, for the most part, religion is O.K. here.

This is why I have a hard time believing that the problem should be entirely blamed on religion. If not for religion, those people would find something else to shove down your throat in an attempt to justify their fears, beliefs, (insert adjectives here).

It seems that people (i.e. the masses) are becoming more dependant. They are not being taught to think for themselves. Someone mentioned critical thinking. I would guess that most people I know don't even KNOW what critical thinking IS.

Here in Quebec, we have cheap daycare to help children become indoctrinated as law-abiding, tax-paying automatons. In America, there seems to be something else going on. I don't to claim to know what it is, but it seems that fanatical religious people are increasingly the output.

Yes, people need community and a sense of belonging, but we have that here, and we don't have all the fanatics.

I know what Mr. Harris thinks about 'moderate' religious people - but I think that before the species as a whole can do something about the problems everyone here acknowledges, I also think that someone would need to explain to the rest of the world the modern day framework of religion in America, because it is a unique story and obviously an important one to understand when trying to bridge gaps of understanding.

Have I said that in the most politically correct way possible? I certainly have tried.

Me again

Because those doctrines are PART OF the very source material of the religion. What justification do you have for throwing out the evangelical parts, but keeping other parts? Or throwing out the violent, kill-your-family parts, but keeping the "turn the other cheek" parts?

On religious grounds, *none*. Your decisions to do so are based purely on secular interests overriding your faith.

The Bible doesn't teach "live and let live." It teaches quite the opposite - "Do unto others."

Randy Lee, isn't the real evil not religion, but religious doctrines that teach evangelism at all costs? Why not just do away with the concept of evangelism in religion, and let individuals find their own ways to resolve their fear of the unknown? I don't care if someone believes that God talks through Ashton Kutcher, as long as the believer respects the rights of others to believe something else.

Mr. Harris is revealing a good angle, which does not canonize science as an eschatological saviour.

Science is not seen, by Harris, as an eschatogical saviour, but as an experimental dog which is continually tested and observed via experimentation and scientific rigour.

This tends to expose either a wimpering, simpering cowardly mutt, or a dog that fights back, resisting destruction invoked by systematic and methodological physical, chemical, or biological experimentation.

In the end, the hypothetical dog becomes accepted as a brave dog in the laboratory of scientific experiment. It does not make the dog a saviour - not at all. The dog becomes merely one of many in the veterinarian's domain, all of which serve to reveal to the veterinarian the simple state of dogs in the lab.

Man's quest to comprehend his state and the state of his world leads to this kind of experimentation.

The gods dreamed up by man cannot take rigourous examination, since there is no verifiable outcome. Nonetheless "love serves as a governor to the intellect" which should be a restriction to the use of violence to attain religious supremacy.

Dear "the man"-haha very funny, (and original, haha).
Dear Everyone Else-What a constructive & eye-opening discussion. Thanks for all the thoughtful posts; we're obviously giving each other so much to think about, but as Vince Lauria pointed out, we don't have the resources to accomplish any goals, like serving our communities the way the "faithful" get to. What are we to do?

To "Everything in Moderation,"
Religion needs to be taken seriously because like never before it poses a very real threat to our existence. Fundamentalist lunacy is spreading around the world, and it is contagious from one religion to another. When muslim maniacs call for mass murder of Americans, christian crackpots react with talk about similar counter-measures. (See statements by Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ann Coulter, and a host of other demogogues who have the ear of our superstitious president.) We have instant worldwide communication and widely available sources of deadly weapons. In the hands of true believes this is a very bad thing. The worst atrocities in history are often done by people who really think god is on their side. Moderation is great, but your life is at risk right now. We have to get serious right now. I'm afraid things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.

Just wondering if you would like a stunt job in Ben Stiller's next movie? Contact Hollywood

Dear fellow humans,

Religion is nothing but man's use of other men's fear of the unknown to exert mind control over them. Whether that is bad or good is a moral decision that each one of us must make individually. Decide as you will, but make no mistake over the nature of your decision.

It doesn't matter if a host of angels greets you when you wake up one morning, show you miracles, and tell you all kinds of great stories, you still don't know what is going to happen to you when you die. You just don’t. You cannot know. IT’S SCARY. I cannot say anything to ease your fear without lying to you. Any attempt to deal with the fear through denial - whether by reference to a book of stories that claims to know or the visions you saw the last time you meditated is self-delusion.

Now, with both eyes open, decide. You may decide that, for you, faith in a book of stories is the only way you can process the fear. That is your decision to make. At least you will have made your decision with open eyes, knowing what you are doing. However, please, please, please, have a little respect for your fellow man who is just as scared as you are. Please, do not attempt to cheat others out of the dignity of making their own decision with the same clear understanding you had by shoving your decision down their throats.

Ah, but here is precisely where the problem with religion arises. The book of stories tells you to shove it down their throats. The book of stories tells you to do this or you will be punished. The book of stories tells you a bunch of other stuff about how to treat other men. Some of it is nice. Some of it is heinous. So, here is your dilemma. You want comfort from the fear. But the comfort you have chosen tells you that you must do evil or be denied comfort. The comfort you have chosen is evil.

I sympathize but I do not approve. Here is my dilemma. My gut says burn all the books, kill all the priests, and tear down all the churches. STOP THE EVIL. I cannot. I would be as evil. I cannot even ask your forgiveness for telling you the truth. I am left with nothing but my fear, my self-respect, my respect for others who choose not to do evil, and my frail hope that we can get past this self-inflicted horror story. We must, for we have tremendous challenges to meet. These are not self-inflicted, and therefore a matter of choice, but imposed by the nature of the universe in which we find ourselves.

Love,

Randy Lee

Sam Harris is a brave man and his public opinions are long overdue. For many years I have felt like religion is the gorilla in the living room that exists but no one wants to talk about. If given a choice between a debate on politics or religion most people hate both but will choose to talk about politics rather than religion. There is some unspoken rule that religion is simply taboo and to criticize another person's belief system is socially unacceptable.

Sam Harris has broken the silence and I say, "Let the debates begin!" Only with open, honest debate in a public forum will we ever progress beyond our mindless faith in a questionable god and believing in myth and superstition over reason and logic.

After all, it's the 21st century! Isn't it time we knew the truth about religion?

"Why can't people simply treat religion as they do everything else in life, take what is useful and leave the rest?

Why such an all or nothing approach?"

Because the religious won't leave us alone?

Because it only takes 19 "true believers" to kill thousands of people who don't believe what they do?

Because people of faith are trying to indoctrinate my children, cause material harm to my friends, and inflict decades of suffering on my family by pushing their religious agendas on creationism, gay marriage, and stem cells?

Well, let's be careful about terminology here - "belief" is not the same as "faith." I believe the earth revolves around the sun, but that's because all evidence I have seen to date points in that direction. Christians "believe" God exists and Jesus was his son, in spite of lack of evidence for, and ample evidence against.

"Faith" is believing in the absence of evidence, or believing even when faced with contrary evidence.

It would seem that everyone, non-believers and believers alike, take religion WAY too seriously.

Why can't people simply treat religion as they do everything else in life, take what is useful and leave the rest?

Why such an all or nothing approach?

Can't remember who said this (something along these lines): The truths of our reality are self-evident to all humans--no exceptions. The grass is green, we drink water, we breathe air, etc. Falsehoods and lies are forced on people to believe and explained away as "faith." If it's true you don't have to "believe" it or take a leap of faith, it just is.

Unfortunately, critical thinking is hard work and has little emotional payoff for those that need it. Biggest travesty is forcing kids to be indoctrinated in faith until they have the skills to think--a real shame!

"Sam Harris is relentless in exposing the fact that, in sharp contrast, some religions also claim to have a monopoly on virtue itself. When one is certain that one religion’s holy book is the one and only source of truth, that tends to undercut the sincerity of any supposed agreement to seek common ground with other faiths."

Every religion, as Mr. Harris defines religion, claims to have a monopoly on both truth and virtue. Those who make room for other faiths are ignoring the actual teachings of their books - for secular reasons.

The point is that common ground is found only in non-religious areas, and for non-religious reasons. Religion divides us - it is only by ignoring or discarding certain religious teachings that we can live peacefully alongside other religions.

The simple question is: Do we want to live in harmony, or do we want to believe in our religions? The only way to have both is to eradicate all religions *and* religious denominations except our own. Otherwise, the choices are mutually exclusive.

I am in agreement and in awe at Sam Harris's public statements and the arguments in his books. I had to call myself an agnostic after my mother died when I was nine years old, of a stroke. She told me over and over that God loves little children. It can be a painful journey to reject the personal dogma with which we are programmed.

My main concern with all public atheists is the lack of leadership to bring about the same sort of social services that religion offers. Let's face it, a lot of people go to church for a non-professional, no-alcoholic social experience...and an extended-family experience. Except for Humanist Friendship Centers, which are few and far between there are few places for an atheist to find structured social interaction that competes with the incredible proliferation of tax-free churches. And if free-thinkers did start a movement (I put an idea down on paper years ago for just such a replicable community facility) for community social support of their numbers it would have to compete unfairly with religion. What say to this problem Mr. Harris?

Thanks very much Sam.
As an infidel to all religions (an acceptable death target to belivers of most religions), I suggest your respondents go to

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com

This URL contains pertinent arguments that convinces the reader to accept god as mythological by using the words of the Christian Bible(s),and offers support for your position that humanity can conduct great goods without the need of any religion(s) created by ignorant nomad traders and sheep herders roaming the deserts of the Middle East

There is recognition (heart-warming and frustrating at the same time) that most religions share some core beliefs in universal values such as the “golden rule.” Kindness, compassion, respect and gratitude are touchstones for living that are always welcomed and agreed to be strived for. Most people are willing, at least on a superficial level, to accept that different religions are simply different metaphors for such universal virtues.

Sam Harris is relentless in exposing the fact that, in sharp contrast, some religions also claim to have a monopoly on virtue itself. When one is certain that one religion’s holy book is the one and only source of truth, that tends to undercut the sincerity of any supposed agreement to seek common ground with other faiths.

Nevertheless, people try. Should they? Harris proposes “conversational intolerance,” and I think it is appropriate, but only to an extent. I think dialog between religious faiths is possible, and very valuable, if it is grounded in genuine respect for how it makes one feel. For example, if you say that Christianity has cornered the market on virtue, that is a non-starter. But it is not a conversation ender to say that Christian teachings inspired you to live a life of compassion, respect, kindness and gratitude. The conversation only ends if you are not willing to acknowledge and appreciate that I may be similarly inspired by the teachings of some other religion. I know that my religion is just another metaphor for universal truths, but that doesn’t diminish its power to inspire me. Mutual recognition of that would create common ground.

The trend of current technology supports this effort. In this age of instant massive dissemination of information, more people than ever are being compelled to recognize the limitless diversity of human experience, and forced to acknowledge that there are many equally valid metaphors for universally accepted values (to me, it is inspiring to observe the countless different ways that people find inspiration). I believe that this will naturally lead to conversational intolerance, and eventual marginalizing, of those whose values are too tangled up in their dogma, or those whose values are opposed to compassion and kindness. I know it will be a bumpy road; institutionalized beliefs do not disappear without a struggle. But I think it is inevitable, and necessary for civilization to progress.

There is a weave of concepts underlying those universal values- 1.) the interconnectedness of things, 2.) the power of abstract intangible concepts, and 3.) the concept of infinity. These are philosophical concepts, and they also have spiritual weight, but are also able to be discussed scientifically. In plain speaking, you can’t deny that the universe is bigger, more complex and maybe even more intelligent than we can possibly imagine. It is plainly true that intangible things like music can have tremendous power to change people’s hearts and minds. And neither can one avoid the knowledge that everything has consequences- think of it as the “butterfly effect,” or karma, or my favorite, “inter-being,” the term coined by Buddhist teacher Thich Nhat Hanh. We can’t possibly know all the ramifications of our actions, and we can never know the limit of what is possible in our universe.

Those thoughts invoke in me a profound sense of wonder and awe at the prospect of abstract concepts having infinite potential, infinite possibilities and infinite consequences. It is a powerful source of inspiration for me in my daily life to work at being true to myself, and to try to serve others. I think common ground is found by being willing to ask: “What inspires you to seek your greatest potential as a person and to have a positive impact in the world?” – and then open your heart to the infinite possible answers.

I just read Harris' "Letter to a Christian Nation." His critiques of both Christian and Muslim doctrine are excellent. But I wouldn't go so far as to say that all religion is the problem. That would rule out the possibility of individual spirituality. The problem is that religious doctrines do not limit themselves to concepts about the purpose of life. Instead, the doctrines try to define the world for people, interfering with science and rationality. The solution is to strip religious doctrines of those definitions. The beliefs that would be left might be properly called philosophies, which would be fine with me.

Hi Closet Atheist,

I am very sad that you had that kind of experience.

I wonder if it is really so different here in Canada...

At our church they give parking tickets, they even gave one to the minister.

Hope it's ok for a "believer" (Orthodox Christian) to post on this refreshing site. Most of the thoughts and feelings expressed here I am in full agreement with, having experienced many of the forms of Christian faith in this country as bizarre and oppressive and irrational. Religion as social control is common to both eastern and western Christians however, and paradoxically it was the Ottoman (Muslim)Empire which relieved Byzantine Orthodoxy from its theocratic control, and communism which ended the Protestant form of theocratic Orthodoxy prevailing in Russia. That Christians of any region, especially in the US should seek to re-impose theocracy strikes me as demonic - if you will forgive the expression. Better by far that Christians have no power whatsoever.

Three things that I know of are truly universal. They are Music, Sex, and schematic wiring diagrams. Mythologies and religions are not universal, and this leads to rifts that cause Man's inhumanity to man.
As an inquiring athiest I applaude the work that Sam Harris is doing.

Bob Wexelbaum, W2ILP , a blogger on world wide Ham Radio since 1951...long before the creation and evolution of the Internet.

Billions of people can be wrong

Religions are just plain horrid. Those who suggest that religions provide moral compasses are deluded. It is reprehensible to fill children’s heads with superstitious nonsense that culturally they are forbidden to quit at maturity. Children aren’t stupid they know that their parents act out enchantment rituals for them playing Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy and yes they know that all the mumbo jumbo heard regarding gods is silliness too. The problem is that governments protect and endorse superstition and hence it almost impossible to break free. Families and communities ostracize members who do not go along with religious practice and rituals. It almost seems as difficult for children to admit being homosexual something they have no control over, as it is to say out loud that they are atheists. Everyone wants to exist in a warm cuddly place that is comforting but to suggest that this exists after death is ridiculous and tends to perpetuate emotional immaturity in the adult population.

Oh and please don’t raise the issue of Hitler who was a Roman Catholic while ignoring the fact that the pulpits in Germany declared him to be the Holy Ghost whatever god that is or to raise the communism issue. Scare tactics spooking the population hinder progress and are not rooted in the common good. I do not have false gods or any gods and prefer to decide which day is good for me to take off work.

For those who get all uppity about enforcing superstition on the public saying there is no sane way without it please look at Canada. Most Canadians are not superstitious and believe in holding the government accountable. The common good is what motivates the Canadian mindset. Canada is one of the largest landmasses and is home to diverse people who agree on doing the right thing, which includes building a social safety for all citizens. Oh sure some laugh about Canadians being docile and insignificant but Canada has never started a war and the people live in peace.

I think it was Dawkins who said that everyone is an atheist to all beliefs but their own, and he's right. To denounce any religious belief while subscribing to one yourself makes you a hypocrit, and as Harris talked about in the initial article, its impossible to believe in all religions without major contradictions.

You would be forced into selective editing and "mashing," and by that point you've not only created your own belief system, but have in the process essentially shown that religion isn't really necessary at all.

To live a "moral" and inspiring life is to be honest with yourself, set goals, use common sense and to not be a sociopath. Anyone who needs a 2,000 year old book (or any religious pulp) is essentially the worst case of a self-help addict who hasn't moved past the social neediness of being in a high school clique.

If I tried marketing an elixir that I claimed would allow you to live forever, I would quickly be in trouble with the Federal Trade Commission for false advertising. Yet, every Sunday preachers across the land collect money from millions by promising to show them the path to an everlasting life. Too bad religion gets a free pass when it comes to making unverifiable claims.

I am thrilled to read the dialogue that this great discussion has begotten. I’m honored to be witness to its birth and I praise all who are bold enough to pen their perspectives.

For myself, I suggest considering the following:

1) Faith (according to Microsoft) is synonymous with confidence, trust, reliance, assurance, conviction, belief, devotion and loyalty. These words all apply to my faith in the scientific method, which struggles to reveal knowledge that may be superseded by yet another revelation provided by science. I therefore challenge Sam that his book should have been titled the “End of Faith in the Afterlife”, as all evidence suggests that if there were no afterlife, we’d have to live now.

2) Science does have a discipline that engages in the discussion of attitudes, values and beliefs. It’s called philosophy. No one builds a rocket ship using it, but we do build knowledge of ourselves, our interactions with others and our perspectives on that which we cannot measure.

3) Let us suppose that philosophy came to some conclusion that was inexplicably rational and final. How would we communicate it to everyone? How would we set it upon our children? Surely the thought process for arriving at this momentous juncture would be beyond the comprehension of children. We’d need some way to communicate the conclusion so that we’d form their little neural pathways into the patterns that represented the principles discovered. It might be easier to make up a story about Heaven and Hell, and then later pull off the beard and red costume to show them that while the principles are valuable the method for communicating it was bereft of reality.

4) “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This is the only valuable bit of information that was provided me through my religious upbringing. It makes no mention of God, Heaven, Hell or other religions (Note: I capitalize proper nouns whether or not they are real, for they certainly exist, at least in the minds of men). The Golden Rule serves me as the broadest foundation on which to construct my principles for living. While it was not Science that presented it to me, it was Science that allowed me to see it in all its glorious simplicity.

5) Where do we go from here? The answer is too simple to understand. Where ever we go.

Thank you to capitalism for providing the motivation to the Washington Post and Newsweek for hosting this wonderful conversation. Thanks to Sam Harris for braving the blinding religious conservative tide that has gripped our nation over the past 6 years. And finally, thank God that we get to have this conversation, whether or not He, She or It exists.

David J Powers

Interesting that all these religions support being nice, honest, kind, helpful, generous, humble, etc. while always being ready to argue, snub, ridicule, ostracize, humiliate, hurt, hate, and even go to war and kill in the name of their god.

It's incredible that some people believe that all you have to do is invite jesus into your life and you will change. Do these same people think that Ted Haggard didn't do just that, has he changed? He admitted that he has battled these desires all of his adult life. I am sure that he prayed to his version of god daily to get rid of them. I've known a lot of ministers in my time and find them to be the biggest hypocrits of all!!

I know it's mostly tongue in cheek, but the Sam Harris worshiping gets tiresome to me. I've read both EOF and LTCN and enjoyed them both and agree with much of what he says. I like many, took exception to his views on torture and some other minor points.

That said, I hope millions more read his books, but there are a lot of other equally eloquent authors that should be read on this important topic; both contemporary writers like Richard Dawkins, David Mills, Dan Barker and historical figures like Robert Ingersoll, Thomas Paine, Bertrand Russell etc.

I think people should be careful appointing Sam Harris or anybody else as a standard bearer for Atheism. Nonbelievers don't need the equivalent of priests or cult leaders to speak for them. There are many points of view that should be heard. That he sparks debate and opens this country to a more open discourse should be enough of a role for us to be grateful to him.

This is my third post, but I wanted to put forward a theory about why religious beliefs seem so doggedly clingy to our world. In a sentence, unrestricted flights of imagination are part of being creative and all forward motions in science and art would not or could not occur without them. Ego and dogma, on the other hand, are the results of individual attachments to particular forms or creations. To be creative, one needs to let one's mind move forward beyond the prevailing beliefs about the nature of what's real. How else could Einstein, for example, have arrived at his famous theories? He used imagination without reference to prevailing beliefs about time, energy, matter and light. My suggestion, therefore, is that religions are institutional by-products of social creativeness. This is not a new idea, but I believe that dealing with the problem of religious dogma today requires that we understand within ourselves the true nature of what's really going on. I believe that religion serves a function in the human mind that's similar to our relationship with music and other forms of creative artistic expression. Imagine for a moment if people actually believed, for example, that Star Trek was not just a TV or movie show? Would we not have some of the same problems we have in the world today as we have with other religious believers? I'm suggesting that human beings have a need to enter worlds of fantasy and illusion and that, in reality, this is part of having a healthy creative life. Luckily, all the folks who dress up as Klingons and go to Star Trek conventions know that it's not real (at least I hope that they do!) I would suggest, therefore, that religions cling to our world partly because realism - all by itself - is horribly bland and boring. This is not a defense of insane religious belief. If someone starts to think that captain Kirk is really a starship captain, then he or she needs to be assisted in getting back to the fact that it's just a fantasy show. If you understand why religions have been such a tenacious force in the world, then you're better equipped to deal with the nature of the overall problem.

What I would love to see -- and I think Sam is saying this obliquely -- is various religious and spiritual groups to gather and talk about WHY they believe what they believe. What evidence do we have in common or not? What are the common experiences? I don't understand why people cling to these templates. That's all religions are -- templates for understanding what we experience spiritually. There is true mystery out there. Not everyone tastes it, but those who do are driven to understand it. It seems that human ego will keep us from ever uniting forces to create dialogue with the most important thing: the Other. Then again, maybe the Other would prefer it that way. We're such a noisy, argumentative, ignorant, hateful lot...

I share Sam's dream of a world where Reason has rooted out irrational beliefs for good. But both Sam and I know that this will never be fully achieved, just like cancer is always going to be part of our lives, no matter how advanced medical science is. But that should not stop us from trying!

The reality is that many humans do not have the courage, intellectual honesty or will to go through life "alone", i.e. without the knowledge that some deity is out there guiding and protecting them (despite them being let down again and again).

One needs to look only to our closest relatives in the animal kingdom to see that not every ape can be the Alpha Male of the tribe; there will always be meek followers.

Sam, you're the Alpha Male of my tribe. Don't give up guiding us through this jungle of irrationality that our society has become.

I have not taken the time to read through all of the many comments above, so forgive me if the following thoughts have already been expressed.

To speak to the question posed above by Sam Harris, I do think that sufficient common ground can be found to allow for meaningful interfaith dialogue:

1. Faith = Things that one CHOOSES to believe.

2. Chosen beliefs include, not only dogmatic religions, but "new age" secular beliefs and scientism as well.

3. Beliefs exist, not to provide information, but to provide MEANING, i.e., to rationalize the context of one's own life.

4. The belief that science is sufficient to provide meaning (scientism) is a matter of faith, i.e., a chosen belief.

5. I think that, if we all (both the religious and the irreligious) could step back and speak of faith in this broadest possible context -- and with humility -- then we could have productive dialogue.

Thank you Newsweek and Washington Post for providing this forum, and thank you Sam Harris for your writings on this subject.

Right. So all we have to do is get the Shiites working on a really hard Algebra problem that only the Sunnis can figure out. Have them work on it together and none of the rhetorical argument that plagues dialogging and no human emotion will get in the way of cold, solid, after-school math problem. Wonderful...get ready for peas on earth this Holiday.

The three realms of pertinence for this discussion are reason, spirituality and belief. The first two items are forms of awareness and the latter is, by definition, based on a lack of awareness. People don’t know what the believe and they don’t believe what they know.

As a society evolves it knows more and more and it believes less and less. Now, the world is seriously endangered by the amount of power in the hands of believers. Although the example of our bible quoting, commander in chief is ever on our minds the far worse example is Islamic jihadists who may have nuclear arms at the ready as we read and may very well believe that a nuclear holocaust to impose Allah’s will on the world would not only be necessary but morally magnificent

We all have belief to some degree or other. The key issue is whether we follow life more on and inductive or deductive level. A temporary belief that must pan out with discovered awareness about some or other secret of life can be seen in scientific theories. The only value of a theory to a truly inductive mind set is whether it is an effective tool in discovering new findings. In the scientific world a theory (belief) that fails to continue being an effective tool in discovery is considered useless and discarded. This is belief in the pursuit of and subordinate to awareness.

The belief that pertains in ideology and religion, however, so often, is not subordinate to, but a substitute for the pursuit of truth. Religious nuts can almost brag about the mindlessness of their beliefs for it is only a small test of belief to believe in something reasonable. Believing in something ridiculous shows a great stature in firmness of belief and, hence, in moral grandeur.

Of course, to anyone who has drunken deeply form the first two realms of pertinence the moral bankruptcy of this point of view is most clearly symbolized in the burning of fourteenth century scientists at the stake for discovering laws of nature that could protect humanity from threats to its existence.

The inductive mind set lines up items of proof to come to a conclusion, preferable tentative; the deductive mind set is eternally tied to the circular logic of something being true because it’s true. The bible is true because it’s true. Why is it true? Because it’s true.

Although, everything written above would support the rationalist tendencies of secular society it , also, reinforces, to the same degree, spiritual aspiration .

A spiritual aspirant may repeat a mantra, do hatha yoga, chant or meditate. If doing the aforementioned practices do not lead to a spiritual experience he will drop them. If he continues doing them to no result, he is no longer on a spiritual path but on a religious path. The only possible basis for continuing them would be belief, the essence of religion. Religion is deductive belief systems about the nonphysical and behavioral rules for life.

The trouble with Sam Harris’ generally valuable contribution to the study of religion’s frailties is that millions of people have little capacity for the first two realms of pertinence and the only thing that keeps them from breaking into your house or raping your daughter is the threat of hell fire disseminated by religious morons.

The world itself is impersonal. Finding meaning in the universe is to make the error of reflecting one's own personality and mind onto it.

I loved Letter to a Christian Nation, and found myself with my fist in the air several times saying, 'Yessss!!!' as I read the book. But for those who've expressed a contrary view on this blog, I suggest you read Richard Dawkins' 'The God Delusion'. This book should be made a compulsory textbook for all American high school students, to offset the unhealthy emphasis that country places on religious interpretations of everything from science to politics. The western world can't afford to be led and characterised by a nation of Christian mullahs.

In reply to my post, Philo replied....

> To Geoff Coe:
>
> The defeatist attitude ("...the nature of mind
> will never fully subject itself...") should be
> postponed until all possibilities have been
> exhausted. Keep your mind open, you may be
> surprised and illuminated!

That sounds like a religious sort of faith to me. A faith in science that goes beyond what is realistic. In the end, we can not know the nature of reality directly in any form or scientific way and scientists who have this infinite faith in science to bring us some sort of form of absolute intellectual understanding both me as much as any religious person who continues to believe in some sort of three or four headed god. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't search for more accurate theories about the nature of being and mind because these theories are useful even if they're not complete or total or able to fully explain everything absolutely. I beg to differ with the idea that I am expressing a "defeatist attitude" because theory and reality are two separate orders of things and science becomes a religion when people start to think that science will someday be able to explain the nature of being in a way that's perfect and complete. We know this isn't true because a picture of an apple is not an apple, and no matter how accurate the picture is, it still leaves the reality out. Concepts of reality are always concepts and a concept, no matter how close to truth you might be able to get it, is still in a different category from the nature of being itself. This is why I say that the mind will never fully subject itself to the world of objective science. We should go on the evidence and, so far, nothing has fully subjected itself to the objective world of science. Nothing. So please, don't turn science into a religion. Thank you very much.

Many bloggers seem to be stuck on the fact that scientists are subject to the host of foibles of the rest of humanity. To say the least this is a fruitlessly recurrant theme on this comments board. It is certainly true. Though as a scientist myself I do seem to notice a rather high degree of integrity. Arrogance? Sure, but most scientists work hard and do their work with the utmost transparency.
In any event this critique falls relatively flat because the mechanisms of science tend to ensure that if someone is doing dishonest work, or shoddy work they will be found out. Great discoveries in science are the most ardently attacked by its methods. In science there is great acclaim to be had by overturning old ideas. That is how science moves forward. As such this critique that scientists are human too is a silly one. Lots of other ambitious, curious, inventive contemporaries are looking over each others shoulders.
That is the safety. That is the break to the establishment of dogma.
Religion can claim no such mechanism.

If we all could think like Harris the world would be a much better place.....

How ironic that religion instills in its adherents a sense of superiority and then talks about equality.

...that it talks about truth when it's premise of a creator is not verifiable.

...that it presents a face of peace while it wages war.

I'm a big fan of Harris, and I'm looking at the feedback from the critics. I never have to go very far into their comments to find the dishonesty.

Take this comment by Jamie Pitts. Posted November 15, 2006 10:22 AM:

'Statements like "In science, honesty is all" ...are bold declarations of faith'

No Jamie, that's part of science's definition. Therefore, people who claim to do science and are honest are doing science. People who claim to do science and are dishonest are NOT doing science. If a self proclaimed scientist is found to have lied, he never was a scientist.

See how simple that is Jamie. No faith.

I guess the real issue in regard to religious debate, is the recent sophistication of theological discourse, which successfully shifted into a brilliant complex metaphysical concept of cosmology & microbiology. What is being carefully concealed & disregarded from the rhetoric, is the very nature & the core of religion & faith. The foundation of religious faith is magical thinking and the acceptance as face value, of the most egregious expressions of supernatural & superstitious beliefs. For the Christian faith, Jesus is not only the embodiment of virtue, love, compassion & goodness, but before anything, the son of God himself, a man among men who has magical powers to heal, resurrect the dead, produce & reproduce materials out of thin air, walk on water and at last but not the least has the ability to beat death itself.

Trying to deconstruct religion for individuals who are neurobiologically tuned for paranormal acceptance, would be a waste of time in most case.
The vast majority of religious people don't even have the basic understanding of history & comparative religion studies, don't expect them to comprehend the beauty & complexity of biology & genetics.
I just hope they'd stop the hypocrisy of using & hiding behind a pseudo-intellectual approach to religion, religion is the ultimate form of superstition, because most of the so called educated among us, don't even think or don't have the intellectual & moral courage to question the very concept of what is religion.

In one day Sam Harris has opened the floodgates. And look who's heard this calling. So many thoughtful posts. My oh my, what a flood this will be. Let's hope it's in time to truly save us all. Then maybe we can find time to fix things like health care.

In billions of years, a certain life form on a planet evolves and survives long enough to branch out to evolve into a self aware species in the planet's last few million years. It becomes intelligent enough to ask why it exists but not intelligent enough to find an answer to this self imposed question.

Having had to make up answers to all the the unknowables thoughout the ages, we, as the human race have accumulated quite a pile of garbage in our respective corners of the world, and called it religion.

So, in this last millisecond of our existence, the frustrated in-the-know atheists are trying to group up and put an end to the whole thing.

Mr. Harris' tone suggests that, as most of us atheists, he projects from a lifetime he must have spent thinking "what idiots!!!". Having figured almost all out with his unarguably sharp mind, he seems to have set out to give religion a killer blow. After all, in the era that he (as I) was growing up, it did feel that, within our lifetimes, we could witness the end of all this primitive thinking. An eerily similar and similarly delusional proposition as the evangelicals' belief in witnessing the end of the world within their lifetimes.

Masses of people unwilling or not bothered to open their eyes to knowledge will always exist. As the idiocy of the current superstitions become more obvious, religion will evolve into more sophisticated and twisted compilation of explanations of the unknown until we have scientific, true and proven answers to ALL the questions. And that might happen a few years before never.

We certainly could do without religion at this stage. But so could we without facial hair or maybe even without a pinky toe since they are not really necessary anymore.... But they all served a purpose for human kind at one point and now we have to let them evolve out of existence. Like shaving, constant attacking and disproving religions will not get rid of it permanently. And neither will chopping off the pinky toe. The next generation will have one anyway.

Patience, please. Only a few million years left...

Anonymous: "Stalin would have agreed with Sam Harris, and his secular vision was beautiful to behold, right?"

Stain was a secularist but he was also a megalomaniac. Harris speaks of reason. No leader or group ever committed genocide because they were too reasonable.

Stalin would have agreed with Sam Harris, and his secular vision was beautiful to behold, right?

Sorry, all, to post again, but I mispelled the word christian in my last post, and you'll never know how shameful that is to me- I can live with being godless, but damn me if I'm a sloppy editor.I also want to respond to Jay Wilson's post, which went up while I was composing my last book of a post- You're right, more Americans have doubts than will admit it when polled. Case in point: My husband works in a fairly big shop (they run three shifts), has mostly men for co-workers, and I know a good number of their wives & kids at least attend church. In other words, if anyone put any one of these guys on the spot with the big q-"Do you accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior?", they would feel obligated to answer yes unhesitatingly. So I found it funny when my husband came home with the story of how a well-intentioned bible-enthusiast among them entered the break room while a good number of guys, maybe 20, were eating their lunches, opened up his Good Book, and began reading as if to a congregation. Every last one of those guys got up and left. My husband heard this as an anecdote after he started at the shop, but has no reason to doubt that it happened.

Can someone tell me where is the "religion" in ideologies like Christianity and Islam? To me they are clubs with oppressive rules designed to keep people from free thinking enquiries. And they (threaten to) enforce these rules through various opressive means including murder.

First of all Harris and Dawkins should be regarded as true heroes of the age. How many of us would have the guts to address the world as they do? All of us need to demonstrate firmer spines when the situation calls.

I am truly in awe of the widespread infantile state of so many adults, especially in the US. It really is about emotional maturity more than reason vs. faith. You cannot be reasonable when fear of death, rejection and all the other fears latent in the insecure mind are dominant. People might rather kill you than face their fears if the choice is presented. It is a scary reality we all face.

So what can one do? All I know to do is to be assertive in the most enlightened way I can. You wouldn't be rude to a child who did not understand, right? And you can't connect by being patronizing to an adult. We have to just be ourselves, be helpful and practical. Creating some bandwagon movement just attracts the crazies. I think we have to be humble and realize humanity may or may not evolve beyond this quagmire. Life goes on nonetheless. You have to first embody the peace that comes with that realization as you work as hard as you can to change things in your immediate environment. Like evolution, one small step at a time.

Dear Paul Alexander: Thank you so much for your words of wisdom and courage; I hope it means something for you to know that I am praying for you and your family. I'm an atheist also, and find it disturbing that prayer, meditation, my good intentions toward you and yours may be seen by some as hoaky or lame or something. I also like your view of the hereafter, as you call it, and I wish you could converse with my Grandpa; I find it utterly uplifting in the most spine-tingling of ways to know that every particle of my being has already traversed the cosmos over the course of the last few billion years and will continue to do so after my consciousness is extinguished, but I'm afraid he thinks it's depressing. You're so right about how we put ourselves at odds with so many of the good folks in our neighborhoods, like if we refuse to say the Girl Scout pledge (to "serve God and my country" is in there), but I'm youngish yet, have kids to raise and must come up with a way to fit in or feel like a failure. In other words, I personally need Fellowship, and Good Works, and I need at all times in all endeavors, to utilize my baloney-detection kit.
Dear Wes Kramer-I can't pretend to know much, but I think (at least for now) that what holds so many people to their religious beliefs isn't so much the whole lizard-brain business, but that their daily lives beat the crap out of them and they don't have time to ponder the true nature of everything. I don't think people are too dumb, but there is a definite component of ignorance that busy people won't overcome if they're unwilling to entertain alternate possibilities to the myths they've been spoon-fed since birth.Also, they need that college-level bible-study course to give them a truly historical perspective on the Book.
Dear Roger Roth- I've heard of secular charitable organizations like Doctors Without Borders, but all the organizations that perform Good Works in my rural, PA county are in some way hooked up with a Christion church. That's why I've been on about Fellowship and Good Works, but for atheists. Most people I encounter face to face are worried about my immortal soul, or just think I'm nuts, or boring. I don't care who thinks I'm nuts or boring, but I feel ineffectual and I would like to know what we can be doing about racism and poverty. If you have any suggestions besides "yaddayaddayadda", it might be helpful.

"Posted on November 15, 2006 10:41 by Jim: When persons of faith judge others and try to impose their belief systems on others (they do not seem to be able to resist), all we get is intolerance, wars and death."

While I agree that agnostics and athesists have a tough row to hoe in this country, I don't think they (we) are helped when we discussion as automatically someone trying to impose their ideas upon us. The fervantly religious have this problem and so do the non-religious. Until we can all discuss our beliefs in an honest and forthright way, we'll never get anywhere. Discussion is not imposition.

If you say to me, "I am a Christian and I believe in Christ, His only son our Lord..." and I respond by saying, "I am an agnostic and Christ has never shown himself to me" are we imposing our beliefs upon each other? I hope not. I hope that is the beginning of a discussion on why we each believe what we believe. Imposition is when the government says "you will now worship Oak trees or suffer the pain of imprisonment or death." I've never been offended by a Jehovah's Witness coming to my door and telling me what they believe. I politely tell them I believe they are wrong and here's why and send them on their way. Neither of us is hurt, but we may have learned something about each other.

When people stop feeling threatened by ideas and no longer feel the need to react violently to those ideas of others that they disagree with... that's when we'll finally get somewhere.

"The real challege for the best thinkers in the world today, is not more interfaith dialogues between people who fundamentally disagree, but for members of our society to find ways to transcend dogma (dirty religion) for spirituality (clean religion).

OK - how do we get this started?

I think it goes without saying that nearly all people need the periodic comfort of being together physically, and we seek out excuses for doing so. Take for example sporting events, musical concerts, parades, topical lectures, and of course religious services and ceremonies. I suggest the reason for attending these gatherings is not as much about what is being presented as it is about being in the company of others. We seem to have a need for inclusion and acceptance.

So, with the subject of religion, the entrenched spiritual organizations have the advantage by virtue of possessing buildings to meet in and protocols for controlling their gatherings. How then can this worthy reform of religion be brought forward to the mass of humanity? Any suggestions?

I really think the percentage of US atheists is higher than the polls show. A lot of people really haven’t examined their faith critically, don’t want to appear “godless” and just go with the flow believing that there must be some meaning behind all this but in their heart of hearts have major doubts.

As an atheist I am tired of being in the closet, considered a second class citizen just because I don’t believe that an invisible supernatural being created the universe and is monitoring my sex life. Besides, if we don’t do something the religious fanatics are going to get us all killed. Dialogue is our only hope to begin the conversion, or if not conversion, at least moderation. Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins have broken the ice. It is up to the rest of us to build on the momentum.

It would be a pathetic epitaph to humanity to say that our demise was caused by our inability to agree on what to call god.

OK Athiests:
We're chewing the fat just fine here, but what do we do about it?

I drive from California to my post at the UofA Tucson once or twice a month. On the way, I see these ridiculous billboards that proclaim: "'One Nation Under Me' - God" and another that tells the story of how a man discovered God and was aided in questioning and eschewing his "homosexuality"...I'm deeply offended by these advertisements and have often fantasized about creating a counter-insurgency - billboards that broadcast our point-of-view in a cheeky, wry way.

How about a billboard that reads "If "God" authored the Bible, why did he make Shakespeare a better writer?"- with Sam's website at the bottom. How long would it stay without defacement (or could we even find a host to put it up)? Damn, I'd like to see those fish-emblemed, Jesus Christers skidding by in there monster trucks looking at that!!

Thank You, Sam!

Philosophical writing has always been as much about artful composition as it has intellectual inquiry. Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Dan Barker are leading the way in establishing a straight forward, more scientific writing style about philosophical inquiry that will speak to the masses much more effectively. It's about time.

The dangers of indoctrination were recently horribly evident to me. In my medical biochemistry course, a fellow student commented unabashedly in front of the entire class that 'God didn't intend for modern medicine to cure all diseases,' based on our current lack of understanding of many disease etiologies. Luckily, another student pointed out how scary that sounded....to put your trust in a medical professional who has dedicated diligent effort to clinical training in order to best care for their patients...only for them to not really think that the patient's disease is 'intended' to be cured. I would not want to trust my life to this doctor. Indoctrination can corrupt even the smartest minds.

I didn't have time to read everyone's comments, but I'm shocked not to find any "evidence" that anyone responded to Bruce Burleson's comments about objective ("eye-witness") evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.

Mr. Burleson, there is far more voluminous, credible and recent objective eye-witness evidence of the existence of UFO's.

I can sleep quite comfortably most nights not knowing for certain if Jesus rose from the dead or if UFO's exist. On those few nights when I lay awake paralyzed by fear and uncertainty ... I gotta bet on the aliens.

You cry, then you laugh.

1. Sam Harris started writing The End of Faith on September 12, 2001.

2. Recent article in The Onion: "War-Torn Middle East Seeks Solace In Religion."

thank goodness for dawkins, dennett and harris.

Mr. Harris reminds me more and more Bertrand Russell. May he raise the torch of reason in XXI. century as well as Russell did in the twentieth one. Bravo, Sam.

In the spirit of a constructive and compassionate dialogue I will put this highly speculative and easily hijacked thought in quotes: "What if the majority really is genetically unable to function at a cognitive level that rejects irrationalism? " ......it seems rather possible to me, and I believe must be part of an honest inquiry into the nature of this discussion.Any thoughts?

Hopefully, religious dogmas and their awful consequences will either go extinct (unlikely) or loose their grip on human minds (conceivable at least).

This does not mean, however, that peace and understanding will prevail.

What will be the common social and ethical fabric in the hoped-for future?

I'm an atheist, and I agree with Mr. Harris and others that religion is a problem today. Those that believe any scripture is the literal word of god are wrong, there's no other way to put it.

However, I think the problems we have today with religious fanatics are symptomatic of greater, deep-rooted problems humanity faces today. Problems with education are paramount; good education in the scientific method, mathematics, and critical thinking skills would do a good deal to decrease religious fanaticism.

Unfortunately, I think our minds are incapable of adopting atheism for the most part. Most of us are not high-level thinkers; we react to our circumstance instead of problem solving. This will always be the case, I think, even with improved education. We cannot demand perfectly logical thought from every member of society, and so we will always have to deal with a religious majority until the end of our species.

More than just religion, though, the vast majority of us are in denial. We live in a world of finite resources, and we are consuming these resources at a breakneck pace while simultaneously birthing babies at speeds never before seen. This is a pattern that cannot continue, and within my lifetime (I'm 22) I expect to see a seriously painful die-off of humanity. Very few people can accept this reality.

So, while there are many legitimate causes in the world today, like environmentalism, humanitarian causes like Darfur, and religious awakening stuff like Harris proposes, the biggest problems dwarf these and make them irrelevant, in my view. They are problems to be sure, but it's like worrying about a hangnail after being shot. We're running out of oil and we're going to have to deal with the problem. Whether we are fundamentalists or atheists, we will have to work together, and we should prepare for it.

Yada,yada, yada, yada,and yada. Now that that's settled, let's talk about poverty and racism.

God may exist, but it seems that no religion in the world succeeded to describe God correctly. God may not be as omni.. as any religion depict or God may not exist.

Most math or science theories are based on assumption of some kind. As long as these assumtions are met, the theory can explain wonderful natural phenomena. But it is a big IF: as long as asuumptions are met.

Christianity or any other religions has its own initial assumtions: Jesus is the son of god. Jesus was born by virgin birth of Mary. He is dead for our sin so that our sin is atoned for. He died and three days later he resurrected and ascend to heaven. He will return and judge our unforgiven sins........And the bible is the word of God and there are no errors and non can be added nor subtracted.
As long as I believe this assumptin is true, I can be a Christian and go to heaven in most cases. Then someone asked me, " how do you know it is true?" I say it is in the bible. Then someone asked me," how do you know the bible is true." Now I can say either, " I know it is true becasue it is in the bible." or I can say, " I know it is true BY FAITH."
This term "by faith" is the act of acknowledging the assumtion is true." As long as I see everything by faith, there is no contradiction what so ever. Even if there is contradiction or doubt, a priest either changes the subject, order not to ask that question because it is blasphemous, or I will ask God when I die.
For 2000 years ( for sure) and more, or probably from the beginning of human history, priests have manipulated to brain wash ignorant ordinary people. It is still going on more than ever.

I strongly BELIEVE that the Christian bible has been edited ( around 5th century) with this purpose to manipulate ordinary people. It was a heresy from Judaism.
Why didn't I see it during 25 years of pious Christian? I was blinded by life's circustances. Oh, my god. Most kids who grew up is Christian household has beed brain washed without a rigorous soul searching or fact checking. And still they don't know they had it. Strictly speaking, religion gives a false hope. Is it better than no hope? I say yes to Christian. It is almost like hallucianated for life under the influence of drug. Sometimes I think false hope may be better than no hope. I am debriefing myself from this influence and for the first time I felt true freedom as a human being.
I agree 99.99% with Mr. Harris. He said he didn't have religious conversion or born again experience. Well, I have 25 years of serious Christian life. But I came to the same conclusion as Mr. Harris eventually.

Different Religions by defintion are contractory, not only between Islam and Christianity but within these religions themselves, not to mention Judiasim. However most people are not Logical Religious people. People are religious because they are, and are willing to accept that others have different believes. Not every conflict is because of difference of religion. Also one need to remember that scientis differ, for exampel not every physisict agrees with the String theory.

You raise some good points Mr. Harris. I am reminded of the quote I read years ago while in college. "For many years, the men of religion gave us many little lies for one big truth, for while the men of science give us many little truths for one big lie.

Somewhere in the last century or two, religion took a wrong turn. Instead of "binding us together" as the etymology of the word implies, it has become the great divider.

The real challege for the best thinkers in the world today, is not more interfaith dialogues between people who fundamentally disagree, but for members of our society to find ways to transcend dogma (dirty religion) for spirituality (clean religion).

Thank you, Mr. Harris, for giving us your voice at this crucial time for humanity. You are doing a great job.
If people want to see the consequesces of having a religious government, it is good to learn more about Iran and the situation on which people, especially women are living. Right now 10 (2 men and 9 women)are subject to sotning. They will be soon stoned to death just because they lived they lives as a human being. Thats all, nothing more.
If you want more info in this regard, please email to me.

This a great venue... to read about everyone's view about their beliefs, almost more important than their beliefs themselves. Isolation with only those who agree with you breeds fanaticism which is truly scary. Dan Miller

I'm heartened to see so many people engaging around this topic. I'm always so surprised at what people will accept without question or evidence, only because it fulfills a wish that the world be simpler, or fair or predictable. Or because of a longing for some parent-like figure to take away the reality that we are all ultimately alone and responsible for our own lives. And I feel inspired by the courage of people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins to finally bring this essential discussion into the light.

Thank you Paul Alexander.

Your post is more moving and brave than any thing I see in the Bible. And you give me a great deal more hope as well, hope that I can face the end head up and true to who I am.

The only way this world can heal each other if all religions recoginze that they are all under the umberella of (universe) God. I will agree that religion has push and force there doctrines upon other races of people, and faith can be blind,foolish,backwards,and very unhealthy?
Intelligent faith with the right kinds of "things" can help people day by day, but in truth; you donot need faith to help people, that is just common sense. Alot of christians are so caught up in having the faith of Jesus, in reality, they no nothing about Jesus!!!!They have turn the faith of Jesus into a creed,doctrine, and a pagan ritual? WHY CAN'T PEOPLE JUST BELIEVE, WHY GO THROUGH A PROCESS JUST TO HAVE SOMETHING CALL "FAITH" IT DOES NOT FEEL RIGHT

Alot of religions especially christians, will lose there so-call faith because with all the strange events that are going to happen in the world in years to come will not be found in the bible??????THEY DON'T BELIEVE IN ALIENS BUT YET THEY BELIEVE JESUS IS COMING BACK FROM A FAR OUT GALAXY CALL HEAVEN

??? some comments I have read are incredible....and absolutly ridiculous...

Science has nothing to do with faith....science demands evidence...proof...and the colaboration (i.e the same independent observations) of/from different observers...beleief in religion is simply acceptannce of an "idea" without demonstrated reapatable observations...i.e "proof"..QED...

Most of what I think about religion comes from my interactions with religious people. When I was 8 years old a playmate asked me to go to church with him. I said okay and did so. When the collection plate was passed around, he acted as if he was putting money into the plate but took money out as he gave me a wink. when I was in the 7th grade I told my teacher that I was an atheist. She told me that I was not. She said God exists and an atheist is one who knows that God does not exist. Since God does exist, there can be no atheists and I was never to say to anyone ever again that I was an atheist. When I got a job in a factory, workers would bring church bulletins and leave them on the lunch table for people to read. I belonged to Americans United for Separation of Church and State and I brought one of their magazines to work and left it on the lunch table. The general foreman saw it, read it and called me into his office. His face was beet red. He said that the magazine was against everything he believed in as a Catholic and that he would beat me up except he didn't want to get fired. He said he knew I was going to quit to go to college and that I need never apply to work there again because he would see to it that I was never rehired. Later, I did try to return to work there and the foreman I talked to said that he couldn't understand why he couldn't get me rehired. I had an argument with a minister. He assaulted me and I brought charges against him for assault and battery. When the judge found out that the assault resulted from an argument between an atheist and a minister, he only fined the minister $10. I asked a police cadet who was measuring the distance from a car to the intersection what he was doing. He said he was measuring the distance from the front of the car to the intersection and if the car was too close to the intersection, he was writing a ticket. I asked him if he would write a ticket for any parking violation. He said of course. I asked him to accompany me over one block which he did. I showed him numerous cars that were illegally parked. He asked me where all the people were that were parked there. I pointed to a church and said they are in there. He said he could not write them a ticket because that would be wrong. He couldn't write a ticket to someone who was in church. I interviewed for a job, the person who hired me had known me for over two decades. She asked me to agree to never let anyone at work know that I was an atheist. I agreed to get the job. These are only a few of the negative interactions I have had with religious people. I have found that religious people are very forgiving of themselves. When I have had discussions with religious people about the fact that religious people are not living by the beliefs they profess, they usually respond by saying something like "We are only human, we need forgiveness." Like I say, they are very forgiving of themselves.

Quote from post by Bob Brooks: "Atheists need to understand how difficult it is for someone who has been raised in a Religion to cast it off."

I am an atheist who was raised in a home with religious parents. We attended church three times a week, Sunday morning, Sunday evening and Wednesday evening. We were very involved in the church community. As I grew older - - and read more - - I started questioning lots of things about our religion. It was a long process but the quest for the truth about life/about the world led me to keep questioning everything and to not accept "it's not for us to question" responses whenever my inquiries could not be answered by the religious authorities. The truth, not religion, has become my highest value in life and seeking it has made my life very interesting. And yes, ridding myself of all the dogma was a difficult process but it was a very freeing thing. I don't remember who said this but it is true: "The most painful surgery in the world is to have one's eyes opened". The healing that follows that surgery, however, results in a strong, capable and competent human being who is not afraid to live without the pitiable crutch of belief in an all knowing, all powerful skydaddy who is supposedly watching over the world.

It is precisely because there is no god that we need to truly help each other and take action to ensure that all sentient beings are treated with love and fairness. Praying to a non-existent skydaddy makes some religious people feel that they are really doing something to help others. That is the lazy person's version of 'helping'. We atheists know better. We take action to help others, with real, practical help offered and with no proselytizing attached to that help.

Again, it is a slow process to deconvert, but reading as much as you can will help the process go faster. You might start by reading the Bible. You'll be amazed by what you'll find there that gives the whole story rather than the pablum-version that you get in church sermons.
Have fun on your journey.

The closest I've found to a radio atheist show is Penn Jillette's show (penn.freefm.com). Penn (of Penn & Teller fame) wrote the great "This I believe" for NPR, which follows:

I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?
So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The atheism part is easy.
But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."
Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.
Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.
Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.
Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.
Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.

Sam,
Perhaps this discussion is demonstrative of evolution itself?
The lower evolved still fear the vengeful sky gods and the quivering specters from a firelight and refuse to see anything but. They utter grunts and unintelligible monosyllabic tones to proclaim their fear and why we should fear the unknown too.
The higher evolved don't see an angry sky god but instead they see weather. Instead of specters...the play of light and dark...umbra and penumbra, and want to know more. They try to relay this knowledge and modality of thought through precise language.

I for one do have faith...that man will come to terms with the screaming meemies and the awful awfuls...name them and claim them. But I thank you Sam and Richard Dawkins for being the town criers of Rationality.

DaWhistler
Portland Or

Widespread delusion, often called "faith" has clearly help back the progress of humanity substantially since the widespread presence of monotheistic intolerant religions arose with Christianity, it's root Judaism, and their offshoot Islam became "world religions".
If I were enough of a scholar, I think I could present a persuasive argument that these delusions have held us back at the very least a thousand years in the progress of science, and the advances such science might have made to the betterment of the human condition.
This in itself clearly shows the degree to which these delusions divide and torture humanity, and continue to do so. Without these religions we might find ourselves literally spread among the stars rather than facing extinction from delusion based hate and war.
Sam Harris is right, we simply cannot afford "faith" and weapons of mass destruction on the same planet. If you think these problems are just in the middle East, take note of my own experience today in Charleston, WV. I simply cannot find a copy of Dawkins THE GOD MYTH in this town. The only bookstore admitting to having two copies on hand can't find them. An Asian clerk there says that "anti religious" books seem to get stolen, or turn up in the toilet. He says he is Buddhist, and just cannot understand it.
Walt Price, Charleston, WV

I am an EX catholic priest and EX christian. I've read both of Sam's books and am so grateful that he has given me a way to understand the deep disgust I have feel about religion.

Two things:
As Sam points out in his first book, religion is not the same as spirituality--it is quite possible to achieve extraordinary spiritual awareness without reference to any religion or dogma (see the work of Eckhart Tolle). It is such spiritual awareness that gives rise to kindness, beauty, love, generosity and all of the other so-called "religious" values claimed by the churches. So I agree with those who emphasize that it is human beings who feed the poor, not God. A story here: a man came upon a plot of ground overgrown with weeds and brush. He worked night and day for weeks to clear the ground and plant a beautiful garden. After several months a passer-by saw the man with his garden and commented to the man that God had given him a beautiful piece of land. The man thought for a moment and then said: "That may be true, but God wasn't doing a very good job until I got here."

Second, religion is a cover for those who are too lazy to seek real spiritual awareness and intellectual honesty. Religious leaders have, astutely, figured out that most human beings, being both spiritually and intellectually slothful, are easily manipulated. Power and money--that's what substitutes in our society for authentic spiritual experience.

Whitney Jones wrote...

".....Also, Mr. Harris' definition of faith is a little off. He calls faith "belief without sufficient evidence." That is one kind of faith, but I believe that the faith that most religious people hold is more of a trust that a promise that has been made to you will be fulfilled, against all odds..."

Bill: Mr. Harris' definition of faith is dead on. Trust is born of experience and evidence. I "trust" my car will start. Faith is believing that which is without evidence, in fact, often even in spite of evidence to the contrary. I think I'm paraphrasing something Dawkins said.

Ms. Jones again

"...There are undeniably some unreasonable elements to faith, because it hopes even under unfavorable conditions, but don't we all have this kind of faith in our friends and loved ones daily?..."

Bill: No, actually we don't. Just like our cars, we trust our friends. They've behaved certain ways in the past, we have every reason to expect they will behave similarly in the future based on past EVIDENCE.

Ms. Jones...
"....Finally, although a denial of reason certainly leads to conflict and error, reason does not solve all our problems.."

Bill: Find me please, anywhere in Sam's writings where he suggests that Reason will solve all our problems. It's simply the best thing we have going for us.

Ms. Jones....
"...The idea that we can, and should, understand everything that happens around us seems rather daunting to me......"

Bill: Well we can and should TRY to understand everything that happens around us.

There is some confusion over the words "faith" and "spirit".

Faith is a part of human experience in general and cannot be denied; it is a real emotion or experience, but Sam's typical use of the word refers to "faith in God," or "faith in religion." Faith in general is an ever-present and indispensable part of life: we have faith in ourselves, faith in our friends, faith in our abilities, faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, etc. Defending faith in God/religion by pointing out that the broader understanding of faith is a real, necessary and positive trait, really is trying to win the argument my sleight of hand.

Likewise, it is sleight of hand to defend religion by confusing the human spirit with the "holy spirit." The human spirit is very real; it allows humans to achieve incredible, "unbelievable" feats in the face of enormous obstacles. Living, operating from the very deepest level of human spirit within us is something people seldom do, but we do indeed experience the driving force of our spirit. That spirit is part and parcel of the human being; it is real; it is undeniable; but it is not God's spirit, it is ours.

Sam is not decrying ordinary faith and ordinary spirit which are important aspects of human beings. He is only decrying faith in myths and spirit from "afar." He is also saying that ordinary faith and ordinary human spirit are amenable to scientific inquiry and analysis and, as such, ought to be studied.

Religion has co-opted these words so thoroughly that it is almost impossible to carry on a discussion about them outside of a religious context.

See the forthcoming :God : the failed Hypothesis- Victor Stenger- that shows that science indeed does indeed show no god! God plans matters ,but natural selection makes new life forms without a plan ,showing the two conflict. One can replace his religion with other groups and reason . skeptic griggsy

I really got a kick out of the blog comment that death was "frightening" to face. When my boys were young, I told them about the leaves on the trees. They pop out in the Spring, reach nature's full beauty in the Summer and fall in the Fall. Then they enter the soil and regenerate the soil so the new leaves will come out again in the Spring.

When I found out I had incurable cancer a year ago, there was plenty of self-pity. But as I got over feeling sorry for myself, I realized that I really was worried more about leaving my wife with insufficient resources to live out her life in dignity. It's too late, at 72 years of age, to overcome that deficiency in my life now. So I'm plodding along with chemotherapy and other treatments to make it easier on my family and myself for as long as it is possible. I will not give up until it is apparently hopeless.

I am an atheist. I find people are shocked by that statement. BUT, I believe in a life hereafter! How's that, you say? When I die, my life continues on with my wonderful wife. It continues genetically through my sons and grandchildren and through whatever good works I've somehow managed to accomplish in my life. (Forget the LESS than good stuff - that's what keeps you awake at 3 in the morning! I call it "hell on earth.")

But I'm not proselytizing like some of our religious contributors. We celebrate Christmas because of our families' backgrounds. I love holidays and get misty-eyed like everyone else does at special times in their lives. But Sam has it right. To me, religion is one of scourges of the earth.

I say this: I'll fight to my death to defend your right to believe in your religion. All I ask in return is for you to leave me and others like me alone! I suspect that being an atheist today is similar to being a homosexual a few decades ago. Keep quiet about it or suffer the consequences!

I applaud Sam Harris for his courage to speak out on a subject that the vast majority of us don't want to hear about.

Be kind to one another.

Paul Alexander

The really interesting thing about not being raised in any religion is how completely absurd I find all of it. Not just some of it, all of it. The stories about the woman, the apple, and the talking snake; the three-fold God, whose son is both God and yet separate; the bread becoming the dead-yet-risen God's body; these are just a few of the really fantastic stories inflicted on children from the moment they are able to listen. (I mention Christian stories because they are the ones that come quickest to mind, not because they are any better or worse than the other magic stories). And yet, people are willing to die over the smallest details. Inexplicably, those who simply cannot believe this nonsense are reviled as evil ones, in spite of the wholly or partly religious conflicts that have probably more people than anything else over the last 100 years.

Sam Harris for President, and Richard Harris for Vice president.

Tim

Thank you, Sam. It is time that we had discussions like these.

A simple example of how organized religion can be harmful in day to day life. I work as a home health physical therapist in Charleston, SC. The other day I had a patient with liver cancer trying to take a short walk down the road with me. She began to look faint and short of breath. I truly wanted to turn around and head back to the house. Her answer was that I needed to have faith. If she fell to the ground, God would pick her up and carry her back to the house. He was walking with us at that very moment. How can I argue with that?! How do I voice my atheist views when her faith in God runs so deep that she literally thinks she wil be picked up off of the ground and carried back to her house by an imaginary God. Just an example of how religion can be harmful in ways one can not even imagine. Thanks to Sam Harris for not being tolerant and pandering to this mindset. I have loaned out his book and it is fast being passed around my
office! I think the more people that read his books, the better off the world willbe.

As a human being (I don't feel the need to frame myself in opposition to a non-subject like "faith”) attending a christian university, I have the opportunity to observe and interact with a fairly representational segment of modern christianity.The impression that I walk away with time and time again after conversations with students and younger faculty about their beliefs is that the majority of them are:

1. slightly embarrassed about what they are supposed to believe if really questioned nicely about it

2. for the most part unaware of what it is that the bible actually says about most things

3. oddly willing to agree with you about any specific issue you raise about the absurdity of faith, while seemingly unwilling to reject the whole (probably for all the obvious social/economic/group mentality issues raised by rejecting their lifestyle)

4. some of the most trend driven people I have ever met (e.g. fashion, slang)

...I think a previous post put it along the lines of "make atheism marketable, and they shall come"

Some scientists act as if science is a religion (holding onto their beliefs despite contrary evidence) but that's not what big-'s' Science is.

That's a particular small-'s' scientist putting belief ahead of thought. That's not what Science professes.

~BS

There is a need for a book to give direction to those if us who subscribe to Sam Harris's ideas to suggest how we can be most effective in countering the religeous faith. I put slogans on my running shirts such as "Thank God For Oroginal Sin," "Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?" and many more. Letters to the editor are usually ignored. How about some other ideas. George Whitney

Great work Sam. As usual.

Religion doesn't work.

I don't know whether or not there is a higher intelligence in the universe, but I am extremely confident that the world's major religions, (particularly the western ones) shed no light on the question whatsoever. Their track records demonstrate their futility.

There is always this annoying blurring of the lines of reason among the religious as they insist that not only is there a creative force in the universe, but they know this creative force because of some inane writings which gave us a set of reflexive dogmas which ease the pain of not knowing.

There is no more wicked and absurd character dreamed up in all of human history than Jehovah. Let us be thankful that his murderous rampages were contrived by only pre-scientific writers of fiction and that the obscene bastard doesn't really exist.

People will likely always find reasons to suspect a higher power, and this isn't *such* an unreasonable position (though I don't believe it personally), but to try to defend these absurd nihilistic faiths, pretending to know for certain what nobody could possibly know just because of a statement in some ridiculous holy book which disagrees with itself by the second chapter, should be ridiculed and marginalized by the public.

We cannot afford to be so tolerant and accepting of beliefs which so damage our world, and even more importantly,

are not true.

It is not the atheists' problem to prove the non-existence of a god. Besides being logically impossible to prove a negative, it is the theist who posits the assertion that there IS a god, therfore the burden of proof is on the one who states something does exist.

And, of course, it is impossible to prove the existence of a god through any rational, logical or evidentiary thinking. If you state that a god (or Santa Clause, et al.) exists, it is up to you to provide the evidence to support your claim, not up to me to disprove your claim. Either that, or admit you have no basis other than irrational faith to hold that belief.

Given the estimated 30,000 religious sects in the US alone, what possible way can one prove that his personal definition of god is the right one? The odds of any one being right is one in 29,999. And that's ignoring the other 10s of thousands of differing versions of god(s) in the rest of the world.

It is little more than hubris to expect anyone else to accept any version as being right, and it is that irrational faith-based hubris that is the impediment to any agreement among other believers or with the rationalists. It is the rationalists who have the methods (scientific) to be able to find common ground for solving the problems we, as a world, face.

Isn't it amazing that Rodolfo "knows" what God sees, and what God's values are. I am not a theist, and after I die if I find myself confronted by St. Peter at the pearly gates, I think the following conversation will follow:
SP: I see you were not a theist during your life.
Me: Yup.
SP: Why were you an not a theist?
Me: Because theists say they know about God, but they have no evidence of that, and I figured that if there is a God he wanted me to use the rational mind he gave me.
SP: Congratulations Richard! Welcome to heaven - you qualify to be in the top ten percent of our entrants!

There is a reason why Sam's piece is receiving so many more comments than the other panelist's pieces. It is because most of the other panelists (be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc., etc.) will give you the same "God knows all" clap-trap that we have heard for far too long. Maybe God doesn't know all. Maybe God doesn't even exist. What a concept!

I love to see how many posts there are from those who, like Mr.Harris, do not pretend to know things they don't actually know.It does my heart good,but why don't any of you people live in my neighborhood? Just wondering, but my comment is directed toward those of you who enjoy quoting scripture. How many Christians out there have ever taken a college-level course where they were required to study the history of the New Testament? I'm just wondering, because when I was 19 or so, I had to take such a course as part of a liberal-arts curricula, and it opened my eyes to the undeniable fact (which I already suspected) that the entire Christian bible was written by people, and some of them may have had political agendas (go figure). I must say, I utterly respect the good works that are done in my community and others by Christians. My great wish is that those of us who don't subscribe to ancient mythologies as the basis for our view of the cosmos can find a way to insert ourselves into the wonderful world of Fellowship and Good Works that Christians already enjoy.

To Geoff Coe:

The defeatist attitude (the nature of mind will never fully subject itself...) should be postponed until all possibilities have been exhausted. Keep your mind open, you may be surprised and illuminated!

"Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself" -- Richard Feynman.

Without science, I have no way of knowing whether I'm fooling myself. Even with science, I could still be fooling myself. At best, I can arrive at tentative, conditional statements about the nature of reality, after postulating that reality, independent from my mind, exists. That doesn't leave me knowing very much, I admit. Being content not to know is hard.

Occam's Razor (known to scientists as the "least hypothesis rule") is what makes me an atheist. I'm too embarrassed to hypothesize a Deity when I already know how easy it is for humans to fool themselves. It seems much more likely that faith is a comforting illusion; honesty forces me to discard it.

How do we know when we've discarded all our comforting illusions? It's when we find ourselves finally, irrevocably without comfort.

Faith is a response to the fear of not knowing, and to the need for comfort. I can't ask anyone to cast it aside. It takes courage to face your own finitude in the face of infinity.

The following film is a must watch for anyone who thinks that the bible should be the guiding light in their life. And please spare me the arguement that the bible is merely metaphorical. I just can't arrive at the conclusion that all of these assertions in the bible are supposed to be taken as metaphores.....something tells me that these assertions are used to control their flock with a myopic simplified lens.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=vkXOwBIRX7Y

Sam, I love this discussion... and you are my Favorite Star and Hero at the moment!

Keep up the good work; and this world will benefit tremendously from your work!

Countless thanks & wishiing you Good Luck!

Malini

I agree completely with the statement that interfaith dialogue will not produce any beneficial result for the plight of human kind. I disagree that science is completely without dogma in that there is a concept of prevailing dogmas that last until it is broken by new theories and scientific study. So yes dogma is dealt with a hammer's blow but during the time the dogma survives many times dialogue to the contrary is difficult. Regardless, a world where religion is truly marginalized and we realize that there is no sense in fighting over something that none of us truly know anything about (the why to everything), is a world that I can only hope for. Sam Harris, keep speaking the truth

I derive a great deal of hope from reading the various perspectives reflected in these posts. I believe that THIS is what humans need to be doing-discussing, listening, sharing ideas, and reasoning with each other. The conversation happening on this website speaks to the power of technology. If only we could collectively realize the vastness of our resources and begin to utilize the internet, television, and other various means of global communication to have these civilized and productive dialogues instead of squandering our limitless potential for conversation on propaganda, commercial advertising, and other meaningless drivel(reality tv, facebook, etc). This is a beautiful dialogue. If there is hope for world peace, for a more functional global community, THIS is our means for achieving it. Everyone-thank you for sharing. Keep thinking. Keep discussing.

Sam Harris is quite correct in making three statements. I paraphrase them here.
1) There is no evidence for the existence of any god. Gods are no more than thoughts in the brains of mankind.
2) There can be no evidence for the commands of any god for which no evidence exists. Such commands are no more than thoughts in the brains of mankind.
3) Acting according to imaginary commands from imaginary gods is irrational and frequently produces acts that are disastrous. To my mind, the greatest current example of this is GWB's admission that he ordered the invasion and occupation of Iraq because his imagination created the thought that his imaginary god ordered him to do it.

As far as knowledge about the physical universe is concerned, Harris is correct that this is best attained through the scientific process.

Many critics of Harris's view who have posted in this discussion hold that we must have religion because, so they say, science does not cover ethics and morals. Indeed, current scientific knowledge covers little of ethics and morals, though progress is being achieved. However, the religious part of ethics and morals is no more than the imaginary commands of imaginary beings, and leads to bad results as often as to good ones, the current situation in Iraq being the greatest current example of the bad. Human societies have created quite reasonable ethics and morals without the assistance of imaginary beings, though leaders have often said that these ethics and morals have been issued by imaginary gods in order to get people to obey them. Now that after an enormous amount of searching we have found no evidence for these imaginary gods, and we have started to understand the principles under which societies operate, mankind is well able to use the better parts of these ethics and morals that rely on reasonable evaluation of results instead of on imaginary commands from imaginary gods. We need to consider each other as humans, not as automatons under the control of imaginary gods, and we have sufficient knowledge to be able to do so with beneficial results.

In short, secular humanism is much more likely to produce results beneficial to mankind than any current religion, indeed than any conceivable religion, since any religion can only be based on nothing more than the human imagination operating without control by facts.

How ironic that Sam Harris, in his passionate and well-argued arguments against religion, is himself an idealist. Surely he must understand the quixotic quest he is on: superstitious people numbering in the billions, raising future generations on their respective superstitions while actively recruiting to expand their numbers. We are decades, centuries, perhaps even a millenium away from 'the end of faith.'

History does not help the atheist cause: the French Revolution, Stalin's terror, Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution and the Khmer Rouge killing fields. All were overtly atheist or anti-religion, and all arose from the deep resentments caused in large part by the dominant church-state synthesis that still influences American government today. As an ex-Christian, I have felt intense anger myself; not homicidal, mind you, but a smoldering resentment that could have been fanned into an angry fire under the right circumstances. So-called 'secular fundamentalists' are as scary as their religious opposites, and are as capable of demagoguery.

Only one way to kill religion: the calm, patient and relentless proclamation of the folly of religion. And, we atheists must add one important act of, ironically, faith: that as humanity grows in scientific understanding, the superstitous remnant will shrink in proportion, until the Sky-God faiths of Christianity, Islam and Judaism join Norse and Greco-Roman myths in virtual oblivion.

Time, and intelligence, is on our side; too bad all of us will likely be long dead before that triumphant time comes....

Geez! Look at all the comments!

I applaud Sam Harris because he's leading a revolution in thought that, in my opinion, really needs to occur. In my view, however, the nature of mind will never fully subject itself to the world of hard objective physical science. The nature of the universe and the nature of mind are essentially one in the same. How could the nature of one ever possibly be truly separate from the nature of the other? And since physicists are still arguing over time-space dimensions and whether string theory has real validity to it or not, the question of whether consciousness exist beyond the body is something that the most dogmatic skeptic really can't close the door on. There's lots of religious non-sense in the world that should really be flushed down the toilet. In the end, however, a dogmatic skeptic is really no better than your average dogmatic believer.

Here's a link to evidence that consciousness isn't strictly of function of the brain.
http://www.near-death.com/tart.html
Would anyone care to comment?

I truly seek and I'm truly disappointed in religion.

Sam Harris is suggesting an effective method (persuasion, discourse) to solve what are ultimately human behavorial problems.

However, some brains may not be physically capable of this power of rationalization and understanding.

But I suspect he has yet to expose his most controversial idea yet (Interestingly, he is working on a PHD in nueroscience...). Maybe something as follows:

Faith is just a manifestation of the deeper problem, the problem is physical. The solution to the problem lies in understanding neuro and molecular biology.

For example, if you wish to eliminate human violence:

Violence stems from all manner of individuals, whether they have faith or not, atheist, theist, etc...
All violence is at the core a manifestation of human behaviour.
All human behaviour ultimately has a physical, biochemical basis, and
results from the biochemical activity of the brain.
(EVIDENCE: No one has ever observed or demonstrated human behaviour without a human brain and body!)

We know that certain molecular compounds (Zoloft, Prozac, alcohol etc...) can
suppress, enhance or otherwise effect behavior. (How this happens is not fully understood.)

Understand the brain, and you understand behaviour. Once understood, and the technology becomes available,
it will be feasible to alter brain chemistry any way we choose, so undesirable brain states cannnot occur.
Build brains or alter existing ones so they never will enter into a structure or state
which manifests violent behaviour.

Suggested action item:
Direct all available resources to chemistry, biology, and neuroscience.

Humans may not be ready to take on this mindset now, (because of ethical and moral reasons) but in the long run it will be the solution.

Talking to God about men is easier than talking to men about God. That being said, to all the well meaning humanists and their kind, I’d like to ask these questions:

Have you ever lied (fibs, white lies, black lies, etc.)?
Ever stolen anything (the value is irrelevant)?
Jesus said, “Whoever looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already with her in his heart. Have you ever looked at anyone with lust?
Have you ever used God’s name in name? This is called blasphemy.

If you answered “Yes” to these four questions, by your own admission, you are a lying, thieving, adulterer at heart and blasphemer. And that’s only four of the 10 Commandments. That’s how God sees you. Nothing is hid from his holy eyes. Will you be innocent or guilty on the Day of Judgment? Listen to your conscience. You know you will be guilty and, therefore, end up in Hell. That’s not God’s will. He provided His Son, Jesus Christ, to take your punishment (John 3:16) so that you wouldn’t face the sentence of eternal damnation. There is salvation in no other name. Trust Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior before it’s too late.

A final thought from John Wesley: “Do all the good you can, by all the means you can, in all the ways you can, in all of the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever you can [in the name of Jesus].”

Amen.

Re: Jamie Pitts, Nov. 15th, 10:22 a.m.

You wrote,

"Statements like "In science, honesty is all" and "there is no significant impediments [sic] in scientific discourse" are bold declarations of faith. Indeed, this faith in science as some kind of eschatological savior has a suspiciously Judeo-Christian character."

You say that Science makes a gesture of "Faith." One definition of Faith: "belief that is not based on proof."

If I tell you 3 times 3 is 9, and you tell me I am wrong, then you don't hold much merit in your response. If I tell you Muhammad spoke the only True Word of God/Allah, your response could be one of thousands based on your belief.

It is the ability of science and objective judgment to transcend barriers of "Because I say so's" and get down to what is really true. True because I have every reason to believe something to be true and no reason to believe it false. I can tell you Jesus was the Son of God, but if you were Muslim you would no doubt defer that statement.

3 times 3 will always be 9. Jesus is not always the one true Son of God. It is statements like these, given the above description, that can be proven or disproven. Zeus is Divine, no Jupiter is, no this no that. It goes on and on.

So, as you see, Science - in it's true form - not only defies Faith, but does not even consider Faith as valuable evidence. And without Science, we would probably be in a cave somewhere in France trying to figure out if you or I has to get more firewood.

Science, by definition, exists necassarily without Faith. The only "saviors" of science that you talk about do not have Judeo-Christian character, they have the ability to believe in evidence because there is good reason; regardless of their Faith.

-Looking forward to other posts!

Overheard: "I believe that God gave us brains for a reason, and evolution makes a lot of sense."

The domain of science is, "what is". Statements of fact about the physical world, its origins, etc. Religion performs terribly at this task. However, there's another domain, "what should we do". Here science is silent (though it can provide information on which decisions are based). Religion has a mixed record. It tends to promote social cohesion within the group, but sometimes advocates intolerance towards "others".

But what really bugs me is the presumption some people seem to have that those who do not believe in God must not believe in right and wrong.

peace,
lilnev

Are there any historian/contitutional scholars out there to post a comment on this posting, PLEASE:

"FYI the phrase "separation of Church and State" does NOT appear anywhere in the United States Constitution. You may be confusing it with the First Amendment which was provided for the Freedom of Religion and from the Gov't establishment of.

Furthermore, "separation of Church and State" does not appear in any founding American document for that matter. Thomas Jefferson was quoted as saying it was essential in a free society. He was the only athiest of the founding fathers.

This free Nation was found on the premise of an entitlment of basic human rights granted to us by our Creator. Fortunately, we are "all" protected under the First Amendment.

I don't see any ball rolling here in the U.S.....maybe in Europe...ther pretty much too far gone over there!

May God Bless America!"

Thanks.

The truth believed is a lie.

"Indeed, this faith in science as some kind of eschatological savior has a suspiciously Judeo-Christian character."

*Science isn't about trust, it's about knowing (that's what science
means).*
Of course the research of science isn't always right, and it never claims absoluteness. But science accumulates knowledge as better information comes in. That's the beauty of science. Newton's gravitational theory, for example, works quite well but Einstein's gravity theory works even better.

The claims of science come from the fruits of its knowledge, not trust. You sit at a computer terminal and communicate via electrons while miles away from me. It works because scientific research has figured it out. It's not perfect or absolute, but it works! A few years from now the technology will work better. The knowledge of physics, biology, medicine, and knowledge of nature in general continually improves.

Religion can't match that. Religion always claims absoluteness while never producing workable answers. You have to trust religion, but trust never produces truth. Religion has never produced a single fact about the universe. Not one. Everything we know about nature and the universe comes from scientific inquiry.

If you want to know if science works, don't rely on trust. Simply try it out. Does a scientific claim stand up to experiment?

If it does not work then it's not science.

Mr. Harris doesn't seem to understand faith. My neighbor and I might be of different faiths, and each believe the other to be approaching damnation.
None of that justifies a great many of the happenings on this earth. Mr. Harris seems to ignore that fact in hs slander of the Faithful.
I know several Muslim people. I might go to church once every year or so. I have yet to meet the type of person that Mr. Harris wants to warn us against in 56 years of looking.
I don't think Mr. Harris has either. He has written a work of fiction, as surely as does Steven King. He is just not as good at making his villain as realistic.
The Islamisicst of the world use Allah as a prop, just as Stalin did land reform, to rally the true believers to a cause that none will recognize until much later.

JAMIE -- (close to top of the comments)

Nowhere ... (repeat) ... *NOWHERE* did Sam refer to science as "some kind of eschatalogical savior". This is exactly what I find infuriating about "religious dialogue".

(a) "eschatology" is the "study" (hah) of the "end times". I'm sure Sam would immediately want to know how you can "study" something that scientifically is not in evidence and shows no signs of ever happening, at least in the specifically religious way that you, Jamie, would label as "end times" (2nd coming, 1000 year reign by the Prince of Peace, the literal end of our physical reality in its entirety, etc., etc.).

(b) "savior" from what, to what?, in terms of science.

Do try to keep your peas and carrots separate on your plate of conversation, won't you? Thanks ever so much.

Some will argue that "science" was behind the holocaust and euthanaisa of the mentally retarded in the USA. Its true that proponents of these things used science to back up their claims. Much of this science was deliberatly false, i.e. pseudoscience. But its wrong to say that science was the cause. Ideology was the cause. People had ideas about race and intelligence, and used junk science to make their beleifs appear "scientific."

I do really like Arvind Bhatt's refernce to Ghandi as having said that "Truth is God" if there is a "God".

Sam Harris -- very properly -- points to the mutual incompatibilty between the world's major religions. It is quite simply ridiculous to pretend there can be a dialogue between those whose professed beliefs are in blatant contradiction of each other.

It is neither a crime nor a failing to admit our ignorance. What is a crime is to deliberately deny the truth. What stands as judge of our beliefs and actions is nothing other than the "truth". Those who reject the occurrence of evolution do so in flagrant disregard for the truth. The fossil and DNA evidence for evolution is completely incontrovertible. Science is really nothing other than a quest for truth based on the availale evidence. Not so with organized religions which build houses of cards without any basis in verifiable facts.

That having been said I , like many others, do not classify myself as an atheist but rather as an agnostic. None of us knows all there is to know about the nature of ultimate reality. And the sense of the numinous which overwhelms all of us, at one time or another, speaks of the immense chasm between us and whatever it is that makes the universe tick.

Thank you Sam for a lucid defense of rationality. Bring on the day when we are no longer ensnared by baseless speculation.

My immediate concern is not that some choose to live in an irrational envelope, but they insist that others be forced to submit to, and subsidize this same distorted reality. Government faith based initiatives are the most perilous challenge to our constitution and freedoms in play today.

Keep up the excellent work, Sam Harris.

Mr Harris, while being very confident in his beliefs, can also come across as arrogant. I agree with his philosophy about religion being a false science and it relying on a leap of faith - i.e. no proof.

What he is saying about science, is that science continually looks into itself to determine if it has the 'truth'. Science is not fallable, however science knows and understands this. Conversely, religion does not look inward, believes that it is infallable, and always has the truth to back it up. Point in fact, the 'truth' of religion requires a leap of faith without proof, without looking inward. Science has had its shares of ups and downs, (remember bloodletting?); but it learns from its mistakes, continually testing itself by virtue of not assumming anything, and needing proof for everything.

Ask a scientist how they arrived at a conclusion, and the answer will involve tests that they performed, with results. Ask a theologian the same thing, and (depending on the religion), the answer is invariably 'the bible', 'god's teachings', etc; - nothing that can be tangibly perused, or questioned.

While there are litterally hundreds of religions, and virually none of them agree with each other, there is only one 'science',and there is a standard method of measuring how to prove a theory.

I love science. I can't say the same about religion. And, I've never heard of someone doing harm or restricting the rights of others in the name of science.

Re atheist radio:
http://ffrf.org/radio/

It is worth looking at ffrf (the Freedom From Religion Foundation). They are one of the few organizations actually taking the government to court (and winning) over faith-based initiatives.

If you believe in separation of church and state give them a look.

Sam Harris is my hero. I tell everyone I know to read his words, follow his wonderfully obvious logic, and be SAVED!

Please also be certain to notice that Sam does not dismiss "spirituality" out of hand. There is much we need to explore in this realm, but we should look without the burdens of our religious dogmas.

For years, I’ve told my friends that I am only CERTAIN of one thing: that the truth is much different than what we can understand here. Unfortunately, we likely have to die to find out what it is.

Re: The Bible and its sources. There is an (I believe) ancient Hebrew word - "Midrash", which means the writing of history to conform with prophecy.

Religion has been the major focal point of human division throughout history. It is a holdover from our days as cavemen when the "shaman" of the clan divined what the heavens proclaimed. Most of these visions were discovered when the shaman was under some drug induced stupor and his (or her) mindless meanderings were accepted as "divine truth".
Down through the ages these primitive concepts evolved into "religions". Just as one clan feared and hated the next clan in the next cave; so to has religion carried over this innate fear of one's neighbors. Religion has prospered throughout history by using these innate fears to promote their individual ideas about the "divine".
It is only when man evolves beyond these primitive ideas that the human race will achieve its' height and understand his place in the universe.
Science is the only "true" deity and knowledge is the only true religion.

To Samantha:

Is religion a ‘mental illness’, or is it what Alan Watts said back in the 60’s, an immaturity? I haven’t read Watts in years, but if I remember, he said (paraphrasing), Jesus was a finger pointing the way. The mistake many people make is trying to worship the finger, to hold on to it, sucking it for comfort instead of moving away & moving forward in the direction it is pointing to.

That is the way I think of a ‘good’ religion - it does not mire us down in dogma, it points us forward. It does not ask us to worship the source.

Lately, I have begun to consider myself a radical atheist. I started to become friends with a really neat woman last year, with whom I had a lot in common and we got along well. Then came the dreaded question. She asked me if I believed in Jesus Christ. Out of the blue. I said no. She said, "Well, you are going to hell and I cannot be friends with you." The sheer stupidity and arrogance of that statement took my breath away. I have no problem being friends with people of religion as long as they don't try to shove it down my throat. Thing is, they are, on the whole, a pretty intolerant and vengeful bunch. I saw a great bumper sticker recently that said something to the effect of "Once you understand why you reject all other gods besides your own, you will understand why I reject yours." Amen brother.

While I agree with where Sam Harris ends up, but I think his inflammatory way of speaking inhibits discussion. And it's inconsistent with his final words about meditation at the end of The End of Faith. Those who believe in god and belong to a specific religion/theology/dogma aren't going to give it up. Why not look for the intersection among religions? The one commonality in religions is compassion for the poor and adherence to the golden rule: do not do unto others what you would not have done to you. Can't we at least start there and forget about whether or not there's a higher being? It is most unfortunate that most religions (especially the fundamentalists of all stripes) fail to live this very basic precept of their religions.

I happen to believe that meditation and the Zen Buddhist approach to life are the right path but that doesn't mean I can't talk with those who believe in a personal god.

I strongly support everything that Sam Harris has written. I am very thankful that someone has the guts and the ability to focus on such a sensitive subject. I am seventy-five years old, and I'm still hoping that I might someday see some changes in the world that will reflect how stupid and dangerous religion has been since it was invented.

Anyone who believes in prayers being answered has a very acute sickness. Unfortunately, the president of the United States has that sickness, and the people are at the mercy of such lunacy. It really scares me to realize how powerful religion can be for the wrong reasons.

Religious people of all denominations preach love as one of the most important ingredients of a proper life. The fact of the matter is: Every religious group thinks their group is above any of the others regardless of what they would have you believe. All Christians believe that all Muslims are going to Hell, and all Muslims honestly believe that all Christians are destined for Hell. Even within the general religions there is a lot of hate; Catholics hate Protestants (as attested by the crazy fools in Ireland); in the world of Islam, Shiites hate Sunnis. Most of the denominations of religious groups make fun of the snake worshippers in the South. Many so-called orthodox religions frown on Holly Rollers. I can stand back and look at every one of the groups as having something missing in their brains. I wonder sometimes if all religious groups aren’t from their so-called Hell, trying to destroy what few sane people (Atheists) there are on earth. I have to question the overall mentality of anyone who is really and truly hung up on religious beliefs. That is one main reason I fear for our government making intelligent decisions on their own merits. Every member of the senate and the house are highly religious people who depend on prayers a lot in making their decisions for the nation. That is damned scary to say the least.

Keep up the good work Sam!

Earl

I have had problems with organized religion for a long time but I always felt I need to "justify" my ideas. When I read Sam Harris' book something automaticallly clicked!

This book with its views was long overdue. Looking at the tabibanization of religion in the U.S. is a bit scary for me.

Sam Harris is God. There you have it.

by the way, great comment Zak Degrassi

Kudos to Sam. he is right on the button.

He almost sounds like Lord Krishna admonishing the "Reluctant Warrior" Arjuna( see Bhagavad Gita, the so-called Hindu bible but it not one)to free hinmself of the "Dogma". As a person "accidently" born as Hindu and having been exposed to the inane rituals Hindu mythology, I must quote here the famous Sanskrit Proverb that roughly says" those teachings which set you "free" are the true teachings." For many years, Gandhi belived that God is "Truth" but at the later stage in his life , after a long struggle , he came to believe that "Truth is God", if there is a "God".
Arvind Bhatt

I’m responding to RG, who wrote the following:
Kent, are you suggesting that morality can only be in evidence in religion? Science is, rightly, devoid of moral character. Indeed, it is deliberately based on empiricism. Morality, however, is a social construct. Interestingly, though, many societies' concepts of morality are based on the (empirical? darwinian? scientific?) instinct for survival, and are not proof of the need for faith.
Let's take cannibalism, since it's less of a debate, lately, than abortion, the death penalty, or torture. Is cannibalism morally wrong? We think so - it is the killing of another human being. But in early societies where cannibalism was practiced, the practice arose from survival considerations (indeed, their need for hard-to-find protein), not a discussion of whether eating another human would have an effect on the afterlife. Is there ever a circumstance where cannibalism would be considered appropriate? Just ask the Donner party.
Dear RG,

There has been a lot of recent work in biology on where our ethics and sense of morality come from. I don’t have time to point you towards any studies, but there was an article in the New York Times science section by Nicholas Wade on this subject. The idea that it is a social construct is proving to be increasingly untenable, though cultural evolution certainly plays some part. There is quite a bit of recent evidence for an inherent biological basis.

Secondly, don’t believe everything you read. Your example of cannibalism as a source of protein has been thoroughly refuted. For further reading on this subject, there was a paper by Stephen J. Gould and Richard C. Lewontin titled “The spandrels of San Marco and the panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme, published in 1979 in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 205:581-598. You should be able to get it online through google scholar.

Rodolfo,

Have you read any of the posts on this list?

If you plan to save any souls here you better pack a lunch my friend... it going to be a long day.

Perhaps we need a new GOD. Clearly the old one isn't doing the job. Cover ourselves in sack cloth and ashes, ululate and tear our garments with gnashes. That some wiser GOD more tolerant of our foibles, would reach down and embrace our tired little hymnals. And artworks of blood, to pull this sad creation made out of mud and the spit of some previous GOD. Who has abandoned our faltering steps and left us with a Rubic's Cube of concepts, that cannot be fitted together, over the din of those unbaptized babies screaming in Limbo. Perhaps the secret is held in Scientology, some new cult, the Baha'i or Theosophy. But surely not in science or rationality. We shall burn the heretics as soon as they have gathered the kindling. Jim Miller

It has taken me 50 years to shake off the religious convictions of my first 24 years. I'm not quite ready to say there is no God or man has no soul. I'm stuck on two questions. The first is where did matter come from. The second is how can we think abstract thoughts like honor, goodness, evil if we are only material.

However, I agree with Sam about Faith in the Bible. If God created us in His Image and Likeness, wouldn't He have expected us to use the Intellect He gave us. If He wants us to believe a book full of errors, He's only playing with us. If God exists, the only book I know that he wrote is the one in my mind and conscience.

Atheists need to understand how difficult it is for someone who has been raised in a Religion to cast it off. Be patient! Psychologists would be concerned if it happened too fast.

Believers on the other hand also need to be understanding. And they need to ask themselves "Is it fair for me to ask others to question their beliefs if I'm not willing to question mine?"

What I wonder is IS THERE ANY RADIO ATHEIST SHOWS?
If anyone knows, tell us where to find them.

They are common in Europe. France Culture transmits some religieous programs on Sunday mornings, but the rest of the week most of the programming is entirely devoid of religion. And if people say they are believers, they often are quizzed about this.

Charles Lane

What many Christians call "Faith" is really Dogma. For example, Jesus' birthday is celebrated on December 25th, but no one knows when he was born, really. That date was chosen by Christian bishops in the 2nd century and made dogma by the convocation of Nicaea in 367 A.D. in order to replace the old Roman celebration of the Saturnalia, which fell at the Winter solstace.

Also, much of what is found in the New Testament - the Gospels, Acts and the epistles - refects an extension of Old Testiment Jewish belief and practice made into Christian dogma. For example, Jesus as the sacrificed "Lamb of God" who takes away the sins of the world. This is from the Hebrew practice of the "Sacrificial Lamb" on whom the sins of the tribes of Israel were piled to be carried off into the wilderness to placate their vengeful and judging God, when they had strayed from their total allegiance to Him.

The belief - Faith - in the inerrancy of the Bible, that is, that the Bible is the very Word of God infallible, is a very pernicious dogma, one which has caused more grief in this past century than anything else. Modern scholarship and a better understanding of the socio-political-cultural environment surrounding the writing of the New Testament, provides very strong evidence that several authors/chroniclers compiled the Gospels and parts of Paul's letters. These authors had certain agendas and points of view which they wanted to promote. As far as can be determined, none of the authors of the Gospels was an eye-witness to Jesus' teachings and actions while he lived. Instead, they recorded what was handed down by word of mouth; in other words potentially edited and slanted to comply with the narrator's own point of view. Paul's letters are the closest in time to the time when Jesus lived. Yet Paul never mentions anything about Jesus' birth, much less that it was in any way miraculous. Why not? Because this part of the Jesus legend had not yet become the official word. There are so many things in the Gospels which Jesus is supposed to have said, that really are the reflections of the thinking of various influential Christian leaders such as Irenaeus. When the Bible canon was being officially established by the bishops in Nicaea, the adherents of the Thomas gnostic gospels were out- numbered by the adherents of the Johannine gospels, and so Thomas' gospel was rejected from the canon. There was also a purely political reason behind this omission: Thomas' gospel reported Jesus teaching that the individual can have direct communication with God, and does not need an intermediary or priest to interpret what God would speak to him. If this concept of a direct communication with God were to be allowed, then there would be no need for the church hierarchy. But by 367 A.D. the church hierarchy had already become so powerful and jealous of that power, that there was no chance that the gnostic tradition could be allowed to survive, and the followers of Thomas were systematically rooted out, and the offending writings were destroyed on orders of the church leaders.
How do we know this? Because in 1946 a clay jar was found at Nag Hamadi, Egypt, where the monks of a forgotten monastery had refused to destroy the forbidden writings and had hidden them.

The tragedy of all of this is that for the last 1700 years Christians have been ruled by a set of beliefs based on hearsay and outright lies. When Constantine was converted to Christianity in 325 A.D., the church leaders made a fateful pact: Constantine, the Roman Emperor, would defend the Church with military force, and in turn the Church would keep the People from rebelling against the Empire. In the time when Jesus lived and taught, the Roman Empire was the hated and feared scourge and oppressor of Israel and Judea. The Jewish priestly hierarchy collaborated with the Romans and oppressed their own people. Jesus was a rebel who spoke out against the oppression and showed the Jews a different way to resist it - by non-violence. He showed them how to regain their dignity even while under the Roman yoke. Above all he taught them that violence begets violence, and that by loving one's enemies, the oppressor is defeated in the end. This message has been ignored by the leaders of the Church ever since the time of Constantine, when they sold out to the Empire. Our church leaders continue to do the same. It is called "Redemtion through Violence" and has been the cause of the Crusades, the Inquisition, and many other horrors which modern American Christians would just as soon forget.

All of this was done in the name and while following "Faith" in the Salvation through Christ. Poor Christ; that is not at all what he preached, and many church leaders know it and admit it privately, but would never speak it from the pulpit, except for honest, thoughtful churchmen, such as John Spong and James Forbes and others.

So there abide these three: Faith, in Redemtion through Violence; Hope, to be one who to be saved in the Rapture; and Love, of material possessions and of all those who believe as I do.

Humanists and their kind believe that there can be peace without Jesus Christ, but the truth of the matter is that there can't be peace without Him. So, for those of you who are earnestly considering what I’ve posted, open your Holy Bible and read the passages with an open heart and mind. If you don’t know where to begin, try the Book of John. Before you begin reading Scripture, pray to God and ask Him to show Himself to you. Keep in mind that the first requirement of prayer is that you have, guess what, faith. Hebrews 11:6 states, “But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." To those who truly seek, you will not be disappointed. Amen.

Ever listen to shortwave radio? It is full of christian preachers and bible call-in shows. Regular radio and TV also spout 100's of preachers which are sometimes amusing.
What I wonder is IS THERE ANY RADIO ATHEIST SHOWS?
If anyone knows, tell us where to find them. Keep the faith baby. frankania

My last post was in response to Steve B.

Do you even know what probability theory is? You assert that science is based on 'faith' and is dogmatic; in fact the opposite is true. At its most fundamental, science asks, "What the hell is going on?" Not what might be going on or what we hope is going on, or even what we fervently believe is going on, but what actually is going on. Unfortunately, from a philosophical perspective, we cannot know anything with absolute certainty. However, we can quantify how much uncertainty we have about a certain hypothesis. If a hypothesis makes certain predictions and we can falsify those predictions, we can be fairly certain that that hypothesis is probably not true. In this case, we have reduced the uncertainty that the hypothesis is true and we can quantify that uncertainty (put a number on it). Instead of saying the hypothesis is probably not true, we can quantify the “probably not” with probability theory. In other words, we can say there is a very small chance (uncertainty), say one chance in 10,000, that we are incorrect. If we reduce the uncertainty to a very, very small probability, we can say it is a fact (extremely unlikely) the hypothesis is untrue. It is much easier to show that a hypothesis is untrue, because we only need to find any evidence that contradicts a testable prediction of the explanation.

By now you are probably saying to yourself, “Give me a break and what about what is true?” Because of the inherent uncertainty, we must be very careful about what we assert is true. Our best hope is to come up with a series of alternative explanations that make divergent, testable predictions. If we purposely search for observations or do experiments that falsify those predictions, then we can discard those that are unsupported, leaving us with fewer, but more likely (less uncertainty) candidate explanations. The explanation with the most support is tentatively accepted with a quantifiable amount of uncertainty (probability), until such time that new evidence either refutes the predictions, or continues to confirm them, then the hypothesis is raised to the level of a ‘theory’. The following two paragraphs are from Wikipedia.

‘People often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts, in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements that would be true independently of what people think about them.

According to Stephen Hawking in A Brief History of Time, "a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He goes on to state, "any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory."’

When I say that science is the opposite of faith, what I mean is that science wants the ‘Scientist’ to “show them the meat.” In other words, science is an inherently skeptical enterprise, though I in no way imply that skeptical has a negative connotation (i.e. cynical or pessimistic). Scientists just want evidence. If a scientist asserts something about the natural world and says his hypothesis is the most likely explanation without addressing other possible explanations (or even if he or she has rigorously tested all the alternative hypotheses he/she could think of), I can assure you there will be many colleagues and friends who will merrily blow his or her explanation and reasoning to smithereens if they can. The attack will generally not be personal (hahaha. After all, science is a human endeavor), but it will pull no punches, and the scientist who’s construct has just been blown up will ask no quarter and expect none. In fact, she or he will welcome the questions, since at its heart, science wants to know “what the hell is going on.” If, after all this blowing up, the explanation (hypothesis) is still standing, then the scientific community conditionally accepts the hypothesis, until such time as new information or a new explanation requires a modification of the original explanation or requires tossing it into the dustbin of scientific history. This is what I mean by the opposite of ‘faith’.

By the way, you and everyone else does science all time. Every time you wonder what the weather will be like that day and what cloths to wear you think of a series of possibilities and then you gather information (e.g. you think about what time of year it is, what the weather was like yesterday, you might look outside, you go online and look at the latest weather report etc.). You make your decision based on evidence. You do not pick your clothes that day based on prayer or faith.

I am extremely annoyed that it took me over 50 years to discover just how useless religion is, and how useful thinking is.
The idea of faith is the worst concept ever accepted by the human race.

To Bev B,

FYI the phrase "separation of Church and State" does NOT appear anywhere in the United States Constitution. You may be confusing it with the First Amendment which was provided for the Freedom of Religion and from the Gov't establishment of.

Furthermore, "separation of Church and State" does not appear in any founding American document for that matter. Thomas Jefferson was quoted as saying it was essential in a free society. He was the only athiest of the founding fathers.

This free Nation was found on the premise of an entitlment of basic human rights granted to us by our Creator. Fortunately, we are "all" protected under the First Amendment.

I don't see any ball rolling here in the U.S.....maybe in Europe...ther pretty much too far gone over there!

May God Bless America!

"Until we try to approach them from an angle that respects their faith, and work toward common ground, they will simply want to kill us rather than work with us."

And if "respecting their faith" means respecting their need to kill thousands of non-believers? I only ask because that is what we (you, me, and the rest of non-theocratic civilization) are facing.

Wow...Mr. Harris speaks and the secular humanists and athiests come running! Interesting dialogue...I respect your opinions. No, faith alone won't heal a divided world...whether it's faith in God or faith in self/humanity. Healing will take hard work, compromise, a willingness to listen and empathy on all sides. All of us must be open to other points of view, while respecting those that - for whatever reasons - differ from our own. We can sit around and try to prove each other wrong, or we can find common ground and common goals targeting the betterment of our world. Seems to me that most people enjoy shooting spitballs at each other more than they enjoy building bridges across philosophical chasms. As a Christian, I don't spend much time having dialogue with people whose goal it is to prove me wrong. What "healing" can come of that? I will, however, gladly dialogue with anyone who wants to find common ground with me. Atheists and I typically share many common goals for our society and humanity. We share different 'faiths', but similar if not identical end goals. We may not agree on process, but almost always on outcome. No, faith and proof don't work well together. We all plan, based in part on faith, that we'll get to take that vacation next week. Have any scientific proof that you'll live to see tomorrow? Of course not...but you probably have faith that you will (I hope you're right). Not sure who decided that belief in God and the belief in the importance of science are in two separate camps. That's not my experience at all. Clearly, some of the respondents above should consider an open minded study of the Bible or Koran...I think some missed the point in Sunday school. If taken out of context (when different parts were written, by whom, in what socio-political climates, etc.), simply reading the Bible will do very little to aid understanding. There is plenty of room for science and the Bible in the same place. No, faith alone won't heal a divided world. But, the rejection of faith as one of the key variables in the equation would be foolish. As someone above mentioned, our primary enemies are acting on their faith, not on scientific 'truth'. Until we try to approach them from an angle that respects their faith, and work toward common ground, they will simply want to kill us rather than work with us.

Anonymous,

I do not derive peace from snake oil salesmen, but then again, I don't find rhetorical questions all that useful either.

I do however, spend alot time thinking about what I will miss after I die.

I never said the world wasn't beautiful; in fact, that is the very reason that I wish to live forever. If only I believed all I was taught in church, then I could.

Emboldened by the physical and political destruction caused by religion in recent years, secularists are finally speaking out with the rage of a minority that has been kept silent for too long. And isn't a beautiful thing to behold? Thank you, Sam, for being such an articulate and forceful voice of reason.

"I am a vegetarian and "animal person." But still WHY should "we respect animals" and not eat them? That's your "belief." It isn't scientific; it probably isn't Darwinian.
One problem with atheism/science, as I see it, is that that there are no "shoulds" or "oughts"; yet atheists probably posit as many as the religions.
I and I'm sure most others often feel called upon by "something" to do "something" because it is the "right thing" and even to proselytyze (as you do)."

There certainly are "shoulds" and "oughts" presented by science and scientific inquiry. We shouldn't eat sheep brains or feed them to cows, since they cause BSE (mad cow disease). We shouldn't commit incest, since (aside from psychological damage) it's very harmful to the gene pool. We shouldn't allow stealing and murder, because that would result in a social structure in which we (collectively) live in fear.

We *know* all of the above, because we have tried them and seen the damage. The latter two, at least, are aspects of ethics that are very much based on evidence and reason - they do not require faith to uphold.

It's true that we don't yet have clear-cut, scientific understandings of why we value life, or specifically why we value certain life above others (vegetarians have no problem killing plants, which are, of course, living organisms). We aren't even sure if it's possible for humans to agree on those questions. But the fields of biology, psychology, sociology, and perhaps others yet undiscovered intend to seek these answers.

The problem, as I've stated before, is that religion gives us unsupported answers and tells us to stop looking. It refuses to admit "we don't know." Not just in the areas of ethics and morals, but even in the hard sciences as well.

Two points:

1) People follow religion for practical pragmatic reasons, not because they have been convinced through reason. i.e. it puts food on their table. Does a child brought up in a strong christian fundamentalist setting become a jew? It is the path of least resistance. Also see John Dean's book Conservatives Without Conscience and what he says about authoritarian personalities.

2) Tipping point. Because brave people like Harris and Dawkins have finally stepped up and said the "emperor has no clothes", normal people elsewhere will pick up on it, and we will put down idiot beliefs that are counter to the world's interests. See Gladwell's book Tipping Point. Elimination of religion will be similar to the rage in Hush Puppies.

there are some things that we do not know, we don't know, and there are some things that we dont know that we know. and then there is religious don't knows that we know, and then there are religious don't knows that we know--in the words of the great prophet--Rumsfilled.

Religion cum granus salis.

Hi Richard,
Yes, it was a typo. My mistake, thanks for catching it. In my case, the book totally changed the way I think about religion. Not that I never doubted it, I always did, but some of us need to see things in black and white, and for that I am grateful. (ok, eternally) I found it hugely refreshing to NOT to have to TRY to believe any longer.

So for me, it's not a circle-jerk, it's been a very life-changing event. And as for true-believers, I totally agree, it's pointless to have a discussion with them. That's why this forum (so far but just you watch) is nice.

speaking of bullets, that was the very first thing I thought of after reading the first few pages. You have to admit, he's brave!

signed,
still anonymous but that could change ;-)

"Has anyone on this blog actually changed their personal religious views as a result of reading someone else's comment"

I have but did so after reading Harris, Dawkins and others. But I've also read God: A Biography and Subversive Spirituality which do not purport human secularism. All reading has been in search for a 'higher truth' than the religion of my youth.

If one truly has an open mind, one will not look at this discussion as 'futile' or as a platform for being 'right' at the expense of making another 'wrong' by their arguments.

Reading Harris' writing gave me that same sense that many Christian friends of mine profess to have had when they 'found God through Jesus'. That is, they felt the weight of the world come off their shoulders.

Finally, the weight of the world is off my shoulders given the well-expressed framework of Harris' End of faith. It was always inside me but I simply could not express it as well. I look forward to reading all views about faith, spirituality, nature of consciouness.

I only hope the most religiously dogmatic have that ability to read critically, writing that differs from their current world view. As my Christian friends have said, "There are none so blind as those who will not see".

It works both ways.

Bottom line: Religious faith causes irrational behavior relative to the reality we live in.

Remember that Hitler had his own religion. Remember too that Scientists who do not accept changing "beliefs" typically do not resort to killing their fellows due to disagreement.

Wake up, before it's too late. Your self-fullfilling prophesy is about to come true. Do we really want "Armegedeon in 2007"? Many do.

I am a vegetarian and "animal person." But still WHY should "we respect animals" and not eat them? That's your "belief." It isn't scientific; it probably isn't Darwinian.
One problem with atheism/science, as I see it, is that that there are no "shoulds" or "oughts"; yet atheists probably posit as many as the religions.
I and I'm sure most others often feel called upon by "something" to do "something" because it is the "right thing" and even to proselytyze (as you do). I have many such "higher" feelings that I can't justify scientifically. I still remember my first "big" animal, a gentle dog. I was tiny and scared. But as I looked into his eyes "something" "told" me that he was like me, that he had an inner life, even a "soul." Others eat dogs.
I don't find any "scientific" reason for "valuing human life" either. As resources dwindle, perhaps we should make some "rational" choices. Or, is there an unscientific "higher" feeling that you may have about, say, "breeding programs"? Your "shoulds" may not be my "shoulds," and if you insist on yours, that's your FAITH. Why do you, who claim to be a scientific atheist, not only fervently ascribe to what is arbitrary but also press it on others?

GRANTED THAT THERE ARE NO SUPERNATURAL-BASED RELIGIONS THAT DO NOT INCREDIBLY CLAIM CONNECTION TO A SUPERNATURAL BEING AND HAVE FOUNDERS WHO MAKE THE SAME INCREDIBLE CLAIM.THIS SITUATION DOES NOT EXHAUST THE FIELD, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ONE OPENED BY THE SUPERTHEIST, SPINOZA, IN HIS TEXT "THE ETHICS" (1677, PROMTLY BANNED AND BURNT)IN WHICH HE PROPOSES A ONE ALL EMBRACING SUBSTANCE DEITY WHICH IS INFINITELY AND ETERNALLY BOTH INTELLECTUALLY AND MATERIALLY NECESSARILY EXISTENT. IN PLACE OF THE SUPERNATURAL DEITY OF THE TRADITIONAL SUPERNATURAL RELIGIONS SPINOZA DESCRIBES A SUPERTHEISTIC NATURAL DEITY WHICH IS THE NATURAL WORLD OF MODERN SCIENCE AND AKIN TO THE SPIRITUAL BEING OF THE TRADITIONAL SUPERNATURAL-BASED RELIGIONS. ADMITTEDLY IT IS A CATEGORY-BREAKING REVOLUTION. SPINZOA DID NOT WISH TO FOUND A NEW RELIGION. ALL HE WANTED WAS TO ESCAPE BEING BURNT. HE EXPECTED NO REWARDS FROM HIS DEITY BUT DIED BREATHING DEEP INTELLECTAL LOVE FOR IT AS THE DONOR OF HIS GREAT SELF-CONTENTED LIFE HE CALLED BLESSEDNESS. DOES HIS BRILLANT VISION, EMBEDDED BOTH IRONICALLY AND APPROPRIATELY IN A EUCLID-LIKE TREATISE, HAVE A CHANCE OF APPEALING BOTH TO SCIENTISTS AND TRADITIONAL THEOLOGIANS AND THE MASSES OF THE HUMAN SPECIES?

Louise wrote:
From my view, many more people derive peace, solace, place, and yes even truth, in their religious beliefs. Whether or not those beliefs are based in reality is not the point. Where will I get that peace? In knowing math and science and believing that I will rot 6 feet under for the rest of eternity?

Louise, please. Do you derive peace from snake oil salesmen, or from real love and caring from the people in your life? Do you feel all warm and fuzzy thinking about the powers of Santa, or are you warmed by the true generosity of humans toward others in this world? Do you dwell on what happens after you die (do animals?), or do you try to relish every moment of every day of your life as fully as possible? Your eternal life is lived in the minds and hearts of the people you touched while you were alive. That's how you live a peaceful and truthful life and achieve immortality. Or you could take good care of this precious earth, that is immortality. We don't need falsehoods and religous ritual to love or do good works. Bring the "good news" to your friends, neighbors and family members---take off the rose colored glasses and see how beautiful the world is.

Hi Anonymous,
Thanks for your response. I guess I just don't see what the point actually is. If nothing changes other than people become more entrenched in their point of view, then it's a kind of big intellectual circle jerk.
Check out your typo in your sentence about Mr. Harris's book providing "futile" ground for discussion like this. I'm pretty sure you meant "fertile," but I still agree with the typo. I have witnessed and even participated in dialogues between rationalists and true believers, and I just think the waste of breath is sad.
It's also risky. Arguing logically with a true believer is like pissing into a forest fire. You'll just get burned. When I first read "End of Faith," my first thought was that Harris is really sticking his neck out. Several religious screwballs probably have bullets with his name on them. I don't blame you for staying anonymous. I considered doing the same with my entry, but I used my name only because it's pretty common.

I find the the general mood of many of the responces here to be quite dark. I thought this was supposed to be enlightenment!?? I am grateful for the gift of faith and hope that it finds you as well...May we, the United States, continue to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity!

Sam Harris is wrong about one thing -- sort of. Religions do, in fact, share common ground. It's called hatred of gays. (Sorry, just kidding.) It's called The Golden Rule -- treat others as you wish to be treated. Every religion on earth espouses it. Trouble is, the majority of religious adherents ignore it.

Once again, only science (at least right now) fulfills the promise of The Golden Rule, because only science strives to base opinion and judgment on facts, instead of faith and adherence to outdated myths and unproven or disproven superstition. A science researcher's findings are evaluated based on their merit, not on whether he or she prays to Jesus or Allah or Thor.

Religion exists because man needs it. We need to make sense of our existence, even more than we need to know how the planets work or what DNA looks like. Every society since the dawning of time has had some form of religion. It not only defines who belongs and who doesn't, but it also gives us basic principles by which to live and treat each other. Most importantly, it mitigates the fear of mortality. Survival is instinctual. Death is unavoidable. Religion makes the reality of death and suffering bareable. Religions allow us to know ourselves and contextualize ourselves in our time and among our contemporaries. I am a big believer in science. It's a wonderful thing. But it won't uplift you when you are sad, scared, desperate, alone or confused. No mathematical formula is going to help you deal with a difficult relationship, or seek compassion and forgiveness within yourself. It is faith that gives people purpose when they despair, and it is faith that sustains people when they are afraid (just ask anyone in a life threatening situation). Religion has a place, and a purpose. But it is not, and can never be "TRUTH." That's why religions have come, gone and changed over time. There is no point in comparing religion and science. It's worse than comparing apples and oranges. Comparing religion to science is like comparing apples to steel beams. What the soul needs, and what the mind needs are radically different things. Humanity's salvation is not in rejecting one or the other, but rather in understanding the limitations of both. They both become insidious when believers treat science like a religion, and religion like science. There will never be a world without religion, period, end of story. To hope for that is to be as seriously deluded as those you criticize. The best hope is that people will come to understand that religion cannot and will not explain the natural world or anything in it, and that science cannot and will not explain the meaning of life, and/or our purpose on this earth. If we all can learn to accept our religions for what they are (i.e., food for our individual souls) and stop insisting that any particular religion is, in fact, "right," we can peacefully coexist. The problem is not religion per se (see Bhuddism and Jainism), but rather the dogmatic, proselytizing teachings of certain religions (see Islam and Christianity, among others). If we can all agree that we won't use the Quran, Torah/Talmud, Bible or other religious book as justification for our actions in any social, political or economic situation, I think the world would be OK. We wouldn't eliminate conflict. That also will always exist. But many of the intractable world problems could be resolved. We don't need to get rid of religion, we need to get rid of any and all teachings that cannot peacefully coexist with inapposite views.

I am perfectly willing to believe in the Easter Bunny, but I will require some empirical evidence. I need to see him "Hopping down the bunny trail" before I can accept his reality. Sadly, many of us don't require the same standard of proof for the existence of the "Son of man". We learn the stories while we are still too young to understand the implications of an omnipotent being, and then as adults we are cowed into remaining silent by the true believers. Too many of us (myself included) find that life is easier when we just all get along. So we don't question someones faith because it's just so unseemly.

But the world is too dangerous to let divisive beliefs go unchallenged. Thanks to Sam Harris, I now try and (politely) ask probing questions of those who attempt to bring me into their fold. I used to leave them at the door, but now I invite them in and ask probing questions to determine the depth of their faith. Usually it is just good entertainment, but occasionally I will see that glint in the eye that suggests I've made them think about the canons they profess. Religion is no longer off limits at dinner parties or anywhere else the faithful try and spread "The Word".

Why do we waste so much time and mental energy arguing the existence or non-existence of God? Whether or not God exists is NOT the problem. The problem humanity faces is religious dogma and a questionable "word(s) of God(s)," that allows, even encourages us to treat each other badly.

What is most germane in Mr. Harris' comments is the controposition of two ways of reaching conclusions, or beliefs, about the world. One way, the "scientific" way, is to draw a conclusion based on evidence. As Harris makes clear in "The End of Faith," this is the method most people use in their daily lives on nearly all matters. Another way, the "faith" method, is to believe something without substantial evidence or no evidence at all. This is truth by fiat and is diametrically opposed to the evidentiary method developed by science. For most people, on religious matters only do they employ the concept of faith - all other beliefs require evidence.

What is most important is that when the evidence changes, a conclusion can change as well. When there is no evidence for a conclusion, that conclusion can never be called into question no matter what we learn about our world. The byproduct of faith based reasoning is a brand of certainty that allows for no constructive dialogue because the conclusion is categorical in nature and sets up mutually exclusive comparisons.

The dispute between modern reasoning and faith based reasoning will never move forward until absolutist notions of the world are erradicated. The damage done by absolute certainty is evident on our globe in more than one place. I find it impossible to have a conversation with someone who ignores evidence on just one particular topic but demands substantial evidence on any other. There must be a comfort with being wrong and not knowing - it is okay to change ones conclusion and it is even more proper to assert the lack of an answer sometimes. Why do we have the need to explain something we cannot explain? I, like many others, challenge a religious person to substantiate their beliefs without relying on a groundless concept like faith.

As a geneticist, I have always wondered about Jesus's immaculate conception. If he was conceived withiout the introduction of sperm, why is he not a female? Just another one of those eternal religious questions that might have a different outcome if subjected to scientific scrutiny.

Hi Richard Wade,

Excellent points about childishness and development - they pull in the similar veins of mental llness/irrationality/sheep/ however, I don't think changing our minds after reading these posts is the point, and I think that's the greatest part of the discussion.

What is great about Mr. Harris book is that it provides futile ground for open discussion like this. Although I guess the non-open people didn't read his book and are not posting here.

This is the greatest challenge. Getting the message to those who really need it.
It's the old 'preaching to the converted' argument (pardon the pun).

How to do that?

In both of his published books, Mr. Harris makes the point that "liberal", "moderate", "progressive" Christians are enablers of nonsense.

He argues that these kinds of Christians support tolerance for others of faith as the price they pay for tolerance by others towards themselves. The problem, he argues is that this toleration of nonsense does enormous michchief to our body politic.

Instead of seeking to eliminate nonsensical religious beliefs from our national dialogue, these "liberals" tolerate it and thus the tens of millions who think the world is 6,000 years old elect to public office the bozos who control our government.

Religion is disturbingly ridiculous, especially the Christian rejection of evolution. I find it laughable that most Christians find evolution unfounded despite the overwhelming evidence of its truth, yet they will believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water, raised Lazarus from the dead, and rose from the dead despite the LACK of any reliable evidence. Most do not know the origins of their own religion (Mithras anyone?), and when they are confronted with the truth of Christian origins and historical facts regarding its origins, they'll discount that truth. How long did it take the Christians to finally admit the earth was round? Let's hope it doesn't take them that long to understand that a 150 cell blastocyt is NOT a living human being which contains a soul so as to allow stem cell research. These people are really scary.

One other thought, Recently I had a dinner with many relatives, Among them was a beautiful intelligent young couple with two small adorable boys 3 and 5. The boys ask their father for their wrist bands to wear. The wrist bands were about 2" wide grey kitted material with the words 'Army of God' in white. Once they had them on the boys began flexing their muscles and widly jumping up and down yelling, "Soldier of God, Soldier of God" over and over. They were so proud of themselves. In talking with their mother later she revealed to me that her family never watched television and didn't read books except Christian books to their boys and she said she rarely used the computer. The boys were to be privately schooled. The reason for her lack of contact with the world was that they wanted to protect their boys. To me this was so sad. Ther are literally hundreds of thousands of children being protected by well-meaning parents in America today. Onward Christian Soldiers.

Sam Harris' most profound contribution to the issue of religion in contemporary life is the assertion that by "respecting" a person's faith by never asking impolite questions, those of us in the atheist, agnostic, deist, or simply "don't have enough energy to bother with it" demographic are allowing religious zealots to shield themselves from the rigorous demands of rational inquiry. I call on all skeptics and freethinkers to organize, learn, network - and challenge people of faith to have a rational discussion that doesn't end with the arrogant and intelectually lazy assertion that "it boils down to a matter of faith." That's a cop-out and we all know it. Call them on it. I respect every religious person's right to believe in Jesus, Mohammed, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the sanctity of freshly chopped lettuce if that's what they want. But please be prepared to tell the world why we should believe you.

What profound thinkers the founding fathers were, those who insisted on separation of church and state. How, in the last few decades, this enlightened principle was abandoned, who knows? Can anybody out there answer that?
We might have some sort of freedom OF religions these days, but have lost out on the freedom FROM religion.
Am I a whatever - atheist, agnostic, humanist, or a member of any organized religion? No. I do not think I have to be. I can accept the teaching of some of the greatest figures, and love the art and music produced over centuries as an expression of religion, and hate the divisiveness that the fanatics of all doctrines produce.
Thanks Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins for opening the doors to discussions.

Suppose you had a magic wand and could make all religion disappear. Imagine a world without all their artificial restraints and bizarre and meaningless practices. I can and it all began 60 years ago after I graduated from a religious high school. Suddenly I realized I was free to read books and study subjects that were denied to me by the dogmatic teachings of my religious mentors, many of whom were the ultimate hypocrites, violating every religious and ethical principle they were attempting to convey.
When the veil of their behavior was lifted and nothing was found behind it, it was easy to simply walk away from religion and never turn back. From that point on my ethical foundations and principles can best be explained as applications of the Golden Rule that, in truth, are the ethical foundation for 99% of what most religions purport to practice. So whenever someone announces that there can be no ethical principles without religion, I say hogwash. I’ve lived my life that way, as has my family, with a concern for the well being of friends, relatives and neighbors, and by extension our country and our world, as our paramount concern.

This man said it all many years ago when
the fools still burned you at the stake!

http://www.ushistory.org/Paine/reason/index.htm

Has anyone on this blog actually changed their personal religious views as a result of reading someone else's comment? I doubt it. I haven't read all 85 other comments at time of this posting but I think that this kind of dialogue is futile. Nobody changes their mind about these things as a result of a logical argument. It's a developmental issue. Most people are emotionally immature, and want to keep their childish reassuring fantasies. They will even kill to protect them. They want their big parent in the sky who will somehow make it all ok. No child can be argued out of one stage of cognitive development into another, and the same goes for adults with limited emotional development. You either grow out of it or you don't.
Biologically, we're stuck with this mess. Big brains being born through small pelvises mean we have the longest childhood in the animal kingdom while our brains continue growing. Years of looking up at our parents, who are gods to us, providing, protecting, judging, rewarding and punishing, has an indelible effect on us. We invent another parent to continue to look up to,
and that tends to perpetuate our immaturity.
Everyone should read the Dalai Lama's comments at the top of the page. He's one of the few people who encourages transcending this futile rancor, and wants us to actually fix problems. And don't call him a saint! That's more of that childish stuff.

Religions are in most cases intolerant of non-believers, and they call for conversion. So the only way for people to get along is to swear off religion and to try something new, an approach based no science. Making religions get along wirh each other is making them admit that they are fallible, which won't work in most cases.

How many gods has humanity believed in over the years? Thousands at least, but let's limit this list to the one-god gods (mutually exclusive). Let's assign a number, say 1,000. This means at the very least 999 of these gods are pure human invention, i.e.: man created god in his own image.

Yet these gods are worshipped with the same passion and determination as any other.

It appears that not only is believing in a god the norm for humanity, but believing in the wrong god is also the norm. All that killing and dying for the wrong god ...

This is certainly not proof that there aren't any gods, but it does incline one to feel that humans are full of it.

It is ironic that Sam Harris' first posting on this website coincides with the Catholic Bishops Conference. Among other critically important policy conclusions coming out of the conference are that married couples using artificial birth control and non-celibate gays should not take Communion. And, of course, the Catholic Church continues to view homosexual behavior as "disordered." (Evidently, pedophelia ranks somewhere below using birth control as an affront to Church doctrine.)

As Sam has pointed out in the past, the Catholic Church continues to oppose the use of condoms, even though increased condom usage could save tens of thousands of lives in developing countries. The ravages of the world we live in continue to expose Catholic leadership as fundamentally immoral. Fortunately, the Catholic laity is more reasonable.

It's true that the Vatican rightly opposed and continues to oppose the occupation of Iraq. But whenever morality pinches Catholic dogma, dogma wins out.

As for the comments that claim science, like religion, depends on "faith," I can only lament the sad state of affairs in K-12 education. Study after study shows that the vast majority of Americans do not understand the scientific method, and it shows in discourse on religion and science. Is it "faith" that keeps an airplane flying? Is it "faith" when a doctor who understands evolution is able to choose an appropriate antiobiotic regimine to fight an infection? (Incidentally, how come Jesus chose to wilt a fig tree with his unbounded powers rather than, say, eliminate just one of the many diseases that caused untold suffering? Instead he spent his time casting out demons. Or so we are told. For people 2000 years ago, various aflictions were caused by demons.)

For anyone to compare the scientific accomplishments that make our lives much better with the faith required to be certain that a soul enters the zygote at conception illustrates just how intransigent the faith problem is.

It seems to me that there is one thing that does unite all religions and that is the insecurity that drives people to cling to religious faith in the first place. Genuine spirituality, as opposed to religious faith, involves the courage to look "within" ourselves in order to understand the roots of that insecurity. While I agree, in general, with Sam Harris's arguments, he does not appear to recognize the role that insecurity plays in religion. If I am correct about this it is too bad because these same insecurities (e.g., fears of death, social rejection, etc.) also drive, I would submit, the scientific quest for knowledge. Religion offers consolation through irrational faith, while science offers knowledge of the external world through disciplined empiricism and rationality. Neither seems to put forth a plan of spiritual self-discipline, i.e., an inward quest to "know thyself". Without the offer of such self-discipline Harris's arguments amount to trying to take away the crutches from someone before leading them to the strength and knowledge to walk without them. What is Sam Harris offering in place of the crutches of faith? I hope it is more than the neuroscience laboratory and bliss from a pill.

somebozo wrote:
"Thus, Christian faith is based on evidence. Mr. Harris and Mr. Dawkins may choose not to believe this evidence, but they cannot say that there is "no evidence" to support our belief."

exactly! when my six-year-old child woke up this mornin' to a quarter tucked underneath her pillow as a gift from the tooth fairy she said: "see, I told you the tooth fairy was real!" Evidence to support our belief? Just ask my daughter 'cause she's an expert on tooth fairies and evidence as her shiney new quarter aptly proves!!!

:~)

The End of Faith is a brave and thought-provoking work which those of us who have spent their lives 'trying' to believe will have a hard time putting down - and out of our head.

I do however have two arguments to make.

1. Just because it's impossible to calculate the SUM of the POSITIVE effects of believers, doesn't mean that that SUM of the positive is not greater than the SUM of the negative effects of religion. From my view, many more people derive peace, solace, place, and yes even truth, in their religious beliefs. Whether or not those beliefs are based in reality is not the point. Where will I get that peace? In knowing math and science and believing that I will rot 6 feet under for the rest of eternity?

2. Mr. Harris at one point presents the idiocy of having a religion based on Microsoft/Software. I don't think it's ridiculous at all. If there weren't religions as we know them, there would be a belief system equally as bizarre. Human beings are what they are, sheep, lost, afraid, mis-guided. Religion evolved as it did when it did, and it was, and still reamins, the natural course for the way humans interpret this life (and the next). As he mentions, each time technology allowed us to discard the things that were no longer possible to believe (black magic etc.), we discarded them. It's called evolution, and will continue to happen. It gets more moderate for some (my case) and unfortunately, more fundamentalist for others. If religion is a mental illness, then human beings are more mentally ill than most people would like to admit.

Harris and Dawkins have put down what has needed to be said for a long time.
To those who believe:
1. In truth without any good evidence. Faith!
2. That they have the only truth because it's in some book written by who knows who....with no real evidence that anything in it actually happened.
3. That Evolution is a myth with no good evidence.
4. That there is a god of some kind that runs the whole show and always has and always will....and if we don't believe that we are doomed to eternal damnation.

You are a poor excuse for a reasoning human being.
You are a fool but a dangerous one with beliefs that threaten the peace of the world.

"I would say that Mr. Harris has about as much willingness to have his beliefs modified by conversation with religious people as some fundamentalists would have to listen to those who criticize their own dogmatism."

Sam is no doubt as willing to have his beliefs modified by conversation with religious people as I am. That is, show us the evidence. Show me the falsifiable, repeatable, objective evidence of anything you hold dear - that God exists, that prayer works, that people can't behave decently unless they believe in God, that there is an afterlife, whatever.

Show me the evidence and I'm perfectly willing to be convinced. (Subjective evidence and philosophizing do not qualify.)

Religion is nothing more than the worship and promulgation of death. It is the embodiment of Evil.

The key is EVIDENCE. Can we agree on that?

No evidence or skimpy evidence, I am a fool. Sufficient evidence and I can look myself in the mirror... right?

One might not form the same opinion as I, but could still say a reasonable person might believe based upon evidence, right? Sufficient evidence. Kinda like reasonable doubt in a trial.

Science, the end all be all, is afraid of a substantive look into even the most basic of Biblical claims. ‘Like it’s a waste of time. No greater debate for science exists?! Get over the centuries’ old Vatican thing and let’s hash it out.

"Science", or more accurately its institutions, is often dismissive and condescending. Is that necessary? If it’s so cut and dry, why not jus’ ‘splain dis to me?

Perhaps, in the place of insults from both sides, a clearing house for dispassionate evaluation of evidence can be debated? Not simple slogans, but real evidence such as is detailed in ‘The Privileged Planet’. This ain’t your typical Sunday School lesson.

SCRIPT: http://www.illustramedia.com/scripts/ThePrivilegedPlanet-web.pdf

Science cannot determine a purpose, but evidence can sway an opinion… or form a belief. Is everyone with me so far?

Let me put it another way. Seek and ye SHALL find.

Faith, or belief, comes from hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Test its measurable claims. If there is ample evidence such a thing could be reasonably thought, nobly admit correction— whether you change your beliefs or not.

Evidence is out there… let’s debate if it’s sufficient for me.

If that’s true, perhaps it could be for you, too? Ah-h-h-h… there’s the hang-up. So, let the insults fly.

Not in spite of but in addition to, grace is sufficient for me. The cool thing is if I’m wrong, so what? I’m just a temporary animal anyway? If you’re wrong… uh, oh.

I think it’s worth looking into with honesty.

Isn't that what science is?

Roberto de Leon's statement reminds me of that infamous man who said guns dont kill people, people kill people.

May I remind him that NOBODY has yet proven that there is a heaven, a hell, or for that matter, God. Can just one person tell me that they have been there...or met him? You make your own heaven...or hell right here on earth.

Live a decent good life becaus its right to do so, NOT because of the supposed reward...that's a terribly bad reason to do so.

So you don't believe what I believe, and I do not believe what you believe. So if we believe each other is going to hell....SO WHAT Does that mean we have to kill each other here on earth? And, besides since murder is a sin then whoever kills the other one is going to hell for sure anyway. As an older American I have lived my life, until the last few years, in a country where people of all differing faiths have existed side by side with respect for the beliefs of all others. It is my opinion that respect, coupled with an understanding of other cultures, plus a real desire for peace would go a long way in calming some of the current tensions that have built up in the world. BUT it must start for us by getting religion out of politics so a President cannot use religion to inflame the feelings of the nation against those in other countries. If the Muslims have problems between their different sects, centuries old problems, then we need to stay out of it and not try to impose our way of life on them in the middle of their differences.

Whew! It is really comforting to know there are so many people "out there" who are eager to engage in this conversation! When one is basically in agreement with Sam Harris, it is hard to talk to any one about it, especially one's religious family members...Hooray to Washington Post and Newsweek, this conversation is long past due!

Often in these darkening days, I feel compelled to congratulate the true optimists scattered among us, most notably those enlightened few who still manage to hold out some degree of hope for a long-lasting and meaningful repair of relations between all our great (and not so great) religions. Sam Harris falls into this group. So does Michael Shermer. Richard Dawkins, by my estimation, would not. The exact source of their inspiration is never clear to me, however. I simply cannot envision any real truce so long as the armies of true believers adhere to their most absurd tendency, that being a belief in some sort of hell, an almost boundless arena universally understood as a place reserved to house the souls of all the other guys, who, by the fruits of their foul labors, are deserving of the most abominable tortures we can invent.

For many centuries the battlelines have been drawn, with the main difference now being the technology to wage these old wars is so very much improved. Congratulations then, all you freethinking silver-liners. I salute you. In the end, we all trade in delusions to one degree or another.

here's serveral verses of "The Merry Minuet" that the Kingston Trio sang over forty years ago that's somewhat relavant to the thread here:

They're rioting in Africa
They're starving in Spain
There's hurricanes in Florida
And Texas needs rain.