Part I: The value offered by religion has absolutely no bearing on the truthfulness of the religion. Charitable acts or creating a sense of community by Mormons, Scientologists, or Christians do not mean that Joseph Smith found those gold plates, the character Xenu ever existed, or that Jesus was the son of God. It is possible to have communities without worshiping invisible beings who may or may not answer prayers. In big bold letters, the author states that "God makes people happier by providing answers." If we look at the happiest countries in the world (http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/business/earth-institute-world...), we see countries with large atheist populations at the top of the list...every single year. He references a "shitload of evidence", but I wonder if he's ever taken a look at crime statistics around the world. Even if he looks at just the United States, he would find higher rates of crime in states where religiosity is highest. Religion does not seem to be a barrier to immoral actions nor is it a panacea for happiness. Perhaps we have different meanings for "shitload of evidence."
Part II: This is the classic strawman section. I actually agree with the author that many of the examples given in most debates are evidence of the evil of men, but he fails to recognize that religion has historically provided cover for those actions. Slavery has historically enjoyed such cover. Misogony and homophobia have luxuriated and continue to luxuriate under such religious cover.
I'm quite familiar with the problem of evil and the author did absolutely nothing to negate this. If God knows that evil is happening every minute of the day, He either can do nothing to prevent it or doesn't care to. As Sam Harris points out, God is therefore either impotent or evil. Every day I hear from religious people who claim that God helped them in some manner. They regularly give Him praise for things that He does on their behalf. I find this to be narcissistic, callous, and completely immoral when I consider that at least a dozen children under the age of 5 will have died during the course of you reading my remarks here. They and their parents will beseech Heaven for food and water and this same God who answers frivolous prayers somehow finds these starving children unworthy. There is nothing humble about this line of thinking.
I fail to see how the fact that our holy texts (regardless of how they have been translated or cobbled together) have frequently been shown to be incorrect is a flawed argument. An omniscient being should be able to explain in unambiguous terms what it expects. No holy book fits that description. Whether it is stopping the planetary motion of either our sun or our planet for 24 hours to allow Joshua to finish his battle (Bible - Joshua 10:13) or Muhammad splitting the moon (Qur'an - 54:1-2), these are cosmological claims being made by our religions. I fail to see how my inability to read it in Arabic somehow makes this scientifically possible.
If there is a conflict between religion and science, I get the feeling that the author feels it's ok to reject the scientific account. The problem I have with this is that unlike religion, science is not subjective. It has been the most consistently reliable way for us to determine fact from fiction. When a religious person disputes evolution in favor of creationism or asserts the historicity of a prophet flying to Heaven on a winged horse, those are anti-scientific views. Plain and simple.
Part III: This section basically deals with the author's desire to treat other peoples' beliefs as sacred. As H. L. Mencken said, "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." What the author fails to understand is that beliefs directly influence our actions. If the creator of the universe commands us to kill people for imaginary crimes like witchcraft, should we respect that belief (FYI - witch burnings still happen in places like Kenya)? If someone wants a religious belief like creationism taught alongside evolution in our classrooms, is the appropriate response one of tolerance? Unlike Jesus, I don't think we should enact thought-crime legislation, but if religious people cannot keep their unsubstantiated beliefs in check, we must oblige them to.
I'd prefer this discussion continue on this site rather than the other, if you've no preference. ;)
>The value offered by religion has absolutely no bearing on the truthfulness of the religion
I don't disagree, but I argue that the value it offers is more important than the absolute truth of every ideology. Faith, by definition, transcends evidence. If that's not OK with you that's fine, but I also doubt that every word you've ever uttered was the complete and total truth. Also if you can causally link those statistics, I'd love to read it. But from where I'm sitting, I see only correlation.
The fact that religion has been used to cover atrocities does not mean either that they were caused by religion nor that they would not have happened without religion. As evidence I point to atrocities divorced of religion.
I am not fit to debate the problem of evil, but my point again is that this isn't a silver bullet for atheism. There are faiths or interpretations of faith that circumvent the issue entirely, so I don't view it as an overly effective argument.
I can't debate the aspects of the qur'an because I, you know, respect others' beliefs, but for the Biblical aspect I'll quote something that another commenter on hn brought up:
>Joseph Campbell: "These bits of information from ancient times [myths], which have to do with the themes that have supported man's life, built civilizations, informed religions over the millennia, have to do with deep inner problems, inner mysteries, inner thresholds of passage. And if you don't know what the guide signs are along the way you have to work it out yourself. "
>See http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/perspectives1.html
Very few people read the Bible literally. To pretend that they do is the essence of strawmanning.
>I get the feeling that the author feels it's ok to reject the scientific account
N-no? Why would I think that. I don't defend people who deny scientific fact. But again, it's fallacious to think that that represents the whole, or even the majority, of religious folk.
>Unlike Jesus, I don't think we should enact thought-crime legislation
Tipping your hand a little bit there. I don't ever remember Jesus saying "Let's not let others have freedom of thought."
Again, I DO NOT advocate ignoring science for the sake of religion. I never said that, and your and others' persistent insinuation that I am saying this is exactly the sort of behaviour that motivated me to write that in the first place.
When you say "the value it offers is more important than the absolute truth of every ideology", that is a subjective statement that could quite possibly be impossible to quantify. You can argue it all you like, but in the end you're stating your opinion. That's not an objective statement. How do you know that the value is greater than the harm?
I do take issue with your statement that "Faith, by definition, transcends evidence." A quick glance at Dictionary.com gives me a different definition that states faith is "belief that is not based on proof". If faith, by your definition, somehow transcends evidence, why should I respect that? In what other area of our discourse is it not only permissible but actually desirable to believe something strongly either in the absence of or in direct refutation of evidence?
I agreed with you on the evil of men, but the point I was trying to make is that religion does not seem to be a barrier to atrocities. A glance through the pages of history is all that's needed to demonstrate this. Even the pope in 2000 gave a mea culpa on atrocities committed by the Church in the course of two millenia.
I found the passage from Campbell to be entertaining. Frankly, it's white noise. What I find interesting about this and the suggestion that we shouldn't read these texts literally is that you have somehow stumbled upon the "correct" interpretation. Of course the universe wasn't created in six days. Of course the sun didn't stand still in the sky for 24 hours. Of course God didn't drown the entire world in a massive flood. Of course Jonah didn't actually stay in the belly of a large fish. Are you saying that people throughout history have never taken these stories literally or treated them as historical facts? The truth is that as our knowledge of the world has advanced, we now treat these stories as parables and metaphors. Allow me to quote my earlier statement: "An omniscient being should be able to explain in unambiguous terms what it expects. No holy book fits that description."
When we read in the Hadith (which has equal canonical authority to the Qur'an) that the appropriate punishment for apostasy is death, are we to believe that this is simply a metaphor? Are we taking it too literal? I contend that it's either the will of God or it isn't. Perhaps Christianity is easier to discuss for you. In the Christian faith, I can assure you that men like St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine had read Jesus' teachings in the New Testament along with God's Old Testament commands to suffer not a witch to live, and they found it completely appropriate to kill women for this imaginary crime. If you're saying that God never meant Exodus 22:18 to be taken literally, congratulations - because you've been able to correctly interpret this ancient text in a way that some of the most venerated religious leaders could not. Kudos to you.
I don't understand your "tipping your hand" comment, but I can address the gist of your argument. Just because you don't ever remember Jesus enacting thought-crime legislation doesn't negate my argument. Read the Sermon on the Mount. When Jesus says that not just the physical act of adultery is against the law, but that the thoughts leading up to it are just as immoral and against the law, that is the very essence of thought-crime legislation. No?
Having read your opinions and responded to them, I am inclined to agree with an earlier poster who doubted your atheistic standing. "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."
I'm disinclined to continue responding if you continue BELIEVING that I am lying to you about the FACT that I am an atheist, that I have no religion, that I don't believe in God. If you presume that I am so wrong on every point that I don't even know my own religious beliefs, is there even any point for me to continue this discussion?
I love discussing these sorts of issues because I loving finding a point on which we can agree, even if we just agree that it's a difference of opinion. But I'm not convinced that it'd be worth either of our times to continue if that goal is impossible.
If you really are an atheist you've taken this whole idea of "open-mindedness" way too far and let a slough of nonsense overwhelm your rational sensibilities. Stop trying to be "ok" with everyone and everything. It's foolishness. There are truly fucked up people in this world with truly fucked up beliefs. You don't need to be "ok" with them. You need to confront them and help educate them. Fight ignorance, don't condone it. Help make the world a better place. If you have nothing to say in response to divinedefault, fine. But there's no reason to storm off in a huff and refuse further dialogue because he questions the authenticity of some of your claims. I doubted them too. Be a man. Deal with it. Get over it. Continue the dialogue if you can. If you can't, keep processing what he's said. He took a lot of time and spent a lot of effort replying to your blog post. You owe him more than this "I'M NOT TALKING TO YOU ANYMORE" nonsense.
Part II: This is the classic strawman section. I actually agree with the author that many of the examples given in most debates are evidence of the evil of men, but he fails to recognize that religion has historically provided cover for those actions. Slavery has historically enjoyed such cover. Misogony and homophobia have luxuriated and continue to luxuriate under such religious cover.
I'm quite familiar with the problem of evil and the author did absolutely nothing to negate this. If God knows that evil is happening every minute of the day, He either can do nothing to prevent it or doesn't care to. As Sam Harris points out, God is therefore either impotent or evil. Every day I hear from religious people who claim that God helped them in some manner. They regularly give Him praise for things that He does on their behalf. I find this to be narcissistic, callous, and completely immoral when I consider that at least a dozen children under the age of 5 will have died during the course of you reading my remarks here. They and their parents will beseech Heaven for food and water and this same God who answers frivolous prayers somehow finds these starving children unworthy. There is nothing humble about this line of thinking.
I fail to see how the fact that our holy texts (regardless of how they have been translated or cobbled together) have frequently been shown to be incorrect is a flawed argument. An omniscient being should be able to explain in unambiguous terms what it expects. No holy book fits that description. Whether it is stopping the planetary motion of either our sun or our planet for 24 hours to allow Joshua to finish his battle (Bible - Joshua 10:13) or Muhammad splitting the moon (Qur'an - 54:1-2), these are cosmological claims being made by our religions. I fail to see how my inability to read it in Arabic somehow makes this scientifically possible.
If there is a conflict between religion and science, I get the feeling that the author feels it's ok to reject the scientific account. The problem I have with this is that unlike religion, science is not subjective. It has been the most consistently reliable way for us to determine fact from fiction. When a religious person disputes evolution in favor of creationism or asserts the historicity of a prophet flying to Heaven on a winged horse, those are anti-scientific views. Plain and simple.
Part III: This section basically deals with the author's desire to treat other peoples' beliefs as sacred. As H. L. Mencken said, "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." What the author fails to understand is that beliefs directly influence our actions. If the creator of the universe commands us to kill people for imaginary crimes like witchcraft, should we respect that belief (FYI - witch burnings still happen in places like Kenya)? If someone wants a religious belief like creationism taught alongside evolution in our classrooms, is the appropriate response one of tolerance? Unlike Jesus, I don't think we should enact thought-crime legislation, but if religious people cannot keep their unsubstantiated beliefs in check, we must oblige them to.