Newsweek article on Atheism

[Hamradioguy]

Maybe an exclamation point or two should be added- Atheists are generally pretty low on Newsweek's radar screen. But the September 11th issue has a three page article titled "The New Naysayers" ( "In the midst of religious revival three scholars argue that atheism is smarter".) You'll recognize at least three names from past TAMs- Dawkins, Dennett, and astronomer Carolyn Porco.

[Cosmo]

Here's a link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14638243/site/newsweek/) to the article, though I've admittedly not read it yet. :)

[andyandy]

In a recent NEWSWEEK Poll, Americans said they believed in God by a margin of 92 to 6—only 2 percent answered "don't know"—and only 37 percent said they'd be willing to vote for an atheist for president. (That's down from 49 percent in a 1999 Gallup poll—which also found that more Americans would vote for a homosexual than an atheist.)

only 37% would be prepared to vote for an atheist? wow. Is "atheist" a dirty word like "liberal" in the US? I wonder what the UK figures are......

[Beady]

Is "atheist" a dirty word like "liberal" in the US?

Well, it's 1/2 of "godless Communism," which many people consider to be a redundancy.

The politician stupid enough to ignore or discount the effect of religion in the US deserves whatever happens to him.

[Dave1001]

only 37% would be prepared to vote for an atheist? wow. Is "atheist" a dirty word like "liberal" in the US? I wonder what the UK figures are......

I'm surprised and encouraged that 37% of Americans would vote for a public atheist. That's a much higher number than I would have predicted.

[canadarocks]

I'm surprised and encouraged that 37% of Americans would vote for a public atheist. That's a much higher number than I would have predicted.

Isn't there some law in the US that prevents atheists from holding public office (not sure if it's a State thing or a national thing).

As for the Newsweek article, I read Harris's book (End of Faith) for a secular humanist book club. I thought the first half of the book was very interesting and provided commentary on fundamentalist Islam (that I admittedly don't know much about) and how similar it can be to fundamentalist Christianity. I didn't care for the second half of the book where he goes into Eastern philosophies.

[Dave1001]

okay, just read the article. Overall great article.

As I've written in other posts, religion may be the meme equivalent of a virus, but that doesn't mean it's without use -just like real viruses. Real viruses can be efficient ways to insert new, beneficial genes into human dna through genetic engineering.

In the same way, evangelical religion may be the most efficient way to propagate ideas to most people.

Thus rather than just fight religion, I'd rather see Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, et al figure out how to exploit it for utilitarian benefit too. Porco seems to come the closest to advocating for that.

[JamesDillon]

Isn't there some law in the US that prevents atheists from holding public office (not sure if it's a State thing or a national thing).
Not any more. The Constitution says that there shall be no religious test for public office. There used to be religious requirements in the pre-constitution days, and the political reality is that no open atheist would ever actually win a national election, though some might stand a chance in local or even state elections in a few of the more enlightened pockets of our great Nation.

Like Dave, I'm surprised that the 37% figure is as high as it is.

[JamesDillon]

Thus rather than just fight religion, I'd rather see Dawkins, Harris, Dennet, et al figure out how to exploit it for utilitarian benefit too. Porco seems to come the closest to advocating for that.

I haven't read the article, but I disagree. The unreflective nature of faith makes it far too dangerous a tool for spreading ideas, however effective it may be at that. Jesus had some pretty good ideas too, but we've seen what happened when a community of faith took over and perverted his teaching. Like Dawkins, I'd much prefer to see the methodology of faith-based thinking eradicated entirely, rather than try to put it to "good" ends.

[brodski]

Not any more. The Constitution says that there shall be no religious test for public office. There used to be religious requirements in the pre-constitution days, and the political reality is that no open atheist would ever actually win a national election, though some might stand a chance in local or even state elections in a few of the more enlightened pockets of our great Nation.

Like Dave, I'm surprised that the 37% figure is as high as it is.
I'm pretty sure that someone here has posted that their state Constitution still stipulates that atheists cannot hold elected public office, it would be struck down if it where ever challenged, but as no declared atheist is ever likely to win an elected public office in that state anyway it has never been directly challenged.

Or I could have dreamed it.

[JamesDillon]

I'm pretty sure that someone here has posted that their state Constitution still stipulates that atheists cannot hold elected public office, it would be struck down if it where ever challenged, but as no declared atheist is ever likely to win an elected public office in that state anyway it has never been directly challenged.

Or I could have dreamed it.

No, you're right. I was actually just about to edit my post to correct that-- the No Religious Test Clause applies only to federal, not state, office. However, state religious requirements have generally been struck down under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. I believe there have been some successful challenges to those requirements, and I can't imagine any state trying to enforce them. So today, no state religious requirement would be held constitutional, either. I'm not sure if there are any such requirements still on the books in any states, but if there are, they are most certainly unenforceable.

[Marc L]

I'm pretty sure that someone here has posted that their state Constitution still stipulates that atheists cannot hold elected public office, it would be struck down if it where ever challenged, but as no declared atheist is ever likely to win an elected public office in that state anyway it has never been directly challenged.

Or I could have dreamed it.

On the other hand, when was the last time a non-Christian (let alone a non-theist) has ever been in a public office, state or federal?

Marc

[ponderingturtle]

Isn't there some law in the US that prevents atheists from holding public office (not sure if it's a State thing or a national thing).

I beleive that is in Texas. There are also religions that do not beleive in the right sort of god that are also barred from public jobs, like teachers and such. Not sure if it actualy applies to office holders or just employies

[ponderingturtle]

No, you're right. I was actually just about to edit my post to correct that-- the No Religious Test Clause applies only to federal, not state, office. However, state religious requirements have generally been struck down under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. I believe there have been some successful challenges to those requirements, and I can't imagine any state trying to enforce them. So today, no state religious requirement would be held constitutional, either. I'm not sure if there are any such requirements still on the books in any states, but if there are, they are most certainly unenforceable.

The texas law as I understand it isn't any particular relgion, it just needs to have a monotheistic god I think. So muslims pass, athiests fail.

[Lisa Simpson]

I beleive that is in Texas. There are also religions that do not beleive in the right sort of god that are also barred from public jobs, like teachers and such. Not sure if it actualy applies to office holders or just employies

I'm pretty sure it is Texas and mentioned in one of the commentaries by Mr. Randi.

[I less than three logic]

Interesting article, however, I wasn’t very fond of how it was closed.

If Dawkins, Dennett and Harris are right, the five-century-long competition between science and religion is sharpening. People are choosing sides. And when that happens, people get hurt.
Nothing like reinforcing the stereotype that science, and Atheists, are some dangerous threat. :(

[JamesDillon]

I'm pretty sure it is Texas and mentioned in one of the commentaries by Mr. Randi.

It wouldn't surprise me that Texas may have such a law, but I do think that such a law would quickly be held unconstitutional if it were ever challenged, so I'd be very surprised if Texas has tried to enforce it in the last several decades.

[KingMerv00]

On the other hand, when was the last time a non-Christian (let alone a non-theist) has ever been in a public office, state or federal?

Marc

Lieberman is Jewish isn't he? He was a senator and nearly became vice-president.

[JamesDillon]

Lieberman is Jewish isn't he? He was a senator and nearly became vice-president.

Yes, and there are plenty of other non-Christian public officials. It should be noted that "public office" for purposes of the No Religious Test clause does not merely mean elected office; as a federal employee, I hold a "public office," as does the Jewish federal judge for whom I work.

[ponderingturtle]

Here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm) is the details of the texas law, it requires the "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being" as a requirement for holding any state job. And it is the texas constitution.

[JamesDillon]

Here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm) is the details of the texas law, it requires the "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being" as a requirement for holding any state job. And it is the texas constitution.

That is weird. The Texas constitution does say that, and oddly there doesn't seem to have been much of an effort to challenge it. Madeline Murray O'Hair brought a few cases back in the 80s that were apparently dismissed either for lack of standing, or inane legal theories (apparently she tried to invoke the "republican form of government" clause in Article 4, Section 4, which was stupid). The few other challenges appear to have been dismissed on various procedural grounds-- apparently the courts don't want to weigh in on the constitutionality of this. On the other hand, there doesn't appear to have been a constitutional challenge since Ms. O'Hair's efforts, so perhaps a court today would be more willing to take it on. I also rather suspect that the clause has not been invoked to actually preclude a non-theist from holding state office.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I'm surprised and encouraged that 37% of Americans would vote for a public atheist. That's a much higher number than I would have predicted.

Well, there is always the Jesse Ventura approach.

http://www.americanatheist.org/smr00/T1/barrier.html

Last year, when Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, in a Playboy magazine interview, called organized religion a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers, there was a great hue and cry by the religious. In a subsequent TV appearance, Gov. Ventura then said he accepted Jesus, and everything quieted down. Ventura knew that a quick flash of hypocrisy would calm the din, and it did.

[ponderingturtle]

Well, there is always the Jesse Ventura approach.

http://www.americanatheist.org/smr00/T1/barrier.html

Last year, when Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura, in a Playboy magazine interview, called organized religion a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers, there was a great hue and cry by the religious. In a subsequent TV appearance, Gov. Ventura then said he accepted Jesus, and everything quieted down. Ventura knew that a quick flash of hypocrisy would calm the din, and it did.



The two statements are not at odds with each other, as there is a distiction between organized religion and faith

[Katana]

The two statements are not at odds with each other, as there is a distiction between organized religion and faith
I'm not sure I follow your argument unless accepting Jesus can be emblematic of faith alone separate from a belief in an organized religion. Can it?

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not sure I follow your argument unless accepting Jesus can be emblematic of faith alone separate from a belief in an organized religion. Can it?

Why not? I know of some disorganized religions out there(I am thinking of quaker meetings first). You can believe in a religion and not have an organized religion in the normally accepted sense. Look at newage, it is a religion but I am sure no one would call it organized.

[JamesDillon]

I'm not sure I follow your argument unless accepting Jesus can be emblematic of faith alone separate from a belief in an organized religion. Can it?
If you read the transcript (http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/ventura3.htm) of Ventura's comments, that seems to be what he's saying-- that he believes in Jesus but doesn't believe in the necessity of an organized church.

Shameless political cop-out, obviously, since Jesus specifically directed the organization of a church, but it seems to have appeased the masses.

[Katana]

Why not? I know of some disorganized religions out there(I am thinking of quaker meetings first). You can believe in a religion and not have an organized religion in the normally accepted sense. Look at newage, it is a religion but I am sure no one would call it organized.
I understand what you're getting at, ponderingturtle, but I was looking at it much the same way as JamesDillon, specifically the part that I bolded.

If you read the transcript (http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/ventura3.htm) of Ventura's comments, that seems to be what he's saying-- that he believes in Jesus but doesn't believe in the necessity of an organized church.

Shameless political cop-out, obviously, since Jesus specifically directed the organization of a church, but it seems to have appeased the masses.

From the link that JamesD provided:

Mr Russert: {snip}

Governor, as you know, 65 percent of the people in your state, some three million, are members of organized religion. Do you believe that priests and nuns and ministers and rabbis are really could be considered weak-minded people ?

GOV. VENTURA: No, I don t, not necessarily. And being weak-minded is not necessarily a detriment, Tim. It just means that you have a weakness and, therefore, you go to organized religion to help strengthen yourself. That s the context in which I talked about it. And for those people, it s OK.
That really is pathetic. Since when is weak-minded anything less than an insult (or a detriment)? I suppose when it allows you to dig yourself out of a political hole. :rolleyes:

[ponderingturtle]

I understand what you're getting at, ponderingturtle, but I was looking at it much the same way as JamesDillon, specifically the part that I bolded.


I am sure there are people who concider that words put in the text later by the church to support it's agenda. The document that gave all of europe to the church would be a similar example of them rewriteing history.


From the link that JamesD provided:

That really is pathetic. Since when is weak-minded anything less than an insult (or a detriment)? I suppose when it allows you to dig yourself out of a political hole. :rolleyes:

No that is a cop out. I just don't think believing in christ and dislikeing organized religion are fundamentaly opposed.

[Marc L]

Yes, and there are plenty of other non-Christian public officials. It should be noted that "public office" for purposes of the No Religious Test clause does not merely mean elected office; as a federal employee, I hold a "public office," as does the Jewish federal judge for whom I work.

Ah. I was specifically referring to elected offices. I apologize for misusing the term. Certainly, as a member of the military, I also hold a "public office." Lieberman is a good example, however, since he did come close to being vice-President.

Marc

[JamesDillon]

Ah. I was specifically referring to elected offices. I apologize for misusing the term. Certainly, as a member of the military, I also hold a "public office." Lieberman is a good example, however, since he did come close to being vice-President.

Marc
No need for apologies, but it is important to remember that the no religious test provision of the Constitution applies to any kind of federal office, including the military and the judiciary. You're right, of course, that it would be very difficult for a non-theist, and in some places even a non-Christian, to actually be elected to public office, no matter what the Constitution has to say about it.

[ImaginalDisc]

In addition to Dr. Dennet, another TAM 4 geust is quoted in the article.

On the science Web site Edge.org, the astronomer Carolyn Porco offers the subversive suggestion that science itself should attempt to supplant God in Western culture, by providing the benefits and comforts people find in religion: community, ceremony and a sense of awe. "Imagine congregations raising their voices in tribute to gravity, the force that binds us all to the Earth, and the Earth to the Sun, and the Sun to the Milky Way," she writes. Porco, who is deeply involved in the Cassini mission to Saturn, finds spiritual fulfillment in exploring the cosmos. But will that work for the rest of the world—for "the people who want to know that they're going to live forever and meet Mom and Dad in heaven? We can't offer that."

[Dave1001]

for "the people who want to know that they're going to live forever and meet Mom and Dad in heaven? We can't offer that."

Umm, that's because she's an astronomer, not a biomedical scientist/engineer.

[JamesDillon]

Umm, that's because she's an astronomer, not a biomedical scientist/engineer.

I'm not a biomedical scientist or engineer, but I would think that they couldn't offer eternal life in heaven, either.

[Dave1001]

I'm not a biomedical scientist or engineer, but I would think that they couldn't offer eternal life in heaven, either.

Well if heaven means more than 100 miles beyond the Earth's surface, and eternal life means ... eternal life, then the late Gerard K. O'Neill and Aubrey de Gray are offering the path to something I'd be interested in buying.

[elliotfc]

If you read the transcript (http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/ventura3.htm) of Ventura's comments, that seems to be what he's saying-- that he believes in Jesus but doesn't believe in the necessity of an organized church.

OF COURSE an organized church is not necessary. That's not the same, or an excuse, as/for insulting those who are into the concept

Shameless political cop-out, obviously, since Jesus specifically directed the organization of a church, but it seems to have appeased the masses.

There was organized religion before Jesus of course, and his followers already had an organized relgion, so it kind of evolved from there.



It is a very popular, and unprovable theory that a world without religion would be a better world. Here are some questions...

1) Was religion ever a boon to humanity?
2) Is religion necessarily and essentially bad, or, is it bad only in how it is practiced, how it influences people to act, etc.?
3) Would there be more people alive today if there were no religion?
4) Would people live longer lifespans if religion was eradicated?
5) To what extent would those who feel that RELIGION IS TRULY AND TOTALLY BAD BAD BAD go to fight religion? For if it is REALLY BAD FOR HUMANITY you figure you ought to go to...well...pretty far lengths to fight it and destroy it. Right?
6) Would people be happier/more content without religion?
7) Is the fundamental problem with religion adminstrative (hierarchy, procedure, etc), popular (the adherents and their morality, or lack thereof, or failure to do any of a number of things to keep their religion in check or something lke that, or non-personal (the ideas behind a religion, the appeal to the non-human, etc). Or a combination, there is no one aspect that is notably worse than the others?
8) Would literature be better with or without religion?
9) Would wars/despots/isms/crime/sociopathy be greater or lesser in a world without religion?
10) If religious people were truer to their religious convictions would you hold religion in a higher esteem?

[Dave1001]

OF COURSE an organized church is not necessary. That's not the same, or an excuse, as/for insulting those who are into the concept



There was organized religion before Jesus of course, and his followers already had an organized relgion, so it kind of evolved from there.



It is a very popular, and unprovable theory that a world without religion would be a better world. Here are some questions...

1) Was religion ever a boon to humanity?
2) Is religion necessarily and essentially bad, or, is it bad only in how it is practiced, how it influences people to act, etc.?
3) Would there be more people alive today if there were no religion?
4) Would people live longer lifespans if religion was eradicated?
5) To what extent would those who feel that RELIGION IS TRULY AND TOTALLY BAD BAD BAD go to fight religion? For if it is REALLY BAD FOR HUMANITY you figure you ought to go to...well...pretty far lengths to fight it and destroy it. Right?
6) Would people be happier/more content without religion?
7) Is the fundamental problem with religion adminstrative (hierarchy, procedure, etc), popular (the adherents and their morality, or lack thereof, or failure to do any of a number of things to keep their religion in check or something lke that, or non-personal (the ideas behind a religion, the appeal to the non-human, etc). Or a combination, there is no one aspect that is notably worse than the others?
8) Would literature be better with or without religion?
9) Would wars/despots/isms/crime/sociopathy be greater or lesser in a world without religion?
10) If religious people were truer to their religious convictions would you hold religion in a higher esteem?

Good questions. I have more of a naturalist approach to religion: it's one of the more effective meme propagators we've seen in the field, right up there with pop music and hollywood movies.

I don't want to see religions eliminated any more than retroviruses. I'd like to see them harnessed to efficiently propagate utilitarian memes. Such as tithe to biomedical research. Also I'd like to see a nice parable inserted into the major religions telling believers not to irrationally avoid more vivid losses for soceity such that society suffers greater actual losses.

[elliotfc]

In addition to Dr. Dennet, another TAM 4 geust is quoted in the article.

Imagine congregations raising their voice in tribute to gravity?

Good luck with that one Ms. Porco. I hope she's not pining for that one. Porco pines. Arf arf.

What a wonderful look into a person's way of looking at the other. Yeah...the religious...they're just into ceremony. A sense of awe. That's all it is. There's nothing else to it.

And the great thing is that she's got a testably hypothesis. So test it. And good luck with it.

-Elliot

[JamesDillon]

It is a very popular, and unprovable theory that a world without religion would be a better world. Here are some questions...

Your questions are fundamentally misguided. Who cares if people would be happier, or the world a cozier place, if everyone believed in God, or if no one did? The truth of a proposition is not judged by the consequences of its acceptance. Two plus two equals four, regardless of whether everyone would be happier believing that it equals six. The question of whether God exists, or does not exist, has an objectively true answer that is in no way dependent on what it would make people happier to believe.

[elliotfc]

Good questions. I have more of a naturalist approach to religion: it's one of the more effective meme propagators we've seen in the field, right up there with pop music and hollywood movies.

I'd sort of agree if you had better...examples. What memes are pop music circulating exactly?

I don't want to see religions eliminated any more than retroviruses. I'd like to see them harnessed to efficiently propagate utilitarian memes.

Get some volunteers, young'uns, to infiltrate, and accede to the hierarchies. That's the best way to do it. What do you think? How would you go about hijacking, I mean harnessing, religion?

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

Your questions are fundamentally misguided. Who cares if people would be happier, or the world a cozier place, if everyone believed in God, or if no one did?

That was only *one* of the questions.

I think that many people would care. I respect that you are not one of those persons.

I suspect that you and I are of a similar ilk in that we both would prefer to align with what is true over what would make us feel better. Having said that, I don't think that's necessarily a good thing, in and of itself. If another person lives a happier life, and is just as good a person as me, who may live a more...errr....intellectually obsessive life, that's great.

truth of a proposition is not judged by the consequences of its acceptance.

Sure. Yet both things are relevant to life in general, no? In that spirit I asked the question (and it was only 1 out of 10), because human happiness and contentment is a very important issue in the lives of *everyone*, though some would not compromise selected standards in the pursuit.

Two plus two equals four, regardless of whether everyone would be happier believing that it equals six. The question of whether God exists, or does not exist, has an objectively true answer that is in no way dependent on what it would make people happier to believe.

I agree that it has an objectively true answer (and that wasn't one of my questions of course) independent of human happiness. It was with that certain and total understanding that I asked the question. Because the question is relevant to many. You agree, no? And since it is relevant to many, is it our job to be judgmental about that? Or not. Is it none of our business? Or, is it acceptable to be happy and content while not placing a premium on objective truth? I think you're answered those questions great from your perspective. Can I assume that you believe that it would be better for everyone to share your perspective?

-Elliot

[Dave1001]

I'd sort of agree if you had better...examples. What memes are pop music circulating exactly?


One recent example is how pop songs circulated anti-communist memes quite effectively in America: communists and socialists never had an equally salient response to the pro-capitalism memes circulated by hip hop in the '80s and '90s.




Get some volunteers, young'uns, to infiltrate, and accede to the hierarchies. That's the best way to do it. What do you think? How would you go about hijacking, I mean harnessing, religion?

-Elliot

Your approach isn't bad. A Manchurian pope. :D

[JamesDillon]

That was only *one* of the questions.
It was not only one of the questions-- every question you posed raised some aspect of the same fundamental question: whether belief or unbelief is better from a utilitarian perspective. I summarized your questions in the most generic utilitarian terms (i.e., happiness), but none of those questions are relevant to the objective truth of the existence of God.

I suspect that you and I are of a similar ilk in that we both would prefer to align with what is true over what would make us feel better. Having said that, I don't think that's necessarily a good thing, in and of itself. If another person lives a happier life, and is just as good a person as me, who may live a more...errr....intellectually obsessive life, that's great.
I suppose this is true-- belief in truth over convenient fiction deserves some defense, as it is not (I grudgingly admit) self-evident to everyone.

I agree that it has an objectively true answer (and that wasn't one of my questions of course) independent of human happiness. It was with that certain and total understanding that I asked the question. Because the question is relevant to many. You agree, no? And since it is relevant to many, is it our job to be judgmental about that? Or not. Is it none of our business? Or, is it acceptable to be happy and content while not placing a premium on objective truth? I think you're answered those questions great from your perspective. Can I assume that you believe that it would be better for everyone to share your perspective?

-Elliot
You're right. You were asking a different question than the one I responded to. I'll have to think about that. You're right, of course, that my view is that it's best to believe the truth, insofar as possible, regardless of whether doing so leads to a happier or more content life. Maybe that's just a value judgment that has no objective interpersonal appeal, though. It would be an interesting thread in itself.

[Wheezebucket]

"After hearing once too often that "[t]o blame the attacks on Islam is like blaming Christianity for the fighting in Northern Ireland," Dawkins responded: Precisely. "It's time to get angry," he wrote, "and not only with Islam.""

Good article. Didn't even know about Dennett's new book, looking forward to that.

[elliotfc]

One recent example is how pop songs circulated anti-communist memes quite effectively in America: communists and socialists never had an equally salient response to the pro-capitalism memes circulated by hip hop in the '80s and '90s.

I see. Like songs in commercials.

It's true that lots of people who listen to the same kind of music share the same beliefs in general. If you're into death metal or Marilyn Manson...rap...I felt really out of place at the Magnetic Fields show I was at. But whatever.

-Elliot

[elliotfc]

It was not only one of the questions-- every question you posed raised some aspect of the same fundamental question: whether belief or unbelief is better from a utilitarian perspective. I summarized your questions in the most generic utilitarian terms (i.e., happiness), but none of those questions are relevant to the objective truth of the existence of God.

Agreed. I was quite cognizant then when asking the questions, and now, for what it's worth. I think it's important to look at things in a variety of ways, and accept the reality that not everyone thinks like me, and certainly not everyone agrees about what is and what isn't objective truth.

I suppose this is true-- belief in truth over convenient fiction deserves some defense, as it is not (I grudgingly admit) self-evident to everyone.

Why? Should it be self-evident to everyone? And if it isn't...well, then it wouldn't be a question of blame, would it? What can you be, besides frustrated, with such people? Or can you try to accept them as they are?

We all live and we all die. That too is objective reality. There are many ways to operate, intellectually, within that reality.

And a skeptic can say you only believe in truth because it makes you happy and content, and that if it didn't make you happy or content, then you wouldn't make such a statement, or at least be so adamant about it. No, not happy as in some kind of banal or tunnel-vision happy. But happy and content in the most elevated and intellectual sense. And I do detect some disdain for those who you say believe in convenient fiction. So you couldn't *possibly* ever believe in convenient fiction, could you? So basically you're believing in the only thing that could make you happy, because if you believed in the other you'd be what you find distasteful. Did that sound harsh? I didn't mean it to be harsh.

-Elliot

[ImaginalDisc]

"After hearing once too often that "[t]o blame the attacks on Islam is like blaming Christianity for the fighting in Northern Ireland," Dawkins responded: Precisely. "It's time to get angry," he wrote, "and not only with Islam.""

Good article. Didn't even know about Dennett's new book, looking forward to that.

Then, I recommend you see the TAM 4 DVD. He delivered gave a talk making some of the main points of his, then upcomming, book.

[ponderingturtle]

1) Was religion ever a boon to humanity?

This can not be objectively measured

2) Is religion necessarily and essentially bad, or, is it bad only in how it is practiced, how it influences people to act, etc.?

Are cancer or genetic desease essentially bad?

3) Would there be more people alive today if there were no religion?

This cann't be measured either, as there is also the ecconomic disincentive to children in the modern world instead of the ecconomic advantage that they used to provide. Simple ecconomics can also explain changes in population growth

4) Would people live longer lifespans if religion was eradicated?

In many cases it is quite likely, they depend on prayer and magic waters and such to heal them instead of effective medicince

5) To what extent would those who feel that RELIGION IS TRULY AND TOTALLY BAD BAD BAD go to fight religion? For if it is REALLY BAD FOR HUMANITY you figure you ought to go to...well...pretty far lengths to fight it and destroy it. Right?

Historicaly the only ones who go to such methods agenst religion are those who feel threatened by organizations outside their control


6) Would people be happier/more content without religion?

This can not be objectively measured, but certainly religion can be shown to cause many individuals alot of pain with their superstitions

7) Is the fundamental problem with religion adminstrative (hierarchy, procedure, etc), popular (the adherents and their morality, or lack thereof, or failure to do any of a number of things to keep their religion in check or something lke that, or non-personal (the ideas behind a religion, the appeal to the non-human, etc). Or a combination, there is no one aspect that is notably worse than the others?

The way that people artibute moral authority to an organization is a very dangerous thing, more so than some other parts like soup kitchens

8) Would literature be better with or without religion?

First you would need to come up with some method of measureing the quality of literature in an objective fashion

9) Would wars/despots/isms/crime/sociopathy be greater or lesser in a world without religion?

This can not be shown either way, as there have not been enough societies with out religion to accurately get a measure on that. In reduceing blind obedience to an authority figure it might be quite helpful in reduceing such things.

10) If religious people were truer to their religious convictions would you hold religion in a higher esteem?

No, why should I respect superstitions with a different name?

[scotth]

I'm surprised and encouraged that 37% of Americans would vote for a public atheist. That's a much higher number than I would have predicted.

Me too.

[scotth]

That is weird. The Texas constitution does say that, and oddly there doesn't seem to have been much of an effort to challenge it. Madeline Murray O'Hair brought a few cases back in the 80s that were apparently dismissed either for lack of standing, or inane legal theories (apparently she tried to invoke the "republican form of government" clause in Article 4, Section 4, which was stupid). The few other challenges appear to have been dismissed on various procedural grounds-- apparently the courts don't want to weigh in on the constitutionality of this. On the other hand, there doesn't appear to have been a constitutional challenge since Ms. O'Hair's efforts, so perhaps a court today would be more willing to take it on. I also rather suspect that the clause has not been invoked to actually preclude a non-theist from holding state office.

I have considered running for some minor office just to have the opportunity to challenge it. If it wasn't such a dangerous thing to do from an employment perspective, I would probably do it. I'd be the Dallas Newdow.

If I was known as "that atheist" down here, there are enough people in most workplaces that would object to my company, that I would be essentially unhirable. I'm not saying everyone is that way, but enough are.

[JamesDillon]

I have considered running for some minor office just to have the opportunity to challenge it. If it wasn't such a dangerous thing to do from an employment perspective, I would probably do it. I'd be the Dallas Newdow.

If I was known as "that atheist" down here, there are enough people in most workplaces that would object to my company, that I would be essentially unhirable. I'm not saying everyone is that way, but enough are.

I think you'd probably win, but you're right that the social costs might not be worth it. Ms. O'Hair certainly had her share of troubles with the local believers, not even counting her unfortunate end, which I don't think was ideologically-motivated.

[The Atheist]

Whoa, it's times like these make me wish I lived in USA. I struggle to find people to shock in this happy, secular land of ours.

I wouldn't even need to be the Extreme Atheist in USA. I am so jealous. Even our Prime Minister's an avowed agnostic. Nobody even mentions it, religion just isn't a topic outside of bible colleges and christian schools here.

Edited to add: I too, am absolutely shocked at the 37% percent figure. And even more shocked that you're surprised it's so HIGH! I suggest that over 37% of Kiwis wouldn't vote for a christian, but 80% or more would be happy to vote for an atheist.

[elliotfc]

This can not be objectively measured.

Sheesh, well not with that attitude!

Can you objectively measure that religoin has ever been a pox to humanity? If so, why or how?

Are cancer or genetic desease essentially bad?

You compare religion to cancer or genetic disease then? At least this means you don't blame religious people for being religious. I mean, you wouldn't blame a kid with leukemia for having leukemia, right?

Historicaly the only ones who go to such methods agenst religion are those who feel threatened by organizations outside their control

Are there things in existence or the human experience that are actually worth eradicating by what we may call extreme measures? If so, does religion rise to that level? Only some religions?

This can not be objectively measured, but certainly religion can be shown to cause many individuals alot of pain with their superstitions

How about pleasure? Or can pleasure (or happiness/contentment) not be objectively measured?

The way that people artibute moral authority to an organization is a very dangerous thing, more so than some other parts like soup kitchens

I agree that soup kitchens aren't very dangerous, except for the soup kitchen in the movie CHUD where AJ worked, Val was kind of scary dude.

First you would need to come up with some method of measureing the quality of literature in an objective fashion

I was looking for subjective opinions on most of these, I don't *need* to come up with anything, nor do you need to be interested in these questions, and I reckon you really aren't.

No, why should I respect superstitions with a different name?

I didn't bring up name change?

-Elliot

[scotth]

Whoa, it's times like these make me wish I lived in USA. I struggle to find people to shock in this happy, secular land of ours.

I wouldn't even need to be the Extreme Atheist in USA. I am so jealous. Even our Prime Minister's an avowed agnostic. Nobody even mentions it, religion just isn't a topic outside of bible colleges and christian schools here.

Edited to add: I too, am absolutely shocked at the 37% percent figure. And even more shocked that you're surprised it's so HIGH! I suggest that over 37% of Kiwis wouldn't vote for a christian, but 80% or more would be happy to vote for an atheist.

Can you make room for a couple more over there? Heck, I'll trade ya. You come here, and we'll go there.

We've been considering coming to NZ next year to do a dirt bike riding vacation. (Don't ask me how that tidbit is related to the discussion).

[JamesDillon]

Agreed. I was quite cognizant then when asking the questions, and now, for what it's worth. I think it's important to look at things in a variety of ways, and accept the reality that not everyone thinks like me, and certainly not everyone agrees about what is and what isn't objective truth.
Not everyone agrees about it, but I think there are reasonably reliable methods for distinguishing objective truth from non-truth, regardless of whether any given number of people ever recognize the truth as such. I htink the more interesting question, which you've raised below, is whether believing the truth is a good in itself.

And a skeptic can say you only believe in truth because it makes you happy and content, and that if it didn't make you happy or content, then you wouldn't make such a statement, or at least be so adamant about it. No, not happy as in some kind of banal or tunnel-vision happy. But happy and content in the most elevated and intellectual sense. And I do detect some disdain for those who you say believe in convenient fiction. So you couldn't *possibly* ever believe in convenient fiction, could you? So basically you're believing in the only thing that could make you happy, because if you believed in the other you'd be what you find distasteful. Did that sound harsh? I didn't mean it to be harsh.

-Elliot
No, I don't think it sounds harsh; it's an interesting question and I took my time replying only because I needed to think about it. I'm still not sure I have a good answer, though. It does seem to me that people should believe truth over falsehood, even where the falsehood is more emotionally comforting, simply because the truth is, well, true. Asked if I hold that position simply because it makes me happy, I might be tempted to point out that being an atheist doesn't make me particularly happy; in many ways I might prefer to believe that there is some ultimate force of good in the universe watching over everything, and that my consciousness will be something more than an imperceptible flicker in the history of the world. But that answer doesn't really address the issue, because the reason I can't happily wrap myself in comforting theism is because I believe that believing the truth is always better than believing a myth, and you suggest, quite rightly I think, that that belief itself is a value judgment that has no objective validation. One might point to the practical benefits of striving to believe truth over falsehood, for example it tends to aid in one's own survival and assists technological progress, but plenty of people get by perfectly well holding their various religious beliefs, and in any case an argument from practical benefit is just an argument about value; it doesn't remove the issue from the field of subjective judgment. I'm having a pretty hard time coming up with a defense of that view that isn't merely a subjective value judgment; I still believe my judgment is right, and perhaps I could offer arguments that might persuade someone who thought otherwise, but I can't see any justification for the argument that someone who believes that believing a comforting falsehood is better than believing the truth is wrong in the same sense that someone who believes that 2+2=4 is wrong. I'd be interested in hearing other opinions on this.

[ponderingturtle]

Sheesh, well not with that attitude!

Can you objectively measure that religoin has ever been a pox to humanity? If so, why or how?

So religion has never be the cause of any conflict or large numbers of death in human history? Good to know that the whole religious war thing is new.


You compare religion to cancer or genetic disease then? At least this means you don't blame religious people for being religious. I mean, you wouldn't blame a kid with leukemia for having leukemia, right?

No I was saying that it is hard to ever measure what is good or bad. You seem to think that all genetic problems are bad then and anyone with them are pure victims?

How about pleasure? Or can pleasure (or happiness/contentment) not be objectively measured?

Please provide a technique for measureing such a thing


I was looking for subjective opinions on most of these, I don't *need* to come up with anything, nor do you need to be interested in these questions, and I reckon you really aren't.


Good to know that you don't actualy pretend to know anything I guess. Your questions are pointless because you do not have enough large scale athiesm in history to see how such a society would differ from a religious, and what cases to treat as unusual vs common.

[elliotfc]

It does seem to me that people should believe truth over falsehood, even where the falsehood is more emotionally comforting, simply because the truth is, well, true.

This is a moral position that I agree with.

Asked if I hold that position simply because it makes me happy, I might be tempted to point out that being an atheist doesn't make me particularly happy;

I tried to pre-emptively negate this one. I'm thinking more about intellectual contentment...

in many ways I might prefer to believe that there is some ultimate force of good in the universe watching over everything,

But once you *delve* into the notion it wouldn't make you happy, would it? It *could* make you happy in the abstract, in the vaguest sense, but not in an intellectually real sense.

One might point to the practical benefits of striving to believe truth over falsehood, for example it tends to aid in one's own survival and assists technological progress, but plenty of people get by perfectly well holding their various religious beliefs,

Yes, something I point out often. Two things. First, this "plenty of people" have no compunction in benefitting from the fruits of those who strive to believe truth over falsehood (assuming that the religious people believe in a falsehood, no point in debating that one right now). Second, religous people have and continue to contribute to technological progress.

I'm clipping your post liberally but nothing out of context of course.

but I can't see any justification for the argument that someone who believes that believing a comforting falsehood is better than believing the truth is wrong in the same sense that someone who believes that 2+2=4 is wrong. I'd be interested in hearing other opinions on this.

I brought up true/false only to accomodate. Personally I see a lot of doubt in topics where I reckon you don't see doubt. People who you think believe in falsehoods think they believe truth, and they probably think that you believe in falsehoods when you believe in truth, so at least you have that in common. :)

-Elliot