The earth is only 6000 years old.

[itinerant1]

I agree that Dawkins is no religious expert, but The God Delusion aside, Dawkins is a science writer and I read him for his science, not his atheism. However, he does make a few valid points in that book, most notably the dangers of religious fanaticism. Islamic Fundamentalism and Christian Fundamentalism have proven themselves to be dangerous.

Don’t you see a real problem here? Dawkins writes 400 pages and only makes, according to your statement, “a few valid points.”

But even Dawkin’s statements about religious fundamentalism do not stand up to serious scrutiny.

The claim that religious fundamentalism is dangerous represents a most superficial judgment. The definitive study on terrorism by Robert A. Pape, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terror reveals political motives as predominant amongst Islamic “terrorists”. Pape’s in depth study confirms my own research in this area which reveals a politicized version of Islam amongst a very small minority of Islamists.

Yet Dawkin’s main point is that Christianity in general is a force for evil. This is utter nonsense. The scholar Michael Ruse, who describes himself as “a hard-line Darwinian”, sent an email to both Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins in which he says in part, “…neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas–it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard [Dawkins] claims…”

The book you recommend employs the erroneous phrase ‘Atheist Fundamentalism.’ For that reason it is inherently flawed. Whenever people claim that atheism is a religion or science is a religion they are misusing language for propagnada purposes. Atheism is not a religion; it is by definition the opposite of religion.

Oh my! In the murder mystery novel Murder in the Glass Room it says “you can never tell a book by its cover.” There is much truth to that statement. And I doubt that you have even seen the cover of The Dawkin’s Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine by Alister E. McGrath and Joanna C. McGrath. You have assumed what the authors mean by “atheist fundamentalism” without having read the book. Hence, there can be no merit to your comments.

But let us still look at your statement, “Atheism is not a religion.” I think you will find many learned people disagreeing with you. You should read an in depth study of atheism such as The God’s of Atheism by Fr. Vincent P. Miceli. Also, are you familiar with Jacques Maritain, the leading Catholic Thomist philosopher of the 20th century? He says “Absolute atheism starts in an act of faith in reverse gear and is a full-blown religious commitment. Here we have the first internal inconsistency of contemporary atheism: it proclaims that all religion must necessarily vanish away, and it is itself a religious phenomenon.” (The Range of Reason)

Also, the writings of Pope Paul VI reflect similar thoughts on the subject of atheism.

I agree with Dawkins that religious fundamentalism is dangerous. In all my life I have never seen an atheist or a scientist fly a plane into a building to make an atheistic or scientific point. I have, however, stood at the river and watched religious fundamentalists fly a plane into the second tower. I also heard the Our Fathers and Hail Marys uttered by some of the other people standing there, amidst the screaming and crying. I bring this up because the atheists are right that religion is dangerous, but I hope they’re not right that the only way to protect ourselves from the dangers of religion is to eliminate religion.

As awful as 9/11 was you present a very skewed perspective on violence. 9/11 pales in comparison to the Nazi pogroms, or the significantly more millions of people murdered by Stalin. And Pol Pot killed at least a million people. Try reading The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Mark Kramer, Jonathan Murphy, Stephane Courtois, and Jean-Louis Panne for a real eye-opener about the violence of atheistic communism.

The reality is people commit violence in the name of religion, or to eliminate religion, or in the name of a political ideology such as communism, and for many other reasons. Atheistic communism is responsible for more murders in the 20th century than have occurred in all of past history combined. The 20th century was the bloodiest of all centuries and it was not primarily due to religion or religious fundamentalists.

Dawkins wrote 400 pages of gibberish. I actually thought he was going out of his mind like Frederick Nietzsche did late in life. We shall see.

Michael Ruse spoke admirably when he said, “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why.”

 

[itinerant1]

Did I mention ID? Why the knee-jerk reaction?

I invite everyone to read the following. The key points are made in the first two paragraphs.

nytimes.com/2005/07/07/opinion/07schonborn.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

In case you are thinking think Cardinal Schönborn’s reference to “intelligent design” involves ID theory here is the correction:

“My argument was based neither on theology nor modern science nor “intelligent design theory.” In theology, although the mind’s ability to grasp the order and design in nature is adopted by, taken up into, and elevated to new heights by the faith of Christianity, that ability precedes faith, as Romans 1:19-20 makes clear. In science, the discipline and methods are such that design—more precisely, formal and final causes in natural beings—is purposefully excluded from its reductionist conception of nature.”

(from The Designs of Science by Christoph Cardinal Schönborn)

Furthermore, regarding the NYT article by Schönborn, the Foreword to Chance or Purpose by Schönborn says, “There were two things Cardinal Schönborn did not intend, as he several times emphasized in public statements. On the one hand, the valuable work done by many scientists engaged in honest research should not be belittled. On the other hand, “creationism” – that is, the view that the first chapter of the Bible should be understood literally as a report of events, and thus along the lines of scientific text–is not an acceptable theological position.”

 

[larkin31]

Pride is one of the 7 Deadly sins you know. Is “embarrassment”, a form of pride, what motivates you instead of love?

Not all pride is a sin, I don’t think.

 

[itinerant1]

Not all pride is a sin, I don’t think.

No need to waste time on eucharisteo’s post – it was irrelevant to the thread topic or anything being discussed; it was an ad hominen. Sad!

 

[SugarMagnolia]

Don’t you see a real problem here? Dawkins writes 400 pages and only makes, according to your statement, “a few valid points.”

But even Dawkin’s statements about religious fundamentalism do not stand up to serious scrutiny.

The claim that religious fundamentalism is dangerous represents a most superficial judgment. The definitive study on terrorism by Robert A. Pape, Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terror reveals political motives as predominant amongst Islamic “terrorists”. Pape’s in depth study confirms my own research in this area which reveals a politicized version of Islam amongst a very small minority of Islamists.

Yet Dawkin’s main point is that Christianity in general is a force for evil. This is utter nonsense. The scholar Michael Ruse, who describes himself as “a hard-line Darwinian”, sent an email to both Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins in which he says in part, “…neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas–it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard [Dawkins] claims…”

Oh my! In the murder mystery novel Murder in the Glass Room it says “you can never tell a book by its cover.” There is much truth to that statement. And I doubt that you have even seen the cover of The Dawkin’s Delusion? Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine by Alister E. McGrath and Joanna C. McGrath. You have assumed what the authors mean by “atheist fundamentalism” without having read the book. Hence, there can be no merit to your comments.

I could only comment on the title because I have not read the book.

But let us still look at your statement, “Atheism is not a religion.” I think you will find many learned people disagreeing with you. You should read an in depth study of atheism such as The God’s of Atheism by Fr. Vincent P. Miceli. Also, are you familiar with Jacques Maritain, the leading Catholic Thomist philosopher of the 20th century? He says “Absolute atheism starts in an act of faith in reverse gear and is a full-blown religious commitment. Here we have the first internal inconsistency of contemporary atheism: it proclaims that all religion must necessarily vanish away, and it is itself a religious phenomenon.” (The Range of Reason)

Atheism is not an act of faith. It is the exact opposite of an act of faith. I find the claim that ‘atheism is a religion’ to be amongst the most bizarre things I have ever heard. Atheists do not believe in the existence of beings that other people claim exist; that’s all there is to it. They don’t believe in Yahweh. They don’t believe in Allah. They don’t believe in Vishnu. And why should they? No one has ever offered them a shred of evidence that any of these beings exist. If you want to convince somebody that something exists, you have to offer them some evidence. Simply saying, “I believe in ___, so you should too” is not evidence of anything. To an atheist, there is no more reason to believe in Yahweh than there is to believe in the flying spaghetti monster. And just because the FSM is a more recent “deity” than Yahweh means nothing; let’s remember that Yahweh is a more recent deity than Vishnu. Some people are simply capable of believing in things just because somebody told them too. Such people probably would believe in the FSM if they were rasied by parents who sincerely taught it to them as impresisonable children and sent them to schools full of other children taught the same thing. Evidence of this is the fact that all around the world there are people who believe in Vishnu even though we know there is no such thing as Vishnu, or Avalokiteshvara even though we know there is no Avalokiteshvara. Faith means suspending reason and not everyone is capable of suspending reason.

Also, the writings of Pope Paul VI reflect similar thoughts on the subject of atheism.

As awful as 9/11 was you present a very skewed perspective on violence. 9/11 pales in comparison to the Nazi pogroms, or the significantly more millions of people murdered by Stalin. And Pol Pot killed at least a million people. Try reading The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Mark Kramer, Jonathan Murphy, Stephane Courtois, and Jean-Louis Panne for a real eye-opener about the violence of atheistic communism.

The reality is people commit violence in the name of religion, or to eliminate religion, or in the name of a political ideology such as communism, and for many other reasons. Atheistic communism is responsible for more murders in the 20th century than have occurred in all of past history combined. The 20th century was the bloodiest of all centuries and it was not primarily due to religion or religious fundamentalists.

**The people you cite were indeed political ideologues, but Dawkins is a scientist and Dennet a philosopher. Biology and philosophy of mind are not political ideologies. **
**Of course the holocaust was horrible. I commented on 9/11 because it was yesterday and because I saw it in person. I’m sure seeing the news footage affected the rest of the country, but seeing it happen before your eyes is different. And we just had a scare here in NYC on New Years Eve, so we live with this everyday. Indeed these are political extremists, but they use their religion to justify their actions. **

Dawkins wrote 400 pages of gibberish. I actually thought he was going out of his mind like Frederick Nietzsche did late in life. We shall see.

**Dawkins is a scientist so I’m sure he’s heard of the invention of penicillin. Nietzsche lived before the invention of penicillin. But I suspect you know that. **

Michael Ruse spoke admirably when he said, “The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist, and the McGraths show why.”

 

[aspirant]

Pol Pot killed at least a million people.

Seven million.

Try reading The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Mark Kramer, Jonathan Murphy, Stephane Courtois, and Jean-Louis Panne for a real eye-opener about the violence of atheistic communism.

One may start with Michael Scammell’s much shorter review, “Where, When, and Why 85 Million People Died: The Price of an Idea.” It appeared in The New Republic December 14, 1999.

Atheistic communism is responsible for more murders in the 20th century than have occurred in all of past history combined. The 20th century was the bloodiest of all centuries and it was not primarily due to religion or religious fundamentalists.

Somewhere between 85 milllion and 110 million people murdered by communists.

Atheism is not an act of faith. It is the exact opposite of an act of faith.

This is not true. A “strong” atheist claim like “I believe there is no God” or “no God exists” is not only a credo, its faith is actually logically contradictory (the absolute nonexistence of such a being could only be known by someone omniscient).

“Weak” atheism simply does not believe in any god(s); it does not make assertions that “God does not exist” or “there is no God.” Strong atheism, on the other hand, not only requires religious conviction, it requires commitment to a self-contradictory tenet.

No one has ever offered them a shred of evidence that any of these beings exist.

Not true. But I’ve noticed time and again, in reading the works of people like Hitchens and Dawkins, that they have definitely made little effort to understand it.

To an atheist, there is no more reason to believe in Yahweh than there is to believe in the flying spaghetti monster.

Only because they have made little attempt to understand what is actually believed about the former.

Evidence of this is the fact that all around the world there are people who believe in Vishnu even though we know there is no such thing as Vishnu, or Avalokiteshvara even though we know there is no Avalokiteshvara.

I think there is good reason not to make such claims, but this need not concern us here.

Faith means suspending reason

No, it does not.

 

[larkin31]

…“Weak” atheism simply does not believe in any god(s); it does not make assertions that “God does not exist” or “there is no God.” Strong atheism, on the other hand, not only requires religious conviction, it requires commitment to a self-contradictory tenet…

Atheism is not a religion, even though it is a position concerning the reality of a supernatural realm. But it is not a religion.

Stating “I don’t know” is not a religion either.

 

[aspirant]

Atheism is not a religion, even though it is a position concerning the reality of a supernatural realm.

Whether one calls it a “religion” or not, the faith tenet of strong atheism makes a greater ontological claim than many other religions ever do. It requires not only active faith, but active faith in a logical contradiction.

 

[StAnastasia]

It requires not only active faith, but active faith in a logical contradiction.

What’s the logical contradiction?

 

[SugarMagnolia]

No one has ever offered them a shred of evidence that any of these beings exist.

Not true. But I’ve noticed time and again, in reading the works of people like Hitchens and Dawkins, that they have definitely made little effort to understand it.

If I thought for a moment that you actually did have evidence, I’d beg you to share it with me. But of course you don’t have it; no one does. I am curious, however, why you say there is evidence.

This is not true. A “strong” atheist claim like “I believe there is no God” or “no God exists” is not only a credo, its faith is actually logically contradictory (the absolute nonexistence of such a being could only be known by someone omniscient).

“Weak” atheism simply does not believe in any god(s); it does not make assertions that “God does not exist” or “there is no God.” Strong atheism, on the other hand, not only requires religious conviction, it requires commitment to a self-contradictory tenet.

In logic, the burden of proof is on the one who asserts the existence of something, not the one who refuses to accept the assertion. If you say "god exists’ the burden of proof is on you; you cannot shift the burden of proof onto the person who replies ‘no, He does not.’

If this were not so, the result would be as follows: I say to you. ‘The FSM exists.’ You say, ‘no he does not.’ I shift the burden of proof on you and say, 'Since you claim that “no FSM exists” then you subscribe to a religion called anti-FSMism.

Furthermore, we would then all be members of religions called anti-Islam, anti-Buddhism, etc.

 

[edwest2]

SugarMagnolia:
For what religion did the Bolsheviks kill millions?

Peace,
Ed

 

[buffalo]

If I thought for a moment that you actually did have evidence, I’d beg you to share it with me. But of course you don’t have it; no one does. I am curious, however, why you say there is evidence.

In logic, the burden of proof is on the one who asserts the existence of something, not the one who refuses to accept the assertion. If you say "god exists’ the burden of proof is on you; you cannot shift the burden of proof onto the person who replies ‘no, He does not.’

If this were not so, the result would be as follows: I say to you. ‘The FSM exists.’ You say, ‘no he does not.’ I shift the burden of proof on you and say, 'Since you claim that “no FSM exists” then you subscribe to a religion called anti-FSMism.

Furthermore, we would then all be members of religions called anti-Islam, anti-Buddhism, etc.

Evidence and proof are two different things. There is evidence for God though He cannot be empirically proved.

Atheists at least share equally the burden of proof.

 

[SugarMagnolia]

Evidence and proof are two different things. There is evidence for God though He cannot be empirically proved.

** You say there is evidence, but you do not share it with me. Why?**

Atheists at least share equally the burden of proof.

**No, they do not. The burden of proof is not shared. That’s not what burden of proof is. I just got finished defining burden of proof. **

 

[larkin31]

Whether one calls it a “religion” or not, the faith tenet of strong atheism makes a greater ontological claim than many other religions ever do. It requires not only active faith, but active faith in a logical contradiction.

I have “faith” that gravity will hold me to the floor when I stand up in a minute. Is this comparable to religious faith? Hardly. You are just mixing terms for your own ends.

Atheism is only in the smallest way like religious faith, and very very little like religion. This line of argument is a ruse.

 

[larkin31]

I’d rather–for this thread–have the evidence that the earth is only 6000 yrs old.

 

[StAnastasia]

I’d rather–for this thread–have the evidence that the earth is only 6000 yrs old.

Do you seriously think any such evidence is likely to be forthcoming?

 

[buffalo]

I have “faith” that gravity will hold me to the floor when I stand up in a minute. Is this comparable to religious faith? Hardly. You are just mixing terms for your own ends.

Atheism is only in the smallest way like religious faith, and very very little like religion. This line of argument is a ruse.

The faith of an atheist rivals that of the strongest believer. In fact a believer is much more open. We are open to the wonders of God. We know that some God concepts are mysterious and are open.

Atheists are very close minded which is an irrational position. Their steadfast materialism has painted them in a corner.

Religion (the word) means to bind oneself to God. In this way it is not a religion. But in another way it insists in unbinding oneself to God. So it is an anti-religion with fierce religiosity, more like a cult.

 

[buffalo]

Do you seriously think any such evidence is likely to be forthcoming?

Care to share your email and answer from Ken Miller?

 

[jpk1313]

In my past life as a protestant, the preacher always said that the earth is only 6000 years old and only heathens believed otherwise. I just could not buy into that and my questions went unanswered. It is one in a long, long line of teachings that led me to the true Church. Can anyone explain how this can be taught with a straight face. The nearest answer I received was that when God made the earth, He made the triobites and cephalopods already formed in the rocks. So, such evidence means nothing.

Your preacher was smoking some really good stuff, can you pass on his number my dealer is dry

 

[itinerant1]

SugarMagnolia:

Faith means suspending reason.

What you are describing is “fideism” and not genuine faith. The Church has always condemned fideism.

SugarMagnolia:

The people you cite were indeed political ideologues, but Dawkins is a scientist and Dennet a philosopher. Biology and philosophy of mind are not political ideologies.

I am not criticizing Dawkins’ scientific writings. He did a good job of making complex ideas understandable to the public.

However, Dawkins’ and Dennet’s militant atheism is no less of an ideology than any political ideology. There is a difference between Darwinian science and Darwinian ideology. Dawkins and Dennett are using a materialist version of evolution theory to promote an atheistic worldview. Their faulty assumption is that methodological naturalism necessarily requires a philosophical naturalism. This is an abuse of science.

Also, Daniel C. Dennett, in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, notes his own “political” strategy for uprooting belief in a Creator.

And Stephen J. Gould once candidly admitted, “We taught catechism.” For obvious reasons, natural science should never be taught as catechism.

In contrast to Dennet and Dawkins, the atheist Michael Ruse engages the issues in an informed manner, fairly and charitably.

SugarMagnolia:

Dawkins is a scientist so I’m sure he’s heard of the invention of penicillin. Nietzsche lived before the invention of penicillin. But I suspect you know that.

I am not referring to the advanced effects of syphilis, which destroyed Nietzsche health, but to the fact he would rail against Christ. One has to admit that this is very strange behavior from one who persistently claimed that God does not exist.