Screwtape Chronicles

12 August 2007

Counterpoints: The God Delusion - Chapter One

Posted by Ryan

The notion that religion is a proper field, in which one might claim expertise, is one that should not go unquestioned. –Richard Dawkins

Chapter One of The God Delusion, ‘A Deeply Religious Non-Believer,’ is the true introduction to Dawkins’ book. In it, Dawkins begins to lay the groundwork for the major arguments against religious faith that are to come. In so doing, he splits the chapter in to two sections, ‘Deserved Respect’ and ‘Undeserved Respect.’ ‘Deserved Respect’ takes on the differences between Einsteinian religion and supernatural religion, while ‘Undeserved Respect’ seeks to explore the notion that, in Western society, religion is given more respect than it deserves.

‘Deserved Respect’ exists in order to point out the differences in belief between scientists like Einstein and religious people. Dawkins is very adamant about this point; he feels that it is improper for people to misquote a scientist like Einstein, taking his words out of context in order to make it look like he (Einstein) believes in God. Dawkins provides enough documentation to prove that Einstein most certainly did not believe in God, or in any other supernatural being. Dawkins further slams religious leaders who took offense to Einstein’s quite public atheism, reprinting letters that religious people should be ashamed of.

I must admit that there is a problem with Dawkins’ treatment of Christians in relation to the letters he chooses to print. In essence, they are a sampling error. Only one of the three letters he reprints are conciliatory. The other two make religious leaders of the time look stupid and, even more damningly, bigoted and close-minded. The problem, though, is that we, as readers, have no way of knowing if the two more offensive letters were characteristic of the religious view of Einstein of the time, or if they were aberrations. It would have been better of Dawkins (although probably impossible) to go through all the letters Einstein received and catalogue them as either conciliatory or inflammatory, and then give us a percentage. Even that plan has a flaw, though, inasmuch as it would only tell us what kind of people actually wrote letters to Einstein. As Charles points out, what is really happening is Dawkins is choosing to print letters that make religious people look stupid.

I think it is important to note, as Dawkins does, that Einstein, and most of all the other great thinkers of science, are atheists. As Dawkins notes, “religious apologists understandably try to claim Einstein as one of their own.” The line of reasoning goes thusly: hey, I’m a normal guy; I don’t know what to believe. But that Einstein guy, he is one of the smartest men ever and, if he believes in God, then that’s probably a safe bet.” So it’s not that Dawkins is completely pitting the ‘smart atheists’ versus the ‘dumb religious folk’ in order to create an easy argument to win; I think Dawkins genuinely feels that some people might be swayed by the notion that Einstein might have believed in God, and disabusing people of that notion, and the confusion that comes from it, is a good thing.

The point of this entire chapter, while subtly setting up the dichotomy of smart atheists versus dumb religious people, is really to define terms. Dawkins is making it abundantly clear that when speaks about God, he is not speaking about God in the way that scientists like Einstein talk about God. Dawkins has no issues with the God of Einstein, because the God of Einstein is no God at all, but rather a metaphor for the Universe, or Science, or Earth, or whatever. It is not a deity. To Dawkins, for purposes of this book, God should be used “to denote a supernatural creator that is ‘appropriate for us to worship.’”

Dawkins also defines other terms, in order to clear up confusion. Since I think it will be good for all of us to be clear on the definitions that Dawkins is using when he writes, I will list them here:

-An atheist “is somebody who believes there is nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe, no soul that outlasts the body and no miracles – except in the sense of natural phenomena that we don’t yet understand.”

-A theist “believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. …. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think about doing them).”

-A deist “believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs.”

-A pantheist doesn’t “believe in a supernatural God at all,” but rather he or she will “use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings.”

‘Undeserved Respect’ is essentially a catalogue of events that have occurred in recent memory from around the world that, in Dawkins’ opinion, shows us the absurd amount of respect that religion in general is unduly forwarded. Personally, I find these accounts to be persuasive. The most damning story is case of the supposedly anti-Islamic cartoons in a Denmark newspaper, and the worldwide reaction to these cartoons. People literally died because of that debacle, a situation that was created by the lies of people within Islam that intentionally stirred the pot of religious hatred. In an especially damning observation, Dawkins writes that, in response to the so-called offensive cartoons, “Demonstrators were photographed in Britain bearing banners saying ‘Slay those who insult Islam,’ ‘Butcher those who mock Islam,’ ‘Europe you will pay: Demolition is on its way’ and, apparently without irony, ‘Behead those who say Islam is a violent religion’.”

Perhaps, like the letters to Einstein, these case studies are an aberration. Unlike the letters, though, these aberrations, if they are indeed aberrations, are not so easily dismissed. Why? Because people die as a result of these religious disagreements, and that is completely unacceptable. To me, the fact that even one person dies because of any religious disagreement damns all of religion, and it is up to the leaders of the various religious faiths to get their people to calm the hell down and stop killing people. It truly is a case of one bad apple spoiling the rest of the good ones. It should not be tolerated. Instead of expressing condolence to those who died, religious leaders of all sides, and especially the peaceful elements inside of Islam, should immediately and unequivocally rebuke anyone and everyone who takes part in this kind of destruction. That sort of action rarely seems to happen, though, because, as Dawkins points out, to do so would be to infringe upon someone else’s religious belief.

I am somewhat straying from the Dawkins text at this point, but that’s all right. I feel that this point grows out from what Dawkins talks about, and that I cannot stress it enough. The bad actions of some Christians reflect on all Christians, to think otherwise is misguided. This point is proven true in this country by Muslims. I’m sure there are a lot of good Muslims out there, but they are overshadowed by their violent and evil brethren, and the good ones do a poor job of condemning the bad ones, so, we in America tend to not like Muslims as a whole. A few evil apples have screwed the entire thing up. The same logic applies to Christians. Sure, if you are already a good Christian, and you live a moral life, and you don’t hurt anyone… well, you’ll know that you’re fine. And you might even privately condemn the actions of the bad Christians. But to those of us on the outside, to those of us who don’t share your beliefs and don’t know you personally, it is hard to distinguish the bad from the good, because the good ones never condemn the bad ones. As a teacher once told me in college, silence is acceptance.

I’m not going to go into the particulars of the rest of these case studies; to do so would require me to quote pages of text, and that just isn’t practical. Suffice to say, I was persuaded by Dawkins’ argument: in comparison to everything else, religion is given too much leeway.

So, we still haven’t gotten to the heart of The God Delusion; the set up is still occurring. I could go on and on with opinions from this chapter, but, alas, I have already exceeded my self-imposed thousand word limit by at least five-hundred words, so I’ll go ahead and shut up now. Chapter Two, “The God Hypothesis,” is where the real meat and potatoes of Dawkins’ arguments start. The chapters are getting longer in their text, with many important ideas to address, so we might have to start splitting our posts into two parts. Time will tell. Until next Thursday…

Read what Charles has to say here.

11 Comments currently posted. Trackback URL

Charles says:

Just some comments…imagine these as bullet points:

1. “Religious people” shouldn’t be ashamed of the letters written to Einstein, the writers should (and maybe their families).

2.The sampling error is not only as you mentioned it, but, as I pointed out in my post, that he pits average Christians versus one of the greatest minds in human history. It’s like asking 3 six-year-olds to get base hits off of Roger Clemens.

3. You use the word “damningly” a lot.

4. The phrase “Einstein, and most of all the other great thinkers of science, are athiests,” is just begging to get knocked over like the powderpuff that it is. Give me numbers or give me death.

5. The cartoons don’t really reflect on all religion (can Buddhists really be held responsible?), but on the way Muslim extremists use religion for political means. And on the news media for pretending that their complaints were legitimate.

6. “The fact that even one person dies because of any religious disagreement” doesn’t damn all of religion. It damns the religion that calls for the action. If a Christian kills a Muslim because he is Muslim, Christianity can’t be held accountable, because the person’s actions go directly against Christian teaching. The leaders can only instruct, but it’s not their fault if the followers don’t listen.

7. Why is it misguided to think that the bad actions of some Christians don’t necessarily reflect on all Christians? Do the bad actions of some white people reflect on all white people? What about some police officers? Teachers? Stalin was an atheist, do his actions reflect on all atheists? Do the positive actions of the members of any of these groups not reflect well on them? That smacks of a double-standard.

I think what you mean is that the actions of a few members of any group (religious or otherwise) affect the perception of all members of that group. However, they do not affect the true nature of that group. The fact that some religious people do bad things does not in itself make religion false or evil (see my chapter 1 post for more).

And just because you can’t hear the rebuke doesn’t mean it’s not there. I rebuke the evil actions of Christians as loud as I am capable, which is, in fact, not very loud at all. I have no pulpit, no stage, no arena.

It may be “hard to distinguish the bad from the good,” but that doesn’t mean there is only bad, just as it doesn’t mean there is only good.

Ryan says:

1. If I were religious, I’d be ashamed of someone who told Einstein to leave the country merely for practicing his right to freedom of religion. Perhaps I am the only one would have been.

2. I take less offense to this because I feel like Dawkins’ point is more to dissociate Einstein, Sagan, et. al. from belief in God, even though those people have quotes about God that could be misconstrued as belief. Your point is well taken though.

3. I actually only use the word “damningly” once. I use variations on the word “damn” three times. I also use the word “fuck” in my previous post twice.

4. The most recent study I could find occurred in 1998. You can find it at this link: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html Only 7% of scientists professed a belief in a personal God.

5. The cartoons certainly reflect on the media and how it reports things. I forgot to mention how South Park completely ravaged this topic in the United States (in their two part episode about the writers of Family Guy). However, the cartoon debacle really had its start with the Muslim extremists. And I don’t remember any other prominent Muslims condemning these actions. Nor do I recall the media ever explaining the situation as Dawkins does, so certainly the media should share some blame. My perception of the media was that it wasn’t pretending the complaints were legitimate, but rather it was reporting that other people were. And the other people that were upset about the complaints? Those people ended up killing other people.

6. I guess I don’t really feel like getting into this one right now, because obviously Christianity doesn’t call for Christians to kill people. However, I feel like it does call for other, more subtle, actions that are indefensible. Discrimination against homosexuals springs readily to mind. The enormous amounts of guilt that many people seem to feel for even the smallest so-called infractions against morality also springs to mind.

As someone who isn’t a believer, though, I find it hard to justify any religion when one religion kills in the name of itself. It reflects poorly on religious people, no matter what they believe. To a non-believer, all religions are in the same group. Christianity doesn’t get a special pass, it gets lumped into the group of “religion.”

7. Again, silence is acceptance. To answer the specific questions, the actions of some bad white people don’t reflect on all white people because you can’t choose to be white, you are either born white or you are born something else. Inclusion in the group is not a choice. For police officers, I think the bad actions of some reflect poorly on all, so that’s a bad choice to make a point with. As for teachers and Stalin, I don’t really know how to answer that one. For one, the bad actions of teachers are rare, and it is easy to see how most teachers aren’t that way. The same can be said of Stalin… he is an obvious aberration. In the case of religion, example after example after example after example throughout the course of human history can be find to substantiate the idea that religious people do more bad things in comparison to other groups (and no, I don’t have numbers, and no, I’m not going to show them to you, but, you know, 9/11 didn’t happen because of teachers, neither the crusades or any other war based on religion). It’s not a double standard inasmuch as there are many many scratches in the ledger of bad for religious folk than there are for other groups.

“I think what you mean is that the actions of a few members of any group (religious or otherwise) affect the perception of all members of that group. However, they do not affect the true nature of that group. The fact that some religious people do bad things does not in itself make religion false or evil (see my chapter 1 post for more)”

I think what I mean is that when one group does bad things enough, it starts to become obvious what the group truly stands for. The fact that some religious people do bad things does not in itself make religion false, but it certainly doesn’t help make it seem less evil.

And you have no pulpit, stage, or arena, but the people who do don’t seem to use it. That was my point.

Charles says:

1. Your response doesn’t make the case that religious people should be ashamed.

2. Dawkins secondary point was to “show the weakness of the religious mind.” He tried to do that by contrasting brilliant with average.

3. You got me.

4. Ok, we have numbers, now for some analysis. What are the possible variables? Are atheists and non-religious people more likely to go into the sciences? If a similar poll of academics in a different field came out with the opposite findings, what would the implications be?

Your statement is supported. Does it have legs? We’ll see.

5. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. I will say this though: killing people is usually not ok.

6. What discrimination does Christianity call for? You’ll have to be specific, because I must have missed it.

People aren’t meant to feel “enormous amounts of guilt”. They are supposed to feel blessed with forgiveness. Are you saying that morality is bad? Or that it’s wrong for people to feel guilty for doing something wrong. Or are you saying that Christianity teaches that some things you like to do, or are okay with others doing, are wrong, and that makes you upset? How is having a moral standard “indefensible”? I must be pretty confused, because I’m not sure what you mean.

As someone uninvolved in government, I find it hard to justify any governance when one government sends six million of its citizens to die for no reason.

I didn’t say Christianity should get a free pass, I simply used it as an example (I also used Buddhism). The idea that all religions should be lumped together and only judged by the bad things that are done in their name is ridiculous. Each religion should be judged based on its teaching, and each religious organization should be judged individually by its actions.

7. It’s easy to say something like, “religious people do more bad things in comparison with other groups”. But it’s important to see if those religious people are even following the teachings of the religion they profess. If they aren’t, then they are just a misguided group of people. You’ll find that in most of the instances you cited that involve atrocities by Christians, it is plainly obvious that they were not following the teachings of Christ or the Apostles. You act as though any group that calls itself religious is the official representative for all religion. If I put on a Mavs jersey am I an official rep for the team? the NBA? all basketball players and organizations everywhere?

There have been more wars fought over land and ego than over religion. Did Alexander, or Darius, or Genghis, or Caesar, or Napoleon fight in the name of religion? Were the constant wars in the British Isles, the Roman expansion, World War I or II fought over religion? No.

“I think what I mean is that when one group does bad things enough, it starts to become obvious what the group truly stands for.” “Religious people” are not a group. You can say they are, but that doesn’t make it true.

People do bad and evil things under the guise of whatever excuse works best at the time. It has quite often been religion. But if you dig deep enough religion is not at the heart of it. Religion is a tool for many people. They use it as a means to an end, whether it be money, power, or anything else. But an object doesn’t become evil by the virtue of its misuse. The evil is in the person misusing it. When people use the name of Christ, Muhammad, Buddha, or Genesha to justify their wrongdoing, it reflects on their own character.

Lumping all religions together and judging them based on the actions of those who would distort their teachings for selfish gain is cowardly. The case can’t be made against all religions individually when based on their teachings and intended practice, so the case must be built by using the evil actions of a few religious people from one portion of one group of one religion to condemn all religion and religious people. What kind of logic is that?

Charles says:

4. Here’s what I’m talking about: Scientists May Not Be Very Religious, But Science May Not Be To Blame.

“Ecklund says, ‘It appears that those from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately self-select into scientific professions.’”

Ryan says:

1. I think religious people should be ashamed of those letters. I don’t have to make the case for that kind of an opinion. I think it’s shameful, end of story.

4. Find the similar poll. I don’t want to get into hypotheticals.

6. Yeah, you must’ve missed it, because I wrote it right there. I’ll quote myself: “Discrimination against homosexuals springs readily to mind.” Any sort of religion that calls an entire lifestyle, a lifestyle that I do not think is a choice (and that isn’t debatable, because you will never convince me that it is a choice), any religion that calls that lifestyle a sin is discriminatory.

And the people I know who’ve come out of the church unhappy with its teachings all inevitably come out of the church with feelings of guilt about the actions that they’d like to take. Having sex before marriage is one example of this. I do not believe it is morally wrong to have sex before marriage, but I know that I have experienced guilt feelings for even desiring to do so, and I not the only person who I know who has grown up in the church that has had those feelings. In my opinion, the church teaches a lot about morals that isn’t exactly right. It can be right if you want it to be, in that if you don’t want to have sex before you are married, then fine. But, unlike murder, I don’t think that kind of morality should be absolute. When a person is taught from birth that it is absolute, though, and then they realize that it really isn’t, it becomes difficult to deal with. It’s not discrimination, but it’s not good either.

It’s not wrong to feel guilty about doing something that is wrong. I think that the church teaches that a lot of things are wrong that aren’t necessarily wrong, in an absolute sense. That is my point. I don’t feel like debating this further, because we obviously have different moral points of view, and that just will not change.

7. Numbers for the war stuff. You want to go all the way back to the beginning of time? That’s what I was talking about.

5 & 7. I am not talking about the teachings of a religion, and I now see that that is the conflict here. I am talking about the actions of a religion. I don’t look at the actions of the religious and then compare it to what it should be; frankly, I don’t really care what the teachings of a religion are. Because if everyone followed the teachings of Christianity, then we wouldn’t be having this conversation, would we? The fact is, enough people don’t follow the teachings for there to be a trend, in Christianity, in all religions. So the real question is, why? Why, if the teachings of every major religion are really peaceful and all about love and acceptance, why do all of them spawn violence in some form or another? And if they really are all about love acceptance, why don’t the ones who follow the teachings actively expel those who do not?

The Mavs example is a straw man argument in the same vein that you complain about when Dawkins puts smart atheist up against dumb religious people. Don’t criticize someone and then turn around and use the same argument style that you have criticized. Of course putting on a Mavs jersey doesn’t make you a representative of the Mavs organization. Religion is its own special category, this should be obvious.

“As someone uninvolved in government, I find it hard to justify any governance when one government sends six million of its citizens to die for no reason.” What is that about?

““Religious people” are not a group. You can say they are, but that doesn’t make it true.”

I guess you still don’t understand my point of view. I am saying that they are. To me, from the outside, I see no reason to delineate between different faiths. You either have faith in some sort of god, or you don’t. At this point in my life, there is either a)some god or b)no god. I’m falling into the “b” category. Those with religious faith fall into the “a” category.

“People do bad and evil things under the guise of whatever excuse works best at the time. It has quite often been religion. But if you dig deep enough religion is not at the heart of it. Religion is a tool for many people. They use it as a means to an end, whether it be money, power, or anything else. But an object doesn’t become evil by the virtue of its misuse. The evil is in the person misusing it. When people use the name of Christ, Muhammad, Buddha, or Genesha to justify their wrongdoing, it reflects on their own character.”

Sure, but enough people have done enough wrong over enough time to call the whole thing into question, and still, my point remains, when bad things happen, I rarely see the religious leaders come out and publicly denounce them. Again, silence is acceptance. My original point about that remains. I understand what you are saying, I just don’t accept it as an excuse for that amount of violence that happens in the name of religion.

“Lumping all religions together and judging them based on the actions of those who would distort their teachings for selfish gain is cowardly.”

Calling me a coward will end this discussion and this exercise. Use different words and do not insult me. Call it empty, or call it unconvincing, but if you call me a coward again, this is over.

Charles says:

1. It’s going to be hard to argue with that. Though, if you’re going to make declarations which require no support or explanation, this may all be pointless.

4. 54% of physicians surveyed believe that “at times a supernatural being intervenes.” (here)

It’s no 93% home run, but more than half surveyed are theists.

6. Orientation may not be a choice, and that is debatable (the fact that you won’t be convinced doesn’t mean it isn’t), but lifestyle is always a choice. I’m sure you disagree, so try this on for size:

In my opinion, the church teaches a lot about morals that isn’t exactly right. I’ll take that as a yes answer to my question. The church teaches that some things you do, or don’t mind others doing, are sins, and it upsets you. That’s fine. Two things: (1) when did having a high moral standard become a vice rather than a virtue? (2) If the people you are talking about believe in God, they should feel guilty for disobeying Him, though only at a level that brings them to repentance. If they don’t believe in God, why do they care if the church says what they’re doing (or want to do) is wrong?

But, unlike murder, I don’t think that kind of morality should be absolute. When a person is taught from birth that it is absolute, though, and then they realize that it really isn’t, it becomes difficult to deal with.

7. If you think the numbers hold up, let’s see them. You made the claim that “religious people do more bad things in comparison to other groups”. You should back it up, or leave it out.

5. & 7. The fact is, enough people don’t follow the teachings for there to be a trend, in Christianity, in all religions. So the real question is, why? Why, if the teachings of every major religion are really peaceful and all about love and acceptance, why do all of them spawn violence in some form or another?

The short answer is people. People, as a group, are corrupt. Isn’t there enough non-religious violence in the world for it to be obvious that it’s a problem of humanity not religion?

The Mavs example holds up in that calling yourself a Christian doesn’t make you one any more than putting a Mavs jersey on makes me part of the team. There has to be a deeper criteria than self identification. And it isn’t obvious that religion is it’s own special category when it comes to negative treatment, particularly when we’ve agreed that religion shouldn’t get special positive treatment. Can you make the case for it?

You said: As someone who isn’t a believer, though, I find it hard to justify any religion when one religion kills in the name of itself.

I said: “As someone uninvolved in government, I find it hard to justify any governance when one government sends six million of its citizens to die for no reason.”

Your reasoning for classifying religious people as a unified block is clear. It is, however, confusing correlation with causation, and using the negative actions of some religious people to condemn all religion, so that you don’t have to deal with each religion individually. At this point I ask again, why don’t the positive actions of religious people count in their favor?

Enough non-religious people, hell, people in general have done enough bad things over time to call all of human existence into question. Again, confusing correlation and causation.

And I’m not trying to excuse the violence, only to show that it is not the responsibility of (a)leaders who teach against it, or (b) people who were uninvolved.

I wasn’t calling you a coward, but you know that, since we talked about it already.

Salut.

Ryan says:

This is going to be the last post in this string of back and forth for us. If other people want to comment, then they are free to do so; however, since Charles and I need to focus on the next round of articles, this will be the end of this specific discussion on my site. That’s right, I am giving myself the last word. Which is what happens when you run the site. If Charles wants to reply further, he will post on his site.

1. It’s going to be hard to argue with that. Though, if you’re going to make declarations which require no support or explanation, this may all be pointless. Hmmm. I’m not asking you to argue with my opinion. Sometimes I will just state an opinion that is not really open to discussion, and that is one of them. Ultimately, it’s a small issue, not really worth drawing this much attention to. In the future, we should be more careful to only go back and forth on the major issues of each chapter/article. That being said, I don’t see why this is a problem, as my view of Christians is that they do just that: they claim God exists without producing any evidence or support.

6. Orientation may not be a choice, and that is debatable (the fact that you won’t be convinced doesn’t mean it isn’t), but lifestyle is always a choice. Certainly, the fact that I won’t be convinced doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t, but the fact that you disagree with me doesn’t make your opinion true either. But, for the sake of clarification, I will explain why I cannot be convinced. To me, there is no difference between being a homosexual and being black or white (or whatever race you happen to be). It is not a choice, it is just a part of who you are. So giving someone shit for being gay is the same thing as giving someone shit for being black, or white, or Asian (etc.) In this sense, the lifestyle that is a consequence of homosexuality is not a choice either.

From a scientific perspective, homosexuality is biologically futile. The biological purpose of sex is reproduction. Homosexual relations cannot fulfill that purpose. It is an aberration of the natural order. Yes, it does occur in nature, and obviously occurs in humans, but the fact that something happens naturally doesn’t make it normal. Does that make science discriminatory against homosexuals? This is not the best argument to make for someone in your position, because the same logic can be applied to faith (an argument that Dawkins makes a little later in the book, so I can’t credit for thinking this up entirely by myself). From a scientific perspective, religion is biologically futile. If you are Catholic, your priests don’t have sex, which, reproductively, will yield the same results that homosexual sex will yield (aka no offspring). For anyone else, the enormous amount of resources expended in the upkeep of religion (building of churches, time devoted to church that could be devoted to something else, etc) could be used in other ways, such as paying for health care, or some other such thing that would prolong the life of the species as a whole. In terms of keeping the species alive, religion is a highly wasteful allocation of resources. Saying that homosexuality is an aberration of the natural order just because the practice of it does not yield offspring is a reach that does not seem supportable to me. Plenty of gay couples raise children through adoption, thus prolonging the chances of life of the species, as an example. Just because you can’t fathom the biological advantage of homosexuality does not mean that there is not one.

You say that they “realize that it really isn’t” as though it is fact. The honest way to say it is that they choose to take a different position. If you won’t try to make a better case for your position than “I think”, we’ll have difficulties with this discussion. I do say that is if it is a fact, because I think it is a fact in the same way that you think your version of morality is a fact. I think there is a large difference between absolute morality (things being wrong such as murder) and church/religious morality (sex before marriage being wrong, as an example). Yes, I choose to take a different position, the position that think is factually correct. Just like the existence of God, ideas of morality will vary from person to person. I fail to see how you could justify your version of morality outside of appealing to God, an appeal that non-believers such as myself put no stock in. So, my response to your version of morality would be the same… all you are saying is “I think…”

7. If you think the numbers hold up, let’s see them. You made the claim that “religious people do more bad things in comparison to other groups”. You should back it up, or leave it out. If you think I am going to do your research for you (you are the person who brought up the number of religious versus non-religious wars), then you are sorely mistaken. I don’t have that kind of time. So, take your own advice on this one. Frankly, I don’t need numbers to prove everything, I won’t have the time to provide documentation for every little detail. Here are enough examples, quoted from Dawkins, that back up the war thing to me: “Imagine no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts, no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Isreali/Palestinian wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews as ‘Christ-killers,’ no Northern Ireland ‘troubles,’ no ‘honour killings,’ no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing gullible people of their money …. Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime of showing an inch of it.”

I see your point about causation and correlation. However, the government example isn’t the best because, again, you don’t really get to choose which country you live in. Some people do, but they are rich and rare. Basically, where-ever you are born, that is what country you will be a part of. The only thing you have to do as a citizen is say you don’t support your governments actions, vote for other people when it’s time to vote, and you’ve done what you need to do to disassociate from the government’s actions. Religion is different. At some point, you have to choose to become religious. And when other people misuse your religion for their own gain, or screw up the teachings of it, it is up to others to correct that. Apparently, though, that doesn’t happen too often.

But if we want to go ahead and deal with each religion individually, I can do that. Eastern religions seem to be less violent, given what I know about them. The history of Christianity/Islam/Judaism is rife with violence, from the beginning. From the beginning, and, for Christianity, that’s 2000 years. So, excuse me for seeing a trend there, but there definitely seems to be one.

And, to conclude, I didn’t know at the time of my post that you weren’t calling me a coward, I know that now, though, since we have talked in the interim.

I suspect that you, Charles, might want to respond to this. If so, you’ll have to post on your own site, because it’s time to move on to Chapter 2.

Jens Jensen says:

It’s difficult to go through and comment on everything here, but with regards to the portrayal of religion as evil or primitive/unintelligent I think people are missing the point that:
A) Religions are VASTLY different, and even more so, the various INTERPRETATIONS of the various religions are extremely versatile.
B) Most religions (Buddhism is probably the exception) can be (and has been) used both to legalize killing of infidels, crusades and the like, and to advocate tolerance, forgiveness and humanity. Thus, it depends entirely on your interpretation of the religion whether it becomes a tool for hatred or a tool for tolerance and forgiveness (and possibly illumination?)
C) As far as whether Einstein was religious or not, and with regards to Dawkins’ ideas: I myself happen to be a deeply religious person. The God in which I believe, however, can most easily be explained as a universal mind or intelligence, i.e. God is both immanent (within man) and transcendent (suffusing the universe). Now, if you define such a view as atheist, you can possibly rule out Einstein being religious, but otherwise not. It is all about what it means to be religious, and if you start by defining being religous = being stupid (i.e. having a very anthropomorph picture of God), then of course you’ll end up concluding that religious people are stupid, but it’s a circular argument.

Jens Jensen says:

I said: “As someone uninvolved in government, I find it hard to justify any governance when one government sends six million of its citizens to die for no reason.”

Heh, they did have a REASON. The question if whether you consider their reason to be LEGITIMATE. But, aside from that, the argument is sound

Jens Jensen says:

That being said, I don’t see why this is a problem, as my view of Christians is that they do just that: they claim God exists without producing any evidence or support.

Conversely, do not atheists argue that there is no God without offering a proof for this?

Traditionally, the existence of a Creator has been seen as proven by virtue of His creation;
it is through the rise of secular thought that this idea was rejected (which may be reasonable,
but leaves behind the problem of explaining creation, reason, genius and wisdom, or sum-total of the universe, with its myriad of intelligent designs WITHOUT the help of an intelligent mind. This is part of the project of modern biology, and people like Dawkins - but in my judgement, they have not been very successful at all…

Look at Charles’ argument here:
From a scientific perspective, homosexuality is biologically futile. The biological purpose of sex is reproduction. Homosexual relations cannot fulfill that purpose. It is an aberration of the natural order. Yes, it does occur in nature, and obviously occurs in humans, but the fact that something happens naturally doesn’t make it normal. Does that make science discriminatory against homosexuals?

And compare:
From the viewpoint of Islam, homosexuality is religiously forbidden. The divine purpose of sex is reproduction. Homosexual relations cannot fulfill that purpose. It is an aberration of the divine order. Yes, it does occur in nature, and obviously occurs in humans, but the fact that something happens naturally doesn’t make it normal. Does that make islam discriminatory against homosexuals?