Mr. Judd;

That's a big part of why I'm weak atheist. I believe that there isn't a God, the same way I believe that invading Iraq was the correct foreign policy decision. If I turn out to be wrong, well, it would hardly be the first time. Sometimes you have to believe one way or another on an issue in order to get on with life, even when you know that you're working with limited and possibly false information.

On the other hand, I don't see the validity of your comment. Just because one is an atheist doesn't make one a solipsist. Why can't I be thankful to those who came before and did so much to provide me with the blessings I enjoy every day? I'm thankful for the US Constitution but I certainly don't thank myself for that.

AOG:
You said what I was going to say, only much better.

The other problem is that the article completely ignores agnosticism, and that there is a significant difference between being areligious (if that is even a word) and having drawn a conclusion about God's existence.

Lumping all those things together under the banner of atheism, which, if taken at its true meaning is just as guilty of "conclusion from ignorance" as theism is, significantly weakens the article.

It continues to amaze me how silly believers are when contemplating what it must be like to be an atheist.

"the latter is more difficult, since it must be done without the aid of inspiration in the face of natural wonder, the resonance of the Logos or word of God, the solidarity of a throng of believers past and present, and the stark fact that the potentially intolerable chaos of social order is at times, even often, livable and enjoyable."

"As Christians must wrestle with the vexing question of how there can be a God if there is pain and suffering in the world, so atheists must struggle with the question of how there cannot be a God with joy and pleasure in the world. "

You really don't have a clue. To be an atheist is to realize that none of the joys or wonders of being a human is dependent on a faith in a personal god. Maybe it is more difficult to be an athiest if you have grown up to believe that everything you hold dear is the result of your faith. It reminds me of those reality shows where they take modern people and make them live like pioneers. "How can we live without cell phones and TV and central heating and indoor plumbing" they ask themselves. But once they get the hang of it, they find out that the enjoyment of life is not dependent on those things.

I've been on both sides of faith, and I once thought like this. Believe me, very little changes about your ability to enjoy life when you lose your faith (in god).

I must say, ditto.

I'm an atheist (but not an Atheist), but I surely don't think that everything good in the world comes from me; nor do I know any atheists or Atheists, even, who believe such a thing.

And, well, I find it stunningly ineffective to suggest to a non-believer that he really ought to beleive in God because multitudes of people over long periods of time have done so. Surely Orrin wouldn't accept my telling him he should worship the God of Thunder because countless people over the ages (some of them nominally Christian, even!) have paid said God homage.

Argument by design is, similary, unconvincing, especially for those of us who have no problem comprehending self-ordering systems that don't need a Divine Architect.

I don't condemn or diminish Christians for believing in God (well, unless they believe specific stellarly stupid things about God, but none of those things are inherent to belief or Christianity, and simply prove that Faith is no defense against being an idiot), and I'd prefer if the Faithful could return the favour.

The best arguments I've ever heard for Faith came from Kierkegaard and Lewis. While they were never convincing, they were also never condescending or reliant on argument by authority or design. Faith is its own argument.

Like Guy, I'm a weak atheist. I'd believe in unicorns if somebody gave me a good reason to, but until then, who needs 'em?

Like LaPlace, whatever I think I understand can be understood in a godless context. I've seen the arguments for adding God, but they don't enhance the brew, so, following Ockham, so what?

I find the universe very interesting without him, by the way, wonderful, awesome and humbling. I find the interactions of humans equally wonderful.

Not quite so wonderful, but equally interesting, are the reactions of the mother hens in my yard when I get too near their chicks. Certainly they are not solipsists; and I find the notion that their devotion, bravery and selflessness were created by a beneficient deity very funny.

Are we just chickens writ large? Could be. I am not downcast by the idea.

AOG:

You ever read any comments by Harry or Jeff? They're pefect examples. They actrually both claimed last month to have never done anything evil.

Robert:

Unlike the author, I'm struck by the amusing futility of you and Jeff trying to come up with a viable morality--which you obviously think vitally important--without referencing God.

What kind of atheism?

There is what I'd call "scientific atheism," which is generally based on eliminating the "god of gaps" now that science does it better for us. However, many "scientific atheists" aren't "philosophical atheists" and don't dwell on the implications of the universe being random and without guiding principle. "Philosophical atheists" do, and the trouble with that is it leads to nihilism. Nihilist beliefs tend towards the types of problems Orrin complains about, but are a small minority of "atheists" I've known.

I'm using quotes here simply to distinguish "types" of atheism I've encountered. I don't know if anyone else thinks my classification useful.

I don't know if Orrin will say that one leads to the other, but if so then it can be said many (most?) believers in God don't really follow their religion to its philosophical implications as well.

I think the vast majority of people simply don't dwell deeply on such questions, and are content to pragmatically act on the inherent moral code humanity seems to have. I would argue such a code is evidence of a greater order, whether you want to call it the Word, the Tao, or other spiritual sense of order.

Robert:

I agree with you if we are talking about pleasurable things--fine food, sunsets, children playing, etc. We can all be swept up by a "life is grand" high on sunny days when we are healthy and things are going our way. Indeed, there may be a certain kind of religionist that has a harder time savouring those than the cheery hedonist.

But what about being led to joy through things that aren't so pleasurable? Feeling gratitude for a disabled child, understanding failure in a new light, seeing hope and meaning emerge from tragedy or disability, etc. Do you think atheists are equally capable of that?

I realize that such things are just psychic crutches to a secular materialist, but that is another issue.

I can easily come up with a viable morality without referencing god.

I am a human. I would dislike to be murdered. Other humans would share this dislike. Therefore, it is to my benefit and theirs not to kill each other . . . and so on.

See, it's easy. The hard part, for atheists, would be justifying the exceptions, but that never causes religious people to turn a hair.

Harry:

That isn't morality. That's a peace treaty.

Peter:

Which no one but Harry has signed. And if he's leaving morality to majority vote then he's created Statism.

Chris:

All science did was stop asking the important questions: it seeks to tell us that light has a speed, not why. Its ambitions have shrunk to the point where it's barely interesting to laymen, though useful to specialists.

Orrin:

Yes, I have this warm, inspring image of a society of hundred of millions, each one eyeing the others warily and muttering how everyone's fist stops at their nose.

No, "My fist stops at your nose, so would you mind stopping yours at mine? It seems reasonable."

So what's wrong with peace treaties? It is more than that, you can develop an entire morality from that beginning.

It would not get you want you want from god, it would not make divorce or homosexual sex a sin. It also would not get you witchhunts and heresy trials. So I feel your pain.

I don't yearn for the good ol' days when the best I could have hoped for was the strappado.

Harry:

First of all, why? You really think the majority is going to allow all the things you want them to?

Second, you've often derided Kellogg-Briand but are now willing to base a society on it?

Harry:

No witchhunts? Then count me out. What is the point of all my worrying about morality if I can't roast the odd witch for r and r?

You cannot base morality on reciprocity. The word does not imply commonly agreed-upon functional restrictions on behaviour. It implies individual and collective judgments about malum in se--things wrong in and of themselves--not malum prohibitum, or things that happen to be prohibited. They often overlap, but they are not the same. If there are no laws against using disgusting language in parks and everyone else seems to be doing it, does that make it ok for me to do it too?

Old-time secular atheists used to deny there was such a thing as morality. But you, Jeff and Robert come roaring in and insist that, despite your secular materialism, you can be just as priggish as the fundamentalists. Strange times.

You're right. Free speech in the parks would not be immoral in my system.

You are confusing morality with manners. Manners you get from your mother, not god.

Harry:

Too true. I well remember my mother telling me repeatedly to say thank you, give my seat up to pregnant women and avoid screaming obscenities at old ladies in parks. I resented it, though, because a lot of the other mothers said it was ok.

Look, like it or not, at the end of the day, you theists believe in an invisable man who lives in the sky. Fine. But you are just going to have to accept that there is always a certain number of people who don't buy it.

My country (Australia) is a pretty ungodly nation but we don't suffer from dictatorship, euro-weenie style socialist collapse or uncontrollable outbreaks of mass wickedness. We pull our weight in fighting in the free world's vareous wars and generally we're doing great.

"But what about being led to joy through things that aren't so pleasurable? Feeling gratitude for a disabled child, understanding failure in a new light, seeing hope and meaning emerge from tragedy or disability, etc. Do you think atheists are equally capable of that?"

Yes. Of course. Why not? What possible reason would they not be able to? You over-intellectualize atheism, you think that atheists derive their morality, ethics, and reasons for living from a set of logical arguments derived from darwinism. I really don't spend very much time thinking about darwinism. For me, as a theory, it best explains the material circumstances of how we got to where we are, but explanations of how are not motivations. Understanding how an internal combustion engine works does not dictate where I drive my car.

Amos:

Have a population in decline, leave immigrants to the mercy of the seas, etc., etc., etc.

Robert:

that's the point. you want to ride in the car but deny there is an engine.

It's kind of amusing how much atheism resembles bad catechism.

oj
Jibberish. You want to say that the engine under the hood is not the real engine, that you have to pray to the engine god to make the car go.

Robert:

No, that's the beauty--and the danger--of it. Someone else built it for you so you need have nmo idea how it works and don't need to pray or anything. Just step on the pedal and it goes. But if you don't maintain and think you can just reinvent when it breaks down, you're fooling yourself.

Maybe the other atheists find joy in tragedy, but not me. I just find tragedy.

My eye doctor (an obervant Jew, so not an atheist, I suppose) contrasts his approach to that of the go-along to get-along approach to medicine. "I don't want to help you learn to live with your disease. I want to go in and kill it."

For a believer to dictate what it is like to be an atheist is just as likely to be accurate as if I were to dictate what it is like to be a woman.

Jeff:

How postmodern of you--so only the individual himself can speak for himself. Presumably science too must founder, since you can't speak of anything beyond your own mind? That carries egotism a tad far doesn't it?

Robert:

Sure, most people don't live their lives with daily reference to scripture, philosophy, the Constitution, etc, and we're lucky they don't. One can be very decent without being conscious of why. But surely the reason we are one this site is because we all believe ideas count at some level and eventually have a bearing on how people live and act. You are not suggesting we are just playing chess here, are you?

Now, if your average decent atheist does respond to tragedy with nobility, duty and fulfilled self-denial, where does he get that from? Is he spending accummulated capital? Certainly his creed doesn't lead him there, so what does?

OJ:
You could not, in similar detail, accurately describe what women think. There's nothing post-modern or anti-science about it. You simply are faced with an unbridgeable evidentiary gap.

The same gap this author is faced with, unless he was at one time an atheist. No sign of that.

Peter:
The last I heard, religion does not change human nature. Your average decent atheist responds that way because it is in his nature to do so, not from some accumulated capital. Empathy, not religion, leads him there.

Jeff:

That's nonsense. You are nowhere near as insrutable as your ego requires you to believe.

His insight into the thinking of a group of which he has never been a member is nowhere near as accurate as his ego leads him to believe.

Neither is yours.

Jeff:

Paul Vitz nailed your atheism dead on, without even needing to meet you. People are uncomplicated.

Jeff:

My, but you seem to know a lot about my life and what groups I've been a member of. Besides, I thought I was just asking questions.

But I've got it now. Darwin's theory of natural virtue, right?

"No, that's the beauty--and the danger--of it. Someone else built it for you so you need have nmo idea how it works and don't need to pray or anything. Just step on the pedal and it goes. But if you don't maintain and think you can just reinvent when it breaks down, you're fooling yourself."

OJ, it is constantly breaking down, and we (all of us) are constantly re-building it. The quality of the mechanic is not judged by whether he wears the christian logo on his overalls (Mr Good-cross?) but whether he is a serious student of his craft.

You Christians want to pretend that you are in posession of the one true repair manual, although it has been "followed" by many past owners with very mixed results. If someone could show me the one surefire way to read the manual so as to maintain the engine in a consistent manner, I would take it more seriously. As it is, I could route the exhaust pipe through the carburator, and could find a passage in the manual that would support it. (Which some past owner had done, by the way - it was even signed off by Mr Goodcross).

So, I'm willing to take maintenance advice from the Goodcross crew, as long as it makes sense. But in the end, it is the performance of the engine that counts, not what the manual says.

"Now, if your average decent atheist does respond to tragedy with nobility, duty and fulfilled self-denial, where does he get that from? Is he spending accummulated capital? Certainly his creed doesn't lead him there, so what does? "

You could ask ths question of Christopher Reeve, who is an agnostic, by the way.

Of course, it's the Godcross crew that teaches it will always break down, precisely because we are Created mortal. You seem to want one of those utopian ideologies that promises never to break down--we've seen where they lead, and it's not to a moral society.

Robert:

C'mon, you are being evasive. I'm not talking about courageous agnostics or even everyday folk who say they don't believe without thinking much about it. I'm talking about dyed-in-the-wool, philosophically-assertive, "we're all random pieces of dust", long-live-Darwin materialist atheists who are spoiling for a fight and seeking converts. You know, the sort who log onto Brothersjudd to do daily battle with the dangerous religionists.

Peter,
Yeah, they are a real pain in the ass. As for me, I'm not seeking converts, it is too much work. I just love the verbal combat.

"Of course, it's the Godcross crew that teaches it will always break down, precisely because we are Created mortal. You seem to want one of those utopian ideologies that promises never to break down--we've seen where they lead, and it's not to a moral society."

No utopian ideologies for me. I am a born pessimist, I expect things to break down. How many utopian ideologists do you know of who have done a tour of duty in the Marines?
The Marines are not known for dreamy-eyed utopians.

Except that Reeve has responded indecently, demanding that other humans die in order to provide cells and tissue that might benefit him.

When did religion start? Not, presumably, as early as self-conscious humanity did. Yet the prereligious humans got along somehow.

Darwin can account for that. Christianity cannot. Even chimpanzees share food. I doubt it because of Revelation.

Harry:

So was Darwinism not true until he thought of it?

OJ:
You might as well make that claim about Newtonian mechanics, or Thermodynamics.

Peter:
I am not an atheist, I am an agnostic areligionist. Like Harry and Robert, I would have to be dead to care less about converts. I do rather take exception, though, to overbroad or ahistorical assertions.

And the verbal combat beats heck out of watching TV.

Jeff:

I agree--Harry's point was inane--substitute your own truth.

Well, when did religion start?

Harry's point was far from inane. Your response bore some hallmarks of inanity, though.

I'm serious. When did religion start? It was not a rhetorical question.

If you start it much later than 6,000 years ago (the date of the earliest prayer we know), then you have a lot of problems. But if you start it earlier, then you have a lot of different problems.

Not much point arguing the problems until we establish the ground level -- is religion ancient or recent? (I believe it must be ancient but cannot prove that.)

It begins with Abraham.

No religion before Abraham? I guess that means you know when he lived. You aren't channeling Bishop Usher, are you?

Besides, I thought the Neandertals left burial offerings. If so, that would seem to be a sign of religious belief.

No, that was superstition.

Distinction without difference.