Atheism is a faith which is unaffected by it's practical results, similar to Islam in that regard.

Tom - Islam will be reformed much more quickly than atheism.

Dick Dawkins isn't just a fool, he's a metafool, a clown.
While many religious people are "deluded, foolish or liars", Dawkins utterly fails to recognize that even if there is no God, religion has many beneficial uses to humans.
Religion is often derided as a "crutch", or an "opiate", but humans are weak, and need crutches and pain-killers.

Humans have had gods of nature, then gods as super-humans, then ultra-powerful gods that created everything, and can affect everything.
One common thread to all of those stories or explanations is that it allows humans to affix a cause to the unexplainable.
The crops fail because the gods are angry; the talented rise and fall because they amused or displeased the gods; our loved ones die according to a higher "plan".
Humans seek patterns, and need predictability, even faux predictability.

Where to begin with all this nonsense?

Peter, I can't believe that you are buying into that "Atheists hate their fathers" claptrap of Paul Vitz. OJ, sure, but I thought you were capable of more, shall we say, nuance. If we are going to portray Atheism as a religion for people who hate their fathers, then certainly it is fair to portray Judeo-Christianity as a religion for fathers who hate their sons. Abraham tries to kill his son, and God sacrifices his son to erase a bad debt on his books.

I was struck with the differences between Freud and Lewis. Freud married and had family, Lewis never did, he was a lifelong bachelor. Lewis was the ultimate overintellectualized academic who supressed his emotions, obsessing over his beliefs night after night, until one day they is emotions came welling up and kicked him in the head. Not that it disproves anything he wrote, but if we are going to evaluate the two by personal quirks, Lewis certainly had enough quirkiness to make it interesting.

McGrath makes the mistake of equating Atheism and Communism, or more accurately, Atheism with Utopian Totalitarianism. There is no necessary link between the two, Atheism does not require Communism or Totalitarianism, and Communism Utopian Totalitarianism can exist in union with theistic religion - see Liberation Theology and Wahhabism, respectively.

If you think that Post-Modernism is a step in the right direction, I have some land to sell you. Seriously, do you think that Madonna and Shirley MacLaine are serious convert material to conservative Christianity? The main characteristic of Post Modern "Sprituality" is a reification of the subjective, individualistic imagination. It is "Imagination as Truth". Another word for it is Gnosticism. I know that you conservative Christians put a premium on Objective Truth. Is it really a step forward to you for an atheist who at least acknowledges that there is such a thing as Subjective Truth, to renounce Athiesm and Objective Truth for a subjective, goofy, wherever my imagination leads me spirituality?

I do see one parallel between Post-Modernism and Christianity. Several years ago, a journalist concocted a "Post Modern" essay, basically making up all sort of nonsense, but tying it together using all the right PM busswords and shibboleths. It was accepted and published by a PM academic journal. I had a similar experience in Cathechism once. There was a test with a written question which I cannot exactly remember, but I had no clue what the answer was. I constructed an answer using terms like "Son of the Lamb", or "blood of the Lamb", etc, with the "Holy Spirit" liberally applied to tie it together, and handed it in. I expected to get it wrong, and was surprised when I got an A.

Robert:

Post-modernism is pre-modern. It's the flaw Reason has never successfully refuted. Cogito ergo sum is the admission of defeat with which rationality begins.

Michael:

The crutch of the Rational is the faith that they uniquely are free of crutches, when all they've done is switch crutches

C.S. Lewis did get married.

His wife is described in Lewis's book Surprised By Joy.

And in two movies, both called Shadowlands and his crisis upon her death in A Grief Observed:

http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/245/

Lewis had also had a healthy family life, not one where he wanted to shtoop his Mom and daughter, and basically adopted the family of a friend killed in WWI.

Dawkins is not only not the leading preacher of atheism in the world today, he isn't even the leading advocate in England.

That would be Antony Flew.

Preaching atheism as if it were a religion has always seemed a little off-center to me.

Atheism (or the absence of god/gods) is either evident or it isn't. It's kind of hard to preach that something isn't there. Maybe it's somewhere else?

Even when the absence of evidence (for god) is overwhelming, most people cannot overcome their emotional attachment to the supernatural. Robert is correct to say that almost all people need a supernatural belief system. How that happened is a mystery.

Presumably, it had survival value once, though it hasn't for a very long time.

Robert:

Hey, what are you swarming me about? It wasn't my post.

But for the record, I do think there is a sense to what Orrin is saying. Not literally or personally but in the sense of trying to shake off family, tradition, etc., the things that from our characters, bind one's conscience and influence actions:

You look round on your Mother Earth
As if she for no purpose bore you,
As if you were her first born birth
And none had come before you.

Surely much of psychotherapy is just an effort to objectify the family and cultural influences that guide/bind us with a view to encouraging us to reject or ignore them. Not a bad charitable service in some cases, but dicey as a general theory of life and existence. I assume the use of "Father" here is symbolic.

I don't think McGrath is equating communism and atheism at all. He is responding to the argument, seen here frequently, that religion is the cause of all manner of horrific things that wouldn't have happened if people weren't religious. He is simply saying we now know atheisn can and does lead to the same behaviour, if not worse, and that therefore that argument fails as an argument against religion. What's wrong with that?

As using the word "post-modernism" is against my religion, I'll leave you and Orrin to battle that out.

Harry:

"Robert is correct to say that almost all people need a supernatural belief system."

Well, if you believe that, why do you fulminate incessantly against religion and shout "Ecrasez L'infamme!" from the rooftops at every opportunity? What great service do you think you are performing for humanity by trying to destroy something you readily admit almost everyone needs. Why not rail against food and love while you're at it? Got a "new man" in mind?

I don't rail against all forms of supernaturalism, Peter.

I specialize in the really dangerous kind, universalizing, monotheistic salvationism.

And the argument is not that religion is unique in leading people to justify robbery and murder, but that it's claim to be unique in somehow avoiding robbery and murder is phoney.

Harry:

Not unique in avoiding them, just unequivocal in condemning them.

You old hippie, you. It's that darned Judeo-Christian tradition again. You aren't arguing for secularism at all. You want us to all to join hands in a circle, chant invocations to Mother Earth and bay at the moon.

Tell me, what do the entrails of your sacrificial goat say about the Islamist challenge?

Harry:

That stands the more interesting question on its headL: given the near universal acceptance that Nature derives from the Supernatural, what psychological foible is it that drives some to deny the obvious?

OJ:

Just that many, most, or nearly all, accept Nature derives from the supernatural does not make it true, the dissenters wrong, or the dissent the result of some psychological aberration.

You misunderstood Mr. Shermer. His sole assertions are two: for those subjects outside the realm of rational inquiry, there is no means to determine the relative truth value of competing assertions; and that there is only one standardized process for discerning the truth value between competing claims.

In asserting atheism is responsible for more blood letting than any of its rivals, you are mistaking atheism as a particular form of religious belief with organized religion.

Atheism is undoubtedly a form of religious belief. Atheism is not a religion. Christianity, Islam, and Communism are all religions. It simply is not true that the invocation of a supernatural deity is a necessary component of a religion. Communism has its various deities, they just don't happen to be supernatural. Although, if Communism were to have survived for several centuries, what do you want to be Marx attained just that status?

Any organized belief system that is salvationist, universalizing, monotheistic and possesses the levers of government power sooner or later turns to slaughter. And it will use its belief system to justify that slaughter.

Wasn't is King Phillip II that said "I don't care how many thousands we kill, so long as we are hunting for heretics?"

Jeff:

Of course it's a religion, though it does have different sects--Nazi/Darwinist, Marxist, etc.

Peter,
Sorry, I sometimes fall into the trap of assuming that the longer posts are yours. My bad.

But to your point: "Not literally or personally but in the sense of trying to shake off family, tradition, etc., the things that from our characters, bind one's conscience and influence actions [...] Surely much of psychotherapy is just an effort to objectify the family and cultural influences that guide/bind us with a view to encouraging us to reject or ignore them."

I would argue that the objectification is more with a goal to understanding the family and cultural influences. Just by making those influences a matter of examination, they lose some of their power, and allow the individual an opportunity to reject, adjust to them or maybe accept them with a sense of empowerment rather than resignation.

It doesn't necessarily have to destroy those influences, but makes unquestioned, collective traditional influences more untenable, I'll admit that. Whether that is a good, bad or mixed outcome is arguable, but it has had the effect of focusing modern society more on the individual. The Therapeutic Culture it spawned has become ingrained in our society, religious and secular. Norman Vincent Peale was an heir to Freud.

"He is simply saying we now know atheisn can and does lead to the same behaviour, if not worse, and that therefore that argument fails as an argument against religion. What's wrong with that?"

Certainly atheism is no cure to the evil inclinations of human nature, and those who promote it as such are selling snake oil. Some people come to atheism in this way, and have those qualities of the "True Believer" described by Erich Hoffer. But religious faith is subject to this as well. True Believerism is the real danger, not any one belief in isolation.

"Robert is correct to say that almost all people need a supernatural belief system."

Actually, that was Michael. I would say that All people need a belief system, or a faith. A faith can be supernatural or natural. I would say that most people would have great difficulty adjusting to a natural belief system, but as the secularization of Europe and Australia show, it is possible.

And as the rapid decline of Europe shows that faith is disastrous.

Atheism is not a religion.

It is a religious belief absent priesthood, rituals, sacred text, and heretics.

This seems to be a two-faceted discussion: Does the belief in a unified supernatural--and superpowerful-- being (never mind to which religion that being happens to belong) coincide with objective truth. Secondly, regardless of objective truth, is that belief to be recommended, or imposed, due to some set of salutory benefits deriving therefrom.

In other words, is [fill in a religion and sect here] both materially and philosophically correct.

Per Mr. Sherm, there is absolutely no answering the question of material correctness.

As for philosophical correctness, we can make some tentative conclusions. Islam, such as it is, is less philosophically correct than Christianity.

How do we know? Material results. OJ can tell Christianity is correct, and Europe's faith less so, solely on material consequences.

So the notion of philosophical correctness boils down to materialism.

Which may very well have nought to do with what ever Supreme Being there might be had in mind.

Jeff:

Atheism, of course, has all those accoutrements.

Materialism fails on its own terms because of the decline of secular states. Even if they succeeded they'd fail on philosophical terms.

OJ:

The Atheists Bible would be? How about the ordained priesthood and hierarchy? Excommunications?

You misunderstood my point on materialism. You are the one who continually uses materialistic considerations to substantiate a particular spiritual outlook.

The Bible isn't noteworthy for promoting individualism, but individualism is noteworthy in the material success of the US. You end up defining correct spirituality by the proxy of materialistic success.

You should clean your finger before pointing out someone else's spots.

Jeff:

Origin of Species, The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, Freud's writings, Nietzsche, etc. Each has its high priests and excommunicates those who disagree, leading to splinter sects.

The U.S. is notable chiefly for its lack of individualism--we're extremely conformist. It's why we only have two political parties and they rarely disagree much.

OJ:

"And as the rapid decline of Europe shows that faith is disastrous"

A deafening silence here on the little matter of Ryder Cup.

No doubt if the USA had beaten Europe you'd be using it as more evidence of Yank superiority and Euro yellow-belliedness.

So what's your explanation of the utter annihilation, nay, humiliation, of the risible bunch of clowns comprising the "Dream Team"?

OJ:

Origin of Species might be hostile to your particular God, but is silent on God's existence.

None of those other tracts come anywhere close to representing a bible for Atheists. Quick test: Out of all the Atheists in the US, how many have read even one of those books.

Your use of the terms "priest," "excommunicates" and "splinter sects" drains those terms of all meaning.

We have two political parties because our Consitution is biased towards that outcome. If you think American's aren't individualistic, particularly with respect to Europeans, you don't get out enough.

Jeff:

They all just propose alternative gods, including that most appealing of all: the self

Hal:

Golf is Scottish--they should win.

Orrin, your question answers itself.

Certainly it is nearly universally thought that Nature derives from the Supernatural, and as long as you know only people who accept the same Supernatural, there is no pressing reason to question whether that is, in fact, so.

But once you get out a little and find that there are many Supernaturals, but only one Natural, the question (naturally) arises, How can the many be the father to the one?

Answer: They cannot. Therefore, Nature does not arise from Supernature QED.

Peter, it was most unlucky timing for you to claim that Christianity is unique for unequivocally condemning murder, just when Rev. Swaggart calls from the pulpit to murder homosexuals in the name of God.

And, pace Professor Volokh, you cannot say he's a renegade. Volokh says his email is running strong pro-Swaggart

Harry:

Except that there are as many Natures as there are people too. Your belief in objectivity within the natural sphere is touching, but delusional. More people believe in God than in Darwin, but you don't therefore discount Darwin do you? There is only one Truth in the world but it is not given to us to know it.

Then how can religions persist in claiming to purvey the one Truth?

I would make Harry's point differently: given the plethora of mutually exclusive absolute religious Truths out there, at least all but one of them must be wrong. Which, if any, isn't? How do you tell?

The PBS program that got this link started is well done in most respects, but falls down on this very point, because it incorrectly poses the question. The contention isn't just between Atheism and Christianity; rather, the contention is a cross product of all religious beliefs.

We might have been better served with a program dealing with the Truth of Christianity vs. the Truth of Islam.

Atheism is just another form of protestantism though, a reaction to God. That the One Truth is inaccessible doesn't much matter. Faith suffices.

OJ:

No, it isn't. We all make an assessment of the likelihood some supernatural being exists, no matter the description.

That some reach conclusion a different than yours doesn't make that a "reaction to God," any more than your conclusion is a "reaction to no God."

When one is presented with diametrically opposed One Truths, faith alone suffices for nothing.

Assessment? You were mad at your father & took it out on your Father. There's no assessment involved.

OJ:

I can't fully express the derision your dismissive, presumptive, and thoroughly wrong response deserves without resorting to foul language.

If you can't summon the time or effort to come up with something more germane, then don't bother.

Think of me as a father figure and the blasphemy will come naturally....

Daddy, don't kill me!!! Please daddy!

OJ:

One other thing.

How do you know my father doesn't read this blog?

Perhaps you might keep that in mind before casting such libelous assertions--they just might have unintended consequences.

I suspect he knows what he's done to his children without reading a blog.

OJ:

You have succeeded in being both grossly offensive and wholly wrong.

How very Christian of you.

Jeff:

Your quarrel is with the predictive power of science, not with Christianity.

OJ:

No, my quarrel is with you continuing to make offensive comments about my family. Please refrain from doing so.

The predictive power of science is irrelevant here. I know you are busy fielding hordes of comments, so you can easily be forgiven for not noting science, or its predictive powers, is conspicuously absent from this discussion.

You and your brother are text book examples of what can happen to children of divorce. I'm sure you'd like to believe that you arrived at your atheism through a great rational struggle, but in reality it's just an effect. And a pity.

"You and your brother are text book examples of what can happen to children of divorce. I'm sure you'd like to believe that you arrived at your atheism through a great rational struggle, but in reality it's just an effect. And a pity."

What nonsensical psycho-babble is this? Freud himself would blush at that assertion.

Your strange lifestyle of feverish combing of the web in search of documents to support your pet theories seems to be driving you over the edge of sanity. It's a common complaint of bloggers. And a pity.

Take a holiday, at least for your own sake.

HSH:

Freud is the textbook example.

OJ:

In many respects, I greatly admire your analytical skills. But here you are completely off the rails.

At the risk of providing to much information, let me set the record straight:

I am now, and always have been, on excellent terms with my dad.

My brother's childhood varied in no signficant way from the norm--including divorce. He just happened to be born that way, just as some are born with cleft palate, or schizophrenic, or with ambiguous genitalia, ad infinitum. If your thesis even glancingly described reality, at least 25% of American men would be gay. Unfortunately for your thesis, that number is actually less than 3%, just like it ever was, and wholly unaffected by divorce rates.

I was a choir boy, than an acolyte. My time as a Christian was utterly devoid of any trauma. Over time, though, and absent any rational struggle, I decided that God and religion are, for me, a completely empty exercise.

And I haven't found the need to replace it with anything since. Please don't start with any Darwinism nonsense--for me it is, for the moment, the most coherent explanation of a certain class of phenomena, but that doesn't make it any more of a religion to me than Thermodynamics.

As hard as it undoubtedly is for you to take on board, it is entirely possible for someone to not believe in God, and not miss God's absence in the least.

To repeat: my childhood, within the grand spectrum of human experience, was as close to idyllic as it is possible to be. My relationship with my father has always been so good that my fondest hope is that my son always views me the way I have always viewed my dad.

So your assertions above, while friendly to your point of view, are as far from correct as it is possible to be, and greatly caution against armchair Freudianism.

Jeff:

There is a template for creating atheists and gay men--you guys fit it. The rest is self-importance.

OJ:

Both comprehensively wrong and needlessly offensive. Quite an achievement.

So wrong, and so offensive, in fact, that any further comments from you about my family life are out of bounds.

OJ:

There is also a template for creating lonely obssesives - it's called 'having too much time on your hands' - and you fit it.

HSH:

Yes, that's very much the point. There's no such thing as individuality.