Comments on: Swimming upstream.

Swimming upstream.

allkindsoftime — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 03:47:40 -0800

The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism is a book released last month by Tim Keller. Its faired reasonably well (NYT, login req'd), which is interesting, considering the wide success of books preaching the opposite message, as of late (Dawkins, et. al.).

A little more from Newsweek. Coming soon to a uni near you.

By: allkindsoftime

allkindsoftime — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 03:55:43 -0800

By way of full disclosure, this is partly an attempt to give credit where credit is due. This comment was largely influenced by what I have learned from Keller's teaching over the past half-decade or so. I thought many of you might enjoy the source material, as it were.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 04:01:47 -0800

Wait, wait, this isn't about a vindication of Thor? Oh well, fine, I can wait another millennium. (Excellent comment by the way, allkindsoftime.)

By: sotonohito

sotonohito — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 04:34:25 -0800

"Its faired reasonably well (NYT, login req'd), which is interesting, considering the wide success of books preaching the opposite message" I think you got that backwards. The surprising thing is the success of the books by Dawkins and the other atheists. Around 80% of the US population identifies as Christian, therefore the success of a book saying "hey, Christianity is better than all the other religions and it makes perfect sense" is all but guaranteed.

By: ibmcginty

ibmcginty — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 04:36:39 -0800

Yeah, I was going to make the point sotonohito made-- it's fared reasonably well in no small part because of the success of the anti-deism books. Thanks for this post. I'd never heard of Tim Keller, and your comment was pretty great.

By: DU

DU — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 04:37:19 -0800

There are millions of religious books that sell well, including one of the best selling books in history. There is, after all, a sucker born every minute.

By: Phanx

Phanx — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 04:52:53 -0800

If you want to know what the book actually says, the Reader Guide seems to give a good idea. To me, it's a commendably rational effort in a hopeless cause. No-one who isn't convinced, will be.

By: allkindsoftime

allkindsoftime — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 04:59:25 -0800

I think you got that backwards. The surprising thing is the success of the books by Dawkins and the other atheists. Around 80% of the US population identifies as Christian, therefore the success of a book saying "hey, Christianity is better than all the other religions and it makes perfect sense" is all but guaranteed. I think not. Take a look at the OP's question in my comment linked above. HINT: he's in your 80%.

By: Dr. Curare

Dr. Curare — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:03:25 -0800

I really like allkindsoftime comment on that thread, and I see the link with Keller's "emphasis on social justice and community service". I really like this attitude. But in both cases there is no need at all of gods of any kind to get involved. I have spent the last 2 hours trying to find out more bout his ideas without actually giving him any of my money, and this seems a pretty good starting point, from a wordpress blog 1, 2, 3. I am convinced that a world without religion would be better for all, in the meantime, I can only wish he can convert as many Christians to his version as possible. He is a critical rationalist, no place for young earthers or IDers unless they propose some falsifiable hypotesis and peer reviewed studies. The best one is "Christianity is not basically a form of moral improvement". On the other side, he is more concerned with "Christian moral and sexual ethics than Democrats have been". Ouch. He is also convinced

By: dydecker

dydecker — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:04:05 -0800

I read an interesting book too the other day. Big whoop

By: honest knave

honest knave — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:11:46 -0800

Coming soon to a uni near you. Keller seems to have gotten onto the Veritas circuit. Here at Cambridge the Veritas Forum series of lectures/discussions just concluded. It brought in a diverse and eminent group of public figures and scholars to discuss religious freedom, faith & pluralism, religious toleration, science in the public sphere, science and faith, and the public significance of the gospel. It is probably the most scholarly university lecture series on the Christian faith, pitched generally to graduate students, at least here in Cambridge.

By: francesca too

francesca too — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:13:41 -0800

Looking forward to reading the book, since Keller's arguments seem to appeal to logic. I tend to agree with your thinking in the link, except Jesus got rid of himself for you, OP. Go and do likewise. My Xians beliefs do not seem to include the necessity of belief in blood sacrifice as atonement. DU I started studying the B book seriously four years ago, mainly as a defense against the Dark (read Fundamentalists). I got tired of loosing verbal debates due to my ignorance and their use of out of contest quotes. This quest has introduced in my life the Jesus Seminar and Covenant Christianity where I'm free to follow the way without having to subscribe to beliefs I don't believe in.

By: ewkpates

ewkpates — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:15:59 -0800

It's not religion that makes the world the kind of place that some people would rather it wasn't... it is irrationality. Taking away religion won't change that. Shaping religion into a tool that moderates the influences of irrationality rather than exacerbates them, this is a noble goal. The little I've read here suggests that this book is such an attempt.

By: a robot made out of meat

a robot made out of meat — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:17:54 -0800

Christian apologetics is an ancient genre. I don't understand the person who sees a new cover with the same arguments inside it and feels the need to drop $20. It's not an intricate scholarly back-and-forth with the atheist authors, who themselves are extolling ideas mostly from the 19th century. I guess it's a table-piece so that your also Christian friends can see that you're keeping up on the unchanging immovable rock. It's unfair to say that nobody will change their minds after reading it. There are very uncritical unreflective people on all sides.

By: shothotbot

shothotbot — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:19:25 -0800

I read an interesting book too the other day. Big whoop posted by dydecker at 8:04 AM That's terrific dydecker! Why don't you find some background links, write a brief paragraph on why you found it interesting and why we might too and share it with us.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:25:04 -0800

Its faired reasonably well... seems fare to me.

By: uri

uri — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:27:22 -0800

God can allow suffering because we can't possibly know every reason he might allow people to suffer is not an argument for belief. From what I gathered, Keller seems to be using the same approach that IDers do, using attacks on (straw man) atheism as proof of belief.

By: dydecker

dydecker — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:29:32 -0800

Why don't you find some background links, write a brief paragraph on why you found it interesting and why we might too and share it with us. Because I am not presumptive enough to assume that my taste in books is of interest to MeFi readers. And that's all we've got here. There is nothing to talk about, nothing to argue against, nothing at all except "check out this book". Well no, I won't be checking out the book, because it sounds like a superstitious load of nonsense. But I wouldn't know if there was any meat to it because I would have to buy it to find out, wouldn't I? Delete this pepsi blue post.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:37:00 -0800

the Jesus Seminar see N. T. Wright's voluminous works (1, 2, 3) on Jesus for a devastatingly humorous dismantling of virtually everything produced by the Jesus Seminar. finding a more sincerely deluded bunch of pseudo-intellectual wankers would be exceedingly rare.

By: allkindsoftime

allkindsoftime — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:37:22 -0800

I am convinced that a world without religion would be better for all... That's your religion.

By: oddman

oddman — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:38:02 -0800

"God can allow suffering because we can't possibly know every reason he might allow people to suffer is not an argument for belief. " Uri, where did you get this idea from? Does Keller say this (I haven't read the links). I've never heard of that particular theodicy as an argument for faith.

By: allkindsoftime

allkindsoftime — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:38:50 -0800

seems fare to me. Doh. Thanks quonsar.

By: DreamerFi

DreamerFi — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:42:29 -0800

I am convinced that a world without religion would be better for all... That's your religion. True - and it would be great for that religion to disappear, making the world a better place indeed, because for that to happen, first all other religions need to go away...

By: DU

DU — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:53:29 -0800

I am convinced that a world without religion would be better for all... That's your religion. Notice he said "convinced" not "believing without a shred of evidence, in fact, despite the evidence".

By: Jody Tresidder

Jody Tresidder — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:53:57 -0800

The linked Newsweek article about the book contains this apologetically flattening line: "The book is demanding, but ultimately it disappoints because its pages lack the charisma and conviction so evident in the man." So - all the more props to allkindsoftime for that wonderfully engaging comment from the Craigslist thread - which sparked this post. And I remain convinced that one of the best ways way for atheists (like me) to get a glimpse of Christianity's genuinely counter culture message - without the strain of being lectured at in a disappointingly demanding fashion - is simply to watch the Paul Newman etc movie Cool Hand Luke. It's one of the cleverest parable movies ever.(Yes - the car washing scene!)

By: oddman

oddman — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:54:20 -0800

DU, despite what evidence?

By: allkindsoftime

allkindsoftime — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 05:55:32 -0800

My point exactly. Religion isn't going anywhere, as much as some people might want it to.

By: LordSludge

LordSludge — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:00:18 -0800

As an atheist, I'm thinking that we should try to be cool to each other because this one life is all you get, after which we become dirt. There's an implicit assumption in most religions that death is not all that bad, because hey we get to go to heaven (or reincarnate or whatever) afterwards. (I actually heard this as an argument against universal health care from a family member just yesterday -- essentially, "...well, if I had no health insurance and got cancer, I'd die -- and that's not the worse thing that could happen...") The end result is that (finite) life is trivialized, to some extent, by comparison to the infinite afterlife. Forget the Crusades, forget the Spanish Inquisition... religion causes a lot of pain and suffering right here and now.

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:03:51 -0800

considering the wide success of books preaching the opposite message, as of late I am really tired of this rhetorical attempt to backdoor faith into atheist claims. Dawkins et al do not preach. I REPEAT: THEY DO NOT PREACH. They argue. With Evidence. Some well. Some poorly. However, to say they preach is to deliberately completely ignore the central premise of their books or articles. The only reason to say it is to offend. Were you just parroting what you heard or were you deliberately trolling?

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:08:45 -0800

MetaFilter: The only reason to say it is to offend.

By: YouRebelScum

YouRebelScum — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:14:39 -0800

religion causes a lot of pain and suffering right here and now. I think the thing that causes trouble here and now is mostly "Me and my mates want your stuff" - sometimes the "me and my mates" part is defined by religion, sometimes by political ideology, sometimes by class, ethnicity, nationalism, whatever. I think most of it's about 'us' and 'them', and religion's just a convenient coat for one bunch of venal arseholes to have a go. It's got nothing to do with the content of the religion or what Jesus, the Buddha, Mohammad or any of them had to say. At worst, it's the current head clerics and interpreters of the religion who are same as any other politically-motivated group.

By: Sparx

Sparx — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:17:22 -0800

APOLOGIST CHRISTIAN IS SORRY! And this is a sorry excuse for a post. Where's the beef? If that reader's guide is anything to go on, this has the intellectual heft of a sparrow fart. He begs the question of God's existence, confuses belief with supported positions and generally wimps around like C.S Lewis without the saving grace of some kick arse fairy tales. That may be unfair, because in all the links I get no real sense of what he's saying above the usual Courtier's Reply type of laughable apologetics...but still, that's kind of why it's a lame post. Please try harder AKoT.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:23:12 -0800

DU, despite what evidence? Would 9/11 and all the other Islamic terrorism have happened if no one was religious? Obviously you can argue hypothetically that people would just find something else to fight over, just as Christians fought with each other in Europe, WWII was fought over secular social theories, etc. However, certainly you can point to the professed religious arguments of the partisans as some evidence that religion makes the world a worse place. (And thus evidence that religion does not make the world a better place). Now, it may be that you haven't been following the thread and thought DU was talking about the evidence for or against god. But there's no evidence for that.

By: Optamystic

Optamystic — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:27:10 -0800

Not this shit again.

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:27:18 -0800

Dawkins et al do not preach. I REPEAT: THEY DO NOT PREACH. Preach it, brother! Anyway, I think this is an interesting subject, but I'm afraid the post really is kind of thin. Is none of the actual book online anywhere? If there's an excerpt, I'm not finding it.

By: allkindsoftime

allkindsoftime — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:36:40 -0800

I REPEAT: THEY DO NOT PREACH. Yeah. That didn't sound preachy, or anything.

By: YouRebelScum

YouRebelScum — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:38:42 -0800

certainly you can point to the professed religious arguments of the partisans as some evidence that religion makes the world a worse place. I guess that depends on your counterfactual. What arguments would they be making if Islam, or Christianity, or whatever wasn't there? Are the arguments tempered by Islam/Christianity or made worse? (Sorry if this a bit of a derail - interesting post).

By: a robot made out of meat

a robot made out of meat — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:41:08 -0800

Would 9/11 REACHING CRITICAL FLAMEWARMASS If that reader's guide is anything to go on... I agree, but think that that's an unfair position to take on anything. Reading Guides job is to boil things down to the shortest possible version for people who can't read on their own.

By: Malor

Malor — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:52:17 -0800

Would 9/11 and all the other Islamic terrorism have happened if no one was religious? Actually, I think it probably would have. We've been absolutely horrible worldwide, deliberately creating tyrannical regimes and enslaving local populations with debt for the last sixty years or so. We have regularly assassinated elected leaders, putting corrupt governments we happen to like in their place. Read Confessions of an Economic Hitman if you'd like some examples of what we've done and how. I don't think religion has very much to do with it at all, to be honest. Note that, even given our history there, the citizens of Iran were on the streets demonstrating in our favor on 9/11.

By: allkindsoftime

allkindsoftime — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:55:24 -0800

Is none of the actual book online anywhere? If there's an excerpt, I'm not finding it. I couldn't find much beyond the excerpts that the actual booksellers have - here's the one from my original Amazon link.

By: LordSludge

LordSludge — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:55:28 -0800

I think the thing that causes trouble here and now is mostly "Me and my mates want your stuff" - sometimes the "me and my mates" part is defined by religion, sometimes by political ideology, sometimes by class, ethnicity, nationalism, whatever. Agreed, but religion has the added bonus of: "If you die** or if your life is really crappy, it's not that big a deal, because if you're good you get to go to heaven. After all, life is fleeting; the afterlife is forever." ** translation: "If my mates and I kill you".

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:57:25 -0800

I REPEAT: THEY DO NOT PREACH. Yeah. That didn't sound preachy, or anything. Really? You know preachers who repeat factual assertions?

By: LordSludge

LordSludge — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 06:57:57 -0800

In fairness, the "at least they're in heaven" is the same mechanism that helps people deal with the loss of a loved one, so it's not entirely negative, per se.

By: DU

DU — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:00:54 -0800

Another good lie to tell sad people is "They never really existed in the first place, you have a faulty memory. Maybe it's a brain tumor."

By: sotonohito

sotonohito — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:03:03 -0800

Malor No arguing that the US has been doing terrible things worldwide, but the interesting thing to note is that most of the terrorists come from places that actually aren't that badly off. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, were middle class, and college educated, for example. The people of Sierra Leone, or Ziare, etc aren't flying planes into US buildings. The people of Chile and Nicaragua have been shit on by the CIA to an amazing degree and they aren't strapping explosives to themselves. Its the people who have been *least* harmed by US policy towards the third world who are the principle source of terrorist activity against the US. To me that implies a very strong corelation with religion, especially the more rabid sects of Islam. I argue that's largely due to the juxtaposition of a religion which actively encourages martyrdom, and religion/society that practices extreme sexual repression coupled the promise of all the pussy you can handle if you do become a martyr. Note that religion is central to all of those factors.

By: fleetmouse

fleetmouse — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:04:37 -0800

HURF DURF BODY OF CHRIST EATER etc.

By: [NOT HERMITOSIS-IST]

[NOT HERMITOSIS-IST] — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:09:10 -0800

Yet another example of people who are opposed to Christianity (or religion in total) showing up in a thread to say their piece, and then say it again, and again, and again, until others get the point that discussing it intellectually is unwelcome at best, flat-out impossible at worst.

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:09:38 -0800

I REPEAT: THEY DO NOT PREACH. >>Yeah. That didn't sound preachy, or anything. >>>Really? You know preachers who repeat factual assertions? As Merriam-Webster would have it: 1: to deliver a sermon 2: to urge acceptance or abandonment of an idea or course of action; specifically : to exhort in an officious or tiresome manner I ASSURE you, then, that Dawkins, et al DO preach. Do they EVER. And I expect we'll see a lot more preaching before this thread ends or is closed.

By: louche mustachio

louche mustachio — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:14:22 -0800

I'm reading this book. I needed to find a middle ground. I wasn't raised in a religious household (I once asked my father why we didn't go to church like everyone else - he said "Because you're not old enough.") But I am respectful of other people's beliefs, and understand that religion is a) a meaningful and essential force in their lives. Unless they are hurting someone, it's not my place to tell them otherwise and b) does not make them good people or bad people, any more than my lack of religion makes me "amoral." I got pretty tired of everyone talking up "The God Delusion" in ways that were disrespectful of people who do hold various faiths, and wanted to find something a little more fair-minded, that explains why religion happens, why people believe. It's OK. Kinda dry and a little sloppy.

By: slimepuppy

slimepuppy — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:20:10 -0800

theists: nodding atheists: shaking head agnostics: shrugging Add adjectives according to levels of zeal for each category. I choose the last option with just a little hint of hope for something beyond death, but not to the exclusion of enjoying the present. I'll leave the arguing for the rest of you. Let me know when someone wins. This comment created mostly for personal reference for all future zomg religions!1 conversations. And I still maintain the original comment by allkindsoftime is ace.

By: DU

DU — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:22:55 -0800

...people who are opposed to Christianity (or religion in total) showing up in a thread to say their piece, and then say it again, and again, and again, until others get the point that discussing it intellectually is unwelcome... I AM DEAD. OF IRONY.

By: oddman

oddman — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:54:56 -0800

If I'm not mistaken plenty of bombings have occurred without recourse to religious explanations. Thus, it is entirely possible that the attacks of 9/11 would have happened without the religious elements. The truth is that it's likely impossible to say how much of a role religious belief really played in any conflict or action, just as it's impossible to single out a single causal factor in any complex activity. To pin religion as the origin for the bad things that have been done in its name is at best a sorry excuse for an inference from the best explanation. Furthermore, even if we were to accept that religious belief should bear the greater part of responsibility for bad actions done for religious reasons, it would not be the case that religion is obviously bad. For that conclusion we would also have to weigh the good things that religion is responsible for (e.g. great works of art, indefinitely many works of humanitarian kindness, preservation and promulgation of learning, etc.). It's entirely unlikely that we could ultimately decide whether religion is on-balance good or bad. What we can see clearly is that reflexively accusing a group of people of adhering to a set of beliefs that stand against human progress is unlikely to actually further said progress. (This is, of course, a sin committed by both atheists and theists.) Knee jerk statements about the immoral nature of religion betray the supposed goal of establishing a good and just society.

By: nebulawindphone

nebulawindphone — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:56:29 -0800

Would 9/11 and all the other Islamic terrorism have happened if no one was religious? Obviously you can argue hypothetically that people would just find something else to fight over, just as Christians fought with each other in Europe, WWII was fought over secular social theories, etc. However, certainly you can point to the professed religious arguments of the partisans as some evidence that religion makes the world a worse place. (And thus evidence that religion does not make the world a better place). Well, one possibility is that a world without religion would have less death and suffering. It's just as possible that a world without religion would have different death and suffering. Fewer suicide bombings, more good old-fashioned murder and arson. Fewer religious cults, more political ones. Fewer zealots, more nationalists. It's true that certain kinds of psychopaths, fascists and moral cripples are drawn to religion. But they're drawn, too, to armies, to bureaucracies, to law enforcement and business. If there's one fewer place for them to settle, they'll just be thicker on the ground everywhere else. How is that a net gain? Put it another way: after a secular murder-suicide — a school shooting, a disgruntled employee, a distraught-husband hostage clusterfuck — churches come out of the woodwork claiming that lack of religion is what made all the carnage possible. Why should I accept your argument but not accept theirs?

By: effwerd

effwerd — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 07:58:20 -0800

My point exactly. Religion isn't going anywhere, as much as some people might want it to. I don't care if religion stays with humans for four hundred and twenty thousand trillion years but I would very much like to see monotheism go away as soon as possible, especially apocalyptic monotheism that can't help but try to continuously proselytize and encroach on public policy.

By: Shepherd

Shepherd — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:02:38 -0800

If anyone here has read both this book and any of John Shelby Spong's stuff (esp. Why Christianity Must Change or Die), I would love to see a compare-contrast.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:09:42 -0800

It's fun, watching the theists flail and scream in desperate rage.

By: oddman

oddman — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:13:30 -0800

We're glad to be of service PG. We even dare to hope that you'll learn something along the way.

By: slimepuppy

slimepuppy — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:13:40 -0800

It's equally fun, watching the atheists flail and scream in impotent outrage.

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:16:17 -0800

Knee jerk statements about the immoral nature of religion betray the supposed goal of establishing a good and just society. The knees that jerk are not the ones you are accusing of jerking. Atheists are not the ones trying to bypass the frontal cortex.

By: oddman

oddman — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:19:46 -0800

"The knees that jerk are not the ones you are accusing of jerking. ~~Atheists~~ reasonable people on all sides are not the ones trying to bypass the frontal cortex." Fixed that for you.

By: pointystick

pointystick — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:25:47 -0800

Thanks for the link. It's always my hope that when books like this do well, they're not so much competing (for shelf space or for public support) with Dawkins et al. but that they are an antidote to those "religious" books that are based in fear and/or discourage thinking. I can hope, anyway.

By: nicolin

nicolin — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:29:00 -0800

Atheism isn't just a gesture. It can be articulate. It isn't necessary negative, it is also a construction. Check Michel Onfray.

By: Malor

Malor — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:30:25 -0800

The people of Sierra Leone, or Ziare, etc aren't flying planes into US buildings. The people of Chile and Nicaragua have been shit on by the CIA to an amazing degree and they aren't strapping explosives to themselves. Well, maybe they're so poor they can't anymore. Buying a plane ticket is unimaginable to someone making a dollar a day. It can certainly be argued that only religion gives people enough of a killing drive to actually execute the bombings, but without the meddling we've been doing, I would think recruiting would be enormously more difficult. The religious impulse has been at the core of a lot of positive developments too. It certainly seems that most of the people who become focus points for major improvements in the world are profoundly spiritual. I can't think of any examples, though, where they have been dogmatic and exclusionary. I've come to the opinion, over my 40 years, that spirituality and religion are diametrically opposed. Spirituality is about questions, and religion is about answers. Religion causes unbelievable pain in the world, but spirituality is at the core of a great deal of the good.

By: Pastabagel

Pastabagel — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:42:53 -0800

I am convinced that a world without religion would be better for all A world without religion is impossible. Broadly interpreted, UFOs, ghosts, psychic phenomena are all religions. The belief that there is more out there than there is here coupled with the notion that one has a personal experience with that other. If there isn't a religion available, people will make one up. They have to do this even in the face of SCIENCE, because SCIENCE says absolutely nothing about hope in the face of despair, about love, about life and death. If one is faced with insurmountable problems, the human mind has to make an appeal to something somewhere, otherwise it turns to madness. allkindsoftime's comment in the AskMe thread says it better than I could, but I just want to add one thing. If you discount all of the supernatural aspects of the New Testament, what you are left with is the story of a philosopher who told everyone to love one another, especially the people you instinctively don't want to love. You have a story of a guy who was killed for saying that, and willing went to his death because he loved is executioners. Even if Jesus is just a guy, another Socrates whose teachings ran afoul of power, the story is still remarkable. It gives people hope that maybe there is somebody out there who loves them even when everything indicates that there isn't. When people pray, they are calling out to everyone else alive on earth for help, hoping that their fellow man will hear.

By: signal

signal — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:43:54 -0800

The people of Chile ... aren't strapping explosives to themselves. Well, maybe they're so poor they can't anymore. Buying a plane ticket is unimaginable to someone making a dollar a day. What an ignorant thing to say.

By: Jahaza

Jahaza — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:47:04 -0800

There's an extensive interview with Keller from First Things with much talk about the book and about other things.

By: Jahaza

Jahaza — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:49:25 -0800

Err... Sorry about that... Forgot to close the link tag. If it doesn't work, try here.

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:57:15 -0800

"The God Delusion" in ways that were disrespectful of people who do hold various faiths, and wanted to find something a little more fair-minded, that explains why religion happens, why people believe.

Because we do all the time. Do you believe you will awake tomorrow ? I am pretty certain you do. What would you prefer between thinking that you will die tomorrow or thinking you will be alive ? I prefer the former, some very depressed people the latter, don't want to wake up. Similarly, have you ever felt the sensation of being alone , even if you are almost surrounded by people ? Would you like to feel you have always somebody willing to listen to you, to pay attention to you , even if in reality nobody is even watching you right now ? Most people like that, obviously with limits because not every interaction with other humans is pleasurable or not displeasing. Additionally, would you like to have a set of rules (they are called morals, from the latin mores, which means the way of the ancestors, if my memory serves) that are going to do you good, if you actually follow them ? I doubt you would say no to that. Now imagine that I told you that there is an omnipotent, benevolent being that is invisible, all knowing, loving and caring. That he is your real father (not the physical one, he's just walking DNA) and that he will punish you if you don't obey the good rules he gave you, given to you to do you good ! Imagine I tell you that you can always speak to him with prayers , when it's clear you are only talking to yourself. Similarly, if you do good he will give some treat, exactly like daddy does.Isn't that very good ? It's like becoming kids again, free of any responsability or tought :) ! Do as daddy says and it will be good, do bad and you'll be cast in hell ! All of this makes you feel guided, wanted, paid attention to...almost all you needs are met , except the physical ones...but if you subscribe to the Church of X the benevolent food will organize your life too. That's fantastic, it's all organized, until of course trouble arise and if they do it's because you sinned, it's because you didn't follow the rules..and sometime that's true, but as you believe anything daddy says, if he said it's your fault, who is going to contradict that, you ? Not in a thousand years ! Let alone if daddy feeds you, you are afraid of not being fed anymore and don't even bother arguing. But all of this could be found in social system that are tyrannical and poorly organized, except one thing : the supernatural, also called metaphysical level. But if you created for yourself an imaginary friend / daddy in the sky , you surely are going to refuse any attempt to let you see that, maybe, you were wrong...or that is not so evident that daddy in the sky actually exists. Expecially those who take advantage of the idea that they are the only one who knows exactly what daddy in the sky wants , which are the so called priests, will forever attack the ones who don't believe in imaginary friends ..not because they don't , but because they tell you about that. They tell you that "the others" are amoral, they don't have morals, they are dangerous ! When they fail ,as any other human, the fact is attributed to their not being believers and not following a set of morals, the perfect set. You are not supposed to understand, study and adapt because you are provably stupid and susceptible to suggestion ; no wonder, we all naturally are ignorant and suggestible, but can be grown to be much less so Except that, to keep your imaginary friend in the sky and his books , you need to deny constantly that he was wrong and that he left a book full of contradictions ; hence the need to blame some human for writing it wrong, the need to give interpretation , a whole lot of denial and rationalization and eventually a lot of violence to silence dissenting toughts , expecially when you are sent to war in the name of some God , you surely don't want dissenters to talk ! Similarly, some people were all traitors in some country if they spoke against the war, somewhere in the middle east.

By: aws17576

aws17576 — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 08:59:45 -0800

Its faired reasonably well (NYT, login req'd), which is interesting, considering the wide success of books preaching the opposite message The opposite of a fact is a falsehood, but the opposite of a best-seller may be another best-seller.

By: LooseFilter

LooseFilter — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:02:57 -0800

This comment was largely influenced by what I have learned from Keller's teaching over the past half-decade or so. That was indeed a very thoughtful comment, allkindsoftime, but it highlights what I've felt about most contemporary manifestations of the Christian faith for a while now: they are distracted by the supernatural stuff and miss the core message. As you argue in your AskMe comment, the real power of Jesus' message had to do with how he lived his life, and what example that provides. Nothing to do with actually being a supernatural being, nothing to do with your eternal fate resting upon the ideas in your head. His teachings were about actual actions, one's words and deeds, here in our everyday mundane lives. It seems to me an argument against Christian belief as it exists today, where so much emphasis is placed upon the acceptance of supernatural events and ideas, and ultimately casts Jesus' teachings more like those of Buddha, a philosophy of living rather than a religion.

By: sineater

sineater — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:07:03 -0800

the definition of "preaching" seems to be somebody saying something you don't want to listen to :-) in trying to look at the big picture, both in history and trying to guess where things are going, it's been seeming to me more and more that religion as a human phenomenon is changing at an accelerated pace similar to how technology, information and many areas of human thought are changing. The recent Pew study that showed that 44% of Americans have changed religions at least once gives one a feeling of a sort of melting pot of belief, a consolidation. Is the collective body of believers shrinking? It doesn't seem so in some parts of the world but globally where will we be in 100 years? Science and logic have taken away some of the areas that religion used to control, how far will that go? It appears that fight over our origins and relationship to other animals is almost over (big picture wise). What will religion be left with at the end?

By: DU

DU — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:12:43 -0800

~~Atheists~~ reasonable people Relgionists by definition are not "reasonable" people. They elevate faith over reason.

By: Uther Bentrazor

Uther Bentrazor — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:13:29 -0800

I knew this pouch would come in handy! Do your thing, Master Chief.

By: turaho

turaho — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:24:06 -0800

Relgionists by definition are not "reasonable" people. They elevate faith over reason. I have faith that my significant other will not have an affair. Does that make me unreasonable? Or is it possible that my faith is merely an extrapolation of reason (with a dollop of hope)?

By: rocket88

rocket88 — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:38:21 -0800

I am convinced that a world without religion would be better for all Go watch a soccer game between rival teams. Watch how the fans of the oppposing teams treat each other. Watch how the bystanders cheer for "their" guy when a scuffle braks out. All that hatred and violence without a shred of religious faith to blame it on. A world without religion would be exactly as it is now. Some people are natural assholes, and others are natural followers. Take away religion and they don't change. They'll find something else to rally around and hate others for.

By: Sparx

Sparx — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:47:44 -0800

From the First Things article:

[Keller was reading NT Wright about the church...]he was just taking a nice old-fashioned approach: There's no historically viable alternative explanation for the birth of the Christian Church than the fact that the early Christians thought they saw Jesus Christ and touched him and that he was raised from the dead. As I was reading it, I realized I was coming to greater certainty, and that when I closed the book, I said, at a time when it was very important to me to feel this way, I said, "He really really really did rise from the dead."

That's some first rate anlytical thinking there. I am literally in awe.

By: kiltedtaco

kiltedtaco — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:56:55 -0800

I have faith that my significant other will not have an affair. Does that make me unreasonable? Or is it possible that my faith is merely an extrapolation of reason (with a dollop of hope)? You have faith that he or she won't have an affair due to the evidence that it's hasn't happened before. I however have faith that no virgin birth occured, since the evidence from the past few thousand years since the alleged event show that it's impossible. Remember, you can either believe in abstinence as a form of birth control or the virgin birth of jesus, but not both.

By: disgruntled

disgruntled — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:57:57 -0800

"He really really really did rise from the dead." What?! Jesus didn't really die? But we're told that he died for our sins. He tricked us! Damn you Yahweh!!!!!!

By: Jody Tresidder

Jody Tresidder — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:00:37 -0800

"That's some first rate anlytical thinking there. I am literally in awe." Sparx, They all do that. Francis Collins had his "waterfall" moment in his "rationalist" book The Language of God. I read the Collins book - and - frankly - I refuse to read any more of this stuff. Because - inevitably - there's gonna be the bit when they say - effectively - just trust me here. (Collins is, of course, a first rate scientist. If he can't avoid "explaining" how he stared at a waterfall and thought "yup, that's it right there..." no one can.)

By: DU

DU — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:04:15 -0800

You have faith that he or she won't have an affair due to the evidence that it's hasn't happened before. Maybe, but that doesn't work in the boundary condition of newlyweds (although there's dating....). Perhaps a better reason believe your SO won't have an affair is to judge their personality. Messing around on the side doesn't fit in with how they act or talk. Of course, some people are good liars or conversely their SOs are bad judges of character. But there's a more important point. When your SO *does* behave unfaithfully and you find out about it, do you continue to believe in their fidelity? *That's* the kind of faith I'm talking about that is antithetical to reason.

By: everichon

everichon — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:07:44 -0800

This thread was worth it for directing me to allkindsoftime's comment, and Pastabagel's isn't too shabby, either. I don't believe in anything after death, but OTOH I can think of worse things than people making some effort to behave in a way that is genuinely Christ-like. And I would bet, because we are all have extra-MeFi lives, that most of us know believers who are not Christ-ish, and also athiests who do happen to live that way. So: on with the poo-fling.

By: everichon

everichon — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:09:27 -0800

*throws dessicated cat turd at sky*

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:18:28 -0800

I have faith that my significant other will not have an affair. Does that make me unreasonable? Uh no you don't. Evidence that your sig other is having an affair would puncture that faith like a balloon. That simply isn't what religious people mean when they say have faith. What you have is trust.

By: Jahaza

Jahaza — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:20:37 -0800

Sparx, you're right that there's no analytical argument in the section you quoted. But I doubt that's the case with NT Wright himself. I haven't yet been able to lay my hands on the book referenced by Keller there yet, but it doesn't sound like it takes a simple "God convicted me of this testimony" approach.

By: DU

DU — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:23:33 -0800

srboisvert said what I tried to say much more clearly and succinctly. FYI.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:24:07 -0800

"Its the people who have been *least* harmed by US policy towards the third world who are the principle source of terrorist activity against the US. To me that implies a very strong corelation with religion, especially the more rabid sects of Islam." And that, kids, is why correlation does not equal causation. Could it be a complex set of cultural, economic, geographical AND religious factors that contribute to terrorism against the US government AT THIS POINT IN HISTORY (check back on the Haymarket riots)? Nah, obviously a "strong" correlation with religion, from the gut feeling of a strident atheist (yeah, that's an ad hominem, but I don't take Falwell's assertions of correlation between hurricanes and abortions seriously either). "Relgionists by definition are not "reasonable" people. They elevate faith over reason." And you're not a reasonable person, as you elevate demagoguery over reason. I mean, seriously, that's so simplistic and frankly wrong, especially given the long history of attempts to reconcile or limn the boundaries between faith and reason. Attempting to make a broad argument about the reasonableness of people based on one aspect in which they favor faith means that to be "reasonable," you have to be a solipsist. For that argument, you deserve to have your face cockslapped until you come to your senses.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:29:43 -0800

"There's an implicit assumption in most religions that death is not all that bad, because hey we get to go to heaven (or reincarnate or whatever) afterwards. (I actually heard this as an argument against universal health care from a family member just yesterday -- essentially, "...well, if I had no health insurance and got cancer, I'd die -- and that's not the worse thing that could happen...") The end result is that (finite) life is trivialized, to some extent, by comparison to the infinite afterlife." And this is part of why Nietzsche equated Christianity with nihilism. And one of the things that spurred existential writing after the Holocaust, and deep divisions within Jewish society regarding how to best reconcile the mass murder with God and personal responsibility.

By: panamax

panamax — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:44:42 -0800

The people of Chile and Nicaragua have been shit on by the CIA to an amazing degree and they aren't strapping explosives to themselves While radical islamic tenets of jihad, fatwa, and the paradise thing feed into the cycle of violence, the people of Chile and Nicaragua have nothing to gain by targetting the US (anymore). The continued existence of Israel and the mighty big footprint the US has in the mideast presently are important drivers of today's terrorism. In the 20th century we saw significant terrorism from the IRA, Red Brigades, Tamil separationists, the Basques, the Viet Cong, and others. Only the Red Brigades were international in scope perhaps, but all demonstrated the capacity for us homo sapiens to fight in our struggles most wickedly.

By: rtha

rtha — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:48:06 -0800

Anybody see this piece in the NYT yesterday?

BAGHDAD — After almost five years of war, many young people in Iraq, exhausted by constant firsthand exposure to the violence of religious extremism, say they have grown disillusioned with religious leaders and skeptical of the faith that they preach. In two months of interviews with 40 young people in five Iraqi cities, a pattern of disenchantment emerged, in which young Iraqis, both poor and middle class, blamed clerics for the violence and the restrictions that have narrowed their lives. "I hate Islam and all the clerics because they limit our freedom every day and their instruction became heavy over us," said Sara, a high school student in Basra. "Most of the girls in my high school hate that Islamic people control the authority because they don't deserve to be rulers." Atheer, a 19-year-old from a poor, heavily Shiite neighborhood in southern Baghdad, said: "The religion men are liars. Young people don't believe them. Guys my age are not interested in religion anymore."

By: rtha

rtha — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:52:58 -0800

SCIENCE says absolutely nothing about hope in the face of despair, about love, about life and death. That is, you believe that science is silent about hope, despair, love, life, death. To me, science speaks loudly and clearly about these things. I'm not an atheist - I'm more of a polytheistic agnostic, I guess - but I don't need god(s) in order to be moved, inspired, touched, to be filled with awe.

By: turaho

turaho — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:57:42 -0800

Evidence that your sig other is having an affair would puncture that faith like a balloon. That simply isn't what religious people mean when they say have faith. What you have is trust. But isn't trust an outgrowth of faith? What evidence is there to a faithful Christian that God doesn't exist? I think my original analogy has some flaws, so let me try this: I believe that my fiancee loves me. I have come to this conclusion based on her actions and what she says, but in the end I can't know for sure if she truly loves me. There are no tests I can perform to confirm her feelings. Hell, her definition of love might be different from mine. There's no falsability in this hypothesis. Now, I can let the fact that I can never be 100% certain of her feelings color every interaction I have with her, or I can trust that she actually is in love with me. Have faith in her, if you will. Is this unreasonable? I'm coming at this as a lapsed Catholic who has been looking forward to reading this book for awhile and as someone who believes that the best way to save the world from "Christians"-in-quotes is not through overthrowing Christianity but by reforming it. I appreciate the reasoned debate here, which I feel is probably very much in keeping with Keller's book.

By: panamax

panamax — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:07:21 -0800

What evidence is there to a faithful Christian that God doesn't exist? Faith is a filter of doubt and that is the core of the issue. Scientologists, Mormons, JWs, Wiccans, that overwhelmingly demonstrate that people are willing to "put faith" in damn near anything religion-related and that it is this mental exercise of faith itself that is reality-denying. It was my exposure to other devout people of alien faiths that blew away what little belief in the supernatural tenets of Christianity that I had in my teens and 20s.

By: turaho

turaho — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:13:41 -0800

I'm not arguing for the validity of the beliefs that people put their faith in, I'm just trying to decide if faith is the antithesis of reason. I have the feeling that either there's a gray area between the two, or that they are opposites and many people who consider themselves reasonable people hold many unreasonable beliefs without acknowledging them.

By: turaho

turaho — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:14:44 -0800

Which is to say that dismissing religious people because they have unreasonable beliefs is to point out the splinter in someone else's eye while ignoring the plank in your own, if you will.

By: oddman

oddman — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:53:42 -0800

"Relgionists by definition are not "reasonable" people. They elevate faith over reason." Hmmm... Let's see: Socrates Aristotle St. Augustine William of Ockham Thomas Aquinas Rene Descartes John Locke Gottfried Leibniz Immauel Kant Michael Faraday Gregor Mendel Martin Luther King Donald Knuth Wow, you are totally right; every single one of them is, as you say, "not 'reasonable'."

By: Lord Chancellor

Lord Chancellor — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:57:32 -0800

Am I unreasonable? I suppose everyone is. . . they have things in their life that oppose logical decisions (favoring something on a gut feeling or fondness or desire). But I think my unreason is within check. It doesn't harm anyone. In fact, I might be of less harm to people than some reasonable people, so I suppose my unreason isn't that bad to have, if taken in moderation. Or even if in excess in the right places.

By: panamax

panamax — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:58:23 -0800

I agree its painting with too broad a brush to categorically "dismiss" the religious / people of faith as "unreasonable". Certaintity is just a conscious mental state, and IMV the brain is rather not limited in its abilities to gin up any mental experience (cf. deja vous) regardless of the actualities. Organized faiths, however, have institutionalized this manufacturing of arguably false certainty. The Enlightenment and its development since has been a somewhat uneven, but overall successful, struggle against unsupportable dogmaticism. many people who consider themselves reasonable people hold many unreasonable beliefs without acknowledging them. IMO there's a difference between holding the occasional (and hopefully yet-to-be-examined) irrational beliefs and being completely steeped in them, usually from childhood.

By: turaho

turaho — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:11:06 -0800

IMO there's a difference between holding the occasional (and hopefully yet-to-be-examined) irrational beliefs and being completely steeped in them, usually from childhood. Is there a threshold for how many unreasonable beliefs a person can have?

By: humanfont

humanfont — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:13:21 -0800

Unless we dramatically change the way our brains work; most people will continue to practice religion. Even when we eliminate "god" from the equation it just gets reinvented. SETI, Mars colonies, life extension, aren't these just the result of our primitive brains filling in the gaps previously filled by the Bible? I believe our brains are wired in such a way that we occasionally have transcendent experiences. Who knows if this is actually a soul talking to us, or just some weird misfiring of neurons in response to stress or emotional events. As sophisticated pattern seeking computers, our brains are predisposed to take these transcendent experiences and develop a religion around them. In the end it does not matter that we are simply seeing a pattern in the noise; it has real power and consequence for our lives. Just as the belief that a piece of paper has real value because it says on the back "Legal Tender" has real power in the market. Believing that we have no choice but to accept a religion; I choose the religion of my family since it makes Christmas and Easter dinner much less awkward.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:31:59 -0800

i'm waiting for science to explain the positive correlation between arrogance and atheism.

By: Artful Codger

Artful Codger — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 12:41:50 -0800

Pastabagel said: If there isn't a religion available, people will make one up. They have to do this even in the face of SCIENCE, because SCIENCE says absolutely nothing about hope in the face of despair, about love, about life and death. If one is faced with insurmountable problems, the human mind has to make an appeal to something somewhere, otherwise it turns to madness. here's my take (alot similar to some recent posts) - a sane person needs to believe in things. I'm convinced of this, if only because we are not omnipotent and all-knowing; we can't hold everything in our heads. Because of this, I am convinced that humans are predisposed by evolution to believe, to find and hold a faith, because otherwise doubt and uncertainty would stop them in their tracks. This is essentially what Pastabagel has said. - from the above, my position - that the existence of god(s) is unproven, therefore a belief in one is ultimately limiting - is of course also a belief (albeit one with the biggest body of facts to support it). As part of this belief, i choose to remain open to new facts and discussion, and to abide by any new conclusions that are provable. - my belief is leavened by one irrational, unprovable position: Life is good, I have the right to be alive, I should probably help others (people, species) to enjoy the same right. So sue me. - I believe that this position is superior to believing in something irrational, because this belief does not require me to deny or ignore the evidence of my own eyes and ears, or to arbitrarily deny things that have been reasonably proved. So finally to this point: SCIENCE says absolutely nothing about hope in the face of despair, about love, about life and death. Nor should it. The opposite of "religion" is not science. A well-adjusted atheist has presumably found something other than one of the prevailing fary-tales to believe in. They could even have faith in ... not needing an objectified faith, that it's enough just to be. (Cos it is) At a funeral, if you're not religious, it doesn't mean you say "welp, he's fertilizer now" . You simply express joy at having known someone, sadness at their death, and sympathy and support for the ones who are grieving. Science is a filter, a process, a test. Science is our best attempt to understand ourselves and our world, with a set of mostly agreed upon and demonstrably helpful rules. As our facility with science and our body of "scientific" knowledge grows, it inevitably challenges the narrow myth-based religions of our intellectual infancy. While I accept that everyone needs (and is better for) holding some belief, I think it's an inevitable part of our intellectual growth that our beliefs must adapt and agree with our knowledge (as they already have, in most parts of the world. Sunday shopping, anyone?), until our belief is ultimately in accord with our knowledge. So you can give up the fairy tales now, or later. IMHO, of course.

By: lupus_yonderboy

lupus_yonderboy — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:29:47 -0800

i'm waiting for science to explain the positive correlation between arrogance and atheism. We've had well over a thousand years of being told that we were the worst form of evil and literally persecuted and tortured to death by theists who never once question their assumptions. Somehow this isn't arrogance but when we stand up for ourselves and say, "By your own words, your beliefs are not rational," we are suddenly "arrogant."

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:32:29 -0800

""I hate Islam and all the clerics because they limit our freedom every day and their instruction became heavy over us," said Sara, a high school student in Basra. "Most of the girls in my high school hate that Islamic people control the authority because they don't deserve to be rulers."" Uh, duh. I mean, you guys remember that Iraq was one of the most secular and progressive of Middle East nations, right? And it's always been a minority of the hyper-religious zealots who were behind the vast majority of the violence. If there's an argument against the religious to be found in Iraq, it's that religion was too often the sympathy that led to good people ignoring or tacitly facilitating violence, generally violence from those with very secular aims (Sadr's consolidation of power is less a heavenly goal than a practical one). But the same thing can be said of tribal loyalties (which also correlate somewhat with religion), which moved to fill the vacuum of power when the Americans failed to properly occupy Iraq. But, like Afghanistan, the majority has always opposed the efforts of the fanatical—more so, arguably, than in '30s Germany. And all of this gets swept aside when some idiot tromps in to make some sort of bold point about how terrible religion is.

By: vorfeed

vorfeed — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:38:58 -0800

I find the love-love-love Jesus many are espousing in this thread to be more than a little picky-and-choosy. Yes, this is a guy who loved the world enough to die, etc etc, but it's also a guy who stated, repeatedly and unreservedly, that every human being that did not follow him would find sorrow and pain throughout eternity. It's also a guy who threw the money-changers violently out of the temple -- where's the real difference between that and what these craigslist-filtering Christians would like to do? If we're to follow Jesus' example, which example do you mean? The one that came as the lamb, or the one who came bearing a sword? IMHO, it's pretty clear that Jesus' central message is obedience to the Christian God, and love is merely a part of that. At any rate, going "you're wrong, and you just don't get it!" to someone with a vision of either happy!Jesus or angry!Jesus makes very little sense to me -- the Bible and Christian history provide ample support for both interpretations. Jesus was a universally loving guy who also condemned most of the world's population to eternal suffering -- as a non-Christian who has read the Bible and studied history, I'd say that anyone who forgets either side of this equation is missing out on half of what Christianity is about.

By: ludwig_van

ludwig_van — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 13:59:01 -0800

I think my original analogy has some flaws, so let me try this: I believe that my fiancee loves me. I have come to this conclusion based on her actions and what she says, but in the end I can't know for sure if she truly loves me. There are no tests I can perform to confirm her feelings. Hell, her definition of love might be different from mine. There's no falsability in this hypothesis. That still sounds more like inductive reasoning than faith. I have "faith" that the sun will still be in the sky tomorrow, but only because it's been there every other day and I have no evidence that says it won't be.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:04:23 -0800

"IMHO, it's pretty clear that Jesus' central message is obedience to the Christian God, and love is merely a part of that. " Er... um... Jesus wasn't a Christian. And while the all-love-all-the-time message is simplified, arguing that love wasn't the dominant message of Jesus's teachings is, well, something that you have to justify with a pretty heavy scriptural citation. I guess that's something that bothers me about a lot of this atheists-discussing-what-the-Bible-means bullshit—I lived with a guy who's getting his doctorate in theology, specifically within an Episcopalian framework, and he's able to both acknowledge the difficulties inherent in interpreting the intent of Jesus and offer fairly substantial citations and backup for his viewpoints. I've tried to get him involved here a couple times, but he (rightly or wrongly) thinks that all the discourse here is characterized by the excluded middle, and that there's simply no reason for him to point out that third-hand critiques of the King James Bible are the equivalent of dismissing VORP and OBP+ when discussing baseball players. For all the claims of rationality and science that I see atheists hew to around here, very few of their arguments are based on more than emotion. Similarly, the rare Christian who is willing to bear the lash tends to be just as muddled and dogmatic (well, until she left recently). There's no attempt at any sort of reasonable dialog. I mean, Christ, Lupus upthread is trying to make current Christians responsible for thousands of years of oppressing the apostate. That's retarded and unworthy of serious response. Similarly, the dismissal of all religious people as unreasonable? That shit's hot when you're in high school and have just discovered Rand, but most intelligent folks get it drilled out of them in college.

By: wendell

wendell — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:05:17 -0800

i'm waiting for science to explain the positive correlation between arrogance and ~~atheism~~religion. TFTEveryone. No matter how much you may profess humility and subservience to your choice of deities, "I believe in The One True God" is one of the most arrogant, self-centered things a person can say. While so many keep saying that religion is based on a "basic human need", I have found that the only way I ever find peace with a crazy world is to accept the meaninglessness and randomness of it all. Regrettably, there will never be a way of expressing this in a way that could become a best-selling book. "Swimming upstream" may be good exercise, but it can only move you to where you used to be. Fortunately, it's also very entertaining to watch.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:05:39 -0800

"That still sounds more like inductive reasoning than faith. I have "faith" that the sun will still be in the sky tomorrow, but only because it's been there every other day and I have no evidence that says it won't be." You also have faith that you're not a brain in a vat somewhere, despite that being more likely than you being a fully-formed human. Like I said, the only way to avoid faith is solipsism.

By: Artful Codger

Artful Codger — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:24:13 -0800

Similarly, the dismissal of all religious people as unreasonable? That shit's hot when you're in high school and have just discovered Rand, but most intelligent folks get it drilled out of them in college. Well, I went to college, but it was for engineering. Nuff said there. I don't think I said that religious people were unreasonable, i was trying to suggest that supernaturally-based "religions" often contain unprovable things that run afoul of observable fact. I can't see how they are superior to faith that doesn't require one to suspend reason. You also have faith that you're not a brain in a vat somewhere, despite that being more likely than you being a fully-formed human. Like I said, the only way to avoid faith is solipsism. I tried (very lamely) to suggest that faith doesn't have to go against observable fact or have a cartoon backstory. Please explain the 'vat' part (...zat you, Morpheus?), cos part of me wants to go out for Japanese tonight, but if I'm just a brain in a vat, I'll order in instead.

By: signal

signal — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:30:47 -0800

Artful Codger: Like I said, the only way to avoid faith is solipsism. I can think of no one as narrow minded as those who not only reject the notion the they could be wrong, but even the idea that somebody, somewhere could honestly disagree with them. This goes for all the "atheism is a religion" types too, of course. Some of us don't have faith. Accept it and move on. You will be a marginally saner person.

By: ludwig_van

ludwig_van — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:31:23 -0800

You also have faith that you're not a brain in a vat somewhere, despite that being more likely than you being a fully-formed human. Like I said, the only way to avoid faith is solipsism. Well, do you think that faith in the sense of faith in miracles, God, the supernatural, and so on, is equivalent to faith in the sun existing tomorrow or that we aren't brains in vats?

By: signal

signal — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:32:48 -0800

Woops, that was aimed at klagklangston. There's a glitch in the Mefi Quote thingie.

By: Lord Chancellor

Lord Chancellor — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:32:53 -0800

I'm truly sorry that atheists have been reviled, burned, and cast out of society, but if that's your excuse why you are presently on the warpath against us (who if you haven't noticed, don't tend to be the most militant theists), I don't know what to say. I'm not saying that you need to believe anything. I have my thoughts. The truth is, I don't think science or human experience will ever complete explain the nature of the world, and this isn't the fault of science. I believe that the universe has a spiritual component, an uncanny supernatural aspect that defies a direct rational explanation (though not rational approach). Things like intuition border on man's connection to this side of the World. Now, I'm not sure the nature of this aspect of the universe, but I'm sure not a materialist. Consciousness, in my humble opinion, exists, and isn't simply an aspect of chemical on chemical interactions. This isn't my hope, this is where a line of reasoning has led me. There is a madness associated with the gods, yes. That's not the madness of perception of seeing things that aren't there, but the near impossibility of reconciling the unseen world with the seen one. For all my bluster, I am, at the heart, totally irrational. The funny thing is people mock theists by talking about "Invisible Sky Fairy" or "Old Man with a Great Beard" or any other attempt trivialize numina, the divine, God. Even a specific god like Yahweh or Christ. But the more I think about it, the diminution of God is impossible; I think of the gods of the sky and think of El Shadai and His affiliation with thunder and lightning. I think of the Invisible world, which is no less real if less observed. I think of fairies and all the other things that invade our world's senses, whether angels or saints, hobgoblins, ghosts, hell even UFOs, there's something there, even if it isn't what anyone thinks it is. And Old Men with Great Beards, from the patriarchs of the Old Testament to Walt Whitman inspire obedience, wisdom, and personal glory. No wonder Michelangelo chose to portray the Father as an old man instead of a young one. But I digress. I'm not here to convince you to drop your atheism. Maybe I'm just proposing a truce on Metafilter that if we cannot agree, we can at least respect each other's beliefs. If not, I suppose you'll continue to clash, you'll continue to take out the evil perpetrated by our more zealous cousins (that, yes, we must do what we can to squash too, as they are part of our flock) on us, many who have done great works in the world. I don't think any one is calling the atheists in here evil. But as in all things, I could be wrong.

By: Senor Cardgage

Senor Cardgage — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:33:10 -0800

Im as atheist as they come. Were it up to me alone, the proverbial "curtain" would be thrown back on the whole superstitious sham. However... Irrationality is a PEOPLE problem. Rid the world of all religion and the yokels that are doing stupid things in religions name today will just be doing stupid things in something else's name tomorrow. Tribalism? Regionalism? Hair color? Whatever ya got, really. In the suburb I grew up in, they ran out of room in the high school and started a second one. Now you had two high schools: east and west. Within months of this new "classification" appearing, you had after school fights breaking out between kids that were in the same classes just the previous semester and were probably classmates from kindergarten up thru then. All over a new imaginary line. It's all too cliche to talk about even. I'd like to do away with unfounded superstitious nonsense as much as Dawkins or anyone, but you will never get rid of easily led morons that need at the very center of their beings something to define themselves against. Sigh.

By: fleetmouse

fleetmouse — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:40:03 -0800

Like I said, the only way to avoid faith is solipsism. I ain't need faith in my intuitions of the world. My brain automagically takes care of that shit.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:56:26 -0800

"I don't think I said that religious people were unreasonable, i was trying to suggest that supernaturally-based "religions" often contain unprovable things that run afoul of observable fact. I can't see how they are superior to faith that doesn't require one to suspend reason." No, it was DU who said that. As far as speculating on the superiority of faiths that I don't hold, I'll leave that alone. "Please explain the 'vat' part (...zat you, Morpheus?), cos part of me wants to go out for Japanese tonight, but if I'm just a brain in a vat, I'll order in instead." Briefly, as there was a whole post on this a little while back, a disembodied consciousness is a simpler system than a world that can support fully-formed and independent consciousnesses. A simpler system is more probable. As there's no way to observe outside of ourselves, there's no way to verify that this isn't all solipsism. Do I consider this sophistry? Yes. Can I prove it? No. If we stick to what we can absolutely prove with no assumptions, we get to "cogito," (and determinists would dispute that). "Well, do you think that faith in the sense of faith in miracles, God, the supernatural, and so on, is equivalent to faith in the sun existing tomorrow or that we aren't brains in vats?" I'd say that faith that the sun will still exist is different than the faith in God, which is more similar to the faith that we're not brains in vats or that love exists or that we have free will. "I ain't need faith in my intuitions of the world. My brain automagically takes care of that shit." Shadows on the walls of the cave.

By: TheOnlyCoolTim

TheOnlyCoolTim — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:03:38 -0800

You also have faith that you're not a brain in a vat somewhere, I don't, though I go for the "simulated" reality scenario more than the vat brain or solipsistic brain universe scenario.

By: fleetmouse

fleetmouse — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:09:48 -0800

A simpler system is more probable. As there's no way to observe outside of ourselves, there's no way to verify that this isn't all solipsism. If there's nothing outside of the self then "a simpler system is more probable" has no more weight than "a complex system is more probable". It's all hallucination. Shadows on the walls of the cave. A fun question is: what are the preconditions that allow skepticism to exist?

By: naju

naju — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:20:24 -0800

Ah, maybe now we're getting into nondualist thought... where it gets interesting, no/yes?

By: anazgnos

anazgnos — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:26:35 -0800

When people pray, they are calling out to everyone else alive on earth for help, hoping that their fellow man will hear. Wouldn't posting on craigslist be more effective, though?

By: vorfeed

vorfeed — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:31:48 -0800

Er... um... Jesus wasn't a Christian. How about "the God described in the Bible", if that puts you in a less pedantic mood? And while the all-love-all-the-time message is simplified, arguing that love wasn't the dominant message of Jesus's teachings is, well, something that you have to justify with a pretty heavy scriptural citation. So, you can simply give your opinion, with absolutely nothing to back it up, but my opinion requires "heavy scriptural citation"? Come on. If you really want "reasonable dialog", start by extending others a modicum of respect. You've posted four times in this thread, and three of them are heavy on ad-hominem insults... why are you surprised when others aren't willing to treat you any better? At any rate, here's a heavy scriptural citation for you: Matthew 22:37: Jesus answered him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind'. This is the first and great commandment. And there is a second like it: 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself'. The whole of the Law and the Prophets depends on these two commandments." Here, the emphasis is on love for God first, love for man second. This theme is repeated throughout the Gospels -- man is called to serve and to love God, and for this reason to love and serve his fellow man. God comes first. If Jesus' message is chiefly about love rather than God, then why is it that love is repeatedly couched in terms of God? Why is it that knowing God is the requirement for entry to heaven, and not knowing love? "No one approaches the Father but through me". "It is not everyone who keeps saying to me 'Lord, Lord' who will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but the man who actually does my Heavenly Father's will". Why not "no one approaches love..." or "the man who actually loves"? In short, if love is the point, why did Jesus speak about God in the first place? If Occam's Razor applies to the brain-in-a-vat idea, then it seems to me that it applies here... the whole heavenly father thing is an awfully confusing and complex addition to what could have been a rather simple "dominant message of love". At any rate, I don't argue that love was among Jesus' dominant messages, but I think it's clear that his teachings suggest that God is the reason for love, rather than the other way around.

By: disgruntled

disgruntled — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:50:01 -0800

i'm waiting for science to explain the positive correlation between arrogance and atheism. Anyone who claims to know what created the universe and what happens to us after we die is the height of arrogance. There is no such thing as atheism. There is no atheist doctrine. An atheist is simply someone who refuses to accept a claim that no one could possibly know—a skeptic.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:04:34 -0800

"So, you can simply give your opinion, with absolutely nothing to back it up, but my opinion requires "heavy scriptural citation"? Come on. If you really want "reasonable dialog", start by extending others a modicum of respect. You've posted four times in this thread, and three of them are heavy on ad-hominem insults... why are you surprised when others aren't willing to treat you any better?" You posited that Jesus's message wasn't love, but obedience. My reply was that this was both overly-simplistic, and that relying upon the King James to back it up was ignorant. You then quote the King James Bible to show that Jesus said to love God first (which doesn't contradict my point about love). I'm being intentionally measured in my response here, but there's reams of scholarship about just what "love" means within the Bible (breif example of parsing, though I don't have any considered opinions on his conclusions). So, yes, your assertions require evidence. My assertion that you're being simplistic and ignorant of Biblical scholarship seems pretty fuckin' QED here, but I'm happy to point out loads of other books and journal articles and works of philosophy that try to grapple with the incredibly complex and ambiguous and contested issue of what Jesus meant. But in the future, you can avoid being called ignorant and simplistic by avoiding saying things like "If Jesus' message is chiefly about love rather than God, then why is it that love is repeatedly couched in terms of God?" where you posit a false dichotomy instead of responding to what I wrote.

By: ludwig_van

ludwig_van — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:20:03 -0800

I'd say that faith that the sun will still exist is different than the faith in God, which is more similar to the faith that we're not brains in vats or that love exists or that we have free will. Well, perhaps this depends on your definition of God. I could agree that faith that we aren't brains in vats is similar to faith in something like a deist God, but I don't think it's comparable to faith in a personal God or the God of the bible.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:28:19 -0800

"Well, perhaps this depends on your definition of God. I could agree that faith that we aren't brains in vats is similar to faith in something like a deist God, but I don't think it's comparable to faith in a personal God or the God of the bible." Well, see, I'm someone who believes that faith is inherently and irreducibly subjective, and I don't believe in a personal God or the God of the Bible per se, so I can't really speak to what it's like to have that faith. What I will note though is that the faith of people who believe in the New Testament God can be pretty damn similar to the deist conception of God, or the Baha'i conception of God. I think, again, what people are arguing against here is an outlier, the fundamentalist literal God. I do think that on a certain level the God someone believes in has to make a "sense" to them, be it emotional or intellectual, and so I don't want to discount the possibility of someone being able to explain their fundamentalist, literalist conception to me in a way that makes me understand, but I doubt it'll ever really make sense to me. It's kinda like reading Kierkegaard or Hobbes, where their conceptions of theology are almost indescribably alien (though Hobbes largely sets that aside for the first half of Leviathan, where he simply says that while miracles happened in the past, we're now in an age where they don't, so we can't count on them).

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:45:26 -0800

i'm waiting for science to explain the positive correlation between arrogance and atheism. You think that there's an almighty who is personally interested in you and what you do, and would be so upset with you for rejecting him that he'd torture you forever, and I'm arrogant? Christians!

By: fleetmouse

fleetmouse — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:47:05 -0800

what people are arguing against here is an outlier, the fundamentalist literal God. Yes, very much so. There are non-fundie conceptions of God that are quite beautiful and, dare I say, spiritually enriching. How much of an outlier fundie God is depends on your location though, I think. Bumper sticker jebus scares the bejebus out of me.

By: vorfeed

vorfeed — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:53:40 -0800

But in the future, you can avoid being called ignorant and simplistic by avoiding saying things like "If Jesus' message is chiefly about love rather than God, then why is it that love is repeatedly couched in terms of God?" where you posit a false dichotomy instead of responding to what I wrote. Fair enough. In the future, you can avoid being called a lazy, appeal-to-authority debater by actually responding to the questions I put forth (of which your quote is only one), instead of simply asserting that I'm wrong. There's no false dichotomy here -- the thing you don't seem to get (and never seem to get, in my experience) is that I actually believe what I'm saying, I actually want to discuss this with you in a reasoned manner, and I actually want you to explain your position rather than simply yelling "you're this, you're that" at the top of your lungs. You're welcome to show me that I am wrong, but until then, "QED" and the like isn't going to convince me. And neither is a link that, as an exploration of whether or not Biblical love was "agape" or "phileo" (and one that concludes that it probably doesn't matter, no less), has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The question is not what definition of "love" we're talking about, it's whether love or God can be said to be the primary message of Jesus' teachings. If this issue is so "incredibly complex and ambiguous and contested", why is it that you're so quick to yell "you're wrong and I'm right"? Ambiguity would seem to suggest that there's room for more than one interpretation. At any rate, I don't know whether I'm right about this, and I'm more than willing to admit it... you'd think you could work with that, instead of shitting all over me.

By: panamax

panamax — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:54:24 -0800

is an outlier, the fundamentalist literal God the recent Pew survey showed that the largest bloc of believers in this country, at 26%, are the [largely] fundie evangelicals. Fundies were the outliers in the US of the 1950s and 60s, perhaps, but no longer.

By: Sparx

Sparx — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:04:36 -0800

Briefly, as there was a whole post on this a little while back, a disembodied consciousness is a simpler system than a world that can support fully-formed and independent consciousnesses. A simpler system is more probable. As there's no way to observe outside of ourselves, there's no way to verify that this isn't all solipsism. Two things: such a statement is easy to say but not necessarily the case. A brain in a vat is easier to state in words than a universe, but at the same time, you still have to posit the brain, the vat, their origin, the origin of the false universe-resembling stimuli being fed to the brain and the context of the feeding - which is not necessarily simpler than a materialist things-as-they-are. Second, solipsism in its most extreme form, is only simpler in a similar fashion, with the additional problem that it does no work, it's an all bets are off proposition. So is admitting to the miraculousness of Theism. I suspect that there is a qualitative difference between faith in the unprovable and faith that is supported by continuous, describable, replicable and shared experience, a difference that is undermined by insistence on terming them both as, and only as, faith. But I doubt that's the case with NT Wright himself. Jahaza: Check the link I provided to an analysis of the work in question by Mr Wright, and follow up with your own research. The man is barely a theologian, let alone a historian. Keller's acceptance and validation of Wright on the basis that it fed his predispositions shows his lack of both acumen and analysis.

By: Artful Codger

Artful Codger — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:14:03 -0800

what people are arguing against here is an outlier, the fundamentalist literal God. It's a good place to start. Baby steps. I know that this is about played out, and I do appreciate the many sincere opinions expressed. Let me put this out there. On the CBC "National" (TV newscast), they did a short feature on progress of aid in the areas around the Indian Ocean. They had several examples of Christian missionaries providing aid. Some groups showed up did a bunch of work and left. Some built new villages, complete with a church and a school. There was one example of where a village would be promised aid, if everyone in the village converted from Buddhism. When they refused, the missionaries moved on. I will never speak a critical or contrary word against ANY religion (or government) ever again if they could all find a way to worship (govern) and do their good works without forcing their delusions on anyone else.

By: fleetmouse

fleetmouse — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:38:53 -0800

There was one example of where a village would be promised aid, if everyone in the village converted from Buddhism. When they refused, the missionaries moved on. Cute. Do you have any more information on that? Broadcast date, title of segment, anything?

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:42:25 -0800

"There's no false dichotomy here -- the thing you don't seem to get (and never seem to get, in my experience) is that I actually believe what I'm saying, I actually want to discuss this with you in a reasoned manner, and I actually want you to explain your position rather than simply yelling "you're this, you're that" at the top of your lungs. You're welcome to show me that I am wrong, but until then, "QED" and the like isn't going to convince me. " What you said: "IMHO, it's pretty clear that Jesus' central message is obedience to the Christian God, and love is merely a part of that. " What I said: "And while the all-love-all-the-time message is simplified, arguing that love wasn't the dominant message of Jesus's teachings is, well, something that you have to justify with a pretty heavy scriptural citation." What you said: "Here, the emphasis is on love for God first, love for man second. This theme is repeated throughout the Gospels -- man is called to serve and to love God, and for this reason to love and serve his fellow man. God comes first. If Jesus' message is chiefly about love rather than God, then why is it that love is repeatedly couched in terms of God?" Perhaps I'm not being clear: Love of God and Love of Man are both LOVE. They are not purely OBEDIENCE. If you wish to argue your opinion that the theme of the New Testament is obedience to God as opposed to love, you've got a pretty heavy load to move, including the fact that you're arguing from an redacted and edited and translated version. The example that I linked to was to show that not even Biblican scholars agree on the proper vocabulary, which has heavy implications. There are truckloads of books written purely about how to parse "spirit". On the obedience issue, there are hundreds of essays and papers debating the role of Jesus in light of OT prophecy and commandments—Jesus says that he's there to fulfill the OT, and yet discards rules such as keeping kosher and circumcision. There are the cultural artifacts of exporting the faith to Gentiles, and a recurrent charge of gentile bias shaping the text (especially under Paul). So what does "obedience" even mean in this context? You can grouse about an appeal to authority all you want, but given that there are a lot of people who devote their lives to the study of questions like this, your back-of-the-napkin calculations aren't very convincing. Further, you argued that it was some burden to have the onus upon you—well, congrats, atheist. The burden of proof is upon the theist if they want to prove their God, but if you want to prove your interpretation is valid, you're going to have to do a little more homework. I'm sorry if you feel shit on here, but it's because you're not even making a consistent argument. And as the legions of creationists show us, that you really, really believe what you're saying doesn't matter so much as your ability to prove it. Sorry if I was brusque prior, but I thought you'd be able to grasp quickly why I was dismissing your position without giving it much consideration.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:51:55 -0800

"the recent Pew survey showed that the largest bloc of believers in this country, at 26%, are the [largely] fundie evangelicals." I'd say two things to that—First, fundies and literalists and evangelicals aren't all the same thing. They overlap quite a bit, but they're different folks who have their own quirks. Not every fundamentalist believes in the absolute literal truth of the Bible, not every fundamentalist believes in the absolute literal truth of the King James Bible, not every literalist is a fundamentalist (as fundamentalism is a conservative movement that requires rejection of things like socialism, which some literalists still support), and certainly not every evangelical is both a fundamentalist and a literalist. Second, I tend to believe that people in the US overstate how religious they actually are. Possibly this is because of my own definitions of other people's faiths, but I tend to think that the vast majority of people who would claim to be evangelicals, or even fundamentalists, have fuzzy, ill-defined faiths that are mostly emotion and knee-jerk and given little actual thought outside of when they're directly confronted. Further, given the immense body of Christian scholarship, literalist fundamentalists most certainly are the minority—they're fairly recent, really popping up only in the last 100 years, and haven't contributed very much of note to theological theory (the leaders in that are still the Catholics).

By: Artful Codger

Artful Codger — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:05:05 -0800

> Cute. Do you have any more information on that? Broadcast date, title of segment, anything? CBC National, broadcast date: Mar 4, 2008 I actually found a link to the video: http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/internationalus/christianity_comes_to_thailand_1.html

By: panamax

panamax — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:31:19 -0800

klangklangston, my counter-opinion is that evangelicals, by their very aggressively "outreach" nature, have been growing by leaps & bounds since the Graham Ministries gave them critical mass durn the cultural counter-reaction to the "God Is Dead / More Popular than Jesus" 1960s. IME the evangelical worldview is one if simplifed "repent or you're going to hell" and consists of decidedly non-liberal theology concerning church/state separation, teacher-led prayer in schools, protecting the unborn, the proper role of women in society, the existential threat that the homosexual agenda poses to modern America, the essentially Satanic nature of the Islamic hordes, etc. et fucking c. This non-liberal theology has been a major faultline among the mainline churches over the past 30-odd years. It's not a 1:1 match between evangelical and fundie, but I don't see how anyone could deny that the consideral overlap that does exist has a massive, massive footprint in American culture and politics. I grew up in a non-political, quite liberal evangelical Lutheran church in the 1970s, and what I see now in our nation -- the Pat Robertsons, Falwells (RIH), Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Promise Keepers, Wall Builders, etc. tells me that the fundies are indeed the largest block in this country today and in no way are outliers.

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 18:55:54 -0800

"IME the evangelical worldview is one if simplifed "repent or you're going to hell" and consists of decidedly non-liberal theology concerning church/state separation, teacher-led prayer in schools, protecting the unborn, the proper role of women in society, the existential threat that the homosexual agenda poses to modern America, the essentially Satanic nature of the Islamic hordes, etc. et fucking c." Um... See, that's where you're confusing fundamentalist with evangelical. Evangelical means that they're spreading the "Good News" of the Gospel. This may help.

By: panamax

panamax — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:03:08 -0800

kk, I know what it means -- the literal Greek roots and their history in this country -- but the evangelical megachurches I have been taken to have all been fundie. My point is that the modern evangelical movement has largely been outcompeted by the SBC and parts of it have shifted its polar moment to more closely match the ongoing success of the SBC. There is indeed an Evangelical left; that is the church I grew up in. But I don't see much of it these days, and that is, again, my point. The evangelical right has a much more salable message to market, and they've been cleaning the mainline evangelical's clocks the past 20-odd years.

By: dov3

dov3 — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:22:40 -0800

IMHO, Tim Keller is one of the best preachers of the modern era. I had the opportunity to attend Redeemer PC when I was in New York, and I can tell you that he is awesome. It is sad that the post derailed into many other things.

By: vorfeed

vorfeed — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:34:07 -0800

So what does "obedience" even mean in this context? You can grouse about an appeal to authority all you want, but given that there are a lot of people who devote their lives to the study of questions like this, your back-of-the-napkin calculations aren't very convincing. I would say that "doing [my] Heavenly Father's will" is a decent meaning of "obedience" in this context. Jesus makes it pretty clear that there are things people are to do and are not to do; love is among them. Why should we do or not do these things; why should we love; on whose authority? I would argue that the answer Jesus gives is "on God's authority". Again and again, he states that it's God who wants us to love, that he will judge those who fail to love, and that those who don't love will therefore be punished by Him. There's a cause-and-effect relationship, here, and love is not on the causative side. And yes, Love of God and Love of Man are both Love, but I'd suggest that there's a powerful reason for placing one before the other, one that's at work in the other quotes I posted. I seriously doubt you can find a "non-redacted and non-edited and non-translated version" in which Jesus claims that he isn't the only way to his Father, and that man doesn't need to do the will of said Father to make the grade. I'm not cherry-picking, here -- these are two of the central claims of Christianity, and they both seem to suggest that this Father guy is really, really important, as in The Most High. Again, if love is the main theme, why the need for the repeated invocation of this God figure? Further, you argued that it was some burden to have the onus upon you—well, congrats, atheist. The burden of proof is upon the theist if they want to prove their God, but if you want to prove your interpretation is valid, you're going to have to do a little more homework. I actually put forth an argument, and I continue to do so, so I figure that any onus upon me has been fulfilled. My annoyance is with the fact that you haven't done so, up to and including in your most recent post. I put forth my ideas, you went "whatever, you're not even making your argument in Greek so you're wrong QED". How on Earth are we supposed to go on from here? As for doing "homework" to "prove my interpretation is valid", give me a break -- I've posted plenty of arguments above, they seem fine to me, and you refuse to tell me why they're invalid, just that they are. On top of that, I've said from the very beginning that it's just my opinion, based on reading the Bible, and that I think there's room for other interpretations. You're the one making the strong statements, here. I'm sorry if you feel shit on here, but it's because you're not even making a consistent argument. In what way is it inconsistent, precisely? You keep saying these things, but you've got absolutely nothing to back them up. Like the man said in English 101, show, don't tell.

By: Lord Chancellor

Lord Chancellor — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:40:13 -0800

Nuts. Well, I tried.

By: rokusan

rokusan — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:56:52 -0800

"The God Delusion" in ways that were disrespectful of people who do hold various faiths, and wanted to find something a little more fair-minded, that explains why religion happens, why people believe. I recommended it in another thread somewhere, but what the heck.... Karen Armstrong's "A History of God" is quite an amazing book in that way.

By: LordSludge

LordSludge — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 20:37:58 -0800

i'm waiting for science to explain the positive correlation between arrogance and atheism. From the atheist's perspective: You believe in Santa Claus. You're a grown adult that believes in Santa Claus, because somebody told you it's true and because it makes you feel better about your life. We tell you and tell you that it's a lie, offer proof after proof, but you still insist that Santa Claus is real. Seriously, what would YOUR attitude be towards adults that literally believe in a literal Santa Claus? Kinda... arrogant? ** I'm not saying this to be snarky or hateful or to cut you down in some way (and I'm genuinely sorry for any hurt feelings it causes); I'm saying this to answer your (implied) question and to demonstrate one aspect of how Christians and most religions appear to atheists. ** Not to mention the frustration at the silly, intrusive laws that are passed in the name of Santa Claus and anger at the injustice, pain, and death that is performed by Kris Kringel's blessing... There's also some compassion there, at least from me -- many religious adults (formerly including myself) were brainwashed almost from birth, with huge social hurdles to leaving the faith, so it's not like they had much choice in the matter. Along those lines, I've come to see religious folks as mentally ill -- mildly schizophrenic, specifically -- but functionally so.

By: fleetmouse

fleetmouse — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 20:41:43 -0800

CBC National, broadcast date: Mar 4, 2008 I actually found a link to the video: http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/internationalus/christianity_comes_to_thailand_1.html Thanks, Art!

By: Brian B.

Brian B. — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 20:45:57 -0800

If God should exist to us by way of reason, then he isn't God. The grand idea behind God is to suspend the rational laws of nature at will. If we are drowning do we want a reasonable cosmic law-abiding God to save us? No, because we need a passionate God that loves us for our loyalty to suddenly suspend the laws of nature. Some might hope that this somehow solves the problem of evil, that suffering is therefore allowed by a God who sticks to his own laws of nature, therefore reasonable. However, such a conclusion allows reason to rule absolutely, and so we are even more free to dismiss God because he shouldn't care about us and we can't expect favors from him. And would he not only save the reasonable ones anyway? Doesn't sound like any historical God we know of. Add to this our disturbing human experience that the will of evil exists in the absence of reason, and any reasonable God that allows unreasonable people that use his credentials to cause suffering seems to be the worst case scenario. In the end, some of us do not believe in God simply because we cannot believe him to be strong by way of irrationality, nor weak by way of reason, nor responsible for all evil, human and otherwise.

By: Senor Cardgage

Senor Cardgage — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 20:49:34 -0800

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicureus Cliche and tacky? Probably. But it still makes pretty watertight sense.

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:13:39 -0800

i'm waiting for science to explain the positive correlation between arrogance and atheism. That right there is why you will always fail to understand atheists. They don't have to prove or explain things that don't exist.

By: Lord Chancellor

Lord Chancellor — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 07:57:52 -0800

So I guess no one will ever understand the other. *sighs*

By: LordSludge

LordSludge — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:39:45 -0800

Not true. As a born-again atheist, I, for one, do understand religion -- at least of the American, protestant, fundamentalist variety. Been there, done that... then thought about it too much, decided it didn't make sense (no matter how much I wanted it to be true), and summarily discarded it, after a few guilty, fearful, sleepless nights. And I'm thankful for the insight, even as I'm resentful of the indoctrination -- until I was "out", I couldn't recognize the constant, systemic indoctrination and pressure to believe. Reinforcement of religious belief was such an ingrained part of my life and peer/family experience, I couldn't see the forest for the trees. I understand that it was all done out of love, out of genuine concern for my "immortal soul", but I look back, now, and go... "Whoa, that was pretty messed up!" FWIW, I do concede that somebody who has never been religious probably can't know -- or perhaps more accurately, "feel" -- what it's like to truly believe, with all the good and bad that it entails.

By: Lord Chancellor

Lord Chancellor — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:56:26 -0800

Well, some atheists have become religious. I know I have had bouts of each. I suppose those who have spent time on the other side can be considered experience, but it seems many recoil from those that become religious from atheism. I just worry about a certain strain of "We understand them perfectly, they will never understand us." That could get arrogant, though I don't think that that is in anyway the norm of most atheist (at least the ones that I've met).

By: bobbyelliott

bobbyelliott — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 13:39:45 -0800

By: Lord Chancellor

Lord Chancellor — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 14:28:55 -0800

Religion is to atheism what astrology is to astronomy. Ouch. Thanks, bud.

By: Pope Guilty

Pope Guilty — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:56:34 -0800

Why are religious people so desperate to call atheism a religion? My theory is that religion fucks up your brain in such a way that you can't imagine being without it, and that religious people call atheism a religion because they're simply incapable of conceiving of existence without religion. But that's not "nice", implying as it does that religion is something other than sunshine and kittens.

By: Snyder

Snyder — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:07:14 -0800

>> I am convinced that a world without religion would be better for all... > That's your religion. Why are religious people so desperate to call atheism a religion? It's not. In fact, it's the polar opposite of religion being based on evidence (or the lack thereof) and rationality. Religion is to atheism what astrology is to astronomy. posted by bobbyelliott at 1:39 PM on March 6 Why are religious people so desperate to call atheism a religion? My theory is that religion fucks up your brain in such a way that you can't imagine being without it, and that religious people call atheism a religion because they're simply incapable of conceiving of existence without religion. But that's not "nice", implying as it does that religion is something other than sunshine and kittens. I dunno. Maybe you should read the bit you two are talking about and tell me what it has to do with atheism, and not just some given atheist's beliefs. Then maybe you'll understand, and not only be not insulting, but look like you can read, too.

By: ludwig_van

ludwig_van — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:46:44 -0800

That's a dumb argument. The belief that the world would be better without religion is obviously not a religion if the word religion is to have any meaning.

By: signal

signal — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 17:59:27 -0800

Not liking football is a football team.