2007: bad year for God squadders

[Atomic_Piggy]

It seems faith is destorying itself, it doesn't need our help!

2007, a bad year for God squadders

It was the believers that did most to discredit religion this year, not the atheists

Nothing better measures the retreat of religion in our postmodern society than the diminished intensity of the war over Christmas.

This fight ? waged for decades by a dwindling band of religious insurgents against a prevailing secularist consensus ? used to be fought with a real passion. People actually once got quite upset about saucy Christmas cards or television schedules that omitted even a hint of religion between the comedy classics and the game shows.

Now it just amounts to a few feeble skirmishes, a couple of barmy Christians railing outside the shopping malls, while everybody else gets on with their daily worship at the shrines of the modern trinity: shopping, eating and drinking.

The Christmas war, in fact, is rapidly acquiring the status of historical curiosity. In a few years' time, we'll have to stage re-enactments, like those Civil War buffs who gather in soggy fields:

"Look, George. Those people over there with the lanterns and the hymn books actually used to believe in the whole Christmas Story."

"Wow. They look so real. What was the Christmas Story, Mum?"

The retreat continues, despite the best efforts of the Anglicans to keep making concessions to disbelieving modernity, as the Archbishop of Canterbury did again this week with his observation that we were obliged to treat the Christmas Story really as just a legend. Like Alfred and the burnt cakes, I suppose.

Christmas closes another year that has been pretty brutal on the God squadders, a year in which the swelling tide of unbelief crashed further through the structures of our cultural architecture.

If you measure intelligent sentiment by book-reading habits alone, then atheism was a big winner in 2007. Richard Dawkins continued to wave an angry Darwinian fist in the faces of carol singers (before, it turns out, rather oddly, lining up with them for a quick rendition of God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen) with his exposure of the God Delusion. He was joined by Christopher Hitchens, whose God is Not Great will be filling many Christmas stockings.

But the atheists didn't confine their advances to the rather narrow field of non-fiction for grown-ups. Seizing on the old Jesuit principle of getting them while their young, Philip Pullman went Hollywood this year with the Dark Materials trilogy.

Mr Pullman, knowing a commercial opportunity when he saw one, described Catholics who objected to the adaptation of his books, which feature as the principal villain a thinly disguised Papacy, as "nitwits".

This seems to be wanting to have your polemical cake and eating it. You can hardly blame Catholics for feeling a bit defensive. He told an interviewer a few years ago that the main purpose in writing his books was to undermine belief in God. Now belief in God may be increasingly optional these days for the more lukewarm leaders of Anglicanism but it is still pretty much a prerequisite for Catholics.

As ever, though, when it comes to discrediting religion, the efforts of atheist polemicists and fantasists were no match for the behaviour of believers themselves.

A certain brand of fanatical Islam continues to lead the world in advertising the deep unpleasantness of religion as it can be practised ? whether submitting rape victims in Saudi Arabia to the lash or threatening the same against aberrant teddy bear teachers in Sudan, all in the name of God.

The unprepossessing brand of exclusive evangelicalism followed in some parts of America ( the "I'm Saved, You're Not" approach to salvation) has never been far from the headlines this year and is also very effective in turning people away from religion.

But this year also seemed to produce the most unlikely addition to the ranks of the unbelievers. In September we learnt that Mother Teresa, even while she was saving millions of souls in Calcutta, was apparently losing her own. Her posthumously published autobiography, Come Be My Light, much of it in the form of anguished letters to priests and others, recounted how the Blessed Teresa (she was beatified in 2003) had endured what theologians call a long, dark night of the soul. She repeatedly expressed the most excruciating of doubts about the existence of God and the faith to which she had dedicated her life.

The reaction to the book was predictable. She was denounced as a fraud and a hypocrite by some, welcomed posthumously into the ranks of the unbelievers by others. Few bothered to read through to the end and discover that Teresa recovered her faith before she died in 1997.

That someone as self-evidently devout as Mother Teresa could have been tormented for so long by such doubts should not be read as confirmation that the atheists have got it right. The lesson of Mother Teresa's long, dark night of the soul is precisely the opposite, in fact. That faith, by its very nature, entails doubt. If we could be really, truly certain, about the existence of God, what, really, would be the point of it all?

It is the Christmas Story, or legend if you will, as much as anything we believe, that underlines this essential tension between faith and doubt.

You'd have thought (and certainly the pre-Christians did) that the Son of God, when He chose, would enter the world in a way that would leave no doubt who He was or that He existed.

But He chose instead to come in a way that ensured just about the maximum room for doubt; merely another barely noticed nativity in the most miserable of circumstances. If you were lucky enough to be one of those shepherds on the hills around Bethlehem who got the news from the angelic host, or one of the wise men who followed that star, you were lucky. No long, dark night of the soul for you. Instead, just one brilliant flash of celestial light and the secret of the universe was revealed.

But for the rest of us, forced to ponder the complexity of our existence and the competing implausibilities of faith and unbelief, that was surely the point of the manger, the stable, the ox and the ass. That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,2053,2007-a-bad-year-for-God-squadders,Times-Online

 

[K e r b e r o s]

It seems faith is destorying itself, it doesn't need our help!

No, I just think people are learning that they can get along and don't need shouting matches to prove whose right and whose wrong.

 

[Raziaar]

I'M RIGHT. I'VE ALWAYS BEEN RiGHT. EVERYBODY ELSE HAS JUST BEEN LESS RIGHT!

ALSO KNOWN AS WRONG!

 

[theotherguy]

I'M RIGHT. I'VE ALWAYS BEEN RiGHT. EVERYBODY ELSE HAS JUST BEEN LESS RIGHT!

ALSO KNOWN AS WRONG!

I DISAGREE WITH YOUR ASSERTION. IT IS I WHO AM MORE RIGHT THAN YOU, WHO ARE LESS RIGHT, IE. "WRONG"!

FURTHERMORE, YOUR BELIEF THAT YOU ARE INDEED MORE RIGHT THAN I AM IS CONTRADICTED BY THE FACT THAT I AM RIGHT!

 

[nurizeko]

 

[Narvi]

How the hell are you people capitalizing entire posts anyway?

 

[taviow]

YES THAT SHOULD NOT be done.

 

[carrera]

That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.

Er...what?

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

More people are in my church. sorry, maybe where you live, but not where I do.

 

[Jintor]

How the hell are you people capitalizing entire posts anyway?

I too seek the answer to this perplexity.

 

[Raziaar]

I'm not sure how theotherguy did it. I have a lowercase i in mine.

 

[Kadayi]

Despite being devoid of any religious beliefs personally I'll give a shit what Dawkins thinks when he starts 'educating' Amazonian tribes and the like as to the invalidity of their beliefs. Until such time he is really nothing more than an intellectual cock waggler taking advantage of western tolerance, to stir the pot against easy targets. :dozey:

 

[delusional]

Tell Us How You Did It Theotherguy!

 

[jondy]

Despite being devoid of any religious beliefs personally I'll give a shit what Dawkins thinks when he starts 'educating' Amazonian tribes and the like as to the invalidity of their beliefs. Until such time he is really nothing more than an intellectual cock waggler taking advantage of western tolerance, to stir the pot against easy targets. :dozey:

Should we bother educating them in the laws of thermodynamics or quantum entanglement, too? These Amazonian tribes are obviously ignorant of the truth, and until we enlighten them our failure to spread the word apparently makes us inconsistent in applying our 'beliefs'.

 

[Jintor]

Despite being devoid of any religious beliefs personally I'll give a shit what Dawkins thinks when he starts 'educating' Amazonian tribes and the like as to the invalidity of their beliefs. Until such time he is really nothing more than an intellectual cock waggler taking advantage of western tolerance, to stir the pot against easy targets. :dozey:

...did you just call Christianity an "Easy Target"?

 

[Eejit]

...did you just call Christianity an "Easy Target"?

Nah he called Christian fundies an easy target. Which they are for things such as mockery/ridicule.

 

[Kadayi]

Should we bother educating them in the laws of thermodynamics or quantum entanglement, too? These Amazonian tribes are obviously ignorant of the truth, and until we enlighten them our failure to spread the word apparently makes us inconsistent in applying our 'beliefs'.

Well objectively:-

Science>any religious beliefs (no matter what ethnicity)

So yes I guess that should be Dawkins next step after he's enlightened them as to their failings. I mean when is it not appropriate to educate someone? When it threatens the integrity of their culture?

...did you just call Christianity an "Easy Target"?

Do you ever actually post anything aside from open questions or single sentences? I mean not to put to fine a point on it, I do a quick post search of you Jintor and I'm just seeing pages of one line spam rather than anything insightful or constructive going on. Great for your post count, but not so good for meaningful debate. I mean what exactly are you thinking that little sentence there does? It sure doesn't make me rethink my position, because there's nothing in it to make me question my position. If Christianity or more fundamentally Creationists weren't an easy target then there wouldn't be as many people out there rallying against them at every opportunity as there presently are. In all seriousness unless you've got something insightful or articulate to say on a subject don't post.

 

[Jintor]

Nah he called Christian fundies an easy target. Which they are for things such as mockery/ridicule.

Ah, makes more sense.

Kadayaki, nice railroad sideways. You could've just answered the simple question.

 

[Acepilotf14]

:|
/leaves

 

[jondy]

Well objectively:-

Science>any religious beliefs (no matter what ethnicity)

So yes I guess that should be Dawkins next step after he's enlightened them as to their failings. I mean when is it not appropriate to educate someone? When it threatens the integrity of their culture?

Hm. You probably go out of your way to change people's opinions in your circle of influence, but that's probably, if you're sensible, where you limit your proactivity. Amazonian tribes are outside Dawkin's circle of influence. You don't contradict yourself by limiting yourself in this way, and neither does Dawkins.

I'm not a huge fan of him myself, and the God Delusion wasn't scholary enough to withstand the inevitable dogpiling it (deservedly) got, but I not sure he's as guilty of 'intellectual cock waggling' as you say.

 

[Kadayi]

I'm not a huge fan of him myself, and the God Delusion wasn't scholary enough to withstand the inevitable dogpiling it (deservedly) got, but I not sure he's as guilty of 'intellectual cock waggling' as you say.

I think your focusing too much on the humorous example that I use rather than the underlying theme. Fact of the matter is, if The Dawkins was out there trying to 'educate' Amazonian tribes or anyone (aborigines) as to the errors of their ways, he'd be getting verbally ass raped by every intellectual under the sun for attacking their culture and beliefs (it would be up there with holocaust denial), where as when he attacks Christianity he's lauded as some great man. Plain fact of the matter is, is despite all the brutality and crap that has occurred as a result of Christianity (or any other religion), civilization as such wouldn't have progressed as far as it has in it's absence. Yes I think it's correct to assess it's relevance to modern day existence, and I definitely think fundamentalists of any kind (Creationists, etc)are regressive & dangerous, but I think it's utter folly to deny it's impact in terms of shaping our culture, and argue that everything moral is derived from biological imperative.

 

[15357]

I DISAGREE WITH YOUR ASSERTION. IT IS I WHO AM MORE RIGHT THAN YOU, WHO ARE LESS RIGHT, IE. "WRONG"!

FURTHERMORE, YOUR BELIEF THAT YOU ARE INDEED MORE RIGHT THAN I AM IS CONTRADICTED BY THE FACT THAT I AM RIGHT!

...


*tazer*



HAHA! NOW WHO IS RIGHT? ALL YOU FOOLS!

 

[CrazyHarij]

Haha thread ****ing wins

 

[Tagaziel]

Dawkins is pretty much the atheist equal to the Pope. Which puts him right next to Ratzinger on my "give a damn: list.

E.g. completely ignored.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Dawkins is pretty much the atheist equal to the Pope.

Bullshit. Not every atheist agrees with him, not every atheist likes him (like Kadayi) and isn't seen as a leader or whatever.

 

[Kadayi]

Bullshit. Not every atheist agrees with him, not every atheist likes him (like Kadayi) and isn't seen as a leader or whatever.

I think what Mikael means is that he's an extremist, rather than a representative.

 

[Polaris]

Dawkins is pretty much the atheist equal to the Pope. Which puts him right next to Ratzinger on my "give a damn: list.

E.g. completely ignored.

Equal to pope? That's ridiculous. He become well known for his ideas but unfortunately he's not famous like pope. He is very respected atheist intellectual, brilliant scientist and successful author, he is definitely not an extremist of any sort. Of course, you can ignore him if you want to.

 

[Absinthe]

Haha, Dawkins the extremist patriarch of atheism. But of course.

Can't say I understand the sudden vitriolic outburst over Dawkins since, aside from having his name in the URL, he doesn't hold authorship over anything that was written in the topic. Nor do I understand your diatribe about Amazonian tribes, Kadayi. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but it sounds like that in order for Dawkins to be considered credible and sincere, he needs to argue against all faiths with equal effort. I find such a demand to not only be unreasonable, but I also wonder if it's even possible to achieve satisfactorily.

There are a few reasons as to why Dawkins focuses predominantly on Christianity:
1.) It is the most familiar religion in the western world, which is where the bulk of his audience resides.
2.) It is assumedly the religion he is most familiar with, again as a result of western upbringing.
3.) Many of his arguments can be applied just the same to other faiths, which would make repeating them with every other belief system redundant.

He argues from a position as a scientist and a rationalist. There is no reason to believe he singles out Christianity due to hypocrisy or a grudge. If he devotes less of his time and effort in addressing Islam or the innumerable other faiths that populate the planet, it would be reasonable to assume that he does not feel qualified to comment on them to such a similar extent. Nor should he have to since he spends more time discussing the importance of evidence, logic, and probability: arguments that can be generalized more or less to any religion. His scriptural arguments are vastly outnumbered. I'm not saying you have to agree with him, but I feel you are being unfair.

As for indigenous Amazonian tribes... Sure. And maybe Al Gore can go stop global warming by himself. With his bare hands. Expression of ideas alone doesn't cut it, right?
I understand how necessary it is for some people to walk the walk instead of talking the talk, but there's a large distinction between being a hypocrite and being limited outside one's sphere of influence. He doesn't have to take a flight down to South America any more than I need a trip to Saudi Arabia when I speak against fundamentalism. And if you read his last book, you'd know that he acknowledges the importance of religion in human development as a way of creating group cohesion and organization. He believes it to have formed from natural social evolution, natch. But you and him both essentially agree that religious faith did serve an important function at some point in time. This makes your lashing at him all the more puzzling to me.

I know I've probably missed something key in your posts, so correct me if I'm in error.

 

[jondy]

I think your focusing too much on the humorous example that I use rather than the underlying theme. Fact of the matter is, if The Dawkins was out there trying to 'educate' Amazonian tribes or anyone (aborigines) as to the errors of their ways, he'd be getting verbally ass raped by every intellectual under the sun for attacking their culture and beliefs (it would be up there with holocaust denial), where as when he attacks Christianity he's lauded as some great man.

Well, yes - at least by atheists. I don't really see your point here, other than you harbouring some resentment at his success. Which I can empathise with.

Plain fact of the matter is, is despite all the brutality and crap that has occurred as a result of Christianity (or any other religion), civilization as such wouldn't have progressed as far as it has in it's absence.

That's another, far more contentious debate.

Yes I think it's correct to assess it's relevance to modern day existence, and I definitely think fundamentalists of any kind (Creationists, etc)are regressive & dangerous, but I think it's utter folly to deny it's impact in terms of shaping our culture, and argue that everything moral is derived from biological imperative.

He certainly doesn't deny it's impact on our culture - hell, he describes himself as a 'cultural Christian' and enjoys carol singing.

I'm starting to see your point, but I don't know what you're going for here - obviously Dawkins won't go for Amazonian tribes, because their cultural impact on us is next to nothing, a sociological curiosity, and far less relevant than the vast religious power structures which he 'takes on'. You're right in that there would be an uproar of cultural sensibilities if he did, but that's precisely the reason - their dogma isn't causing anyone outside of their insular societies any harm, and changing a thousand years of 'culture' is too much stick when balanced with the tiny carrot of secular progress said attack would constitute.

You obviously have a problem with the case Dawkins makes for the irrelevance of religion and the biological morality he postulates in his book, which is another debate, but his priorities aren't really a problem for me.

 

[Moonraker]

whats with bashing Christians and other religions here? is that what this forum is about?

just proves to me that atheism is a religion whether you say it is or not. if you have to constantly try to prove yourself right or belittle another religion by making wild posts - then you must be religious yourself - if you are an atheist well there you go.

fundamentalists of any kind, even atheists, are bad, why cant you just agree on this.

let ppl beleive what they want without someone ridiculing them for it. when will people realise that NOBODY has the answers. smart as humans are, we dont know everything. we barely have a grasp on things and to prove it here is this thread. its been going on for a very long time, and will continue on for a very long time. in the end, none of us know anything, we just believe.

this atheism against God stuff here is getting old.

i for one believe in God, but hey, if you dont thats fine. im not going to say you are an idiot.

 

[Absinthe]

Now let's have input from somebody who thinks.

 

[jondy]

*snip*

Good Lord.

pun half intended

 

[Kadayi]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something, but it sounds like that in order for Dawkins to be considered credible and sincere, he needs to argue against all faiths with equal effort. I find such a demand to not only be unreasonable, but I also wonder if it's even possible to achieve satisfactorily.

LOL, there is nothing unreasonable about it, in fact it's a request based very much on pure logical reason. If you intend to argue against the belief in the intangible (the existence of God), then you must be prepared to dismiss all intangible concepts, equally however great or small, whatever and wherever. Let's take some other intangibles, like Love for example. People wax lyrical about 'love' all the time and have throughout the centuries, but unlike a car, or mud, or a smile you can't actually tangibly demonstrate 'love', it doesn't exist in any concrete form, and at best it can be described as a consentual cultural hallucination inspired by chemical processes within the body. Another intangible is multiplication in mathematics, you cannot physically demonstrate the act of multiplication (Vs subtraction which you can), but people accept it's existence without question. Where do you draw the line? In fact how can you draw the line, as to what is an acceptable intangible belief? Either you accept the notion that intangible things may exist, or you deny them all. To do otherwise would be inconsistent & irrational.

I don't really see your point here, other than you harbouring some resentment at his success.

As I not written a book nor intend to (I'm quite happy being an atheist and not foisting my beliefs on others), I'm not sure exactly how is it that you conclude I'm resentful of The Dawkins success? I think he's a hack at best, and many of his ideas are ill conceived and based on dubious analysis and broad assumptions, and that as a rent-a-mouth atheist he does more harm than good to atheists overall. I mean in all seriousness the very title 'The God Delusion' was a deliberately provocative 'up yours' to the religious community, that was intended purely to push up retail sales through controversy.

Now let's have input from somebody who thinks.

Not to put to fine a point on it but with that kind of factious attitude you're as much a problem to atheism as The Dawkins. What moonraker said was perfectly reasoned, fundamentalism of any kind is bad, whatever the origin. But of course when he's laying into atheism he's naturally an idiot who should be disregarded without thought. I'd say the one big problem I find with other Atheists is their inability to concede they actually might be going too far, and actually possess some grace.

 

[Moonraker]

Now let's have input from somebody who thinks.

what was so wrong with what i said? cant accept that people are not all powerful and dont know everything? thats all i put out there.

 

[Absinthe]

Not to put to fine a point on it but with that kind of factious attitude you're as much a problem to atheism as The Dawkins. What moonraker said was perfectly reasoned, fundamentalism of any kind is bad, whatever the origin. But of course when he's laying into atheism he's naturally an idiot who should be disregarded without thought. I'd say the one big problem I find with other Atheists is their inability to concede they actually might be going too far, and actually possess some grace.

My issues was not really with his "laying into" atheists. I'm actually starting to give up on the whole "atheism is a religion" thing.

It was the presumption that I and others are apparently ignorant to fundamentalism. Why no, Moonraker. I certainly can't agree that fundamentalism is bad no matter where it comes from! I'm just a blindsided angry internet atheist on atheistlife2.net who just can't see the prejudiced godless agenda that wishes to stomp Christ into the ground. Heil Dawkins!

I guess I wouldn't be so annoyed if these lectures on "fundamentalism in general" weren't brought up in light of so-called extremist atheists like Sir Richard as mentioned above. It's like a sad attempt at leveling the playing field between religious fanaticism and atheistic criticism. It's ridiculous, and actually kind of insulting.

I also think there a some very fundamental differences between your list of intangible examples, but I'm off soon. Perhaps if I get back later.

 

[Moonraker]

oh i see, so because of that i get insulted.

you know i didnt lay into atheists anyhow. i said the 'atheistic criticism' is becoming a bit overdone almost like its becoming ridicule and hate rather than critique. in reality, and i know thats a tough one, either can be criticized. i even recognized that extremes come from both sides of the field and that neither can be totally correct. i just go down the list of threads here and i see a lot of the same stuff and i wonder what the purpose and the point of it all is.

 

[Kadayi]

I also think there a some very fundamental differences between your list of intangible examples, but I'm off soon. Perhaps if I get back later.

I look forward to hearing the arguments against.

 

[PortalStormzzzz]

GOOD Lord.

OK, how about we let people believe what they want and end it?

To be on topic, I don't see religion decreasing, but rather, religious authority decreasing and religious belief increasing. In layman's terms, the religious leaders are going down but belief is going up. Which is just part of that equation of personal beliefs vs authority's word.

 

[jondy]

As I not written a book nor intend to (I'm quite happy being an atheist and not foisting my beliefs on others), I'm not sure exactly how is it that you conclude I'm resentful of The Dawkins success? I think he's a hack at best, and many of his ideas are ill conceived and based on dubious analysis and broad assumptions, and that as a rent-a-mouth atheist he does more harm than good to atheists overall. I mean in all seriousness the very title 'The God Delusion' was a deliberately provocative 'up yours' to the religious community, that was intended purely to push up retail sales through controversy.
.

You think he's a hack. You think his success is unjustified. It's pretty much the same thing.

The title of the book was probably done by the publishers - of course it was intended to 'push up retail sales through controversy'.

If the book's title was an 'up yours' to the religious community, it says more about the cultural pedestal religion sits on than the motivations of the publisher.

I agree with you - Dawkins isn't the best candidate for an atheist ambassador. I'm not really sure what you're arguing for here. Course, I've just come in from new year, and I'm completely rinsed, so who knows.

 

[theotherguy]

whats with bashing Christians and other religions here? is that what this forum is about?

Because ludicrous ideas demand ridicule.