Forced to think freely

Ruairidh

So atheists cannot think?

What prejudice nonsense.

There is no paradox in a camp devoted to reason and critical thought shunning religion. Free thinking means throwing off the shackles of dogma not giving every theory and belief equal billing no matter how absurd.

Ray

Atheists hold no moral certainties other than the moral certainty that there are no moral certainties!

Ian C

"Free thinking", Ruairidh, surely includes the possibilties that religious thinking brings forth - not just atheist thinking?

Jonathan

And I thought that free thinking involved examining the claims for differing world views, whether religious or atheistical, evaluating those views and reaching a conclusion which is not determined in advance by prejudice.

Sheila

"So atheists cannot think?" - who said this? No one.

This post, Ruairidh - try reading it again - is about a summer camp indoctrinating young people against all religion. What is free thinking about that?

The objective of this summer camp is what you might refer to as "prejudice nonsense" (at least your poor grammar skills are in sync with your comprehension skills).

"There is no paradox in a camp devoted to reason and critical thought shunning religion." Of course there is. How on earth can you understand a country's history, traditions and laws when they so often have a religious element to them?

For example, many of the gliberal moral ideas you see bandied about by the atheist bien pensant are borrowed from Christianity - only they can't bring themselves to admit that.

"Free thinking means throwing off the shackles of dogma not giving every theory and belief equal billing no matter how absurd."

Where has Melanie Phillips argued for giving every theory and belief equal billing?

The only people I can see "giving every theory and belief equal billing no matter how absurd" are the multiculturalists who walk around saying there's a moral equivalence between Islam and Christianity when there is no such thing and why the two religions have spawned entirely different cultures.

Ian G

Dogma, Ruaridh, is the base-line of any belief system. Doctrine is built upon dogma. Thus, atheist dogma is that there is no god. The doctrines that follow logically from that are truly terrifying as can be seen from the condition of the atheist states. North Vietnam, North Korea, Pol Pot's Cambodia, Maoist China, Soviet Russia, Albania...

In recent years the Protestant Christian countries, essaentally the Anglo-sphere, have become increasing secular humanist and atheist. Our freedoms are being eroded. Families are being broken up. The state claims rights over children it never used to countenance. Abortion is rife and Euthanasia is on the agenda. Sexual 'freedom' has spread STIs at an alarming rate amongst young people.

As for Free thinking, you have to have choices in order to think freely.

It is interesting that you think that religion is absurd. Where are the great atheist moral teachers whose lives exemplify their teaching? To reverse a common atheist argument, how do you explain the existence of Love, Beauty, Reason and self-sacrifice in a soulless universe? Surely Evolution doesn't select the very things that argue for God?

It is a strange universe that evolves the illusion of meaning and then recognises that. But the process of recognition requires rational thought and that requires meaning - which is illusory.

Lee Jakeman

Atheist bigotry takes the form of a dogmatic belief that there is no God.

Stephen

Please tell us Ms Phillips why you think the atheist camp to which you refer indoctrinates children? The link to The Times tells us that campfire songs are not religious (hardly surprising) but that is scant justification for the assertion that all discussion of religious ideas is banned. Indeed the 'prove the intangible unicorns do not exist' exercise is an excellent way to teach basic philosphy and could equally be applied to the difficulty in disproving the existence of any intangible being; which is surely the point. The absence of evidence for your claim suggests that reason is takinga rest while monsters are being spawned a little closer to home.

ruhrig

I'm an atheist, but I find the very idea of an "atheist summer camp" to be ridiculous. Atheists will not win their arguments by making caricatures of ourselves. Religious folks have long complained about the irrational hatred that many atheists hold for religion; this sort of thing isn't exactly going to help matters.

sweetie

Free thinking means just that. Indoctrination is the opposite! I cant believe that sane parents would spend good money on such a bad idea.

Campbell

I'd be more impressed by the comments of the 'religious' commentators here if they could find me a religiously sposored summer camp (there are many in the USA where summer camp is a common thing) which taught atheism as an alternative to belief in God.

Ray; You abrogate to yourself, and those who think like you, all moral purpose and certainty. That is simply wrong and any serious religious leader would tell you so.

Ian G; sounding pretty dogmatic there yourself Ian

Susan: You can learn about the religious influence on a country's history and culture in school; most of us do and did.
Atheistically inclined parents have as much right to send their children to a camp like this as religiously inclined parents have to send their children to a faith-school.
You misunderstand atheism. Atheists deny the existence of a God. They do not deny that sound moral teaching can be found in religious texts but they do deny that these teachings are anything other than man made and entirely lacking in any supernatural sanction.
You don't help put your case over by misrepresenting the opposition.

Lee Jakeman: And Theist bigotry takes the form of a dogmatic belief that there is a God. So where does that leave us?

ruhrig: Maybe they do complain, Heaven knows the default position for the religiously inclined these days could best be described as 'Whinge' but on the other hand rarely, if ever, does one find them deprecating the venom heaped on the atheist so I guess it is a case of "What's sauce for the goose..."

John thomas

Ruairidh - i can think of a few absurd, irrational theories that ought to be shunned: evolutionism, anthropogenic global warming, and overpopulation - there's a start.

Ruairidh

I’m not going to get into an atheism/theism debate. Ian G you ask lots of questions to which there are answers but I don’t have the time – and I doubt many would want me – to answer then. I will answer a few points though.

Ray: ‘the moral certainty that there are no moral certainties’ is not a moral certainty.

Shelia: Mel said ‘Wouldn’t it be a good idea for a camp promoting ‘free thinking’ to be run by people who can actually think?’ I think that is a claim that those running the camp (i.e. atheists) cannot think. Also there is no indoctrination evident in the article Mel links to, just encouragement to think freely and critically. If you think that happens to indoctrinate against religion then what does that tell you about religion?

Lee Jakeman: Bigotry is intolerance of others. A dogmatic belief that there is no god may not be evidence of free critical thinking but it is not bigotry. Bigotry would be banning the girl who goes to church from attending the camp in the article as the atheist scout was from the scout camp.

Corsair

I’ve just finished reading CS Lewis’ ‘The Abolition of Man’, and I’m struck by just how prescient, and in fact prophetic, he was back in the ‘40s. The current evangelists and zealots of fundamentalist atheism are precisely his ‘conditioners’, the ‘men without chests’ whose brains appear so large only because the rest of them is so shrunken. I used be one myself, but I grew out of it.

SimonP

Hi Ian G,

".....how do you explain the existence of Love, Beauty, Reason and self-sacrifice in a soulless universe?

Good comment. Souls could never evolve from chemicals, so souls have no place in Atheistworld. Love, beauty, reason, self-sacrifice etc (and their opposites) pertain to the soul (even the depraved soul), but souls don't exist in Atheistworld. But seeing that even atheists can't do without without these things, even atheists aren't happy living in Atheistworld!

Atheists can't answer this without either (a) robbing these things of all meaning except chimical, or (b) ceasing to be atheist and turning to believe in the existence of human souls.

But at that point, sadly, so many atheists won't see that these things argue for God. "Anything but God," they will say. And there's lots to choose from.

Still, it makes one think, doesn't it.

"Surely Evolution doesn't select the very things that argue for God?"

Evolution (micro, anyway) selects things that argue for God all the time. When biological machines and systems go wrong through mutation, they are usually deselected. Evolutionists think that evolution works in the opposite direction from what it actually does.

But can evolution bring love, beauty, etc into existence from chemistry and biology? No chance.

In Atheistworld, human relationships are as loveless as the bonds between hydrogen and oxygen in water molecules. That's why even athists aren't happy living there, and they have to sneak out while nobody's looking!

comprehensiveboy

I always find atheist enthusiasts interesting. On one level they criticise a very abstract philosophers' concept of God and yet only attack selectively the scripture of Christianity specifically. It's never Hindu or Sikh scripture or the Koran. Ok I know. As far as Chritianity goes they seem always to be thinking of some form of protestantism with its emphasis on scripture. Catholics for instance have a less singular emphasis on scripture in the same way. And they seem to want to disprove the existance of God epistemologically yet many people's route to reilgion, as in the case of many scriptural figues, is through a realisation of failibility, weakness and sin before..... what?... something which can only be God. Incidentally this cosmic humility is similar in some ways to the patient and non-arrogant required to progress in science. God bless them anyway.

Augustus

In the early days of the Soviet Union, Communist leader Lenin enforced the teaching of atheism in schools. To keep control of the people it had to be done. Liberty is derived from God, and Lenin did not want individual liberty. He wanted to teach children that the government was the sole provider and that there was no God over them to provide for them. Yet, just before he died, Lenin had enough strength to gnash his teeth and shake his fist in the air before he expired. Who did he shake his fist at?

The heart knows there is a God, but it is easy to rebel against Him. Although, unfortunately for them, many self-professed atheists are never likely to detect any such knowledge of God. Once the hardening of the heart occurs, and an individual rejects everything that God stands for, and 'does their own thing', they are in grave danger of becoming a rebel against peace. That is because God's standards preserve you. when God is in control inner peace is more easily attainable if you allow Him to guide you and preserve you by His standards. We are by nature creatures of control, but without Christ we tend to want to control everything and swallow up the competition. People want to control others, and to establish peace they are drawn to conform to the will of another. Peace without God can only be determined by the will of another person on that person's terms, or in other words 'suvival of the fittest'.
That is the law of the jungle.

There isn't much hope left for us mortals when all of life's surprises reside with one's self, because when man limits himself to just himself there are no surprises and therefore not much lasting joy to life.

Ruairidh

I’d prefer to say inoculate rather than indoctrinate.

I’d also hope that a good course in critical thinking inoculation would also protect against such nonsense as Homeopathy and the rest of the so-called complementary & alternative medicine (SCAM) universe.

James B

Free thinking means saying whatever you like as long as it is leftwing......unfortunately!

arnoldo

As an atheist who generally takes the Dawkins line, I can't see any harm in the summer camps. I do worry, however, about losing the moral consensus that binds a religious community together. Although this is achieved (in countries where one religion dominates)by a combination of indocrination and restriction of free thinking, it does seem to produce relative moral stability.
It would be useful if Britain's atheists, as we move into a multi-religion era,could present a set of morals which could easily be accepted by atheists and the majority of religions alike, and then be used in all schools for discussion by our children.

Straydingo

Ruairidh, your post really does say it all - thanks for making me laugh so hard that I spilt my coffee - please do keep your posts coming as there is always room for comics here :)

Vision Aforethought

The reason the current regime is encouraging the destruction of religion (with the help of the BBC, in particular, Dr. Who and their anti-Christian plot lines), is because most religions look upon greed with disdain. And with the government and bankers stealing and holding onto our money, they are keen to breed and brainwash a generation who are unable to question dubious ethics and rather than becoming subservient to an independent entity (G-d), become subservient to their local council jobsworth and his youthful minions and spies.

Welcome to dystopia! Resistance is futile.

Carl Nidray

"An atheist's most embarrassing moment is when he feels profoundly thankful for something, but can't think of anyone to thank for it." - Mary Anne Vincent
G-d bless them!

Ray

Campbell - I was merely observing how amusing it is to observe atheists expound their faith with all the moral certainty of the religious.

Margaret Muller-Johansson

Many British people are becoming Atheist, and that is why they have a problem about communicating towards other people, when people are atheist they are like robots, like walls, i think it is better to believe any kind of religion then none otherwise you will be like an empty cupboard, I am glad I am religious and Jewish

Ruairidh

comprehensiveboy: Atheists usually talk about the brand of religion they are most familiar with (ie grew up with) and the faith we imagine our theist debater is familiar with. That's why in this country atheists talk about a Protestant version of Christianity. Other religions are not of no interest; personally I've read up on Islam and Animist belief systems but I’m on less secure ground because I’m not as familiar with the details. So I stick with a Protestant god in discussions.

Incidentally atheists do not attempt to disprove the existence of god. Disproving the existence of supernatural forces is impossible. Atheists instead take the position that there is no evidence for the existence of god(s) and that belief in god provides no answers in empirical scientific research. So if you can find a non-supernatural explanation for a phenomenon that adds weight to the case but it never completely disproves the existence. Instead it reduces belief in god to a meaningless level; an undetectable god with no impact on the world.

To take the example used above: there is a biological, biochemical and physiological explanation for love and beauty that doesn’t need to use metaphysical concepts like a ‘soul’ or ‘god’. Simon P and Ian G don’t like it though because it robs beauty of its romance and mystery. Reducing something majestic down to the level of base instincts (species survival) and chemistry offends them. I’ll accept that being an atheist does meaning losing some romance but it adds something else; humility. I’m always surprised when people characterise atheist beliefs as arrogant. It strikes me that believing you and your species are uniquely special in the eyes of a supreme supernatural being as a more arrogant position. Atheism is incredibly humble. It states that you are not special and that when you die no god comes to save you. Yes it’s tragic but it makes life that much more precious.

Sheila

"Shelia: Mel said ‘Wouldn’t it be a good idea for a camp promoting ‘free thinking’ to be run by people who can actually think?’ I think that is a claim that those running the camp (i.e. atheists) cannot think."

No, Ruairidh, because not every atheist goes and sets up a summer camp for children characterised by a desire to exclude religious thinking.

You can be an atheist and still introduce religious concepts to children.

Ruairidh

Ray if you took the trouble to understand atheism you would realise there is no need of faith.

Neil Craig

It is funny, it is silly & yet people who are committed to freedom no matter how they fail to understand it do not have the potential for long term repression that those who have no commitment to freedom have.

This is why the USSR fell while the House of Saud still stands, The former at least thought they were committed to progress & thus when they failed had to change.

Ray

Ruairidh - assuming you're not oblivious to irony, you prove my point even better than I can.

Like I said, you broach no moral certainties other than the moral certainty that there are no moral certainties!

Vision Aforethought

@Margaret Muller-Johansson: Indeed. I thought I was the only one to have made such an observation.

Crawford

Ruairidh: "Ray if you took the trouble to understand atheism you would realise there is no need of faith."

What nonsense! Of course you need faith to be an atheist.

Surely whatever system of belief we hold to requires us to put our faith in it?

So like it or not atheism is a form of religion.

david skinner

So, Ruairidh,
Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Robespierre were brave realists who in resigning themselves to a world where love romance or mystery no longer exist were encouraged to treat people as a means towards an end. These stark and tough - minded people, in giving up all hope of majesty or sovereignty, were inevitably led, against their better judgment, to impose their own tyranny on millions of others. How courageous and incredibly humble these leaders were in not believing in the dignity and uniqueness of humanity and the way this led to their treating millions of others as dirty puddles of water. Just fancy what incredible and heroic courage it took to relinquish all hope of salvation and justice and thereby deny it to their subjects by engaging in mass murder and genocide. Bravery indeed.
But just imagine, Rhuairidh, just supposing they were to wake up on the either side of death and suddenly find themselves in the blazing presence of the source of all love, personhood, truth, meaning, beauty, holiness and justice. Would they say “Phew What a relief. If only I had known and look how virtuous I have been by living as though a just, holy and righteous God never existed” ?

Alan O'Reilly

Re: "Ray if you took the trouble to understand atheism you would realise there is no need of faith"

Big need for denial, though

Neil

There's something vaguely comical in being lectured on 'free-thinking' from those of a religious persuasion.

For those of you looking for the soul, I suggest you try the cerebral cortex. It's nothing more than a collection of synapses, the product of 2 billion years of evolution.

Daniel Heslop

That fundamentalist bibliolators are mad is a given. That said, the past couple of years of online religious 'debate' has convinced me that much of what poses as 'free-thinking' amounts to little more than the lazy habit of "reading through a sneer"!

Mjolnir de Jersiaise

Ruairidh: any reasonably intelligent person understands that it is impossible to [scientifically] 'prove' either the existence or non-existence of the supernatural; even committed atheists are keen to point that out. If you, therefore, are content to settle on the idea that God doesn't exist - without being able to conclusively prove it - then you must, by definition, have faith in Atheism.
Also, you stated that: "...it’s tragic but it makes life that much more precious"; I disagree, Atheism makes life that much more futile and pointless. Of course, if you can afford it you can live a life of hedonism; or you can be a dedicated 'pillar of the community' in order to demonstrate that 'atheists don't need religion to make them a good person', but, either way, the universe will fizzle out in a few billion years and none of it will matter anyway...

YA

Melanie: religious thinking IS NOT FREE. It is limited by very well known axioms and templates (Peace Be Upon Them).

As a non-believer, I have no problem in considering and weighting evidence that supports religious viewpoint.

Whereas, true believer CAN'T AGREE with ANY evidence against religious axioms, as it contradicts the very definition of believer.

So whose thinking is free, then?

Oh and I don't like these "Atheism" and "indoctrination" game - sticking negative labels is quite cheap demagoguery.

Religious type of thinking is a retrograde cognitive framework, which, most likely, has essential genetic component.
From evolution viewpoint, it is ancient, close to animal regnum because axioms are kin to instincts, which imply automatic recognition.

Whereas explanatory/predictive analytical frameworks, powered by logic, based on evidence - science - is modern way of thinking. Yes that doesn't include old ways - sorry but that is how it is.

Suki

Neil (July 30th, 2009 6:35pm)
There's something extremely comical in being lectured on 'free-thinking' by someone with total ignorance of religion.

You will notice that those socities that outlaw it (often Marxist) end up making Gods out of human beings and utterly oppressing free thought. This is precisely the opposite of what has developed in Judeo-Christian societies and why some agnostics and atheists - as well of those of faith - are reluctant to destroy these traditions.

Liz

Ah...Ruairidh, I wonder if you'll be quite so verbose when you die and have to stand before G-d.

Corsair

>>Whereas, true believer CAN'T
>>AGREE with ANY evidence
>>against religious axioms

Has anyone ever presented such proof? What constitutes 'proof' depends on what one believes to be the source of faith. Being fully aware of, and accepting, the evidence for the Big Bang, or Darwinian evolution, tells one nothing about God: one could happily be a deist, a theist or even an mainstream CofE type (etc) who takes the Old Testament truths to be poetic and metaphorical and feel no discomfort in one's faith in the light of such knowledge.

Thoughtful atheists know this. It is the zealots, the True Unbelievers, arrested in adolescence, compelled to proselytise their unbelief, to bear witness to it, to denounce believers for their false doctrines, who don’t get it. Their dogmatism is every bit as blind as that of the Christians they deplore – or rather, that of the straw men they prop up and label ‘Christian’. The emphatic use of CAPITAL LETTERS is always a dead giveaway.

YA

Corsair:

Factual truth can't be "poetic" - only interpretation can.

As to the proof.. Main evidence against religious axioms is their non-universality. Gods (which are many - Zeus, Christ, PBUH, etc.) always say different things and establish different rules for different groups of people (unbelievers, women, gays etc.), often in self-contradictory manner. That makes religion rather resembling politics, - where lie, deception and divide-and-conquer are primary instruments.
Whereas factual and scientific truth are universal. All humans (including you, me, people of all religions, and superintendent of main building) will agree that fire burns, body thrown up into air eventually falls back, grass is green, stars are blinking and planets are not, 2+2=4, and gamma-function of one-half equals square root of pi.

Oh and just preventing "moral" objections.. In different times in history, such things as cannibalism, human sacrifices, slavery, wars, torture, death sentences, polygamy and so on, were (and some still remain) absolutely moral, approved by religious authorities, and in many cases sanctified as important parts of religious rituals, order, and practice.

I admit that religion has essential component of "poetry". But it isn't related to truth - at all, and to moral - often in negative way, as a retrograde force.

C. Gee

Ruairidh:

Some of us who support Melanie's views on politics, Israel and global warming, sigh when she comes out with her opinions on religion. Her reasoning here goes wobbly.

Well tried in your defense of atheism. You are not alone. Visit Jillian Becker's website theatheistconservative.com., if you haven't already.

I have danced the faith v. reason, religion v. atheism quadrilles many, many times. The best 'compromise' usually arrives at Gould's non-overlapping magisteria which might seem to permit parallel tracks for religion and science, but strong atheists (see Dawkins' The God Delusion) see no reason to defer to religion on aesthetics, ethics and fellow-feeling. Nor should they.

As for the camp - it smacks a little of atheist "activism" propounded by Dawkins and the atheist left. This assumes a view of atheists as victims of bigotry, so that the political machinery of civil rights advocacy can be set in motion. I would not be surprised if the camp also taught green dogma and the politics of compassion.

There are conservative atheists, who are well-informed about religion, but who do not believe in any form of thought control - by totalitarian religions or totalitarian politics. They do not mind hollering out a good hymn from time to time.

Ian G

Ruaidirh.

The certainty that there are no moral certainties is a certainty about morality, so I think that makes it a moral certainty, except of course, that it isn't certain. i think Sartre and self-authentication would be the choice of refuge, but he was miserable b****r, wasn't he?

Campbell: Dogmatic? Guilty as charged. But I think that you don't understand 'dogmatic'. It isn't a 'boo' word that sneeringly destroys the opposition as prejudiced morons. It simply means the basics of a belief system without which the system doesn't work.

We do have to define our terms. Throw out dogmatism and you throw out rational discussion. Think it through, carefully.

Corsair: 'The Abolition of Man' is stunning. It ought to be read by everyone and certainly by teachers. I'm not saying that they should believe it, but it would help them think clearly. You might recognise one of Lewis's arguments in my first posting. I am not qualified to comment on his literary critical work, although I am told that, 'The Allegory of Love' is a classic. In his other genres,'Till we have faces' is his best novel and 'The Abolition of Man' is probably his best apologetic work.

Ruairdirh: Lots of questions which you can't be bothered to answer but could. Heard that one before.

SimonP; just one small point, Micro-evolution is adaptation or development 'after it's own kind'. No-one has ever proved anything else. But overall, we are in agreement.

Ruairidh; You claim you can answer my points and then answer anyone else's but mine?! Tut-tut.

C. Gee

Mjolnir de J:

You say: "If you, therefore, are content to settle on the idea that God doesn't exist - without being able to conclusively prove it - then you must, by definition, have faith in Atheism."

No. Atheism is the absence of faith in the existence of God, by definition. God's existence cannot be proved, therefore it is necessary to have faith to believe in his existence. God's existence cannot be disproved, and that is sufficient reason not to believe in him.

C. Gee

The picture's title: 'The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters' is a good atheist statement. When Reason is not awake to guard against them, fantastic creatures swarm...

Ruairidh

OK Ian G.
Pick one question and I'll endevour to answer it.

Ruairidh

Ah Liz if that ever happens you can rest assured I will have a lot to say.

Ray and Mjolnir de Jersiaise: No Atheism and the scientific method require no faith or belief. If you take the time to really understand it, in the way religious types generally expect us to take the time to understand their new ‘poetic’ interpretations of the world, you would see that. Everything in science can be challenged and after a successful challenge changed. Nothing is sacred. If you want to keep going on this one please give me the definition 'faith' and 'belief' you are using.

I do not say there is no god. I say there is no evidence of the existence of god and all the circumstantial evidence and logic arguments ‘suggest’ there is no god. I see no reason to believe except the logic deployed in the self preserving Pascal’s wager. But even then you have as much chance of picking the one true faith as you have of winning the lottery. Maybe the Aztecs were the ones who had it right! Maybe the Jehovah’s witnesses. Who knows?

Liz – have you ever wondered what you would say if you get to meet your maker and it turns out to be Thor?

Ian G

Ruairidh: I'm with you on Homeopathy and a lot of so-called complemenatry and alternative medicine. However, Osteopathy (cured my bad back) and herbalism (with it's subdivision aromatherapy) deserve investigation. Lavender oil is brilliant, as is Tea-tree. Not cure-alls but very helpful. Some diagnostic techniques should be investigated as well. But a lot of what can only be called 'Magic' hides under the same umbrella.

'Simon P and Ian G don’t like it though because it robs beauty of its romance and mystery' and, ' majesty, humilty and arrogance'. Where do you get these ideas from? In Atheistworld they are meaningless. What is humble about sayng that in an incredibly massive universe, about which you (and I) know next to nothing, there is no god? It is not arrogance, I grant you, it is foolishness.

The true believer claims an experiential encounter with God. Unproveable in an empirical sense but so many things are, including empiricism. Which, in part, is also an answer to YA's comment about universality. He could also try reading 'The Abolition of Man' which also addresses some of that question. Absolute and empirical proof of something/someone that created everything and, therefore, is beyond empiricism is silly.

By the way, Ya, stars don't blink; body thrown into the air does not always return - escape velocity - it IS rocket science; grass isn't always green for all sorts of reasons, some of which are natural; mathematical statements are only true under pre-defined conditions, in essence they are tautologies.

Ruairidh

C. Gee: I think Goulds NOM is a good attempt at a ceasefire but it has its problems because over time science will start to cross the line and look at phenomenon that believers consider 'theirs'. I think that a magestirum for religion that all scientists would respect would be so constrained and so vague as to be of no refuge for the religious. Already on this page ‘love’, ‘beauty’, ‘soul’, ‘self-sacrifice’ and even ‘reason’ have all been signed up for the religious NOM but I think all except ‘soul’ are completely explained within science. Leaving only ‘soul’ on its own without any claims to higher things is unlikely to keep the believers happy. So sadly I think this skirmishing will continue. Essentially if something has any measurable presence on the natural world (beauty etc) science will see it as fair game. If it doesn’t (souls, holy spirits etc) then science will leave it alone but it’s complete lack of measurable presence in the natural world renders it fairly meaningless to logical argument about what is in the natural world.

I accept there is an activist perception with the camp and that that will offend some. But this is not proselytising in the streets, this is a camp that parents chose to send their children to and despite Mel’s invective there is no element of coercion of forcing. Reading about this camp (there is more in the other papers) it struck a cord with me when an 11yr old said ‘I learned it is OK not to believe in god’. I stopped believing at about that age but it was a guilty secret I felt obliged to hide from my parents. Being told it’s OK to think the way I was would have been a nice thing to have heard – not that my parents would have sent me! They were not heavy handed about religion but there is strong social peer pressure on children to believe and I knew what their expectations were for me and I knew they’d be disappointed.

Atheist ‘activism’ is nothing in terms of scale when compared to religious activism and it is also, and I realise I’m probably biased on this point, not as aggressive in its delivery. I think people see it as more aggressive because the end point (‘there is probably no god’) is more unsettling than the end point for religious proselytising (‘there is a god and I will live forever’).

mary

The paradox is that the camp has been set up to indoctrinate in the name of "free thinking".

Henry Sidgwick

Margaret Muller-Johansson
July 30th, 2009 3:09pm
"Many British people are becoming Atheist, and that is why they have a problem about communicating towards other people, when people are atheist they are like robots, like walls, i think it is better to believe any kind of religion then none otherwise you will be like an empty cupboard, I am glad I am religious and Jewish"

I should probably leave well alone, but I would like to ask two questions.

Could explain what you mean when you say that atheism turns people into robots or walls?

And have you studied the beliefs of some of the religions you would be willing to believe to avoid becoming anempty cupboard?

Corsair

YA,

I confess I can’t follow your arguments. Please clarify for me.

In what way does the observation that different people have worshipped different gods at different times disprove any religious axiom? For example, if one accepts it as axiomatic that ‘no one comes to the Lord except through Jesus’, how can the fact that Hindus or Muslims don’t also accept it as true prove anything, other than that they don’t accept it?

Similarly, how does the fact that the universe is apparently governed by physical laws prove or disprove religious axioms? If the universe did come into existence in the Big Bang, that indeed conflicts with a belief in the literal truth of the Genesis creation story, but it tells us nothing about the truth of ‘it’s wrong to covert your neighbour’s donkey’ - nor can it. The wrongness of coveting donkeys (or any other thing belonging to our neighbours) is not a conclusion: it’s an assertion. It’s truth is discovered by experience, just as the truth of your assertion that thrown objects always (always? Can we trust induction here?) fall to earth is discovered by experience.

Finally, that fact that bad men have done bad things to people in the name of god(s) tells us more about our incorrigible nature than it does about religion: within living memory far worse men have done far worse things to far more people than the most cynical or fanatical of our ancestors could have achieved. Does this fact invalidate atheism for you, or the utopian urge in politics, or so called ‘progress’? If not, why not? Each of these bear much of the blame for enabling the unparalleled horrors of the century just ended. And whether you accept or reject them, what is it that gives your value-judgement validity?

Ruairidh

Ian: You said:

.....beauty ..romance ... majesty, humilty and arrogance'. Where do you get these ideas from? In Atheistworld they are meaningless. ...

I'm afraid I don't follow your arguement here. Could you elaborate?

Ian G

OK Ruairidh.

Where are the great atheist moral teachers whose lives exemplify their teaching?

YA

Corsair: I've mentioned some evidence (not proof) in favour of my point of view that religion is socio-political construct, involving many ad hoc tricks and deceptions, and mostly a projection of archaic, tribal orders. Whereas rational way of tinking is a socio-scientific construct, based on evidence and logic. I tend to trust politicians less that scientists (well not "global warming"-type "scientists").
But that is matter of taste, in the end. Nevertheless - just try to think about following. Long time ago, Eratosthenes once calculated radius of Earth, - and his calculation turned out to be quite exact. Then, it was age of paganism and slavery. Earth will live most likely another couple of billions of years and see another couple of millions of social formations and religions - with the same radius calculated first time by this Greek guy. For me, this modest info constitutes sufficient evidence against religion, in favour of rational thinking. But again, your taste is yours.

C. Gee

Ruairidh:

My objection to atheist activism on the left (and I know nothing about the camp) is that it quite explicitly demands that parents should not be able to inculcate religion in their children. The policies that spring from this require government to take control away from those parents who do not conform to state approved attitudes.

As for "soul" and "spirituality", like "beauty" they have become commodities for sale to insatiable consumers. DIY religion is flourishing: make-your-own-shrine features appear in glossy mags, truth from crystals, feng shue, chanting, tinkle-pinkle music, Kabbalah classes...

And meanwhile, science is measuring altered brain patterns for states of mind (or consciousness) after certain exercises (meditation, chanting, holding certain poses, repetitive motion, whirling). The uplift does have a material explanation.

The soul's out of body existence and future travel plans will remain an undisprovable mystery.

The need for mystery may itself have a psychological explanation. I put it down to fear of the known.

Ian G

Ruairidh:

Just a brief outline.

Atheism necessitates a self-creating universe, which immediately runs into trouble with the Big bang theory, but we'll leave that aside. This universe is governed, it would appear, by, amongst others , the Second law of thermodynamics. Basically, everything is running downhill to a lower and more chaotic state. Order and intelligence run counter to this. The brief uphill eddies that we call life will eventually dissipate in the downhill fall. ALL our art, philosophy (including atheist philosopy), religion, science, everything is a result of some, relatively, temporary bounce upstream. When it's gone, it's gone. But if everything is the product of an eddy in Chaos how can we trust it? Sartre had a stab at it with self-authentication, but it didn't do him much good. All our thought will disappear, perhaps into a different and temporary pattern. Nothing is certain, including the conclusion that nothing is certain. Francis Bacon's 'Screaming Pope' series is the artistic expression of the Atheist conclusion.

Herein is the irony, atheism destroys logic. So much for free-thinking.

Ruairidh

Ian G

Where are the great atheist moral teachers?

In itself this is a question that leads nowhere. The existence or not of ‘great moral teachers’ has no bearing on the truth of their faith. If it did would a tally of teachers from the different faiths resolve which one is the one true faith? Now I don’t know my post enlightenment moral philosophers very well so I don’t know if they were Christian or not but from what I do remember the works of ethics produced since the enlightenment did not use scripture as their basis. They used pure reason so as such I don’t accept their apparent religion as important especially when you consider the prevailing paradigm of the time was religious. It is only comparatively recently that atheists can expect to reject faith and not find themselves strapped to a bonfire. Furthermore the prevailing accepted ethics of our time are leaving religion behind. Our attitude to homosexuality for example has evolved in complete opposition to the religious teaching. The abolition of slavery may have used religious language but that doesn’t explain why it was accepted for century after century before.

So I’ll assume that what you mean is that you are arguing along the lines of religious faith being the source of mans moral instincts and that without a belief in god we would not be ethical.

The thing is I think that our ethics are universal and indeed that they are actually not unique to mankind. If you look at the ethical teachings of all the faiths they tend to preach a similar core message. Much of the trimmings around the edge will change with the prevailing fashions (is homosexuality evil or not for example) but messages like ‘treat others as you would like to be treated’ are common. The common elements come down to a basic sense of fairness that is evident in chimps.

When I was a child I remember the solution to sharing a slice of cake with my brother. One would get to cut it in two and the other would get to chose which slice to have. Even in a small child with no sense of god they know the alternative (the cutter gets to chose) is deeply unfair. Well it turns out that apes share this sense of fairness. In these tests one ape gets to chose how much food to take themselves and how much to give to their neighbour by pulling a lever. The neighbour then gets the option of accepting the food for both of them. This gives them the power to stop the first ape get their food too. No an animal with no sense of fairness would always take the food but children would not. They’d kick off if their getting less than their share. Turns out chimps will too and they will punish the unfairness. This is just one example. There are others showing that the building blocks of ethical behaviour exist in other ‘herd’ animals. As we’ve evolved and our intelligence has developed our sense of fairness has built into a grand ethical code and religion has co-opted that as its own but it was there before religion and it will be there after it.

Augustus

"Wouldn't it be a good idea for a camp promoting 'free thinking' to be run by people who can actually think?"

Yes. Because then, whatever is perceived to be indoctrination in the religious field of life, such as the formality of religion, could be compared to the motive and the purpose, or the spirit of religion.

Religion is nothing but a spirit which you adopt in your life and attitude in general so that, if that is absent, religion becomes a corpse, a skeleton, without flesh and blood in it. It may have all the appearances of a living organism, but it has no life it it. So we can have lifeless religions, although they may look like religions -
just as a dead body may look like a human being, but it is not a human being because it has lost its value, which is the spirit of existence.

The art of rousing in oneself a religious mood is essentially the crux of the matter, not merely thinking of God in Heaven, or an image in a temple or church. It is an inward attunement of our minds with a form of reality which stands there to be taken up as a counterpart to our existence. In a way, religious consciousness is that attainment
by which the mind tunes itself into harmony with a counterpart by coming into contact with it, and thus completing a wholeness. A technique, if you like, of becoming a complete and whole individual.

One fact of life is that we always hope for a better thing tomorrow. Tommorrow will be better, things will be better. Who told you things will be better tomorrow? There is something in you that says that.
After all, the end of things cannot be chaos. There should be perfection. It is that perfection within you which is the element which seeks religious achievement, and religious attainment. That is the symbol, the counterpart which you seek, which can reach out to the 'God of religion'.

Ian G

Ruairidh:

You argue for the universality of the moral code. Apes understand the concept of fair, dolphins save human lives etc. No problem. I refer you to Romans 2:14 - 15 , where Paul argues pretty much the same thing. Again, read C.S.Lewis' 'Abolition of Man'. That the more intelligent creatures are to some extent aware of the Law does not destroy our case. It is the very existence of the Law that has to be explained. Also we are the only creatures, as far as we can tell, that have institutionalised the way we obey the Law. Not only in Religion but also in Courts, Police etc. Why? Why should this temporary pattern in Chaos that we call life produce such sophistication? And why should we be bothered once we realise it? So Hitler broke the Law. So what? A law without a Judge is just an observation. If you can find a way round it go ahead. The Law of Gravity can be defied with care. But it is just an observation.

Alternatively, you believe that the Universe is rationally ordered by a rational Creator and you develop Religion, Morality, Law, Medicine, and even Science! Oh, yes. Science was not created by atheists but by various kinds of believer.

And if there is a Universal code given by a Judge, we have the right to try criminals and to condemn the Nazis.

This is NOT an example of Godwin's Law because the argument is valid. See here: /en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law>

David

Ian G,

I enjoyed reading your posts. Thanks!

David

Actually, in fairness, I should have said that I enjoyed the conversation/posts between Ruairidh and Ian G. Makes for interesting reading.
Appreciatively....!

Ruairidh

I take it from your response that you’re happy with my response to your question but that now (if I’m to maintain my momentum) I should argue for a non-religious origin for a universal ethical code.

Well I think this is comparatively easy. All the common elements reduce down to a code that helps the herd / clan / tribe survive as a whole against alien threats including other herds / clans / tribes. If you accept evolution (which you may not) it is to be expected that animals with an ethical core and a herd mentality would have a greater survival chance over animals with one or neither. This is no lone temporary pattern in chaos, instead evolution is littered with phenomenon that defies short-term calculations of benefit, eg the peacocks tail. Ethics is just one of many products of evolution that helps a species (not necessarily the individual) reproduce and prosper.

I think we’re back to the same fundamental problem. There exists something special and complex; in this case ethics. You see a divine solution whereas I see a mechanism by which evolution could see the same result. The universality of it, the existence of it in other animals is to me evidence that backs my cause but to you it backs your side.

Daivd: thanks for your post. I'm enjoying this banter - glad to know someone else is too!

Ruairidh

Ian G,

Just noticed your post about entropy. I think you overestimate this force and get a little carried away with the metaphor. You underestimate the fact that everyday in countless ways energy is used to push against the entropy flow of disorder in living and non-living systems. What’s more the energy required is tiny in the galactic scale of the energy available. The formation of rain and the freezing of water are process that run against this entropic flow. They are the creation of a more ordered state and it happens spontaneously with life or god.

Your logic escapes me in the second half of this post. You say ‘if everything is the product of an eddy in Chaos how can we trust it?’. This makes no sense to me. You appear to be saying that because physical states of matter are temporary we cannot trust them. This would mean something to me if you were hinting at the uncertainty principle and were referring to the exact position of an individual subatomic particle but you’re not. Now the micro uncertainty has an impact on the macro but only in a theoretical sense. If we all observe the rain then there is now doubt that it fell despite the uncertainty of where the electrons are in the water molecule as it hits our face.

Atheism destroys logic? What? Acceptance of atheism means accepting our individual mortality and perhaps the ultimate mortality of mankind but it does not destroy logic. Theism is the voluntary restriction of logic, the decision not to look, not to enquire beyond the sandpit allotted to it by its religious masters. This restriction of logic kills it much more quickly than your overstrained metaphor.

Dave M

It would be better to just read Prof Dawkin's book and then discuss the whole thing. What Dawkins did point out and where he makes a really valid point is how organised religion imposes an identity on young children before they can freely think for themselves. That is, some children are called Muhammad and others Maria Jesus and so on, stamping religious identity for life. NO analysis, questioning ior skepticism. The rest of the belief is culturally imbibed over decades as opposed to personal religion where some choice is made by the individual. One crucial point made by Dawkins also is he agrees with preserving religious culture as heritage, mainly due to the historical impact of cathedrals or synagogues. He never suggested getting rid of such heritage but simply questions the actual belief in God. Einstein he claims didn't believe in a personal God but was possibly agnostic or maybe open to a non personal conception of God.
It's a good idea but no free thinker should dismiss religion without an argument otherwise we fall into the same trap.

Linda Smith

Richard Dawkins preaches the religion of "natural selection". He is as dogmatic in his belief as any other religious pedant.

However, his religion fails to explain why natural selection occurs at all. We're back to the watchmaker.

The greatest puzzle for science is the problem of our own consciousness. What is it?

Einstein, perhaps the greatest scientist, was left with the awe of creation. The wonder of it all.

To say that is not to give credence to organised religion, which is man's way of understanding his life in the world and dealing with the fear of death, not to forget the value of organised religion for controlling a population. Psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple asserts that Islam is popular with young men because it authorises control over women.

Morals and ethics are necessary codes for living in a society together and develop accordingly. Pity the women who were required by their religion to burn themselves to death on their husbands' funeral pyre as a religious duty. Handy way of getting rid of an extra mouth to feed, a burden on the family. All morals and ethics are relative to the religious system. They are not absolute.

Dave M

"Richard Dawkins preaches the religion of "natural selection". He is as dogmatic in his belief as any other religious pedant."

The only point where he irritated me was when he accuses agnostics such as myself as "sitting on the fence." I believe the agnostic stance is the closest to actual free thought because you remain open to various explanations.
Other than that, I did think Dawkins was spot on in his interpretation of religion as a virus (the term of speech that led to him being accused of outright hostility towards religion).
However, I believe organised religion does pose a danger to free thought because it teaches that the essence of questioning or doubting is sinful or just plain wrong. Yet human beings have evolved to question and doubt and this is a crucial element of our nature, necessary for scientific advancement. Let me give an example: I once heard a muslim woman being interviewed on T.V. and she shared how she apparently used to walk the streets without a veil as well as do other things that were taboo. Her brother told her she would go to hell for eternity because Allah had ordained women should be subject to men and covered to prevent men being tempted. That apparently was sufficient evidence for the woman to convert to extreme Islam and don a burkha. I was dumbfounded. No questioning, no analysis, no doubt, no data - just acceptance of proposed fact at face value! How dangerous is that? Isn't blind acceptance without analysis or reason the very state of mind that causes fanatics to crash airliners into buildings in the belief a paradise awaits the martyr? It's the surrender of analytical thought and abandonment of reason. In fact the core concept of much organised religious teaching is that the religious dogma is beyond doubt or question. It's the abandonment of doubt that then leads us to extreme behavioural defects such as blind intolerance of those who don't share similar views. Classic example: Anti semitism I find never existed in Biblical Old Testament times. It actually sprang up in the Greek speaking communities around 60 A.D. on the basis Orthodox Jews differed over the divinity of Christ (as Jehovas Witnesses and Muslims also do).
The only way for peace to flourish, therefore, is via free thought that leads to tolerance and acceptance. That includes acceptance of religion too but never ever the abandonment of the questioning of the facts religion makes claim to. This is why the current position of the Labour Party to actively encourage extreme Islam within this country is totally at odds with the heritage of the country (which used to be founded on science and industrial/political advancement). Even more horrifying is the fact the Labour Party has attempted to stifle and even criminalise the criticism of Islam which would totally cripple any last spark of democracy and send us back to the Stone Age. Yes, scores of British politicians actually sided against Denmark's refusal to censor the free press some months ago! They couldn't even grasp the uproar wasn't about insulting the muslim world but merely the refusal to gag the freedom of journalists to operate outside of any censorship.

Ian G

Apparntly, thet are not allowing anymore comments on this page. My reply yo Ruairidh has not been posted.