(((The universe loves me, or else I wouldn't be here.). The idea we have of personalizing a creator hasn't helped us)). The same ones who made up god thought it was a good idea to inhale the smoke of burning weeds.)))

IJUHP!

Can we pretend knowing what we don't?

I wouldn't question those who know, unless I felt the need to question what they know.

Our world muddles onward, aware or not...

Then it flies.

Sometimes I get confused whether I am posting here or Fark. I was rude and inflammatory, and I apologize.

Atheism is not a religion, but some atheists behave like the second worst type of religious people - not the killers, but the ones with dead certainty.

The reason Atheism is not religion is that it is an explicit rejection of the supernatural, while religion is an explicit acceptance thereof. Will's list of opposed pairs does make that point clearly. Now one could get all Taoist on that, but there's no need. If it looks like a lizard it doesn't matter how much it waddles or quacks, it won't be a duck.

With that said, it is the religious like behavior - the absolute certainty which can only come from faith - which bugs me. I don't believe that it is really arguable that absolute certainty requires faith. Faith being the belief in what one cannot know. I don't know if there's a God, but I do not see enough data (and this is unfortunately complicated by the current theist conception of god as essentially unknowable in a rational way) or have sufficient experience to rule it out. My argument is that neither do you.

That's also my argument to the religious: you have no data to rule it in.

I am just a duck.
People will think what they will.
Theism will grow.

That makes perfect sense. Just don't send me the bill.

these a/theism threads are kinda funny, if you think about it.
they're like two rows of bugs sitting across a huge table from each other, spraying raid in the general direction of the bugs opposite.

no your worldview should die.
no...yours should die.
no yours.
no yours.

Ooo... like the crusades.

...

Religion, or lack thereof, used to be a leading cause of death at one point in our species colorful history.

I love you.

That sums up a lot of threads in politics, too.

I don't want anyone's world-view to die.

Sometimes...it still is, but we hide it much better now...heh

Since the end of the 18th century/beginning of the 19th century the majority of wars are no longer fought because of religious differences, but rather differences in political ideologies between two or more governments. I guess that means that government is inherently bad and should be done away with.

or you could just as easily argue that nationalism is nothing more than a displacement of christian style ideology.

this is a stupid game because all statements are reversible and no=one places their actual beliefs at stake when they play on a messageboard. it's more likely the contrary, that playing these tedious little games is a form of affirmation of the position you started from, no matter what gets said in response.

so all that seems to happen is demonstration after demonstration of the limits of syllogisms, those little automatic logic operations in which no matter how crappy the statements are which are introduced into the machinery, you can still use the machine to generate internally consistent results. and that you can confuse with a logical argument, because at the level of mechanics, it is.


that said, statements like the one i bit above still make me laugh and laugh.

=========================
obviously.
for alot of folk political views serve the same function that for others religious views serve.

the problem underpinning both is basically what, in a more cynical moment, i'd probably call a servile relation to ideology.

and the trick with servility is that it is a way of life and so is transposable from space to space---and that there's no way to call that sort of thing into question in a debate, which is most often a space for repeating that servility and even managing to get some pleasure from it--and if there wasn't pleasure, there'd be more persuasive power behind any ideology. folk believe in god or dont because it gives them pleasure, even if only aesthetically--folk believe in neoliberalism because it makes them feel all manly, they believe in democratic socialism because it makes them feel compassionate on and on.

the real political problem is relations to ideology. you cant argue for or against a relation from within a framework that presupposes one.

Even early Greek philosophers railed against commonly accepted beliefs. It is in questioning everything that we learn the most.

regardless of your side of the a/theism aisle, i would argue that the question 'is atheism a religion' isn't appropriate. the question is, i think: are some people dogmatic in their beliefs.

atheism is not, by definition, a religion. it's a categorization for people who do not believe in theistic viewpoints.

people can be, and are, dogmatic in their approach to atheism. and theism.

both sides can find common ground when they don't memorize the rules, but rather question them, and use them and discard them as appropriate.

at least that's my take, at this particular point in time.

edit: holy shit, did i forget some words and some grammar.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me pig. I would add that while atheism is not religion, some atheists are pretty religious about it.

See, I would argue that using the term 'religious', although i think i understand what you're saying, is a problematic assertion. That requires certain tenets of being a religion.

Once again, I return to blind dogma.

The best scientists I know will readily admit when they don't know something. If religious people would say "I don't know" more often, then that would diffuse a lot of the debate. If they would say "I can't reconcile the differences in my text or teaching and these findings from science" I think that would go a long way. If people would recognize the difficulties involved in the debate, that would go a long way. It's the assertions of unassailable knowledge and certainty in things that none of us can truly be certain of which causes the problems, I think.

Religious 1: Devotion to a deity.
Religious 2: Being extremely principled.

Oh, I don't know, there are a lot of world views that really ought to be phased out. Radical Islam. Fundamentalist Christianity. Thinking that there is any relevance whatsoever to Amy Winehouse. Political Graft culture. Corporate Greed Culture. And so on and so on and so on.

You've nailed it, piggy my friend. Dogmatic is the word I wanted and you came up with it. Danke. Rooted in faith unexamined.

God came and tickled me, and I had to laugh...
The rest is hysterical.

...or is that historical?

Does anyone else think we're thinking about the past, or more truly about beliefs that came from there?

The past is a foreign country, and we only know of it from the reports of the folks who've been there. It would be just like the afterlife, except that no one comes back from the afterlife. The fact of the report from the afterlife is enough to prove that the report is of something else.

I believe we are all interconnected and that eventually as we grow we reach higher levels of consciousness and different dimensional lives.

What I mean by growth is this: Every choice you make creates a different path... so that eventually you may have almost an infinite amount of splits in your life. When we "die" we are reborn and relive the same life only making different choices, because we have learned through previous lives kind of what paths not to go down.

We do this until we reach the "perfect" life. What that "perfect" life is I don't know, I suppose for every spirit it may have a different definition.

Once, this "perfect" life is achieved we move to the next level. Could be "Heaven" or "Nirvana" or just a new dimension.

I guess no one will ever truly know what death or life is. We could just be nothing more than a "SimWorld" on some other person's computer in a whole other dimension and they could be a creation on someone else's computer and so on and so on... until the circle comes all they way around to where the last one is merely a "simworld" on my computer.

Whatever life and death and spirituality..... I truly believe there is an infinite amount we will never know and what we do know may not be truly reality... just what we believe to be reality.

We could just be pawns in some super beings chess games. Let's see if we build a planet and do this and create this.... what will happen?

We may be nothing more than atoms on someone's boiger. Watch out the great sneeze!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with this. It is all about consciousness, experience, positive connection, somehow at a deeper level than we are capable of experiencing, yet. In my observations, "consciousness" evolved from simple action/reaction principles into the minds we have today. Inanimate mass collected together in such a way that today allows us to we sitting at our computers typing and describing. That idea fascinates me. Imagine what consciousness will be like tomorrow.

Also, in my opinion, religions often praise similar aspects: the universe, oneness, internal peace, God (and the variant names of Him/Her/Them). What if they were all the same idea, we haven't yet given a good word to describe it?

That is actually a pretty cool notion (I believe that there are alternate histories existing simultaneously). Also reminds me of something from a Dean Koontz novel, can't remember which.

Oh, Douglas Adams... Bless you.

I doubt giving into disbelief would profit us any more or less than our believings have done. I hope (and believe) that we'll find a useful way to have spirituality as a species. God might be there: Our universe certainly will.

Well, seeing as how I'm studying to be a rabbi, I would have to say I don't agree with the premise that Theism should be eliminated.

While I'm not at all troubled by people not believing in God, I am somewhat troubled by people deciding that the beliefs of others ought to be eradicated. What is the purpose to this? Why should someone else be harmed by the fact that I believe in God, unless I am trying to force them to believe what I believe, which I'm not-- since that would be both wrong and pointless.

I also am at a loss to explain what anyone hopes to gain by trying to explain religion scientifically. We don't take anyone seriously who tries to explain nuclear physics by using arguments from religious texts, and for damn good reason. What I don't understand is why the reverse should not also be true. Science and religion are two completely separate phenomenological paradigms for dealing with our experience in the universe, and they can both have their place. As long as one does not interpret religion with a fundamentalist literalism, they are not even incompatible paradigms. But in any case, they are still different, and they address different questions, and look for different answers. Saying that science proves or disproves religion is like saying that a certain painting is excellent, because it was silky-soft when you had sex with it; or deciding that the cigar you just like is terrible, because it is not a well-written allegorical poem in Middle English; or deciding that you really don't like the bottle of Veuve Clicqot you just opened, because it doesn't sound like John Coltrane's "A Love Supreme."

Naturally, the reverse is also true. But I have to say-- having spent quite a lot of time around very religious people-- that most do not try to prove or disprove anything about science using religion. It is only fundamentalists who try to merge paradigms, and the majority of people who practice religions are not fundamentalists. It just seems like that, sometimes, because the nuts get all the press.

You don't want to believe in God, great, don't believe. And if you want to say that religion or spirituality has nothing to offer you, do it. It's no skin off my ass, and it's a free country, you can believe what you like. But IMO, it is just as fundamentalist and narrow-minded to say that all religious or spiritual experience, everywhere, for everyone, is totally baseless and illusory as it would be to say that science and reason ought to bow to a certain group's interpretation of their religious texts.


A.

You're, like, my new favorite person.

All due respect, but I would think this is somewhat obvious.

In order to be religious one must allow some reason to be suspended in order to allow for faith. It's not reasonable to believe that Moses managed to get billions of species of animals onto a boat that he built with his bare hands in order to save them from a global flood, therefore a religious person would take that on faith. This capability to suspend reason in order to accommodate faith is easily exploitable by people who wish to use religion to their own end.

I will give you an example to illustrate my point: The al Qaeda. This is a group of religious extremists who have twisted the context of their holy book, the Qur'an, to fit in with their war on Western influence on the Middle East. They teach that certain sects are blasphemous and thus are deserving of death simply because of a difference of opinion regarding the linage of the religion following Muhammad. I'm sure as a religious individual you're familiar with the teachings of the Qur'an: they teach that Jihad is not a battle against others but is rather a battle with the darker parts of one's self in order to become a better person. Also, there is no mention of virgins waiting for martyrs. Unfortunately, leaders such as Osama Bin Laden have been able to take advantage of faith and have sown seeds of murderous hatred in the minds of people who may otherwise be simply following the word of the Qur'an.

So what would happen if these people were not religious? How would one convince a man to martyr himself if there was no heaven? No virgins? No glory, but rather simply killing many innocent people?

If people have nothing to worship, nothing to love or hate beyond reason, why would they commit great acts of destruction?

I would put fourth that without religion billions of lives across the history of our planet would likely have not been lost. Imagine a world in which 2 million jews were not executed. Imagine a world in which there were no crusades. Imagine a world where the Middle East is a peaceful region.

Differing political ideologies have caused infinitely more wars since the end of the 17th century/beginning of the 18th century than religion has, but every time I bring this point up it's ignored.

Imagine a world without differing governments; We would have avoided the two most destructive wars in the history of mankind.

That's true, history did start at the end of the 17th century. Before that it was just an old guy waiting to push a button that reads "START".

I'm just pointing out to you how things such as government and national boundaries should be done away with based on your line of reasoning.

:rolleyes: Actually, nationalism, or the irrational loyalty to one's country, would be something that would help the world if it were gotten rid of. Any irrational loyalties are likely to lead to terrible things.

I'm not sure where you get your definition of reason, because belief in a higher power can be perfectly reasonable. Being a christian, let alone a theist doesn't necessitate a literal interpretation of the bible, and even if it did, it isn't necessarily unreasonable to take the bible at face value. I know what you're trying to say, and it has nothing to do with the suspension of reason. It has more to do with you defining your way of making sense with the world as the reasonable one, and consequently those who come to different conclusions are by definition not completely reasonable.

How does the u.s. convince young men and women to die for their country? By romanticizing it and making it honorable. I think religion is just one of many ways charismatic people can gain power. I think your blame is misplaced.

If you mean to imply that religion is the root of all great acts of destruction you are wrong. "Reason" can just as effectively be employed to cause destruction as religion. Hitler's "final solution" was just as reasonable as the decision to bomb hiroshima and nagasaki, at least inasmuch as both were presumably not based on random chance or whimsy. Depending on your perspective either or both or neither was an atrocity, but none of the commonly cited justifications for these positions are necessarily unreasonable.

Reason is a funny thing, because reasonable people disagree; ambiguity and uncertainty can never really be eliminated- only ignored or assumed irrelevant. Except in math, which arguably speaks to things that don't really exist anyway.

I don't see how you can believe that a world without religion would be any less fucked up than it is already. If you think prevalence of religion reflects some sort of inherent unreasonableness in humanity (which maybe you don't) why would you expect the absence of religion to somehow make people reasonable?

If you're a theist, then you believe in a literal god by definition, which is a person for which there is no evidence, therefore it's not reason but faith.
It's the biggest source of people suspending reason. Bigger than nationalism.
The final solution was not base don factual evidence, therefore it wasn't reasonable.
In a situation where reasonable people disagree, one of them is still wrong. There is still an error.
Because people wouldn't be born into it. It's easier to digest when it's delivered since birth. There are only really one kind of atheist that becomes a theist: old people who, in their old age, are cowards and think "err on the side of eternal salvation".

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to stop you right there. This is a misreading of theology. First of all, God is not a person. Second, the evidence you speak of is found in the observations of the universe, which the religious attribute to God. There is a distinct difference between this and what you claim.

Some of the highest figures of mind and reason base their arguements around the existence of God. Being a theist does not discredit your ability to reason.

Replace "person" with whatever literal description of a deity that you'd like. The point is that a theist does not believe in a figurative god. They believe in a literal god.

But there is no evidence "in the observations of the universe" for god or deities. That's it.

Okay, "the universe."

Then you're not a theist. Theist loses meaning once it means whatever you want it to me.

"I am a theist, because I call toast "god" and I believe in toast!"

A theist would suggest that the toast is dependent on God. Please find me a prominent theist who wanted to run with the sort of thinking you are suggesting here.

I didn't meant to suggest that a theist is one who can call God anything and everything. Theists attribute the fact of being to a greater being (the Greatest Conceivable Being; the First Mover). They reasoned from this perception down to such things as toast. We have toast because of God, and God invented soup. Much of this, however, has been displaced by atheist reason. But to suggest there is no such thing as theist reason is to overlook some of the greatest thinkers in history.

Atheists don't have "one up" on theists. They merely have a different mode of thinking about the same sort of things.

Sure there probably isn't a God (i.e. a singular, supreme being). It doesn't look so good from the evidence standpoint, but this doesn't mean having believed in a God is necessarily a suspension of reason as far as the likes of Descartes is concerned.

Descartes had his axioms all fucked up. The notion of perfection can come from a mind which is imperfect.

Here, Descartes' God argument:
Axiom 3 is incorrect. An imperfect being can imagine a perfect being.

This is a perfect example of apologist in the form of pseudo-logic and pseudo-science. Just as an ID proponent uses poor science to try and support god, Descartes uses poor analytical statements to support god. If Descartes and ID proponents were reasonable, they would not need to bend the rules in order to try and scrape together incorrect proofs.

Is presenting tainted evidence logical?

It can be argued that we cannot conceive of perfection, because to us, perfection is merely a concept. Perfection does not exist for us to see it. For example, nowhere in humanity is there a perfect being. How can we imagine it? You might say you can imagine perfection, but I doubt you are adequately capable of conceiving of it. Seriously.

The attempt to prove something is an attempt at logic. This is the action of reason. Being proven wrong does not mean you are incapable of reason. Reason is a process; you know that.

Well, like i said, you define reason how you want. Faith can be reasonable. Evidence is in the eye of the beholder, and more often than not, the beholder is not you.

No, i think you'll find that the largest group of people who are united by their common rejection of reason, at least as you define it, is humanity. People don't need theology to suspend reason, and if you think that the absence of theism would amount to a victory for reason, then by your own definition you are being unreasonable, since you are believing in something for which there is no evidence.

What does that mean? What was it based on? Hitler thought it expedient to rid his country of certain minority groups, and so he did. Unfortunately, the nazis were incredibly rational in how they carried that shit out.

There it is, the axiom of willravel. The fact that you assume this to be true is why we will never agree on this topic. You're a deterministic man in a probabilistic world. Do you have any evidence for this belief? Remember, if intuition were evidence, then theism would be reasonable, by your definition.

If they weren't born into religion they'd just be born into something else. Nontheistic cultures are still fucked up, the robes just get replaced with other uniforms.

OK so we can't really imagine perfection, but we can call it out can we not? We can't create perfection, but we can just say it is there. No?

Thus, we can say perfect being, without knowing what that perfection entitles.

Well, I might begin by saying that you're right, it would be entirely unreasonable to believe that about Moses, because Genesis tells that story in regard to Noah. But I won't. Yes, some reason must be suspended for faith: I believe in God, not because anyone showed me logical proofs or philosophical models or laboratory evidence, but because I had spiritual experiences which I feel certain were revelatory (very nebulous, don't worry, I don't hear voices or anything). That means that I personally am comfortable saying that I have evidence to believe in God, but my evidence is not compelling for anyone but myself. Nonetheless, I might have misinterpreted that evidence or ignored it or labeled it something else altogether had I not been brought up as a practicing Jew (or, I suppose, in some other religious tradition). And that would be a shame, because living my life in relationship with God has proven joyful and fulfilling for me. Now, I don't consider this choice to be irrational, but rather, arational: it makes sense to me, and I am aware that I have chosen to believe something that is "objectively" not provable. I just don't see anything wrong with that. Your point that the suspension of reason leaves one vulnerable to those intending to manipulate religion seems to me to be either an argument against fundamentalism, but not all religion, or an excellent argument for education, both religious and secular: the more one knows, the more difficult it is to be manipulated.

This is simply unreasonable. Al-Qaeda are beyond fundamentalists. They are rabid fanatics. You can't use them as an example of what's wrong with religion in general, any more than you can look at the actions of Sudanese militias in Darfur, and decide on that basis that Africans are all bloodthirsty and violent, and they just have to go. The majority of people who practice religions are not fanatics and radicals: I really cannot see why they should be judged upon the actions of those who are.


With all due respect, people have never not been able to find causes for war and murder if they look for them. Quite a number of conflicts-- including ones that attached the name of religion to themselves for PR purposes-- have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. People fight about land, about goods, about resources, about perceived cultural biases, and about honor and perceived slights to due respect, among many other things that have nothing to do with religion. I mean no offense, but if you think that the absence of religion would lead to world peace, I believe you are deeply kidding yourself. And if you think that Hitler was interested in wiping out the Jewish people (6 million killed, btw, not 2 million) because of theology, you are wrong. This was about scapegoating the other, and to be other, one need not practice a different religion, just hold different political views, or come from a different culture, or speak a different language. If Judaism was only a culture and not a religion, he would have killed the 6 million anyway. If there were no Jews, he would have wiped out the Poles or the Slavs or focused on the communists or the gays, whom he killed far too many of as it is.

Look, I will certainly agree that there have been many times in history-- and there are plenty of times today-- when religion is abused and/or misinterpreted by the ruthless for terrible purposes. Nobody will agree to such a proposition faster than your friendly neighborhood Jew, believe me. But that, to me, does not provide a reason for why all religion should be eliminated: it provides a reason for educating people about what they are supposed to believe in, and promoting tolerance and interfaith dialogue, and encouraging religious movements to foster their traditions productively.

By your logic, we ought to eliminate science because scientific improvement has produced modern weapons like nuclear bombs, napalm, and phosphorus shells. But we don't advocate such an elimination of science, because science also brings us knowledge of the stars, the wonders of the universe; and besides, before bombs, before artillery, before the sophisticated forging of tempered steel, people still found things to use as weapons against each other. Eliminating science would not eliminate war and murder, any more than eliminating religion would do so.

Since you yourself don't believe in God, and so presumably, do not practice a religion (and presumably, if you were raised in a religion, you didn't have a very good experience of it), it is well-nigh impossible to convey to you the positive contributions that religion does give back to people. But I can tell you, it fosters community, it produces literature and art of considerable beauty, it offers people a set of moral and ethical guidelines from which to choose the rules of how they will live, and yes, it fosters spiritual awareness and the opportunity to transcend the rational. Nobody says you have to believe in those things, but for the people who do, they are deeply valuable, life-changing experiences.

I don't think it would stand to his logic to remove science. Science, as far as I know, has never been the reason for fighting a war. Science is merely a tool to achieve humanity's will. Take science and technology away and you still have men fighting over anything with their fists---not just over who has the better god to pray to.

Fair enough, although I suppose I could say that some wars, and other kinds of conflicts have resulted from arms or technology races....

But I could also say that a number of scientists I've spoken to do seem to treat rationalism, which generally they equate to science (I think they mean the theory of scientific reasoning and investigation, not methodologies of research and fabrication), much like a religion.

I would like to make it clear, I am a fan of science, and a believer in the efficacy of reasoning and investigation. I believe wholeheartedly in evolution, in the Big Bang, I was in the physics club in high school, etc. But the fundamental notion that all things are in some way objectively observable, or that a phenomenon can only be trusted if validated with repeated laboratory experiments which yield identical results, is a worldview. A chosen point of view. As much as any other philosophy, as much as a religion. It is a way in which to interface with the world. And when used responsibly by responsible persons, it is very effective, within the parameters of it's own paradigm. But inevitably, some things will not be effectively covered by that paradigm. And to suppose otherwise is, in its own way, just as fundamentalist as those fanatics who think that Genesis was designed to be a textbook on cosmology, geology, and biology.

Again, an extension of the human will. We wanted our "sticks" to be bigger and badder than their "sticks" because we might go to war to them over some reason.



I am reminded of a discussion somewhere on TFP about Einstein and his use of the word God. Often his meaning was not the god, but the universe itself. Also, it wasn't the universe itself, but the mysteries of the universe.



The line between treating science like a religion and actual religion is: science can demonstrate our interaction and/or connection with the universe while no one can demonstrate our interaction and/or connection with god. We may not be accurate in our interpretations and models, however, there is an action-interaction-reaction occurring.

...
Now to treat religion with science... that would be unethical. Do you know how many people you'd have to kill and revive in order to get results?

This is going to be a big post.

Sorry, we've have a few people say they were spiritual leaders here that turned out to be lying. It was just a really quick and easy test that was intended to catch someone who wasn't paying attention. People less familiar with the texts are likely to confuse Moses and Noah.
Good answer. I would have to say, though, that I suspect that you do rely on spiritual leaders to help interpret the Torah, right? I'm sure you've read about Rabbi Joseph Karo's commentary on Maimonides' code, for example, in order to gain another great man's perspective of aspects of your faith. Lutheran's read the small catechism; Muslims read the teachings of different rasuls. My point is that even one who has a knowledge of his or her subjective faith still does rest some of the faith on others. You're not Jewish in a vacuum, you have thousands of years of faith and faithful that your understanding is built on. And I would be very surprised if they had no effect on your faith.

What I'm getting at is your a-rational choice can be associated with the teachings of others. I'm sure you, in training to be a Rabbi, have a Rabbi. You'd probably put a lot of stock in what he tells you.
The majority of Christians don't believe in evolution. 60% of US citizens, actually. This is an example of the suspension of logic and reason to allow faith in god to be expanded very easily to include something that really is dangerous because it stands directly in the way of scientific knowledge.
I don't think that and end to religion would lead to world peace. Any relative world peace would come from global understanding of human life to be sacred or something that shouldn't be taken by another for any reason. That's probably not going to happen. What I was trying to get at is that while the crusades actually had little to do with religion, "god" was still the battle cry for most who were involved. "God" was what was used by policy makers to stir the masses into action. The crusades would have been a tough sell to a Hindu. I'm describing religion being used as a tool on the religious.

BTW, sorry about the 2 million thing. I was recently discussing the Armenian genocide and got my facts all messed up.
I hope to make one thing clear: I'm not arguing for the end of religion. I'm just saying I understand that some people may come to that conclusion. BTW, many people honestly believe that their religion is about war or killing. I could name dozens of Torah, New Testament, and Qur'an verses about killing and vengeance and war. How many people did the Abrahamic God kill? How many people were ordered to be killed by the Abrahamic God by his followers? Tolerance simply isn't always a person's subjective interpretation, and telling them that they're wrong is a tough sell, too.
I've never heard anyone say "He needs to die because that's what I believe Einstein would want." The decision making process isn't scientific, so I see that as being a bit different. Maybe, MAYBE psychology because of propaganda, but even that's a stretch.
I donated $1000 to the Catholic Church after Katrina in order to help people as quickly and efficiently as possible because I knew more of my money would actually reach the people in need. The Catholic Church has a surprisingly small overhead because they use so many volunteers, as opposed to the Red Cross and other aid organizations. I think this demonstrates at least some objectivity so far as religion is concerned.

My own experience varied, much like any other person (I would imagine), but wasn't so terrible. I was a happy-go-lucky kid without a care in the world and the obligatory faith that I really had never reflected upon or questioned. When I was a freshman in AP bio, my teacher and I got in a rather serious debate about evolution. A 2 week debate, in fact. The last day I brought in my Bible (a birthday present) in order to support my case, and I was surprised to find that she was able to successfully take apart my entire argument piece by piece. This was the genesis of my critical thinking. I reflected for years on religion and, after studying history and science and being honest with myself, I realized that religion was simply the dawn of science in sentient beings. Humans needed explanations for phenomena when we were in our infancy. Why does the sun move across the sky, and what is it? Being that we understood ourselves to be the most complex and familiar, we assigned the sun a personhood. It had ability and personality, which explained it's movement. This continued, morphed, and evolved into polytheism. That evolved into monotheism. The thing is, we now know what the sun is. It's a mass of gasses burning at millions of degrees and it's movement is actually our movement. It's not a person any more than my stovetop. And it's okay to admit that. If we had the ability to go back in time to meet people who worshiped the sun, they would likely find us to be blasphemers.

To preface what I said about not arguing for the end of religion, I do see the possible end of religion as a step in the right direction, but if it's not right yet, then pushing humanity would be a mistake, just like explaining the sun to ancient civilizations would be a mistake. We may not be ready yet and we may never be ready.

Good talk, though.

The majority of Christians don't believe in evolution. 60% of US citizens, actually. This is an example of the suspension of logic and reason to allow faith in god to be expanded very easily to include something that really is dangerous because it stands directly in the way of scientific knowledge.

I would argue that for most it has less to do with religion and more to do with a general lack of understanding of biology or what evolution really is.

When the most biology most people get is highschool biology their first year, such is to be expected.

I agree. One can only hope that more of these Christians will open their eyes and see that their God isn't what can be translated literally from the Bible.

Creationism can indeed be dangerous.

I still can't believe we have one of those museums in Alberta.

You really don't think ID and Creationism have anything to do with it?! Evolution can be explained in really simple terms to even the most fundamentalist among us: organisms with traits that don't work don't survive, and mutations that are favorable do survive. Bam, the groundwork for evolution explained in one sentence that a child could understand.

Yes but a childs level of understanding leaves unanswered questions which are much more easily answered to a non-scientific mind (just about everyone) by the concept of ID.

You look at the intricacies and magnificence of how life interacts and the concept of evolution seems lacking. Don't forget this is what almost ALL thought was prior to Darwin, and these were not stupid people.

Really understanding evolution is difficult no matter how simplistic the concept can seem. Even most of those who accept evolution don't really understand it.

The whole thing is difficult, sure, but jesus christ so is the Bible. Have you ever read that thing? Or the Qur'an? It might actually be easier just reading up on evolution.

Well played, sir! A fine rejoinder! I see you are a very well-educated person. Yes, of course the cornerstone of Rabbinic Judaism (that is, post-Second Temple Judaism) is that we don't understand the Written Torah in the absence of the Oral Torah, which includes all the thoughts, commentaries, explanations, and exegetical materials set forth by the Rabbis, since the time of the Talmud, to this day. And yes, absolutely, those things do and must have an effect on my faith. But, as I was just discussing in a Jewish Law class the other day, all the authorities are very clear that the Torah is designed to be interpreted (for example, in Tractate Pirke Avot of the Mishnah, Ch 5, mishnah 22, Ben Bag-Bag, a rabbi of the early first century CE, is quoted as teaching, "Examine it [The Torah], and re-examine it, for every thing may be found within it." This is universally taken to mean that the Torah contains infinite levels of potential meaning, and thus not only is the most literal surface reading not "the only reading," it is the duty of each Jew to seek for what the newest, deeper meaning may be); and in the matter of how one is to interpret Jewish Law, one need not be a rabbi, or consult a rabbi, merely be learned in Torah and halakhah (Jewish Law). The initial convention of legal interpretation is that in the absence of reasons to re-examine the interpretation and decision in a certain matter, one follows the most recent authority upon whom one usually would rely. However, most authorities are very clear that any rabbi may, if they see any legitimate reason, re-interpret the law, even if it means overturning precedents of long standing, even if it means overruling widely respected decisors, like the Rambam (Maimonides) or the Shulchan Aruch (R. Yosef Karo). Only Torah and Talmud may not be overturned, although these may be on rare occasion reinterpreted so radically as to turn the meaning 180 degrees from its origin.

My point in saying this is that yes, Judaism does indeed encourage the use of other and previous rabbis as authorities. But ultimately, it is a cornerstone of halakhah that any Jew who has taken the trouble to educate himself in sacred text may decide the interpretation of their religious practice for themselves, and even for others, if others should ask them.

To put it another way-- personally-- I was raised Orthodox, and then became an agnostic (verging on atheism) for many years. When I began questing for spiritual fulfillment again, Judaism was not the first place I looked. I actually had an excellent chance of ending up a Druid instead of a rabbi. What brought me back was not simply a matter of this being the faith of my family, it was a decision that I believed in God, but I wanted a spiritual system of certain spiritual and rational characteristics to help me frame my interaction with God and the universe. Judaism was the system that stood out to me as being the most promising happy medium between a communal, formalized system of theology, spirituality, and moral/ethical guidelines without having a hierarchical, rigid leadership, or an inflexible, simplistic way of looking at sacred text and theology. But it was a choice I made, consciously, for very careful reasons. And at all times I was aware that I was committing myself to a system that, while arational at its basis, nonetheless is dependent upon dedicated education.

I continue to think that we cannot gauge accurately the real effect of religions on humanity as a whole until the practitioners of all religions actually educate themselves and practice truly informed religion.

I believe the problem here is precisely what you don't say. The majority of Christians don't believe in evolution, you say. But if I have done my reading properly, I believe you mean the majority of Christians in the United States. The last time I spoke with a European Christian, he was, to be quite frank, aghast at the state of Christianity in America. The problem, he pointed out-- and I confess, though I am an outsider, from what I have seen, I would tend to agree-- is not that American Christians are bad people, or even necessarily bad Christians. But they are woefully uneducated about Christianity, tending to adhere to whatever their own priest or pastor tells them, and refraining from questioning or confronting. I personally chalk this up to the majority of Americans being woefully under-educated about everything, although I am sure that one could no doubt find well-educated fundamentalists-- some people just crave inflexibility.

I stress again that I believe the problems you cite are not inherent to religion. They are inherent to ignorance. I believe in the possibilities of the former; the latter, I would be only too happy to eradicate.

I don't disagree-- no Jew is going to defend the Crusades, believe me. But I would hope it is not merely blind optimism to say that we have progressed since the time of the Crusades, and with continued education and eradication of social ills, such things will be ever less likely to recur. But at the same time, I continue to believe that in the absence of religion, anything else would have-- and often did-- serve as a rallying cry. How many Americans, for example, are currently putting their lives at risk, coming home short of limbs or in boxes, and killing others, all in the name of "freedom" and "democracy?" And yet, because those terms are being misused to justify pointless war, does not mean I would say they are meaningless terms, or that we should dispense with the ideas they represent. On the contrary: we should, I believe, work to reclaim those terms, so that they once again (or at least come to for the first time) mean what we wish them to mean. Even so, what we ought to dispense with is not religion or God altogether, but the misuse of religion and the abuse of God's name (so to speak).

No worries, I assumed it was an accident.

Look, I won't lie and say that there are no verses in the Torah which seem problematic. But many of those, we are taught by the Rabbis of the Talmud, do not mean what they seem to mean on first reading. And yet, I would be dishonest if I said that the verses in the Torah regarding the conquest of the Land of Israel, and the elimination of the idolatrous tribes therein were not originally intended to be taken literally. However, we have at least understood that there are mitigating limitations on them. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Meir (commentator and halakhist, Provence, 13th century), and many other authorities, the command to conquer the land and eliminate the idolatrous tribes therein was a one-time occurrence. He explains that we are forbidden from taking those verses as legal precedent to do further violence to anyone else: they were a special case, and could be elucidated at the time by virtue of Moses and Joshua being prophets of high rank, who could ask God directly for clarification. Rashbam (R. Shimon's acronym) says that until we have such a prophet among us again (i.e., when the messiah comes), we are forbidden from any wars that are not conducted in self-defense.

And as regards the many sins and trespasses for which the Torah prescribes capital punishment, the Talmud teaches us that in most of those cases, such a punishment was either not enforced, or it was "mita b'yedei shamayim," "death at the hands of Heaven," meaning that if the punishment were to be enforced, it would not be by human hands, but by God striking down the transgressor: if God did not do so, that was His business, not ours. But even in those matters that were considered capital crimes, it is a well-established matter of Talmudic law that no death penalty could be meted out by a Jewish court without the eyewitness testimony of two witnesses, who would have had to have verbally warned the defendant "this action you are about to do is forbidden, and carries the death penalty;" and the defendant would have had to respond to them, "I know, but I will do it anyway," and then do the action. Without such testimony, the death penalty was not enforced. The Talmud cites Rabbi Akiva, one of the greatest of the Sages of the time, who noted, "A Sanhedrin [court of capital jurisdiction] that executes one man is seventy years is called a 'bloody court.' If I were sitting upon the court, no man would ever be executed, for who could ever be certain?"

Obviously, I cannot answer for Christianity and Islam: I do not understand their texts and history well enough to either respond for them or judge them. But at least according to how Jews perceive their covenant with God, God does not actually want death, and has asked for it less than a surface reading of the Torah might seem to indicate. And while I can't speak for Christianity or Islam, or what God may or may not have said to their prophets, I personally do not believe that the God I know and believe in would desire needless bloodshed. There is a famous midrash (exegetical parable) concerning the incident of the parting of the Red Sea, when God caused a miracle to allow the Israelites to cross the sea on dry land, and then caused the waters to flow back after them, drowning the Egyptians who were pursuing them to re-enslave them. The Israelites danced and sang on the shore of the sea, and-- this midrash tells us-- the angels in Heaven wished to rejoice with them. But when they began singing and dancing, God ordered them, "Be silent! Do not rejoice when my creations are dying in the sea!" The well-known lesson that comes from this midrash is that God may or may not sometimes understand that violence may be necessary. But he doesn't like it, and no one should ever make merry in it, because even if it is required for self-preservation or justice, it is a terrible thing when God's creations are killed.

Yes, I'm sure nobody has ever gone on a jihad in Einstein's name. But I think you know that what I meant was that reason can easily come up with any number of substitute causes or goals for which to kill people. And, indeed, have we never seen those who would kill the helpless, or the disabled, or the impoverished, in the name of "progress?"

Fair enough.

Right, but as I've said to many others, if you're reading Genesis to learn about cosmology, biology, geology, or any other kind of science, you're reading Genesis for all the wrong reasons. There is an old and well-established rule of thumb for exegetical commentary upon the Torah, set forth in the Midrash, and in the Talmud: "Dibra Torah k'lashon b'nei Adam." "The Torah speaks like people speak." Or, to put it differently, the surface text of the Torah is couched in the style and at the level of those to whom it was initially given. Also, the Torah may be revelatory (i.e., the information in it may have a Divine origin) but it was given through human prophets, who attempted to pass on as best they could what they were told. But prophecy isn't like a phone call from God. It's subtle, visionary (so we're told), and probably confusing. The prophets had to interpret using the language and ideas that they were familiar with. By today's standards those ideas and linguistic choices may seem antiquated. That is why we are taught not to be satisfied with the surface meaning of the text, but to constantly re-examine it, looking for new and deeper meanings.

But also-- and I don't mean to be offensive to you or anyone else-- I have noticed that many people who are dissatisfied with the Bible are expecting things from it that it was simply never designed to give. The Bible, at least as I was taught to understand it, is not there to be a science textbook, or any other kind of textbook. It is there to be a foundation-- not an end in itself but a beginning-- of a system of how to formulate rules and boundaries in society in order to live ethically, and to promote spirituality in order to draw closer to God (deeply interconnected with the former usage, as God, we are taught, loves ethical behavior). If you are learning science out of it, you're not using it correctly. And that's hardly a novel idea: the Rambam (Maimonides) once pointed out that, if the Torah seems to be saying something that contradicts all common sense, and everything that we know about how the world works, both from our own experience and from our studies of science, then we must not be understanding the Torah correctly, and we should go back and search for the correct meaning, which will not do this.

Most people haven't read that either :)

Now that I think about it, your screen name should have been a dead giveaway that you were legit. C'est la vi.
Actually, many religions try to make the idea of interpreting scripture for one's self clear, but unfortunately that lesson often disappears. Not only that, but having formerly been a part of a flock I feel I understand just how defensive one can get. That 4 week argument of mine with my Bio teacher is a good example. Ustwo will tell you I'm still stubborn, but I made the determination right after that magnificent debate that my own stubbornness cannot get in the way of me believing what's true or doing what's right. What that eventually meant was that I needed to be honest with myself about the arguments for the existence of god or gods.

Maybe I should ask this: why do you believe the Torah is right?
Maybe it's the fact that I'm in the middle of the problem that's ruined my global objectivity. I see the American Christians every day. I'm even related to a few. I'm not exposed to this "European Christian". I should really speak with one. I should tell you, though, that Creationists are not necessarily uneducated about religion. My father is getting his doctorate in divinity and he is actually wrestling with the question of evolution. He is among the most respected spiritual leaders in his synod. He is also considered to be somewhat progressive, even though he condemns gay people as sinners and such.

I should say that imho believing that evolution is wrong is about the same as believing that the universe has a creator. I don't see a difference. All I see is a suspension of logic in order to facilitate in the belief in a faith.
There really aren't a lot of atheists in the military, though (in the US). 15% of Americans are atheists, but I remember reading that less than 4% of military officers are atheist or are non-religious. I'm not sure if it's because an atheist is less likely to be swayed by appeals to emotion or appeals to (insert fallacy here), but it's interesting. And it's not like it's political, either. Ustwo and I could not be more different from a political standpoint, but were are both atheists. We have a fundamentalist president calling Iraqi's "evil" and talking about god... it's hard for me to see the crusades and the "War on Terror" as distinct.
I must say, looking at your first response, wouldn't it be easy for a Jewish person to read that and interpret it literally, as it is their responsibility to interpret scripture for him or herself? I wonder this when I see reports of bulldozers in Palestinian settlements destroying the homes of civilians. I don't say this to by anti-Zionist or whatever, but rather to illustrate my point. While you or I may read the Torah and see messages of peace, understanding, and harmony, someone else may see something different altogether.
This is true. I'll actually give you a bit of ammunition by mentioning Stalin, but I would have to expand just a bit. Marx wanted Communism to be atheist. He was of the opinion that man should be the supreme being (the proper name is Humanist, but he predated that term) because man could be reasoned and explained, whereas god existed in an absence of reason.
(Frammento dell'appendice della dissertazione dottorale, in A. Sabetti, Sulla fondazione del materialismo storico, Florence 1962, p. 415
Unfortunately, Stalin was a madman who was obsessed with power and actually managed to make a pseudo-god of himself. He erected statues and used catechistic language in his speeches. He was a victim of his own lust for power combined with his religious upbringing (he attended Russian orthodox seminary).

I apologize for making an argument for you and taking it apart, but I've been meaning to address Stalin in this thread for a while.
You should get a prize for using Greek on an internet forum.

Christians and Muslims are usually taught that the words of their respective texts are the exact word of god, though. I'll admit that I've definitely not studied Judaism as much as you, but I have been to temple many times and I don't remember ever hearing that. Is this common knowledge among Jews?
Now that I feel I understand the Bible, I am satisfied with what it delivers. I see it along the same lines as I see Homer's Odyssey. It's an ancient book of stories. When I was a Christian I was expecting it to be a mirror for me and a wikipedia article on god. It worked out most of the time, though OT god scared the shit out of me.

Yeah, I learned in studying the history of the Protestant Reformation that supposedly one of the primary goals was to wrest back from the Church the ability of each person to interpret scripture on his own. Which, I think, accounts for why I was so astonished when I then went and began talking with Protestants, almost all of whom I encountered told me quite seriously that they would never think of contradicting their pastor if they were ever to deeply disagree with him about scripture: they would just move to a different church.

But as for your own struggle for self-integrity with the existence of the divine: I respect struggle. And I respect intellect, and the work of autodidacticism. And I believe very strongly that it is not my business what other people believe in or do not believe in, so long as I and the rest of my people (and everyone else) is not so compelled to believe or disbelieve. And I'm certainly not one of those fundamentalist yahoos who thinks that you can't be a good person unless you believe in God (which inevitably means, "believe the same thing I do"). If you live ethically, I really can't see why I should be bothered by what you do or don't believe.

A fine question, but, I think, too broad. I would not say that the Torah is (simply) right, because that implies (to my mind, at least) that I might think it was The Truth and The Way for everyone, or, even worse, that it might be "perfect."

It is also key to understand that when it comes to the Written Torah (the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures) no Jew could say that it was, alone and of itself, "right." The Torah is not meant to be either read or used in isolation. Torah (and now I use the word in the sense that the Rabbis of the Talmud and the later rabbis use it) includes not only the canonized scripture, but the Midrash (the collected exegetical works of the Rabbis), the Talmud, and the rest of Rabbinic literature, plus the commentaries, interpretations, midrashim, Kabbalistic works, theological works and philosophical works, that have been composed since the time of the Second Temple-- possibly as far back as since the time of Ezra the Prophet-- and which continue to be composed today, and into tomorrow. This we call the Oral Torah, in that the uttermost roots of the exegetical and halakhic processes are said to go back to Sinai. But all agree that one cannot understand or use the Written Torah without the Oral Torah. Thus, when I speak of Torah, I am speaking of both the Written and the Oral Torah, with everything that encompasses.

I believe that the Torah represents the best attempts by the Jewish people-- including some prophets who wrote much of it-- to set into formalized writing not only our national mythos (in the anthropological sense of the term) but also our revelatory experiences over the centuries, to gain some kind of overall picture of what we perceive God is asking of us. I do think that God and the Children of Israel have a unique relationship, but to my mind, special does not equal exclusive or superior. I would imagine, although I cannot say for certain, that God has unique relationships with many peoples, and has special plans for them also, and has demanded special and unique things of them, too.

In part what I have come to cherish about Judaism (of which Torah is at the core) is that it is the hereditary, communal efforts of my people to try and best work out our side of the relationship with God. In other words, it's not something static, which can be judged "right and perfect" in a certain form; rather, Torah represents a transgenerational conversation between all the Jewish people, from Sinai to the end of the world, and God. This conversation is an evolving refinement both of our understanding of God, and of the techniques that will work for bringing our spiritual awarenesses closer to awareness of God, and also of our moral and ethical understandings, as we evolve halakhah (Jewish Law) into forms that remain applicable to the daily lives of Jews, over the course of centuries.

In part, I have come to believe what I believe because, having come to believe in God, it is then not unreasonable for me to believe that God has plans for people and the world. And in service of that notion, I believe that it is a person's first, best choice to embrace the traditional, ancestral, hereditary system of religious/spiritual discipline into which they were born or raised, in that there is probably a reason why they were born into such a tradition, and if the tradition has problems, perhaps it will be they who find solutions, and if the tradition has wisdom unknown to outsiders, perhaps it will be they who disseminate it. Which is not to say I don't make room for the possibility that people may simply be so unhappy and disillusioned with the problems they perceive in their own traditional systems that they feel they must go elsewhere. I am sympathetic to that, and I certainly wouldn't say it's forbidden. But I also think that people who reject their traditional systems often do so without fully exploring the possibilities for improving, repairing, reinterpreting, or re-understanding that tradition, whatever it may be. But in any case, to some degree, I am a Jew because I believe that, for whatever reason, God appears to want me to be a Jew. And Jews believe in Torah. That is one of the things that defines Jewish identity.

But also, as I mentioned before, having come to believe in God, my preference was to live within the bounds of a system that offered me support and guidance both in living an ethical life, and in raising my spiritual awareness. One can, certainly, do those things on one's own, but in my experience (having many friends who choose to do so) it seems that one often ends up re-inventing the wheel, so to speak. Obviously, if one embraces a religious tradition, one must educate oneself deeply, and look carefully and critically at what is being passed down: some things will be fine as is, some will require nuanced re-interpretation, and occasionally, some things require very radical re-interpretation. But overall, the primary purpose of a religious tradition is to collect centuries' worth of people saying "we tried to draw closer to God; the following things seemed to work for us; perhaps they will work for you also." In other words, tradition is an attempt to spare each individual in the community from having to re-invent the wheel, spiritually speaking. Having decided to work within a system, I then looked around to determine which system of religious thought seemed to me to possess both the ring of authenticity (functionally, I mean, not theologically, although still a completely subjective criterion, I know) but also a spiritual dynamism represented by evolving tradition and thought, and by flexibility inherent to the system, and by a true lack of hierarchical authority. To my mind, Judaism was the system that best defined those characteristics, and I believe it does so because that is Torah.

I do not wish to disrespect your father in any way, shape, or form. But to my mind, someone that educated who is struggling with evolution (for example) is struggling with fundamentalism. If we were discussing Judaism, a struggle with the idea of evolution would only be found in Orthodoxy, and almost entirely in the center and right wing of Orthodoxy, not the left wing, "Modern Orthodoxy." But then, this may simply be an issue I have with Christianity. I try very hard not to judge Christianity, because I am simply not learned enough in Christian thought for me to have any basis upon which to found such audacity. But I confess, I do not understand how Christians deal with sacred text. To me, it almost always seems either simplistic, or subtle, yet somehow afraid to engage the text too aggressively. Christians have told me (often rather shocked), when I have said this, that to aggressively confront the Word of God would be to question God. But this puzzles me, because Judaism teaches us to question, and if scripture really does have a divine origin-- if it is the Word of God-- should it not contain enough potential levels and meanings that aggressive challenges will not be an affront to God? Maybe I am just idealizing the idea that there would be less Creationism with more religious education; perhaps it is an endemic problem to Christianity; and yet I have met Christians who do aggressively confront the text, whose notions are theologically both deep and complex. Of course, they often tell me that their ideas are considered radical or unpopular with their fellows.... I don't know....

Just to be clear: I believe in evolution to the degree that any responsible scientist ought to, I think. It is an excellently-reasoned theory that seems to accurately account for everything we have discovered about the progress of life on earth via our studies of archaeology, paleontology, geology, and biology. It appears to be a correct analysis. That doesn't mean that, if reliable scientific evidence were to turn up tomorrow that completely contradicted everything we have extrapolated from it, I would still cling to Darwinism like a Flat Earth Society member on the Space Shuttle, closing his eyes and ears and going "la-la-la I don't hear you."

Likewise, with religion, I believe that what we Jews have been taught in the Torah (we don't believe the Torah was meant for everyone, just for us: we presume if God has revelations or commandments for other peoples, he will discuss it with them, not with us) is right. But that doesn't mean that, in the unlikely event that Jesus Christ came back tomorrow, took me for a stroll over the Mediterranean, then sat down and poured me some vintage Beaujolais he'd made out of what was sitting in my Brita, and told me that the Christians were right, I wouldn't find myself earnestly re-evaluating what I believed about God.

Well, fair enough. It's a well-taken point. And yet I do continue to think that there is a difference, even if only in that God is not the rallying cry this time, even if religious rhetoric is grossly abused by the current administration. I also think that it makes an enormous difference in who is opposing the wars. Nobody opposed the Crusades except for the Jews and the Muslims, who were on the wrong end of them. The "War on Terror" (a worse misnomer I could not imagine) is opposed by many, both people of many religions (including members of the president's faith, and ones like it), and atheists, and agnostics of every stripe. The fact that the opposition has been deeply unsuccessful in ending the war does not, to my mind, diminish its importance. It is a step. Perhaps such opposition will actually prevent the next war from happening. Or maybe the one after that.... But it is a step, I do think that.

Again, a good point. And there certainly are those who interpret Torah very differently from me, and very differently from the majority of Jews. But I think no philosophy is ever entirely of a piece. If it is to be espoused by many, it will have many interpretations, regardless of the philosophy in question. And without wishing to get bogged down in discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which we all agree is an awful morass, I believe I mentioned that even those halakhic authorities who restrict "religious" warfare agree that warfare which is for the sake of self-defense is a different matter altogether. I personally believe that the Torah embraces peace and tolerance far more than most think. But I also agree that it is not a doctrine of pacifism. The Torah teaches that self-defense is a virtue, and evil is to be confronted; great evil is to be confronted by any means necessary. Is that a double-edged sword of a teaching? Yes. Which is why one must be careful in such matters. But I am not a pacifist. I don't love war or violence, but I believe that there are things worth fighting for. Since I've been living here in Israel, where terror alerts are frequent (and they mean something here, it's not just about longer lines at the airport) and suicide bombings are a very real threat (seen the news today?) , I have come to believe even more strongly that I have no problem with Jews defending themselves when necessary. My point is, yes, I agree that some things in Torah can be interpreted to produce dangerous or negative effects. Nor is the Torah something with which every human would agree-- but what would be? Any philosophy, any community, any culture, any ideal can be abused or misused. Religion is no different, but it is hardly unique.

:D That's not Greek, my friend! That's Hebrew! I don't have more than a smattering of Greek, and since nearly all Jewish texts are composed in Hebrew or Aramaic, I would have very little opportunity to practice my Greek if I did improve it!

Hmmm. Yes, I have heard this. There are certainly some Jews who believe that the Written Torah (in this case, just the Five Books of Moses) was literally dictated to Moses by God, and that the words of the Prophets were literally spoken as such to them by God. Most who believe so are Orthodox. The bigger problem with Liberal Jews (that is, non-Orthodox Jews) is not literalism, it is lack of education. Assimilation is a terrible problem in the Jewish community, and the first hallmark of assimilation is lack of Jewish education. We are working hard to correct this, but it is still unfortunately true that many Jews today have simply never learned to study Torah properly. Filling the void of this lack of education are many Jewishly incorrect and foreign ideas about scripture and religion which they absorb from Christians in the media. So I cannot accurately answer how common this knowledge really is among Jews. It should be very common knowledge. Whether it is, I cannot say, but I fear that many are more ignorant than they should be-- but generally, Jewish ignorance does not result in fundamentalism. It results in secularism.

Well, that's good. And, with all due respect, I have heard many Christians say they are disconcerted by God as he is shown in the Hebrew Scriptures, and that they find that God frightening. It is my belief that this is because Christians read the Written Torah in total absence from the Oral Torah, and thus they take literally or interpret simply many verses which are not supposed to be read so. I obviously do not believe in the so-called New Testament: in my view the so-called "God of the Old Testament" is God. But I don't find him to be either scary or unduly angry or vengeful or subject to caprice. I find him to be passionate, caring, compassionate, loving, and just. And I assure you, that is an entirely mainstream Jewish view; I believe such a view is the norm because we read the whole Torah, Written and Oral, and not only one part-- arguably, the most difficult part.

And there are 0% atheists or close to it in congress on paper, which is highly unlikely.

If I were in the military I wouldn't identify myself as atheist, I just wouldn't bother and would put down Catholic even though I find myself completely separated from it.

And evil isn't a religious concept. I don't believe in any afterlife and I think some people are evil.

I just looked at the title of this thread again,
"Is theism down for the count?"

the analogy of us all sitting in the arena of a boxing match,
collectively holding our breath as the referee is counting on his fingers,
one two three...fits somehow for me.

I always want the guy laying on the mat to wake up..
someday we may as well,
and I am not quite sure what I mean by that.

Those who believe in God or religion are not acting on logic or misinformation. They are acting upon tradition, the emotional need to feel hope or fulfillment, and sometimes their own weakness. There are many brilliant Christians who hold multiple PhDs and are more than capable of critical thinking.

Personally, I believe there is a greater power, but I'm not sure it's the same as what others see. But since science, theism nor deism know the facts, I never look down on anyone else's beliefs.

It's not like I walk up to people on the street and hand them fliers on evolution or anything. Really the only time I discuss atheism or religion in general is when someone else brings it up and I believe they're capable of not being offended by my beliefs. Still, it would be really funny to see atheists on bikes wearing shirts and ties going door to door handing out "Origin of Species". "Have you heard of Charles Darwin?"
Oh. Looks good to me.

Just fyi, my rejection came after years and years of experiencing different religions. I was born Christian, but I've been Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Pegan (Druid), and even Rastafarian, while I was in search for all the information.
Those ideas are often considered radical in my experience. Most Christian leaders teach that the Bible is the word of god. Because arguments like "Well, it was interpreted by man" often lead to the possibility that some o the Bible is wrong, it's considered to be the exact words god wanted to use. Because of that, we often get abortion is wrong, gays are evil, and god made the universe in about a week. To question scripture is often considered very bad.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Now that would be an eventful day. I do find myself wondering how many of all religious people in the world would agree with you, and how their answer would be viewed by their peers. If Ra floated down in a pyramid and had a long talk with my father tomorrow, he'd likely question a few things, but he wouldn't dare tell anyone that he was questioning anything. I, myself, found that questioning faith (at least in Christianity) was either a really lonely place or was a place where people went batshit insane and started having interventions and exorcisms because they were convinced that the devil had me. I still have trouble explaining to some people that atheists don't believe in the devil, which I suppose does get back to being educated.
The Venetians (among others) opposed the crusades, but I do take your point. There are plenty of religious people against the WoT.
I suppose that depends on how one might look at it, though. The very real danger you face in Israel is often galvanized and reinforced by a particular (violent extremist) interpretation of the Qur'an. Yes, the attempts by Palestinians are about nationalism and rebellion, but strapping a bomb to one's chest would be difficult without the word of god to sustain you. I love democracy and freedom and all that jazz, but there is quite simply nothing in the world that would inspire me to do something like that. Had I been raised in the West Bank? Who knows? Had I been raised with the certain belief that Israelis were evil blah blah, and that god loves martyrs and wants me to do this? It's possible.
Well I speak neither Greek nor Hebrew... but I should have guessed Hebrew. Ha! You'd think that would have been obvious.
10 points for "jewishly". That's the best adverb I've seen all day.

So a lack of education, in your opinion, leads to secularism. I'll buy that. What, then (speaking in broad terms), causes fundamentalism?
I don't want to get into particulars, but you do see why one would find a vengeful god scary? The Noah (not Moses)'s Ark story speaks of genocide. I could name dozens of stories where god gets pissed and people die horrible deaths as a direct result. Yes, there are plenty of stories about the compassionate, loving god, but still there's an air of "...but don't get on His bad side!" to the whole thing that's hard to ignore. Do the Jeiwhs oral traditions suggest that some of these stories are parables and not factual?

But that doesn't mean they apply it to themselves.

Some of the most elegant sophistry ever written has been by very intelligent people about their religion or the nature of god.

To me its just depressing and a tragic waist of time for people who could be doing something worth while.

I think many are trying to convince themselves.

Well, again, without wishing to get bogged down in the details of the local conflict.... Yes, I would certainly agree that much of the terrorist threat that Jews in Israel face comes from what is currently being referred to as "radical Islamism." And although I freely admit, I have only a beginner's knowledge of Islam (read the Quran, some of the haditha, talked to some imams), it seems to me that there are many possibilities in Islam. It would never occur to me to blame all Islam for terrorism, although, to be frank, it does seem like quite a number of Islamic authorities are currently exploring what I would call very counterproductive theological notions. The things that have gone into making terrorism an option which some Palestinians appear to regard as viable are many, and I don't necessarily think it will be useful to get into discussing them here. But I will speculate that it seems to me that had there been, some time ago, a combination of more progressive Islamic theology being disseminated amongst Palestinian Arabs, along with more sustained efforts by numerous parties to relieve local social ills, and the emergence of a leadership with a more diplomatically-oriented nationalist agenda, terrorism would most likely not have seemed such an attractive option.

Well, lack of education leads to secularism amongst Jews. That much I believe. Whether the same holds true in other religious communities I cannot vouch for. And while I don't believe I really have an Answer for what causes fundamentalism, here is my personal speculation. I believe that most (but not all) fundamentalists are troubled by the idea of God, Life, and Death continuing to be, in some ways, gray areas. In its purest form, the purpose of halakhah (Jewish Law) is to retain the principles of Torah in an adaptive form, so that by evolving along with the societies in which Jews live, Torah never ceases to become practically relevant to Jews. But I think some people are uncomfortable with the responsibility of constant reinterpretation, because others are sure to disagree with them, and they themselves feel unsure of themselves, psychologically. I think certain personality types crave surety: they like black and white, which is simple, and one always knows where one stands. To live in a spectrum which includes shades of gray, or even colors, is frightening to such people, because they never feel confident that they are behaving acceptably, or living up to the expectations they perceive are placed upon them by others. Although I tend to shy away from diagnostic imagery, I might almost classify the fundamentalist mindset as having characteristics of lack of self-worth and self-esteem, insecurity, and perhaps a very, very mild tendency to obsessive-compulsiveness.

I think, especially in American Christianity, all of these problems are greatly reinforced by the social pressures associated with a Christian atmosphere in which, I am told, it is seen as undesirable to question, and bad behavior to take issue with the teachings of the pastor or priest. These things create a great pressure to conform, or at least keep very quiet about one's questions, doubts, and innovations. Thus, I think many fundamentalists remain fundamentalist at least in part out of fear of rejection or stigmatization by their communities.

Again, I don't believe this to be true of all fundamentalists, but I think it may be true for many.

Sometimes I think ignorance breeds fundamentalism. This, in my personal opinion, seems to be often true for Christians in America. I have met an astonishing plethora of Christians in America who are shockingly ignorant about their own religion (if I, a Jew, can tell, it must be a shocking lack of education), and comparatively poorly educated in general. In such cases, I think the lack of self-worth and insecurity components are greatly magnified. Tolerance and flexibility are the hallmarks of pluralism. But it can be very difficult to embrace pluralism if one feels oppressed, and thus wishes to maximize one's embrace of the doctrine of exclusivity in order to feel less so.

I have noted also that a number of the fundamentalist Christians I have met come from either the impoverished or the wealthy. I have certainly met middle-class fundamentalists, but I note that in my personal experience, they seem to be in the minority. To me this seems to indicate that the poor grasp onto fundamentalism in the hope that excessive righteousness will alleviate their suffering. The wealthy, to the contrary, seem to embrace a quasi-Calvinistic outlook, in which they embrace fundamentalism in what they perceive as acknowledgement or gratefulness for the divine Grace which they believe their financial and social success to represent. But in either case, what leaps out at me is that it is the very poor whose religious and secular education is often impeded by their circumstances; while the wealthy are often preoccupied with enjoying the fruits of their material success, and since they seem to take that wealth as a sign of grace anyhow, they are unmotivated to further their religious education.

I have no proof for any of this. It is just my speculation: it seems likely to me, but I make no claims to its actual accuracy. And I am fully aware that there are some fundamentalists whose motivations are entirely different, and who are explained by none of the hypotheses I have offered.

Well, not so much with the flood story. Some of the other incidents of people dying, yes. But also, keep in mind that in Jewish commentary and exegesis, there is nothing wrong with saying "this verse is troublesome, and it bothers me, and I am not able to adequately explain it yet." Many commentators say such things at various times, and there is no perception that this is unusual or improper. Text, in Jewish tradition, is there to be wrestled with. That is why, we say, our name is Yisra'el (Israel), which literally means, "He Who struggles with God." But one of the things that many commentators point out about the Flood story, for example, is that God immediately promises never to do such a thing again, and realizes it was really a bad idea. It can be hard to reconcile with a doctrine of divine omniscience, but there is an implication in Biblical theology, as we understand it, that relating to human beings is as much a learning experience for God as relating to God is a learning experience for humans. It actually ends up being kind of complicated, but to keep it short, there is at least an awareness of the issue in Jewish theology and exegetical commentary. The way it is dealt with so far has not primarily been to interpret the stories as parables or myths, although some have done so; it is to look for deeper interpretations, and this is often successful to one degree or another.

But I do absolutely understand that, if one were to read the Written Torah in isolation, it would doubtless be quite disconcerting in places, and tremendously obscure in others.

"God is happy, sabu. He plays
with us."
With no evidence to the comtrary, I believe that theism, in one form or another, will last as long as this species does, and even longer amongst others.
The only harm that comes from what I view as an absurd fantasy is that it turns us into "us" and "them" when, (yes, I'm gonna say it again),
IT'S JUST US HERE, PEOPLE!
& GO(O)D loves us, anyway.
If there were more suicide bombers there'd be less need for social workers. I hope (talk about a go(o)d word!) that social workers start focusing on society more, and that the theists eventually realize what they're trying to be, which is? Good.

I don't understand this kind of reasoning. Almost by definition, if something has some "impact," it can be measured. So, how can anyone suggest such a thing?


I don't think your analogies are apt.

We agree that trying to explain science with religion is stupid. However, that religion exists is a reality and science is the study of reality. So, why couldn't science examine religion? You don't think sociology and neurology are sciences? What are you saying, specifically?

If it were just press, then there would be far fewer concerned atheists. It's the incessant subversion of science by fundamentalists that has caused a backlash from nonbelievers to quell religion. If religion has caused you lot to go mad and rebuke science, something that has allowed my life to be as enjoyable as it is, then your religion has got to go!

Well, therein lies the perversity of the human mind. A subset of humanity needs something to have faith in, and organized religion without a god is just a government without territory. Therefore, very early in the course of every organized religion I can think of (and I've put some study into this) God is defined as "Mysterious" or "Ineffable" or "Unknowable through Reason", to the effect that if it can be measured, it ain't God.

So how can anyone suggest such a thing? Job security is part of the answer.

Flip side of it is God is usually conceived of as a Cause rather than an effect. There are lots of cases where you can measure the effect, but the cause is obscure. Gravity is a great example. Masses attract. That's an effect. Why? Einstein took a stab at it and it seems to work, but until the mediation of cause and effect is observed, you can at most say that Einstein described a likely way that gravity may work.

Now, lest you mistake me for a believer, let me disabuse you. I am a shit disturber, and insisting on the existence of things beyond humanity's capacity to know is an argument that interests me. Is that God? I don't know. I don't much care. I think atheism misses the point. I do not believe that God is necessary, therefore I am unconcerned as to whether God exists in a objective sense. God Certainly and Inarguably, though, exists as an Idea. As fuzzy as Ineffability makes the idea, that may be as much of an existence as is needed to cause an effect.

I think the idea is that science is limited, and that humanity's ability to understand the universe is limited. Is there a phenomena that science can't observe? How could you tell?


I think he's saying that the methods by which scientists go about explaining reality don't jibe well with the methods that religious folk use to explain reality, and also perhaps that it is useless to attempt to use science to try to explain things which are by definition not verifiable by scientific means. I think he's saying that folks who try to explain away theism with science miss the point of theism.

It is silly to lash out against all religion when your problems lie with a subset of religious folk. I cringe when some of my fellow atheists, the ones who would call themselves guardians of reason, can't be bothered to see the forest because of the trees that are in the way. The fact that certain fundamentalists feel threatened by science says nothing about religion in general. If one were so inclined as to take a casual survey of the facts, one might see that there are plenty of religious folk who also balk at the subversion of science, as well as plenty of people who, for completely secular reasons, would subvert science and reason as a convenient means to an end.

Science is a method of investigation. Science doesn't observe things, we do! If there is a phenomena that you can't observe, why do you think it ever happened? Do you see the madness in this proposition? This is what it is to be religious...

I could hardly make sense of most of this paragraph but I think I understand the last sentence. Let me say that those who think that explaining "away theism with science miss the point of theism" miss the point of science!

In other words (without a forced quotation), those who wonder why anyone would investigate theism scientifically miss the point of science!

I have spoken to a good number of christians and I have gained some sympathy for their plight. I regularly attend Campus Crusade for Christ events, made easy by the fact that I live in a small town with two universities in it, one of which is rather prestigious. Life is hard and if a bunch of fairy tales helps you get through it, more power to you.

My problem with religion is when religious people start enforcing the principles of their fairy tales onto me. When they start influencing politics, en mass, on issues of what I may or may not wear, whom I may or may not marry, what I may or may not research, what we may or may not teach, etc... then fuck you and your religion! These people have political power and very few of them live with the idea that "well, they're my beliefs so I'm the only one who needs to follow them." Christians on this continent think that their religion constitutes absolute morality and, thus, must enforce this onto everyone...

I only brought up science because that's what offends me the most. In rural America, anti-science fundamentalist christians are not a fringe minority. They make up more than 50% of the population and the rest of the theists don't appear to be standing up to their religious cousins. It really looks like religion is the problem and not just a couple of wackos...

To my mind, that is The problem with Religion. However, I am not convinced that taking religion away, were it even possible, would solve that problems. It is the heritage of our herd ape forebearers. There are always Bluenoses and Comstocks and people who lash out against the nagging fear that somewhere, someone might be happier than they.

So to answer the original question of whether Theism is down for the count, the answer has to be no. Should it be? I couldn't care less. Whether or not it is the primate troop imperatives will remain, and they are the problem, not the justifications given for them.

Is there a phenomena that science can't investigate? The set of things that
are observable and amenable to scientific investigation is a subset of the
set of things that are observable- to claim otherwise is to claim that
science can achieve omniscience.

I'm not sure anyone has claimed to wonder why someone would investigate theism scientifically, so that's really beside the point.

The point that I was making is that there are many beliefs held by theists
for which examination by the scientific process is irrelevant. Science has
nothing to say about the existence of a god, but it can say things about what an existing god is not, for instance, god is obviously not a visible hobgoblin on
Pat Robertson's shoulder. Science is impotent when it comes to explaining
the things that theism (in it's most general form) attempts to explain.

Not all religious people are attempting to make you live by their beliefs. How can you expect to be taken seriously as the arbiter of reason you seem to think you are if you can't even be bothered to notice the very real distinctions between the religious people who bother you and the religious people who couldn't care less about anything you do?

I think the more reasonable explanation is that people are the problem, and
that the culture of rural america is much more complex than you seem to
think it is.

Say, what's with the formatting, filtherton? Why all the extraneous carriage returns? It looks like I'm reading a Shakespeare play without all the rhyme or poetry...

That doesn't follow. At the very least, you're assuming that there is a finite number of things to investigate and there's no reason to think that.
It's ironic that you think I tend to oversimplify...

This is what I was responding to:...followed by you saying:My comments seemed on topic in light of these statements...

But theism is an attempt to explain things arbitrarily, with no reasoning behind it. It's my contention that a fictional explanation is worse than no explanation at all.

In my experience, the things that religion attempts to explain are things that don't bear explanation...

Not all biologists think that evolution and common descent are scientific facts. There are, like, two who don't...

Yes, not all theists are attempting to make me live by their beliefs... Are you even understanding my arguments or are you desperately trying to find every pedantic way that my statements aren't strictly true and comment on those fine points? Effectively all christians on this continent are, in fact, trying to enforce their beliefs onto me. They do so whenever they elect a politician whose views and policies coincide with their christian sensibilities. In other words, they're trying to erect public policy based on their fairy tales. This is an enforcement of their beliefs onto me. Of course, this is their democratic prerogative but, of course, I will want to convince them that they're wrong. Hence, the debate continues...

You're just saying that, though. Surely there are complexities in the problem. However, very few atheists deny scientific findings while the pious assault science with superstition. People are the problem. They have replaced reality with religion!

Where in what I said is there any assumption of a finite number of things to investigate?

There is reasoning behind theism. The fact that you don't agree with the reasoning doesn't somehow invalidate it.

Fixed it for you.

I'm just saying that for someone who seems to claim to hold reason and science in high regard, you're pretty sloppy about how you communicate. A scientist would at least acknowledge the fact that his statements weren't strictly true and attempt to refine them so that they were. All you can seem to do is complain about me pointing out how your statements aren't true.

Your problem is that your entire premise is based on arguments that aren't strictly true. Make the arguments strictly true and you lose the dramatic "every theist is trying to force me to believe in god" angle. You're left with, "Some theists are real crumb bums." Which is a statement I don't disagree with.

Okay, now you're being a tad histrionic. I'm certain if one was so inclined one could find various christian undertones in all sort of laws. Why, the recent bailout of Bear Stearns is clearly just a christ-like gesture of charity towards the poor, destitute shareholders.

Seriously, though, if you're trying to claim that christians can't govern secularly, then you should probably take a gander at the political state of the United States in the context of christian doctrine. Christ loved the poor- americans don't. Christ was a pacifist.

I'm just saying that because its true. I'm sorry you can't seem to modify your position to reflect any sort of nuance. Some pious folk don't deny scientific findings- a lot of them don't. Some do speak out against the denial of science by their fellow theists.

The problems of humanity manifest themselves in everything humanity does, including religion and the scientific establishment. The fact that you seem to think that we'd all be better off without religion seems to me to reflect a certain naivety concerning just how fucked up humans are.

A recent poll said around 50% (I think it's 47% total, 39% men and 53% women) of Americans believe in evolution. The other 50%? Those are the pious folk who are the problem. But blaming "humanity" or "human nature" is bullshit. These people need to be held responsible for contradicting science and logic.

They are the problem? Whose problem? How many of the folks who don't believe in evolution are actively trying to remove it from schools? How many of those people don't believe in evolution because it's contrary to their religion vs. because they don't understand it, don't care, or don't appreciate the aesthetics of it? Everyone knows 80% of all statistical figures are meaningless without context. How many people didn't believe in evolution 50 years ago? Is it possible the situation is actually improving?

And not quibble, but not believing in evolution doesn't necessarily imply a lack of logic-- two logically sound arguments can come to contradictory conclusions and logically sound arguments aren't required to resemble reality in any meaningful way.

What does holding people responsible for contradicting science and logic entail? How do you hold them responsible? Do you call the Rational Response Squad?

Do you at all appreciate the notion that there is more than one valid way to make sense of the world? So some folks don't believe in evolution. I guess I won't ask them for homework help the next time I take a biology class.

Blaming human nature may be bullshit, but it is less bullshit than blaming religion. Blaming religion ignores the fact that dysfunctional idiots exist in secular societies too. If you are of the opinion that humanity created religion, which being an atheist you probably are, then how can you possibly blame religion for religious people being messed up instead of blaming people for people being messed up?

Das what I said! :thumbsup:
Everyone's, including their own.
Estimates range from 20-70%, but no formal studies have been held.
The result is the same regardless of how they arrive at it. But to answer your question, I don't know.
That's actually an old joke and holds no statistical significance. It sounded like you were using seriously.
"Creationism" isn't that old, and ID is only like 2 years old, so no I don't see this as progressing towards evolution. I see it polarizing, and polarization is never a good sign.
"You're wrong, here's verifiable evidence to prove it. Stop ignoring factual evidence." Seems simple enough.
Evolution has nothing to do with making sense of the world. Making sense is the job of philosophy. Evolution is science.
Secular societies? There are places on the planet where there are no religious people at all? WHERE?! How are the housing markets there?

Copernicus was a Roman Catholic. So was Galileo. Devoutly so.

This isn't religion vs. science.

You do realize that you just named two prominent scientists that were attacked by the Catholic Church, right? I mean really.

Perhaps you should buy a gun.

So you referencing this statistic in the context of a discussion about theists attempting to force their beliefs on the rest of us is relevant how?

We were discussing religion as a justification for rejecting science, so it would stand to reason that the reason that that 50% don't believe in evolution would be the point, as opposed to the fact that they don't believe in evolution.

You: "Speaking of religious people rejecting science and forcing their beliefs on the rest of us, 50% of americans are piously rejecting evolution."

Me: "How many of those people are forcing their beliefs on the rest of us?

You: "Oh, I don't know *quotes incredibly large range without source and acknowledges that he has no idea*"

Me: "Okay, how many of those people are rejecting evolution for religious reasons?"

You: "Oh, I don't know, it's not important."

Why did you bring it up again?

No seriously, estimates range from 20-70%, though presently there have been no formal studies.

Let me rephrase. Do you think america is more or less religious than it was 50 years ago? What proportion of folks believed in evolution 50 years ago (remember, according to you the reason they didn't believe in evolution is less important than the fact that they didn't believe in evolution)?

You should know that you can't use facts to dispel ideas of a god who controls facts at will.

I don't even know where to begin with this.

Well, I'd bring up Communist Russia, but you'd probably balk.

It's more than one, and that's too many.
You act like the school thing is the only problem. It's not. It's everything from museums to churches.
I couldn't care less whether religion is bigger or smaller now. The point is that not believing in evolution is dangerous.
A god that controls facts at will that creates a universe in which facts exist that contradict his own religious teachings either is trying to test people or doesn't exist, but again that's not relevant. What is relevant is that evolution is as real as gravity, and ID is championed by dangerous people.
You could start with "Oh, you're right. Science doesn't have anything to do with meaning. That's philsoohpy. Silly me!"

Don't jump ahead too far, now. Galileo and Copernicus still had the faith and peered into "God's Universe." Others were merely too frightened by what they saw. Do you know many Christians who believe in the Ptolemaic system?

Do you know why the Ptolemaic system died out? Ignorance was replaced by enlightenment. You know, like ID being replaced with evolution.

Giordano Bruno was a Dominican monk. He worked to help this along, and if you look at the Age of Enlightenment, many of them were religious even though several of them questioned organized religion. This is what I mean by this not being religion vs. science. I know you didn't say that outright, willravel, but I figured I should point this out for the benefit of the thread.

It's not as simple as a black and white religion vs. science situation, but you can see where there have been rather serious problems. I've never seen atheist fundamentalists hold up scientific progress. Religion is uniquely dogmatic and as such will always have elements that are strongly conservative.

Remember when I mentioned the 50% number? Around 40% believe in theistic evolution, which doesn't believe in abiogenesis (the origin of life). Only about 9% believe in real evolution and abiogenesis. 9% is about the amount of Americans that aren't religious or pseudo religious. I can't prove that the relationship between statistics is causal, but it sure as hell is correlative.

I certainly won't fault you for your idealism, will.

What portion of those 50% that don't believe in evolution are trying to actively subvert science or force you to agree with them? If you don't know, then it's a red herring because you're trying to claim a correlation between not believing in evolution and exercising religious intolerance without actually having any evidence of a correlation. I mean, it seems like a plausible correlation, I guess, but a lot of things that seem plausible don't stand up to scrutiny. It's bad science to assume something is true without actually trying to prove it is. It isn't bad theology necessarily, but it is bad science.

How is it dangerous? People didn't believe in evolution for most of human history. I think that the theory of evolution is irrelevant to most people. I know that if you were to surgically remove any concept of evolution from my brain whilst leaving everything else intact absolutely nothing would change about the way I look at the world, and I believe in evolution. It's just that as far as theories that play an active role in shaping my world view go it ranks somewhere near geology-- it's trivia.

Given that many people have problems wrapping their heads around basic math, chemistry and physics it doesn't seem that out of the question that there would be a lot of people who have trouble wrapping their heads around the concept of evolution. And since knowledge of evolution doesn't really matter all that much in the day to day activities of most people, including most scientists, it doesn't surprise me that a lot of people don't seem to care about it, or understand enough of it to see how much sense it makes. It certainly doesn't scare me, anymore than the fact that Bush got elected to a second term scares me. It's par for the course as far as humanity goes.

I won't disagree with this. I just don't think that it's as dramatic as you and Mr. Missile think it is. Maybe that has more to do with the fact that I live in a really liberal place where religious intolerance is generally viewed with contempt (by lots of people who also happen to be religious) and so it doesn't often have the chance to get much momentum.

I wasn't talking about meaning, I was talking about making sense of reality, something which is the cornerstone of scientific inquiry. And if you think that philosophy and science aren't closely related you should do more science. It's like pig once said, and I hope he'll forgive me if I'm misappropriating his words for evil ends: there's a reason that the highest degrees offered in most scientific fields is a doctor of philosophy. Science is philosophy.

Some. Many more than one. Again, I don't know what specific number.
Again, some do. Why? Because they believe in bad science. Remove that incorrect belief, and you remove the danger.
Anything that actively works against scientific progress is dangerous by it's mere existence. Examples are glaring through history. There was a time when transfusions were disallowed by the fundamentalist religious. Then it was transplants. Many people still today refuse medical care for their children opting instead for prayer. And the children die. Pretending like this isn't dangerous is underestimating a threat to not just progress but safety.

This isn't about having trouble understanding evolution, though. It's about willful ignorance. Have you ever debated an ID proponent or creationist?

YEEEEEHAAAAWWW!!!! *DANCES*
Very few people live in a more liberal area than I, good sir. I'm not intolerant of religious beliefs. I could care less if you want to believe in a carpenter who could make wine from water. I have a problem, though, when subjective faith becomes ignorance that's forced on others. Scientologists can believe in thetans all they want, but when they sue people for talking about their religion, they've crossed a line.
No. Science is factual, philosophy is subjective. Philosophy can tell us if we should do something, science tells us if we can. They are quite different.

Trust me, this is the same coversation I'm having on a good dozen forums and several emails right now. Science is factual, philosophy is subjective. They can go hand in hand, but they are very different.

Just because someone doesn't believe in evolution doesn't mean that they are actively working against scientific progress. You said yourself, you don't know which proportion of evolution deniers are working against science. Attempting to lump a general notion of religion in with people who actively work against science when you yourself admit that you have no hard data correlating religious folk with evolution deniers or people who are actively working against scientific progress is anything but rational and scientific.

Yes, the discussions aren't necessarily that far off from the ones I had in my brief stint on the forum of a certain prominent atheist. I don't debate with creationists or IDers on anything other than the definition of science. Like I said before, it is useless to debate facts with people who believe in ID or creationism because their world view is pretty air-tight. It's like trying to talk econ with a supply sider-- everything that's good with the economy is good because of supply side econ, and everything that's bad with the economy has nothing to do with supply side econ.

The only reason I debate with atheists is that I am one, and I feel that some of them poorly represent the rest of us, and do so while betraying a definite lack of the very reason and rationality they cite as their justification for nonbelief.

I don't think that you're necessarily overtly intolerant of religious beliefs, and I don't think that one should be tolerant of all religious beliefs. I think we agree on a lot of things when it comes to religion. I just think that the problems caused by religious people are symptomatic of more endemic problems with humanity. I think that there are religious fools, but I don't think that being religious automatically makes someone a fool, or delusional, or unreasonable, or illogical, or foaming at the mouth with a passion for forcing their beliefs on other people.

Maybe I'm just over reacting to lazy use of language, but when an atheist criticizes religion in general for things that aren't a general property of religion I feel the need to say something. I'm sure you can relate to the need to correct someone else's willful ignorance.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. I will say this: the idea that science is the only way to explain reality is empiricism, it is a philosophical doctrine. I think what you should be saying is that morality can tell us if we should do something while science tells us if we can. Either way, the assertion that observable phenomena can be effectively explained solely through scientific means is a philosophical one, and one where you and many theists probably disagree.

Maybe it was the way you worded this, but are you saying theistic evolution is incompatible with abiogenesis, or that the 40% who believe theistic evolution just dont agree with abiogenesis.

Its been done:

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sV-a1vmZ6y8&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sV-a1vmZ6y8&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

I'm saying the literal translations don't agree with abiogenesis or evolution. When someone views some stories in the bible as parables or allegories, they can mean just about anything. Judging by the statistics, it seems quite a few Christians are new Earth creationists. Something like 90% said that they didn't believe in aboigenesis.
Heh, yeah I've seen that. It was a joke.