Those who pile remorseless fact on remorseless fact in the name of rational science usually wind up constructing another idol, only one that is lifeless; that is their right and choice, but why should it surprise them that the rest of us refuse to bow down and worship with them?
What is one to make of the onslaught of atheist tracts over the past year or two – Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens, all raking the countryside with their discontent with religion?
Did all those Silent Nights and Merry Christmases and Happy Hanukkahs finally get to them? Has peace on earth good will toward men driven them to madness? Does the Nativity cut to the heart of their pain?
They are an interesting lot, these men, who find faith an absurd – even abominable — idea and will not rest until they make cry uncle all of us who insist on believing. And convert us to what? One might lament the evangelical who is so persistent that he alienates people and threatens them with visions of fire, but at least such a person is trying to save a soul. What are the evangelical atheists trying to save? What are they trying to sell – other than a rationalism taken to such extremes that is ceases to be rational?
Let us concede that faith is a mystery beyond reason. Like love, hope, and charity, it has reasons that reason does not know. It can no more be understood by reason than Mozart or Shakespeare. Yet here is the irony. Though western religious tolerance, rooted in enlightenment, is upon us, the apostles of atheism are not content.
People, in this nation at least, are free to worship the sun, Satan or nothing at all. Atheists espouse their views routinely on national television, make money pedaling their books, and are, for the most part, greeted by indifference. Not good enough for people like Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins. They want us to submit to their demand that the public square be stripped of every vestige of faith. This is not only unacceptable, it betrays the tradition of American history and a spiritual instinct as old as humanity itself.
Neverthless, evidence of this crusade can be seen across this land. In our courts, our malls and in the halls of government, the atheists (or their surrogates) aggressively seek to impose their objections to faith on the vast majority of faithful Americans. It is not enough that they are not forced to pray, they now find offensive any public display of prayer. Having been given the tolerance they claimed as their right, they are intolerant of any public affection for faith. They will not rest, so it seems, until every religious symbol is removed from any spot on which they might tread.
Hitchens is the most determined advocate of this position, his occasional blandishments about tolerance aside. Not with a scalpel but a Gatling gun does he seek to sweep away the crimes cloaked by the mask of religion. Whether it is the abuse of women, children or medical science, he is quite right to be outraged by pain inflicted on the world by moral bullies and extremists who have concluded that their dogmas justify acting as God’s judges and executioners on earth. One only has to consider the daily toll of killings each day in the name of religious faith to appreciate Hitchens’ point.
But Hitchens misfires, not because he is wrong but because he is right. Dogmatic believers – atheist or otherwise – often assume a knowledge that invites abuse. He calls his book, god is not great. It could just as easily have been named man is not great. Or nationalism is not great. Or extremism is not great.
The inquisition was insane. So was the Holocaust. Flying planes into buildings in the name of faith is every bit as pernicious and murderous as crucifying Christians in the name of Caesar. Drinking Kool Aid laced with poison makes about as much sense as dispatching millions of people to the Gulag. G. K. Chesterton observed that human beings are not rational and Hitchens acknowledges this but then fails to digest the relevant lessons.
For every case of religious-inspired violence there is an equally horrific example of violence rooted in atheistic or pagan political culture. The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount are relevant not because they deal with rare abnormalities in human behavior, but because they speak to failings that afflict the vast majority of flawed human beings.
Early on Hitchens writes: “The true believer cannot rest until the whole world bows the knee.” Yet, Hitchens knows that the true believer is as likely to be a Marxist as a Muslim, a Nazi as a Catholic, a nationalist as a Morman, a secular humanist as a Buddhist. And so Hitchens tries a bit of polemical gymnastics, and seeks to lump every sort of dogma, from materialism to paganism, under the heading of "religion." In doing so, he has rendered his book meaningless. If he cannot distinguish between the worship of God and the worship of man, how does one take him seriously as a critic? If the impulse to believe in dogmas is at issue, isn’t Hitchens’ belief in unbelief just another dogma?
As a faithful person, I am prepared to defend my faith, but I am not prepared to let Hitchens define what that faith is. I will defend a belief in God, but not a belief in Hitchens as the arbiter of what God is. I am prepared to defend the notion that Jesus stood in unique relationship to creation, but I am not prepared to let Hitchens equate Roman paganism with the Beatitudes. We need not submit to their circular logic, which goes something like this: religion is bad, bad things happen, thus religion is the mother of all bad things.
Hitchens’ history is sorely lacking. There is no compelling proof that Jesus existed, he claims at one point. I doubt Mr. Hitchens would deny the existence of Shakespeare, and we certainly have as much evidence to support that Jesus lived as we do that Shakespeare did. He claims that the moral instruction of the Bible and the New Testament are nothing new, but clearly he has chosen to ignore the brutalities of the pagan world.
Mr. Hitchens is not content to argue that religion, taken to radical extremes, does much harm. No, he argues that religion “poisons everything” and he does not exempt Judaism or Christianity or any other of the great world religions. Such a comprehensive claim discredits itself at the outset, for religion no more poisoned the world than the world poisoned the world.
Life is a vale of tears, an imperfect journey, however lifted it might be by the tender mercies or moments of beauty we experience. Yet religion has enriched that experience and offered glimpes of the eternal by inspiring art, literature, music, architecture, and philosophy. It has compelled men to look beyond themselves, just as it has commanded them to bend their knees. It has comforted millions in time of need, and led to shattering moral insights.
We also know, as Mr. Hitchens dutifully reminds us, that religion has been used to break men’s minds and spirits, to force men to deny their own sacred beliefs, to rip them apart from the very creation for which we give thanks to God. Yet, I am amazed at how unpersuasive the religious critics are.
Dawkins relates a claim made by some that the universe could no more come into existence by chance than a Boeing 747 could be assembled by a windstorm blowing through a salvage lot. What about the obvious question: is the universe anything like a Boeing 747? Is the universe a machine, or a mysterious blend of poetry, drama and science? We can only assume a creator, an intelligent design, if what we are today is what the creator intended us to be, right? If the wind shapes a cloud in the image of an elephant, do we assume that the wind consciously created the shape? Our existence could be an accident of moving parts, not always effectively assembled to judge by all the discarded pieces of creation.
But then maybe God isn't an engineer or an architect, but a dramatist or a comedian. Nature is sublime and brutal, efficient and wasteful, miraculous and horrifying, comical and tragic. Those who claim to have faith must concede that if God exists, all of this is part of the creation God made possible, and that we have a limited capacity to make sense of it – the child with cancer or a fissionable atom that unleashes hell. As C.S. Lewis reminded us, waste, inefficiency, loss, suffering are all part of God’s plan. It would be hard to argue otherwise.
The unbeliever likewise must answer difficult questions. Believing in a God that unleashed creation may be farfetched, but is it more farfetched than believing that our universe came from nothing? And if the object lesson of evolution is that the best is what emerges from the primordial morass of human existence, are we not forced to concede, at this juncture at least, that religious belief is the superior idea, given its dominance of virtually every culture and society known to man?
It is my own view that the journey to understanding will not be marked by arrogant preaching, but by tentative steps in the direction of self-discovery. It will not be found by a thousand theologians debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but by a childlike wonder that finds all things possible –- snowflakes that dance in the air like fairies, a sun that melts away each evening, stars that twinkle like icicles on a winter’s day. Small mysteries that add up to universal wonder are the stuff of faith.
No, it is not the humble Christian who poses the problem, but the arrogant atheist. It is not the uncertain agnostic who threatens God’s children, but the religious who mistakes himself for God. I, for one, share Hitchens’ concerns about true believers if he means those who are incapable of entertaining doubt. I would go further. I would argue that doubt is essential to a healthy faith. And I would go even further by arguing that God would consider doubt essential to true faith.
Doubt is integral to faith precisely because faith is the triumph of hope over reason. Where there is no doubt, there can be no struggle, no search, no journey toward understanding, and no reconciliation between the material and the spiritual. Those who never question can be easily tempted to tyranny. When Jesus said that the heart of the law is mercy, when he forgave sinners as a matter of routine practice, he was speaking to the heart of the Christian mystery — those who condemn risk condemnation. The paradox is instructive. It is the possibility of error that binds our common humanity; it is the capacity to admit we might be wrong that leads us to truth. Thus are religious faith and science joined.
Where might faith be found? It can be found in countless places. In prayerful moments inside an empty church, in the joyous Masses at Christmas season, in the gestures of peace transmitted through an embrace or a handshake, in the traditions of charity and gift-giving, in the recognition of shared, irredeemable losses, in questioning moments of despair when all seems futile, in the little things that annoy us, in the still small voice that pierces the thundering winds. That these dramas are beyond the calculus of today’s zealots, faithful or not, is the root of much tragedy. It is those who demand merciless perfection who are most dangerous to imperfect humans.
No one will deny the intelligence of men such as Dawkins, Dennett and Hitchens. They are provocative, but are they wise? Who sounds more dogmatic — the man who writes that “religion poisons everything,” or a believer like “silly” Malcolm Muggeridge who called his autobiography The Chronicles of Wasted Time. For all their stated objections to the abuse of religion, these atheists seem more interested in destroying any faith that violates their own sacramental unbelief. They are quick to indict the religious for every heinous crime committed in the name of faith, but in doing so they embrace the same absolutism they condemn in the religious zealot. They ask the faithful to own every sin committed in the name of God, but they will not shoulder a solitary sin committed in the name of science or atheism.
They remind me of a journalist I knew years ago, while working at the Virginian Pilot & Ledger-Star. Alan was a provocative thinker and he found me a curious character. On several occasions over drinks or dinner he would inquire about my politics and my Catholic faith. At one point, he suggested that if I truly believed, I should exert every effort to convert him. After all, he winked, his very soul was in jeopardy. I would answer today the same way I answered him then. I don’t know with certainty God’s will or even if God exists, I can only suggest that my own life has been deeply enriched by the tradition of faith into which I was born; that Jesus, more than any other thinker, teacher or prophet, has brought me face to face with shattering glimpses of truth.
Of course, I am not alone. Reynolds Price, a Duke University novelist, poet and essayist, remarks that he is overwhelmed by “the always startling degree of tolerance and compassion shown and commended by Jesus. I say startling because I’m always caught off guard by that characteristic whenever I read about him.”
Phillip Simmons, in his beautiful book, Learning to Fall: The Blessings of an Imperfect Life, explores the gospel story of Jesus entering Jerusalem. The Pharisees warned him to quiet the crowd, but Jesus answered that even if the crowd were silent, the stones would shout out. Simmons continued: “True religion is an activity of the imagination . . . and Jesus felt himself so aligned with the natural and cosmic order that the very stones would cry out his arrival. Jesus at this moment is in the state of true wildness, when we express our divine natures as naturally as animals do, when our every word and deed flows directly from our highest purposes.”
Chesterton observed: “If it were true that by leaving the temple we walked out into a world of truths, the question would be answered, but it is not true. By leaving the temple, we walk into a world of idols; and the idols of the marketplace are more perishable and passing than the gods of the temple we have left. If we wished to test rationally the case of rationalism, we should follow the career of the skeptic and ask how far he remained skeptical about the idols or the ideals of the world into which he went . . ..”
Those who pile remorseless fact on remorseless fact in the name of rational science usually wind up constructing another idol, only one that is lifeless; that is their right and choice, but why should it surprise them that the rest of us refuse to bow down and worship with them?
denniscampbell,
Didn't you read my comment #24? "owlafaye is a bigoted idiot whose only intent is to inflame with the spewing of hateful, anti-intellectual rhetoric. I doubt that he could reason his way out of a paper bag."
Don't waste your time debating this troll. He's not interested in a civil exchange of ideas. Completely convinced of his own superiority, he can only demean others with childish taunting. I think it might be "little man syndrome."
Mr. Skurka – the fact that atheists would (and do) fare worse under an Islamic regime does not mean that they are always treated fairly in a "Judeo/Christian" one. If it's not preventing religious (or religiously-motivated) discrimination, what do you think the "agenda" of the "atheist political movement" is?
Mountain Man – you ask, "how could Congress have authorized the purchase of Bibles using treasury money?" Not every action the United States' government has taken over the course of history has been in line with the Constitution – consider the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II, or even the Alien and Sedition acts of 1798. There's definitely room for legitimate debate on what constitutes an 'establishment' of religion, and historical practice does have a place in that debate… but historical practice doesn't automatically ratify everything.
owlafaye – You've had your fun, such as it is. I don't know what it is you expect to accomplish by starting out with derogation and contempt (as opposed to responding to it). But perhaps you can try moving on to greener pastures. There are people here who are capable of intelligent discourse, and I'd like to try that without the flaring tempers and sturm und drang.
Mountain Man, Dr. Jackson – I'm a bit surprised at you. The crack about the Catholic Church was unwarranted in this discussion, I agree. But the systemic problems there are not, so far as I can see, morally equivalent to the cases you bring up. I see no evidence in the article you linked to, Mountain Man, that the ACLU engaged in any kind of cover-up or indeed had any complicity whatsoever in what was unquestionably a disgusting crime. And Dr. Jackson, I don't know what to make of comparing the sexual abuse of minors to consensual (though certainly adulterous) acts with a 22-year-old.
I think it is possible to conduct discussion here on a bit higher level than that…
Mr. Ingles,
"Not every action the United States’ government has taken over the course of history has been in line with the Constitution…" An excellent point. Well said. So the issue then becomes, was the government engaging in unconstitutional activity when it purchased Bibles? And, has the definition of constitutionality changed over time? If so, why?
These men who authorized the purchase of Bibles were among the same men who wrote the Constitution, weren't they? If there was anyone who knew what might and might not be constitutional, it would be them, don't you think?
Did the Supreme Court invalidate their action? No? Might it be that their action was not unconstitutional? Might it be that our current interpretations are the ones that are actually unconstitutional?
The Founders and the early Congresses might be themselves be unconstitutional in today's legal environment. Which suggests to me that constitutional interpretation has evolved over the years to become something the Founders never intended.
If the Constitution has become a fluid document that can be twisted to conform with contemporary culture and the whims of opinion, then I submit that it has been invalidated and is useless.
Denniscampbell said "I’ll leave the fairy tales to you, thank you. I’m not ready to turn my brain off and accept explanations that are preposterous on their faces. I’ll leave that to gullible folks like you."
Even if I were to, for the sake of argument, say that evolution was preposterous, how would that make the god of Abraham et. al. any less preposterous?
It is my feeling that, through inculcation, believers have had their brain trained to believe the story in which they were raised (there are exceptions). But trying to say that your story has more credibility because you don't understand or believe another story is an argumentative failure of the highest order. At least evolution proponents can provide SOMETHING that backs up their version of things. Christianity provides nothing but bronze-age scripture that has been clearly shown to be self-conflicting in places, patently wrong in places, and immoral in other places.
For an simple example of how the brain can be absolutely sure and absolutely wrong about something, I give you the following;
When studying computer science at college I had a professor who started each lecture with a riddle or joke. One day he proposed the Monty Hall riddle (hopefully you know the premise of Monty Hall and the Let's Make A Deal game show of years back). The contestant picks (for example) door #1. Monty opens (for example) door #2 and shows that there is nothing behind it. Monty then offers the contestant the chance to switch from door #1 to door #3. The riddle is; for the best chances of winning the grand prize, should the contestant 1) switch to door #3, 2) stay with door #1, or 3) it doesn't matter?
Virtually everyone, on first contemplation of this problem, says that it would not matter whether they switched or not. Most are utterly sure that the odds of selecting the right door is 33.3% regardless and they are just as likely to win by staying as by switching.
Virtually everyone in the lecture hall (all of whom by this time had several statistics courses under their belt) comfortably and readily said that it would not matter. The odds of the prize being behind any one door is 33.33%.
The answer to the puzzle, though, is that the contestant is exactly TWICE as likely to win the grand prize if they switched doors! None of us could believe it even after the professor tried explaining why it was so. We all 'knew' that his solution could not be so! Being a computer science student, I fortunately had the option of going back to my apartment and writing a computer simulation of the problem. Indeed, the contestant won 66.666% of the time if they switched!
It was ONLY when I conclusively demonstrated to myself that I could wrest my brain away from my sure knowledge that door choice was immaterial. I offer this example, not as lesson in statistics, but as a demonstration of brain physiology. A human brain can be absolutely sure of ANYTHING; true or not. Using the Christian vernacular you can 'Know' the 'Truth' absolutely and unshakably…but it does not mean that you are right or that your explanation is true.
It was Mark Twain who said "It ain't what you don't know that get's you in trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so"
I think Al Gore got it right about global warming, he just got the source wrong. All the hot air on this thread could thaw out the ice in New York.
It's a good thing nonsense does not weigh anything or my monitor would be busted.
Atheist don't meet in a church, they meet on this site.
fbaginski – We may differ on 'interpretation', but I'm minded of this quote by Jules Poincare: "Science is built up of facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house."
What are the evangelical atheists trying to save?
The First Amendment.
I suppose there might be a dozen or so 'evangelical atheists', but there are members of many religions, not only atheists, who have no use for political publicity stunts like Roy Moore's 'Ten Commandments' rock or high school football prayers led by coaches. The US Supreme Court is not noted for its anti-religious fervor, but it has been quite consistent in keeping politicians and government officials from forcing their religious symbols on others.
As far as I can tell, Christianity is doing quite well in the United States without government support. Would it wither as it has in England if it were the state religion?
Freelunch: My favorite quote along those lines: "When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." – Benjamin Franklin
Here here to Ben Franklin!! :-)
Ok owlafaye. We are in the same camp, but I don't think you are helping the cause. You seem to lower yourself to personal attacks quickly. Seriously…if I had the chance, I wouldn't pick you for my team.
fvthinker,
I am just as willing to hold people on my side accountable as you seem to want to do on your side. See my comments to Jeff Osonitsch in "reconsidering Rudy" for proof.
Kudos to you.
I'm here to have civil dialogue with people who both agree and disagree with me. owlafaye isn't interested in anything other than denigrating and mocking people of faith. Interestingly, most everything he has to say about them misses the mark. It is his view of theists that is the actual fairytale.
Most of the atheists I run into are actually anti-theists. They aren't content to let people believe what they want. They concoct all sorts of misconceptions, worry about things like "theocracy" and imposing morals and the like as if theists hide in back rooms, plotting the overthrow of government.
Anti-theists are toxic, unpleasant people. They are quick to jump in whenever someones dares utter a positive thing about religion. They are convinced that not a single good thing has ever been accomplished in the name of religion.
But a few atheists, not of the above camp, I actually enjoy. They, like I, are willing to question our assumptions, test hypotheses and make changes when it is warranted.
So, what are you?
Mountain Man asks me "So, what are you?"
In a nutshell I am not an anti-theist (I have nothing against the person), but I sometimes demonstrate anti-theism (as I take issue with the mode of thought).
It is seldom that I see any non-believer descend to the level that poster 'owlafaye' does here. I will confess, though, that when I listen to the likes of Christopher Hitchens, I probably hear things differently than many believers do. It is more the exception than the rule that even Hitchens directly attacks his debate opponent (though he does when talking about awful individuals like Jerry Falwell who well deserves to have his name stripped of any dignity it might have). In general, he would say [I paraphrase] "The argument you make is ridiculous" as opposed to "You are ridiculous for making that argument". I think it is perfectly reasonable to criticize the mode of thought and method of argument in a debate/discussion context. It is wrong, though, to assume that every believer is an idiot; and to be honest, those that do are quite the exception.
When presented with a poor argument, I do not hesitate to take its purveyor to task. One example seen on this thread is the "I don't believe 'A', therefore 'B' is true." Often it see this as "I don't believe in evolution, therefore my Christian narrative gains validity". This is a non sequitur. The only thing that you can infer from the first part is that they don't believe in evolution … nothing more. The argument is painfully … achingly bad. I think it is doing the person a favor to try to point out the error of their logic. If the recipient of this critique considers it mean, or feels that it demonstrates poor etiquette, then they shouldn't be entering into debates; they should learn from it.
Was that better folks? … Laughter
Look: George has run off…the consumate coward when the hounds bay. We have a few FunDummies here and the rest seem to be atheisticaly inclined.
They WILL NOT get down to basics in discussion…when you hit them with facts and irrefutable logic… their eyes get glassy and they start quoting the BABBLE.
I am tired of being polite to their arrogance and ignorance, their pushy ways and noisy dogma…I am mad, and I am NOT going to take it anymore.
owlafaye, in my opinion the religious right is scary. I think they've forgotten the whole separation of church and state. But you do them a grand favor by representing the atheist league as an anti-intellectual, hateful idiot who bases his arguments on name calling and misrepresentation of the opposing position (straw man).
Are you really a religious nutter in disguise, purposefully trying to make the atheists look like fundamentalists?
Mountain Man – Your reference to 'Congress purchasing Bibles with treasury money' is a bit vague. Are you referring to the Bibles published by Robert Aitken? I can honestly and wholeheartedly say that that purchase was not even slightly un-Constitutional. Of course… that purchase was by the Continental Congress in 1781, and the Constitution itself was not adopted until 1787. It's hard to be in violation of a document that hadn't yet been written.
Of course, it's entirely possible that you're referring to some other episode. Even then, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed by (indeed, proposed by) many of the same men who'd had a hand in drafting the Constitution, and yet the Acts are almost universally considered un-Constitutional today, and were widely decried as such even at the time. Yes, it is entirely possible for human beings to be blind to the implications of principles and laws, even laws they hold very dear. (That's generally the explanation given for how so many Christians vehemently supported slavery, for example.)
For the more reasonable atheists, or those arguing their position, what is it that make owlafaye so mad and unable to take it anymore, resulting in the kind of display we see from him here?
Owlafaye is, afterall, the subject of Mr. Shadroui's column.
Mr. Shadroui's third paragraph is worth rereading:
"They are an interesting lot, these men, who find faith an absurd – even abominable — idea and will not rest until they make cry uncle all of us who insist on believing. And convert us to what? One might lament the evangelical who is so persistent that he alienates people and threatens them with visions of fire, but at least such a person is trying to save a soul. What are the evangelical atheists trying to save? What are they trying to sell – other than a rationalism taken to such extremes that is ceases to be rational?"
I ask that Mr. owlafaye excuse me using his examples here, but his position and passion goes to the point. He may be a very reasonable and well-mannered person in other matters who, as Mr. Shadroui points out, broke under the weight of too many happy Hanukkahs.
fvthinker,
That makes sense. Unfortunately, my experience is somewhat different than you. I have run across many atheists like owlafaye, who dishonor their cause when they toss around epithets and insult people. As I re-read his posts, I long to find a single logical argument or attempt to engage in a amiable exchange.
I am not a fundamentalist. In fact, I have yet to identify my theology in this thread. I think this illustrates the basic problem. owlafaye and his ilk find someone who disagrees with them, and jump to the conclusion that that person is a religious extremist. That is anti-intellectual and irrational.
Ok, so let's find out where you are so as to establish a basis for dialogue. In your view, how did the universe come into being?
Mr. Adams – See my comment #3 regarding the difference between dogmatism and 'flexibility', and their relation to theism or atheism. It's entirely possible for atheists to be dogmatic – see, e.g. Ayn Rand and the 'Randroids' – and the dogmatic types tend to be the most visible examples of any group, including Christians, Muslims, and so forth.
I'm sure religious types tend to see more dogmatic atheists than others, they tend to have the loudest mouths. This is compounded for a minority without a visible identifying characteristic. You probably have no idea how many atheists you see every day because they don't make a habit of announcing it – not least because it does carry a stigma. There's a converse problem where atheists tend to notice the most loudmouth, dogmatic Christians simply because they are more vocal. It's a recipe for mutual mistrust and miscommunication.
As to what motivates the loudmouth atheists – presumably the same things that motivate the loudmouths of all the other stripes.
Mountain Man asks me "how did the universe come into being?"
I don't know. Some physicists posit several arguments that could have some basis in reality (i.e. energy can be converted to matter, blah blah blah). This, of course, is contrasted with an intelligent, supernatural actor effecting the creation of the universe that we inhabit.
Neither of these concepts do I find deeply satisfying or, more importantly, pertinent to our fleeting time here. I expect that we, as a species, will be extinct long before we make any genuine inroads to into real knowledge of the origins of the universe. I contend that these two positions (materialistic and deistic) to be very close. Neither insinuates anything about our human nature. Neither tells us how to conduct ourselves, or what to wear or what to eat, or whom to hate. I simply picked the materialist position because there is no evidence for the supernatural in this world…so why invoke the supernatural for the origins of the universe? Just because I don't know something is not a valid reason to invent a supernatural construct to explain it.
So on the continuum of explanation for the universe; materialism and deism are very near one another let's say '0' and '1' on our imaginary scale. Theism, on the other hand is, in Spinal Tap parlance, '11' on the scale. Theism not only claims that there is a supernatural actor, but claims to know his/her/its mind/intent/activities to minute detail. Based on the available evidence, this would seem bald arrogance.
My best friend, as near as I can tell from many long philosophical discussions, is a deist. Other than that, we are both loving, concerned parents with strong ethical codes and ultimately responsible for everything we do in life. Most importantly, we behave well even in the absence of the threat of eternal punishment.
But I digress…
Mountain Main,
As far as owlafaye not positing "a single logical argument", I would disagree. In some of his posts, if you separate the wheat from the chaff, some of what he says is rooted in sound logic and reason. Unfortunately, it is couched in anti-social rhetoric that negates the value of anything that he says.
… but he is not on my team. :-)
No scott…I am real…a real mad atheist sick and tired of FunDummie inanity and NOISE.
Well thanks thinker…although I can't seem to miss the target when I accuse Christians of the same thing: anti-social rhetoric… eg: "You are either with us or against us boy"
nick adams…read my post #20…I addressed that very paragraph.
Spinal Tap? Now you're talking my language. I was a music major in college, and we died laughing at that movie. I have a friend who perfectly deadpans the guitarist: "Shh. Listen to the sustain."
Back to your comment. Once again I am pleasantly surprised. "Just because I don’t know something…" Are you sure you're not an agnostic?
I've had exactly the same thought as you have, that is, natualistic and deistic explanations for the origin of the universe have a lot of similarities. It sounds like you haven't really made your choice, or if you have, it isn't one that you are able to base on rational thought and logic. The reason is the topic ventures into realms of faith.
I asked the question because it presupposes everything else about our world views. Mine is deistic, yours is not (even if nominally). That's fine. However, a lot of other things descend from that. Issues of morality, purpose, truth, and how we treat our fellow man are all things that need to be fit into whatever framework we have chosen.
This may be too simplistic, but my world as a theist falls into place much easier regarding those issues. I have read in other threads as atheists have engaged in gymnastics to fit, say, morality into an atheistic worldview. I'm really still waiting for a good explanation.
I can hear owlafaye revving up about now. He's going to remind us in his unelegant way of all the atrocities committed in the name of religion. Well, that's human nature, in actual fact. Evil men doing evil things, using any convenient excuse to do their evil. Rather than bring up Pol Pot or Stalin myself, I am going to stand on the fact that people do evil things. Period. Regardless of their faith or lack thereof.
The question of morality is, how does the atheist know these things are evil? Doesn't the atheist have to borrow from religion to make his moral judgments? I would like an explanation of this that makes logical sense to me.
Mr. Thinker,
"Other than that, we are both loving, concerned parents with strong ethical codes and ultimately responsible for everything we do in life. Most importantly, we behave well even in the absence of the threat of eternal punishment."
But the threat of eternal punishment is not absent and it never was in your lifetime. Nor was it absent during the lives of any ancestor you can trace.
And by what authority do you have it that you behave "well?" What ethics do you possess that are not Judeo-Christian ethics?
What I am asking is to examine the reality of the question of from whence did YOU come.
You might be a man of faith and not realize it.
Mountain Man,
You ask me “Are you sure you’re not an agnostic?” In technical terms, I am agnostic about the god of Abraham [God], Thor, Osiris, unicorns, much everything else…but again…only on a very technical level. Even Richard Dawkins said that he is, technically, agnostic with regards to the god of Abraham. In an practical sense, though, I operate on the assumption that neither unicorns nor God, nor Osiris, nor Thor exists. And I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.
Mountain Man said “I’ve had exactly the same thought as you have, that is, natualistic and deistic explanations for the origin of the universe have a lot of similarities. It sounds like you haven’t really made your choice, or if you have, it isn’t one that you are able to base on rational thought and logic. The reason is the topic ventures into realms of faith.”
My default position is naturalistic on everything else. If my car won’t start, I think of naturalistic explanations as to why that would be. If I told you my car did not start because God didn’t want me to go to Starbucks, you should rightly look at me sideways. I am not sure just when it would make sense to invoke the supernatural. Even if I cannot explain something naturalistically, I am not sure when I am supposed to give up investigating before I invoke the supernatural … I know that I have not come close to date. Invoking the supernatural seems to be the illogical thing to do.
You say that “However, a lot of other things descend from [naturalism/deism]. Issues of morality, purpose, truth, and how we treat our fellow man…”
On this I have to disagree with you strongly and I don’t think you properly describe deism or what it means. Deism is the thought that there was some higher power that got things started and plays no role in our universe. No revelations, no prophets, nothing but the philosophical position that something started things going. It is not possible to logically infer ANYthing about our behavior from deism. For all you know; that unconcerned deity wanted us to kill each other for its amusement. Now you may contemplate this deity and your place in the world and your relationship with your fellow man and sift it with our best knowledge of our species and . . . TA DA! . . . you recognize those innate, evolved behaviors and impulses and come up with a moral framework. Deism does not create that framework; contemplation does.
You say “…my world as a theist…”. ?!!? I thought you were a deist a just one paragraph ago? I would suggest that you have an innate moral framework and [your version of] a Christian narrative makes it work for you. I am very comfortable with the concept of a natural source of morals. To my mind I had to do no gymnastics to define it (I didn’t break a sweat and I can breathe through my nose.) And I have empirical evidence that is supportive of my position.
Well MountainMan…you mention a creator and then you throw in rational thought and logic, as if rational thought and logic will arrive at the conclusion that there is a God.
You consider Jesus and a God with agile anticipation because it is comfy and relieves you of responsibilities in life. Humans have a propensity for this type of self-delusion.
You speak as if the realms of morality and truth are arbited by your Christianity…they are not. You seem to think that an atheist gets his "spark" from these precepts of your faith…they do not.
You seem to think there is good and evil and Christians are prepared to distinguish between the two for our edification…this is not true…there is no good and evil.
The explanation is simple…it is the golden rule…Christianity did not invent the golden rule, they just co-opted it.
I stop and ask directions and I stop and give directions. I offer to people I know I can trust with my generosity. I make anonymous efforts in the creation of bright spots in people's lives that do not detract from my position to be this effective.
When I feed someone you can rest assured I am well fed…without me in the altruistic world, there is nothing…therefore I take care of myself first.
Todays Christianity is as unthinking as the oxen, grazing their way to sleep.
There is no morality, principle, family values or truth in the hatred, intolerance, arrogance and sanctimony of your typical Christian Fundamentalist in America today…scratch any of them and you reveal another Jerry Falwell.
To thinker: You have to realize that most Christians haven't the faintest idea of the actual significance,definitions and proper usage, regarding the terms and words they use.
They are programmed with these words and have no innate sense of how to use them in conversation.
When you speak to MountainMan you are speaking to a befuddled puppet, vainly seeking equanimity with George S. and his ilk.
fvthinker,
Philosophically and practically, you appear to be an agnostic. So are you the obnoxious agnostic who says, "I see no evidence god exists, and neither do you," or are you the kind that is willing to consider evidence contrary to your position?
Forgive me for mixing in the world "deist." That was accidental.
"I am very comfortable with the concept of a natural source of morals." Explain.
"And I have empirical evidence that is supportive of my position." Whoa… I can't accept that. Again, explain.
owlafaye,
You almost had me going. I was almost lulled into complacency. I was reading your post, expecting the wild pot shots and childish idiocy you have become known for, but I was finding myself charmed by your uncharacteristically cogent, almost thoughtful reply.
But I was vigilant, and you did not disappoint. Your last paragraph, and then the subsequent post showed you to be the fool you truly are.
Chock full of stereotypes, preconceptions, wild generalizations, and flat-out untruths. I will waste no more time with you. You must lead a lonely life, as you seem entirely unpleasant.
Thinker, re: mountain man's post, please do explain. I would be most interested in how you came to possess your morality. Assuming one is not raised by wolves, just how does one rule out the various lessons in morality that mark our development?
In fact, by your reasoning, we should be "quite comfortable" with parents who opt not to teach children right from wrong, knowing that there is a "natural source of morals" to take care of that for us.
MountainMan … I see no evidence that God exists…thinker said the same and you offered evidence.
Lets hear it…no shilly shallying, just get off your rhetoric…No BIBLES allowed as evidence…
Lets go, be the first Christian to offer irrefutable evidence…be a hero, go down in history.
Speak son, speak speak speak
nick adams…wolves have impeccable morals for wolves…
You folks seem to think morals exist in a chalice and are passed out to people without black tongues.
There is a certain preference for the fable. The falsely dramatic brings out the truly dull.
Never underestimate the depths to which fabulous mysticism can bury rationality.
All I was saying was that reciprocity and sharing and caring for others in your clan are traits that were beneficial to survival of the social, thin-skinned hairless species that we are. These are arguably the core components of what we call morality and ethics. I merely state that these traits occured naturally. All the myriad religions through time took their stab at codifying those traits, but ethics came before religion.
Here is a pretty compelling example:
In a lab environment, researchers put two monkeys in a lab environment within sight of one another. If monkey 'A' pressed a lever to get a piece of food, monkey 'B' would get a piece of painful shock. Once monkey 'A' discovered the corellation, he would not press the lever and, if I recall, nearly starved.
Of course this would not define everything about our human ethics, but it is difficult to formulate an explanation that doesn't include some display of altruism.
I saw an orchard and some men in a tree.
When asked, they claimed they were looking for evidence of God.
I shook the fruit tree and a few examples of fanaticism fell out.
"Did you find God I asked?" and they replied "Yes" "So, where is the evidence" I asked? "How did you arrive at this conclusion?"
Since then they have denied the tree and the orchard.
But they promised a sack of fruit "sometime" in the future.
Do you think they will let us look in the sack?
Raymond Ingles:
Just noticed your response to the Fred Hoyle comment, but we need to break your comment into three criticisms as follows:
Hoyle confused abiogenesis with evolution.
Abiogenesis can be logically and clearly differentiated from evolution based on how the two theories are applied as well as defined.
Hoyle’s calculations were proved wrong with reference to Hoyle’s fallacy.
I’ll need three separate answers in three parts to address your comments; so, in this part, let’s start with whether Hoyle mentally confused abiogenesis with evolution. First, you need to realize that abiogenesis was once historically joined with evolution as two sides to the same coin – like Siamese twins they were separate entities but also inextricably combined. Second, you need to put Hoyle’s comments into an historical context. Hoyle was expressing his skepticism during the heyday of evolution and subsequent to development of the modern synthetic theory of evolution (also called neo-Darwinism in England). This was the period subsequent to 1959 and lasting through the early 80’s.
An overly simplistic attempt to differentiate the two theories for those unfamiliar would be as follows: abiogenesis is the development of organic life from inorganic chemicals, while evolutionary processes apply only after organic life appears. Two completely separate processes and unrelated theories, with neither theory being dependent on the other. But, is that how it was always differentiated? And, are the theories unrelated?
After the first of the Miller-Urey experiments starting in 1952, the creation of life in the lab from inorganic chemicals was considered a valid “proof” to offer the public in connection with evolution. By implication, if Stanley Miller could create amino acids in the lab using electricity and a methane, water-vapor, ammonia, and hydrogen atmosphere, then self-replicating molecules were a slam dunk. If self-replicating organic molecules were a slam dunk then purely natural evolutionary forces could continue the process of building varied and increasingly complex biological structures from the early earth until the present day (in other words: “isn’t it amazing what evolution can do?”) .
The point was that if natural laws and random chance did produce something so incredibly monumental as organic life from inorganic chemicals, then the continuing evolution of biological life guided solely by natural laws should be acceptable to any reasonable person – and, as it turned out, that was a highly successful rhetorical tactic for evolutionists.
Publishers rushed to include the Miller-Urey experiments as foundational “proofs” of evolution in textbooks ranging from introductory high school biology to graduate level evolutionary biology textbooks. The Miller-Urey experiments were always included within the chapter on evolution, usually accompanied by a smiling Stanley Miller standing next to his chemical apparatus. While the wording varied, the implication of the text’s explanation was that good ole Stanley had finally answered the question of whether life could have developed through simple and purely natural processes.
While today, evolution cheerleaders like “thepandasthumb” or “talkorigins” will emphatically insist the two theories are separate, let’s take a time machine back to the scientifically less sophisticated 60’s and see if that was always true. First, the earlier Oparin-Haldane hypothesis formed the basis for the Miller-Urey experimental protocol. Lightning bolts striking pools of chemical compounds in a newly formed earth with an atmosphere poor in free oxygen could theoretically create organic compounds and then “poof” life! Stanley Miller and Harold Urey emulated that concept in the lab and produced a few lonely amino acids and a lot of yucky tar – but the amino acids were considered confirmation that Oparin and Haldane were basically correct. Naturally, biologists wanted to tell the entire world of this amazing discovery. For readers unfamiliar with Miller-Urey, it was another tempest in a teapot; Miller never created self-replicating organic life and neither has anyone else.
And, the general public of that era was beautifully prepared psychologically for this nonsense. Scenes of Dr. Frankenstein frantically rushing about his laboratory screaming: “Life, give my creation life” was certainly a popular affirmation that if lightning strikes can theoretically reanimate the dead, then what’s so terribly difficult about creating simple, self-replicating organic molecules? The textbook writers, starting in the 60’s, had a lot of fun capitalizing on this popular movie image and, to this day, textbooks still include the Miller-Urey foolishness – but, of course, now presented as an historical anecdote rather than a foundational “proof” of evolution.
As is normal in evolution support arguments, “that was then and this is now” retroactive restatements and qualifications abound. Poor, old, brilliant but silly Fred Hoyle couldn’t tell the difference between abiogenesis and evolution the explanation goes today. But, in an earlier era, it wasn’t just poor old Fred who couldn’t tell the difference, everyone from university professors to gullible high school students couldn’t tell the difference either. And why was that? Because no one wanted to see a difference.
The educational theory then was that evolution proofs were too complicated and would require high school students to grasp the technical details of zoology, paleontology, bio-chemistry, embryology, genetics, etc.. The solution was to simply teach the concept, the proofs weren’t important. In fact, better that the proofs were simple and uncomplicated to avoid confusing the student – whether they were scientifically valid wasn’t the issue. There would be time enough later to explain the intricacies of evolution’s supporting proofs should the student go on to a PhD. in evolutionary biology. And, that educational theory hasn’t changed much to this day – the experts know evolution is valid, the student’s only task is to grasp the concept, not debate the proofs.
The following are just a few of the recent textbooks referencing the Miller-Urey experiment and, in an amazing coincidence, Stanley Miller’s chemistry set always appears in the chapter on evolution and never in the chapters on photosynthesis or cellular reproduction.
“Biology”, Miller and Levine, 2000 (high school)
“Life: The Science of Biology”, Purves, Orians, et al, 1998 (college)
“Evolutionary Biology”, Futuyama, 1998, (college –graduate level)
“Biology: The Dynamics of Life”, Biggs, et al, 1998
“Biology”, Campbell, Reece, et al, 1999
“Biology”, Guttman, 1999
“Biology: The Study of Life”, Schraer & Stoltze, 1999
Prior to 1998, there were numerous currently out of print textbooks published which gave even more fawning descriptive treatments of Miller-Urey than these relatively recent books.
Fred Hoyle was very aware of what was going on with “origin of life” theories during that era and how these theories psychologically complemented and supported evolution. He even made several disparaging, but penetrating, comments regarding the stubborn adherence of scientists to foundational evolution concepts taught in the schools. Additionally, Hoyle was motivated to promote his personal theory of “directed panspermia” or the “spores from space” explanation for the origin of life and subsequent evolution. Abiogenesis has life originating initially on earth while directed panspermia has life originating initially on the planet Zog in the Dip-Ship Nebula and then sent to earth.
But it was obvious from his writing and comments that Hoyle didn’t make a simple mental error and confuse abiogenesis with evolution, he understood the political and cultural factors of that time very well – the negative spin put on Hoyle’s comments today can’t refute that. Hoyle wasn’t a creationist nut, but his particular version of evolution has the process originating and evolving organic life somewhere else in the galaxy and then being dropped off here by a cosmic UPS truck.
In my response to your next criticism (if I can find the time), an older and wiser Stanley Miller makes another appearance and we can discuss his thoughts on current origin of life research and whether Fred Hoyle was full of it.
Well Pat, Miller-Urey demonstrate than man can create life out of simple energies and elements.
Before that you denied man and embraced God.
Since your beliefs surrounding God were proved unreliable by Miller-Urey, instead of hailing this for the remarkable achievement it was…
Pat Skurka, realizing Miller-Urey were successful, simply raised the requirements threshold.
Soon we will be creating every manner of viable self-replicating life…but don't expect Pat to acknowledge these seemingly miraculous achievements…oh nooooooooooo…he will simply set a new standard out on the sands of his life and re-insert his head into same.
thinker, I like your #91…
It conflicts with Fundamentalist ministers who have asserted their right to do whatever is necessary to defend and enhance Christianity. I have had them tell me that lies, false rumors, stealing, cheating, denial and deliberate evasiveness are all sanctioned by God in His mandate to protect Christianity.
Seems incredible I know, but pin down any Fundamentalist and somehow twist the TRUTH out of him and this is what winds up in the up-chuck bucket.
Now how can someone like this be ethical, moral and principled?
They can't and they aren't…and the "morals" of Christianity are forever suspect.
Remember: 200 years from now, the Vatican will constantly call attention to the threat of Satan in people who, like that traumatic time in the 21st century, where enemies of the church were assaulting every diocese with false and repugnant accusations, the clergy and church faithful rose up; and in a long drawn out battle with these forces of Satan, drove out the lies, re-established the TRUTH and the glory of the spiritual mission of those dedicated to the body of Christ.
Or some such foolishness…the RCC has always lied and covered up its transgressions. The modern day apologist is simply another in a long line of apologists and flagellants in the church and will always demur to and deflect criticisms "to the very blood".
The Jesuit Oath and the Bishop's Oath…the real ones, not the oaths that the Catholic Church waters down and presents to the general public…are specific in stating that any crime whatsoever against heretics, blasphemers, the enemies of the church and the children of Satan are sanctioned by the Church. Torture and murder are the highlights of these oaths.
It is amazing that the Jesuits, the "army" of the Roman Catholic Church are so successful in censoring books, disrupting web sites containing REAL information on Catholicism, launching propaganda smear campaigns and generally covering the pile of lies that is the RCC.
One of the Jesuits roles is to develop political powers for the church at any cost to life and by any means…assasination is something taught within their ranks and has been utilized throughout history.
And people wonder why atheists claim that religions is BAD?
You folks might not realize it, but I support the mainline Christian movement in America simply because they have come to realize the doubtful nature of the historicity of Jesus yet live by the positive purported words of Jesus. They give little power to the Bible of old.
These people are very active in the community… in conversations and with much attendance at many of their churches services, I am convinced they are doing a lot of good without demanding faith, belief or adherence in return.
In my confidence they have revealed an abhorrence for the 1000's of fundamentalist sects and schisms in Christianity…this gives me great hope and support. You may think I am abrasive but I am simply reflecting the suppressed attitudes of the good Christians in America that keep quiet due to the threat of unfavorable peer review and misunderstanding.
There is a lot more to all this than George S. will cop to much less take into consideration before speaking…that is, if he has even the faintest idea of which he speaks. The man is simply a forked tongued devil, aware or not.
Hey Pat Skurka,
Tweeeeeet, over here son…
Tell us all about M. genitalium…thats a good boy.
My, you are the best little puppet we have raised in years…go get em boy.
Come on Pat, out from under the porch and into the limelight.
[...] De nye ateister. Hitchens et al. har fået vældig omtale i DK, og mange yngre libertarianske bloggere har begejstret omfavnet dem. Her er en fin kommentar af George Shadroui. [...]
Mr. Skurka – I'm going to need some actual quotes or references to buy your reporting of the 'prevailing zietgeist' of evolution at the time of Hoyle. Referencing Miller-Urey in "the chapters on evolution" is not proof. While abiogenesis and evolution are logically distinct, they do have some practical relation – any theory of abiogenesis will have to match the parameters of the life we've seen evolve.
But hey, let's assume you're right, and a few decades ago nobody made the distinction at all. Fine, for the purposes of this argument, we'll say you win with respect to the historical record. Now – does that mean the modern distinction is wrong? That they cannot be treated separately?
Hoyle's already been shown to be wrong about several things – he's flatly stated that "all genes in present day organisms were here already in the metazoans that invade the Earth 570 million years ago at the beginning of the Cambrian Era, making the subsequent story of terrestrial evolution into one in which genes have been called into operation as ecological conditions permitted them to be so." However, it's been shown in the lab that new mutations – even beneficial ones – do happen, even on human timescales. More, we can actually examine large sections of the genomes of organisms now – sometimes even the entire genomes of species – and this model is simply, flatly, wrong. His harping on Haldane's Dilemma has proven to be misguided or mistaken in several key aspects. Of course, he doesn't acknowledge this – as he himself has said, "I'm totally unshiftable now because it's sort of religion with me."
Let me first thank Sukura for his Fred Hoyle gloss.
It has been entertaining to watch this debate unfold, but I would like to make a couple of clarifications.
First, one of the respondents says the atheists are trying to salvage the first amendment. Perhaps he could explain how the first amendment is in danger? We all know that Hugo Black, borrowing from Jefferson, resurrected the phrase — a wall of separation. But in fact, for nearly two centuries, our nation as a collective interpreted this separation liberally. The state shall not establish a church. The state shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion. I would go further, but perhaps not as far as our courts in recent times have gone — the state should not become entangled in a determinative way in the affairs of religion. But why is this always interpreted at the expense of the majority? Why is it not intrusive on the part of the state to prohibit practices that the vast majority of citizens don't find objectionable? I want to assure all of those trying to label me a religious tyrant that I have no desire to force anyone to conform to my faith or any other belief which they do not hold. In fact, I am greatly pleased, you might be surprised to hear, that we no longer burn heretics, witches or, for that matter, faithful women who hear voices. The enlightenment was a wonderful thing that helped clear the way for tolerance. I am all for that, and I appreciate that the attempt to force faith on others is a recipe for conflict and civil disorder. I am simply objecting to atheists trying to force their views on me. There is nothing intrusive or even offensive about a public display of prayer or a nativity scene. Isn't interesting that those who don't believe in Santa Claus are not running around the country demanding that Santa Claus displays be outlawed. And if they are so sure that Christianity, for example, is a fantasy, why then do they expend so much energy trying to undercut it? I will give Hitchens this much. He sincerely believes religious faith is dangerous. He may be right. I just think lack of faith is more dangerous, as the millions and millions who lived and died under atheistic regimes might testify.
There is something right, in my view, about respecting the traditions of faith and tolerance upon which this nation was built. That is my point. That it can be a delicate balance, I agree. To the extent that faith is permitted in the public square, it can be respectful, subtle and unobtrusive. It need not be stripped away totally and even more to the point, the faithful need not impose in any intrusive way their faith on others.
George Shadroui opined: "There is nothing intrusive or even offensive about a public display of prayer or a nativity scene."
Wrong! Because you are a traditional Christian, for you "There is nothing intrusive or even offensive about a public display of prayer or a nativity scene." But in your wildest imagination, can you possibly see that a Christian nativity scene might be "intrusive or even offensive" for a Jew or a Moslem or a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Sikh? Or any member of the many other religions that are also constitutionally protected?
In your wildest imagination, can you possibly conceive how a Jew or a Moslem or a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Sikh might feel when forced to endure such an infidel (to them) public display?
In your wildest imagination, can you possibly imagine how a Jewish or Moslem or Buddhist or Hindu or Sikh parent might feel about their children, who they want (and thus far, have the right) to raise in their religious tradition, being exposed to another religion's public display? And possibly even paid for with their tax money? Is that fair?
Try going to Saudi Arabia and publicly erecting a nativity scene. Do you know what would happen to you? Do you want that same level of religious tolerance here in the United States? Because that is what many non-Christians see and feel when Christians display their religious icons in public.
Can't you understand that this not so much an atheist issue as it is an "every other religion" issue?
Or are you the type of Christian who feels that every other religion is wrong? If that is the case, what do you want to do with the many millions of non-Christians in this country? Do you have any particular final solutions in mind?
Paul, I accept that you find such public displays offensive. Please show me where they are unconstitutional.
Paul, I think you're a bit off the deep end. As an agnostic living in Japan, I am not the least bit offended by my tax yen going to support the traditional Buddhist shrines and Shinto shrines. Not in the least. I understand it's part of of history, and couldn't care less. If the Japanese gov't stopped supporting the Buddhist and Shinto shrines and endangered them, I'm be offended. The historic value of those shrines is beyond priceless.
If Americans want to celebrate Christmas or whatever they want, and those symbols happen to have religious connotations, so be it. The histrionic opposition to such celebrations only undermines the credibility of the atheist.
And it should be noted that in Japan, which is nominally a majority Buddhist nation, which is in fact in practice majority agnostic, the gov't does Christmas every year. They put up nativity scenes, Christmas trees, etc, and I've never heard a peep out of anyone. A few of my friends are Buddhist and they enjoy it just as much as the next guy.
In any case, there will always be a few nutcases who get offended when somebody does something they don't believe in. I know a lady who hates Halloween and would create laws against it if given the chance, but do suggest that we should let those nutcases near the legislation is, well, insane.
1. Most scientists have believed in God, including Einstein, Newton. See The Hand of God and Evidence of Design.
2,The Founders believed too. Read the great old standby, Faith of Our Fathers.
3.The Nazis and Communists didn't and in the century of scientific progress murdered tens of millions. Lenin read daily the lists of murdered priests while Hitler plotted the murder of the Pope for the crime of aiding the Jews. Atheism at its best.
4.If you want to know why you should believe read Antoine Saint Exupery's wartime classic, Flight to Arras. Short, thoughtful and filled with truth. Or better yet try the New Testament.
Thank you John Scott for bringing some common sense to the discussion. I would say to Paul, having lived in Egypt, that I fully expected to hear the call to prayer each day. It not only did not offend me, it made me reflect on my own faith and taught me tolerance precisely because of the sincerity of those Muslims I saw worship. The problem with believer and nonbelievers alike, in my view, is that they want to be God. They want to decide who is right and who is wrong. I don't feel that compulsion. I think generosity cuts both ways, however. I accept as a Christian living in a predominantly Christian nation that other faiths must be allowed and respected. I expect no less from those who are not Christian. But all of this is only partially to my larger point, which is that the atheists and critics of faith are every bit as dogmatic as the religious devotees they love to skewer.