Ignored by the media was that Senate Democrats blocked a resolution welcoming the Pope until “pro-life” language was removed from it. Yet several notorious, pro-abortion politicians brazenly received communion during the papal visit, though not directly from the Holy Father.
“God Bless America.” These words began and ended the too-short visit of the true man from Hope, Pope Benedict XVI. Before his arrival, many pundits predicted that his Holiness would rain down torrents of recrimination upon our country and its President on topics like the Iraq War, capital punishment or our failure to heed the hounds of global warming. They of course were wrong in thinking that the German Shepherd would bite the hand that feeds the world’s poor or chastise the most pro-life leader our country has ever seen. But what else is new?
The press in this country constantly exhibits disdain for our homegrown spiritual leaders, so it was no surprise that they would distort the Pope’s message and the motivation behind his visit. Rare was the media outlet that failed to note that the Pope was received by cheering crowds "like a rock star;" that most depraved symbol of all that is unworthy of worship in America. Contrary to the soul-stealing allures of sex, drugs and rock and roll, the Holy Father consistently spoke of faith, love and hope.
But the hope among our mostly secular media was that most Americans would see the Holy Father and instantly be reminded of the grave sins committed by a small percentage of Catholic clergy. And indeed, on the lips of most commentators and right next to the spinning papal graphics, were usually the words, “sexual abuse scandal.”
And his Holiness did indeed address the issue of priests disdaining their vows, acknowledging their "gravely immoral behavior" and saying: “[I]t is more important to have good priests than to have many priests. We hope that we can do, and we have done and will do in the future, all that is possible to heal this wound.” He later met with victims and reportedly prayed with them, and later asked all Catholics "to do what you can to foster healing and reconciliation, and to assist those who have been hurt."
Of course, no matter what apologies the Church makes, no matter how much money she pays, and no matter how many innocent and holy priests suffer because of the actions of a few, it will never be enough. In this country, there are some sins which are never to be forgiven; especially those that advance certain agendas. But, much to the dismay of the media (and mostly ignored by them), the Pope went further in his address to American bishops, on how to protect our children from sexual abuse:
What does it mean to speak of child protection when pornography and violence can be viewed in so many homes through media widely available today? We need to reassess urgently the values underpinning society, so that a sound moral formation can be offered to young people and adults alike. All have a part to play in this task – not only parents, religious leaders, teachers and catechists, but the media and entertainment industries as well.
Indeed, every member of society can contribute to this moral renewal and benefit from it. Truly caring about young people and the future of our civilization means recognizing our responsibility to promote and live by the authentic moral values which alone enable the human person to flourish. It falls to you, as pastors modelled upon Christ, the Good Shepherd, to proclaim this message loud and clear, and thus to address the sin of abuse within the wider context of sexual mores. Moreover, by acknowledging and confronting the problem when it occurs in an ecclesial setting, you can give a lead to others, since this scourge is found not only within your Dioceses, but in every sector of society. It calls for a determined, collective response.
Also ignored by the media was that Senate Democrats blocked a resolution welcoming the Pope until “pro-life” language was removed from it. Yet several notorious, pro-abortion politicians brazenly received communion during the papal visit, though not directly from the Holy Father. One can only hope that they were paying attention at Yankee Stadium where he said:
Praying fervently for the coming of the Kingdom also means . . . overcoming every separation between faith and life, and countering false gospels of freedom and happiness. It also means rejecting a false dichotomy between faith and political life, since, as the Second Vatican Council put it, "there is no human activity — even in secular affairs — which can be withdrawn from God's dominion."
Unlike his predecessor, John Paul II, who was a trained actor and a brilliant speaker, Pope Benedict’s innate sweetness and humility sometimes betray his deep intellectualism and the beauty of words, such as: “The spires of Saint Patrick’s Cathedral are dwarfed by the skyscrapers of the Manhattan skyline, yet in the heart of this busy metropolis, they are a vivid reminder of the constant yearning of the human spirit to rise to God.”
But like John Paul the Great, he also uttered the words that the American media dread like the plague. For, far from bashing George W. Bush, he echoed to thunderous applause the President’s belief that all life is sacred:
May you find the courage to proclaim Christ, "the same, yesterday, and today and for ever" and the unchanging truths which have their foundation in him. These are the truths that set us free! They are the truths which alone can guarantee respect for the inalienable dignity and rights of each man, woman and child in our world, including the most defenseless of all human beings, the unborn child in the mother's womb.
mailbox@lisafab.com
http://www.lisafab.com
Read more articles by Lisa Fabrizio
The sexual abuse by a minority of priests was horrifying, of course, but it wasn't the reason that the Church has drawn such criticism. It was the covering up of the abuse, which resulted in serial abusers, that was the real "sin" which is "never to be forgiven".
Even in that area, the Church wasn't solely at fault - there were therapists who claimed to be able to "cure" such proclivities, and the Church perhaps relied too much on their assertions. But despite being an organization with an orientation toward forgiveness and redemption, the continual recycling of abusive priests was reprehensible.
I was very disturbed by the letter that then-Cardinal Raztinger signed in 2001 ordering such cases to be treated under "pontifical secret" for 10 years "from the day when the minor has completed the 18th year of age". I have a hard time understanding why that particular time limit was set except as a way to run out the clodk on the statute of limitations. Even if that wasn't the intent, it shows a rather shocking lack of consideration for the victims.
The Church does seem to be improving in this area - but I haven't really seen an unambiguous acknowledgement of the real problem.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | April 24, 2008
Raymond Ingles
“I haven't really seen an unambiguous acknowledgement of the real problem.”
It seems you are saying the “real problem” is cover-up, but that is no longer possible because victims are more than likely to come forth.
There is an on-going attempt to abolish the statute of limitations for sex abuse by Catholic institutions (of course, the proposals are worded without using the words “Catholic” or “priest”). That would target an identifiable group, which (I am told) is an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
The Church objected, not to the proposal, but to its being limited to Catholic institutions and asked that such proposals include public institutions as well. Politicians, public schools and their teachers’ unions, all refused. Why? Because sex abuse of children is just as widespread in secular schools as religious ones, and they know it … and we can’t expose the public to the truth about its educational establishment, now, can we? This indicates to me the real problem is society’s failure to acknowledge how widespread sex abuse of children is.
Then again, perhaps there’s more to it: IMHO, part of real problem might include society’s failure to acknowledge a connection between increased sexual awareness (through media, etc.) and increased sexual activity, legal or otherwise, and also the liberal credo of tolerance über alles. A close friend subscribes to HBO, and I’ve noticed he watches a lot of “skin flicks”. He was convicted of sexually molesting his 5-year-old granddaughter.
Comment by sedonaman | April 24, 2008
Ms. Fabrizio doesn’t seem to understand that the Vatican’s open threats of religious sanctions on American officials who don’t toe its line has exposed JFK as a liar. In 1960 Kennedy said that this sort of thing wouldn’t happen to him, implying that it wouldn’t happen to any other Roman official in this country. As if. Despite this, most people are still pretending that interference in American policy is no longer an issue because JFK said it wasn’t.
Mr. Fabrizio appears to be so caught up in the anti-abortion crusade that she doesn’t recognize this affront to American sovereignty. Once the Roman Church starts coercing officials on the abortion issue it is likely to go on to other issues, such as matters of national security. Do we really want the Roman Church threatening American officials with religious sanctions if we don’t abandon Iraq or some other client?
The problem with the Roman Church is not a religious issue; it is a sovereignty issue. Far too many people have forgotten that we had a revolution so that Europeans would not be able to tell Americans what to do.
Comment by Ark Ashamed of Bill | April 24, 2008
Ark Ashamed of Bill:
“Far too many people have forgotten that we had a revolution so that Europeans would not be able to tell Americans what to do.”
You mean like Ginsberg and Breyer?
Comment by sedonaman | April 24, 2008
sedonaman - I wasn't aware that abused children "came forth" describing their abuse with any great frequency, even after publicity - at least, while they are still children. I do agree that clerical abuse is much less likely now, but that's because parents will be much more alert for signs of trouble for many years to come.
Of course, the Church has not really acknowledged how revolting the cover-up was. Why isn't Cardinal Bernard Law facing criminal charges in the U.S.? Because he was moved to Rome after resigning… that's the "real problem" I'm talking about. Would the Church be open to extradition proceedings?
Do you have links to the Catholic-targeting bills you mention? I'd agree that specifically targeting the Church (or even clerics in general) is wrong, and I'm also opposed to ex post facto laws precisely because they are unConstitutional.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | April 24, 2008
Why all the hand-wringing about abuse? Aren't these proclivities natural? Weren't these priests born this way? Who are we to judge what happens in the privacy of their bedrooms between consenting parties?
Ok, just make sure everyone understands, the above is sarcasm, not what I really believe.
Comment by Mountain Man | April 24, 2008
Raymond Ingles:
“…the Church has not really acknowledged how revolting the cover-up was.”
Yeah. They were so anxious to avoid acknowledging it, the USCCB issued the following secret report, with corrective recommendations:
http://www.usccb.org/nrb/nrbreport2007.pdf
“I wasn't aware that abused children ‘came forth’…”
I didn’t say they did. I said, “..victims are more than likely to come forth.”
Not only are parents “more alert for signs of trouble,” but the Church is formally training everyone working for it, including volunteers, to be more alert. Children are also given instruction to report suspicious behavior. This is also covered in the report above.
“Why isn't Cardinal Bernard Law facing criminal charges in the U.S.? Because he was moved to Rome after resigning…”
No. Because the statute of limitations had probably run out. If the Church is as bad as you seem to think, it would have transferred all suspected priests to Rome. Do you know why there is a statute of limitations for most crimes?
“Do you have links to the Catholic-targeting bills you mention?”
Colorado, Massachusetts and New Hampshire:
http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2006&month=March&read=1997
Although this one http://www.catholicleague.org/linked%20docs/colorado_lawmaker_letter.htm is about only Colorado, it has a lot of info like, “Arguably the nation’s leading student of sexual abuse in the schools is Professor Charol Shakeshaft of Hofstra University. … When asked how these statistics compared to priestly sexual abuse, Shakeshaft said, ‘the sexual abuse of students in [public] schools is likely more than 100 times the abuse by priests.’”
Like the Philadelphia city bus that had many more injured passengers following an accident than the bus had seats for, there is the inevitable rush for deep pockets:
http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2005&month=November&read=1946 .
I anxiously await a public school report similar to the USCCB that acknowledges a problem “100 times” that of the Church’s. While waiting, however, I’ll not go without chocolate – the wait will kill me.
Comment by sedonaman | April 24, 2008
Mountain Man:
“Aren't these proclivities natural? Weren't these priests born this way? Who are we to judge what happens in the privacy of their bedrooms between consenting parties?”
Even if the kids weren’t consenting, it is still normal and natural, according to NAMBLA and the ACLU who is defending them. And who are we to question such wisdom?
Comment by sedonaman | April 24, 2008
Sendonaman,
Well said. What surprises me most is these "enlightened" ones who are issuing condemnatory commentary. I guess we get to pick and choose our moral outrage these days.
This is the natural result of divorcing morality from an absolute standard. After all, if God doesn't exist, then we can make it up as we go.
Comment by Mountain Man | April 24, 2008
Sedonaman - It seems reasonable to me that sexual abuse in public schools could be 100 times that of Catholic priests, though actual data rather than opinion would be nice. (Particularly when that opinion covers actions ranging "from sexual comments to rape".) Public school enrollment is about 20 times that of Catholic school enrollment, and only a fraction of those teachers are priests. Other priests don't get one-on-one time with children at the same frequency. By sheer numbers you'd expect higher abuse rates.
But that still misses the point - I'm not aware of an organized cover-up of serial abusers in public schools, and nothing I saw from the Catholic League has addressed that point, nor does the report you linked to - the closest I saw was that they are making "an effort to maintain transparency".
My wife is Catholic and my children are going to catechism. I have some very precious irons in this fire and yes, I am going to have some very high standards for protecting them. Bad things can happen anywhere, despite people's best efforts, of course. But organized cover-ups… well, that's an example of 'best efforts' aimed in entirely the wrong direction.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | April 25, 2008
Raymond Ingles:
From the report, Educator Sexual Misconduct By Charol Shakeshaft:
http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/misconductreview/report.doc
10.0 CONSEQUENCES OF ALLEGATIONS OF EDUCATOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
The studies which include documentation of the consequences of educator sexual misconduct primarily focus on what happens after allegations are made. Most document the ways in which schools and districts fail to remove abusers from the classroom.
10.1 Consequences for abusers. In an early study of 225 cases of educator sexual abuse in New York, all of the accused had admitted to sexual abuse of a student but none of the abusers was reported to authorities and only 1 percent lost their license to teach (Shakeshaft and Cohan, 1994). All of the accused had admitted to physical sexual abuse of a student but only 35 percent received a negative consequence for their actions: 15 percent were terminated or, if not tenured, they were not rehired; and 20 percent received a formal reprimand or suspension. Another 25 percent received no consequence or were reprimanded informally and off-the-record. Nearly 39 percent chose to leave the district, most with positive recommendations or even retirement packages intact.
Of those who left, superintendents reported that 16 percent were teaching in other schools and that they had no idea what the other 84 percent were doing. A recent report on sexual abuse in New York City indicates that 60 percent of employees who were accused of sexual abuse were transferred to desk jobs at offices inside schools and 40 percent of these teachers were repeat offenders (Campanile and Montero, 2001). In many instances, agreements are made to avoid legal battles with the alleged abuser (Shakeshaft and Cohan, 1994).
Several investigative reports have publicized individual cases and the response by districts to allegations of educator sexual misconduct. For instance, O’Hagen and Willmsen report that of 159 Washington state coaches "who were reprimanded, warned, or let go in the past decade because of sexual misconduct . . . at least 98 of them continued coaching or teaching afterward." (Dec. 15, 2003) Many school districts make confidential agreements with abusers, trading a positive recommendation for a resignation. …
11.0 UNION AND PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION ROLES
11.1 Actions of teacher unions. Until recently, teacher unions in many states have actively opposed legislation that would require positive identification (e.g., finger-printing) of teachers convicted of sexual abuse of students. In most states, teachers who are already employed are exempt from regulations such as fingerprint identification. There is no research that documents teacher union attempts to identify predators among their members.
11.2 Actions of professional organizations. Administrative professional organizations have hosted workshops and talks at annual meetings on the topic of educator sexual abuse and the School Administrator, the official publication of the American Association of School Administrators, published an issue devoted to the topic. However, specific guidance and direction to members has not been formal nor did I find evidence that professional organizations for teachers have addressed the topic for their members. …
12.0 PREVENTION OF EDUCATOR SEXUAL MISCONDUCT
Educator sexual misconduct has not been systematically addressed in schools. While the advent of money damages to targets of sexual harassment, a result of Title IX legislation, and newspaper and other media coverage have prodded some school district officials to acknowledge educator sexual misconduct, educator sexual misconduct is still occurring. Some believe that the rights of adults are favored over the safety of children (Sesame, 2003; Shoop, 2003).
*****
If this isn’t a cover-up, what is? I certainly doesn’t look like any attempt to “maintain transparency” comparable to the Church’s.
Comment by sedonaman | April 25, 2008
It's worth noting that that study was apparently a 'literature search', and didn't obtain new raw data itself. When that's done to prove global warming, well, lots of people have trouble with that - certainly on this site.
The DOE has "some reservations about this study" and is "currently investigating ways to obtain more reliable evidence on the extent of sexual abuse in schools."
Still, I'll be looking into it. On the other hand, the fact that other people have done bad things - and may even have covered them up - does not mean that the Church didn't do bad things and cover them up. For an organization that's supposed to be a moral authority, that's pretty, well, damning.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | April 28, 2008
Raymond Ingles:
“…the fact that other people have done bad things - and may even have covered them up - does not mean that the Church didn't do bad things and cover them up.”
I didn’t offer it up as a tu quoque argument. You asked for some evidence, and I linked to the study. Even though the DOE might have reservations, one thing is certain: unlike the Church’s investigation of itself, the Shakeshaft study was not commissioned by the folks who run the schools, and those who do obviously oppose any reform and, consequently, would never have commissioned it.
“For an organization that's supposed to be a moral authority, that's pretty, well, damning.”
So why don’t you pull your kids out of catechism if you think the Church is so lacking in moral authority?
Comment by sedonaman | April 28, 2008
Sedonaman - the reason I asked about evidence was because you brought up public schools, so far as I can see as a tu quoque argument.
As to why I haven't pulled my kids from catechism - because, as I've stated already, "I do agree that clerical abuse is much less likely now". That limits the harm it can do. Not that it's a done deal. My wife's diocese was one that had protected a priest, and when the letters came soliciting donations to help cover the legal costs of the settlements, she fumed for days. She thought very carefully before sending them to catechism. More scandals would probably have her shopping for a new church.
There are other benefits. My kids are quite aware that I don't believe in God, and the fact that I'm still a nice person and obviously love them and their mother very deeply is a source of confusion to them. It doesn't square with what they have been taught in catechism. I'm happy to give them a chance to think about these issues themselves; they may come to agree with me about the Church's lack of moral authority on their own.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | April 28, 2008
Raymond Ingles:
The only reason I brought up the public schools (see my Post #2 above) is to show the Catholic Church was being singled out by proposed laws to eliminate the statute of limitations for these abuses – laws that would exempt public schools – and not to offer an excuse for the Church.
“As to why I haven't pulled my kids from catechism - because, as I've stated already, ‘I do agree that clerical abuse is much less likely now’.”
But how does that overcome the damage that’s already been done to its moral authority – authority that has already been “damned” in your mind?
Comment by sedonaman | April 28, 2008
I never thought the Church had any special moral authority, but my wife was raised Catholic and she wanted the kids to go to catechism. As I said, the abuse cover-up made her seriously question that - it certainly hurt their moral authority with her, and she, too, hasn't been terribly impressed with the efforts since then. The fact that the scandal attracted so much attention indicates to me, at least, that it affected a lot of other people that way, too.
If I thought the chances of abuse were higher, I'd work to convince my wife to avoid catechism; I personally think it's a waste of time. But, as I said, so far the Church is doing a decent job of making my case for me.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | April 28, 2008
Raymond Ingles:
Let me get this straight. You are sending your kids to get moral training from an institution that neither you nor your wife think has any moral authority. I don’t think you really believe what you are telling me.
Comment by sedonaman | April 29, 2008
Um, they're getting religious training from the Church, but - as I've pointed out - I don't regard that as the same as moral training. And I didn't say my wife thought the Church had no moral authority. There are plenty of areas she disagrees with the Church on, and she's disgusted by the failings she's seen, but that's not the same as thinking the Church has zero authority.
She sends them more out of habit and tradition, I suspect. I think it's a waste of time, as I said, but not actively harmful. Or, at least, not harmful enough to fight over. And, as I've also said (boy, I'm having to repeat myself a lot on this thread), it offers me a chance to illustrate alternatives for them to consider.
Does that help you add it up a little more easily?
Comment by Raymond Ingles | April 29, 2008
Why do you let them teach your kids fairy tales? How can that be benign?
Comment by Mountain Man | April 29, 2008
Mountain Man - we're moving rather far afield from the topic of the article above, but since you asked:
Unlike many theisms, atheism doesn't have to be evangelical. There's nothing compelling me to share the "good news" or requiring me to colonize other minds with my ideas. (Of course I enjoy discussing and arguing about such ideas, but I'm polite - I confine such things to places actually devoted to discussions like that.)
Besides, I'm pretty sure my position is quite reasonable and defensible. People don't (usually) need to be evangelical about gravity or the germ theory of disease or the findings of medicine. (And it turns out that kids notice that people don't say "I believe in gravity".) I don't see a need to protect my kids from alternative views, I'm pretty sure they'll be able to think things out for themselves. If I'm right, it's pretty likely they'll come to agree with me. If I'm wrong, then forcibly imposing that view on them would be wrong. I'm much more concerned about teaching them how to think than what to think.
Maybe I just have a higher opinion of my kids than most. Besides that, it's important to my wife, and I respect her views. She respects mine as well, of course - we don't hide my lack of belief from our kids, as I said. I don't say grace at dinner, though I remain silent and respectful during it - and I help make sure our kids do, too.
I think maybe you have a few assumptions about me, and perhaps atheists in general, that you need to re-examine. I have a hard time understanding your question any other way.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | April 30, 2008
Mr. Ingles,
If you are an atheist, then the inescapable concluions is that you are allowing your children to be taught fairytales as if they were indisputable truth. One does not have to be hostile to religion or disrespectful of religious people to recognize that if God does not exist, then the people who believe in him are 1) ignorant, 2) deceived, or 3) intentionally dishonest.
I make no assumptions about you, but your complicity in your childrens' deception, given your personal convictions, is an appropriate question.
Comment by Mountain Man | May 1, 2008
Touché, Monsieur Mountain Man.
Comment by sedonaman | May 1, 2008
Mountain Man - I'm roughly in the position of a Jew or Muslim or Buddhist in the U.S.; if I wanted to 'protect' my children from exposure to Christianity, how would I do it? Stuff them under a rock from November 1st to December 28th or so, and similarly sequester them for about two weeks every spring? Rigorously police their friends and classmates, individually approve the shows and movies they watch, etc.? (Leaving aside the small issue of their mother being Catholic…)
My kids are going to run into a wide variety of "fairytales" constantly; they might as well learn how to spot them now. As I've noted, they're already questioning what they're being taught, simply because they've seen that it doesn't match up to the reality of their father and grandparents. Besides, we've got a family history of it - my parents are also not religious, but they sent me to a Catholic high school because it was the best private school they could afford. I have personal experience that religious instruction doesn't have to equal conversion.
You assume I must look at it as 'deception', but it's also possible to look at it as 'inoculation'. Weakened forms of viruses are often used in vaccines, but we don't say that parents who get their children vaccinated are 'complicit in their children's infection'.
Perhaps you protect your children from any idea you don't agree with. That's your right, I suppose. (Though I'm looking into how to change the laws - slightly - in light of the case I linked to before.) But don't be surprised if their 'mental immune system' isn't prepared to deal with new ideas once they're out from under your wings.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 2, 2008
Mr. Ingles,
I hope you dn't mind, but I am going to be direct, perhaps too much so.
You have a history of redefining terms and sidestepping issues, and then pretending to be intellectual and magnanimous. Such is the case here.
No one here has suggested that you ought to be "protecting" your children from Christianity or the varieties of ideas, now have they? Your children are not just going about their day being exposed to a diversity of thinking, sir. They are being indoctrinated with direct, specific teaching. And it isn't just generic religious exposure, it is christianity, specifically, catholicism.
Further, you seem to be suggesting that all ideas are equal on the one hand ("I don't see a need to protect my kids from alternative views, I'm pretty sure they'll be able to think things out for themselves"), but displaying contempt for all things religious on the other. So, if religion is dangerous, close-minded, etc., that means you have already concluded that some ideas are better than others.
Yet you seem to think there is some virtue in being ideologically absent from your childrens' upbringing. By logical extension, if your family is out hiking, it would be far better for them to experience a snake bite and learn that is a bad thing, rather than warn them and keep them away, right?
Of course your children are beginning to question what they're taught, because you are in fact influencing what their world view will be, despite your protestations to the contrary. The fact is, you either can't or won't supply them with good answers to their religious questions because you have already abdicated your responsibility in this area. But children can tell, even though you are pretending to be neutral.
And, based on the conversations I have read here at IC, you are ill-equipped to give good answers. You have yet to give satisfactory explanations on the nature of non-religious morality, the origin of existence, and other topics. If you can't answer me, of course your children will begin to question their religious instruction.
Again, I am being direct, so I hope you understand that I am not trying to provoke you.
Comment by Mountain Man | May 2, 2008
Mr. Ingles
It is not my intent to be sanctimonious, but to use the opportunity you present to explore parenting concepts.
You speak of preparing your children. Have you considered whether you are teaching your children how to handle that eventual moment in the future, when in despair and fear, when the incomprehensible makes the gut contract and heart skip wildly, they cry out for… , well, something? Something they realize is not within them because it was something that was not part of your “reality.”
It is in these moments, Mr. Ingles, that your children may realize that what is happening to them may not "match up with the reality of their father,” yet is happening nevertheless.
It is part of teaching our children how to think that we teach them how to think about what they feel, which prepares them for how to deal with moments when scientific conclusions and "rational" thinking, are, as my father would say, "as useless as teats on a boar hog."
One day, perhaps when you are gone, they may find they are little prepared to deal with a moment when the answers are as inaccessible as your touch – as incalculable as the end of time. They will realize that your collection of data and logical conclusions are lacking - not because you didn’t give them everything you had to give and the most current science had to offer, just that you had nothing to give them as powerful and useful in such moments as faith – which is simply (or complexly) the understanding/belief that they are never alone in their despair.
In guiding our children on matters of faith and religion, whether we believe it a “fairy tale” or not, we have to be aware of the historical tangibles of faith and what it is we have to offer them in place of a faith. Is the usefulness of faith not as apparent as the usefulness of thumbs - a brilliant design that is none of our own doing?
It is quite true that there are no atheists in foxholes. That is because there simply is nothing that serves them better in that moment than having faith, and as expedient as it may be, its sincerity is undeniable.
Later, upon reflection and analysis of the data, it is up to the individual to determine if in a moment of despair he proved God. But when all is considered, he cannot escape that he established the truth and power and usefulness of believing in God. And that is precisely what God promises: a return on your investment for having faith in Him.
Is faith an irrational reaction that serves a rational and natural purpose that is scientifically/psychologically explainable? Maybe. But oh so powerful it is without science.
Science may have a duty to explain the tangible feelings faith creates, but what duty does it have to challenge the tangibles of faith, particularly when those tangibles can be scientifically measured, and particularly because science can state nothing more definite or more important than God is not science?
It is the notion that there is no basis in reality for the positive effects of having a faith, and further that we can do without those feelings - that Earthly substitutes are available - that is the stock and trade of the atheist belief system.
You may not be a militant, proselytizing atheist – though you do carry their water here, and with a frequency that belies any claimed dispassion.
Do you (does anyone) really live up to the claim that they do not teach what to think?
In teaching, parents who teach religion and the concepts of faith are unashamed when they do not exclude science (which is simply the knowledge God has made possible). Their children have full benefit and may pull from science or faith as they face life, reality and the unknown.
If these children are fools, they are well-rounded fools in possession of the tools needed to solve mathematical and spiritual equations, happier and less likely to struggle for meaning in their lives.
And if that is the case, how foolish is faith? How foolish is the father who passes it on?
Comment by nick adams | May 2, 2008
Mountain Man - I'm really at a loss here. I didn't suggest that 'all ideas are equal' at any point. The quote you gave could equally be phrased "I think my kids will be able to sort out the correct from the incorrect views."
And I have ask you, very seriously, where I have ever displayed "contempt for all things religious". Point out some examples. I think religion is wrong in many respects, and misguided in others. I think religion probably served a useful purpose in the past, though I question its utility in a modern setting - and I've said so explicitly on this very site. At most, you could accuse me of contempt of some things religious' - but Criticism and disagreement are not the same thing as contempt - though not everyone seems to grasp the distinction.
And I also didn't say I was "ideologically absent from [my] children's upbringing". Atheists don't have catechism, but we do do moral and 'ideological' education just the same. One can teach without being didactic - e.g. by example. When I'm explaining why something is wrong to my kids, I don't say, "because God says don't do that." I ask, "What if everyone did that? Would you like it if someone did that to you?" Of course I'm "influencing what their world view will be". But influencing or advising is not the same thing as mandating and enforcing.
If your view of life is shaped by this website, it may be hard for you to believe that people can respectfully disagree, but I assure you that the disagreements my wife and I have in these areas are quite respectful. (She herself has said that we argued more about what to teach our kids about Santa Claus than about God.) Further, you may not be satisfied by my "explanations on the nature of non-religious morality", but that may speak more to your criteria than to the merits of my case. I, for example, am not satisfied by your explanations of the "origin of existence".
I'm not saying this to provoke you, but sometimes it really seems as if you're not discussing things with me, but with some parallel-universe version of me… or at least, with your expectations of what I write rather than what I actually write.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 2, 2008
Mr. Adams - what makes you think I haven't experienced moments of terror and despair? But even if I hadn't - well, I must point out that, on the contrary, it is "quite true" that there are, in fact, atheists in foxholes.
In the words of Mountain Man, "I am not trying to provoke you", but imagine someone who'd been addicted to morphine from childhood. (I realize this analogy may seem insulting, but I ask you to accept it in the same spirit that you and Mountain Man ask me to accept your words.) They might have a hard time imagining how someone could make it through life - could make it through a day - without shooting up. How would they picture life without morphine? Sometimes it seems to me that that's how religious people picture life without religion. The core of despair that they seem to impute just isn't there, honest. (For an interesting counterpoint, you might look here.)
But there's another problem with what you're saying, and C.S. Lewis himself warned against it in "The Screwtape Letters". He has his demon Screwtape advise his junior devil to try to convince his 'patient' to think only of the usefulness of beliefs. "Believe this, not because it is true, but for some other reason. That's the game." I think truth matters. Another writer of fiction, David Gerrold, had one of his characters put it well. "We don't necessarily want accurate maps, we want useful ones. But accuracy is extraordinarily useful."
(BTW - I really don't like the term "militant" atheist. It's applied in a totally inconsistent manner. To be called a "militant believer", you actually have to pick up a gun and shoot someone. To be called a "militant atheist", all you have to do is write a book. As to proselytizing - well, we already touched upon that here. As I pointed out then, there aren't a large number of people asking that the Constitution be changed to be in line with "unicorn standards" or "Santa Claus' standards". What you seem to see as proselytizing, I see as advocating positions to help protect my rights.)
It's true that 'faith' can have practical benefits. (For some examples, I recommend yet again David Sloan Wilson's "Evolution For Everyone".) But those benefits are not unmixed. Consider Jewish dietary law - there's a rule against eating meat and cheese in the same meal. Orthodox rabbis take it as far as requiring a set amount of time between eating meals with dairy products and meat products, so that they don't mix in the stomach. There's a requirement that meat and dairy be stored absolutely separately.
Now, before refrigeration, storing meat and cheese together was a bad idea. Meat would spoil almost immediately when exposed to cheese. (Try it sometime.) So a rule that has the effect of rigidly separating their storage has good effects. But it does have downsides - like no cheeseburgers. Now we know about pasteurization and refrigeration, and the old rule isn't needed anymore. Wilson makes the useful distinction between "practically realistic" beliefs that have useful effects but aren't actually true, and "factually realistic" beliefs that are actually true.
I don't think we have to give up factual realism for practical realism. And I'm sorry, but I haven't seen evidence in my own life to disabuse me of that notion.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 2, 2008
Nick Adams:
One additional thing you don't do when raising children is send them conflicting messages.
Comment by sedonaman | May 2, 2008
sedonaman - My wife and I agree about all major things; finances, fidelity, child discipline, and so forth. We are both in quite close agreement about what's moral. We may not arrive by the same route, but we're in the same place regarding what we teach our kids.
Parents can disagree about a lot of things and not send 'conflicting messages' to kids. Republicans and Democrats can marry and raise healthy, happy children. People of very different cultures marry and find a happy mix all the time. It's not always easy, of course, but I know from experience it's possible.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 2, 2008
Mr. Ingles,
There are no atheists in foxholes. Look it up.
But the bottom line is, if it is faith you do not have, then it is faith you are missing. With what or how you choose to fill the void, or if you choose to recognize the void, is up to you, and you may say what you like about what you have chosen.
My points were to "influencing" others to the degree, as you stated, they use you and your beliefs as a yardstick for reality. There is nothing wrong with that, of course, providing you have the ability to measure all things accurately. And if that is true, perhaps pilgrimages to your door are in order.
As it appears you have never been religious, I'm not sure what you have to say on the matter (of being religious) is any more valuable than what a person who knew nothing of science might have to say about physics or chemistry.
Also, it would be interesting to learn what morals atheists teach and if you can tells us the source of the authority behind those morals. Is it just your say so? Must someone have faith in you to accept your moral teachings? How do you convince?
Comment by nick adams | May 2, 2008
Mr. Ingles,
Sorry, I did not answer your question.
Nothing makes me think you have not experienced terror or despair. In fact, as a person without faith, I suspect your experiences in terror and despair may have been more severe than they needed to be.
What makes you think you know the value (or lack thereof) of a faith you do not have?
As for your painfully obvious "opiate of the masses" reference, I would suggest you are spot on. Many religious people have a hard time conceiving of life without faith. And your point is … ? People have a hard time conceiving of life without water, as well.
I do not believe you suffer from "core" despair. But then I also believe you do not suffer from the kind of core happiness and contentment faith provides many.
Again, these are your choices, just don't expect to get too far trying to sell the joys of being an atheist. Honest!
Comment by nick adams | May 2, 2008
Raymond Ingles:
That’s not the kind of mixed message I meant. Certainly you send a mixed message if you say one thing and your wife says another, but you are also sending a mixed message, for example, by telling your kid not to have sex but giving him a condom. Likewise, you would also be sending a mixed message by sending your kid to church instead of taking him. In your case, you communicate a mixed message by sending him to catechism when you don’t even believe in God. As you yourself said, “One can teach by example.”
[Note that your wife need not be part of this for a mixed message to occur.]
Comment by sedonaman | May 3, 2008
Mr. Ingles,
Your writing must be the issue, because it certainly is a reflection of your thought processes. If you cannot write in ways that communicate your ideas, then people are going to misunderstand.
For example, "alternative views" and "correct vs. incorrect views" are not even close to meaning the same thing. "Contempt" vs. "criticism" vs. "disagreement" are only shades of meaning adding up to the same thing, that you find religious ideas inferior, wanting, un-useful… (fill in your word).
As far as your previous writings, your failure to communicate a cogent line of reasoning is not my problem. But again, when challenged to explain your reasoning, you focus on some minor side issue that has little to do with anything.
That is what is so irritating about dealing with many atheists. They'd rather split hairs on shades of meaning, employ misdirection and go off on rabbit trails than to ever reach a conclusion on any point.
But I don't see for the life of me how this practice is in any way intellectually satisfying to atheists, unless the objective is to simply confound and irritate the questioner until they finally throw in the towel. I've had to do that myself, since you persist in refusing to step up and actually answer a direct question or explain how you reached your conclusions.
So in the final analysis, atheists never seem to win the argument, but only succeed in running off detractors with obfuscation.
Comment by Mountain Man | May 3, 2008
Mr. Adams - if you click on the phrase "atheists in foxholes" in my comment #27, you will be taken to the website of Atheists In Foxholes, an organization of current and veteran soldiers who also happen to be atheists. I did "look it up", and I found some, and I tried to provide with the opportunity to very easily look it up yourself. Apparently you didn't.
I'm reluctant to continue this conversation when it doesn't seem like you're paying attention to what I've actually written. It's not like we haven't discussed "what morals atheists teach and if you can tells us the source of the authority behind those morals". Follow the links in comment #26 and you can review.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 3, 2008
Mountain Man - I'm not surprised that you've had trouble in your discussions with atheists in the past. Apparently, anything less than agreement equals contempt in your eyes. I suspect you find hostility when none is present.
There are actually two common factors in those conversations, you'll note. One is of course that they all were atheists - but the other common factor is, well, you. Unwillingness to understand can be a potent barrier to communication.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 3, 2008
Mr. Adams - It's true that I haven't experienced the joys of faith. But I'm reasonably sure neither of us have the relevant experience to judge the joys of alcoholism, cigarettes, or morphine addiction from the inside. That doesn't mean either of us 'has to say' about them is valueless. Some things are better judged from the outside.
Consider - courage is not the absence of fear. Courage is the ability to do what is necessary despite fear. Someone who doesn't feel afraid simply cannot display courage. But note that, for any bold action, that means there are two factors to consider - how much fear someone experiences doing it, and how much courage they can muster. A person who runs into a fire to rescue someone is certainly brave, but they may not realize just how dangerous the situation is. They have the courage to do the job… but if they knew more, their fear would be increased, and they might reconsider. A firefighter with years of experience may know just how unstable a building is, and how likely a backdraft may be… and still run in to the rescue. They have greater fear, but also greater courage.
Faith may help palliate fear, and enable people to be bolder than they otherwise might… but it's also possible for someone with less faith but more courage to do the same. There are atheists in foxholes, incomprehensible as you may find that to be. Perhaps, lacking faith, they have had to develop more courage. Someone who's always had an 'easy out' to dispell fear would never need to develop their courage - they might not even believe it possible to do so.
(Oh, and BTW - why does someone have to be able to "measure all things accurately" for their words to have value? What if they can only measure some things accurately? Must everything be a package deal, neatly wrapped up in a bow with a thorough instruction manual? Or can we go with our best judgment and a willingness to learn?)
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 3, 2008
Mr. Ingles,
You keep missing my point. What I have been saying is, "There are no atheists in foxholes." I am repeating the famous saying. I am surprised you have not heard it.
Pointing me to a web site put together for atheists serving in the military has no bearing on the saying. To point out the obvious, the conversion/realization is something that happens under fire. Your linked web site is a little like a site dedicated to guys who proclaim they don't or won't jump when they spill hot coffee in their laps.
According to Wikipedia, the meaning of the phrase is that atheists under fire abandon the "less substantial affectation of atheism" and accept a higher power.
To help you get your mind around the concept, most soldiers would never admit they desire to be held by their mothers(and in fact in normal circumstances, there is no need).
Yet wounded or in fear for their lives, there may be (and have been) uncontrollable cries for "mommy."
What we really want; What we really believe; What we cannot deny, often is realized when the barriers we errect to protect our ideologies is broken down under duress.
Absent that duress, one is free to make intellectual argumens, cite science, parade about some reason - which is what you do here in towing the atheist line.
What I try to point out to atheists (who bring up their beliefs) is that they may want to consider that they are little different than the woman going through life who has never experienced an orgasim. They don't know what they are missing because they've never had it to miss.
The irony is atheist will argue against something they've never experienced, have no personal knwoledge of and have no intention of seeking out.
I find atheists can be blissfully frigid.
Comment by nick adams | May 3, 2008
Jumping in mid-stream, Nick, I have to ask about formerly religious people who become atheists. Here's a group that has definitely "had the orgasm," but then chose to turn their back on it. They know the 'bliss,' realize it to be false or irrelevant to their lives, transfer their morality from one based on God to one based on society and humanity, and then go on to live happy, productive lives. Kind of busts a hole in your argument, no?
Comment by Chasm | May 3, 2008
Raymond Ingles:
Re: atheists in foxholes link
BTW, how do you do that? I mean create a link using text of your choice?
Comment by sedonaman | May 3, 2008
Chasm,
No. As stated, my criticism was directed at those who are critical of something they know nothing of from personal experience.
I think what you meant to ask, is what do I think of those who know both sides from personal expereince and choose atheism.
Also, you said "here's a group." Where's a group? No link, if that's what you intended.
It does raise interesting questions, though. Did faith not net a return? Sort of like a car wax that didn't last the advertised 6 months?
Could be user error?
But no matter; we're all God's children. You are blessed whether you know it or whether you are thankful for it.
Then of course, you have to consider the concept of owing one's happiness to society and humanity. If God made humanity and humanity made society, then you're worshipping God by proxy. Fascinating stuff, isn't it?
Comment by nick adams | May 3, 2008
Fair enough. What DO you think of those who know both sides from personal experience and choose atheism?
I meant 'group' as in 'set,' as I'm pretty sure there's more than one former worshiper in the atheist camp.
I don't have a link to a 'group,' but only because I don't feel like Googling "former Christian Atheist Group" or "ex-Mormon Atheists," but I DO have a link to a very articulate person who "un-converted" during his(?) senior year at Wheaton Collage. It's at http://leavingeden.wordpress.com/
This person doesn't really go into the exact event or events that lead him to reject Christian teachings, but he sure writes honestly and perceptively about the differences in world perception that the two camps represent. I read his entire blog the other night (It only covers 5 months), and I could do nothing but admire his courage, intelligence and clear thinking.
I will ask you not to condescend to me during our discussion - it's a ugly side-effect of this blog - and I hope you will refrain in following other writer's examples. Do you really want me asserting that you are a fool and wasting your life for believing in magic men? Didn't think so, so don't tell me that I'm 'blessed' whether I like it or not.
And your last comment is fascinating in the "we could be just a molecule in the fingernail of a giant" sort of way. Your penultimate sentence could read "If God did NOT make humanity, and humanity made society, they you're worshiping God for no reason at all" and it would re-join with your first statement just as well.
Comment by Chasm | May 3, 2008
Mr. Ingles,
"Unwillingness to understand can be a potential barrier to communication." So can be an unwillingness to communicate. Here is an excerpt from the link you provided, indicative of your clarity of thought regarding atheism and morality:
“The closest analogy I can think of are primality tests - algorithms for determining if a number is prime. Actually determining if a number is prime or not is computationally 'hard' - it takes a lot of analysis, essentially dividing a number N by every number from 2 to sqrt(N). But there are probabilistic tests that can determine, to an arbitrarily high likelihood, that a number is prime - but they aren't perfect, and sometimes give false positives. (That's a quick summary, see Wikipedia for the gory details.)
Overall, we agree on what's moral (prime) but we have different algorithms for determining if something's moral. I think your algorithm works most of the time, but tends to produce false positives - kind of like comparing Fermat's test to the current Miller-Rabin test.”
Comment by Raymond Ingles | December 5, 2007
Now, I ask you, is this quote from your writing a case of me being unwilling to understand, or of you not willing to debate ideas clearly?
So now, is there any possibility at all that I might be right about you having failed you make your case about atheists and morality?
Comment by Mountain Man | May 3, 2008
Chasam,
Wow. "You" really is the most powerful word in the English language.
I would never take offense at being accused of believing in "magic men." In fact, I think it interjects some humor.
My point is an obvious one. Becoming an atheist doesn't erase God, only the atheist's faith in Him. Life, and God, go on and blessings continue to flow per usual.
Why the sore spot?
As for those who have known faith and left it for the practice of no faith, I suspect they never really had it in most cases.
For some the hardest thing to do is count their blessings. Some people never figure out how to do it and are always looking for more. When it doesn't come, they go looking for it elsewhere - like switching mates, their genitals or what have you.
Some people bail because they feel the weight of responsibility. Like parents who can't handle child rearing leaving in the night. Removing the expectations God has for us, even our own expectations for ourselves, can be too seductive for some.
Still others get bored or don't know what they want. Will Smith is on his fifth or sixth religion right now, I believe.
I suppose the point is, for people of faith, the notion of abandoning God is about as possible as claiming you have abandoned air, even as you inhale.
One can abandon their faith, because after all, it is "their" faith. But how does one truly rid themselves of God?
I think it is in us all. We know it. We feel it. I suppose how we internalize those feelings has a lot to do with how prickly we get when someone suggests God is real, and that He loves you and blesses you. It warms some folks all over, while others get really pissed.
So the bottom line always ends up the same: Those who have faith are wasting their time, while those who do not are missing something really great.
It is just part of the dynamic of the debate that urging people to believe and have faith to achieve happines and to become complete plays a lot better on what resides inside us than urging people to give up faith and stop believing as a way to happiness.
Comment by nick adams | May 4, 2008
Sedonaman - you have to do a tiny bit of html coding. You wrap the text you want to highlight in a couple of 'tags'. I will try to render them below, but I'm not sure if the comment form will allow it. If it doesn't work, google for "html href tag" and it should be clear:
<a href="the link with http colon slash slash etc."> the text to be highlighted <a>
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 4, 2008
Sedonaman - whoops, that's "/a" (forward-slash a) on the final tag, not just "a": </a>
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 4, 2008
Mr. Adams - Of course I'm aware fo the phrase… and I don't think it's true, since counterexamples exist.
Basically, what you're saying seems to boil down to, "Those guys may say that they remained atheists even in foxholes, but I don't believe that's possible, so they must be lying or deceiving themselves." Of course, you also say that if you haven't experienced something, you can't really comment on it. Those people have actually been through combat; have you? I suggest you might consider the possibility that "there are more things in heaven and earth… than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 4, 2008
Mountain Man - I've been assuming you're willing to meet me halfway. Willing to maybe put some effort into learning new things, willing to try to figure out what someone is saying to you, or at least point out what's unclear about what they are saying.
You quoted one of my responses, but never said exactly what you didn't understand about it. Do you not know what a prime number is? What the terms 'algorithm', 'probabilistic', and/or 'false positive' mean? How to look up something on Wikipedia?
I'll assume it's all Greek to you, and try to express the concept in language I hope will be familiar to you. In Judges 12, the Gileadites defeated the Ephraimites. The Ephraimites attempted to cross the Jordan river back to their territory, but the Gileadites had secured the border. Other refugees were coming through, too, so the Gileadites had to figure out a way to identify the Ephraimites. They settled on a simple test - asking the refugees to pronounce a common local word, 'shibboleth', one that would trip up someone with an Ephraimite accent. See Judges 12:5-6 for the gory (in this case, literally) details.
Now, overall we agree on what's moral (belongs to the 'moral' group) - but we have different shibboleths, or tests, for determining if something's moral. I think your shibboleth works most of the time, but tends to produce false positives - like an Ephraimite who'd travelled extensively and could mimic a Gileadite accent.
Is that any clearer?
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 4, 2008
Mr. ingles,
You really don't get it, do you? When you read what you wrote I'm sure it's crystal clear to you, but it's total nonsense to someone else. And that's what you wrote, total nonsense. What you wrote does not illuminate, it does not explain, it does not simplify, it is not an attempt to reach out and make clear a concept or point of logic.
I know what all of those terms mean, I use them appropriately and in context. But I do not use them to demonstrate my intellectual superiority, to assuage my inability to communicate, or to pretend a sophistication not warranted by the situation.
I have met you more than half way an many occasions, and have tried repeatedly to pry some sort of clear presentation from you. But sooner or later, you devolve into some tangent, some minor point at the expense of the greater discussion, or some sort of irrelevancy like what was quoted above.
And now you want blame me for your failure. Fine. It's my fault, you win. Feel better?
Once again I find myself having to bow out, again because you refuse to have a productive conversation. Oops, sorry, I forgot. It's my fault.
Outta here.
Comment by Mountain Man | May 4, 2008
Mr. Ingles,
Please, please, you flatter me. It isn't "my" philosophy.
I know you get my point by now, though you seem to enjoy sidestepping it. From the perspective of believers, Atheist do not have the power to make God go away, though they certainly can operate under that delusion. And since God is with us all, atheism can be seen as sort of a denial that inside their bodies is a beating heart. Believers just know better than that. It goes back to the belief that there are temporal and physical realities as well as spiritual realities.
And you still have not answered the question regarding the authority behind the morals you teach your children. The exchange between yourself and Mr. Jackson last year (greatest thing I've seen here, by the way) unless I missed something, did not address that.
You state here that you question the utility of religion today, yet by most of your analysis, utility appears to be the most significant value you assign to it. I get where you are coming from, but you seem to be coming from two different places at times.
I bring that up because the principle utility of religion to anyone who gives it any thought would be to standardize and back the authority and rightness of moral precepts. Anything less runs the risk of being seen as nihilism.
The fatal flaw of "your" philosophy is that it is relativistic. It is the whole gripe with secular relativism. It is like laws without a Constitution.
When you and your teachings are at their best (as far as we can agree at this point) they mirror the basic precepts of the Christian faith, for example. But because what you teach and believe is not backed by any authority - just an understanding and acceptance of something man came up with on his own through a natural, earthly process - it is subject to challenge by earthly men and the alternatives "they" may come up with.
The usefulness and inherent value of the morality you teach may not be in question; it is lack of a foundation that is the problem.
You appear ready to declare the new power of truth is in science and is all that is needed in this age. Meanwhile, your new currency is not backed nearly well enough for a world where the vast majority believe in a divine deity.
Despite all the other issues in play, what in the world would ever bring you to the conclusion that there is no utility to faith today? Do you not recognize that it takes more than your reasoned mind, your scientific data and your working typing fingers to answer a planet full of people with very real spiritual needs?
Pardon the expression, but I suspect you would crap a brick if instead of advocating the minority scientific opinion to readers here or elsewhere using your set of currently known facts and hypotheses, you actually had to help manage six billion people as part of the newly formed Council to Assist with the Migration from Superstition to Science.
I understand your duty to science dictates that you not give credence to "magic," but on the utility of a belief and moral system emanating from and overseen by none other than the omnipotent creator of all things, I am sure we can agree (even if you do not like the side effects).
The alternative is you and your fellow CAMSS council members struggling to issue hourly explanations to millions seeking truth, guidance and meaning to their lives.
Nothing personal, but based on the amount of time and number of words it takes you to offer a counter to even the simplest questions raised, (not to mention that like eating Chinese food, you find yourself just as hungry in an hour) I suggest you have real logistical problems to overcome.
I suppose one positive would be the construction boom made possible by collecting the copious bricks you and yours deposit in the undertaking of the task.
Comment by nick adams | May 4, 2008
Mountain Man - if you can give a quick summary of the Euthyphro Dilemma and explain why it is, as you pronounced, "tangential" to a discussion of the basis of morals, then perhaps I'll see what kind of explanation you're looking for.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 4, 2008
Mr. Adams - if morals are conceived of as commands, then of course the authority of the commander is a primary concern. But if morals are conceived of as strategies - if they are discovered or developed rather than being ordained - then the authority or even identity of the discoverer is of only historical curiosity.
High school physics students learn about Hooke's Law every year, but few of them learn - or need to learn - anything in particular about Robert Hooke. Newton's laws of motion aren't named that way because Isaac Newton decreed them, but because he was the one who deduced them. Chess theory is developed and expanded all the time, but very few chess strategies or tactics are even named after their discoverers.
I don't think morals are 'relativistic' any more than chess strategies are 'relativistic'. Some things are still open questions in chess, but there are a lot of things that are very firmly established. It's the same way for morals.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 4, 2008
Mr. Ingles,
You are missing something rather obvious: the importance of moral authority in matters related to morality and law.
We do not base our laws on chess theory or physics, as interesting a comparison as you seem to think they make. Morality without a moral authority is law with no teeth.
Hands are placed on Bibles while taking oaths and promisses are made to God, because there is no higher authority. What would you replace that authority with in your dream scenario?
As I pointed out earlier, moral law without authority is law without a Constitution - much weaker, more relative and easier to challenge and change. Not good for our well being and stability.
This country was founded on the belief that man has inalienable God-given rights and that men may not deny them.
But certainly deny them we may when we transfer the source of those rights and morality from God to men. The idea that what God gives us, let no man take away is powerful. I am not clear what makes you beleive some honor/consensu system based on the idea that "what man gives us, let no man take away" carries anything close to the same weight.
I understand you don't believe in God, thus it is fairly easy for you to conceive of getting along without God and inserting science in His stead, but as pointed out in my previous post, God and the authority of His laws is quite special and important to billions, and is the very basis of our freedom.
Your science and reason may do for you, but I'll ask again: Just what makes you think it will do for a world dominated by the faithful?
The browned bits of scientific data do not a good spiritual gravy make.
Comment by nick adams | May 4, 2008
Mr. Adams - chess strategies don't need authority behind them to be convincing. They are convincing because they win chess games. People may look to - e.g. - the World Chess Federation for guidance about the strategies they should use, but the proof is in the actual outcome of the games. Anyone is free to test them out, or look at how they've been applied to past games. One gets to be a chess authority by learning or developing, and then applying, good strategies. If you want to learn to play good chess, you go talk to good chess players, or people who've studied them.
Morals as strategies can be convincing in the same way. Look at what we see from history - the more open and tolerant the society, the more it encourages equal opportunity for all… the better off the whole society is. Slavery leads to technical and social stagnation, for example. China is doing reasonably well economically, but that's mostly by copying and reverse-engineering developments that come from elsewhere. And they've only made it as far as they have by becoming more capitalist. It's not clear how open they can become before the current power structure is destabilized - such as what happened in the Soviet Union.
The U.S. has managed an area the size of a continent for over two hundred years with only one major civil war. It's the most prosperous nation on Earth, and millions of people 'vote with their feet' every year to come here. That's better than almost any regime in history, and powerful arguments that its style of government works well.
BTW - hands don't actually have to be placed on Bibles and oaths made to God in the U.S. Everyone has the right today to make an 'affirmation' instead of an oath. (This isn't a 'dream sequence' - you can look this up yourself.) The penalties of perjury apply with full force to such affirmations, just like oaths.
And say, why do we bother with legal penalties for perjury, if the authority of God is so decisive? Can you point to any evidence (beyond your own intuitions) that affirmations lead to more (or less) perjury than oaths? If so, by what amount and in what direction? All the evidence I'm aware of seems to indicate that worldly punishments and inducements have much more effect than otherworldly ones. God, allegedly, doesn't go away during police strikes, but police do. Which one seems to be the stronger determinant of behavior? I think we can see what already 'carries… the same weight' today.
It's actually even better than that, because, as I've stated many times here, we have inbuilt systems (that I believe evolved) for understanding moral situations. Not many people have an inbuilt talent for chess, but with morality it's the other way around - not many people lack a talent for that.
Kids learn languages easily, what with their inbuilt talents for doing so. Adults are less flexible, and take much more time and effort to learn languages. I know I have to write a lot here to explain my points here, but I think that's because I'm coming from a different paradigm - speaking a different language in a sense - and it takes a lot of work to communicate across such gaps. Our arguments are stylistically like those between classical and relativistic physicists, or classical and quantum physicists. Kids, like new physics students, don't have so much to unlearn.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 5, 2008
Mr. Ingles,
Morals as strategies can be convincing…,you say? That is precisely my point. Convincing men that man- made strategies are effective is a job that falls to men, who will argue with other men that the strategy is flawed.
When there is an authority on high, and most concur with the omnipotence of that authority, the problem is resolved. The answer is clear, my God-given rights cannot be touched by man, even by a majority in a free society (see Declaration of Independence - ours in the U.S. anda few others).
I will ask one last time and hope you will address it: We know now what you believe to be superior and more beneficial than faith, yet you cannot or will not provide a roadmap for us. How would you would pry faith from billions and convert them to the power of man-made moral strategies?
In the case of the U.S. and countries with similar foundations, how do you alienate inalienable rights - and having done so, how do you guarantee liberty in a system in which inalienable rights do not exist?
And I certainly hople you do not suggest the circular argument that man-made moral stratgies and the rights based on them may be declared or voted to be inalienable and every bit the equal of the previously recognized God-given rights.
I also hope you do not expect logic to prevail. Your chess/moral strategies may be proven effective, but so are tax cuts for the wealthy. As counterintuitive and ideologically obscene as it seem to some, the effectiveness of the game strategy is clear: people spend their money. Give them more and they will spend more. Spent money nets tax revenue (puts people to work and keeps the wheels turning, too).
Yet someone like Obama will argue that he is for capital gains taxes. And he would imose the tax even if it slows the economy and even if it resulted in less tax revenue. I'd say go figure, but the guy has millions of enthusiastic supporters.
Guys like Obama, or even the most reasoned politicians, must never be allowed to monkey with certain things. Inalienable God-given rights are off the table. But there is no way man-made moral strategies can be kept off the table.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will then be for sale.
Comment by nick adams | May 5, 2008
Mr. Adams - I offered actual evidence about man-made strategies convincing people. Police strikes are one. Steven Pinker has pointed out that the murder rate in England has dropped by 4000% since the 1300's. Are you claiming that England is more religious now than in the 14th century?
I'd also like to point out that the "inalienable" rights listed in the Declaration of Independence (which is not actually referenced in the Constitution) - "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - are routinely removed in the courts today when someone's convicted of a crime. (Well, except for the last one - anyone can "pursue" happiness no matter the circumstances, though the DoI doesn't make any guarantees about getting it.) The DoI makes no mention of, say, the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, and we rely a lot more on those for our legal theory.
Of course people will argue about strategies. People argue about all kinds of things. But strategies are amenable to examination in and experimentation in this world. To a large extent, that's what our states are for - they allow different rules to apply to different areas, and good ideas found in one state may be incorporated into other states. People argue about different paradigms in science, different economic theories, and so forth. But in those areas, people actually think that evidence has some say in the outcome. Science does progress and learn more with that attitude - even the dismal science. I think people with a bias toward evidence instead of revelation would do all right over the long run.
As to how I "would pry faith from billions and convert them to the power of man-made moral strategies" - gradually, over time, by talking and arguing and pointing out evidence like the above. I don't expect it to happen overnight. But it's interesting to look at recent social history. In the 1920's, lynching was common. By the 1950's, the Armed forces were being integrated. By the 1960's, the civil rights movement had gotten into full swing. By today, it seems like people in their 20's and below don't even have problems with interracial relationships.
Religion's trending downward in the Western world - certainly the organized and doctrinaire type. Evolutionarily speaking, a niche is opening up, and has been for a while. I think people, particularly the younger generation, will be more open to the idea. (Just to forestall any cheap shots from the peanut gallery - I'm not talking about indoctrination, just education. Teaching physics isn't brainwashing, and all I and others are asking is competition in the marketplace of ideas.)
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 5, 2008
Mr. Ingles, thanks for answering.
Your plan, if I may, over the course of time is to:
Step 1 - Deny inalienable rights to everyone - not just criminals, who by law (our society's and God's)have forfeited one or more of them.
Step 2 - Make the formerly inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness amenable to examination and experimentation.
Step 3 - Present scientific evidence over time to prove it is (likely) foolish and superstitious to believe in God.
Step 4 - Exploit the "niche" opening up by filling it with properly "educated" children.
Sounds like a plan.
Next question: What will be the benefit? And if you get the chance, would freedom of religion still exist and would people of faith be allowed to serve in responsible leadership/management/cabinet positions or on the judiciary?
I can see things getting to the point where people of faith would be seen as either uneducated or superstitious, either of which might disqualify them from any authority position.
I know Marx said, "The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required… .(which I suspect you agree with more than disagree) but the transitional period will present challenges. Just wondering what your thoughts are.
Comment by nick adams | May 5, 2008
Mr. Adams - I'm afraid you've got the arrow of causality wrong again. I don't plan on forbidding or abolishing religion. Freedom of religion is a good thing, because it's part of overall freedom of thought. Freedom is, in essence, the right to be wrong. Let me quote one of my own web pages here: "Within very broad limits (basically
concerned with public safety) I think people should be able to teach any damn fool thing in a private school. If they are wrong, their kids will suffer for it, but who knows, they might once in a while be onto something, as opposed to on something." "I actually oppose mandatory vaccination, because I'm basically Libertarian-ish. I figure people, even Dr. Brehany, should have the right to make stupid decisions, even for their kids. But I have the right to call those decisions stupid, and reprehensible."
I don't want another Terror. Both atheists and theists can be tolerant get-along types, and both can also be intolerant dogmatic tyrants. It's being dogmatic that's the real danger (something I've also mentioned before, see the last two sections). I think people should be tolerant and free (again, within very broad limits) to believe and propound just about any idea.
That being said, I'm doing some research into my own state's laws. The case I linked to in comment #20 (of the 11-year-old girl who died in Wisconsin of treatable diabetes because her parents don't believe in doctors and used only 'spiritual' treatment) bothered me a great deal. I don't mind if an adult refuses medical treatment, and I'm quite in favor of parents making medical decisions for their kids. But when the parents' decisions demonstrably lead to death, where medical treatment would, effectively certainly, have preserved the child's life… I think parents should suffer legal consequences for that. Wisconsin's laws may or may not protect these parents, but I want to make sure Michigan's laws don't.
So you've got several of the steps wrong, and others out of order. It's more like:
1) Work to encourage people to think clearly and demand evidence for their beliefs.
2) Work to encourage universal scientific literacy. So far as I'm concerned, exposure to the actual data is a good thing. I mean, creationists who start working in the petroleum industry either leave the field or stop being creationists.
3) Watch as religious thought generally declines in prevalence and people start asking for justifications for claims that people make. "How do you know that? How have you tested that?"
One of the benefits will be fewer kids dying from treatable illnesses because their parents are deranged. I think a (more) rational electorate (humans are still going to be irrational, we're humans after all) will do a lot better in terms of policy decisions. A habit of skepticism is a good thing in general. As Carl Sagan put it: "If we teach everybody… habits of skeptical thought, they will probably not restrict their skepticism to UFOs… Maybe they'll start asking awkward questions about economic, or social, or political, or religious institutions. Perhaps they'll challenge the opinions of those in power. Then where would we be?"
I don't see religion as the primary enemy, really. I see magical thinking, credulousness, and intellectual laziness as the real problems. Address the underlying disease and the symptoms will resolve themselves.
Once this sort of thing takes hold more broadly… of course theists will still be eligible for office and positions of authority. But I think they'll find it harder to be elected when people more clearly recognize that people like Rev. Wright and McCain's John Hagee are, well, nutballs on a par with the flat-Earthers.
They might even find it as hard to get elected as atheists do now.
On another note, I pointed out two things - first, that the 'inalienable' rights are, and historically have been, in fact 'alienable' under the appropriate and legitimate circumstances. And second, that those rights discussed in the DoI are not actually foundational to our government as practiced. The Bill of Rights is far more important. And critical thinking there is important - it was an allegedly thoroughly-religious President who declared that U.S. citizens could be stripped of those rights without a trial, no? Sounds like you need to bring the DoI to Bush's attention.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 6, 2008
Mr. Ingles,
Dragged back to conversation, I am.
The Euthyphro “dilemma" is nothing more than empty rhetoric, I'm surprised you bother with it. But for your edification, here's why it's tangential:
1. The ED names piety as the chief virtue. But in Christianity, obedience is. The ED is an inappropriate criticism of Christian morality, which values obedience to God’s will, not piety. The idea of “the pious and the holy” being equated with what the Christian God loves is a bait-and-switch.
2. The ED relies upon a false assumption. The equation of “pious” with “what all the gods love” is arbitrary.
3. The section regarding disagreement between gods regarding the pious and impious does not apply to Christianity, which is monotheistic.
4) The ED is built upon the principle that one cannot logically define “the pious and holy” in a circular manner, since that would not be a definition but rather a tautology. All that we need to do to avoid the tautology and destroy the dilemma is to show that there is that “loved by the gods” is not necessarily “the pious.”
The ability to construct a tautological trap is perhaps interesting on an intellectual level, but proves nothing, particulary in the realm of morality. And this is why I have no patience for your diversions. All you are doing is throwing dust into the air to avoid giving straight answers, and I will have no more of it.
Comment by Mountain Man | May 6, 2008
Mr. Ingles,
Until now your arguments have been worthy, but at this point I am starting to sympathize more than a little with Mountain Man and his complaints about your diversions.
Addressing the question of inalienable rights by repeatedly arguing that criminals lose theirs when they break the law is relevant how?
I don't think your argument that the self evident truth that we are endowed by God with the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is "not foundational to our government in practice" will fly either, but please make it rather than just stating it as fact.
You did mention that it was not written into the Constitution or Bill of Rights, but since it is God's law, inalienable and self evident, I'm not sure how or why you would expect to see it residing among man's fully alienable laws, in documents themselves that can be legally changed (alienable) through the proper process.
Self-evident and untouchable laws from God are not written by men, they can only be recognized/acknowledged by men, as was done eloquently in the Declaration of Independence, which by the way, is our foundational document. We fought and died for independence — the independence expressed in that foundational document and its self-evident truths.
Once we won that independence, once we died in sufficient numbers, we could go about the technical business of establishing laws and liberty guarantees via other documents. Put simply, declaring our independence through that founding document, and winning that independence, is the reason there is a Constitution and Bill of Rights. Not foundational? I don't think so.
On to "not practiced."
The inalienable, self evident truths/rights (which are the foundation of that foundational document) are not practiced, you say? Prove it. So far the only proof you have offered of them not being practiced is in your example of them being denied criminals and suspected criminals.
You simply will have to do better than that. What you are prposing would have profound impacts on every citizen. In light of that, focusing any real attention on criminals is a diversion. Let's try to talk about people who without a doubt have not forfeited their rights through lawless actions or threat of same.
Comment by nick adams | May 7, 2008
Mountain Man - I was struck by something familiar in your presentation, and I looked up Vox Day's "The Irrational Atheist" - your wording is awfully close to that of the list on page 295 (appendix B). Seems like you two are working from the same playbook.
Speaking of not giving straight answers, neither you nor Day address the Dilemma as it is understood today. The link I gave in comment #50 above introduces that in its second paragraph. But I pointed it out way, way back in the article that was posted here: "The extension to morality should be obvious. It is, of course, generally held that God approves of moral behavior. But the question now becomes, is moral behavior approved by God because it's inherently good and deserving of approval? Or is it simply the case that whatever God just happens to approve of becomes, by that very fact, moral and good?"
It's difficult to believe that you weren't aware of this, especially since you commented on that article. In essence, it seems you be you (and Day) that's performing the bait-and-switch. Atheists are quite often accused of only addressing weak forms of theistic arguments; theists can, however, act in complementary fashion.
To take your list in order:
1. Obedience is, indeed, a chief virtue of Christian morality, perhaps the chief one. But that does not justify why obedience to God should be highly valued. Is there something inherently good about obedience to God, or is it just in our interest to do what the Most Powerful Being wants? As I said in that paper, "A logical corollary of this idea is that, for example, the people in France and Poland who collaborated with the Nazi occupiers did have the right principle in mind. Their mistake was picking the wrong bully to submit to." Is the only difference between God and an S.S. officer that God is more powerful?
2. The Greek term translated into English as 'pious' has connotations not present in the English term, but that's not so important, since the modern form of the Dilemma doesn't involve that term. This point is not relevant to the argument I've made.
3. This also is irrelevant, and indeed I noted this in my original article in footnote 9.
4. This, again, is very reminiscent of a sentence on page 296 of Day's book. By focusing only on piety, and not "good" as all modern philosophical discussion of the Dilemma actually does, Day sidesteps the actual point of the argument. What we've (or at least I've) been talking about is whether "the good" (or "the moral") is defined in circular terms, not 'piety'. The basic form of the Dilemma was expressed by Plato, with some of the ramifications, but it's been developed a bit further since then.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 7, 2008
Raymond Ingles:
“As Carl Sagan put it: ‘If we teach everybody… habits of skeptical thought, they will probably not restrict their skepticism to UFOs… Maybe they'll start asking awkward questions about economic, or social, or political, or religious institutions. Perhaps they'll challenge the opinions of those in power. Then where would we be?’"
They already are; that’s why there is a proliferation of ridiculous conspiracy theories:
“The secularist who chides religious believers for having faith in what the Church teaches will also tell them, in the very next breath and with no sense of irony, to shut up and trust the experts where scientific matters are concerned. That there are philosophers and theologians who can present powerful and sophisticated justifications of religious belief is taken to be no defense of the average believer – he ought to ‘think for himself,’ says the secularist. And yet while the average secularist couldn't give you an interesting explanation or defense of quantum mechanics, relativity theory, or evolution if his life depended on it, the fact that there are experts who can do so is taken by him to justify his own faith in their findings. As the philosopher Christopher Martin has noted, the real difference between medieval and modern people is not that the former believe in the need for authority and the latter don't – in fact both medievals and moderns believe in it and act accordingly – but rather that the former admitted that they believed in it, while the latter pretend they don't.”
You might be interested in the rest http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092006B.
Comment by sedonaman | May 7, 2008
Mr. Adams - Can I assume that we're in agreement, or at least mutual understanding, about 85% of what I wrote in comment 57? I don't have to fret about being accused of wanting to set up a rationalist dictatorship? Your only worries are about what I wrote in the very last paragraph? I'll assume so, since that's the only part you addressed in your response.
My point about 'inalienable' rights being 'alienated' is that 'inalienable' is not the right term to use. If they were truly inalienable, then they couldn't be lost or removed. I don't think I'm being pedantic, here - clarity of thought and expression matter. They are "fundamental" rights, "critical" rights, "vital" rights, but they can be lost. Circumstances do make a difference.
People who have demonstrated that they misuse their rights can have their rights removed. (Criminals.) People who we have strong reason to believe will or may misuse their rights can have their rights removed as well. (Children, the mentally ill.) We do this as a practical matter, and ideally as little as possible.
But you're asking about people who aren't criminals, or children, or mentally ill. You worry that, without religion, there will be nothing to protect their rights. There have been problems in the past, though - slavery, the Alien and Sedition acts, the internment of citizens of Japanese descent in WWII, the anti-communist scares and the civil rights abuses of the 1950's and 60's, and now the current push for broad, warrantless surveillance and stripping of Constitutional rights based on pure accusation. All of these things happened despite the alleged 'inalienability' of these rights, despite the religiosity of people in power. In some cases, directly because of their religiosity.
You're worried that a lack of religion will lead to abuses and violations of rights. I've been trying to point out that I've not seen any evidence that religion has actually prevented much in the way of abuses. People often claim that atheists simply must be rampaging psychopaths, but actual studies find very minimal differences, if any, in the actual behavior of atheists and theists. How, exactly, do you know that a shift from theistic to practical bases for morality will have 'profound' effects, and how do you know that are they all positive or negative?
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 7, 2008
Sedonaman - the final period on your link got incorporated into the link itself, and I get an error trying to load it directly from your comment. I had to edit the URL to remove the trailing "." to get to the article itself. Computers are very literal beasts, I'm afraid.
There actually is a difference between accepting theological pronouncements and scientific ones. As Carl Sagan put it in "The Demon-Haunted World": So how is a shamanistic or theological or New Age doctrine different from quantum mechanics? The answer is that even if we cannot understand it, we can verify that it works… the predictions of quantum mechanics are strikingly, and to high accuracy, confirmed.
The GPS system depends on Relativity every single minute of every day. If it didn't take relativistic effects into account it'd be thousands of miles off in a matter of days. And the GPS system works. That's something anyone can confirm. Apart from a few deranged parents that I've alluded to before, the first place nearly anyone with a medical problem turns to these days is modern medicine. Sagan puts it this way: We can pray over the cholera victim, or we can give her 500 milligrams of tetracycline every twelve hour… We can try nearly futile psychoanalytic talk therapy on the schizophrenic patient, or we can give him 300 to 500 milligrams a day of chlozapine…
Skepticism doesn't mean doubting everything, all the time. It means asking how we know what we know, and to how many decimal places.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 7, 2008
Raymond Ingles:
“There actually is a difference between accepting theological pronouncements and scientific ones. … We can pray over the cholera victim, or we can give her 500 milligrams of tetracycline every twelve hour… We can try nearly futile psychoanalytic talk therapy on the schizophrenic patient, or we can give him 300 to 500 milligrams a day of chlozapine… Skepticism doesn't mean doubting everything, all the time. It means asking how we know what we know, and to how many decimal places.”
I disagree that there is a difference. I’m not sure I have much faith in “Sagan the Pagan.” He might be an expert in astronomy, but he passed himself off as a climatologist as well. He never said what his qualifications were WRT climate. Now he’s a medical expert? Give me a break! Even if he were, you would be putting faith (yes, faith) in his prescription for a patient because you yourself had never gone through the proof that the prescription works. This is why authority is so important. If your wife were schizophrenic, would you go to the lab and perform the experiments yourself on other patients first, or would you accept a doctor’s authority on faith? Just saying the results can be re-confirmed in a lab is insufficient. How do you really know the experiments would be re-conducted correctly, or at all? You would take the doctor’s word on faith.
“Skepticism doesn't mean doubting everything, all the time.”
I’m not sure you read Professor Feser’s article; for, as he observes, the “default position” with too many people today is to challenge any and all authority, and solely for the sake of defiance. My secretary’s son, an engineer, couldn’t get a job because he defied every potential employer’s authority to require him to get a haircut and shave. The police riddled his body with bullets after he shot up the local unemployment office, killing six including a police officer I knew. There was also the case of the man who had a bumper sticker that read, “Challenge Authority” and who became shocked, shocked I tell you, when his own kid challenged his authority.
There is also a problem on the other side. Too often, students who ask for proof of the latest liberal intellectual dogma are condemned as “Nazis!” (or worse, “Christians!”) for being “insensitive” to the plight of some minority group or other, or being attached to traditional ways of life.
Having said all this, I have no problem asking how a particular proof was arrived at, and an honest teacher shouldn’t have a problem providing it.
If you are genuinely interested in proofs, particularly how do we really know anything, I recommend The Science Before Science by physicist Anthony Rizzi. IMHO, he’s infinitely better than Carl Sagan, who was mainly entertainment, and poor at that.
Comment by sedonaman | May 7, 2008
Summarizing Vox Day's comments was all I needed to do, since he cogently states that which would take me a lot more time to assemble. And frankly, this minimal effort was warranted, given the continuing silly little tangents and focus on minutae.
Comment by Mountain Man | May 7, 2008
Mountain Man - a cogent reply to one question shouldn't be too hard. Is the only [moral] difference between God and an S.S. officer that God is more powerful?
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 7, 2008
Sedonaman - if you're aware of any studies demonstrating a similar or better effectiveness of prayer than tetracycline for cholera, I'm open to reading them. I'm reasonably sure that Sagan was onto something with that One. There are a few different ways people use the term 'faith'. The colloquial meaning is 'trust' - which can be justified by experience and investigation. (C. S. Lewis defined faith that way, BTW.) That's different from the way it's used by many religions, 'strong belief regardless of evidence'.
I assert that trust in medicine and science in general is not based on belief without evidence. I can't name a single person in my family who hasn't benefited - often in a life-saving way - from modern medicine. My mother-in-law has open-heart surgery scheduled for Monday. Are you going to tell me that the confidence - not absolute confidence, but confidence - that she'll survive having her chest pried open, and indeed will, in a few months, be better off than she is now, is unfounded?
Does the existence of people who are either too credulous, or too doubtful, imply that there isn't a possible balance to be struck between the two?
Comment by Raymond Ingles | May 7, 2008
Not even close to 85 percent. Sorry.
1. I agree with you on teaching thinking skills and science.
2. While kids die when misguided parents deny them medical attention they need based on religious beliefs, it is not a problem of any significance when measured against the population, and it certainly isn’t an argument for educating religion out of every