I was born, raised and educated as a Catholic, today I'm an atheist. I don't know how I got to this point, but I'm here. When the occasion arises, I tell my believer friends that I think its a good thing for those that believe in God and the after life as it obviously gives them some form of positive reinforcement. I would never ridicule anyone for believing in God, nor would I try to convert them to atheism.

I believe the problem you are dealing with is form of denial.  In American thought, the door is closed on the idea that morality arises independently of religion.  Of course, the philosophers know better, but who pays attention to them?

In liberal discussion, there is much assertion of moral grounding of policies without any claim of religious rationale.  Consequently, for the person committed to rejecting a-religious morality, these claims are implicitly hostile.

This is why the passionate religions all go Republican.  They don't expect bankers to claim a moral ground for their greed.  Their compromise is all within their metaphysic.

To compromise with the left would mean they would have to accept morality arising without God, which would undermine their religion itself. 

Hi Michael, you are as dangerous as ever.

I think that it is a good time for an atheist offensive. More precisely, two related claims can be advanced:

a. atheists do not have to have moral principle, but most of them do, and they need no "spiritual roots" for the morality.

b. all too many self-styled people of faith have amazingly situational attitude to morality: is torture OK? Is unprovoked war OK? (Apparently, after personal guidance from the Lord, indeed it is!)

Another idea is that atheists and progressive Christian could combine forces for the jihad against mockery of religion espoused by theologians of American Enterprise Institute. It is one thing to believe that an immortal soul enters each embrio right after conception so once a sperm and ovum are joined, no human agency can impede their/its development. It is quite another to combine it into a unified "pro-family" agenda with "biblically inspired tax policies" like flat tax or getting rid of taxes on inheritances and capital gains, and biblically inspired denial of global warming, and biblically justifed imperialism etc. These people torture logic, torture Scripture and, of course, torture people.

Living in suburban Philadelphia, which is a pretty open-minded place compared to central Pennsylvania, I can say that this is still a pretty hard topic to discuss publicly. Many students are pretty good on this topic until their parents jump in and shut off discussion.

The Bay Area is a great place to discuss anything as are other pockets in America, but, I believe only 10% of the US population is agnostic/atheist. Until Americans can discuss everything rationally I'm afraid we are doomed to come in a distant second in the world intellectually. Every place that is more open-minded than the USA is tied for first.

I also think this also pertains to the poor critical thinking skills that enabled Cheney/Bush/WHIG to snooker so many Americans for quite a time after 9/11.

Tom

You should try teaching ethics in New York City without running cross ways of this little bugaboo...

I wouldn't vote for the GEICO caveman. The lizard, maybe.

It is equally offensive in reverse, don'cha'know.

As I have posted elsewhere, even the TERM "atheist" is offensive to me by setting theism at the center.

I prefer to think of myself as comparative LESS SUPERSTITIOUS.

How about someone who "believes" in God but feels all organized Christian religions pervert the "word of God" (whatever that is), are corrupt and only will have a negative impact on society (past, present and future)?  That would be me.  And I would be viewed with the same hostility as an athiest would endure...any maybe even more hostility.  The opposition is just as much, if not more so, is about being against the political agenda of organized Christianity as it is for actually being a "non-believer" 

I think that the reason Rorty's essay is more relevant now than ever is because the notion of "faith" has become so dangerous. I don't want to merely echo (or endorse) Sam Harris's book "The End Of Faith"--in many respects, I find it politically simplistic and borderline racist. But he does have one think right: A majority of religious people in this country prize action based on faith (or "wishful thinking") above action based on empirical evidence, and it's naive to think that this kind of thought pattern begins and ends with religious beliefs. Too many people (even high level politicians) let themselves be guided more by what they want to believe than by what the cold, hard evidence supports. From global warming, to the "benefits" of a free market economy, to our prospects in Iraq. And by giving people a "pass" on their religious beliefs, we're depriving ourselves of the ability to have any true rational discourse.

Of course, the good thing about the growing atheist movement--from Harris to Dennett and Dawkins, is that more rational people are starting to say, enough is enough.

On a personal note, I took several classes from Stephen Carter in law school, and I have to say, the man is as BRIGHT as a thousand watt light bulb. I've met some smart people in my life, but few as smart as he.

I think you are perfectly correct in pointing out the foolishness of liberals doing the whole "respect faith" dance. If it were sincere I think it wouldn't be so bad, but really it is as insincere as can be even from St. Obama. They think they need now to someone display their religious affiliations and beliefs to garner larger numbers of votes and shave off a few Christian Fundmentalists from the Republicans. It's ridiculous. It only gives more traction to those reactionary fundamentalists who in no way value the genius of what the founders established for us.

Those who understand and are comfortable with their religious beliefs understand also that while their religious beliefs inform their world view and outlook, it is simply foolish to allow religious dogma to enter into the thinking of policy makers and equally foolish to allow religious dogma to become a mainstream tenet of public debate. Why? Well for many reasons really but the most important of them in my opinion are that debate over questions of religious dogma or debating how to apply dogma to public policy is a private and not a public matter. Our elected officials are most decidedly NOT our religious leaders and neither the founders nor the majority of people today wish them to be. Dogmatic concerns should be strictly limited to privately conducted debates within a religious community. Jefferson and many others including me are happy to let you love and adhere to your dogma, but that's your personal business, it isn't public business, we don't want to hear about it because it leads to no good in public affairs. The other main reason is because we know, as the founders did, that once religious debates become political debates then dogma is used as a cudgel to beat people into submission particularly by larger goups of dogmatic adherents who inevitably begin to demand conformity from those who belong to smaller religious dogmatic groups or those who belong to no organized dogmatic religous group. Religion in and of itself is not a problem in a free and democratic society such as ours. However, like power, which will (not may, but will) be abused by those who wield it, religion will always be abused when it becomes part of the political debate. Religious dogmatists who enter upon the field of public debate, elections, and government demanding that their dogma be observed and venerated inevitably abuse the position and power they gain and bend it toward their own dogmatic ends. The religious stripe of the dogmatists matters not one whit. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And religious power mixed with politics corrupts and then kills religious freedom and freedom of conscience.

By removing religion from our political system the founders brilliantly bypassed the pointless and completely unproductive, idiotic, bloody foolishness of religious dogmatism. It is the genius of our system and should be defended by all genuine patriots, not to the detriment of religion or civil society but to the great benefit of both as we have seen in our national experience. Back in the Old World where this separation never was and the uncontrollable urge to abuse power in the name of religious dogma reigned for hundreds and hundreds of years there are far fewer believers in any God of any kind. So oddly, those who are the most fervent believers are those who ought to be most adamant about maintaining the distinct separation of religion from our politics.

Would you mind explaining yourself?  Theism is precisely the same sort of erroneous thinking as telling fortunes with the Tarot or belief in Astrology.  It reflects exactly the same sort of need for and belief in magic.  Consequently, it is superstition.

I do not consider myself FREE of superstition, but this is a superstition I have gotten past, like the fear of the dark I had as a child.  So I am LESS SUPERSTITIOUS.  I am quite serious about this.

To use the term "atheist" places YOUR world view before mine.  THAT is OFFENSIVE.  I place my world view first, and consider theism to be a superstition. 

You can do whatever you want when talking in private, but when communicating with me, you must RESPECT ME.  I am very tired of the tables being reversed.

And when they come from the left side of the spectrum, they can’t possibly be about trying to win over voters on the religious right.

Why not? This certainly seems to be the motivation of the DLC/TAP attacks on outspoke lefty atheism.

Somewhat off-topic, these findings may bode well for Democrats, especially considering that a good number of the "would vote fors" probably came from Dems and a good number of "would not vote fors" probably came from Republicans:

Mormon 72 24
Married for the third time 67 30
72 years of age 57 42

It's going to be hard to win starting off down 24 to 42 points. Electing an African-American or a woman looks downright easy in comparison.

It is all about abortion. A political scientist from my state, Utah, said the state which was blue as recently as the 70s went red over abortion. Nothing else matters. The most liberal person I know has said: "Give them abortion so we can get on with other, important things." I'm afraid it will be give 'em an inch problem but I do admit (especially since I am past child bearing years) that I would love to find a way to a truce and there appears no way to do it without talking abortion.

Not to put to fine a point on it you can get conscientious objector status without believing in God as per Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (US Supreme Court 1970) which some have argued (including me) overturned Seeger. Seeger is this great 1964 case where the petitioners were basically arguing they were were secular humanists and the court said OK, you can be a CO BUT if you were an atheist...not so much. In Welsh the court held if your beliefs "play the role of religion" in your life, that's good enough for us as long as they are sincerely held. The case is a great read (remember when we had liberals on the court?) if you've got the time and while I still balk at the idea that my moral code must "play the role of religion" I can life with that.

On statistics: the largest survey done recently was done in 2001. The question was asked: "Do you live with anyone who is not religious?" 19% said yes. "Are you religious?" 14% said no. 5% of us are lying and there are more of us than you think.

I'm currently toying with calling myself a "non-religious Christian" because atheist is such a conversations stopper (and career stopper I might add.)

On April 5, 2007 - 5:45pm tlees2 said:

... but what worries me is that this "positive reinforcement" frequently comes at the expense of rational critical thinking (which results in Cheney/Bush/Whig types getting away with conning so many for so long).

I agree to the extent that the "believers" you refer to and the believers I refer to are different. I don't know any right wing christians (believers), the religious people I know aren't the Falwell, Robertson, Southern Baptist types.

Similarity tends to increase efficiency, harmony, and communication but may also lead to predictability and stagnation.

Variety tends to increase innovation and accelerate evolution but but may also lead to disharmony and misunderstanding.

Evangelizing personal beliefs can encourage vigorous and productive debate, or produce hostility and further segregation.

Reinforcing group beliefs can produce group momentum or produce an echo chamber.

Weighing situations on that 2 axis framework, it's usually easily apparent what approach makes the most sense.

Thanks, piotr! But I believe the proper term is "dangeral."

One caveat about that atheist offensive, though: Sam Harris's sometimes-but-only-when-we-really-need-it defense of torture doesn't provide us with any moral clarity on that front. Rorty's straightforward opposition to cruelty leaves us much better off -- even if (as I see elsewhere in this thread) people don't particularly like his version of philosophical pragmatism.

I think that it is a good time for an atheist offensive.

Yikes!

Now is NOT the time for new cultural "offensives."

Now is the time to focus on serious mainstream issues, and bring the country together around them, moving the country forward in a way we haven't seen in generations.

Take War and Peace, Rule of Law, Checks and Balances, Corruption, Health Care, Class Divides, Global Warming, and Energy Independence for starters.

btw, I'm an atheist, what you'd even call a hard atheist, though technically we're all agnostic, and it's difficult enough just to explain let alone launch an "offensive" on.

Jan-

I think that the comments being referred to aren't made in Harris's book, but are the kind of comments you see reading public blogs and commentaries. Back when Yahoo news had discussion boards, I would read plenty of derrogatory comments about theists written by atheists. Heck, I even posted a couple. I think such forums were very emboldening (maybe too much so) for atheists, for whom the anonymity of the internet played a refreshing counterpart to the more common social need for atheists to remain in the closet.

Of course, the philosophers know better, but who pays attention to them?

Not many, because they're too abstract. Religion does a good job of covering the philosophical and practical, usually in one or two books, from "The Start and Finish of Everything" to "Everyday Dos and Don'ts."

However, science is catching up fast and encroaching on traditionally "spiritual" territory like morality as surely as it did cosmology, which is exactly why fundamentalists despise and fear science so.

I never met a fundamentalist who would share moral authority. Fundamentalism is dictatorial by nature.

Primatology, brain scans, and other empirically based research to explain the evolution and physical basis of morality are extremely compelling. It's feasible that in our lifetimes a fairly useful "theory of the mind" could be written based in empirical evidence and spanning fields as broad as evolution to physics to philosophy.

Inevitably in the near future, The Science, will far surpass The Bible or other religious texts in regards to practical guidance for every day dos and don'ts. Science can ultimately offer a level of specificity and clarity no religious dogma can.

I should add, they'll probably agree on the major issues, just as the major religions and cultures already agree on really important stuff like the Golden Rule. Of course the questions presuming a Start and Finish of Everything, will remain for religion. But that's the most abstract niche of them all.

PS, now is certainly NOT the time to be pushing atheism, or frankly even discussing it within 100 miles of politics. There are too many more important issues. Besides, maybe the time for "pushing" atheism is never. I wouldn't want to be pushed towards it.

Having listened to Professor Rorty speak on this topic in public, I can say that I took away from his arguments the notion that religion in the abstract need not be incompatible with pragmatic approaches to epistemology and ontology, but the historical record is brimming over with anecdotal evidence that religion is more trouble than it's worth. Ignore it at your peril.

"Who is to determine what works?"

I think Rorty would say that we do. You and I do. And everyone else here, too.

Now, one hopes we will have a rich array of orderly, secular and fundamentally democratic institutions and systems in which to negotiate a functional consensus about what does and doesn't work. I would add that the extent to which religion supports or undermines our open, secular institutions goes a long way toward counting up the real value of religious belief.

Of course, by saying that, I'm sure I've pissed off half the regular readers of this site.

—s9

Well, I'm a-wonderin' about precisely that very thing, which is why I chose this subject for my opening post. I'm not saying that that game isn't worth the candle -- I'm saying it's not even playable.

Two points:

(1) I'm not "technically" an agnostic. I have a definite belief about the matter, and it is that I believe there is no god. That's called atheism. Of course, while I acknowledge I could be wrong, that is not enough to make me agnostic. I believe the verdict is in, and I have enough information to make what I believe to be the right decision.

(2) It *may be* the case that the primary obstacle to pulling together as a nation is to do some serious smack-down to the sort of "magical thinking" that religious conservatives bring to everything from Christianity to Iraq, global warming, poverty, the economy, abortion, etc., etc.

I don't have the answer. But the question is, CAN we move forward as a nation when religion is such a prominent influence in people's lives? History would seem to suggest that, in such a situation, you can only move backward.

This topic has been much discussed of late by Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett (among others) so I won't go over their points again. Instead a few others:

1. Many people have no idea what an atheist is, they just know it is a bad thing like a communist, fascist or whatever the bogeyman of the day is. Next time you are in a mixed crowd with true believers ask and see what sorts of answers you get.

2. Much religious belief depends upon people following the ideology unquestioningly. There is a strong correlation between people who follow a strong leader (that is they are subservient) and those who are fundamentalists and/or social conservatives.

3. This type of personality has been studied in depth by psychologist Robert Altemeyer. His work was the basis for John Dean's recent book "Conservatives without Conscience". Altemeyer has now summarized his 40+ years of research into an online, free book which you can read for yourself:

The Authoritarians

One of his key findings is that this type of person is impervious to logical argument. Anything which doesn't fit his world view is ignored or dismissed. Such people can also hold contradictory ideas simultaneously. These characteristics mean that changing their ideas is almost impossible.

So, if you want to understand why such debates never go anywhere read his book. It is always useful to know what makes your opponents tick.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

If the truth of a belief is to be determined by its usefulness (pragmatism) or it's coherence with the sum total of one's belief system (Duhem-Quine Thesis), then why exactly, according to his overal philosophical position, should not Faith play a public role?

A very good question. But I think Rorty would have a good answer: as he suggests in his hypothetical exchange with Carter ("OK, but since I don’t think there is such a thing as the will of God, and since I doubt that we’ll get anywhere arguing theism vs. atheism, let’s see if we have some shared premises on the basis of which to continue an argument about abortion"), arguments from faith can and do have their place in debate; they just can't be the last word, the conversation-stopper. "You may believe X because of your faith in God," I might say, "but I think X is a bad idea because it will lead to terrible social outcome Y." And that's what religious fundamentalists object to: the proposition that every proposition is open to skeptical scrutiny from all sides, including (of course) secular considerations like social outcome Y.

Now, one hopes we will have a rich array of orderly, secular and fundamentally democratic institutions and systems in which to negotiate a functional consensus about what does and doesn't work. I would add that the extent to which religion supports or undermines our open, secular institutions goes a long way toward counting up the real value of religious belief.

Of course, by saying that, I'm sure I've pissed off half the regular readers of this site.

And 53 percent of American voters, too! But I'm with you, s9. Cold comfort, perhaps, but there it is.

Read through the comments at the WaPo/Newsweek "On Faith" site.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/
You pretty much see the gamut. Atheist opinion is definitely well represented -- even if it's not always represented well. Personally, I find it gratifying to see so many leaving comments there.

I always like to go socratic on Christians like this:

Do you believe that God determines what is right and wrong? (Yes.)

Then you believe that certain actions are good or bad merely because God said so? (Yes.)

Then if God had decided that murder and torture were "good", then killing and cruelty would be morally commendable? (....)

Or do you think that God had some reason to make murder immoral? (Yes, that's it, he had a reason!)

So it's the reason that ultimately says whether things are right or wrong? (Yes.)

And those reasons can exist whether or not God does? (....)

Geez, I'm glad I left Charlottesville before the Lawn Preachers.  N-ROTCs were enough for me, but that was a different era.

I'm currently toying with calling myself a "non-religious Christian" because atheist is such a conversations stopper (and career stopper I might add.)

 This is why you need to change the terms.  "I don't subscribe to superstitions."  Avoid being too pointed in making that comment if you want to keep friends or jobs.

Better watch out on the murder and torture thing, after all, when Dick and George say its good, WAY too many people seem to go along with it.....

"If you believe in God, I don't. If you don't believe in God, I do."
-Alan Watts

To compromise with the left would mean they would have to accept morality arising without God, which would undermine their religion itself.

This is a theological problem within dominionist thought and strict literalist readings of the Bible. It does not have to be a problem for a religion as long as the focus is on the meaning of the text and doesn't make a fetish out of words and phrases. Frankly it represents the difference between a living religion and a dead one, but most conservative religious people would resists that idea coming back with the words mean something not nothing, to which I reply yes but don't get hung up on the ancient metaphors and confuse a tale about hospitality with a religious obligation to hate all homosexuals; at which point we start yelling and throwing things at each other.

The modern world is infused with Christian morality, even liberalism, socialism, and marxism; in a way by turning their back on modernity the Chritianist turns his back on Christian morality itself. But here I sound like Rene Girard so maybe its time to stop, but really, how realistic is it to paint the West as Godless when Christian ideas and ethics are present in the DNA of all our ideas and institutions. Just because you don't take orders from a priest or a minister doesn't mean that the influence of Christ is absent.

Bertrand Russell already addressed this issue in Why I am Not a Christian. To use Christian in the sense of nice guy is a bit of a put-down to any non-Christian who is a decent person.

Tom

I should point out that I realize how strongly people who adhere to religious beliefs recoil in disgust to see the core axioms of their spiritual life measured by secular methods, the welfare financialized and priced to clear at the optimal rate… that's why I'm writing under a pseudonym.

—s9

Good and bad are not some dual between the forces of light and dark. They are the binary code of biological calculation. The absolute would be a universal state of neutrality, not a model of perfection, so the spiritual absolute is the essence of being out of which we rise, not a perfect being from which we fell.
Think of it in terms of the relationship between top down order and bottom up process. An example would be the corporation as top down entity in the eco-system of capitalism. Monotheism posits God as top down King. Pantheism posits God as bottom up nature.

I’ve never been able to stomach Anglo-American atheism, and I say that as a committed non-believer. Atheists in the United States and Britain just look like another Protestant sect to me, one that has perhaps carried its heresy further than others. All the standard arguments I hear from self-proclaimed atheists, their claim that religious people are superstitious, that they’re slavish authoritarians following some leader with hidden motives, that they’re incapable of thinking for themselves, are reflections of the long-standing fear among American Protestants of some Catholic conspiracy. For these reasons, I’d much prefer in an American election to vote for someone who showed a mature devotion within a religious community (someone like Jimmy Carter) over a vocal atheist who trumpeted some childish and naïve faith in human reason; just because I don’t believe in God doesn’t mean I do believe in the Enlightenment.

I think people should be permitted to get high on any drug they want, including God. If they're sane and sensible, they won't OD and they won't shun those of us who choose to abstain or who use milder drugs.

If not, they're intolerant. But do they view us atheists as too immoral to hold elective office? Or too moral?

The poll suggests a majority won't vote for us, so if we posit that they view themselves as moral, they must view us as the opposite. Which actually indicates that the majority (the shunners) are immoral or at the least, too high to make rational judgments.

Which is why I view the majority of American Judaeo-Christians as dangerous, in need of drug rehab or at least a sedative to restore them to a little more reality.

Kevin Hayden

PS, now is certainly NOT the time to be pushing atheism, or frankly even discussing it within 100 miles of politics. There are too many more important issues. Besides, maybe the time for "pushing" atheism is never. I wouldn't want to be pushed towards it.

This line of thinking tugs at the same vein in me as I am sure questioning god does in a True Believer. Once you fall over to the dark side, as I endearingly entitle my atheism, you relegate yourself to a pathetically small minority. Walking the streets of even the most cosmopolitan US cities, you can feel terribly lonely as everyone around you mires themselves in a conflagration of hypocrisy and outright lies.

I am currently living in Shanghai, and for those of you who haven't experienced life in a culture without religion, I would recommend a visit. It is truly eye-opening. Make all the stink you want about communist China, but there are myriad things this regime gets right that our perverted theocratic democracy get very, very wrong.

I am only 22. I want to have life in politics someday. Don't sell me out like this kozmik.

Good 4:

I agree with you about changing the frame away from theist/atheist. For me, though, framing in terms of "less superstitious" leaves things blurry and (I would guess) is quite likely to give offense.

When asked, I generally say that I was raised a supernaturalist but am now a naturalist.

I stand corrected. My impression was that individuals are dangerous, and the study of that phenomenon is the domain of Dangereal Studies, a new field of Social Sciences that indubitably deserves at least a dedicated society, a journal and a periodic conference.

Kevin and others: As a Methodist Christian, I am deeply concerned at the way in which religion has been invoked and used as a political tool since Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980. There is an unbroken trend there which is completely antithetical to the religious teachings I received as a young boy and still hold today. My wife, who is a serious Bible student, has the same reaction.

The reference to John Dean's book above is instructive because none of the Protestant sects in New England have an authoritarian aspect today. This is a recent change, however. When my father was a kid in rural southeastern Massachusetts, in the 1940s and 1950s, New England Protestantism was very authoritarian and straight out of the Scandinavian and Scottish/Welsh mold of Calvinism, Blue Laws, No Dancing, and being virulently Anti-Catholic. Up until my Aunt Millie died in the 1980s, she still chided my father about leaving clothes on the clothes line on Sunday, the Sabbath. Thankfully, all of this wackiness and authoritarianism and anti-Catholic bigotry was rinsed out the Protestant churches in New England in the 1960s and is gone today.

My take on some folks who call themselves atheists (but not all) is that I understand their revulsion toward religion but they try to be too clever by a half. The very last scene in Don DeLillo's White Noise with the German nun to some degree captures the source of my religious belief and non-belief. It was intended, I believe, to echo the scene with the Inquisitor in the Brothers Karamazov.

So for what its worth, I intend to bash dogmatic and flippant atheists with the same tools they employ to bash dogmatic religionists. The important thing is get beneath the stereotypes and talk to each other like the other is a thoughtful, sentient human being.

OK, so that was before the strand got interesting. I'll change my rating now. I initially thought that your first comment was a mere affirmation of personal belief without much direct connection to the Berube piece, but I have to admit it later sparked a genuinely interesting and commendable exchange on both sides.

The misuse of religion noted by Douglas is exactly what I had in mind when I wrote about the theologians of AEI. Officials of assorted conservative churches repeat their talking points.

On the other hand, I guess that I can agree with Douglas on most topics, but if he asks me, or if discussion veers to that issue, I will admit that religious belief is, in my opinion, irrational and all too often (but clearly, not always) it is a slippery slope toward rather dangerous irrationality. I may even appear dogmatic and flippant.

1) The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative is a logical fallacy of the following form:

"X is true because there is no proof that X is false."

It is asserted that a proposition is true, only because it has not been proven false. The negative proof fallacy often occurs in the debate of the existence of supernatural phenomena, in the following form:

* "A supernatural force must exist, because there is no proof that it does not exist".

However, the fallacy can also occur when the predicate of a subject is denied:

* "A supernatural force does not exist, because there is no proof that it does exist.".

2) Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning "without", and Gnosticism or gnosis, meaning knowledge) means unknowable, and is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding metaphysics, afterlife or the existence of God, god(s), or deities—is unknown or (possibly) inherently unknowable.

Technically there is only agnosticism, for all believers and non-believers.

Depends on your rules of epistemology.  In mine, simplicity prevails.  This just happens to be the same rule that brought us the modern world, with all its benefits and horrors.  But without it, some tragedy of the commons would have HAD to play out 100-200 years ago.

This rule also prefers NO supernatural beings, an unnecessary complication.

"It's the rhetoric, stupid"
I never imagined myself as a DLC apologist, but here goes:

I think that the sort of respect that some on the "left" would like us atheists to pay to religion in the public marketplace is illustrated, in its absence, by noted atheist author Sam Harris in an ongoing discussion with Andrew Sullivan, where Harris writes:

Where I think we disagree is on the nature of faith itself. I think that faith is, in principle, in conflict with reason (and, therefore, that religion is necessarily in conflict with science), while you do not. Perhaps I should acknowledge at the outset that people use the term "faith" in a variety of ways. My use of the word is meant to capture belief in specific religious propositions without sufficient evidence-prayer can heal the sick, there is a supreme Being listening to our thoughts, we will be reunited with our loved ones after death, etc. I am not criticizing faith as a positive attitude in the face of uncertainty, of the sort indicated by phrases like, "have faith in yourself." There's nothing wrong with that type of "faith."

Given my view of faith, I think that religious "moderation" is basically an elaborate exercise in self-deception, while you seem to think it is a legitimate and intellectually defensible alternative to fundamentalism.

By construing religious faith as not merely separate from, but also "in conflict" with, reason, not to mention distinguishing it from the kind of faith "[t]here's nothing wrong with," Harris demands devaluing faith by anyone who claims to value reason, which, given the poll data you presented, poses a bit of a problem in the electoral arena. Must we really force people to choose between faith, on the one hand, and reason and science on the other? People also do not generally respond well to arguments that they are engaging in "self-deception," and I expect they will not be thrilled to discover that atheists think that moderation in the opposition of fundamentalism is no virtue.

All well and good, so we shouldn't overtly invalidate the role of faith in moral reasoning or liken belief in a particular religion to false consciousness, but how does one respond to the conversation-stopping religious argumentation in your examples? I suggest that we merely and politely acknowledge the incommensurability of our systems of evaluating the validity of faith-based arguments, leave them our literature on why we support, e.g., abortion rights, shake hands and part ways on those issues while still making use of the valuable, religious concepts we can reach via secular reasoning, such as caritas and agape, of which you have written elsewhere.

Is this the respect that adherents of religion themselves want? No. As Stanley Fish has recently written (from behind the NYT subscription wall): "But religion’s truth claims don’t want your respect. They want your belief and, finally, your soul. They are jealous claims." We cannot give the religious right any respect that it will value. As for our leftward of the religious right friends who want us to grant religious claims more respect in the political marketplace, I suspect that they have little interest in our souls or even the souls of swing voters, unless souls get votes in addition to the ones bodies get. They just want us atheists to stop offending the rather large number of voters who value both faith and reason--ours is not to reason how--while conceding the hopeless cavemen and zombie voters. For example, if we don't force people to choose between their Catholic faith and supporting access to birth control for all the rational reasons, they might somehow find a way to choose both of the above, and, somehow, they did just that.

I think you may have underestimated the appeal of, and need for repeating, the "usual arguments about competing for swing voters and trying not to piss people off unnecessarily." While trying to gain the votes of the religious right is a hopeless prospect, not losing the votes of the religious middle seems like a valuable goal.

[As for the clamor on the left for less discussion of hockey in the marketplace of ideas, what's up with that?]

"Yours for Humanity" - Abby Kelley

How about theism vs. humanism?

I agree with this, but accepting that our culture is infused from top to bottom with Christian moral teachings, including liberalism, which is an offshoot of Renaissance humanism, doesn't mean that one necessarily accepts the dogmas of the incarnation, the resurrection of the flesh, the casting out (or even belief in) demons, original sin, providence, and the rest. No?

Why do you want to be opposed to them?  I am not opposed to practitioners of other superstitions, so long as they remain harmless.  If someone predicts a future using the Tarot and decides I am a risk to them, then harms me beforehand, I worry about the harm, not the Tarot.  Same with this more widely practiced superstition.

I thought you were asking for more value-neutral words than theism and atheism, where one of the words wasn't defined in terms of the other. That's all I was suggesting. So let me rephrase:

How about theism and humanism?

On April 6, 2007 - 9:34am nedbalzer said:

I remember someone (I think it was Alan Jones, dean of Grace Cathedral in San Francisco) saying that faith was the opposite of certainty.

Many years ago I read this variation: "Faith is believing in something when common sense tells you not to."

On April 6, 2007 - 1:44am Douglas Watts said:

This is the kind of juvenalia that does not "help" the cause of atheism in the U.S.

Atheism has a cause in the U S? No one told me, and I'm an atheist.

I think a number of people believe in God because they fear the alternative.....that this life is all there is.

Thanks for the great response, Abby. You've gotten at yet another of my problems with Harris -- the starkness of that opposition between faith and reason, an opposition I never witnessed in my Jesuit teachers -- and you've reminded me of something that seems to be annoying some people upthread as well, namely, the self-congratulatory alignment of atheism with intelligence. The day Dennett chose the term "brights" was a very bad day indeed.

A couple of more specific things:

People also do not generally respond well to arguments that they are engaging in "self-deception," and I expect they will not be thrilled to discover that atheists think that moderation in the opposition of fundamentalism is no virtue.

I agree completely, and wish I'd said this so eloquently.

I think you may have underestimated the appeal of, and need for repeating, the "usual arguments about competing for swing voters and trying not to piss people off unnecessarily." While trying to gain the votes of the religious right is a hopeless prospect, not losing the votes of the religious middle seems like a valuable goal.

Fair enough, especially w/r/t not pissing people off unnecessarily, which always seems like a useful political goal (and which helps to explain why I don't work on campaigns). I may indeed be underestimating the appeal of the usual arguments for competing for swing voters, but then, I do keep wondering about how many voters we're actually talking about. I've come around, however, to the point at which I've abandoned the leftish fantasy of my youth, namely, the strange (and tenacious!) belief that the people are really clamoring for Democratic-Left Socialist candidates at the polls and turn to Republicans only because (a) they are disgusted with the moderate Democrats they are offered or (b) they are duped by the corporate media. So I agree that competing for those swing votes is a crucial thing to do if you're actually interested in winning elections. Which brings me to:

As for the clamor on the left for less discussion of hockey in the marketplace of ideas, what's up with that?

I wish I knew. I think it has something to do with hockey being primarily a Canadian sport unintelligible to swing voters (who were apparently unimpressed with John Kerry's hockey-playing with the Bruins in '04), but the way I figure it, this clamor is exceptionally wrongheaded.  Surely the more we talk about hockey in the US, the closer we'll get to universal health care.  If we have to accept Don Cherry into the bargain, hell, it's a small price to pay.

Out here in middle America, "humanism" (as in "secular humanism") has already been framed very negatively. Being a "secular humanist" is practically like being a Communist. So you're not going to get very far in winning language wars by labeling yourself a "humanist."

That being said, as Michael and others have pointed out upthread, you're also not going to be convincing the core voters of the religious right to vote for a progressive candidate however you frame the issues.

On April 6, 2007 - 10:29am tlees2 said: "Faith is believing in something when common sense tells you not to."

This is what people who still support Bush must be doing.

hahaha, excellent observation. :)

While these findings aren’t particularly surprising, the depth of the apparent core American belief that a person of faith must occupy the White House is somewhat frightening.

Welcome back, Professor!

Yeah, I know. That's why I left the "secular" part off.

I am pretty skeptical about the usefulness of trying to reframe an issue that's already been framed, for purposes of swaying political opinion. But it seems to me that whether or not one's objectives are to sway political opinion, some terms should be reclaimed anyway, and humanist is a prime candidate.

I'm not sure I see the point of reframing at all.  For my part, I don't care if calling myself an atheist frames my beliefs negatively; for society, any way you package it, people are going to see it for what it is (and vote accordingly, I guess).  So why bother going all linguistic.

If you want to see "material stuff," check out the Vatican; its many treasures (some left over from torturing people during the inquisition). Or you could check out the Falwells, the "Crystal Cathedral", the televangelists and their Barbie-Doll wives.

Our Prez & VP are overloaded with both religion and material stuff, and they have shared that wealth with all but the needy.

Believe it or not, it is possible to believe in the common good; of being a part of something greater than oneself; of wanting to leave the world better than one found it, and NOT to believe in any god at all. We actually believe that being honest and helping others is a good thing because it simply is THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Because that kind of person is who we want to be, rather than because fear of everlasting punishment.

In fact the last paragraph is not something that many "believers" are comfortable with; they pray to win the soccer game; to get rich; for a cure for cancer. They honestly think that a god is somewhere observing all the harm and death and destruction going on in the world without intervening in any demonstrable way, but will listen to one citizen who wants his paycheck to clear before the debit card registers at the bank!

Most of us were brought up with some religion. It is a journey to arrive in life without one, and unlike many religious people believe; it is not the lazy way out. It is not a choice one makes so that one can do bad things and get away with them. Both of those scenarios [refuting ones religion out of laziness or a desire to be a bad person] require the person to still believe but to be in denial. That may happen, but denial runs far deeper on the other side of the fence in my opinion.

Jan Knaus

I think you're wrong: You seem to have (misplaced) faith in post-structuralism. Post-structuralists have erroneously concluded that all "truth" is subjective because all assertions of truth are subjective. This is not only a logical fallacy, but a dangerous one at that--dangerous because it can be, and has been, used to justify and rationalize intentional ignorance. "Truth" ought to interest you, because it sure doesn't interest the Bush administration.

Oops, sorry: it's the Homosexual/Zombie ticket that gets 106% of the vote.

We have allowed religious people to define "atheism". Dostoyevski had a character say, "If there is no God everything is permitted." Who would go along with that?

Most people who call themselves secular are really sort of Spinozian monists -- like Albert Einstein, whose "God" is the ardent love of truth and the rewards of a virtuous life of cooperation and helping one's fellows while taking care of one's own needs.

Bertrand Russell (in his chapter on Spinoza in his history of Western Philosophy), says that Christians believe you should ardently love your enemy, which is good. Stoics say you should be indifferent to your friends, which is bad. The trouble, according to Russell, is that few can live up to Christian precepts, nor does he feel it is really desirable in many cases. But even Bertrand Russell, who wrote that he was not a believer, warned against man's making a god out of himself and forgetting his fallibility -- as the religious accuse atheists of doing.

I agree with those that say that the great religious traditions contain information (wisdom) that people have considered most important and often in symbolic form. Some of the wisest people in the world devoted their lives to religion, and we discard their wisdom at our peril. On the other hand, Emerson said, and I agree with him, that Jesus Christ attached insufficient importance to art and science. (It is a true of other saints as well.) It is a dilemma.

I'm sorry-maybe I'm reading different posts than you. I think the discussion here, from both atheists and religious people, has been quite civil. And while there may be an animosity directed toward those who are unthinking and religious (you must admit that such people exist, in numbers far to large to be comfortable), the animosity is directed much more toward the "unthinking" part than the "religious" part.

When I say, as I have above, that "faith" is dangerous, I don't mean to equate "faith" with "religion". Rather, by "faith" I mean the process whereby people are willing to believe a wide variety of things on the basis of little to no evidence, and are then unwilling to re-examine those beliefs.

There are plenty of thoughtful, intelligent, and great people out there who are religious, but for whom the process of believing without evidence is still generally anathema. I don't consider such people hypocrites, or deluded, or enemies. I happen to disagree with such people about one fact, but this fact is not a "conversation stopper." I consider smart, thoughtful religious people to be allies against the general and all too pervasive lack of rationality in society at large.

Of course religious people define "atheism," "theism" is their word.  Don't use it.

As with the professor, there is nothing wrong with reading the texts.  Just don't worship them.  Nobody worships the Greek gods anymore, although there are plenty of those texts around.  There is no dilemma. 

I liked the comments above re: fundamentalists. This is very true:

...that's what religious fundamentalists object to: the proposition that every proposition is open to skeptical scrutiny from all sides, including (of course) secular considerations like social outcome Y.

Fundamentalists have such a rigid position, that you're not going to be able to communicate with them on mutually intelligible grounds.

At the same time, I want to somewhat resist the two categories that Abbey outlines above: fundamentalists vs. religious moderates who embrace reason and faith. I don't disagree with these two categories, but I see another category of people (who perhaps Abbey was including in her latter category). In my religion (Mormonism), along with all the strong right-wing adherents, I see a good number of people who not