Let's analyze "Defeaters: The Problem of Science" - a sermon by Joe Coffey

[VMLM]

Wow... I guess I'm pretty much out of this discussion, so permit me to butt in .
I was brash in my last post. I'm sorry, I tend to get carried away and my writing isn't as clear as it should be. Off the bat I'll say that it wasn't my intention to chide or insult anyone's point of view, I'll do my best to be less aggressive in the way I transmit my opinions.

Secondly,
Joe, I'd like to thank you (as an interested bystander, since I can't really say that I've contributed much) for the discussion you've sparked by coming here.
I'm sorry for your loss... I have two siblings and I love them both, I feel for you.

Lady of Shallot:

It would seem reasonable that all religions over all time would have had their atheists. Not just Christianity.

You're right, of course. I do seem to imply that atheism is solely a Christian phenomenon, I don't think it is. I was referring rather to the debate on the adequacy of the Christian myth and the existence of god which has been occurring in the western world for some time now.
Popular writers such as Richard Dawkins constantly turn out new literature on why we shouldn't believe in god. Others, such as Karen Armstrong give great explanations on the Bible's historical background and significance. There's obviously more to this body of knowledge, and I'll say honestly that I've only read a very small part of it... I've only looked at these books out of curiosity for the history of Christian religion. My point however is that the Atheism we are experiencing at this moment is framed around (not exclusively, but substantially) two on-going discussions. One centered on the validity of the foundations the Christian religion is built upon, the other centered on the development of a valid secular system of moral philosophy.
The beginnings of the first discussion, though more formal and philosophically oriented, can be traced to the start of the twentieth century, with philosophers like Nietzsche and Camus; it can also be seen in the political philosophies of the late nineteenth century, for example the Marxist ideas of communism (ideas very obviously founded on Judeo-Christian principles which nonetheless reject the Christian myth entirely). The origins of the discussion can be traced further back still to the Inquisitions, but that's outside the breadth of this particular conversation.
The second discussion runs parallel to the first. Victor Frankle, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Thomas Hobbes, and a long etc. have been discussing the ideas of free-will and moral responsibility for what can adequately be described as a fairly long time.
My point with this is that Atheism as we know it, while certainly being a question of personal inclination, is only the tip of the historical ice berg. And a good chunk of that iceberg has to do with Christianity.

I also don't agree that atheism is a religious movement (although I do understand what you mean by saying that) nor do I think it is a choice. I didn't awaken one morning and say, "Hey, guess I'll stop believing in God!"
I do not choose atheism. I AM an atheist.
I also think we do live together atheist and believer. Certainly I don't love my religious siblings less, nor they me, because we do not share the same religious views.

You're right, I was wrong to call it a religious movement. However when two or more sides are arguing without any sign of compromise, that can hardly be called a debate anymore can it? The discussion over the existence of god for example. I guess that's just some of my own angst .

As to the last part of that quote = "I do not choose atheism. I AM an atheist.” my first inclination is to disagree with you outright. Are you saying that religious belief is genetic? Or that the way you have grown and developed dictated that, at the moment you came into direct confrontation with the question of belief in god, you realized that you didn't believe?
The first one makes no sense to me, a genetic predisposition of something so complex as the mental construct that is religious belief doesn't seem defensible. In all fairness I asked my sister about this, she has a degree in psychology and specializes in psychobiology, so I trust her opinion will be better informed than mine. She told me that although it's possible that certain genetic personality traits, reinforced or stemmed through nurture during the first stages of infancy may influence what decisions a person makes throughout their lives, it's impossible that any rationalized belief held by any one person be genetic.
On the other hand, the idea that you "felt" that you didn't believe in god when you finally confronted the question directly makes more sense to me because I empathize with it. I feel my own initial experience is similar. Although I don't believe that I had no choice but to accept the non-existence of god. In fact for the first few years of my "atheism" I believed that god must exist, it was just that these people in the dresses with the huge books didn't know what they were talking about. Only through a gradual understanding of my own and other religions did I finally accept that there was no reason for my own belief to be "right" while others where "wrong" and renounced my belief in god while maintaining that this in no way detracted from the value religion might have had in my own life as well as in the life of others around me and throughout history. For me the decision to stop believing in god was conscious. I guess I was lucky because my family was so religiously gregarious and tolerant to begin with.
Besides, there are many examples of conversions of faith from one religion to another, from religion to atheism and vice versa. If belief is predisposed, how can you explain this?

On another note, I understand that we all do live together. My own family has in it a Buddhist, a lot of Christians, a Muslim and a couple of non-believers and we all get along fine, we would never think of our beliefs as a line to draw upon the sand. Could you imagine the infighting with the in-laws if we did xD? We don't really touch on the existence of god anymore because we find it really doesn't help anybody get along and nobody seems to be convincing anyone else anyway. What I meant to say is that the discussion of god's existence isn't important to me. That's all.

Atheism is a direct result of Christianity; Really?

Once again I'm sorry for my lack of clearness; it wasn't my intention to say that all of Atheism is the result of Christianity.
To describe any one complex human event as the single cause of any other is impossible in history, however one of the prevalent elements in "our" manifestation of Atheism is a reaction to Christian Dogma. The discussions on the existence of god, free-will and morality have taken place in Occidental Europe and the Americas for the greater part of their durations. Do other such discussions exist in other parts of the world? Perhaps, but ours most certainly have Christian roots.
I would point out that we sometimes choose to maintain many Christian principles of morality despite our rejection of the religion itself and that the influence of Christianity on our society goes far beyond that. Our perception of sex, the idea of sin and existential guilt, marriage, our perception of homosexuality, heck... communism, human rights, equality of all men... all have a common heritage in the Christian world that gave them form and they all still form a tangible part of current society.

And just what exactly about Christianity is outdated?

The problems that exist between Christianity and modern society aren't hidden, or hard to see. We discuss them all the time.

• It's becoming harder to reconcile the Christian myth with the advancement of scientific knowledge, which is why the Bible itself is losing ever more influence, and *I think* could also be one of the reasons why many believers (although not the religious institutions themselves, yet) relegate the Good Book's importance to a second plane while arguing instead that Christianity is more about the direct relationship with god.
• It's also hard to reconcile the stand of Christian and catholic institutions on homosexuality, sexuality and birth control with a society that is increasingly permissive of each of these. While these positions might have had relevance in their own historical contexts, today they're becoming ever harder to defend. Yet a change to the catholic religion's stand on birth control and sexuality would imply a very large shift in their perception of human life and procreation.
• Another aspect of these faiths which is outdated and something of a hindrance in modern times is its religious exclusivity. There is only one god, you must believe in him and in nothing else. This is hardly conductive to religious plurality. If we wish for the different world religions and cultures to hold useful dialogues amongst themselves, this view simply can't be maintained. This aspect of belief is also starting to change, albeit not institutionally. A much more pronounced version of this problem can be seen occurring in Islam.

I suggest that you google:
Hindu on Christian violence
Buddhist on Christian violence
of course there is no need to do it for Islam but check out the area you are citing anyway.

Again, this is my fault for lack of clearness. By using the word "coexist" I've implied that they did so peacefully. Sadly, religious violence seems to appear whenever two or more religions coexist for an extended period of time...
However my point was not whether or not violence existed between the religions in South East Asia, it's the fact that religion has been much more successful in maintaining its faithfuls in this part of the world.
I'm also glad that you mentioned China, because you're right, China is officially an Atheist state. It's also a prime example of what happens when you try to forcefully supress religious belief. With the end of the Cultural Revolution came the re-instatement of several world religions and the institution of what they called "religious freedom", they brought back Buddhism and Taoism as well as Christianity. However the people of China simply didn't buy into these new official religions, instead they opted for the beliefs they never actually let go of and which were maintained secretly and subtly through all of the Cultural Revolution, ancestor worship and some extant religions such as Feng Shui. You'll find that these cultural beliefs ran strong in Chinese society throughout the late twentieth century.
I don't know much about religion in contemporary China, I haven't looked into it or visited the place (although I'd love to see Beijing), but I imagine today the situation is somewhat similar, although more plural.

As an atheist, who or what exactly is "Our" god?
You are right about your prediction that Christianity will decrease, but it will not be replace by atheism, it will be replaced by a universal humanist church which will be an amalgum of all religions and atheism.

I would say "Our" god is the one we've stopped believing in. I know that I'm as much an ex-Christian as I am an atheist, and I think it must be much the same for anyone who's grown up with Christianity around them. We're steeped in the culture and the moral system and society that have made up the Christian religion, as much as we might wish to be free of its influence, we can't be without sacrificing a large part of our culture. It'd be like dynamiting the floor under our feet to better define where we're standing.
I don't make any outright predictions as to the future of religion stahrwe, and while the idea of an amalgamated universal humanist church may be tempting, I don't see it happening any time soon unless the peoples of the world suddenly decide they've fought long enough and join into a single nation... or religion loses enough political significance that no one will object the union of all religions... in which case such a religion probably wouldn't be relevant anymore. This specific topic feels a lot like sci-fi and reminds me of some of the star wars and terry pratchett discussions I've had over the years...xD.

I neglected to say that in the post by VLMN, he appears to be chiding us for discussing atheism. But why should we not? Why does a discussion have to be considered an argument? Why should we be muffled? This site offers an atheism forum and a religious forum. Christians, and other religious people can assemble together to worship or just have kinship in a specific setting at a specific time. Atheists are denied such an outlet.

Sorry lady, I was too aggressive. And you're right, we all have a right to discuss the topics we find relevant. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Forums are an outlet for me too, I've tried to argue these things with my family but we're all too apologetic by nature.

Interbane, ESS and the idea that morality evolves seems interesting. Although I don't know whether the breadth of time in which society (and thus the constraints of community to allow for the development of morality) has existed could be considered enough to allow for the evolution you're suggesting.
Or are you saying that the actual behaviors, not the individuals, have evolved and been maintained?
Do you have anything I can read on this that isn't too technical? I'd love something introductory.

EDIT: Editted for spelling errors... I'm so ashamed.

[Interbane]

This is an excellent discussion, all around. Thank you to everyone for being civil, keep the good posts coming!

VMLM:

Interbane, ESS and the idea that morality evolves seems interesting. Although I don't know whether the breadth of time in which society (and thus the constraints of community to allow for the development of morality) has existed could be considered enough to allow for the evolution you're suggesting.
Or are you saying that the actual behaviours, not the individuals, have evolved and been maintained?
Do you have anything I can read on this that isn't too technical? I'd love something introductory.

You caught the critical distinction, that I was saying culture evolves independant of the individual. However, I meant that both have evolved, with respect to morality. Individuals, genetically, have evolved the moral mechanisms(guilt/shame/empathy) which were optimized for tribal life. Which means, the scope of time was tens or hundreds of thousands of years. Consider the fact that other animals can feel empathy and shame Beyond that, various moral standards have developed culturally, guided by empathy and reason(Egyptians reasoned that it was immoral for people to steal food that others relied upon, and the rule can be found in the book of the dead). Our obedience to these cultural morals is provisional, of course. Even the most god fearing man is capable of murder. What commands this provisional obedience are the genetically evolved mechanisms(guilt/shame/empathy).

Oops, forgot a book. Start with "The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer.

Daniel Dennet as well.

[stahrwe]

Well, guys, once again I think you are leaving me out of the discussion. My question about faith v. belief was directed to Starhwe who did answer with Biblical quotations.

So since I don't rely on the Bible for my "beliefs" I guess I can continue to define these two words as I choose. Of course I have faith in many things and believe many things also. Probably many that are incorrect or limited.

I am not sure why you conclude that you do not need to conform to the definition of faith and belief as I described them. I don't believe in evolution but when I discuss it I use the scientific meaning of the words. The definition of faith I provided is at least 2,000 years old. I submit that qualifies it as superior to your defintion, whatever it might be.

[stahrwe]

Interbane when you say intelligent people have fewer children than stupid people do you mean just in the USA? There is a new television show about a Mormon family (4 wives, one husband) that has I believe 16 children. Would you say they are less intelligent than my daughter's children who are two in number? I would have to think a lot about your post to actually understand it. One thing that jumps out at me is the "people who would otherwise die being kept alive to spread their gene pool" This is interesting but can you give an example?

Starhwe, I have been thinking about your interpretation of belief and faith. I accept what you say, but if faith is a gift, at what point is it given to the recipient? At birth like good looks and artistic talent, singing ability etc.? Or at some other point in one's life? If at birth is it like the other attributes, in one's genetic makeup? If later why are some chosen for faith and others not?

LoS you will have to excuse me if I seem a bit repetitive or revisit some comments. As for Faith, it is a gift in the sense that it is on offer and free for the taking at any time. Baptist say that the age is the age of accountability, i.e. when one becomes old enough to understand the concepts of sin and salvation. Essentially this is when one can understand that the gift is being offered and one can choose to accept or reject it.

[stahrwe]

Lady, I was only referring to the United States in my examples. Which means, they are only thought experiments. I place no stock in them. They may be true, or they may not, but at least they are interesting.

Looking to anecdotes to develop conclusions will throw us way off base. I wouldn't presume the Mormon's to be more or less intelligent than a couple who has just a single child. I saw a study a while back that found a correlation between education and number of offspring. Of course, education isn't the same as intelligence, but there is a second level correlation.

Lady:

One thing that jumps out at me is the "people who would otherwise die being kept alive to spread their gene pool" This is interesting but can you give an example?

The examples are all over. Basically, any genetic illness that would have lead to death or increase the chance of death if modern medicine hadn't intervened. Specifically heart disease and diabetes, but there are many many more.

Stahrwe:

In fact, such a dismissal fails to differentiate between belief and faith. The former is open ended and may encompass anything, while the latter is a gift and is rarely bestowed.

Belief doesn't entail distinctions on what composes the belief, where faith does. If you have faith, it is belief that is unfounded, unsupported. That's how the two are differentiated. In that sense, belief in Santa Claus is the same as belief in God. They both rely on faith.

Some people attempt to redefine 'faith' as something else, but it is only an attempt to cover up the truth; that faith is unsupported belief. Faith is not a virtue, and it is not a gift.

I must point out that you are totally wrong on this point. Looking at the text in Ephesians, it says:

For by grace are you saved through faith, which is the gift of God not of works.

It does not say:

For by grace are you saved through belief ....

It doesn't say that because it if did, the rest of the sentence would not make sense. Belief is something one does, it is a work, a mental effort, an abstract construct whereas faith originates outside of the Christian, it is not a mental effort or an abstract construct.

[stahrwe]

"The church, properly functioning, is a group of people who are intimately related to each other. No other group of people can duplicate that."

this has not been my observation. Oh, not that people do not belong to certain groups within their separate churches because obviously they do. As I have said before all my family are faithful(!) church attendees, Episcopalian and Catholic. I do not sense from them such a feeling of fellowship or intimate relations. To the best of my knowledge outside the church meetings there is no relationship at all. What they do share is a belief in a God and Jesus. I would like to belong to a group (such as this one) that shares a disbelief in God and Jesus. Don't know that I want a shared relationship with them. Of course I participate in secular organizations that have a shared purpose and from them (as from church attendance also) friendships can grow. Those are to me shared "relationships" along with marriage and family.
I suppose it is possible that neither the Episcopalian or the Catholic are "properly functioning churches" or it is possible my family members stand outside the norm.

I have been in churches which suck. The church I attend now occasionally sucks and sometimes so do I. And yet, you envy what you see in the church body. You say you long to fellowship with other atheists, to sit and discuss your atheism. Good luck. I don't see that being a satisfying activity. In the first place, the philosophy is one of separation and exclusion. You may desire to bring others into the group but to do so they must abandon something or at least forego it. Christianity is just the opposite, to come in you join together and you gain rather than lose.

[stahrwe]

I think your view of faith is limited here isn't it? are you saying you do not need to have faith in anything you believe? Faith seems to be a sliding scale. Absolute certainty left with modernity and seems to have been replaced in every sector including yours.

No, I have faith in great many things. I cannot possibly explore every aspect of my world so that every belief I have is supported. Everyone has faith. Some instances of faith are far more simple and inevitable than others. For example, we all must have faith that our senses are providing us with accurate sense datum, else we'd not be able to trust our own eyes. There are also more complex instances of faith, in the most obvious case, founding an entire world view on faith. That's simply not acceptable. It's as if to say; we will believe, and our beliefs will remain unsupported, and that's that. I despise the stigma of using our brains to examine our beliefs metacognitively. The human brain is the greatest wonder of the universe, and we should use it to it's utmost.

I also do not have absolute certainty about anything. As you've said, there is only a sliding scale. I'm extremely confident about certain things, such as the rising of the sun tomorrow, but I am not absolutely certain. Certainty is for fools, whether it's supported by evidence, reasoning, or faith. If you want to use the idea of a sliding scale, it must be 3 dimensional. The three axis' are belief/disbelief, then supported/unsupported, then important/trivial. Everything that is important(that I'm aware of) is also supported. Support means disciplined critical thinking. The only unsupported beliefs(which I have faith in) are trivial.

Joe, I answered some of your other questions in a post that's already been buried a little. It was before my reply to Lady of Shallot.

@Stahrwe; I don't accept any definitions of faith vs belief that come from the bible. Both belief and faith are internal processes. They both(in most cases) refer to an external referent or set of referents. The self serving definition found in the bible seeks to make faith into a virtue, with the obvious goal of aborting the examination of that belief. Or, at least making that belief immune to examination. With faith as the ultimate priority in selecting the pillars of your worldview, any cognitive dissonance can be rationalized.

That's amazingly narrowminded of you. You don't accept any definition of faith that comes from the Bible (I remind you that the title of a book is capitalized including the Bible). If you believe that my explanation of faith makes it a virtue, you should re-read what I have said and what Ephesians says. Also, there is nothing 'self-serving' about faith, in fact, it is just the opposite, it is God saving us.

[jcoffey]

Interbane,
I like your responses. I particularly like the 3-D faith idea. A while back you wrote about the incredible volume of material written on a subject and that only one very well conversant could be unbiased. I don't think that would make someone unbiased. You would not consider me unbiased simply because I have read more on Christianity than anyone on this blog would you? I dare say you would consider that laughable. Now, before you jump to the science vs fantasy argument, let me assure you there is quite a bit of historical and archeological scholarship out there in support of the Bible. I guess my point is that in any field there is a tremendous amount of information written. I heard a Christian apologist say once, "If you can dismiss anyone's world view with a sentence you have not understood it." I want to make sure I always give your world view that respect and if you see in any of my messages or my attitude something different please call me on it.

[stahrwe]

Atheism is a direct result of Christianity; Really?

Once again I'm sorry for my lack of clearness; it wasn't my intention to say that all of Atheism is the result of Christianity.

To describe any one complex human event as the single cause of any other is impossible in history, however one of the prevalent elements in "our" manifestation of Atheism is a reaction to Christian Dogma. The discussions on the existence of god, free-will and morality have taken place in Occidental Europe and the Americas for the greater part of their durations. Do other such discussions exist in other parts of the world? Perhaps, but ours most certainly have Christian roots.

I would point out that we sometimes choose to maintain many Christian principles of morality despite our rejection of the religion itself and that the influence of Christianity on our society goes far beyond that. Our perception of sex, the idea of sin and existential guilt, marriage, our perception of homosexuality, heck... communism, human rights, equality of all men... all have a common heritage in the Christian world that gave them form and they all still form a tangible part of current society.

Perhaps you would make more sense if you said that atheism exists because of God.
As for the principles of morality you mentioned above, they are all the product of Judaism and not Christianity.

And just what exactly about Christianity is outdated?

The problems that exist between Christianity and modern society aren't hidden, or hard to see. We discuss them all the time.

• It's becoming harder to reconcile the Christian myth with the advancement of scientific knowledge, which is why the Bible itself is losing ever more influence, and *I think* could also be one of the reasons why many believers (although not the religious institutions themselves, yet) relegate the Good Book's importance to a second plane while arguing instead that Christianity is more about the direct relationship with god.

I suspect you are referring to creation here, and as you are a newcomer you have not had a chance for me to explain your error to you before now. Creationism, while supported by many Christians, including myself, is not a core belief of Christianity.

[*]It's also hard to reconcile the stand of Christian and catholic institutions on homosexuality, sexuality and birth control with a society that is increasingly permissive of each of these. While these positions might have had relevance in their own historical contexts, today they're becoming ever harder to defend. Yet a change to the catholic religion's stand on birth control and sexuality would imply a very large shift in their perception of human life and procreation.

You are mixing up a great many things here. Do you object to the Catholic Churces stand on contraception or the Southern Baptists? Catholocism is not a religion but just what is wrong with their stand on sexuality. Do you believe that the sexualization of our young people is a good thing?

[*]Another aspect of these faiths which is outdated and something of a hindrance in modern times is its religious exclusivity. There is only one god, you must believe in him and in nothing else. This is hardly conductive to religious plurality. If we wish for the different world religions and cultures to hold useful dialogues amongst themselves, this view simply can't be maintained. This aspect of belief is also starting to change, albeit not institutionally. A much more pronounced version of this problem can be seen occurring in Islam. [/list]

Religious plurality; what on earth is that and why would anyone even want that? Secular plurality, sure, we all need to live together, but not religious plurality.

I suggest that you google:
Hindu on Christian violence
Buddhist on Christian violence
of course there is no need to do it for Islam but check out the area you are citing anyway.

Again, this is my fault for lack of clearness. By using the word "coexist" I've implied that they did so peacefully. Sadly, religious violence seems to appear whenever two or more religions coexist for an extended period of time...

However my point was not whether or not violence existed between the religions in South East Asia, it's the fact that religion has been much more successful in maintaining its faithfuls in this part of the world.

I'm also glad that you mentioned China, because you're right, China is officially an Atheist state. It's also a prime example of what happens when you try to forcefully supress religious belief. With the end of the Cultural Revolution came the re-instatement of several world religions and the institution of what they called "religious freedom", they brought back Buddhism and Taoism as well as Christianity. However the people of China simply didn't buy into these new official religions, instead they opted for the beliefs they never actually let go of and which were maintained secretly and subtly through all of the Cultural Revolution, ancestor worship and some extant religions such as Feng Shui. You'll find that these cultural beliefs ran strong in Chinese society throughout the late twentieth century.

I don't know much about religion in contemporary China, I haven't looked into it or visited the place (although I'd love to see Beijing), but I imagine today the situation is somewhat similar, although more plural.

I can tell you that a friend of mine who was a missionary to China for the past 20+ years recently had to flee the country or face arrest because he was associated with an unlicensed Christian pastor. In fact, that was his crime, preaching without a license.

As an atheist, who or what exactly is "Our" god?
You are right about your prediction that Christianity will decrease, but it will not be replace by atheism, it will be replaced by a universal humanist church which will be an amalgum of all religions and atheism.

I would say "Our" god is the one we've stopped believing in. I know that I'm as much an ex-Christian as I am an atheist, and I think it must be much the same for anyone who's grown up with Christianity around them. We're steeped in the culture and the moral system and society that have made up the Christian religion, as much as we might wish to be free of its influence, we can't be without sacrificing a large part of our culture. It'd be like dynamiting the floor under our feet to better define where we're standing.

And here you make another error; growing up in a community with heavy Christian influences doesn't make you a Christian. Being an American doesn't make you a Christian. Thinking like a Christian doesn't make you a Christian. Being a good person doesn't make you a Christian. The only thing that makes you a Christian is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Now, let me ask you. If Jesus is real and He establishes a relationship with you, do you suppose He will ever let you out of that relationship? There's no such thing as an Ex-Christian.

I don't make any outright predictions as to the future of religion stahrwe, and while the idea of an amalgamated universal humanist church may be tempting, I don't see it happening any time soon unless the peoples of the world suddenly decide they've fought long enough and join into a single nation... or religion loses enough political significance that no one will object the union of all religions... in which case such a religion probably wouldn't be relevant anymore. This specific topic feels a lot like sci-fi and reminds me of some of the star wars and terry pratchett discussions I've had over the years...xD.

Read the book of revelation.

[stahrwe]

Can we please get back to tearing Joe's sermon to pieces? There must be something wrong with it. I may have to watch it again.