Reasons 1 - 10

[ginof]

If this proves unsatisfactory to the reader, we can always consider the definition in Random House's Unabridged Dictionary: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies ... and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

of course, you are correct in that the definitions are very broad and depending on the definition you choose, you are likely to get different answers. However, just sticking to the Random House definition, I don't think Atheism qualifies as a religion as it is NOT a set of beliefs. As outlined in the book, atheists don't believe in the big bang, evolution, etc. If there was evidence that the big bang, gravity or whatever in science was wrong, an atheist would 'jump ship'. But someone relying on faith to answer these questions is 'stuck' from the perspective that they have no theoretical basis to change what they believe. This inability for religion to be flexible with changing knowledge is what got the Galileo in trouble with the Church. Perhaps your brand of religion can easily 'roll with the punches' here. The issue is that many brands can not.

Both of the alternative definitions of religion that I gave at the end of the second paragraph hint at some sort of "societal" or "moral" code that is somehow associated with that religious belief. Let me list some that my own brand of liberal Christianity associates itself with:

I'm not surprised that a humanist site has a lot of cross purposes with christianity. Certainly, humanists claim to take from all traditions, where ever there is 'good' to be found. Certainly christianity has a lot of good associated with it and no humanist/atheist would deny that.

[ginof]

As someone who likes the book, I have to say that Harrison doesn't argue the 'Almost everyone on earth is religious' as well as he could have.

When arguing that the number of believers alone is not sufficient, he uses an example of everyone believing in elves. A much better example would be 'the world is flat', which at one point, almost everyone did believe. Certainly, the massive belief that existed on the point did not make it true. Hell, I think 70% of americans still believe that sadam had WMD and was involved in 9/11!

He also argues that if religion were so self evident, all the effort that goes into religious education would not be needed. This is easily rebuffed with the arguments that there is nothing obvious about doctrine (i.e. how many angels can dance on a pinhead) and that the forces of evil need to be kept at bay vs impressionable minds.

I recognize that he's trying to keep it short, but he also missed the argument made earlier that many people are in fact not religious at all.

[ginof]

faith is believing what you know ain't so

the way i took this statement was as a contradiction. what you know isn't actually true. do you not know anything? perhaps he's saying that's what faith is: a contradiction.

What does everyone else think?

[Chris OConnor]

Actually, Penelope, it is not that the opinion is different than my own. It is that the opinion is irrational. All opinions are not deserving of respect. Someone who believes 2 + 2 = 5 has a different opinion than mine. And it is a bullshit or nonsense opinion built upon ignorance. I'm allowed to say so too. So are you. But we somehow treat God beliefs as hands-off and untouchable. This is a mistake. All beliefs are subject to scrutiny.

[Chris OConnor]

...I get offended by what I see as a wasted opportunity. This is your website, and it is a good one with a lot of potential for intellectual growth....what a shame that you tend to give such a wrong first impression, just for the sake of Kudos. It is a tragic waste of excellent resources.

I'm being honest, Penelope. I don't call something nonsense for kudos. I do it because I'm honest and bright enough to know it is nonsense.

You seem to be under the impression that a different approach might be more effective. I disagree. Or at least I have never seen a different approach work more effectively.

I'm aware that telling someone they are delusional and that their entire faith is built upon ignorance and fantasy is not going to immediately snap them out of their delusion, but neither is candy-coating the exact same message. The bottom line is the message is correct. You don't like the message so I'm never going to deliver that message in a satisfactory way to you.

You might think that I shouldn't be judging faith so harshly. I disagree. Richard Dawkins wrote a book "The God Delusion" about this very subject. Some of us think the message needs to be delivered even if we ruffle some fathers in the delivery. Irrational delusional people aren't easy to talk to and speaking softly and civilly never works, in my experience, but shocking them into opening their eyes sometimes does work. The only theists I have seen evolve intellectually have been the ones with the balls to deal with being told that they are delusional. Without facing this fact the average theist lives in denial and their growth is impossible.

BookTalk.org is not wasting resources. If someone runs away because they don't want to consider that their faith is built upon delusion then they have a deeper problem and I'm not going to take responsibility for their inability to achieve growth.

[Robert Tulip]

faith is believing what you know ain't so

the way i took this statement was as a contradiction. what you know isn't actually true. do you not know anything? perhaps he's saying that's what faith is: a contradiction. What does everyone else think?

The contradiction is between popular and sophisticated faith. Harrison and Dawkins use Twain's bon mot to turn a valid critique of popular faith into an ad hominem basis to reject the possibility of sophisticated faith.

Popular faith is grounded in belief in miraculous signs and wonders as the mark of the supernatural. The virgin birth, heaven and creationism are directly contradicted by scientific evidence, so believing them requires a deliberate mental dislocation between faith and reason, with the faith claims kept in a separate a-logical mental compartment.

Sophisticated faith starts from scientific knowledge, and studies the claims of religion within the framework of compatibility with science. The Gospels present Jesus as an emblem of integrity in a fallen world, and of unarmed confidence. From within the Christian meta-narrative, Jesus is seen as bringing the beyond into the midst of the world in a way that respects the mystery of the beyond while engaging resolutely with the world. These attributes, in my opinion, make it reasonable to see Jesus as having a unique role and message without needing any magical input.

Saint Anselm had a famous saying, faith seeks understanding, to express the theological effort to reconcile philosophy and religion. I believe that such a rational faith is expressed by theologians such as Tillich (ground of being) and Bonhoeffer (beyond in the midst of the world). There is no need to believe things that are false for such a faith, and indeed such popular error is specifically ruled out by the biblical equation between God and truth.

This lens of rational faith enables reinterpretation of many biblical conventions. For example "I am the way the truth and the life" (John 14:6) suggests not the exclusive imperial claim of the prosletysers, but a statement that where ever we find the way the truth and the life we find Christ - in the very realities that are rejected and despised by the church - such as atheism.

[ginof]

Hi Robert,

Thanks! I liked the way you put that.

[Penelope]

Evolution ....is a slow process....

We cannot even begin to suggest...different ways of thinking about 'meaning'....until the 'delusional' people....begin to trust us.

They will only trust us....if we cease from ridiculing them....

[Robert Tulip]

Evolution ....is a slow process....We cannot even begin to suggest...different ways of thinking about 'meaning'....until the 'delusional' people....begin to trust us. They will only trust us....if we cease from ridiculing them....

Penelope, with respect I completely disagree with you on this issue of the need for trust. I view cultural change as occurring through tipping points. Articulating the nature of a new culture is the only way to bring such a change. Your suggestion of showing respect for old ideas which are both wrong and dangerous is an unhelpful strategy. Compromise with error produces confusion and delay. It allows people to think that creationism and old fashioned supernaturalism are somehow legitimate. As you know, I am a theist, but the debate I am interested in is a debate with atheism, not a debate with supernaturalism. The ground for discussion should be a consensus on scientific truth, but supernaturalists place themselves outside this consensus so have nothing helpful to add.

[Penelope]

Robert said:

Your suggestion of showing respect for old ideas which are both wrong and dangerous is an unhelpful strategy.

I am not suggesting that we show respect for the 'ideas' I am suggesting that we show respect for the 'people'.

If we cannot persuade/arrange a dialogue, they will never hear us. And if we don't manage dialogue - the result is truly dangerous.

Compromise with error produces confusion and delay.

How very true......but when I think of the alternative......I favour confusion and delay. I am taking a lesson in caution from recent and ancient history.