Garrett's recent comment on my previous post:
"I can only assume you are talking here about the Christian "big three": 1. Gay marriage 2. Abortion (and stem cell research) and 3. School science curriculum."
illustrates the attitude of many dogmatic atheists who simply fail to listen to and comprehend the arguments of Christian apologists. Rather than read and understand, they frequently extrapolate, project, and assume, usually in the precisely wrong direction.
With regards to the "big three" he references above, I have publicly set forth a positon on one of these issues: I am firmly in the camp of theistic evolutionism, and do not support the teaching of young earth creationism anywhere. It is pseudo science.
For my full views on this topic, refer to my article "The Trouble with Fred and Wilma: Why the Creation Museum is Bad for Christians."
I have not taken a position on stem cell research, but am most in agreement with the views of Thomas Robey, in his article A Stem Cell Research Primer.
I have not addressed the issue of Gay Marriage, but I am opposed to it.
The troubling part about Garrett's comments, and those of many like minded dogmatists, is that they reflect a complete failure to even understand my correct position.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Coming Soon to a Blog Near You ?
I've had a great email exchange over the last few weeks with Lew, the Seeking Skeptic. I've asked his permission to post an edited version of these exchanges. We'll here his answer shortly.
If you're a seeking skeptic like Lew, you may want to stay tuned !
If you're a seeking skeptic like Lew, you may want to stay tuned !
Monday, May 14, 2007
The Wrong Debate Between Atheists and Christians
Nothing is more mind numbingly predictable than the dialogue in these "debates" between atheists and Christians over the existence of God.
"You can't prove God exists ! " cries the atheist.
"You can't prove he doesn't !" cries the Christian.
Then each side proceeds to hurl insults at the other. Soon, it's not an intellectual dialogue, but an exchange of insults, with each side claiming victory because their insults were more clever. Meanwhile, no one's mind on either side is changed.
Is this what passes for productive dialogue these days ?
Why don't both parties simply acknowledge the obvious:
Christians make a choice to believe in God. That choice can be, and usually often is, rationally based.
Atheists can be rational and choose not to believe in God. They, do, however, choose to belief in another belief system that they think is based on objectively reviewing facts.
The problem is less what Christians and atheists believe than it is how they interact. Christians who believe as I do that many atheists, such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett, seek to limit my rights as a citizen to participate in the political process and to practice my religion will and should aggressively defend those rights. And atheists such as Christopher Hitchens, who merely wish to be left alone, are entitled to have that wish fulfilled !
"You can't prove God exists ! " cries the atheist.
"You can't prove he doesn't !" cries the Christian.
Then each side proceeds to hurl insults at the other. Soon, it's not an intellectual dialogue, but an exchange of insults, with each side claiming victory because their insults were more clever. Meanwhile, no one's mind on either side is changed.
Is this what passes for productive dialogue these days ?
Why don't both parties simply acknowledge the obvious:
Christians make a choice to believe in God. That choice can be, and usually often is, rationally based.
Atheists can be rational and choose not to believe in God. They, do, however, choose to belief in another belief system that they think is based on objectively reviewing facts.
The problem is less what Christians and atheists believe than it is how they interact. Christians who believe as I do that many atheists, such as Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett, seek to limit my rights as a citizen to participate in the political process and to practice my religion will and should aggressively defend those rights. And atheists such as Christopher Hitchens, who merely wish to be left alone, are entitled to have that wish fulfilled !
Monday, May 7, 2007
Free Thinker elaborates on the harm caused by religion
Mr. Leahy:
I want to respond to your topic of 'what harm does religion or faith cause in our society,' but I must first establish a practical understanding of the word "harm" and its inherant relativity. For example, if I had a credit card 22% interest, it would harm my ability to gain financial stability, but at the same time the credit card company gains a huge benefit from my financial suffering. Therefore, for one to say that Christianity harms society, would be to ignore, also, those that benefit from its institutionalization. While the slave suffers from his brutal exploitation, the master benefits. The point of my response is to illustrate that in many cases, while some are benefiting from Christianity, others suffer. Harm is not an all-inclusive word.
First, there is no inherent harm in having faith or believing in God. Christianity, namely the following of Christ's teachings, has nothing in it that would encourage people to do things that would harm society. Only one saying from Jesus that I could think of would have the ability to ignite harm: "And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against [their] parents, and cause them to be put to death" (Mathew 10:21). A teenager could use this verse to justify the slaying of his or her parents, though, granted, it may be the result of the teenager's misinterpretatation.
What I will illustrate now is how Christianity was indirectly used to cause suffering and harm in my State of South Carolina. While attempting to get elected in the U.S. Senate, Jim DeMint said that he would not allow single mothers to have teaching jobs because single mothers are not good role models. Believing that single motherhood is the result of immoral behavior, DeMint argued that firing single mothers would punish them for their choice to have premarital sex. (One can find this documentation through the South Carolina newpaper archives, The State.)
Such a punitive policy does have harmful consequences, for the individual and society, stripping away her livlihood and her ability provide food, clothing, and shelter. Christians rallied behind DeMint because of this idea, whereas non-christians rejected him and his idea. In fact, the reason Jim DeMint is now in the U.S Senate today is because he promoted this idea of intolerence long enough to get elected. Luckily, he never enforced the policy. Though we will never know whether or not DeMint really believed in this idea, we do know that because of it he gained the majority vote because he knew Christians would rally behind them. It's also frightening that DeMint knew Christians would support a policy that could not be more undemocratic. Notice that Jim DeMent benefited from what would have been the suffering of single mothers.
While this is not a direct harm caused by Christians, it is an indirect harm. At least in my State, Christians are prone to support policies that harm others because it is the "Christian thing to do," even though I tried and tried to convince my Christian friends that it was "un-christian" by illustrating Jesus' message. I know that this is only one illustration, but maybe someone can attempt to explain why Christians would want to see single mothers suffer from being fired from their jobs, whereas non-christians appalled the idea. (I know that it is the result of the misinterpretation of the Bible, but that implies DeMent knew Christians would misinterpret the Bible. So, why is this?)
Best Regards,
Free Thinker
I want to respond to your topic of 'what harm does religion or faith cause in our society,' but I must first establish a practical understanding of the word "harm" and its inherant relativity. For example, if I had a credit card 22% interest, it would harm my ability to gain financial stability, but at the same time the credit card company gains a huge benefit from my financial suffering. Therefore, for one to say that Christianity harms society, would be to ignore, also, those that benefit from its institutionalization. While the slave suffers from his brutal exploitation, the master benefits. The point of my response is to illustrate that in many cases, while some are benefiting from Christianity, others suffer. Harm is not an all-inclusive word.
First, there is no inherent harm in having faith or believing in God. Christianity, namely the following of Christ's teachings, has nothing in it that would encourage people to do things that would harm society. Only one saying from Jesus that I could think of would have the ability to ignite harm: "And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against [their] parents, and cause them to be put to death" (Mathew 10:21). A teenager could use this verse to justify the slaying of his or her parents, though, granted, it may be the result of the teenager's misinterpretatation.
What I will illustrate now is how Christianity was indirectly used to cause suffering and harm in my State of South Carolina. While attempting to get elected in the U.S. Senate, Jim DeMint said that he would not allow single mothers to have teaching jobs because single mothers are not good role models. Believing that single motherhood is the result of immoral behavior, DeMint argued that firing single mothers would punish them for their choice to have premarital sex. (One can find this documentation through the South Carolina newpaper archives, The State.)
Such a punitive policy does have harmful consequences, for the individual and society, stripping away her livlihood and her ability provide food, clothing, and shelter. Christians rallied behind DeMint because of this idea, whereas non-christians rejected him and his idea. In fact, the reason Jim DeMint is now in the U.S Senate today is because he promoted this idea of intolerence long enough to get elected. Luckily, he never enforced the policy. Though we will never know whether or not DeMint really believed in this idea, we do know that because of it he gained the majority vote because he knew Christians would rally behind them. It's also frightening that DeMint knew Christians would support a policy that could not be more undemocratic. Notice that Jim DeMent benefited from what would have been the suffering of single mothers.
While this is not a direct harm caused by Christians, it is an indirect harm. At least in my State, Christians are prone to support policies that harm others because it is the "Christian thing to do," even though I tried and tried to convince my Christian friends that it was "un-christian" by illustrating Jesus' message. I know that this is only one illustration, but maybe someone can attempt to explain why Christians would want to see single mothers suffer from being fired from their jobs, whereas non-christians appalled the idea. (I know that it is the result of the misinterpretation of the Bible, but that implies DeMent knew Christians would misinterpret the Bible. So, why is this?)
Best Regards,
Free Thinker
Friday, May 4, 2007
Reply to a Free Thinker
As for my beliefs--I am a Christian.
I accept Darwin's theory of evolution as the current scientific standard, but I believe it has evidential weaknesses (see Stephen Jay Gould on punctuated equilibrium). I am sympathetic to the intelligent design school, but await their own proposed testable theories.I suspect that at some point in the future, the current Darwinian theory of evolution will be supplanted by one that involves elements of Darwin and intelligent design.
Best Regards,
Michael Patrick Leahy
I accept Darwin's theory of evolution as the current scientific standard, but I believe it has evidential weaknesses (see Stephen Jay Gould on punctuated equilibrium). I am sympathetic to the intelligent design school, but await their own proposed testable theories.I suspect that at some point in the future, the current Darwinian theory of evolution will be supplanted by one that involves elements of Darwin and intelligent design.
Best Regards,
Michael Patrick Leahy
Comment from a Free Thinker
Dear Mr. Leahy:
I'm not a "blogger" and, therefore, didn't join Sam Harris' forum, but reading your debate with them and then your web cite lead me to write you.
First, you're a talented writer, focusing only on one issue: Sam Harris' "intellectual dishonesty" regarding the misrepresentation of how many Americans believe that the the earth is only 6,000 years old. You seem to put forth enough evidence to illustrate that Harris' statistics are erroneous and inaccurate, due primarily to his inability to distinguish between "young earth creationists," and other beliefs that fall in the category of creationism. I find it sad that those responding to your argument on Harris' web blog could not recoginize the validity of your stance. Many still attempted to defend Harris, in spite of your logic, but in no way did they attempt to defend his "intellectual dishonesty," which is the very thing you address, instead of attacking his beliefs. Unable to make any concession, they simply attempted to defend Harris' overall belief system: religion contributes to the perpetual degradation of our society. In the face of our personal feelings, people often ignore objectivity, blinded by their own dogmatic view of the world and this apparent lack of objectivity also contributes to the degradation of our culture.
However, insofar as your debate with these people and your web page is concerned, I could not figure out your personal beliefs. According to a September, 2005 issue of Newsweek, 80% of Americans believe that God created the world and everything in it. I would presume you fall into this category. Since 80% believe that God created the world and everything in it, it would be safe to assume, then, that only 20% believe in the process of evolution. But I want to examine a concession you bravely make, on the topic of creationism, whether explicitly or implicitly. You state that, because Harris writes that 50% of Christians believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, "Sam's trying to portray all Christians as scientifically stupid." This implies that you believe Christians are, in fact, "scientifcally stupid," which, as you point out, is "less than 18%" of Americans. This would equate to about 28 million people. While you do not directly say that young creationists are "scientifically stupid," you do imply it by asserting that this is Harris' attempt and purpose behind his misrepresentation of statistics.
Educated in private Christian schools, this is what I learned regarding the comlexity of our planet, except I was taught that the earth was actually 14,000 years old, a number gleaned by examining Biblical geneologies. Whether one chooses to believe that the earth is 6, 000 years old or 14,000 yearsold, I too believe such a conclusion is "scientifically stupid" because there is nothing scientific about it. It is also Bilblically stupid in that it is almost impossible to gather any accurate assessment of the Earth's age based on geneologies. I am glad to see that you are able to maintain your objectivity in your evaluation of whether or not the Earth is 6,000 years old; you could be the voice that encourages the "less than 18%" to consider their beliefs so that others--Christain and atheist alike--do not deem them as "scientifically stupid." This concession you make (though I'm disappointed that these supposed intellectuals that were debating you could not see the validity behind your response to them) enables Christians and scientists to coexist. Consider how the church did not want to concede to the fact that the earth revolved around the sun, not the sun around the earth. Eventually, the church had to accept the validity of science and now, in terms of the planetary order of our solar system, science and the church are in agreement with one another. This is a result of objectivity.
We need, however, to consider this question: In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter that one believes that the earth is 6,000 years old or 6 billion years old?
On your web cite, you refer to the Constitution, which grants every American the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. You are right: the Constitution allows us believe and speak what we believe and this constitutional right should never diminish. However, would you also refer to the Constitution if you had to decide whether or not there should be prayer in public schools? Would you refer to the Constitution when asked whether or not evolution should be taught in the public schools? Many Christians would not because they do not wish to adhere to the Amendment that seperates chruch from State. An objective person can not be a constitutional hypocrite. Christians should believe and speak as they believe and so should atheists. This is what it means to be an American and we have to accept each other's beliefs, without marginalizing them. On the other hand, keep in mind that it is the business of science to be scientists, teaching science in terms of the scientific understanding of our world. Students should be required to demonstrate that they learned the scientific knowledge of our world, including evolution, but this does not mean they have to enternalize it and abandon their religious faith. Religious faith is the business of parents and the church. Throughout a lifetime of being a Christian and attending church, I've never seen a scientist assert himself behind a pastor's pulpit and attempt to discredit Genesis.
Recently, Patrick, I've become more and more disappointed in intellectuals because of their deteriation of tolerance toward other's beliefs. It used to be that intellectuals and academics--granted, most were non-theists--would tolerate various belief systems with the utmost acceptence and respect, disregarding any colliding differences that would dissociate them from finding common grounds for friendship. One thing I agreed on with Harris is that usually Christians and religious people in general are the most intolerant groups of people. I remember a statement by U2's guitar player, who is a Christian: "At the height of our Christian fervor, Adam [an atheist] was the most Christian in his tolerance and humanity." The question now that we must answer is why were the retorts to your critique of Harris' book so fiery? I think that it is because many are frustrated by the inccessant assertion of theology in fields that are not theology. While I could be wrong in this, I think that it would be prudent for one to be more objective, putting personal feelings and beliefs aside so scientists can be scientists without offending one's beliefs and Christians can be Christians without censoring scientific understanding.
As a concluding thought, consider how an atheist or scientist may quickly point out how different they are from you; I, on the other hand, point out how you all are similar: you guys share in the fact that the proposterous notion that the earth is 6,000 years old is "scientifically stupid."
P.S. If we put the pursuit of education and understanding first, I think that many will come to discover their truths and you can influence people toward this noble goal and no one has to abandon their Christian faith. Good luck in your work!
I'm not a "blogger" and, therefore, didn't join Sam Harris' forum, but reading your debate with them and then your web cite lead me to write you.
First, you're a talented writer, focusing only on one issue: Sam Harris' "intellectual dishonesty" regarding the misrepresentation of how many Americans believe that the the earth is only 6,000 years old. You seem to put forth enough evidence to illustrate that Harris' statistics are erroneous and inaccurate, due primarily to his inability to distinguish between "young earth creationists," and other beliefs that fall in the category of creationism. I find it sad that those responding to your argument on Harris' web blog could not recoginize the validity of your stance. Many still attempted to defend Harris, in spite of your logic, but in no way did they attempt to defend his "intellectual dishonesty," which is the very thing you address, instead of attacking his beliefs. Unable to make any concession, they simply attempted to defend Harris' overall belief system: religion contributes to the perpetual degradation of our society. In the face of our personal feelings, people often ignore objectivity, blinded by their own dogmatic view of the world and this apparent lack of objectivity also contributes to the degradation of our culture.
However, insofar as your debate with these people and your web page is concerned, I could not figure out your personal beliefs. According to a September, 2005 issue of Newsweek, 80% of Americans believe that God created the world and everything in it. I would presume you fall into this category. Since 80% believe that God created the world and everything in it, it would be safe to assume, then, that only 20% believe in the process of evolution. But I want to examine a concession you bravely make, on the topic of creationism, whether explicitly or implicitly. You state that, because Harris writes that 50% of Christians believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, "Sam's trying to portray all Christians as scientifically stupid." This implies that you believe Christians are, in fact, "scientifcally stupid," which, as you point out, is "less than 18%" of Americans. This would equate to about 28 million people. While you do not directly say that young creationists are "scientifically stupid," you do imply it by asserting that this is Harris' attempt and purpose behind his misrepresentation of statistics.
Educated in private Christian schools, this is what I learned regarding the comlexity of our planet, except I was taught that the earth was actually 14,000 years old, a number gleaned by examining Biblical geneologies. Whether one chooses to believe that the earth is 6, 000 years old or 14,000 yearsold, I too believe such a conclusion is "scientifically stupid" because there is nothing scientific about it. It is also Bilblically stupid in that it is almost impossible to gather any accurate assessment of the Earth's age based on geneologies. I am glad to see that you are able to maintain your objectivity in your evaluation of whether or not the Earth is 6,000 years old; you could be the voice that encourages the "less than 18%" to consider their beliefs so that others--Christain and atheist alike--do not deem them as "scientifically stupid." This concession you make (though I'm disappointed that these supposed intellectuals that were debating you could not see the validity behind your response to them) enables Christians and scientists to coexist. Consider how the church did not want to concede to the fact that the earth revolved around the sun, not the sun around the earth. Eventually, the church had to accept the validity of science and now, in terms of the planetary order of our solar system, science and the church are in agreement with one another. This is a result of objectivity.
We need, however, to consider this question: In the grand scheme of things, does it really matter that one believes that the earth is 6,000 years old or 6 billion years old?
On your web cite, you refer to the Constitution, which grants every American the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. You are right: the Constitution allows us believe and speak what we believe and this constitutional right should never diminish. However, would you also refer to the Constitution if you had to decide whether or not there should be prayer in public schools? Would you refer to the Constitution when asked whether or not evolution should be taught in the public schools? Many Christians would not because they do not wish to adhere to the Amendment that seperates chruch from State. An objective person can not be a constitutional hypocrite. Christians should believe and speak as they believe and so should atheists. This is what it means to be an American and we have to accept each other's beliefs, without marginalizing them. On the other hand, keep in mind that it is the business of science to be scientists, teaching science in terms of the scientific understanding of our world. Students should be required to demonstrate that they learned the scientific knowledge of our world, including evolution, but this does not mean they have to enternalize it and abandon their religious faith. Religious faith is the business of parents and the church. Throughout a lifetime of being a Christian and attending church, I've never seen a scientist assert himself behind a pastor's pulpit and attempt to discredit Genesis.
Recently, Patrick, I've become more and more disappointed in intellectuals because of their deteriation of tolerance toward other's beliefs. It used to be that intellectuals and academics--granted, most were non-theists--would tolerate various belief systems with the utmost acceptence and respect, disregarding any colliding differences that would dissociate them from finding common grounds for friendship. One thing I agreed on with Harris is that usually Christians and religious people in general are the most intolerant groups of people. I remember a statement by U2's guitar player, who is a Christian: "At the height of our Christian fervor, Adam [an atheist] was the most Christian in his tolerance and humanity." The question now that we must answer is why were the retorts to your critique of Harris' book so fiery? I think that it is because many are frustrated by the inccessant assertion of theology in fields that are not theology. While I could be wrong in this, I think that it would be prudent for one to be more objective, putting personal feelings and beliefs aside so scientists can be scientists without offending one's beliefs and Christians can be Christians without censoring scientific understanding.
As a concluding thought, consider how an atheist or scientist may quickly point out how different they are from you; I, on the other hand, point out how you all are similar: you guys share in the fact that the proposterous notion that the earth is 6,000 years old is "scientifically stupid."
P.S. If we put the pursuit of education and understanding first, I think that many will come to discover their truths and you can influence people toward this noble goal and no one has to abandon their Christian faith. Good luck in your work!
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Thoughts on Faith, Religion, and Free Will
Eric,
Nice comments to launch this interactive blog !
I have for many years thought about the conflict between faith and religion as one that simply reveals the flawed nature of man.
Assume that Christianity as represented by the teachings of Jesus represents "truth" in the abstract, and that faith is simply the acceptance of that truth.
Christian religions are human institutions in which we here on earth seek to learn the "truth" and practice it in our own lives. The concept we attempt to demonstrate is true piety -- that is first discerning God's will, then doing all we can to fulfill it.
What goes wrong ?
Why, for instance, does the Catholic Church, the religious institution, become a haven for child molesters, and do a poor job of removing that sin from the institution ?
Why are the airwaves filled with evangelical hucksters seeking to obtain financial gain from those poor misguided souls who trust them ?
The fault, friend Eric, lies not in the "truth" of Christian faith, but instead in the human failings of those who manipulate religious institutions for unworthy goals.
That such manipulations are legendary should surprise no one, as it is a universal and timeless truth that mankind is and always will be flawed.
It is faith, and the constant attempt to follow faith, failing as it does so many times, that constrains those elements of human nature which tend to corrupt civilization.
Nice comments to launch this interactive blog !
I have for many years thought about the conflict between faith and religion as one that simply reveals the flawed nature of man.
Assume that Christianity as represented by the teachings of Jesus represents "truth" in the abstract, and that faith is simply the acceptance of that truth.
Christian religions are human institutions in which we here on earth seek to learn the "truth" and practice it in our own lives. The concept we attempt to demonstrate is true piety -- that is first discerning God's will, then doing all we can to fulfill it.
What goes wrong ?
Why, for instance, does the Catholic Church, the religious institution, become a haven for child molesters, and do a poor job of removing that sin from the institution ?
Why are the airwaves filled with evangelical hucksters seeking to obtain financial gain from those poor misguided souls who trust them ?
The fault, friend Eric, lies not in the "truth" of Christian faith, but instead in the human failings of those who manipulate religious institutions for unworthy goals.
That such manipulations are legendary should surprise no one, as it is a universal and timeless truth that mankind is and always will be flawed.
It is faith, and the constant attempt to follow faith, failing as it does so many times, that constrains those elements of human nature which tend to corrupt civilization.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
