International Brigades

I had sort of guessed that this "war on Christmas" business was one of those only in America things, but according to Polly Toynbee you've got the same BS over in the UK, where the Rev Jules Gomes explains that:

Here is the good chaplain's Christmas message: "More Christians have been martyred for their faith in the last century than in any other period of church history. Yesterday's Herod is today's Richard Dawkins and Polly Toynbee, seeking the total extermination of all forms of Christianity. The great irony is that the greatest opposition to Christ comes from so-called broad-minded people who seek to ban Christmas so that people of other faiths are not offended."

As I've said, I'm not a huge fan of Dawkins' work in this field but the difference between writing mean books and killing people is pretty clear. And, of course, nobody's seeking to ban Christmas! It's weird how so many people want to use this holiday to work themselves and their constituents into fits of anger over nothing. Hardly seems to be in keeping with the spirit of the event.

Photo by Flickr user laffy4k used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

Well, I do personally do think there is really something of a "War on Christmas," but it's certainly not absolute.

For example, each year the biggest music radio station in the SF Bay Area switches to a 100% Christmas music program for the Holidays...and does so earlier and earlier and earlier.

This year, they went "all Christmas" two weeks *before* Thanksgiving, and at this stage I'm pretty much ready to pay a visit to my local "War Against Christmas" enlistment office.

Given the secular-liberal complexion of the region, maybe it's all actually part of a deliberate anti-Christmas plot...

Posted by RKU | December 23, 2007 10:41 AM

Matt, you couldn't be more off-base about Dawkins. He is committed to rationalism and free thought. To say he is "mean" is like saying scientists are "mean" for teaching evolution and not creationism. You may think you are being a big, inclusive liberal by attacking those who are so mean as to point out facts, but you are just letting the fringiest of the nutcases dictate the debate.

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | December 23, 2007 10:50 AM

the good thing is that the UK is FAR more secular than we are, and that this nonsense will be treated as nonsense in short order.

(actually, it's fascinating to me to look at how the UK views christianity via its popular culture...I really love the BBC's "QI" show, and on the occasions it comes up, it's almost dismissed as being a thing of the past...just another quaint thing we used to do.)

Posted by Anna Granfors | December 23, 2007 10:51 AM

the good thing is that the UK is FAR more secular than we are, and that this nonsense will be treated as nonsense in short order.

(actually, it's fascinating to me to look at how the UK views christianity via its popular culture...I really love the BBC's "QI" show, and on the occasions it comes up, it's almost dismissed as being a thing of the past...just another quaint thing we used to do.)

Posted by Anna Granfors | December 23, 2007 10:51 AM

"We actually misnamed the War on Christmas. It ought to be the Struggle Against Ideological Extremists Who Do Not Believe in Yuletide Greetings Who Happen to Use Secularism as a Weapon To Try To Remove The Christmas Spirit From The Free World."

Posted by afferent input | December 23, 2007 10:57 AM

I don't know that "meanness" is the best indictment of Dawkins' discussions of religion. I am an atheist and apologize to no one for being one, but Dawkins' familiarity with the conceptual and practical diversity within Christianity is a little weak. In some ways, I think he takes pissant potshots when he should be throwing uppercuts and haymakers, which he cannot throw without greater familiarity with his subject matter. Hitchens is a little better in this regard, though he too needs a better grounding in what he is attacking.

Posted by Bruce | December 23, 2007 10:57 AM

In all these terrible evil stores where people say "Happy Holidays" you can still hear "Oh Holy Night" and "Hark the Herald Angel Sings" piped through the loudspeakers on a permanent loop.

If these evil business owners really wanted to erase Christmas I doubt they'd be slipping all this subliminal Christian music into our heads.

Posted by Nathan | December 23, 2007 11:01 AM

Yeah, what do you have against Dawkins? Why do you feel compelled to issue the disclaimer? Dawkins doesn't want to ban anything, he just wants to persuade people by means of reason. Religious people get offended when atheists dare to point out the absurdity of religious belief, but they think it's perfectly okay to for them to proselytize.

I don't know if you're religious or not, but show some courage -- you don't have to distance yourself from Richard Dawkins in order to decry the idiocy of the "Reverend" Gomes (who I do not revere).

Posted by cervantes | December 23, 2007 11:05 AM

And consider Luke 6:22: "Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize you, and insult you, and scorn your name as evil, for the sake of the Son of Man." Shouldn't the War on Christmas be a good thing for Christians? ( If such a war actually existed, that is.)

Worldly esteem is a contrary indicator for the Jesus of the Gospels, so it is odd that some of his followers dream of bullying people into acknowledging their holidays.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | December 23, 2007 11:05 AM

Considering how ridiculous and far away from it's original message Christmas has become these days, maybe there should be a war. . . heh. In my opinion, it's the insecurity of belief that drives people to think Christmas is being assaulted. When really, the only ones assaulting Christmas are not the non-Christians, but the Christians that have forgotten it's meaning.

Posted by jack fate | December 23, 2007 11:08 AM

I think people are getting increasingly disgusted with the emptiness and prolong period of formulaic, desperate purchases throughout this sad holiday of obligatory stuff buying. It isn't the Christmas we used to know. The "War on Christmas" people smell this and it triggers an exaggerated lashing out. I think they're also pretty disgusted by the whole affair gone wrong, so you get a kind of repression-projection thing going on...

Posted by Ty Lookwell | December 23, 2007 11:09 AM

"he just wants to persuade people by means of reason."

My problem with Dawkins is that his logic is a little weak. Both he and Hitchens make the argument that because horrible things are done in the name of religion we can conclude that religion is bad. One assumes that Dawkins would take exception to that same "logic" being applied to evolutionary biology. Because evolution was used to rationalize segregation we can conclude that biologists are...?

Rationalists who don't understand basic logic are interesting...

Posted by justaguy | December 23, 2007 11:15 AM

The "I don't like Dawkins either, but..." construct is the classic spineless Democratic response to the assault on reason by the right wing.

Posted by puppethead | December 23, 2007 11:15 AM

Agreed. The real War against Christmas arises from how boring - not to speak of how commercial - it has become. Christmas was drown in its own tedium.

Posted by montanaheadcold | December 23, 2007 11:17 AM

My favorite of all of the "War on Christmas" bullshit was when someone put quotes side-by-side from Bill O'Reilly and an excerpt from Henry Ford's "On the International Zionist Conspiracy" from c. 1920 and noted how much they said the same thing about how Christmas seemed to be driven away by the "secularists," "the Left," etc. I recently caught someone who two years ago was big on the whole anti-"Happy Holidays" train signing e-mails with that. I wonder of the wingers are starting to realize they seemed a little silly.

Posted by Reality Man | December 23, 2007 11:21 AM

I'm always amazed that Christians, having made the decision to usurp pagan holidays, are so outraged that the old practices refuse to die. They are the ones that chose to make war on ancient holidays and in typical hypocritical fashion they accuse the victims of being the aggressors.

Posted by GPS | December 23, 2007 11:24 AM

justaguy -- have you read God Delusion? Dawkins points out what the bible actually says, and then he constructs a logical, rational argument for whether the evidence supports the existence of a god. He doesn't even say there isn't a god! He says the evidence doesn't support it (his 1-7 scale).

Look -- the fundamentalists in this country do real harm, cause real suffering -- stem cells, persecution of gays, damage to the environment, etc. And because those folk consider Dawkins "mean," MY and the spineless others have to preface everything with agreement that Dawkins is mean?

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | December 23, 2007 11:24 AM

I've never known any other Christmas. There were laments about the commercialization of Christmas in Miracle on 34th Street (1947).

Oh, and "Happy Holidays" has been a staple of department stores for a long time now; it's just recently that Fox News decided to cynically trump up a controversy. Ignore it.

In addition to the God Delusion, I recommend Dawkins's Unweaving the Rainbow, where he tells how scientific discovery adds to our sense of wonder, and the belief that everything can be explained by some mysterious, supernatural being is a cramped way of looking at the world.

Posted by Davis | December 23, 2007 11:30 AM

justaguy, way to be a douchebag.

They don't attack the large religions because they "do bad things" (nice strawman you got there), but because what these religions teach just isn't true.

Dawkins argues that what they teach about our origin in the cosmos isn't true; Hitchens argues that the practical effects of teaching their dogmas to people causes a retardation in human progress; and Harris argues that religion is just something we have left over from our evolution.

Personally, I ditched my imaginary friend at the age of 6.

Posted by JFD | December 23, 2007 11:30 AM

Nope, I haven't read Dawkins' book, I'm basing my understanding of it from reading reviews. My understanding is that he criticizes religion for being used to support slavery, homophobia, and for the crusades, etc. It struck me as an absurd argument for an evolutionary biologist to make - biology has been used to rationalize genocide. I see that as reflecting poorly on Nazis, not biologists in general.

Using science to refute religious claims is problematic. Science only examines naturalistic phenomena. Because of that, by definition it cannot be used to refute the supernatural. I don't believe in intelligent design, but I don't see how it can be scientifically refuted. That's because it isn't science.

Sure, science can refute specific claims made by Biblical literalists that are observable - the Earth was not made in 7 days, species are not fixed, etc. But refuting the existence of God is beyond the realm of the scientific in a way that should be obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of the philosophy of science.

Posted by justaguy | December 23, 2007 11:59 AM

Dawkins points out what the bible actually says, and then he constructs a logical, rational argument for whether the evidence supports the existence of a god.

What does the bible actually say? What the bible says about God has been a matter of debate for thousands of years. Anyone who's taken the most rudimentary class on literature or religion knows that meaning overflows from texts, that the notion that there is one reading a book - let alone a collection of books placed together in different ways by different people over a thousand years - is completely ludicrous. Further, the notion that a religion - the combined practices and dispositions of millions of poeple in varying places - is in any way reducible to a reading of a book is just as bad sociologically as his reading of the Bible is literarily or theologically.

Dawkins begins with a bad interpretive strategy, and he ends up with a bad interpretation.

What's ironic is that Dawkins uses almost the exact same hermeneutical strategy as the most conservative fundamentalists - he believes that he can isolate one "clear meaning" through the massive volume of the texts. They both think that the text is the religion, to the exclusion of real lived practice. They're both equally wrong, and equally amateurish in their reading strategies.

What Dawkins proposes to do with his reading - shout that he's smarter than other people - is far less destructive to human flourishing than the work of the religious right - who seek to enforce a violent normalizing regime on sexual minorities while allying with imperialists and capitalists to support existing hierarchies.

So they're not the same. But they read texts, religious texts in the same terrible way, and they reduce religion to the reading of texts in the same sociologically illiterate way.

Posted by DivGuy | December 23, 2007 12:01 PM

Sure, science can refute specific claims made by Biblical literalists that are observable - the Earth was not made in 7 days, species are not fixed, etc. But refuting the existence of God is beyond the realm of the scientific in a way that should be obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of the philosophy of science.

True, but that doesn't mean people can't point out the unlikeliness of God as a means of discrediting religion. Remember, all those things you say science can now refute, it couldn't even 150 years ago. At this point the only evidence of God is that someone wrote it down in a book ~2000 years ago (for christians at least). It's important to keep this fact in focus to prevent self-proclaimed religious leaders from claiming extra legitimacy when discussing morality or public policy.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | December 23, 2007 12:11 PM

Re Dawkiins

Having read Prof. Dawkins' book and listened to a number of interviews with him and lectures by him, it is obvious that most of the commentors on this thread don't know what they are talking about. Prof. Dawkins position on religion and the existence of god is actually quite simple.

1. Prof. Dawkins claims that the existence of god is a scientific question. He sees no scientific evidence for the existence of god. Therefore, his tentative conclusion is that god does not exist, always pending, of course the possibility that scientific evidence of such existence may emerge in the future. This is a perfectly scientific approach to any hypothesis. In fairness, he considers the possibility of such evidence emerging to be quite remote.

2. Prof. Dawkins claims that the various religious texts (e.g. the Hebrew and Christian bibles) make scientific claims that have been falsified. For instance, the notion that Joshua caused the Sun to stand still in the sky violates a number of scientific theories. In particular, the Sun does not go around the earth as implied by the notion that the Sun stood still and the alternative position that the earth stopped rotating and revolving around the Sun violates all the known laws of physics.

Posted by SLC | December 23, 2007 12:23 PM

Nope, I haven't read Dawkins' book, I'm basing my understanding of it from reading reviews. My understanding is that he criticizes religion for being used to support slavery, homophobia, and for the crusades, etc. It struck me as an absurd argument for an evolutionary biologist to make - biology has been used to rationalize genocide.

OK, I haven't read Dawkins either, but to me the specific claim that is being refuted when a non-believer brings up slavery, inquisitions, etc., is that religion is a moral force. Many if not most of the hard-core Christians argue that religion is the only route to morality. Biologists don't claim that their studies lead to moral behavior. Science is amoral. It certainly doesn't insist that nobody can be moral without believing in evolution.

Posted by Lolly | December 23, 2007 12:26 PM

I'll admit that I've never read Dawkins or Hitchens books, but I definitely get the impression that they're both just trying to be dicks about all this. Because that's who their audience is. They've decided to tap into a market segment of people who dislike religion, and that's fine, I guess. But I've seen nothing in them to suggest that this is simply unemotional logic guiding their arguments. Dawkins and Hitchens are both trying to stir up controversy, and are not trying to open a discussion or win converts.

Take for example what Gore/Edwards 08 just wrote about Dawkins "He says the evidence doesn't support it". Evidence? What does faith have to do with evidence? To demand evidence of a god who insists upon faith is like a scientist demanding to hear more myths about the sun. And for as much as G/E 08 suggests that Fundies do "real harm," the Fundies say the same thing about us. And then we just get into the exact pissing match they want us to be in.

And who knows, it's possible there really IS a god. It's possible the bible is somehow 100% correct, or even 35% correct. I don't know and I don't care. That's why I'm agnostic. I think people should just live their lives the way they think is best, and that's exactly what people do anyway. They may create external justifications to explain what they're doing, but it still comes down to it being their decision. If someone wants to stick their nose into your bedroom or oppose stem-cell research, they'd be doing that even if they were atheist.

And I see no reason to be rude or inflammatory about that, even if they're religious. If you don't like someone's behavior, blame the behavior. But leave their faith out of it. Particularly as most of them have very little faith to begin with (as evidenced by their fear of death) and are clearly not following their bible's teachings. So why bother attacking the religion, when they're not really following it anyway?

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 12:28 PM

Please, the bible makes plenty of factual claims. People took these as fact until science proved otherwise. That doesn't even count the blatant homophobia and misogyny.

The idea that it’s really an incredibly complex and subtle book that all these dumb atheists just aren’t smart enough to figure out is absurd. It’s a way to hide from criticism by providing cover to constantly shift their views and allow one to feel that their own beliefs are more profound than they really are.

Posted by DJ | December 23, 2007 12:28 PM

"True, but that doesn't mean people can't point out the unlikeliness of God as a means of discrediting religion."
Yes, that is true. But Dawkin's argument that a materialist understanding of where the world comes from is more satisfying to him than a religious one is not a scientific claim, it is a claim about science.

"Remember, all those things you say science can now refute, it couldn't even 150 years ago."

Sure, but those are problems of data collections and analysis. Science closes itself off from the examination of non-naturalistic causes and phenomena. So, unless scientists decide to overhaul their epistemology that will never change.

Propositions can either be true (supported by the weight of evidence) false (not supported by the weight of evidence) indeterminate (lacking enough evidence to evaluate them) or meaningless (outside the realm which science considers). The fixity of species went from being indeterminate to being false. I don't see how the existence of god could make a similar journey.

Posted by justaguy | December 23, 2007 12:29 PM

You know who's behind this? The jehovah Witnesses. They think that Christmas is a pagan festival shoehorned into the story of Jesus. They also refuse to serve in the military, refuse to salute the flag, and won't even say the Pledge of Allegiance.

Sure, Jews and atheists are a problem in this country. But they're just screens. Behind them is the secret JW Mafia.

Posted by john Emerson | December 23, 2007 12:31 PM

A couple of things - firstly, on the tangential topic of Dawkins, even a stray negative remark about whom brings out the atheist hordes, I fully endorse DivGuy. Also, based on SLC's comments, what seems absurd about Dawkins's argument is the basic premise that the question of the existence of God is a scientific question, since it's a straw man. There are certainly a fair number of fundies who think this, but the more sophisticated sort of religious people accept that God's existence cannot be determined by science. If you're going to "prove" atheism, it's surely necessary to prove that the smartest theists are wrong, not that the stupidest ones are. This goes even more strongly for the "disproving miracles in the Bible" stuff - all that does is prove that Biblical inerrantists are wrong, not that there is no God.

On the original issue of the war on Christmas, the whole thing is ridiculous. Christmas was a pagan festival, and well into the modern period it bore only the most distant hints of Christianity. For a long time conservative protestants didn't celebrate Christmas, on the rather reasonable grounds that there is absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest when Jesus was born, or that it should be a holiday. The original "war on Christmas" was one waged by the spiritual ancestors of all these current whiners against the normal people who celebrated the old Saturnalia.

Posted by John | December 23, 2007 12:39 PM

Please, the bible makes plenty of factual claims. People took these as fact until science proved otherwise.

That is untrue.

In the third century, Origen identified a long list of passages in the bible which were either mutually contradictory or impossible. He argued that this proved that the bible was not meant to be read literally, but figuratively, and exegetes needed to learn the complex hermeneutical skills to determine the best ways of reading complex passages.

The idea that all Christians were fundamentalists until science came is utterly incorrect.

Once again, ironically, it's the same claim the fundamentalists make, that their way of reading is not historically peculiar. Evangelicalism and fundamentalism grew out of particular anti-modern movements in the 19th and 20th centuries, and developed very new modes of reading based on scientific orthodoxies. It wasn't until the last century or two that people started saying that all claims in the bible were factual and testable in the way you imply.

Posted by DivGuy | December 23, 2007 12:40 PM

What's ironic is that Dawkins uses almost the exact same hermeneutical strategy as the most conservative fundamentalists - he believes that he can isolate one "clear meaning" through the massive volume of the texts. They both think that the text is the religion, to the exclusion of real lived practice. They're both equally wrong, and equally amateurish in their reading strategies.

Hear, hear. I HAVE read Dawkins (and Hitchens, and Harris) and find a great deal to criticize in their approaches. In my view, they all want to argue against all theistic religion, and they want to do so by using examples from Christianism (to borrow Andrew Sullivan's term) to support their views. As far as they're concerned, all theistic religion is the same, so if they knock the legs out from under Christianity, they've won. The trouble is that equating Christianity with Christianist fundamentalism is intellectually sloppy; Hitchens even goes so far as to say (in another piece) that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence," which is hardly rational. It's lazy to say that fundamentalist Christians are the only ones who matter to the discussion, and we've proven them wrong, so the discussion is over.

"Mean" isn't the best word to us to describe Dawkins' approach, but it was very clear to me from reading his book that he has his own biases...he is a proponent of scientism who doesn't believe that anything can exist that isn't explicable through rational processes. Plenty of what's wrong with the world can be blamed on the way particular religions have been practiced, but that falls short of any sort of demonstration that religion itself, per se, is inherently bad or wrong.

These arguments assume that reason...or perhaps scientism...must be the highest human value; it sounds vaguely religious to me either way.

Posted by Rufus | December 23, 2007 12:41 PM

Justaguy, do you have evidence for the existence of this supernatural realm you seem to take as a given? This is what's often infuriating when talking with believers. A positive assertion isn't legitimate just because there's no evidence against it; there has to be some evidence for it. Otherwise what's stopping you from believing in the magical gas fairy who lives on Jupiter (that I just made up)?

Posted by Cain | December 23, 2007 12:48 PM

Once again, a bunch of fools who haven't even read Dawkins' book feel empowered to toss off on he subject of his arguments on the basis of negative reviews of his book.

Well, duh, some dipshit Marxist like Terry Eagleton or columnist from First Things ain't exactly going to paint an accurate picture for you....

Posted by soma | December 23, 2007 12:53 PM

Re: I'm always amazed that Christians, having made the decision to usurp pagan holidays, are so outraged that the old practices refuse to die.

What ancient practices? I'm not aware of any ancient pagan feast that featured frantic, mindless consumerism and runaway greed and ostentation. No, we moderns can be credited with that invention. The old pagans just liked a good party.

Re: Dawkins points out what the bible actually says, and then he constructs a logical, rational argument for whether the evidence supports the existence of a god.

One cannot refute fundamentalism by proving that the Bible cannot be literally true (and sadly that needs to be done) but not all Christianity argues for a literal understanding of scripture. Historically, the Christian churches generally did not.

Re: Hitchens argues that the practical effects of teaching their dogmas to people causes a retardation in human progress

Which explains why European civilization founded modern science and pretty much conquered the world. Yep, religion retards progress all rioght!

Re: True, but that doesn't mean people can't point out the unlikeliness of God as a means of discrediting religion.

God is unlikely only if you start out from a set of definitions and axioms that make God unlikely. And that yields circular logic. And in any event our whole universe is astonishingly unlikely unless there's something we don't know about the fundamental constants and forces of nature. And yet, we are nonetheless here.

Re: True, but that doesn't mean people can't point out the unlikeliness of God as a means of discrediting religion.

Hardly. People also claim direct empircal experience of God. It's not just a matter of what someone wrote in a book a long time ago.

Re: Please, the bible makes plenty of factual claims. People took these as fact until science proved otherwise.

Um, no. Until the rise of Protestant Fundamentalism, mainly in the USA in the late 19th century, total scriptural literalism was unknown.

Re: For a long time conservative protestants didn't celebrate Christmas, on the rather reasonable grounds that there is absolutely nothing in the Bible to suggest when Jesus was born, or that it should be a holiday.

It's rather more the case that those Christmas-less Churches simply didn't like people celebrating and being merry. As the old cliche says, a Puritan is someone desperately afraid that someone, somewhere is having fun. Medieval Christianity was very sensual and included a certain amount of church-approved partying.After all, if Jesus is the Savior of the World then his birth and Resurrection should be occasions of unbounded joy. The Calvinists took a very dim view of that, deciding that since we are sinful we have no business being glad about anything. Besides, having to suspend normal business every so often for a big old public party was costing the mnerchant classes a lot of money.

Posted by JonF | December 23, 2007 12:55 PM

This thread has devolved into so many straymen arguments - the best argument against the traditional religions is that the shit just isn't true.

There are social, economic, political factors for explaining the dogmas and the beliefs of every religion. Every religions claims about our origins in the cosmos can be debunked. And every religions belief system can be shown to be a relic of a past that should not be clinged on to.

Let's talk about Jesus, or Mohammed, or Buddha, or King David or whatever. You can tear apart the stories behind these figures easily - because the religions that sprout from them are utter rubbish.

Posted by JFD | December 23, 2007 12:55 PM

In the third century, Origen identified a long list of passages in the bible which were either mutually contradictory or impossible.

Mmm hmmn, I can follow this ....

He argued that this proved that the bible was not meant to be read literally, but figuratively, and exegetes needed to learn the complex hermeneutical skills to determine the best ways of reading complex passages.

Lost you here.

Posted by bp | December 23, 2007 12:56 PM

"Justaguy, do you have evidence for the existence of this supernatural realm you seem to take as a given?"

I never said that I believe in the supernatural, I said that science doesn't examine supernatural causation or phenomena. There are two consequences to that.

1. There can be no scientific evidence for the supernatural.
2. There can be no scientific refutation of the supernatural.

I don't know what you're inferring my religious beliefs from - I'm criticizing Dawkins because he doesn't seem to understand science.

Posted by justaguy | December 23, 2007 12:57 PM

People also claim direct empircal experience of God.

People claim lots of things. People claim to have seen Elvis resurrected too.

Posted by bp | December 23, 2007 1:00 PM

As far as they're concerned, all theistic religion is the same, so if they knock the legs out from under Christianity, they've won.

Really? So they're helping to perpetuate the myth that atheists are just anti-Christian, rather than non-religious? Great. Of course, part of the trouble with this whole discussion is that there are as many specific Christian beliefs as there are Christians, and no two are exactly alike. In fact, Christianity's ability to adapt is one of the reasons it's lasted as long as it has. It has something for everyone.

On a side note, I've really started to think that perhaps we label atheism a religion. Absence of religion is one thing, but when people take an active stance that no gods exist, they've taken that leap into the world of faith. For me, the only correct position is agnosticism: IE, I don't know and don't care.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 1:01 PM

"Re: Hitchens argues that the practical effects of teaching their dogmas to people causes a retardation in human progress

Which explains why European civilization founded modern science and pretty much conquered the world. Yep, religion retards progress all rioght!"

1.) The rest of the world was being held back by their own religions - contrary to your world view, Jesus the Semenless Carpenter was not the only guy on the block in ancient times.

2.) Most scientific progress WAS retarded during the time of church hegmony in Europe - it was only after this declined, and the "protestant reformation" occured (which was a great help in shutting off religion into the private sphere) that the modern age of science begun.

3.) Almost all famous scientists in world history generally were non-believers - because if you know how the world works, there's no need to conform to the beliefs that basically originate with tribal jewish scavengers.

Posted by JFD | December 23, 2007 1:01 PM

I said that science doesn't examine supernatural causation or phenomena.

Why not?

Posted by bp | December 23, 2007 1:02 PM

when people take an active stance that no pink lesbian unicorns exist, they've taken that leap into the world of faith

Posted by bp | December 23, 2007 1:05 PM

"You know who's behind this? The jehovah Witnesses. They think that Christmas is a pagan festival shoehorned into the story of Jesus. They also refuse to serve in the military, refuse to salute the flag, and won't even say the Pledge of Allegiance.

Sure, Jews and atheists are a problem in this country. But they're just screens. Behind them is the secret JW Mafia."

Hee. I just got back from going to church with my parents (which was part of my Christmas present to them -- I only go to church on Christmas, Mother's Day and Father's Day). In the middle of a sermon about the birth of Baby J, the Southern Baptist preacher, appropo of absolutely nothing, inserted a snide comment about "cults" like the Mormons and the Jehovah's witnesses. Quite jarring and a reminder of why I haven't considered myself a Christian in many years.

Posted by atalex | December 23, 2007 1:06 PM

Last year, I listened to a CBC podcast with Dawkins. His ideas are not necessarily harmless - he called religious instruction for children child abuse. Now, what does the State do with children who are abused? Child Services removes them from the home.

Dawkins is a fanatic - he's every bit as dangerous in his fanaticism as the religious fanatics he rails against.

Posted by James Robertson | December 23, 2007 1:07 PM

It may take a while, but in the end Hannukah will defeat Christmas, and then resources can be directed to Passover, which should easily defeat Easter. Victory is assured!

Posted by Mooser | December 23, 2007 1:08 PM

Now, what does the State do with children who are abused? Child Services removes them from the home.

Spanking children is considered child abuse in many countries. What happened in the Nordic countries? Did the State cart away spanked children en masse from their homes, or mount public education campaigns to reduce the incidence and usage of spankings by parents in these countries?

Posted by bp | December 23, 2007 1:13 PM

A positive assertion isn't legitimate just because there's no evidence against it; there has to be some evidence for it. Otherwise what's stopping you from believing in the magical gas fairy who lives on Jupiter (that I just made up)?

Exactly which part of the word "faith" don't you understand? And there is nothing stopping anyone from believing in the magical gas fairy on Jupiter that you just made up. Does that mean that it's not true? Perhaps you're some sort of god and by mentioning the gas fairy, you've now accidentally conjured it into existence. You can't prove otherwise, so what's the point?

Look, any of the more intelligent Christians understand that this is a faith-based thing. That's the whole point. That their god set-up some sort of test in which he wouldn't provide us with evidence of his existence and we're expected to believe anyway. I think that's pretty twisted, but I find it impossible to refute. So why bother? I find it odd that your big argument against their religion is one of its basic tenets. That's like attacking science because it demands evidence.

In the end, we can't use our system to refute theirs and they can't use their system to refute us. And if you don't understand enough of their system to refute it, then you really shouldn't bother.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 1:17 PM

"Dawkins is a fanatic - he's every bit as dangerous in his fanaticism as the religious fanatics he rails against."

I agree that he is a fundamentalist, but doubt that he will do too much harm in and of himself. Who is he or his readers going to kill? And is he advocating persecuting anyone for their religious views? Even if he is, I doubt very much will come of it - at least in the short term.

Hitchen's fanaticism has a body count in the Iraq war. Not that Hitchens caused or even figured very highly in the reasons why it came about - but nationalism is a secular fundamentalism that - together with Fascism, Communism and Imperialism - has a death toll in the past century that is a lot more impressive than religion.

Posted by justaguy | December 23, 2007 1:19 PM

"Almost all famous scientists in world history generally were non-believers - because if you know how the world works, there's no need to conform to the beliefs that basically originate with tribal jewish scavengers."

That is just simply not true - where are you getting that from?

Stephen Gould said, of surveys that showed half of all scientists to be religious, "Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs—and equally compatible with atheism."

Posted by justaguy | December 23, 2007 1:23 PM

a humbug is a humbug is a humbug.

Posted by mdhatter | December 23, 2007 1:25 PM

Re James Robertson

For the information of Mr Robertson, Prof. Dawkins has made it clear on several occasions since making the child abuse statement that he in no way, shape, form or regard does he endorse the removal of children from religious homes.

Posted by SLC | December 23, 2007 1:26 PM

I think that's pretty twisted, but I find it impossible to refute.

Then you're not trying very hard. Unlike the believers in magical gas fairies on Jupiter, the believers in mainstream Deism believe their God has a direct tangible impact on the world, both now and in the past.

Posted by bp | December 23, 2007 1:26 PM

back to Matt's actual point, as a Christian I cannot tell you how insulting it is to hear other Christians in America talk about how they are being "persecuted." 1) It's intellectually dishonest--a society that seeks to acknowledge and respect other creeds, be it Buddhism, Islam, or Atheism, is not persecution. 2) It cheapens the term; there are real persecutions happening all over the world right now. People are dying on the basis of their beliefs or membership in a particular faith community.

Really, these people need to just grow up and learn to follow the Apostle Paul's edict: "Live peaceably with all, as far as it concerns you."

Posted by handy | December 23, 2007 1:26 PM

Dawkins points out what the bible actually says, and then he constructs a logical, rational argument for whether the evidence supports the existence of a god. He doesn't even say there isn't a god! He says the evidence doesn't support it (his 1-7 scale).

Which is like using a sledgehammer to perform a vasectomy.

the best argument against the traditional religions is that the shit just isn't true.

Which, curiously, doesn't make Chartres cathedral or Paradise Lost vanish in a puff of logic. Nor does it surgically remove what William James described as 'religious experience'. All that shit exists, regardless of its underlying epistemological value.

Which makes this kind of logical-positivist approach to religion so damn frustrating, because it's possible to do so much better than Dawkins playing the village atheist.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 23, 2007 1:26 PM

when people take an active stance that no pink lesbian unicorns exist, they've taken that leap into the world of faith

That is exactly correct. Faith-based people can believe what they choose to believe, but science-based people demand evidence. And if these pink lesbian unicorns actively defend against our ability to prove their existence, then we cannot make any determination on whether or not they exist. You can act as if they don't exist, but you cannot definitively say they don't exist.

And if you don't like it, tough. Being science-based is a double-edged sword. If you demand evidence, then you must accept that you can only make claims based upon things that provide evidence. But if something occurs outside the realm of evidence, then you don't get to make that claim. We have proof that the earth circles the sun. We cannot have any determination on whether there's a giant dragon who lives inside of it. And I see no reason to argue that it's not there.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 1:28 PM

Which, curiously, doesn't make Chartres cathedral or Paradise Lost vanish in a puff of logic. Nor does it surgically remove what William James described as 'religious experience'. All that shit exists, regardless of its underlying epistemological value.

Dawkins denies the existence of cathedrals or Paradise Lost?

Nice strawman.

Posted by bp | December 23, 2007 1:29 PM

Dawkins is "mean" if popping a kid's balloon to demonstrate to the kid that it is filled with invisible air particles is "mean."

Is it still mean, though, if the kid in question is a 40 year old multi-millioinaire running around claiming that the balloon controls the world and if anyone pops it the sky will fall down?

Most of all the other crap that people upthread wrote about Dawkins is simply false, either intentionally so or it's just more lying for Jesus.

Dawkins has never "equated" Christianity with fundamentalism as several commenters claim. Perhaps Dawkins has pointed out that, at the end of the day, both religions rely on the irrational self-serving beliefs about omniscent invisible sky captains who control the fate of the universe but -- let's be perfectly clear -- that' just pointing out an indisputable fact.

It happens to be the fact that most religionists of all stripes hate to hear atheists snickering about. That's because religionists love and need their balloons (or is it granfalloon?).

In America, we have this thing called freedom of speech which allows people to criticize baloney and hogwash freely -- in theory. Religious people historically have had a hard time with this concept. It's just another reason why we atheists think that religion sucks.

Merry Christmas!

Posted by Frank | December 23, 2007 1:29 PM

You can act as if they don't exist, but you cannot definitively say they don't exist.

Yes I can. It's easy. "They don't exist". Prove me wrong.

Posted by bp | December 23, 2007 1:33 PM

"For the information of Mr Robertson, Prof. Dawkins has made it clear on several occasions since making the child abuse statement that he in no way, shape, form or regard does he endorse the removal of children from religious homes."

Sure, when called to extend his argument to its logical end, he pulled back for marketing reasons. When I heard the podcast, it was pretty clear what he thought should happen - he believed that the State should do something to protect children from religious instruction.

30 years ago, the anti-smoking people said "of course we don't want to ban smoking in your own home" - and yet that's the current frontier on the matter. Dawkins and his ilk want to start small, but they'll end up taking every inch they can get.

Posted by James Robertson | December 23, 2007 1:36 PM

30 years ago, the anti-smoking people said "of course we don't want to ban smoking in your own home"

But Dawkins has explicitly said he does want to end religious instructions at home.

Posted by bp | December 23, 2007 1:39 PM

Exactly which part of the word "faith" don't you understand? And there is nothing stopping anyone from believing in the magical gas fairy on Jupiter that you just made up. Does that mean that it's not true? Perhaps you're some sort of god and by mentioning the gas fairy, you've now accidentally conjured it into existence. You can't prove otherwise, so what's the point?

Intelligent people, Christian or otherwise, don't call that "faith" -- they call it "crazy."

One of the most saddening trends in Christian thought lately has been taking the term "faith" and its biblical connotations of "trust" and "security" and twisting it into a word that now means -- in the fundie lexicon -- "believing in something." Or specifically, "believing in something illogical."

People in the bible who had "faith" (in the original sense) were not those people who told themselves despite all evidence that G-d really existed. (For starters, nearly all people in those societies did believe in G-d, and had no reason to doubt G-d's existence.) Biblical "faith" was about living boldly and courageously, and that was what was reckoned as righteousness -- not what kind of intellectual beliefs you managed to hold despite mounting evidence against them.

The indoctrination of the new "faith" definition is disheartening.

--Kynn, who is a Christian, BTW

Posted by Kynn | December 23, 2007 1:40 PM

the believers in mainstream Deism believe their God has a direct tangible impact on the world, both now and in the past.

Some do, some don't. That's part of the problem. There are as many religious beliefs in the world as their are religious people. No two are alike.

And while some of the less intelligent Christians insist that they have proof of their god, even their arguments amount to a leap of faith. Because their "proof" is their belief that it's true. That's the whole point. Even the ones who think that their god actively changes the weather understand that they have no proof of this. And again, attacking them for relying on faith is like them attacking us for requiring evidence. It's beyond pointless and gets into the realm of arguing for arguments sake.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 1:40 PM

Some do, some don't. That's part of the problem.

No.

No one has a problem with those people who believe in an inchoateness that has, by their own definition, no possible discernible or detectable impact on the natural world.

Such people are by no definition of the word religious.

Posted by bp | December 23, 2007 1:47 PM

We have proof that the earth circles the sun. We cannot have any determination on whether there's a giant dragon who lives inside of it.

Parody or ignorance?

It's hard to tell with our defenders of faith.

The problem with the idea of "science should mind its own business" is that many religious people have historically believed and continue to believe that they are entitled to tell scientists what scientists can and cannot study.

When scientists say that they have determined a way to transplant a liver to save your life, all but the most ignorant and anti-scientific religious people line up. When scientists say that have determined a way to purify and clean water so you won't die from worms eating out your insides, all but the most ignorant and anti-scientific religious people line up.

But when scientists say that gay families are not detectably less dysfunctional than non-gay families, a lot of those otherwise amenable religious folk get all whacked out of shape.

On what planet could such behavior possibly be considered respectable? It's idiocy and hypocracy, plain and simple. If there were so many "people of faith" who felt strongly that such behavior was wrong, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact is that -- in the US at least -- this is not the case.

Religious people, by and large, demand respect for their bogus "beliefs" simply because those "beliefs" are "religious." That's insanity and becomes obviously so as soon as I profer my own contradictory "religious" beliefs which not only nullify your beliefs but decree that anyone who holds your beliefs must be destroyed to please my deity.

Happy Hannukah!

Posted by Frank | December 23, 2007 1:48 PM

Agree with above poster about Dawkins - he's the heir to Carl Sagan's version of straightforward, common-sense rationalism. As a scientist, if he sees something proven to be not true, he - unlike many others - sees no need to tiptoe around the fact that people willfully deceive themselves about something that has a perfectly good explanation. He continually points out the 'tyranny of the discontinuous mind' in modern society, and regularly shines the light on statistical nonsense and ignorance that passes for 'evidence' by various people.

Like Sagan, I don't always WANT to agree with him but he's damn persuasive.

Posted by ssdagg | December 23, 2007 1:48 PM

Yes I can. It's easy. "They don't exist". Prove me wrong.

But the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, and I'm not making a claim. You are. You are claiming that pink lesbian unicorns don't exist. But it is impossible to prove a negative, so you can't prove your claim. That's why you shouldn't make it.

Similarly, it is impossible to prove that gods don't exist, so if you rely upon fact-based claims, you can't make that claim. Of course, if you think faith-based claims are acceptable, then you can claim anything you like. But then you're no better than the people you're denouncing. That's why the only rational position on all this is agnosticism. If you don't have evidence, then you just don't know.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 1:52 PM

And while some of the less intelligent Christians insist that they have proof of their god, even their arguments amount to a leap of faith. Because their "proof" is their belief that it's true. That's the whole point. Even the ones who think that their god actively changes the weather understand that they have no proof of this. And again, attacking them for relying on faith is like them attacking us for requiring evidence. It's beyond pointless and gets into the realm of arguing for arguments sake.

You lost me here.

When some less intelligent person insists he has a proof which turns out to be no proof at all, it's arguing for arguments sake to point this out?

If the DA says, sans evidence, that Mr Brown is a drug dealer are we allowed to ask for proof or should we accept this on faith? What if the pastor says Mrs Brown is a witch?

Posted by bp | December 23, 2007 1:55 PM

Yes I can. It's easy. "They don't exist". Prove me wrong.

*sigh* OK if those of us on the agnostic/atheist side are going to insist on logic and rational thinking, then your statement is not correct. If one makes an assertion, then the burden is on that person to provide proof.

If I were to say, 'There is a God,' it is up to me to provide proof (if I don't wish to rely on the pure faith argument). If I were to say, 'There is no God,' likewise it's up to me to provide arguments supporting that (though, as we all know, it's awfully hard to definitively prove a negative).

The best one can say is, 'it's highly unlikely there's a God.' or 'it's highly unlikely there's pink lesbian unicorns.' To flat-out claim there's no god or no pink lesbian unicorns, would require perfect knowledge of the universe (or multiverse, as the case may be).

Doc Biobrain is displaying the clearest thinking here, IMHO.

Posted by r€nato | December 23, 2007 1:58 PM

Christianity and violence:

"According to Gibbon [Decline and Fall], Romans were far more tolerant of Christians than Christians were of one another, especially once Christianity gained the upper hand. Christians inflicted far greater casualties on other Christians than were ever inflicted by the Roman Empire. Gibbon extrapolated that the number of Christians executed by other Christian factions far exceeded all the Christian martyrs who died during the three centuries of Christianity under Roman rule. This was in stark contrast to orthodox Church history, which insisted that Christianity won the hearts and minds of people largely because of the inspirational example set by its martyrs. Gibbon demonstrated that the early Church's custom of bestowing the title of martyr on all confessors of faith grossly inflated the actual numbers.

Gibbon compares how insubstantial that number was, by comparing it to more modern terms. He compared both the reigns of Diocletian (284-305), and Charles V (1519-1556) and the electorate of the Holy Roman Empire, making the argument that both were remarkably similar. Both emperors were plagued by continuous war and compelled to excessive taxation; both chose to abdicate as Emperors at roughly the same age; and both chose to lead a quiet life upon their retirement.= --Summary from Wikipedia (don't remember what chapter this came from, but it is a famous passage.)

Gibbon also remarks that Christians were happy to consign the majority of mankind to be eternally tortured:

"The condemnation of the wisest and most virtuous of the Pagans, on account of their ignorance or disbelief of the divine truth, seems to offend the reason and the humanity of the present age. But the primitive church, whose faith was of a much firmer consistence, delivered over, without hesitation, to eternal torture, the far greater part of the human species. A charitable hope might perhaps be indulged in favor of Socrates, or some other sages of antiquity, who had consulted the light of reason before that of the gospel had arisen. But it was unanimously affirmed, that those who, since the birth or the death of Christ, had obstinately persisted in the worship of the daemons, neither deserved nor could expect a pardon from the irritated justice of the Deity. These rigid sentiments, which had been unknown to the ancient world, appear to have infused a spirit of bitterness into a system of love and harmony. The ties of blood and friendship were frequently torn asunder by the difference of religious faith; and the Christians, who, in this world, found themselves oppressed by the power of the Pagans, were sometimes seduced by resentment and spiritual pride to delight in the prospect of their future triumph. "You are fond of spectacles," exclaims the stern Tertullian; "expect the greatest of all spectacles, the last and eternal judgment of the universe. How shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs, so many fancied gods, groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates, who persecuted the name of the Lord, liquefying in fiercer fires than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sage philosophers blushing in red-hot flames with their deluded scholars; so many celebrated poets trembling before the tribunal, not of Minos, but of Christ; so many tragedians, more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers." * But the humanity of the reader will permit me to draw a veil over the rest of this infernal description, which the zealous African pursues in a long variety of affected and unfeeling witticisms." (DFRE, vol. 1, chapter XV)

Posted by Harold | December 23, 2007 1:58 PM

the State should do something to protect children from religious instruction.

The State already does this, of course. You can't do anything you want to your children and defend it as "your religious right as a parent." Your religion may say that if your child tells you to fxck off and go to hell, that the child must be whipped forty times and banished to a dark room in the basement without food for a week.

Think you'll get away with it? Think the bad old State will just sit back if they know such things are happening?

Here's another scenario: how about a foster child who is taking from his mother while she is receiving treatment for drug addiction. The foster child is put in a home with Jehovah's Witnesses who brainwash the kid into believing that he should never get a blood transfusion. Shortly thereafter, the kid refuses a necessary blood transfusion because of his "religious beliefs" and dies.

Is that the sort of result that you will tolerate because religion is otherwise so fantastic and wonderful that we should never contemplate interfering with parents right to brainwash their kid?

Seriously. A similar issue was addressed recently by a Judge in Washington and the kid was allowed to kill himself. Dawkins thinks that is pathetic and disturbing and so do I.

Raising your kid to belong to your religion *is* brainwashing. If your religion is so great, then let the kid decide if he wants to join it when he's an adult. It's like telling your kid that if he doesn't vote Republican for the rest of his life that he's going to be tortured for eternity after he dies. What would you think if you overheard a parent sternly saying that to his 8 year old?

Posted by Frank | December 23, 2007 1:58 PM

looks like I owe the good doc a coke.

Posted by r€nato | December 23, 2007 2:02 PM

If one makes an assertion, then the burden is on that person to provide proof.

1. That's been my point all along.

2. Dr Biobrain insists that the religious have no burden to supply proof of their assertions when they have "faith"

3. If we are absolved of the burden of proof then nothing prevents me from proclaiming the negation to any assertion and falling back on "faith" or shifting the burden back to my interlocutor.

Old rhetorical game, easy to play.

Understand that, renate?

Posted by bp | December 23, 2007 2:06 PM

That's why the only rational position on all this is agnosticism. If you don't have evidence, then you just don't know.

The evidence that the God of the Christian Bible doesn't exist is actually more compelling than the evidence that pink lesbian unicorns don't exist.

A unicorn is just a goat with single horn. No biggie. Some animals are pink. Some animals are lesbians. It's all possible, albeit unlikely.

Invisible omniscent beings who never die, amuse themselves by playing petulant games with the creatures they create out of nothing, and write books filled with demonstrable mistakes for some of those creatures to read and use as an excuse to kill other people?

Sorry, friend, but that sounds like a bunch of pure crap. The reason I think so and you don't is because (1) I'm not trying to be everybody's friend and (2) I'm using my brain.

Your agnosticism is no different from your friend's religion. It's an excuse to turn off your brain when you hear people talking about their deities.

Posted by Frank | December 23, 2007 2:07 PM

Here's a thought experiment for those who think it's acceptable to insult Christians by calling them insane: If someone five hundred years ago had read a bible passage which made them believe that black holes existed, would it be valid to insist that black holes didn't exist and attack them as insane? Sure, they didn't have proof that they existed and their claim would not be scientific, but they really do exist. So it would be wrong to suggest that they didn't exist, even if there was no evidence to suggest they existed.

Similarly, there are lots of things that science does not have proof of, but which exist all the same. And without proof, science must plead ignorance. In the end, absence of proof is not enough to say that something doesn't exist. The best you can do is to say that there is no proof and leave it at that. I know, it's more fun to attack these people as delusional, but that's just not scientific. Science demands proof, always.

And that's where these people are wrong. It is not rational to suggest that things don't exist without proof. Again, there is a lot that science doesn't know, but which exists all the same. That's not an attack against science; that's the point of it. We require proof. And that means that we need proof to make claims against believers too.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 2:13 PM

3. If we are absolved of the burden of proof then nothing prevents me from proclaiming the negation to any assertion and falling back on "faith" or shifting the burden back to my interlocutor.

I never suggested that all people have a burden of proof. Only science-based people do. But if you're not science-based and are willing to allow any argument as reasonable, then there is no burden of proof. But if you're science-based, then there is always a burden of proof. You can claim that pink lesbian unicorns don't exist, but you can't base that claim on science.

To restate my point: If you think that all claims require evidence, then you must be able to provide evidence of your claims. But you can't do so with negative claims, as it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. Science can only prove what is; not what isn't. You can make any claim you want, but only the ones with evidence can be considered scientific.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 2:23 PM

If someone five hundred years ago had read a bible passage which made them believe that black holes existed, would it be valid to insist that black holes didn't exist and attack them as insane?

Yes.

Similarly, there are lots of things that science does not have proof of, but which exist all the same

Science does not, and has never claimed, to have proof of all things.

Major religions make assertions that are provably false and assertions that are untestable. Assertions with respect to effects on the natural world are refutable. Assertions with regards to the imperceptible and intangible are uninteresting.

Posted by bp | December 23, 2007 2:28 PM

it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

What's your basis for that claim, doc?

Short answer: metaphysical garbage in, metaphysical garbage out.

The good doctor appears to be a master of such games.

Posted by Frank | December 23, 2007 2:29 PM

I should have read comments more carefully before I posted above, sorry.

Frank above hits it on the head. All the anti-Dawkinsers on this board take this whole 'mean mister dawkins wants to end religious education of kids, but science will never be able to understand issues of faith and why doesn't he just leave us alone since we're not hurting anyone' - that's what I see when I read BioBrain's comments:
...In the end, we can't use our system to refute theirs and they can't use their system to refute us. And if you don't understand enough of their system to refute it, then you really shouldn't bother.

Bull.

We have accepted evidence-based rationality as a way of life by and large, and the world has done very well by that approach. As Frank says, it turns out it's the best way to invent things and build things, to move medical care forward, etc. I would be happy to leave religion alone if it was restricted to putting your hands together in church each Sunday and singing 'What a friend we have...'

But it's much more than that. Those people-of-faith, who have been taught that faith gives you a free pass for actually having to prove anything, sometimes leave church and do real harm in the world - most recently with things like stem-cell research, or treatment of homosexuals in areas like marriage and adoption and equal protection. Or take President Bush himself - this is a man who does things solely because he believes they're right, not merely in the absence of supporting evidence, but in the presence of contradicting evidence. He dismisses hard evidence and relies instead on his faith. That is utterly horrifying to me, and to a hell of alot of other people too.

Sure Dawkins wants to sell books - so do Joel Osteen and Deepak Chopra - so what? He has something to say, and he's good at saying it.

Dawkins' writings about religion is akin to the way 95% of the people will talk about the subject in 100-200 years. Scientists will create life in a lab, they'll extend human life to 200 yrs and beyond, they'll discover cats on Neptune, they'll snap a pic of the Big Bang....and theistic religions will begin to appear more and more absurd and counterproductive to more and more people until all that's left are little outlaw cults who pray to Jesus for redemption but still 'religiously' get their immortality injections once a month in secret.

Posted by ssdagger | December 23, 2007 2:33 PM

The best one can say is, 'it's highly unlikely there's a God.' or 'it's highly unlikely there's pink lesbian unicorns.'

Thanks for the support, but this one sentence isn't correct. It is impossible to gauge the likelihood of gods or pink unicorns as there is no basis to compare it to. Similarly, if a horse that no one knew anything about entered a horse race, it would be impossible to set odds at whether he'd win. It might be the fastest horse in the world, but ignorance should preclude any bookie from accepting bets on it.

The best we can do is insist that there is no proof of any gods or pink unicorns, and that's it. And if someone insists that they don't require proof, then we're in complete agreement.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 2:37 PM

I never suggested that all people have a burden of proof.

I never said you did. In fact, that's the problem.

Only science-based people do.

Why only science based people?

But you can't do so with negative claims, as it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

Rubbish.

I can disprove the existence of a prime number divisible by 4.

The moment an assertion ventures into the realm of the testable, it can be disproved.

Assertions that are untestable, like the existence of pink unicorns on Jupiter or black holes in the 15th century, are undefinable (how does the medieval bible define a black hole) and uninteresting (no influence on the natural world).

Posted by bp | December 23, 2007 2:39 PM

I know, it's more fun to attack these people as delusional, but that's just not scientific. Science demands proof

But "proving" to another open-minded reasonable person that someone's belief is a collection of baseless mumbo jumbo that some stooge made up and wrote down and propogated via his followers in order to consolidate power (e.g., start a religion) is actually not very difficult to do, Doc.

Again, this is the sore point for religious folks, most of whom like to believe that their religion is at least a tad "better" than the next guy's. But reasonable people (we can call them "scientists" or not) know enough about human behavior and pyschology to develop and test theories about how gullible (and even not-so-gullible) people may be manipulated by charismatic people into believing things that are not true.

So we're faced with a rather simple question about the earth's "religions" and where they came from.

Or I should say, I'm faced with it. Some people refuse to face it. A very very small people acknowledge why they refuse to face it: because having a religion makes them feel better than not having one, just like having a cigarette makes many people feel better than not having one. Praying to a "god" in a foxhole similarly makes many people feel better than soiling one's shorts thinking about the shrapnel is going to feel as it slices half your face off.

The point is that the holding of the belief itself can be "rationalized" quite easily, especially when you factor in brainwashing during childhood. But the substance of the beliefs themselves remains as vacuous as if they were simply penned by a fantasy or science fiction writer purely for entertainment purposes (or, in the case of L.Ron Hubbard, for other purposes).

Posted by Frank | December 23, 2007 2:40 PM

Not to interrupt the fun, but part of the UK did have a war on Christmas back in the late 1500s, and Christmas lost. Banned with considerable prejudice by the established church of Scotland, said ban enforced by the strong arm of the law. It was not reinstated as a holiday in Scotland until 1958.

Now *that's* a war on Christmas.

Posted by Doug | December 23, 2007 2:42 PM

An xmas depression is a well-known condition. Even commoner is a post-xmas depression. I hate xmas because everyone is then so endlessly happy and permanent peace descends yearly from heaven to earth. I prefer misery and war, which have nothing to do with xmas.

Posted by Quentin | December 23, 2007 2:43 PM

Science does not, and has never claimed, to have proof of all things.

Of course not. And that's what I'm saying. Absence of proof does not mean that something doesn't exist. You, on the other hand, think it would have been acceptable to insist that blackholes didn't exist, just because we didn't have proof of them. But as you say, science can't prove everything. And if it doesn't have proof, it can't make the claim. That's not an attack on science; that's the whole point.

Being fact-based is a blessing and a curse. Being forced to rely upon proof to make claims is a much better way of gaining knowledge, but...you only get to make claims that you can prove. And if you can't prove that pink lesbian unicorns don't exist, you don't get to make that claim and still be considered science-based.

Again, that's not an attack on science; that's the whole point. Similarly, it's not an attack to say that religious believers lack proof; that's the whole point. Believers are wrong to suggest they have proof that their god exists, and science-people are wrong to say their science proves he doesn't.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 2:47 PM

The best we can do is insist that there is no proof of any gods or pink unicorns, and that's it. And if someone insists that they don't require proof, then we're in complete agreement.

This is the problem with sophomoric metaphorical hairsplitting, and that is that the position you are defending bears no relation to reality.

Religious people (or the very large subset thereof atheists are concerned with) do not claim that they have no proof of the existence of God, nor that they need no proof thereof. On the contrary, they claim that their deity plays a very prominent, very real part of their lives. He heals illnesses, smites the heathen, stops the rotation of the earth, floods the world, hates gays, causes their favorite sport team to win or lose, and told them to bet 4-7 on "Moonshine Runner" at the races.

People don't believe in a deity that never reveals itself, for which there is no proof, and whose existence must be accepted on faith and faith alone. That's neither faith nor belief. That's dilletantism. And that's not who atheists are having a discourse with.

Posted by bp | December 23, 2007 2:50 PM

Believers are wrong to suggest they have proof that their god exists, and science-people are wrong to say their science proves he doesn't.

Good grief, Biobrain, are you really suggesting Zeus lives on Olympos and we science people cannot prove otherwise?

Posted by bp | December 23, 2007 2:57 PM

Assertions that are untestable, like the existence of pink unicorns on Jupiter or black holes in the 15th century, are undefinable (how does the medieval bible define a black hole) and uninteresting (no influence on the natural world).

And that's exactly my point. Untestable claims fall outside the realm of science, and using science to discuss them is meaningless and probably mean-spirited. Just because science can't prove something doesn't prove that it doesn't exist. You can choose to believe that these things don't exist, but these are not scientific claims. Blackholes existed long before we ever had the ability to discover them; and their existence did not rely upon our ability to understand them.

Or put a different way: Using science to test things outside science is like using a multiple-choice test to determine if someone loves another person. Or using someone's height to determine if they're moral. Or using faith to determine if the sun circles the earth. You just can't do it. Science can only make claims that are fact-based. That's not an attack on science; it's the point.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 2:58 PM

Good grief, Biobrain, are you really suggesting Zeus lives on Olympos and we science people cannot prove otherwise?

Of course. Well, I guess you could make that claim, but it wouldn't be a scientific claim. What don't you understand about factual claims? If you want to make a factual claim, you have to have facts to support it. If you don't have facts, it's not a factual claim. And if it's impossible to prove something (like the non-existence of gods or unicorns), then you don't get to make the claim. Sorry, but those are the breaks.

Things exist whether or not you can prove they exist. But scientific-claims have to have facts. And I don't have a problem with that. The big question is why you people are so insistent on proving things that you can't prove. I don't know if there are any gods, aliens, or ghosts, and don't see how it really concerns me. I'm more concerned with what people do; not what they believe. And I'm quite convinced that people can act like hate-filled jerks no matter what they believe.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 3:06 PM

The prevailing capitalist culture has no interest in Christ per se, but every interest in selling as much stuff as the selling season will permit. I find it humorous that Starbuck's "Christmas" CD is 92% secularly seasonal songs, and Walgreen's mood music is relentlessly "Merry Little Christmas," "White Christmas," and "Chestnuts Roasting," none of which has anything to so with the virgin birth and everything to do the feel-good buy-something ethos. War on Christmas? I wish.

Posted by W Action | December 23, 2007 3:14 PM

Ah, Dr Biobrain, but we do live in a world that constantly demands proof about almost everything in our interactions with one another, and now you're proving another one of the points the atheist authors bring up--religion is the one area in which we allow folks to make evidence-less arguments and the rest of us are supposed to let the arguments go unexamined because they're based on "faith" ... and then these arguments turn into real world actions like bad public policies and worse. If you make a claim that the supernatural impacts the natural world, then it becomes a scientific question and the dodge behind "science can't address that" is silly. The whole point behind a rational society is to demand physical proof in convincing each other, not just accepting the unprovable assertions of authority figures. The pass you give religion here seems more socially rooted in not offending believers than engaging the arguments of Dawkins, et al.

Posted by Respectful Dissent | December 23, 2007 3:16 PM

Ah, Dr Biobrain, but we do live in a world that constantly demands proof about almost everything in our interactions with one another, and now you're proving another one of the points the atheist authors bring up--religion is the one area in which we allow folks to make evidence-less arguments and the rest of us are supposed to let the arguments go unexamined because they're based on "faith" ... and then these arguments turn into real world actions like bad public policies and worse. If you make a claim that the supernatural impacts the natural world, then it becomes a scientific question and the dodge behind "science can't address that" is silly. The whole point behind a rational society is to demand physical proof in convincing each other, not just accepting the unprovable assertions of authority figures. The pass you give religion here seems more socially rooted in not offending believers than engaging the arguments of Dawkins, et al.

Posted by Respectful Dissent | December 23, 2007 3:17 PM

Ah, Dr Biobrain, but we do live in a world that constantly demands proof about almost everything in our interactions with one another, and now you're proving another one of the points the atheist authors bring up--religion is the one area in which we allow folks to make evidence-less arguments and the rest of us are supposed to let the arguments go unexamined because they're based on "faith" ... and then these arguments turn into real world actions like bad public policies and worse. If you make a claim that the supernatural impacts the natural world, then it becomes a scientific question and the dodge behind "science can't address that" is silly. The whole point behind a rational society is to demand physical proof in convincing each other, not just accepting the unprovable assertions of authority figures. The pass you give religion here seems more socially rooted in not offending believers than engaging the arguments of Dawkins, et al.

Posted by Respectful Dissent | December 23, 2007 3:18 PM

Ah, Dr Biobrain, but we do live in a world that constantly demands proof about almost everything in our interactions with one another, and now you're proving another one of the points the atheist authors bring up--religion is the one area in which we allow folks to make evidence-less arguments and the rest of us are supposed to let the arguments go unexamined because they're based on "faith" ... and then these arguments turn into real world actions like bad public policies and worse. If you make a claim that the supernatural impacts the natural world, then it becomes a scientific question and the dodge behind "science can't address that" is silly. The whole point behind a rational society is to demand physical proof in convincing each other, not just accepting the unprovable assertions of authority figures. The pass you give religion here seems more socially rooted in not offending believers than engaging the arguments of Dawkins, et al.

Posted by Respectful Dissent | December 23, 2007 3:19 PM

Ah, Dr Biobrain, but we do live in a world that constantly demands proof about almost everything in our interactions with one another, and now you're proving another one of the points the atheist authors bring up--religion is the one area in which we allow folks to make evidence-less arguments and the rest of us are supposed to let the arguments go unexamined because they're based on "faith" ... and then these arguments turn into real world actions like bad public policies and worse. If you make a claim that the supernatural impacts the natural world, then it becomes a scientific question and the dodge behind "science can't address that" is silly. The whole point behind a rational society is to demand physical proof in convincing each other, not just accepting the unprovable assertions of authority figures. The pass you give religion here seems more socially rooted in not offending believers than engaging the arguments of Dawkins, et al.

Posted by Respectful Dissent | December 23, 2007 3:20 PM

And that's exactly my point

No, that's not the point you have been making throughout this thread. You begun with

"It's possible the bible is somehow 100% correct, or even 35% correct"

The Bible literally contradicts itself in a number of places. (see, e.g Genesis, and Cain "marrying the daughters of other lands") It is not possible that the Bible is 100% correct.

Then, later on you said
In the end, we can't use our system to refute theirs and they can't use their system to refute us.

Which is rubbish, because any and all religious doctrine that makes specific statements with regards to the natural world can be subject to empirical testing. Zeus does not live in a huge mansion on Mount Olympos.

In addition you said

And while some of the less intelligent Christians insist that they have proof of their god, even their arguments amount to a leap of faith. Because their "proof" is their belief that it's true. That's the whole point. Even the ones who think that their god actively changes the weather understand that they have no proof of this. And again, attacking them for relying on faith is like them attacking us for requiring evidence. It's beyond pointless and gets into the realm of arguing for arguments sake.

In short, you've been actively maintaining that religious people don't have to defend any assertions they make, be it about inchoate subjects like "Pink unicorns live on Jupiter", or about testable assertions like "God has given Brother Jacob the power to fly". Furthermore you have been asserting that science has neither the right nor the ability to answer any of these questions. That it is, in fact, mean-spirited to ask Brother Jacob to demonstrate his flying skills.

This is a wholly untenable position, and I think you realized it in the course of this discussion. You are now seguing into something I find neither interesting or relevant: the metaphysical discussion of whether or not I can claim with certainty that pink elephants do or do not exist.

I'm not interested in such fundamentally unprovable things: I said so from the outset - untestable equals uninteresting.

What I am interested in, is whether prayer cures AIDS, for instance. This is testable, and science does have something to say about it. Simple believing it does *not* make it true.

Posted by bp | December 23, 2007 3:21 PM

But scientific-claims have to have facts

I am beginning to think you do not know what science is.

Posted by bp | December 23, 2007 3:25 PM

The big question is why you people are so insistent on proving things that you can't prove.

There's that strawman again.

All that Dawkins and others like him, i.e., me, want to "prove" is that religious people and their apologists go to great lengths in their efforts to pretend that their "religions" are just another form of "understanding" like science.

The good Doctor here is just another data point for my position: even as ignores 99.999% of the teachings of the world's religions (as he should) he relies heavily on the fruits of the world's scientists.

I'm quite convinced that people can act like hate-filled jerks no matter what they believe

Sure. So, uh, do the folks who fight for their right to hand out anti-homosexual literature in public schools tend to be religious believers or not? That's another data point that could support my theory that religion makes some people behave as if a collection of garbage about foreskins and magical arks written thousands of years ago should be consulted when determining matters of public policy.

Posted by Frank | December 23, 2007 3:26 PM

I'll admit that I've never read Dawkins or Hitchens books, but I definitely get the impression that they're both just trying to be dicks about all this.

You know what being a dick is? Calling someone else a dick when you admittedly have no idea what you're talking about.

This whole thing about Dawkins being mean or illiberal or fanatical is a huge red herring. Indeed, it has come to be taken on faith by people whose "faith" is challenged by the inquiry Dawkins proposes we embark on. It's easier, naturally, to attack the messenger than the message.

At no time does Dawkins claim to prove god does not exist. Instead, he takes the scientific approach, and determines that there is *no* evidence in support of god, and that all the evidence to date points to there being no god. In short, he acknowledges that he cannot prove there is no god, but says it is very unlikely god exists.

For future reference, can we make a rule - nay, a Commandment! - that if one is going to attack Dawkins for his methods or message, that one have more than a passing acquaintance with what he has actually written.

Posted by McKingford | December 23, 2007 3:37 PM

Religious people (or the very large subset thereof atheists are concerned with) do not claim that they have no proof of the existence of God, nor that they need no proof thereof. On the contrary, they claim that their deity plays a very prominent, very real part of their lives. He heals illnesses, smites the heathen, stops the rotation of the earth..i>

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Catholics don't believe any of that stuff. Or they're not supposed to, anyway. They do not believe that the bible is literally true or that God actively changes our world. And that's still the largest domination in America. I think the problem here is that the people with the strongest beliefs are the ones most likely to argue with you. But Catholics are supposed to believe in a hands-off God who created the world so that evolution would shape us over the course of billions of years into the people we are. I personally find that odd, but understand that I can't disprove it.

Beyond that, just because someone believes that God alters their lives doesn't mean they think they have absolute proof that he exists. They have faith. Even the ones who say they have "proof" only mean that they believe it based upon what they've seen. And even then, they only use the word "proof" to rebutt our arguments, and don't really use it the way we use it.

In fact, that's so much of the problem here. Both Christians and atheists are having a fierce debate because the other side is attacking them. But they're really saying the same damn things. Atheists attack Christians for having to rely on faith; even though that's a point of pride for Christians. And Christians attack atheists for only accepting claims that are supported with evidence; even though that's a point of pride for atheists. In reality, both sides are in agreement on this point. It's only because the other side is saying these things as an attack that anyone is bothering to defend it. But as long as they understand that they have no proof and we understand that we need proof; we're all in agreement.

I'm sorry if you want to believe that you have scientific proof that gods don't exist, but you're wrong. Science cannot prove anything without evidence and there is no evidence that proves or disproves the existence of gods.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 3:39 PM

Catholics don't believe any of that stuff.

Well it didn't long for Doc to turn himself into an objective liar for Jesus, did it?

Catholics don't believe that God plays a very real and prominent part in their lives? Catholics don't believe that God can heal illnesses?

There are only two explanations for such bizarre, easily refuted statements: extreme ignorance or intentional lying.

I'm going with the latter. Well done, Doc. Well done.

Posted by Frank | December 23, 2007 3:46 PM

Instead, he takes the scientific approach, and determines that there is *no* evidence in support of god, and that all the evidence to date points to there being no god.

But...that first point is exactly what most Christians say, and the second point is unknowable. So the only reason this is an issue is because he's trying to be a dick about it. I mean, how many Christians do you know try to argue that there is scientific proof that God exists? I haven't met any.

As I said before, we can't even guess at the likelihood that gods exist. So for Dawkins to write a whole book on the subject would suggest he's trying to be a dick. Science people should stay out of religion and religious people should stay out of science; if only because their fields are useless at discussing the issue of the other. Science cannot be used to disprove gods, and religion cannot be used to find blackholes.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 3:48 PM

They do not believe that the bible is literally true or that God actively changes our world.

What, that the world was created in 7 days or the virgin birth?

That Jonah was swallowed by a great fish or the resurrection of Christ?

That god handed down the tablets to Moses or that he sent his son to pay for man's sins?

You're telling me Catholics believe *none* of these things are actually true, and that even though they are all biblical in nature, they are simply allegorical? None of these things form the very core of Catholic catechism?

Somebody better tell the pope, because he's evidently doing it wrong...

Posted by McKingford | December 23, 2007 3:54 PM

Instead, he takes the scientific approach, and determines that there is *no* evidence in support of god, and that all the evidence to date points to there being no god.

But...that first point is exactly what most Christians say

No, they don't. Most Christians say "I want to go to heaven after I die."

Posted by Frank | December 23, 2007 3:56 PM

Well it didn't long for Doc to turn himself into an objective liar for Jesus, did it?

What is it with you people? Why are you so obsessed with attacking Christians? I'm not lying. You are entirely ignorant about what Catholics believe.

Tell me, when a Catholic is sick, do they go to a doctor or a priest? Same with most Christians. If they believed that God alone could cure their illness, they wouldn't need a doctor. They might say that prayer can protect them, but their actions speak louder than words. They also fear death, screw the poor, and live secular lives; all in defiance of their religion's teachings.

And believe it or not, but I really don't like being called a liar. Can't you people debate without getting offensive? And no, me pointing out that you're ignorant about Christians isn't the same as you calling me a "liar for Jesus". Just because I require proof before making claims doesn't make me a bad person.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 3:57 PM

Doctor Biobrain writes: "But Catholics are supposed to believe in a hands-off God who created the world so that evolution would shape us over the course of billions of years into the people we are."

This is simply untrue. Catholics most definitely believe in ongoing miracles and in the active intervention of god in human affairs. That's why they require "proof" of "miracles" in their sainthood process.

I think it was George Bernard Shaw at Lourdes who said "All those canes, braces and crutches,
and not a single glass eye, wooden leg or toupée." My own version is "pray for rain in one hand, piss in the other, and see which gets wet first."

B the way, the true obligation of proof is on the people asserting that something ACTUALLY EXISTS. No reasonable logician ever asks someone to prove a negative. Taking the stance that something fanciful - a pink unicorn or a sky fairy who gets honked off if you masturbate - does not exist is inherently more reasonable than asserting it does without any evidence worthy of the word.

Isaac Asimov wrote that after decades of calling himself an agnostic he had decided simply to say he was an atheist, because he had concluded that the chance of a god existing was so small that it made the distinction pointless. In fact all agnostics are atheists, since they all lack theistic belief - they're just wafflers who want to appear open-minded. Every atheist I know would be willing to change their position if given some evidence for the existence of a sky fairy. There simply isn't any.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 23, 2007 3:58 PM

What could be lazier, or less interesting, than imagining what someone else might have written then attacking your own imagination? Woo hoo, Merry Christmas!

Posted by catbirdman | December 23, 2007 4:00 PM

Biobrain - doesn't the Catholic Church accept that miracles are real and do occur? Isn't a couple of attested miracles one of the criteria of sainthood?

That being said, my understanding is that most of the more mainstream religions in America - not just Catholics, but Mainline protestants and non-Orthodox Jews, as well - generally seem to take the position that inasmuch as God is involved in the workings of the Universe, He does so through the workings of natural laws, rather than outside them. This is fairly difficult to refute, I think. It certainly seems more likely that there is no God, but science really can't provide any clear answers about a God who exists beyond the observable universe.

I'm not sure I undertand BP's statement about the "very large subset" of religious people that atheists are concerned about. Atheism, to make its case, has to refute all varieties of theism, not merely easily refuted fundamentalist nonsense. Now, making the case against fundamentalism is important, and ought to be done, but showing that fundamentalism is nonsense is not the same as disproving theism.

Posted by John | December 23, 2007 4:04 PM

Dr. Biobrain,

As has been pointed out, you are either embarrassed about the tenets of Catholicism (and on that point I don't blame you), so that you misrepresent them, or you are ignorant of them.

Your assertion was that Catholics don't believe the bible is literally true. Yet the virgin birth and resurrection are fundamental to Catholic dogma. So, which is it?

As for whether or not Catholics believe in divine intervention, how does one become beatified in Catholicism? The answer to that should neatly dispel the notion that Catholics do not believe in divine intervention, and more importantly, that their faith does not encourage the notion.

Posted by McKingford | December 23, 2007 4:06 PM

You obviously have no clue what you're talking about. Catholics don't believe any of that stuff. Or they're not supposed to, anyway. They do not believe that the bible is literally true or that God actively changes our world.

I was baptized and raised Catholic, buddy. People who do not believe that the bible is literally true or that God actively changes our world are called "secular humanists", not "Catholics".

Posted by BP | December 23, 2007 4:06 PM

No, they don't. Most Christians say "I want to go to heaven after I die."

Please find me the Christian who thinks they have scientific proof that God exists. I'm sure a few exist, but it's clearly not a majority position. And so it sounds like Dawkins was just reaffirming what Christians already believe. Wow, how groundbreaking.

And even then, most Christians have little faith in Heaven. They fear death and consider it to be a bad thing. But anyone who believes in Heaven should consider this world to be sucksville and death as a wonderful thing. Some Christians act that way, but most of them act like they're having too much fun in this world and don't want to leave. So not only do they rely on faith to tell them that their god exists, that faith is pretty weak. But me saying that isn't an attack on religion; as this is the message that a majority of Christian preachers say.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 4:06 PM

What is it with you people? Why are you so obsessed with attacking Christians?

When did you stop beating your wife?

You are entirely ignorant about what Catholics believe.

Excuse me but are you the same guy who was making a lot of noise upthread about making claims for which one has no evidence? As it happens, I know a lot about what Catholics believe having been raised as one (in a family that includes a nun) and confirmed as one.

They might say that prayer can protect them

And they do say so. And they are demonstrably wrong.

Does that make them "bad" people? Of course not. Does it make them deluded? Yes. Does it bother them when someone points this out? It apparently bothers you, Doc.

But it doesn't bother every religionist. I pointed that out upthread. There is a small minority of religious people who understand exactly what they are doing with their minds when they adopt religious beliefs, and they understand why they are doing it.

I really don't like being called a liar. Can't you people debate without getting offensive?

Isn't that where this topic began? Dawkins is "mean" because when he debates religious apologists he gives them zero credit for their religious beliefs. Then when the apologists begin tripping over themselves and mischaracterizing religion generally as well as science and human nature, Dawkins informs them that they are being inconsistent. They are being inconsistent because they are careless and/or ignorant, or because they are trying to mislead.

You see, Doc, it *is* about evidence. It *is* about reality. The reality is that I don't really care if I'm offending you or not. What matters is that I'm not lying and I'm addressing your points -- and your behavior -- head on without genuflecting before some worthless concept of "civility".

Or perhaps you'd like to argue now that there's no such thing as a lie?

Posted by Frank | December 23, 2007 4:10 PM

Ok, people, maybe we should lay off Dr. Biobrain. After all, he hasn't actually read Dawkins book - you know, the book he takes on faith establishes Dawkins to be a dick - so I don't know why we should expect him to also be familiar with the tenets of Catholicism. Knowledge of something should not be a prerequisite to commenting authoritatively on it - or the next thing you know, we'll start demanding evidence and facts, and who knows where that will lead...

I think catbirdman hit the nail precisely on the head.

Posted by McKingford | December 23, 2007 4:14 PM

'm not sure I undertand BP's statement about the "very large subset" of religious people that atheists are concerned about. Atheism, to make its case, has to refute all varieties of theism, not merely easily refuted fundamentalist nonsense.

"Atheism" cannot make a case. Individual "atheists" can. Time and resources are limited. That's all.

Posted by BP | December 23, 2007 4:14 PM

But anyone who believes in Heaven should consider this world to be sucksville and death as a wonderful thing

Suicide is not a short cut to heaven in Catholicism. Quite the opposite.

Posted by BP | December 23, 2007 4:16 PM

People who do not believe that the bible is literally true or that God actively changes our world are called "secular humanists", not "Catholics".

Sorry, but Catholics do not believe in a literal bible. The current and prior popes both have stated they believe in evolution; but think that their god set it into motion billions of years ago. They believe Adam and Eve were not real people, but is a morality story teaching us about the nature of good and evil. Catholics are not fundamentalists and any Catholic who says otherwise is going against church teachings.

Nor do they believe that God actively changes things. They understand weather patterns and medical science. While they believe in miracles and prayers, they don't think it's a direct intervention. They think it's an issue of faith and that a strong enough faith in their god is what's making this happen. Again, when a Catholic gets sick, they go to a doctor, not a priest. Catholics are not fundamentalists.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 4:18 PM

Suicide is not a short cut to heaven in Catholicism. Quite the opposite.

Of course not. Because once you accept the idea that Heaven is infinitely superior to earth, you'd want to kill yourself. So they had to rule that out immediately or they'd lose all their supporters. But all the same, Christians should believe that a murdered Christian is the luckiest person; yet they never do. They always think it's sad when a good Christian dies; which is a really, really weird thing for someone who believes in Heaven to think. But rationality really isn't their strongsuit, is it.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 4:22 PM

Sorry, but Catholics do not believe in a literal bible.

Yes they do.

The current and prior popes both have stated they believe in evolution; but think that their god set it into motion billions of years ago. They believe Adam and Eve were not real people, but is a morality story teaching us about the nature of good and evil.

The Roman Catholic Church has existed for almost two millenia, my friend. For most of that two thousand years, *Genesis* was the factual story of Creation. The theory of evolution is but a century old. What you describe is not Catholic doctrine, it is heresy.

Posted by BP | December 23, 2007 4:31 PM

Your assertion was that Catholics don't believe the bible is literally true. Yet the virgin birth and resurrection are fundamental to Catholic dogma. So, which is it?

I never said they think the whole thing is fake. They think some of it is literally true and that some of it isn't meant to be literally true. And that's what bible scholars say too: Some of the stuff in the bible really did happen. The question is how much. And as I said, Catholics believe in evolution. Even Pope Ratzinger has said so.

And unless you can prove the virgin birth didn't happen, you really shouldn't attack it. I think the idea is daft, and that the whole thing was a misintrepretation from the Old Testament; but it is impossible to prove that it is untrue. I don't see why you people have such a hard time with that concept. Science can only deal with testable things and some things just aren't testable. That's not a flaw with science; but a feature.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 4:34 PM

Sorry, but Catholics do not believe in a literal bible.

You keep focusing on Genesis and ignoring immaculate conception and resurrection. The virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ (which are "documented" in the bible) are fundamental to Catholic doctrine. So, which is it: Catholics do or do not believe in a literal bible?

Or is it just the most scientifically absurd parts of the bible that Catholics (only recently) reject as being literally true?

Posted by McKingford | December 23, 2007 4:38 PM

And unless you can prove the virgin birth didn't happen, you really shouldn't attack it.

Wait a minute. That is a factual claim. It is up to the believer to prove that it is true isn't it? Since there have been no other "virgin births" then I feel quite comfortable attacking this lone example.

Posted by Col Bat Guano | December 23, 2007 4:39 PM

The Roman Catholic Church has existed for almost two millenia, my friend. For most of that two thousand years, *Genesis* was the factual story of Creation. The theory of evolution is but a century old. What you describe is not Catholic doctrine, it is heresy.

Well, you can say the pope is a heretic, but Catholics believe that is impossible.

I quote:
Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19956961/

Sorry, but Catholics have now accepted evolution; though with a godly twist. Pope John Paul II did also. You can say that they're not allowed to change their minds, but their top leaders say otherwise. They also apologized for what they did to Galileo (though hundreds of years too late).

I'm telling you, Christianity is nothing if not adaptable. It's whatever they want it to be, which is why it's so hard to argue against.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 4:41 PM

I take it Dr. Biobrain, that your earlier comment that Catholics do not believe in a literally true bible, is no longer operative.

And unless you can prove the virgin birth didn't happen, you really shouldn't attack it.

Well, this is instructive. I never "attacked" virgin birth - I simply cited it as something that appears in the bible that Catholics believe to be literally true (without commenting one way or another on whether it is absurd).

You take that as an attack.

It gives us all better insight into what you imagine about people when you call them "dicks".

Posted by McKingford | December 23, 2007 4:45 PM

Wait a minute. That is a factual claim. It is up to the believer to prove that it is true isn't it? Since there have been no other "virgin births" then I feel quite comfortable attacking this lone example.

Well, if they were making a scientific claim, they'd require proof. But they're making a religious claim, not a scientific one. But for you, a fact-based person, to make the claim that the virgin birth didn't happen would require proof of that. But that would be impossible to prove, so you shouldn't make the claim. What's confusing about this? Fact-based claims require facts. If you don't have facts, you're not making a fact-based claim.

Secondly, how many Big Bangs do you think happened? Some scientists posit that our Bang was one of many, but we only have evidence of this one. Are you suggesting it didn't happen? Of course not. Singularity does not make something untrue. Again, I find the idea of the virgin birth to be untrue and unnecessary even within the context of the bible, but science can't have an opinion on the subject and we cannot make claims regarding its truth. Why are you people making this so much harder than it is?

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 4:47 PM

Sorry, but Catholics have now accepted evolution; though with a godly twist.

So, is Dawkins still a meanie or what?

Posted by BP | December 23, 2007 4:48 PM

Dawkins denies the existence of cathedrals or Paradise Lost?
Nice strawman.

Nice bullshit misreading. My point is that the 'stuff of religion' is around us, and inescapable, and that Dawkins' Vienna Circle approach parses so much of this 'stuff' as gobbledygook in a silly, reductive way.

On this theme, Eagleton's characterisation that

Dawkins [...] occasionally writes as though ‘Thou still unravish’d bride of quietness’ is a mighty funny way to describe a Grecian urn

seems absolutely on the mark. Dawkins' nod to the aesthetic products of religion is phoned in. He acts as if large swathes of the academy are bullshitting about bullshit, when modern theology and bible scholarship tells us a lot about how people and societies work. (Thomas Sheehan's online lectures on the historical Jesus are worth a listen in this regard.)

None of this entails discussing the existence of a supreme being. (Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion did the job for me, in philosophical terms.) It does entail a recognition that people have been telling one another stories about the world for as long as we know. Dawkins seems to find this tendency rather distasteful in and of itself, which is oh so very bourgeois of him.

(And yes, I've read The God Delusion.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 23, 2007 4:51 PM

I take it Dr. Biobrain, that your earlier comment that Catholics do not believe in a literally true bible, is no longer operative.

Sigh. I'll quote myself on this one:
I never said they think the whole thing is fake. They think some of it is literally true and that some of it isn't meant to be literally true. And that's what bible scholars say too: Some of the stuff in the bible really did happen. The question is how much. And as I said, Catholics believe in evolution. Even Pope Ratzinger has said so.

Do you believe that everything in the bible is fake? There was no nation of Judah? The early Christians didn't fear the Romans? Of course not. You believe that some of the bible is literally true, but other parts aren't. Same with the Catholics. Only fundamentalists believe that every word of the bible is literally true. Catholics are not fundamentalists.

BTW, I actually didn't like my use of the word "attack" and that's not exactly what I meant. I guess I should have taken more time to find the right word, but was hoping you wouldn't be parsing my sentences for such keywords. My mistake.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 4:54 PM

But they're making a religious claim

Bring me up to speed on this, Doc. I'm also all mixed up on what's sciency and what's faith with regards to Genesis, evolution, and the Virgin Birth. I mean, if facts are not needed for the non fact based Virgin Birth, why dump Genesis?

Posted by BP | December 23, 2007 4:59 PM

Bring me up to speed on this, Doc. I'm also all mixed up on what's sciency and what's faith with regards to Genesis, evolution, and the Virgin Birth. I mean, if facts are not needed for the non fact based Virgin Birth, why dump Genesis?

Well, not having asked Ratzinger about this personally (we generally only discuss sports), I'd guess that they dumped Genesis because science found too much evidence that disputed what Genesis said. Similarly, they have now accepted that the earth is not the center of the universe, because they have facts which prove otherwise.

But there aren't any facts that dispute the virgin birth. Even they believe that it hadn't happened before, which is why they consider it to be a miracle. Now, if you invent a time machine, take pictures of Joseph and Mary doing it nine months before Jesus is born; the church might have to rethink that one. But until then, they'll probably keep it.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 5:11 PM

My point is that the 'stuff of religion' is around us, and inescapable, and that Dawkins' Vienna Circle approach parses so much of this 'stuff' as gobbledygook in a silly, reductive way.

You weren't making a point, you were stringing a series of meaningless epithets together. Dawkins may piss you off, and that's your prerogative. He takes a reductionist approach to the external paraphernalia of religion, where you (I'm guessing here, you're not that coherent) think it occupies a fundamental place in the social fabric only loosely related to abstruse theological matters and that Dawkins trivializes this.

What can I say? Gee, I'm sorry that Dawkins did not write his polemic screed to suit your taste - which is, amusingly enough, the epitomy of bourgoisie, seeing the aesthetic gestalt and societal implications of religion as being more important that salvation and hellfire.

Here's a nickel. Go buy yourself a copy of Paradise Regained.

Posted by BP | December 23, 2007 5:14 PM

Similarly, they have now accepted that the earth is not the center of the universe, because they have facts which prove otherwise.

But if it was a "religious claim", why would the existence of facts change that?

But there aren't any facts that dispute the virgin birth.

Suppose there were; why would that matter?

Posted by BP | December 23, 2007 5:22 PM

I'm an atheist and have never minded Christmas, holidays are fun, its cheery, etc.

But these religious idiots are making me disgusted with the whole thing.

The country is overwhelmingly christian, every president ever elected has been one, there's go on our money and in our schools in the pledge, an atheist will never be able to be elected president, and only one or two people in congress have ever admitted to it.

Christians run everything in this country, and if anyone is oppressed its atheists. In many places you have to hide your lack of belief or else get hassled by neighbors, lose your job, etc. Not horrible oppression, not life-threatening, but its there.

And all the while we atheists have just quietly gone about our business, putting on a fake plastic smile as we listen to people talk about how they know Jesus saved them from bird flu or whatever, humoring people and just trying to get along.

And now these people, these people who control everything... EVERYTHING in this country, and who sometimes make our lives miserable, are going to whine about how their club is threatened simply because they've suddenly noticed there's other people out there not like them?

Those in CONTROL are going to whine about how oppressed they are?

Well, now I wish there WAS a war on Christmas. Used to like it, now it just makes me feel disgusted. Kinda like how I used to like the US flag until the fascists got their stink on it by wrapping themselves in it. Until it became the Fox News logo.

FUCK Christmas. The Christians have ruined it.

Posted by craig | December 23, 2007 5:46 PM

I find the term "War on Christmas" to be especially offensive when there are several real wars that we are involved in. As far as I can tell, there are no orphans or refugees as a result of this "war".

I think it is a way for the right-wing to act victimized while so much real, human blood is on their hands.

Posted by Alyssa Goldberg | December 23, 2007 5:51 PM

But if it was a "religious claim", why would the existence of facts change that?

I guess that'd be an implicit acknowledgement that scientific claims trump religious claims, even for them. They'll fight what they can and change when they must. It takes the willpower of a Dick Cheney to stay to true to beliefs in the face of overwhelming reality.

But seriously, we're no different. You've never been wrong about anything? You've never believed myths to be truths and changed your mind when you learned the truth? Like how doctors believed ulcers were caused by stress. It's unfortunate, but we're all infected with antiquated thinking that have no basis in fact. But if we're smart, we'll dump those ideas once we're confronted with the truth. And religious people are no different. They're just a little slower at it, I guess.

So they'll drop their virgin birth, but you've got to give them a good reason to first.

Posted by Doctor Biobrain | December 23, 2007 5:59 PM

modern theology and bible scholarship tells us a lot about how people and societies work.

Oh, brother, get this guy some oxygen.

Posted by Frank | December 23, 2007 6:22 PM

[[The Roman Catholic Church has existed for almost two millenia, my friend. For most of that two thousand years, *Genesis* was the factual story of Creation.]]

False. I would like you to find a single early Christian document that took Genesis literally.

A six-day creation was not taken literally by Augustine - possibly the greatest Western theologian - in the 5th Century. (Last book of Confessions).

It was not taken literally by Basil the Great - possibly the greatest Eastern theologian - at the same time (The Hexemaeron).

It is treated allegorically in the Epistle of Barnabas - a first century extra-biblical Christian document.

Even Paul the Apostle, when writing about Isaac and Ishmael, calls it an "allegory."

Literal fundamentalism is idiosyncratic, not the norm. And it always has been. Early Christian theology was very influenced by Philo of Alexandria, the great 1st Century Jewish theologian, who ALSO didn't take Genesis literally.

Unfortunately, some atheists can't get their heads out the fundamentalist sandbox, and are as guilty as the fundamentalists of viewing things in simplistic, absolutist terms.

Posted by Iggy | December 23, 2007 7:33 PM

False. I would like you to find a single early Christian document that took Genesis literally.

And thus the fundamental b.s. nature of Judeo-Christianity is laid bare for all to see.

When the arguments require it to be so, the Bible is filled with great wisdom. When the arguments require it to be so, the Bible is just a bunch of metaphorical hoo-haw.

How convenient.

some atheists can't get their heads out the fundamentalist sandbox, and are as guilty as the fundamentalists of viewing things in simplistic, absolutist terms

Everybody catch that? If I say that your ancient scrolls are mostly worthless fairy stories that I can safely ignore, that makes me as "guilty" of viewing things "simplistically" as the fundies who claim that the earth was created 6,000 years ago by their invisible sky daddy and who want to pass laws to regulate the rest of us based on those ancient scrolls.

Sorry, friend, but ... game, set, match, etc.

Just another apologist for religion who fails to understand where atheists are coming from.

Philo of Alexandria, the great 1st Century Jewish theologian

LOL. Where would be without Philo, the "great" 1st Century Jewish theologian? Such a genius. Theology wouldn't be where it is today without him, i.e., in the garbage bin of worthless collections of vapid "knowledge."

Posted by Frank | December 23, 2007 8:54 PM

Even Paul the Apostle, when writing about Isaac and Ishmael, calls it an "allegory."

Ah, yes, Paul the Apostle. Was Paul speaking allegorically when he wrote -- on God's behalf, presumably -- that woman shouldn't speak in Church?

Don't answer. I really am not interested in watching yet another apologist do the Christian sit-and-spin. It's rather pathetic.

You like your religion? You like practicing your religion? Then do it.

But please, if you expect to do it without anyone laughing at you or pointing out how entirely bogus the enterprise is, then do it very very privately and quietly.

Otherwise you can expect more folks like me to remind you that, at the end of the day, what you're doing with your Bibles or Torah's or Koran's or whatever is no different from what Shirley Maclaine and Nancy Reagan do with their crystals and astrologers. And trying to inject that garbage into public policy at any level is beyond disgusting and arrogant, not to mention dangerous.

Posted by Frank | December 23, 2007 8:59 PM

I apologize for the exceesive apostrophes in my previous comment.

I know better. Therefore, I blame their inclusion on a pink lesbian apostrope-loving unicorn in my computer.

Posted by Frank | December 23, 2007 9:01 PM

if we're smart, we'll dump those ideas once we're confronted with the truth. And religious people are no different. They're just a little slower at it, I guess.

But they're so damn NICE that we must respect their retardation. Is that the argument against Dawkins and his alleged "meanness"?

Again, don't answer before thinking about my rejoinder to your answer because you probably already know what it is.

Posted by Frank | December 23, 2007 9:10 PM

I missed most of this thread, but I have to say I am relishing in my newly bestowed godhood. Kneel before Cain!

Posted by Cain | December 23, 2007 10:01 PM

Oh, brother, get this guy some oxygen.

Ah, it's the village atheists' convention: go and see if you can out-atheist BP in the corner. You'll have a job on, since BP already claimed the ribbon in the Dick-Waving Reductionist class. Try shouting 'it's all shit' constantly for the next three hours, or something.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 23, 2007 11:22 PM

pseudonymous writes: "Ah, it's the village atheists' convention: go and see if you can out-atheist BP in the corner. You'll have a job on, since BP already claimed the ribbon in the Dick-Waving Reductionist class. Try shouting 'it's all shit' constantly for the next three hours, or something."

So how many times a day do you sing "Jesus Wants Me For A Sunbeam," pseud? And which archangel is your favorite?

I think it's all shit, too - do I qualify for time off from Heck if I qualify it by saying that most of it is funny shit and some of it is interesting shit (even if it's baseless)? Or are we all supposed to back off and stand in awe every time someone claims something is sacred?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 23, 2007 11:53 PM

I probably joined this thread too late, but here are my two cents. Religion, when stripped of its rites and rituals, strict dogma, and weird ideas like transubstantiation, is fundamentally about transcendental questions regarding our mortality, reason for being, morality, and justice. This why people believe in God and not invisible pink unicorns, because unicorns don't quasi-satisfy some existential longing for people.

Now one can certainly say we live in a pointless universe, without justice or any regard for our lives, actions and so forth. And that after we die we face total, complete oblivion. That sometimes the worst of humanity prospers while the best meets a horrible end, and there's no hope beyond this life of any fairness or justice. This is a valid point of view, but is it really so disgusting, or irrational, or stupid to believe otherwise? Is it really necessary to decry others that hope for some sort of transcendental truth to be lunatics or idiots?

Posted by Anonymous | December 24, 2007 12:38 AM

I probably joined this thread too late, but here are my two cents. Religion, when stripped of its rites and rituals, strict dogma, and weird ideas like transubstantiation, is fundamentally about transcendental questions regarding our mortality, reason for being, morality, and justice. This why people believe in God and not invisible pink unicorns, because unicorns don't quasi-satisfy some existential longing for people.

Now one can certainly say we live in a pointless universe, without justice or any regard for our lives, actions and so forth. And that after we die we face total, complete oblivion. That sometimes the worst of humanity prospers while the best meets a horrible end, and there's no hope beyond this life of any fairness or justice. This is a valid point of view, but is it really so disgusting, or irrational, or stupid to believe otherwise? Is it really necessary to decry others that hope for some sort of transcendental truth to be lunatics or idiots?

Posted by Anonymous | December 24, 2007 12:38 AM

I probably joined this thread too late, but here are my two cents. Religion, when stripped of its rites and rituals, strict dogma, and weird ideas like transubstantiation, is fundamentally about transcendental questions regarding our mortality, reason for being, morality, and justice. This why people believe in God and not invisible pink unicorns, because unicorns don't quasi-satisfy some existential longing for people.

Now one can certainly say we live in a pointless universe, without justice or any regard for our lives, actions and so forth. And that after we die we face total, complete oblivion. That sometimes the worst of humanity prospers while the best meets a horrible end, and there's no hope beyond this life of any fairness or justice. This is a valid point of view, but is it really so disgusting, or irrational, or stupid to believe otherwise? Is it really necessary to decry others that hope for some sort of transcendental truth to be lunatics or idiots?

Posted by Anonymous | December 24, 2007 12:39 AM

Anonymous posts and posts and posts: "Is it really necessary to decry others that hope for some sort of transcendental truth to be lunatics or idiots?"

It is when they can't grasp the concept of "may not appear immediately."

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | December 24, 2007 12:46 AM

Yeah, sorry for the multiple posts, my browser was being weird.

Posted by Anonymous | December 24, 2007 12:55 AM

"Is it really necessary to decry others that hope for some sort of transcendental truth to be lunatics or idiots?"

Yes.

Because they will be the undoing of civilization and the future of our species if we don't collectively get out the rhetorical butterfly nets once and for all. Stop pussy footing around trying to placate delusional thinking just because it is wrapped in wholly unearned sanctimony.

Posted by Steve | December 24, 2007 2:21 AM

I'd say the biggest tragedy Dawkins' style is not to do with his civility, or that he essentially charicatures ALL people of faith as delusional, intellectually inferiour and emotionally infantile. It's the sense you get in his writings and speaking that science is a fortress under seige, whose walls need to be fortified to keep the rabble at bay. At least, that's the sense I get when I read him. That doesn't sound like a relationship that can do anything but self-propel itself into ever more feverish animosity.

Posted by Chris Wren | December 24, 2007 2:29 AM

It's the sense you get in his writings and speaking that science is a fortress under [sic] seige, whose walls need to be fortified to keep the rabble at bay.

So, which side are you on then? Joining the pitchfork and torch crowd then? Seriously, what are you trying to say, that it is useless to argue against collectively calamitous beliefs because you might sound shrill in calling the assault on rational thought for what it truly is?

Posted by Steve | December 24, 2007 2:36 AM

"In fact all agnostics are atheists, since they all lack theistic belief - they're just wafflers who want to appear open-minded."

Well, someone slept through epistemology 101 - and every subsequent course from the sounds of it. I suppose you'll also tell us that bisexuals are wimps who can't decide on a sexual preference and that pacifists are objectively pro-totalitarian.

Posted by Chris Wren | December 24, 2007 2:43 AM

It's the sense you get in his writings and speaking that science is a fortress under seige, whose walls need to be fortified to keep the rabble at bay.

I wonder where would he get that idea. Could it be from the attempts by the fundamentalists to overhaul science curriculum and undermine the scientific fact of evolution? Or replacing sensible sex ed with a faith based abstinence programs that have been demonstrated not to work?

Or maybe it's from the politicization of science, so that, for instance, the Bush administration simply disregards or suppresses science on the environment and climate change since it is clearly at odds with the Bush agenda.

Difficult to understand why Dawkins feels this way. Difficult, indeed...

Posted by McKingford | December 24, 2007 8:27 AM

It's the sense you get in his writings and speaking that science is a fortress under seige, whose walls need to be fortified to keep the rabble at bay.

I wonder where would he get that idea. Could it be from the attempts by the fundamentalists to overhaul science curriculum and undermine the scientific fact of evolution? Or replacing sensible sex ed with a faith based abstinence programs that have been demonstrated not to work?

Or maybe it's from the politicization of science, so that, for instance, the Bush administration simply disregards or suppresses science on the environment and climate change since it is clearly at odds with the Bush agenda.

Difficult to understand why Dawkins feels this way. Difficult, indeed...

(sorry for the double post - but I wanted to make clear what I was quoting)

Posted by McKingford | December 24, 2007 8:29 AM

On the original subject - the mythical "war on Christmas":

I was out for dinner last night, and the 4 people at the next table over were having a rather heated discussion about this mythical war. As if getting their cues from Bill O'Reilly, they were bemoaning the disappearance of Christmas. When I got up to leave, one of the women pointedly said to me "Merry Christmas". When I responded, knowingly, "Happy Holidays", they all let out a big groan and started to say to each other "see?"

But I went on to explain that "Happy Holidays" is simply more efficient - it takes me right through the 12 days of Christmas into the New Year...which is why I never understood the problem with saying "Happy Holidays". Naturally, it does not specifically reference Christmas, but it surely includes it. And it also includes all the other holidays - Hannukah, Kwanza, Festivus, Boxing Day (for us in the Commonwealth) and New Year. I mean, seriously, do Christians honestly think that when someone wishes them "Happy Holidays" they *don't* mean Christmas?

Posted by McKingford | December 24, 2007 8:36 AM

God, I can't wait for America to be over. The country remains *the* source for wingnut ignorance for most of the developed world.

Posted by Tired of America | December 24, 2007 9:12 AM

The incidence of "War on Christmas" propaganda in the UK can most likely be explained by the fact that Rupert Murdoch owns several media outlets there, too.

And speaking of being "the source for wingnut ignorance for most of the developed world", Murdoch has probably the best claim to that title, and he's an Australian.

Posted by Ridnik Chrome | December 24, 2007 10:00 AM

[[False. I would like you to find a single early Christian document that took Genesis literally.]]

[When the arguments require it to be so, the Bible is filled with great wisdom. When the arguments require it to be so, the Bible is just a bunch of metaphorical hoo-haw.]

No, that's a straw man. YOU said "metaphorical hoo-haw," not me. And that's a perfect example of what I mean by a fundamentalism. Either it's literal or it's worthless. Well, the fundamentalists think the same way. No nuance, just pure black and white thinking.

Most people are comfortable with metaphor. It's pretty much a standard literary device.

But fundamentalists aren't, because it means they may have to exercise judgment instead of being told what to think.

You aren't either.

[[Philo of Alexandria, the great 1st Century Jewish theologian]]

[LOL. Where would be without Philo, the "great" 1st Century Jewish theologian? ]

Uhhh...yeah. Sorry you've never heard of him. The fact that you're ignorant about who he was is a perfect demonstration of why you shouldn't be pontificating on the subject.

[[Even Paul the Apostle, when writing about Isaac and Ishmael, calls it an "allegory."]]

[Ah, yes, Paul the Apostle. Was Paul speaking allegorically when he wrote -- on God's behalf, presumably -- that woman shouldn't speak in Church?]

Dude, I just proved that Christians have NOT historically interpreted Scripture as fundamentalists do, and instead of saying, "True, they haven't" you've switched from complaining that they DO to complaining that they DON'T. So now you declare that EITHER it can be interpreted as fundamentalists do, or it's worthless.

Yeah, guy, that IS simplistic. VERY simplistic.

And now you're trying to change the subject to something ELSE that Paul said that you don't like, now that you've been shown that even HE didn't take it literally.

Paul wrote some stuff that was a product of his times. Most people can exercise their God-given and figure it out. But fundamentalists and you have a problem with that, because it isn't an easy answer.

Posted by Iggy | December 24, 2007 11:00 AM

...but nationalism is a secular fundamentalism that - together with Fascism, Communism and Imperialism - has a death toll in the past century that is a lot more impressive than religion.

Until I see a statistical analysis adjusting for population density and methods of exectuion across cultures and time periods when making the religious/secular comparison, I'll not pay this shopworn thought-let any heed. In the proper frame of reference, I'm sure the latter will be playing catch-up for quite a while.

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | December 24, 2007 12:00 PM

Paul wrote some stuff that was a product of his times.

Everything Paul wrote was a product of his times, idiot ... assuming it was the same person and assuming it wasn't rewritten later to satisfy some other power-mongers' desires.

The book is widely recognized to be the Word of the Lord, correct? And you claim that it isn't easy to understand.

What a talented deity. And if God inspired Paul to write that crap then why is God such a misogynist tool? It seems a tad odd that an infinitely aware and eternally existing deity would himself be "of his times."

Is this too much nuance for you? Did the great Philo address these points? Surely the great Philo must have addressed these points.

Or was Philo just a dumbass apologist tool like you?

Posted by Frank | December 24, 2007 12:55 PM

Most people are comfortable with metaphor. It's pretty much a standard literary device.

Uh, yeah, but typically when authors use metaphors in history books there aren't many questions about where the metaphor ends and the factual recounting of events begins.

When the Bible speaks of Jesus' rising from the grave and walking around like a zombie before ascending into heaven, is that a metaphor?

Or is it just baloney?

I'm not really interested in the answer of course because, frankly, it's a meaningless discussion. The modern Bible was written by fakes and intellectual wankers for their own self-satisfaction and political purposes. The vast numbers of gullible stooges and rubes who own copies now think the book is "sacred" in spite of its contradictions, its inherent bigotry, and its pathetically dated, utterly vapid "instructions for living".

But I am interested in the methodology you employ to determine how one determines what parts of the Bible are metaphors and what parts aren't. Surely the great Philo addressed this issue in great detail already. You can probably just pull a copy of his Collected Scrolls from your public library and find the answer.

Posted by Frank | December 24, 2007 1:13 PM

Well, feeling sure are running high.
In truth, I don't know why I'm writing this, since it seems like I'm sure to get lambasted up one side and down t'other, but what the hell, I'll give it a whirl.
I'm religious. I believe in God. I'm a Protestant Christian, specifically a Baptopalian, which is kind of a hybrid of Low Church Episcoalian and High Church Baptist. I'm not a fundamentalist, I have great respect for science and think God gave us brains for a reason. I want church and state to be kept far from each other. I don't prostletyze, as I think we all have to work things out for ourselves. I don't even think my religion is the only one. I don't really believe Christianity is the one true faith; I believe in a God that can reveal itself to us in as many different ways as there are cultures and people. Hinduism works for Hindus, liberal mainline Protestantism works for me. I don't think either one of us will go to hell because we don't callour God by the right name or worship in the right language.
To me, the Beatitudes just about sum up what Christianity is (or should be). And something t hat a lot of religious folks--as well as a lot of nonreligious ones too--don't seem to understand is that, I believe, at least, religion is for me--not for somebody else. That is to say, it'sa first person religion, as I guess they all are. When Jesus gave us the golden rule, he was speaking to each one of his listeners and each one of his followers through the years, and telling each one--individually--how to live. The golden rule applies to me. Not to somebody else, not unless they choose to follow. I can only live my life, not somebody else's, so I can't worry about whether they follow the golden rule or not.
If you're talking about the laws in the Old Testament about eating pork, the same thing holds: it only holds for followers. Nobody has any business forcing kosherness on somebody else, any more than I have any right to try to make anybody live the golden rule or love their enemies.
Now, as has been brought up, people have done wretched things in the name of religion, but I think that's when they try to force their beliefs onto somebody else, and that's not what religion was meant for, at least as God gave it to us: it's something we choose to take on ourselves, not somethiong we can shove down somebody else's throats.
Now you can call me deluded; you can call me stupid; youcan call me ignorant. You may well be right, though I tend to think I am fairly sane, somewhat smart and rather well schooled and read. I believe what I believe because of things that have happened to me from time to time in my life, things that helped give my life meaning. They were rather unlikely things, and yet they happened anyway. I believe that someone took a hand in my life and steered me the way I needed to go. I could be dead wrong. There may well be no God at all, and all these formative things might well have been altogether random. I just don't believe they were.
I don't think that makes me a fanatic or a fascist or a fundamentalist. it just makes me a believer.
And to be truthful, a lot of youpeople just don't know the first thing about how a great many of us religious people think. That's all right, but it seems like there's no need to get nasty toward believers, or even toward Doctor Biobrain, who isn't even religious.

Posted by Mumphrey Bibblesnæð | December 24, 2007 6:01 PM

The book is widely recognized to be the Word of the Lord, correct?

Um, not in the Lutheran faith. Christ is the Word. To paraphrase Br. Marty, the Bible is just the manger in which we find Him. It ain't perfect: The wood is split, and the nails are bent and rusty, but it's what we've got.

And you claim that it isn't easy to understand.

It's not. Oh, I suppose it is if you apply linear, Greek thought to it, where it's all literal or all fairy tales; but in my faith we approach it with Hebrew thought, where we engage with the text and try to discern what God is saying to us, today, even though the stories and letters are about people living thousands of years ago on the other side of the world.

I think to lay the evils of the world at the feet of religion is a bit simplistic. People can be real bastards, and if nobody had come up with the concept of a supreme being, I think it's safe to assume they'd have come up with plenty of other excuses to slaughter each other, don't you?

Posted by hamletta | December 24, 2007 9:13 PM

I think to lay the evils of the world at the feet of religion is a bit simplistic.

Agreed. It's also a strawman because nobody here is making that claim as far as I can tell.

And complaining about "simplistic" arguments is really beyond the pale. Nothing is "simpler" than believing that an all-powerful everlasting invisible being is attempting to communicate with you through the writings of a collection of backwards misogynist "holy men."

You can try to make it sound "complicated" and "deep" -- religious people tend to love playing that game -- but from the perspective of those of us without an emotional investment in the stories you just make it that much sillier.

Posted by Frank | December 25, 2007 2:15 PM