The religion of atheists

[PrinceMyshkin]

In the current issue of The New Yorker there’s a brilliant essay by James Wood (http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/08/31/090831crbo_books_wood)
examining some of the weaknesses in the books of some of the “New Atheists,” e.g., Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens & Sam Harris. For instance he quotes Stephen Jay Gould, the paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science on the attempt to make Darwinism the invalidation of religious belief:
“either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional beliefs. “

My own dispute, as what I call a “lapsed atheist,” is not so much with the existence of God - whether conceived as an amorphous ‘energy’ or as a grand-fatherly Santa Clauslike figure - as with the invincible certainty of believers and atheists alike. Reviewing history or the state of the world today, we have no right to certainty of virtually any sort, and it is out of our honest, open-minded uncertainty that our salvation - if there is to be any - may come.

[mal4mac]

We have no right to certainty of virtually any sort, and it is out of our honest, open-minded uncertainty that our salvation - if there is to be any - may come.

I agree, and so does Dawkins. Read the God Delusion and he describes of how on a seven point scale where 7 "is absolutely certain there is no God" he is at 6, which is "not believing in God because of the lack of evidence." But it is conceivable that there might be a God, or Santa Claus, or Thor... Like a good scientist he never takes any theory as being the "absolute certain truth".

[2ndblogger]

I might agree at some point. Esp about that philosopher who said most of the religion are becoming idolatrous...http://smiley3421.notlong.com

[blazeofglory]

I might agree at some point. Esp about that philosopher who said most of the religion are becoming idolatrous...http://smiley3421.notlong.com

This is a highly debated issue. We cannot say exactly whether or not most of religions are idolatrous.

[MarkBastable]

It is out of our honest, open-minded uncertainty that our salvation - if there is to be any - may come.

Why on earth would you seek salvation? And, more to the point, from what?

[lupe]

As mal4mac correctly pointed out, R. Dawkins and the others who wrote lately on ''faith'' say exactly this.

But it's a very common trick of deists to construct a strawman and then attack him, insisting that there is a ''belief'' of a non-existance of gods from the part of the atheists, which equals of a atheist ''religion''.

This is not only because most of them do not bother to actually read the books, but because this argument succesfully diverts the whole discussion and brings the necessary confusion as to who should prove what: the ones who claim they know something exists or the ones who claim there are no indications that something exists.

[NikolaiI]

After reading Dawkins I learned I was not a theist, deist, pantheist, or atheist. But one weakness of his, which he admits, is that he mainly concentrates on the Christian God.

[Morden]

Refresh my memory someone, please.
Was it Christianity, or religion in general, that according to his own words he wishes to eradicate as being an absolute evil in the World?
So, totally against Christianity/religion and undecided about God, do I hear?
I think Dawkin's mind is much less open than some posts here would suggest.
(And, yes, that is based on reading what Dawkins said, although the book is not on my shelf).

[AuntShecky]

I clicked on the New Yorker link and found a precis, not the
entire article, but I did read the abstract.

Some thoughts, if I may:

1. I was wondering why --after two millennia-- so many adherents of atheism have arisen. I think part of the reason is akin to the abuses of the Church during medieval times, which ultimately let to the Reformation. In our century, many unspeakable acts have been done in the name of religion, and the resurgence of atheism may be a reaction to that.

In the past two or three decades in the western hemisphere, atheists are reacting to the resurgence of certain kinds of religious folks, especially the factions which attempt to exert influence on public policy. But the atheists prefer to attack belief in God rather than enforcing the principles ofthe U.S. Constitution which spells out the separation of Church and State. This principle is also in the New Testament: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and render unto God the things that are God's."

2. Why are atheists as zealous in their proselytizing as their enemies? I can't say for sure what is ultimately true-- atheism or religion -- but why are the adherents on both sides so arrogant in their insistence that they are right and no one else is? Both sides could use a little humility -- no one on this earth has all the answers.

3. Why do atheists believe that religious belief is in itself at odds with religious faith? Although some religions take Scripture as the literal truth, why is it that atheists refuse to believe in allegory?

4. Why do atheists dismiss some of the greatest minds of western civilization on the subject of religion: Kierkegaard with his "leap of faith," Teilhard de Chardin, and so many others. Again, arrogance is getting in the way of reasonable dialogue and thought.

5. And finally, scientific discovery itself begins with asking questions about matter and concepts we don't understand. Most if not all scientific breakthroughs stem from belief -- from "faith" that things that "we don't see" do in fact exist.
Just as the Faithful believed in an invisible God, Pasteur believed in invisible bacteria. In the present day, quantum physicists work on assumptions -- faith -- that atomic particles exist.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I clicked on the New Yorker link and found a precis, not the
entire article, but I did read the abstract.

Some thoughts, if I may:

1. I was wondering why --after two millennia-- so many adherents of atheism have arisen. I think part of the reason is akin to the abuses of the Church during medieval times, which ultimately let to the Reformation. In our century, many unspeakable acts have been done in the name of religion, and the resurgence of atheism may be a reaction to that.

That would in part be my answer as well, added to which the possibility that after so many millennia the shine on many of the religious promises has dulled.


In the past two or three decades in the western hemisphere, atheists are reacting to the resurgence of certain kinds of religious folks, especially the factions which attempt to exert influence on public policy. But the atheists prefer to attack belief in God rather than enforcing the principles ofthe U.S. Constitution which spells out the separation of Church and State. This principle is also in the New Testament: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and render unto God the things that are God's."

It is apparent to me that the real fundamentalists want to abolish this distinction and to establish their particular version of sharia as the law of the land.


2. Why are atheists as zealous in their proselytizing as their enemies? I can't say for sure what is ultimately true-- atheism or religion -- but why are the adherents on both sides so arrogant in their insistence that they are right and no one else is? Both sides could use a little humility -- no one on this earth has all the answers.

That is a question that has plagued me as I discern this tendency in myself. I sometimes see myself as an unconscious disciple of the school of Lenin-Fischer:

Lenin: When I argue with an opponent, I wish to demolish him.

Fischer: I don't play to win. I play to crush my opponent's ego.


3. Why do atheists believe that religious belief is in itself at odds with religious faith? Although some religions take Scripture as the literal truth, why is it that atheists refuse to believe in allegory?
Surely there's a difference between believing in allegory and being amused or instructed by it?


4. Why do atheists dismiss some of the greatest minds of western civilization on the subject of religion: Kierkegaard with his "leap of faith," Teilhard de Chardin, and so many others. Again, arrogance is getting in the way of reasonable dialogue and thought.
You have your Kierkegaard & your de Chardin; I have my Einstein

"I am a deeply religious non-believer. That is a different kind of religion."
and my Richard Feynman:


"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong... I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell. It doesn't frighten me."


5. And finally, scientific discovery itself begins with asking questions about matter and concepts we don't understand. Most if not all scientific breakthroughs stem from belief -- from "faith" that things that "we don't see" do in fact exist.
Just as the Faithful believed in an invisible God, Pasteur believed in invisible bacteria. In the present day, quantum physicists work on assumptions -- faith -- that atomic particles exist.

On the basis of what we know about bacteria or quanta, we do not try to deterimine our raisons d'etre nor to impose those on others.

[Morden]

The atheists I run into on forums are always telling me they know more about my Bible, my religion, my God, my Faith, than I do. Feh!
My Faith survives despite all of what they tell me is fatal about my religion.

[lupe]

The atheists I run into on forums are always telling me they know more about my Bible, my religion, my God, my Faith, than I do. Feh!
My Faith survives despite all of what they tell me is fatal about my religion.

You faith will survive everything, my dear Morden. Nobody, especially atheists, is out there to make it dissapear, nor to pretend he knows it better that you.

However, this does not mean that all those things that you choose to beleive actually exist. And neither is this the subject of this thread.

[blazeofglory]

The atheists I run into on forums are always telling me they know more about my Bible, my religion, my God, my Faith, than I do. Feh!
My Faith survives despite all of what they tell me is fatal about my religion.


Religions survived to help mankind and at times to destroy them.

Had there not been a division between Judaism and Christianity Hitler could not be an agent. Hitler was just an agent, not the source of violence. The source is an ageless attachment to religious faiths.

Faiths are the causes of violence.

My friend, we are so much conditioned that we cannot deprogram ourselves at all. It is in our DNA and we cannot clean ourselves of all these things.

Of course there are palatable things in religions. Sermons on the Mounts in the Bible are really great ideas, non-violent ideas. I subscribe to these ideas unreservedly.

However fundamentalist ideas have always provoked by religions.

If we can be humans with compassion, love for one another why do we need to be hooked to religious faiths?

[PrinceMyshkin]

Religions survived to help mankind and at times to destroy them.

Had there not been a division between Judaism and Christianity Hitler could not be an agent. Hitler was just an agent, not the source of violence. The source is an ageless attachment to religious faiths.

Faiths are the causes of violence.

My friend, we are so much conditioned that we cannot deprogram ourselves at all. It is in our DNA and we cannot clean ourselves of all these things.

Of course there are palatable things in religions. Sermons on the Mounts in the Bible are really great ideas, non-violent ideas. I subscribe to these ideas unreservedly.

However fundamentalist ideas have always provoked by religions.

If we can be humans with compassion, love for one another why do we need to be hooked to religious faiths?

Indeed, your last question sums it all up! But [I]can[I] we be "humans with compassion" and if not, why not?

[AuntShecky]

Re: Today's "Pickles" comic strip by Brian Crane.
The little boy, Nelson, asks his grandfather, "What is heck?"
In the last panel, Grandpa replies, "Heck is where people go when they don't believe in Gosh."

[Morden]

Religions survived to help mankind and at times to destroy them.

Had there not been a division between Judaism and Christianity Hitler could not be an agent. Hitler was just an agent, not the source of violence. The source is an ageless attachment to religious faiths.

Faiths are the causes of violence.

My friend, we are so much conditioned that we cannot deprogram ourselves at all. It is in our DNA and we cannot clean ourselves of all these things.

Of course there are palatable things in religions. Sermons on the Mounts in the Bible are really great ideas, non-violent ideas. I subscribe to these ideas unreservedly.

However fundamentalist ideas have always provoked by religions.

If we can be humans with compassion, love for one another why do we need to be hooked to religious faiths?

As I said, "The atheists I run into on forums are always telling me they know more about my Bible, my religion, my God, my Faith, than I do."

Have I lived in a cave?

AIE: Sorry to have deviated from the strict question of this thread, dear Lupe. My error.

[MarkBastable]

I think it has become pretty clear by now that I'm a convinced and happy atheist who's quite ready to argue for the joys and benefits of godlessness.

But it doesn't help to have people say this kind of thing:


Faiths are the causes of violence.

That's like saying that soups are the causes of indigestion. It may be true, but it's not useful, because it implies that a soupless world would be a world devoid of stomach ache. It wouldn't be, because there are so many other ways of causing acid reflux.

Violence is an inherent potential in all human beings, and some human beings will always find a reason to be violent. We will never rid the world of violence - just as we will never rid the world of compassion, loyalty, jealousy, deception, nobility and an over-attachment to ideas of where the invisible borders of countries ought to be deemed to be. All these will manifest themselves whether religion is involved or not.

[Taliesin]

I clicked on the New Yorker link and found a precis, not the
entire article, but I did read the abstract.

Some thoughts, if I may:



5. And finally, scientific discovery itself begins with asking questions about matter and concepts we don't understand. Most if not all scientific breakthroughs stem from belief -- from "faith" that things that "we don't see" do in fact exist.
Just as the Faithful believed in an invisible God, Pasteur believed in invisible bacteria. In the present day, quantum physicists work on assumptions -- faith -- that atomic particles exist.


*groan*
That is just fallacious.
In science there is such a thing as evidence. The hypothesis (hypothesis, not belief, I would stress) of invisible bacteria is different from the hypothesis of invisible God, because, starting from the hypothesis of invisible bacteria, we can form a testable theory.
Quantum physicists don't just work on assumptions - they have a well-tested theory that is applicable to many fields in everyday life and has been tested a lot - quite unlike God, I would say. Please don't claim that "belief in gravitation" and "belief in God" are both beliefs and therefore equal since actually, they are two different aspects of the word "belief".
And on atomic particles- well, when I went to school, my physics teacher used to joke that an electron is a little blue ball, which, when observed closely, had a tiny minus sign on it - point being, science doesn't claim anything about what an electron is, science doesn't believe in electrons - an electron is what it is, physics just uses a model of an electron - whether it is true or not, isn't actually really the question - the questions are mainly of pragmatical and aesthetical nature. Science makes models of reality, which is different from belief.
Hope I made my point clear,
best regards,
Taliesin

[Morden]

You have your Kierkegaard & your de Chardin; I have my Einstein

Actually, PrinceMyshkin, Kierkegaard and Einstein both speak to me, each in their own way, about the respective realms in which they are expert. So I, for one, don't see the dichotomy.

[PrinceMyshkin]

*groan*
That is just fallacious.
In science there is such a thing as evidence. The hypothesis (hypothesis, not belief, I would stress) of invisible bacteria is different from the hypothesis of invisible God, because, starting from the hypothesis of invisible bacteria, we can form a testable theory.
Quantum physicists don't just work on assumptions - they have a well-tested theory that is applicable to many fields in everyday life and has been tested a lot - quite unlike God, I would say. Please don't claim that "belief in gravitation" and "belief in God" are both beliefs and therefore equal since actually, they are two different aspects of the word "belief".
And on atomic particles- well, when I went to school, my physics teacher used to joke that an electron is a little blue ball, which, when observed closely, had a tiny minus sign on it - point being, science doesn't claim anything about what an electron is, science doesn't believe in electrons - an electron is what it is, physics just uses a model of an electron - whether it is true or not, isn't actually really the question - the questions are mainly of pragmatical and aesthetical nature. Science makes models of reality, which is different from belief.
Hope I made my point clear,
best regards,
Taliesin

I'm in agreement with you. A lot depends on the different way in which both parties use the word "believe." By it, I think religious folk mean Ifeel the 'truth' of God. On the other hand, agnostics or atheists mean by "belief" I am intellectually persuaded by the evidence presented to me. Their well-being, self-esteem, ego, need not depend upon the self-evident nature of what science reports to them.

To the religious, "self-evident" often means I believe this because I believed it yesterday and the day before, because ancient books proclaim it and because learned theologians have interpreted and affirmed it.

[AuntShecky]

Aside from the fact that Aristotle postulated about the atom, for centuries the concept of invisible matter didn't really dawn on people; for example their "explanations" of mold on bread or maggots in meat were really far from the later scientific revelations as to why such things appear.


If you consider the word "faith" in a broader sense than merely religious, then wouldn't the word apply to one trying to test a "hypothesis?" The only difference between religious "faith" and faith in the truth of a hypothesis is that the former can never ever be proven whereas the latter can be proven by scientific method.

I can remember reading in a book by Douglas Adams (an admitted atheist) that if by some scientific method the existence of God could be proven, then religious "faith" means nothing. That is true, but I still maintain that scientists have not automatically rejected the existence of something just because it can't be perceived by the five senses. The "sixth" sense, intuition, could be almost synonymous with faith.

So I hope that you can see that I am more in agreement with you than not. "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy."

[PrinceMyshkin]

I can remember reading in a book by Douglas Adams (an admitted atheist) that if by some scientific method the existence of God could be proven, then religious "faith" means nothing. That is true, but I still maintain that scientists have not automatically rejected the existence of something just because it can't be perceived by the five senses. The "sixth" sense, intuition, could be almost synonymous with faith.

So I hope that you can see that I am more in agreement with you than not. "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy."

Fair enough but if you had an Irish Catholic "intuition" of God, would you go to war against an Irish Protestant whose intuition differed from yours? And how is it that the Sunni intuition of Allah leads them to war against the Shia intuition of the same - or approximately the same - God?

[lupe]

AIE: Sorry to have deviated from the strict question of this thread, dear Lupe. My error.

Most - if not all - of the threads in this sub-forum are always rapidly deviated to the same question again and again; the one on the existence of gods.



If you consider the word "faith" in a broader sense than merely religious, then wouldn't the word apply to one trying to test a "hypothesis?" The only difference between religious "faith" and faith in the truth of a hypothesis is that the former can never ever be proven whereas the latter can be proven by scientific method.
."

However, in relation with the original subject, the way "science" and scientific process are portrayed are really revealing: during the last years (and very often in this forum) deists have realized how vulnerable is to put all the weight of their arguments on their faith. They understand that the fact that they sincerely believe in something does not mean that this "something" actually exists. As a result, they try to transfer the problem to the atheists: we can easily play with the different meaning of the same words, in order to prove that science is also based in a kind of faith or belief...

But I think Taliesin gave a good answer on this. Science is asking questions, knowing that there are many things we still do not know; and tries to answer these questions through experiments, analysis and proofs.

[mal4mac]

... I can't say for sure what is ultimately true-- atheism or religion



Dawkins says exactly this! Fundamentalist Christians/Moslems insist that they are right and no one else is. There may be Fundamentalsit Atheists who pretend they have an conduit ro Absolute Truth, but Dawkins certainly is not one of them! He's, basically, a Popperian who does not belive there is any Absolute Truth.



Although some religions take Scripture as the literal truth, why is it that atheists refuse to believe in allegory?


Please give me one reference to an atheoist nopt believing in allegory! I can't imagine anyone, outsiod eof Oliver Sacks' casebook, no believing allegory...



4. Why do atheists dismiss some of the greatest minds of western civilization on the subject of religion: Kierkegaard with his "leap of faith,"


Atheists of Dawkins' calibre don't dismiss such minds, they produce (cogent) arguments against them. Have you read Dawkins? "The God Delusion" is full of such arguments. It's you who are dismissing him with a wave of the hand. Read his book, then engage in arguymnent rather than arrogant dismissal.




5. And finally, scientific discovery itself begins with asking questions about matter and concepts we don't understand. Most if not all scientific breakthroughs stem from belief -- from "faith" that things that "we don't see" do in fact exist.


But "belief" in, for instance, atoms led to scientific predictions that were born out in experience. This led to "stronger belief" in atoms. But, even then, ther is still no "absolute belief" in atoms.

Early Christians predicted an apocolypse, angels, heaven, hell, etc, etc -- none of these have been encountered in repeatable experiments... So - as with phlogiston & the ether - atheists see little reason to believe in the God of the fundamentalist Christians.

[mal4mac]

Aside from the fact that Aristotle postulated about the atom

It was Democritus who introduced the atomic hypothesis, Aristotle believed in "continuous divisibility".



The only difference between religious "faith" and faith in the truth of a hypothesis is that the former can never ever be proven whereas the latter can be proven by scientific method.

A scientific hypothesis can never be absolutely proven.



.... The "sixth" sense, intuition, could be almost synonymous with faith.

I agree how could they? I don't see how intuition could be synonymous with faith. You need to unpack that.

[AuntShecky]

There is still another author who may provide a synthesis between atheism and people who try to reconcile religious belief with realities of the contemporary world. Just scanning this article about The Evolution of God by Robert Wright (it is ROBERT Wright, though the web link says "Richard "Wright)

http://bookcritics.org/blog/archive/nbcc_featured_review_troy_jollimore_on_richard_wri ght1/

shows me that Wright is expressing much better what I had tried to express-- he used the analogy of "electrons" rather than atoms. Again I haven't read the book--who can afford to buy all the interesting books that are published?-- but scanning the article shows me that Wright's concept of God is highly personal -- an "I-Thou" type of relationship; whereas yours truly was brought up in a faith that stressed the stark difference between the divine and the human, one in which the presence of the Deity was remote and not accessible outside certain sacramental rituals.

Cf: The concluding chapters of the Book of Job, where God asks "Where were you when I
made the world."
No, we weren't here when God created the world and as humans we lack the ability actually to know the mind of God, despite Einstein's declaration that he had been getting close.

[PrinceMyshkin]

May I quote my revised version of that vexatious book? (To save you the trouble of reading through the whole of this, my revision begins at Job 1:12


Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.

Job 1:2 And there were born unto him seven sons and three daughters.

Job 1:3 His substance also was seven thousand sheep, and three thousand camels, and five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she asses, and a very great household; so that this man was the greatest of all the men of the east.

Job 1:4 And his sons went and feasted in their houses, every one his day; and sent and called for their three sisters to eat and to drink with them.

Job 1:5 And it was so, when the days of their feasting were gone about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the morning, and offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them.

Job 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

Job 1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

Job 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

Job 1:10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

Job 1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

Job 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Let me put it to you like this, you poor tormented soul: If you did no more than muss up the hair on Job’s head and he thought you were doing that with my permission - to test his loyalty, at it were - then I would fully expect him to renounce me on the spot!
Are men and women created without a spark of reason so that they might be mere puppets in my hands or in yours? If a man or woman conduct themselves righteously, if they behave courteously and with justice to their fellows and their children; if they are humble and appreciative of life, do I have need to scrutinize their hearts, to examine them as to whether they extol and fear and follow me?

[mal4mac]

There is still another author who may provide a synthesis between atheism and people who try to reconcile religious belief with realities of the contemporary world. Just scanning this article about The Evolution of God by Robert Wright

http://bookcritics.org/blog/archive/nbcc_featured_review_troy_jollimore_on_richard_wri ght1/



Thanks, a good review. I read his "The Moral Animal" and it was a very good book. He has some conducted some excellent interviews on Slate:

http://meaningoflife.tv/

[AuntShecky]

Mal4mac --Yes, it is Robert Wright, not Richard. (Not exactly my fault as the link to the website says "Richard.") But I've fixed it in the posting. I shall also read Robert's Slate contribution(s) ASAP.

Prince: I mentioned the Book of Job because the concluding chapters powerfully show not so much that God is remote from us but that His knowledge is far above human understanding, and it points out, I think, that it is arrogant of us to believe we humble mortals have all the answers.

And I hadn't thought about the early passage in Job which you quoted -- how God had grown a "hedge" around Job to protect him. That could be why so many of us cling to religion, because whether we admit it or not, all of us need a "hedge" -- or an "edge."

But my main point is: stating that one's belief is the only "truth" -- whether religious or atheistic -- is arrogant.

[mal4mac]

But I've fixed it in the posting. I shall also read Robert's Slate contribution(s) ASAP.

The interviews are in a professional-looking video format... Why don't they show such gems on TV?

[PrinceMyshkin]

Mal4mac --Yes, it is Robert Wright, not Richard. (Not exactly my fault as the link to the website says "Richard.") But I've fixed it in the posting. I shall also read Robert's Slate contribution(s) ASAP.

Prince: I mentioned the Book of Job because the concluding chapters powerfully show not so much that God is remote from us but that His knowledge is far above human understanding, and it points out, I think, that it is arrogant of us to believe we humble mortals have all the answers.

Yes, His knowledge must be far above human understanding because we simple humans might not consider it satisfactory to have a beloved wife and children taken from us, to complete a wager, and then to have them replaced by some other wife and an equal or even greater number of children!


And I hadn't thought about the early passage in Job which you quoted -- how God had grown a "hedge" around Job to protect him. That could be why so many of us cling to religion, because whether we admit it or not, all of us need a "hedge" -- or an "edge."

But my main point is: stating that one's belief is the only "truth" -- whether religious or atheistic -- is arrogant.

I heartily agree with you that to hold that one's "truth" is the only or the supreme truth is arrogant. Regarding the book of Job, however, and the narration of God's demand that Abraham sacrifice Isaac, those two alone, in my view, ought to be enough to turn anyone away from the "God" of the Old Testament.

[MarkBastable]

I heartily agree with you that to hold that one's "truth" is the only or the supreme truth is arrogant. Regarding the book of Job, however, and the narration of God's demand that Abraham sacrifice Isaac, those two alone, in my view, ought to be enough to turn anyone away from the "God" of the Old Testament.

I'm with you. Back when I did, at some level, believe in God my feeling about him was that he had some explaining to do, because - quite apart from being a capricious bully - he didn't really appear to be up to the job.

In the end I decided that I couldn't believe in a God who created creatures incapable of understanding him, and then blamed them for it. And it's the ability to put up with an arrangement so manifestly unfair that I have come to think of as faith. I'm not knocking it - but I can't do it. And actually, I wouldn't even if I could.

[PrinceMyshkin]

I'm with you. Back when I did, at some level, believe in God my feeling about him was that he had some explaining to do, because - quite apart from being a caricious bully - he didn't really appear to be up to the job.

In the end I decided that I couldn't believe in a God who created creatures incapable of understanding him, and then blamed them for it. And it's the ability to put up with an arrangement so manifestly unfair that I have come to think of as faith. I'm not knocking it - but I can't do it. And actually, I wouldn't even if I could.

In which case we might change the terms of the discussion: Why does it matter so much to us on either side of the debate to 'enlighten' the other? I confess that it offends me to live among the majority of people who believe to one extent or another on this fabled creature or energy?

Here's the beginning of an attempt-in-progress to deal with this:


God said: “Oh”
and a generation of generations
translated that for us
into a Bible or two
and commentaries thereupon