Great job, Adam. You almost had me applauding when I read the last paragraph.

I also view the rational search for truth as virtuous.

Comment by: Ric | June 21, 2007, 7:48 am

It's also worth pointing out that non-believers who go around doing nice things for humanity don't usually go around saying that they do it because they don't have god beliefs. If they mention it at all, they usually say "it's for humanity" or "it's the compassionate thing to do", far better that than the theist credo: "I do it because my god(s) tell me to (and will punish me mightily if I don't)".

Comment by: nullifidian | June 21, 2007, 11:54 am

great article. And a perfect way for me now to respond to the whole "who donates more" nonsense.

I do think that atheism should consider science its own, or at least agnosticism should. If were not for questioning, we would still think sickness was caused "by God's Wrath/Will" and mental illness was caused by demons. I think you can make the argument that atheism was first, considering that ancient group that Adam has mentioned a week or so ago. Not beleving in or not being sure of God allowed those first experimenters to do what they wanted and not be cowed immobility because a some mythical punishment.

Comment by: andrea | June 21, 2007, 12:53 pm

First-time poster, so let me begin with the obligatory "I love your site, and look forward to reading and commenting for many years to come!" There, that's done then, onward ho!

Whatever atheism's claim to science in toto, I think we can safely call atheism the champion of rationality, logic and science today. I'm with -- Adam, is it? -- Adam's assessment that the benefits of science far exceed the benefits of charity. Consider genetically engineered crops, for one, and men like Dr. Norman Borlaug, who is credited with saving over a billion lives from famine through his research. While I can't attest to Dr. Borlaug's religious affiliation, the fundamental point remains: In the war between science and faith, credit goes to the former for consistently improving human life across the globe. Atheism's defense of science does infinitely more good than religion's race to the Dark Ages, however many charitable donations they make along the way.

After all: "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for the rest of his life."

Comment by: law & disorder | June 21, 2007, 2:11 pm

As I said, science and atheism have a lot in common. They're just not the same thing.

It's insulting to religious scientists to disregard their contributions. Think about it, would you tell a Xian or Jewish Nobel prize winner that they've put another notch in the belt of Atheism? I think you'd get some heated disagreement. We should be wary of such hubris.

Comment by: Polly | June 21, 2007, 3:56 pm

I´m Christian. I don´t mean to be offensive, but the same right you have to publish this work gives me the right to Comment about it. Basically what you are saying is what Dr. House once said "Would you rather have a nicy doctor holding your hand as you die, or a synic, almost angry doctor sculding you as you get better?" and it sounds correct. But consider This

1. You are basically saying that all the people that have ever tryied to invent something for the common wellfare are Atheists. This, if you read history, is quite untrue, since you know that amazingly smart and scientifically contributing figures such as Isaac Newton, Nicholas Copernicus, Sir Fancis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, and even Albert Einsteiin were all great God-Believing Scientists. So to distiguish Religious and Atheist People based on if they were scientists or not, seems to be an overgeneralizaton.
2.What you are stating here, Logically, is that a person must decide weather he believes in Science OR God, basically saying that God and Science aren´t the same thing. Just to let you know, God IS a scientist, the Bible Says that "he made all the things with wisdom and science" so if you want knowledge to keep your science project going, it wouldn´t be a bad idea to ask God for some help.
3. If you accept the previous to be correct, then you are saying that you are putting your trust and life in the hands of doctors who know a lot more than I do, yes, but not nearly as much as one needs to know in order to rescue someone´s life from illness and disease. In fact, and you´ll agree with me on this, it is common for scientists to "make a study" that reveals something that another "study" latter on contradicts. I´ve heard this very often. Now, Are you willing to put your life trusting a person who, Yes, knows a bit more than you, but still can´t find a cure for the common flu, Diabetes, HIV, many sorts of Cancer, Etc. Now, I´m not saying I don´t trust Medicine, I´m saying medicine and God aren´t opposite ends. God Gave us Knowledge and Wisdome, The probles is when we begin to trust our own wisdom and find that we aren´t smart enough, we don´t go back to the source and ask for Help.

And contradicting what you said about prayer, there are innumerable cases of peaople that have been healed, MEDICALLY PROVEN, through prayer. Yes, you call it massive hysteria, suggestion, brainwashing, but all those are only different names for the same thing; faith. Even you have faith in something, called Evolution, Which is a religion since It´s been in the state of Hypothesis for the longest time, is only a theory, it cannot be proven, tested or repeated, and all claims of its existence are only that; claims. So basically you have faith, and that faith, from many others, is what can heal.

I´m not against Science, I´m against Evolution and atheism. They are two very different Terms. Think about it without any prejudism, being impartial and as if you were trying to find a most excellent truth; I You are right, I have nothing to lose, If I´m right, you are doomed forever man.

Comment by: Marco | June 21, 2007, 4:55 pm

...and even Albert Einsteiin were all great God-Believing Scientists.

Albert Einstein was a pantheist at best. You might want to check your sources.

...so if you want knowledge to keep your science project going, it wouldn´t be a bad idea to ask God for some help.

Science works precisely because it does not rely on supernatural help.

In fact, and you´ll agree with me on this, it is common for scientists to "make a study" that reveals something that another "study" latter on contradicts. I´ve heard this very often. Now, Are you willing to put your life trusting a person who, Yes, knows a bit more than you, but still can´t find a cure for the common flu, Diabetes, HIV, many sorts of Cancer, Etc.

Unlike religious thought, science is open to new evidence and new experimentation. That is one reason why science works, and a big part of what Ebonmuse was trying to say. Religious thought is entrenched and that sort of outlook does not lend itself to new discovery. Scientific thought is the opposite of that, always open to new evidence, and leads to great discovery. Although science has not cured everything as you point out, it is simply not true that it has done nothing, nor is it true that the advances that have been made are worthless unless it can cure everything.

Comment by: OMGF | June 21, 2007, 6:15 pm

Although science has not cured everything as you point out, it is simply not true that it has done nothing, nor is it true that the advances that have been made are worthless unless it can cure everything.

True. Science has not cured everything. (Imagine the place of religion today if it had?)

However, I think it's safe to say that every single cure for every single disease and affliction from the beginning of recorded history to date has been accomplished by science, and science alone. Not a single cure for any disease can be laid at the feet of religion (unless of course, you believe the Jesus cured the occasional leper and the blind that he happened to run into. To bad he didn't have the foresight to extinguish leprosy and blindness from the world, along with cancer, ALS, MS, Cystic Fibrosis, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, all forms of mental illness, and a host of many others all the way down to hangnails. For that matter, why did he create them in the first place?)

And getting off the derail, Ebon's post points out that there were probably many people, scientists, who did the right thing for humanity without any acknowledgment of their non-religious motivations. A very good case could also be made that the great scientists mentioned above would most likely be atheists today if they knew what we know today. For example, if Newton knew of Darwin's work, would he still believe in a Creator, in this day and age when the power of the Church is so diminished? I think not. He was too smart for that.

Comment by: John P | June 21, 2007, 9:01 pm

For Marco:

Number of diseases cured by religion and religion alone: 0

2.What you are stating here, Logically, is that a person must decide weather he believes in Science OR God, basically saying that God and Science aren´t the same thing. Just to let you know, God IS a scientist, the Bible Says that "he made all the things with wisdom and science" so if you want knowledge to keep your science project going, it wouldn´t be a bad idea to ask God for some help.

Instead of asking god for help, how about asking a doctor, or an expert scientist in that field, or even do reading and research of your own? I guarentee you'll find the answers a lot sooner, and in fact, find answers at all. When was the last time you ever heard of a random someone cure a disease and say "god just told me how"? Likewise, even if you find a claim like that, how reliable can it be if that person also happens to be a doctor or someone who has an extensive knowledge of science.

If you say people are being forced to choose between god and science, ask yourself a few simple questions. If you or your loved ones were sick with a bad disease and you had a choice between taking them to a hospital or sitting around and praying for them to get better, which would you pick? If you break a leg, would you pray for god to make it better or get it put back in place and in a cast by a doctor?

And again, the bible is not a source of real information. The thought behind those who look to the bible is that they don't need evidence, and if you don't need evidence there goes all scientific research. A study can correct another study because that's how science works. It changes and it doesn't instantly have an answer for every problem and a cure for every disease. These things come in small steps (like evolution), unlike the line of religious thought where "if you can't immediately prove everything to me beyond any doubt then it must mean that MY religion is right". This, of course, is total bullshit.

Just because some great thinkers happened to be religious in a time when religion was the norm does not mean it's because of religion they were great thinkers. Same way Ghandi was a racist when racism was the norm in his time, but that doesn't mean he did the wonderful things he did because he was a racist.

And let's not forget, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc. hold beliefs on the same philosophical level as those who believe in voodoo, the flying spaghetti monster, and psychics who claim to talk to the dead.
God Gave us Knowledge and Wisdome, The probles is when we begin to trust our own wisdom and find that we aren´t smart enough, we don´t go back to the source and ask for Help.
Here's a contrary thought. God didn't give us wisdom or knowledge, and as a matter of fact, god doesn't exist. Rather, it was my personal animal spirit, Veesha, who gave all people knowledge and created the world on the back of a giant turtle upon which we all live today. All who do not worship my animal spirit will spend forever burning in fire, while all those who do will forever live in a land of monopoly and poptarts. If you can show, in any reasonably way, that your belief in Christianity is any more valid then my hypothetical, I'd be amazed.

Comment by: Mrnaglfar | June 22, 2007, 12:09 am

There's another facet of this story going on over on "This Week in Evolution": R. Ford Dennison has been posting some caveats to people planning to start a Ph.D. (in Biology or other sciences) here, here, and here. These posts show realistically what kind of a sacrifice it is to choose the path of becoming a scientist (even though that's not really the point he's trying to make).

It's sad to think that such lifelong contributions would show up in statistics as smaller than a wealthy executive contributing to his church.

Comment by: C. L. Hanson | June 22, 2007, 1:10 am

God's a scientist; that's rich! But, there you have it. Religious thought changes all the time, possibly as much as scientific thought does. It does so, however, in response to societal conditions, and the perpetrators of the change dishonestly claim that that is what the religion was really about all along.

Be that as it may, Polly and others are correct in pointing out that, given the absolute, if not relative, abundance of religious scientists, it is not correct to associate science to atheism as closely as Ebonmuse does.

I think it is more appropriate to point out that an atheistic (or rather, a skeptical) worldview does not interfere with the practice of science, whereas a religious worldview has a high probability of doing so, even if in many cases it does not noticeably do so.

Comment by: valhar2000 | June 22, 2007, 5:13 am

If you can show, in any reasonably way, that your belief in Christianity is any more valid then my hypothetical, I'd be amazed.
-Mrnaglfar

The only reason why Christianity is more valid than Veesha is the amount of people who believe.

But all religion is bullshit anyway, so, based on the lack of evidence for any faith, I dumped mine and took up atheism.

Anyway, religious scientists, although just as valuable as atheist ones, might have a different agenda than those without belief. Or they just call themselves faithful for the sake of it.

There's a metric shitton of 'believers' who don't know jack about their own faith. It's possible that the majority of the religious scientists are in that group. But in anycase, the contributions science has made to the quality of life, for animals as well as plants, have been astronomical, considering that the church thought that:

A. Earth was flat. This was later debunked by sailors, and resisted by the church because the bible said otherwise.
B. Healing illness was against God's will. Since faithhealing is a resounding failure, I'm gonna stick to medicine and good living habits to keep healthy.
C. My favorite...The church goers assumed that all atheists are unhappy, because happiness can only be found through faith. This is a resounding 10 on my bullshit meter, because I know many people who are absolutely fucking miserable under the heel of the church. My atheist friends here are much more spiritual, doing things out of kindness instead of dogmatic reasons. I find more happiness and peace without some skydaddy watching my every move with binoculars.

Good day.

Comment by: Mobius 118 | June 22, 2007, 8:42 am

@John P:

As for Collins, I don't consider him a top tier scientist, even if he is in the National Academy of Science (which I don't know). Notice that he simply "headed the team" of the human genome project. While he may have a degree behind his name, he's really just a business man and an administrator. The fact that he's religious, and has an audience for his book does not impress me.

You're the first I've heard actually say that, atheist or theist. You know, from what little reading I've done on his part in it, that thought, guiltily, crossed my mind. I say that with reluctance because he's seen as a towering and crucial figure in the human genome project. But, I don't know enough to assert anything with confidence.
His lack of sophistication regarding CS Lewis and other Xian canards did cause me to strongly doubt his intellectual credentials outside the area of genetics, though.

I don't disagree that Newton would most likely be atheist, but people are religious for all kinds of reasons and scientists are not immune, though the vaccine of reason certainly seems to have a high degree of efficacy among them.

Comment by: Polly | June 22, 2007, 12:23 pm

@ Polly
Having read his Wikipedia entry, I'm a little more impressed with his credentials. I think I had him mixed up with the other Human Genome guy, who was more of a businessman that Collins. I remember reading an article in the NY Times years ago about their "race" to map the genome, and it seemed that the two of them were in the race to see who could claims the right to make the most money out of the science. So I may stand corrected, and perhaps he's one of the 7% that simply defies the norm.

Comment by: John P | June 22, 2007, 1:14 pm

@Polly

I couldn't agree more. I am passionate about my faith and, for me, that means I'm passionate about helping and working with others - my family, friends, work colleagues, complete strangers who come forward for prayer ministry in church - of whatever belief. I think we should all work more closely where we can and accept each others' differences where we can't. Easier to say than do, I accept. Judging from this site, some of us Christians have generated real hate, sometimes sadly I suspect for no good reason. I was an atheist, so I try to understand different viewpoints.

Comment by: Paul | June 22, 2007, 1:50 pm

Of course, the charitable giving by the faithful is a specious number anyway. Aside from donations to churches and sectarian charities, how can it be tracked? Additionally, donations to churches are not really charitable giving, inasmuch as they benefit the givers directly - they pay for the building and grounds, upkeep thereof, salaries of church employees, and so on, with a small percentage left over for outreach and charity. As for sectarian charities, while it may be likely that the givers belong to the same denominations as the charity, that's not a given. I've donated to a number of charities of various stripes, and never once have I been asked to provide my religious affiliation. Therefore, giving by the faithful is an falsely inflated number, and giving by agnostics/atheists/others isn't accurately tracked. It's absolutely pointless to even begin an argument about who's more altruistic than whom if your sole support comes from a dollar figure that's nowhere near reality. Unless and until those dollar figures are tweaked for non-charitable expenses AND man-hours of charitable work are calculated for all people (not just the ones who are part of an organized religion), money is a completely invalid criterion for altruism.

Comment by: Alison | June 22, 2007, 2:19 pm

@ Paul

People cited bible verses to support the slave trade and idea that blacks were inferior. People cite bible verses to condemn homosexuals (though not racism, still falls under that same general category) as well as they had been cited during the women's rights movement, and with the idea of sin, holds that all who do not believe in it are morally flawed people. The dark ages were basically rule of the church, and shit, we all see how well that worked out. Not to mention Christian ideals of morality aren't exactly novel to Christians. Most (if not all) of the religious holidays were taken from pagan festivals, and laws against murder, theft, adultery, and so forth existed far before Christianity was even an idea. It's just a reshuffling of the preexisting deck.

As for giving to charities, I really feel that's a poor excuse for generosity. I'm not saying it's wrong or anything, but for every dollar one donates to charity, roughly 90 cents or so never see the people it's meant to take care of. As for Christian charities, the goal isn't to allivate suffering so much as it is conversion. Like Mother Tersea's home for the dying: It wasn't a place where people went to get help or get made better, it's a place where they lay on a cot, suffer, and die under the rule of the church. It's hard to alleivate suffering when one believes very much in suffering

Comment by: Mrnaglfar | June 22, 2007, 3:11 pm

According to my source, England (and hence the US) was hardly influenced by Roman Law at all, unlike most of Europe.

I'm not sure what on earth you could be talking about. The idea of a legal system (laws, courts, representational government, civil rights) as we understand it today, far predates the rise of Christianity. England, as well as most of Europe draws from this tradition.

And of the many who have championed racism, Christ wasn't one of them - the Good Samaritan account was an attack on the racists of the time.

But the religion that resulted most certainly was a champion of racism (and religious persecution). Although I concede that Jesus' words may have been hijacked by those who are less than ethical, my overall point, that Christianity by and large isn't beyond reproach, still stands.

Not sure which was more devastating - imperialism or the vacuum left behind when it collapsed. After all the fall of the Roman Empire heralded the Dark Ages. But I guess that's a bit off-topic!

Why would you advocate the continuation of the Roman Empire as if we would be better off if it had never fallen? Are you in favor of the systematic conquest and exploitation of other cultures?

Comment by: ex machina | June 22, 2007, 3:24 pm

For a more recent example, let's look at Rev. Martin Luther King who fought against segregation and racism in an almost entirely Christian southern U.S.

Just to head off the inevitable, "Well Xianity influenced MLK to be non-violent" canard, it should be noted that he got that from Ghandi who was Hindu. Of course, Ghandi got his idea from Jainism.

Comment by: OMGF | June 22, 2007, 3:29 pm

Wow! It feels like I've stepped into a den of lions! I don't think I've experienced quite so much heat in such a short time. You guys really hate Christians and just about everything they stand for. Even when they do good (which I guess you believe is isn't often), you're saying it's their non-Christian nature triumphing over their faith.

Comment by: Paul | June 22, 2007, 4:30 pm

Wow! It feels like I've stepped into a den of lions! I don't think I've experienced quite so much heat in such a short time. You guys really hate Christians and just about everything they stand for. Even when they do good (which I guess you believe is isn't often), you're saying it's their non-Christian nature triumphing over their faith.

Not so much, its just that your arguments fall flat (My wife is wrong sometimes, but that does not mean I hate her). And besides, this site is called "Daylight Atheism" so I think a little opposition to your perspective should be expected.

Some Christians definitely do good and have done good. No doubt about that. But in your first post you tried to give Christianity credit for "the basis of our law, our education system, our hospitals" which is untrue; and said that Christians are patently more generous than non-Christians (your comment about Christians giving 4x more), when the whole point of the original article was to say that contribution in terms of monetary donations is not a complete measure of good will.

Positive social change comes from a lot of sources, sometimes religious, sometimes not. The same is true for negative social forces. But I take offense at the idea that Christianity has a monopoly on compassion, as it most certainly does not. I just ask that you acknowledge the truth.

Comment by: ex machina | June 22, 2007, 4:51 pm

@ex machina
Of course Christianity does not have a monopoly on compassion. But a real faith in Christ does seem to influence people to have greater compassion than they had before - just my observation.

Comment by: Paul | June 22, 2007, 5:12 pm

Wow! It feels like I've stepped into a den of lions! I don't think I've experienced quite so much heat in such a short time. You guys really hate Christians and just about everything they stand for.

We don't hate Christians! But we do disagree with what Christians stand for, that's true, and we'll argue against it with passion. The rise of passionate atheism is taking a lot of people by surprise, I think. We really don't hate you, though. We're just standing up for the views we support.

To consider your original point:

In Britain the Christian church was the basis of our law, our education system, our hospitals - all stemming from a belief in Christ's fundamental message to "love our neighbour".

Attributing it all to a belief "love your neighbour" might be going a bit far. The hospitals, maybe, (although "love your neighbour" and the impulse to do good don't require religion) but the Church's influence on the education system had at least something to do with the desire to train new priests -- that, and the fact that historically the Church has been deeply associated with philosophy and art, sometimes to the point of having a monopoly on those things. Philosophy and art are of course good things, and if it is a choice between having philosophy and art supported by the Church and having no philosophy or art at all, then I would naturally prefer the former. Still, I am unequivocally certain that the rise of secular learning and secular art has been a good thing, a freeing of the human spirit -- not to mention essential in order for science as we know it to arise.

Comment by: Lynet | June 22, 2007, 5:17 pm

Wow! It feels like I've stepped into a den of lions! I don't think I've experienced quite so much heat in such a short time.

What heat? If your idea of discussion is placid agreement, then yes, this online community will come across as "spicy". Seems to me that you made a specious rhetorical assertion and got called on that.

You guys really hate Christians and just about everything they stand for.

You said that Christianity was responsible for the British legal system. I pointed out that you're wrong. What's hateful about that? I didn't attack you for being a Christian, I attacked your rhetoric because it's factually incorrect.

Even when they do good (which I guess you believe is isn't often), you're saying it's their non-Christian nature triumphing over their faith.

Who said that, Paul?

I have to wonder at how quickly you folded. What exactly about having your position challenged upsets you so?

Care to address the counter-arguments that I made about Wilberforce, Shaftesbury, and MLK? They're directly on point.

Comment by: heliobates | June 22, 2007, 6:40 pm

Undoubtably, some Christians have made amazing contributions, however the Church as a whole has largely established and then defended the status quo against which these reformers had to fight in order to bring about change.

More importantly, is there any evidence whatsoever that those same people would not have made more or less the same contributions if they weren't Christians?

Comment by: Alex Weaver | June 22, 2007, 6:52 pm

Hello All,

Sorry about that last post, I just got a little carried away with the spirit of the debate. Wow! 45+ responses in less than 2 days. Good work Adam! Be careful or you may get accused of sensationalism! :)

Some questions for the group:

I have a counterclaim: in terms of actual good done, rather than the narrow measure of dollars donated to charity, atheists can rightly claim credit for a great deal.

What do you think that "actual good done" means? How would you say it is measured? This is not a loaded question. I want to make sure I understand the statement clearly. When I read it, it implies to me that the good done by science is "real" good whereas the good that comes from religion and religious ideas is somehow "false" good. I think it is inaccurate based on the emotional and spiritual benefits that people receive from religion.

Meanwhile, millennia of religious belief have produced not a glimmer of insight into the way the world actually works, nor a shred of real improvement in the human condition.

Again, here is the implication that all the improvements brought about by religion were not "real" but somehow "false" and all the improvements brought about by science are "real" and therefore far superior. Again, I believe this is inaccurate.

To counter the rather bold claim that religion has not produced a "shred of real improvement", I submit the indisputable fact that many people are made very happy by religion for their entire lives. Based on Universal Utilitarianism, people's happiness is the ultimate good. Therefore if people are able to practice a religion without making others unhappy, and make themselves happy in the process, it is good. Therefore, religion has provided a shred of real improvement.

I also think the characterization of religion and science as being diametrically opposed is artificial and inaccurate.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | June 22, 2007, 7:46 pm

I submit the indisputable fact that many people are made very happy by religion for their entire lives. Based on Universal Utilitarianism, people's happiness is the ultimate good. Therefore if people are able to practice a religion without making others unhappy, and make themselves happy in the process, it is good. Therefore, religion has provided a shred of real improvement.

Drugs can make people happy too, doesn't mean they're overall for the best. If people did practice religion without making other's unhappy, then there would be no problem. But they do make other's unhappy (in regards to attacks, wars, trying to deny homosexuals rights, trying to deny women rights, and so on). All things that do good in that policy need to be weighed against the evil they do, and that scale tips far in the direction of religion being painful.

Again, here is the implication that all the improvements brought about by religion were not "real" but somehow "false" and all the improvements brought about by science are "real" and therefore far superior. Again, I believe this is inaccurate.

What improvements are these that have been brought about by religion and religion alone? I can't think of any. Is it how it's opposed to teaching children about sex, or how it trys to deny people rights, or how it starts incredibly devastating conflicts over who has the better imaginary friend? How about the people who have killed or been killed in the name of it? Did religion start educations that weren't based on the bible , or try to expand on edcuation that differed with their beliefs?
If you want to claim making people believe they'll live forever does some real good in the world, can't we just tell kids that, and likewise if we need religion to, which one of the countless ones should it be?

Comment by: Mrnaglfar | June 22, 2007, 8:56 pm

To counter the rather bold claim that religion has not produced a "shred of real improvement", I submit the indisputable fact that many people are made very happy by religion for their entire lives. Based on Universal Utilitarianism, people's happiness is the ultimate good. Therefore if people are able to practice a religion without making others unhappy, and make themselves happy in the process, it is good. Therefore, religion has provided a shred of real improvement.

You cut right to the heart of why these discussions usually lead to infinite regress. As you rightly demand a definition of "real improvement" or "actual good", we can demand an operative definition of "religion" and "happiness".

Pascal Boyer will, with impressive scholarship, demonstrate that what almost every Westerner---atheist and believer alike---means by "religion" refers only to a narrow, geo- and cultural-centric explication of the phenomenon.

I've always found it a curious and self-defeating tack that someone who espouses a particular faith such as Christianity would point to other religions as proof that Christianity is somehow true. When making a statement such as "Religion provides X" instead of the testable "Christianity has provided X", the believer sails straight for the shoals of subjectivism. If Jaians and Buddhists and Jews are all authentically religious, then what, besides tradition, is the argument for Christianity in the first place? Might as well be a Hindu: they get Ganeshi and the Kama Sutra. If Christianity, as Christians claim, is the authentic voice of God, how do Christians explain that two thirds of the world's population seems to tune in a different signal?

Ebon posed this question well well and I've yet to see an answer that satisfies me. Maybe Paul will take a kick at this when he's finished his sulk?

Comment by: heliobates | June 22, 2007, 10:19 pm

After my last post, I realized that the question posed by Ebon could perhaps be rewritten to: Which has benefitted humanity the most? The foolish wisdom of man, or the foolish wisdom of god?

I will go out on a limb here and side with the foolish wisdom of man, which does unfortunately omit jumping up and down on pews, passing out in aisles, and reaching into baskets full of rattlesnakes...

Comment by: Jeff T. | June 22, 2007, 10:40 pm

But a real faith in Christ does seem to influence people to have greater compassion than they had before - just my observation.

So those who have been influenced to greater cruelty, rather than greater compassion, did not have a "real" faith in Christ? I'm guessing they weren't True Scotsmen, either ;)

All we could glean from such a possible situation is that one's position on the existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant in his or her ability to do "real good".

In which case, we're left with the question of why anyone should suspend reason, believe in unsupportable ideas, then call this act of intellectual dishonesty "faith" and praise it as some sort of noble deed.

Comment by: Lunacrous | June 23, 2007, 12:04 am

Here's a nice way of putting it: "Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day. Teach a person how to fish and you feed them for a lifetime. Teach a person to sit around talking to themselves waiting for fish to fall out of the sky and they starve."

I prefer the Inquisitorial framing of that argument:

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a night. Set him on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Comment by: heliobates | June 23, 2007, 9:04 am

Ebonmuse,

My intent was to moderate you claim that religion has not produced a shred of real improvement. Although you did, in the beginning of your article, concede that religion can comfort people, toward the end you smoothly transitioned into religions producing "not a shred of real improvement". I am pointing out that the language you used there is not consistent with reality or even your own philosophy, namely UU.

I do not disagree with what I perceive to be the main thrust of your post, that non-theists make positive contributions to society. Of course they do. I disagree with the notion that religion does not produce *real* good and that religion is somehow inherently opposed to science.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | June 23, 2007, 11:04 am

OMGF,

Nowhere did he say that only science brings "real good."

You are correct, however he did say that religion has failed to produce shred of real improvement in the human condition. I disagree with this. I think this can be paraphrased to "real good". In my paraphrasing, precision was lost though.

When it comes to science, theism can and does pose a roadblock at times that atheism does not. Theistic "thought" is to believe in irrational assumptions without proof, to eschew searching for answers, and to not question. This is antithetical to science.

You are incorrect that theistic thought is to believe in irrational assumptions. There are undoubtably many theists who do believe in irrational however to characterize the substance of theistic thought as believing in irrational assumptions without proof is inaccurate. Think of all the apologetic websites around. Are they saying "belive this without evidence?" No, they are saying here is evidence that you should believe. There is, of course, varying degrees of validity to the evidence and some of it is just not true, but the point is that they are trying to present evidence.

You are correct that certain modern brands of religious thought can hinder scientific thought, though.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | June 23, 2007, 11:23 am

I think Ebonmuse said that religion does not contribute any "actual" improvements to the human condition.

In response, I said it did. Whether it has caused problems (which it has) is irrelevant to my central point

So you're point was , and correct me if I'm wrong:
I submit the indisputable fact that many people are made very happy by religion for their entire lives.

I've actually never met one of these people. People I've seen who are religious aren't much happier then those who don't have religion. Likewise, is that saying that without religion they would be unhappy? I seriously doubt that too.

If you want to say religion has done some "real good" for the world, you might want evidence to back that up instead of asking us to disprove that point. For instance, if religion truly comforted people about the idea of death, why are funerals not celebrations? If people truly believe the dead are living on in a better world, then why does the idea of death still upset people who's religion believes otherwise?

Or how about the idea of Sin in christianity, which constantly tells people there are a long list of things wrong with them if they don't follow each of their religion's beliefs? Let's also assume that a Xian has any friends who don't belong to their faith; according to the Xian doctrine, those friends will spend an eternity in hell. I don't think most people enjoy the idea of anyone spending an eternity there, much less someone they like.

It's not a question of whether religion "has the ability to some good in some form to someone somewhere"; the question is does it reliably do more good than harm? Putting lead into gaseoline improves the gas mileage cars get (if I remember that correctly), but companies were forced to remove it because of the harm it was causing to the environment.

So I ask again, what measurable improvements has religion brought to the world, and second question, do those (if there are any) outweight the damage religion causes?

Comment by: Mrnaglfar | June 23, 2007, 12:20 pm

Your counter argument utterly misses my point and also is irrelevant as science is also responsible for a great many atrocities. To try to quantify such subjective things as "religion has produced X good vs Y bad" is impossible and ridiculous. Do you have any actual evidence to support your notion that religion has produced more bad than good? Indeed, how could one possibly measure such a value? Your statement that religion has caused more bad than good, rather than an empirical measurement, is a subjective value judgment based on your assumptions.

I would say there is evidence you can point to that religion has done more harm then good, insofar as it's supported slavery, murder, war, has fought against science that trys to solve problems (like those who believe AIDs is god's punishment to gay people or feel sexual education should not be taught in school), on top of the idea of Sin telling people there is something wrong with them for not following the religion. Denying all knowledge that does not comform with their beliefs (which they have no evidence for, yet still push to be taught in schools). Combine that with things like the attack on the abortion clinics, 9/11, random suicide bombings, physical abuse of young children by priests, degradation of women in the middle east and here, and let's not forget scaring little kids into the idea of hell, as well as letting them know all their other friends who don't follow their religion will be going to as well forever. And so on.

You did claim that:
I submit the indisputable fact that many people are made very happy by religion for their entire lives.

I would say that's far from indisputable. I haven't met in my lifetime someone who has been made consistently, profoundly happy by religion; the religious ones don't seem more or less happy then the non-religious ones.

Even those who believe their religion aren't exactly comforted by it. If they were, funerals should be celebrations about how a loved one is now off living forever in a better place. Who wouldn't be happy about that? Yet that belief in an afterlife doesn't seem to comfort people, and at best, is an unwillingness to accept the truth.

It's not a question of whether religion CAN do good, it's a question of the good it does, the good we can see at least, outweighting all the readily bad things we can point to that it does (and there is quite the list there). Under Utilitarian purposes at least. Likewise, if it was found that, let's just say for instance Hindus, were more "happy" then Xians, would you recommend all Xian's convert to the Hindu faith, if happiness is the ultimate goal?
So it gets back to the point of "what purpose DOES religion actually serve that's good for people?"

Comment by: Mrnaglfar | June 23, 2007, 1:16 pm

Mrnaglfar,

If there was an edit function, I would choose to moderate my above post. I would not change the content, but I would change the wording to be more understanding and respectful. I apologize for my terseness and abruptness.

Apologies,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | June 23, 2007, 9:39 pm

I have met many. Your only recouse at this point of the debate is to declare that those people whom I have known well were lying or were deceiving themselves that religion actually had made them happy.

Or Mrnaglfar can point out the inevitable categorical confusion which causes infinite regress in this type of argument. In Adam's blogpost, he's talking about societal good which can be measured using statistical reasoning. The believer (Paul started it, but you're flinging the gauntlet back down) will immediately insist that individual good can be demonstrated by religion, and thereby conflates the two. It's a sort of fallacy of composition and, as you pointed out, results in two people arguing past each other.

Comment by: heliobates | June 24, 2007, 7:44 am

OMGF,

That they are trying does not mean that they are succeeding.

You are correct, however our dispute is not over whether they are succeeding, our dispute is over whether they are trying to make people believe things without evidence. The fact that they are *trying to provide evidence* is devastating to your point. You may think that their evidence is not good, and that is fine, but the fact that that they are using evidence to make a case for their position shows that they are not simply expecting people to believe for no reason.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | June 24, 2007, 4:07 pm

The fact that they are *trying to provide evidence* is devastating to your point.

No. If they were following the evidence where it leads, you would be right. But they're just assuming Goddidit and trying to fit the evidence around this preconception as best they can. Not a new endeavor, and certainly not an impressive one.

Comment by: Lunacrous | June 25, 2007, 3:25 am

Lunacrous,

No. If they were following the evidence where it leads, you would be right.

You are assuming that all rational people will "follow" the evidence to the same conclusion that you have come to and that is not correct. You may assert that theists are incorrect, and that is fine, but to assert that they are all irrational is incorrect.

But they're just assuming Goddidit and trying to fit the evidence around this preconception as best they can.

You are basing this assessment on your own assumptions. If you look into the matter, you will find that there are many theists who believe because of evidence. You are incorrect in characterizing all theists as "creating" evidence to support assumptions. Either you are unfamiliar with the topic or you are deliberately trying to mischaracterize theists. The fact is, just because someone thinks differently than you, does not automatically make them irrational.

I also think that you may not be familiar with the thrust of the argument here. OMGF stated that theistic thought is based on assumptions without evidence. That is false. People are theists because of evidence. You may dispute the evidence or state that you find the evidence unconvincing, however when you characterize theists in general as simply believing "because", you are incorrect.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | June 26, 2007, 7:51 pm

People are theists because of evidence. You may dispute the evidence or state that you find the evidence unconvincing, however when you characterize theists in general as simply believing "because", you are incorrect.

People also believe in alien visitation, bigfoot, and psychic powers because of evidence. But do their claims stand up to repeated, independent testing? Does their evidence, reasoning, and methodology stand up to peer review? Was the nonexistence of aliens, bigfoot, or whatever deity ever a possible conclusion for their research? Did they, after coming up with a hypothesis, do everything they could to prove it wrong? Are their claims even falsifiable? Are they holding their claims about the very nature of the universe to the same standards we would hold any much less expansive and grandiose hypothesis, or are they just going with what seems to fit the evidence after they think about it for a bit? Possibly think about it very hard and for a very long time, with lots of discussion. Which is a wonderful thing, but absolutely no substitute for independently verified empirical evidence.

Comment by: Lunacrous | June 27, 2007, 2:43 pm

Lunacrous,

People also believe in alien visitation, bigfoot, and psychic powers because of evidence. But do their claims stand up to repeated, independent testing? Does their evidence, reasoning, and methodology stand up to peer review? Was the nonexistence of aliens, bigfoot, or whatever deity ever a possible conclusion for their research? Did they, after coming up with a hypothesis, do everything they could to prove it wrong? Are their claims even falsifiable? Are they holding their claims about the very nature of the universe to the same standards we would hold any much less expansive and grandiose hypothesis, or are they just going with what seems to fit the evidence after they think about it for a bit? Possibly think about it very hard and for a very long time, with lots of discussion. Which is a wonderful thing, but absolutely no substitute for independently verified empirical evidence.

I refer to the rhetorical technique you have employed above as "question carpet-bombing". You have bombarded me with a host of loaded questions which make vague, sweeping generalizations about theists in general. It is not conducive to stimulating discourse therefore unless you are willing to make precise statements and develop them with supporting ideas, I think that this discussion has become stagnant and rant-ish.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | June 27, 2007, 8:14 pm

Mrnaglfar,

Hi, sorry for the delay, I kept getting distracted by OMG and Lunacrous.

I wrote

Your only recouse at this point of the debate is to declare that those people whom I have known well were lying or were deceiving themselves that religion actually had made them happy.

...and...

You cannot, in all seriousness, compare two people, on religious and one not religious and declare, based on their respective happiness whether religion or non-religion makes someone happier.

Then you wrote:

Those two seem kind of contradictory. You seem to claim it is religion is making these people happy, and then in the next sentence saying there's no way to tell if religion is making them happy. I would agree with you on there are too many confounding variables, but I think we disagree greatly on whether those happy religious people would be happy without religion. I see no reason they shouldn't be just as happy with or without it.

Those two quotes are regarding two different things. The first is based on a premise that an individual is generally an accurate assessor of what makes him or her happy. Therefore, if an individual states "religion makes me happy", I think it is generally valid to believe that the person knows what he or she is talking about. I would feel rather silly telling someone that I knew better than they did whether something made them happy or not.

The second statement I made was in reply to your statement that religious people and non-religious people seem equally happy to you. My second statement was intended to show that as an outside observer, not asking the subjects whether religion makes them happy, you are inadequate to determine whether religion makes them happy. If you had asked religious people if religion made them happy and they said "no", then I think that it is valid to say that religion does not make them happy.

Now, your next question will no doubt be, "how can Matt tell if religion is making people happy?" Well, first off, religion makes me happy, and secondly I know many people who say that religion makes them happy.

You've witness celebration funerals? People who hear of a friend's or child's death and smile and say "They're in heaven now; good for them" and go about their day whistling and skipping? That seems, again, at best to be self-delusion, and also a cheapening of the worth of this life.

No whisling or skipping, but peace and hope that transcends grief. And at many funerals they are declared to be "celebrations" for the very reason that someone has gone home.

That seems, again, at best to be self-delusion, and also a cheapening of the worth of this life

So really, it's a lose-lose situation. If theists are sad at funerals, they are hypocrites who really don't believe, but if they are not, then they cheapen human life and delude themselves! What a predicament!

If we want to tally up the all 'bad' religion has done, we could use a direct measure of how many people have died/killed in it's name (9/11 and all the suicide bombings, crusades, inquisitions, those who have been stoned to death, etc). It's hard to measure oppression, but when most religions talk about how many natural human acts are sinful and wrong, we could use some scale of mental tramua, especially since these things are taught to your children. We could measure how many times religion has attempted to stop education processes (including sex ed, which leads to an increase in teen pregnancy and the spread of STDs).

...and if we want to tally up all the 'good' it has done, we could use a direct measure of lives saved through providing food to starving people at home and abroad, founding of hospitals, building orphanages, educating people on agriculture, helping build buildings for people in need, relief efforts in natural disasters, and inspiring people who have the tools of science to take those tools to people who are in need.

Some other things that are hard to measure: The hope for a better future, the joy of belonging to a church family, the peace that comes from healing of emotional wounds, the peace and joy that comes from following good moral principles found in religious tradition, the fulfillment of having purpose, the support to persevere difficult times, and the joy of mystical religious experience.

Religion really does make people better morally and emotionally. This is not the case with everyone, everyone is different, but there are many people who really benefit from religion.

To say that the intangible benefits of religion are not "real good" is to deny feelings which are central to the human experience.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | June 27, 2007, 9:23 pm

Matt R,

Naturally you think I use circular reasoning, since I believe in God and the only way to justify such a belief is through circular reasoning. By your estimation I *have* to beg the question.

That is correct. You have a chance to correct me if I'm wrong, however. I've only asked for one example.

Are you saying that finding evidence for God is begging the question because one is looking for evidence of God and that this is an irrational process? To restate my question, are you saying that it is irrational and "begging the question" to hypothetically propose X then search for evidence to see if X is supported by evidence?

I knew I should have clarified when I wrote it, but was lazy instead. I was simply restating what I said above, that you necessarily must beg the question because all the "evidence" that you find is only evidence if you assume that it leads to your conclusion beforehand. Looking for evidence is probably only irrational in that finding it is certainly irrational (minus some event where god makes his/her/its presence known through ways that are verifiable.)

So, to your restatement, no, that is part of the scientific method. Searching for god, however, does not fit that bill. Again, you must employ circular reasoning and begging the question in order to find evidence for god, therefore it is not a rational idea.

Comment by: OMGF | June 28, 2007, 6:35 am

OMGF,

I knew I should have clarified when I wrote it

Isn't intuition interesting!

That is correct. You have a chance to correct me if I'm wrong, however. I've only asked for one example.

If you are willing to oblige me, I am actually interested in hearing you make a case for some of your favorite instances of theists begging the question in order to provide evidence for God.

Cheers,

Matt

Comment by: Matt R | June 28, 2007, 4:45 pm

OMGF,

I think that you know what I mean when I say that there is a cause or source of our existence. You do, don't you? When you read my comment to lunacrous, you don't really think that I was trying to make a case for a personal God, do you?

I am being serious. Was it not painfully clear that I was stating the obvious fact that there is *something* that is the cause of reality as we know it? Was it not obvious tha