Fox Forum: God Is Back

Fox Forum: God Is Back:

"Do you regard the Easter weekend as a religious festival rather than just an opportunity to pick up bargains at the mall and stuff yourself with chocolate? Do you attend church on a Sunday rather than just lounging in bed? Do you sometimes pray or read the Bible? And do you believe in God or life after death?

If the answer to any of these questions is “yes”, then, according to some of the greatest minds that Europe has produced, you really ought not to exist. From the 18th century onwards a succession of European sages predicted that modernization would produce the end of religion. ..."

Here is an interesting blog article by John Mickelthwait and Adrian Wooldridge tracing the history of the "God is Dead" movement over the past few centuries and how its basic assumptions have thus far proved wrong.

What accounts for the staying power of religion in general and Christianity in particular? One factor alluded to in this article is the separation of Church and State that characterizes religion in the US. Many European countries pay a salary to ministers. What then is the incentive to increase numbers of worshipers? As much as I dislike the use of a marketplace metaphor for the Church, I have to recognize that whether there is a choice or not, people will not stay long where their needs are not being met.

Another factor is the innovations in communication we have seen over the past 30 years. The use of email and the World Wide Web have revolutionized how we get our information, and even some of our fellowship. And now Web 2.0 is being employed to even more effect in many areas. This phenomenon is not just limited to the mega churches; any congregation can employ the Web, blogs, social networking and so forth to serve its members.

Religion in the United States of America may have been an anomaly in the larger world, operating as it has separately from the government, but it seems to the authors of this Fox Forum article that the American model is spreading throughout the world, thus belying the predictions of many of the world's greatest intellectuals of the past.

Mickelthwait and Wooldridge conclude that "God has not only survived the acids of modernity. He has learned how to use the tools of modernity to spread His message."

French physicist d'Espagnat wins prestigious Templeton Prize | Science | Reuters

French physicist d'Espagnat wins prestigious Templeton Prize | Science | Reuters:

"PARIS (Reuters) - French physicist and philosopher Bernard d'Espagnat has won the 2009 Templeton Prize, billed as the world's largest annual award to an individual, for his work affirming the spiritual dimension of life. ..."

d'Espagnat, A quantum physicist, holds that ultimate reality cannot be described using traditional Newtonian physics. He is quoted as saying "Mystery is not something negative that has to be eliminated, on the contrary, it is one of the constitutive elements of being."

Richard Dawkins Calls Himself A "Cultural Christian" - News Bloggers

Richard Dawkins Calls Himself A "Cultural Christian" - News Bloggers:

"Asked by a British member of Parliament if he is one of those atheists who wants to get rid of Christian symbols especially during the Christmas season, atheist Richard Dawkins replied that he is not. Dawkins said that he himself sings Christmas carols and that he considers himself a 'cultural Christian.' Just as many Jews regard themselves as Jewish, defend Jewish interests and cherish Jewish culture while not participating in Jewish religious rituals, Dawkins says that he respects the fact that the history and traditions of the West are shaped by Christianity. Dawkins says he's not one of those who wants to purge the West of its Christian traditions. The main threat to Christian symbols, Dawkins argues, does not come from atheists like him but rather from Muslims and members of other faiths. ..."

Dinesh d'Souza, who has written a book titled What's So Great About Christianity, suggests that Dawkins might be coming to a realization that Christianity may be more of a force for good than a force for evil in the world. I'm not sure I buy into all of his analysis of Dawkins' motives, but he certainly makes some interesting points.

TCS Daily - A Question of Religion

TCS Daily - A Question of Religion:

"Some years ago I was asked a question that has haunted me. It came during a telephone conversation I had with a young man whose Internet book club has selected one of my books to read. The young man wanted to find out more about me, and he began asking what I thought about various subjects. Finally, hesitantly, he said, 'Would you mind if I asked you a very personal question?' How personal, I wondered briefly, but gave my consent anyway. His question was, 'Are you for or against religion?'

I have lost a clear recollection of my reply, but I recall being shocked at the radical and remorseless either/or with which I had been confronted: Either a person is for religion, or a person is against it. ..."

Harris makes the point here that much depends on what you are thinking about when you ask the question. The question, asked in a political debate, might be a trap -- sort of like "when did you stop beating your wife?" In this context, it seems to have been nothing more than a novice reporter trying to get a handle on who Lee Harris was.

Was Harris in favor of the blood-thirsty religions that practiced human sacrifice? Or the French Huguenots of Le Chambon who protected Jews during the Nazi occupation? He asks rhetorically whether atheists might also come to the same realization that saving Jews from Nazi extermination was the right thing to do. He answers his own question in the affirmative, but then asks whether they would have the moral imperative to lay their own lives on the line. Perhaps.

But those who believe in God could also be presumed to have some knowledge of what the Lord requires -- and that does not include turning one's back in the face of evil.

Along the way, Lee Harris quotes Thomas Huxley ("Darwin's Bulldog") who is also known as the man who coined the word "agonostic". Huxley's writings showed an admiration for those whose faith led them to do good things, and was unwilling to condemn all religion for the shortcomings of a few.

Harris' points are well summarized in this statement:

"... The villagers of La Chambon were collectively committed to carrying out the highest Biblical ideal, even if it meant their personal extinction. They were prepared to defy a despotism far more hideous than that of the European middle ages. They remind us that the simplistic "for or against" approach to religion inevitably obscures the startling differences between the various religions of mankind, between those religions that demand human sacrifice to appease a blood-thirsty god, and those that have inspired self-sacrifice in the name of a better world."

It is refreshing to know that not all people have bought into the "moral equivalency" of all religion, and are willing to acknowledge that some belief systems inherently lead to good moral choices.

Answering the Atheists | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

Answering the Atheists | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction:

"Let's face it: Atheism is in. Not since Nietzsche have disbelievers enjoyed such a ready public reception to their godless message—and such near-miraculous royalties. But even that hasn't put them in a good mood. Snaps Christopher Hitchens, who wrote God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (although not, presumably, the pronouncements of atheists), 'Many of the teachings of Christianity are, as well as being incredible and mythical, immoral.' A feuding Richard Dawkins suggests that believers 'just shut up.' Apparently, they didn't get the tolerance memo. ..."

Stan Guthrie has written an engaging "Readers Digest Condensed" version of why he is a believer, drawing in many areas of his life and experience. The points Guthrie makes provide many useful tools for the apologetics toolbox. At the same time he demonstrates the fundamental untruth of the often-repeated assertion that believers are, at their core, irrational.

All truth: God’s truth

All truth: God’s truth:

"Speakers at scholar lecture events on many college campuses often are greeted by a sea of empty seats. Not so at Roberts Wesleyan College in 1976. Chapel attendance was mandatory four days each week, so guest scholar Arthur Holmes got to play to a packed house each day.

Then again, packed doesn’t necessarily equal enthusiastic. Holmes was introduced as a philosophy professor from a rival college. Two strikes against him.

The dean introducing him also mentioned that he was a Presbyterian. Third strike. This bastion of hearts-strangely-warmed Wesleyans had honed their anti-Calvinism argumentation skills. We religion-and-philosophy majors specialized in crafting such debates. We listened with polite skepticism, at least at the beginning.

Soon we were captivated. His delivery was engaging. His scholarship was impressive. His message was stunning in a C.S. Lewis sort of way.

The theme for the series of lectures would be translated into a book published a year later (Eerdmans, 1977). The title: All Truth is God’s Truth. For me, a soon-to-graduate senior, it crystallized and summarized my whole college experience. My courses in science, fine arts, literature, human behavior, and the like all came together around a unifying, integrating, Christian worldview. ..."

This brings me back to the same era when I was teaching for a couple years at Sterling College, a Presbyterian school in Sterling Kansas. Chapel was not mandatory, but was well-attended. It helped that the time slot for the weekly chapel had no courses scheduled.

One year the theme was "Integration of Faith and Education" (or similar words). We also heard the "All Truth is God's Truth" characterization, and the students hopefully were challenged in similar ways to Jack Haberer's experience.

I find Haberer's description of a Church college education pretty similar to what I observed at Sterling. I actually went to large universities for my education, but if I had to do it all over, I would consider seriously learning at a church-related college.

There are a number of articles in this week's Outlook relating to this topic, and I would recommend reading them. Registration is required to read the full articles, but it is free, thus is worth infinitely more than you paid for it.

Williams questions Dawkins' critical thinking about religion | Ekklesia

Williams questions Dawkins' critical thinking about religion | Ekklesia:

"Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has said that Richard Dawkins and other apostles of anti-religious sentiment are oversimplifying complex issues and often missing the point. His comments came in a weekend lecture on ‘misunderstanding religion’ at the University of Swansea. ..."

"... Dr Williams stressed that his intention was not to defend religion but to uphold the principles of serious intellectual discussion. The archbishop said that proper thought about religion, as in any field of enquiry, was marked by self-criticism.

When asked by a member of the audience “whose fault is Dawkins?”, Dr Williams replied that religious believers themselves were partly to blame, adding that in the past the understanding of God had often been reduced “to the kind of target Dawkins and others too easily fire at”.

The lecture, entitled ‘How To Misunderstand Religion’, opened a series of theological addresses at Swansea organised by the university chaplain, the Rev Nigel John. It was Dr Williams’ first visit there since he became the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Dr Williams said that while Richard Dawkins was undoubtedly a “lively and attractive writer” his actual arguments in The God Delusion failed to engage with where a lot of religious people actually were and with the deepest intellectual accounts of the relationship between faith and reason. ..."

Rowan Williams makes some good points in this article, couched in incisive language. He correctly places part of the blame for the current proliferation of anti-religion books to the believers themselves for providing fodder for attacks.

The main issue for Williams is the failure of certain atheists to engage religion on an intellectual basis. The Archbishop of Canterbury points out that not all atheists follow the lead of Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, or Christopher Hitchens; some feel these outspoken individuals do far more damage to fellow atheists than to religious adherents. He quotes Michael Ruse as saying in a letter to Daniel Dennett that "[N]either of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and to engage with the ideas… it is just plain silly and grotesquely immoral to claim that Christianity is simply a force for evil, as Richard claims…"

Some of the people with whom I have come into contact over the years are atheists or agnostics. Civil discourse is possible as long as people listen and speak respectfully. I can't claim to have converted any atheists, but I can claim that the challenges I have received over the years have spurred me to look things up for myself, and as a result my faith has been strengthened.

What we are dealing with here is the "straw man fallacy" -- by misrepresenting or exaggerating religion, such atheists as Dawkins, Dennett, and Hitchens can only demolish their own image of religion. Yet religion remains a vital part of people's lives. The "straw man" should be a caution to religious apologists -- it does no good if we respond in kind to the attacks of a few (and there is ample Biblical support for that point). Characterizing all Christians by the excesses of a small number of people is no different than characterizing all atheists by the emotional excesses of a very few.

An argument for intelligent belief - International Herald Tribune

An argument for intelligent belief - International Herald Tribune:

"An increasingly common argument against religion is to point out how irrational it is. Authors like Richard Dawkins ('The God Delusion'), Sam Harris ('The End of Faith') and Christopher Hitchens ('God is Not Great') all make the point that the essential irrationality of religion leads people to do stupid, dangerous, and even violent things.

Let's admit it: They're at least partially correct. Many ostensibly religious people have done appalling things in the name of religion and, more importantly, because of their religious beliefs. In that long list of abuses you could include the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, and the bombing of abortion clinics.

To listen to these critics of religion, however, you would think that this is all that religion does, and that believing in God necessarily means being stupid, ignorant and narrow-minded. But ignoring the simple fact that religion is one of the foundations of modern learning is itself, well, stupid, ignorant and narrow-minded."

Well, this article is off to an interesting start.... James Martin cuts quickly to the chase here and makes his case that faith is NOT inherently irrational.

I can remember a conversation I had maybe 30 years ago -- I made a comment that faith was, at its core, irrational. The person with whom I was speaking said "no, faith is reasonable". By this he did not dismiss lightly the idea of a "leap of faith", but rather he suggested that because he could reason his way through faith, the leap was a reasonable outcome. After 30 years of head-scratching on my part, I am still learning things that make my faith not only reasonable to me, but also that make it easier to articulate my faith to others.

Hitchens vs Hitchens | the Daily Mail

Hitchens vs Hitchens | the Daily Mail:

"Am I my brother’s reviewer? A word of explanation is needed here. Some of you may know that I have a brother, Christopher, who disagrees with me about almost everything.

Some of those who read his books and articles also know that I exist, though they often dislike me if so. But in general we inhabit separate worlds – in more ways than one.

He is of the Left, lives in the United States and recently became an American citizen. I am of the Right and, after some years in Russia and America, live in the heart of England. Occasionally we clash in public.

We disagreed about the Iraq War – he was for it, I was against it. Despite the occasional temptation, I have never reviewed any of his books until today.

But now, in God Is Not Great, he has written about religion itself, attacking it as a stupid delusion.

This case, I feel, needs an answer. ..."

Well, count me among those who was not aware that Christopher Hitchens had a brother. Christopher Hitchens, the Slate columnist, has been fairly well-known to me for as long as I've been reading Slate.

Peter Hitchens has shown in this article that his writing skills are no less than his brother's, and his review of his brother's book exposes its weaknesses as well as its strengths. As for Peter Hitchen's qualifications to review his brother's book, his own assessment is this: "And I am no less qualified to defend God than Christopher is to attack him, neither of us being experts on the subject." Fair enough.

If you are looking for an ugly catfight between two siblings, don't bother with following the above link. Peter Hitchens is not attacking anyone here. What he is exposing are the inadequacies of human thought to provide a strong moral framework for the world. While not endorsing a literal interpretation of the story of Adam, Eve, and the Serpent, he suggests that when human arrogance wins, then evil tends to follow. In the Serpent's words, "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Genesis 3:5)

According to Peter Hitchens:

"Take the enticing satanic advice, and you arrive, quite quickly, at revolutionary terror, at the invention of the atom bomb, at the torture chamber and the building of concentration camps for those unteachable morons who do not share your vision of a just world."

Hyperbole? A cursory reading of 20th century history suggests otherwise. And the 21st century shows little sign of having learned any lessons from previous centuries.

Is Atheism Just a Rant Against Religion? - washingtonpost.com

Is Atheism Just a Rant Against Religion? - washingtonpost.com:

"Despite its minority status, atheism has enjoyed the spotlight of late, with several books that feature vehement arguments against religion topping the bestseller lists.

But some now say secularists should embrace more than the strident rhetoric poured out in such books as 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins and 'The End of Faith' and 'Letter to a Christian Nation' by Sam Harris. By devoting so much space to explaining why religion is bad, these critics argue, atheists leave little room for explaining how a godless worldview can be good.

At a recent conference marking the 30th anniversary of Harvard's humanist chaplaincy, organizers sought to distance the 'new humanism' from the 'new atheism.'

Humanist Chaplain Greg Epstein went so far as to use the (other) f-word in describing his unbelieving brethren.

'At times they've made statements that sound really problematic, and when Sam Harris says science must destroy religion, to me that sounds dangerously close to fundamentalism,' Epstein said in an interview after the meeting. 'What we need now is a voice that says, 'That is not all there is to atheism.' '

Although the two can overlap, atheism represents a statement about the absence of belief and is thus defined by what it is not. Humanism seeks to provide a positive, secular framework for leading ethical lives and contributing to the greater good. The term "humanist" emerged with the "Humanist Manifesto" of 1933, a nonbinding document summarizing the movement's principles."

There seem to be a lot of similar articles cropping up all over the place, all on this topic, and I hesitated to link to yet another treatment of a topic I visit on a fairly regular basis.

It seems that the terms used are a moving target, and something in the above quote regarding the origin of the term "humanist" triggered my "what were they thinking here?" reflex.

The concept of humanism actually arose in the Renaissance as a reaction to the scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas and others. Both were an outgrowth of the rediscovery of the ancient Latin and Greek texts. The Scholastics tried to reconcile theology and the ancient philosophies, and the humanists wanted to deal a little more strictly what became known as the humanities subjects (grammar, rhetoric, poetry, history, etc.) all seen from a Greek and Latin perspective viewed through a lens of reason

The Humanist Manifestos of 1933, 1973, and 2003 were examples of "religious humanism" (as opposed to secular humanism.) If I had to guess, Epstein, the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard, would probably not object to being characterized as a "religious humanist". He certainly seems more than willing to see himself as a colleague of more traditional religious leaders, if not in communion with them.

Edward O. Wilson, also of Harvard, is quoted in this article. His willingness to engage with the religious community has been well-known, and in his humorous way suggests that the approach of some atheists tends to "carpet-bomb all religion", thus driving off an entire community that does, in fact, share some ideals when it comes to care for the environment, global warming, hunger, and other issues. (I am making some strong inferences here, but having read a lot of Wilson's work, I think I am pretty close.)

It would seem to me that there is a polarization developing among atheists between those who see themselves are merely holding a different viewpoint, and those whose feelings about religion and its adherents compel them to attempt to eradicate religion. It's as if the very existence of organized religion is a personal affront. We have seem religious extremism in the world, and it is ugly. When these same attitudes are seen among the hard core of atheistic fundamentalists, it can be no less ugly.

Parenthetically, I have to point out that "extremism" is not a term to use lightly; it is not, for example, appropriate to thus characterize a quiet fundamentalist who is willing to let others alone, if they will leave him alone. Nor is is it appropriate to characterize Greg Epstein or Edward Wilson in this manner. Yet the "extremist" label appears with increasing frequency in the secular, religious, and political debates of our time. Let's save the loaded words for appropriate times, shall we?

The Harvard Crimson: Science and Religion Drive Divinity Professor

The Harvard Crimson :: News :: Science and Religion Drive Divinity Professor:

"A self-proclaimed hippie with a never-settled quest for religious understanding, Philip Clayton—a visiting professor this year at the Harvard Divinity School (HDS)—has spent the past year encouraging the exploration of the delicate balance between the study of science and the study of religion, an interest motivated in part by his own uncertainties of faith.

“I’ve met religious people for whom religion is no conflict—it’s as obvious as the air you breathe, or your own name, and I was never one of those people,” Clayton says. “It was always an intellectual struggle.

“Science and religion was the field in which that struggle expressed itself,” he added."

This guy has had an interesting trajectory, coming from an atheistic family, joining a church at 14, and studying "the areas of tension and sometimes harmony" between science and religion. He had a particularly humorous anecdote about the problems in telling his parents that he had had a conversion experience. (You can follow the link and read the whole article.)

Clayton had some interesting things to say about the human tendency to place God in the gaps of our scientific knowledge -- i.e. phenomena that we can't explain can be neatly filled by God. The problem is the gaps are constantly shrinking and where does that leave our concept of God?

As for Harvard's recent dropping of the "religion and reason" course requirement for undergraduates, his response was:

"Tragic. Tragic. If Harvard’s goal is to train the men and women who will be leaders across all branches of American culture, and internationally, then these have to be people who are knowledgeable in the fundamental cultural conflicts of our day."

I have to admit, I find the use of "academic speak" just a bit jarring when I hear or read about my religion, but I suppose it can be no other way for professors in secular universities. At least there are people who are still dealing with it at our educational institutions, which is better than the alternative...

OpinionJournal - True Unbelievers

OpinionJournal - True Unbelievers:
(H/T Presbyweb)

"BY CHRISTOPHER ORLET
Tuesday, May 1, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

A recent Associated Press story, headlined 'Atheists Split on How Not to Believe,' has set fingers tapping throughout the blogosphere. The gist of the story as I read it is that there are soft atheists and fundamentalist atheists, and the softies are concerned that the fundies are becoming too outspoken, too uppity, indeed that they are giving unbelievers a bad name--a good trick that, like trying to give a bad name to an oil slick.

As usual, the impetus for this new development was 9/11, and the death and destruction caused by religious fanatics, after which some atheist intellectuals decided there was complicity in silence, thus they would be silent no more.

The spokesman for the soft atheists has been Greg Epstein, a 'humanist chaplain' at Harvard University. The Rev. Mr. Epstein is encouraging the fundamentalists or 'New Atheists' to pipe down, and warns that their outspokenness is keeping fence-sitters from coming over to the side of the humanists, a dubious allegation, at best. Though I can't prove it, it seems to me that passionate advocacy attracts converts as often as it drives them away."

Epstein, even if he is coming from the wrong side of the debate, sees quite clearly that the fundamentalist atheists are not adding much to the debate, and suggests that, in fact, they are making it difficult for his side of the spectrum.

I wish I could believe that the strident voices from the hard-core atheists would be heard for what they are -- the voice of intolerance -- but experience in hearing racists and sexists and all kinds of ethnic intolerance in the course of my life leads me to suspect that dealing with the intolerance of the fundamentalist atheists will be no less painful. Words CAN hurt, especially when they are tinged with scorn and hatred.

I suppose the best thing we can do is not descend to their level, and to consider the words of Paul in Romans 12:17-18:

^{Ro 12:17} Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. ¹⁸ If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. ¹⁹ Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. ²⁰ On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

^{Ro 12:21} Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Atheists Split Over Message - washingtonpost.com

Atheists Split Over Message - washingtonpost.com:
[free registration may be needed to read this article]

"BOSTON -- Atheists are under attack these days for being too militant, for not just disbelieving in religious faith but for trying to eradicate it. And who's leveling these accusations? Other atheists, it turns out.

Among the millions of Americans who don't believe God exists, there's a split between people such as Greg Epstein, who holds the partially endowed post of humanist chaplain at Harvard University, and so-called "New Atheists."
...
Epstein calls them "atheist fundamentalists." He sees them as rigid in their dogma, and as intolerant as some of the faith leaders with whom atheists share the most obvious differences. ..."

It's not surprising to read of this; much of today's theistic and atheistic debate centers on what most people would call "faith". God cannot be put under a microscope and quantified using the methods of science, but neither can the scientific method be employed to prove a negative.

Scientist provides evidence that God does not exist

Scientist provides evidence that God does not exist:

"... After evaluating all the scientific evidence—the studies done by reputable institutions on the power of prayer; the writings of philosophers who have puzzled over the problem of God and of good and evil; the efforts of biblical scholars to prove the accuracy of holy scriptures; and the work of biologists, geologists, and astronomers looking for clues to a creator on Earth and in the cosmos—Stenger concludes that beyond a reasonable doubt the universe and life appear exactly as we might expect if there were no God. He convincingly shows that not only is there no evidence for the existence of God, but scientific observations actually point to his nonexistence. ..."

This is quoted from a book blurb from Prometheus Books, and one should read it through one's "marketing hype" filters.

Still, though, it all boils down to another scientist making statements about something that falls completely outside the methods of science. He is entitled to his opinion, but he should not be identifying it as the outcome of scientific inquiry. By its very nature it cannot be.

You cannot logically prove a negative. This author shows his blind faith by attempting to do so.

CNN: Harvard drops religion course requirement

CNN: Harvard drops religion course requirement:

BOSTON, Massachusetts (Reuters) -- Harvard University has dropped a controversial proposal that would have required all undergraduates to study religion as part of the biggest overhaul of its curriculum in three decades, the university said on Wednesday.

Efforts to revamp Harvard's curriculum, which has been criticized for focusing too narrowly on academic topics instead of real-life issues, have been in the works for three years.

A proposal for a "reason and faith" course requirement, which would have set Harvard apart from many other secular universities and made it unique among its peers in the elite Ivy League, was made public in a preliminary report in October.

Harvard University began 370 years ago as an institution devoted to the training of ministers so as not "to leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches." In addition, its charter of 1650 defined its mission as "the education of the English and Indian youth of this Country in knowledge and godliness." See the History section of the Wikipedia article for further information.

With Harvard's rich history of rigorous academic pursuit that placed religion on a par with other fields, it is disappointing to see the apparent failure of this particular initiative.

As an undergraduate at Colorado State University in 1973, my advisor told me that, with the exception of the required Senior Seminar in Zoology, I should get out and take some courses in the LIberal Arts. I did so, and took 12 hours over the next year from the Philosophy Department, including Eastern and Western religions and Contemporary Western Religious Thought. The latter course introduced me to such people as Martin Buber, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Karl Barth. OK. They were all dead by the time I took the course, but at least I was alive during the latter years of their lives...

In any event, this was perhaps the most useful year of my education. I already had the number of credits I needed in the sciences, and I already had the required liberal arts credits. The question was how to allocate my electives. In retrospect, my advisor did me a great service by suggesting that I broaden my education, and I am grateful for his nudging me out of where I was comfortable to an area where I was required to think in a different way than I was used to.

Harvard (and other institutions of higher education) would do well to return to their liberal arts roots, at least at the undergraduate level, and graduate well-rounded students.

The Gruntled Center: The Evangelizing New Atheists Will Lose More Centrists Than They Gain

The Gruntled Center: The Evangelizing New Atheists Will Lose More Centrists Than They Gain

"The current crop of evangelizing atheists – most notably Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Daniel Dennett (Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon), and Sam Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation) – want to convince agnostics that tolerating religion is wrong. The time has come, they argue, to drive the delusion out. ..."

Gruntled uses religious imagery to describe such people as Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett (the latter I am not familiar with), and this may not be well-received by the trio, but in terms of the belief system and the proselyting in which they engage, I think the choice of words is apt.

Belief in a negative (i.e. "there is no God") is logically unprovable, thus atheists must have faith, especially if they are going to engage in a crusade against those whose faith leads them on a different path.

Read Gruntled's full posting -- it's short, but packs more into its few paragraphs than most people could say in a considerably larger essay.

Time Magazine: God vs. Science

Time Magazine: God vs. Science

"There are two great debates under the broad heading of Science vs. God. The more familiar over the past few years is the narrower of the two: Can Darwinian evolution withstand the criticisms of Christians who believe that it contradicts the creation account in the Book of Genesis? ..."

"But in fact creationism and I.D. are intimately related to a larger unresolved question, in which the aggressor's role is reversed: Can religion stand up to the progress of science? This debate long predates Darwin, but the antireligion position is being promoted with increasing insistence by scientists angered by intelligent design and excited, perhaps intoxicated, by their disciplines' increasing ability to map, quantify and change the nature of human experience. ..."

Time Magazine hosted a 90 minute debate between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins in their New York City offices, and that debate comprises the bulk of this quite lengthy article. This was a fairly spirited debate with neither Collins nor Dawkins yielding to the other, yet there are humorous parts as well. There is no question that the two scientists are extremely articulate and present their cases clearly. The Time interviewer was fair, and asked good, probing questions, and there was a minimum of posturing by either side. I suspect the lack of a crowd to which to play had a beneficial effect on this exchange.

All-in-all, I felt that the debate does much to clarify the issues at stake here, and I recommend reading the entire article.

Kitsapsun.com: Disbelief requires a faith all its own

Kitsapsun.com: Disbelief requires a faith all its own:

By DAVID YOUNT
October 31, 2006

"The first book I was assigned to read as a college freshman half a century ago was "Unpopular Essays" by the English earl, Bertrand Russell. His book bore that title because Lord Russell was the most devoted and articulate atheist of his time, with a self-imposed mission to persuade readers that there was no God.

Our philosophy professor, himself a Christian, assigned the book to challenge the comfortable complacencies of a classroom full of Christians and Jews not yet out of our teens. In one of his essays, "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish," Russell related the story of an American prophetess who, in 1820, gathered thousands of her disciples by a lake in northern New York State. ..."

David Yount, author of Celebrating the Rest of Your Life: A Baby Boomer's Guide to Spirituality, lays out a good case for atheism being a faith-based system of belief. Yount makes an interesting point in his article -- science and faith are both best pursued with a humble attitude, and both are strengthened when faith is tempered with doubt.

Yahoo News: Religion on the Brain

Yahoo News: Religion on the Brain

The California Science Center's Science Matters speakers program "Religion on the Brain" will feature a neurologist presenting the latest findings in brain research about the neural processing of religious thought and experience. In light of this research, panelists will discuss how humans reconcile these different aspects of their brains in understanding the world. The panelists will discuss the possibility that humans are genetically hard-wired for critical thinking and religious spirituality. Can we believe in science and still have faith?

For those in LA, this might be an interesting way to spend a Saturday afternoon. It will be held November 4 at the California Science Center from 1:30-3:30 PM. The panelists consist of two neuroscientists, one evolutionary biologist, and one person who is identified as a "Director of the Skeptics Society". The latter two have written books on the subject.

I look forward to reading about this panel discussion after it has taken place.

Nature.com: Delusions of faith as a science

Delusions of faith as a science

In his book Unweaving The Rainbow, Richard Dawkins boasts (boasts!) that he told a six-year-old that Father Christmas doesn't exist. His logic was purely scientific - there wouldn't be time for Santa to reach the homes of all the good children in the world in one night.

A few years ago I lampooned this idea with a similarly scientific rebuttal: Santa can do everything he claims provided he is a macroscopic quantum object. In this way he can be in as many places as he likes, provided that he remains extremely cold, and nobody is watching. Not only does this trounce Dawkins' objections, it also works better as a scientific hypothesis, because it accounts for more of the evidence: we now know why Santa is traditionally associated with cold places, and why he does his work while everyone is asleep.

Henry Gee, in this column from nature.com, points out the fundamental flaw in trying to demolish faith scientifically. He describes himself as one who believes in God and subscribes to evolution, the former being personal and the latter a matter of science. One is subject to the methods of science; the other is not.