Sorry if I was “suspiciously silent”. Mainly I didn’t toss my hat into the ring because (a) you two were doing just fine without me and (b) the debate turned down a path that I, quite frankly, am just not overly interested in. Debating the truth of a religion is perfectly legit, just as debating the merits or demerits of atheism, but for me that is somewhat irrelevant. The reality is, religions exist and I am much more interested in seeing what kind of effect religion has on the society at large (religion and politics, religion and gender, religion and art, etc). Again, I don’t want to be dismissive of your debate. I found it quite interesting and fun to read.

Now, maybe I’ll post something on Star Wars and we can debate just how stupid it was to have Darth Vader building C3PO

Thanks for the discussion. And remember the immortal words of They Might Be Giants:

We were once so close to Heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us “The Nicest”
of the Damned.

Road Movie to Berlin, Flood

Here’s where we agree.

Do I think secular humanism and rationalism are “better” groundings for determining moral values? Yes. (I wouldn’t phrase it quite that way. Whatever.)

Do I think the poor decisions of religious leaders of various faiths have contributed and continue to contribute to many injustices in the world? Yes.

Do I believe that religious fundamentalism tends to bring about injustice? Absolutely.

I’m sure we agree on more, but I think that’s the crux of our agreement.

Ultimately, I just don’t agree that a religious text can not be interpreted or re-interpreted as an effective means of bringing those values into the modern-by-temporal-placement-only times. I just don’t think it’s that black and white. You disagree. Well, then…

I don’t believe religious faiths necessitate prejudice, injustice or intolerance. Presumably, you disagree. I am the product of a Jewish and a Catholic marriage. I’m a secular humanist and my girlfriend is a Catholic. Our neighbors, who are engaged, are getting married in both a synagogue and a Catholic church. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. Clearly, these religious values are not as divisive as you, intentionally or unintentionally, make them sound.

And lastly, I don’t presume that I have enough authority to tell people the best way for them to make sense of their time on this mortal coil - nor do I assume that my “secular humanist” path would work for everyone. Ideally, I hope most, if not all, people agree on the moral ends even if they arrive at it by a different means. I don’t think that’s too lofty or too unreasonable a hope, even in our ethically turbulent times. That’s my belief, anyway - your mileage may vary.

In fact, I’m not even sure the New Atheists as a group really support that. True, Harris made statements leaning in that direction in the End of Faith, and frankly I don’t know much about _____, so I can’t say about him. But Dawkins, I’m pretty sure, is against the Iraq War and is much more of a pacifist. I certainly don’t think he would say he aligns himself with the American neo-cons at all. He’s just a good ol’ biologist fighting for scientific truth.

I do have to say, though, that Hedges completely looses me when he starts to call the New Atheists “secual fundamentalists.” Someone does not become a fundamentalist simply because he or she strongly believes a certain fact and strongly advocates for it. What’s next, are we going to call physicists “Gravity Fascists”? Or how about teachers? Are they “Education Fundmentalists”? There needs to be some recognition of the fact that the secularists generally base their factual statements on reason and observation, rather than on reliance on supernatural texts. If criticall distinctions like that have no significance, then these debates are just a farce.

Making matters worse, the stereotyping that you are engaging in seems to be what you are accusing ME of.

I don’t believe, and I never said, that all religious people are fundamentalists. Obviously they are not. I’m simply saying this: By trying to keep religion relevant after history and knowledge have shown it to be factually inaccurate, the religious moderates of the world, while perhaps doing some good by encouraging certain people to lead morale lives (something that I believe could be accomplished even without the religion), are also encouraging and legitimizing fundamentalists.

The logic works like this: On their face, religious works encourage and espouse fundamentalism. This is because they say certain things in straightforward, literal terms, which are sold as the Words of God. Under those facts, it is ENTIRELY RATIONAL that people interpret these texts literally and, because of those literal interpretations, do Bad Things. (And I ain’t just talkin’ about flying planes into the WTC. I’m talking about repression of women and gays and minorities throughout the world. I’m talking about lack of support for legitimate scientific advancement like stem cell research. I’m talking about blindly supporting born-again presidents to fight unjustified wars in the middle east. I’m talking about voting for an idiot president because you think he’s going to “fix” the “problem” of gay marriage. In each of these decision, religious belief has played a part.) In fact, one could legitimately argue that, once you accept that a book is the Word of God, the ONLY rational result is to interpret it literally and commit whatever heinous acts that interpretation entails.

Then, in walk the religious moderates. Religious moderates understand that, to the extent possible, the core factual claims of religion have been contradicted by science and the passage of time, and that many of the ethical precepts supported by religion are no longer consistent with those of the majority of society. Nevertheless, they see something in religion that they like. Often, these people are simply “spiritual” in disposition. They generally believe there is “something out there,” but rather than simply acknowledging that they will never know what this “something” is, they inexplicibly decide that this “something” is, well, whatever religion is down the street, or whatever religion their parents belong to, or what have you. In other words, they fail to reject a religion as wrong even after they know it to be so.

But still they have the contradition. So, they try to “reinterpret” the religion to make it palatable to their modern sensibilities and their modern knowledge. Meanwhile, however, they say to the world “Yes, I AM RELIGIOUS. Yes, I BELIEVE THAT THIS BOOK IS THE WORD OF GOD. Yes, the fandamentalsts, at bottom, HAVE IT RIGHT, THEY JUST NEED TO REINTREPRET THINGS A BIT.”

This, in fact, ENCOURAGES fundamentalism because it initiates a debate with fundamentialists that the moderates cannot win. Why can’t they win? Because before the debate even begins, they have already conceded to the fundamentalists the core point — namely, thet their book is holy, that it is the Word of God, and that it is the source for Truth. Once you concede that point, you can no longer blame people for following a facially accurate, literal initerpretation of that book. You simply can’t.

In a way, you prove my point. People are stuck in the past because of religion, when they should be rejecting religion and moving forward into more modern “rationalist” thought, with “humanism” as a logical basis for their morality.

People aren’t stuck in the past because of religion. They are stuck in the past because political and economic policies keep them there. Is religion a part of those policies? Absolutely. It’s a great tool for oppression when placed into the wrong hands - just like any other hierarchy.

As a result of the continued legitmizing of religion by people whose hearts are in the right place (i.e., those “religious moderates” who think that religion can simply be reintrepreted over time), you end up encouraging/legitimizing the idotic zealots of the world like, say, our very own backwoods, inbred born-again, GW.

This is straight out of Dawkins - categorize all religions as definitively fundamentalist, ignoring all of the other social, political, and economic parameters that drive people to fundamentalism (which, really, is not part of the religious mainstream even if they do get the TV time), and then throw the baby Jesus out with the bath water - as if somehow people of faith are defective. It’s all very easy to do when your situation allows for you to ponder such things.

It’s kind of where Dawkins and Christian fundamentalism merge. I wish I could take credit for this view - but I’ll direct you to an interview with Chris Hedges in Salon. I think he makes the point much better than I can.

I’m not sure how much further we can go here. Ultimately, I agree with you that “rationalism” and “humanism” are fundamentally (oops!) good. I just don’t think they negate or exist independently of faith and religion.

Ugh. Religion aside, the vast majority of people don’t have a foothold in the “modern society”. In fact, I would argue that there’s really nothing all that “modern” about our “modern society”. If intellectualism and public discourse is of any evidence, we were far more “modern” 250 years ago. Hell, we’re even in the middle of a crusade. But I digress…

You read much more into “modern society” than I intended. I simply meant “today.”

Your reponse on this point raises an interesting paradox, however. Overall, your comment purports to defend religion. Here, however, the only problem you identify as keeping out society from being “modern” in comparison to previous intellectualism has to do with religion — i.e., a Crusade.

In a way, you prove my point. People are stuck in the past because of religion, when they should be rejecting religion and moving forward into more modern “rationalist” thought, with “humanism” as a logical basis for their morality. As a result of the continued legitmizing of religion by people whose hearts are in the right place (i.e., those “religious moderates” who think that religion can simply be reintrepreted over time), you end up encouraging/legitimizing the idotic zealots of the world like, say, our very own backwoods, inbred born-again, GW.

This all depends on what you mean by “true”. Texts, by definition, are open to interpretation - they are not mathematical constructs, so it doesn’t make sense to evaluate them in such black and white terms. The fact that people find meaning and value in these works might just be enough.

Obviously, people can find deep meaning through religious works. I don’t disagree with that. People can find deep meaning by interpreting art, poetry, or anything else. Hell, people can find deep meaning by staring at a wall for hours on end a la certain Zen Buddhists.

However, that doesn’t mean that you can’t judge a religious text for its factual accuracy. Religious texts — particularly those of the Abrahamic faiths — contain FACTUAL PROPOSITIONS ABOUT HISTORY. Historical factual propositions are either true or false. Their truth cannot change over time.

Not only do religious works contain factual propositions, but most people who follow the Abrahamic faiths will tell you that these factual propositions comprise one of the core facets of their religion — i.e., you must ACCEPT the factual propositions as TRUE in order to be “saved” (or to get whatever other Good Thing the religion says you get when you die). Maybe you don’t need to accept every last detail, but at least certain core facts MUST be believed. For instance, would any Christian tell you that you can go to Heaven even though you DOUBT whether Christ was the son of God, was born of a virgin, performed miracles, and/or even existed? Probably not.

So, if a religion is going to say that it’s factual propositions are true, and is going to “hang its hat” on that so to speak, it should be judged for its ability to prove those factual propositions — NOT for its ability to make people “feel good” or even “do good.”

When atheists start hosting the weekly dinners for the homeless, then, maybe, I’ll start conceding to their moral authority.

Trust me, I fully recognize that religion causes some people to do good, which is a great thing. I simply believe that, on balance, it encourages more bad/unnecessary/”evil” behavior than “good” behavior. It causes people to place importance on things that are irrelevant, and to kill, fight, and die for those irrelevant things. Meanwhile, the people who do good in the name of a religion, well, I generally believe that those people would have done good regardless, and that they simply used religion as their “outlet.” I know this is a controversial statement, but I don’t think the same is true for the people who commit “evil” in the name of religion — I think many of those people would NOT have done evil had the religion not existed.