Login |
New User
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins
by Father Jonathan Morris
Thanks to Pat Andriola for the link.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316363,00.html
Dear Richard,
It was a pleasure to "virtually" meet you yesterday, on satellite link-up between Rome and London, in order to debate the role of religion and atheism in society.
BBC World television invited me to discuss with you a sliver of Pope Benedict XVI's most recent encyclical about the Christian virtue of hope, "In Hope We Were Saved" (Rom 8:24), where the pontiff makes reference to the atheistic political philosophies of the 19th and 20th centuries and how they contributed to some of the greatest human atrocities of our time. Here is a link to the debate — our discussion begins at 00:22.
I write this open letter to you with the intention of expanding and involving others in our discussion. Surely neither of us expected his arguments to convince the other to get down on his knees, recognize his error of judgment, and go on to write a book about the moment of his conversion. My hope (no pun intended), nevertheless, is that this, our first encounter, be the catalyst for forming together a coalition of rational-minded people to condemn all fanaticism, whether it comes in the form of religious or atheistic ideology.
llow me, Richard, to remind our readers of what Pope Benedict says in his encyclical in reference to our discussion. He urges Christians to put their hope for the future in God and not in technology, economic or political ideologies. At the same time, he recognizes that a world filled with so much injustice and suffering has been throughout history a strong motive to doubt God's very existence.
Reciting common atheistic arguments that you yourself have often used, he says: "A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God. A God with responsibility for such a world would not be a just God, much less a good God." It was in this context, the Pope reminds us, that atheism, particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries arose as a "type of moralism" to protest against the injustices of the world. But "history," says the pope, "has proven wrong ideologies such as Marxism which say humans had to establish social justice because God did not exist." The Pope goes further, "It is no accident that this idea has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice," and that it has left behind "a trail of appalling destruction."
I began our debate by reminding you of that day in March of the year 2000 when John Paul II, supported by his then "deputy for doctrine," Joseph Ratzinger (future Benedict XVI), made an unprecedented plea for forgiveness for the evils committed throughout history by Christians. The Inquisition was front and center. Although the role of the Church in the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition is regularly exaggerated by simplistic readings of history, in his public prayer of atonement John Paul II focused only on the Church's role in this fanaticism. During that 350 year period of history, it is estimated that 5,000- 10,000 people were put to death in the name of orthodoxy. John Paul II likewise asked forgiveness for other types of bigotry and violence carried out by Christians.
Now Pope Benedict XVI — the same man who supported John Paul II's mea culpa — reminds the world that Christianity, and religious faith in general, does not have a monopoly on fanaticism. The totalitarian regimes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, among others, were intrinsically atheistic systems. They sought to create religion-free utopias and in order to do so they arbitrarily eliminated at least 100,000,000 innocent lives.
In response to my presentation of the facts, you responded with what I consider to be a dishonest, or at least illogical, historical analysis. You say that atheism, in stark contrast to Christianity, is not to be blamed for these atrocities, because while Christians acted in the name of religion, Stalin and Hitler acted only in the name of their political movements. Therefore, you conclude, their atheistic philosophy has nothing to do with their action.
I don't think your rhetoric, on this point, is convincing. You and I know that action follows ideas. You have said the world would be a better place if religious ideas were to become extinct. That's because, for you, religion is tantamount to superstition — fairy tales — and superstition clouds the free exercise of reason, making fanaticism more likely. You point to the violent behavior of a tiny percentage of Jews and Christians — for example — as proof that religious belief moves people to act unreasonably, and that this irrationality sometimes shows up in violence. You fail to point out, however, that the actions of these radicals are routinely condemned by their religious leaders as contrary to the ideas of their faith. In other words, the truth is their actions follow their own ideas, not the ideas of true religion. (Here I can't help rejecting, once again, what you said in the debate, that Hitler was a Roman Catholic. That is like saying you are an Anglican even after everything you have said and done to reject the church into which you were born.)
Even more surprising than your refusal to see the fallacy of your logic in relationship to the actions of religious extremists is the fact that you don't make similar deductions when it comes to the materialistic philosophy of atheism — in which Marx, Stalin, and Hitler believed, when here it actually makes sense. They weren't merely indifferent to religion. They, like you, wanted to stamp it out. For most of us, including many atheists, it takes little effort to recognize how their belief that man can be reduced to his material properties (that he has no spiritual soul and therefore no sacred dignity), makes killing the innocent for political or selfish reasons a whole lot easier.
I think even you would agree that an acceptance of a neo-Darwinian "survival of the fittest" ethic is easier to swallow when one rejects the existence of a supreme being and the inherent dignity that he bestows on his creatures, made in his image and likeness. The perpetrators of the cruelty of the twentieth century may not have acted in the name of atheism, but they activity sought to extinguish religious belief because of the atheistic materialism which they embraced.
That said, some atheists surely put religious people to shame by their superior living of moral goodness. This is proof that atheism does not lead directly to fanaticism. As history shows, however, an atheistic philosophy about man serves as a great silencer of the conscience when sick human beings reject the demands of human reason and go on to trample on human rights.
All this is to say, Richard, that no group, neither religious nor atheist, has a monopoly on fanaticism. It is weak human beings, not religion, per se, that kills in God's name. It is weak human beings — not atheism, per se, that carried out the atrocities of the 20th century. I think we both agree, but I have only heard you say the latter of the two affirmations.
As human beings, we should ask the question what will cure us of such human weakness. According to Pope Benedict, it is knowledge of God (hope) as a just and merciful Father of us all. That's an act of faith, of course — and not something I expect you to accept just yet — but I think you and I can surely agree it's not the kind of religious belief that will lead to the fanaticism we both detest. According to all the statistics I have in front of me, it is, in fact, the kind of faith that brings more happiness to more people and makes us more generous and philanthropic citizens, even to non-religious causes.
Here's my proposal, Richard. Now that you rightly have earned yourself the title of leader of the neo-atheist, secular activists, I think you would do a great service to humanity to reject, as John Paul II did for Christians, the evil actions of a tiny percentage of atheists who have, in your opinion, acted in a way that poorly represents your belief system, in particular your common denial of the existence of God.
As different as our views on God may be, I think we can — and given the circumstances — must, announce with ever greater vigor that human reason, when properly cultivated, can lead us to peaceful coexistence. And that doesn't require wiping religion off the face of the earth.
God bless, Father Jonathan
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316363,00.html
Dear Richard,
It was a pleasure to "virtually" meet you yesterday, on satellite link-up between Rome and London, in order to debate the role of religion and atheism in society.
BBC World television invited me to discuss with you a sliver of Pope Benedict XVI's most recent encyclical about the Christian virtue of hope, "In Hope We Were Saved" (Rom 8:24), where the pontiff makes reference to the atheistic political philosophies of the 19th and 20th centuries and how they contributed to some of the greatest human atrocities of our time. Here is a link to the debate — our discussion begins at 00:22.
I write this open letter to you with the intention of expanding and involving others in our discussion. Surely neither of us expected his arguments to convince the other to get down on his knees, recognize his error of judgment, and go on to write a book about the moment of his conversion. My hope (no pun intended), nevertheless, is that this, our first encounter, be the catalyst for forming together a coalition of rational-minded people to condemn all fanaticism, whether it comes in the form of religious or atheistic ideology.
llow me, Richard, to remind our readers of what Pope Benedict says in his encyclical in reference to our discussion. He urges Christians to put their hope for the future in God and not in technology, economic or political ideologies. At the same time, he recognizes that a world filled with so much injustice and suffering has been throughout history a strong motive to doubt God's very existence.
Reciting common atheistic arguments that you yourself have often used, he says: "A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God. A God with responsibility for such a world would not be a just God, much less a good God." It was in this context, the Pope reminds us, that atheism, particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries arose as a "type of moralism" to protest against the injustices of the world. But "history," says the pope, "has proven wrong ideologies such as Marxism which say humans had to establish social justice because God did not exist." The Pope goes further, "It is no accident that this idea has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice," and that it has left behind "a trail of appalling destruction."
I began our debate by reminding you of that day in March of the year 2000 when John Paul II, supported by his then "deputy for doctrine," Joseph Ratzinger (future Benedict XVI), made an unprecedented plea for forgiveness for the evils committed throughout history by Christians. The Inquisition was front and center. Although the role of the Church in the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition is regularly exaggerated by simplistic readings of history, in his public prayer of atonement John Paul II focused only on the Church's role in this fanaticism. During that 350 year period of history, it is estimated that 5,000- 10,000 people were put to death in the name of orthodoxy. John Paul II likewise asked forgiveness for other types of bigotry and violence carried out by Christians.
Now Pope Benedict XVI — the same man who supported John Paul II's mea culpa — reminds the world that Christianity, and religious faith in general, does not have a monopoly on fanaticism. The totalitarian regimes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, among others, were intrinsically atheistic systems. They sought to create religion-free utopias and in order to do so they arbitrarily eliminated at least 100,000,000 innocent lives.
In response to my presentation of the facts, you responded with what I consider to be a dishonest, or at least illogical, historical analysis. You say that atheism, in stark contrast to Christianity, is not to be blamed for these atrocities, because while Christians acted in the name of religion, Stalin and Hitler acted only in the name of their political movements. Therefore, you conclude, their atheistic philosophy has nothing to do with their action.
I don't think your rhetoric, on this point, is convincing. You and I know that action follows ideas. You have said the world would be a better place if religious ideas were to become extinct. That's because, for you, religion is tantamount to superstition — fairy tales — and superstition clouds the free exercise of reason, making fanaticism more likely. You point to the violent behavior of a tiny percentage of Jews and Christians — for example — as proof that religious belief moves people to act unreasonably, and that this irrationality sometimes shows up in violence. You fail to point out, however, that the actions of these radicals are routinely condemned by their religious leaders as contrary to the ideas of their faith. In other words, the truth is their actions follow their own ideas, not the ideas of true religion. (Here I can't help rejecting, once again, what you said in the debate, that Hitler was a Roman Catholic. That is like saying you are an Anglican even after everything you have said and done to reject the church into which you were born.)
Even more surprising than your refusal to see the fallacy of your logic in relationship to the actions of religious extremists is the fact that you don't make similar deductions when it comes to the materialistic philosophy of atheism — in which Marx, Stalin, and Hitler believed, when here it actually makes sense. They weren't merely indifferent to religion. They, like you, wanted to stamp it out. For most of us, including many atheists, it takes little effort to recognize how their belief that man can be reduced to his material properties (that he has no spiritual soul and therefore no sacred dignity), makes killing the innocent for political or selfish reasons a whole lot easier.
I think even you would agree that an acceptance of a neo-Darwinian "survival of the fittest" ethic is easier to swallow when one rejects the existence of a supreme being and the inherent dignity that he bestows on his creatures, made in his image and likeness. The perpetrators of the cruelty of the twentieth century may not have acted in the name of atheism, but they activity sought to extinguish religious belief because of the atheistic materialism which they embraced.
That said, some atheists surely put religious people to shame by their superior living of moral goodness. This is proof that atheism does not lead directly to fanaticism. As history shows, however, an atheistic philosophy about man serves as a great silencer of the conscience when sick human beings reject the demands of human reason and go on to trample on human rights.
All this is to say, Richard, that no group, neither religious nor atheist, has a monopoly on fanaticism. It is weak human beings, not religion, per se, that kills in God's name. It is weak human beings — not atheism, per se, that carried out the atrocities of the 20th century. I think we both agree, but I have only heard you say the latter of the two affirmations.
As human beings, we should ask the question what will cure us of such human weakness. According to Pope Benedict, it is knowledge of God (hope) as a just and merciful Father of us all. That's an act of faith, of course — and not something I expect you to accept just yet — but I think you and I can surely agree it's not the kind of religious belief that will lead to the fanaticism we both detest. According to all the statistics I have in front of me, it is, in fact, the kind of faith that brings more happiness to more people and makes us more generous and philanthropic citizens, even to non-religious causes.
Here's my proposal, Richard. Now that you rightly have earned yourself the title of leader of the neo-atheist, secular activists, I think you would do a great service to humanity to reject, as John Paul II did for Christians, the evil actions of a tiny percentage of atheists who have, in your opinion, acted in a way that poorly represents your belief system, in particular your common denial of the existence of God.
As different as our views on God may be, I think we can — and given the circumstances — must, announce with ever greater vigor that human reason, when properly cultivated, can lead us to peaceful coexistence. And that doesn't require wiping religion off the face of the earth.
God bless, Father Jonathan
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, December 10, 2007 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 445 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #96549 by Dr Benway on December 10, 2007 at 5:41 pm
Let the games.... begin!*must eat dinner, brb, lol
Meanwhile, someone please write the "Hitler-Stalin-Mao Happy Holiday Cheer Song."
Other Comments by Dr Benway
3. Comment #96554 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Sorry, I can't, I have 100,000,000 people to exterminate before 11am tomorrow. It's going to be an all-nighter. Other Comments by Don_Quix
4. Comment #96558 by toodles on December 10, 2007 at 5:52 pm
My opinion is that Richard is correct in saying that a world without religion would be a better place, and that we should actively push for that to happen.Whilst I disagree with Father Morris when he says that it is the intrinsically atheist nature of some political systems which has led to great crimes against humanity, I must say that I find Dawkin's counterargument lacking in strength.
I'm not going to write a thousand words here that no-one wants to read, but I do find Dawkin's responses to this challenge unconvincing, and I hope that he and other readers on this page could contribute to something a bit stronger.
Other Comments by toodles
5. Comment #96559 by maton100 on December 10, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Stalindidit! Other Comments by maton100
6. Comment #96560 by DexterMorgan on December 10, 2007 at 5:53 pm
"But 'history,' says the pope, 'has proven wrong ideologies such as Marxism which say humans had to establish social justice because God did not exist.' The Pope goes further, "It is no accident that this idea has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice," and that it has left behind 'a trail of appalling destruction.'"Mr. Morris has this exactly right, of course, but it doesn't prove what he thinks it does. The relevant part of the failure of these ideologies is not the "God did not exist" part, but the "establish social justice" part. Anytime humans try to impose a top down, centrally planned, patterned distribution of wealth according to some conception of "social" justice, cruelty and violence is sure to follow.
But such schemes are not necessarily atheistic. Many are compatible with religion, and promoted by the religious.
Other Comments by DexterMorgan
7. Comment #96563 by Jesus4Dawkins on December 10, 2007 at 5:55 pm
This world is engineered to waste your time and keep you content with ignorance and entertainment
filled with no knowledge to teach.
Since god does not exist, god = nothing.
i found this funny.
"He urges Christians to put their hope for the future in God and not in technology, economic or political ideologies."
or also stated...
"He urges Christians to put their hope for the future in Nothing and not in technology, economic or political ideologies."
Just another person trying to distract people with nothingness
and keep them content and ignorant.
What if in a perfect world people started to think rather then just
accept the thoughts of the people in power. Churches are now just a primitive mass population control ordering people how to vote, have sex and hate. but its disguised as love and good so its easy to see how simple minded people can fall for it.
Other Comments by Jesus4Dawkins
8. Comment #96564 by Godless Heathen on December 10, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Oh brother, another one of those "atheism is just another belief system/religion" etc...The guy conveniently ignores Dawkins' ideas about religion just to talk about "atheistic ideology" and "religion" and their respective crimes. Also reveals his appalling lack of knowledge about what "survival of the fittest" really means. Goddammit, it's about natural selection operating on genes, not killing retards.
Other Comments by Godless Heathen
9. Comment #96565 by Spinoza on December 10, 2007 at 5:57 pm
God not existing has nothing to do with religion.Q.E.D.
Other Comments by Spinoza
10. Comment #96567 by Diacanu on December 10, 2007 at 5:58 pm
How about this?Stalin's God was Stalin.
True, there's nothing to stop an atheist from being a dogmatic egoist like Stalin, but there sure as shit isn't anything in religion to stop a church mucky-muck from being a dogmatic egoist, as history has shown.
But, the problem with religion, is having God on your side has solipsism, and thus dogmatic egoism built right into itself!
Other Comments by Diacanu
11. Comment #96570 by NMcC on December 10, 2007 at 6:05 pm
RichardMay I suggest a reply?
Dear Mr (no, you look nothing like my father) Morris,
Your contribution to the programme was pathetic. You are obviously as mad as a hatter. Please fuck off.
Yours etc.
Other Comments by NMcC
12. Comment #96571 by oxytocin on December 10, 2007 at 6:06 pm
This is some of the most asinine reasoning I have read. However, like many of you, I too dislike the "body count" argument. Since we cannot know what motivated people throughout history to commit murders, this is an intellectual dead-end [although I'd love to know where he got the number of 100 000 000 from]. The real argument, in my opinion, lies at the beginning, which is: regardless of the "utility" of religion, is the proposition true? All other questions rest on the outcome of this one.
So, here is Father John's email address from the Faux News website. I would encourage everyone to show our friendly man of the cloth how to construct a logical argument.
fatherjonathan@foxnews.com
[oh, and make sure it's at "foxnews", not "fauxnews"]
Other Comments by oxytocin
13. Comment #96572 by Dr Benway on December 10, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Father Jon,As an atheist, baby-eater, and mass murderer, I typically don't worry about giving offense. Today is no exception.
Just between you, me, and the lamp post, is not "the closet" soo passe? C'mon, how can you deny that crazy mad free spirit that's so obviously inside you?
Other Comments by Dr Benway
14. Comment #96573 by BAEOZ on December 10, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Oh great. Faith in nothing inspires so it must be true..... Other Comments by BAEOZ
15. Comment #96574 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 6:09 pm
The whole Hitler/Stalin/Mao thing really needs to be put to bed. It has been (for us), but I'm not sure if it really has in a large public venue. This would be a great opportunity for a simultaneous smackdown of this sanctimonious Father Morris prick and his fallacious argument.Hitler/Stalin/Mao DID NOT KILL IN THE NAME OF ATHEISM OR EVEN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF BEING ATHEISTS (Hitler certainly wasn't one).
Hitler/Stalin/Mao DID KILL TO CONSOLIDATE THEIR POWER AND ELIMINATE GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS WHO THEY PERCEIVED AS POTENTIAL POLITICAL ENEMIES. Many of Hitler's specific atrocities were also influenced by his religiosity...particularly his personal twisted synthesis of CATHOLIC Christianity and ancient Germanic mythology, along with a good dose of mysticism and pseudoscience.
The fact that a few of the 20th century's despots may have been atheists is entirely inconsequential. Imagine how many people might have been killed if any of them HAD been devoutly religious and believed that their GAWD specifically told them to kill everyone who stood in their way or posed a threat to the one true religion. The slaughter would be unimaginable.
But good old "Father Jon" already knows all this. He's just trying to make a name for himself in the media as a "defender of the faith" in the hopes that one day he might get a nice, cozy upper-management position (Bishop? Archbishop?...hey Pope sounds nice!).
Other Comments by Don_Quix
16. Comment #96575 by gommo on December 10, 2007 at 6:12 pm
"It is weak human beings, not religion, per se, that kills in God's name". I don't know what bible he reads, (being catholic, who knows?), but when I read the old testament I see countless commands by 'God' to do killing.With an atheist, this cannot happen. Even if you can stretch the truth to shroud Hitler and Stalin in atheism, it wasn't a god that dictated to the masses to commit the atrocities they did. It was simply uneducated masses following a depraved human being.
As we enlighten society (and I think we are definitely moving in that direction), I would hope it more difficult for this to happen.
However, religion CANNOT ever become immune to this form of trickery as it is their 'god' that commands them to do these things. Reason cannot contend with irrational religious belief.
Other Comments by gommo
17. Comment #96576 by Matt7895 on December 10, 2007 at 6:19 pm
materialistic philosophy of atheism — in which Marx, Stalin, and Hitler believed, when here it actually makes sense. They weren't merely indifferent to religion. They, like you, wanted to stamp it out.
Marx: Not an evil dictator, just a philosopher/political writer, who's writings psychopaths later hijacked in the early 20th century.
Stalin: Probably was an atheist, but installed a huge cult of personality which built statues of him in every city across the USSR, put a portrait of him in every home, and introduced miracles of agriculture, mining and industrialisation which all came as a result of his own form of Communism. He didn't want to stamp out religion - he merely replaced Orthodoxism with his own cult.
Hitler: Roman Catholic. Hated the Jews for many things, one of which being the death of Christ. Spoke about Christ and God in his speeches. Hated atheists. Did his deeds in his own bizarre mythological Aryanism. Signed concordats and deals with the Catholic church, his birthday was celebrated every year. His henchmen were Catholics too, Himmler had 'Gott Mitt Uns' printed on the belts of the SS, Goering was only excommunicated after the Vatican learned he had married a Protestant, not because of his deeds elsewhere. The Nazi regime had the backing of the Vatican and many Nazis held strong religious beliefs.
the evil actions of a tiny percentage of atheists who have, in your opinion, acted in a way that poorly represents your belief system
Atheism becomes a belief system when bald becomes a hair colour, black becomes white and the cure becomes a disease.
Other Comments by Matt7895
18. Comment #96577 by debaser71 on December 10, 2007 at 6:20 pm
This priest is not only delusional in regards to religion but he's also delusional regarding the weight of his opinions. Delusions of grandeur. This guy is a fox news hack.Other Comments by debaser71
19. Comment #96578 by Chris Bell on December 10, 2007 at 6:20 pm
He still doesn't get it. He refers to atheistic "philosophy" and an atheistic "belief system". These things don't exist!Just as there is no non-astrology belief system, there is no atheist belief system.
Other Comments by Chris Bell
20. Comment #96579 by Rtambree on December 10, 2007 at 6:21 pm
He can't accuse atheists of not believing in anything, as we obviously believe in many things, for example, atheists believe in killing, mass graves, killing, gas chambers, killing, mountains of bodies, killing, gulags, killing, torture, killing, maiming, killing, genocide, killing, violence, killing, mutilating babies,... and did I mention killing?Other Comments by Rtambree
21. Comment #96580 by Diacanu on December 10, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Matt7895-You gotta do blockquote tags like this.
{blockquote} {/blockquote}
But replace {} with <>
Other Comments by Diacanu
22. Comment #96583 by gr8hands on December 10, 2007 at 6:25 pm
The good father needs to read http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm because his information on Hitler is totally WRONG.And his information on the Spanish Inquisition.
And his information on evolution.
And his information on . . .
Other Comments by gr8hands
23. Comment #96585 by Diacanu on December 10, 2007 at 6:26 pm
debaser71-..fox news hack
Redundant. Anyone on Fox is automatically a hack.
It's where credibility goes to die, and come back as a flesh eating zombie.
Other Comments by Diacanu
24. Comment #96587 by BigJohn on December 10, 2007 at 6:27 pm
This is just a CYA letter in the hope of recovering from the whipping Richard gave him on 'Have Your Say' the other day. Other Comments by BigJohn
25. Comment #96590 by JerryD385 on December 10, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Atheism is not a philosophyAtheism is not a world view.
It is a CONSEQUENCE of many different philosophies and world views, the ones championed by Prof. Dawkins being reason and empirical science.
Marxism may have failed due to the metaphysics of Dialectal materialism, or because of a top down communist system with a planned economy. It most certainly did not fail because the state mandated its people turn its collective backs on Yahweh.
Marxism does not follow from atheism, but atheism from Marxism. Goes to show that one does not have to be rational to be an atheist, but when one holds reason as the highest standard, atheism is a frequent side effect.
People like Father Morris and Pope Benedict No16 benefit from medicine, technology, expanded ethics and global communication due to reason and free thought, yet want us to go back to the darkness of faith to solve our problems
Sorry, but no one lives as long as these two do on faith alone, and not putting hope in science, technology, or any "material" solutions is not only completely stupid, it's hypocritical.
Other Comments by JerryD385
26. Comment #96591 by Sinful Messiah on December 10, 2007 at 6:31 pm
This is exactly what Sam Harris was talking about at his speech at AAI.A endless, tired argument that won't go away. Poor Dawkins.
Other Comments by Sinful Messiah
27. Comment #96593 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Father Jon. You want to promote Christianity because you believe it is less fanatic, and kills fewer people than a 'belief' in atheism. However, at no point do you promote Christianity on the basis of its truth, as that would be somewhat problematic.
Allow me to propose to you worship of the great prophet Zarquon. Guaranteed 50% less fanatic than Christianity, and 45% less murderous. Even better, the prophet wont turn up until the end of the universe, so no challenges to what the priests say!
Based on all your criteria, a far better bet for humanity! What do you say? Are you a convert?
Other Comments by steve99
28. Comment #96595 by jakelovatto on December 10, 2007 at 6:33 pm
"Atheism is a necessary condition for emancipation of the mind, but it's not a sufficient one. You can free yourself from superstition and still end up a nihilist or a hedonist or a Stalinist. What's innate in our species isn't the fault of religion. But the bad things that are innate in our species are strengthened by religion and sanctified by it."
- Christopher Hitchens
Case Closed
Other Comments by jakelovatto
29. Comment #96596 by obscured by clouds on December 10, 2007 at 6:33 pm
I wonder if he is writing a book...thinking Other Comments by obscured by clouds
30. Comment #96598 by dot on December 10, 2007 at 6:35 pm
My hope (no pun intended), nevertheless, is that this, our first encounter, be the catalyst for forming together a coalition of rational-minded people to condemn all fanaticism, whether it comes in the form of religious or atheistic ideology.
Blake's Law
Reciting common atheistic arguments that you yourself have often used, he says: "A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God. A God with responsibility for such a world would not be a just God, much less a good God." It was in this context, the Pope reminds us, that atheism, particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries arose as a "type of moralism" to protest against the injustices of the world. But "history," says the pope, "has proven wrong ideologies such as Marxism which say humans had to establish social justice because God did not exist." The Pope goes further, "It is no accident that this idea has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice," and that it has left behind "a trail of appalling destruction."
* IRONY METER EXPLODES *
During that 350 year period of history, it is estimated that 5,000- 10,000 people were put to death in the name of orthodoxy.
Aww, so few? How kind of them.
You fail to point out, however, that the actions of these radicals are routinely condemned by their religious leaders as contrary to the ideas of their faith. In other words, the truth is their actions follow their own ideas, not the ideas of true religion.
No True
(Here I can't help rejecting, once again, what you said in the debate, that Hitler was a Roman Catholic. That is like saying you are an Anglican even after everything you have said and done to reject the church into which you were born.)
http://nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm
For most of us, including many atheists, it takes little effort to recognize how their belief that man can be reduced to his material properties (that he has no spiritual soul and therefore no sacred dignity), makes killing the innocent for political or selfish reasons a whole lot easier.
Speak for yourself, padre.
The perpetrators of the cruelty of the twentieth century may not have acted in the name of atheism, but they activity sought to extinguish religious belief because of the atheistic materialism which they embraced.
Evidence?
As history shows, however, an atheistic philosophy about man serves as a great silencer of the conscience when sick human beings reject the demands of human reason and go on to trample on human rights.
Evidence?
It is weak human beings, not religion, per se, that kills in God's name. It is weak human beings — not atheism, per se, that carried out the atrocities of the 20th century.
Of course if they do GOOD deeds, that's because they're Christian.
Now that you rightly have earned yourself the title of leader of the neo-atheist, secular activists, I think you would do a great service to humanity to reject, as John Paul II did for Christians, the evil actions of a tiny percentage of atheists who have, in your opinion, acted in a way that poorly represents your belief system, in particular your common denial of the existence of God.
Yes. And as an aSantaClausist, perhaps you should reject the crimes committed by all the other aSantaClausists through the ages.
Other Comments by dot
31. Comment #96600 by blueollie on December 10, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Here is a question: how many were killed in things like the black plague? How might science have averted (or lessened the impact of) such things had it not been strangled by the church?The church has caused an untold amount of misery by promoting ignorance.
Other Comments by blueollie
32. Comment #96601 by Storeo on December 10, 2007 at 6:38 pm
I don't know if these theists genuinely misunderstand the Stalin, Hitler argument or deliberately promulgate it as a means of immoral unscrupulous propaganda Other Comments by Storeo
33. Comment #96606 by robotaholic on December 10, 2007 at 6:42 pm
I think even you would agree that an acceptance of a neo-Darwinian "survival of the fittest" ethic is easier to swallow when one rejects the existence of a supreme being and the inherent dignity that he bestows on his creatures, made in his image and likeness.
I think this argument is just about identical to the "You can't be moral without God" argument- to me -this life being all there is makes life MORE prescious ...-having another life after this in which to straighten everything out devalues the current life
Other Comments by robotaholic
34. Comment #96607 by Inferno on December 10, 2007 at 6:42 pm
A) Religious people have killed less people than non-religious people.B) Therefore, god exists.
Don't you just love this argument!
And let's not forget that atheism says nothing about how to treat other people or how to run a society. Religion, however, in its sacred textx does support the stoning of adulterers and the killing of homosexuals.
Other Comments by Inferno
35. Comment #96610 by Quine on December 10, 2007 at 6:46 pm
"When Stalin was back there in seminary school, there was a person there who said, 'You can petition The Lord with prayer ...'"Yo, Guy in black nightie, see my Supreme Being post before you go talking for HIM (or more probably IT). And watch that equivocation of the philosophy of materialism with the pop usage of "he who dies with the most toys wins."
So back to Stalin, why do you suppose, when young Stalin was on his knees petitioning The Lord to make him His tool, even foreseeing the vast damage Stalin was about to do The Lord chose not to send Stalin enough grace to hold his soul in the fold?
[Edit: Perhaps, knowing the arguments Dawkins, et al., would make in the future, The Lord needed a vehicle to use to besmirch the name of Atheism, so He put Stalin to this use. After all, from His view, all those people were going to die, anyway, and we are talking about the deity who wacked all of humanity, save one family, with The Flood.]
Other Comments by Quine
36. Comment #96612 by Sinful Messiah on December 10, 2007 at 6:48 pm
The letter from the Priest is nothing more than an invitation to join the religion of self-loathing and self-blame: Christianity. What a sick belief system in which one attempts to take the blame, humiliation, and punishment for the crimes of others. And that's what this is really about isn't it? Trying to make the Pope of Atheism own up to the sins of others. If it worked for the Catholic Pope, why not the atheist Pope?Sadly, the atrocities in the name of Christianity ultimately work to the benefits of Christians, as it just shows that they need Jesus all the more. It also gives the priests one more thing about which to hate themselves.
If he replies at all, Dawkins should simply take the offensive. He can recap some of his best arguments against God and possibly highlight the current dangers with Catholics such as condoms/AIDs in Africa or stem cells.
If I were Dawkins I would respond, just not to any of the claims regarding the "greatest crimes of the 20th century," as that argument is utter bullocks.
He should simply say that horry old argument was answered in the book, pages 272-278 and embed a link to amazon. Might as well get some free advertising.
As Sam Harris said at AAI, it's a waste of time to have to deal with this nonsense. This is exactly what he was warning about.
As far as you people on this website go, you're just regurgitating the same old rebuttals. Some of which were written by Dawkins himself. Even Father Morris has heard these rebuttals, but that doesn't stop him, D'Souza, or any others from throwing bombs at every opportunity. What is the point of preaching to the choir here? Who are you trying to impress? Don't you think we've all heard these before?
Other Comments by Sinful Messiah
37. Comment #96614 by steve99 on December 10, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Religious people have killed less people than non-religious people.
My response to this is.. aren't we lucky that weapons of mass destruction weren't invented when religious leaders ruled the world.
Other Comments by steve99
38. Comment #96615 by Aaron on December 10, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Father Johnathan,As punishment for this nonsense you are to write the following on the chalkboard until you understand it:
Evolution can explain morality without invoking god(s). Normal people are born moral. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc were not normal. Also, I belong to an organization that allows priests to have sex with little boys. That's fucked up.
Other Comments by Aaron
39. Comment #96616 by Diacanu on December 10, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Sinful Messiah-Who are you trying to impress?
You. Is it working? Are you getting hot?
Eh? Are ya? Ya little vixen?
Other Comments by Diacanu
40. Comment #96622 by ChrisMcL on December 10, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Sorry, I know it's ad hominem, but I have to say it:Father Jonathan is a tool.
Other Comments by ChrisMcL
41. Comment #96623 by Atticus_of_Amber on December 10, 2007 at 7:09 pm
For what it's worth, here's how I would respond:Dear Father Jonathon,
Though it wasn't addressed to me, I thought I'd respond to your open letter to Richard Dawkins.
On any view, Hitler and Nazism were in not "atheists". Hitler began as a Roman Catholic (which is probably where he got his anti-Semitism from). Even to the end of the Thrid Reich, Catholic priests on Vatican orders celebrated his birthday every year in church. Many of the senior Nazis were confessing Catholics and yet only one of them was ever ex-communicated, - Joseph Goebels, for marrying a Protestant. It is true, of course, that as he went on Hitler moved away from anything resembling Christianity towards a kind of sub-Wagnerian paganism. But paganism is hardly atheism.
Stalin and Moa, however, were almost certainly atheists, or shall we say "non-theists". But they were also (as far as we know) non-astrologers. Does that mean that non-astrologers or anti-astrology philosophies must bear a slice of the blame for the Gulag and the Cultural Revolution?
The problem, of course, is somehow treating atheism as if it were a coherent philosophy. Atheism is simply the non-belief in god. One could be an atheist and also believe in a lot of things - virgin births, telekinesis, reincarnation, ghosts, the superiority of the Aryan race or the inevitability of the withering away of the state after a period of dictatorship of the proletariat.
Now I do have a philosophy of sorts. But its as different from Stalin and Mao's philosophy as that of the non-astrologer Stalin was from that of the non-astroleger Pope John Paul II. My philosophy is one of reason, evidence, empiricism, science, liberalism and democracy. And no one could reasonably say that what Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union faced was an excess of reason, evidence, empiricism, science, liberalism and democracy.
Indeed it may surprise you to hear that, in a sense, my primary target isn't religion, as such. My problem is with dogma. With the belief that it is acceptable, even admirable, to believe propositions without good evidence or without good reasons for believing those propositions to be true.
The forms those dogmatically believed propositions can take are potentially infinite. One might dogmatically believe in the historical inevitability of a communist utopia, under which the State will wither away, after a brief but necessary period of a dictatorship of the proletariat. One might dogmatically believe in the existence of something called the Aryan race, in its inherent superiority to all other races, and in the inherent inferiority and perfidy of the Jewish race. One might dogmatically believe that the Creator of the universe called one's religion to convert the world or take it by force through holy war, that death in the defence of (or attempt to reconquer) lands so acquired is the greatest of all actions, and that such martyrs will go to paradise after they die to be attended by 72 virgin brides and joined in due course be all their family and loved-ones. Or one might dogmatically believe that the creator of the universe condemns contraception as a mortal sin.
What all four of these beliefs have in common is that there is very little or no evidence for them and that there is much good evidence against them. Yet all four beliefs have at times been passionately, ardently believed and acted upon by otherwise rational, sane and educated people - often resulting in those same people performing some of the most irrational, insane and barbaric acts imaginable.
Thankfully, fascist, Nazi and Communist dogmas have been so discredited that almost no-one believes them any more. That is a development to be celebrated. But as the events of New York and Washington DC and Bali and Madrid and London demonstrate; as demonstrated by the genocidally stupid anti-contraceptive policies of the Catholic church in Africa and the homicidally stupid stem-cell policies of Christian churches in the US ; religious dogmas are alive and kicking and at work in the world.
Reason and evidence and empiricism and science and liberal democracy - in short, the forces of the Enlightenment - have destroyed Communist and Fascist dogmas. Now it is time to do the same to the dogmas of religious faith.
Now, you might say that there is something about atheism that leads to barbarism, immorality and dictatorship. You might even say that there is something about atheism that leads to the dogmatism I decry.
But if you said that, you would have to explain the inconvenient fact that some of the most civilised, liberal and prosperous nations in the world are "atheistic" in the sense that a majority of the population do not believe in God.
Take Sweden. When polled, over 80% of Swedes say they don't believe in God and over 40% explicitly identify themselves as atheists. Yet Sweden has some of the lowest crime, poverty STD and teenage pregnancy rates in the world. It is a functioning liberal democracy with very little social unrest and a near 100% literacy rate. And while Sweden is the extreme, similar figures associating atheism with societal health can be found in most of the countries of western Europe as well as in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
Moreover, even in the heavily religious United States of America, the more religious a State is, the *higher* its rates of crime, divorce, STD infection and teenage pregnancy tend to be.
Clearly, a widespread disbelief in God is not incompatible with a healthy, happy, prosperous and civilised society. (Note I do not claim here that atheism has caused these wonderful societies to be so wonderful, atheism alone is too empty for that for the reasons I give above. I cite these facts merely to show that atheism is compatible with social harmony.)
So, what's the difference between the slaughterhouses built by the Godless Commies of Russia and China and the civilized liberal polities built by the Godless progressives of Western Europe and elsewhere? The obvious answer is that Western European countries are liberal democracies committed to science and empiricism and reason and freedom of speech and debate; and Soviet Russia and Red China clearly were not. It was not its atheism per se, but the illiberalism, the undemocratic nature, the *dogmatism* of Communism that made it the architect of so much twentieth century horror.
Your Pope says that we should put our "hope for the future in God and not in technology." Here I couldn't disagree more. Our hope for the future is what has given us so much in the past - reason, evidence, empiricism, science, liberalism and democracy.
Yours in reason,
Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber
42. Comment #96626 by Cartomancer on December 10, 2007 at 7:11 pm
After a thorough search through the winding streets of Edinburgh, from the seedy old town boarding houses to the lofty towers of the ancient University, I failed to find one.Trundling for days on end through the estates of Glasgow, from the Gorbals to the granite buildings of the city centre, I was similarly disappointed.
My quest took me to the highlands, the rugged peaks of the cairngorms and grampians and the tiny villages scattered therein. Still no luck.
I travelled to the very edges of the country, searching isolated lochs, barren islands and stretches of coast. Nothing.
I delved deep into the history and lore of the country, attending to tales of proud kings, stubborn clan chiefs, wise philosophers, great poets and ingenious engineers. My search was in vain, not one turned up, even in the past.
eventually, with a heavy heart, I gave up. Looks like there just aren't any true scotsmen anywhere...
Other Comments by Cartomancer
43. Comment #96627 by Chris C on December 10, 2007 at 7:14 pm
"Atheistic ideology"lol
Other Comments by Chris C
44. Comment #96628 by theantitheist on December 10, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Sinful Messiah,Yes we the choir know the rebuttals and could probably stand in for Richard, Sam & Dan (maybe not Chris Hitch as he has a really good insulting tone with all his conversations) at these type of things, though we all have are own twists. It is precisly this reason why the new section was added to contribute to the debates.
Richard could even send him that link as his reply, however I do agree that this parroting gets people nowhere. Maybe it's time we stopped talking and rose up and killed all the religious in the name of Atheism, come on I will if you all will?! You know it's amazing but I don't think anyone will join in, maybe if i somehow convinced you all it was for the best and you would gain something from it? No Atheism just doesn't work that way no matter what this priest says.
Other Comments by theantitheist
45. Comment #96630 by ChrisMcL on December 10, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Wait, I just read his tripe...Is he implying that atheists don't reject the evil actions of atheistic dictators?
What a tool.
Other Comments by ChrisMcL
46. Comment #96632 by Liveliest Crib on December 10, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Indeed, as others have mentioned, this is exactly the problem with the term "atheism" Sam Harris mentioned. Indeed, this pitiful argument about Stalin just won't go away.I would suggest Dr. Dawkins respond in the following manner: Begin every paragraph with "Why won't you hear me when I argue.....?"
First, explain how frustrating it is to refute the "argument from Stalin" repeatedly, in detail and at length, only to have someone who should know better either misconstrue the refutation so spectacularly that one wonders whether it was deliberate, or worse, merely reiterate the "argument from Stalin" as though no refutation were ever offered. Then draw out the refutation in simple terms, beginning each with "Why won't you hear me when I argue [fill in the blank]?"
Such as, "Why won't you hear me when I explain that atheism is not itself a belief system, but a lack of beliefs from which no action necessarily follows?"
And, "Why won't you hear me when I acknowledge the horrors of Stalin, but explain that DOGMA AND FAITH pose problems whether they are theistic or atheistic?"
Etc.
Not that the Morrises or D'Souzas of the world will hear it, but it might be the kind of rhetoric that gets the attention of people "on the fence" who might be swayed by D'Souzan drivel.
Other Comments by Liveliest Crib
47. Comment #96633 by notsobad on December 10, 2007 at 7:26 pm
Atheistic ideology? I heard moustache ideology is trendy now.He urges Christians to put their hope for the future in God and not in technology, economic or political ideologies.
And by God he means the church promoting its own ideologies. How convenient.
Other Comments by notsobad
48. Comment #96636 by prettygoodformonkeys on December 10, 2007 at 7:28 pm
it is knowledge of God (hope) as a just and merciful Father of us all.Sweet Jesus can he not see the irony of calling God Hope? "In hope we trust; One nation under Hope; Hope tells me there is an afterlife; I have a personal relationship with hope", etc etc.
That's an act of faith, of course .....but I think you and I can surely agree it's not the kind of religious belief that will lead to the fanaticism we both detest"Surely you wouldn't hit a lovable, curmudgeonly old superstition wearing glasses and smelling like peppermints and pipe tobacco, would you? Good; because that is exactly the kind of bullshit I intend to trot out onto the debating field, and I have fuck-all else to work with."
Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys
49. Comment #96638 by Sinful Messiah on December 10, 2007 at 7:30 pm
theantitheist:That priest wont be happy unless we crucify Richard Dawkins so that the sins of all atheists, past and present, may be forgiven.
Other Comments by Sinful Messiah
50. Comment #96640 by chuckgoecke on December 10, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Dear Father Jonathan,So you think the horrible governments of Stalin, Mao, Pol , et al were horrible because they were atheist, then consider this. How do you think Richard Dawkins and the other free thought secularists (i.e. the four horsemen) would have faired in the Stalinist Soviet Union, or Pot Paul's Cambodia, trying to promote their ideas of free thought and stuff? Free thinkers would have been the first to disappear. I think you just call these governments atheist because they suppressed the church(s). They were suppressing any and all groups that attempted any free thought. That's what we call totalitarian - total control, of everything, including thought and action. Kinda patriarchal wouldn't you say? ...Father?
With Great Irreverence,
Chuck
Other Comments by chuckgoecke
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #96545 by Don_Quix on December 10, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Other Comments by Don_Quix