Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Friday, January 5, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Video The New Atheists

PBS, Religion and Ethics

Thanks to Carl H. Silverman for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week1019/cover.html#
(The PBS website is also streaming a RealVideo version)

BOB ABERNETHY, anchor: Now a look at some of the new criticism of religion. According to PUBLISHERS WEEKLY magazine, last month's list of the top ten bestselling books relating to religion was led by two books by atheists: Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Betty Rollin reports today on them and other outspoken atheists, beginning with Julia Sweeney and her off-Broadway performance, "Letting Go of God."

juliaJULIA SWEENEY (Actress-Comedian, during performance of "Letting Go of God"): This Old Testament God makes the grizzliest test to peoples' loyalty, like when he asks Abraham to murder his son Isaac. As a kid we were taught to admire it. I caught my breath reading it. We were taught to admire it! What kind of sadistic test of loyalty is that, to ask someone to kill his or her own child? And isn't the proper answer no?

BETTY ROLLIN: Julia Sweeney, late of "Saturday Night Live," calls her one-woman show "Letting Go of God."

Ms. SWEENEY (during performance of "Letting Go of God): It was really hard to stay on Jesus' side when he started saying really aggressive, just hateful things. In Matthew he says, "I come not to bring peace, but a sword."

ROLLIN: Julia Sweeney is just one of a spate of nonbelievers who are speaking their minds these days and being heard. Three of them are writers with books on THE NEW YORK TIMES national best-seller list.

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins' book is THE GOD DELUSION. Dawkins, who insists there is no evidence for a creator or creation, is among the best known of the modern atheists and surely the most strident.

richardDr. RICHARD DAWKINS (Biologist and Author, THE GOD DELUSION, speaking at book signing event): The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction -- a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak; a vindictive, blood thirsty, ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, malevolent bully.

ROLLIN: Dawkins is a little kinder to Pope John Paul II.

Dr. DAWKINS (speaking at book-signing event): He suffered an assassination attempt in Rome and attributed his survival to the intervention of Our Lady of Fatima. A maternal hand guided the bullet. One cannot help wondering why she didn't guide it to miss him altogether.

ROLLIN: A lot of non-religious fervor comes as a reaction to the religious right in America. But Professor Harvey Cox of the Harvard Divinity School feels Dawkins is behaving like some of them.

Professor HARVEY COX (Harvard Divinity School): I think of Richard Dawkins as the kind of Jerry Falwell of the atheists. I mean in a way he's a kind of fundamentalist. I'll explain why. He takes the most narrow and the most legalistic side of religion and makes that religion, and then he's against it.

ROLLIN: Neuroscientist Sam Harris has written two bestsellers, THE END OF FAITH and LETTER TO A CHRISTIAN NATION, both emphasizing what he sees as the lack of evidence supporting religion.

sam booksDr. SAM HARRIS (Neuroscientist and Author, LETTER TO A CHRISTIAN NATION): The usefulness of religion, the fact that it gives life meaning, that it makes people feel good is not an argument for the truth of any religious doctrine.

(during speech): Faith is really the license that reasonable people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail.

ROLLIN: Nobel Prize winner Paul Boyer agrees.

Professor PAUL BOYER (Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, UCLA): I find no evidence from the methods of science for the existence of God, and if there is no evidence for the existence of things, then I as a scientist conclude that it does not exist.

ROLLIN: But Professor Cox thinks that scientists often miss the point that, unlike the material world, God is unprovable.

Prof. COX: It's when they step over and scientists say, "There isn't any God because, look, we can't prove him." Well, the canons of proof are not applicable to that question, and it's not something that can be proved or disproved.

ROLLIN: And what about morality? Many people think religion is its only source. Sam Harris thinks otherwise.

samMr. HARRIS (during speech): If religion were the only durable foundation for morality you would suspect atheists to be really badly behaved. You would go to a group like the National Academy of Sciences. These are the most elite scientists, 93 percent of whom reject the idea of God. You would expect these guys to be raping and killing and stealing with abandon.

ROLLIN: Probably the gentlest of the professional nonbelievers is Paul Kurtz, a leader in the secular humanist movement.

PAUL KURTZ (Center for Inquiry): Secular humanists are defined not by what they're against -- we're not nay sayers -- but what we're for, and we're for a humanistic world in which some of the basic human values and principles have an opportunity to be realized.

ROLLIN: Recently Kurtz's group, the Center for Inquiry, opened an office in Washington to combat what they see as faith-driven public policy. They are particularly bothered by the federal ban on funding embryonic stem cell research and by the attacks on evolution.

Mr. KURTZ: We are concerned with the resurgence of fundamentalist religion everywhere and their alliance with political, ideological movements to block science.

ROLLIN: Harvey Cox says on balance he welcomes the current challenge from atheism.

Prof. COX: It always makes a comeback, I think, when religious people get too arrogant, when they begin to look as though or speak as though they know it all, when they begin to impose themselves in ways that are unwelcome to other people in the society. Then atheism is a kind of, for me, welcome critique of this arrogance.

ROLLIN: Atheists are not popular in America. Studies and polls show more than 50 percent of Americans hold a negative or a highly negative view of people who do not believe in God.

Julia Sweeney recalls her mother's reaction to her atheism.

Ms. SWEENEY (during performance of "Letting Go of God"): Everybody knows that there are those few people out there who don't believe in God, but they keep it quietly to themselves. Last night, your father said he even wishes you'd announced that you were gay. At least that's socially acceptable.

ROLLIN: It's not that these atheists expect to rid America of religion. But especially now they want their views to be heard, and they want more of a say in public policy.

For RELIGION & ETHICS NEWSWEEKLY, I'm Betty Rollin in New York.

Comments 1 - 44 of 44 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #16251 by MIND_REBEL on January 5, 2007 at 6:01 pm

 avatarGreat to see some national exposure for the movement.

2007 is going great for those spreading the rational world of science, reason, and logic.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

2. Comment #16254 by HappyPrimate on January 5, 2007 at 6:12 pm

 avatarThanks to those who are willing to take the daunting lead and stand in the front lines like Dr. Dawkins, Sam Harris, Julia Sweeney and others, we may be heard. Please keep it up. Your inspiration to the rest of us is terrific. Nevermind if they say you are arrogant, they are hearing you. The tip-toe method got us stomped on too long. I am pleased with this exposure in the media.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

3. Comment #16259 by Logicel on January 5, 2007 at 6:30 pm

 avatar"He suffered an assassination attempt in Rome and attributed his survival to the intervention of Our Lady of Fatima. A maternal hand guided the bullet. One cannot help wondering why she didn't guide it to miss him altogether."
______

A quick, penetrating wit is charming. Oh wait a minute, then I guess Dawkins can't be a new atheist then? Drat, too bad, because he would be able to do alot for us.

Other Comments by Logicel

4. Comment #16261 by Logicel on January 5, 2007 at 6:35 pm

 avatar"He takes the most narrow and the most legalistic side of religion and makes that religion, and then he's against it."
____

Dawkins focuses on the very core that is rotten in any religious superstition: encouraging and rewarding people to accept beliefs based solely on faith. His focus is neither narrow or irrelevant to all religions regardless to whichever degree of intensity they are practiced.

Other Comments by Logicel

5. Comment #16262 by Logicel on January 5, 2007 at 6:38 pm

 avatar"Well, the canons of proof are not applicable to that question, and it's not something that can be proved or disproved."
______

Sorry bud, the burden of proof is on the believers.

Other Comments by Logicel

6. Comment #16264 by Logicel on January 5, 2007 at 6:45 pm

 avatar"It always makes a comeback, I think, when religious people get too arrogant, when they begin to look as though or speak as though they know it all, when they begin to impose themselves in ways that are unwelcome to other people in the society. Then atheism is a kind of, for me, welcome critique of this arrogance."
______

Very interesting comment, seems Cox is apprehensive of his own kind, that faith-based people can get carried away and need constraining. Why not encourage people to be rational in the first place, Cox? Or do you think that religites can just take a little opium and not get addicted?

Other Comments by Logicel

7. Comment #16268 by Vardu on January 5, 2007 at 6:54 pm

I wonder why Our Lady of Fatima not only didn't guide the bullet to miss the Pope but have it carve out "Jesus is Lord" on the doors of the papal carriage!
Seems to me like a complete lack of imagination and lost opportunity for God to register his presence in a convincing way.
But then, he always has been crap at communicating.

Other Comments by Vardu

8. Comment #16274 by Macho Nachos on January 5, 2007 at 7:18 pm

 avatarLogicel, I agree, Cox seems to be a little more reasonable than others who have spoken out against Atheism. He appears to be concerned about the current stance of the religious right (like we are!). However, he's fallen into the theologian intellectual chasm; distancing himself from the outcomes of practiced religion (whatever that may be; political, social etc), and attempting to defend religion itself as an abstract entity. It's not he religious he's defending, it's religion, which is a thankless and illogical pursuit if there ever was one.

Great to see a bit of coverage for the movement. It's certainly overdue.

Other Comments by Macho Nachos

9. Comment #16276 by goldmineguttd on January 5, 2007 at 7:42 pm

He takes the most narrow and the most legalistic side of religion and makes that religion, and then he's against it.

This is the most common criticism and its such a cop-out. If I weren't late for work I'd post PZ Meyer's fantastic reply...

Other Comments by goldmineguttd

10. Comment #16280 by scooternyc on January 5, 2007 at 8:20 pm

 avatar"He takes the most narrow and the most legalistic side of religion and makes that religion, and then he's against it."

Dawkins unmasks the "tricks of your trade".

It's no wonder you're concerned, your scam is a sham and the world is watching.

Other Comments by scooternyc

11. Comment #16281 by scooternyc on January 5, 2007 at 8:27 pm

 avatarTheir trump card of "faith" is rooted in doubt. If one had no doubt they would not need faith. It's a circular stupidity that cannot be taken seriously.

Dennett states and I agree, you cannot have a rational discussion until the faith card is off the table. It's just too easy to say that my beliefs are based on faith and step out of the responsibility of having to think it through logically.

It's much like denial for the alcoholic, accepting the problem brings the wall of cards created from proping up their world of drink, crashing down.

No good can come from ignorance of self. It's irresponsible.

Other Comments by scooternyc

12. Comment #16282 by scooternyc on January 5, 2007 at 8:34 pm

 avatar" Well, the canons of proof are not applicable to that question, and it's not something that can be proved or disproved."

This person should be embarrassed for making such a stupid comment. People speaking like this are nothing short of following the likes of Hitler or endorsing the precepts of Islam. Blind trust. Adherence without investigation is irresponsible at every level of life.

Other Comments by scooternyc

13. Comment #16283 by AtheistJunkie on January 5, 2007 at 8:36 pm

 avatar"I think of Richard Dawkins as the kind of Jerry Falwell of the atheists."
This guy has a serious lack in information about Falwell or just plain ignorant.

Other Comments by AtheistJunkie

14. Comment #16284 by Logicel on January 5, 2007 at 9:07 pm

 avatarReligious fundamentalists ironically are easier to deal with--they either want to kill infidels/gloat about their eventual roasting in hell or try to save them. Clear and simple, you know with what you are dealing.

The god apologists, on the other hand, bring to mind that biblical saying about God spewing up the folks that are lukewarm.

Other Comments by Logicel

15. Comment #16285 by MelM on January 5, 2007 at 9:41 pm

ROLLIN: Atheists are not popular in America. Studies and polls show that more than 50 percent of Americans hold a negative or highly negitive view of people who done't believe in God.

At first glance, "more than 50%" looks pretty good. With all the noise the evangelicals make, one would think the percentage is 95% or something. But, how much more than 50%? I don't know and I don't know what studies and polls she's talking about. Would be nice to have that information because this strikes me as an important statistic.

Other Comments by MelM

16. Comment #16286 by k1mgy on January 5, 2007 at 9:55 pm

 avatarHarvey Cox claims "the canons of proof are not applicable to the question (of god)... It's just not something that can be proved or disproved". This, after claiming that Professor Dawkins (and others by implication) are all wrong simply because they are taking "narrow" and "legalistic" positions on religion and then deciding based on these that "he's against it".

How frigging convenient. Canons of proof my ass.

Harvey Cox, sitting there with stained glass in the background, white bearded, looking all scholarly, eloquently delivers one of the most irreverent cop outs that I've heard in some time. What he said makes me want to challenge him sternly: STAND UP and SHOW US THE MONEY. You think your god exists? Great. Prove it, or shut up, because there's nothing more disgusting in academia than someone who asserts fiction as truth and then refuses to sit for an exam.

Cox can't be allowed to set the rules in his favor and walk away, unfettered by a reasonable process of argument, yet he did so, and by all appearances was allowed to get away with it.

Someone please take Professor Dawkins off the leash and send him to Cambridge (Massachusetts). Clearly, some thrashing needs doing back here (although he apparently managed some at the Harvard Bookstore - which I unfortunately missed).

I'll give Cox one bit of credit. He says that when the Haggardists (my term) come out of the closet and start thrashing society with their views; when they become, in his words, "arrogant", then the Atheists serve as a needed challenge.

"I welcome that", he said, smugly.

Deservedly so.

Other Comments by k1mgy

17. Comment #16287 by MelM on January 5, 2007 at 10:21 pm

Don't let Cox get away with this:
...when religious people get too arrogant, when they begin...to speak as if they knew it all...

Since when does religion "know" anything?
He's counting dogma based on faith as "knowledge".
The cognitive method of faith produces only dogma which is subjective and individual in nature. Usually what one gets is the dogma indoctrinated during childhood which is just the usual religion for a given region of the world. So, it's faith that's subjective, relative, and non-absolute: all the things believers claim to be avoiding! In actual practice, faith does not--and can not-- converge to knowledge as reason and science can. The huge number of religions, sects, and cults now and in the past is a fact and no amount of slippery appeals to the "supernatural" can change it.

The arrogance of religious knowers indeed: that's just plain funny! Faith is a vice!

Other Comments by MelM

18. Comment #16290 by aikideshi on January 6, 2007 at 12:59 am

" Well, the canons of proof are not applicable to that question, and it's not something that can be proved or disproved."

Isn't that convenient, can I use that as well in my daily life?

Other Comments by aikideshi

19. Comment #16308 by scottishgeologist on January 6, 2007 at 3:14 am

 avatarI love these "God and bullets" stories. They just show how deluded the religites actually are. I remember seeing a small bible carried by a soldier into battle (Its in the Argylls' museum in Stirling Castle) There is a bullet hole right through it. The bearer survived.

As the explanation says - "look how the bullet has gone through John 3:16" Yeah, great, it also went through about 100 other biblical passages. Put a round into a bible 3" x 4" and there is a very good chance that it WILL go through that passage.

But what about the other guys carrying bibles who just got mown down? No doubt God had a special plan for them....

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

20. Comment #16312 by scottishgeologist on January 6, 2007 at 3:28 am

 avatarOh yes, the God and Bullets thing again. There is that brilliant RD articel (was it in the Guardian?) that has this in it:

"It seems that control of the plane which crashed near Pittsburgh was probably wrestled out of the hands of the terrorists by a group of brave passengers. The wife of one of these valiant and heroic men, after she took the telephone call in which he announced their intention, said that God had placed her husband on the plane as His instrument to prevent the plane crashing on the White House. I have the greatest sympathy for this poor woman in her tragic loss, but just think about it! As my (also understandably overwrought) American correspondent who sent me this piece of news said:


"Couldn't God have just given the hijackers a heart attack or something instead of killing all those nice people on the plane? I guess he didn't give a flying fuck about the Trade Center, didn't bother to come up with a plan for them" (I apologise for my friend's intemperate language but, in the circumstances, who can blame her?)


There is *just* something HIGHLY amusing about the bearded old mysoginist git in the sky, not giving a "flying fuck"...

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

21. Comment #16313 by Duff on January 6, 2007 at 3:30 am

My personal favorite from the religiosi is the line about how a person's "time" has come and they are called back to God. Like the times when God gets all those people, whose time has come, onto one airplane that then goes down in some airline disaster.

Other Comments by Duff

22. Comment #16315 by Dog Boots on January 6, 2007 at 3:36 am

We need a language award on this site, like the James Randi Educational Foundation's site has.

I would nominate klmgy for his or her very entertaining comment a few comments up from here.

"How frigging convenient" is exactly right!

Other Comments by Dog Boots

23. Comment #16321 by scooternyc on January 6, 2007 at 4:08 am

 avatarMelM,

Your 2nd post struck a fancy with me in that it triggered my thought process with regards to "what does religion know".

When given the mountains of scientific evidence for a great many understandings of life, one can only look at the relatively small, if at all, evidence that science has given to us with regard to the existence of god and come to a logical conclusion. What age of reasoning must one be at to assimilate even the slightest bit of this intelligence?

Further, what can religion defend itself from when it comes to the provability factor of any of their claims? If one wants to prove something scientifically he/she need only do it, test it, and present the findings. Has religion *EVER* done that? I dare say not. It's the typical circular argument Dawkins and Harris point out of "oh, no, see it says it here in my bible?"

At least science looks at a particular finding from many different perspectives and presents those findings. I suppose the religious need only present a stack full of bibles and voila! There's the proof.

How is it that relatively sane people are so enamored with this delusion?

I'm really coming to believe that you have got to be totally stupid and a loose screw to believe any of this insanity.

Other Comments by scooternyc

24. Comment #16325 by seals on January 6, 2007 at 4:41 am

 avatar Prof. COX: It's when they step over and scientists say, "There isn't any God because, look, we can't prove him." Well, the canons of proof are not applicable to that question, and it's not something that can be proved or disproved.

The existence of god will always be a moot point, since "he" cannot be disproved.. but it's quite clear that he has no concern for the human race. Isn't that a worse situation than no god?

A god out there somewhere but not on our side, as the debacles of history demonstrate. Maybe we'll have a pleasant surprise later, but relying on god right now seems distinctly dodgy.

Other Comments by seals

25. Comment #16330 by MakingBelieve on January 6, 2007 at 6:03 am

 avatar"Prof. COX: It always makes a comeback, I think, when religious people get too arrogant, when they begin to look as though or speak as though they know it all, when they begin to impose themselves in ways that are unwelcome to other people in the society. Then atheism is a kind of, for me, welcome critique of this arrogance."

This is just so ingenuous! If he was really concerned in any way with religious arrogance, pretention to knowledge and imposition on others, he would not be waiting for atheists to raise the issues.

It stuns me when these religionists say, in effect, "Well, yes, some of us (not me!) really do go too far with this but don't expect me to do anything about it. We'll have to leave that up to those (rotten) atheists. No point in getting our hands dirty."

The truth is that only atheists are in a position to fight faith-based societal offences - the religious have no footing, desire or credibility for the task.

MB

Other Comments by MakingBelieve

26. Comment #16336 by lpetrich on January 6, 2007 at 6:57 am

 avatarI disagree with MakingBelieve when he/she claims that "The truth is that only atheists are in a position to fight faith-based societal offences - the religious have no footing, desire or credibility for the task."

I don't think that that's necessarily the case; it may be possible for religious moderates/liberals to challenge their fundie/extremist coreligionists. But there is so little of that happening that one does have to wonder.

And being an atheist does not automatically make one rational, either.

But when theologian Harvey Cox states that "the canons of proof are not applicable to that question", about the existence of God, I suspect special pleading. I wonder if he applies such standards to the gods of religions other than his, or to entities like

The invisible Pink Unicorn
The Flying Spaghetti Monster
Douglas Adams's Great Green Arkleseizure
Bertrand Russell's Interplanetary Teapot
Carl Sagan's Invisible Dragon in a Garage
Sam Harris's Refrigerator-Sized Diamond Buried in a Backyard

It seems to me that this whole "The existence of God cannot be proved" bit is a concession of defeat, since there's a whole theological tradition that states that the existence of God is provable. It seems to me like this:

T: Lots and lots of would-be proofs of the existence of God

A: Rebuttals of them

T: That doesn't mean anything because existence of God is unprovable

(I used some HTML in my post)

Other Comments by lpetrich

27. Comment #16356 by MakingBelieve on January 6, 2007 at 8:12 am

 avatar
I don't think that that's necessarily the case; it may be possible for religious moderates/liberals to challenge their fundie/extremist coreligionists. But there is so little of that happening that one does have to wonder.


Religious moderates don't challenge the fundies because they are too vulnerable to the valid counterattack that their own beliefs, being faith-based, are no more defensible. In fact, it is a favourite (but vacuous) fundie defense to claim that atheists also have faith-based belief (e.g. that there is no god). Against fellow religious challengers, it's a solid defense.

If faith is an allowable basis of claims with effect in the natural world, then anything goes. They can't really argue with the fundies without undermining their own worldview.

I have seen some of Ken Miller's vigorous defense of evolution against the ID creationists and he is a practicing Roman Catholic. It is truly laudible. However, it is a defense of science, not a critique of religious dogmatism.

I'd be interested in his views on social issues like public funding of stem cell research, abortion rights or gay marriage. I don't see how Miller could counter fundies who oppose these on religious grounds. If he feels they go too far (I don't know his position) how can he oppose them if they play the faith card?

The best religionists can do is claim that their particular brand of faith leads them to a different, perhaps more tolerant, view but they are not in a position to claim it is more correct or true. In a debate between a fundie and a moderate on 'justifiable' societal strictures, I fear the fundie has a good chance of carrying the day and winning a convert especially when they step into the voting booth.

Mr. MB

Other Comments by MakingBelieve

28. Comment #16358 by scooternyc on January 6, 2007 at 8:23 am

 avatarMakingBelieve,

It occurs to me that since the religious believe that the killing of innocent life such as the Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, Holocaust, etc. is a lesson that god is trying to teach, therefore had to happen, much like I'm sure that famine is a lesson, the killing of innocents in war, etc. then it must then be a lesson god wants the religious to learn when it comes to abortion.

Pity they haven't learned it yet and god just keeps letting all these babies die a horrible death, as it were.

And so it goes...

Other Comments by scooternyc

29. Comment #16376 by MakingBelieve on January 6, 2007 at 10:48 am

 avatarCertainly for most religious people anything goes for god. Quite simply, everything that happens (or doesn't) is god's plan and any discomfort, discontent, distress, etc. that it causes in his creatures is chocked up to their inability to comprehend that divine plan. That inability is also part of his plan.

Suffering and innocent death is only offensive to humans, not to god. God gives life and takes it away with equal aplomb. The message god sends with tsunamis, famine, collateral war damage, and abortions is that he is in charge and that ethics and morality do not apply to him.

I am not a theologian, apologist or evangelical, so I may not have this properly sorted out like they do ;). They would, I'm sure, have a more sophisticated story to tell themselves and their congregants about this and what it means as to how they and others should live their lives. We've all heard as much. It's great stuff for controlling others for fun and profit.

I suggest believers should take notice that their god acts in the world (with divine perfection) as if he is not there.

MB

Other Comments by MakingBelieve

30. Comment #16378 by Laurence Boyce on January 6, 2007 at 10:56 am

 avatar[Atheism] always makes a comeback, I think, when religious people get too arrogant, when they begin to look as though or speak as though they know it all, when they begin to impose themselves in ways that are unwelcome to other people in the society.

I love it. Whenever has any of that not been the case?

Other Comments by Laurence Boyce

31. Comment #16397 by DavidJMH on January 6, 2007 at 1:45 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Once upon a time and not so long ago, religion, and particularly Christianity would never have even debated about the existance of "God"; it was considered self evident and not a subject to question. Now it would appear the religions are on the run, mainly due to greater scientific understanding of our universe.
What is so disingenuous about most American Christians in particular is now they feel the necessity to defend their beliefs by trying to use pseudo-science to prove "God's" existance. Clearly, they already have doubts otherwise they would not need to pursue this line. Contrary to most of the opinions expressed here, Prof. Cox to my mind, no matter how much one might disagree with his beliefs, at the very least has the honesty, strength of character and belief to plainly say that "God" is outside the realms of the mundane and does not need to be or even could be proven. It matters not that it appears to us as spurious argument or avoidance thereof, he is willing and able to stand up and be counted.

Other Comments by DavidJMH

32. Comment #16451 by scooternyc on January 6, 2007 at 4:02 pm

 avatarDavid,

Your post is rather insightful in as much as I agree with the exception of your analysis of Professor Cox. His is not a logical stance of intellect which leads him to his conclusions regarding the "realm of god", it is a delusion for which he has spent many a year imbibing in to the detriment of his own mind which is now replete with the disease of "belief in god".

In a recent article by Dennis Prager, a self-aggrandized talk-show host in America, who in my opinion is insufferable, I wrote this regarding his article about our Founding Fathers and their precepts for our Constitution:

"If Prager is suggesting certain precepts as foundations for this country, those precepts having consequences with regard to the imposing of moral standards on the nation based on a bible. Then understanding the foundations for the religious context of which Prager wishes to utilize is more important than ever as a conversation.

If god exists, you need to prove it.

If he doesn't, then we don't need to continue invoking his name or utilizing a bible for a moral compass when other options are available."


With this, David, one understands what is at stake, not just in the United States, but the rest of the world if we continue this charade of god and the mighty bible. Islam is but just one war we fight now, if we don't get going with this debate, those Christians may just get their wish for Armageddon and Islamic nutballs will be celebrating their delusions, as well.

Other Comments by scooternyc

33. Comment #16454 by Wonko the Sane on January 6, 2007 at 4:11 pm

On god and bullets….

My grandfather was a great hunter. Once he killed two deer with one bullet. After his death, I was given the bullet as a keepsake, and I carried it in my breast pocket, next to my heart. I carried it for years.
One day, while walking down the street, a crazed religious fanatic, overcome by a fit of zealous fervor, lost control of herself and flung her bible out the window, striking me in the chest.
If it hadn't have been for that bullet in my pocket, that bible would have went straight through my heart.

Other Comments by Wonko the Sane

34. Comment #16465 by Logicel on January 6, 2007 at 5:18 pm

 avatar"...Prof. Cox to my mind, no matter how much one might disagree with his beliefs, at the very least has the honesty, strength of character and belief to plainly say that "God" is outside the realms of the mundane and does not need to be or even could be proven." (bold face is mine)
______

Resorting clearly and plainly to that ploy of God being outside the realms of the mudane is very common. Religites say what Cox said frequently. It is the basis of their insisting that their religious superstitions must not be criticized based on no evidence for such religious superstitions in the real world. That aspect of supporters of religious superstitions' was thoroughly discussed in TGD, forming a major thrust of what Dawkins is trying confront--that religious superstitions are not beyond criticism just because it resides outside the world of the mundane. This has been the reliable and predictable cloak of intellectual dishonesty of supporters of religious superstitions--it is as common as rain.

Other Comments by Logicel

35. Comment #16470 by Will in Aus on January 6, 2007 at 5:44 pm

 avatar" Well, the canons of proof are not applicable to that question, and it's not something that can be proved or disproved."

Firstly, who gave Prof. Cox the power to simply decide what the canon of proof is and isn't applicable to? I'm sorry, but that is not an acceptable response. You can't just say something like that.

The existence of God should be treated with the same method of inquiry as everything else is on the planet. If you have no evidence, well, I'm sorry, but that's it. I am sick to death of these pathetic arguments being given a voice, and the day they are no longer accepted as a valid response is a day that cannot come soon enough.

Other Comments by Will in Aus

36. Comment #16483 by CrysOdenkirk on January 6, 2007 at 8:01 pm

 avatarNow a look at some of the new criticism of religion.

Criticism of religion is new? Gee, guess somebody better let them US Founding Fathers know that so they don't write it into their Constitution... oh wait...

Comment #16290 by aikideshi
Isn't that convenient, can I use that as well in my daily life?


hahahah No kidding!

IRS: We need documentation of your income.
Me: Well, the canons of proof are not applicable to that question, and it's not something that can be proved or disproved.

Other Comments by CrysOdenkirk

37. Comment #16515 by scooternyc on January 7, 2007 at 4:19 am

 avatarComment #16470 by Will in Aus on January 6, 2007 at 5:44 pm

SPOT ON! EXCELLENT POST!

Other Comments by scooternyc

38. Comment #16547 by boxmonkey on January 7, 2007 at 9:35 am

Is anyone else annoyed that a segment on the new atheists contains only an interview with a theist, and not only that but gives him the last word on each point?

Other Comments by boxmonkey

39. Comment #16738 by Zaphod on January 8, 2007 at 11:17 am

 avatarThis video doesn't work for me.

Other Comments by Zaphod

40. Comment #16739 by Zaphod on January 8, 2007 at 11:32 am

 avatarGot it to work :-D

The douchebag in that video says the canons of proof aren't applicable to god.

This is true. You can't disprove or prove 100% eithier way. The funny thing is that its like he actually holds this up as evidence of it. If you can't disprove something this doesn't mean that its likely to be true. I can disprove tons of stupid stuff that I know isn't true just by using common sense.

Comparing Dawkins to Jerry Falwell is just wrong on so many levels.

Other Comments by Zaphod

41. Comment #16943 by Conrad on January 9, 2007 at 5:30 pm

If god is outside the "canons of proof" and is thus can't be disproven (so Dawkis can't imply what he implies) doesn't that mean Mr. Cox no longer gets to say that god does exist for the same reason? And this man teaches at HARVARD!?!

Other Comments by Conrad

42. Comment #21868 by glittergulch on February 11, 2007 at 9:28 am

 avatarWhy does Cox get to say "You can't prove or disprove God" when theists hold up all sorts of stuff as "proof" of God, from charity and love to specific miracles and life itself? Shouldn't theists just say "nothing has ever happened that proves God exists, not even Jesus himself. I just feel it in my gut." That would certainly be more consistent.

(hehe, I see others have talked about this too. It just boggles the mind.)

Other Comments by glittergulch

43. Comment #39477 by NowlinMD on May 10, 2007 at 8:23 pm

Is this on YouTube?

Other Comments by NowlinMD

44. Comment #293413 by hadams00 on November 28, 2008 at 9:54 pm

I am an atheist but concerned like Cox of creating an us versus them attitude. That was one of the reasons I became so turned off by religion. Let's not repeat the past or become rebelious teenagers. Another problem is giving religious moderates the sense of an all or nothing choice God or Science not both. This could push them to bollster the fundamentalist right's fight against evolution and stem cell research. Remember our ends. Do it like Obama did.

Other Comments by hadams00
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: