1. Comment #47226 by arildno on June 3, 2007 at 3:47 pm

An very good exchange of views.

Other Comments by arildno

2. Comment #47305 by stevieb on June 4, 2007 at 3:33 am

sorry to jump off-topic for a second, but can someone explain to me how to submit something to be posted on this site? there's nothing listed in the "contact" section

thanks, and i did, in fact, read the above article, and enjoyed it a lot. krauss' ideas about engaging the other side are intriguing to me; i feel much the same as Richard, and am always willing to entertain well-reasoned arguments from our more magnanimous colleagues.

-steve

Other Comments by stevieb

3. Comment #47323 by CJ22 on June 4, 2007 at 4:59 am

I found the statistics in the sidebar fascinating:

■ 88% rejected the idea
that God favors any
particular political party

So 12% either think God DOES favour a political party, or aren't sure? How much mental gymnastics does THAT take to rationalise??

■ 69% rejected the idea
that God favors the U.S.
in worldly affairs

So 31% DO think God is specifically on the USs team, or aren't sure? Do they imagine Allah is on the USs team? Or Vishnu? Strange strange people.

Other Comments by CJ22

4. Comment #47361 by agki on June 4, 2007 at 8:23 am

How come the PDF gives a URL for a follow-up extendewd discussion but when you go there, you can't find it?

Agki

Other Comments by agki

5. Comment #47411 by admin on June 4, 2007 at 12:37 pm

In case some commentors were wondering, I've moved some comments to the new 'Alternate comment thread,' which can be accessed by clicking on the link right below the main article. I've done this just as an attempt to keep this main article comment thread on topic, NOT because any of your comments weren't worthwhile.

Thanks,
Josh

Other Comments by admin

6. Comment #47412 by Devolution on June 4, 2007 at 12:37 pm

stevieb, to submit an article just email the web designer with a link, his contact info is on the contact page. I believe it is design@richarddawkins.net

Other Comments by Devolution

7. Comment #47419 by Steven Mading on June 4, 2007 at 1:09 pm

(Deleting my own comment - it was attached to the wrong article.)


Other Comments by Steven Mading

8. Comment #47452 by mdonnelly on June 4, 2007 at 2:36 pm

The article appears in the July edition. My guess is that they haven't posted the full version online yet. When they do, please let us know.

Other Comments by mdonnelly

9. Comment #47479 by Salvatore on June 4, 2007 at 4:26 pm

CJ22,

I would guess that a *majority* of Americans believe that god favors the U.S. --- The U.S. is seen as the defender and promoter of liberty, justice, equality, and such, and of course god would favor such an instrument. And there's a history of thinking that the U.S. has some god-given "manifest destiny."

My suspicion is that many people just didn't want to admit this belief to the interviewers.

Other Comments by Salvatore

10. Comment #47481 by mjosef on June 4, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Three important points, to my mind, in overall defense of the Dawkins camp: 1. The esteemed and kindly E.O. Wilson has called, in a recent interview, Richard Dawkins the leader of the "military wing" of the secular humanists. Without rancor, but still peeved, I beg to differ. Dawkins is not a militarist, in any sense. As a metaphor, this does not work. The "new atheists" have no army, have fired no guns, seek intellectual honesty and rigor, and are not Panthers, nor Weathermen, nor violence-addled sadists like Republicans. 2. At the "New Humanists" Harvard confab (glad I missed the event), an award for "Humanist Record of the Year" went to wailer-strummer Dar Williams, who though directly supportive of various "humanist" causes, said in a podcast that she believes in God. Fantastic. Who the hell picked her for this absurd designation - what could possibly make her effort an "Humanist Album of the Year" if it was written by one smitten, as a mature adult, by the God Delusion? 3. In the book, Dawkins writes, "Life is too short to bother with one figment of the imagination and many." So why waste more time trying to lower down to the "faith" level? Religious "faith" is where we as humans start to go way, way wrong...

Other Comments by mjosef

11. Comment #47485 by lostpoet on June 4, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Was Carl Sagan a religious man? He was so much more. He left behind the petty, parochial, medieval world of the conventionally religious; left the theologians, priests and mullahs wallowing in their small-minded spiritual poverty. He left them behind, because he had so much more to be religious about. They have their Bronze Age myths, medieval superstitions and childish wishful thinking. He had the universe.

Unbelievably beautiful sentiment! I wish this quote could be printed on the inside covers of the thumpers' bibles.

This is the seduction that Krauss talks about. The religious-minded need to be shown (gently) the depths of their emotional poverty; art and science are so much more wonderous and fulfilling compared to ancient superstitions drawn from primitive fears and ignorance.

Other Comments by lostpoet

12. Comment #47554 by Karl Christensen on June 5, 2007 at 12:23 am

I like the Dawkins approach in that it forces debate. Appeasing the religious in any way only gives them a feeling that they may have some valid ideas. Tackle religion head-on and it's proponents must react, as the reaction to TGD has shown.

It really is a case of one side being "simply wrong."
When an irrational idea is presented as fact with the words "it stands to reason", challenge the reasoning.

Other Comments by Karl Christensen

13. Comment #47564 by The Flying Trilobite on June 5, 2007 at 1:15 am

I like this debate since it allows us to see two intelligent people explaining their styles. Whether each of us prefers one style or the other doesn't really matter, the end goals are the same; spreading rational thought & pushing back the boundaries of ignorance in society.

Oh, and CJ22: it's obvious 31% of Americans think that Cthulhu is on their side. "Why choose a lesser evil"?

Other Comments by The Flying Trilobite

14. Comment #47612 by Rtambree on June 5, 2007 at 4:22 am

In the end, it's about effectiveness, which is a question that can be answered by empirical means. Which method achieves the highest conversion rate? Surely a scientific study could shed some light on this.

In any case, we know that the most secular countries (in Scandinavia) didn't get that way following Dawkins' or Krauss' approach, but by their own free choice after achieving high levels of economic security, education, equality, longevity, etc.

Other Comments by Rtambree

15. Comment #47668 by Riley on June 5, 2007 at 8:29 am

In the 2006 Baylor Religion Survey of 1,721 U.S. adults:
- 69% thought prayer should be allowed in schools

This question critically misses the point: prayer "allowed" in schools is not at issue.

At issue is weather or not students should be officially led to pray in school. Nobody questions that students should be free to pray however and whenever they like in school so long as they are not disrupting other students. It's a straw man.

I wonder what the response would be to a question that accurately reflected the issue? I'd especially like to see the response to a question that specified the type of ritual prayer in which the students would be instructed to participate. How about a poll question phrased like this:

Do you think that a teacher from the Church of Jehovah's Witnesses should be allowed to lead your children in prayer at school?

Other Comments by Riley

16. Comment #47673 by lostpoet on June 5, 2007 at 8:49 am

Praying in school -- fascinating topic!

If prayer is, in fact, communication with a deity, doesn't praying during a test constitute cheating? Thus, shouldn't students who are found praying during a teast be punished as cheaters? Even if the deity doesn't provide any answers to those students who pray during the test, their praying is still attempted cheating, and should punished.

Other Comments by lostpoet

17. Comment #47674 by Bonzai on June 5, 2007 at 8:49 am

Dawkins says:

The fact that I think religion is bad science..

This sums up succinctly the central flaw of Dawkins' understanding. Many believers don't think of religion as an explanatory model about the world and the cosmos. Many believers,--and non believers,--don't think about the big questions. To many, religion is a kind of meta narrative to make sense of their "small", personal lives , it is therapy to cope with tragedies, or some kind of visualization aid to experience the transcendence,--which scientists like Dawkins find in contemplating about the law of nature.

Religion has an emotional component to believers, it is not just a scientific hypothesis for the scientifically illiterate. Indeed I would say to most non fundamentalist believers the "explanatory" part of religion is probably least important aspect of their faith, it is kind of like an add on afterthought for completeness sake.

Dawkins errs in assuming most people are like him and his oxford colleagues in having an systematic and intellectually consistent worldview.

Other Comments by Bonzai

18. Comment #47676 by Riley on June 5, 2007 at 8:58 am

I agree with you in part Bonzai, but still you can't deny that young earth creationists are making 'bad science' claims.

Other Comments by Riley

19. Comment #47677 by Bonzai on June 5, 2007 at 8:59 am

I did say non fundamentalist.

Other Comments by Bonzai

20. Comment #47679 by Riley on June 5, 2007 at 9:00 am

Anyone claiming that prayers can heal the sick, that miraculous interventions happen, etc. etc. are making 'bad science' claims. Eliminate all these claims and you aren't left with much religion. Religion becomes more like philosophy.

Other Comments by Riley

21. Comment #47681 by Bonzai on June 5, 2007 at 9:04 am

Anyone claiming that prayers can heal the sick, that miracles happen, etc. etc. are making 'bad science' claims

Actually most religious people I know don't make such claims. When they are sick they go to the doctor. You are thinking of some little old lady in some rural backwater or some vulgar evangelist.

Other Comments by Bonzai

22. Comment #47684 by Riley on June 5, 2007 at 9:19 am

I'm talking about common people in the mainstream of Christian faith who both go to the doctor and at the same time believe that their survival crucially depends on God's intervention. Christians commonly believe that prayer can be credited for being the crucial difference-maker accounting for recovery to health that can not be (in their estimation) otherwise explained. The Catholic church officially sanctions this claim.

It's simply a 'bad science' claim, and one of many such claims predominant among believers - at least in the Christian faith.

Other Comments by Riley

23. Comment #47688 by Donald on June 5, 2007 at 9:40 am

Dawkins says:
The fact that I think religion is bad science..
Bonzai says:
This sums up succinctly the central flaw of Dawkins' understanding.

Central flaw?! No flaw at all, as I see it.

His sentence, in context, is a reaction to what Krauss said immediately before, about the interaction of science and religion.

Dawkins is referring to the OT, and the origins of the religions we know today as Judaism, Xianity & Islam.
Although those religions have other aspects, one aspect is that they attempt to explain how things have happened in this world (creation, fall, flood, ark, divine retributions, etc, etc, etc), and what will happen if we do, or don't do, certain things. This is the portion of religion that Dawkins calls bad science. Perhaps you are interpreting Dawkins as saying "religion consists only of bad science". If so, I think you are grossly misinterpreting.


Your points about the emotional aspects of religions are good. But then you go on to say:

Dawkins errs in assuming most people are like him and his oxford colleagues in having an systematic and intellectually consistent worldview.

I am surprised that you feel able to be so certain about what Dawkins thinks of most people. From reading and listening to Dawkins, I think he understands that most people have neither the time nor the inclination to pursue intellectual matters very far, but I also think he regards most people as being able to follow simple logical arguments, and distinguish good reasoning from bad reasoning if it is pointed out to them. Dawkins has decided to point out the good reasoning and bad reasoning deployed around reliigon. Good for him. Why are you attacking him?

Other Comments by Donald

24. Comment #47691 by Bonzai on June 5, 2007 at 9:45 am

Comment #47684 by Riley

The placebo effect can be "real" enough for some people.

But in any case if the beef is about false scientific claims and bad cosmology why not just attack them instead of making categorical argument against this amorphous thing called "religion"? It is simply not accurate and it comes across as a straw man argument to say that all religious people believe in a b and c. I was told, for example, that Muslim and Jewish prayers don't involve asking God to intervene for the believer's benefits, they pray from a standard script. Theirs is the God of Job, aloof and unresponsive to pleading. It is uniquely Christian to claim that each individual has a personal relationship with God.

This is a side remark, but science is not just simple 'rationality". It too has subjective elements like aesthetics, flashes of insights and a sense of wonder which cannot be captured simply under "rationality". As Feynman put it, "you gotta have taste to do physics." "Taste", is quite subjective and cannot be arrived at through logic and rationality. Dawkins himself would certainly agree. It is a common misconception to think that science is just a mechanical application of the 'scientific method', like a computer crunching out outputs while it is fed with data. I am sure many scientists would have quited for something more lucrative if it were not because of the emotional satisfaction.

What I want to say is that humans do have emotional needs, we seek satisfactions to those needs in different ways, whether through science, religion, romance, sex or drug abuse. It is simplistic to reduce religion to simply "bad science" without understanding its emotional appeal to the believers as if it can be eliminated through logic and empirical observations.

Other Comments by Bonzai

25. Comment #47696 by 3legcat on June 5, 2007 at 9:56 am

bonzai:

To many, religion is a kind of meta narrative to make sense of their "small", personal lives , it is therapy to cope with tragedies, or some kind of visualization aid to experience the transcendence

this "therapy", and/or "visualization" is bad science (pyschology) as well.

Other Comments by 3legcat

26. Comment #47741 by Bonzai on June 5, 2007 at 11:52 am

Comment #47688 by Donald

Dawkins is referring to the OT, and the origins of the religions we know today as Judaism, Xianity & Islam.
Although those religions have other aspects, one aspect is that they attempt to explain how things have happened in this world (creation, fall, flood, ark, divine retributions, etc, etc, etc), and what will happen if we do, or don't do, certain things. This is the portion of religion that Dawkins calls bad science.

This would be a valid point only if it is only possible to interpret the OT literally. But only a very small minority of contemporary Christian and Jewish theologians take the literalist position regarding the OT. The vast majority of theologians, including mainstream Catholics, see the stories of the OT as mere parables, which in their view try to capture the experience with God in a language that the ancients could relate to.

I befriended a Catholic nun in my undergraduate years. I was 17 and away from home. I was having a brief flirt with evangelism. Fearing that I was being led astray by the fundamentalists, she actually told me that the ark and the flood etc, were all ripped off from Babylonian myths which predated the OT. I was quite surprised that a nun would say something like that. I asked her since she thought most of the bible was factually untrue, why did she continue to believe. She replied that the stories were only a vehicle to convey a point, the biblical writers used material familiar to their readers, they borrowed heavily from old folk lores and myths and reinvented upon them.

She gave me some books, all from very mainstream Catholic scholars. I was quite surprised at what I read. For examples, they freely admitted that a lot of the details in Jesus' life and parables were invented by the gospel writers to fit the motif of the OT prophets, the book of revelation referred to the reign of Nero, rather than the "end time" etc. It might sound like spin doctoring, but interesting nevertheless, and it proved that there are more intelligent ways to read the bible than the typical, unsophisticated bible thumping way of the American evangelical Churches.

Even for the Quran, which claims to be the unfiltered word of God, it still doesn't have to be read literally. The Sufis are day and light from the Salafists even though they are supposedly reading the same book. According to Salmon Rushdie,--who is an atheist,-- as early as the 12th century, there were Islamic scholars who argued that since God had no human quality, and language was a human quality, the very act of writing down the Quran was necessarily an act of interpretation. It is easy to see how this could open the door to non literalist interpretations even for the alleged verbatim words of God. The fact that fundamentalism prevails in Islam is probably due more to culture and history than intrinsic impossibility to read the Quran in other ways.

I also think he regards most people as being able to follow simple logical arguments, and distinguish good reasoning from bad reasoning if it is pointed out to them.

I didn't say most people are incapable of following logic and arguments. I am saying that many are not interested. It has to do with purpose and priorities rather than ability.

Dawkins has decided to point out the good reasoning and bad reasoning deployed around reliigon. Good for him. Why are you attacking him?

Pointing out what I perceive to be a flaw in his argument is not an attack. I have written in many occasions that I admire Dawkins as a scientist and an intellectual. He makes a good case in defense of atheism, even though I think his attack on religion sometimes lacks nuances.

Other Comments by Bonzai

27. Comment #47766 by Martha on June 5, 2007 at 1:09 pm

KRAUSS: "There is certainly ample evidence that religion has been responsible for many atrocities, and I have often said, as have you, that no one would fly planes into tall buildings on purpose if it were not for a belief that God was on their side."

And he could(and should have)added - "nor bomb hundreds of thousands of innocent people (Afghanistan, Iraq) if they too didn't also believe God was on their side".

Why be so one-sided?

Other Comments by Martha

28. Comment #47800 by Canuck#1 on June 5, 2007 at 2:41 pm

An interesting discussion. I think both approaches have their place. Facts to the evangelical wing of Christianity mean nothing - they are manufactured to seduce the faithful and must be dealt with through prayer and a continued faith in the "inspired word of god-the Bible. How can you fight that.... On the other hand I think there are many christians who really don't care very much, but will continue to attend because that is what they do. So I guess what I am saying is....it does not really matter what approach is used. FIRE AWAY...and hope there is some effect.

Other Comments by Canuck#1

29. Comment #47813 by Donald on June 5, 2007 at 3:17 pm

Comment #47741 by Bonzai

Donald:
Dawkins is referring to the OT...Although those religions have other aspects, one aspect is that they attempt to explain how things have happened in this world (creation, fall, flood, ark, divine retributions, etc, etc, etc), and what will happen if we do, or don't do, certain things. This is the portion of religion that Dawkins calls bad science.
Bonzai:
This would be a valid point only if it is only possible to interpret the OT literally.

I don't agree that my point depends on literal interpretation. Old Earth creationists believe genesis is not literal, but still claim support from the bible for their belief that God created the world. Bible believers select some passages to believe and some to reject. They still claim that God intervened in the world to change things, and they still make claims about the efficacy of prayer, and that bad things happen if one doesn't follow god's instructions. These are claims about the real world, and how it works. That is the bad science bit.

Your Nun's order was doing well to openly acknowledge that many of the bible stories were ripoffs from earlier myths. Of course, she could have gone further and recognised Jesus as Mithras, but perhaps that would be expecting too much.

Yes, I agree that some strands of religious belief are more honest than others, but none of them can give up ALL the myths and mysticism. Each sect clings onto some belief about the real world and how it works which is demonstrably not true, so they all have some element of bad science.

I take Dawkins to be aiming mainly at mainstream USA religion which definitely derives some bad science from the bible.

Yes, sufis are not a problem. If that were the only flavour of Islam, Islam would not be a problem. Unfortunately, Sufis are a very tiny minority, and regarded as not true muslims by mainstream muslim sects. All flavours of Islam have at least the "bad science" that praying can change what happens in the world (or after we die).

So, we agree that religions vary enormously. But I don't think that affects the point about religions having an element of "bad science".


Bonzai 1:
Dawkins errs in assuming most people are like him and his oxford colleagues in having an systematic and intellectually consistent worldview.
Donald:
...I think he understands that most people have neither the time nor the inclination to pursue intellectual matters very far, I also think he regards most people as being able to follow simple logical arguments...
Bonzai 2:
I didn't say most people are incapable of following logic and arguments.

I didn't say you did! I just gave a different perspective on Dawkins, and wondered how you could be so sure what was in Dawkins mind.

Bonzai 2:
Pointing out what I perceive to be a flaw in his argument is not an attack.

We could call it an attack, or not, depending on our mood, our use of language, the context, etc, etc, etc.


Comment #47691 by Bonzai
But in any case if the beef is about false scientific claims and bad cosmology why not just attack them instead of making categorical argument against this amorphous thing called "religion"?

Dawkins has answered this in TGD and elsewhere. To summarise/paraphrase, he has observed that religion is a mindset that discourages independent thinking, is based on ancient myths that make false claims about the world, has dogma that is damaging to present-day civilisation, and spawns fundamentalists who take ancient scripts literally as the word of god with disastrous consequences.

If you only attack the symptoms, the disease remains.

What I want to say is that humans do have emotional needs, we seek satisfactions to those needs in different ways, whether through science, religion, romance, sex or drug abuse.

No disagreement there.

It is simplistic to reduce religion to simply "bad science" without understanding its emotional appeal to the believers as if it can be eliminated through logic and empirical observations.

I don't think Dawkins says that religion can be reduced to "bad science". I am sure that Dawkins understands, as I think just about all of us do, that religion is an emotional pull, and the "science" it contains is ancillary. But Dawkins believes that the extent of modern science undercuts religious beliefs so much that anyone who has a fair understanding of relevant science (and some history) will perceive religion as myth and fairy tales. So he has decided to set out some of the reasons why modern science conflicts with religions. Good for him.

You are pointing out that emotional reasons (and I would single out fear of community ejection as a major one) are powerful reasons for people to stay religious. Quite right, but at least the science "attack" is non-violent, and allows peaceful disinfection for those individuals who can be persuaded to pay attention to it.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on some points.


Getting back to the article, I prefer Dawkins side of that argument, but I agree that tackling entrenched false beliefs requires careful handling of the emotional side. And let's not forget money and power - they are even bigger forces driving the propagation of religious belief than anything discussed here so far.

Other Comments by Donald

30. Comment #47852 by Riley on June 5, 2007 at 6:06 pm

Put more succinctly:
religions make scientifically testable claims. The efficacy of prayer is just one such claim. There are many, many, many others.

Pointing out this fact does not mean that making scientifically testable claims is what religions are all about. Obviously they satisfy (or prey upon) emotional needs.



Other Comments by Riley

31. Comment #47884 by Tumara Baap on June 5, 2007 at 11:53 pm

In The Ancestor's Tale, Dawkins mentions a biologist Kenneth Miller of Brown University, a deeply religious man. Miller is very critical of Intelligent Design, and his outlook on faith closely echoes that of Sagan. The creationist method of undermining the study of natural phenomena and scientific standards through deceit and public gerrymandering violate the observations of God's very own laws (if there is one). To any truly religious person, this then should be sacrilege of the highest order. Miller's take on this is quite compelling and ought to be hammered relentlessly into evangelical skulls.

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

32. Comment #47890 by Karl Christensen on June 6, 2007 at 12:39 am

It is important that the debate not lose momentum. No matter the way the arguments against religion are presented, if pressure is not maintained on all levels then the current debate will become just an interesting part of history. The Scopes "Monkey Trial" was a great opportunity for an assault on the absurdities of faith, but even though it is well-remembered and often referred to, the public lost interest in the whole basis of the trial. It is to be hoped that the ideas receiving attention now become as prevalent and common as religious belief.

Other Comments by Karl Christensen

33. Comment #47950 by Orion on June 6, 2007 at 5:40 am

Martha: 'And he could(and should have)added - "nor bomb hundreds of thousands of innocent people (Afghanistan, Iraq) if they too didn't also believe God was on their side".'

Some anti-war campaigners may contentiously put TOTAL deaths in those countries through 'allied' bombing and insurgents at such high figures. But it seems unlikely that US and UK bombing ALONE has caused 'hundreds of thousands' of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Claiming as such in this discussion would simply distract from the issues discussed.

Plus that I suspect that the invasions had more to do with oil (or, if you're charitable/naive, WMDs and freeing the Iraqi people) that to do with faith. I doubt that faith had the same effect on the decision to go to war as it did on suicide bombers' decision to cause 9/11.

Other Comments by Orion

34. Comment #48066 by mark1958 on June 6, 2007 at 1:22 pm

I very much enjoyed this article. I have spoken (on different topic) in the same plenary lecture session with Larry Krauss and have had an opportunity to talk with him. He is an outstanding speaker and very dedicated to his mission. I respect the point of views brought forth by both in this article. I am always torn about how much religion should be injected in the pursuit to educate people on scientific fact vs fiction. The problem is that the right wing gain in political power has really changed my views on this matter over the last several years. At first, I thought it was always best to leave religion out of the equation because it tends to alienate some, and make them resistant to the real important issue at hand. However, ignoring the non-factual --- facts that religion commonly propogates cannot be fully ignored either. As much as I have the greatest respect for Dawkins, I can see where his comments (even though I might agree with him) can be offensive to some--- but should one compromise the truth to pacify these individuals for the greater purpose of education? Sometimes going to the extremes makes the matter take a greater center stage and as a result more public attention, something that is really needed at this point in time.

Other Comments by mark1958

35. Comment #48346 by egmutza on June 7, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Actually most religious people I know don't make such claims. When they are sick they go to the doctor. You are thinking of some little old lady in some rural backwater or some vulgar evangelist.

Bonzai, I'm not sure where you live, but here in the midwest portion of America, I'd say most moderate religious people actually do believe in the healing power of prayer (and only a slightly smaller percentage believe that miracles happen).

As I've become more vocal about my atheism, I've been pretty shocked at some of the irrational things my own (very moderate, liberal, "rational") friends and relatives believe. When I've presented them with evidence regarding the (in)efficacy of prayer, I've received little more than eye-rolling and "oh, you're always so negative! Of course it works..." I honestly don't think any amount of evidence could convince them otherwise - the power of prayer is just too deeply ingrained in their model of how the world works. The fact that most Americans tend to have a deeply flawed understanding of the scientific process and rational argumentation doesn't help matters.

Anyway, I understand your point about the emotional reasons for religious belief, but I think you give moderates too much credit when it comes to the claims they make about the natural world.

Other Comments by egmutza

36. Comment #48392 by Bonzai on June 7, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Bonzai, I'm not sure where you live, but here in the midwest portion of America, I'd say most moderate religious people actually do believe in the healing power of prayer (and only a slightly smaller percentage believe that miracles happen).

I live in Toronto, the centre of the universe for Canadians. :)

I can't question your experience since I can only relate mine. As far as irrational beliefs in the area of health are concerned, I have witnessed more atheists who subscribe to all kind of outlandish "alternative" medicine and therapies than religious people who believe in the healing power of prayers. Interestingly, whenever I call them out on their crazy ideas, I am dismissed by the same "oh.. you are always so negative" response like you got from your religious friends.

Other Comments by Bonzai

37. Comment #50074 by mintcheerios on June 14, 2007 at 9:39 pm

It does seem such things like homeopathy are prevalent in the more secular societies. While it's not popular in the US, Europe is crazy about it in comparison.

Also religious moderation is one of the biggest impediments we have in dismantling fundamentalism. Attributing heinous religious acts to secular motives gives fundamentalism the shelter it needs to keep functioning.

Other Comments by mintcheerios

38. Comment #50164 by scottishgeologist on June 15, 2007 at 11:23 am

I love this "power of prayer" BS. Prayer is actually important - cos it is where the "supernatural" supposedly interfaces with the natural. Religites make claims about "prayer" - right test those claims, and see what happens. We all know what happens - you get exactly what you would expect to find using statistics and chance.

There is a glaring example of this failure of prayer right now in Europe. That little girl that is missing - there must be the equivalent of megatons of prayers being said for her and her family. What has it achieved so far? Zilch.

The questions to the religites are these:

1) God knows every thing, right?
2) So he knows where that girl is?
3) He knows who took her?
4) There are all these charismatic types that claim to have some sort of hotline to the sky fairy
5) So why doesnt he just tell one of them - an address, a phone number, a name, a grid ref.?

All this prayer after all, should be doing something, shouldnt it. Either God doesnt know, in which case he is not omniscient. Or he does, but just wants the parents to suffer for a while, maybe for the rest of their lives. In which case he is not a loving God. He is a c**t. Simple as that.

Of course, it could just be, it might just be, that maybe he just doesnt exist? And that prayer is just a total waste of time?

Other Comments by scottishgeologist