Comments by kevlaw

Comment #106117 by kevlaw on January 2, 2008 at 11:32 am

After he died I was surprised to discover that he described himself as a religious atheist.

Religious Atheist = Ceremonial Deist?

http://www.ceremonialdeists.com
"The only religion blessed by the Supreme Court"

Comment #101966 by kevlaw on December 21, 2007 at 9:47 am

I take the strongest exception possible to this.

Why do you take exception? The original poster specifically excluded you.

"I'd rather be a child in the Clegg household than one brought up by two parents who were both fundamentalist Christian, Fascist, Communist or Atheist.

It's the fundamentalism s/he objects to, not the communism.

3. Good God! A politician who doesn't believe...

Comment #101965 by kevlaw on December 21, 2007 at 9:44 am

> sex, masturbation, sinning and so on, even since they have stopped practicing

It wasn't clear to me which set of things they had stopped practicing. The sex, masturbation, sinning etc? Or the Catholicking.

4. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #101333 by kevlaw on December 20, 2007 at 8:44 am

In raising his children Catholic he is proving his tolerance of religion - and in doing so preventing a loss of future votes.

It's also possible that he really is tolerant of religion and that he really does respect religious people.

No snivelling, no calculating and no hypocrisy required.

Maybe he's just comfortable with his beliefs.

5. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #101109 by kevlaw on December 19, 2007 at 9:49 pm

But that is not the same thing at all as being "committed to bringing my children up as Catholics"

I agree heartily. I think comparative religion is an excellent idea but I would not send my children to a religious school unless the alternatives were significantly worse.

But neither would I condemn someone else who did send their children to a Catholic school without knowing the circumstances.

Before I assumed that he was a "two-bit snivelling politician" I would wonder if maybe:

- the mother's family insisted upon it
- there were no good secular alternatives
- they couldn't afford private school or, as social democrats, rejected private schools on principle

Maybe he just doesn't see Catholic school as a bad thing?

I'd consider all of those alternatives before deciding that he decided to send his children to Catholic school improve his future chances in an election.

It's possible that he is just a snivelling two bit politician - I am too far removed from British politics to know the details - but I don't think I would come to that conclusion based on the fact that he respects religious people and he allows his wife to bring up their children in her religion.

One more time:

Leader of a major political party says publicly, without caveats, that he does not believe in God.

Rejoice!

6. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #101108 by kevlaw on December 19, 2007 at 9:37 pm

Can someone from the US explain something? Is there no (comparative) religious education in public schools in the US of this type?

In California, in a public middle school, my 12 year old son has covered the Big Ones from a historical perspective including details like biographies of the founders and major points of doctrine - No God but Allah; on the third day he rose; that kind of thing.

So comparative religion yes - but it was nothing like the comparative religion classes I endured in England. And I think treating it from a historical perspective also help to sanitize it a little.

California - as you may have heard - is quite liberal though. No idea what goes on in the Red Middle.

Prayer - or any kind of religious observance - is forbidden in schools though.

7. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #101102 by kevlaw on December 19, 2007 at 8:53 pm

I've read articles in the mainstream US media claiming that anywhere between 10%-20% of Americans claim "no belief" as their religion.

I think it's useful to make a distinction between

- having no belief and
- claiming to have no belief

I am willing to accept that there could be 20% of non-believers. I doubt that 20% would own up to it when it counts.

Even in the cosmopolitan San Francisco Bay Area - the heart of liberal, godless America - I have friends who keep their atheism quiet because they think it would harm their careers.

So while it maybe true that there are 60 million non-believers, it's not politically useful because each of thinks that they are on their own.

This is - or should be - the core constituency of TGD and books like it.

8. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #101097 by kevlaw on December 19, 2007 at 8:23 pm

You don't have to insulate your kids from religion, but you sure as hell don't want to put them in a situation where people teach them Catholicism.

Why not? What is there to be afraid of.

Not only do I think that most of the Catholic doctrines are nonsense, I think they are patently, obviously nonsense...and that anyone who approaches catholic doctrines in a frame of open, sceptical enquiry will see them for the nonsense that they are - even a child.

After a thousand years or so of being the only source of knowledge for impressionable youngsters, religion no longer has a monopoly on education. After a couple of generations of comparative religion in schools, religion is collapsing throughout Europe.

That's why The Catholic League is so afraid of books like the Golden Compass. They don't want children to compare and contrast ... or to think independently. They are right to be afraid.

We don't have anything to fear from Catholic teachings.

9. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #101095 by kevlaw on December 19, 2007 at 8:10 pm

No need for the God Delusion then! Mission accomplished.

My impression is that TGD is aimed more at America where atheism is less accepted as a respectable worldview. My understanding is that a very sizable minority of my fellow countrymen are not believers. That might be also true in America, but no-one knows for sure because it's not respectable to acknowledge your atheism over here.

The vast majority of people are religious moderates who don't believe it all,

I'll grant you that the vast majority have not thought about it much at all - but that misses my point. My point was that the perception is that it's an all-or-nothing proposition: you are either an immoral, godless atheist or believe the whole lot. I think the *hard-line view taken by many atheists contributes to that perception.

* I'll head off the inevitable criticism that I haven't read Dawkins on this point. I have. I have no criticism of Dawkins position or how he makes his arguments. I think he is spot on. It's the posts here in this forum that I am criticising.

You haven't been reading the comments or writings of Atheists.

Ah - but I have. More closely than you apparently. I read RD saying that he says Grace and sings Carols and has an xmas tree (links available on request). But again, I was not criticizing RD; I was crticising comments in this forum.

If indoctrination didn't work against kids then religion wouldn't last very long.

I'll agree that religion would not last very long if we found a way to protect kids from indoctrination. I prescribe a healthy, sceptical outlook. I believe that is responsible for the huge collapse in religious in Europe in the couple of generations - despite established state religions and compulsory prayer in schools and lots of churching.

Look at what is happening in Spain and Italy and other countries that were massively religious just a short few years ago. By contrast, look at the rise of religiosity in America where religion is forbidden in schools.

Innoculation through scepticism and controlled exposure is the only way to outlast this plague. Isolation - or abstinence, if you prefer - doesn't seem to be working at all well on this side of the pond. Quite the opposite actually.

Several people, in the last few comments, have testified that their kids were brought up to be sceptical in a religious tradition. It's working for my kids and I expect it will work for the Little Cleggs too. I wish him well.

10. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #101087 by kevlaw on December 19, 2007 at 7:38 pm

I now have less respect for him than if he was a theist.

Sounds like you'd prefer he were a martyr who sacrificed his political career on the altar of atheism. Yeah! That'd show 'em!

Or if the religious metaphor bothers you...

Why bother with the whole Normandy landings thing when we could just parachute into Berlin?

Answer: because we'd be shot down and accomplish nothing.

Look. You have the leader of a major political party saying that he does not believe in God and y'all variously think he is

- a wimp because he doesn't isolate his children from religious beliefs
- a pussy because he doesn't disrespect religious people like, er, his wife
- not worthy of respect because he himself is respectful

Is it change in the status quo you are looking for (because that's what this represents)?

Or empty symbolism?

Personally, I have had enough of the latter.

11. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #101062 by kevlaw on December 19, 2007 at 7:12 pm

Since when does committing yourself to raising children "up as Catholics", not include the range of silly beliefs linked to Catholicism?

A bit of background on me and mine first:

I grew up in England with the usual Church of England stuff: religious assembly with prayers everyday, songs of praise, Sunday school and all that. Religion was everywhere but no-one seemed to really take it too seriously. My catholic friends who went to catholic schools said it was much the same for them.

My kids are growing up America where religion is forbidden in school. Religion is more an all or nothing proposition. You believe it all or you opt out and believe none of it.

My theory is that this all-or-nothing environment hardens peoples opinions to make them less tolerant of other points of view (54% wouldn't vote for an atheist for example. Atheists can't imagine exposing their children to religious ideas in case they believe them for another example).

Apart from the cultural benefits of understanding religious traditions that RD has been celebrating recently, kids get a lot of value from growing up understanding what other people believe and why they believe them. In fact, I expect that the best inoculation against silly ideas is to be exposed to many of them early and often.

I want my kids to approach religion with sceptical enquiring minds - and I'll bet Politician Clegg does too.

12. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100936 by kevlaw on December 19, 2007 at 5:02 pm

believing in ridiculous things without, and sometimes despite, evidence is very admirable.

Is it not possible to respect someone without respecting their beliefs?

...who has decided that my children need to believe ridiculous things without or despite evidence...

Did he say that he wants his children to believe ridiculous things? Or did you make that bit up?

13. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100927 by kevlaw on December 19, 2007 at 4:31 pm

But, doesn't it leave a bad taste in your mouth every time say, the Pope comes out with yet another dogmatic attack on this or that, this group or that group?

I believe that most intolerance (including intolerant, dogmatic attacks from the pope) arises from ignorance. The best cures for ignorance are knowledge and critical thinking.

I can be tolerant of the pope's intolerance because I understand that it comes from ignorance.

I hope my children will be more tolerant of wrong-headed views because they understand where they come from.

14. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100925 by kevlaw on December 19, 2007 at 4:22 pm

Catholic Mother: Sorry dear, but can we PLEASE not have THAT argument again, especially in front of the children?

I would assume that his catholic wife is already quite open-minded (as is mine) to marry a non-catholic.

15. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100916 by kevlaw on December 19, 2007 at 3:27 pm

How can you not believe in God, yet consent to subject your children to the church's indoctrination? How can you not believe in catholic dogma, yet allow priests to preach things like trans-substantiation as fact?

I don't see what's confusing.

Child of atheist/catholic parents: The priest told us that the bread magically turns into the body of Christ. That just sounds silly.

Atheist Father: It is silly but it's what they believe.

Child of atheist/catholic parents: Oh. OK. That's what I thought.

What is it that are you afraid of?

[edited to fix typo in quoting]

16. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100912 by kevlaw on December 19, 2007 at 3:21 pm

I don't see it as a good thing to be an Atheist and raise your children Catholic. I mean, if you don't have the courage of your convictions

Alternatively - perhaps he has so much courage in his convictions that he feels comfortable having his children brought up as catholics that he know he won't make any difference.

As another atheist married to a catholic, I can attest that my children are quite immune to catholic teachings because they know that there is an alternative. I am quite comfortable letting them make up their own mind and don't feel the need to protect them from religious ideas.

A lot of people use the name 'freethinker' as an approximate synonym. After reading some of the negative comments in this thread, I am tempted to start doing the same. About a year ago, I was among the many who thought that 'fundamentalist atheist' was an oxymoron. I am starting to doubt myself.

17. Sunday School for Atheists

Comment #90758 by kevlaw on November 26, 2007 at 9:21 am

It's funny that so many people have commented on the incongruity of a "Sunday School for Atheists" since the body of the article doesn't call it that only the title (probably added as a provocative touch by the editors).

The body of the article talks about humanism, not atheism. Teaching kids about humanism seems like a fine idea.

18. Sam Harris Strikes Back

Comment #46112 by kevlaw on May 30, 2007 at 8:53 am

John:

The beliefs that he outlined were uncannily similar to my own. I didn't see anything irrational in there except the rather odd word that he used to label them. I don't see the need to deny him his security blanket.

The point is, in my opinion anyway, that Hedges uses his argument about his type of god not being the one that is the problem in an attempt to negate any criticism of god in general.

If he had done that, I would be agreeing with you. But he did not.

The debate could go one of two ways from there:

a) SH could say: I understand that you believe X (where belief X is eerily similar to humanism). I agree with almost everything you say except I don't label my belief 'God'. Would you join me in criticizing people who believe Y (where belief Y involves bronze age fairy tales about the Wrathful Man with a Beard and plans for the Apocalypse).

b) SH could say: I know you don't believe in Y - but can we debate that instead because it would be easier for me? And, anyway, your reasonable belief in X justifies unreasonable beliefs in Y.

If he went with option a), CH would probably reply "I am ahead of you on the criticizing the Yists. In fact, I wrote a book about it."

Look. SH is not going to change any fundie minds whatever he says.

We have an opportunity to show the unthinking moderates that without gods there is still meaning, there is still morality, there is still beauty, there is still awe.

I expect that most of the unthinking moderates, if they stopped to think for just a moment, would realize that what we say is the same as what they say (give or take a little ancient tradition) - and completely unlike the nonsense spouting from the lunatics poring over their Book of Revelations.

Or we could just call them names.

Are we looking change attitudes? Or to score points in debates?

19. Sam Harris Strikes Back

Comment #45938 by kevlaw on May 29, 2007 at 5:03 pm

I am truly perplexed whenever I hear such teleological beliefs coming from atheists and I hope that one or both of you would, if you can, answer the questions that have always come to mind.

I am one of the atheists who claimed that life has meaning and will answer your questions as best as I can:

1/ What or who do you think bestowed meaning on life?

Life has meaning - it's up to us to create it. I bestow my own meaning. I don't think that there is any objective, teleological meaning that exists independently of us. I think, therefore my life has meaning.

2/ Is it in your view applicable to all life forms?

I think some lifeforms are better able than others to reflect - or self-reflect - on 'meaning' in general. Humans are particularly good at it.

3/ If it was discovered somehow that there is no meaning, would you feel that without it life is hence inadequate?

My life has meaning (the one I created for it), so I don't know what it would be like to live a life without meaning.

Look, I get as annoyed as anyone when someone claims that Einstein's God or Spinoza's God exists, therefore God exists, therefore I am justified in praying to The Vengeful Old Man in a Cloud.

But Hedges did not do that. He did not try to justify everyone's beliefs. He did not claim that his beliefs justify religious bigotry or belief in fairy tales. He describes a world view that is very like my own.

To go on and use Einstein's God as justification for tolerance of all religious beliefs would be intellectually dishonest - but he did not do that.

So now I, an atheist, can say "Ya! Boo! You are just like all the other theists". Or I can say "your beliefs are remarkably similar to my own. Let's explore how they differ - and why we have more in common with each other than the fire and brimstone crowd."

I think that's a more productive discussion. Debates don't have to end in a winner and a loser.

20. Sam Harris Strikes Back

Comment #45849 by kevlaw on May 29, 2007 at 11:45 am

The problem is what you define as 'Real religion'. Is 'Real religion' just what Hedges believes? Or is it what billions believe? I think Sam's interpretation is more appropriate - what do you think?

If I were debating Hedges, I would debate Hedges' interpretation. It would be more productive more interesting and more valuable all around.

Maybe such a debate would result in reasonable religionists (the vast majority in my experience) understanding that atheism isn't about attacking the idea of God it is about finding meaning without God?

Maybe they would find more in common with the humanist thinkers (who just happen to be atheists) than they do with those noisy few (and, in America, semi-literate many) who believe in the Wrathful Old Man in the Cloud?

Most religious people I know just haven't thought about it that much.

21. Sam Harris Strikes Back

Comment #45804 by kevlaw on May 29, 2007 at 10:29 am

I'd like to see the unedited debate too because, reading Hedges' opening statement I formed the impression that his world view is extremely similar to mine with the small exception that he chooses a rather odd word for

"our belief that life has meaning, one that transcends the world's chaos, randomness and cruelty."

He calls that God, I call it humanity.

Harris, on the other hand seems upset that Hedges isn't one of the millions (probably billions) of people who practice religion in the naïve, anthropomorphic, and superstitious forms he would rather attack. He wasn't debating the millions and billions. He was debating Chris Hedges.

If the only difference between Chris Hedges' worldview and mine is that I call myself atheist and he does not then I will happily call him friend and join him in battle against tribalism - the worst of which is led under the banner of bronze age religions.

This forum seems - to this atheist - to be discovering a tribalism of its own. We often criticise RD's critics for arguing against what they wish RD had said rather than what he is really saying. Now we are doing exactly the same thing in reverse.

There is no point in having the debate unless you actually listen to what the other guy is saying.

22. Your favorite book in the last 25 years?

Comment #37241 by kevlaw on May 3, 2007 at 8:28 pm

Ancestor's Tale - Dawkins
Master and Commander series - O'Neil
Influence - Cialdini
Guns, Germs and Steel - Diamond
The Visual Display of Quantitative Information - Tufte
A History of God - Armstrong
Genome - Ridley

23. God and gorillas

Comment #20321 by kevlaw on February 1, 2007 at 7:01 pm

I once knew an atheist who cared about children. His sister could draw too.

Therefore it's ok for scientists to believe in God.