Sam Harris on Death and the Present Moment

source: Thanks Tim Stephenson for sharing.

Draft Transcription of Sam Harris Talk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITTxTCz4Ums

Sam Harris – Death and the Present Moment

2012 Australian Atheist Conference.. A celebration of reason

Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc (established 1970)

www.atheistfoundation.org.au

Reality of death is central to religion and its denial to religion. Without death faith based religion would be unthinkable. From the point of view of the faithful, atheism is the mere assertion of death. Atheists appear to be a death cult since we are the only people who admit that death is real. Every other view leaves the question open or asserts that death is an allusion. The good people, the people who believe the right things about an iron age war god, get everything they want after they die. Every thing that is annomoulous or accidental gets sorted out in the end. There is no reasonable likelihood of that happening. The gospel of atheism, The essential news, the good news of Atheism is that nothing happens after death. There is nothing to worry about, nothing to fear. When after you die you are returned to that nothingness you were before you were born. This proposition is very hard to understand. Most people mistake nothing for something. Many have said that my friend Lawrence Krauss does that! In the case of death many people imagine a case of eternal silent darkness which does sound a little boring. But if we are right and nothing happens after death, then every religion every devised, is false. But if we are right and nothing happens after death, then death is not a problem. Life is the problem. The problem is without God and without an eternal existence after death, life appears to be an emergency. It’s a long emergency for many. You can’t help but notice that things are going very wrong in this place. No matter how much fun you are having, a glance at a newspaper, will show you its possible to have no fun at all. Everyone seems to have a run of bad luck in the end. Religion makes sense of these problems: its my karma, my god will mean that I’m so lucky. God wants me to have a new iPad (halleluyuw), not be the ones making the iPad for a few $ a day. To not believe in god means its up to us to make the world a better place. We have barely emerged from centuries of barbarism. Its not a surprise that that there are inequities in this world. Its hard work to climb down from the trees and build a global civilisation when you start with a technology that is made of rock and sticks and fur. This is the project and progress is difficult. If you talk to your ancestor 100 generations ago you’d meet someone who thought that sacrificing their first child was a good way to control the weather. Some of you don’t have to go back that far. You just have to go home for Christmas!

(8.03) Real progress is a very recent phenomena. Religion keeps its foot on the brake. In the USA, still have to argue that women have access to birth control.

8.33 – Abortion. … Child Abuse by Catholic Church … this world will not be a paradise. Cure ageing  itself, upload on Ai, Singularity,

10.32: if you live long enough – you will lose everyone you know. A memory is a thought arising in the present.

12.16: Atheism is a necessary corrective of bad ideas, but it puts nothing in its place. What fills the void is science and art and philosophy. Atheism is just a way of clearing the space for better conversations. The problem we face is convincing majority of humanity to have those better conversations and this is a political problem. It’s a scientific problem, it’s an interpersonal problem, It’s a problem of education. The problem is that most people most of the time are desparate to belive ridiculous ideas for repeatedly emotional reasons. Whilst rarely explicit what they are really worried about is death. When we are arguing about teaching evolution in schools we are really arguing about death. The only reason the religious care about Evolution is that If religion are wrong about origins then they fear they are wrong about our destiny after death. If you say to the religious that they are a fool to not believe in Evolution or a fool to believe the universe is 6000 years old then that gets translated into saying they are a fool to believe that their daughter that died in a car crash is in heaven with god (this is consoling). How can people close to tragedies make sense of that – religion provides an answer to that - but it's an unjustified answer, a bad answer. Grief is not so necessary if you believe in heaven cos you will be re-joined with your daughter in heaven in  a twinkling of an eye. Atheism does not offer real consolation on this point. When you are open to new evidence there is not guarantee that your revisions in your world view are consoling. When you loose Santa Claus what you get in his place is not so much fun.

17.58: most of us do our best not to think about death. But we know we are only a doctors phone call away from being reminded of our own mortality or of those closest to us. Hitch wrote brilliantly about death in is his Vanity Fair articles (go read them). 

20.08. Most people tacitly think they will live on forever. There better be a heaven if we are going to waste our time bickering with our spouses etc etc! Unlike religious people we atheists have a real good reason to make the most of life. To make the most in the present moment. Even if you live to 100 there are not that many days in life. So what is the point in life. Is anything sacred? Does that question make sense? There are ways to live in the present moment. The reality of life is always NOW. This is a liberating truth about the human mind. This is the most important thing to know if you want to be happy in this world.

23.40 The past is a memory it’s a thought arising in the present. The future is merely a thought arising now. What we truly have is this moment .. and this moment.

25.20 I don’t want to stand in front of 4000 atheists and talk about Lao Tzu. Not more information but requires a change of attitude, change in attentiveness in the present moment.

26.01 Consciousness just arrives dependant on the brain, consc indepent of the body. No.

28.59 Conceptual lens

29.50 to 37.10: 7 minute Mindfulness Meditation in the present (you are now all Buddhists!)

41.56 constantly ruminating – you will miss your life. Be in the present. Voice in the head keeps saying things. Conversation that you have with yourself every minute of the day has a cost. Mechanism of self doubt - the fear of death. Hostage to thoughts is not useful. Purpose of life is obvious – we try to create and repair a world that our minds want to be in. We Atheists alone among humanity realise that, religion is a bad way to do that, we have to start a new conversation.

46: Douglas Hofsteder – memory is an emulation of them.

50.20 – 56.30 Question on suffering when can see death in the world. When you are suffering you are lost in thought. Some  things are worth suffering over? If your child dies can you stop suffering if you break the spell of thought? Yes to some degree but its damn hard to do when the bar is set that high when you dealing with the death of someone so close to you. The experience of the 7 minute meditation (I’ve gone on retreats for weeks or months at a time) and in silence for 18 hours a day just did that exercise. It takes a lot of time to realise how much thought is clouding your experience of the present moment. Under current of thought – memory of how much you loved her – buffeted to thoughts, hostage to thoughts. Relief of death and suffering is by bearing down on the present moment,  erodes the pain of the pain. The framing is the issue, it’s the difference between the pain in your arm because you are getting good at lifting weights or the pain of bone cancer. We give a lot of thought to gaining more information or getting healthy. We give very little thought to training the mind, training attention itself. Lot of neuroscientific research on Mindfulness Meditation. Many good things happen when you can just drop your stress and the automaticity of thinking. Just be aware of current moment, the next sensation, the next thought. Experience of flow in the present moment. There is relief to found there but it takes training, a commitment to not merely brooding and thinking. Not discounting the utility of thought.Not discounting the importance of sorting out the world. There is a quiestic bias amongst meditators that I think is completely dysfunctional. We don’t want a culture of people not being engaged and not improving the world. But if there is any kernel of truth in the religions we so deplore and they are just a carnival of errors the truth is it possible to sink into the present moment in such a way to find it sacred and to cease to have a problem. Most of the testimony for this is contaminated with religious bullshit.

George Carlin - Religion is bullshit.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o



George Carlin - Religion is bullshit via
http://www.thinkhumanism.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=555

Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

RichardDawkins.net

YouTube Playlist


Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss sat down for a public discussion at Stanford University on Sunday, March 9th 2008. The focus was on Science education, but the discussion also covered religion, physics, evolution and more. This video will be released on DVD soon at RichardDawkins.net, along with other new unmoderated discussions with Richard Dawkins.

* I've added subtitles to the Q&A sections with the bad audio. - Josh

Quicktime: Discussion (52:22, 110 MB) | Q&A (Now with subtitled questions. 52:55, 114 MB)

YouTube: Full Playlist (1-12)

My summary of each part follows.

• Discussion:
• Part 1 | Science Education - the awe of science - the things that people are fascinated by are science - people need a hook to 'get science'
  
• Part 2 | Darwin and Evolution - how science is done. Alfred Wallace. Einstein. Quantum Mechanics. Evolution can be difficult to 'get'; an electron goes in every possible direction all at the same time, Thomas Young & particle slit experiments
  
• Part 3 | Quantum mechanics is ridiculous and difficult, evolution is just a 'theory'. Natural Selection. Fear of science - immoral because God is not part of discussions, teaching biology and physics, facts taught first not the explanation of evolution, evolution and definition of 'Theory' v fact . Drivers of evolution - natural selection and mutation.
  
• Part 4 | evolution is a fact. Natural selection is not the dominant driving force of all evolution as measured at the molecular level but natural selection is the dominant driving force of adaptive evolution, Intelligent Design - teach the controversy, sex v stork theory of reproduction cf evolution v ID, 50% of USA dont realise that the earth goes around the sun, science education and why scientists don't promote science well, you don't have to be an atheist to believe in evolution.
  
• Part 5 | Richard Dawkins says "if your aim is to kill religion, as mine is, then since evolution is manifestly true, then if there are people who really believe that to be an evolutionist you need to be an atheist, then all i've got to do is to persuade them of evolution, which is comparatively easy becuase the evidence is overwelmening, then I can turn everyone into an atheist". Reaching people who are receptive, use of seduction, open minds, world is remarkable and the way to understand the world is through science. Christopher Hitchens - does he go to far (no - except for the Iraq war) ? You dont have to be an atheist to believe in evolution - read Francis Collins or Kenneth Miller (rec. by RD for religious people). Incompatability of religion and evolution. Faith is emotional. Existence of God is a scientific question.
  
• Part 6 | the world would be a better place if we could understand as it is (without fear, terror), my whole life has been in explaining science because it is wonderful, understanding the scientific method, science is not just a story - it makes predictions. As a scientist you want to prove your collegues wrong. Profound believes that are then found to be wrong, by science, is wonderful.
  

• Q&A (now w/ subtitled questions):
• Part 7 |Is their a purpose in the Universe? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (Carl Sagan - who stole it from someone else) ie the absence of evidence of purpose does not prove there is no purpose. The question about purpose is obviously linked to a theological belief. What is the purpose of a mountain or Space or Time or the Universe. These are meaningless and stupid questions. Science is Fun & Pleasurable & Enjoyable.
• Part 8 | Wikipedia is counter intuitive - surely it cannot work, Evolution does not degrade humanity by us being related to apes, non religious in USA should form a lobby,
  
• Part 9 | reason for religiosity of USA v UK - capitalism of religion more effective at selling religion than a state religon. Childrens book about Evolution. Teachers are being intimidated by parents not to teach Evolution. Use film or movies cf. Al Gore, to promote science not just books.
  
• Part 10 | TV/Film series: Carl Sagan ' Cosmos', David Attenbourgh's work, Brownoski 'Ascent of Man'. Don't use 'belief' in a scientific context. Basic literacy in science. How can you govern if you don't know about science eg a flat earther - it is an indication of being thick and stupid.
  
• Part 11 | Creationism, macro evolution is just micro evolution going on for a long time, when it comes to Bird Flu - science is the only thing thats going to save us.
  
• Part 12 | science communication by scientists,
  

Google Video: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

Credits:
Filmed by Josh Timonen and Wayne Marsala
Edited by Josh Timonen

Non-believers must not be silenced to save the feelings of the faithful

Editorial by Terry Sanderson, NSS Newsline, 9th May 2008

Non-believers must not be silenced to save the feelings of the faithful
Lord Lamont, speaking in parliament the other day said:

"Part of the tension between Islam and the West is not a clash of religions, but a clash between belief and unbelief.

We simply do [not] understand or appreciate how deep, how embedded or how strong is religion in many parts of the world. Not so long ago, a friend of mine and Member of the other place [House of Commons] told me how he went to the Middle East and rather fancied himself as someone who could talk to people of extreme views there. He met someone from the spectrum of political Islam and they did not get on very well. After a while, the Muslim on the other side of the table said,

'Well, we are not agreeing politically, but there is one thing we have in common: we believe in the same God', to which my friend replied, 'I do not believe in God at all'.

That is the not the way in which this dialogue can proceed constructively. We have an aggressive secularism in the West which is deeply antipathetic to people in other parts of the world."

I had to read this deeply intolerant statement twice to make sure my eyes weren't deceiving me. The implications of what Norman Lamont is saying are shocking.

He seems to suggest that if you don't have religious beliefs it is somehow rude or counterproductive to say so. It is this kind of stupid thinking that allows religious people to get away with murder (sometimes quite literally).

Under no circumstances — Normal Lamont seems to be saying — try to make clear that you don't support the sometimes grotesque beliefs of the faithful.

Admittedly when in Rome (or the Middle East) you should be diplomatic and try not to upset your host, but that does not give your host the right to force you into pretending to subscribe to beliefs that you do not have.

If we are to inhabit the world together, religious and non-religious people alike, then tolerance has to be a two-way process. It cannot be unquestioning respect for religion and automatic disrespect for those who cannot bring themselves to believe.

Lord Lamont's statement should be disregarded by everyone, whether they have a religion or not. Non-believers have as much right to be honest about where they are coming from as have believers. Non-belief is a legitimate and defensible standpoint that should not be yielded to satisfy intolerant religious believers.

Humanists agree religion can be ‘a social evil’

Humanists agree religion can be ‘a social evil’. The British Humanist Association (BHA) has today welcomed a report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that found deep concern about the damage that religion does to British society. The study consulted 3500 people about their views on modern Britain and found that alongside poverty, consumerism and drug abuse, religion is thought of as a social evil. While some respondents thought that the decline in religion has weakened morality, most were worried about religious irrationality, the influence of religion on politics or the ways in which religion undermines social cohesion.

Andrew Copson, Director of Education and Public Affairs for the BHA said: ‘It comes as no surprise to us that the public are angered when they see faith schools separating their communities or unelected bishops sitting in the House of Lords. We agree with dominant opinion in the survey which argued that it is not just a tiny minority of extremists who do damage in the name of religion; it is all those who seek to exempt religion from the rules which govern the rest of society.’

Religion is ‘the new social evil’

A CHARITY set up by an ardent Christian to fight slavery and the opium trade has identified a new social evil of the 21st century - religion.

A poll by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation uncovered a widespread belief that faith - not just in its extreme form - was intolerant, irrational and used to justify persecution.

Pollsters asked 3,500 people what they considered to be the worst blights on modern society, updating a list drawn up by Rowntree, a Quaker, 104 years ago.

The responses may well have dismayed him.

The researchers found that the “dominant opinion” was that religion was a “social evil”.

Many participants said religion divided society, fuelled intolerance and spawned “irrational” educational and other policies.

One said: “Faith in supernatural phenomena inspires hatred and prejudice throughout the world, and is commonly used as justification for persecution of women, gays and people who do not have faith.”

Many respondents called for state funding of church schools to be ended.

The findings contrast with Rowntree’s “scourges of humanity”, which included poverty, war, slavery, intemperance, the opium trade, impurity and gambling.

Poverty and drugs remain, but are joined by issues such as family breakdown, young people’s behaviour and fears over immigration.

Tom Butler, the Bishop of Southwark, rejected the indictment of faith. He said: “People meeting together, week after week, for worship, support and education in church, synagogue, temple, gurdwara and mosque can not only help people build local community but can teach children to become good citizens.”

However, Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said he was “extremely pleased”. “Britain has had it with religion,” he said.

Elimination of Religion

PZ Myers said

"As for the charge that these New Atheists are unable to tolerate a harmless religion, and that their goal is the elimination of the enemy, that's complete nonsense. We want to eliminate them in the same sense that we want to eliminate illiteracy; we will educate, we will talk, we will stand up for our ideas."

Atheist Revolution siad" Yes! I want to see the end of religious belief much as I want to see the end of illiteracy, poverty, infant mortality, and the like. I want to eliminate it in this way and not in the draconian way Christians are so fond of describing. What a perfect description!"

Bertrand Russell

Truthdig debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

reposted from: http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070617_religion_politics_and_the_end_of_the_world/
Chris Street comments are in bright green;

highlights in yellow blockquotes.

the Truthdig debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges.

- See Video 1 for a great speech by Sam Harris on how religions justify their beliefs.

reposted from: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/soumaya_ghannoushi_/2007/11/god_is_not_dead.html
Chris Street comments are in bright green; highlights in blockquotes (yellow).

God is not dead

Religion is on the ascendancy in Europe. The challenge is how Europe can foster an open, tolerant religion.

Soumaya Ghannoushi

November 9, 2007 9:00 AM

No subject seems to generate more heated discussion these days than religion. And this is by no means confined to Comment is Free, where articles on God, atheism, secularism, evolution and creationism consistently attract floods of comments within hours of being published. Books exploring religion and spirituality top bestseller lists, too. According to Amazon,

religious publishing has grown by 50% in the last three years, surpassing sales of books in categories such as history and politics.

The same story is repeated by universities and colleges throughout the UK. The Institute of Directors reported that religious studies A-level showed the biggest percentage increase in candidates of any subject, up from 12.671 in 2003 to 19.006 this year.

Far from fading away, religion is on the ascendancy. This is not only true of African and Asian Muslim societies; there are signs of its revival even in secularity's western European heartlands. Institutionalised religion continues to decline steadily, with church attendance rates dropping below 20% even in Catholic Spain, Italy and Ireland, and priests dying out - with only one ordained in the whole of Dublin in 2004. But this is not the whole story. Individual interest in religion is booming. Every year, some 100,000 hikers make the trek across Europe to Santiago de Compostela in Spain; six million people visit Lourdes and four million go to Jasna Góra in Poland.

More than two million Britons have now taken the Alpha course, described as "an opportunity to explore the meaning of life".

Forms of alternative spirituality such as Alexander technique, Buddhist groups, Islamic Sufism, herbalism, reiki, and yoga are also thriving.

No one has captured the prophecy of religion's evaporation better than Nietzsche's madman, who stands in the middle of a packed marketplace and cries out: "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him". The disappearance of God, or what Max Weber termed the "disenchantment of the world" became the spirit of the modern age. The trend was meant to be irreversible. The more urbanised, industrialised, and educated our society would get, the less religious, and the more secularised it would be.

But reality has not lived up to the secularist prophecy. The cost of modernisation in the era of advanced capitalism was much too heavy to be borne by the individual and society alike. Modernity broke shackles of gods, tradition, and family and created new ones. In its iron cage the individual turned into a tiny insignificant cog in a machine over which s/he has no control. Stripped of the protection of relatives, clan, church, and increasingly welfare state, s/he stands naked at the mercy of the market and its rampant forces.

The process of secularisation has no doubt succeeded in dramatically transforming the face of religion and its public status. Religion no longer lays down the blueprint for the socio-political order. But it has not withered away as predicted. Instead, it has assumed a more personalised form, one intimately connected to the individual's inner needs and concerns.

Of course, this statement needs to be qualified. For in the British context religion has never really completely withdrawn to the private sphere. The church remains closely entangled with the monarchy, with archbishops and bishops still appointed by the monarch, and the latter still referred to as "Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England". With a powerful network of charities and voluntary organisations and a long list of affiliated schools, the church's role in civil society should not be underestimated.

It is ironic that the further modern humans seem to move from religion and its many constraints, the more they thirst for it; the greater their sense of emptiness, and meaninglessness, the deeper their need for spiritual fullness and a moral horizon.

In the certainty and coherence of religious belief, they find a way out of the wasteland of nihilism and the ruins of meaning.

The truth is that while a few individuals, intellectuals and academics might co-exist with nihilism and even celebrate it as affirmative and Dionysian, the majority are unable to bear its icy grip on their souls or crushing burden on their lives. Not everyone can be a Nietzsche or a Kafka.

But the recent calm "return" to religion has been accompanied with two more aggressive trends. The first is a Christian right rising in many parts of Europe - such as Switzerland and France - which across the Atlantic finds its most sinister expression in the evangelicals allied to neoconservatives.

The other is no less totalitarian in its claims, but is secular rather than religious. It preaches absolute belief in science, reason and progress and calls for the eradication of religion and its "evil superstitions". Its proponents, who in Britain include Richard Dawkins and Anthony Grayling, are the new Jacobins, who are every bit as dogmatic and militant as their 18th century predecessors.

Europe cannot turn back the wheel of time and revert to the days when the church held sway. But whether we like it or not, religion is also an undeniable fact of contemporary European reality. The challenge for Europe is how it can foster a tolerant religion and an open secularity, beyond the frenzied zealousness of the religious and the secular.

What is religion? What is Science?

reposted from: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bhascience/files/

BASELINE THINKING: A Summary on 6 Sept 07
By David Flint

Science
We have a good consensus on the nature of science. Science, we think, is an attempt or set of attempts to understand the universe. It has four distinctive characteristics:

1. It creates theories (models) which must (after Popper) be refutable in principle (Rees, Coleman, Flint, Egan, Catt)
2. It tests its theories against evidence (from observation and experiment) (Pepperdine, Renshaw, Coleman, Flint, Rees, Jellis, Poppleton, Behman, Edmondson, Roberts)
3. It employs a variety of distinctive methods (eg peer review, double-blind testing) (Pepperdine, McNight, Rogers, Flint, Poppleton)
4. It is the product of a community (ideally but not necessarily open) which shares results, methods and comments (Flint, Poppleton).

Religious beliefs
The substance, nature, sources and consequences of religious beliefs are distinctive:
1. Substance: They claim to be about 'ultimate reality (aka "life, the universe and everything" (Renshaw, Edmondson).
2. Substance: They almost always include beliefs in supernatural entities or states (Rees, Flint, Edmondson, Behman, Rogers, Poppleton).
3. Nature: The beliefs are not testable (Rees) and specifically (after Popper) such that no evidence could show them to be false (Flint).
4. Source: They are based on faith, revelation or tradition (Rees, Jellis, McNight, Coleman, Behman, Roberts, Poppleton) rather than evidence (Renshaw, Edmondson, Roberts, Catt).
5. Consequences: They always demand that people do some things and refrain from others (Poppleton).

Religious beliefs are protected two supplementary beliefs which discourage close examination by adherents:
" The belief that belief itself is virtuous - even in the absence of understanding (Coleman, Flint, Catt).
" The belief that doubt is undesirable, even wicked.

Religious practices
We recognize that each religion is a system of beliefs and practices but had little to say about the practices.

[Comment: This is a weakness since for many adherents the practices ARE the religion whilst theology is little considered.]

Religion as an historical phenomenon
There was less consensus on the historical, social and psychological nature of religion. The following views were expressed about origins:
" Religions were originally attempts to understand the world (McNight).
" It was natural to personify natural phenomena (Rogers) through rituals, prayers, etc. (Flint)
" It seemed possible to influence these supernatural persons - giving power to priests and their allies (McNight, Behman).

Pepperdine suggested that religion evolved to strengthen the cohesion of human groups.

McNight, Broughton and Pepperdine suggested that religion is a psychological prop, welcomed by "that part of human nature which rejects evidence, reason and logic in favour of emotionally charged conclusions" (McNight).

Mocking The Faithful? Suck It, Jesus!

reposted from:http://atheistrevolution.blogspot.com/2007/09/mocking-faithful-suck-it-jesus.html

Mocking The Faithful? Suck It, Jesus!

from Atheist Revolution by vjack

I think I can safely assume that everyone reading this has now heard about Kathy Griffin saying, "Suck it, Jesus" at the Emmy Awards. As expected, the self-appointed defenders of Christianity are up in arms, and many atheist bloggers are still laughing about it. American Atheists issued a statement condemning broadcasters for censoring Griffin's statement when they re-air the show. Something tells me that this will be yet another missed opportunity for some meaningful dialogue about the place of religion in our modern world.

I assume that Griffin's comments were intended to have a comedic effect in that she was making fun of the near universal tendency for celebrities to thank fictional beings during their acceptance speeches. She is hardly the first to call attention to this bizarre behavior or to mock it. The difference seems to be that she mocked it at the awards show and that her comments have been interpreted as mocking Jesus too.

Do I find her comments funny? Absolutely. I am disgusted with the celebrities and athletes who insist on thanking supernatural beings for their success, and I welcome those who would mock them. Their beliefs are both irrational and harmful; mockery is warranted. I am fully aware that believers are offended by such mockery. The thing is, they are practically begging for it when they continue to spew this nonsense. Pam, from Pam's House Blend sums it up perfectly:

I mean, c'mon, you believe that the Creator of all time, space, physics, and energy, who went to the trouble of engineering a Big Bang and shepherded tens of billions of years worth of cosmic thermonuclear reactions in order to create a life sustaining planet upon which He could create bodies to house souls and send His son to death by torture so you could go to Heaven forever even though you're a sinner by virtue of a fraud perpetrated by talking snake who offered a magical apple to a rib-woman, and you want to base our nation upon those principles and overturn 231 years of secular Constitutional rule, and YOU'RE offended by a D-list comedian saying "suck it, Jesus"?

The fact that such beliefs are religiously inspired does not make them exempt from criticism. As long as people are going to continue to restrict the liberties of others because of these beliefs and kill in service to these beliefs, mockery is not just permissible; it is mandatory.

If the decision to censor Griffin bothers you, here is something you can do about it.

Times columnist: stop shoving religion down my throat

reposted from: http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2007/09/times-columnist-stop-shoving-religion.html

Thursday, 13 September 2007

Times columnist: stop shoving religion down my throat

Columnist Carol Sarler has an enjoyable rant in today's Times, asking why the media pays so much attention to religious matters when, statistically, so few people seem to care any more: "It is a peculiar reversal of social logic that the decline in the practice of religion should be met with such a rise in reference to it".

Carol's confused why the media are so concerned with issues like the sexuality of priests, but also worried about the deference given to religion: "Good manners today disallow the questioning of a man's belief as sternly as they disallow jokes about it. . . It has become a sine qua non of courteous interaction that those of us without a religious bone in our bodies must defer to those who have". My favourite statement in the article is that "there are in Britain more practising anglers than practising Anglicans", a point I have made a mental note to make use of in the future.

There's only one problem with this article really. If everyone suddenly stopped going on about religion, the industrious staff at New Humanist would be out of a job without a penny to our names...

Our attention was demanded yesterday by headline “news” that, thousands of miles away in Zimbabwe, Archbishop Pius Ncube has tendered his resignation to the Pope after rumours of sexual derrings-do – even though, in his case, his alleged partner was adult, female and consensual; hardly, therefore, an earth-shattering story except, possibly, to the small minority of Britons who are Roman Catholics.

The previous day, we had been similarly commanded to turn our thoughts to the pros and cons of subjecting Muslim faith schools, beloved of an even smaller minority, to state control. Last week conservative religious leaders of all stripes were handed ample airtime to condemn embryo research; for three straight months we have been daily reminded, amid all else, of the beliefs of the family McCann.

It is a peculiar reversal of social logic that the decline in the practice of religion should be met with such a rise in reference to it.

Consider: if as many as 6.3 per cent of the population attend church (hold tight; we’ll nit-pick the figures in a moment) and if it would be fair to say that easily half of those don’t give a fig whether the bloke in the robes at the front is gay or not – why is it that the remaining 97 per cent of unconcerned people are being relentlessly subjected to the quibbling about it?

Of course, it might not be exactly 6.3 per cent; this happens to come from the religious think-tank Christian Research, but religion and statistics are notoriously awkward bedfellows. Census results have been criticised for the phrasing of the question “Which religion are you?”, which produced twice as many “Christians” as another survey found believers in God. The Catholic Church, enjoying something of a boost from Polish and other migrant workers, claims more than 900,000 Mass attendances per week – which sounds healthy until you ask how many of the devout go more than once a week.

Our Muslim population is 1.6 million, but considerably more than half of those are children, while the Jewish population is believed to be alone in undercalculating its size, given an understandable reluctance – especially among older Jews of Eastern European origin – to tick boxes marked “Jewish”. Nobody, however, sensibly denies the overall decline in religious practice. Even the top-up provided by ethnic minority immigration does not help; in London, black churchgoers now outnumber whites, but declining churches are still losing more people than growing churches are gaining.

And yet, our pal from Mars, dropping by for his first visit in a generation, would be hard pressed to believe it. Last time he called, the British enjoyed a comfy relationship with their religions, whereby more people worshipped but far fewer mentioned it. Weeks would go by without religious reference in the media beyond Thought for the Day and Songs of Praise; these days, by contrast, it is routinely the stuff of front pages.

When I was a child, archbishops were kindly, benign coves, wheeled out on big occasions; they didn’t, by and large, jump into newsprint to tackle “issues” in the name of their cloth.

Even half a generation ago, Ann Widdecombe’s sincerely held religious commitment, one which must have informed her work as a minister, was regarded as just part of an amiable eccentricity that elevated her to a national treasure; today, Ruth Kelly’s comparable commitment has become her defining characteristic.

This is not to say that the tenets of religion have opened to greater debate: indeed, if only. Good manners today disallow the questioning of a man’s belief as sternly as they disallow jokes about it and to offend by either means may be, at least, a sacking offence or, at most, a matter of law. It has become a sine qua non of courteous interaction that those of us without a religious bone in our bodies must defer to those who have, and even determined antitheists are to hush our mouths lest we “cause offence” (in vain might we cry of the offence that we often feel).

The more liberal the person or the institution, the more likely it is that they accommodate the illiberal – as long as it comes in religious guise. Take, for instance, schools; all progressive schools worth their label will, these days, boast of their efforts to teach children about each other’s “cultures”. In fact, they lie. What they are teaching is each other’s religions. If they really meant culture, it would involve song, dance, art, literature, dress, drink and food; all we actually get, in most cases, are religious festivals – and if food gets mentioned, it is only to explain that the reason child X cannot eat the meal as enjoyed by child Y is because child X has a god who says he must not.

It cannot be coincidence that this deference towards religion in general has paralleled the muddled, if well-meaning, response specifically to the growth of Islam. Muddled because of a confusion between ethnicity and religion; well-meaning because it was the same commendable urge to show respect for ethnicity that widened to insist upon respect for the religion that often came with it. And if endless news bulletins bowed to “From a Muslim point of view . . .”, it is hardly surprising that, in the name of all things equal, every other small minority possessed of a deity has demanded prominence too.

It does not, however, make it any less absurd. At the moment,

there are in Britain more practising anglers than practising Anglicans

– but it is unimaginable, is it not, that in an effort to give properly representative nods to similarly consuming passions we might afford the same attentions to the sexuality of a carp that we give to a priest’s?

Nobody should seek to deny the right to worship. Whatever gets you through the night and all that. But a sense of proportion is running overdue; the interests of a minority are, by definition, a minority interest and deserve no more, if no less, consideration than any other.

Certainly not out of fear of “causing offence”, when secular sense is there to remind us that nobody, ever, has the right not to be offended. God-given or otherwise.

Atheism: The Important Questions

Are these the Important Questions. Do comment below.

reposted from Atheist Revolution
Atheism: The Important Questions
from Atheist Revolution by vjack

I long for a post-religious world where congregations of believers cling to private superstitions while science, education, and government are free from the toxic influence of religion. The atheist movement has done a remarkable job of demonstrating that theistic belief is both irrational and detrimental. Efforts to promote atheism are growing, and fundamentalist Christians are worried. Now, some atheists are beginning to explore potential next steps. In this post, I try to identify some of the important questions for us to consider as we work to progress beyond religion.

I do not intend what follows to be an exhaustive list. I am trying to highlight what I think are the most critical of many possible questions we must address.

1. What are the benefits individual believers derive (or think they derive) from theistic belief? We need to catalog the actual or imagined benefits to believers from belief itself, stripping away potential benefits derived more from the institution of religion. Secular versions of religious institutions can be created if necessary, but focusing on the potential benefits of faith itself must inform the priorities of our movement.

2. What are the secular alternatives through which people can obtain the same benefits identified above? It is naive to think that we can overcome religion without understanding it. If there are actual benefits to the believer from religious belief, can we offer secular alternatives for obtaining the same benefits? I suspect the most important example of this will concern the topic of morality.

3. What advantages are offered by atheism, secular humanism, freethought, etc.? Religion is the status quo, and it is natural to resist change. Identifying the costs of religion is not enough; we must also be familiar with the advantages of a secular worldview. Atheism needs a public relations campaign, and how we answer this question should help to shape it.

4. How do we advance the level of organization which currently characterizes the larger secular community? I've tired of the whole "herding cats" metaphor. Many atheists, secular humanists, and freethinkers are active in other causes (e.g., politics, separation of church and state, etc.). We are limiting ourselves by resisting greater organization.

It is time to build some political muscle to oppose the forces of theocracy.

5. What are the most effective ways to educate the public about atheism? We are crafting an important message, and it makes sense that we should give some thought about how best to deliver it. How should stereotypes be challenged? How might we alter public perceptions?
6. Can we learn to accept diversity within the secular community? If we're honest, I think we can agree that we've all made some mistakes here. Unless atheism is to become some bizarre cult, we need to learn how to get along and celebrate our differences. It makes me wince when I hear other atheists questioning whether so-and-so is a "real atheist." Disagreements are inevitable, but how do we make sure that they are a source of strength rather than a cause of fragmentation?

I'm sure you'll have other ideas about the most important questions we need to ask ourselves and our freethought colleagues. Share them here or on your blogs.

Tags: atheist, atheism, atheist movement, secular, humanist, humanism, religion

Socrates Meets Jesus

Socrates Meets Jesus
by Prometheus

via Stumbleupon

Socrates

Good morning, Jesus, I have heard much of your marvelous teachings. In my own modest way I am a philosopher here in Athens. I am told you have great wisdom and certainly that is indicated by the throng of admirers that follow you through the streets. If you have a few moments to spare, I would appreciate it if you would enlighten me with the answers to some of the puzzling problems I have been wrestling with all my life

Jesus

I am as a fisher of men in my search for followers. I bring the truth of God to all men. Seek and you shall find, ask and it shall be answered knock and it shall be open unto to thee.

Socrates

There is one basic question that has always been uppermost in my mind. Although it has always been an insurmountable obstacle to me in my search for the truth and meaning, I am sure that with your learning you will find it far to easy and think me a foolish old man. I have always longed to live honorably and nobly, but it seems that I have merely stumbled through life without even even knowing what was honorable or noble. With my limited understanding, it often seems to me that life, even with all its sound and fury, really signifies nothing. Please tell me: How should a man live; what is the purpose of life.

Jesus

To serve and worship God.

Socrates

Which God.

Jesus

There is only one god.

Socrates

Oh. You should live here in Athens. We have several to choose from.

Much More>>>

What contribution to science has been made by Christianity in its two thousand years?

A history lesson

According to Madeleine Bunting, Christianity has fostered learning and science in Europe for hundreds of years. Really?

AC Grayling

Articles

• Latest
• Show all

Profile

All AC Grayling articles
About Webfeeds

January 29, 2007 3:14 PM | Printable version

Madeleine Bunting, in a column today, thinks that discrimination is a minor matter; we should all spend every day that the Iraq war lasts wringing our hands over it, paying no attention to anything else, least of all efforts by self-selected tendentious minorities to protect their prejudices from efforts to make our society a fairer place.

The impression of confusion is heightened by Ms Bunting's version of history, which she opposed to mine by name. She tells us that Christianity has "fostered learning and science" in Europe for "hundreds of years".

I challenge her to name one - even one small - contribution to science made by Christianity in its two thousand years; just one; and in the process perhaps she might kindly explain how, so late as 1615, after Galileo had seen the moons of Jupiter through his telescope, the great Cardinal Bellarmine could write: "read, not merely the Fathers, but modern commentators on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua; you will discover that all agree in interpreting them literally as teaching that the sun is in the heavens and revolves round the earth with immense speed, and that the earth is very distant from the heavens, at the centre of the universe, and motionless. Consider then in your prudence whether the Church can tolerate that the scriptures should be interpreted in a manner contrary to that of the holy fathers and of all modern commentators, both Latin and Greek."

"In your prudence": does Ms Bunting know what he meant? But to be more up to date, I invite her to read any of the "A Beka" books, the "Bible-based science" textbooks for the 2.5 million evangelical children home-schooled in the USA to protect them from Darwin, which tell the future rulers of the world's most powerful country that the world was created 6,000 years ago and Tyrannosaurus Rex was a vegetarian in Eden, and Adam's pet.

Ms Bunting will be on top of the mailing list for the large tome I've just spent years writing (I thank her for this advertising opportunity) on the way liberties, first of conscience, then thought, then the person, then for working people and women, were wrested from the bitter opposition of church and absolutisms premised on "divine right" and their joint legacy of oligarchies of privilege and patriarchy.

If the Catholic Church were still running Europe, Ms Bunting would not be writing for the Guardian. Actually, if this was 1950s Ireland, she might not be writing anything.

Nor might she if she were an Arab Muslim woman, among whom the illiteracy rate is 46%. Yes, Islam in its long-gone heyday made contributions to mathematics and astronomy. Mainly it transmitted Indian mathematics and Greek philosophy and science. People in the Islamic world produced some exquisite art and poetry, as people both religious and non-religious have often done in many cultures; though interestingly much of Islamic art and poetry is non-religious in content.

The one enduring positive legacy to science of Islam's best centuries is "Arabic" numerals. With respect, Ms Bunting's grip on both science and history seems a little approximate. She would do better to stick to defending the Catholic Church from the critical attentions of those opposed to discrimination.

Finally, Ms Bunting wheels out the bunkum that we (here in Britain?) live in unhappier and more spiritually impoverished times because we do not dwell - well, where? In the warm glow of Torquemada's Inquisition pyres? On a slave plantation in Jamaica? Would she prefer to be in a harem, or an undermaid in a medieval kitchen?

What rot this claim is; and it does not improve on repetition. It happens that we have the technology to make everyone "happy", as if this were by itself the great aim of things: put Prozac in the public water supply. One reason for not doing so is that norms of fulfilment and flourishing in human life rest on such richer possibilities now than when the sun went round the earth and you could be burned to death for not believing that it did.

reposted from: guardian
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

Atheist tactics - the continuum - ignoring religion completely to opposing it with great hostility

Atheist tactics - the continuum - ignoring religion completely to opposing it with great hostility. WASP tends to be closer to the "thoughtfully critical of religion" pole of Atheist activism.

reposted from: Atheist Revolution
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments

It is a sad day when atheists accuse one another of not being sufficiently outraged by all things religious. It is almost as if some are now concerned with some sort of atheist street cred! The poor media, always weeks behind any meaningful development in the blogosphere, are now highlighting and amplifying conflict to make it look like we are a bunch of bickering idiots.

Over at Friendly Atheist, Hemant was accused of being too nice to religion. I read Friendly Atheist regularly, and I applaud Hemant's content and the tone of his message. Just because I choose to be a bit harsher in my tone here does not mean that I value his contribution any less. If anything, I admire his patience and suspect that he will reach more of those who we might describe as on the fence than I ever will.

When Hemant says, "I can’t believe I have to defend myself for not acting like a douchebag," I know exactly how he feels. You may remember that I was recently criticized along similar grounds.

There are many different with which an atheist can deal with religion, from ignoring it completely to opposing it with great hostility. Admittedly, I tend toward the opposing end of the spectrum, but that doesn't mean I need to be an ass to maintain my atheist street cred. The approach that Hemant uses so effectively and which I attempt at times may well be more effective than in-your-face attacks. To write it off because you don't think it is harsh enough misses the point - we seek change and not empty complaining.

There are believers out there who genuinely oppose theocracy and other social-political ills. Should we refuse to interact with them simply because of their delusion? I can't speak for others, but I am a hell of a lot more interested in making our world a better place than I am in adhering to someone else's idea of what our "atheist movement" is supposed to be about.

I do not agree with Hemant when he says, "Being angry and antagonistic isn’t helping our cause." I believe that there are situations where this approach is beneficial. However, that does not mean that it has to be inflexible. There are plenty of other times when I suspect a friendly approach will be far more effective. We need the "friendly atheist" at least as much as we need the "angry atheist."

the idea that God murdered his son for the salvation of the world, is unbiblical, barbaric and morally indefensible

Cross purposes

Penal substitution, the idea that God murdered his son for the salvation of the world, is unbiblical, barbaric and morally indefensible.

by Giles Fraser

April 4, 2007 5:00 PM | Printable version

Easter is a time for stringing up the innocent. And this year, once again, the sacrificial victim is the dean of St Albans, Dr Jeffrey John. Of course, we all know the reason why he's hated by conservatives in the church. No, not because he is gay, but because he's honest. And it's this same honesty that has got him in trouble again. For, once again, what he has been saying is nothing other than a truth known by most people in the pews: that the idea of God murdering his son for the salvation of the world is barbaric and morally indefensible. It turns Christianity into "cosmic child abuse".

The technical theological term for this nasty perversion of the Easter story is penal substitution. It was dreamt up by Anselm in the 11th century and later added to by Calvin. The argument goes like this: human beings have sinned against God and thus insulted him. Under medieval conceptions of law, human beings must be put to death for insulting so grand and mighty a personage as God. There is a way out, however. In order to escape death they can make some sort of "satisfaction" to compensate God for the insult against him. The problem is, no human being could pay off the size of debt required by so grave an insult as an insult against God. Therefore human beings are doomed. Except - ah, here, apparently is the wonderful bit - God graciously allows his son to take our place, paying off the debt by giving to Jesus the punishment that is properly ours. Thus satisfaction is achieved and human beings are spared hell.

Jeffrey John is quite right to think of this as sick. Speaking on Radio 4 tonight, the good Dean will say this:

"Even at the age of 10 I thought this explanation was pretty repulsive as well as nonsensical. What sort of God was this, getting so angry with the world and the people he created, and then, to calm himself down, demanding the blood of his own son? And anyway, why should God forgive us through punishing somebody else? It was worse than illogical, it was insane. It made God sound like a psychopath. If any human being behaved like this we'd say they were a monster."

Hear, hear.

The two theological problems with this account are that it refuses to believe that forgiveness can ever be a proper response to sin and furthermore that the resurrection plays no part in the story of human salvation. This makes it a heresy.

The first problem means that penal substitution is profoundly unbiblical. Much of the Bible speaks of forgiveness. Debts are to be unilaterally wiped away. It's what has inspired Christians to campaign for the unilateral eradication of third world debt. Jesus clearly follows this tradition. Not an eye for an eye, but the forgiveness even of enemies. Unfortunately, conservative evangelicals don't agree with Jesus. They see him as a dangerous liberal. Instead they think all debt has to be paid off in full. And their message of Good Friday is as simple as it is nasty: sin can only be paid off by blood. Its no coincidence that where Christians believe in penal substitution they also strongly believe in capital punishment. Thus the cross, originally a symbol of the horror of capital punishment, turns into its greatest cheerleader.

The second problem is that conservative evangelicals don't really believe in the resurrection either. Sure, it's there in the Bible so they want to believe in it. The problem is that all the salvation work goes on during Good Friday. According to them, it is on the cross that Jesus pays off the price of sin. And therefore it is on the cross that we are saved from God's wrathful anger. According to this theology, the resurrection has a bit part in the story of human salvation. Secular atheists may balk at the miraculous aspect of the resurrection, but its message is life-enhancing: the triumph of good over evil, life over death etc. Conservative evangelicals refuse this message in favour of salvation by punishment. Well, not in my name.

reposted from: CIF
my: highlights / emphasis / key points / comments