You say:

The most scathing criticisms about what I have to say come from atheists who insist on filtering me and other religious folks through their own stereotypes and pre-conceived notions.

I've participated in the entire thread of the Harris/Prager debate. I was one of the atheists who questioned your assertion that the only people you knew who exhibited true wisdom were religious. I’ve read this post now and find it rather incredible. I believe it is you who is making ad hominem attacks against atheists. I went back to extract the statements made in response to you. I challenge you to point out which of these posts fit your characterization of “comments coming from atheists are not so magnanimous.”

1)

Dear Christine, your last statement sounds very close to Prager's claim--that "true wisdom" is non-existent among nonbelievers. To me, that sounds like a tautology: to be wise is to "hear" the religious chords, therefore those who do not accept religion are not wise. Have I got that wrong?

2)

Thanks for the reply, Christine. So, if "wisdom" is a quality distinct from religious belief, can you define it, or provide examples of wisdom in a contemporary context? I can't really evaluate whether this is something that only occurs among the religious unless I have a clear sense of your definition of that quality.
--BT

3)

If you don't mind--what caused you to shift from atheist to religious believer?
--BT

4)

I am simply saying that I have never met an atheist who possessed great wisdom.

Well, you know, Dr. Silk was an atheist for 24 years and so lacked the wisdom to be able to discern wisdom in others. Something convinced her to be wise up recently, and now after finding God she's an expert on all things wise. It's sad to here that she was unable to appreciate fine musical orchistrations all those years she spent wandering the wilderness those 24 years. Glad to hear she's found her wise sage.

5)

I am saying there is a quality called “wisdom.” This quality is not synonymous with religiosity. Some religious people are wise, many are not. I am simply saying that I have never met an atheist who possessed great wisdom. I suspect, although I cannot prove, that committing oneself to a religion may be a necessary, though not sufficient condition, for attaining wisdom. In the same way, being able to hear sound is a necessary, but not sufficient condition, for being a great conductor. Just because I am able to hear, however, does not mean that I will be a great conductor, or even a competent amateur. Just because I commit myself to a religion does not mean I will attain wisdom.

Wouldn't a person's wisdom be based on your opinion? I suppose this means that people who are religious are going to seem more wise to you than atheist. I have a feeling people you judge to be wise are people who are capable of capturing your heart and possibly your mind. Perhaps this gives you the impression that no atheist you have met is wise.

6)

I am so moved by her comments more than anything I've read here, including the debate itself. I could never attempt to describe what it is about God and faith that is deeper and truer than the atheist's hollow attempts to maquerade as a counterfeit version of everything the religious person thrives on. I just don't believe short of a miracle of God I would have the language to describe it and do it justice for a nonbeliever. But she has not only taken on this task, but succeeded beautifully.
Matt in Philadelphia

7)

You seem to be using words to your own definition. Such as that of religion. Atheists aren't religious in the true sense of the word. I suppose you could say they are spiritual but that still doesn't go with me. I'd say passionate.
Your problem of atheism not dealing with world isues such as evil and stuff is because atheism is a non set of beliefs. Evil is a human issue and is defined by your own beliefs. Although religion alligns people's beliefs who follow a set religion it doesn't necessarily mean they are right, nor does it mean they will help the world be a better place.
I think to deal with evil in the world we need to take a humanist apporach because religions like christianity are still focusing on issues such as gay marriage, which to be honest is none of their business. The only people gay marriage should be of consern to is gay people and even then, there's no need to make it illegal.
Please don't take this as an attack, I just have a feeling you might have lost sight of what atheism is about. Like Richard Dawkins said, just because it brings comfort, doesn't mean it's the right thing. Do you think you might be religious now because it brings you comfort?
This brings me onto my main issue with religion. It brings comfort, false comfort. I'm all for comfort, but I think truth trumps comfort. If I have cancer, I want to know, If I have 6 months to live I want to know. And although some people don't want to know, that's fair enough. But lots of religious people in the world want to impose this "ignorance" on others.

8)

I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed reading your posts. You write really well. You wrote, "I was more tranquil in the certainty of my atheism". I can definitely attest to this sentiment; I feel exactly the same way. When I was an atheist, I remember thinking that religion was a crutch, a self-imposed ignorance clung to by weak people to block out painful realities. Having seriously explored the religious side for the past few years now, it appears I was completely wrong.
All the best,
David

9)

I was married to someone. they were totally into christianity. I knew their was something missing. something I felt but couldn't grasp. I recently re married an athiest. And I felt i was in the midst of a strength i had never felt before. It was wisdom. That was what was missing. It was a kind of beautiful inner strength. A quiet strength. It was something missing from my christian friends. I know what christine silk means.
Professor Menzies.

10)

Actually I would like to know Christine Silk's thoughts on the nature of faith.
Pertinently, does faith in her mind manifest at a practical level, or is it self contained and defined at the conceptual level of faith, or perhaps somewhere between, as an intuitional thought.
That is, how does she experience, and perhaps, express faith?

11)

I would be interested in hearing Christine's thoughts on the following: in my experience, atheists frequently view believers as automatons, as people who cannot or do not think for themselves.

My view is more that they do think for themselves, but then they attribute their own thoughts back to "God" or "Jesus". Most Christians have no idea what the Bible says, they just work out their own natural morality, and then attribute it back to Jesus, and they just hold their own personal idealized image of Jesus in their head, which has nothing to do with the Bible, save a few aspects of common cultural images that come from movies and popular stories.
The same, I am sure, applies to Muslims, Hindus, etc.

12)

I guess you have contemplated the irony of your Beethoven quote vizzavi appreciating and conducting music whilst deaf. Your assumption that people who are kind and wise also believe in God, is not only naive, it is dangerous.
It's dangerous because it is so honestly and sincerely expressed. This is exactly what people like dawkins and harris dread. Fundamentalists holding up the views of moderates to put flesh on the tired bones of ancient fear based allegories. Fuel for the fire they want us to burn in christine. Think before you think.
Mikejswalker, Music professor

Really? I followed the Harris/Prager debate and I don't believe your characterizations are accurate. Certainly there was ad hominem attacks presented from both sides of the debate and they were addressed rather quickly. What I found interesting is that the people complaining about the ad hominem attacks were committing the offense in their complaint.

Dear Anonymous,

I am not complaining about the fact that I’m getting challenged. I welcome it. Some of these comments are part of a larger argument that contains valid points. I simply wanted to point out patterns that I’m seeing from critics. I’m trying to shake up the stereotypes that I often see some atheists buy into about religious people, namely that believers are deluded and intolerant whereas atheists are rational, logical and tolerant. Neither camp holds a monopoly on tolerance, rationality, or logic, in my view. And both camps are equally capable of using ad hominem attacks. My reading of the comments on the Prager-Harris debate (and I didn’t actually do a strict count) gives me the impression that more atheists have used ad hominem attacks than religious people have.

• Forgive me father, for I have sinned. I'm a racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, Bush supporter. I know that you, the almighty God, designed me to be this way, but I feel guilt because I've alienated the atheists who don't seem to appreciate your power and authority. Please God, give me the power to legislate your will. Give me the grace to support your holy war against the heathen infidels. Most of all, my Lord, give me the skin of an elephant so that I may withstand the taunts of my godless brethren, your mercy upon their souls. Your will be done in the name of our savior, Jesus, Amen. (Anonymous 12-7-06)

Here is an example of an atheist who paints with broad brushstrokes his or her unfavorable views of Christians:

• We're angry because, all things said and done, christians are just about the most intolerant, close-minded, knee-jerk-reactionary idiots imaginable (second only to muslims), and we're angry because now that the American Taliban has taken control of both major political parties there is virtually no hope any of these trends will change (Anonymous 12-6-06).

Hmmm. Should I feel snubbed that this writer didn’t mention Jews, or should I take comfort in the fact that Jews are not in first or second place for the "knee-jerk-reactionary-idiot" award?

No, I'm not BT. This poster was quite a bit more polite, I'm afraid. I'm the sarcastic one who said if your assertion is true that athiests are not wise and you were an atheist for 24 years, then you were not wise enough to recognize wisdom in others.

To get the shading, use <blockquote> and </blockquote>

I was also the one who crafted that sarcastic prayer meant to tease the poster who was so frustrated with the debate he asserted that his points were dismissed as meaningless because he was as "racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe, Bush supporter". Of course no one actually claimed this about him and so it appeared to me to be a confession. Thus my attempt at a joke.

Recently, the 4 year old daughter of a brother-in-law of mine in Oregon was told she was not allowed to play with her neighbors 4 year old son BECAUSE they did not go to church.

When I compare this behavior with the "challenges from atheists" you faced (and welcomed) in this blog, I have to wonder who it is that's intolerant.

When I here that a man will be beheaded according to Sharia Law (six month old news) in Afghanistan for converting from Islam to Christianity, I have to wonder who it is that's intolerant.

When I read about a successful Christian Evangelical Minister rail against homosexual marriage while the same time committing adultry, I have to wonder who it is that's intolerant.

Given all this, I have to wonder if your treatment by atheists is really that intolerant.

Why is it that Jews were not included in this "knee-je rk-reactionary-idiot" award? (note, this ad hominem is not my post) Unlike Christianity and Islam, Judaism does not prosetylize, evangelize, or attempt at converting the world to their faith. As you know, becoming a Jewish convert is one of the hardest of the religions. They are God's chosen, its an exclusive club. Its a tribal religion, and I would like to suggest that the reason why Judaism is working for you today where Objectivism fails is because it gives you this sense of belonging to a tribe. You don't have to believe in God to be part of the tribe, to follow the traditions and practice the rituals. Belief isn't necessary. What works about all religions is the social bonding aspect of people caring for other people. It's why I believe people are willing to adopt the group's superstitions, because this sense of belonging to a tribe is more important to humans than rationality.

Atheists don't have an analogous cultural structure.

I once met an American couple living as orthodox Jews in Jerusalem living by the strict rules. These two were raised secular American Jewish. The man was a fashion model in France before meeting his wife. The two choose to become orthodox, to move into an orthodox community, and to live true to the traditions, he's now studying the Torah fulltime and living off a government pension. It seemed incredible to me that they would give up their freedoms. I asked them many questions. Two weeks without touching your wife? She's unclean? etc. etc. I walked away from that encounter with an appreciation for their lifestyle, because I saw how valuable it was to belong to a tradition and a community.

These last few years I have sought out my own tribe. Church didn't cut it for me, because I didn't like being told how I'm fundamentally flawed and in need of salvation. Ultimately, I have created my own tribe. I have a taoist and a buddhist and a couple of pagans in the tribe with me, the athiest. There is no judgement between us. There is good converstation and sharing of wisdom between us. It makes me happy. They are closer to me than my own Christian fundamentalist family. A family who would hear my sarcastic prayer without the first line admitting bigotry and find it a realistic and appropriate petition.

"I’m trying to shake up the stereotypes that I often see some atheists buy into about religious people, namely that believers are deluded and intolerant whereas atheists are rational, logical and tolerant."

Though that may be a noble cause but is likely to result in little more than an exercise in futility.

It is my personal view that people like Falwell, Robertson, J B Stoner, Sheldon, Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Beck, Prager, et al., greatly exacerbate the problem of stereotypes. Also, the fact that atheists and agnostics are outnumbered and have nowhere near the level of media exposure these individuals do hardly justifies the disproportionate blame. For example a couple of quotes from Christians in leadership roles:

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
~ George H. W. Bush

"Gays and lesbians live perverted, twisted lives that feed upon the unsuspecting and the innocent, like our children."
~ Lou Sheldon (Traditional Values Coalition)

People that make comments such as these bolster the stereotypes and truly feed the flames of intolerance.

"My reading of the comments on the Prager-Harris debate (and I didn’t actually do a strict count) gives me the impression that more atheists have used ad hominem attacks than religious people have."

While it is your impression, and may in fact be the case, please keep in mind that things may not be as they appear. For example, if ten theists replied and seven resorted to ad hominem attacks versus thirty atheists or agnostics replied and fifteen resorted to ad hominem attacks based on an average it would be unfair to single out a group strictly based on an absolute quantity.

For the record the number of posts for the entire Harris-Prager debate is approaching 700 at last count.

" But, in my atheist years, I would have automatically dismissed any believer as a serious, critical thinker solely because he or she was a believer."

Most atheists i know would not make this mistake.

"Here is an example of an atheist who paints with broad brushstrokes his or her unfavorable views of Christians:"(christine)

"We're angry because, all things said and done, christians are just about the most intolerant, close-minded, knee-jerk-reactionary idiots imaginable (second only to muslims), and we're angry because now that the American Taliban has taken control of both major political parties there is virtually no hope any of these trends will change (Anonymous 12-6-06)"

I am sure you are aware of the "the good, the bad and the ugly" part of the Dawkins site. If not, i urge you to read the ugly part. We could quote back and forth the 'unfavourable' posts of atheists and christians alike. Although to compare the one you quoted with some christian comments i have read would be unfair of me.

It is safe to say, an atheist parent would be very unlikely to say, "we are raising our kids atheists."
I have taught my kids to look into all religions. to read about them. to engage in honest debate about them. They have the tools to decide for themselves where their hearts beat loudest.

"Neither camp holds a monopoly on tolerance, rationality, or logic,"
I agree. But would add wisdom, beauty, courage, inellectual acuity etc.

I have made naive comments. That does not mean (my wife would disagree) that i am intrinsically naive.
But i really do not understand the comment "I am simply saying that I have never met an atheist who possessed great wisdom ." This is like saying " i have never met a christian who possessed great wisdom." It doesn't really mean anything within the larger debate. I have met wise atheists, wise jews, wise christians. But this does not mean they possess great wisdom just because i think they are wise. Wisdom is in the eye of the perceiver. And, as i have said before, this can be dangerous indeed.

"Seriously, though, this is the kind of thing I had in mind when I penned my "Atheists Are Giving Me Hell" blog. I am not trying to smear atheists. I am just trying to point out patterns I’m seeing as this discussion continues. Thank you again for your thoughtful comments."

Atheists would never give you something that does not exist.

Lastly christine, if you work out the block qoute thing please tell me how to do it. step by step.
Thanks, Mikejswalker prof of Music.

Great writing, as always, Christine.

As a fellow automaton, I am forced to agree with what you've written.  I agree with your assessment regarding where anti-religious sentiment comes from.  I too believe it can mostly be attributed to this "trickle down effect" from the elite intellectual class (professors, journalists, entertainers, etc).  From personal experience, in my first 25 years as an atheist, I lived in a secluded secular bubble and rarely met serious religious thinkers.  My disdain towards religion stemmed solely from the brainwashing I received from media and close aquaintances.

I am particularly interested in your mention of "modern cynicism", and found your example involving Mother Superior very amusing.  Over time, I have come to believe that one of the west's biggest challenges today is to defeat a latent and pervasive internal cynicism.  I really want to know where exactly this cynicism comes from.  I believe that one reason our media and entertainment is so cynical is because cynicism is frequently funny and/or interesting for some reason, and funny/interesting sells well.  The Daily Show is funny because it is so cynical.  I think that religion's idealism renders religion quite boring for many people, making it a tough sell.  If we religious folk can make religion exciting and fun, I believe a big part of the battle will have been won.

I also agree that critical thinking is not exclusive to atheists.

I have had the same wonderful experience with Christians myself.  I just went on an interfaith tour of Israel several months ago, and the Christians were absolutely the nicest, most pleasant folks I could meet.  I am not bothered in the slightest when a Christian proselytizes to me, because I am quite confident in my Jewish faith.  In fact, I find it flattering that they would want me to join their belief system.  I believe that secular Jews get uncomfortable when proselytized to precisely because they aren't confident in their faith as Jews.  They aren't "Jewish" so much as "not Christian".  We have a similar problem here in Canada, where many residents aren't "Canadians" per se, but rather "not Americans".  This is a very serious identity issue that will only be resolved when Canadians truly begin to feel proud of some aspect of being Canadian, and I believe the same applies to secular Jews.

Incidentally, before anyone replies that "they're only nice to you because they want to expediate Armegeddon", believe me, I've heard that approximately 500,000 times from my atheist acquaintances.  It's a religious mantra that secularists never even bother to verify.  It's not even true.  I have asked many pro-Israel Christians about this.  They all give the same reason for supporting Israel: Genesis 12:3 : "I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse".  They really do believe this, and so do I.

Regarding the tone of the Prager-Harris debate and comments, Christine, I completely agree with you.  There are polite atheists, but it is very clear, both from the comments and the actual debate itself, that some atheists have a problem engaging in civil debate.  In fact, I believe it is Harris' assertion that political correctness itself is the only thing holding up religion today, and that secularists need but drop that political correctness, and religion will presumably crumble under the crushing weight of superior rational thought.  To that I say, bring it on.

All the best,

David

"I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse". They really do believe this, and so do I."

I am afraid this is part of the problem. What a field day small minded people can have with such a comment. Your too busy trying to climb the mountain to see the view.

"There are polite atheists, but it is very clear, both from the comments and the actual debate itself, that some atheists have a problem engaging in civil debate."

Again, most atheists i know would say they know both fellow atheists and jews and christians and muslims who have problems engaging in civil debate.

For me this is a big part of the problem. It.s the claim that my ground is holy ground. That my words are wise. that my God is the truth.
Wherever we are born, we are given a doctrine, generally speaking. Or if you prefer, a belief system. Then for the rest of our lives we pick holes in the opposite belief systems. Only the really strong individuals manage to keep from falling into the traps. Far too many hold history in their sights as a case for revenge. Shackled by history, in an ever decreasing circle. History could be a beacon for hope. I hope.

Honesty, is a very slippery fish, when love or hate get hold.

" I too believe it can mostly be attributed to this "trickle down effect" from the elite intellectual class (professors, journalists, entertainers, etc). "

That would be learned automotons down to the little "impressionable" automotons?
In most of the universities i have taught honest debate is encouraged. But that is my experience, and i cannot hold my experience as ultimate truth.

Religion will win part of the "battle" if you make it exciting and fun. Get cynical. Get funny. Get God. A new mantra? I lovingly disagree.

Mikejswalker.

"I am afraid this is part of the problem. What a field day small minded people can have with such a comment. Your too busy trying to climb the mountain to see the view."

I apologize, but I'm not sure what you mean here.

"Again, most atheists i know would say they know both fellow atheists and jews and christians and muslims who have problems engaging in civil debate."

I don't believe this is the case.  I think that religious people can, at times, be rightfully accused of bigotry or overconfidence, but the tone of their speech is invariably civil.  I don't believe it's possible to honestly conclude that both sides were equally vicious upon reading through the Prager/Harris debate and ensuing comments.  Even atheists themselves admit in those comments that atheists are angry, which was the original subject of the debate.  Again, I fully concede that religious people can have their problems.  I simply don't believe this is one of them.

"For me this is a big part of the problem. It.s the claim that my ground is holy ground. That my words are wise. that my God is the truth."

I agree that it's dangerous when one stops listening to points of view one may not agree with.

"Wherever we are born, we are given a doctrine, generally speaking. Or if you prefer, a belief system. Then for the rest of our lives we pick holes in the opposite belief systems. Only the really strong individuals manage to keep from falling into the traps."

Thank you for the compliment.  Both Christine and I spent the majority of our lives as atheists, and have now switched to the religious camp.  It was indeed terrifying when I abandoned atheism, and I like to think that it took some strength to do that.

"Far too many hold history in their sights as a case for revenge. Shackled by history, in an ever decreasing circle. History could be a beacon for hope. I hope."

Again, I apologize.  I'm not sure what you mean here.  I don't feel the need to take revenge on anyone.

Regards,

David

"I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse". They really do believe this, and so do I."

So easy to take these phrases and put them into contexts that they just don't belong. I'm not actually sure they belong anywhere. If it said "i will try to find the causes of their curse, and bring them to reason" then i might feel easier about it. The ground is in motion always. And we never quite know a valid blessing from a valid curse.

My point is that less rational people than yourself use these phrases and bring misery to many. Ofcourse the misery they bring is inturn a curse that is justified in their re-shaping of scripture.
The whole thing is so malleable, sand thru the hands.

" I don't believe this is the case. I think that religious people can, at times, be rightfully accused of bigotry or overconfidence, but the tone of their speech is invariably civil."
I don't feel this at all. I could point you to many debates where the religious view is presented in a way that is anything but civil. I always detect a very hidden cynicism. An anger under the surface. Actually not always. some do try to present a very clear, cogent view.
I think balance is the key. Trying to see an overview as much as possible. And ofcourse, something we could all do with more of, empathy.
I am sincerely pleased you took my statement about strong individuals as a compliment, I didn't think of that connection when i wrote it, but i can see how it might apply to you both.
I really do feel that attributing wisdom to one "camp" and incivility to another plays into the hands of unscrupulous, exploitative people.

"Far too many hold history in their sights as a case for revenge. Shackled by history, in an ever decreasing circle. History could be a beacon for hope. I hope.'

Not aimed at you david. Just a possible discussion.

thanks for your response. kind regards,
mikejswalker

Hi Mr. Walker,

"My point is that less rational people than yourself use these phrases and bring misery to many. Ofcourse the misery they bring is inturn a curse that is justified in their re-shaping of scripture."

I apologize, but again I'm not sure what you mean.  The original quote from Genesis 12:3, if one is a believer, is spoken by G-d Himself (ie. the "I" is G-d), and the "you" is the Jews, ie "G-d will bless those who bless the Jews, and him who curses the Jews G-d will curse".  Perhaps you may have misunderstood the phrase, which is totally understandable.  If not though, can you give an example of when people used this phrase to bring misery to many?

"I don't feel this at all. I could point you to many debates where the religious view is presented in a way that is anything but civil. I always detect a very hidden cynicism. An anger under the surface. Actually not always. some do try to present a very clear, cogent view."

I am surprised, again, to hear "cynical" as a description of an unsavory religious person (and I concede, there are plenty of unsavory religious people).  I think you can accuse religious folk of many things, perhaps arrogance, perhaps overconfidence, but not cynicism.  I would think it is very difficult to be cynical and religious at the same time.   :)   If anything, I would think that a religious person might err on the side of unrealistic idealism.  As far as the "anger under the surface" description, yup, I can definitely agree with you on that.  A young male radical Islamist suicide bomber fits that description very well.  With regards to debates where the religious view was presented in an uncivil way, I would honestly be interested in seeing such a debate.  It would surprise me if a serious religious thinker resorted to ad hominem attacks or personal jabs, such as this gem from Sam Harris: "everyone who is not a Mormon knows at a glance that Mormonism is an obscenely stupid system of beliefs".

Regards,

David

http://richarddawkins.net/theUgly
http://richarddawkins.net/theBad
As a start. There are a lot more. Ofcourse you could say these are not serious, but that would miss the point. People take these things very seriously. You don't have to look far for others. I myself have looked for atheist incivility, and some i have found is disappointing. It is very dangerous to ascribe things like wisdom, incvility or cynicism etc or lack thereof, to particular groups of people. This i feel is devisive. Just cooking dinner david. I'll answer your other points later.

cynic
2 : a faultfinding captious critic; especially : one who believes that human conduct is motivated wholly by self-interest

captious
1 : marked by an often ill-natured inclination to stress faults and raise objections
2 : calculated to confuse, entrap, or entangle in argument

"G-d will bless those who bless the Jews, and him who curses the Jews G-d will curse"

People take these quotes, and use them for terrible ends. But what does it actually mean?
Does it mean "the jews are my chosen one's. No matter what they do don't curse them?"
Even if you don't mean that, less liberal minded people use such qoutes to explain away inhuman deeds.
It is wrong, more than that, it is, at best, unwise, and in my view, reckless to feed the rabble with such qoutes. A conflict gives a man something to do.
"A young male radical Islamist suicide bomber fits that description very well."
This is not the anger i am talking about. I mean the anger that smiles. I mean the anger that would like to say much more but is held back by wanting to appear wise. You see these walls crumble all the time if the right buttons are pushed. And it seems we all are too ready to create our own specific buttons.
The young islamist suicide bomber is deluded, insane, selfish, and dumb. He also has a mouthful of bait that he snapped off the many lines thrown to him. Lines like "Allah will curse those who curse you".

Mikejswalker

Hi Max,

As you noted, a cynic can be defined as "one who believes that human conduct is motivated wholly by self-interest".  I can't for the life of me imagine how a religious person could reconcile that with a system of religious beliefs.  I can only speak for myself, but if I personally thought that human conduct was motivated ENTIRELY by self-interest, I would get very jaded very quickly, and would find religious belief ridiculously naive.  Again, perhaps there is someone who is somehow able to reconcile these two, but I can't imagine how.

"As for the notion of "serious religious thinkers", I could employ the same qualification to argue that there aren't any serious atheists who would resort to ad hominem attacks, as well."

So, I assume you don't see Sam Harris as a serious atheist thinker?

You said:

"This is not the anger i am talking about. I mean the anger that smiles. I mean the anger that would like to say much more but is held back by wanting to appear wise."

You also said:

"The young islamist suicide bomber is deluded, insane, selfish, and dumb."

I suspect you've never had a conversation with a real radical Islamist.  They smile and are calm like the Buddha.  They are definitely none of the adjectives you've used, except perhaps deluded.  Most certainly not selfish and definitely not dumb.  They are not insane either.  The ones I've met were extremely intelligent.  I wish they were insane, selfish and/or dumb, because then it'd be much easier to defeat them.

Extremist religious Muslims who want to murder all infidels are unfortunately not necessarily insane, selfish or dumb.

Regards,

David

"It is very dangerous to ascribe things like wisdom, incvility or cynicism etc or lack thereof, to particular groups of people. This i feel is devisive"

I don't agree.  In my experience, religious people and atheists are bad in different ways.  I would have to lie to myself to ignore those differences.  In my experience, when religious people go too far, they become self righteous, or hypocritical, or overconfident.  I don't think I've ever met a hypocritical atheist; have you?  I don't think it's possible to be a hypocrite if you don't subscribe to universal values.  If there is no absolute right and wrong, how can you be a hypocrite?  Hence, hypocrisy is pretty much exclusive to religious people.  On the other hand, I honestly don't see how a religious person can possibly be cynical and remain religious.  In my experience, cynicism, depression and bitterness is rampant among atheists, and not as common among believers, and not because religious people live in a dream world of blissful ignorance.  Again, this is just my experience, but these patterns do make sense.

Regarding the nasty comments on Richard Dawkins' website, I'm very sorry some of my fellow co-religionists are acting unfriendly.  I looked through those comments, and frankly, what I read didn't strike me as the writings of a sophisticated religious thinker.  At the same time, Sam Harris is a serious atheist intellectual, and Dennis Prager is a serious religious intellectual.  I have found countless occasions where Harris resorted to nastiness (in this debate and others), but not one single occasion (in this debate, or anywhere else for that matter) where Prager was even slightly impolite.

Regards,

David

Hello, David:

We're essentially talking about logical fallacies -- attacking the character of one's opponent rather than addressing the substance of their position is not especially removed from attempting to categorize a position based solely on it's ideals.

You're effectively asserting that no one who is truly religious would hold a position you consider to be antithetical to it -- and while what you say is likely wholly true of you, we're also talking about a broad and highly diverse spectrum of beliefs and individual practices. Hence the description.

"He might be Scottish, and he might eat haggis without a bottle of scotch to wash it down, but no true Scotsman would do such a thing."

"Someone might be religious, and they might be cynical, but no truly religious individual could be cynical."

Nor do I mean to pillory persons of faith for the less conscientious among their rank in bringing the point up -- I just found myself identifying with Mike's frustration and recognize such arguments as sticking points that render the discussions themselves circular.

With respect to Harris, describing him as a serious thinker isn't so much a stretch, but his contribution to his exchange with Prager was HUGELY disappointing. Ad hominem arguments are ultimately fallacious only to the extent that the person employing them fails to provide any other support for their position. While digressing to the level of name calling isn't especially conducive to serious debate, there are also circumstances when it's completely appropriate -- the sole criterion being that the instant a debate is reduced exclusively to personal attacks it no longer serves any purpose.

All that ever matters is the extent to which one is capable of demonstrating support for their position, however.

In the same breath, while it's a fairly subjective and personal consideration, Harris lost me when he attacked Prager out of the gate, ceding the high ground.

One should always allow their opponent to attack first.

Since it's unnecessary for him to present a specific school of philosophical thought, I have to consider the merit of his presentation at least partly on style. But it's also about the same as the joke about how many guitarists it takes to screw in a light bulb.

Just takes one.

And another hundred to sit around and say "I could have done that. But it would have been way better."

... I don't think it's possible to be a hypocrite if you don't subscribe to universal values. If there is no absolute right and wrong, how can you be a hypocrite?..

You're overgeneralizing atheism to project a philosophy onto it that bears no relationship to it's definition.

With respect to the subject of hostility, leave Prager aside for a minute -- to characterize atheists as prone to cynicism, depression and bitterness is no different than saying that blacks are inherently gifted athletes and performers.

While no one can or should disregard their personal experience, attempting to draw sweeping generalizations on that basis will invariably land one in an unsupportable position. In this instance, being unable to ascribe a specific philosophy to the group in question, you wouldn't be able to argue in favor of or demonstrate any particular cause-effect relationship between these qualities and atheists beyond a subjective personal assertion that no one can verify or refute.

Atheists are as capable of hypocrisies as anyone, besides. It isn't necessary to believe in an absolute truth to hold someone to a different standard from themselves.

For my own part, I suspect that the majority of atheists observe a variation of the Judaeo/Christian ethic the same as most theists, mostly for want of any particular effort to identify or adopt specific influences outside of cultural and regional norms. That said, it still wouldn't be possible to say much about atheists as a whole -- you'd have to ask them specifically what they believed to be certain, and I doubt they'd have significantly more in common than most loosely associated groups.

I step away for a day and look what's here to read. Nice to see David and Mike duken' it out in quite a fine fashion, what's the phrase? Yes, a "serious religious/athiest intellectual" fashion, it is. Religious hypocrites against Athiest cynicism, is it? "Over Generalizing" a bit?

You want to see Religious cynicism?

You might think this is hypocracy, but no, it's really cynicism.

Take a look.

Here's what I take away from this debate. The sectarian violence that is so appalling to me in Iraq is beginning to ferment in our country. The Christian conservative leaders like Archbishop Chaput preach fear-mongering to their flock of believers. This scares me. They think they're "right" and they'll fight for it.

Why is it that three of the most radical haters in this country live in Colorado? Dobson, Chaput, and Tancredo.

"Extremist religious Muslims who want to murder all infidels are unfortunately not necessarily insane, selfish or dumb"
If you cannot ascribe these words to a suicide bomber i'm not sure what i can say. There have been many many intelligent, smiling, insane people who believed they were doing good for humanity. You seem to be unbelievably tied up in the notion that humans can be emotionally and intellectually categorized by demographics, or religious persuasion, or, well, you choose. I feel that sometimes we must step outside knee jerk belief systems. We must resist the urge to over generalize. As i have said before, many times, it is the urge to label that puts this world in peril. It enervates the life and love from good conversation. I am an atheist. I catch myself being hypocrital. That is my humanity. It's what i am. As max says, the road to the beginning of humanity is filled with the bodies of circular arguments. The anonymous post that gives the dawkins web links is mine. kind regards, MikejsWalker.

"You're effectively asserting that no one who is truly religious would hold a position you consider to be antithetical to it"

Yup.

"You're overgeneralizing atheism to project a philosophy onto it that bears no relationship to it's definition."

You're saying an atheist can believe in absolute moral right and wrong?

"Atheists are as capable of hypocrisies as anyone, besides. It isn't necessary to believe in an absolute truth to hold someone to a different standard from themselves."

If you don't believe in absolute right and wrong, on what basis can you hold someone else to any standard?  Sam Harris likes to quote the atheist Bertrand Russell, so here's one: "I cannot see how to refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing that all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don't like it".

David

Actually, I agree with Archbishop Charles Chaput.  You can call me arrogant, or overconfident, but cynical?  I don't see how I'm cynical.

"They think they're "right" and they'll fight for it."

It sounds to me like you think you're right, too.  Noteably, the Archbishop specifically said to fight "legally, ethically and nonviolently".  Not sure what's so scary about that.

"If you cannot ascribe (insane, selfish or dumb) to a suicide bomber i'm not sure what i can say."

I would ascribe the word 'evil' to suicide bombers, but not insane, selfish or dumb.  How I wish they were dumb.

"There have been many many intelligent, smiling, insane people who believed they were doing good for humanity."

'Insane' is a medical condition.  The word 'insane' should not be used as a fallback term to describe anybody you don't like.  I hate Islamist suicide bombers, but I'm pretty certain they're not insane, despite the ideas they hold.  They are deluded and evil.  Incidentally, 'evil' is not a fallback term for me, because it has a precise definition according to my belief system.

"You seem to be unbelievably tied up in the notion that humans can be emotionally and intellectually categorized by demographics, or religious persuasion, or, well, you choose. I feel that sometimes we must step outside knee jerk belief systems. We must resist the urge to over generalize. As i have said before, many times, it is the urge to label that puts this world in peril."

I have no problem with generalizing.  Incidentally, if you say something like, "the young islamist suicide bomber is deluded, insane, selfish, and dumb", it appears you have no problem labeling either.  I agree that an Islamist suicide bomber is deluded (but not insane, selfish or dumb), so I'd have to say you overstepped in that case.

"I am an atheist. I catch myself being hypocrital"

Really?  I would honestly love to hear an example.

Regards,

David

The word insane is a little overused i agree in these cases. Perhaps deluded is the better choice.
Selfish is a word i would use because i am not sure they would blow up 60 plus people and themselves if their was no paradise beckoning at the end of the blast. Dumb because they think their is.
Thinking one is right and knowing one is right are different things. I might have thought i was right about the word "insane", but now i think i was wrong. I do not debate these subjects to win the argument. I want to further my understanding of them.
Using labels such as "green" for grass or "wet" for water or "selfish" for suicide bomber falls outside the references you have made to "non cynical" religious people or "unwise" atheists etc.
These labels fall into statements like "i have never met a generous jew".
Statements like this are devisive.
I can see you have no problem with generalizing. But i said 'overgeneralizing". It's the kind of thing you hear from racists when they make statements like,"you know, that black guy was actually ok". It makes my teeth itch to hear such drivel.
I actually don't know what you mean when you say "Really? I would honestly love to hear an example". You want examples of my hypocrisy? Don't you see the mistake you're making? You seem to be ascribing failings and virtues to groups of people just because they are a particular group. Perhaps this is the fundamental problem. Perhaps this is the sticking point. Show me a generous jew. Show me a wise atheist. Show me a religious cynic. Show me a deeply religious wiseman that ran off with a beautiful farmers wife and i'll show you life. Wisdom and cynicsim and hypocrisy and selfishness and greed and hope belong to all groups. Otherwise i guess we're all automotons.
Thanks for your thoughts everyone, kindest regards mikejswalker

Hi Mike,

Firstly, I want to say that I have very, very huge respect for you.

"Thinking one is right and knowing one is right are different things. I might have thought i was right about the word "insane", but now i think i was wrong. I do not debate these subjects to win the argument. I want to further my understanding of them."

You are an honorable man, and I must say that discussing this with you is a joy.  When someone concedes an error, however small, it says a lot about their character.  I myself have absolutely no interest in "winning" or "appearing clever" or "avoiding losing" either (except when it comes to radical Islamists, who I have a huge interest in destroying).  I too am only interested in the truth, and I do not care if I "look" good or bad.  I tip my hat to you, fellow freedom lover.  Now onto the disagreements.   :)

"Selfish is a word i would use because i am not sure they would blow up 60 plus people and themselves if their was no paradise beckoning at the end of the blast."

I don't believe the virgins are their ultimate desire.  I think the most fundamental desire of the suicide bomber is to improve the world by spreading Islam.  It is a selfless desire, not selfish.  It is also completely incorrect.

"Dumb because they think there is (a paradise)"

I have to strongly disagree with this one.  There are many intelligent religious people who believe things you might find odd.  I myself believe that the Ten Commandments were given to Moses by G-d Himself.  Many atheists think I'm a weirdo for believing this, and I understand that.  Granted, I don't murder people as a result of this belief, but I think that's irrelevant.  From an atheist's perspective, both "paradise" and "the Ten Commandments" are purely articles of faith, cannot be proven or disproven using any empirical measurement, and frankly, just seem pretty darn weird, I would assume.  On Saturday (Shabbat), I dress in black pants and a white shirt, and walk to shul because I refuse to use a car on the holy Shabbat.  I'm sure this all sounds pretty darn weird to atheists.  Well, I may not be so intelligent, but I assure you that I know of many extremely intelligent Jews who do the same thing.  I don't believe that one must be dumb to believe certain religious dogma.

"Using labels such as "green" for grass or "wet" for water or "selfish" for suicide bomber falls outside the references you have made to "non cynical" religious people or "unwise" atheists etc.  These labels fall into statements like "i have never met a generous jew"."

You are concerned that my generalizations may cause anger or violence, while a generalization like "grass is green" is harmless.  Is that correct?  As a fellow truth seeker, I cannot refrain from saying something I believe to be true simply because it might anger somebody.  I think the statement "the are no generous Jews" is different, because I believe it is incorrect.  Now, I am absolutely open to the possibility that there are hypocritical atheists, but I've never seen one, and after thinking about it, I've come to think it's not even logically possible.  The risk of hypocrisy is one price I've paid for becoming religious.  The same applies to "cynical believers", which is something I don't believe is logically possible.

"I can see you have no problem with generalizing. But i said 'overgeneralizing""

You're absolutely correct.  Here I concede that I messed up.

"It's the kind of thing you hear from racists when they make statements like,"you know, that black guy was actually ok". It makes my teeth itch to hear such drivel."

I am not so hesitant to generalize about belief systems.  I think that's fair, since we can all choose and switch belief systems whenever we want.  Making generalizations about different races, on the other hand, is something I never, ever do.  This is because I don't think there's anything to say, since all races are the same.

"I actually don't know what you mean when you say "Really? I would honestly love to hear an example"."

Just that.

"You want examples of my hypocrisy?"

Yup, because I don't think you can give me one.... unless, perhaps... you're a closet religious person.   :)   I can give you plenty of examples of my hypocrisy, but that's only because I am (trying to be) a practicing Jew.  If you don't believe in any absolute right and wrong (which, as an atheist, you cannot), how can you be a hypocrite?

"Don't you see the mistake you're making?"

Nope.

"Wisdom and cynicsim and hypocrisy and selfishness and greed and hope belong to all groups."

If everything belongs to all groups, what is the point of having two separate words, "atheist" and "believer"?  If absolutely no generalizations can be made about either group, then the groups are identical.  I have no problem with that (indeed, I would be delighted), but I just don't think it's true.

Best regards,

David

David:

Mike largely beat me to the rebuttal, in this instance, but I'll second the notion of having reached an impasse.

"You're effectively asserting that no one who is truly religious would hold a position you consider to be antithetical to it"

Yup.

Then you're wrong. ;)

What I see is that you're being very selective about the precision of your language. In this instance, you're not disagreeing with my personal opinion, you're disagreeing with the dictionary.

Hopefully you understand that this isn't an attempt to play gotcha -- consider that, having no spiritual faith, I HAVE to rely on literal definitions in order to talk about some subjects.

Consider, having mentioned Russell, you've touched on a philosopher whom I think quite highly of -- to me, he's the math guy who wrote three volumes about symbolic logic in order to conclude that we can be reasonably certain that the product of one and one is two. And then had some jerk come along and blow holes in his logic afterwards.

Thing of it is, I'd completely agree that I look at the statement you quoted and recognize that we might both infer and agree that it seems possible, if not probable, that there IS an absolute morality. What neither of us could do, however, is claim any certainty that we were correct in the assumption.

From personal experience, I'd caution that the word "absolute" comes with substantial baggage, and can only be applied correctly in a few cases. Much of the time, it's used when what is intended is to say that something is necessarily true -- that it can be assumed that the idea does not rest on any immediately obvious false premises and that most reasonable people would not disagree with the premises it does rely on, or at least not without great difficulty or simple obstinacy.

In a broad sense, we're both applying very basic, informal logic -- this is simply how arguments are constructed. If I were to generalize about atheists in any particular, it's that most have an instinctive tendency to be wary of logical fallacy.

In fairness, I also haven't encountered a theist argument that did not involve one. For most, argumentum ad ignoratum, the inability to demonstrate the existence of God, is the killer. For myself, personally, it's the inability to demonstrate the existence of spiritual faith.

Again with the weasel words, but it remains that there are countless instances where we share empirical faith -- objects unsupported tend to fall towards the nearest center of gravity, for example -- things that can claim, by consensus, as inductively provable.

Here's a question for you, though.

Do you believe that my claiming to be an atheist is a matter of what I can honestly say about the subject of theism, rather than something I simply choose to believe, or something I refuse to acknowledge?

I don't want to make any assumptions on your behalf, rather to say that this is why I've avoided attempting to dispute anyone's claim to spiritual faith. Whether or not it is a real thing is wholly academic -- what I would not dispute is anyone's belief in it.

The claim might be a product of dishonesty or simply reflect something they want to believe for personal reasons they won't acknowledge but I can say with clear conscience that I've never drawn that conclusion.

It's kind of a strawman to suspect that anyone would consider you unintelligent or crazy for being an observant Jew -- intelligence isn't a factor in determining one's faith, and from my own experience, I've spent more time wondering if I was the one who was nuts.

Perceptually, the experience is the reverse of the argument from design. Where people tell me they perceive God, I don't even register the absence of one.

To conclude, I'd suggest that whatever it is you wanted to say about absolute morality, you volunteer it as opposed to begging the question of someone else.

What needs to be said is that you've pretty much defeated the purpose of whatever point you were hoping to make. The definition you've attempted to assert is literally wrong, which makes your attempts to persuade someone to agree with you suspect, since it'd be an insult to your intelligence to ask if you really don't understand the meanings of the words in question.

It might not seem like that big a deal, but in the context of this debate, it's fatal.

I finally figured out how to do the 'blockquote' thingy:

check it out

The trick is to go into your "account settings" and set the 'TinyMCE rich-text settings' default to False. You have to create an account on this website, which I guess you might not have done. Then, when you type <blockquote> and </blockquote> around your text, it'll place it into a gray box.

Regards,
David

I'll second the notion of having reached an impasse.

We reached an impasse? Mike said that? Went way over my head. :P

I'd completely agree that I look at the statement you quoted and recognize that we might both infer and agree that it seems possible, if not probable, that there IS an absolute morality. What neither of us could do, however, is claim any certainty that we were correct in the assumption.

Yeah, it's an article of faith.

For most, argumentum ad ignoratum, the inability to demonstrate the existence of God, is the killer. For myself, personally, it's the inability to demonstrate the existence of spiritual faith.

G-d's existence cannot be proven or disproven. Belief in G-d is done through pure faith. Exactly like a mathematical axiom, it requires no proof; it is simply assumed. Belief in G-d, just like any axiom, is neither logical nor illogical. It is simply an assumption. Spiritual faith definitely exists, because you see people with it all the time. You might think those people are deluded, but they still have it.

Do you believe that my claiming to be an atheist is a matter of what I can honestly say about the subject of theism, rather than something I simply choose to believe, or something I refuse to acknowledge?

I would never presume to know why someone views the Universe in the way they do.

To conclude, I'd suggest that whatever it is you wanted to say about absolute morality, you volunteer it as opposed to begging the question of someone else.

I ain't hiding anything. :D
I can't think of anything I've been holding back. I'm certainly not trying to beg the question about anything.

What needs to be said is that you've pretty much defeated the purpose of whatever point you were hoping to make.

I don't even know of any point I'm trying to make... I'm just a little shmuck, looking for the truth.

The definition you've attempted to assert is literally wrong, which makes your attempts to persuade someone to agree with you suspect,

I'm definitely not trying to persuade anyone to agree with me. I really have no interest in "winning" or "appearing intelligent" or anything like that.

since it'd be an insult to your intelligence to ask if you really don't understand the meanings of the words in question.

Which words?

David

David,
thank you for your kind words.
I do feel uneasy with your reasoning. I understand it. It has history. But I feel the history is giving the reasoning a one dimensional frame. You seem to be defining words in a purely theoretical sense rather than an empirial sense. I like to use both.
If i tell you, don't use labels, then i use labels, most would accuse me of hypocrisy.
If you tell you're atheist children they are doomed if they don't follow the jewish, christian, hindu, muslim, etc faith I would say that is cynical. I say it is cynical for one reason, that being, many religious parents would not allow their children to burn in hell if they had a chance to save them by swapping places with them on judgement day. This ofcourse makes them hypocrites and in my view, wholly cynical, prophets of doom, in life. But firstly, they are loving parents.
There is a certain amount of selfishness in all religious people i feel. a selfishness that is intrinsic to their belief.
I'm not speaking about the inherent selfishness of humans as a whole. I would be interested in how many religious people would be willing to shed their faith if their was no paradise at the end. If the bible said "and God said, "it shall be enough that people live and spare kind thoughts, and love until they die. After this they shall be no more". Wouldn't this be interesting? If you took paradise and virgins and silver bracelets and finest silks etc etc from the suicide bomber, they would be less susceptible to brain washing and indoctrination. This is selfish. I do not say it is the only reason, but they really do believe, as you do, that their heaven awaits them. I mean dumb because they believe the horrific thing they do, gives them, and a few relatives. rites of passage.

"I am not so hesitant to generalize about belief systems" (david)
I did say overgeneralize, but let's go with it.

Belief systems are invariably inculcated from early on. These systems are more than likely slaves to demographics, environs, heritage, etc. Ergo, I was born here=you are wrong. It is these systems that force overgeneralizations of different 'groups'. It is no surprise to me that the ridiculous claim "i have never met a generous jew" is ridiculous also, to you. It's ridiculousness lies in it's attempt to say, "their are no generous jews."
I simply have a few more ridiculous claims than you do i suppose, eg.. "wisdom is not an atheist trait"..."cynicism is never..ever found upon the lips of religiosity"..and so on.

"If absolutely no generalizations can be made about either group, then the groups are identical"

I'm really not making this claim. But i needn't press the point.
I appreciate your thoughts.

Kindest regards,

Mikejswalker