44 Responses to “Detecting New Atheism on the Religious Radar Screen”

1. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
   May 1st, 2009 at 2:11 am

   Thanks for the HT Bradford.

   The above link was only to part I.

   There could be 5 or more parts. In any case, one can trace all the links to part 1-4 through part 5:

   Atheism as a Stealth Religion Part V.

   I encourage readers to post links to any other parts if they find them.

   By the way, I believe Wilson is an atheist himself. He describes his colleagues as:

   1. Ineffective (Daniel Dennett)
   2. Silly (Richard Dawkins)
   3. Worse (Christopher Hitchins)

   Sal

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 1, 2009 @ 2:11 am

2. Raevmo Says:
   May 1st, 2009 at 3:36 am

   Bradford:

   People of faith understand where perception ends and faith begins.

   It's ironic that you make this sweeping broad brush claim based on an article by DS Wilson who calls religion "adaptive fiction", which entirely contradicts your claim.

Comment by Raevmo — May 1, 2009 @ 3:36 am

3. hblavatsky Says:
   May 1st, 2009 at 6:12 am

   "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."

   - http://www.wisdomquotes.com/00...

   Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is not even a world-view. It's only a word that describes what a person does not believe. To make matters more confusing, there are some religions which are atheistic. ( http://www.religionfacts.com/b... )

   The discerning liberal (or any intellectual) would be a fool to assume that atheism stands for pure reason, just because it doesn't invoke the gods.

   There are plenty of ways to be silly without imagining gods. Only a fool would believe that they are purely reasonable simply because they stopped believing in Zeus or Shiva.

   I think the quote provided by Bradford avoids the obvious issue: Is it reasonable to be an atheist?

   Am I a reasonable person because I take the position that no gods exist, as opposed to the position that Bradfod (presumably) takes which is that the god of the Christian Bible exists, but that all other gods are fictional.

   I hope I am correct in assuming that Bradford does not believe that Thor, Krishna, Xenu (etc) are non-fictional entities. Please correct me if I have improperly summarized Mr. Bradford's beliefs. My intent was not to disparage them but to point out that we actually agree on the non-existance of the vast majority of "gods" known to mankind.

   HB

Comment by hblavatsky — May 1, 2009 @ 6:12 am

4. dantedanti Says:
   May 1st, 2009 at 10:58 am

   hblavatsky,

   you're throwing out a bit of a philosophical fallacy with your "he doesnt believe in those other gods" statement. Under that statement, the question is "what sort of god is God?" NOT "is there a god"? I consider your statement to be a bit of rhetorical propaganda that is far too often used by the new atheists to distract less-subtle thinkers.

   Can we say that the word "atheism" can be used in the way you propose, as simply something someone lacks? I would agree that the word could be used in this sense, though i dont think it would apply to Mr. Dawkins or Mr Harris' atheism even in the slightest.

   All,

   i also enjoy when david sloan (i think it was him) confronts harris and dennett in one of the beyond belief conferences, calling their scientific research a propaganda piece for (echoing dennetts eariler talk) "espionage. And if thats what we're doing lets be clear". Neither dennett nor harris respond to say its otherwise.

Comment by dantedanti — May 1, 2009 @ 10:58 am

5. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
   May 1st, 2009 at 11:44 am

   As exhibit A, consider Ayn Rand, the new atheist of her day who claimed that her philosophy of Objectivism was based entirely on reason and science. She corrected people who called her an individualist by saying that she was a rationalist. Nevertheless, her philosophy portrays a world without tradeoffs, just like religious fundamentalism. The two belief systems motivate different suites of behavior, of course, but in both cases they stuff the believer, like a human cannonball, into an ideological cannon to be shot in the direction of glory and away from ruin.

   The Ayn Rand movement was just like religious fundamentalism in other respects. Rand was treated as an infallible oracle–the very opposite of reasoned discourse–and members of the movement spent their time casting out false premises as if they were so many demons. A lifelong smoker, Rand was nevertheless astonished when she contracted lung cancer. How could she get cancer when she had no false premises? She was no more rational about the nature of disease than evangelical Christians lining up to be healed. Even today, Rand's novels sell many thousands of copies a year and the Ayn Rand Institute attempts to lure new members with the following appealing invitation: "Those who have read The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged know that the sunlit universe Ayn Rand depicts in her novels is unlike the world that they see around them. How can one achieve the clarity of vision and joyous existence that her fictional heroes achieve?"

   The presumption in the New Atheist movement is that the principle problem with irrationality comes from religion, thus, rational thinking will be enabled once atheism is accepted.

   History has shown, this is not the case. And besides, in the world of natural seleciton, rationality and truth are subservient to reproductive success. If "irrational" or deceptive behaviors lead to reproductive superiority, that's what counts. That was the irony Mike Gene pointed out:
   if evolution is true, it will be unkind to the goals of Dawkins and Denett since theists and creationists are reproductively superior phenotypes.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 1, 2009 @ 11:44 am

6. hblavatsky Says:
   May 1st, 2009 at 11:47 am

   Can we say that the word "atheism" can be used in the way you propose, as simply something someone lacks?

   I think we need to distinguish between the strictest definition of "atheist" and the "new atheist" movement. The first when applied to a person simply means that the person lacks belief in any gods. The second is a socal movement which mainly exists to promote naturalism in opposition to organized religions.

   you're throwing out a bit of a philosophical fallacy with your "he doesnt believe in those other gods" statement.

   That's not a philosophical fallacy – it's a verifiable actual fact:

   In the history of all humanity our scribes and scholars have described a great many gods, goddesses and other supernatural beings. At the time many of those gods were genuinely worshiped by a population of mostly reasonable human beings.

   I consider your statement to be a bit of rhetorical propaganda that is far too often used by the new atheists to distract less-subtle thinkers.

   Rather than offering a blanket dismissal of my words, why not address the actual issue?

   The point is that religion is not a binary choice: Christianity or Atheism. There are hundreds of religions, each with advocates who claim that their religion is true, some claiming exclusive truth. Even though Bradford and I have our disagreements we probably agree on the validity of all religions except one.

   Why is it propaganda to point out our shared culture?

   HB

Comment by hblavatsky — May 1, 2009 @ 11:47 am

7. Bradford Says:
   May 1st, 2009 at 12:04 pm

   Raevmo: It's ironic that you make this sweeping broad brush claim based on an article by DS Wilson who calls religion "adaptive fiction", which entirely contradicts your claim.

   Obviously the author does not share my faith but his credibility in alleging that atheism is not to be equated with pure reason is enhanced by his own position on religion and atheism. As usual you miss a central theme of an article.

Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2009 @ 12:04 pm

8. hblavatsky Says:
   May 1st, 2009 at 12:21 pm

   That was the irony Mike Gene pointed out:
   if evolution is true, it will be unkind to the goals of Dawkins and Denett since theists and creationists are reproductively superior phenotypes.

   There is credible anecdotal evidence to show that families of certain religious groups have many more children than the average population, but is this guarantee that they are "reproductively superior"?

   What if it were possible that belief in naturalism conferred an advantage to a population relative to a population which had spiritualist beliefs?

   For example consider two hypothetical populations responding to a threat of disease: In the face of danger one population resorts to spiritual "solutions" such as prayer and fasting. Meanwhile the other population engages in an epidemiology study.

   It's possible that even if the 1st group had a strong reproductive advantage, the 2nd population might have a better survival rate and as a consequence may also be better able to compete for valuable resources such as access to land, education and money: This might confer long-term advantages to subsequent generations.

   Have you noticed that some animals (e.g. Frogs) have a very large number of offspring, whereas others (e.g. Humans) have relatively few. Would this imply that frogs were reproductively superior to humans?

   At the most you could say that frogs and humans have different reproductive strategies. Likewise, families that choose to have fewer children can invest more resources into each offspring, a strategy intended to make the offspring more competitively successful, rather than to merely maximize reproductive potential.

Comment by hblavatsky — May 1, 2009 @ 12:21 pm

9. Bradford Says:
   May 1st, 2009 at 1:02 pm

   Wilson: The discerning liberal (or any intellectual) would be a fool to assume that atheism stands for pure reason, just because it doesn't invoke the gods.

   hblavatsky:

   I think the quote provided by Bradford avoids the obvious issue: Is it reasonable to be an atheist?

   Coinage of the phrase "people of reason" as a contrasted to people of faith tacitly argues more than it's reasonable to be an atheist. Those of us who have witnessed exchanges over the years know the intended massage is that atheists use their reasoning faculties to derive their views as opposed to people of faith whose views are based on myths and blind faith. That's the intended dichotomy that needs addressing.

Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2009 @ 1:02 pm

10. hblavatsky Says:
    May 1st, 2009 at 1:13 pm

    Coinage of the phrase "people of reason" as a contrasted to people of faith tacitly argues more than it's reasonable to be an atheist.

    I think this is because historically religions have appealed much more to faith than reason. They continue to do so today: It is religious people who first self-applied the label "faith-groups".

    The phrase "man of reason" goes back to the enlightenment and is definitely not a coinage of the new-atheists.

    I'd be the first to admit that both atheists and religionists both make use of reasoning processes. I think it's fair to say that religionists rely on faith to a much greater extent than those who disbelieve religion. Its the funky combination of faith and reason that so irks the new-atheists.

Comment by hblavatsky — May 1, 2009 @ 1:13 pm

11. Bradford Says:
    May 1st, 2009 at 1:24 pm

    hblavatsky:

    I think this is because historically religions have appealed much more to faith than reason. They continue to do so today: It is religious people who first self-applied the label "faith-groups".

    Faith is an honest acknowledgement of the need to incorporate into an overarching paradigm some belief in the unseen. Atheists take heed.

    I'd be the first to admit that both atheists and religionists both make use of reasoning processes. I think it's fair to say that religionists rely on faith to a much greater extent than those who disbelieve religion. Its the funky combination of faith and reason that so irks the new-atheists.

    You rely on a combination of both too. You simply have not thought this through and realized how a no God position must be squared to reality with doses of faith based assumptions.

Comment by Bradford — May 1, 2009 @ 1:24 pm

12. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
    May 1st, 2009 at 1:27 pm

    hblavatsky wrote:

    For example consider two hypothetical populations responding to a threat of disease: In the face of danger one population resorts to spiritual "solutions" such as prayer and fasting. Meanwhile the other population engages in an epidemiology study.

    The mistaken assumption is that time spent away from an epidemiological study will necessarily decrease the effectiveness of epidemiological studies. It may well be the time invested in strengthening the spirits of indidviduals and their resolve will enhance the effectiveness of medical solutions.

    Again, this sort of superficial thinking is what David Wilson is so critical of.

    Consider the following.
    As an Atheist, I'm truly convinced Africa needs God

    Before Christmas I returned, after 45 years, to the country that as a boy I knew as Nyasaland. Today it’s Malawi, and The Times Christmas Appeal includes a small British charity working there. Pump Aid helps rural communities to install a simple pump, letting people keep their village wells sealed and clean. I went to see this work.

    It inspired me, renewing my flagging faith in development charities. But travelling in Malawi refreshed another belief, too: one I’ve been trying to banish all my life, but an observation I’ve been unable to avoid since my African childhood. It confounds my ideological beliefs, stubbornly refuses to fit my world view, and has embarrassed my growing belief that there is no God.

    Now a confirmed atheist, I’ve become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

    I used to avoid this truth by applauding – as you can – the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It’s a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith.

    Background
    British missionaries plead guilty to sedition in Gambia
    Soulgasms of the Christian Right
    Have Pentecostalism, will travel
    PROFILE: warlord who kills in name of Christ
    But this doesn’t fit the facts. Faith does more than support the missionary; it is also transferred to his flock. This is the effect that matters so immensely, and which I cannot help observing.

    First, then, the observation. We had friends who were missionaries, and as a child I stayed often with them; I also stayed, alone with my little brother, in a traditional rural African village. In the city we had working for us Africans who had converted and were strong believers. The Christians were always different. Far from having cowed or confined its converts, their faith appeared to have liberated and relaxed them. There was a liveliness, a curiosity, an engagement with the world – a directness in their dealings with others – that seemed to be missing in traditional African life. They stood tall.

    At 24, travelling by land across the continent reinforced this impression. From Algiers to Niger, Nigeria, Cameroon and the Central African Republic, then right through the Congo to Rwanda, Tanzania and Kenya, four student friends and I drove our old Land Rover to Nairobi.

    We slept under the stars, so it was important as we reached the more populated and lawless parts of the sub-Sahara that every day we find somewhere safe by nightfall. Often near a mission.

    Whenever we entered a territory worked by missionaries, we had to acknowledge that something changed in the faces of the people we passed and spoke to: something in their eyes, the way they approached you direct, man-to-man, without looking down or away. They had not become more deferential towards strangers – in some ways less so – but more open.

    This time in Malawi it was the same. I met no missionaries. You do not encounter missionaries in the lobbies of expensive hotels discussing development strategy documents, as you do with the big NGOs. But instead I noticed that a handful of the most impressive African members of the Pump Aid team (largely from Zimbabwe) were, privately, strong Christians. “Privately” because the charity is entirely secular and I never heard any of its team so much as mention religion while working in the villages. But I picked up the Christian references in our conversations. One, I saw, was studying a devotional textbook in the car. One, on Sunday, went off to church at dawn for a two-hour service.

    It would suit me to believe that their honesty, diligence and optimism in their work was unconnected with personal faith. Their work was secular, but surely affected by what they were. What they were was, in turn, influenced by a conception of man’s place in the Universe that Christianity had taught.

    There’s long been a fashion among Western academic sociologists for placing tribal value systems within a ring fence, beyond critiques founded in our own culture: “theirs” and therefore best for “them”; authentic and of intrinsically equal worth to ours.

    I don’t follow this. I observe that tribal belief is no more peaceable than ours; and that it suppresses individuality. People think collectively; first in terms of the community, extended family and tribe. This rural-traditional mindset feeds into the “big man” and gangster politics of the African city: the exaggerated respect for a swaggering leader, and the (literal) inability to understand the whole idea of loyal opposition.

    Anxiety – fear of evil spirits, of ancestors, of nature and the wild, of a tribal hierarchy, of quite everyday things – strikes deep into the whole structure of rural African thought. Every man has his place and, call it fear or respect, a great weight grinds down the individual spirit, stunting curiosity. People won’t take the initiative, won’t take things into their own hands or on their own shoulders.

    How can I, as someone with a foot in both camps, explain? When the philosophical tourist moves from one world view to another he finds – at the very moment of passing into the new – that he loses the language to describe the landscape to the old. But let me try an example: the answer given by Sir Edmund Hillary to the question: Why climb the mountain? “Because it’s there,” he said.

    To the rural African mind, this is an explanation of why one would not climb the mountain. It’s… well, there. Just there. Why interfere? Nothing to be done about it, or with it. Hillary’s further explanation – that nobody else had climbed it – would stand as a second reason for passivity.

    Christianity, post-Reformation and post-Luther, with its teaching of a direct, personal, two-way link between the individual and God, unmediated by the collective, and unsubordinate to any other human being, smashes straight through the philosphical/spiritual framework I’ve just described. It offers something to hold on to to those anxious to cast off a crushing tribal groupthink. That is why and how it liberates.

    Those who want Africa to walk tall amid 21st-century global competition must not kid themselves that providing the material means or even the knowhow that accompanies what we call development will make the change. A whole belief system must first be supplanted.

    And I’m afraid it has to be supplanted by another. Removing Christian evangelism from the African equation may leave the continent at the mercy of a malign fusion of Nike, the witch doctor, the mobile phone and the machete.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 1, 2009 @ 1:27 pm

13. dantedanti Says:
    May 1st, 2009 at 1:35 pm

    hblavatsky,

    youve got a little question begging going on; im not denying that people throughout history have believed in many a god, what i am saying is that your arguement does not imply what you intend it to imply:

    lets lay out the argument:

    1. religious folk correctly think the gods of other religions are silly (irrational, unsupported, or dont exist).

    2. Atheists correctly add one more god to the false deities list.

    therefore

    3. god does not exist.

    3 begs 2.

    at best, your argument moves the ground onto what sort of god we should believe in, not whether there is or is not a god. again, this is a rhetorical trick loudly played by the new atheists.

    more here @ the lovely maverick philosopher: http://maverickphilosopher.typ...

Comment by dantedanti — May 1, 2009 @ 1:35 pm

14. hblavatsky Says:
    May 1st, 2009 at 1:44 pm

    The mistaken assumption is that time spent away from an epidemiological study will necessarily decrease the effectiveness of epidemiological studies. It may well be the time invested in strengthening the spirits of indidviduals and their resolve will enhance the effectiveness of medical solutions.

    I think that there is very good evidence that the science of epidemiology helps populations reduce the effects of an epidemic, whereas there is no credible evidence to show that fasting and prayer can do the same for a population.

    Are you seriously arguing that prayer and fasting are as effective as modern naturalistic disease control methods?

    This sounds suspiciously like a faith-based argument to me!

    It seems that while some religious groups have a greater tendency to produce babies, that this does not actually translate into a significant reproductive advantage as the proportion of the population who are strongly religious seems to be constant in most western countries.

Comment by hblavatsky — May 1, 2009 @ 1:44 pm

15. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
    May 1st, 2009 at 3:14 pm

    I wrote:

    The mistaken assumption is that time spent away from an epidemiological study will necessarily decrease the effectiveness of epidemiological studies. It may well be the time invested in strengthening the spirits of indidviduals and their resolve will enhance the effectiveness of medical solutions.

    you wrote:

    I think that there is very good evidence that the science of epidemiology helps populations reduce the effects of an epidemic, whereas there is no credible evidence to show that fasting and prayer can do the same for a population.

    Are you seriously arguing that prayer and fasting are as effective as modern naturalistic disease control methods?

    No I was not suggesting "prayer and fasting are as effective as modern naturalistic disease control methods"

    You're misrepresenting what I said. Fasting and prayer might confer the resolve to carry out the necessary work that needs to be done to deal with a diseases, and that work may include an epidemiological study. That a population fasts and prays does not imply it will sacrifice epidemiological studies.

    A population that puts its trust and draws its insipiration in promises from politicians and the supposed rationality of atheism will not necessarily prevail over a population that trusts in God. One only need look to the christ-hating, athesitcally "rational" Cuba and compare their quality of health care with a God fearing nation of the US.

    If you feel a culture of atheistic rationism such as suggested by Karl Marx who removed the "opiate of the people" (aka religion), was a success in the Marxist utopia in Cuba, then by all means, David Sloan Wilson's hypothesis is refuted.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 1, 2009 @ 3:14 pm

16. hblavatsky Says:
    May 1st, 2009 at 3:54 pm

    1. religious folk correctly think the gods of other religions are silly (irrational, unsupported, or dont exist).

    2. Atheists correctly add one more god to the false deities list.

    therefore

    3. god does not exist.

    3 begs 2.

    This is your argument, not mine.

    I agree entirely that point 2 does not imply YOUR point 3. But what does it imply?

    Do you think that there is any significance at all to the fact that there is such great diversity and contradictions between theistic belief systems? Why is it that people who claim actual knowledge of God cannot even agree on the most basic details?

    What would you say if you interviewed a some individuals who all claimed to know the same person but gave wildly differing and mutually contradictory accounts of that person: You probably cannot say anything at all about whether that person exists or not but you can conclude that your witnesses accounts seem impossibly muddled and untrustworthy.

    I think we can say that since all the religions which claim actual knowledge of God (or Gods) have provided such wildly differing accounts, then it's impossible to say which if any contain any genuinely transcendental or spiritual knowledge of god. It's possible that there is at least one true religion, but then again it's also possible that there is no true religion at all.

Comment by hblavatsky — May 1, 2009 @ 3:54 pm

17. hblavatsky Says:
    May 1st, 2009 at 4:16 pm

    No I was not suggesting "prayer and fasting are as effective as modern naturalistic disease control methods"

    I'm so glad! That would be crazy… I think prayer and fasting might be as effective as other kinds of holistic therapies such as acupuncture and homeopaty, that is to say they can show an exceptionally strong placebo effect amongst believers.

    You're misrepresenting what I said. Fasting and prayer might confer the resolve to carry out the necessary work that needs to be done to deal with a diseases, and that work may include an epidemiological study. That a population fasts and prays does not imply it will sacrifice epidemiological studies.

    A good hypothetical question: If that were the case we might expect substantial advances in epidemiology from the Islamic world who as you know are particularly fond of fasting and praying. Having spent some time in in the UAE, Bahrain and Saudi-Arabia I concluded that the exact opposite was the case: I found Muslim cultures quite obsessed with the mystical – this world view prevented the culture from any popular engagement with the natural sciences.

    I think it is possible that a prayerful moment might boost somebody's resolve, however I think there's no reason to suggest that it is more effective than the secular alternatives, such as a coffee break.

    A population that puts its trust and draws its insipiration in promises from politicians and the supposed rationality of atheism

    It's incredibly irrational to put trust in politicians regardless of their faith. As I said before, atheism is not a rational position. Atheism a word we use to describe the wide range of views which do not include belief in gods.

    One only need look to the christ-hating, athesitcally "rational" Cuba and compare their quality of health care with a God fearing nation of the US.

    I'm guessing you've not spent that much time in Cuba recently – I never met a Cuban "Christ Hater" – even if the Cuban government is overtly anti-religious, religion still plays a role in the culture. The most anti-religious culture I've ever visited was Sweden.

    Cuban health-care is very good compared to other countries of similar wealth – the main problem with Cuban health care is that modern medical equipment cannot be imported because of the embargo, hence much of the infrastructure is worn-out:

    Sweden has fantastic health-care which puts the American and British systems to shame.

    If you feel a culture of atheistic rationism such as suggested by Karl Marx who removed the "opiate of the people" (aka religion), was a success in the Marxist utopia in Cuba, then by all means, David Sloan Wilson's hypothesis is refuted.

    Do you really think that Marxism is an example of "atheist rationalism"?

Comment by hblavatsky — May 1, 2009 @ 4:16 pm

18. JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
    May 1st, 2009 at 5:10 pm

    I don’t’ agree with Wilson that the new atheism can be described as a stealth religion. On the other hand, where is atheism given legal protection? I am not a constitutional scholar but I believe that it is the free exercise clause of the first amendment of the US Constitution, which reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,“ that grants freedom of conscience to religious believers as well as non believers. Unfortunately, this is a fact that is unappreciated the new atheists, who have been very vocal about wanting to destroy religion. My concern is, if they succeed in destroying religion what happens to democracy?

    However, I do think that not only the new atheist, but atheists in general are guilty of smuggling metaphysics into their belief system. Of course they are going to deny that. They are going to argue that they believe what they do because it is non-metaphysical. However, nothing could be farther from the truth. Where were they when the universe came into existence? Do they know what caused it to come into existence? What about the origin of life? Can they tell us how that happened? Or, the origin of mind and consciousness? These are questions that are presently unresolved by science. How can they presume to already know the answers to questions like that?

    Metaphysics simply means beyond physics, or beyond the present ability of physical science to understand or explain. Unless they have empirically verifiable answers to the questions that I have posed above their beliefs are based on unproven a priori assumptions that are beyond science.

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — May 1, 2009 @ 5:10 pm

19. dantedanti Says:
    May 1st, 2009 at 5:52 pm

    This is your argument, not mine.

    I think you are being a bit disingenuous, however, if you are willing, I'll let you unpack your own argument and explain how it differs. I also query EVERYONE ELSE: did I not lay out the argument that was being made? Other's opinions would be greatly appreciated so that I know if I have missed or misunderstood anything.

    The rest of your comment seems to go along with my previous comments (that you are actually arguing about what kind of god we should believe in, not that there is or isn't a god): if so many people describe god so differently, how do we know how to find out how god really is?

Comment by dantedanti — May 1, 2009 @ 5:52 pm

20. don provan Says:
    May 1st, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    The mistaken assumption is that time spent away from an epidemiological study will necessarily decrease the effectiveness of epidemiological studies. It may well be the time invested in strengthening the spirits of indidviduals and their resolve will enhance the effectiveness of medical solutions.

    Are you saying that that's the reason people should practice religion? In other words, are you saying religions are false but effective?

Comment by don provan — May 1, 2009 @ 6:46 pm

21. angryoldfatman Says:
    May 1st, 2009 at 8:17 pm

    hblavatsky wrote:

    There is credible anecdotal evidence to show that families of certain religious groups have many more children than the average population, but is this guarantee that they are "reproductively superior"?

    Having more offspring is the very definition of being reproductively superior when we're talking about animals.

    Why doesn't the same apply to Homo sapiens, since it is simply another animal?

Comment by angryoldfatman — May 1, 2009 @ 8:17 pm

22. angryoldfatman Says:
    May 1st, 2009 at 8:19 pm

    there is no don provan wrote:

    Are you saying that that's the reason people should practice religion? In other words, are you saying religions are false but effective?

    How can something false be effective?

Comment by angryoldfatman — May 1, 2009 @ 8:19 pm

23. hblavatsky Says:
    May 1st, 2009 at 8:57 pm

    angry:

    Having more offspring is the very definition of being reproductively superior when we're talking about animals.

    Simply having lots of children is not enough since you also have to consider the proportion that survive long enough to reproduce and raise families of their own. Having lots of children that live to maturity and eventually reproduce themselves is a slightly better definition.

    The example I gave earlier was a common frog which has many children, however the overwhelming majority die: It would be silly to say that frogs are "reproductivly superior" to humans, they just have a different reproductive strategy which involves a great deal of wastage.

    I think Mike Gene's original (intended ironically) statement is a very interesting one because it is a testable proposition about population evolution. He observes that religious people seem to reproduce at a faster rate than the rest of the population and suggests that this alone might cause the non-religious population to dwindle.

    Mike's comments were obviously intended as a joke, but if I were to take them seriously for a moment I think the reason why atheists like me are not an endangered sub-species are:

    * Smaller families probably have a slightly higher survival to maturity rate than bigger ones because of increased parental supervision.

    * Smaller families are able to invest more resources into their children who are more likely to obtain higher cultural status and therefore more effective at capturing resources for subsequent generations.

    * Beliefs (unlike genetics) can be changed within a single lifetime – there is probably a tendency in most cultures to "revert to mean", In the West some religious people will give up their religion because of influences from the overwhelmingly secular society.

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,“ that grants freedom of conscience to religious believers as well as non believers. Unfortunately, this is a fact that is unappreciated the new atheists, who have been very vocal about wanting to destroy religion.

    As far as I am aware the New Atheists are not congress-persons so as long as government is not enacting legislation promoting or prohibiting religion then we should all be happy?

    The constitution applies only to government – citizens can promote religion or advocate against it as much as they want. That's what we do here… right?

    Where were they when the universe came into existence? Do they know what caused it to come into existence? What about the origin of life? Can they tell us how that happened?

    Are you ruling out all naturalistic study of these topics on the basis that they happened before homo-sapiens existed? The only people who claim to know 100% sure why the universe exists and how life came to be are the creationists. I'm not aware of anybody else who makes such outrageous claims.

Comment by hblavatsky — May 1, 2009 @ 8:57 pm

24. angryoldfatman Says:
    May 1st, 2009 at 11:05 pm

    hblavatsky wrote:

    Simply having lots of children is not enough since you also have to consider the proportion that survive long enough to reproduce and raise families of their own. Having lots of children that live to maturity and eventually reproduce themselves is a slightly better definition.

    The most generous estimate of the number of atheists in the US is 10% of the population. On top of that, the nations that have the most atheists have the least population growth.

    If there were more people like you, there would be less people like you.

Comment by angryoldfatman — May 1, 2009 @ 11:05 pm

25. hblavatsky Says:
    May 2nd, 2009 at 4:10 am

    The most generous estimate of the number of atheists in the US is 10% of the population. On top of that, the nations that have the most atheists have the least population growth.

    Correlation does not imply causation.

    The nations that have the most atheists (e.g. Sweden) have no need of such rapid population growth, they have a stable population or even one that is slightly declining.

    I'm sure it's obvious to you that simply expanding your population as fast is you can is not a sustainable strategy because it's likely that any population can outstrip it's available resources.

    A better strategy would be one which allows many generations of a parent's descendants control more resources. It's a longer-term strategy for reproductive success than simply having as many kids as possible.

    The test of Mike's theory is not the growth of the overall population but whether childbirth alone is causing the ratio of religious to non-religious to change. My argument that there is an equilibrium so simply having more babies has a smaller effect than you might expect.

Comment by hblavatsky — May 2, 2009 @ 4:10 am

26. don provan Says:
    May 2nd, 2009 at 5:12 am

    How can something false be effective?

    For example, God doesn't exist, yet worshipping God has health benefits, as Sal explained.

Comment by don provan — May 2, 2009 @ 5:12 am

27. hblavatsky Says:
    May 2nd, 2009 at 8:25 am

    Ouch, Ray Comfort's pals are at it again:

    http://raycomfortfood.blogspot...

    Does anybody here seriously believe that Ray's associate (the actual writer of the article) is making a helpful point here? He reckons that flu is in some way caused by "sin" and not the impersonal consequences of an evolutionary struggle with certain micro-organisms.

    A population that holds such a bonkers view is certainly going to be less able to deal with an influenza epidemic than one which adopts a more naturalistic world-view.

    But lets not put all the blame for this on Christians like Ray… after all he means well, ideologues have corrupted science for far more sinister purposes in the past: "Lysenkoism" is the best example I can think of.

Comment by hblavatsky — May 2, 2009 @ 8:25 am

28. dantedanti Says:
    May 2nd, 2009 at 10:03 am

    He reckons that flu is in some way caused by "sin"

    For your pleasure, I recommend googling for "hamartia"

Comment by dantedanti — May 2, 2009 @ 10:03 am

29. angryoldfatman Says:
    May 2nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm

    hblavatsky wrote:

    Correlation does not imply causation.

    Translation: "My speculations are correct, but yours are not. Why? Because I say so, that's why."

    Apply your correlation vs. causation position to your own comments first, then get back to me. Bring me a juicebox while you're at it.

    The nations that have the most atheists (e.g. Sweden) have no need of such rapid population growth, they have a stable population or even one that is slightly declining.

    You've tried to tell me I'm wrong, then you confirm what I just wrote. I wrote:
    [T]he nations that have the most atheists have the least population growth

    And then you made a statement that implies that indeed, I am correct. So we see that the whole "correlation vs. causation" thing was a smokescreen. Thanks for making my point for me.

    I'm sure it's obvious to you that simply expanding your population as fast is you can is not a sustainable strategy because it's likely that any population can outstrip it's available resources.

    A better strategy would be one which allows many generations of a parent's descendants control more resources. It's a longer-term strategy for reproductive success than simply having as many kids as possible.

    You're talking Malthus, I'm talking Darwin. Common mistake to be sure, since Darwin used Malthus as one of the bases for his theories, but they're still two different things.

    We're talking about reproductive superiority. This implies at least two populations – one being the inferior and the other being the superior.

    My initial question was:

    Why doesn't [reproductive superiority determined by number of offspring] apply to Homo sapiens, since it is simply another animal?

    You've revealed that you think there is another way of measuring reproductive superiority in human beings besides the number of offspring – in other words, you believe in a qualitative difference between certain sets of humans instead of a quantitative difference.

    This shows me two things: 1. You believe in some form of dualism, since you think humans should be thought differently than other animals, and 2. You are a eugenicist.

    You've fallen into the same trap that Galton and his followers did – you think your particular group of humans is superior, but when you find that your "superior" group is being edged out numerically by the supposed "inferior" group(s), you will feel the need to do something about stabilizing the numbers.

    Whether that stabilizing action takes passive, covert, or very active forms doesn't matter. The impetus is there. The "inferior's" numbers must be reduced to ensure the "superior" are truly superior.

    The test of Mike's theory is not the growth of the overall population but whether childbirth alone is causing the ratio of religious to non-religious to change.

    You're hallucinating that I've talked about overall population growth somewhere.

    As far as childbirth alone etc. etc., you could win some sort of mathematical prize if you can prove how a reducing the size of a subset makes it a larger portion of the whole set.

    Hint: the only way you can do that is to shrink the whole set faster than the subset, as eugenicists eventually advocate.

    My argument that there is an equilibrium so simply having more babies has a smaller effect than you might expect.

    Tell that to the Muslims.

Comment by angryoldfatman — May 2, 2009 @ 1:39 pm

30. angryoldfatman Says:
    May 2nd, 2009 at 1:52 pm

    there is no don provan wrote:

    For example, God doesn't exist, yet worshipping God has health benefits, as Sal explained.

    Do you accept Sal's basic premise, that worshipping God has health benefits? If not, how do you explain evidence to the contrary? If so, how do you explain evidence of it without God?

    By the way…

Comment by angryoldfatman — May 2, 2009 @ 1:52 pm

31. hblavatsky Says:
    May 2nd, 2009 at 5:16 pm

    Apply your correlation vs. causation position to your own comments first, then get back to me. Bring me a juicebox while you're at it.

    Actually I was very careful to use words like "theoretical", "probably" and "might" in my original comment. I was simply replying to Mike Gene's hypothetical question with a hypothetical scenario. I think that was very clear.

    You're talking Malthus, I'm talking Darwin. Common mistake to be sure, since Darwin used Malthus as one of the bases for his theories, but they're still two different things.

    No, I really am not. You might read up on the subject of "reproductive strategies" – these are not strategies in the sense that they are planned, goal-oriented activities. It's jargon for describing organism's reproductive behavior, and yes it applies as much to Humans as other creatures.

    I think that Darwin would have agreed that there was far more to reproductive fitness than simply producing more offspring.

    in other words, you believe in a qualitative difference between certain sets of humans instead of a quantitative difference.

    Actually it was Mike who began this – we were discussing the consequences of a very particular qualitative difference: Having a religion which makes parents more likely to produce a greater number of offspring.

    Could this qualitative difference lead to an easily quantifiable difference (e.g. the non-religious segment of the population declining relative to the religious).

    My original point is that simply measuring the number of offspring produced by an organism in any single generation is not a particularly good measure of that organism's reproductive success. To be more meaningful you might have to assess the difference over many generations.

    The 2nd point I made was that religion is not inherited in the same way as genes: It's cultural inheritance rather than generic inheritance. That means there's no guarantee that the children of the famous Duggar family will all share the same reproductive outlook as their parents.

    1. You believe in some form of dualism, since you think humans should be thought differently than other animals, and 2. You are a eugenicist.

    Angry, that's very silly. You seem to be having an argument with what you imagine I believe, but may I suggest you simply stick to what I actually write and extrapolate less. We can have a much more enjoyable debate that way.

    You've fallen into the same trap that Galton and his followers did – you think your particular group of humans is superior, but when you find that your "superior" group is being edged out numerically by the supposed "inferior" group(s), you will feel the need to do something about stabilizing the numbers.

    No, I just pointed out the obvious fact that ability to control resources and pass them on to subsequent generations gives a very strong reproductive advantage which in some circumstances could be more significant than having more children.

    I think it's also obvious that the more offspring an organism produces the less a parent can invest in each individual offspring.

    You're hallucinating that I've talked about overall population growth somewhere.

    As you can see, I was referring to Mike's proposition and not your comments.

Comment by hblavatsky — May 2, 2009 @ 5:16 pm

32. don provan Says:
    May 2nd, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    Do you accept Sal's basic premise, that worshipping God has health benefits?

    I am stipulating it.

    If so, how do you explain evidence of it without God?

    The correlation Sal presented was between worship and health. He hasn't even suggested a relation between worship and God nor between God and health, he's only talked about the direct connection between worship and good results that we can easily see are coming directly from the practice of Christianity. So even if we were to somehow prove God didn't exist, Sal's evidence suggests we should continue to encourage Christianity.

Comment by don provan — May 2, 2009 @ 5:51 pm

33. Raevmo Says:
    May 2nd, 2009 at 6:58 pm

    Surely AngryOldFatMan must have heard of the placebo effect? Double blind studies of the effect (actually a total lack thereof) of prayer on health confirm that the placebo effect might play an important role.

Comment by Raevmo — May 2, 2009 @ 6:58 pm

34. don provan Says:
    May 3rd, 2009 at 3:39 pm

    Surely AngryOldFatMan must have heard of the placebo effect?

    Well, it doesn't even have to be a placebo effect. There could be many actual health benefits to religious practices. The unprovable link is only in the specific area involving God being the active agent that makes Christians more healthy.

Comment by don provan — May 3, 2009 @ 3:39 pm

35. Bradford Says:
    May 3rd, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    Raevmo:

    Surely AngryOldFatMan must have heard of the placebo effect? Double blind studies of the effect (actually a total lack thereof) of prayer on health confirm that the placebo effect might play an important role.

    Either way materialists face a conundrum. If the placebo effect is used to explain a result connected with prayer then the causal sequence places the ponderings of a mind antecedent to and the cause of a biochemical outcome. Ring up one for Egnor.

Comment by Bradford — May 3, 2009 @ 4:03 pm

36. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
    May 5th, 2009 at 10:48 am

    I have no problem with New Athiest as long as they stay out of trying to control and invade Christian families. I'm a libertarian at heart.

    If labeling religious upbringing as child abuse was intended to allow the government to control what parents teach their kids, I think that crosses the line. If the New Athiests follow the policies of Mao, Stalin, Marx, Castro where churches are shut down because they are supposed enemies of the state and "rationalism" I'm not for that.

    But if they just want to believe what they want to believe. I respect thier right to do so.

    What is troubling about the New Athiests seems to be some inclination to use the force of government. That is troubling. In that regard it is not just a stealth religion but a political movement.

    But if the NA's want to have their heroes, prophets, messaiah's and holidays, that's their business…

    I think the Hagiography surrounding Charles Darwin suggests the very deep need in human beings to worship something…..

    Removal of religion is not necessarily a pre-requisite to establish a culture of science and technology. History and current observations confirm that. Hence, it is hard to argue, as the New Athiests do, that atheism will necessarily lead to better science and technology.

    My personal view is that religious wars where one side tries to forcibly crush the other will be counter productive. Cooperation is a better way.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 5, 2009 @ 10:48 am

37. JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
    May 5th, 2009 at 10:49 am

    Recently, a good friend of Chistopher Hitchens, another Wilson, scholar and writer A.N. Wilson announced that he had converted (or, more accurately, reconverted) from atheism to Christianity. Is he being sincere? I think so. Indeed, I don’t think that anyone has described the experience of personal faith better. Let me give a couple of quotes here without comment because I cannot think of any way to improve or clarify anything that Wilson says.

    When I think about atheist friends, including my father, they seem to me like people who have no ear for music, or who have never been in love. It is not that (as they believe) they have rumbled the tremendous fraud of religion – prophets do that in every generation. Rather, these unbelievers are simply missing out on something that is not difficult to grasp. Perhaps it is too obvious to understand; obvious, as lovers feel it was obvious that they should have come together, or obvious as the final resolution of a fugue.
    http://www.newstatesman.com/re...

    The Easter story answers their questions about the spiritual aspects of humanity. It changes people's lives because it helps us understand that we, like Jesus, are born as spiritual beings.

    Every inner prompting of conscience, every glimmering sense of beauty, every response we make to music, every experience we have of love – whether of physical love, sexual love, family love or the love of friends – and every experience of bereavement, reminds us of this fact about ourselves.

    Ah, say the rationalists. But no one can possibly rise again after death, for that is beyond the realm of scientific possibility.

    And it is true to say that no one can ever prove – nor, indeed, disprove – the existence of an after-life or God, or answer the conundrums of honest doubters (how does a loving God allow an earthquake in Italy?) Easter does not answer such questions by clever-clever logic. Nor is it irrational. On the contrary, it meets our reason and our hearts together, for it addresses the whole person.

    In the past, I have questioned its veracity and suggested that it should not be taken literally. But the more I read the Easter story, the better it seems to fit and apply to the human condition. That, too, is why I now believe in it.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — May 5, 2009 @ 10:49 am

38. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
    May 6th, 2009 at 1:06 am

    Bill Dembski wrote about the pre-Christian AN Wilson.

    Wilson published a biography of a poet named Betjaman. The biography included supposed letters written between the Betjaman and his mistresses.

    The letters were a hoax which might have been detected if Wilson understood the explanatory filter. So there was egg on Wilsons face for using fabricated letters as part of a historic biography. The prank was perpetrated by Wilsons rival.

    AN Wilson Skewered

    A. N. Wilson, the epitomy of English snootiness, recently fell for an elaborate prank that he could have avoided if he had drawn a design inference. Note that Eve de Harben doesn't exist either, and the letters in "her" name are an anagra for "Ever been had?"

    Why am I being so hard on Wilson? Here’s what he wrote back in 1999 about the good people of Kansas: "Their simple, idiotic credulity as a populace would have been the envy of Lenin. That is the tragic paradox. The Land of the Free, telly and burgerfed, has become the Land of the Credulous Moron." (go here and scroll down) What goes around comes around.

    –Bill Dembski
    ========

    AN Wilson, the biographer, admitted this weekend he had fallen victim to an elaborate hoax.

    The trick was so successful that the letter has been published in Wilson’s new book Betjeman as evidence of the poet’s previously unknown “fling”.

    The giveaway — and a clue that a bitter rival of Wilson’s may be behind the trick — is that the capital letters at the beginning of the sentences in the letter spell out a vivid personal insult to the biographer.
    ….
    Close study of the letter, however, shows that the capital letters at the beginning of each sentence spell out a message: “AN Wilson is a sh-t”.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 6, 2009 @ 1:06 am

39. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
    May 6th, 2009 at 1:12 am

    One has to wonder if theists are having more offspring than atheists, why there has not been complete overtake of the population by theists.

    The answer is simple, the offspring of theists sometimes become atheists. About half the athiests I know come from devout homes.

    This suggests to me that theistic homes are often good incubators for atheists.

    IAbout half the big name NA's that come to mind, came from Christian homes.

    It's not surprising, the way Christendom defended its claims over the last century has not held up well in the modern culture, and they driven people out of their ranks.

    If Christendom had adopted and vigorously defended the ID hypothesis, they would have fared better, imho.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 6, 2009 @ 1:12 am

40. A.N. Wilson — Skewered, but Now Re-Converted? Can One Love God and Darwin? | Uncommon Descent Says:
    May 6th, 2009 at 2:08 am

    [...] HT: John A Designer, Telic Thoughts, Detecting New Atheism on the Religious Radar Screen [...]

Pingback by A.N. Wilson — Skewered, but Now Re-Converted? Can One Love God and Darwin? | Uncommon Descent — May 6, 2009 @ 2:08 am

41. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
    May 6th, 2009 at 2:10 am

    John,

    I posted at UD thanks to you. I also extended a Hat Tip to you there.

    A.N. Wilson — Skewered, but Now Re-Converted? Can One Love God and Darwin?

    Sal

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 6, 2009 @ 2:10 am

42. JOHN_A_DESIGNER Says:
    May 6th, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    Thankyou Sal. I also found this admission by A.N. Wilson to be very revealing.

    “Like most educated people in Britain and Northern Europe (I was born in 1950), I have grown up in a culture that is overwhelmingly secular and anti-religious. The universities, broadcasters and media generally are not merely non-religious, they are positively anti.

    To my shame, I believe it was this that made me lose faith and heart in my youth. It felt so uncool to be religious. With the mentality of a child in the playground, I felt at some visceral level that being religious was unsexy, like having spots or wearing specs.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
    Are the new atheists really that shallow? They are atheists because they think any kind of religion is “uncool”? And, all along I thought these folks had some profound reasons for believing the way that they do.

Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — May 6, 2009 @ 8:02 pm

43. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
    May 9th, 2009 at 11:05 am

    I was alerted to this article by Nullasulus

    http://tinyurl.com/r93wj6

    MILITANT atheism may be on the warpath in the English-speaking world, but last week its advocates had to take on board some unwelcome news.

    According to the latest American research, parents with no religious affiliation are losing the battle to indoctrinate their children. A majority of those surveyed who grew up in atheist or agnostic households, or where there was no particular religious attachment, later chose to join a religion.

    The New York Times sees it as a retrograde step, labelling the process “defecting to faith” and noting that in comparison only 13 per cent of those raised as Protestants and 14 per cent of cradle Catholics later severed connections.

    These unexpected findings come from a study, Faith in Flux, by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. It also reveals a high churn factor among denominations.

    “Americans change religion early and often. In total about half of American adults have changed religious affiliation at least once during their lives. Most people who change their religion leave their childhood faith before age 24, and many of those who change religion do so more than once,” it says.

    The survey says 4 per cent of the total US adult population now belongs to a religious group after being raised unaffiliated. The unaffiliated category has, paradoxically, gained the most members from the process of religious change, despite having one of the lowest retention rates of all the categories.

    About 54 per cent of those reared in unaffiliated households have since got religion. Nearly 40 per cent have become Protestants, 22 per cent evangelicals, 13 per cent mainline and 4 per cent have joined one of the black churches. Six per cent converted to Catholicism and 9 per cent embraced some other faith.

    Thanks to the Pew Forum we can now put some numbers on the often-remarked zeal of the adult convert.

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 9, 2009 @ 11:05 am

44. Salvador T. Cordova Says:
    May 9th, 2009 at 11:10 am

    often-remarked zeal of the adult convert.

    As in:

    1. Phil Johnson
    2. CS Lewis
    3. John Sanford
    4. Frank Tipler
    5. Antony Flew
    6. Lee Strobel
    7. Josh McDowell
    8. AN Wilson
    9. Alan Sandage

    the list goes on…

Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — May 9, 2009 @ 11:10 am

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.