>Did Lewis really say that? I realize that he wasn't the clearest of thinkers, but this seems irrational even by his standards.

Actually that is my on-the-fly paraphrase of David Downing's paraphrase of some of Lewis's thinking based, no doubt, on some of his personal letters and writing. I must confess that I badly mangled what Downing really meant.

Downing wrote:
"For Lewis radical skepticism was not ultimately not at all visionary, but rather a form of spiritual blindness. He called materialism " a philosophy for boys" because, in the form he had known, it could not account for its own premises and because it too often promoted a kind of glib intellectual cynicism." (David C. Downing, The Most Reluctant Convert, p.62)

>Surely he would have agreed that it makes sense to reject a viewpoint because the evidence shows it to be false, and not because you dislike the personalities of some of those holding that view.

I think in a sense Downing (and Lewis) would agree with you here.
Downing writes: "Lewis was the first to insist that one should embrace Christianity because it is true not because it is therapeutic." (p31)
He then quotes Lewis from his "Man or Rabbit" essay (1946) that, "Christianity claims to give an account of facts"”to tell you what the real universe is like"¦ If Christianity is untrue, then no honest man will want to believe it, however helpful it might be: if it is true, every honest man will want to believe it, even if it gives him no help at all."

>In any case, you don't have to look very long to find theists exhibiting "self-important arrogance and cynicism". Take Stunney, for example. Would you have us reject theism simply because Stunney is a graceless jerk?

Yes, if all he has to offer is arrogance and cynicism, yes. In my opinion if you have to prop up your argument with arrogance and cynicism it's not a very strong argument to begin with. To be fair I think Stunney has made some good arguments. I think some of his hotheaded rhetoric has actually weakened those arguments. However, I have not been following your debate with Stunney all along so I can't make a full and fair assessment. However, I suspect he is not the only one at fault here. Is he?

Lewis wrote elsewhere that what eventually caused him to reject atheism, was the self important arrogance and cynicism that that atheists back then were prone to express.

John,

Did Lewis really say that? I realize that he wasn't the clearest of thinkers, but this seems irrational even by his standards.

Surely he would have agreed that it makes sense to reject a viewpoint because the evidence shows it to be false, and not because you dislike the personalities of some of those holding that view.

In any case, you don't have to look very long to find theists exhibiting "self-important arrogance and cynicism". Take Stunney, for example. Would you have us reject theism simply because Stunney is a graceless jerk?

C.S. Lewis who was an atheist as a young man was very familiar with this kind of thinking. For example, he wrote in is his essay, "Shelley, Dryden, and Mr. Eliot:"
"Men (and, still more, boys) like to call themselves disillusioned because the very from of the word suggests that they had the illusions and emerged from them"”have tried both worlds. The claim, however, is false nine times out of ten. The world is full of imposters who claim to be disenchanted and are really unenchanted: mere natural men who have never risen so high as to be in danger of the generous illusion they claim to have escaped from"¦ They talk like sages who have passed through the half truths of humanitarian benevolence, aristocratic honour, or romantic passion, while in fact they are clods who have never advanced so far." (Quoted by David C. Downing in, Planets in Peril, p.21)

Lewis wrote elsewhere that what eventually caused him to reject atheism, was the self important arrogance and cynicism that that atheists back then were prone to express. Later he would look back upon his atheism as something that he out grew. It was nothing more that an adolescent stage. That means there still may be a chance for Sam Harris. Hitchens or Dawkins? Well"¦..

But I do live on "the Christian side of the mountain" on purpose. I find the hipper-than-thou crowd to be tiresome in the extreme. While the little old ladies who call me for donations to the Baptist or Presbyterian or whatever charity this week are quite dear. I've even worked with them on occasion. I've found it rewarding, personally. Not being a "joiner" or a "belonger," there's no real credit. S'alright. Me and God are on pretty good terms.

So. What do you do for the betterment of humanity besides bitch about other people's belief systems per their origins?

How much of your income do you donate to Médecins Sans Frontiéres (Physicians Without Borders)? Do you require them to swear they don't believe in any gods before you donate your money? How much of your income goes toward those hundreds of other organizations every year? Yes, I mean "extra," not just your taxes. I'd really like to know.

Just a few comments ago you were stating, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, that I don't give much to charity. Now you expect me to provide financial statements. You really are a piece of work.

For one thing, NA's are not trying to "destroy" religious people, that sort of talk is paranoid-crazy. They would like to destroy their delusional beliefs, to be sure, but that's not the same thing.

For another, if religious people's charitable impulses are genuine, and not merely a result of being compelled by service to a delusional relgious authority, then they will continue to donate to charity even after being stripped of their delusions.

If religion is the result of brain lesions, then over half the world's population is suffering from a neurological disease and must be cured.

If this is neurological disease is caused by genetics, then obviously they cannot be cured; they can only be sterilized or killed.

So yes, you wish to destroy people who are religious, provided you believe what your New Atheism masters have told you.

You indicate that you indeed believe this by the second paragraph of yours I quoted; you believe that religious people have these charitable "impulses" which cannot be "stripped" away by any sort of education.

Congratulations! You have earned your New Eugenicist merit badge, which you can collect when your ilk begins its new pogroms. Good thing is you won't have to wait too long for it.

You haven't offered anything concrete at all as to how these 'saviors' plan to save us. Or even elucidated what it is they intend to save us from.

Haven't you gotten the memo, Joy? War is caused by religion. Without religion, there will be no war. Racism, also the fault of religion. Remove religion, and egalitarianism will rule supreme. Religion stands in the way of science. Remove religion, and our research output will triple overnight.

Of course, communism was religion too. So was fascism. But the NEW atheists.. surely they can't be dogmatic! They rail against dogmatism as loudly as possible! In fact, they refuse to associate with anyone who has any leanings they can interpret to be dogmatic!

They've outlined a glorious future for us. The details are still in the making. Only our selfish genes know, unless we rebel against them. Which may be good or bad. I'm not sure. Perhaps Dawkins will tell us soon, it must not be important for us to know yet…

For another, if religious people's charitable impulses are genuine, and not merely a result of being compelled by service to a delusional relgious authority, then they will continue to donate to charity even after being stripped of their delusions.

Oh, so it's okay if y'all destroy religion, because those schmucks will still support charities smart people like you would never bother with, right?

There are hundreds of organizations doing good works, and only a subset of them are motivated by religion. I like Médecins Sans Frontières myself, but there are many others.

How much of your income do you donate to Médecins Sans Frontiéres (Physicians Without Borders)? Do you require them to swear they don't believe in any gods before you donate your money? How much of your income goes toward those hundreds of other organizations every year? Yes, I mean "extra," not just your taxes. I'd really like to know.

To me, it seems unfortunate that religious groups have a strong presence in this area since the result is often the corruption of the act of charity with proseletization.

The obvious answer to that is to donate 10% of your income to charity, and encourage all your NA friends to do the same. How much did you give to the Richard Dawkins Foundation this year, for instance? It's a foundation. Your contributions go to accumulate wealth that will pay for all projects with interest and dividends, after all. After they make Richard Dawkins richer than he is.

Fourth, it's unseemly to be ostentatious about how charitable you are. Bragging about how much your group gives is not much better.

In terms of how much social charity is supplied by sectarian organizations, I think it's perfectly legitimate to ask what you MAs have to offer instead. So far it's not impressive. It costs the billionaires nothing, earns them a salary. That's a cool thing, but how much of it do you believe "The System" is going to tolerate?

And fifth, you haven't answered my question about how this stupid issue pertains to the slightly less stupid one of intelligent design.

That's rich, mtraven. This stupid issue pertains because your club of NAs wants to make religious people extinct. And some of them aren't the least bit shy of using coercive measures to accomplish that. Do you have anything to contribute per the egalitarian aims of those NAs who are also at the forefront of the NE (New Eugenics)?

The truth of this would-be scientific theory is entirely independent of whether or not its adherents give more to charity than atheists.

Of course it is. Deal is, this thread is about Scott Atran's problems with the NAs and their stated goals. He called it an "evangelical cult," with a "messianic mission to save humanity." You haven't offered anything concrete at all as to how these 'saviors' plan to save us. Or even elucidated what it is they intend to save us from.

I'd like someone to answer my own question, frankly: It's been shown that many christians will give to and work with non-christians in the name of charity. As will many jews, and even (I assume, alas I have no examples onhand) many muslims. There's even been some atheists who donate to religious-mixed causes.

Can we expect Christopher Hitchens to coordinate or promote cooperation with charities based on different beliefs, as the above do? How about Dawkins? Or are they more on that 'we refuse to work with the ideaologically impure' end of the spectrum, where New Atheists are to Atheism what Westboro Baptist is to Christianity? Because frankly, I'm getting the feeling that charity and cooperation is a very distant second to 'getting rid of religion'. After all, if some people are moved to consider a new idea due to charitable acts, then the charity is poisoned.

The question is if religious people are more charitable and good than the new atheists why are the NA's trying to destroy them?

For one thing, NA's are not trying to "destroy" religious people, that sort of talk is paranoid-crazy. They would like to destroy their delusional beliefs, to be sure, but that's not the same thing.

For another, if religious people's charitable impulses are genuine, and not merely a result of being compelled by service to a delusional relgious authority, then they will continue to donate to charity even after being stripped of their delusions.

For a third, the non-religous component of charitable giving is enormous. There are hundreds of organizations doing good works, and only a subset of them are motivated by religion. I like Médecins Sans Frontières myself, but there are many others. To me, it seems unfortunate that religious groups have a strong presence in this area since the result is often the corruption of the act of charity with proseletization.

Fourth, it's unseemly to be ostentatious about how charitable you are. Bragging about how much your group gives is not much better.

And fifth, you haven't answered my question about how this stupid issue pertains to the slightly less stupid one of intelligent design. The truth of this would-be scientific theory is entirely independent of whether or not its adherents give more to charity than atheists.

[probably my last word on the subject unless someone manages to say something interesting]