Centerfield

It seems more reasonable to assume that more of those who are not "not talking" are agnostics, rather than atheists. Especially as a default.

Being an atheist requires just as much faith as being a believer -- maybe more, considering how difficult it is to prove a negative like this. An agnostic is merely saying that evidence is required and the evidence available is inconclusive.

Posted by: wj at August 29, 2006 02:20 PM

Agnostic - 0.5%
Atheist - 0.4%
Individuals who stated: "No religion" - 13.2%

I.e. total number of people who are actually atheists, including those who don't want to admit it - 13.6%

Posted by: Simon at August 29, 2006 02:23 PM

Incidentally, even if these numbers are correct, they do not reflect what percentage of the politically active population. 56.2% of the population voted in 2004; if every atheist voted, that seemingly innocuous 13.2% engorges to brobdingnagian proportions of (check my math on this) nearly a quarter of the voting population.

Moreover, I would argue that it is results that matter more than raw numbers. You don't have to pursuade me that the majority of Americans oppose the atheist's dream of driving God from the public square - I knew that already. And yet, we see that this minority is getting results, regardless of their numbers, and regardless of public disagreement. And it is results that matter. Even if there are only a million or so atheists in the country, in theory, you can change a great deal of this country with 270 people: 218 Representatives, 51 Senators and one President. Heck, the framers - who considered the judiciary to be the least dangerous branch - would be absolutely astonished at what one can accomplish with only five people, if those five happen to occupy certain offices. How astonishing it would seem to the impartial observer -- a modern-day Tocqueville, perhaps -- that this seemingly tiny, impotent minority (no more than 13.2% of the population, tops, and purportedly as little as 0.4% of the population, apparently) came within one vote of abolishing the pledge of allegiance as it is presently constituted.

Posted by: Simon at August 29, 2006 02:37 PM

Oh, and in what column do we count people who claim to be members of a certain religion, but in fact feel free to discard those teachings of the religion they find to be politically uncomfortable - the Fred Phelpses, the John Kerrys, the Jefferts-Schoris - are we to take such people's contention of faith at face value? A faith that does not survive a collision with one's personal preferences -- be those preferences abortion on demand, a la Kerry, or the persecution of homosexuals, a la Phelps -- is no faith at all. If you make Jesus the leader of your life only so far as he's only leading you into places you were already happy to go, then you have not made him the leader of your life.

Posted by: Simon at August 29, 2006 02:43 PM

By the way, I agree with WJ, although I would add that it puzzles me that people often assume that an agnostic will be more wont to caucus with an atheist than a Christian. I think that it takes vastly more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a believer; to look at the universe in all its improbability and complexity and then to declare not only that there may not be a creator but that there is not a creator -- as if one who could create such a mechanism could not hide their presence from their creations -- strikes me as preposterous and arrogant. My (main) problem on the religious front is that God evidently wants faith, denying proof, and I have none to offer.

Posted by: Simon at August 29, 2006 02:51 PM

Simon, I still don't get these three things:

1) why you're so willing to assume that all or most of the "no religion" group are atheists (from your first comment, unless you've confused me, I note that you do concede otherwise later, so I'm not sure why you're repeating my math)

2)why you seem to be suggesting that atheists are more likely to be politically active(unless you addressed this in a previous thread just recently)

_and most of all_

3)why you're suggesting that those who think that "under god" aught not to be in the pledge of allegiance are atheists by saying this:

...this seemingly tiny, impotent minority (no more than 13.2% of the population, tops, and purportedly as little as 0.4% of the population, apparently) came within one vote of abolishing the pledge of allegiance as it is presently constituted

Assuming this came within one vote, (I must have missed it if it happened in a full vote of the house of senate, did it? When?) isn't it quite plausible to suggest that this happened because many people who are not in fact atheists nevertheless take a somewhat strict view on establishment and want such commingling limited whenever possible?

Many people support separation/anti-establishmentarianism just as much as atheists do, but that doesn't make such folk stooges of atheists, or atheists.

This rhetoric sounds awful over the top, too:

"...abolishing the pledge of allegiance as it is presently constituted...

Deleting two of the 41 words (at quick count) doesn't feel like abolishing to me, but then I'm an editor. I suppose you could call any substantive change and "abolishment of it as presently constituted." But that feels like a really silly way to look at it to me, editorially speaking. But if you want, I'll cheerfully concede that it's an attempt to abolish the mention of God from the pledge.

Then hopefully you'll concede (even if cheerlessly) that such a change would leave the primary focus of the pledge intact, since, after all, the pledge is about allegiance to the nation, not allegiance to God. The original intent of the pledge was to foster allegiance to our nation, without mentioning God. This seems like an especially reasonable contention on my part when you consider that "under god" was not in the original pledge, it was added later, as an amendment. I don't remember when, but whoever did it, would you be willing to say that those folk abolished the pledge of allegiance as it was presently constituted then...?

In other words, they started it. :-)

Posted by: bk at August 29, 2006 03:21 PM

Were I to participate in such a survey, I would likely categorize myself as having "no religion." My guess is that most atheists are militantly so "by default". So I think the confessed number of atheists is close to the real number. I agree with wj to the extent that, if we have to find a default for the "no religion" folks, it would be more appropriate to assume them agnostic. I personally can relate to agnostics more than with atheists, but I don't know that I meet the criteria for actually being one. At any rate, I don't care if the word "God" is on our money or in our pledge. So, if the few atheists that are out there manage to get their way, it doesn't bother me. I don't see how washing references to God from our public institutions threatens anyone's right to worship as he sees fit. Nor do I personally mind generic references to God being there, but I do see how such references could offend the atheists out there. I just don't care about their causes.

Posted by: WHQ at August 29, 2006 03:26 PM

Brian,

I don't think your assumption of athiests=left and religious=right is necessarily proper. I saw nothing on the linked page that would lead to that conclusion.

Adults identifying with a specific faith group are almost evenly split among Republicans, Democrats and Independents. But those who do not identify with a religion are 43% Independent, 39% Democrat, and 17% Republican. from religioustolerance.org

My guess is that most atheists are militantly so "by default
I don't see how your reach this conclusion WHQ. To me it would seem to be just the opposite. When you are 0.4% of the population you learn to be tolerant of other's beliefs if you want to make your way in the world.

Posted by: Dennis at August 29, 2006 08:22 PM

I think the data is somewhat misleading.

First, I might guess that the "no religion" people are very sympathetic to a very secular culture, or at least supportive of a very high wall between government and religion including a dislike of "In God We Trust" on our money. Whether they are agnostics or atheists seems irrelevant.

As far as a personal God, I am an agnostic. Effect without cause, I believe renders the living world quite meaningless if irrationality prevails. How can the immaterial effect materiality? Anyway,.....

Second, many people who identify with but do not really observe their religious culture (or believe in God) more likely support a humanistic guide to Constitutional evolution, rather than the theological views of the Declaration of Independence. They often side with the agnostic/atheist position on issues of social conservatism. Together, you have a large crowd alarmed by those mixing religion into politics and foreign policy. Robertson is seen as a loony by a huge crowd (not CNN which interviewed him Israel during the recent war). This amplifies the agnostic/atheist sentiment, which even our founders expressed at times concerning the threat of fundamentalism influencing government.

How .04 becomes a 20-25% political force (with as I mentioned, an additional number of "religious" people sympathetic to their secular/Constitutional views -see BK's comment) is quite amazing. This might explain the Blue force as opposed to the Red one, why Baptists often support the Far Left.......Or I am completely wrong.

A Jew does not have to believe in the Bible to be Jewish. He/She might still answer “Jewish”. Hindus do not have to believe in Gods to be Hindu. Taoists have no God or Gods. Perhaps if we tried to identify fundamentalists from the "religious" we might find a much greater number than .04. The center sees this and leans a bit left to counter. Other statistics show Atheists less likely to commit violent crime. Perhaps there is an atheist gene we can test for, along with those that some researchers believe influence our political disposition.

I doubt Colbert voted for Bush.

Posted by: Maxtrue at August 29, 2006 08:58 PM

Me: My guess is that most atheists are militantly so "by default"

Dennis: I don't see how your reach this conclusion WHQ. To me it would seem to be just the opposite. When you are 0.4% of the population you learn to be tolerant of other's beliefs if you want to make your way in the world.

Dennis, perhaps "militant" isn't quite the right word. I used it because it was the word bk used in his post. It's not that I necessarily think that most atheists are intolerant, though they might be, at least in some sense. It's that, as wj pointed out, Being an atheist requires just as much faith as being a believer -- maybe more, considering how difficult it is to prove a negative like this. So my point is simply that atheism is a strong position to take and not one taken casually or half-heartedly. I would think that most who would take such a strong position - certainty that there is no God - would not shy away from stating their position in a survey.

Posted by: WHQ at August 29, 2006 10:37 PM

Here's another way to "crunch" the demographics of America's beliefs and politics. Note that the secularists are ~10%. The Religious Right is 12.5% and the Heartland Culture Warriors are another 11.4%. As a Christian ( and I'm probably one of those moderate evangelicals) I feel the influence of the secularists is overstated. I beleive the reaction to secularism gets greater noise. Having said that I would say the "hard line atheist" as we've discussed above likely have had greater influence than their numbers would suggest. What does all of that mean? I guess that depends on what group you fall into.

PS I would suggest this blog is not representative of the "Twelve Tribes of American Politics". I'd wager we have more than 11% "seculars" ( and probably few "Religious Right"ies

Posted by: c3 at August 29, 2006 11:51 PM

I'd love to see their definition of centrist. As I said, traditionally, moderates supported the secularist's attempts to resist encroachment of separation by the Right. Our founders were clear and did not place God on money or in our anthem.

interesting situation here among the tribes

France won't like this

Personally, I wouldn't issue medical certification to fundamentalist health professionals. Seems like a contradiction of terms. Intelligent Design and other wonderful conservative ideas might very well drive religious moderates towards secularists despite gays and the terror issue. I do not think most Americans want any connection between "the end of time" and American foreign policy. And God isn't going to tell Rumsfeld where all the secret Iranian installations are. I think the influence of traditionalist evangelicals require new tax laws.

Posted by: Maxtrue at August 30, 2006 02:28 AM

I don't think your assumption of athiests=left and religious=right is necessarily proper.

Indeed! It's a stereotype. Which usually means there's something of a genuine tendency which led to the stereotype. But I have no doubt that some atheists are conservative, especially the ones that are libertarian conservatives. Nor do I doubt that many on the left are deeply religious.

This is in fact something I've been planning to highlight in an upcoming thread which takes note of those who are religious but pro-choice.

Posted by: bk at August 30, 2006 09:04 AM

Brian, good observation. But I would be careful.

One can be a Muscular Internationalist, but be strongly opposed to criteria that are not fairly applied to all allies and/or, be opposed to "corporate globalization" that homogenizes the world for maximum profit without regard to the diversity of culture and environment.

One can support Libertarian views but object to tax cuts and a gutting of government while critical educational, energy, and security infrastructures crumble and the ground water turns black.

One can be pro-choice and disagree that the Constitution grants a woman (or man) the liberty (with government assistance) to abort her fetus whenever and for whatever reason she decides.

One can be a Conservative and advocate immigration reform and a strong wall between religion and government as well as judicial review of intelligence activities.

One can be a Liberal and oppose a government-run universal healthcare system, gay marriage, and that the office of transformation ends its essential work in the face of a dangerous religious and anti-Western hegemony.

One can believe in God without denying evolution, social and physical self-determination and the importance of secular moral deliberation without regard to the hereafter, the Bible, Koran or Torah in determining public policy.

Many polls list these three as the basic concerns of the voting public;

1. Assuming a real and present connection between Iraq, Iran and the "war on terror", TERRORISM ranks number one.

2. ECONOMY ranks second and includes energy, health care and education.

3. MISC ITEMS: Immigration, civil liberties (character of courts, Spying, corporate and governmental corruption and fraud) and social conservatism (religion in government, gay marriage, stem cell research, abortion etc.) all mix at the third level of concern depending on the spin of events, media and political calendars.

Perhaps the Twelve Tribes and their numerous subdivisions when subjected to specific and general questions about these issues (see 1, 2, and 3 above) might yield the globular structure of the present political universe. Monthly snap-shots might determine their red or blue shifts and the shape of things to come.

I do not think this structure is really determined by the ideology of religion or the usual Liberal v Conservative labeling. As America and the West are pushed further from their equilibrium, new patterns of organization will appear. Already the internet and the PR of our adversaries are changing the way these issues are organized in the minds of American voters. These more complex patterns are a changing the game despite the tremendous political bi polarity imposed by our two-party system seeking partisan political victory..

Posted by: Maxtrue at August 30, 2006 02:33 PM

Max, the danger in any stereotype or generalization rests with the maintainer's inability to understand that the accuracy is incomplete, of that there is some underlying intrinsic reason why the tendency must endure.

To make an overgeneralization myself, change is the only constant.

It would be awfully hard for us to talk about any broad or sweeping ideas without relying heavily upon generalizations. Many of the folk here are very good at noticing exceptions, myself included. Spometimes we become so interested in the exceptions that we lose sight of the overall occurence rate.

In the case of the general correlation between strong religious views and conservatism, I don't see much reason to expect this will change anytime soon, but I'm well aware of the exceptions, and I don't leap to assume that current correlations suggest an enduring and unmalleable causation. However it's quite possible. The rub point lies in noticing that while explicitly religious faith currently seems to correlate pretty well with conservatism, its quite possible that a more broadly construed "faith" does not. That's why it's so useful to notice that atheism is a form of faith, as is (let's call it) secular humanism.

I believe that the true believers on both wing are "faithers" where the people closer to the middle tend to be questioners and doubters. But ultimately almost every person on earth has an idiosyncratic view about what constitutes "the greatest good " or the highest priority. For some it's God, for others its a loosely construed human good, for some it's family, for others friends, for some it is pleasure, for some it's the barest necessities of personal survival like food. And so on and so on. The lion's share have a primary operating principle that they take on faith to some extent, whether they acknowledge it or not.

Posted by: bk at August 30, 2006 03:04 PM

Well said, but I wonder if you underestimate how many people of faith are ALSO secular humanists. These beliefs are not mutually exclusive.

I agree that Atheism is a kind of faith, but then scientific method which is the backbone of Atheism is construed to place belief on an edifice of knowledge and evidence. Humanism shares this view about separating religious belief from a qualitatively different belief in the laws of nature and the role of religion in public policy. To accept religious belief on a fundamentalist level is to accept the irrationality of a universe that APPEARS to be consistently logical and material.

Militant Left Wingers may also exclude rationality from their rants, but strict religious belief is usually BASED on this assumption. Left Wingers introduce irrationality on the way to their utopia, Again, the correlation I think you are right in making is the linkage between fundie ideology on the Far Left and Far Right. Most "religious" people I know cringe at the Ten Commandments in court buildings or religious organizations distributing tax dollars while being exempt from taxation. Most "religious" people I know including traditional Catholics support the Constitutional process we have and reject the Pope’s call advising them to support anti-abortion candidates. That is why I suggested that if you do a deeper poll, you might find a greater correlation between traditional liberal positions, religious tolerant secular humanism and a large group of "religious" people. It was this view I think that influenced our founders in making the Constitution they did. The literal interpretation of the Bible and the Right is a clear connection. While many say they believe in an inerrant, literal and mandatory interpretation of the Bible, I doubt they really believe this. The political consequence in the end is self-defeating. Confessionals would be “by appointment only”. Cultural behavior is an enduring habit. What person do you know who lives by such an absolutist view? If this interpretation reflects the leadership of America's war on terror, the Left is quite right in drawing parallels between the Mullahs and the White House.

Then why would Rumsfeld warn of the Fascist danger instead of the anti-Christ? And why would the Democrats say this view is utter garbage? It must be because the "religious" people demand a secular, rational, and legal model for our foreign policy while the Left is presently ranting like fundies themselves. What is their Bible?

On the other hand, what percentage of "religious" people can feel comfortable with recommendations from God guiding or war on terror? Having a prayer hour to help our soldiers? That is why I question the correlation outside of the bounds of Fundamentalism which, as you suggest, can be applied the militant Far Left.

You are right about the Left’s apparent “faithfulness” Instead of attacking Rumsfeld’s performance in Iraq and asking him why he is closing the office of transformation, they demonize his rational observations about Hitler and present designs of Islamic extremists. Rationality has little to do with the views of a militant group of Leftists masquerading as Democrats. Dean and others have let them in, but it is foolish. As foolish as Katrina being the result of moral decadence? Well, Robertson doesn’t control Republican policy. Kennedy’s reaction today does influence what Democratic action or inaction would be.

Iran must love the Democratic reaction. Democrats will not hold the Russians and Chinese accountable for destroying peaceful sanctions. I suggest Liberals reconvert.

Posted by: Maxtrue at August 30, 2006 04:34 PM

Max;

Intelligent Design and other wonderful conservative ideas might very well drive religious moderates towards secularists despite gays and the terror issue

I believe the "Twelve Tribes" viewpoint on religion and politics, was meant to elucidate how different religious groupings vote and lean politically. I don't think the "religious moderates" will be driven from their religious roots due to the "political machinations" of the Religious Right (nor the Religious Left)

Sidelight: The Twelve Tribes originally published on BeliefNet. If you look at who participates on BeliefNet (i.e. who answered the question "Which tribe are you in?") the highest percentages are from the left and right. The moderates don't participate as much. I wonder if the blogs and the Web are as appealing to the Religiously extreme as the Politically Extreme.

Posted by: c3 at August 30, 2006 06:28 PM

C3.

Well, I disagree if those " religious roots" are not fundamentalist in nature. It is a question of which party moderates (religious and non-religious) will support. I can't find many religious moderates who excuse the Republican emphasis on Intelligent Design or other conservative inroads of religion in government. Can you? Do you excuse our President suggesting Intelligent Design be taught in science class? A President who believes in Creationism? The popularity of Bush is dropping and I think the shift in the "religious" demographic accounts for some of this. In fact, how many religious doctors do you know that adhere to the literal interpretation of the Bible? (see the recent study of healing and prayer) How many medical professionals would rather destroy embryos than using them for research? Is it any wonder our educational system is falling apart? We may disagree, but I "believe" many religious people are being turned off by the alliance of evangelical Christians and the Republican Party, though it works to secure their base. McCain has mentioned this more than once.

The Twelve Tribes (a bit of a rip-off of the Old Testament) does not show the important fine detail of those groups nor their dynamics. In fact, what criteria do they use to determine "centrist" or "traditional"? Jews may vote more Republican this time on purely security issues and Israel. I do see your point about low "moderate" representation in the survey. I agree the more ideologically motivated are more likely respond. Still, there has been a growing "religious" opposition to numerous Bush policies, particularly Iraq and pre-emption. We all know how disappointed Robertson was that Israel didn’t invade Syria and attack Iran. Moderates are appalled by this. (I might agree with his suggestion for Chavez……..)

I don't believe however that secularists or the moderately religious should ignore this. Our Founding Fathers didn’t retreat from terrorism (see agreement over Muslim piracy more than 150 years ago). They were quite prepared to “defend the approaches” without rousing religious venom. It is however, quite absurd not to call our enemies what they are. Rumsfeld did not mention “Iraq” or “Islamofascists” today. McCain says Sadr should be eliminated. I don’t think this has anything to do with McCain’s religious beliefs, nor Lieberman's.

P.S. What area of medicine are you in, if I may ask?

Posted by: Maxtrue at August 30, 2006 08:15 PM

I apologize for this hit-and-run post, but several points.

I used to buy the line about atheists having to have extreme faith to be so, but I think that's a misdescription of what an atheist is. To me, very few, if any, people know (or claim to know) that there is or is not a God. People just have beliefs. Therefore, on the question of is there a God: a theist would answer I think so, an agnostic, I'm not sure, and an atheist, I strongly doubt it. Just as a believer need not proclaim that he or she knows with certainty that God exists, an atheist need not claim certainty either. Sure there are some crazed folks on both sides who claim certainty, but most of the atheists I know just assign a very low probability to the existence of God.

Furthermore, I think we have to realize that many atheists are principally atheists about God as he is depicted in the west. There's good philosophical reasons to doubt that God as described in the Western tradition exists (all-powerful, parting waters, damnation, etc.) and many atheists would say that the reasons for disbelieving in Yahweh are similar to those for disbelieving in Athena, say. Remember that Christians were considered atheists by the Roman state.

Therefore, they would ask if you're being dogmatic for disbelieving in Zeus or Athena? Or pushing even further, they would say, you don't believe in elves do you? But you can't prove it, can you? Same with us. We don't believe in God like you don't believe in elves. We just don't see the evidence for it. Put in that way, it doesn't seem so crazy. Remember also that we need to recall just how great of an outlier the US is in religious belief compared to the developed world -- much higher than in Europe (or likely Japan) -- and even in places like Iran and India. And those places are doing okay.
So I think we need to be fair to atheists and not treat them as if they're just extreme fringe folk. They're merely people who answer I doubt it to the question of is there a higher reality, and some actually call themselves atheists when they're just atheists about the traditional Christian God, as I'm sure many of the posters here are too.

***

Simon,

Frankly, I'm offended by your remarks and do not understand the depth of your feeling. I find it deeply hypocritcal of you to criticize people for not walking the straight-and-narrow when you yourself don't believe in God! Again, this really disturbing narrowness and rigidity of thinking emerges. I was especially offended by your lumping Jefferts-Schori (the new leader of the Episcopalians) in with the others. Did you ever stop to think that maybe liberal Christians really are following what they believe Christ would do? The problem, again, is that you are likely insisting that the "text" of the Bible is clear, just like the constitution. LOL. Sure the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination just as having contact with menstruating women or wearing two different types of thread. Give me a break, Simon. The constitution ain't clear and the Bible far less so. Even responsible conservative Christians recognize they're operating within a tradition of interpretation.

And if you really have no faith as you said above, maybe you actually are an atheist and just don't know it. Which would be hilarious.

I'm sorry to be so rude, but, God, Simon, you worry me.

***

BTW, speculative theories in cosmology, especially the idea of the universe arising from a quantum fluctuation ("the ultimate free lunch") and natural selection of multiverses further weaken the idea that a creator God is necessary.

Posted by: Adam at August 30, 2006 10:34 PM

Ummm -- blunder -- big blunder -- Iran is NOT doing okay as I wrote above. I made a mistake. But let's note that we as a country, we just would, er, "die" for a whole bunch of "militant secularists/atheists" in Iran or Iraq. And frankly, the separation of Church and State can be very beneficial to RELIGION and has been. So I'm not really worried if under God disappears from the pledge -- it was added in the 50s to distinguish us from the "godless commies" BTW.

Posted by: Adam at August 30, 2006 10:40 PM

Adam,

I was especially offended by your lumping Jefferts-Schori in with the others. Did you ever stop to think that maybe liberal Christians really are following what they believe Christ would do?

TIME magazine asked Jefferts-Schori "Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?" Jesus was asked the same thing, you know. He said: "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the father but through me." John 14:6. So that's Jesus' answer - what was Jefferts-Schori's answer? Her answer was: "We who practice the Christian tradition understand him as our vehicle to the divine. But for us to assume that God could not act in other ways is, I think, to put God in an awfully small box." That is a stunning thing to read from a supposed Minister of the Word. That is not an "interpretative tradition", it is heresy.

Moreover, it is also staggeringly intellectually dishonest; the question is not one of "assuming" whether or not God could act in other ways - rather, the question is, are Christians to take Christ at his word as to how God will act? That is like saying "we who serve at McDonalds understand potato fries to be made from potatos, but to assume that potato fries could not also be made without potatos is to put the potato in an awfully small box." No potato, no fry. No trust in Jesus, no Christian. Because if you don't believe that Jesus was the son of the living God, what is left of Christianity? If you strip Jesus of divinity, you descend to the level of blithe unitarianism, a sort of vague proclivity for Jesus' moral teachings because you happen to agree with them, rather than accepting them because they are backed with the authority of God Almighty. To do so is to turn religion inside out, to make God the servant of one's own preferences.

The reason I lumped Jefferts-Schori in with Fred Phelps is very simple: they both do exactly the same thing. They both ignore (or at best, sideline) the sections of the Bible that fall afoul of their normative preferences. (Perhaps the most ludicrous thing I have ever read was someone who averred something like "God doesn't want you to change your life"). Consider: is an activist conservative judge any better than an activist liberal judge? Is there any way to explain why they are different without reference to whether or not agree with their results? So it is here; is there any difference between Jefferts-Schori and Phelps which can be explained without recourse to whether or not you agree with their results?

It is not that Jefferts-Schori rejects homosexuality's sinfulness that is a problem - it is her failure to offer any criterion for explaining why she rejects it. It's the absence of a criterion that's a problem: if you say to me that you don't believe the commandment about women going outside the city while menstruating should no longer apply because it wasn't a moral commandment, but rather, a "keep my guys alive" commandment, that's fine with me. That's a criterion! It is a principle that can be applied with some level of rationality to other commands, such as the command not to eat pigs - because obviously, if you believe that certain commandments were practical rather than moral, and you can make the case that eating pigs is a practical command, that's a criterion. It's something that doesn't hinge on your own, personal proclivities. Even if there's a lot of lattitide in it - even if I don't agree with your criterion; even if I agree with your criterion but disagree with your results on a given subject - any criterion is fundamentally legitimate in a way that "I don't agree with that" cannot be.

Jesus made it clear that although he was offering a new covenant between man and God, the old covenant remained in force except where superceded by the new: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matt.5:17-18. Jesus did not come with a message that those things that were sinful before were no longer sinful, but that all are sinners, and all are loved by God equally. But God's love, says Jesus, is not a "get out of jail free" card; precisely because all are sinners, all require salvation through Jesus Christ.

The sine qua non of Christianity is to believe in and follow Christ. Belief is necessary, but not suffient - the Devil believes in Jesus, Adam! Agreeing with some of the things he said won't do it, either! How can one say that Jefferts-Schori has has any more made Jesus the leader of her life than has Phelps or pro-choice catholics? How can you be a Christian and not take Jesus at his word? That is not a problem of interpretative tradition, nor a problem of transliteration, transcontextuality or translation - it is a basic problem of faith. Jesus told us how God will act, and Jefferts-Schori either lacks the faith to believe him, or lacks the faith to publically testify to his word. The difference between Jefferts-Schori and myself is that I know that I have a faith problem (Frankly, as arrogant as this will seem, I sometimes think that I'm a better Christian than some people who call themselves Christians - because I, at least, am not deceiving myself as to the distance I still have to close).

Again, it is not what she says she believes that is the most serious problem - it is that she lacks any scriptural or theological basis for those views.

Posted by: Simon at August 31, 2006 09:34 AM

If you strip Jesus of divinity, you descend to the level of blithe unitarianism, a sort of vague proclivity for Jesus' moral teachings because you happen to agree with them, rather than accepting them because they are backed with the authority of God Almighty.

That's pretty much where I am. I'm switching from "no religion" to "blithe unitarian." (But I think "descend" is a highly subjective characterizaion.)

Posted by: WHQ at August 31, 2006 11:04 AM

Simon, you know what else is staggeringly dishonest? Interpreting a vague and poetic answer to be a simple Yes.

TIME magazine asked Jefferts-Schori "Is belief in Jesus the only way to get to heaven?" Jesus was asked the same thing, you know. He said: "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the father but through me." John 14:6.

Jesus didn't explicitly say here that only those who believed in him would go through him. Some Christians believe that everyone goes through Jesus to the father, that there is no hell. Many of these have studied Jesus's words at length. Do you declare such folk to be willfully ignorant of Jesus?

If Jesus were in fact conducting an interview as you suggest, and he wanted to be explicitly clear, he could have quite easily said "Yes. if you don't believe in me, you're going to hell. No God for you." He was the son of God after all. He'd have had time to think about it and decide what sort of answer made sense, right? Maybe he even asked Dad about it. What sort of hubris does it take to declare that you understand his words, his life, and his teachingd so much better than so many others who are equally or even more devoted to this pursiut than you, yet don't agree?

Do you think Jesus mispoke? Or that he was vague on purpose? Or that he answered in such a way as to enourage maximum belief even though he know that everyone was coming through him one way or another, but, didn't want to make this explicit because it de-motivated the people?

You seem to be declaring that the plain meaning is utterly manifest, even though centuries of dispute and discussion about such matters make it astonishly clear that the plain meaning is not manifest, and rather is subject to debate and meaningful discussion.

I'd like to suggest to you that one of the most fruitway ways to get to God by traveling through Christ is through debate and meaningful discussion of ALL his words, talk of the very sort that you often seek to short circuit by declaring that the plain meaning is manifest.

Further, I'd like to suggest that the words of Jefferts-Schouri aught to be taken as an invitation to join this conversation in order to encourage folks to find their way to God through Jesus. Heretical? I kinda doubt it.

Posted by: bk at August 31, 2006 11:49 AM

WHQ-
It seems to me that it rather defeats the purpose of religion to create a religion out of nothing more than one's own normative preferences. Is part of the definition of religion the act of subscribing to something greater than oneself and one's current position? If one creates a religion around nothing more than one's own beliefs - which includes taking an existing one and subtracting that which is unpalatable - then you have done nothing more than turn God into a sock puppet. You are essentially declaring that there is a God, but s/he thinks exactly like you do. It is a peculiar kind of belief system indeed that does not expect anything of the believer, and that changes whenever the believer changes their mind. This is not what is commonly understood by the term "personal God" - it doesn't mean that everyone gets their own! ;) It's sometimes said (I think Senator Moynihan coined it) that everyone gets their own opinion, but not their own facts; I would bastardize that to suggest that everyone is entitled to their own, unique, personal relationship with God, but not their own, unique, personal rules.

Posted by: Simon at August 31, 2006 11:58 AM

Simon,
You are forced to ponder the irrational. That is what happens if you interpret scripture literally. Why did God prohibit the eating of pork? Unfortunately, a literal explanation fails the test of reason. The alternative, that such prohibition was related to health is equally absurd. What person would think it rational that God prohibits the eating of pork because of heath concerns (people were too stupid to understand) when there is no mention of cleaning wounds or even boiling water to make it safe to drink? A literal interpretation leads to creationism being taught in science class. “Thou shall boil water to make it clean” is not in the Bible. Not even basic triage for all those injured Hebrews God ordered into battle. Nor is an exception made in the Ten Commandments that "Jesus" (as different than Yahweh) will appear one day and proclaim He is the way to salvation -(thou shall worship no other God?).

The recent discovery of the Judas Gospel shows at a minimum, the New Testament is a selective filter of numerous pre-Christian ideas and I repeat; the literal interpretation of this Church-filtered result leads to irrationality heaped upon irrationality. Follow Christ to where? You accept that those who died before Jesus go to hell? You believe that Jews and Hindus who sacrifice for the good they believe in go to hell because they refuse to acknowledge Jesus is the only way to Heaven? I think you feel a bit more normal than your typical fundie because your faith cannot swallow what your reason tells you is irrational and without living example. Darwin relegated God to the prime mover position. Evolution cannot be accepted by fundamentalists anymore than Islamic fundamentalists can accept Israel in their midst. Do you believe that God created the universe as a test for a small group of Homo Sapiens on Earth to earn a berth in Heaven and that when Judgment comes, all life, matter and time ends? This is right up there with the Muslim virgins reward scenario. I believe that the literal interpretation of the New Testament offers the bleakest depiction of the natural world than any of the major religions. At least, Heaven seems like a swinging time in Islam. Jews don’t posit a Heaven and are pushed away from doing the right thing for a Divine reward. Hell, if I were God, I would not tell humanity about Heaven. I would watch and reward based on instinctive merit.

The problem Simon, is that our deepest imperative is to live. Awareness is a function of complex material organization. It has been a long struggle for billions of years. We love life. We are life. Religion tries to calm the pain of knowing that those we love die and that will die too. It is a painful knowledge that forms the core of most of humanity’s mental problems. It is presumptuous for religion to think it invented the words, virtue, charity, scared, right, wrong, love, wisdom and compassion. Religion it seems, is pushing the world towards war.

I can understand the modern atheist, especially given the death attributed to religious fanatics. How ironic that fundies want to protect fetuses and yet await the total destruction of the universe as a blessed day of personal salvation. In some ways, Atheists are the bravest of all. Simon, I get Adam’s point. If you want to believe in an immaterial force that can act on materiality, if you believe Heaven is more conditional than some country clubs, if you condemn all life in the universe to a tragic end designed as a test for a select group of humanity, then perhaps Iraq is doing fine, Bush is a genius, Iran is no threat and we should all just wait and pray that the end will come soon so we can live happily ever after with Jesus. Wasn't that a South Park?

I do not mean to belittle anyone’s faith, and certainly not yours. But to equate this “faith” with the faith I have that the sun will shine tomorrow, belittles reason and the totality of my observation of the world. It is this mixing of religious faith and faith in sound national security policies that troubles me. Many people of religious faith, who do not interpret religious writings quite so literally, are disturbed by such fundamentalist thinking permeating national policy. See Divine Strake. That is why I believe a more secular figure would have made a better foil in the war on terror and bridged the cultural divide between Europe, India, Asia and Africa. The Islamofascists are a threat to Liberal Democracy, not Christian hegemony. Their activities may kill Hindu, Jews and Christian alike, not to mention thousands upon thousands on innocent Muslims..

Posted by: Maxtrue at August 31, 2006 12:20 PM

Sorry, I meant sacred as opposed to scared. LOL

Posted by: Maxtrue at August 31, 2006 12:24 PM

Simon,

You have a great talent for reading deep meaning into off-handed and humorously intended comments. I don't assert that there is a God and that He thinks exactly as I do. I think there is a God of some sort, though I'm not convinced of it. And I believe in the much of the moral code Jesus taught, regardless of its ultimate source. Though I think that, if there is a God, He would approve of those teachings because they are good, and so is He. That may not count as Christianity, or a religion at all, but my statement of switching from "no religion" was meant as a joke. I love the passion, though. Press on.

Posted by: WHQ at August 31, 2006 12:37 PM

Max, what's your basis for contending that atheists are the "bravest?"

We (all of us I think) have incomplete data on which to base our choice to believe unreservedly in God, not believe at all, or construct a conditional view based upon the most reasonable assumptions, subject to further input. What exactly does bravery have to do with it, in your view?

Is it a matter of being more brave for choosing the path less taken? That I could understand. Or are you suggesting that it's more brave to assume the negative case than the affirmative case because the negative case is, what, less comforting?

I find that far more questionable. First, many people find the prospect of not making a decision with certitude to be the least comforting position. They'd rather decide, act, and not look back rather than keep the question open for further input. My guess is that many atheists either find the adoption of this view to be comforting and freeing, or else they are full of crap and are really agnostics.

And that's the thing, for me at least. I find the atheists who are sure to be every bit as stubborn and cement-headed as the most unreasonable blind-fath christians. And I think that the ones who are fair, open-mined, and acknowledge the imperfect data and resulting room for doubt would be better off considering themselves agnostics.

Posted by: bk at August 31, 2006 12:47 PM

Brian,
I'm sorry. I was using a prior suggestion by Adam that atheists are not really 100% certain of the non-existence of God. Why should atheists have significantly less doubt than the rest of humanity? They might feel 100% certain that the literal interpretation of the Bible is absurd. Many often claim a spirituality or mysticism. Many atheist scientists believe awarness and self-organization is a fundamental subatomic attribute of materiality. This is far from believing in a personal God or even a force that “directs” the universe. I therefore amend my reply to mean that atheists are usually "fairly certain about the non reality of God and have faith in the laws of nature - that a pair of Queens cannot beat a full house. I believe this was Eistein’s sentiment though I do not believe he considered himself an atheist. He certainly wasn’t Kosher.

I say these atheist are the bravest because when they race into a burning twin tower, they do not do so because God will reward them in the afterlife. Christians standing in the Coliseum certainly were brave, but they battle fear with the belief they were going to meet God. Imagine a soldier jumping on a grenade believing he would meet nothing but pain and non-existence. They do so because doing otherwiset is a contradiction of the morality they choose to live by regardless of the Divine consequences. I am not saying that fundamentalists do act in similar ways, but certainly the sales pitch to suicide bombers is that they will become martyrs. How many keep Kosher or are Baptized because of the "fear of God" rather than the moral truth they understand? And how brave is it to run blindly into a hail of bullets when consumed in the belief that God is a second away awaiting one's sacrifice for a "righteous sacrifice"?

Altruism existed long before man invented theism as he became aware of the power of consciousness to ascribe that same consciousness in others. Here, Chomsky has some profound insight. I do not know you are conscious. Even the Turing test has holes. As long as a computer can fool the human questioner, it passes the test. We imagine others are conscious like ourselves and this inevitably led to attributing such consciousness to a universal deity that "explained" the natural working and complexity of the world. Of course, this occurred long after trees, plants and celestial objects were ascribed Divine consciousness.

It is braver intellectually I think, to walk the path of the unknown and seek explanations with evidence rather than to have "faith" that the Bible is the complete and holy truth. Despite the errant physics of the Bible many believe the universe as explained literlally in the Bible is the truth.. Does God mention the world is round, that unclean water can kill you, and that the world could hardly be made in six days? It is easier to accept such omissions blindly than to take the harder road of self–enlightenment.. Even Milton saw the problem of Genesis. How could Adam, without knowledge of right and wrong oby God who certainly must have known in advance what Adam would do. Can a knowledge less person exercise free will? It was far braver that Galileo rejected such fundamentalism and searched for a greater truth. These are the points behind my remark.

People often say that atheists killed more people this last century than religion ever did. I would argue that these 'atheists" were actually fundamentalists of a religious sort. They imagine themselves to be a kind of God. They sought more power to be more God-like treating their people like mindless worshipers in need of constant fear and punishment. Hitler professed to be a Christian yet the history shows the extent he murdered and imprisoned those religious leaders who opposed him (and many did). In the end, I believe it is the love we share with one another and our commitment to those still unborn that led us to shed blood to preserve liberty and freedom. To defend these principles is more a tribute to altruistic genes and being human than any pretense or expectation of become Divine, or the fear of God.

Posted by: Maxtrue at August 31, 2006 03:06 PM

Well, Max, I've made the conditional decision, subject to further evidence, that no satisfactory explanation exists that allows me to distinguish between God and good. So I assume that they are the same. In my view, if person A throws themselves on a grenade because of God and person B does it because they believe it's good, then they are equally brave, because their motives and understandings are for all intents and purposes indistinguishable.

You are suggesting that bravery is a function of one's understanding of the consequences. Makes some sense. But it's hard to credit in instances where a decision must be made in a split second, like in the case of a grenade. I suggest that in such cases, one has no time to do other than that which immediately feels like the right or good thing to do.

And even if we presume that one has time to consider the consequences before acting, then in the case of the atheist you describe, what you call bravery might also be viewed as an ugly compulsion to put their money where their mouth is about athiest faith and stand upon principle, or an act of foolishness in knowingly going off to death when they believe it's ballgame over. But then bravery versus foolishness can be debated 'til the cows head homeward.

Posted by: bk at August 31, 2006 03:41 PM

You see no difference between good and God? Well, the criteria of what is good can be arrived at in a purely rational and utilitarian way. Some say destroying stem cells is better than using them to find cures for pathologies. Other say God declares such action to be bad. Some say Gays are created biologically, others say Homosexuality is evil in God’s eyes. Christians say non believers will go to hell (very bad) and others say reason cannot find Heaven.

If there were only one Christian left on earth and he had the power to start WW3 because God told him it was the right thing to do despite everyone else saying it was the wrong thing to do, you would say, "push that button'? The difference between good defined as God and good defined by the values and consensus of the people and its civil laws are two very different things. The soldier has plenty of time to ready himself before battle. Yes? And in those moments does he think of the good defending his country, his family, his nation and its Constitutional principles, or the good he is doing before God? God ordered the Jews into battle. Yes? They carried the ark with them. Would this be a good idea for the DOD in Iraq? Perhaps Bush should ask God what is good, or derive good foreign policy from the word of God as expressed in the Bible and interpreted by Cheney, Rove and Rumsfeld.. And then of course, there would be far less disagreement in deciding if it was “good” to fight on Sunday or torture Muslim prisoners into Christianity. I don't by your reply.

Is it braver to act in fear or by conviction? I have seen animals defending their cubs from attack despite the grave risk to themselves. One mother against a pack of hyenas. They have no God. They resist the instinct for flight because their bond to their child is too strong. To a suicide bomber God is good too. God says kill the infidels. So it revolves around what you think God is and what He commands. That is a far more ambiguous criteria than let’s say pre-emption or the proper nutritional value of health bars. I suppose if you are not too literal, God can be anything you imagine. To say however, that you keep the Sabbath holy because God says it is a good thing to do, rather than for reasons of familial and cultural continuity and love you understand and live by, then the motives are quite different. The behavior might look the same, but the courage and conviction is quite different.

And of course, God is traditionally thought of as good and bad, finite and infinite. God is all. Yes? He asked Adam to obey Him, though Adam had no knowledge that disobeying was bad. Piaget would have admonished God over His poor parenting skills. God made a bet with Satan that Job could be so tortured as to renounce God. This is after God banished Satan? He made Job suffer horribly. And where did God watch this test, from a sport palor in Heaven? Was Satan out on parole? This is good? We are told that only God knows what good is. He apparently thought it was good to kill off almost all life on earth because humans were too nasty. Then he decided not to do that again. Did the All-knowing LEARN something here? Did His idea of what is good change? God has sent all who had the misfortune to die before Jesus to Hell. This seems fair. If you base your notion on the Biblical edicts of what God says is good then stoning Clinton would be a good thing. I think Pat agrees.

I think your answer in some ways puts Iraq in context. Some see our action as good because God's moral judgment opposes dictators and murder. Bush described an Axis of Evil. I would call it an Axis of the Very Bad. Is it a simple matter of good v evil. Not so. It turns out Rumsfeld’s best move now would be to spare Saddam’s life in exchange for his helping to denounce Iran and bringing former Baathists back into government. Our inability to muster the Sunnis as we prepare to take on Iran and its proxies requires putting pressure on the Shiites. And where is God in remebering the lesson's of Viet Nam and deploying the right kind of counterinsurgency operations to actually create a good outcome? One would think it was good to teach creationism if God's book is the good truth. Unfortunately, a deeper exploration of what good strategies and good consequences in a real world context should have taken place concerning Iraq. I can only imagine a cabinet meeting in which Bush takes your line and sees good foreign policy as God's foreign policy. Forgive the exaggerations here, but God = good was a campaign slogan even Rove rejected. Think about it.

Now if you mean God = going beyond your personal fears and limitations and reaching a higher level of courage and clarity, then I would say that is altruism and higher consciousness.. Life is good. Love is good. Peace is good. Reaching one's potential is good. Often, the literal interpretation of God's words stand in contradiction to this. Just listen to Robertson’s interview from Israel as Israeli bombs fell on Lebanon.

I do understand your point, even if I stretched it a bit much in order to rebut.

As usual, please forgive my many typos......

Posted by: Maxtrue at August 31, 2006 04:50 PM

Thinking about Simon's writings a bit more, I'm finding a few holes. Let's assume that I take parts of some religion or another that appeal to my "normative preferences" to form my own set of beliefs. How does that necessarily demand nothing of me? How does that necessarily turn God into a sock puppet? How does that necessarily mean that I get to have my own rules?

It very well may be the case that there are aspects of the teachings of Christ that appeal to me. I may adopt them as a set of beliefs. But those beliefs may also very well demand much of me. Perhaps those beliefs may demand things of me that I have thus far been unable to live up to. I may believe that forgiveness toward those who have harmed me, kindness to the poor, not passing judgement on others, etc. are all virtuous. I may also be failing miserably at observing them in my personal life. Would my beliefs not then demand that I change my ways to become a better person? Would God then be my sock puppet? Would I then have the luxury of my own rules?

Now, maybe I still would not have a religion in they eyes of some, but I don't think my beliefs would demand nothing of me, make God into my sock puppet, or allow me my own rules.

Posted by: WHQ at August 31, 2006 04:52 PM

accept religious belief on a fundamentalist level is to accept the irrationality of a universe that APPEARS to be consistently logical and material.

Have YOU delved into String theory at all. wOW, It goes way beyond my "rational brain".

I "believe" many religious people are being turned off by the alliance of evangelical Christians and the Republican Party, though it works to secure their base.

Please keep terms straight. While many evangelicals are conservative, large numbers are moderate and liberal. Evangelical does not equal fundamental.

The Twelve Tribes (a bit of a rip-off of the Old Testament) does not show the important fine detail of those groups nor their dynamics. In fact, what criteria do they use to determine "centrist" or "traditional"? Jews may vote more Republican this time on purely security issues and Israel. I do see your point about low "moderate" representation in the survey. I agree the more ideologically motivated are more likely respond. Still, there has been a growing "religious" opposition to numerous Bush policies, particularly Iraq and pre-emption. We all know how disappointed Robertson was that Israel didn’t invade Syria and attack Iran. Moderates are appalled by this.

I hope you've actually read the "Twelve Tribes" article. Its based on voting behavior in the most recent election. It's meant as a way to differentiate beyond just "Religious Right" and "secular humanists" (which have become pejorative terms). In the article you'll note how many of the "tribes" are reasonably split between Dem and Rep.

There is actually quite a distance between Pat Robertson and many/most conservative Christians. Belief me, I speak with them on a daily basis. I would agree that the "religious left" has gotten more vocal of late. I think that's a good and a bad thing. Good in that it demonstrates the POLITICAL diversity of Christians; bad in that it once again characterizes Christians mainly on how they vote and how vocal they are. Look at Rick Warren, very prominent conservative Christian. Deeply involved in getting Christians active in community service; very much involved in grassroots development in Africa. Yet, he purposely does not address political issues. I would dare say he's a great influence on many Christians, conservative or otherwise. And yet he gets little media play because he's NOT A STEREOTYPE

Posted by: c3 at August 31, 2006 06:07 PM

String theory is not irrational as far as I know or posits such blatant contradictions such as materiality being affected by "immateriality". Is there a test for God? Not all theistic doctrines hold that God is immaterial. I am confident those working on string theory have faith their theories can be tested. Godel did put a limit of a formal system to explain everything. I am sure you see my point.

Again, would you have "faith" in a fundamentalist doctor? How about a fundamentalist pharmacist? How about a life extension specialist. Parent do not have right to withhold treatment for a sick child over religious belief. Does Dr. Frist (who can’t seem to find his certification papers)? Do you support Intelligent Design being taught (as thought it could be demonstrated or tested?) in science class? Now who have supported such inroads into the fabric of our culture, atheists? I do not mean to be impolite. I appreciate most of your posts and have a lot of respect for medical professionals (not that I would have less respect if you were an electrician)..

You also know I am referring to the vocal evangelical base that is part of the Republican base. My earlier point suggested that the religious middle is being alienated by the extremes Right (as well as the extreme Left which holds almost no power). I suspect the next poll will change how those tribes and their subdivision stand. I was indeed referring to Jerry and Pat and Bob. Sure, there are many moderate Christian Republicans, but I see them siding in the past more with anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-embryonic stem cell research, anti-separation of church and state, anti-immigration, anti-contraceptive, anti-pulling the plug on the brain dead right-sided fundamentalist evangelical crowd.

I am not denying there are moderate conservatives who are Christians. I know many liberal and conservative Christians who favor secular humanism as it applies to government. I in no way advocate less freedom for religion (but I question the taxation requirements and of course, Scientology). I also question the qualifications of any fundamentalist President of any Party on grounds that I believe such ideology makes him less capable in arriving at rational decisions for this country. I believe that in the past, the Liberal Consensus kept religious and political extremes in check. It is a new world now. One in which a President can remind American's of the consequence of appeasing fascists (especially before they get nukes) and elicits a Democratic response that amounts to "How dare you call us unpatriotic, un-American and confused.", Unfortunately “DefeatoCrats” has some truth to it.

I humbly agree that non-religious people can have blind partisan faith. In the end it will be a close call between what extremes hurt us most. This will be decided by many religious and atheistic/agnostic people in the middle. I do know however, that centrists have usually excluded fundamentalism in debating policy. I wouldn't put Billy Graham in Fawell’s league and Nixon did have some real moral problems such ministry didn’t help to moderate.

Posted by: Maxtrue at August 31, 2006 08:05 PM

Brian,

Your identification of God w/ the Good is a very Platonist move. However, unless you identify the Good with a higher transcendent reality, I would say that you're an atheist. Not because you claim with certainty that God does not exist, but just because you, well, don't believe in God according to any traditional definition thereof.

Atheist is such a dirty word in this country and has such negative connotations. Correspondingly those who self-identify as atheists here are likely of a more extreme type or are willing to be an individual and own up to their beliefs.

But I guess I'm a bit surprised that you weren't convinced by my rediscription -- that you still feel that such atheists as I described would be better described as agnostics. If you insist on agnostic as meaning, don't know, well that pretty much includes most everyone and loses its meaning. An agnostic is someone who is willing to entertain that there is some higher mumbo-jumbo going on, and an atheist says, "Nah." I even know of atheists who believe that we can still experience awe and wonder at the mysteries of the natural world and that a transcendent God is superfluous.

To put it another way, atheists fall in the bottom quartile of opinion on whether God exists. All the way from probably not to hell no!
The agnostics fall in the "maybe" middle two quartiles and the believers in the probably to the definitely yes.

I would say an atheist is just a person who doesn't give much thought to God and just imagines that God is a cultural invention. That doesn't sound too extreme to me. Again, anyone who doesn't believe in a higher reality and just lives their life is an atheist.

Simon,

Did you ever consider that some people like a very, rigid rule-bound literalist system? Um, like it seems, you. And in that case, THOSE people are making God their sock puppet according to your logic. Jesus also said, "By their fruit, ye shall know them." And frankly the fruit of the literalists is a bitter one indeed. And as Brian pointed out, the no one comes to the father verse, actually has flexibility in it. Namely, the notion of universal salvation or just that people could be saved by Jesus without knowing it. Like, howsabout, little baptized babies who haven't accepted Jesus? Or if you're being at all reasonable, unbaptized children.

What is your feeling on structuralist interpretations of the constitution? Those that feel the whole document needs to be considered, and not just bits in isolation? In our present case, all the stuff about love and forgiveness and justice kind of seems to rub against the notion that all non-Christians will certainly be damned. That we should interpret a statement of Jesus in the light of all that he said.

I don't see how you can prove that one method of interpretation is better than another unless you beg the question, unless you say the best way of interpretation is the one that is the clearest as opposed to the best way is the one that is the most adaptable to changing human needs. Your unjustifiedly transforming a temperamental preference into a logical necessity.

Maybe Jefferts-Schori didn't phrase it perfectly, but that's pretty much what she meant. That she wasn't going to have the hubris to condemn all other persons to hell.

Posted by: Adam at August 31, 2006 08:32 PM

Parent do not have right to withhold treatment for a sick child over religious belief.

Not that I feel good about this but I believe several cases have upheld just that (i.e. Jehovah Witness parents refusing blood products for their child)

Again, would you have "faith" in a fundamentalist doctor? How about a fundamentalist pharmacist?

You keep coming back to this challenge. Why this false dichotomy between believe in the fruits of Western scientific discovery and traditional relgious beliefs? And yes I've been cared for by a fundamentalist doc; he did just fine (His interpretation of the virgin birth had little relevance on his choice of antibiotics.) Posted by: c3 at August 31, 2006 10:20 PM

You see no difference between good and God? Well, the criteria of what is good can be arrived at in a purely rational and utilitarian way.

Well, many of us like to think so. But can it? If so how? by consensus? We're still stuck inside our skin, making personal judgements about what it is. There's no such thing as a reliable goodmeter, is there?

My view is obstinately mystical, because I believe, (as Bhuddists or Taoists do, I forget which), that as soon as you speak of Good or God (Bhuddists say "the bhudda", taoists say "the way," I think) you are necessarily speaking of something which is less than all of what Good or God is. In this view, it's not possible to know Good/God/the way completely. Adam's watchful to see that this is a Platonist view. Because it's an awful lot like the analogy of the cave. All we ever see are shadows, it's beyond our ability to see the archetypes.

If there were only one Christian left on earth and he had the power to start WW3 because God told him it was the right thing to do despite everyone else saying it was the wrong thing to do, you would say, "push that button'?

No. I have no idea why anything I said would lead you to think that. My guess would be that such a person is viewing an especially distorted shadow. My viewpoint does not suggest moral equivalence or paralysis, or declare that consensus action is disqualified. It simply accepts everyone's input as to the true nature of the archetypes behind the shadow and evaluates it for merit without regard to whether one says "because it is good" or "because of God." But make no mistake, we have no choice but to act on the basis of whatever shadows we see.

I have seen animals defending their cubs from attack despite the grave risk to themselves. One mother against a pack of hyenas. They have no God.

Are you suggesting that one has a god only if one is aware of and believes in such a god? I don't believe that. I believe that God/good exists independent of our awareness (or an animal's awareness) of God/good.

Now if you mean God = going beyond your personal fears and limitations and reaching a higher level of courage and clarity, then I would say that is altruism and higher consciousness.. Life is good. Love is good. Peace is good. Reaching one's potential is good.

Lists are a helpful way to try and discern god/good, to struggle directly with the nature of the archetype by studying its shadows. I'm sure you find this to be an unsatisfying answer. I accept that I don't have a 100% clear view, so I'm less dissatisfied. For many, the promise of reason is that it provides satisfying clarity, and this is often so. But when it comes to knowing God and knowing good, all the shadows I have studied suggest it isn't so. Knowing God/good is not a destination, it's an endless journey. A very unsatisfying answer, one that's bound to make you think I'm speaking in tongues or trying to confuse you, but there it is. Try it on for size some time, just for sh!ts and giggles.

Your identification of God w/ the Good is a very Platonist move. However, unless you identify the Good with a higher transcendent reality, I would say that you're an atheist. Not because you claim with certainty that God does not exist, but just because you, well, don't believe in God according to any traditional definition thereof.

Well, I don't like to think of it as a "move," at least not a calculated one made for the sake of winning an argument. I'm hoping that this remains a discussion. I tried it as an experiment years ago, and have discovered that it works very well. It has a way of unsketching dilemmas and conflicts that others see.

I can't do a whole lot about how you see my views. It doesn't trouble me much that you think I'm an atheist if I don't declare that that God/good represents a transcendent reality, because I think that if I do that, I'm speaking of less than all that which is God/good. I'm very happy to join others in making lists and exploring the nature of God/good so long as the people I'm doing it with understand that I'm talking about the shadows I see, and understand that I believe in the endless journey, and don't insist on a revelatory destination.

To put it another way, atheists fall in the bottom quartile of opinion on whether God exists. All the way from probably not to hell no!
The agnostics fall in the "maybe" middle two quartiles and the believers in the probably to the definitely yes.

It's useful to think in such norm-referencing terms for the sake of doing some Aristotelian bootstrapping which helps us talk about the shadows we see. But ultimately, I only do such norm-referencing for the sake of talking about the shadows. Each such conversation for me wraps up with a reminder that we were talking about the shadows. I see that as a default to criterion- referencing.

Here's the thing: agnostic loosely means "has doubts." Most people have doubts about God, so it's a matter of degree. So in my view, most people are actually pretty familiar with what agnosticism feels like. I'm pretty content to let people self-identify. Again, because I'm not destination-centric, but journey-centric. Most people seem to be destination-centric, so they say they are christians or atheists or agnostics or muslims or jews. I think we're all pilgrims watching shadows. Am I an athiest or an agnostic or a christian or a taoist? Depends on the day, son.

Posted by: bk at September 1, 2006 09:45 AM

Brian,

Good reply. I have a huge amount of stuff to do today, but I will return with a better reply. Let me leave you with some thoughts (I actually share some of your "mystical" theory). The traditional Christian Idea of God promotes the view that the universe is a test for human admittance to Heaven. All that supports this process is "good" as defined by the Bible (or God). I would argue that the evolution and ecology of life (and the advancement of the consciousness it has birthed) is the greatest "good" in and of the universe.

In the former case, people seek the Bible's "wisdom" for God's truth in the hope to reach Heaven. In the latter case, "living" people search their "living" experience for criteria of how this primary good can be advanced and protected. The goals of these two views are completely different. The former sees that the acceptance into Heaven by satisfying God's requirements to be the greatest good (who would want to go to Hell?). The latter seeks to discover the laws of nature (including those guiding altruism and awareness) to advance the goal of life. This is done by the consensus of reasonable observation and scientific method which is testable and open to adaptation as that understanding advances. Such a view does not accept a pair of threes beating a full house any more than it accepts immateriality affecting materiality. That is why some religious teaching (Gurdjieff) claims God is material. The Duality of the traditional God does indeed require the suspension of rational disbelief.

I'll pick this up later, but again, if you mean God=truth, then God=good. The traditional God we were talking about does not equal observable truth. That is why I opposed your definition. We can construct another God, but even then, is doing the best to advance conscious life = God? And while it is true we die, is it good? Well, perhaps for now, as differential reproduction seems to be the only present natural mechanism of advancing life in mass beside the extra-genetic reservoir of human culture and technology. I think God therefore does not serve in the elucidation of what is good for living evolution and the continued survival of life itself. Indeed, the End of Time is what Christianity holds before us above Life. God is simply a concept many people can argue about far more than arriving at a rational concept of what good behavior is, based on an empirical and public debate of fact.

As I said before, the last thing I want our Chiefs of Staff to be doing right now is determining good = God.

Later.......

C3,
And I'll be back to bother you some too. I wonder if your fundie doctor would do "anything to delay the natural and inevitable meeting with God". I repeat, FUNDEMENTALISM contradicts science and it must hurt holding two mutally exculsive doctrines in one mind.

Posted by: Maxtrue at September 1, 2006 11:44 AM

The traditional Christian Idea of God promotes the view that the universe is a test for human admittance to Heaven. All that supports this process is "good" as defined by the Bible (or God). I would argue that the evolution and ecology of life (and the advancement of the consciousness it has birthed) is the greatest "good" in and of the universe.

Oh sure, I understand all that. My point is that both of these views are "destination-centric." Remember how America wanted the Iraqi constitution to say that Islam was "a" basis or source of inspoiration for the constitution? But most islamists wanted it to say "the" source? The conflict you describe above is, loosely speaking, an argument about who gets to be "the" source. Destination-centric.

My view insists upon multiple sources, in fact it denies that there is a comprehensive, knowable, 100% human-digestible THE source.....

_AND_ it maybe even suggest that this is the only way it could be. If it's obvious and 100% knowable and beyond dispute, what's the point? What motivates us, what makes us human? What's the point in free will, to apply the rulebook properly and eliminate every instance of the exercise of free will insofar as we possible can?

This seems even less satisfying to me than seeking god/good while under the presumption that we'll never entirely succeed.

Posted by: bk at September 1, 2006 02:10 PM

I repeat, FUNDAMENTALISM contradicts science and it must hurt holding two mutally exculsive doctrines in one mind.

This sounds awfully unenlightened to me. Any fundamentalist can choose to see science as revelations granted by God to the people regarding his mechanisms. It doesn't take any difficult mental gymnastics to understand this.

Fundamentalism need not mean the same thing that a given preacher of fundamentalism says it is. That a given preacher or practitioner of fundamentalism might choose to declare that evolution is heretical does not necessarily make it so unless you believe that whoever is in charge of the faith is infallibly right. Go back to the analogy of the shadows in the cave. You can believe that some people have much better views of the shadows and have studied them for longer, so that they know better, and grant some measure of trust to such folk. But if you believe no one can see the archetype, you realize your responsiubilty to keep paying attention and thinking for yourself, and questioning and doubting.

You seem to want to conflate fundamentalism with the requirement for blind faith in one's chosen preacher. If that's so, that science DOES have to be antithetical to science if your preacher says so. But maybe fundamentalists are just more trusting of the work others have done.

I am never surprised when fundamentalists get angry at someone who accuses them of being blindly faithful and unable to think for themselves. It's a really nasty insult. Especially if such a person has spent hours and years undertaking the working journey with zeal. Imagine working zealously for hours and years on something, only to be blithely dismissed as an idiot by someone who is extremely unfamiliar with your work.

Posted by: bk at September 1, 2006 02:24 PM

It's really not possible for at least some of the sources out there to be THE source, one of which is the Christian Bible, because they contradict themselves. Or at least they cannot be "nothing but the truth" even if they contain "the whole truth." And if the main themes among the sources are the same, that should tell you something. But if you think there is some truth in many sources, but you can't swallow any one of them whole, you're just making stuff up to suit yourself, right? AARRGG...

Posted by: WHQ at September 1, 2006 02:28 PM

I wonder if your fundie doctor would do "anything to delay the natural and inevitable meeting with God". I repeat, FUNDEMENTALISM contradicts science and it must hurt holding two mutally exculsive doctrines in one mind.

Ditto what Brian said.

In addition, a strictly fundamentalist view (and you really should "bone up" on what Fundamentalism in Christianity is) would likely suggest that matters of life and death are in God's hands and vigourous action against that reality might counter God's will. FYI, as I recall, early fundamentalist were surprisingly uninterested in abortion.

Posted by: c3 at September 1, 2006 03:22 PM

But if you think there is some truth in many sources, but you can't swallow any one of them whole, you're just making stuff up to suit yourself, right? AARRGG...

Leave out the "just" and it's already a bit less objectionable....change the motive from "suiting yourself" to making a good faith effort to understand and do good, " and there's not much problem left is there. So you have to have good faith and be vigilant about good, and you'd probably have to occasionally do things that didn't suit easy personal preference from time to time because you felt it was the right thing to do to take the harder road.

So not in the shadow model. In the shadow model you're continually accepting data to improve your sketches, so that you can better understand the archetype. Independent confirmation from different disciplines is positive feedback, like you say. Conflicting data may suggest either that further research is needed or that some sources of data may have a more distorted view of the archetype's shadows.

Posted by: bk at September 1, 2006 03:58 PM

Leave out the "just" and it's already a bit less objectionable....change the motive from "suiting yourself" to making a good faith effort to understand and do good, " and there's not much problem left is there. So you have to have good faith and be vigilant about good, and you'd probably have to occasionally do things that didn't suit easy personal preference from time to time because you felt it was the right thing to do to take the harder road.

I'm with you, bk. That last sentence of mine was a lingering reaction to Simon's characterization of those who don't toe the scriptural line. But I will say that your suggested modifications make it a fundamentally different sentence and aren't minor tweaks.

Posted by: WHQ at September 1, 2006 06:47 PM

I believe I misused the definition of quartile, I didn't mean arbitrarily shoving the bottom 25% of persons into the atheist category, I meant placing all those who would fall between probably not and hell no to the question of God in the atheist category. And theoretically this bottom "quartile" could be empty.

To make it simple, to the person who responds to the above question with a flat, "I doubt it," is that person an atheist in your eyes? If not, I think you're not using the definition correctly, namely, someone who doesn't believe that God exists, not someone who is categorically certain that God does not exist.

Again, I think it really turns of whether you're sympathetic or genuinely open to the possibility of a higher reality of some sort, as it seems you may be. In that, agnosticate away. But, otherwise, the line between you and an atheist is just that you use more cordial terminology.

But I do think that it is not a bad idea to remind people that we all seek the good though people have various notions of what that good entails.

Also, I think there can be quite a big difference between the person who justifies their action in terms of the good vs. in terms of God. I'm much more comfortable with the person who thinks in terms of the good first, and then attributes it to God, then the other way around. People who reply because the Bible says so, or because it's Allah's will, and therefore it must be good -- we've got a problem shall we say.

Kierkegaard insisted that to be a good Christian you had to listen to God even if, perhaps especially if, it conflicts with your moral sense. He cited Abraham's willingness to kill Isaac as an "laudatory" example. This notion is deeply dangerous. Let us not forget that it seems quite clear that God acted in what we would term very evil ways according to the Old Testament. Slaughter all the inhabitants thereof, and stuff like that.

I myself am open to the possibility of a higher reality and would believe that it is truly good in a deep sense. The problem with much of religion today is that their God or their religion has a very perverse notion of the good, imho.

Posted by: Adam at September 1, 2006 10:11 PM