divinedefault

Each of my arguments is clearly outlined in the aptly titled book "The Divine Default".

When you say "the value it offers is more important than the absolute truth of every ideology", that is a subjective statement that could quite possibly be impossible to quantify. You can argue it all you like, but in the end you're stating your opinion. That's not an objective statement. How do you know that the value is greater than the harm?

I do take issue with your statement that "Faith, by definition, transcends evidence." A quick glance at Dictionary.com gives me a different definition that states faith is "belief that is not based on proof". If faith, by your definition, somehow transcends evidence, why should I respect that? In what other area of our discourse is it not only permissible but actually desirable to believe something strongly either in the absence of or in direct refutation of evidence?

I agreed with you on the evil of men, but the point I was trying to make is that religion does not seem to be a barrier to atrocities. A glance through the pages of history is all that's needed to demonstrate this. Even the pope in 2000 gave a mea culpa on atrocities committed by the Church in the course of two millenia.

I found the passage from Campbell to be entertaining. Frankly, it's white noise. What I find interesting about this and the suggestion that we shouldn't read these texts literally is that you have somehow stumbled upon the "correct" interpretation. Of course the universe wasn't created in six days. Of course the sun didn't stand still in the sky for 24 hours. Of course God didn't drown the entire world in a massive flood. Of course Jonah didn't actually stay in the belly of a large fish. Are you saying that people throughout history have never taken these stories literally or treated them as historical facts? The truth is that as our knowledge of the world has advanced, we now treat these stories as parables and metaphors. Allow me to quote my earlier statement: "An omniscient being should be able to explain in unambiguous terms what it expects. No holy book fits that description."

When we read in the Hadith (which has equal canonical authority to the Qur'an) that the appropriate punishment for apostasy is death, are we to believe that this is simply a metaphor? Are we taking it too literal? I contend that it's either the will of God or it isn't. Perhaps Christianity is easier to discuss for you. In the Christian faith, I can assure you that men like St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine had read Jesus' teachings in the New Testament along with God's Old Testament commands to suffer not a witch to live, and they found it completely appropriate to kill women for this imaginary crime. If you're saying that God never meant Exodus 22:18 to be taken literally, congratulations - because you've been able to correctly interpret this ancient text in a way that some of the most venerated religious leaders could not. Kudos to you.

I don't understand your "tipping your hand" comment, but I can address the gist of your argument. Just because you don't ever remember Jesus enacting thought-crime legislation doesn't negate my argument. Read the Sermon on the Mount. When Jesus says that not just the physical act of adultery is against the law, but that the thoughts leading up to it are just as immoral and against the law, that is the very essence of thought-crime legislation. No?

Having read your opinions and responded to them, I am inclined to agree with an earlier poster who doubted your atheistic standing. "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

Part I: The value offered by religion has absolutely no bearing on the truthfulness of the religion. Charitable acts or creating a sense of community by Mormons, Scientologists, or Christians do not mean that Joseph Smith found those gold plates, the character Xenu ever existed, or that Jesus was the son of God. It is possible to have communities without worshiping invisible beings who may or may not answer prayers. In big bold letters, the author states that "God makes people happier by providing answers." If we look at the happiest countries in the world (http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/business/earth-institute-world...), we see countries with large atheist populations at the top of the list...every single year. He references a "shitload of evidence", but I wonder if he's ever taken a look at crime statistics around the world. Even if he looks at just the United States, he would find higher rates of crime in states where religiosity is highest. Religion does not seem to be a barrier to immoral actions nor is it a panacea for happiness. Perhaps we have different meanings for "shitload of evidence."

Part II: This is the classic strawman section. I actually agree with the author that many of the examples given in most debates are evidence of the evil of men, but he fails to recognize that religion has historically provided cover for those actions. Slavery has historically enjoyed such cover. Misogony and homophobia have luxuriated and continue to luxuriate under such religious cover.

I'm quite familiar with the problem of evil and the author did absolutely nothing to negate this. If God knows that evil is happening every minute of the day, He either can do nothing to prevent it or doesn't care to. As Sam Harris points out, God is therefore either impotent or evil. Every day I hear from religious people who claim that God helped them in some manner. They regularly give Him praise for things that He does on their behalf. I find this to be narcissistic, callous, and completely immoral when I consider that at least a dozen children under the age of 5 will have died during the course of you reading my remarks here. They and their parents will beseech Heaven for food and water and this same God who answers frivolous prayers somehow finds these starving children unworthy. There is nothing humble about this line of thinking.

I fail to see how the fact that our holy texts (regardless of how they have been translated or cobbled together) have frequently been shown to be incorrect is a flawed argument. An omniscient being should be able to explain in unambiguous terms what it expects. No holy book fits that description. Whether it is stopping the planetary motion of either our sun or our planet for 24 hours to allow Joshua to finish his battle (Bible - Joshua 10:13) or Muhammad splitting the moon (Qur'an - 54:1-2), these are cosmological claims being made by our religions. I fail to see how my inability to read it in Arabic somehow makes this scientifically possible.

If there is a conflict between religion and science, I get the feeling that the author feels it's ok to reject the scientific account. The problem I have with this is that unlike religion, science is not subjective. It has been the most consistently reliable way for us to determine fact from fiction. When a religious person disputes evolution in favor of creationism or asserts the historicity of a prophet flying to Heaven on a winged horse, those are anti-scientific views. Plain and simple.

Part III: This section basically deals with the author's desire to treat other peoples' beliefs as sacred. As H. L. Mencken said, "We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart." What the author fails to understand is that beliefs directly influence our actions. If the creator of the universe commands us to kill people for imaginary crimes like witchcraft, should we respect that belief (FYI - witch burnings still happen in places like Kenya)? If someone wants a religious belief like creationism taught alongside evolution in our classrooms, is the appropriate response one of tolerance? Unlike Jesus, I don't think we should enact thought-crime legislation, but if religious people cannot keep their unsubstantiated beliefs in check, we must oblige them to.