Religion: What's the worst that can happen?

You are speaking currently correct? Not past injustices/harm/etc…?

any and all, as long as it’s true. :)

don’t forget the north ireland war between cathies and protesties

Christianity at its worst now? Way beyond failed science education (which I think is actually a huge problem, in any case).

Two words. Fred Phelps.

First of all I’m not a religion basher by any means. In fact I believe religion, take that back spirituality is important for society.

Having said that. I will include Christian based forced assimilation policies on Indigenous people all over the world. Two of note are Native North Americans and Australian Aboriginees. In both places, under name of the church, they literally kidnapped children and put them into boarding schools. In the boarding schools they were stripped of all their cultural beliefs and forced to believe in Christian values among other things. They were abused horrifically in many circumstances and nearly every (perhaps every) school had a graveyard. The last boarding school of this type closed in the 90s in the US. We are still reaping the repercussions. We still have similar boarding schools, just not as harsh.

“Faith based abstinence only plans and resistance to contraception are arguably making the AIDS epidemic worse.” – from a friend of mine.

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus; and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs, and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves.
Men at some time are masters of their fates:
The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

- Shakespeare

underlings that stupid and capable of such vast and destructive misunderstanding would need safeguards put into their tools so that they don’t hurt themselves. any omniscient being would know that before sending them off to do as they please. obviously gravity was not only seat-belt needed. :)

Religion thread? wait for @Qingu to answer.. enjoy

Judaism gets a free pass too often. It was pretty bad for its early history. In some ways the laws of Moses improve on the earlier Code of Hammurabi (like not punishing children for the crimes of their parents). But in other ways they are more regressive. The Code didn’t punish homosexuals or unbelievers with death, and had more progressive adultery and rape laws than the Bible did. The Hebrews had a far more cultish political system than the nascent Babylonian culture from which they emerged.

The Code, unlike the Bible, also didn’t mandate genocide. Many of the stories of the early Hebrews—like the entire book of Joshua—celebrate multiple genocides of rival tribes. Now, most scholars think these stories (like most such stories) are exaggerated and the Hebrews were more scavengers than conquerers. But nevertheless, I sure wouldn’t want to live next to the ancient Hebrews.

After that phase, the Hebrews got conquered multiple times by more powerful—and, I would argue, more civilized—empires. Each time, the Hebrews/Jews resisted in almost exactly the same way that Muslim extremists resist Western hegemony today. Look at the Hannukah story. 8 magical days and nights… and, the part you don’t tell your kids, a violent terrorist revolt against a superior political power to carve out political-religious sovereignty for the Jews.

In Roman times, a sect of Jews who wanted political control of their region—called the “Sicarii”, or “daggers”—would ambush Roman soldiers and sometimes civilians, stab them to death, and just accept that they would be instantly killed in kind. They were the predecessors of modern-day suicide bombers.

After the Romans destroyed the Jewish temple, the religion evolved and basically abandoned any hopes of political resistance. I’m not sure life for Jews got any better, since they were oppressed by almost everyone they encountered, but the religion did shift its focus from violent enforcement and resistance to more abstract study. That was a very good thing. Unfortunately, the establishment of Israel shifted the religion back to violent political enforcement.

I’d also add that, while most Jews have “integrated” fairly well with progressive society (to the point where I wouldn’t even consider many of them “Jewish” anymore), insular orthodox/hasidic communities routinely commit what I consider child abuse. My step-cousins are examples. There’s 11 children. None of them are educated beyond a 6th grade level—except for the boys, who are educated only to become rabbis. Like similar traditional/religious insulated communities, physical, mental and sexual abuse is both widespread and often covered up by the community.

See what I mean?

Glad I didn’t disappoint. :)

Also:

Baha’is at their worst—intolerant of homosexuality. (It’s codified in their religious scripture. And apparently it’s a great mystery to followers of this otherwise progressive religion why Baha’alluah dropped the prog. rev. ball on gays.)

Hi, Fireside!

I prefer to think about the good aspects rather than the bad ones. Here’s an abridged description of the complete Glad Tidings revealed by Baha’u’llah:

The first Glad-Tidings

…is that the law of holy war hath been blotted out…

The second Glad-Tidings

…O people! Consort with the followers of all religions in a spirit of friendliness and fellowship…

The third Glad-Tidings

concerneth the study of divers languages…and to adopt one of the existing languages or a new one to be taught to children in schools throughout the world, and likewise one script. Thus the whole earth will come to be regarded as one country…

The fourth Glad-Tidings

Should any of the kings—may God aid them—arise to protect and help this oppressed people, all must vie with one another in loving and in serving him….

The fifth Glad-Tidings

In every country where any of this people reside, they must behave towards the government of that country with loyalty, honesty and truthfulness….

…-the weapons of war throughout the world may be converted into instruments of reconstruction and that strife and conflict may be removed from the midst of men…

The sixth Glad-Tidings

is the establishment of the Lesser Peace, details of which have formerly been revealed from Our Most Exalted Pen. Great is the blessedness of him who upholdeth it and observeth whatsoever hath been ordained by God, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise.

The seventh Glad-Tidings

The choice of clothing and the cut of the beard and its dressing are left to the discretion of men. But beware, O people, lest ye make yourselves the playthings of the ignorant.

The eighth Glad-Tidings

The pious deeds of the monks and priests among the followers of the Spirit [Jesus.] upon Him be the peace of God are remembered in His presence. In this Day, however, let them give up the life of seclusion and direct their steps towards the open world and busy themselves with that which will profit themselves and others. We have granted them leave to enter into wedlock that they may bring forth one who will make mention of God, the Lord of the seen and the unseen, the Lord of the Exalted Throne.

The ninth Glad-Tidings

…Confession of sins and transgressions before human beings is not permissible, as it hath never been nor will ever be conducive to divine forgiveness. Moreover such confession before people results in one’s humiliation and abasement…

The tenth Glad-Tidings

As a token of grace from God, the Revealer of this Most Great Announcement, We have removed from the Holy Scriptures and Tablets the law prescribing the destruction of books.

The eleventh Glad-Tidings

It is permissible to study sciences and arts, but such sciences as are useful and would redound to the progress and advancement of the people. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Ordainer, the All-Wise.

The twelfth Glad-Tidings

It is enjoined upon every one of you to engage in some form of occupation, such as crafts, trades and the like. ...Waste not your time in idleness and sloth. Occupy yourselves with that which profiteth yourselves and others….

—-
Hi Qingu, sorry for the delay i got busy with a meeting for work.

Violent radical fanaticism

ooooh…pass!

Jesus Killed Mohammad

@kevbo, yeah. Militant Christianity is still alive and well in our military, unfortunately. It’s disgusting and robs us of any argument against “militant Islamism” when we have Christians doing the exact same thing for the exact same reasons, just with bigger weapons.

@Qingu, hey, we agree on something!

Scientology at it’s worst is… Tom Cruise.

plus harassment, blackmail, a Church-run detention facility, numerous instances of fraud, knowingly letting Church members breathe asbestos up until a year or so ago on a CoS ship called the Freewinds, at least one known death by malpractice which they attempted to cover up, forced abortions and ordering families to not talk to members who had left the Church.

please see: http://www.whyaretheydead.info/ and http://www.xenu.net for an introduction.

as for blaming christianity for Naziism, no I don’t think so. though I don’t count myself an apologist for christianity by any means, I can’t see the direct connection. aside from the fact that christianity touches just about every element of european civilization.

well done, guys.. What about Buddhism? any know of any dirty laundry?

@Ria777 not sure you can blame religion for any of these things. It is the people who used their violence in the name of religion. There is question I know about ow religious Hitler was. I think he was raised Catholic? He certainly did in speeches use Chritianity as justification to kill the Jews, so I guess the question is, did he simply just understand his audience and what would motivate them (politician) or did he really agree with a Christian rationale for what he did.

@JLeslie: I said you shouldn’t’ blame christianity nor Naziism, not that you should.

Well, the question is this: What interpretations of (technically, products of) Christianity and other religions (especially the more specific sects) have bolstered, motivated, or out-right caused which acts of evil.

Keep in mind that in the eyes of the people who commit these acts, THEY are following their religion to a tee. And it’s their word against the words of those who claim that being more peaceable is the right way to go about the faith. Both interpretations are equally “Christian” or “Muslim” or “Satanist” or whatever.. just because one thinks the other is “doing it wrong” doesn’t mean that they are right.

catholicism: the inquisition

@Ria777 While he obviously didn’t follow all of Christ’s teachings, Hitler did consider himself a Christian. Check out this page, it’s got a good bunch of excerpts from his speeches where it’s proven over and over again that he believes to be a Christian.
For example:
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders.

Evelynism, the smallest religion with the largest deity, and since it’s only about a decade old, there is nothing ‘bad’ associated with it. annoying I suppose, if you ask some folks, but they simply lack a decent sense of humor and creativity.

@ninjacolin, I don’t like that word interpretation. Both the Bible and Quran, explicitly and directly, call for some pretty awful things—and there’s no intellectually honest way to “interpret” these things to mean other than what they say.

For example, Deuteronomy 22 says that if a woman cannot prove her virginity on her wedding night, she must be stoned to death on the doorstep of her father’s house.

There is only one way to interpret this writing. The Hebrew is clear. The textual context is clear. The historical and cultural context is clear—ancient near easterners believed women were the property of men and a non-virgin daughter devalues herself as her father’s and husband’s property.

The law, and many other equally disgusting laws in these books, say what they say. And if you’re a religious person who ignores these laws, you aren’t “following your religion,” or even “interpreting your religion.” You’re ignoring your religion because you believe that this part of your religion is morally wrong.

A serious problem are hasty generalizations as for example pointed out by the Skeptics Society which is an organization devoted to promoting scientific skepticism and resisting the spread of pseudoscience, superstition, and irrational beliefs. See

http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Hasty_Generalization

You asked: Can we make a list of religions based on world issues and the severity of the threat from each faith group? And you asked to be specific where possible. Well, to avoid hasty generalizations we need to talk about forms of religions and belief systems which to me includes certain forms of atheism, because some forms are not part of the solution, but actually part of the problem with religion.

Recently I’ve tried to come up with a classification for the forms of some of the major world religions (it’s still work in progress).

So when it comes to severity, here’s my assessment (classification IDs will be explained below).

Severe: A4, B4, C4, C5, D4
Potential to become severe: A3, B3, C3, D3

A1) Deism

In deism a divine entity is seen as the reason for existence and it created the cosmos (universe, multiverse) and its physical laws. Religious beliefs are optional. There is a theistic and atheistic interpretation of the cosmos. The existence of a deity is not a scientific question. Many deists reject religion, but they are to a certain extend influenced by the culture they grew up in. There are deists who do not consider themselves to be Christians, but they are influenced by some Christian values and ethics.

A2) Enlightened Christianity

Enlightened Christianity is a form of liberal Christianity with a strong focus on the Age of Enlightenment and interfaith dialog. In addition to deism, there’s the belief that the divine entity called God also sustains the physical laws and that our cosmos has a purpose and a deeper meaning. The orderly, biofriendly cosmos is the result of a deliberate act. God is beyond nature and should not be viewed as a god of the gaps. Science cannot explain the world, only phenomena which are observed within our cosmos. There is no magic, which means the supernatural doesn’t exist in our world. Natural sciences are consistent with both atheism and religious belief. Rationalism, critical thinking and spiritual progressiveness are core values of enlightened Christians. Rationality needs to be tied to moral decency. Skepticism is the agent of reason against organized irrationalism. Holding on to superstitions is therefore wrong. Liberal Christianity in a more general sense uses a method of biblical hermeneutics, which is an individualistic method of understanding God through the use of scripture by applying the same modern hermeneutics used to understand any ancient writings.

The Christian religion has many levels of meaning and the belief in God is only one of them. Jesus Christ being the son of God has a symbolic meaning. Prayers are a form of meditation supporting our spiritual growth and finding our strengths. Dogmas arise in a social context and when the context changes, dogmas should change too or even be given up. Rituals are seen as a means to strengthen social groups. Christianity must not claim exclusive rights in defining truth and it is best seen as one world view among many. In-group/out-group morality models are discouraged. Liberal and enlightened Christians share many values with other belief systems and world views such as liberalism and humanism.

A3) Conservative Christianity

The true nature of God is beyond our understanding. God has the capability to directly intervene in world events and He does so from time to time. Religious miracles can be seen as spiritual reality. Dogmas lie at the heart of Christianity and they should be upheld. Dogmas and rituals are a direct consequence of divine revelation. Prayers are directly answered, sometimes by direct intervention. Conforming to Christian rituals and rules is seen as the best way to please God. Christianity is superior to all other faiths. Believing in Jesus Christ is the only way to be saved.

A4) Christian Fundamentalism

The whole Bible is literally true and a direct result of divine revelation. Scientific findings and explanations must remain consistent with teachings of the Bible. Christianity is the only true faith. Muslims and Jews and followers of other religions as well as atheists are infidels and they will be punished by God.

Judaism

B1) Deism

Same definition, see above. Many deists reject religion, but they are to a certain extend influenced by the culture they grew up in. There are deists who do not consider themselves to be Jews, but they are influenced by some Jewish values and ethics.

B2) Enlightened Judaism

Enlightened Judaism is a form of Reform Judaism and Liberal Liberalism with a strong focus on the Age of Enlightenment and interfaith dialog. In addition to deism, there’s the belief that the divine entity called God also sustains the physical laws and that our cosmos has a purpose and a deeper meaning. The orderly, biofriendly cosmos is the result of a deliberate act. God is beyond nature and should not be viewed as a god of the gaps. Science cannot explain the world, only phenomena which are observed within our cosmos. There is no magic, which means the supernatural doesn’t exist in our world. Natural sciences are consistent with both atheism and religious belief. Rationalism, critical thinking and spiritual progressiveness are core values of enlightened Jews. Therefore holding on to superstitions is wrong. The individual Jew will approach this body of ‘mitzvot’ and ‘minhagim’ in the spirit of freedom and choice.

The Jewish religion has many levels of meaning and the belief in God is only one of them. Almost everything connected with Jewish ritual law and custom was of the ancient past, and thus no longer appropriate for Jews to follow in the modern era. Prayers are a form of meditation supporting our spiritual growth and finding our strengths. Dogmas arise in a social context and when the context changes, dogmas should change too or even be given up. Rituals are seen as a means to strengthen social groups. Judaism must not claim exclusive rights in defining truth and it is best seen as one world view among many. In-group/out-group morality models are discouraged. Reform-oriented enlightened Jews share many values with other belief systems and world views such as liberalism and humanism.

B3) Orthodox Judaism

The true nature of God is beyond our understanding. God has the capability to directly intervene in world events and He does so from time to time. Dogmas lie at the heart of Judaism and they should be upheld. The Torah and its laws are divine and were transmitted by God to Moses. They are eternal and unalterable. Prayers are directly answered, sometimes by direct intervention. Jews are chosen to be in a covenant with God. Jews are expected to observe all 613 mitzvot. Judaism is superior to all other faiths.

B4) Ultra-orthodox Judaism

Judaism is the only true faith. The true Jewish belief all religious practices extend back to Moses in an unbroken chain. The Halacha is considered a set of God-given instructions to effect spiritual, moral, religious and personal perfection. It includes codes of behavior applicable to every imaginable circumstance. Non-orthodox and modern orthodox streams of Judaism are unjustifiable deviations from authentic Judaism. Muslims and Christians and followers of other religions as well as atheists are infidels and they will be punished by God.

Islam

C1) Deism

Same definition, see above. Many deists reject religion, but they are to a certain extend influenced by the culture they grew up in. There are deists who do not consider themselves to be Muslims, but they are influenced by some Islamic values and ethics.

C2) Enlightened Islam

Enlightened Islam is a form of liberal Islam with a strong focus on the Islamic Golden Age, the Age of Enlightenment and interfaith dialog. In addition to deism, there’s the belief that the divine entity called God or Allah also sustains the physical laws and that our cosmos has a purpose and a deeper meaning. The orderly, biofriendly cosmos is the result of a deliberate act. Allah is beyond nature and should not be viewed as a god of the gaps. Science cannot explain the world, only phenomena which are observed within our cosmos. There is no magic, which means the supernatural doesn’t exist in our world. Therefore holding on to superstitions is wrong. Liberal Muslims do not necessarily subscribe to the more culturally-based interpretations of the Qur’an and Hadith. They view natural sciences as being consistent with both atheism and religious belief. Rationalism, critical thinking and spiritual progressiveness are core values of enlightened Muslims.

Islam has many levels of meaning and the belief in Allah is only one of them. Muhammad is an important messenger and prophet of God in a series of Islamic prophets. Prayers are a form of meditation supporting our spiritual growth and finding our strengths. Dogmas arise in a social context and when the context changes, dogmas should change too or even be given up. Rituals are seen as a means to strengthen social groups. Islam must not claim exclusive rights in defining truth and it is best seen as one world view among many. In-group/out-group morality models are discouraged. Enlightened Muslims share many values with other belief systems and world views such as liberalism and humanism.

C3) Conservative Islam

The true nature of Allah is beyond our understanding. Allah has the capability to directly intervene in world events and He does so from time to time. Dogmas lie at the heart of Islam and they should be upheld. Dogmas and rituals are a direct consequence of divine revelation. Prayers are directly answered, sometimes by direct intervention. Islam is superior to all other faiths. Muhammad is the last and the greatest law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets as taught by the Qur’an.

C4) Fundamentalist Islam

The whole Qur’an is literally true and a direct result of divine revelation. The Qur’an is a book of divine guidance and direction for mankind. The legal framework within which the public and private aspects of life are regulated must be based on the Sharia. Everything in the daily life of a faithful Muslim is in strict conformity with the teachings of the Qu’ran and the verbal teachings and dialogues of the Prophet Muhammad. Scientific findings and explanations must remain consistent with the Qur’an. Islam is the only true faith and fatwas must be issued to protect the faith. Christians and Jews and followers of other religions as well as atheists are infidels and they will be punished by Allah.

C5) Islamist extremism

Jihad, the holy war, is a religious duty of all Muslims. It must be fought on a global level. The enemies of Islam must be destroyed.

Atheism

D1) Implicit Atheism

Implicit atheism is the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it. Weak atheism (sometimes also called negative atheism) refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person does not believe any deities exist, but does not claim that same statement is false. Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of the existence of deities and spiritual beings are unknown. There are non-spiritual explanations for the nature of physical reality and the meaning of good and evil.

D2) Enlightened Atheism

The cosmos might have a purpose and a deeper meaning, but the reason for this would not be related to divine power. There is a solid scientific understanding of our cosmos. Science can explain phenomena which are observed within our universe or multiverse. There is no magic within our world, which means the supernatural doesn’t exist. Being superstitious is wrong. Atheism must not claim exclusive rights in defining truth and it is best seen as one world view among many. There is no reason why religion cannot be compatible with reason or with the main body of accredited human knowledge. Antireligionism and antireligious dogmas are rejected and seen as counterproductive, but any religion worthy of belief should be consistent with human reason and knowledge.

Being spiritual does not necessarily mean being religious. In enlightened atheism in-group/out-group morality models are discouraged. A human-centered spirituality should be articulated in which atheists, agnostics and believers can feel equally at home. To live in a spiritually healthy way, people must be allowed to be authentically themselves, to realize their full potential, and to make their own moral and lifestyle choices. The focus is on human dignity and acting in good faith, bringing out and rehabilitating the innate goodness of humankind. The core values of enlightened atheism also include spiritual growth, compassion, generosity, nonviolence, humility, as well as inner and outer peace.

D3) Explicit atheism

Explicit atheism is the absence of theistic belief due to a conscious rejection of it. Strong atheism (sometimes also called positive atheism) claims that the statement ‘there is at least one god’ is false, which means gods or the God does not exist. There is nothing that cannot be understood at least in principle is a true statement. The reasonable nonbelief in God is based on the lack of evidence. It is therefore irrational to believe in supernatural beings. People believe in God, not because he exists, but because of other reasons. God memes offer a good explanation where memes are seen as elements of cultural ideas, symbols or practices, which are transmitted from one mind to another through speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena. The gathering of all relevant knowledge is accomplished by employing the scientific method. Strong atheism shares many values with humanism, rationalism, materialism and naturalism. Atheism is seen as superior to religions.

D4) Atheist fundamentalism

The cosmos we observe has precisely the properties we should expect and there is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference. God or any other deities do not exist. Natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations. Natural science is capable of describing all reality and knowledge and when doing so it clearly leads to atheism. Therefore the belief in God is a delusion while religion should be seen as a obscurantist, dictatorial and oppressive force and the world would be a better place without it. Atheist fundamentalists typically reject classifications of atheism. They often also reject classifications of various forms of religions, as they are seen as minor variations of the same religious delusion. They argue that atheism and spirituality cannot coexist, because any concept of spiritual atheism is fundamentally flawed. The word spirit refers to the supernatural and has therefore to be rejected.

Sources: Wikipedia

@mattbrowne That was a very well thought out answer but I must say the atheism generalizations are a bit off. I’ll try to come up with some examples eventually but right now I’m off to class.

@Shuttle128 – Well, I tried to come up with 4 categories already. If I had more time I could refine it. I’m sure it’s possible to come up with more categories for atheism. I really want to avoid generalizations. I’m looking forward to reading your suggestions. Enjoy your class!

I don’t understand why you’re putting D3 and D4 on the same tier as, you know, people who actually want to oppress their children, take away people’s rights, and kill unbelievers because of their religion.

I actually don’t really see why D3 and D4 are remotely harmful. Also, what you’re describing is technically more a positive empiricist ideology than atheism which just means “lack of belief in gods.”

D3 and D4 empiricism, I think, would be Robespierre.

@Qingu – Well, D4 is counterproductive and even harmful because it contributes to the growth of A4 and C4. I also see a fundamental problem with any strong claim for monopolies of truth especially when combined with powerful rhetoric. A blind pitiless indifferent cosmos isn’t a scientific observation. It’s a philosophical assessment. I will explain more about this tomorrow. Gotta run too now.

That’s way more indirect harm than your other 4s.

And also extremely debatable that aggressive atheism actually promotes fundamentalism.

And I would argue that taking strong stands about what is “true” is not inherently harmful at all. Nobody cares that people generally feel very strongly that the earth revolves around the sun. Or that diseases are caused by germs and not invisible demons.

Feeling strongly about these things and claiming to hold a “monopoly of truth” as far as heliocentrism and germ theory are concerned… yeah. Not really comparable to refusing to educate your children, finding justification to rape your wife, and killing people who you think are wrong.

Again, I nominate Robespierre, and the French Revolution-style empiricism/rationalism in general, as a counterpart to your 3’s and 4’s.

Some might be tempted to say “Stalin” here because atheism was mandated by the state. But I don’t really see Stalin’s shit as stemming from atheism or even an empirical metaphysical outlook like you’ve described. Rather, Stalin’s brand of communism functioned as a dogmatic cult. Any cult worth its salt is not going to tolerate rival cults. I see Stalin’s evils (and, Godwin help us, Hitler’s) as stemming from political ideology exagerated and deified into functional cults, not views on religion or metaphysics.

@Qingu said: The law, and many other equally disgusting laws in these books, say what they say. And if you’re a religious person who ignores these laws, you aren’t “following your religion,” or even “interpreting your religion.” You’re ignoring your religion because you believe that this part of your religion is morally wrong.

Well, technically, I would argue that ignoring such parts of the holy books is itself a part of their religion. If a group decided to follow those rules it would be considered a separate, extremist sect from the main religion. Know what I mean?

@Qingu

There is the hypothesis that aggressive atheism promotes religious fundamentalism. Here are three Christian scientists who wrote books about the topic and they support this hypothesis which is certainly debatable: Alistair McGrath (a molecular biophysicist and theologian) who wrote “The Dawkins Delusion”, John Lennox (a mathematician and philosopher of science) who wrote “God’s Undertaker – Has Science buried God?” and Kenneth Miller (a molecular biologist and science advocate) who wrote “Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution”.

I support this hypothesis not only because it makes a lot of sense to me, but also because of personal experience.

Several times I’ve encountered deeply religious people saying, oh, you know so much about science, you must be an atheist. I would reply, no, actually I’m a Christian. Really, they ask, how is this possible? Religion and science don’t go together, therefore I rather stay away from too much science. I don’t want to become an atheist. My response is: You don’t have to because despite what some atheists proclaim, I think modern Christianity and science can be compatible. There are astonished looks, then, hmm interesting, well, maybe I should know more about science. Yes, I would say, definitely. Try to understand cosmology and evolution and you will see the grandeur of God’s creation. Evolution can actually be seen as creation in progress. You know, our cosmos has a purpose and meaning and especially our planet is bursting with evolutionary possibilities. It’s a continuing creation in which the divine providence is manifest in every living thing. I do believe that.

So if aggressive atheists stop telling conservative Christians (most liberal Christians are immune) that science and atheism are logically equivalent (science leads to atheism and atheists rely on science) many of them might not turn into Christian fundamentalists, but rather embrace science and the age of enlightenment without having to give up Christianity.

Yeah. I’ve written before that I think your approach—with all due respect, seriously—is basically a trapdoor for what atheists like Dawkins (and myself) are trying to do directly.

You are a Deist. Most Christians—by that I mean people who believe Jesus rose from the dead to save humanity from judgment—would say there is very little daylight between your beliefs and my beliefs.

When people like you and Gould and Miller say that science and religion can be compatible, and that they are “non-overlapping magisteria,” the translation is that science and certain brands of extremely secular, essentially Deist religion are compatible. Which is true, but it’s not what most people have in mind when they think of the word “religion.” Certainly Biblical Christianity or fundamentalist Islam are not compatible with science in most respects.

Furthermore, I could make the argument that your brand of secularism promotes a backlash into religiosity—precisely because it comes in the clothes of finding common ground and tolerance. There is an entire class of religious people who seek to wall themselves off from secular society, not because of people like Dawkins but rather because of people like Gould and Barack Obama and other secular “Christians,” who they see as subtly, pervasively corrupting and diluting their true, pure faith. They see people like you as wolves in sheep’s clothing. (Whereas they see people like myself as wolves, and so at least they know what they’re getting.)

@Qingu – I never claimed that atheist fundamentalism is the only cause for the increasing religious fundamentalism we can observe in the US and many Muslim countries. There are many factors fueling fundamentalism. My point is that clever people like Dawkins should be part of a solution instead of making an existing problem worse.

My belief goes beyond deism. What I called enlightened Christianity might come the closest to my form of religion and my values. As mentioned in my classification, the Christian religion has many levels of meaning and the belief in God is only one of them. The purpose and meaning of our cosmos and the meaning of human beings’ lives are an important element as well as time-tested ethical guidelines which are evolving all the time. Few people outside of Germany are aware that a powerful Protestant movement in East Germany had been the major driving force bringing down the Berlin Wall. One of the main heroes is a minister called

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Fuehrer

Read the Wikipedia article and you will see his approach. This is what modern Christianity is about. This is reality. The whole East German revolution remained peaceful. I don’t know any Christian in all of Europe preaching “Thou Shalt Commit Genocide” as it is written in the bible. I know that skeptics like to make the claim that the bible is an evil book because it recounts killing, rape and genocide. Was Martin Luther King – a clergyman – asking people to kill when he gave his ‘I have a dream’ speech? Hasty generalizations are not helpful. Selective perception is not helpful. Quoting cruel statements only is not helpful. Of course we have to question everything. As you said ancient near easterners believed women were the property of men. Paul endorsed slavery. Why is that? Of course we need to ask these kinds of questions.

Dawkins would probably argue that convincing people to abandon superstition is in fact part of the solution. I generally agree with him. I think Dawkins’ writings are often misunderstood as being directed towards extremely religious people. He’s said that he wrote the God Delusion for the casually religious who never got around to questioning their faith.

Evangelical Christians would certainly disagree with your view of “modern Christianity.” If Europe’s rate of religious attrition is at all indicative, “modern Christianity” is basically a generation away from “declared atheism.” Obviously liberal Christians have played an important role in many moral advances. The problem is that they do so by ignoring huge swaths of their holy text and religious traditions. As you said in previous discussions, they’ve “evolved” ... but into what?

As for my “selective perception”—there are parts of the Bible that I like and I agree with. Likewise for the Quran, for the Code of Hamurabi, for the Iliad, for the Mahabharata. This doesn’t excuse the parts that command slavery in genocide.

As far as I’m concerned, no book that commands slavery and genocide should be taught to our children as the inspiration of a benevolent god. Why did Paul endorse slavery? Because he was a product of his times. So were the Hebrews who wrote the laws of the Bible, which are largely barbaric by any modern standard. The problem is that these Hebrews falsely claimed that their laws came from God. And this falsehood is still believed today.

The question I think needs to be asked is, what is the point of clinging to the idea that the Bible is a special book—in the sense of being inspired, even obliquely, by a god—when it is so obviously not? Since you refuse to give up your vestiges of “Christianity” and just identify as a Deist, maybe you can answer. :)

@Qingu – I read the whole bible and I would argue that 60% is valuable or very valuable content. To me personally the percentage is higher for the New Testament and lower for the Old Testament. Some parts are extremely offensive, no doubt. But even the Old Testament has wonderful and inspiring content. Take Jacob’s story for example when he went to Egypt. Or take the biblical proverbs. If investment bankers on Wall Street had only read a small portion of it, especially the parts about greed and its dangers, maybe excessive bonuses and speculative bubbles would not be a reality.

So I don’t know what you mean by vestiges of Christianity. In addition, I also said the bible is one element. It’s the foundation, but you still need to build a house. Equally important is what great Christians in history have said and written. I already mentioned Martin Luther King and Christian Fuehrer. What about Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Have you heard of him?

You know that I abandoned superstition. I totally agree with Dawkins and you on that. Christianity continues to evolve. I hope atheism evolves as well. Above all in-group/out-group morality models should be discouraged. Aggressive atheism is a disgrace. Atheist fundamentalism is wrong. It’s not part of a solution instead it makes an existing problem worse.

60 percent, huh? How does that number compare to other works of literature? I notice you didn’t answer my question about why you still treat this book as the “foundation” of your worldview.

I also fail to see why “what great Christians in history have said and written” has to do with the metaphysical value of the religion they believed in. Unless the things you are talking about actually have to do with their religion. Does Isaac Newton’s proof of gravity contribute to your identity as a pseudodeist Christian? I agree with Muhammad al-Kwarizmi’s views on mathematics (he invented algebra). I agree with Hamza Yusuf’s views on the need for peace and tolerance between religions, on the need for education and scientific exploration, on his denouncements of terrorism and jihad. Nevertheless, I don’t identify as a Muslim because I completely reject the most fundamental aspect of Islam, the existence of the god Allah and the assertion that Muhammad was his prophet. Similarly, I agree with Ayn Rand’s stance on evolution and many of her moral conclusions; nevertheless I would never self-identify as an Objectivist.

You say you have abandoned “superstition,” but most Christians would say that Jesus’ resurrection is the single most important thing about their faith. This is obviously superstition. My question, again, is: what is left? Some moral philosophy, about 3/5 of which you happen to agree with? That’s what makes you a “Christian” and not a “Deist”?

I think what bothers me about your approach to Christianity is that you, in effect, drinking the bathwater with the baby. Just because you agree with proponents of an ideology on certain issues doesn’t mean it makes sense to identify with that ideology.

Also, continually asserting that “aggressive atheism is a disgrace / atheist fundamentalism is wrong” (what is “atheist fundamentalism?) is just… proof by repeated assertion. I agree with you that we should strive to avoid “us vs. them” moralities. I don’t really see any such moral division in even Dawkins’ writings. There’s a large difference between aggressively criticizing ideas and saying “this group of people is evil.” For my part, I certainly don’t think religious people are evil; I just think they are mistaken. From what you’ve written, you seem to agree with me. You just don’t like to say it.

Also: I agree with way more than 60% of what Karl Marx had to say. But I don’t identify as a “Communist” because Marx happened to be wrong about some pretty important things.

Though the things he was wrong about were not quite as important as, you know, the justification of rape, slavery, and genocide found in the Bible.

@Sarcasm: it does not at all surprise me that Hitler regarded himself as a christian. regardless, Naziism painted itself as a political movement rather than a religious one. and, again, you can hardly de-tangle christianity from western civilization, particularly so in the europe of nearly a hundred years ago.

I treat the bible as the foundation because it documents Jesus’ worldview as recorded by the four evangelists. Another factor is I’m part of a community. This really matters to me. The minister of our parish. Our main Protestant bishop in Germany (who is a divorced woman by the way). My fellow Christians. The joint prayers. The people in my choir. The meanings of the rituals. The grace of charity related to all of that. The feeling of the presence of God. All in a symbolic way of course.

I respect every worldview as long as it doesn’t harm other people. To me being a deist is not enough. Deism is an abstract concept that makes a lot of sense to me. But religion is much more than that.

But I don’t really want to discuss my own beliefs in detail. Besides, some aspects of them I consider to be quite private and they don’t belong in a public online forum. Earlier you mentioned that the implications of aggressive atheism are debatable. Let’s do that:

http://www.fluther.com/disc/61293/aggressive-atheism-promotes-religious-fundamentalism-what-are-the-pros-and/

@Qingu – One more thing. Yes, of course, Jesus’ resurrection is the single most important thing about the Christian faith. His spirit is alive today. He was present when the Christian Fuehrer and his fellow Christians in East Germany gathered in late 1989 inspiring millions to participate in demonstrations. Peacefully. There was no violence. Not a single shot was fired unlike in Romania, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989

So while most Christians would say that Jesus’ resurrection is the single most important thing about their faith, most Christians – at least in Germany (the US is a world anomaly in this respect) – would not claim that this happened in a physical sense or in a poltergeist-style paranormal way.

Maybe German Christians. Godless atheists every one of them. :)

One of my religious studies profs was like that, and she was a minister in an extremely liberal church. One of the students asked her if she thought Jesus literally was resurrected and she demurred (“I’ll have to get back to you on that”).

I guess I just don’t understand how peaceful demonstrators invoking Jesus’s moral philosophy (selectively, by the way—Jesus said plenty of awful shit) signifies a “resurrection” in any sense. It’s not a “metaphor” for being resurrected. It’s not a “non-physical” resurrection (whatever that means). Plenty of moral philosophers’ ideas survive and are invoked in the present day; nobody says the moral philosophers are “resurrected” in any meaningful sense.

I do understand the power of having a community though (I actually think this is probably the primary reason people remain religious in this day and age). And since you don’t seem to want to talk about your beliefs, I’ll bow out. :)

@Qingu – Thanks, my friend :-)

Maybe it’s time to end the debate here, because the other one is still going on and we can continue the exchange of our views there.