I could do without the war metaphors. Human history is a slow struggle out of ignorance and towards comprehension. Shedding religion will just be another step in our maturation. We also need to outgrow the madness of War and find a way to control our inherent anger. You can’t rage for peace; you can’t be mad for reason. Calm down and wake up. mjh

Angry Atheists Are Hot Authors By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer [mjh: the alliteration calls for “ABLE Authors” or “Acute”]

[B]elievers far outnumber nonbelievers in America. In an 2005 AP-Ipsos poll on religion, only 2 percent of U.S. respondents said they did not believe in God. Other surveys concluded that 14 percent of Americans consider themselves secular, a term that can include believers who say they have no religion.” …

The time for polite debate is over. Militant, atheist writers are making an all-out assault on religious faith and reaching the top of the best-seller list, a sign of widespread resentment over the influence of religion in the world among nonbelievers.

Christopher Hitchens’ book, “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything,” has sold briskly ever since it was published last month, and his debates with clergy are drawing crowds at every stop.

Sam Harris was a little-known graduate student until he wrote the phenomenally successful “The End of Faith” and its follow-up, “Letter to a Christian Nation.” Richard Dawkins'”The God Delusion” and Daniel Dennett’s “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon” struck similar themes — and sold.

“There is something like a change in the Zeitgeist,” Hitchens said, noting that sales of his latest book far outnumber those for his earlier work that had challenged faith. “There are a lot of people, in this country in particular, who are fed up with endless lectures by bogus clerics and endless bullying.”

Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, a prominent evangelical school in Pasadena, Calif., said the books’ success reflect a new vehemence in the atheist critique.

“I don’t believe in conspiracy theories,” Mouw said, “but it’s almost like they all had a meeting and said, ‘Let’s counterattack.'”

The war metaphor is apt. The writers see themselves in a battle for reason in a world crippled by superstition. In their view, Muslim extremists, Jewish settlers and Christian right activists are from the same mold, using fairy tales posing as divine scripture to justify their lust for power. Bad behavior in the name of religion is behind some of the most dangerous global conflicts and the terrorist attacks in the U.S., London and Madrid, the atheists say.

As Hitchens puts it: “Religion kills.” … [mjh: gods don’t kill people, people kill people.]

Given the popularity of the anti-religion books so far, publishers are expected to roll out even more in the future. Lynn Garrett, senior religion editor for Publishers Weekly, says religion has been one of the fastest-growing categories in publishing in the last 15 years, and the rise of books by atheists is “the flip-side of that.”

“It was just the time,” she said, “for the atheists to take the gloves off.”
– – – – –

Is Atheism Just a Rant Against Religion?
Humanists Say Atheists Need to Offer More Vision Than Rhetoric, By Benedicta Cipolla, Religion News Service

Despite its minority status, atheism has enjoyed the spotlight of late, with several books that feature vehement arguments against religion topping the bestseller lists.

But some now say secularists should embrace more than the strident rhetoric poured out in such books as “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins and “The End of Faith” and “Letter to a Christian Nation” by Sam Harris. By devoting so much space to explaining why religion is bad, these critics argue, atheists leave little room for explaining how a godless worldview can be good.

At a recent conference marking the 30th anniversary of Harvard’s humanist chaplaincy, organizers sought to distance the “new humanism” from the “new atheism.”

Humanist Chaplain Greg Epstein went so far as to use the (other) f-word in describing his unbelieving brethren.

“At times they’ve made statements that sound really problematic, and when Sam Harris says science must destroy religion, to me that sounds dangerously close to fundamentalism,” Epstein said in an interview after the meeting. “What we need now is a voice that says, ‘That is not all there is to atheism.’ ”

Although the two can overlap, atheism represents a statement about the absence of belief and is thus defined by what it is not. Humanism seeks to provide a positive, secular framework for leading ethical lives and contributing to the greater good. The term “humanist” emerged with the “Humanist Manifesto” of 1933, a nonbinding document summarizing the movement’s principles.

“Atheists are somewhat focused on the one issue of atheism, not looking at how to move forward,” said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the Washington-based American Humanist Association. While he appreciates the way the new atheists have raised the profile of nonbelievers, he said humanists differ by their willingness to collaborate with religious leaders on various issues. “Working with religion,” he said, “is not what [atheists] are about.” …

The suggestion that atheists may be fundamentalists in their own right has, unsurprisingly, ruffled feathers.

“We’re not a unified group,” said Christopher Hitchens, author of the latest atheist bestseller, “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.”

“But we’re of one mind on this: The only thing that counts is free inquiry, science, research, the testing of evidence, the uses of reason, irony, humor and literature, things of this kind. Just because we hold these convictions rather strongly does not mean this attitude can be classified as fundamentalist,” Hitchens said.

Distinguishing between strong opinion and trying to impose atheism on others, Phil Zuckerman, associate professor of sociology at Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif., also finds “fundamentalist” a misnomer. Instead, he faults atheists for preferring black-and-white simplicity to a more nuanced view of religion.

“Religion is a human construction, and as such it will exhibit the best and worst of humanity. They throw the baby out with the bath water in certain instances,” he said.

The humanists are taking advantage of renewed interest in atheism — in effect riding the coattails of Dawkins and Harris into the mainstream — to gain attention for their big-tent model. According to the American Religious Identification Survey, conducted by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, the share of American adults who do not subscribe to any religion increased from 8 percent in 1990 to more than 14 percent in 2001.

While only a small portion of the nearly 30 million “unaffiliateds” might describe themselves as atheist, Epstein, from Harvard, sees humanism appealing to skeptics, agnostics and those who maintain only cultural aspects of religion. …

More than a kinder, gentler strain of atheism, humanism seeks to propose a more expansive worldview.

“Atheists don’t really ask the question, what are the vital needs that religion meets? They give you the sense that religion is the enemy, which is absurd,” said Ronald Aronson, professor of humanities at Wayne State University in Detroit.

“There are some questions we secularists have to answer: Who am I, what am I, what can I know? Unless we can answer these questions adequately for ourselves and for others, we can’t expect people to even begin to be interested in living without God.” [mjh: I disagree. I have questions without answers but no need for god and no interest in god other than in understanding other humans. I am not just “interested in living without god,” I am doing so every damn day.]

For equal time, hold your nose and read the sarcastic wit of the Washington Times, god’s own paper:

Revival time with the village atheist Wesley Pruden, editor in chief of The Times

The jobs don’t pay a lot, and you take most of your pay in self-esteem, but somebody is always trying out for village idiot or village atheist. Often they’re one and the same.

Lately we’ve seen fresh pursuit of these positions, fueled by a rash of books about atheism, or more accurately, irrational screeds mocking those who have the faith the authors clearly envy. Atheists are organizing. They have their registered lobbyist now on Capitol Hill, and they’re planning a revival meeting in Arlington in September. …

Merely driving by a church to shake a fist at the steeple on a Sunday morning is no longer enough to make an atheist tingle. [mjh: LOL!]
– – – – –

Desicritics.org: The Atheism FAQ with Richard Dawkins

Richard Dawkins, the author of the NY Times bestseller – The God Delusion – has been interviewed many a time recently. The questions asked were mainly related to his book, the views on atheism, morality and present world.

He answered all questions in a flawless and confident way. Each and every answer speaks about his passion and eagerness to explain his stance on every point. It’s an amazing experience to watch him speak. I have tried to pick up a few commonly asked questions and his answers on different topics.

Why are you against faith?

Because, I am a kind of person who cares about the Truth. The religion and any sort of dogma are the biggest obstacle against the Truth. Not only that, I am worried about the position religion enjoys in our society. You can attack other’s political view, criticize a football coach but cannot attack one’s religious faith. It’s a kind of immunity from criticism that religion enjoys, despite being proven to be mostly illogical.

[mjh: I agree with Kahlil Gibran: “Say not, ‘I have found the truth,’ but rather, ‘I have found a truth.’]

I’ve been playing volleyball with the same group of friends almost every Sunday afternoon for at least 15 years, maybe 20. Some of them have been playing together over 30 years. Children have grown up, become players and gone on to have their own children. (No grandchildren play — yet.)

We meet in a field in Los Lunas for 2 to 3 hours. Sometimes the play is vigorous. Sometimes we get on each others nerves. But, I’m sure it is the high point of most weeks for each of us.

Each game, we split into two teams somewhat randomly. As many games as the dozen of us have played, we’ve surely been through every combination several times.

Sometimes the scoring is quite lopsided, then sometimes it rights itself. Close games aren’t unusual. Every so often, one team catches the other in a tie close to the end. At that point, I often say, “how do you feel about a tie?” I’m sure I was being a smart-aleck the first time, but after years of proposing a tie only to be overridden by everyone else, I have come to think of it as my quest.

Sunday, the final game was a killer. We played 3-on-3, which is grueling. Each team moved ahead of the other in groups of 4 or 5 points, only to be caught and passed. It looked like my side would lose narrowly (and, honestly, I wouldn’t care or remember for long). I was serving when we caught up at 20-20 — it would take two more points for either side to win. I proposed a tie — no one took me seriously. I thought, “I can MAKE a tie.” I dropped the ball and walked off the court (probably a forfeit in “real” volleyball). The remaining players seemed poised to play on, with mild derision directed my way. I pulled my trump card: “When I’m dead, you’ll stop at a tie to honor me. Why not do it now, when I can appreciate it?”

For the one and only time in 30+ years, a game ended in a tie. As Chris noted, we may be the only 6 volleyball players ever to play to a tie. I’m very happy. mjh

Vatican abolishes the concept of limbo By Tracy Wilkinson, Los Angeles Times

ROME — Limbo has been in limbo for quite some time, but is now on its way to extinction. …

That could reverse centuries of Roman Catholic traditional belief that the souls of unbaptized babies are condemned to eternity in limbo, a place that is neither heaven nor hell, giving rise to the popular usage meaning “in between.”

Limbo is not unpleasant, but it is not a seat alongside God. [mjh: and you really do want the best seat for all eternity.]

In his 14th-century work “The Divine Comedy,” the Italian poet Dante famously placed virtuous pagans and great classical philosophers, including Plato and Socrates, in limbo.

Catholic doctrine states that because all humans are tainted by original sin thanks to the experience of Adam and Eve, baptism is essential for salvation. But the idea of limbo has fallen out of favor for many Catholics, who see it as harsh and not befitting a merciful God. [mjh: isn’t that convenient.] …

Catholic conservatives criticized any effort to relegate limbo to oblivion.

Removing the concept from church teaching would lessen the importance of baptism and discourage parents from christening their infants, said Kenneth J. Wolfe, a Washington-based columnist for the traditionalist Catholic newspaper The Remnant.

“It makes baptism a formality, a party, instead of a necessity,” Wolfe said. “There would be no reason for infant baptisms. It would put the Catholic Church on par with the Protestants.”

It would also deprive Catholic leaders of a tool in their fight against abortion, Wolfe said. Priests have long told women that their aborted fetuses cannot go to heaven, which in theory was another argument against ending pregnancy. Without limbo, those fetuses would presumably no longer be denied communion with God.
– – –

Pope revises limbo, says there is hope for babies who are not baptized By Nicole Winfield

“If there’s no limbo and we’re not going to revert to St. Augustine’s teaching that unbaptized infants go to hell, we’re left with only one option, namely, that everyone is born in the state of grace,” said the Rev. Richard McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame. [mjh: holy crap, there goes our monopoly!] …

[Rev. Thomas Reese] said the document also had implications for non-Christians, since it could be seen as suggesting that non-baptized adults could go to heaven if they led a good life.

“I think it shows that Benedict is trying to balance his view of Jesus as being central as the savior of the world … but at the same time not saying what the Evangelicals say, that anyone who doesn’t accept Jesus is going to hell.”

When I went to school at UVa 30 years ago, we called Virginia Tech “VPI” (Virginia Polytechnic Institute). I guess they had an upgrade to a university, just like George Mason College University. I knew people at Tech but never made what seemed like an impossibly long drive to Blacksburg. (I was still unacquainted with vast distances so familiar to me now as a westerner.)

I’ll write some other time about what a great world this would be without guns. (Have no fear, gun-freaks — you’ve got guns!) I watched part of the convocation on Tuesday and was struck by a few things:

(1) The only speaker should have been the first, the Vice President for Student Affairs. Her words, tone and demeanor were perfect. Everything else detracted from her opening remarks.

(2) You knew things had turned conventional when the President of VPI offered the biography of the Governor of Virginia. Do we really need to know what the governor did in his youth? (Unless it was march for or against gun control.)

(3) Duhbya could have been worse, even if references to a loving god seem ironic under the circumstances.

(4) When the religious leaders gathered on stage — even a buddhist, but no Hindu, I think — I wondered, “where are the atheists?” Atheists suffer life’s tragedies without magic to comfort us.

(5) I was shocked by the playing of the Star-spangled Banner and the color guard drill. This was not a military situation. These were not soldiers. This wasn’t war. As with 9/11, this was a somewhat international group of victims; people all over the world were hurt by this. We don’t need nationalism, when humanity should suffice. A world without nations or guns in which everyone recognizes each other as human beings? Talk about magic. Even people who can believe in god don’t believe that’s possible. mjh

On Easter Sunday, Pastor Skip “Hollywood” Heitzig told his devoted followers — er, Christ’s devout followers — that non-Christians are “afraid Christ lives.” News-flash, Skippy: I’m not afraid of Jesus, dead or alive, though some of his fanatics are scary. In fact, I truly wish Jesus were alive and would appear before the entire world or, at least, before his true believers and say, “what’s wrong with you people? Have you understood anything I said?”

There are several reasons Jesus doesn’t scare me. I’m agnostic on whether there really was a Jesus, though it is suspicious that most of stories about him were made up — written down — a hundred years or more after his supposed time. Whether he ever lived or not, all men die. I sometimes wish that weren’t true, but it is.

If Jesus lived, he was not the son of god for the simple fact that there is no god. Nor did Zeus father the Minotaur. We tell ourselves many great and even beautiful stories for good purpose: to pass along culture. We just forget one should not believe everything one thinks. And metaphor, however instructive, isn’t literal.

There was an interesting story on NPR yesterday about a missionary-turned-linguist. The missionary went to spread the word to a little-known tribe in the remote Amazon. When he told them about the resurrection, they said, “wow, that’s amazing. What did he say when you talked to him about that?” Upon learning that this missionary hadn’t actually witnessed this miracle, they lost all interest. You can be sure that thumping a book makes no difference to them.

Now, it’s not my purpose to piss on other people’s beliefs, so long as those people remain harmless. Which brings me back to not fearing Jesus while being more than leery of his most rabid followers. People like Pastor Skipper scare me because their use of god to enrich and empower themselves is so blatant and yet welcomed by their followers. Those unquestioning followers scare me because they are willing to be lead by people who preach love and forgiveness mixed with fear and threat. Heizig has arrogated Christ’s role himself: none shall enter heaven except through him (or the next mullah). Nice scam.

Surprisingly, I was raised with the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This entry alone is proof of my frailty. Don’t expect me to live up to Christ’s simplest and most practical advice if those who want eternal life as reward for doing so can’t manage. mjh

This weekend, the liberal columnist E.J. Dionne explains that those he calls “neo-atheists” are just as arrogant as any of the faithful. Dionne quotes some intolerance from atheists as evidence. I think all people are a frustrating mixture of good and evil, truth and lies — we are all human beings and must accept our own humanity and that of those we disagree with. Faith — present or lacking — is not the only test of character or its flaws. We need to rediscover empathy in which we don’t have to be exactly alike or in complete agreement in order to grasp each other’s pain or joy. These are coarse times as we come to walk the walk of diversity, equality and democracy, and figure out how to put up with each other. When an atheist kills somebody over their beliefs, send me email. It’s not news when the faithful do it. mjh

E. J. Dionne Jr. – Answers To the Atheists

The neo-atheists, like their predecessors from a century ago, are given to a sometimes-charming ferociousness in their polemics against those they see as too weak-minded to give up faith in God. …

As a general proposition, I welcome the neo-atheists’ challenge. The most serious believers, understanding that they need to ask themselves searching questions, have always engaged in dialogue with atheists. …

The problem with the neo-atheists is that they seem as dogmatic as the dogmatists they condemn. They are especially frustrated with religious “moderates” who don’t fit their stereotypes. [mjh: this atheist welcomes any moderates. It’s the zealots that are loony.]…

What’s really bothersome is the suggestion that believers rarely question themselves while atheists ask all the hard questions. …

As for me, Christianity is more a call to rebellion than an insistence on narrow conformity, more a challenge than a set of certainties. … That’s why I celebrate Easter and why, despite many questions of my own, I can’t join the neo-atheists. [mjh: that’s OK, E.J., we’re not proselytizing; we don’t get bonuses per convert, on earth or in heaven.]

I know that as an atheist, I spend too much time thinking about god and believers. I probably should give religion no more thought than I do machine-gun collecting — it’s just a weird thing that doesn’t interest me.

Still, gun-nuts play a smaller role in our society than god-nuts. Mind you, I realize I’ve let my mask slip a little. I want to believe that you can believe anything you want and that does not lessen you or elevate me. Of course, if you believe meth is great, we’re probably not going to be good friends. I wouldn’t be the first to call religion the opiate of the masses. I understand, it’s good to kick back with your favorite intoxicant once it a while, be it faith or a doobie. If you believe in the teachings of organized religion, it’s no worse than enjoying the occasional cocktail.

No one sane could object to anything that brings more love into the world or anything that guides people to a more peaceful life. Religion has done that at times, as has drinking. But everyone tires of drunks, no matter what’s gone to their heads.

If my crude analogies upset you, you may need to read your scripture to find a way to love me in spite of myself. As god surely does. (A favorite line from Junebug is: “god loves you just the way you are but he loves you too much to let you stay that way.” amen.)

But I digress. I’m actually writing to send you to read my friend cko’s thoughts about hope and faith. Don’t fear: cko is not the barbarian I am; her thoughts on religion are more nuanced and better informed. Read her insights and say a prayer for her while I raise my finger to heaven, again. mjh