THE ARIZONA DAILY STAR: COMMON GROUND BETWEEN ATHEISM AND RELIGION?
Last Sunday, religious and athiest citizens of Arizona got together at the University Medical Center to discuss atheism and religion, and the possibility of finding common ground. The speakers include Gil Shapiro, a spokesman for Center For Inquiry Community of Southern Arizona, which sponsored the event, and Richard Watts, a Christian theologian. While debates on this subject are often unproductive and divisive, Shapiro and Watts said they wanted to clarify the issues, and perhaps even find some common ground. They explored the differences between atheism, or secularism, and religion in our culture.
Question to the Blogosphere: Why do we suddenly have a rash of best-sellers by atheists? Does religion belong in the public square? Why so much conflict over evolution? Can we be moral without God? Can religion and science co-exist? Why does religion so often get a pass from skeptical challenge?
Related Posts
Factor In Trust
Jews and Muslims in America: More in Common Than We Think
Soldiers and Sheikhs Find Common Ground
Science and Faith: Claiming Earth as Common Ground
Odyssey Network Campaigns for “A Million Minutes for Peace”
THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR: IN REMOTE AFGHAN VALLEY, A RARE PEACE SPROUTS WITH INSURGENTS
Comments are closed.
“Why do we suddenly have a rash of best-sellers by atheists?”
Because non-believers are probably one of the largest minorities in this country.
“Does religion belong in the public square?”
Define what you mean by ‘public square’.
“Why so much conflict over evolution? ”
Because certain Christians want their religion taught in public classrooms as science. The conflict is completely political.
“Can we be moral without God?”
Yup.
“Can religion and science co-exist?”
Sure. Provided religion doesn’t try to start making scientific claims.
“Why does religion so often get a pass from skeptical challenge?”
Emotional attachment, primarily.
Why do we suddenly have a rash of best-sellers by atheists?
It is hard to say. I am not one to try question an author’s intentions in writing books. Why bestsellers? Now that is a more interesting point. I think it may be that the public is interested in knowing if atheism has anything new to offer. That was my reason for pickup many of these books.
Does religion belong in the public square?
I agree with the previous poster’s answer. What do you mean by “public square”, but maybe I am reading the question wrong. I think that any person who is “religious”, if they consistent will ultimately bring their religion into the “public square”. One the tragedies of our age is that people feel that privatization is necessary when dealing with religion, but I see it as nothing more than encouraging duplicity with the individual. Why should a religious person have to hide his faith in public?
Why so much conflict over evolution?
I have often seen too many cliches being battered around and straw men constructed that it is often hard see the issues for what they are. I agree that in a way it has become politicized, but that is not the full point. Evolution is an all pervasive worldview that seeks to answer at least four questions: 1) origins 2)meaning 3)morality 4)destiny (by way of implication,I am thinking of Dawkins). I think many religious people want to know if there are alternatives to evolution (I think of the intelligent design movement) and it would be good in the name of science to present counter views.
Can we be moral without God?
Yes! Can we justify the morals we claim? That is another question. What basis do we have in making a moral claim?
Can religion and science co-exist?
Yes. I am not really sure what the previous poster meant by “making scientific claims”, but I know that thinkers like Dr. John Polkinghorne, a scientist and Anglican priest, have labored to show the complementarity of religious thought and science.
Why does religion so often get a pass from skeptical challenge?
I don’t think this is the case. I study philosophy and religion and I would have to say that there is anything but a “pass from skeptical challenge.” It would almost seem that many college professors enjoy pointing out the “irrationalities” of Christianity (why Christianity though and not Buddhism?)
“Why do we suddenly have a rash of best-sellers by atheists?”
Invisible Hand.
“I agree with the previous poster’s answer. What do you mean by “public square”, but maybe I am reading the question wrong. I think that any person who is “religious”, if they consistent will ultimately bring their religion into the “public square”. One the tragedies of our age is that people feel that privatization is necessary when dealing with religion, but I see it as nothing more than encouraging duplicity with the individual. Why should a religious person have to hide his faith in public?”
If a person is truly consistent they would be a fundamentalist. All we ask is that the inconsistent people maintain that inconsistency in such a way that isn’t a headache for the rest of us.
“Why so much conflict over evolution?”
Evolution is an all pervasive worldview that seeks to answer at least four questions: 1) origins 2)meaning 3)morality 4)destiny (by way of implication,I am thinking of Dawkins). I think many religious people want to know if there are alternatives to evolution (I think of the intelligent design movement) and it would be good in the name of science to present counter views.
False. Evolution does NOT concern items 2, 3 OR 4. Evolution merely concerns itself with how organisms change over time. The only reason that 2, 3 and 4 are linked is because religion kept on “making scientific claims”.
“Can we be moral without God?”
“Can we justify the morals we claim? That is another question. What basis do we have in making a moral claim?”
Don’t bother going there. Morality based on God has not a leg to stand on.
“Can religion and science co-exist?”
Yes. Religion is only impossible to coexist with logic.
“Why does religion so often get a pass from skeptical challenge?”
“I don’t think this is the case. I study philosophy and religion and I would have to say that there is anything but a “pass from skeptical challenge.” It would almost seem that many college professors enjoy pointing out the “irrationalities” of Christianity (why Christianity though and not Buddhism?)”
I believe the question referred to society in general. Of course, the fact you haven’t changed your mind sort of indicates it wasn’t as much a gauntlet as you make it sound.
Why not pick on Buddhism? Because there are 350 million of them and 1.6 billion Christians? The first in line gets to be first in the firing lane.
Thank you, I appreciate you responding to my posting. It has given me a lot to think about.
“If a person is truly consistent they would be a fundamentalist. All we ask is that the inconsistent people maintain that inconsistency in such a way that isn’t a headache for the rest of us.”
I do have three questions with this. What do you mean by fundamentalist? I know that I have heard a lot of people make reference to this term, but not clarify what they mean by this usage. When you say that people should “maintain that inconsistency” what do you see that inconsistency as? You say that they should maintain it “in such a way” and so, what way would that be?
————–
“False. Evolution does NOT concern items 2, 3 OR 4. Evolution merely concerns itself with how organisms change over time. The only reason that 2, 3 and 4 are linked is because religion kept on “making scientific claims”.”
——————-
I was trying to point out the following. You would be right if people used evolution as that which “merely concerned itself with how organisms change over time”, but I see the problem being when people push evolution beyond this claim. When it stops being science and turns into metaphysics. I can agree with evolution being how organisms change over time. But when evolution is then used to answer 2, 3, 4 it would seem to claim to much. Could you expound further what you mean by “religion making scientific claims”? What would be an example of religion making a “scientific claim”?
—————-
“Don’t bother going there. Morality based on God has not a leg to stand on.”
—————–
Would you mind if I asked how you came to this conclusion that “morality based on God has not a leg to stand on”?
—————–
“Yes. Religion is only impossible to coexist with logic.”
—————–
How did you come to this conclusion? Are you saying that religion cannot make logical claims? In what way do you see religion not able to co-exist with logic?
—————-
“I believe the question referred to society in general. Of course, the fact you haven’t changed your mind sort of indicates it wasn’t as much a gauntlet as you make it sound.
“Why not pick on Buddhism? Because there are 350 million of them and 1.6 billion Christians? The first in line gets to be first in the firing lane.”
—————
You would be right that I have not changed my mind, but I thinking of those Christians who do struggle with much of what they find at college. A gauntlet? No. A serious challenge that needs to taken seriously? Yes. I agree that Christianity does make some serious claims and so does any philosophy or religion that claims truth. Am I saying that Christianity should not be challenged, absolutely not! But we should likewise exercise the same kind of healthy skepticism towards other worldviews as well. Again thank you, Samuel for taking the time to respond to my comment, I like the dialogue.
There is no morality based on god.
All there are are books written by human beings, who then claimed that the contents came from a god, in some mysterious manner.
All human morality is developed by humans.
Presumably the objective of morality is to promote the well-being of humanity in general and individuals in particular.
This is no more in need of the supernatural than argiculture is in need of the supernatural in working out the best way of promoting crop yields.
Although it can be difficult to work out what the best way of promoting well-being is, so reasonable people can differ about what the best strategy for promoting well-being is, just like reasonable people can differ about whether football teams do best with two tight ends, rather than just one.
But in neither case do we need a god to adjudicate on what really is best, just because human beings can have different opinions on what is best.
Fundamentalist means an individual who interprets their holy book literally. The term was coined in the US in the 1920s to describe people who were essentially reactionary towards the social changes of the time.
People associate fundies and consistancy due to the fact that fundamentalists tend to be much better read on the bible- not to mention some of their behavior actually mirrors traditional christian behavior.
Of course, alot doesn’t but Christians seem to ignore the whole “money is evil” part of the bible. Probably because they enjoy living over thirty.
Give an example of evolution being pushed into metaphysics. All it does is show how certain parts of metaphysics contradict observable reality.
As for religious doctrine making scientific claims, Christianity claims mankind is inherently evil (psychology), animism claims that all things are motivated by spirits (physics), Hinduism claims that the universe is trillions of years old (cosmology), Islam claims the existance of dijins (biology), etc. All of these are scientific claims.
Morality based on God was refuted by Plato in the Euthyphro dilemma. 2500 years ago.
Religion requires the belief in the supernatural. There is no evidence for the supernatural. To believe something that has no evidence and that if it existed would have evidence is not logical.
Atheism may well be spurred on by the refusal of religions to engage in self-criticism. I’ve just read http://deligentia.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/263/ on how foreign self-criticism is to religion, and, moreover, how religion misunderstands itself. You might be interested in it.