Draven the Unbeliever

Purpose or Reason Driven?

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 06:02:00 +0000

Update (2/24/2008): After scrutinizing several chapters of both books, I came to the realization that reading Rick Warren is going to have no positive results for me. I am trying to escape an anti-Christian mindset and this is not helping! I still think Robert Price's book is very valuable, although I no longer feel a compulsion to regurgitate it chapter-by-chapter. Instead, I'll say it's a great read, and I encourage everyone to listen to the Reason-Driven Podcast (widget on the right) for the great discussions ensuing.

I have decided to undertake the task of reading "The Purpose Driven Life", by Rick Warren, alongside its rebuttal, "The Reason Driven Life", by Robert M. Price. I was inspired to do this by The Reason Driven Podcast. Check them out on the right.

*I will update this post with links as I progress

My first instinct was to only read "The Reason Driven Life", because I already know the content of Reverend Warren's book is from a fundamentalist christian view. I decided it would be educational, however, to read both books chapter by chapter, together. As Rick Warren appeals to biblical quotations several times within the first few pages of the first chapter, this is going to be a trying experience for me. I strive to endure however, through the combined 675 pages of these two tomes.

Wish me luck.

On The Progress and Nature of Morality

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 18:28:00 +0000

Is there a single universal moral code that is binding on all people at all times and in all places? If so, how are differences in moral perspective to be accounted for? If not, how can people with different moral perspectives be expected to live in harmony and how is the notion of progress in ethics to be understood?

Yes and No. I am not a moral relativist on a person-by-person basis. I think there is a set of moral guidelines and principles that arise in the form of emergent complexity based on the activities of persons within societies and also within the framework of the human condition as a species. The principle of emergent complexity as I use it here involves a set of activities by individual actors and the presence of a feedback mechanism which discourages those activities which dampen well-being of the individual actors; and encourages those activities via repetition which enhance the well-being of the individual actors.

At the contemporary edges are new questions and ideas that emerge creatively from the former and new conditions based on past behavior (which stems from past conclusions). Based on this, over time moral perspectives will advance and change. Those perspectives which have been reinforced sufficiently well and over time will become common perspectives among a particular species of individual actors. Those perspectives which have been rejected sufficiently well and over time will die as common moral views. Differences in moral perspectives can be accounted for as the remainder of views vying for position which have not been universally accepted or rejected among a species.

I have given my interpretation of the progress of ethics as the gradual evolutionary changes whereby ideas are either accepted or rejected over time. As time goes on, more moral perspectives will be shared by the species as a whole. These common pillars of moral thought and behavior are the foundation upon which reasonable debate can be exercised, and harmony can be found among competing world views.
The appeal to a moral standard or lawgiver outside of the subject in question adds no value in my view (to the progress of ethics specifically; there are correlated benefits to believers and detriments to others which manipulates the ethical feedback mechanism), and actually hinders progress by introducing many more negatively charged ideas and behaviors than would occur naturally. This appeal also bolsters ideas which are consistent with the appeal (both helpful and harmful) by manipulating the feedback mechanism as stated previously. At the same time, an external appeal suppresses the natural creation of new ideas and behaviors, therefore stunting the evolutionary progress of ethics as a whole. The external appeal acts as a sticking point in time, one which attempts to halt progress at that specific time and place.

Chapter 5: Reason Driven - My View is God's View

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:48:00 +0000

The first point Price makes in rebuttal is that knowing what god supposedly wants us to do is a matter of interpreting the bible, and there are many interpretations. Warren assumes that his interpretation is the correct one. "Well friend, there's your view, and then there's God's view," because God is smart enough to agree with me.

Price refers to the metaphors given as helpful in some sense, but not when they have been mangled by Warren's fundamentalist viewpoint. He points out that life should be it's own reward, and to require more for passing tests given by the almighty is really asking more than necessary.

Warren claimed that by showing yourself trustworthy in managing material things during life, you will be given more responsibility in the afterlife. Price rightly points out that Warren has already stated we can't know what the afterlife is like, so you have to start making wild assumptions about what in heaven there is for you to be responsible for.

One point I would like to make is that life certainly can be seen as a test, but who gives it, and who evaluates the results? Warren says both are his god. I would say the giver is chance, others, and yourself. The evaluators are really others and yourself. To thine own self be true.

Price points out that Warren's view makes tragedy an event which god created purposefully to teach someone a lesson or test them in some way. So when someone's child dies as a result of a horrible accident, Warren's interpretation is that god make it so purposefully, perhaps to teach the parents some gruesome lesson. If that is god's idea of morality, he can have it.

Series Index

Chapter 5: Purpose Driven - Seeing Life from God's View

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:41:00 +0000

In this chapter, Warren starts out by making the point that everyone has a life metaphor, whether explicit or implicit. And you may be living with the wrong one.

He suggests two metaphors to live by in this chapter, 'Life is a test' and 'Life is a trust."

Life is a test
God is always testing you and watching you. Everything in your life is a test from god. If you do well, you are in his graces. If you do poorly, you are not.

Life is a trust
This is really just a specific kind of test. Warren mainly speaks to managing wealth as a test god gives you to see if you are trustworthy.

In short, you should always be wary that god is watching your every move. He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake. He knows when you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake. Or more appropriately, be good because you're being watched!

Series Index

Chapter 4: Reason Driven - Sons of Dust

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:44:00 +0000

Price discusses some of the psychological reasons why the idea of immortality is probably the main reason why people accept the bible so willingly. Almost no one wants to die, and leap of faith regarding the afterlife is primarily caused because of it. Even if, as Price points out, theologians disagree widely about what an afterlife would be all about. As usual, the bible is interpreted many ways to fit any ideology, even by evangelicals who claim it is the inerrant word of god. They take the bible literally in some cases and figuratively in others in order to meld it to their views.

Price then makes the case that the bible can be interpreted to say there is no afterlife, and also goes through the various versions of it cited in the bible. For once, I think he makes more bible references and quotations than Warren does. Sometimes only the cream of the righteous crop make it, sometimes everyone does but some go up and some go down, sometimes the evil simply cease to exist, etc.

Price points out that while Warren strives to see this life as insignificant, and the afterlife as the goal, at the same time Warren "admits there is virtually nothing to be said [about the afterlife]!" We can't possibly understand it. Warren made the analogy that describing the afterlife to a human is like describing the internet to an ant.

The sad truth that Price points out is that by living in constant anticipation of an afterlife which you know nothing about, you waste much of what is good in this life. This is not a dress rehearsal, this is the real thing! Learn to embrace and enjoy what is in front of you, which in my opinion is beautiful above all else.

Series Index

Chapter 4: Purpose Driven - Made to Last Forever

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:59:00 +0000

Warren says this life is nothing more than preparation for eternity. He further states that "If your time on earth were all there is to your life, I would suggest you start living it up immediately. You could forget being good an ethical, and you wouldn't have to worry about any consequences of your actions."

I am glad people like Rick Warren think they have big brother watching them. Otherwise, they apparently would partake in evil behavior with delight. I ask you, is it true morality to act good only under threat of punishment or reward from an authority figure? Warren's paradigm of morality has nothing to do with the suffering or joy of his brethren here on earth, only with his own suffering or joy in the afterlife. Seems very self-centered and shallow to me.

Furthermore, Warren is very willing to take Pascal's Wager and suppose that living for an afterlife at the expense of real life is best. If you're wrong, you may have wasted much of your life obsessed with an afterlife that doesn't exist. (Usually this is worded as having lost nothing, but I disagree vehemently.) If you're right, then you get to be with god for eternity. I liken this to playing the lottery for a minuscule chance of winning, and giving up something that is wonderful and certain because you have it in your hands right now. Warren portrays the here-and-now as meaningless. It's as if he's saying we only earn income so it can be used to play the lottery, not so that we can support ourselves and our families, and do good things with it that make us happy. Sorry Warren, I guess I'm more conservative than you with what I have, because I appreciate the value of it. I don't play the lottery, because throwing away my life (or money) for an unlikely and irrational chance at winning a jackpot seems very foolish to me.

Series Index

Chapter 3: Reason Driven - One Track Mind?

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:50:00 +0000

Backseat Drivers

The bible is not the only source of wisdom regarding purpose
Guilt is a powerful motivator for reforming one's behavior, and the bible contains many stories demonstrating this
Seek forgiveness from the person you wronged. Being forgiven by a deity does nothing for them
Matthew 18:23-35 says we must forgive, or god will hand us over to the torturers. Ah, coerced forgiveness, the best kind. Hmmm...motivated by fear much?
The past is the past, and people can change

Sunday Drivers

Open-mindedness is a virtue
If you flunk the judgment day theology exam (multiple choice) it's roasting chestnuts on a very open fire for the rest of eternity

The Purpose-Driven Liability

The liability is in relying on a book or dogma for meaning and purpose
Purpose is derived from within and from the world and people around you
Many religions promote the idea that all problems can be solved by targeting THE ONE PROBLEM. In Warren's case, the problem is sin, and the cure is believing in his god, in his way
It's the journey that matters, not so much the destination. Purpose is not handed to you.
"Looking for your purpose, creating your purpose, gives meaning to your life."

"Becoming is better than being."

Series Index

Chapter 3: Purpose Driven - What Drives Your Life?

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 02:24:00 +0000

Many people are driven by guilt

But god can redeem you even if you're a murderer or a coward

Many people are driven by resentment and anger

And letting it go is best for you ( I agree!)

Many people are driven by fear

Move against fear with faith in god

Many people are driven by materialism

Wealth will not make you happy or secure, only god can do that

Many people are driven by the need for approval

Don't try to please everyone, just god

The Benefits of Purpose-Driven Living

Knowing your purpose gives meaning to your life

Without god, life has no purpose, meaning, significance, or hope

Knowing your purpose simplifies your life

Black and white answers on sale today, half off! You don't even have to think!

Knowing your purpose focuses your life

Stop wasting your time on things that are not in god's plan
Digression quote: "Let's keep focused on that goal, those of us who want everything God has for us." - see approval and materialism above

Knowing your purpose motivates your life

Purpose creates passion ( I agree!)

Knowing your purpose prepares you for eternity

Being remembered for great things on earth is not important, only the afterlife is important.

Series Index

Chapter 2: Reason Driven - You Are a Work of Art

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 07:33:00 +0000

Price starts this chapter by pointing out that fundamentalism is never self-supporting. All kinds of side-stepping and irrationality ensue because fundamentalism is never self-consistent. If there is no rational explanation for a belief, the default answer is mostly "God will tell us when I get to heaven," which is about the biggest cop-out I can imagine.

Price discusses my point from the review of Warren's book, that god eternally punishes people if they get things wrong, so how can he be a loving god? How can he let egregious suffering occur on a daily basis? How can he allow, nay actually planned for, hideous and debilitating birth defects?

He also points out that based on fundamentalist views, there is no free will. Everything was planned by god in advance, so if it's true, you don't really have any choice at all. It seems to me that a lack of choice breeds an inherent lack of meaning. Fundamentalists would have all of us practicing the "masochism of the battered wife who meekly responds to every imagined divine blow with 'Thank you sir! May I have another?'"

In retrospect, it's easy to see things as planned. We could compile a list of all the lottery winners in the last few years, and from that view point, it may seem that those individuals were destined to win. Beforehand, however, we see the same situation as chance. The characteristics of the situation haven't changed, just human perception of it. This speaks to the assertion by fundamentalists that the universe was created just for us, because it's perfect for us to live in. Again, it can always be interpreted as planned in retrospect. Had things been a little different at the origin of the universe, perhaps different life forms would have evolved somewhere else in the universe. They they might see the universe as made for them.

Price reflects on the improbability of a specific person being here, from all the sperm and eggs that did not develop into a human, not even counting all of the other statistically improbable events that had to happen before that. It all comes down to the anthropic principle. If it were any different, we wouldn't be here to speculate about it. By being alive, you've won the lottery, and it makes life all that more rare and precious to live.

Series Index

Chapter 2: Purpose Driven

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 06:20:00 +0000

The message in this chapter is that god is omnipotent and omniscient. He loves everyone and planned all our lives to the millisecond so he could "express his love." Then there's the verse from a poem he cites by Russel Kelfer:

No, that trauma you faced was not easy.
And God wept that it hurt you so;
But it was allowed to shape your heart
So that into his likeness you'd grow.

I wonder, how exactly does all this apply to infants who are drowned in a tsunami or hurricane flash flood? How does it apply to a woman brutally raped and killed by a lunatic? How does it apply to that lunatic?

A few other observations:

Arrogance
"The LORD will fulfill his purpose for me."
"God designed this planet's environment just so we could live in it."
"We are the focus of his love and the most valuable of all his creation."
"God decided to give us life through the word of truth so we might be the most important of all the things he made."
-- But remember from the last chapter...it's not about you!

Distortion of science and knowledge
"God knew that those two individuals possessed exactly the right genetic makeup to create the custom 'you' he had in mind. They had the DNA God wanted to make you." - Wow, what a coincidence that your parents had the right DNA to make you. Gee, it's such a self-supporting (and circular) construct, isn't it?

"All the evidence available in the biological sciences supports the core proposition...that the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality have their meaning and explanation in this central fact." - This sounds much more like an opinion than a fact to me.

Bad Logic
"If there was no God, we would all be 'accidents,' the result of astronomical random chance in the universe." - The 'God or accident' choice here is a false dichotomy. Life's origin may have been chance to happen in this particular place, but evolution by natural selection, for example, is mostly gradual adaptation, and not anything like chance.

"You could stop reading this book, because life would have no purpose or meaning or significance." - Another false dichotomy, and argument from personal incredulity. Warren can't imagine purpose, meaning, or significance without his god, so it must be impossible. My position is that purpose, meaning, and significance only exist for human life in our own minds and those around us. This supposition of external imposition for validity is ridiculous and counter to the human experience.

"There would be no right or wrong," - Why, oh why, do the religious assume that morality is derived from their version of religion? Why is an externally imposed purpose necessary for morality to develop? Are not the incentives inherent in a social society enough to necessitate the existence of moral code? Give me one example of a moral question that can not be explained through this or other secular rationale.

"...and no hope beyond your brief years here on earth." - All evidence suggests that your legacy and memories others have of you are the only methods by which you may persist beyond death. I suggest people realize this is their only life, they are lucky to have it, and should make the most of the time they have. Besides, the supposed eternal perfection of heaven would be so incredibly boring after a few million years. The 'life after death' fantasy is simply a method by which the subject can be side-stepped and made easier to forget. Instead, try actually dealing with the fact that everyone dies.

Series Index

Chapter 1: Reason Driven

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:38:00 +0000

The point Price makes I can most identify with is that the assumption of only one purpose for all of mankind is ludicrous. Warren is saying that the purpose for Charles Manson's life is the same as mine or yours. I can't wait to see what Warren's 5 points are. Evidently, they must be really broad if Hitler and Mother Teresa had the same purpose.

One of Robert's main refutations is that we can possibly see anything from a God's-eye view, especially purpose. On self-help books, which Warren speaks dismissively of, I agree with Price that his main motivation there is that there are hundreds of self-help philosophies and methodologies, and Warren "wants to play a tune to which all may march in lockstep."

I don't agree with Price's next point. He makes the assertion that christians who seek to convert others are simply not confident of their own beliefs. I think it a more likely explanation that they want to grow their social group and power, and if they truly believe this stuff, they probably want to 'save' as many people from hellfire as they can. For a true fundamentalist, why wouldn't respect for personal beliefs and rights be damned? If they truly believe it, we don't really have any personal rights anyway. It's all about [Warren's] god.

He points out that there are thousands of christian denominations, who all interpret the bible differently. And they differ on large enough points to create their own denomination. Even if the various versions of the bible weren't translated over and over, and edited by fallible humans, you still have a problem. "An inspired and infallible passage whose meaning you cannot be sure of is not much more useful than an uninspired, fallible passage." This is an excellent point. Price also points out that Warren quotes bible passages in his book from no less than 15 different translations or paraphrases of the bible. Warren had "a lot of shopping to do before finding one that will make the bible appear to say what he wants it to teach."

Price's final assertion is that we discover for ourselves our purpose, or purposes. "...it might be a better idea after all to start looking where we are, not where we aren't."

Series Index

Chapter 1: Purpose Driven

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:06:00 +0000

Warren makes the statement in this chapter that the purpose of your life can only be found through god. He makes the assumption that we are like tinker-toy inventions of god's, and therefore the only way to find out purpose is from the creator or an instruction manual he wrote. He claims that many people try to find their purpose by starting with themselves, and should instead be god.

I somewhat agree with his statement "It's not about me." I would replace it with "It's about me, the people around me, and everything else in my purview." Or perhaps, "It's not just about me." Instead, Warren's implicit statement is "It's about [my] God."

Warren then attempts to discredit philosophy's value as a method for finding purpose in life, because philosophers disagree, guess, or admit they do not know. He offers an alternative to speculation about your purpose, revelation.

"To discover your purpose in life you must turn to God's Word, not the world's wisdom." - This is a frightening statement. It is basically saying that learning about the world around you is a useless activity and will never inform your view of your purpose.

"You must build you life on eternal truths, not pop psychology, success-motivation, or inspirational stories." - Wait a minute, isn't the Bible a collection of 'inspirational stories'?

Warren makes a point that god planned your life before you were conceived, and without your input. The implication is that you have no say whatsoever about this matter.

He finishes with an anecdote regarding an atheist who was converted when he was very depressed and had a 'revelation'. I've always thought revelation is an interesting phenomenon. I suspect it often accompanies the emotional burst of relief that inevitably comes from a transition between a painful emotional state to the acceptance of an easy way out through religion. Revelation is likely the name given for the realization that nasty problems can be side-stepped and not dealt with directly through religious faith.

Series Index

Intro: Reason Driven

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:29:00 +0000

Robert Price starts out by giving some history on his experiences as a evangelical christian for at least 12 years, and how he came to be an unbeliever. He has come to see fundamentalist christianity as a narrow-minded view of life, and in fact that narrow-mindedness is seen as a virtue in christianity, whereas it as seen as a vice in all other aspects of human existence.

3 deficiencies resulting from religion are next cited.

Morally, one remains stuck in ancient dogma. Unable to develop a personal moral sense, one is motivated to "one true" version of morality under threat of hellfire.
Intellectually, growth is halted. Questioning or getting the answers on your final theology exam wrong will result, again, in hellfire. Better sit down, shut up, and bow to your (preacher) God.
Personally, growth is stunted. Religion "gives you a slate of answers before it has even occurred to you to ask the questions." Vote with the party line, and don't bother about developing personal maturity. "The Christian is told to take his problems and 'leave them with the Lord,' 'leave them to the altar'. Not even God can grow up for you."

Confession of sins and worship of idols are discussed, and the christian's unwillingness to get "his or her own life, not the life of Jesus to be lived through the Christian." The myriad of biblical interpretations are cited, resulting in opinions given by pastors that are to be taken on faith as the word of God. And when the interpretations fail, the fall back is the fallible understanding of man. He then describes an instance of what happens when christians become disillusioned and unconvinced of their own faith.

Price then explains the difference between purpose and reason. Purpose, in Warren's terms, is given from an outside entity. There is no control or input. Price refers to Warren's "model of the fundamentalism-driven life." "A reason driven life denotes a life lived by means of rational thinking and choosing." In other words, reason is derived from the individual themselves, within their environment and relationships with other beings. Price speaks of the importance of going "to something", not simply a negative disbelief in another system. He identifies himself as a humanist, and humanism as an alternative to religion.

Throwing up our hands and assuming an all-powerful God throws out the wonder available to us in this life. Price believes the universe is morally neutral, and human "impose our own order and meaning upon it. There is no already determined meaning somewhere else..."

The only God is humanity. "We face the blank canvas of our lives and decide what meaning, what artwork, we will trace thereon." I especially like the rebuttal to the assertion that "human life is rendered meaningless if it must end in death."

"I have never been able to see how an otherwise meaningless life would suddenly become meaningful if you added an infinite amount of it."

Finally, Robert Price wants us to know that he does "not much care what you end up believing, partly because you should not jump to conclusions." I enjoy his candor and promotion of skeptical thinking, even of his own work.

Series Index

Intro: Purpose Driven

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 06:16:00 +0000

Rick introduces his book as your personal guide to "prepare you for eternity."

He talks about the significance of 40 days in this program in terms of biblical references. He states that "God considers 40 days a spiritually significant time period," and lists several biblical examples.

There are 4 features he introduces as resources throughout the chapters.

A Point to Ponder - "Nugget of truth that summarizes a principle"
A Verse to Remember - "Bible verse that teaches a truth"
A Question to Consider - "..help you think about the implications of what you have read and how it applies to you personally."
Discussion Questions (in the appendix)

He then (warns) us that the bible is quoted extensively, over a thousand times.

Then he lets you know that he's been praying for you to "[discover] what God put you on this planet to do."

Another note, there's an encouragement to find an "accountability partner" to help you through this 40 day program.

Series Index

The Amazing Color Changing Card Trick

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:58:00 +0000

Richard Wiseman did a fantastic job here with an example of how the human brain can be tricked in relatively simple ways. I heard about this from the podcast "Point of Inquiry". Be sure to check it out.

Atheist and Christian duel on God’s existence

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 08:03:00 +0000

My favorite parts (although I've heard them so many times, I should be bored by now):

"...packed audience of students and visitors ...with some cheering for Fitzgerald and others sporting Bibles in hand and wearing t-shirts warning that only Jesus can save you from Hell."
"Yuon, as a Christian apologist... based much of his argument against Fitzgerald’s atheism on the claim that only a being with omniscient knowledge of the universe could know for certain that God does not exist."
"One point on which Fitzgerald and Yuon were more or less in agreement was that the existence of God cannot be proven through naturalistic reason, a point which Fitzgerald used to refute God’s existence and which Yuon took as evidence that Fitzgerald had no rational basis on which to make that claim."
"...Fitzgerald asked Yuon whether a number of incidents in the Bible ascribed to God which he found repulsive — such as the massacre of the Midianites by Moses or Paul’s mandate that women remain silent in church — could be considered just, to which Yuon responded that if God ordered it to be done then it was correct."
"...Yuon doubted that Fitzgerald could make any definitive moral judgment without an absolute concept of good and evil."
“Jokes I’ve heard about atheist groups are that you can’t have them because at every meeting everyone would just go, ‘So, you believe in God yet? No.’”

The Standford Daily
November 28, 2007
By Andrew Valencia

The Fellowship in Christ at Stanford (FICS) sponsored a debate last night between an atheist and a Christian apologist in Tresidder Oak West, meditating on one of the oldest and most important philosophical questions: Is there a God?

Representing the atheist viewpoint was David Fitzgerald, a prominent author and coordinator for San Francisco Atheists, while Chang Yuon of Grace Church in Pleasanton supported the Christian side. The two debaters squared-off before a packed audience of students and visitors from both sides of the issue, with some cheering for Fitzgerald and others sporting Bibles in hand and wearing t-shirts warning that only Jesus can save you from Hell.

The nearly two hour-long debate kicked off with the sounds of “Eye of the Tiger” by Survivor. At the onset, Fitzgerald made it clear that he and Yuon, who have debated each other before in other venues, do not take theological arguments personally.

“We are not Jerry Springer guests, we are not gladiatorial opponents,” Fitzgerald said. “Chang and I actually like each other very much, we just think the other is completely wrong.”

Throughout the course of their debate, Fitzgerald and Yuon disagreed fundamentally on issues regarding the nature of the universe, the validity of the Bible, the philosophical basis for knowing good and evil, science and, most importantly, whether it is possible to prove or disprove the existence of God.

Yuon, as a Christian apologist, spoke in defense of the existence of the Christian God, and based much of his argument against Fitzgerald’s atheism on the claim that only a being with omniscient knowledge of the universe could know for certain that God does not exist.

“For Christians it is not that God is only in the things we cannot explain, but in all the things we can explain,” Yuon said. “Dave has to subscribe omniscience to something else. In order for Dave to be a consistent atheist, he has to be an inconsistent one.”

One point on which Fitzgerald and Yuon were more or less in agreement was that the existence of God cannot be proven through naturalistic reason, a point which Fitzgerald used to refute God’s existence and which Yuon took as evidence that Fitzgerald had no rational basis on which to make that claim.

As the focus of the discussion shifted towards more specific aspects of the Bible and Christianity, Fitzgerald stated a long list of instances in which the Christian God of the Bible is portrayed as a barbaric and cruel “Bronze Age” deity, whose behavior was more like that of a “drunken, bipolar God.”

During the question exchange, Fitzgerald asked Yuon whether a number of incidents in the Bible ascribed to God which he found repulsive — such as the massacre of the Midianites by Moses or Paul’s mandate that women remain silent in church — could be considered just, to which Yuon responded that if God ordered it to be done then it was correct.

Fitzgerald cited “reason” and “compassion” as his grounding principles, while Yuon doubted that Fitzgerald could make any definitive moral judgment without an absolute concept of good and evil.

“Human values are important to us because we are human,” Fitzgerald said. “Yes, everyone has morality around the world, but not everyone agrees on what is moral.”

The responses from the audience throughout the debate were as mixed as the composition of the attendees. While some laughed openly at Fitzgerald’s biblical comparisons, others reacted with open disapproval.

Following his claim that, “you never see atheists flying airplanes into buildings or stoning heretics,” one audience member stood up and shouted, “Stalin did! Stalin did!” Fitzgerald replied that Communism, as he sees it, is a form of political religion. Later on, Yuon incited a similar reaction from a member of the audience, who reacted to his assertion that Jesus died only for his followers by shouting, “Jesus died for everyone!”

As the debate concluded, neither of the speakers, obviously, had been convinced by the other’s arguments and still remained firm in their respective convictions. As Fitzgerald put it, “no matter how well we debate tonight, the universe is going to keep on going just the way it always has.”

There were mixed reactions among student attendees as to how well the two men presented their claims.

Some thought the results were not well balanced.

“I am a Catholic, so I do believe in God, but to be honest I thought the atheist definitely got the better of the Christian,” said Charlie Capps ‘10, who faulted Yuon for basing his arguments too heavily on a Calvinist doctrine, stating that Yuon “does not speak for me.”

And for others, simply the presence of the debate on campus was a refreshing change of pace. Cathy Bonn ‘11, an agnostic, said she had a lot of fun listening to the debaters argue. But this is the first event on campus she has heard of that has incorporated the atheist perspective.

“Jokes I’ve heard about atheist groups are that you can’t have them because at every meeting everyone would just go, ‘So, you believe in God yet? No.’”

Turkish prosecutor probes whether atheist book "The God Delusion" assaults values

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 07:54:00 +0000

Another example of religion's propensity to stifle free thought and free speech.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/28/europe/EU-GEN-Turkey-Atheist-Book.php

The Associated Press
Published: November 28, 2007

ANKARA, Turkey: A prosecutor is investigating whether to prosecute the Turkish publisher of a best-selling book by atheist writer Richard Dawkins for inciting religious hatred, reports said Wednesday.

Publisher Erol Karaaslan said Wednesday he would be questioned by an Istanbul prosecutor as part of an official investigation into "The God Delusion" written by the British expert in evolutionary biology.

The investigation follows controversy about free speech in Turkey after Nobel Prize-winning author Orhan Pamuk went on trial in 2005 over comments about historic abuses in Turkey.

Karaaslan could go on trial if the prosecutor concludes the book incites religious hatred and insults religious values, and faces up to one year in prison if found guilty, Milliyet newspaper reported.

The prosecutor started the inquiry into the book after one reader complained that passages in the book were an assault on "sacred values," Karaaslan said.

Karaaslan said he will be questioned Thursday and faces prosecution both as the book's publisher and translator. The book has sold some 6,000 copies in Turkey since it was published by his Kuzey publishing house in June.

No one was available for comment at the prosecutor's office.

The European Union, which Turkey hopes to join, is pressing Ankara to change laws that curb free expression and do not fit within the bloc's standards of free speech.

Turkey has said it will soften a much-criticized law which makes denigrating Turkish identity, or insulting the country's institutions, a crime.

Pamuk went on trial over his comments about the mass killings of Armenians by Ottoman Turks in the early 20th century, but the charges were later dropped. Pamuk was later awarded the Nobel prize for literature in 2006.

Turkey contends the death toll has been inflated and the deaths were the result of civil unrest, not genocide.

Egypt Jails Christian Woman for Father's Conversion

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 15:28:00 +0000

This is what religion does when it has enough power, regardless of whether it's Christianity, Islam, or any other form of mythical fantasy worship.

From http://www.christianpost.com

By Ethan Cole
Christian Post Reporter
Sat, Nov. 24 2007 09:37 AM ET

An Egyptian Christian woman has been jailed for her father’s brief conversion to Islam over 40 years ago which made her legally a Muslim despite her official papers stating that she is a Christian, her lawyer said Thursday.

Shadia Nagui Ibrahim, 47, was sentenced Wednesday to three years in jail on the charge of fraud for stating she is a Christian on her marriage certificate, according to Agence France-Presse.

Under Egyptian law, a person’s official religion is based on the father’s religion.

Nagui Ibrahim’s father converted to Islam in 1962 after leaving home when she was two years old. Three years later he reconciled with her mother and returned home, re-converting back to Christianity. He had someone forge his document to say he was Christian.

In Egypt, it is extremely difficult to near impossible to officially change one’s religion from Islam. However, it is easy to officially change one’s religion to Islam.

The man who forged Ibrahim’s document was arrested in 1996 for creating dozens of false documents. In the process, the man confessed he made false papers for Ibrahim.

Authorities detained Ibrahim and informed Shadia that on paper her father and her are still Muslim.

Under Egyptian law it is illegal for a Muslim woman to marry a Christian man.

Although she was unaware of her father’s conversion, she was charged with “providing false information on official documents” for stating she was Christian on her 1982 marriage certificate, according to AFP.

Nagui Ibrahim was sentenced to three years in 2000 but her case was dropped. However, in August she was again detained and on Wednesday sentenced to three years after one brief court session, her lawyer said.

Her case follows another convert legal battle earlier this year which threw Egypt in an uproar. An Egyptian man who converted to Christianity from Islam, in an unprecedented act, sued Egypt for rejecting his application to officially change his religion on his identification papers.

Covert Mohammed Ahmed Hegazy was forced into hiding because Muslim extremists threatened to kill him for leaving Islam after his case made national headlines.

Egypt has no law banning conversion from Islam, but the country’s Muslims look upon apostasy very negatively with some even calling for punishment by death.

Egypt’s population of 80 million is about 90 percent Muslim and only about 10 percent Christian. Although the percentage of Christians in Egypt is small, it represents the largest Christian population in the Middle East.

Responses to "Eight reasons why I am not an atheist"

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:50:00 +0000

1. The religious are discontent with purpose as-is, and invent their "ultimate purpose". In the process, they devalue that which is truly valuable in a human life.
2. Supreme arrogance exists where those who require evidence for their beliefs are accused of "suppress[ing] the demands of logic."
3. This false dichotomy leaves out the option that the religious never put on the table. "We do not have enough evidence to know" is a reasonable position, reverend.
4. "An atheist must suppress all notions of morality." See my previous articles here.
5. This one is true. The natural world is amoral. Good and evil are human constructs. They are real, and judgments are made based on socio-cultural standards and traditions. See #4, the absence of an absolute and universal moral standard does not mean a lack of morality.
6. You must be joking. I could just as easily assert that you are arrogant to not agree with me that there is a magic crystal from the alien Jujuboo race lodged in a sacred rock within the core of Earth's moon. Arrogance is a belief system based on mythology where the amount of evidence and your assertion of truth are inversely proportional.
7. Multiple reprinting does not make any writing historically accurate. Unbiased, eh? I wonder why all the gospels were not included? I wonder why many of the writings took place generations after the supposed events? I wonder why the scriptures were off limits to anyone outside of the church for the first centuries of their existence? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence for me to believe them. For you, apparently not.
8. Humans are animals, and a product of evolution by natural selection. Your statement about "blind chance operating on the primordial ooze" clearly indicates your ignorance of the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Please read a book other than the Bible, for instance try "The Origin of Species" by Charles Darwin.

From http://www.mcall.com/

Eight reasons why I am not an atheist

November 24, 2007

1. An atheist assigns himself to life without ultimate purpose. Yes, atheists enjoy smaller meanings of life like friendship and love, pleasure and sorrow, Mozart and Plato. But to be consistent with his atheism, he cannot allow for ultimate meaning. If the atheist is honest, he will admit to feeling that there is something more to existence, something bigger. Someone said, ''The blazing evidence for immortality is our dissatisfaction with any other solution.''

According to Scripture, God has ''set eternity in the hearts of men'' (Ecclesiastes 3:11). To maintain his position, the atheist must suppress the feeling that there is more to life than what is temporal.

2. The atheist must suppress the demands of logic. He is like the man who finds an encyclopedia in the woods and refuses to believe it is the product of intelligent design. Everything about the book suggests intelligent cause. But if he accepted such a possibility, he might be forced to conclude that living creatures composed of millions of DNA-controlled cells (each cell containing the amount of information in an encyclopedia) have an intelligent cause. His bias against God will not allow him to accept this.

3. The atheist has to believe in miracles without believing in God. Why? Well, one law that nature seems to obey is this: whatever begins to exist is caused to exist. The atheist knows that the universe began to exist and since the universe is, according to the atheist, all there is, the very existence of the universe seems to be a colossal violation of the laws of nature (i.e., a miracle). It's hard to believe in miracles without God.

4. An atheist must suppress all notions of morality. He is not able to declare any quality to be morally superior to another. Such admissions require an absolute standard of goodness and duty. Without this, there is no basis for an atheist to declare peace better than war or love better than hate. These are simply alternative choices without moral superiority.

5. The atheist must conclude that evil is an illusion. For there to be evil, there must also be some real, objective standard of right and wrong. But if the physical universe is all there is, there can be no such standard (how could arrangements of matter and energy make judgments about good and evil true?). So, there are no real evils, just violations of human customs or conventions.

6. The atheist must also live with the arrogance of his position. Although he realizes that he does not possess total knowledge, his assertion that there is no God requires that he pretend such knowledge. Although he has limited experience, he must convince himself that he has total experience so that he can eliminate the possibility of God.

7. The atheist must also deny the validity of historical proof. If he accepted the standard rules for testing the truth claims of historical documents, he would be forced to accept the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The account of Jesus' resurrection is strongly validated by standard rules for judging historical accuracy. The extensive manuscript evidence of eyewitnesses to the resurrection is presented in an unbiased, authentic manner.

8. Finally, the atheist must admit that human beings are not importantly different from other animals. According to the atheist, we are simply the result of blind chance operating on the primordial ooze, and differing from animals by only a few genes. Yet the wonders of human achievement and the moral dignity we ascribe to human beings just do not fit with the claim that we are no different than the animals.

The atheist's problem with belief in God is not the absence of evidence but the suppression of it. This is what Scripture teaches. ''For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.'' (Romans 1:20-22).

The Rev. Steve Cornell is senior pastor of Millersville Bible Church Millersville, Lancaster County.

It's Come to this: Atheist about to Pray

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 14:34:00 +0000

Grant, please get an editor, or at least someone to read your articles before you post them. There are several instances in which you fail to form complete sentences.

There's an assertion that if the author were in a Muslim country, they would respect Islamic practices and so non-christians should do the same in the US. First, we have separation of church and state in the US, whereas in many Muslim countries, Islamic law and governance prevails. Secondly, the US is not a christian nation, regardless of how much you want it to be so.

I applaud Michael Harvey's willingness to put himself out there to protest the insidious practice of religious observance in connection with city council meetings.

From http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/29378.html

by Grant Swank

November 24, 2007 12:00 PM EST

So we no longer agree to a Judeo-Christian heritage. God is tossed out like old day bread. Allah is permitted his due in public schools where separate rooms are provided Muslims for prayer mats. And now an atheist is about to stand before his city council to "pray."

Jesus said that in the last days there would be false prophets and false christs. They are aplenty today. Some of them are wrapped in atheist's garb, appearing as the secular saviors for the community-the world.

So it is that Fox News reports that Michael Harvey takes to the pulpit, that is, the council lectern. He's about to pray. To whom? For what? Expecting in return?

He champions that there's nothing "out there" to pray to except reason, science, and so forth. So he's about to offer his petition or praise, whichever, to the noone in the skies in order to bring some sort of earth-bound wisdom to the council proceedings.

Of course, his intention is not any of the above. His motive is to drive further the hammer fist into the Judeo-Christian heritage of America. Go to a Middle East country, as I have, and be a gentleman and a lady. When you see the mosques to your right and left, realize that you are in a Muslim country. Respect the Islamic adheretns as they do whatever they. That's their heritage.

When world travelers come to America, they should be gentlemen and ladies enough to respect the Judeo-Christian heritage. It was the bedrock of our nation. It led to God's smile upon our best endeavors. It opened us up to His discipline when necessary; it provided us His blessings when warranted. In all, God was never far away; to many He was as close as breathing.

That's why when I was in Frederick MD High School, we had devotions to start the day. I recall the woman faculty sponsor who helped organize them. When it came my turn, I read a passage from the Bible then offered a brief prayer. Those in the classrooms were silent. They listened. With that the entire school began the school day by beseeching God for His overview. Very good. No riots. No complaints. No picket signs. It happened and we were better for it.

Of course you can fill in the blanks as to what would happen today if that were even entertained as an option. Yet Michael can go to the Tampa City Council with his whatever to the no one there as if he's followed proper protocol. In some totally secular rooms, I suppose he is doing just that. But when it comes to the city council in America, it's a very very tragic day-not just a sad day, but a tragic day.

If the country on the course it's on, it won't need a prophet to spell out the wrath of God quotient around the corner. Gloom and doom? Time will tell.

In the meantime, Fox News reports: "Atheist Michael Harvey was about to give the invocation at a Tampa City Council meeting when some members became angry. A debate continued for nearly 30 minutes until three members walked out.

"Mary Alvarez left saying she shouldn't have to 'listen to an atheist sit here and tell me what I should or should not believe in.'

"Tampa atheists were granted permission to speak during the invocation after scolding the council for praying to 'invisible men in the sky.'

"Harvey doesn't believe in God so praying for civic wisdom for public servants, the whole idea behind any invocation, was impossible.

"'All I was trying to get across was that if they're going to be guided by something let them be guided by things we know work... reason... logic, science,' Harvey said.

"Inviting an atheist to lead a prayer seems foolish, said Luis Lugo of the Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life. "It doesn't make any sense to be praying in essence to 'whom it may concern.'"

President of Evangelical University Resigns

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 08:42:00 +0000

Those wacky christian leaders have all the fun.

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 24, 2007

TULSA, Okla., Nov. 23 (AP) — Facing accusations that he misspent university money to support a lavish lifestyle, the president of Oral Roberts University has resigned, officials said Friday.
Skip to next paragraph
Robert S. Cross/The Tulsa World

Richard Roberts, of Oral Roberts University, is said to have misspent university money.

The resignation by Richard Roberts was effective immediately, according to an e-mail statement from George Pearsons, the chairman of the university’s Board of Regents.

Mr. Roberts, the son of the televangelist and university founder Oral Roberts, came under fire with the university after three former professors filed a lawsuit last month that included accusations of a $39,000 shopping tab for Mr. Robert’s wife, Lindsay, at one store; a $29,411 senior trip to the Bahamas on the university jet for one of Mr. Roberts’s daughters; and a stable of horses for the Roberts children.

Mr. Roberts had been on temporary leave from the evangelical university, fighting the accusations. In a recent interview, he and his wife denied any wrongdoing.

Mr. Roberts, who took over as president in 1993, has said the lawsuit amounted to “intimidation, blackmail and extortion.”

On Friday, Mr. Roberts said in the statement: “I love O.R.U. with all my heart. I love the students, faculty, staff and administration, and I want to see God’s best for all of them.”

The professors also said in the lawsuit that Mr. Roberts had required students in a government class to work for the campaign of Randi Miller, a candidate in the 2006 Republican primary for mayor of Tulsa. Mr. Roberts has denied that.

Tim Brooker, one of the plaintiffs, accused the university of forcing him to quit after he had warned Mr. Roberts that requiring students to work on Ms. Miller’s campaign jeopardized the university’s tax-exempt status.

Mr. Roberts received a vote of no confidence last week from the university’s tenured faculty.

The regents will meet Monday and Tuesday to decide how to conduct a search for a new president, Mr. Pearsons said in the statement. Executive Regent Billy Joe Daugherty will temporarily assume the president’s administrative responsibilities.

Growing Evangelical Movement Finding New Ways To Proselytize

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 08:39:00 +0000

I love this part:

Nemtsov struggled with his religious beliefs for another decade, but now he is considering devoting himself to Christian evangelism. “I don’t want anyone to burn in hellfire,” he says.

I suppose christian's aren't using hell as a fear factor motivation anymore, eh? :-)

http://www.jewishtimes.com/News/7196.stm

Sunday School for Atheists

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 08:05:00 +0000

This is awesome, and may be something very applicable to non-theists out there. We don't need to believe in an imaginary friend to have healthy social activities like this available for our kids.

From http://www.time.com

By JENINNE LEE-ST. JOHN / PALO ALTO

Wednesday, Nov. 21, 2007

Sunday morning at The Children's Program at the Humanist Community of Palo Alto, California.

Kathrin Miller for TIME

On Sunday mornings, most parents who don't believe in the Christian God, or any god at all, are probably making brunch or cheering at their kids' soccer game, or running errands or, with luck, sleeping in. Without religion, there's no need for church, right?

Maybe. But some nonbelievers are beginning to think they might need something for their children. "When you have kids," says Julie Willey, a design engineer, "you start to notice that your co-workers or friends have church groups to help teach their kids values and to be able to lean on." So every week, Willey, who was raised Buddhist and says she has never believed in God, and her husband pack their four kids into their blue minivan and head to the Humanist Community Center in Palo Alto, Calif., for atheist Sunday school.

An estimated 14% of Americans profess to have no religion, and among 18-to-25-year-olds, the proportion rises to 20%, according to the Institute for Humanist Studies. The lives of these young people would be much easier, adult nonbelievers say, if they learned at an early age how to respond to the God-fearing majority in the U.S. "It's important for kids not to look weird," says Peter Bishop, who leads the preteen class at the Humanist center in Palo Alto. Others say the weekly instruction supports their position that it's O.K. to not believe in God and gives them a place to reinforce the morals and values they want their children to have.

The pioneering Palo Alto program began three years ago, and like-minded communities in Phoenix, Albuquerque, N.M., and Portland, Ore., plan to start similar classes next spring. The growing movement of institutions for kids in atheist families also includes Camp Quest, a group of sleep-away summer camps in five states plus Ontario, and the Carl Sagan Academy in Tampa, Fla., the country's first Humanism-influenced public charter school, which opened with 55 kids in the fall of 2005. Bri Kneisley, who sent her son Damian, 10, to Camp Quest Ohio this past summer, welcomes the sense of community these new choices offer him: "He's a child of atheist parents, and he's not the only one in the world."

Kneisley, 26, a graduate student at the University of Missouri, says she realized Damian needed to learn about secularism after a neighbor showed him the Bible. "Damian was quite certain this guy was right and was telling him this amazing truth that I had never shared," says Kneisley. In most ways a traditional sleep-away camp--her son loved canoeing--Camp Quest also taught Damian critical thinking, world religions and tales of famous freethinkers (an umbrella term for atheists, agnostics and other rationalists) like the black abolitionist Frederick Douglass.

The Palo Alto Sunday family program uses music, art and discussion to encourage personal expression, intellectual curiosity and collaboration. One Sunday this fall found a dozen children up to age 6 and several parents playing percussion instruments and singing empowering anthems like I'm Unique and Unrepeatable, set to the tune of Ten Little Indians, instead of traditional Sunday-school songs like Jesus Loves Me. Rather than listen to a Bible story, the class read Stone Soup, a secular parable of a traveler who feeds a village by making a stew using one ingredient from each home.

Down the hall in the kitchen, older kids engaged in a Socratic conversation with class leader Bishop about the role persuasion plays in decision-making. He tried to get them to see that people who are coerced into renouncing their beliefs might not actually change their minds but could be acting out of self-preservation--an important lesson for young atheists who may feel pressure to say they believe in God.

Atheist parents appreciate this nurturing environment. That's why Kitty, a nonbeliever who didn't want her last name used to protect her kids' privacy, brings them to Bishop's class each week. After Jonathan, 13, and Hana, 11, were born, Kitty says she felt socially isolated and even tried taking them to church. But they're all much more comfortable having rational discussions at the Humanist center. "I'm a person that doesn't believe in myths," Hana says. "I'd rather stick to the evidence."

"Fundamentalist Atheism"

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 07:47:00 +0000

This is rich. Dawkins gets accused of expressing "anti-Judaism", which I suppose is probably true in a strict sense, but of course Dawkins is for pointing out the logical fallacies in any religion, not just Judaism. And of course, he is attacking the ideas, not the people. It is interesting how quickly they threw out the "anti-Judaism" comment in light of the negative connotations associated with it.

Check out the third to last paragraph. This is awesome. They are trying to hint that Dawkins is aggressive because of "the fact that today’s intellectuals do not automatically embrace atheist positions any longer." As if Dawkins is only frustrated because his position is untenable or something. No, atheists are aggressive and frustrated because we are sick of you trying to force your fantasy fanaticism down our throats.

"According to Jaschke hell has not played a prominent role in the churches during the last 50 years."

You've got to be kidding me, right? Let's try to downplay the nasty parts even though it doesn't make our position any more tenable. It's bullshit anyway, I've been to enough church services in recent memory to be able to provide eye-witness testimony to the fact they still try to scare the shit out of kids with hellfire.

From Christian News Today

Dawkins Accuses Christians of Spiritual Abuse German Bishop Challenges Atheist’s Views of Old Testament

By Wolfgang Polzer

MAINZ (ANS) -- Professor Richard Dawkins, one of the world’s best-known
atheists and evolutionists, has accused Christians of committing spiritual abuse, if they teach their children the existence of hell.

Dawkins, author of the bestseller “The God Delusion”, took part in a television debate on the German channel ZDF, November 15. His opponents were the leader of the main line Protestant Churches in Germany, Bishop Wolfgang Huber, and the Roman Catholic auxiliary Bishop Hans-Jochen Jaschke.

Dawkins said both Protestant and Catholic clergy in America threatened children with hell’s torment, if they do not believe. Dawkins also criticized modern theology for selecting more or less arbitrarily which bible passages were acceptable. He described the God of the Old Testament as a malicious and cruel figure.

Bishop Huber rejected these allegations and called them an expression of anti-Judaism. God’s history with Israel was one of liberation from slavery, he said. In this context the Ten Commandments were given to Israel.

The Christian faith manifests itself in love, said Huber, even the love of one’s enemy. Such a love could not be explained without God. The Bishop conceded that there are controversial views of hell. But it was also inappropriate to speak of a “cute God”. Everyone is accountable to God, Huber said.

He accused Dawkins of presenting a “very fundamentalist atheism”. The aggressive tone of his arguments could be a result of the fact that today’s intellectuals do not automatically embrace atheist positions any longer.

According to Jaschke hell has not played a prominent role in the churches during the last 50 years. Religious education concentrated on teaching trust and confidence. A child was assured of being accepted by a loving God.

Jaschke emphasized that the key to biblical understanding is Jesus Christ. “Never believe for one moment that all evil will cease, once you have got rid of religion,” Jaschke warned Dawkins.

Controversy erupts after schools pull 'atheist' book

noreply@blogger.com (Draven) — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 07:34:00 +0000

"God knows" that these christian organizations need to make sure this godless content isn't polluting the minds of young adults. Why, they might even start thinking for themselves, "god forbid!"

From http://www.ctv.ca

Updated Fri. Nov. 23 2007 3:10 PM ET

The Centre for Inquiry and the Canadian Secular Alliance is calling an Ontario school board's decision to remove a children's book from its library shelves, "an overt example of the discrimination against atheists by the religious."

The Halton Catholic District School Board ordered "The Golden Compass" to be removed from library shelves at dozens of schools after receiving a request for review from a member of the community.

The book, written by popular British author Philip Pullman, has won numerous awards including the Maine Student Book Award and the American Library Association's Best Books for Young Adults award.

Justin Trottier, executive director of the Centre for Inquiry Ontario, is urging the books be returned to shelves "so that libraries may continue to be places of learning and imagination."

"Some of our greatest authors, philosophers and scientists have been atheists. If books written by atheists are banned for not conforming to Catholic worldviews, will the school board proceed to ban books deemed pro-Muslim, pro-Buddhist, or even pro-Protestant if they are critical of Catholicism?," Trottier asked in a statement on Thursday.

"Pretty soon the only book in their library may be the Bible."

The board -- which oversees some 43 elementary and secondary schools in Ontario -- has pulled the book from public display and two other Pullman titles from the "Dark Materials" trilogy. The books are available to students upon request.

Committee to review book

Scott Millard, manager of library services with the board, told CTV.ca on Friday that the review has been board policy since 1990 and that "any community member has the right to request a re-examination of learning or library material."

"We are an integral part of the community and people have the right to ask us about the resources we have," Millard said.

The Halton board has since set up a 12-member committee to review the book and recommend whether it should be available to students.

"It represents a wide variety of people, trustees, teachers, principals and consultants so that we have a wide variety of input," Millard said.

After reading the book, the committee will complete an evaluation form that examines a "wide variety of criteria" including grammar, plausibility, language, plot, etc.

"We're evaluating the book 'The Golden Compass' -- we're not evaluating the author, it's the book we're looking at," Millard said.

A memo issued by the board says the books are "apparently written by an atheist where the characters and text are anti-God, anti-Catholic and anti-religion," the Toronto Star reported.

After evaluations forms are received, the committee will submit recommendations to the board of trustees, who will then vote on whether the book is suitable for students.

More controversy

The Dufferin-Peel Catholic board in Ontario is also conducting an informal review into the content of the book. Staff members have been asked to read the book and report back on the plot, the newspaper said.

Similar concerns prompted a Catholic organization in the U.S. to urge parents to boycott a movie version of the book that is set for release next month.

Trottier compared the recent backlash to the campaign against Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses."

The novel prompted Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini to issue a fatwa -- a religious edict -- against the author for insulting Islam that spurred death threats and inevitably forced Rushie into exile.

"While the campaign against 'The Golden Compass' is a mere microcosm of the 'Satanic Verses' affair, it is still an overt example of the discrimination against atheists by the religious," Trottier wrote.

Pullman, known for his "legendary atheism" in the British press, has never shied away from his controversial views on religion.

"The trouble is that all too often in human history, churches and priesthoods have set themselves up to rule people's lives in the name of some invisible god (and they're all invisible, because they don't exist) -- and done terrible damage," Pullman writes on his website.

"In the name of their god, they have burned, hanged, tortured, maimed, robbed, violated, and enslaved millions of their fellow creatures, and done so with the happy conviction that they were doing the will of God, and they would go to Heaven for it."