Category Archives: Atheism

By James Haught

Atheists are disliked in America constantly denigrated in public surveys which may explain why many doubters conceal their lack of belief.

However, a 2017 poll by University of Kentucky researchers found that perhaps one-fourth of Americans are either overt skeptics or closet atheists: a far higher ratio than previously thought. Heres the background:

Two-thirds of Americans say they have negative opinions about disbelievers. More than one-third think atheists shouldnt be allowed to teach in public schools, or hold office, or even hold rallies (talk about taking away the Constitutional right to peacefully assemble!). Revealing doubt about the supernatural can cause a storm within a family, and maybe jeopardize ones career. Therefore, atheism is hidden by some.

A 2016 Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) survey found that more than one-third of atheists reported hiding their religious identity or beliefs from friends or family members out of concerns that they would disapprove, wrote Dr. Daniel Cox, Research Director of the PRRI. Dr. Cox added:

There are Catholics, Jews, and Muslims who do not believe in God; their connection to religion is largely cultural or based on their ethnic background.

Polls that ask directly about belief in God usually find that under 10 percent are bold enough to declare themselves atheists. However, two U.K. scholars, Will Gervais and Maxine Najle devised an indirect survey method called the unmatched count technique. It asks bland general questions of two control groups, and asks participants in one group if they agree with the statement: I believe in God. Authors say it reveals a lot of clandestine nonbelievers.

Results, published in the Social Psychological and Personality Science journal, estimate that 26 percentof American adults actually are atheists.

Theres a lot of atheists in the closet, researcher Gervais told Vox. Their report says:

Obtaining accurate atheist prevalence estimates may help promote trust and tolerance of atheists potentially 80 million people in the USA and well over a billion worldwide.

Frankly, I suspect that the rate of American doubters is higher still. Most churchgoers dont really believe the supernatural dogmas they sing about. Remember the old joke saying that no Christian wants to go to heaven right now.

Also, ideas about God are blurry. Some believe in a miracle worker who answers prayers, while others have much-vaguer notions. PRRI Director Dr. Cox wrote: Does a belief in mystical energy, for example, constitute a belief in a god?

When Gallup recently asked a yes-or-no question about belief in a god, 89 percentof Americans reported that they do believe. Yet, in a separate poll, only slightly more than half (53 percent) of Americans said they have an anthropomorphic god in mind, while for other believers, its something far more abstract.

Some sophisticated theologians try to shift religion away from supernatural spirits. They contend that God actually is the human capacity to feel compassion and empathy that God is love. Or, they postulate that God is the awesome, mysterious power in every atom of the universe.

But these approaches dont fit the parent-creator deity of most churches. I dont see how churchgoers could worship part of their own psychology (or pray to E=MC2). That would turn religion into something quite different.

Actually, those who would reinterpret God in a manner far removed from traditional religion are almost closet atheists of another sort.

As America relentlessly turns more secular, I think the stigma against skeptics will fade, and many more may come out of the closet.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Read the original post:
Closet Atheists Abound in America | Freedom From Religion Foundation - Patheos

Image: Max Brckner (1836-1919), printed by Otto Henning (18..-19..)Restoration by Adam Cuerden, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

There is something in the air and its not wildfire smoke anymore. Stephen Meyers argument for what he calls the God hypothesis is very of the moment. Jordan Peterson tweeted that he is reading Meyers new book, Return of the God Hypothesis, and finds that, Meyer makes the case very carefully. Its not often that I encounter a book that contains so much that I did not know From Peterson, that is some praise.

Meanwhile in an essay in the New York Times, columnist Ross Douthat significantly, perhaps, uses the phrase from the title of the book (while not referencing the book itself). He notes some confusionamong scientists:

Because their discipline advances by assuming that consistent laws rather than miracles explain most features of reality, they regard the process through which the universe gets explained and understood as perpetually diminishing the importance of the God hypothesis.

But the God hypothesis is constantlyvindicatedby the comprehensibility of the universe, and the capacity of our reason to unlock its many secrets.

Notwithstanding what some atheist scientists may say, the God hypothesis is constantlyvindicated and I am reading that in the New York Times of all places?

Meyer himself, in the Jerusalem Post, wrote a reflection on a great and recently deceased physicist and atheist, with an ironic reference to Wagner in the headline: Steven Weinberg and the twilight of the godless universe. Its ironic because Richard Wagners opera, Twilight of the Gods while ostensibly about ancient Norse deities and culminating in the destruction by fire of their home, Valhalla expressed his own modern ideology. The Gods were not Wotan and the rest but the traditional Western idea of a personal God. It was for that reason that historian Jacques Barzun titled his important 1941 book Darwin, Marx, Wagner, arguing that the three were heralds of the dominant scientism and mechanist materialism of the day. In his book, Meyer shows that the scientific atheism of Steven Weinberg and others has itself become outdated. Weinbergs death

marks the twilight of an increasingly dated view of the relationship between science and religion. Though Weinberg was a friend to the State of Israel, he was not sympathetic to Judaism or any theistic belief. Weinberg wrote many popular books about physics in which he often asserted that scientific advance had undermined belief in God and, consequently, any ultimate meaning for human existence. The First Three Minutes, his most popular book, published in 1977, famously concluded: the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless.

Weinbergs aggressive science-based atheism now seems an increasingly spent force.

Not all prominent media voices have received this news:

Scientific Americans tribute to Weinberg described how scientifically literate people need to learn to live in Steven Weinbergs pointless universe. Yet Weinbergs own research built upon, or helped to make, two key scientific discoveries the universe had a beginning and has been finely-tuned from the beginning that do not imply a purposeless cosmos. Arguably, they point, instead, to a purposeful creator behind it all.

But Meyer finds meaning in the fact that some prominent atheists the New New Atheists are changing their thinking:

Figures such as historian Tom Holland, social critic Douglas Murray, psychologist Jordan Peterson and social scientist Charles Murray now openly lament the loss of a religious mooring in culture, though they personally find themselves unable to believe. These New New Atheists, as distinct from the Old New Atheists, do not regard sciences alleged support for unbelief as one of its great achievements, as Weinberg described it.

Nevertheless, many such religious skeptics have yet to recognize the most important reason to reject science-based atheistic polemics: The most relevant scientific discoveries of the last century simply do not support atheism or materialism. Instead, they point in a decidedly different direction.

Read the rest at the Jerusalem Post. What is that different direction that Steve Meyer refers to? It looks less like a twilight and more like a dawn.

Follow this link:
Meyer: Twilight of the Godless Universe - Discovery Institute

(The Conversation) The Chinese Communist Party is celebrating the 100th anniversary of its founding in 1921. For most of those decades, the party sought to restrict or obliterate traditional religious practices, which it considered part of Chinas feudal past.

But since the late 1970s, the party has slowly permitted a multifaceted and far-reaching revival of religion in China to take place. More recently, current Chinese president and Communist Party leader Xi Jinping has endorsed continued party tolerance for religion as filling a moral void that has developed amid Chinas fast-paced economic growth.

This support does come with caveats and restrictions, however, including the demand that religious leaders support the Communist Party.

As a scholar of Chinese religions, these considerable changes are of special interest to me.

Atheism remains the official party ideology, with members banned from professing religious faith. The partys aggressive efforts to obliterate all religious beliefs and practices reached a high point during the tumultuous decade of the Cultural Revolution, from 1966 to 1976. All temples and churches were shut down or destroyed. Any form of religious activity was prohibited, even as there was forceful promotion of the cult of Mao (Zedong), which assumed the role of an officially sanctioned religion.

As part of major reforms and a loosening of social controls, initiated in the late 1970s, the party has slowly accepted a range of behaviors and traditions that fulfill religious needs or provide spiritual outlets. Buddhism, Taoism, Catholicism, Islam and Protestantism the five officially recognized religions have staged comebacks, albeit with varying success.

There are increasing numbers of local temples, associations, pilgrimages and festivals, and growing numbers of Buddhist, Christian and Taoist clergy. Many religious sites are open for private worship and communal service and frequented by people from all walks of life.

Local governments are often keen to restore and promote religious establishments, largely to stimulate tourism and local economic development.

Consequently, a major metropolis such as Shanghai has become home to religious establishments large and small, official and underground. They range from local shrines to Buddhist and Taoist temples, churches and mosques. There are also new entrants to the religious scene, exemplified by the yoga centers that have sprung up in many Chinese cities.

It seems that people have welcomed these policy shifts. A 2020 study by the Pew Research Center found that 48.2% of Chinas population had some form of religious affiliation.

The exact data is debatable, and it is difficult to conduct reliable research in China. But these results suggest that many Chinese participate in various activities that can be labeled religious.

Walter Plywaskis death earlier this year from complications related to COVID-19 went largely unnoticed by national media.

Only an invitation by his family to donate to the civil liberties group ACLU in Plywaskis memory gave hint to his legacy in the fight for religious freedom. Almost 70 years ago, Plywaski fought for the right of atheists to become U.S. citizens and won.

As a scholar of religious and political rhetoric, I believe that Plywaskis fight is worth remembering. Stories like Plywaskis give an insight into the discrimination atheists in the U.S. face even today and the role that those professing no faith have had in holding society accountable to the goals of religious tolerance and freedom.

Polish native Walter Plywaski, born Wladyslaw Plywacki, spent five years in Nazi concentration camps during the Second World War. After being liberated from Dachau, the Bavarian camp in which 41,500 prisoners died, he worked as an interpreter before immigrating to the U.S and serving four years in the U.S. Air Force.

In August 1952, Plywaski petitioned for U.S. citizenship while in Hawaii. All he had left to do was say his oath of allegiance.

Plywaski, however, was an atheist. He informed the judge that he could not sincerely end the oath with the words so help me God and requested an alternative.

Judge J. Frank McLaughlin reportedly asked Plywaski to consider what it says on the back of U.S. coins: In God We Trust. McLaughlin then denied Plywaski citizenship, justifying his decision by proclaiming, Our government is founded on a belief in God, and accused Plywaski of seeking admission on your own terms.

With the help of the ACLU, Plywaski appealed McLaughlins decision, arguing it was a violation of religious freedom while noting that natural-born citizens had the option to say affirmations rather than oaths, which allowed them to affirm their allegiance based on their own honor rather than a belief in a higher power.

McLaughlin, however, stood his ground. He argued that the case was not about religious freedom but about whether Plywaski believes in all the principles which support free government, which according to McLaughlin included a belief in God.

Plywaski moved to Oregon and successfully petitioned to have his case moved there to be looked at by a different judge. In January 1955, Plywaski won his case and became a citizen.

Plywaskis case confirmed that those applying for citizenship must have the option to not recite so help me God when taking their oath, a policy that is now explicit in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services policy manual.

But despite the precedent he set, Plywaski was not the last atheist who would be denied U.S. citizenship more than 60 years later, nonreligious people still had to fight for immigration rights. In 2013 and 2014, two women were initially denied citizenship after being told they had to be religious in order to be conscientious objectors when refraining from stating in their oaths that they will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law.

This was despite 1965 and 1970 court cases that affirmed that atheists could be conscientious objectors.

And even atheists with citizenship have been denied certain rights because of requirements that a religious oath be uttered.

Roy Torcaso won a 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case after he was denied a position as a public notary when he refused to recite an oath acknowledging the existence of God. Torcasos case made clauses in state constitutions banning atheists from holding public office unconstitutional and unenforceable. Yet such bans have still occasionally been used to challenge open atheists who have won public office, though such challenges have failed.

And in 2014, an atheist in the Air Force was denied reenlistment after refusing to say so help me God in his oath. The Air Force later reversed the decision and updated its policy after atheist groups threatened to sue.

Such instances fit a pattern of discrimination against atheists. A 2012 study found that that nearly 50% of atheists have felt forced to swear a religious oath. While they legally should have options to say alternatives, the pressure to take the religious oaths remains.

Because so help me God is the a default in many oaths, atheists often have to decide between passing as theistic or outing themselves as atheists which, in a country where good citizenship is often unfairly tied to a belief in God, could potentially bring stigma onto themselves or mean risking being denied certain rights.

Atheists tend to win cases in which they challenge the denial of their citizenship and other rights based on their refusal to acknowledge God. Yet the fact that atheists risk facing additional obstacles and legal fights to have their citizenship recognized speaks, I believe, to their continued marginalization.

The atheist fight for equal rights is rarely acknowledged outside of active atheist communities. My research shows how the discrimination against atheists fits with what I describe as a deeply ingrained and coercive theistnormative mindset that frames democratic societies and good citizenship as being tied to belief in a higher power.

[Over 100,000 readers rely on The Conversations newsletter to understand the world. Sign up today.]

Historians such as Leigh Eric Schmidt, David Sehat and Isaac Kramnick and Robert Laurence Moore have all written about religious oppression in the United States and its impact on atheists. These histories highlight how stigma surrounding both atheism and openly critiquing religion and religious oppression often pressured atheists to hide their identity.

Yet, there were and still are atheists, like Walter Plywaski, willing to openly challenge discrimination. Their stories are part of the larger fight for religious tolerance within the United States.

Read more:
70 years ago Walter Plywaski fought for atheists' right to become citizens here's why his story is worth remembering - The Conversation US

The Chinese Communist Party is celebrating the 100th anniversary of its founding in 1921. For most of those decades, the party sought to restrict or obliterate traditional religious practices, which it considered part of Chinas feudal past.

But since the late 1970s, the party has slowly permitted a multifaceted and far-reaching revival of religion in China to take place. More recently, current Chinese president and Communist Party leader Xi Jinping has endorsed continued party tolerance for religion as filling a moral void that has developed amid Chinas fast-paced economic growth.

This support does come with caveats and restrictions, however, including the demand that religious leaders support the Communist Party.

As a scholar of Chinese religions, these considerable changes are of special interest to me.

Atheism remains the official party ideology, with members banned from professing religious faith. The partys aggressive efforts to obliterate all religious beliefs and practices reached a high point during the tumultuous decade of the Cultural Revolution, from 1966 to 1976. All temples and churches were shut down or destroyed. Any form of religious activity was prohibited, even as there was forceful promotion of the cult of Mao (Zedong), which assumed the role of an officially sanctioned religion.

As part of major reforms and a loosening of social controls, initiated in the late 1970s, the party has slowly accepted a range of behaviors and traditions that fulfill religious needs or provide spiritual outlets. Buddhism, Taoism, Catholicism, Islam and Protestantism the five officially recognized religions have staged comebacks, albeit with varying success.

There are increasing numbers of local temples, associations, pilgrimages and festivals, and growing numbers of Buddhist, Christian and Taoist clergy. Many religious sites are open for private worship and communal service and frequented by people from all walks of life.

Local governments are often keen to restore and promote religious establishments, largely to stimulate tourism and local economic development.

Consequently, a major metropolis such as Shanghai has become home to religious establishments large and small, official and underground. They range from local shrines to Buddhist and Taoist temples, churches and mosques. There are also new entrants to the religious scene, exemplified by the yoga centers that have sprung up in many Chinese cities.

It seems that people have welcomed these policy shifts. A 2020 study by the Pew Research Center found that 48.2% of Chinas population had some form of religious affiliation.

The exact data is debatable, and it is difficult to conduct reliable research in China. But these results suggest that many Chinese participate in various activities that can be labeled religious.

Traditionally, most Chinese people dont subscribe to a single faith or construct a narrow religious identity. They engage with varied beliefs and practices, a pattern of religious piety dating back centuries to ancient imperial China.

That encompasses aspects of Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism, as well as many practices termed popular religion. These range from visiting temples, attending pilgrimages and festivals, praying and offering incense, ancestor worship, and veneration of various celestial divinities. There are also the popular practices of geomancy or feng shui, an ancient art of harmonizing humans with their surroundings, and divination or fortunetelling.

These rich traditions often have regional variations, such as the veneration of Mazu, a sea goddess, which is especially prevalent in southeast China and Taiwan. Originally a patron goddess of seafarers, Mazu is widely worshiped by people from all walks of life and promoted as an important symbol of local culture.

The Communist Party has also stopped criticizing the teachings of Confucius, the famous philosopher and educator of the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. For much of the 20th century, Confucian teachings were rejected as discredited relics of an imperial past. But that changed over recent decades, as the party sought to reposition itself as the guardian of Chinese traditions.

This contributed to a significant revival of Confucianism.

Confucianisms time-honored ethical framework offers guideposts to navigating the often-harsh realities of life in a highly competitive society. But the party has also found it useful to harness aspects of Confucianism that resonate with its core interests, such as obedience to authority and respect for the leader.

Accordingly, the government has supported reestablishment of Confucian temples and institutes. It has also sponsored conferences on Confucianism and even organized lectures on Confucian teachings for party officials.

Adopting attitudes and methods with long-established precedents in the dynastic history of imperial China, the communist government positions itself as the ultimate arbiter of orthodoxy and heterodoxy, or proper and improper religious practices. Religious leaders must support the party and follow its directives.

Authorities keep firm administrative control over all forms of religious expressions and organizations, by whatever means they deem prudent or necessary. As we know from the reports of Western scholars and journalists, that control ranges from subtle forms of domination and co-option of religious groups to outright bans or repressions.

In 2015, the government removed 1,200 crosses from church buildings across Zhejiang province. In 2016, a Zhejiang court sentenced a Protestant pastor to 14 years in prison for resisting a government order to take down his churchs cross. In 2018, the government demolished the Golden Lampstand Church in Shanxi province.

In response, most religious groups tread carefully and engage in self-censorship, as I and others have observed during research trips in China.

China tends to treat religions perceived as potentially threatening to the established order harshly, especially if suspected of foreign ties or secessionist tendencies. For instance, for decades China has strictly regulated Buddhism in Tibet, as it has pursued policies aimed at suppressing the cultural and national identities of the Tibetans. That contrasts with more relaxed attitudes towards the form of Buddhism practiced by the Han majority.

The party has explained its recent, ruthless campaign to repress the Uighurs, a Muslim minority in Xinjiang a nominally autonomous region in Northwest China as intended to counteract terrorism and separatism. According to leaked documents, since 2014 up to a million Uighurs have been interned in re-education camps. Its part of a hardline policy of secularization and Sinicization, which implies assimilating the Uighurs into the majority Han culture, at a loss of their religious and ethnic identities.

As it celebrates its 100th anniversary, the Chinese Communist Party seeks to project the image of a unified nation returning to global political and economic dominance.

But at home it faces manifold problems and is engaged in a balancing act: affirming its dual role as a guardian and curator of traditional Chinese culture and religion, but in a manner that enhances rather than undermines its power and authority.

[Explore the intersection of faith, politics, arts and culture. Sign up for This Week in Religion.]

See original here:
There's a religious revival going on in China -- under the constant watch of the Communist Party - The Conversation US

But here the story gets complicated. As the statistician Ryan Burge argues in his book The Nones, not all Nones are created equal. In the popular imagination, it is easy to equate no religion with atheism. But when sociologists Tim Clydesdale and Kathleen Garces-Foley interviewed twentysomething Americans, they found only 14 per cent of Nones did not believe in God at all. Perhaps surprisingly, 35 per cent reported praying on a daily or weekly basis.

Loading

The short story? The dominant trend was disaffiliation more than disbelief. For many, religion is coupled with belonging to an institution more than an indicator of belief. Little wonder, then, that Nones can be atheists, or agnostics, but they can also be unaffiliated believers, spiritual eclectics, or indifferent secularists. As Burge says, not all Nones are created equal.

It is a widely accepted truism that as cultures modernise, they inevitably lose faith. But in actual fact, modernity brings pluralism just as much as scepticism. As Tara Burton puts it in her 2019 book Strange Rites, Westerners havent abandoned their spiritual impulse theyve migrated it. Wellness culture, techno-utopianism, even the creative world of fan fiction all of these can function as sources of meaning, purpose, community and ritual. To quote Burton:We do not live in a godless world we live in a profoundly anti-institutional one.

The religious statistics of Australia likely point to a diverse future as much as an irreligious one. Our immigration programs welcome a plurality of different believers to our land. But even among long-settled Australians, the drop in Christian identification mostly indicates that fewer and fewer of us will affiliate with Christianity as a default. Instead, our search for fullness is a matter of choice, not tradition.

It will do us good to no longer assume too much. Instead of expecting that someone is a believer or a sceptic, perhaps we might try starting conversations with a question: What do you believe, and why?

Dr Mark Stephens is a senior research fellow at the Centre for Public Christianity and the author of The End of Thinking.

Go here to see the original:
Has Australia lost its religion, or merely its affection for institutions? - Sydney Morning Herald

By Syed Mustafa Ahmad

The main aim of education is enlightenment. Enlightenment means the clouds of ignorance must go away. Ignorance in the sense of superstitions, gender bias, immorality, communalism, unfair means, etc. If these things still persist in the presence of education, then there is something terribly wrong with the education system. It is not the malaise of some days, but the handiwork of many factors that have been constantly going for many years. The criteria to know about the compatibility of education in the society is to see etiquettes or manners. In another sense, if there are mannered people, then this society is learned, if not then we can easily say that this society has to overhaul their every domain of life in order to grow.

When this is the case, how can a society afford to ignore education? In Kashmir, the relevance of education had been lost long ago. Corruption, proxy candidates, question paper leakages, faulty recruitment, etc., have made our educational system a commodity to be bargained. After getting into the educational sector through illegal ways, how these people can do anything for society. When their motives are to earn back the money, which they have spent in getting jobs, we cannot expect from them to do anything positive. This situation has many causes. Let us try to know some of them.

The first is materialism. When the main motive of life is to earn money, education itself follows the path of money. Every moral or immoral class runs around money and nothing else. In this way, education loses its main value and the society doesnt produce enlightenment personalities that are assets for a nation.

The second is faulty syllabi. With changing times, everything must undergo a reasonable change. However, in case of education, the change is quite slow. In the 21st Century, when AI and Machine Learning are occupying our minds, we cannot go on admonishing machines nor we can go on following them blindly. A man is planning to colonize the Mars, the Venus, etc., in order to live a happy life, but in some parts of the world, students are taught to learn about the things that have no relevance in the present. In this way, students get fed up and they think that it is futile to learn and consume our marvellous brains in such things that are of no use, but money and fake fame.

The third is religion. Religiosity in the garb of religions, has made lives hellish. Religions are for the sake of comfort, but due to orthodoxy and superstitions, they have hijacked the whole society. Students are taught that science is atheism. It makes a person atheist. It is better to prepare ourselves for the Hereafter. In this situation, students fall prey to them. They abhor scientific things like medicine, smartphones, electricity, televisions, etc. And the result is that science and technology and other disciplines, that have come to our rescue, become the soft targets.

The fourth and last is our attitude. We never ponder over things and become fascinated by some charming words or slogans. If we had pondered over everything, we would not have reached the present situation. We work in haste and regret at the end of the day.

So, the need of the hour is to make education relevant. Without education, it is quite unthinkable to grow and develop. We have live examples of America, USA, Britain, Singapore, etc., that are doing quite well in this regard. They have made it possible not to let education become the soft target of any kind of disturbance. They have set a goal before them and are living for that goal. Their mornings and evenings revolve around that goal. Last but not the least, they are corruption free. They dont allow corruption to seep into their countries and decompose the tall pillars of society. They are strongly opposite to it. So, it is an opportunity for us to show our mettle in the competitive world. If not, history will remember us losers. Are we ready for this tag?

(Views expressed are personal. Email: [emailprotected])

";n.innerHTML="window._taboola = window._taboola || [];_taboola.push({mode:'thumbnails-a', container:'taboola-below-article', placement:'below-article', target_type: 'mix'});";insertAfter(t,e);insertAfter(n,t)}injectWidgetByMarker('tbmarker');

View original post here:
Has education lost its meaning? - The Kashmir Monitor

In 2018 I posted on SO a review of Tim Cranes book The Meaning of Belief: Religion from an Atheists Point of View:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2018/01/22/atheists-get-wrong-according-tim-crane/

Crane argues that atheists have largely misunderstood religion by regarding it as a sort of cosmological hypothesis, one that makes insupportable claims about the creation of the universe via the supernatural acts of a divine agent. By thus construing religion as a sort of spurious proto-scientific cosmology, atheists justify relegating it to the bin of irrelevance and irrationality. However, says Crane, religion should not be seen as any sort of hypothesis, but rather as consisting of the religious impulse and identification. The religious impulse is the drive to recognize a transcendent order that is both factual and normative. God is posited as real and his will is taken as defining right and wrong. Identification is the desire to belong to a community that defines itself in terms of a set of beliefs and practices and which understands the world in terms of those beliefs and practices. What unites these two elements is a shared experience of the sacred, which promotes a strong sense of identity. Atheists miss these points by dismissing religion as a crackpot cosmology and religious believers as superstitious.

In my comments on Cranes claims, I note that if atheists are mistaken in regarding theism as a quasi-scientific hypothesis, this is not a gratuitous error, but is due to the fact that leading religious apologists defend theism as such a hypothesis. Defenders of intelligent design theory such as William Dembski and Michael Behe present their concepts of specified complexity and irreducible complexity as scientifically legitimate concepts. In The Existence of God, Richard Swinburne employs Bayesian confirmation theory in defense of his theistic hypothesis and appeals largely to the criterion of simplicity, which, of course, is a standard of theory choice in the natural sciences. William Lane Craigs Kalaam cosmological argument is developed and defended in the context of physical cosmology. These considerations seem to justify the characterization of the theistic hypothesis as proto or quasi scientific.

However, such a designation is not really important. The important point is that theism is defended as a hypothesis. Whether that hypothesis is classified as scientific, quasi-scientific, or metaphysical is not of primary importance. In my review I make the point that, as John Hick argues in An Interpretation of Religion, the reasoning underlying religious belief is primarily interpretive and not hypothetical. Hick says that the universe is religiously ambiguous in the sense that there are no facts that compel a religious or a naturalistic interpretation. The arguments for and against the existence of God are not compelling, and their conclusions may be reasonably rejected. Perfectly reasonable people may therefore disagree about the existence of God.

If Hick is right, what follows? Perhaps both atheists and religious apologists should cease their efforts to devise polemical weapons to bludgeon the other side into submission since we should know by now that this will not work. We should instead seek a more nuanced and informed view of belief and unbelief. We might actually learn something from each other!

In a 2018 podcast of Reasonable Faith, Kevin Harris interviews Professor Craig about Cranes book and my review of it:

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/how-atheists-get-it-wrong-part-one/

Jeff Lowder drew my attention to this just recently, and I would like to respond to it here.

Professor Craig argues that, while theistic hypotheses are explanatory, it is tendentious and inaccurate to characterize them in general as semi-scientific or proto-scientific. Craig does admit that the ID theorists regard their hypothesis as scientific. However, they claim that their arguments for intelligent design are religiously neutral, so I err in identifying this hypothesis as a specifically religious or theistic hypothesis.

ID theory is religiously neutral? How can that be when it was developed and promoted explicitly as part of an aggressive apologetic program? Well, to avoid church/state entanglements, ID theorists note that the designer could be something other than the God of Christian theismsomething like Platos Demiurge, or the Q Continuum from Star Trek, maybe. This lawyerly ruse has no bearing on the philosophical issue, however. Could the designer be God? Of course. The most charitable reading of ID is therefore that it is an argument for a disjunction of mutually exclusive and exhaustive designer hypotheses, including the theistic hypothesis as one disjunct.

As for Swinburnes and his own hypothesis, Craig says that they are not scientific or quasi-scientific because they posit a personal cause rather than a naturalistic one. Scientific explanations are in terms of natural laws and initial conditions, but theistic hypotheses posit a personal agent who creates by acts of volition. However, it certainly seems that, in principle, there could be scientific confirmation of a personal cause. Suppose, for instance, that the famous Hubble image of the Eagle Nebulathe pillars of creationwere accompanied by glowing gas in the form of Hebrew letters, light years wide, proclaiming I, Yahweh, did this. In this case, we would have outstanding scientific evidence of a personal cause. So, as a general demarcation criterion, the personal/impersonal distinction does not work.

Craig and Harris then have this exchange:

KEVIN HARRIS:Just to be more specific, when he [me] mentions you here, again, he says, CraigsKalaam argument is specifically and explicitly a cosmological claim presented within the context of physical cosmology.

CRAIG:Right. And it doesnt appeal to a theistic cosmology or an alternative to contemporary cosmology. It appeals to the normal cosmological model that is affirmed by secular scientists. So it is not in any way positing God as a scientific or quasi-scientific hypothesis.

Craigs statement here is a non sequitur. A scientific theory need not be an alternative to another theory, but could subsume it. Theory T2 subsumes theory T1 when T2 provides a deeper and more inclusive explanatory framework that accounts for T1s empirical success within its domain while locating that domain within a larger one that T2 covers. Advances in science often occur when a new theory does not just replace an old one, but places the old theory in a broader and deeper explanatory context. Thus, Carnots theories were subsumed by the thermodynamics of Kelvin and Clausius. Craigs theistic hypothesis appears intended to provide a deeper and more inclusive explanation than physical cosmology. Physical cosmology is not falsified by Craigs theistic hypothesis, but rather is subsumed by it. Craigs theistic cosmology aims to go beyond physical cosmology and tell us why there is a universe at all. So, the fact that Craig does not present his hypothesis as an alternative to physical cosmology, but intends to provide a deeper context for it, does not disqualify it as quasi-scientific.

However, since nothing much really turns on it, lets concede the point for the sake of argument and say that Craigs hypothesis is a metaphysical hypothesis rather than a scientific or quasi-scientific one. The real problem identified by Crane is that religious belief is identified as any kind of hypothesis. Crane implies and Hick argues that the reasoning underlying religious belief is interpretive rather than hypothetical. That is, the reasoning supporting a religious worldview is more like understanding a text than confirming a hypothesis. We do not understand a text by confirming piecemeal hypotheses about its meaning. Rather, we seek a reading that will give us the most coherent understanding of the text as a whole. Likewise, for religious people, their faith is what, for them, makes the most coherent and comprehensive sense of their total experience. Nothing compels such a judgment; it is inevitably personal and subjective, but not unreasonable. Similarly for atheists. Nothing compelled me to become an atheist. Rather, a naturalistic worldview is the honest and authentic articulation of my total experience and knowledge.

Craig objects that if Crane is right, then he, Swinburne, Steve Meyer, William Dembski and other defenders of religious hypotheses must misunderstand religion, which he regards as implausible.

Craig does not reply to Hicks view directly, but chiefly expresses surprise that I have supposedly so softened my view of theism that I am now willing to endorse Hicks view that religious belief can be as rational as naturalism. (n.b., Actually, I have always regarded some religious belief as rational and some definitely not.) What, then, do I have against the apologetic enterprise that he represents? Why do I harshly characterize it as an attempt to bludgeon opponents into submission? After all, he is only trying to show that his belief is rational and not to show that atheists are irrational. Why do I persist in seeing the apologetic enterprise as coercive, i.e. as an effort to show not just that their belief is justified, but that mine is not? That is not his aim at all.

I honestly do not know what to make of Craigs claim here. Does he regard his Kalaam argument as a refutation of atheism? I cannot read his presentation and defense of that argument in any other way. In this case, the argument is not a modest claim about what he is justified in believing, but the much stronger and more aggressive claim that atheism is demonstrably false and groundless. In other words, he seems to be arguing that he is right and that atheists are dead wrong. Atheists, of course, have often argued that they are right and that Craig is wrong. The debate between apologists and atheists therefore does appear to have an oppositional and aggressive character; it is not about what one may believe but what others must believe. However, if I have been misreading Craig all these years, and his aim all along has only been to affirm the rationality of his view and not to debunk mine, then I would suggest that Hicks position provides a much better basis for such a softer and gentler apologetic.

Finally, Craig invites listeners to look at my debate with him on the existence of God to see if I did indeed effectively criticize his theistic arguments. I also would like to extend that invitation. (I think that Craig is referring to our debate at Indiana University in February 2002, not the earlier one at Prestonwood Baptist Church.).

Continued here:
Professor Craig on Theistic Hypotheses | Keith Parsons - Patheos

Because of Psalm 14:1 (Fools say in their hearts, There is no God) there are jokes about April Fools Day being Atheist Day.

The problem is, the psalmist likely had no concept of the modern idea of atheism. Ironically, the earliest Christians were called atheists because they didnt worship the gods of the nations around them.

Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

kAmqFE =@@< 4=@D6C 2E !D2=> `ci u@@=D D2J 😕 E96:C 962CED[ %96C6 😀 ?@ v@5] %96J 2C6 4@CCFAE[ E96J 5@ 23@>:?23=6 5665Dj E96C6 😀 ?@ @?6 H9@ 5@6D 8@@5]k^Am

kAm%96 AD2=>:DE :D?E 2?8CJ 23@FE 2 G28F6 86?6C2=:K65 5:D36=:67 😕 2 5:G:?6 36:?8] %96 AD2=>:DED 2?86C 😀 2:>65 5:C64E=J 2E E9@D6 H9@D6 2EEC:3FE65 5:D36=:67 😕 v@5 =625D E@ H:4<65 24E:@?D] Wq6D:56D[ 2D x D2:5 62C=:6C[ :ED ?@E 4=62C E92E E9@D6 6G:=5@6CD H6C6 :? 724E 2E96:DED 2?JH2J]Xk^Am

kAmq6J@?5 E92E[ :ED ?@E 4=62C E92E C6=:8:@? 😕 86?6C2= @C r9C:DE:2?:EJ 😕 A2CE:4F=2C 2FE@>2E:42==J >2<6D 2 A6CD@? >@C2=] x 8C6H FA 962C:?8 E92E 2E96:DED 4@F=5?E 36 >@C2= 3642FD6 E96J 5@?E 36=:6G6 😕 2 5:G:?6 >@C2= =2H8:G6C]k^Am

kAmxE H2D 2 G6CJ 4@?46C?:?8 2C8F>6?E F?E:= x =62C?65 E92E D@>6 2E96:DED 2C6 >@C6 >@C2= E92? D@>6 r9C:DE:2?D[ 2?5 E92E r9C:DE:2?D 4@>>@?=J FD6 E96 q:3=6 E@ ;FDE:7J 6G:=5@:?8]k^Am

kAmxG6 36C @7 A6@A=6 x E9:?< H@F=5 36 <:?56C :7 E96J H6C6?E r9C:DE:2?D] xG6 6G6? H:D965 E96J H@F=5 =62G6 E96 72:E9 :? 9@A6D E92E :E H@F=5 >2<6 E96> <:?56C]k^Am

kAm%96 =2E6 r9C:DE:2? 2FE9@C #2496= w6=5 tG2?D HC@E6[ x @?46 962C5 D@>6@?6 D2J 96 3642>6 2? 2E96:DE 7@C E96@=@8:42= C62D@?D[ 2?5 E92E >2<6D D6?D6 E@ >6]k^Am

kAmxE >2<6D D6?D6 E@ >6[ E@@]k^Am

kAm#@D6 r:EJ !2C< &?:E65 |6E9@5:DE r9FC49 :? !@CE=2?5[ ~C6][ A@DE65 @? E96:C 49FC49 D:8?[ v@5 !C676CD z:?5 pE96:DED ~G6C w2E67F= r9C:DE:2?D]k^Am

kAmx 5@?E E9:?< 2?J 3FE E96 >@DE 6IEC6>6 r9C:DE:2?D H@F=5 :56?E:7J 2D 92E67F=[ D@ x >:89E 2>6?5 E92E D:8? E@ D2J v@5 AC676CD <:?5 2E96:DED @G6C F?<:?5 r9C:DE:2?D]k^Am

kAm}@?6 @7 E9:D 😀 E@ D2J r9C:DE:2?:EJ 😀 325 2?5 2E96:D> 😀 36EE6C] x 2> 2 r9C:DE:2? A2DE@C[ 27E6C 2==[ H:E9 2 3:2D 7@C r9C:DE:2?:EJP %9:D 😀 @?=J E@ D2J E92E >62??6DD[ 4CF6=EJ 2?5 42FD:?8 92C> E@ @E96CD 😀 325[ 2?5 <:?5?6DD :D 36EE6C H96E96C @?6 :D 2? 2E96:DE @C 2 r9C:DE:2?]k^Am

kAmp?5 9FCE:?8 @E96CD[ ?@E 2E96:D>[ 😀 7@==J]k^Am

Todays Insights was written by the Rev. David Schell, pastor at Fairplain Presbyterian Church. Insights is written by area clergy to give different viewpoints on a variety of topics. It is published each weekend in cooperation with the Berrien County Association of Churches. The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the views of member churches.

Continue reading here:
Thoughts on atheism and kindness | Features | heraldpalladium.com - Herald Palladium

By James A. Haught

Atheists are disliked in America constantly denigrated in public surveys which may explain why many doubters conceal their lack of belief.

However, a 2017 poll by University of Kentucky researchers found that perhaps one-fourth of Americans are either overt skeptics or closet atheists: a far higher ratio than previously thought. Heres the background:

Two-thirds of Americans say they have negative opinions about disbelievers. More than one-third think atheists shouldnt be allowed to teach in public schools, or hold office, or even hold rallies (talk about taking away the Constitutional right to peacefully assemble!). Revealing doubt about the supernatural can cause a storm within a family, and maybe jeopardize ones career. Therefore, atheism is hidden by some.

A 2016 Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) survey found that more than one-third of atheists reported hiding their religious identity or beliefs from friends or family members out of concerns that they would disapprove, wrote Dr. Daniel Cox, Research Director of the PRRI. Dr. Cox added:

There are Catholics, Jews and Muslims who do not believe in God; their connection to religion is largely cultural or based on their ethnic background.

Polls that ask directly about belief in God usually find that under 10% are bold enough to declare themselves atheist. However, two U.K. scholars, Will Gervais and Maxine Najle, devised an indirect survey method called the unmatched count technique. It asks bland general questions of two control groups, and asks participants in one group if they agree with the statement: I believe in God. Authors say it reveals a lot of clandestine nonbelievers.

Results, published in the Social Psychological and Personality Science journal, estimate that 26% of American adults actually are atheists.

Theres a lot of atheists in the closet, researcher Gervais told Vox. Their report says:

Obtaining accurate atheist prevalence estimates may help promote trust and tolerance of atheists potentially 80 million people in the USA and well over a billion worldwide.

Frankly, I suspect that the rate of American doubters is higher still. I think most churchgoers dont really believe the supernatural dogmas they sing about. Remember the old joke saying that no Christian wants to go to heaven right now.

Also, ideas about God are blurry. Some believe in a miracle-worker who answers prayers, while others have much-vaguer notions. PRRI Director Dr. Cox wrote: Does a belief in mystical energy, for example, constitute a belief in a god?

When Gallup recently asked a yes-or-no question about belief in a god, 89% of Americans reported that they do believe. Yet, in a separate poll, only slightly more than half (53%) of Americans said they have an anthropomorphic god in mind, while for other believers, its something far more abstract.

Some sophisticated theologians try to shift religion away from supernatural spirits. They contend that God actually is the human capacity to feel compassion and empathy that God is love. Or, they postulate that God is the awesome, mysterious power in every atom of the universe.

But these approaches dont fit the parent-creator deity of most churches. I dont see how churchgoers could worship part of their own psychology (or pray to E=MC2). That would turn religion into something quite different.

Actually, those who would reinterpret God in a manner far removed from traditional religion are almost closet atheists of another sort.

As America relentlessly turns more secular, I think the stigma against skeptics will fade, and many more may come out of the closet.

(Haught is editor emeritus of West Virginias largest newspaper, The Charleston Gazette-Mail, and a senior editor of Free Inquiry magazine.)

Here is the original post:
Closet Atheists Abound in America | James Haught - Patheos