Category Archives: Atheism

BEIJING, July 23 (Reuters) - China's President Xi Jinping made his first visit to the Tibet Autonomous Region as national leader this week, and urged people there to "follow the party", the official Xinhua news agency said on Friday.

Xi's July 21-22 visit - the first to Tibet by a Chinese leader in three decades - comes as the country faces increased security concernsas a result of clashes with India and the withdrawal of U.S.-led troops from Afghanistan.

The visit also shows the ruling Chinese Communist Party's confidence in having established order and gained support in the once-restive region, analysts say.

Xi flew into the city of Nyingchi on Wednesday and took a train to the Tibetan capital Lhasa the following day along a section of the high-elevation railway being built to link the mountainous border region with Sichuan province.

In Lhasa, Xi visited a monastery and the Potala Palace Square, and "inspected ethnic religion work" and Tibetan cultural heritage protection, according to Xinhua.

The palace is the traditional home of Tibetan Buddhism's spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, who is in exile and has been branded a dangerous separatist by Beijing.

State television network CCTV showed a Tibetan woman wiping away tears as she joined a crowd of people dressed in traditional costume clapping enthusiastically to welcome Xi.

Xi instructed local provincial officials to work towards making people in Tibet identify more with the "great motherland, Chinese people, Chinese culture, the Chinese Communist Party and socialism with Chinese characteristics", according to Xinhua.

He also said that only when the people "follow the party" can the "rejuvenation of the Chinese nation" be realised.

CULTURE AND LOYALTY

Over 80% of the population in Tibet are ethnic Tibetan while Han Chinese are the minority. Most Tibetans are also Buddhists. China's constitution allows for freedom of religion but the party adheres strictly to atheism.

In Lhasa, Xi watched a cultural performance which showcased Tibetan culture and loyalty to the party through song and dance, including a famous song with the lyric "sing a folk song for the party, the party is like my mother".

In Nyingchi, Xi also inspected rural rejuvenation and environmental protection.

On China's border with India, Tibet is seen as having critical strategic importance to Beijing. Last year China and India saw the most serious clash in decades on their disputed border in the Himalayas, with deaths on both sides.

Photos released by Xinhua show Xi was accompanied by Zhang Youxia, a vice chairman of China's Central Military Commission and a senior general in the People's Liberation Army.

Xi was last in Tibet in 2011, when he was vice president.

Beijing sent troops into Tibet in 1950 in what it officially terms a peaceful liberation and maintains a heavy security presence in the region, which has been prone to unrest.

A violent clash in 2008 between Chinese police and Tibetan monks commemorating an anniversary of the 14th Dalai Lama's exit from Tibet, left local authorities unsure for many years if a visiting Chinese leader would be welcomed or safe, said Yang Chaohui, professor of politics at Peking University.

Tibet's high altitude, which can take a toll on leaders not accustomed to the climate, is another reason why China's top leaders rarely visit, he said.

Reporting by Gabriel Crossley and Yew Lun Tian; Editing by Sam Holmes, Editing by William Maclean and Giles Elgood

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Continued here:
China's Xi urges people in Tibet to 'follow the party' in rare visit - Reuters

After obtaining a Bachelor of Science in physics from Fordham University in 1964, Dr. Roemer earned a Doctor of Philosophy in physics from New York University seven years later. In 1972, he was recruited by Litton Medical Systems as a manager of radiation therapy products. Throughout the following five years, he provided technical and sale support for radiation therapy equipment that had been manufactured by Toshiba Corporation. Dr. Roemer subsequently excelled as a product specialist for Siemens AG, which remains one of the largest industrial manufacturing companies in Europe. While working for Siemens AG, he completed his education by earning a Master of Business Administration from Pace University's Lubin School of Business.

In 1984, Dr. Roemer began his academic career when he was appointed as a physics teacher for ninth grade students at Midwood High School in Brooklyn, New York. Five years later, he found further success while teaching physics at Erasmus Hall High School, which is also in Brooklyn. During his five-year tenure at Erasmus Hall High School, Dr. Roemer developed and successfully implemented an innovative, learner-centered method of teaching science that achieved fantastic results.

Throughout the mid-1990s, Dr. Roemer flourished as a physics teacher for Edward R. Murrow High School. Thanks to the success of the aforementioned teaching method, he was invited to conduct a workshop about his techniques at a conference that was organized by the Science Council of New York City in 1996. After teaching physics and general science for approximately 14 years, Dr. Roemer retired from his academic career in 1998.

Following his retirement from teaching, Dr. Roemer has continued to thrive as a copyeditor of science textbooks and ancillaries. He has also developed a reputation as an esteemed fundamental theologist. His interest in this controversial area initially emerged at Fordham University, where he enrolled in a metaphysics course that was taught by the late W. Norris Clarke, who previously served as the president of the Metaphysical Society of America. According to Dr. Roemer, Father Clarke was such an enthralling professor that it was not uncommon for students to give him a standing ovation at the end of class.

Alongside his work as a copyeditor, Dr. Roemer regularly publishes articles and hosts podcasts about the relationship between science and religion. He has written extensively about a wide range of topics such as the big bang theory, evolution, atheism and the shroud of Turin. Dr. Roemer additionally excels as an active member of the American Philosophical Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Institute for Theological Encounter with Science and Technology and the Christian Speaker Network. He attributes his continuous success to his spirituality, especially his ardent belief in life after death.

About Marquis Who's Who

Since 1899, when A. N. Marquis printed the First Edition of Who's Who in America, Marquis Who's Who has chronicled the lives of the most accomplished individuals and innovators from every significant field of endeavor, including politics, business, medicine, law, education, art, religion and entertainment. Today, Who's Who in America remains an essential biographical source for thousands of researchers, journalists, librarians and executive search firms around the world. Marquis publications may be visited at the official Marquis Who's Who website at http://www.marquiswhoswho.com.

SOURCE Marquis Who's Who

Home

More:
David K. Roemer, PhD, Celebrated for Excellence in Education and Theology - PRNewswire

Research published in Social Psychological and Personality Science suggests that people can hold both positive and intensely negative stereotypes about a stigmatized group. The findings suggest that people stereotype atheists as immoral unconsciously believing a serial killer is more likely to be an atheist than a religious person while simultaneously stereotyping atheists as more open-minded, scientific, and fun at parties.

For some time, atheists have found themselves the subjects of numerous negative stereotypes. Importantly, these stereotypes seem to involve a distrust of non-religious people to the extent that they are unconsciously seen as dangerous. This may lead to discrimination in certain contexts for example, atheists may be denied employment in childcare positions under the assumption they lack morality.

A study led by Jordan W. Moon was motivated by the perspective that stereotyping is complex and that people can hold both negative and positive stereotypes about a group of people. Certain groups might be perceived as a threat in one context, but as an advantage in another. The researchers wanted to uncover whether people might hold both positive and negative stereotypes about atheists.

Past research on anti-atheist prejudice has shown so many negative stereotypes atheists are associated with immorality, narcissism, etc., explained Moon, a PhD student at Arizona State University. Even atheists tend to show some level of intuitive distrust toward atheists. Yet many people are open about their disbelief in public, and there are organizations that promote disbelief. My coauthors and I reasoned that, at least in some contexts, being an atheist must be viewed positively.

An initial experiment had a sample of participants read several vignettes that described people with certain positive or negative traits. These traits were open-minded/closed-minded, scientific/non-scientific, and fun/not fun. After reading each vignette, the participants were shown two statements and asked to choose which one was the most probable. In the atheist condition, two example responses were Henry is a teacher and Henry is a teacher and is an atheist. In the religious condition, two responses were Henry is a teacher and Henry is a teacher and believes in God. By asking the questions this way, the researchers were tapping into participants unconscious stereotypes without explicitly addressing them.

Moon and his colleagues found that participants tended to associate the positively valenced traits (open-minded, scientific, and fun) with atheists and to associate the negatively valenced traits (closed-minded, non-scientific, not fun) with religious people. Importantly, the effect more or less held whether the respondent was religious or not.

A second experiment using vignettes again found that atheists were associated with science and open-mindedness. The experiment additionally found that a vignette describing the gruesome actions of a serial killer was more likely to be associated with an atheist than a religious person. Notably, this suggested that subjects were harboring extremely negative stereotypes about atheists, while at the same time endorsing positive stereotypes about them.

In a final study, the researchers found evidence that there are contexts in which people positively discriminate toward atheists. Participants tended to choose an atheist over a religious person when asked whose party theyd prefer to attend, who they would prefer to discuss politics with, and who theyd prefer to have as a science tutor. Interestingly, while people low and average in religiosity showed a strong bias toward atheists for the three scenarios, those high in religiosity preferred religious people for science tutoring and discussing politics, and showed no bias toward either religious people or atheists for party hosts.

Even though there is prejudice toward atheists, and many negative stereotypes, it is not necessarily the case that atheists are viewed negatively in every way. Atheism might not necessarily boost perceptions of trustworthiness, but it might make people be viewed as more fun, open-minded, or scientific. In those contexts, people are probably more open to interacting with atheists, Moon told PsyPost.

Moon and his team take their study as evidence that people can simultaneously endorse positive and negative stereotypes toward targeted groups. Still, the researchers note a limitation to their study while being fun, open-minded, and scientific tend to be perceived as positive traits, it is possible that they represent negative traits in some contexts. For example, being fun might be associated with short-term mating and thus be interpreted as a negative trait by some religious people. It remains an open question whether these positive stereotypes are indeed in atheists favor.

Its an open question whether these results apply to highly religious peopleour results were mixed for people who reported high levels of religiosity, Moon said. Perceptions of atheists are also almost certainly different outside the U.S., where it might be more or less normative to be nonreligious.

The study, Is There Anything Good About Atheists? Exploring Positive and Negative Stereotypes of the Religious and Nonreligious, was authored by Jordan W. Moon, Jaimie Krems, and Adam Cohen.

Originally posted here:
People unconsciously stereotype atheists as more likely to be serial killers, yet pin them as open-minded, scientific, and fun at parties - PsyPost

There are certain events whose horror is of such a magnitude that the vocabulary of apology and contrition seem entirely inappropriate, even intolerable. The philosopher Hannah Arendt writes that radical evil is neither punishable nor forgivable, its scale rendering the idea of retributive justice unthinkable. These crimes can defy response on account of their sheer size, as with genocide. But they can also be crimes that on the surface are more ordinary with established social protocols, however imperfect, to deal with them and underneath it are charged by decades of historical injustice and violence, such as the police killing of George Floyd in 2020.

In the aftermath of Floyds murder, which led to Black Lives Matter protests globally, the apparently unanswerable evil of racist violence left many white people (including myself) paralysed by confusion about how to respond. There was the question of whether to respond publicly and vocally at all if doing so was inevitably self-serving, an attempt to disown any perceived responsibility for the persistence of racism. There were suggestions to donate silently to relevant funds, and then opposing suggestions that acting invisibly was inadequate. For me, the crucial question became not only about whether one should express sorrow in public but also about the notion and limits of apology. Should you extend an apology for an injustice that you did not personally carry out, but in which you feel yourself to be to some degree complicit? Or is the abstraction of such an apology an insult to the idea of meaningful reconciliation?

[See also:In my new single life, music, TV, films and books have become a ghost train of lurking frights]

Those questions have arisen for me again in recent weeks as I have been reading about the Catholic Churchs failure to apologise for an unfathomable horror. In Canada the remains of 215 indigenous children were unearthed in May and 751 further unmarked graves were discovered in late June, both on the sites of former residential schools operated by Catholic clergy.

This is not the first time that the Church has faced a scandal of this kind. It recalls the case of the Tuam mother and baby home in County Galway, where, the historian Catherine Corlesss research revealed in the early 2010s, hundreds of children and infants had been buried without ceremony. The Bon Secours sisters, the order of nuns who ran the home at the time of the deaths, between 1925 and 1961, eventually issued a formal apology a number of years after the revelations, but only when extensive investigations had left the truth beyond any reasonable doubt. That is to say, an apology was not offered until there was no obvious alternative response.

Corless welcomed the apology but stressed that the order should allow the grave to be exhumed, and that other institutions should follow suit. Pope Francis has expressed sorrow for the discovery of the indigenous childrens bodies in Canada, but has not extended an apology. I expect that he will eventually, as Justin Trudeau and other leaders continue to express dismay at his withholding one, but what will it mean then? How convincing can an apology truly be when it is forced from a reluctant subject?

Pumla Gobodo-Madikizela writes about apology in her book A Human Being Died That Night (2003), based on her interviews with Eugene de Kock, the police colonel turned death squad leader in apartheid-era South Africa. She asks: How do we know that the signs of alleged contrition are not simply signs of the perpetrators having been caught, or of changes within the society that have destroyed his power base and support structures and have left him vulnerable?

[See also:I am relieved that the pursuit of love no longer dominates my life, yet loneliness frightens me]

In the Catholic Church, there seems to me little evidence of a willing effort to reconcile past evils with its contemporary iteration, and admissions of guilt and expressions of regret are only offered when they are unavoidable.

I am Catholic, both technically and in some residual, sore, longing part of myself, but I struggle to understand how Catholics who maintain an active relationship with the Church can stand to do so in these circumstances. I understand the power of community and shared faith, and frequently find myself yearning after both the prayer and the physical spaces of Catholicism when in despair. Stuck in London away from my family during a lockdown Christmas, I surprised myself by firmly wanting to go to Mass.

I think I hesitate to voice my disgust and bewilderment at the Catholic Church because I dont want the antipathy to be construed as being directed towards Catholic people. I, like many of my generation, am also retrospectively embarrassed about an overeager Richard Dawkins phase in my teens, in which I disdained all things religious in an unbearably jejune way. Im not like that now.

I dont wonder at how or why people are religious or can live with uncertainty and inconsistency. I dont even call myself an atheist these days. But I think that shift and a desire to be tolerant of others choices and faiths have perhaps led to a kind of overcorrection of my adolescent dogmatism, where I have nodded along too easily as people tell me its possible to be a leftist and a feminist and a practising Catholic all at once.

The impossibility of endorsing, even tacitly, an institution like the Catholic Church as it currently exists rears its head occasionally, as it has with the discovery of the bodies of indigenous children, left in lonely, unmarked graves. Likewise, you can consider yourself Catholic and in favour of legalised abortion, but you live with the knowledge that your subjective position is at odds with what the Church says about who you are. This contradiction may be uncomfortable to discuss, but I dont think it can or should be ignored.

[See also:Suffering should unite us, so why does it divide?]

Read the rest here:
I've shed my teenage atheism and can see the appeal of Catholicism but not of the Catholic Church - New Statesman

Apparently, people subsconsciously stereotype atheists as serial killers yet also assume theyre more open-minded and fun at parties.

According to research published Social Psychological and Personality Science, Americans can simultaneously believe opposing stereotypes about one group of people, as proven by their varying assumptions about atheism.

The study, led by Arizona State Universitys Jordan W. Moon, explored said stereotypes of the religious and nonreligious, and found that while atheists are occasionally considered threats in certain circumstances, their non-religious principles were seen advantageously in others.

Past research on anti-atheist prejudice has shown so many negative stereotypes atheists are associated with immorality [and] narcissism, Moon, lead researcher, told PsyPost. Even atheists tend to show some level of intuitive distrust toward atheists. Yet many people are open about their disbelief in public, and there are organizations that promote disbelief. My coauthors and I reasoned that, at least in some contexts, being an atheist must be viewed positively.

For the study, participants read descriptions of people with certain positive and negative traits. These characteristics included open-minded viruses close-close-minded, scientific or non-scientific, and fun or not fun. Participants were then shown statements about the characters and asked to choose which was most likely. For example, one response was Henry is a teacher and Henry is a teacher and is an atheist.

Moon and his team concluded that participants often associated the positive traits open-minded, scientific and fun with atheists, while the negative traits close-minded, non-scientific, and not fun with more religious people.

The next experiment found that vignettes illustrating the disturbing behaviours of serial killers were far more commonly associated with atheists.

That said, when it came time to query participants as to whose party they would rather attend, those low and average in religiosity strongly preferred atheists. Participants also demonstrated a preference for the non-religious when it came to picking someone with whom to discuss politics, and to tutor them in science.

Even though there is prejudice toward atheists, and many negative stereotypes, it is not necessarily the case that atheists are viewed negatively in every way, Moon said. Atheism might not necessarily boost perceptions of trustworthiness, but it might make people be viewed as more fun, open-minded, or scientific. In those contexts, people are probably more open to interacting with atheists.

Originally posted here:
People think atheists are more likely to be serial killers, but also more open-minded and fun at parties - indy100

China may have been blamed for the coronavirus crisis but it is also responsible for a much bigger crisis that has been decades in the making. In a nutshell, the number of babies being born in China is at an all-time low while the number of people growing old is at an all-time high. Ironically, the worlds most populous nation is running out of babies.

An economy highly dependent on labour-intensive industries like construction, manufacturing and mining cannot afford a labour shortage. A fall in birth rate threatens to halt Chinas historic rise and Beijing knows this.

Ordinarily, nations face population stagnation after their citizens have reached high levels of economic well-being (Germany, South Korea, Japan etc). Relative to these, China is a poor country. Around 200 million Chinese still earn less than 5 dollars a day. The reason the Chinese population is on the brink of collapse is not socio-economic. It is political.

Unlike other nations, it has not been caused by an increase in female literacy or access to contraception. Instead, the primary cause of Chinas unnaturally low population growth rate is the one-child policy. This has forced single children to take care of both their parents and in some cases even their grandparents. Not only does this divert money out of the economy and into elderly care, but it also puts immense strain on workers who are expected to take care of up to 4 dependent family members (excluding their spouses side). Adding children to the mix rightfully frightens many.

Pressure on future parents is further compounded by the prohibitively high cost of quality Chinese education, and the absurdly costly housing market in cities. Furthermore, the Chinese workforce follows a grueling 996 schedule, where they work from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. 6 days a week. This leaves very little time for family life. Lastly, the trends of increasing urbanisation (initially forced by the government) and atheism further inhibit population growth in China.

But if there is one thing the world should expect from the CCP, it is the unexpected. The State is trying to increase government-run family care to reduce the burden on parents. Furthermore, even if the government reduces the economic disincentive to have children, the culture formed over three generations of having only one child shall remain.

However, the CCP has experience in modifying birth rates. A few decades ago, while the rest of the world was horrified by forced population control, the Chinese government was actively practicing it. In the western provinces, growth rates are still in free fall. There is no reason for the government to not wield its authoritarian powers to simply force population growth. In Xinjiang, it was 1984. In the rest of China it might be the Handmaids Tale soon.

Views expressed above are the author's own.

END OF ARTICLE

See the article here:
The Peoples Republic of the Elderly? - The Times of India Blog

I was 17 years old when I heard the Lords Prayer spoken in public for the first time. It was in November 1989 during the Velvet Revolution, which brought freedom to Communist Czechoslovakia. The crowd of almost 500,000 people chanted and cheered while the dissidents spoke. But when the Rev. Vclav Mal started praying the Our Father, it grew quiet.

After two generations of religious suppression and intense Communist indoctrination, few people could recite the prayer by heart. Many had never heard of it. But everyone understood it was a solemn moment.

Father Mal, a Czech priest who had been previously imprisoned and persecuted, led peaceful meetings in Prague with Vclav Havel and other prominent dissidents of the underground anti-Communist movement. The police could have arrested the priest at any moment for public preaching, but he remained calm.

That cold and snowy day marked for many their first encounter with public worship, spirituality and prayer. The Catholic Church that Father Mal represented was very different from the church that I knew. I knew of the church from textbooks that passed through the government censorship and presented a very biased interpretation of history.

Father Mals church also felt different from the artistic and architectural wonders of silent, empty buildings that I somehow knew I belonged to, but whose mystery was far beyond my reach. As if coming out of the shadows of its cathedrals, the Catholic Church came alive in the humanity and vulnerability of Father Mal. He encouraged and comforted everyone, baptized or not. He was there for us whether or not we had found the courage to defy 40 years of official atheistic teaching and openly contemplated the possibility of Gods existence.

The fall of Communism ushered the world into a new era of unprecedented technological progress, interconnectedness and acceleration of political developments. The church finds itself now in a similar place. It can be a transformative forcepolitically, economically and spirituallyby standing with the powerless and vulnerable today as it did during the fall of Communism. The church has also demonstrated it can be an amazing force of change in Africa and China. But its alignment with government establishment or nationalism is problematic in Hungary and other countries, where religious leaders, appealing to a Christian national heritage, struggle to pass laws that would bring their secularizing societies back to their Christian roots. This top-down approach is not effective or sustainable in our current globalized world, and it overlooks the tremendous opportunities for revival and transformation from the ground up.

Throughout history, Christianity was frequently spread by the ruling elites, who introduced it and maintained it among their subjects. The conversion of Emperor Constantine in A.D. 312 was a pivotal point for the Christianization of Europe; and from then on, Christianity usually spread through the conversion or arrival of rulers, who built churches, invited missionaries and established laws favorable to Christianity. The system of political elites sustaining the religious values and order in their countries was definitively reaffirmed and codified in the 1648 Peace of Westphalia treaties, which ended 30 years of religious conflicts in Europe, established the modern international system of nation-states and made a clear distinction between domestic and international politics.

But this distinction has become blurred in recent decades, when information and ideas travel freely across borders. As most Western countries gradually embraced liberal democracy, freedom of religion and free access to information, religious control and influence of governments over their domestic populations has steadily diminished, and the Westphalian principle of cuius regio, eius religio has lost its significance.

Gradually, younger generations have grown accustomed to question societal norms and values and to put emphasis on personal spiritual experience rather than to reflectively adopt the religious values of political or parental authority. Thus, the transmission of faith from generation to generation is no longer automatic; and our current era has been marked by a significant decline in established forms of Christianity, particularly in countries with a historically strong alliance between Christianity and governmental authority.

St. John Paul II understood the opportunity to reach out particularly to those outside of government authority. His famous words, Do not be afraid! addressed to all the oppressed peoples in Communist regimes somehow penetrated even the most stringent authoritarian censorships and reached the hearts of the powerless all over Eastern Europe. The impact of this saint on the liberation of the entire continent is recognized and well documented by prominent non-Catholic scholars of the Cold War, like the British historian Timothy Garton Ash and the American Cold War expert John Lewis Gaddis, who wrote: When John Paul II kissed the ground at the Warsaw Airport on June 2, 1979, he began the process by which communism in Polandand ultimately everywherewould come to an end.

The popes kiss was not merely a symbolic gesture; he literally worked to dismantle Polands authoritarian regime from the ground up. By celebrating Mass in the public square in Warsaw and in a shipyard in the port city of Gdansk, he was able to engage directly with the common people, who suffered the most.

The late pope also contributed to the unusually peaceful character of most of the democratic transitions in Europe by promoting the ideology of peaceful resistance and by befriending and encouraging the notorious dissident peacemakers Lech Walesa and Vclav Havel.

But St. John Paul II did not limit his influence and support for anti-authoritarian grassroots movements to his native country or continent. He was also critical of Latin American right-wing authoritarian regimes. His visits to Chile, Paraguay and Haiti, and his particular attention and encouragement of the oppressed dissidents are often cited as catalysts to the eventual demise of the regimes of Pinochet, Stroessner and Duvalier. A particularly moving incident revealed to the Chilean people that the pope was unequivocally on their side: when he publicly kissed and embraced a young student protester, Carmen Gloria Quintana, who was scarred as a result of brutal beatings and an incineration attempt by dictator Pinochets soldiers.

St. John Paul II demonstrated the potential for the Catholic Church to be a transformative force for dismantling authoritarian regimes when it engaged with the grassroots movements of the oppressed. The recent spread of Christianity in many countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East shows that the connection with the poor and marginalized is still crucial.

These vibrant churches, in countries where Christianity has not been a part of the political establishment and especially in places where believers have to overcome tremendous hurdles and persecution, prove that Christianity does not need favorable political conditions to flourish. The rapid growth of both Catholic and Protestant churches in sub-Saharan Africa has been widely reported. Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya have ranked as having record numbers of Christian conversions.

Different from the church in Europe, the African church is not so deeply entwined with the power of historically established political structures. Many may first see the work of the church alive in the dedicated effort of numerous missionaries and organizations like Unbound, Cross-Catholic Outreach and Catholic Relief Services, which work side by side with local people in construction, agricultural advancements, vaccinations, basic medical care and education. Direct evangelization work by other charities has also borne much fruit.

Because of increased economic partnership between China and Africa, Chinese workers encounter hospitable and vibrant Christian communities, which often leads to their conversion, as Christopher Rhodes of Boston University reported last year for UnHerd. The American management consulting firm McKinsey & Company reported in 2017 that there were more than 10,000 Chinese-owned operating firms in Africa and approximately one million Chinese workers living mostly in Algeria, Angola, Nigeria, Kenya and Ethiopia.

When they return to China, they not only bring their newly found faith with them but also continue practicing it and spreading it through underground networks, despite a persistent and intensified government persecution.The estimated number of active Christians there, which most research institutes put between 40 million and 70 million, has already exceeded the number of practicing Christians in France and Great Britain, and it is predicted that by 2030 China will be the largest Christian country in the world, surpassing Brazil and the United States.

In order to be a truly vibrant and transformative force in our globalized world, Christianity needs to detach itself not only from dominating power establishments but also from nationalism and ethnic sentiments, presenting itself foremost as a religion of conversion rather than an attribute of an inborn ethnic or racial identity. Connecting Christianity to nationalism leads to the rise of extremism and reduces ones capacity to see the potential for conversion among people of different ethnic or national affiliation. The recent trend of conversion among immigrants is well documented in Darren Carlsons 2020 book Christianity and Conversion Among Migrants, for example, and their potential for future growth and renewal of Christianity in Western societies has been underestimated among politicians in the United States as well as in Europe, where the question of accepting refugees from non-Christian countries has been particularly pertinent and where many politicians pursue anti-immigration policies, arguing for the preservation of Christian culture.

Hungarys prime minister, Viktor Orban, himself a Calvinist convert from atheism, wrote in 2015 that the acceptance of Muslim refugees should be limited because Europe and European culture have Christian roots. Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki of Poland likewise argued in a 2017 interview for accepting only Christian refugees to reshape Europe and re-Christianize it.

Matteo Salvini, the former minister of the interior and deputy prime minister of Italy, used Catholic symbols as campaign props. But he is known for denying asylum to hundreds of refugees and for turning away the rescue ship Aquarius from Libya, with 600 people. He justifies his actions in the name of protecting Europes Christian heritage.

These arguments are based on the erroneous assumption that a secularized European is closer to converting to an active Christian faith than a Muslim immigrant. The opposite is true, and evidence shows that Muslim immigrants are converting to Christianity at much higher rates than native Europeans. They have revitalized declining churches in several European countries.

Both Protestant and Catholic charities throughout Europe have reached out to impoverished and homeless migrants from conflict zones in the Middle East, especially Syria and Iraq. Having experienced an extremist and distorted version of Islam, some of them were already inclined toward Christianity but could not pursue the faith in their home country because of the risk of death, mutilation, imprisonment or social ostracism. Bishop George Saliba of Beirut, Lebanon, recently reported to Public Radio International that he personally baptized more than 100 such refugees since the outbreak of the Syrian war in 2011. Other immigrants encountered Christianity for the first time when they found protection in churches temporarily converted into makeshift refugee homeless shelters. Pope Francis directive for every Catholic parish in Europe to host at least one refugee family enabled many impoverished immigrants to find hospitable homes in a Christian environment.

Some Muslim immigrants and refugees voluntarily convert to Christianity when seeking asylum, even though there are no advantages in most European countries for doing so. They convert despite facing a tremendous risk if their asylum application is denied. According to The Guardian, the archbishop of Vienna received over 300 requests for adult baptism in the year 2016, three quarters of whom were Muslim refugees. Protestant churches in Hamburg and Berlin had so many former Muslims seeking baptism that they reserved municipal swimming pools to celebrate the sacrament.

Pastor Gottfried Martens testified that in his church alone, Trinity Church in Berlin, the congregation has grown from 150 to almost 700 because of converts from Islam. The curate of Liverpool Cathedral, Mohammad Eghtedarian, who is a convert from Islam and a refugee from Iran, conducts weekly services in Farsi to accommodate the growing number of newly converted Christians from Iran and Afghanistan.

Chancellor Angela Merkel, a strong advocate for greater acceptance of Muslim refugees in Germany, said that Europes problem is not too many Muslims but too few Christians. Europe needs a Christianity that is capable of sharing the political space with moderate Islam and other minority faiths and still continuing to be a transformative force that remains close to the poor and marginalized. Europe desperately needs a church that equally embraces all people regardless of their previous affiliation, their social status, the color of their skin or whether their ancestors built the cathedrals.

These trends unequivocally show that Christianity is more likely to penetrate secular Western societies when it is aligned with immigrants and the powerless than when Christian values are promoted and legislated from a position of power. Fortunately, Pope Francis is already leading the way in this direction by reaching out to the poor and marginalized, by his relentless advocacy for immigrants and refugees and by his astounding peacemaking efforts, especially with the Muslim world.

Following in the footsteps of St. Francis of Assisi, who penetrated enemy lines during the fifth crusade to engage in a three-day dialogue with the Sultan Al-Kamil, the pope likewise reaches out to the Muslim world. In February 2019, he celebrated the first papal Mass on the Arabian Peninsula. However, his most remarkable acts of Christian leadership are his engagement with the powerless, such as his efforts to ameliorate the situation of the impoverished and often forgotten tribes of the Amazon and his relentless advocacy for the refugees who end up on the European shores.

He is known to wash and kiss the feet of Muslim immigrants and to welcome and offer a new home to non-Christian refugee families within the Vatican residence. He is not afraid to openly criticize cruel and inhumane decisions of powerful politicians, such as the mistreatment of refugees, the building of border walls, family separations, the death penalty and policies that foster further economic inequality, but he manages to stay away from specific political endorsements as he declines to tell his American flock which candidate they should vote for in presidential elections.

The globalized world needs to encounter a Catholic Church that is not entangled with power politics and nationalism and that will follow the leadership of Pope Francis. The church needs the examples of leaders like St. John Paul II, who kissed the ground of Communist countries and the scarred faces of victims of oppression, and Father Mal, who risked arrest to pray with an overwhelmingly atheist crowd. To be a truly relevant and transformative force, the Catholic Church of the 21st century needs to be willing to relinquish political power and meet the suffering and marginalized in their humble and vulnerable position.

Embracing those with a strong Christian upbringing as well as those who have not yet heard the Gospel, the church needs to recognize that the greatest potential for the future of Christianity may be among those who practice their faith despite oppression. In Western societies, there is hope that revival may come from the least powerful, especially the immigrants and refugees, who often end up on our shores untouched by the waters of baptism. The newly found faith of those who convert and their powerful testimonies may inspire those who have taken their religion for granted.

The Catholic Church of my childhood in Prague was stripped of all its former worldly power and glory. The contradiction between the dazzling beauty of Catholic art and architecture on every corner of Prague, and a widespread lack of knowledge of even the most basic tenets of Christianity during Communist times was an absurdity that only Franz Kafka would have been able to describe adequately. Tall gothic spires and baroque domes form the skyline of the city and witness to the former political, ideological and cultural influence that the church enjoyed throughout centuries of Czech history. Yet the role of the Catholic clergy was often reduced to the upkeep of the church building and limited service to the elderly and foreign tourists.

Lured by the serene beauty of the interior, sublime organ music and perhaps the spiritual effects of my infant baptism I did not yet know about, I was occasionally able to witness Masses celebrated in languages that I could not understand and to walk around beautifully ornate fonts filled with holy water, which I was not permitted to touch. Silent priests, who could face severe repercussions for engaging with the young, never acknowledged my presence as I tried to piece together the basic tenets of the Gospel story, partially preserved in ancient paintings, Latin inscriptions and Christmas carols, which could not be sung outside our homes.

The public prayer by Father Vclav Mal in front of half a million people in November 1989 was thus a stunning event and a sure sign of change. Although the spirit of freedom was already in the air, there were still lingering fears of military suppression, as older generations recalled their vivid memories of the brutal invasion by troops of the Warsaw Pact that snuffed out the 1968 Prague Spring freedom movement 21 years before.

Despite these well-founded fears of possible repression and despite the fact that most dissidents and the majority of the public were not believers, many Catholic priests as well as other Christian leaders embraced all the risks and vulnerability and joined the humble and spiritually impoverished crowd in the public square. Under the cold grey skies of those pivotal days, their prayers and encouragement helped change the course of history and opened the gates of freedom for millions of people, whose lives would never be the same.

Read more from America:

Follow this link:
The church in the West is in declineand nationalism won't save it - America Magazine

Articles and letters may be edited for the purposes of clarity and space. They are published in good faith with a view to enlightening all the stakeholders. However, the contents of these writings may not necessarily match the views of the newspaper.

Restore Quaids Pakistan

Pakistan has suffered enough ever since we diverted from Quaids vision that Pakistan should be a modern democratic welfare state where all citizens would have equal opportunities, laws and constitution would be supreme and fundamental rights assured.

This country was not created to provide sanctuary to extremists, exploiting sectarian and ethnic divide, for perpetuating their greed for power, nor a country to be a haven for land mafia and cartels involved in black-marketing and hoarding, nor to fight proxy wars for others.

This country was created through a democratic political struggle waged by politicians with integrity, unwilling to submit to temptations of allotment of lands and assets.

It was expected that the Muslim majority would incorporate the Islamic concept of justice, tolerance, meritocracy, pursuit of knowledge in science & technology, economics and welfare for all in Constitution. MAJ elaborated this on 11 August 1947.

Instead, what we have witnessed is exploitation of religion and a system based on the legacy of colonial laws with a paid bureaucracy created by Raj to serve the interests of an occupying colonial power, conspiring to ensure that modern welfare state, where the will of people reigns supreme does not emerge.

Half the country was lost, when Pakistan under a debauched dictator refused to hand over power to the elected representatives on one pretext or another.

A country created through a political process for the establishment of a modern democratic welfare state was derailed by opportunists exploiting religion and today we face danger of chaos.

MALIK TARIQ ALILahore

Myth of atheism

The existence of God the Magnificent is the ultimate Truth and tangible Reality of this universe.

He is the All-Knowing and Master of this humungous workshop before our eyes. His creations and the wonders of human existence hold the ground of His Existence.

But unfortunately, the increasing reliance on the scientific empiricism and experiments have led the humanity astray. It has diverted man from his ultimate Benefactor.

Nowadays, another prevalent spook of atheism is trending in our society. From the metropolitan cities to the interior cities of the Sindh and Punjab, people are instantly modernizing themselves as atheists hopelessly denying their own existence on the face of this earth.

They are ready to be in discord with their Creator making their life an unpardonable offence.

One may say that despite having the greatest wonder of this world their mind, they are denying the purpose of their creation and existence on this pale blue dot. Any logical being having the senses and intellect can not dare deny the identity of Lord.

Implicitly, one, being a rational and logical, can easily prove the existence of God. Take a look around you.

Dont you see the working of all human beings, the day being converted to night and vice versa.

Are these impassable and undiscovered roots of this unending universe deniable? Is it possible to say that this huge mechanism of universe is working without any Powerful Entity?

The logical answer which strikes to human mind is no. Lets reflect upon our daily life and scientific research. Can a person be begotten without father? Could the technology and giant vehicles come into existence without their manufacturer? If everything present on the surface of this earth has a creator so how come this beautiful universe come into being without any Manufacturer. Even the logic itself refutes the argument.

AWAIS GOPANGKarachi

World Population Day

11 July was observed as World Population Day across the world to raise awareness about the reproductive health needs and susceptibilities.

In 2007, United Nation projected that in 2050 Pakistan will move to 5th place with around 292 million people, but it is alarming to note that UNs projection became true in 2021 almost 29 years earlier.

Not only in Pakistan but all over the world this growth is successively increasing which is not good for any country.

Because no country has graduated from developing status to developed in the last sixty years without first reducing population growth.

It has been observed that the countries that have balanced population, crime rate is very low in such regions. But where people are not provided with the basic necessities, it elevates crime rate.

Overpopulation exacerbates many social and environmental factors, including overcrowded living conditions, pollution, malnutrition and inadequate or non-existent healthcare, which wreak havoc on the poor and has increased their likelihood of being exposed to infectious disease.

Approximately 350,000 women die each year due to pregnancy-related causes, despite recent improvement and international commitments to reducing maternal mortality.

So lowering fertility rate by increasing the use of family planning helps reduce pregnancy-related deaths and population growth.

This year the World Population Day theme focuses on importance of the reproductive health and rights for all people, that is, Rights and Choices are the answer: whether baby boom or bust, the solution to shifting fertility rate lies in prioritizing the reproductive health and rights of all people.

So there is a dire need on national and international level to reduce population because not every growth is inspiring and beautiful if it hampers our home.

NADEA SOOMROIslamabad

Appeal to Interior Minister

As recently Federal Investigation Agency FIA announced 1148 various catogeriesed vacancies in the country to fill them out within four provinces of the country for which more than one million people cleared their online registration through FIA online portal.

So here the vacancies are categorised into various steps to fill them on open merits like Inspector, Assistance Sub-Inspector, Constable and many more which are needed to be filled.

For instance, first step is physical exercise, along weight and height of the candidates, if they will have been selected, then go for the written test.

Likewise, there are so many candidates who applied for the vacancies from Makran Division Balochistan which is far from the capital city of the province.

Since most of them belong to middle class families so it is tough for them to bear the cost of travelling to the capital city for the physical test, if they dont complete the requirements of the physical test, obviously they will be rejected from the beginning without sitting in written examination.

For this reason, they face many problems about their financial condition to come back without any good consequences.

Therefore, it is the kind request to the Interior Minister to bring this concern into the test taking members of FIA to conduct the physical examination in any district of Makran division so that the aspiring candidates can feel comfortable to not face any bad consequences without not being selected. Hope the honourable Minister will listen!AZEEM ABDULLAHTurbat, Makran

The rest is here:
Voice of the People - Pakistan Observer

Lets jump into more bad atheist arguments!

The Atheist Who Didnt Exist (2015) by Andy Bannister promises to critique a number of atheist arguments. The subtitle is, The dreadful consequences of bad arguments. Im on board with bad arguments having bad consequences, so Im curious to hear what Im guilty of.

In the introduction, Ravi Zacharias says, Time and again the atheist is unable to answer the fundamental questions of life, such as is there a moral framework to life? In the first place, Ravi has been revealed as a poor source of any critique of morality.

But back to the book: I disagree that atheists cant answer questions about morality. More importantly, the Christian thinks he can?! Unfortunately, though the author seems to understand his need to show that Christianity is more than just groundless claims, all he provides in the entire book are a couple of references and apologies that pro-Christian arguments arent within the scope of the book. Its like a Creationist approach in this regardall attack and no defense.

The tone is deliberately lighthearted, often to an extreme of silliness, though it was too full of insults for me to find it amusing. I cant in one paragraph frisk in field of lavender clover with a miniature pink rhinoceros who plays show tunes through a calliope in its horn but then two paragraphs later be lectured that my arguments are embarrassing, extremely bad, or disastrous. The flippant tone got old fast.

Bannister wrote from a UK context (and five years ago), and some of his Whats the big deal? comments in response to Christian excesses didnt translate well to the religious environment in the United States. Christian privilege is indeed a big deal in the U.S., both for atheists living in the Bible Belt and for any American who must deal with Christian motivations behind federal laws and Supreme Court decisions.

He begins with the 2009 atheist bus campaign sponsored by the British Humanist Association that put the following slogan on hundreds of buses in the UK: Theres probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life. I remember being impressed when I first heard about this campaign. It seemed edgythough public Christian proclamations were commonbut the message was pretty tame.

If youre going to give a reason to reconsider religion, there are plenty of harsher ones. Maybe: In the name of God, the Thirty Years War killed 8 million people. God, I hope youre happy. Or: Christianity makes you do strange things with a photo of a child killed by parents who insisted on prayer instead of medicine or a teen driven to suicide by Christian bullies.

But the mild Theres probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life still exasperates Bannister. He says,

The slogan, despite its friendly pink letters, is a perfect example of a really bad argument. An argument so bad, so disastrous, in fact, that one has to wonder what its sponsors were thinking....

Much of contemporary atheism thrives on poor arguments and cheap sound bites, advancing claims that simply dont stand up to scrutiny.

Only after several pages of throat clearing do we get a glimmer of an actual complaint.

One might begin by noting the preachy, condescending, and hectoring tone.

With that gentle slogan? Oh, please. Drop some of your Christian privilege and grow a thicker skin.

The atheist bus campaign was triggered by a 2008 Christian bus ad campaign that gave a web address that said that all non-Christians would burn in hell for all eternity. Youve got to be pretty clueless to miss the difference between Theres probably no god and stating that non-Christians deserve to burn in hell forever.

Bannister next asks, Whats the connection between the non-existence of something and any effect, emotional or otherwise? Do atheists complain about unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster not existing?

In a dozen places, Banister writes something like this that makes me wonder if hes just not paying attention. No, we dont complain about unicornsthey dont exist, and they dont cause problems. Christianity, on the other hand, does exist, and Christianity and Christians docause problems. See the difference?

He next gives Christian author Francis Spuffords critique:

Im sorryenjoy your life? Enjoy your life? Im not making some kind of neo-puritan objection to enjoyment.

If youre not causing problems, thats great, but if youre not aware of the problems, youre also not paying attention. Christian adults live burdened with guilt. Christian children startle awake at a noise and wonder if this is the beginning of Armageddon, which their parents have assured them is imminent. Christian homosexuals deny themselves romantic relationships to satisfy an absent god. This isnt true for all Christians, of course, but imposing a worldview burdened with Bronze Age nonsense and informed by faith rather than evidence has consequences.

Bannister wants to highlight the problem with the slogan by proposing this variant: Theres probably no Loch Ness Monster, so stop worrying and enjoy your life. Imagine telling this to someone down on his luck, someone whos been kicked around by fate. Would he be cheered by this new knowledge?

No, because the Loch Ness Monster has zero impact in anyones life. Remove Nessies non-existent impact from someones life and nothing has changed. But do I really have to explain that god belief has a big impact on many people? For example, the United States has a famously secular constitution, and Christians nibble at the edges like rats looking for ways to dismantle its separation of church and state for their benefit. See the difference?

He wants to force atheists to take their own medicine.

If the atheist bus slogan is right and there is no God, theres nobody out there who is ultimately going to help [you pull yourself together]. Youre alone in a universe that cares as little about you (and your enjoyment) as it does about the fate of the amoeba, the ant or the aardvark.

First, I hope we can agree that its vital for us to see reality correctly. If there isnt a god out there, best we figure that out, come to terms with it, and shape society in accord with that knowledge.

And youre seriously wagging your finger at us to warn that our worldview has no beneficent Sky Daddy? Yes, we knowwere atheists! The heavens dont shower us with benefits that disbelief will shut off. God already does nothing for us nowthats the point. Its not like we dont want to admit that we dont believe in Santa anymore because were afraid the Christmas presents will vanish.

You know who improves society? We do. Were not perfect, and some of the problems are of our own making, but lets acknowledge where we have improved things. Slavery is illegal. Smallpox is gone. Clean water, vaccines, and antibiotics improve health. Artificial fertilizer and improved strains of wheat feed billions and make famine unlikely. We can anticipate natural disasters. (More here and here.) God has done nothing to improve society.

As for the universe not caring about us, well, yeah. Is there any evidence otherwise? If so, make a case.

A popular Christian argument shifts attention from Christianitys excesses (wars, Crusades, and so on) to bad atheist leaders like Stalin.

What about atheisms own chequered history? Stalin was responsible for the deaths of some 20 million people, while the death toll for Maos regime is at least double that.

Richard Dawkins lampooned this argument with this tweet: Stalin, Hitler and Saddam Hussein were evil, murdering dictators. All had moustaches. Therefore moustaches are evil.

Yes, Stalin was a bad man, but why? Was it the mustache? Was it his atheism? No, Stalin was a dictator, and dictators dont like alternate power structures like the church. Religion was competition, so Stalin made it illegal. Atheist dictators didnt do anything in the name of atheism. Lack of a god belief is no reason to order people killed. (I expose the Stalin argument here and here.)

Bannister concludes that the bus slogan and the moustache argument are both examples of not just weak arguments, but extremely bad arguments.

Uh huh. Youll have to tell us why some day. He continues, I have been struck by how many of my atheist friends are deeply embarrassed by these terrible skeptical arguments.

Oh, dear. Hes disappointed in me, and I would be embarrassed at these arguments, too, if I had any sense.

Sorry, Im not riding that train. Give me less outrage and more argument.

Bannister laments, The atheist bus advertisement illustrates the danger not just of poor arguments, but especially of argument by sound bite.

This is coming from a believer in Christianity? Where some think that evolution is overturned by mocking it as from goo to you via the zoo? Where church signs have slogans like How will you spend eternitySmoking or Nonsmoking?? Where emotion is the argument, not intellect? Get your own house in order first, pal.

More to come.

Wandering in a vast forest at night,I have only a faint light to guide me.A stranger appears and says to me:My friend, you should blow out your candlein order to find your way more clearly.This stranger is a theologian. Denis Diderot

.

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 12/19/16.)

Image from Wikimedia (license CC BY 2.0)

.

Read more:
Book review of The Atheist Who Didn't Exist: more bad atheist arguments? - Patheos

Atheist PartialMitchoffered a response to my paper, Reply to the Nonsense of Atheists Have No Worldview (2-13-21) in the combox underneath. His words will be in blue. My words that he cites from the older paper will be in green.

*****

Before I start counter-responding, let me briefly reiterate what my argument was in this paper:

Technically, non-belief in God is not a belief, but a rejection of another; I (and we) agree.However(and its ahugehowever), atheists dohighly tend to hold to certain beliefs, whether they will acknowledge them or not. And these beliefs do in fact add up to a particular worldview held by the vast majority of atheists. Briefly put, most of them arephilosophical materialists,empiricists,positivists,methodological naturalists, enraptured with science as supposedly the sole validepistemology: making it essentially their religion (scientism): all of which are objectively identifiable positions, that can be discussed and either embraced or dismissed.

So its not so much that we are saying that there is an atheist worldviewper se. Rather, we make the observation (fromlong personal experience, if one is an apologist like myself) that every self-described atheist will overwhelmingly tend to possess a particular worldview (whatever they call it or dont call it) that is an amalgam of many specific, identifiable things that themselves are worldviews or philosophies or ways of life.

After I laid out my general perspective on the matter, I listed some of the many things that atheistsen massebelieve: a list of eleven, that our atheist friend reacts to below. This doesnt mean that every single atheist believes every single thing, but its a generality that massively holds. Synonyms for en masse include by and large, all in all, generally, and on the whole.

I didnt indicate what I myself believed about the eleven points, so PartialMitch thinks I deny some that I do not deny at all. I fully and wholeheartedly accept #1-7. I obviously reject #8, as any Christian or theist must, because its philosophical materialism. I reject the second portion of #9 and believe that the Big Bang occurred because God willed it to be so. I reject #10 too because it denies the existence of God and His status as Creator of the universe. I deny #11 because science is not the only means to attain knowledge. Its fantastic as far as it goes in its own domain but it is not the sum total of all knowledge or ways of arriving at it.

1) that matter exists.

Im on my porch, wearing slippers. If I kick the metal leg of this nearby table, my toe will hurt.

So we agree on this self-evident truth.

2) that he or she exists.

Well, technically speaking, thats the only thing I can know for sure. Cogito, ergo sum, and all that jazz. Sure, everything could be an illusion, but I lack the ego to take such a concept seriously.

We agree on this self-evident truth, too.

Remember, my point was that atheists believe certain things, and I listed what I thought were the main ones. They have a worldviewand/or a philosophy (just like everyone else), whether they are aware of it or not, which consists of the totality of these separate beliefs that they accept. So every time PartialMitch agrees with one of these eleven points, he bolsters my own case (which he seems to be unaware of, too).

3) that matter can be observed according to more or less predictable scientific laws (uniformitarianism).

Show me otherwise, and Ill take it into consideration. Science works as a description of what we observe. Those laws are codified explanations, not mystical rules. Give me some demonstrations, and then we can talk.

Now we have agreement on three straight points. He seems to think that I would deny uniformitarianism, which is ridiculous. He appears to make the usual atheist assumption (I could have almost added it to the list; at least applied to the anti-theist sub-group of atheists) that somehow Christians are inexorably opposed to science and are overall just sort of dumb and clueless.

Any Christian or other kind of theist who has spent more than three days on an active online atheist forum is fully aware firsthand of the extreme hostility towards Christians and their worldview. If I had a dime for every lie Ive heard in these places about what all or most Christians supposedly believe or disbelieve, Id be richer than Croesus.

4) that we can trust our senses to analyze such observations and what they mean (empiricism).

Nope. Our senses are weak, limited and flawed. Evolution is sloppy. So we have to find as many ways as possible to get around that. And researchers have to redo our observations and experiments again and again in as many novel ways as they can invent. Its the very opposite of trusting our senses.

That is true as far as it goes, but I was speaking at a more fundamental or presuppositional level. Empiricism presupposes that our senses can make sense of reality and attain knowledge, through observation and experience, as opposed to simply generating ideas in our heads in some kind of theoretical isolated bubble. What I was driving at is more fully expressed in these past statements of mine:

We trust our senses for giving us accurate information about the external world. Indeed, all of science is built upon this initial premise.

We all do that naturally. A baby can do it. Does that mean its not valid or trustworthy or serious until and unless we can fully explain it? Clearly not.

Its only recently, in fact, that we have advanced in neuroscience to the extent that we can actually explain the particular processes that go into sight and storage of such information obtained by sight into our brains.

But we all had trusted our eyesight (and other senses) all those years before we had technical explanations of it. We had created modern science before we could prove all the ins and outs of sensory perception. (11-17-15)

In order to do science at all (to even get it off the ground) one must accept a number of axiomatic propositions; e.g.,:

a) the external universe exists and is not illusory.

b) the universe observes scientific laws [is not chaotic].

c) these laws apply to all times and places (uniformitarianism).

d) these actual or potential realities are able to be observed and tested.

e) we can trust our senses to provide us reliable data with which to conduct these experiments, whose utility and epistemological relevance we assume without empirical evidence. (10-27-15)

5) in the correctness of mathematics, which starts from axioms as well.

Math works. Better than anything. If you are going to dismiss math, then I see no reason to take you seriously. If youre simply being blithe, then youre wasting everyones time.

Right. Now he thinks that I am somehow against mathematics (the Christians are so ignorant and anti-intellectual that they reject obvious truths a, b, c, d that all thinking people accept mentality). In fact, we fully agree on this, making it four out of five; and I think we would really agree on #4 also: rightly understood (as clarified).

6) in the laws of logic, in order to even communicate (not to mention argue) anything with any meaning at all.

Kinda, maybe. But doesnt everyone? Theists do. Apologetics often relies on logic. So how is this a jab at atheism?

Once again, its not a jab at atheism. The list addresses the claim that atheists have no worldview. I show that they do indeed possess one, by having all or most of these beliefs. This is something we all have in common, and so its agreement on at least five of the first six propositions: thus rather dramatically supporting my overall argument.

7) in presupposing that certain things are absolutely true.

See my response to #6. Read it twice.

And read my reply to #6 twice. We now agree on 6 out of 7.

8) that matter has the inherent God-like / in effect omnipotent capability of organizing itself, evolving, inexorably developing into all that we observe in the entire universe. There is no God or even any sort of immaterial spirit that did or could do this, so it has to fall back onto matter. The belief in this without any reason whatsoever to do so is what I have written at length about as the de facto religion of atomism. [link]

We can observe matter organize itself on levels from the subatomic to the cosmic. Fusion happens in stars and bombs, crystals form wherever they can, complex organic chemicals develop on the surface of comets, circumstellar discs coalesce into planetary systems. Matter organizes itself in a near-infinitude of ways and at no level have we seen sign of or need for divine intervention.

Exactly! He agrees again! The point is not to deny anything that we observe; rather, its to note that atheists accept in blind faith the idea that matter can do all these wonderful things by virtue of some inherent capacity or capability or potentiality. Atheists rarely attempt to explain the how and why of that at its deepest, most fundamental level. Its a quasi-religious belief in the most blind, pure faith that matter alone can do all these things without need for divine intervention.

Seems to me like youre the one believing in something without any reason whatsoever.

The question at the moment is not what I believe and why I believe it (which I have explained in more than 3,600 articles and 50 books, as a professional Catholic apologist), but what atheists believe and why they believe it. But in any event, all people accept things they cannot prove. Thats what we call axioms.

9) that the universe began in a Big Bang (for who knows what reason).

This is two separate things.

Yes, which is why I could agree on part A but not part B.

One, the Big Bang, which is merely an observation (originally described by a Catholic priest, Lematre) that the currently-expanding cosmos can be traced back to a single point. This matches all other observations from all other sources using all known methods (and new ones as we come up with them).

Yet more evidence that atheists have a very definite worldview (and one which is actually in agreement with theists and Christians on many points, as this exchange demonstrates with flying colors) . . .

Two, the need for a reason. I have none. I dont need some grand purpose behind existence, let alone an emotional or personal one.

This shows that he fully agrees with #9, thus making my case for me again.

10) that the universe created itself out of nothing (for who knows what reason), but its deemed more rational than the Christian believing that God is an eternal spirit, Who created the universe.

Again, you have two points here, and they are wildly divergent. Youre making a disingenuous leap.

Its one thing to debate the rationality of cosmological models.

I take it that he agrees with the first part, since it basically re-states #9.

Its something quite different to assert that one specific religion based on a jumbled scripture and evolving traditions with sketchy ethics and a decidedly unrighteous history is equally rational. Even if one rejects the former, its kinda ridiculous to jump straight to the latter.

Im making no leap at all; let alone a disingenuous one. Im describing what atheists massively believe. And they definitely believe that the universe somehow creating itself out of nothing, for no reason or an unknown or unknowable reason, is more rational than the Christian belief in an eternal Spirit Who created this universe. Im simply stating the obvious.

PartialMitchs reaction, with its quick profound insults of the Christian worldview precisely prove what I am saying. He cant hide his intellectual hostility and condescension. Its gotta come out. He despises and detests the Christian view at a very deep level, as fundamentally confused, ever-changing, unethical, and unrighteous.

11) that science is the only method by which we can objectively determine facts and truth (extreme empiricism + scientism).

Thats really been your point through most of this. You could have saved yourself some bullet points by leading with that.

Nonsense. None of the points up to this one asserted or even remotely dealt with the notion that science is the only way to attain knowledge; the sole epistemology. But in fact, science essentially serves as the religious view of many if not most atheists. Many atheists cant comprehend that one can passionately love science (as I do) and yet not consider it the be-all and end-all of existence and thinking.

Similarly, many Protestants (I was one for my first 32 years or roughly half of my life) cant comprehend how Catholicscan passionately love the Bible (as I do) and yet not consider it the be-all and end-all of Christianity and theology. To adopt some belief is not the same thing as denigrating or somehow lowering another belief (consistent with the new one) in the scheme of things.

The answer here is the same as so many of the others: science works.

Of course it does. That has nothing to do with my argument.

It works better than any other method of understanding, and it does so in the majority of fields. After all, science is nothing more than the application of the scientific method. We come up with ideas, we test them, we see the results, and our knowledge grows from there; repeat as much as possible.

Is it the only method of understanding? That was my specific point. If he says it is, then he agrees with my description of the atheist worldview yet again. If he denies, it, what are the other means to attain knowledge?

It doesnt take faith to accept science. In fact, all sorts of scientists are believers. You spend most of this post trashing atheists for scientism while ignoring the devotion to science seen in individuals across all religious and cultural divides.

Beside the point again (non sequitur). But it takes several axioms to accept science, and since they are unproven by nature, it is an act very similar to faith (acceptance of an unproven or not minutely understood proposition).

You also ignore the fact that those people who do reject science generally do it because of their religion, not because of any problems with science itself.

I agree. The sad history of Islam for hundreds of years shows that. It (on the whole) rejected reason and science alike. At least the virulent fundamentalist strain of it did that. Its also the fundamentalists among Christians who reject many aspects of science.

When religions allow it, appreciation of science is common, and many deeply religious people have made incredible contributions to science.

Yep. For example, see my papers:

Christianity: Crucial to the Origin of Science[8-1-10]

Scientific & Empiricist Church Fathers: To Augustine (d. 430)[2010]

33 Empiricist Christian Thinkers Before 1000 AD[8-5-10]

23 Catholic Medieval Proto-Scientists: 12th-13th Centuries[2010]

Christians or Theists Founded 115 Scientific Fields[8-20-10]

So, yeah, I think youre kinda straw-manning here. Youre accusing atheists of worshiping science while ignoring that science has no barriers against religious people. That countless religions people rely on it. That countless religious people love science, too.

Completely irrelevant to (and in part misrepresents) my argument . . .

Acceptance of science is not the same thing as religious belief. Atheists accept it at a higher rate than religious people specifically and only because those religions command it. Thats it. We arent worshiping science; we simply are not worshiping anything that would prevent us from admiring it.

What other forms of knowledge and epistemology do you also accept? You didnt say, so you may indeed be a science-only atheist: precisely as I have said is a major characteristic or hallmark of the atheist worldview.

My argument has not been overthrown to the slightest degree. To the contrary, PartialMitch affirms and supports it again and again. And of course Im delighted to see that.

I couldnt care less about overthrowing your argument. Because you dont seem to be making much of one. You accuse atheists of scientism as if most religious people are any different. You claim that science is our worldview, despite the fact that you share it.

Its less that atheists have no worldview, and more thatatheismhas no worldview. The acceptance of science is, as you pointed out, independent of ones opinion on gods.

Thats why its disingenuous of you to use most of these points to deride atheists. I didnt miss your point; I was calling it what it is, disingenuous.

Of course we believe in science; so do you. The difference is that we dont believe the other things that you do. The rest has been stripped away, but that which actually works remains. Therefore I find it foolish to claim that scientism is a hallmark of atheism or that it is an atheistic worldview. Its a shared worldview that many of us have in common.

As far as other epistemology goes youre kinda right. Our methods of knowing (axioms and logic and the like) are tools and nothing more, and if the tool proves itself worthless, then it deserves to be discarded. Faith is not required to accept things that work.

I dont take any sort of revealed knowledge seriously, and the same is true for any attempted epistemology thats tied to it. I dont take traditions seriously, because they are mere reflections of the cultures that formed them. And word games of any sort fail to impress me.

Finally, its hilarious that you make a big deal of my condescension, when your comments both here and elsewhere positively drip with disdain. Hi there, Mister Kettle, I am Mister Pot. Its nice to meet you.

Thanks for the first round. The second in a dialogue / debate is, for some reason, quite often a more tricky, sensitive affair and many people want no part of it. They take their final potshot and split. I think thats unfortunate, because the 2nd and 3rd rounds of a debate are where things get far more interesting and challenging.

To be honest, I dont really consider this a debate as much as conversation. I dont want to change your mind, and I seriously doubt youll change mine, but discussions are my favorite entertainment. I used to be friends with a Jesuit (he moved away some time ago), so this sort of thing is old hat for me.

My question to you is this: Do you consider science a part of your religion? If so, how? If not, then how can you consider it religion for atheists?

To me, they are different things. When you tack on the ideas you consider deeper or fundamental youre adding your own religious needs to the topic. A follower of a nontheistic religion would have rather different fundamentals. The same is true for nonbelievers.

Science isnt part of my religion, technically, but its very much a part of my worldview, epistemology / philosophy, and overall search for truth.

I say it is the religion of many atheists precisely because they fall prey to scientism and make it the sum of all knowledge. Thus it very much takes on several qualities of a religious view: strong allegiance, faith in numerous axioms, explanatory power, replacement of traditional theistic views of omnipotence with the all-powerful atom, authoritative priest / authority-figures like Fauci (who is a humanist), etc., etc.

Christians not only played the key role in the development of modern science, but we respect it so much that we have been willing to modify our understanding of Scripture itself based on scientific advances (a local Flood and an old earth would be two of those).

When you say I was disingenuous do you mean just certain ideas or me as a person being deliberately dishonest?

The ideas, nothing personal. This specific idea, actually.

See more here:
Atheist Unwittingly (?) Confirms the Usual Atheist Worldview | Dave Armstrong - Patheos