Category Archives: Atheism

As a legislator, columnist/blogger, educator, and quasi-raconteur, I enjoy back-and-forth regarding sports, politics, movies and more. But I generally avoid getting into religion. Still, as someone who feels that vibrant religious communities with their associated values and activities are important parts of a healthy society, I sometimes get cognitive dissonance about avoiding the topic.

Some might call it conscience.

Which brings me to a friend Ill call Ed. Hes a non-believer with whom I have conversed about religion. Being a former Marine, I once asked Ed if he believed Marines had esprit de corps.

Of course, said Ed.

What does it mean?

French expression meaning spirit of the corps, replied Ed. A common feeling of pride and purpose that motivates a group. Sure, Marines have it in spades.

Can other groups have it?

Sure. Teams, clubs, organizations. If they have good leadership and common goals.

So you believe in this esprit, or spirit? Even though you cant see or touch it?

Yes, laughed Ed. Of course.

Can a religious group also be animated or motivated by an esprit de corps, like Marines or teams or clubs?

Why not? said Ed.

So what if religious folks claim theyre motivated by a special esprit de corps that they refer to as a holy spirit?

Ed is silent. Having already acknowledged the existence of an intangible esprit, he wont use the English word for it. He saw where I was going. To admit the existence of a Holy Spirit which is what some religious folks refer to as an animating esprit that inspires themis essentially to admit the existence of God, in that some Christian doctrines describe the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Trinity, or God as spiritually active in the world.

Without listing names, there are many transformative figures throughout human history who, clearly inspired by a certain esprit (Holy Spirit?) have provided humankind with lessons, parables, belief structures, and inspiration to live good and productive lives. And happy ones too.

Countless surveys and research document that the religious are more generous and happier than non-religious. With exceptions of course. But the data is out there. Google away.

I ask Ed to consider the incredible good work that programs like Catholic Charities do around the world effectively and efficiently. What do atheist charities do? Might Ed be happier if he donated wherewithal or energy to one of the many wonderful religious charities?

I pay taxes, says Ed. The government does a lot of good work.

Of course.

And I dont need to go to church for a spiritual experience. I can get that by climbing a mountain.

But isnt that a bit narcissistic? Isnt there strength in numbers and value to being part of a group or community animated by an esprit/spirit to do public good and help people?

Ed laughed.

But at least he didnt get personal. A challenge for some of us when we summon up the nerve to talk about religion or values is that we must brace for personal criticism.

Who are you to talk about this stuff, given all your foibles, flaws, and sins? And what about all the hypocritical religious people who do bad things?

Sigh. Some require an unattainable measure of perfection from the inherently imperfect before engaging about religion a measure not expected from others.

But we drift away from our historical religious roots at our own peril. Witness the growing coarseness, alienation and violence that seem to accompany Americas increasing secularization. New Hampshire is rated as the least religious state. It also features about the highest rate of substance abuse. A correlation?

History is replete with religious conflict. True. As well as plenty of anti-religious violence. After the horrific French Revolution, Pariss Notre Dame Cathedral was converted by the secular to what they called a Temple of Reason. After the horrific Russian Revolution, official atheism shut down the churches. Soviet dictator Josef Stalin ridiculed religious influence, asking How many divisions can the Pope deploy?

Funny thing though. Notre Dame Cathedral eventually returned to religious splendor. And churches are now open all over Russia even if some are closing in Concord. The Holy Spirit can be ridiculed, quashed, or denied, but its apparently eternal as it provides hope and inspiration for individuals and communities to pursue kinder, gentler paths.

Easter Sunday is April 4. A chance for Ed to pick out a church and perhaps witness some real esprit first-hand!

(State Rep. Mike Moffett of Loudon is a retired professor and former Marine Corps officer.)

Read this article:
My Turn: Educating Ed on Easter - Concord Monitor

The very real controversies of Americas 2021 have conjured up the fictional dystopia of George Orwells1984. The right condemns Big Tech as an incipient Big Brothersurveying citizens and suppressing disapproved thought. The left replies that Donald Trump is the true Orwellian threat. After all, he lies!

These spirited disagreements conceal an important consensus. Most Americans agree that the totalitarianism depicted in1984is bad and that we must beware of letting that nightmare vision become a reality in our own country. Our commitment to preserving freedom, then, invites us to consider the basis of this totalitarianism. In other words, we need to ask: what must the citizens be like to permit such a tyranny to arise?

In Orwells classic novel, Oceanias totalitarianism rests on compulsory atheism. Oceania is ruled by the Party, which forbids religion to its members. Religious belief is one of the crimes to which Winston Smith, the hero of1984, confesses under torturealong with sexual perversion and admiration of capitalism. The Party has to forbid religious belief because atheism is both the moral and metaphysical basis of its absolute power.

Atheism is the moral basis of the Partys unlimited hold on its own members because it makes them terrified of death as absolute nonexistence. Like any government, the Party in1984has the power to kill disobedient subjects. Party members, however, view death not just as the end of bodily life, but as a complete erasure of their beingtheir thoughts, their words, their affections, their deeds. Winston Smith muses that the terrible thing about the Party is its ability to make you vanish, such that neither you nor your actions were ever heard of again. You were lifted clean out of the stream of history.

Yet the Party does not demand atheism of everybody. The prolesthe proletarians, the workersare permitted religious belief. As the Party teaches, proles and animals are free. Being free from dogmatic atheism, the proles are also free to believe in the intrinsic value of their own intentions and actions, even in the face of death. For the proles, as for the people who had lived before the revolution that ushered in Oceanias totalitarian state, a completely helpless gesture, an embrace, a tear, a word spoken to a dying man, could have value in itself. Thus the proles, Winston observes, had stayed human.

In contrast, members of the Party view death as absolute defeat, from which the only escape is total submission to the Party, which alone is immortal. This, as the Party official OBrien instructs Winston, is the basis of the Partys seemingly contradictory slogan, freedom is slavery. As an individualalone and freethe human being is always defeated, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of failures. The only path of salvation, then, is complete, utter submission to the Party. Only if an individual can escape from his identity, only if he can merge himself into the Party so that heisthe Party, can he become all-powerful and immortal.

Atheism is also the metaphysical basis of1984s totalitarian regime. It underwrites the philosophic understanding of reality on which the Partys unlimited power rests.

The Party insists on teaching its members that there is no external, objective reality apart from subjective human consciousness. This is the lesson Winston has to learn the hard way (under torture) after trying to think for himself. Trying to think for yourself implies that there is something out there for you to think about, some truth that you might be able to find, on the basis of which you might be able to critique approved opinion.

This the Party strenuously denies, as OBrien labours to teach Winston. Nothing exists except through human consciousness. Outside man there is nothing. Reality is inside your skull. You must get rid of those nineteenth-century ideas about the laws of nature. We make the laws of nature.

Because there is no external, objective reality to which all human beings must conform, the Party gets to decide what is real. Sanity, Winston comes to believe, is statistical. That is, sanity means not seeing what is actually there but seeing what everybody else sees, which is what the Party is able to make them see. Whatever the Party holds to be truth is truth. It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the Party.

Unbelief in any external, objective reality gives the Party absolute power over the minds of its members. Or, to put it another way, this unbelief secures the abject intellectual slavishness of Party members, their willingness to accept whatever the Party hands out to them, however absurd it may be on its face, however obviously it contradicts what the Party has said previously. This philosophy is the basis of one of the Partys other famous slogans: Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.

Since there is no objective reality, the past has no real existence, and the Party can make it be whatever it decides it to be. As OBrien forces Winston to concede, the past does not exist in any place where one could go and confirm its characteristics. You could try to say that it exists in records, but the Party can revise all records. You could try to say that it exists in peoples memories, but the Party can falsify peoples memories through misinformation and intimidation.

1984 thus confronts us with a radical and very significant suggestion: without God as the eternal, omnipotent observer, there is no objective reality. Many have argued that without God there can be no fixed moral principles. Orwells great work goes further, raising the possibility that without God there cannot even be facts in any meaningful, reliable sense.

Think about it. Suppose I spill some water on the pavement on a hot summer day. It is gone in just a few momentsevaporated. Can I insist that it was really there? Where is the evidence of it now? If there is no eternity, if there is nothing but ceaseless flux, then every human lifeand, indeed, every human civilisation and the whole human pastis on the level of that quickly evaporated water. These things appear for a moment and, once gone, no longer exist. Thus we may claim them to be whatever we want, or even deny that they existed at all. Or, to be more accurate, those who have power can impose these claims and denials on the rest of us.

For decadesfor centuries, in factmany allegedly profound thinkers have proclaimed to the world that they were promoting enlightenment and the liberty of the mind by discrediting belief in God and the afterlife. Orwells1984, however, invites us to consider whether such thinkers have really been destroying the basis of freedom and laying the groundwork for unprecedented despotism.

This article has been republished with permission from thePublic Discourse online journal.

View original post here:
Orwell, atheism, and totalitarianism MercatorNet - MercatorNet

LONDON, March 31, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- Since the first reported case of COVID-19 in the USA in January 2020 more than 525,000 people have lost their lives to the pandemic.

For many, including those with religious affiliations, suffering and death raise many profound questions around the existence of God.

So, in light of the momentous happenings of the past 15 months, is it Christianity or atheism which makes best sense of who we are? That's the topic for the first episode of Season 3 of The Big Conversation a series of video debates featuring some of the world's biggest thinkers from a religious and atheistic perspective.

Available from Friday 2ndApril (1pm Eastern and 10am Pacific) the opening episode will explore whether human suffering and tragedy leave room for a caring, loving God.

In the first of the 6 episode Big Conversation series, Brierley welcomes Los Angeles-based Bishop Robert Barron(founder of Word on Fire) whose popular YouTubeand social media ministry reaches hundreds of thousands of skeptics along with Alex O'Connorwho is a Philosophy & Theology student at Oxford University. As a well-known voice in online atheistic circles O'Connor's YouTube channel Cosmic Skepticboasts more than 400,000 subscribers.

In the discussion O'Connor presses Bishop Barron on the problem of suffering in light of the pandemic saying "100,000 people who have died of COVID [in the UK] have done so because God allowed it."

Bishop Barron says that to blame God would itself require "a God-like perspective on all of space and time".

He responds: "Like anybody who's lived more than two years on planet earth I've suffered in my life and wondered 'why?' I totally get the emotional power of that.

"I think we hardly ever see the reason why, but we might get glimpses. As a pastoral minister, I've seen lots of examples of beautiful expressions of love that have occurred in the midst of this pandemic. Now is that the reason? No. I might get one little hint of one move on the chessboard of a good that has come from this. Yet in faith I can place suffering within the context of God's purposes."

You can watch a short promotional video here.

The series is produced by Premier Christian Radio in partnership with the John Templeton Foundation.

LINK TO IMAGES HERE

SOURCE Premier Christian Radio

Excerpt from:
Premier Christian Radio asks: How can we reconcile more than 525,000 COVID-related deaths in the USA with the concept of a loving God? - PRNewswire

Image Credit: Small Magellanic Cloud, by NASA/CXC/JPL-Caltech/STScI.

In 1973 physicist Brandon Carter noted that it is remarkable that many of the fundamental constants of physics are of just the right value to permit the emergence of man. Even slight differences in these constants would make intelligent life in the universe impossible. It is, he noted, as as if someone were expecting us. This observation came to be known as the anthropic principle, or the fine-tuning of the universe.

Its meaning and implications have been much debated, and of course it has caused considerable angst to atheists. If youre hard-set at denying the existence of God, fine-tuning of the cosmos to allow the existence of man is not an easy observation to elide.

Deniers of Gods existence have clung to one main gambit to avoid the design implications of the fine-tuning of the universe the multiverse. The multiverse is a theoretical inference drawn from the mathematical description of the early moments of the Big Bang. The equations of relativity imply the possible existence of many companion universes to ours. It seems that we cannot observe them, which makes their status as scientific observations dubious. But the multiverse has, for atheists, played a much more important role than that ordinarily played by untestable inferences from equations.

Atheists acknowledge the obvious: the likelihood that chance can account for the constellation of physical parameters that lead to the emergence man in our universe is vanishingly small. Instead, atheists argue that if the laws of physics differ slightly in each universe in the multiverse, then the probability across all of the universes the multiverse that the values of forces in one universe would permit life to arise becomes much higher.

There are innumerable variations to this argument, but all use a few quite clever yet misleading tactics.

The idea of a vast set of universes a multiverse is unintelligible. Universe means all that exists, for which multiplicity is senseless. Multiple everything is nonsense. Furthermore, even if desperate logic-parsing could impart meaning to multiverse (it cant), it is meaningless to apply probability arguments across disconnected universes you cannot meaningfully speak of the probability of something happening somewhere in Chicago, Endor, or Tatooine. Drawing statistical inferences from unobservable universes only makes sense in a script from Star Wars. It is no part of astrophysics.

Atheists extend the probability range of fine-tuning across countless universes in a way such that the probabilities in other universes cannot be observed. Because all universes except ours are unobservable, we cannot actually either measure the probability or confirm that or how the laws of physics vary in the other universes.

What atheists have done is invoke a concept of multiverse that is conceptually unintelligible and scientifically unobservable. This unintelligible unobservable probability landscape is convenient for atheists, who can merely assert that it accounts for fine-tuning without providing even a shred of evidence or logic. The multiverse theory frees atheists from real science, which is the only condition in which atheism can survive.

It tells us two things exemplified by fine and by tuning.

The universe is exquisitely fine-tuned for the existence of man, and the multiverse myth is a debating tactic, not science. But how are to understand the fine-tuning of the cosmos? What does it really tell us?

The fact that the universe is tuned that is, the fact there is any consistency at all in the laws of physics demonstrates Gods existence. This is Aquinas Fifth Way, which is the proof from design. St. Thomas used the example of arrows. If we were to see arrows flying through the air, one after another, and noted that they consistently tended to land at or near a specific spot, we would correctly infer that they were shot by an archer (rather than, say, blown by the wind). Any consistency in nature implies a Mind that draws consistency out of chaos. A targeted arrow implies an archer. Note that this is not an argument from complexity. The simplest consistency in nature a pencil falls down and not up, winter is colder than summer demonstrates Gods existence.

The second thing that fine-tuning tells us is exemplified by fine. Fine refers to the accuracy of the laws of nature, which reveals the Archers purposes. By observing the precision of targeting of the shot arrows, we can discern the Archers motives. If the arrows are merely flying into an open field, we may infer that the archer is just testing his bow. If the arrows are consistently hitting a bulls-eye target, we may infer that the archer is practicing his accuracy. If the arrows are hitting animals in the forest, we may infer that the archer is hunting. If the arrows are hitting soldiers encircling the area, we may infer that the archer is defending from an invasion.

The tuning of nature points to God, and the fineness of His tuning points to His purpose. The anthropic fine-tuning of our universe tells us that we are Gods purpose in creation.

This scientific reality has atheists in a panic, hence their need to fabricate countless fantasy universes and nonsensical probabilities. The fact that God created the universe and holds it in existence for us is a scientific fact unequivocally demonstrated by modern astrophysics.

Link:
Multiverse Myth Frees Atheists from Real Science - Discovery Institute

Vatican City (AFP)

Pope Francis, on a historic trip to Iraq, will on Saturday hold a hugely symbolic meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, seeking to deepen his cautious dialogue with Muslim leaders.

The 84-year-old pope will visit the top Shiite cleric at his home in Najaf, the shrine city where Imam Ali, the fourth Islamic caliph and relative of the Prophet Mohammed, is buried.

Sistani, 90, is never seen in public and rarely accepts visitors, but the Argentine pontiff, always happiest among the faithful, favours direct encounters.

Francis has long hailed the power of inter-religious dialogue, symbols of peace and tolerance, without dwelling on the theological subtleties advanced by his predecessor.

Benedict XVI, who resigned as pope eight years ago, provoked years of cool relations with the Muslim world when in 2006 he quoted criticisms of the Prophet Mohammed by a 14th-century Byzantine Christian emperor.

Two years ago in Abu Dhabi, Francis and leading Sunni cleric Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb, the grand imam of Al-Azhar, signed a document on "human fraternity for world peace".

They made a joint call for freedom of belief, although what stands out from that trip -- the first by a pope to the Arabian Peninsula -- was the image of the leader of the world's 1.3 million Catholics embracing a Sunni imam.

Sunnis account for almost 90 percent of the world's Muslims, Shiites 10 percent -- the majority in Iran and Iraq. In Iraq, the population is 60 percent Shiite and 37 percent Sunni.

With the visit to Najaf and meeting with the Shiite cleric Sistani, the pope is extending his hand to the other main branch of Islam.

- Unprecedented event -

"It's certainly an unprecedented event and a big deal," said Marsin Alshamary, a researcher at the Brookings Institution.

She said the Najaf school of thinking on Islam became involved in inter-religious dialogue in the wake of the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the bloody civil war between Shiites and Sunnis.

Sistani has repeatedly stated that Muslims are forbidden from killing others. In 2014, however, as the Islamic State group approached Baghdad, he called on Iraqis to take up arms to drive the jihadists out.

"This visit by the pope sends a strong political message for a figure who is very much associated with the defence of Iraqis," added Myriam Benraad, a French political scientist who specialises in the Arab world.

Sistani embodies one of the two currents of modern Shiism, that of Najaf, which makes a distinction between politics and religion.

By contrast, the school based around the holy Iranian city of Qom believes that the top religious leader should also rule the state, following the example of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

"The Shiites in Iraq want the Vatican and the western world to support them against the hold that Iran has, which wants to swallow Najaf," said Iraqi Dominican friar Amir Jaje, a leading figure in inter-religious dialogue.

Since the pope's visit was announced, the Shiite clergy has worked hard to ensure it includes a trip to Najaf.

The historian Pierre-Jean Luizard, a specialist on Iraq, noted that Sistani is also aware of "a moment of despair and disaffection towards everything sacred", particularly among the young -- and cannot ignore the pope's global stature.

The pope never stops distributing the Abu Dhabi document and has also published an encyclical, "Fratelli tutti" (All Brothers), which includes numerous references to it.

No such text however is expected to be signed in Najaf.

- Atheism and conversion-

The Abu Dhabi document called for the freedom of belief and expression, advocating full citizenship for "minorities".

But it does not go so far to acknowledge the right to hold no belief at all, or to convert, even drawing a parallel between "atheistic, agnostic or religious extremism" and "fanatic extremism".

"The text, written in Arabic by two Egyptians, is symbolically very powerful but its contents push against open doors," said Jean Druel, of the Dominican Institute for Oriental Studies in Cairo.

"It deals with common issues. When Al-Azhar supports religious freedom, he means that Christians can go to mass.

"But atheism remains incomprehensible in the Arab Muslim world."

The pope and his emissaries avoid flashpoint issues. In Abu Dhabi, Francis declared that religious freedom is "not limited only to freedom of worship".

"Perfect freedom of religion is also the freedom to convert and change religion, as many Catholics have converted to Islam or Buddhism," said Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, who heads the Congregation for the Oriental Churches at the Vatican, while suggesting the subject is taboo.

Nevertheless, he believes in the small steps of dialogue towards an "open Islam", he said.

"It takes time, but it's possible."

2021 AFP

See the article here:
In Iraq, Pope reaches out to top Shiite cleric - FRANCE 24

This is a guest post written by the researchers mentioned below.

Were excited to announce the launch of the Secular Communities Survey, the largest-ever study of the community life of secular and non-religious people in the United States. The survey opened yesterday, on March 1st, and will remain open until April 11th. If youre part of a secular community, wed love for you to participate. You can take the survey here.

Our research team has extensive experience studying secular and non-religious people. Joseph Blankholm, Ph.D., is a professor of Religious Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. His research focuses mostly on secularism, atheism, and secular people. Juhem Navarro-Rivera, Ph.D., is a political scientist, writer, public speaker, and research consultant. He is the Political Research Director and Managing Partner at Socioanalitica Research, a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Humanist Studies, and a board member of the American Humanist Association. Dusty Hoesly, Ph.D., is a Postdoctoral Researcher in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. His research focuses on minority religions and secularism in the United States.

Americans are less religious than ever before, so understanding secular communities has never been more important. This is especially true because most studies suggest that increasing secularization leads to weaker social bonds and less civic engagement. We believe that researchers need to look in new places to understand how society is evolving with religious decline. Though not many researchers have studied them, we know there are about 1,400 local communities for non-believers in the United States. Knowing more about these communities is imperative for understanding the future of American civic life.

The Secular Communities Survey is interested in secular, atheist, agnostic, humanist, freethinker, and non-religious Americans. We want to understand their worldviews, their politics, the communities they form, and how they view religion. We also want to understand secular peoples values and the ways they try to live them.

If youre a member of a secular community including any atheist, agnostic, humanist, freethinker, or other secular group we hope that youll take our survey and that youll encourage others in your community to participate, too. You could be a member of an established secular organization, belong to the Friendly Atheist reader community, or participate in a Facebook, Meetup, or local group for secular people or religious humanists.

The survey should take about 15-20 minutes to complete. All survey responses are anonymous. No names or contact information will be recorded in research materials unless a respondent provides them. No survey respondent will be identified in any publications or other research material. More information can be found on our websites FAQ page.

In addition to contributing to the understanding of community life in the United States, we also hope that the Secular Communities Survey will help members of secular communities gain a broader and deeper understanding of themselves. Thats why were working with secular organizations throughout the country to distribute our results back to the communities we study. Well be presenting our findings at academic conferences and publishing them in academic journals, but well also publish summaries of our results on our website and in the newsletters, blogs, and other publications of secular organizations.

Were grateful for your participation and your help, and were happy to answer questions if you have them. Please contact us by emailing secular.survey@hfa.ucsb.edu. Were also on Twitter (@SecularSurvey) and Facebook.

(Image via Shutterstock)

Originally posted here:
Are You Non-Religious? Then Take the Secular Communities Survey - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

Subscribe: Read local news and views with a $1 subscription to the RGJ

Rajan Zed(Photo: RGJ archives)

Although lot of literature has been produced highlighting the strengths and benefits of religion, many have associated the following problems with religion: conflict with science, curtailing freedoms, delusion, claims of having the exclusive truth, fear of punishment, feeling guilt, immutability, instilling fear, internal conflicts, irrationality, justification of violence, limitation on the rights of women, outdatedness, perpetuation of division, persecution, prejudice, rebuffing of broader perspective, social constructs, strange customs, strainedrelationships for partners of different faiths, the structure, the suppression of curiosity, its use as a tool for control, unsophisticatedness, etc.

Some complain thatreligion is used as a reward for "us," and a punishment for "others." Somecritics sum up the problem by saying religion is a noun, not a verb adherents are more interested in the status of their faith, rather than acting on it.

The list of criticisms is long.

The ancient Mundaka Upanishad tells us:

"By truth, meditation, and self-control

One can enter into this state of joy

Truth is victorious, never untruth

Truth is the way; truth is the goal of life" (3.1.5-6).

We asked our panel: What is the problem with religion?

Kenneth G. Lucey, philosophy/religion professor emeritus, University of Nevada

Kenneth Lucey(Photo: RGJ file)

I believe the major problem with religions generally is the manner in which most people acquire their religion, viz. acquiring beliefs from early childhood authority figures. Most religious group members hold beliefs because those views are what they were taught as children. If one is a Muslim it is because one was raised a Muslim. If one is a Mormon it is because ones parents were Mormon. If you were raised in a Catholic, Jewish or Hindu family, you most likely will remain a member of that religion.

This is not universally true, of course. People do sometimes acquire new religious beliefs as adults but when that occurs, it is often the result of the influence of some charismatic individual. It is not the inherent truth or falsity of doctrines that cause beliefs, but rather the personal authority of the influential individuals who raised or educated the child.

Sherif A. Elfass, president, Northern Nevada Muslim Community

Sherif Elfass(Photo: Theresa Danna-Douglas, provided to the RGJ)

From my perspective, the problem with religion lies within its followers and not with the religion itself. All religions call for compassion, respect, equity, generosityand peace. Nevertheless, over the years, the followers of many religions started to deviate from the actual teachings of these religions. Their spirituality, which is linking religious acts to their purpose and meaning in life, started to fade away. For example, nowadays many religiously identified people lie, despite the fact that all religions prohibit lying. Muslim daily prayers became a routine exercise rather than a deterrent from committing any evil.

A compounded problem with Islamis confusing culture with religion. For example, Islam condemns honor killings and banning women from obtaining education or drivers license. Nevertheless, this was the practice of an Islamic country until recent years. Religions problems stem from the behavior of its followers.

Charles T. Durante, vicar general, Roman Catholic Diocese of Reno

Charles Durante(Photo: Provided by Charles Durante)

While we believe that the foundation of religion flows from God, the structure and practice of religion is made and carried out by human beings. The problem lies in the expectation that, because the religion is about God and holiness and doing the right, all those involved in the religion will always act accordingly.

Human beings are frail and subject to whim, emotion, ego, influence, judgmentalism and sin. We try our best to teach the ways of the Lord, both through words and actions. However, as imperfect beings, religious people can fail to live out those teachings in their lives or get confused in how those teachings are to be applied. The holier than thou syndrome all too often can rear its ugly head, bringing with it exclusivity or even condemnation of others. Religion becomes a problem when human beings forget their place and assume the role of God.

Matthew T. Fisher, resident priest, Reno Buddhist Center

Matthew Fisher(Photo: Provided to the RGJ)

Religions imperfectly transmit their message, even if they are supremely truth-filled. This is because of the human teachers who share the message. At each stage of student receiving instruction there is artifact and loss, as well as embellishment and personal bias. Traditions that stress the individual experience are less prone to these degradations, but certainly not immune.

In the case of Buddhism, the Buddha initially was not sure that teaching his Dharma was even possible. In the Ayacana Sutra he says this about teaching:Enough now with teaching; What only with difficulty I reached. This is Dharma not easily realized for those overcome with aversion and passion; What is unobvious, subtle, deep, hard to see, going against the flow those delighting in passion, cloaked in darkness will not see. But he was persuaded to teach anyway, despite the limitations of language and groups of followers.

Micheal L. Peterson, northwestNevada media specialist, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Micheal L. Peterson(Photo: Provided by Rajan Zed)

The problem with religion is the people who misinterpret the divine messages contained within the scriptures that they claim as a guide to the way they live their lives. There are those who use their religion as license to create civil unrest and even mayhem. How many innocent people have died in the name of God?This is something that God does not condone through His word to mankind. The fact that there are so many conflicting teachings regarding various tenants of religion is reflective of mankinds confusion in interpreting Gods word.

God is not the author of confusion. Paul taught, "... there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, not several (Ephesians 4:5). True religion is love and service to all. Our task is to continue to work toward following the word of God Till we all come in the unity of the faith (Ephesians 4:13).

Anthony Shafton, author and atheist thinker

Anthony Shafton(Photo: MagicToush Photo Studio, provided to the RGJ)

Religions greatest problem is that it is religion, a form of knowledge based on faith rooted in a prescientific world view. No matter how sensible and sound many of its teachings, no matter how it tries to get with an up-to-date viewpoint, or to what extent it acknowledges uncertainty, religion unavoidably asserts nonsense from a scientific standpoint. As for science, while it has a reputation for hard facts, actually science requires the acceptance of uncertainty, that is of probability. Science never pretends to reach absolute truth.

But you know the maximour weaknesses are our strengths, and vice versa. The weakness of science is that it has nothing positive to say beyond the limits of the scientific method. The strength of religion is that it fills that void with faith.

Incidentally, the beauty of atheism is that it is a faith (yes it is) fully consistent with the scientific method.

Karen A. Foster, minister, Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Northern Nevada

Karen A. Foster(Photo: Provided to the RGJ)

The problem is not religion; the problem is how we treat each other in the name of religion. This dangerous phenomenon happens when religious beliefs or ideologies or political beliefs are taken to extreme. Ones political, ideologicaland religious beliefs are often intertwined. When the extremist becomes convinced, often at the hands of cultlike persuasion, that their beliefs are the only ones that are right and worthwhile, and that everyone and everything else is wrong and must be overpowered, this is extremism at its most insidious. The perpetrators of extremism lose sight of the importance of coexistence, pluralism, tolerance and acceptance, sometimes even within their own families.

Much can be gained by the sharing of differing beliefs, perspectivesand experiences within and between religions. This optimal approach and what religion calls us to do leads to interfaith cooperation, multiculturalismand understanding, which Faith Forum is proud to encourage and promote.

ElizaBeth Webb Beyer, Jewish Rabbi

ElizaBeth W. Beyer(Photo: RGJ file)

In America, religions lack an emphasis teaching humility. Moses was the most capable prophet and leader, who spoke to G-d face-to-face, because of his humble nature. As it says, Now the man Moses was very humble, above all those upon the face of the earth (Numbers 12:3).

Although religions provide a path to G-d, which includes the ethical treatment of self and others, there is a failure to prioritize humility. If we were more humble, we would surely be less judgmental. Our attitude would be one of caring and compassion for others. Neighbor would be a moral construct, not a geographical concept(R Joachim Prinz). We would work on being our best, not micromanaging our neighbors. We would have less inflated egos. We would stop telling other people why they are wrong or how to live their lives but rather, we would lead by example.

Stephen R. Karcher, presiding priest, Saint Anthony Greek Orthodox Church

Stephen Karcher(Photo: RGJ file)

Theology aside, we can generally assume, whether were speaking of religion or any other institution, that when problems arise, their origin is usually a person. Author Melissa Martindescribes how we come with flaws, faults, and problems. People make blunders, mistakes, and errors. We are heroes and villains on a continuum scale. Pastors, police, and politicians fall out of favor. Housewives, helpers, and healers fall out of favor. It is our fallen, broken, perverse, rebellious, sinful, and self-willed tendencies that often get the best of us and impact our families, workplaces, and societies.

Psychology Today once asked Is man good or bad? The answer, both. Our species is wonderfully good, caring and creative beyond words, yet simultaneously man is one rotten manipulator, exploiter, abuser, and killer. However, lets be careful and remember that, just as Albert Einstein once said, we cannot despair of humanity, since we ourselves are human beings.

Nancy Lee Cecil, Bahai teacher

Nancy Lee Cecil Nancy Cecil(Photo: Provided to the RGJ)

In a recent conversation with an older gentleman about religion, he volunteered that, as an orphan during the war in Germany, he had been sent to parochial schools. He had become disillusioned with religion, observing much ritual and prayer but little concern to help those struggling.

His comments resonated with a problem I have about anyreligion where proponents are busy praying in their churches while folks are dying on their lawns! While this is sometimes (figuratively) the case, I assured my friend that the issue is with adherents misconstruing religions purpose; indeed, the founders of every religion stress deeds over words.

Consider the following quotes:

Bahai Writings: Let deeds, not words, be your adorning.

The New Testament: do not neglect doing good and sharing, for with such sacrifices God is pleased (Hebrews 13:16).

The Quran: if there is a good deed, Allah multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward (4:40).

Bryan J. Smith, co-lead pastor, Summit Christian Church, Sparks

Bryan J. Smith(Photo: Provided to the RGJ)

Religion is a man-made construct attempting to create connection between humanity and some deity. Rules, structures and hierarchy are established in an effort to give purpose and meaning to life as we search for a higher power. This is a broken system where the creation is creating the Creator andthe rules of engagement with that deity.

However, when we move from religion to relationship as prescribed by God in his word things change for the positive. Rather than creating rules, relationship is found. We discover who God is as hes revealed himself to us. We also discover who we are in him. Rules, checklists, even worry over how were "doing religion"fall by the wayside. Greater freedom is found in connecting with God in spirit and truth in ways that are life-giving. Anything short of that, i.e. religion, will leave us wanting in the end.

Pamela A. Pech, creator of Discovery of SelfPrograms

Pamela Pech(Photo: Provided by Rajan Zed)

I believe some of the greatest intangible gifts God has given humanity are free will, the ability to be curious, to discover, make mistakes, to learn and grow. Other beautiful gifts are the ability to discern and choose our truth based on our unique personal experiences.

Unfortunately religions, per se, take those gifts away. Most religions dictate what to believe, how our actions must look to correspond with what we have been taught as the only true way to God, and threaten punishment to the extent of eternal damnationif we do not follow specific rules. My studies of religions felt that they not only dictate what I must believe and how I must live, but literally take away my gift of experiencing and discovering God for myself that loving Conscious Dynamic Energy that appears in my life and teaches me firsthand what God is.

Next weeks topic: What is the biggest reason for excommunication from your religion?

Faith Forum is a weekly dialogue on religion produced by religious statesman Rajan Zed. Send questions or comments to rajanzed@gmail.com or on Twitter at @rajanzed.

Read or Share this story: https://www.rgj.com/story/life/2021/03/04/what-problem-religion-faith-forum/6914070002/

More here:
What is the problem with religion? | Faith Forum - Reno Gazette Journal

The moral compasses of atheists and believers are different in a few key ways, a new study finds.

In some aspects, the moral compass was incredibly alike between the two groups; they both highly rated fairness and protecting the well-being of vulnerable people, for instance, and both highly endorsed liberty but not oppression. However, the groups diverged when it came to matters of group cohesion, such as valuing loyalty and respecting authority, the study found.

This research shows that, contrary to public perception, atheists do have a moral compass, but compared with believers, "their compass is differently calibrated," possibly due to factors such as how they were raised and whether they are highly analytical thinkers, the study's researcher Tomas Sthl, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, told Live Science.

Related: Saint or spiritual slacker? Test your religious knowledge

It's a common question, including among fellow atheists, whether disbelievers even have a moral compass. A 2019 Pew Research Center poll found that 44% of Americans (compared with 26% of Canadians) think that a belief in God is needed to be moral. A 2011 study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology even found "that the distrust of atheists was comparable to the distrust of rapists," he said.

To investigate whether atheists have a moral compass, and to see how it compares with the compass of believers, Sthl did four surveys: The first two included a total of 429 Americans on Amazon's online Mechanical Turk platform, while the second two surveys included a total of 4,193 people from the U.S. (a relatively religious country) and Sweden (a largely irreligious country).

The participants answered myriad questions about their personal histories, religious beliefs, political orientations and moral views. One part of the survey called the Moral Foundations Questionnaire was especially useful, as it asks about five central moral values. Questions on two of the values caring and fairness rated people's attitudes toward protecting vulnerable individuals and treating people fairly.

"Virtually everyone," atheists and believers alike, scored high on these two values, showing that they valued protecting the vulnerable and being fair toward others; and they saw these values as moral issues, Sthl said. However, he found differences between believers and disbelievers on the other three values: authority (respecting authority figures, such as police, parents and teachers), loyalty (being loyal to one's group, such as a country not burning a country's flag, for instance) and sanctity (not doing anything perceived as degrading, usually in a sexual sense, such as being promiscuous).

"Those three values are thought to be serving group cohesion, keeping the group together," Sthl explained. "When it comes to the binding values, there's a dramatic difference [between the groups]. Religious people score much higher on those they view [them] as much more relevant for being moral compared to the disbelievers."

In contrast, "atheists don't really think of [these three values] as relevant for morality to the same degree," he said.

The finding held even when Sthl controlled for political orientation, he noted.

These findings are consistent with prior research, said Kimberly Rios, an associate professor of psychology at Ohio University, who was not involved in the study. The new and earlier research, some of which was carried about by Rios, shows that the stereotypes that atheists don't have a moral compass are overgeneralizations; however, it also showed these stereotypes "are not substantiated by the actual differences between religious believers and non-believers," Rios told Live Science in an email. "Although non-believers place less importance on group-based moral values than do believers, there is no evidence based on the measures used in these studies that non-believers are more amoral than believers."

Related: 8 ways religion impacts your life

For instance, the two groups scored low on amorality, disagreeing with statements such as "I am willing to be unethical if I believe it will help me succeed." (The survey didn't address whether these groups actually differed in their unethical behaviors.)

Believers' and disbelievers' moral compasses were alike and different in a few other ways, the new surveys showed. For example, both groups highly endorsed liberty over oppression, agreeing with statements such as "Society works best when it lets individuals take responsibility for their own lives without telling them what to do." Both groups said they saw rational thinking believing in evidence-based claims and being skeptical of claims lacking evidence as a moral issue, Sthl said.

This finding is "intriguing," Rios said. There's a notion in many Western societies that religious belief and rational, scientific thought are incompatible, she said. "Yet, the finding that religious believers don't see rational thinking as any less of a moral issue than do non-believers suggests this notion of conflict may be overstated," Rios said.

Of note, some religions encourage aspects of rational thinking. For example, the Catholic church has argued that logic and rationality can be useful, for instance when Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote proofs, known as The Five Ways, that argued for God's existence; in the Middle Ages, Jewish thinkers began embracing the rational thought process of Greek's classical philosophers, and they applied it when analyzing religious texts.

In a difference, Sthl found that atheists were more likely than believers to base their judgments about what is or isn't moral based on the consequences of their actions. For example, in the hypothetical trolley problem, a person has to decide whether to let a runaway trolley kill five people stuck on the track ahead of it, or whether to pull a switch to divert the train, but kill one person stuck on the alternate track.

"In that situation, the disbelievers are more inclined to say 'flip [the] switch and kill the one person rather than five,' because they are assessing the relative harm," Sthl told Live Science. "Whereas believers are more icky about that because they feel like they're actively killing someone, and they shouldn't kill. So, they are less comfortable with those calculations."

Studies have yet to sufficiently show why atheists and theists have differently calibrated moral compasses, but Sthl found a few correlations (although correlation does not equal causation). In the survey, he asked participants whether they were raised religiously and observed important people in their community engage in religious activities (meaning that it would be costly to their lives to think that their religious beliefs were false); whether they viewed the world as a dangerous place (and likely found God to be a protective force); and whether they were analytical thinkers, a trait found more often in atheists than believers.

"We find that, as expected, those things are related to whether you're a believer or not," Sthl said. "We also find that these variables predict your moral values." So, for instance, if you don't grow up surrounded by religious people and related activities, you're less likely to endorse matters of group cohesion. Similarly, perceiving the world to be less dangerous and being an analytical thinker also predict atheism.

The findings were replicated in all four surveys, both in the United States and Sweden. Going forward, both Sthl and Rios said future research should examine whether these patterns hold up in non-Western countries, for example in China, a largely irreligious but very group-oriented country, and in predominantly Muslim countries, such as the United Arab Emirates, where atheism is officially forbidden.

The study was published online Wednesday (Feb. 24) in the journal PLOS One.

Originally published on Live Science.

Visit link:
Atheists and believers have different moral compasses - Livescience.com

During an appeal hearing in Moscow over the weekend, Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny unveiled his newfound faith in God as he continues to fight for his freedom and his dream of leading Russia away from the authoritarian grip of Vladimir Putin.

The 44-year-old, who is Putin's most well-known critic, was arrested on Jan. 17 at Moscow's Sheremetyevo Airport while returning from Germany where he spent five months recovering from nerve agent poisoning that he blames on Putin's government.

Earlier this month, a lower court sentenced Navalny to two years and eight months in prison for breaking the terms of his probation while recuperating in Germany. His sentence stems from a 2014 money-laundering conviction that Navalny argues is untrue.In Saturday's court hearing, the judge rejected the appeal of his prison sentence.

Navalny used the opportunity to once again encourage Russians to oppose the Kremlin, including references from the Bible, "Harry Potter," and even the animated series "Rick and Morty."

"The government's task is to scare you and then persuade you that you are alone," he said. "Our Voldemort in his palace also wants me to feel cut off," he added, in a reference to Vladimir Putin.

"To live is to risk it all," he said, quoting "Rick and Morty." "Otherwise, you're just an inert chunk of randomly assembled molecules drifting wherever the universe blows you."

Then Navalny revealed that he is no longer an atheist and believes in God now, finding truth in the Bible. He told the court he believes the words from Matthew 5:6 in which Jesus says that those who hunger and thirst for righteousness are blessed.

"Even though our country is built on injustice and we all constantly face injustice...we also see that millions of people, tens of millions of people, want righteousness," Navalny said. "They want the righteousness and sooner or later they will have it."

Hinting at Putin's vice-grip control over every aspect of Russian government and life, Navalny said, "Just imagine how wonderful life would be without constant lying. Imagine how great it would be to work as a judge ... when no one would be able to call you and give you directions what verdicts to issue."

After his appeal hearing, Navalny also faced a judge over charges of slandering a war veteran and was ordered to pay a fine of 850,000 rubles (about $11,500).

Navalny had been criticizing a pro-Kremlin video at the time, calling a 94-year-old veteran and others "corrupt stooges," "people without conscience," and "traitors" for supporting Putin's regime last year.

At the hearing, Navalny said his accusers "will burn in hell."

***As certain voices are censored and free speech platforms shut down, be sure to sign up forCBN News emailsand theCBN News appto ensure you keep receiving news from a Christian Perspective.***

View post:
Alexei Navalny Rejects Atheism and Finds Faith in God, References Words of Jesus During Appeal in Moscow - CBN News

A new C.S. Lewis movie set before the 1950 publication of Lewis's The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, seeks to tell the history of how Lewis turned from atheism to Christianity.

The Most Reluctant Convert is a screen adaptation of a one-man stage play starring Max McLean. According to the production company's website, the film seeks to show Lewis's journey from becoming a "hard-boiled" atheist into the convert and apologist he became.

The production company, 1A Productions, is taking on a "new approach" combining cinematic storytelling with a costume drama to tell the story of Lewis's conversion in a way that will "surprise as well as inform."

The production company describes the film as "an unusual film drama, based on a highly successful theatrical production in the United States. The renowned actor, Max McLean, becomes C.S. Lewis on screen in an entertaining yet life-changing journey from hard-boiled atheist to 'the most reluctant convert in all [of] England.'

The production company's website lists the film as being released in the Spring of 2021. According to Deadline, production has wrapped up for the film and the film was shot in and around Oxford. The film is being produced by Matthew Jenkins, who is known for Murder On The Orient Express and Artemis Fowl. The film is being directed by Norman Stone, who won a BAFTA award for Shadowlands. Additionally, the film enlists cinematographer Sam Heasman, who is known for Dr. Who. The soundtrack is being composed by golden-globe-winner Craig Armstrong.

Lewis, who is known as one of the most influential Christian apologists of the 20th Century, is known for writing Mere Christianity, The Chronicles of Narnia series, and for his regular broadcasted chats about Christianity's truthfulness and answers on why atheism doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Lewis died in 1963 at 64 years old.

Photo courtesy: Getty Images/John Chillingworth/Stringer

John Paluska has been a contributor for Christian Headlines since 2016 and is the founder of The Daily Fodder, a news outlet he relaunched in 2019 as a response to the constant distribution of fake news.

See original here:
New Movie to Tell the Story of C.S. Lewis' Conversion from Atheism to Christianity - Christianheadlines.com