Category Archives: Atheism

He was an award-winning journalist, driven by facts. He was sure of his atheist beliefs, and was happy to ridicule those who begged to differ.

But when Lee Strobels wife became a Christian, Jesus Christ couldnt be ignored, and Strobels quest to discover more would change his life.

This is the story of The Case for Christ, a book which has sold millions of copies worldwide and has now been made into a film of the same name, showing in the USA and Canada.

Strobel says he hopes the movie, which stays close to his written account, will be helpful in others search for the Truth. As Christians around the world mark the death and resurrection of Jesus at Easter, its message is particularly timely.

The drama follows the Strobel family as they deal with the aftermath of an accident involving their young daughter.

Lee Strobel rejects thinking any deeper about the issue

Her life is saved by a Christian nurse, and Lees wife Leslie is intrigued by her faith. However, Lee rejects thinking any deeper about the issue.

Indeed, he tells their daughter after the accident: We are atheists, adding the family believe in whats real, what we can see and touch.

But Leslie comes to faith through the ministry of a church and that prompts Lee to start an investigation to debunk Christianity.

Using his training as a journalist, he targets the resurrection, and proceeds to question experts in the fields of science, psychology and more.

He is shown speaking to an archaeologist who is now a Roman Catholic priest and has a short conversation about the possible relevance of the shroud of Turin. The film also features numerous historical depictions of Christ.

While he is tracking down evidence, Leslie is praying for her husband often going to Ezekiel 36:26: I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh.

Gradually, after hearing factual evidence for the death and resurrection of Jesus, Lee begins to question his atheist beliefs.

Among the turning points is a conversation with a physician who roundly rejects the idea that Jesus did not actually die on the cross.

A touching moment then comes when Strobel reveals to his wife that he has been trying to disprove Christianity but now believes that it is true.

He kneels with his wife and prays to the God he previously thought was a myth.

a powerful message of faith, transformation, and grace

Released in America and Canada on 7 April, the Pure Flix-backed film does not currently have a UK release date.

It has been well received by Christian media, and gained some positive coverage in secular sources.

Variety magazine says it will impress even dedicated nonbelievers with its emphasis on the search for evidence.

The Hollywood Reporter is less complimentary, but writes that it is engrossing and will please churchgoers.

Plugged In, a Focus on the Family film-reviewing website, notes that it portrays Lees use of alcohol as an escape, but gives it a positive rating overall.

And The Gospel Coalitions writer Dustin Messer states that while it lacks sufficient acknowledgement of the problem of sin, The Case for Christ delivers from a production standpoint and also offers a powerful message of faith, transformation, and grace.

Leslie and Lee Strobel.

More:
From atheism to Jesus: The Case for Christ hits the big screen - The Christian Institute

By Graham Lawton

I RECENTLY discovered that I am a member of a downtrodden minority, one of the most mistrusted and discriminated-against in the world. As a white, heterosexual, able-bodied, cis-gender male, this is not something Im used to. But my minority status is undeniable. I am an atheist.

Im not complaining. I live in one of the worlds most secular countries and work for a science magazine, so it hasnt got in the way. But for atheists living in societies with a strong religious tradition, discrimination is a real problem. In the US, atheists have one of the lowest approval ratings of any social group. Non-believers are the only significant minority considered unelectable as president and unelectable turns out to be a pretty low bar.

Even when atheists dont face open hostility or discrimination, we often have to endure put-downs about the sincerity of our (lack of) beliefs. One of the most common is that atheism is just another religion anyway. There is no way to prove or disprove the existence of god, the argument goes, so to deny it is a leap of faith. Ergo, atheism is just like a religion.

This idea turns up all the time, and it is very loaded, says Lois Lee, who directs the Nonreligion and Secularity Research Network at the University of Kent in Canterbury, UK. When people say atheism is just another religion, they normally mean it in a pejorative way. The subtext is clear: atheists are hypocrites.

But this is more than a personal slight. If atheism really is just another religion, its claim to be a superior way to run

Go here to see the original:
Faith of the faithless: Is atheism just another religion? - New Scientist

Between being a target for conversion to arguments about how atheism is actually a religion, Molly Sheehan hasheard it all before.

The Iron River freshman is an avowed atheist who has spent most of her life grappling with the concept of a divine creator. As a member of the Dogma Free Society registered student organization at Central Michigan University, shes been able to connect with like-minded students who have hope in humanity without the faith.

Sometimes its inspiring, like when she weighs how humans can be good without the guilt of sin. Other times, the absence of faith can be dreadful, especially when Sheehan thinks about it too hard.

Where a lot of people look toward God, I look toward humanity," she said."I dont want to accept that we dont have free will. I chose this because its what I wanted to do, not because someone is using me as a puppet.

As some students at CMU prepare to celebrate Easter Sunday, or finish Passover next week, Sheehan will be doing what she always does: contemplating life on her own terms.

To me, I dont ever get the sense that life is meaningless, Sheehan said. Its something more like, I better do what I can now. Eventually, I wont be able to do anything anymore, so I better soak it up now.

Her motto is that life without faith forces you to live harder. Its a practice shes developed since she was a young girl growing up with strictly atheist parents. That didnt stop her from trying out religion, even if the attempt was halfhearted at best, Sheehan said.

In a way you could say Im a born again atheist, Sheehan said. When I moved to Iron River from Wisconsin, there were so many people there who tried to shove religion down my throat. I decided to become part of that lifestyle.

I was in a phase of saying I was religious more for the sake of trying to fit in.

That changed as she became more aware of her surroundings. By the time she started taking classes at West Iron County High School, Sheehan noticed she often acted more Christian than her Christian friends. She also couldnt wrap her mind around the concept of morality for the sake of a heavenly reward.

They arent even closely linked, she thought. I dont think morals have anything to do with religion, and I dont believe being a part of a religion is your ticket to heaven.

When she finally came out as what she describes as an agnostic atheist to her friends in high school, many of them didnt understand. Some tried to convert her. The others just went their separate ways.

Sheehan said that was difficult, considering she doesnt know if there is an afterlife, or whether or not shell get there if heaven exists.

You cant be surrounded by people who think its such a big deal, she said.

Thats where the Dogma Free Society, and attending CMU, has helped fill the void. She stays hopeful about her future in broadcasting and cinematic arts. She stays focused on her schoolwork. Her motivation keeps her grounded.

I can get together with people who have more inclusive beliefs here, she said. Thats not something I would have gotten in high school. No ones tried to convert me here, and its actually made me more interested in religion in general to defend my beliefs.

By now, Sheehans stance on atheism must be battle ready, especially when the faithful try to argue that a community of atheists is more like a religion than not.

Having a bunch of atheists hanging out together doesnt equal more religion, she said while shaking her head. Its just a bigger lack of religion. Thats like if someone said, Well, darkness is also light. Its not.

Here is the original post:
CMU atheist finds community, support on campus free from faith - Central Michigan Life

After last week, hopefully its a little easier to be an atheist in Iowa.

On April 5, I proudly stood in the Iowa state Capitol and delivered what is believed to be the first ever atheist prayer, also known as secular invocation, in the peoples house. Atheism was finally given the same platform and respect that had been extended to other religions and worldviews for years to start off a session of the Iowa Legislature.

The historic invocation garnered headlines across Iowa putting the words atheism and atheist front and center for many lawmakers and communities across Iowa. It also put our state government on notice that not all Iowans are Christians or even religious, and that we deserve the same access to our Iowa Statehouse.

While Im not so naive to believe that achieving an equal voice at the Statehouse and the subsequent attention it gained for atheism in and of itself will end bullying, bigotry and discrimination against atheists in Iowa, it is my belief, yes, atheists believe in some things, just not in the supernatural sense, that Iowans will begin to better understand that atheists are an essential part of the Iowa experience.

Atheists are presidents of companies, theyre doctors and surgeons, and they may even be your childs public school teacher. Heck, they very well could be the pastor of your church and just havent admitted to themselves and their congregation that they simply no longer believe what it is that they have made a career preaching about.

Dont just take my word for it. Studies by the Pew Research Center continue to show the increase in the number of atheists and people leaving religion, declaring that they are religiously unaffiliated. They also show the rapid decline of religion and religious affiliation. Its been reported that one of out every three millennial considers themselves a religious none.

Add that to the number of us known as religious dones that grew up in religion, but have studied our way out of it (like me), and you now have one of the largest and most influential groups in the country, one that will likely influence public policy and society for generations to come.

And while I fully understand and admit that this doesnt mean that these nones and dones dont necessarily identify as atheists, theyve already taken the first step to embracing atheism which is simply the rejection of the God belief. Having future generations that exclusively utilize what I described in my invocation as the holy trinity of science, (a phrase that was originally coined back in the 1850s by the infamous great agnostic Robert Ingersoll), the human race can finally break free from the chains that have been holding down scientific discovery and advancement for centuries.

Just like the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning (LGBTQ) movement of the 1970s, the atheist movement is starting to grow legs and become better organized and galvanized both here in Iowa and across the country. Atheist groups like mine, the Eastern Iowa Atheists, continue to appear and network with other groups, creating a powerful force of godless citizens that are committed to demanding atheist rights while defending the constitutional separation of religion and government. Keep your theocracy off our democracy, thank you very much.

Theres a tidal wave of atheism and secularism thats been building for years and its about to crash onto the shores of religious America. If youre an atheist or on the fence with your religious beliefs or upbringing, now is the time to own who you are and come catch the wave with other Iowa atheists.

Scott is founder and director of Eastern Iowa Atheists. He lives in Denver, Iowa.

Read the original post:
Guest view: Atheism is rising in Iowa | Guest Column | qctimes.com - Quad City Times

I grew up in the Anglican Church. That is where I was baptised and confirmed. But, that is not where I felt the presence of God. A friend mine took me to a Mosque in Cape Town and, there too, I did not hear God's voice.

The day I felt the presence of God finally was in a Hindu temple, and I did not want to leave.

My wife and I had gone to the wedding of her Tamil friend and colleague. The groom was a black Cuban. Because of the religious, cultural and racial differences between the bride and the groom, only the friends of the future wife and husband were at the wedding. Both families boycotted the wedding. For me, therefore, the wedding was sweet sorrow. It was sorrowful because of the absence of the two families and even more sad because when we left the temple we went to celebrate at a restaurant.

It was sweet because it is at the temple that God found me.

At the time, I was an atheist and believed quite strongly in the materialist conception of consciousness. In addition, I was a Marxist-Leninist and a former gun-carrying member of the African National Congress and the South African Communist Party.

Today, I am what people call a traditional healer. I am a sangoma.

To be honest, though, my atheism was an intellectual condition - a disease that started attacking my spirit when I was in my early 20s and it almost devoured my soul - a time in my life when my intellect was the most important dimension of my being. For too long, what was important to me was the need to wear my intellect like the feathers of a peacock. I had to prove to others that I was intellectually sophisticated and could, therefore, grasp heavy intellectual matters such as historical materialism, post-modernism, deconstruction and post-structuralism.To be an atheist was the highest form of intellectualism. I was a fake.

I was a fake because at no point in my life was I ever completely convinced that God does not exist. While I still believe that we create God in our image, the highest form of atheism I ever achieved was to doubt God's existence without being completely convinced he/she does not exist (I believe God is neither male nor female and to humanise God is to limit, not to enhance, our understanding of the divine).

Curiously, though, I never doubted the existence of izinyanya (the ancestors). I was a fake atheist who believed in izinyanya despite the fact that I grew up in a modern, urban and Christian family which did not venerate amadlozi (the ancestors). In fact, my paternal grandfather was a university professor in America and my mother's maternal grandmother, uMamKhuma, qualified as a teacher in 1901. That is the kind of family I come from. This notwithstanding, my ancestors started announcing their presence in my life before I started going to school. As a sangoma, I now know that I was born umntu omhlophe which translates into "a white person" but actually means umntwana wezinyanya - a child of the ancestors.

As a sangoma, I now know that my calling is something I was born into because my childhood dreams, which showed that I walked with the spirits of the water, were dreams about me and the sea. I started having them long before I saw the sea with my own eyes at the age of ten. As I grew older, I realised, and this my parents realised much later, that I could see things about people and events before they happened. So, I knew I was odd but did not know why until I had an interesting encounter with a traditional healer we used to visit before we went on any mission of Umkhonto weSizwe (MK).

The only time we went on a mission without consulting him first, we were captured by the South African Defence Force. It is the same traditional healer who, 30 years ago, told me about my calling. For thirty years, I ran away from my destiny until it caught up with me in 2013. The twists and turns of my spiritual journey cannot be told in a single article. With the benefit of spiritual hindsight, I now know that the sound of the drum at the Tamil temple transported me to a place where I met God and my ancestors, but it was many years later, in 2013, that I understood what the drum was saying. I was born to be a healer. I was born to be a sangoma.

My journey has been long. It will never end. It is eternal. It is eternal because birth is not a beginning and death is not the end. As a sangoma, I know that there is only life. Death does not exist.

Aubrey Matshiqi is an independent political analyst. In his life he has been involved in the ANC, Umkhonto Wesizwe, the student movement and the South African Communist Party. He began training to be a sangoma in 2013.

Ahead of Easter 2017, The Huffington Post South Africa is delving into what faith and spirituality means to South Africans now. Against the backdrop of a renewed wave of thought around decolonisation, a new generation are rediscovering their traditional beliefs, while some are reconciling with Christianity. And on another note, we tell South Africa's real good news story: our remarkable and peaceful religious diversity. In a world fractured along religious extremism, we have a large Christian population with significant Muslim and Jewish communities, who often come together peacefully and with purpose, as has been evinced at the memorials for departed struggle stalwart, Ahmed Kathrada. Read the rest of the special report here, or choose from our selection below:

27 Quotes By Desmond Tutu On Faith, Justice And Love

Read the original:
My Atheism Was A Disease That Almost Devoured My Soul Until I Found My Calling - Huffington Post South Africa (blog)

Science has failed to prove or disprove the existence of God, but recent studies suggest certain beliefs are better for you than others, and that includes your Darwinian fitness. These ideas aggravate moral relativists who argue that no way of life is superior to another. You cant judge, they scold. Its all the same. Thatsexactly what someone would say before convincing you to do something stupid. Which tradition you follow matters, and its effects can be measured.

Both the Old Order Amish and the Hutterites are at the front lines of the resistance to modern life and its myth of progress. Buta studypublished in theNew England Journal of Medicinelast summer reveals a crucial difference. Because the Hutterite sect takes a more liberal approach to industrial farming than their Amish brethren, Hutterite children are far more likely to suffer from allergies and asthma.

The authors control for cultural and genetic variables. The two religious groups hail from the same sixteenth-century Anabaptist tradition and share a closely related bloodline. Casual observers can barely tell them apart. Both maintain traditionalist dress codes, are known for their impeccable piety and baffling pacifism, and subsist through a rural agrarian lifestyle. Its the machines that make the difference.

The Old Order way of life derives from the sacredOrdnung,or rules and discipline. This code rejects the moral and intellectual authority of the Enlightenment, with all of its bells and whistles and brain-numbing TV shows. It looks backward to the values of ancient tradition and communal identity. However, each Old Order community has its own unique standards, and the extent to which theOrdnungis interpreted to reject technology affects childrens health.

While the Amish get down and dirty with old-school barn-raisings and horse-drawn plows, the Hutterites live and work and produce an astounding number of babies in tech-savvy communes. They employ computer databases and industrial farming techniques. As a result, the Amish are grubbier, and Amish children are less allergy-prone.

The Amish homes tested in the study had nearly seven times more endotoxic bacteria than Hutterite homes. The researchers found allergens in the dust of 4 in 10 Amish homes, while only 1 in 10 Hutterite homes had comparable levels. Yet Amish kids were four timeslesslikely to have asthma and six times less likely to have allergies.

Due to the remarkable genetic similarity of the two populations, the studys findings indicate a hearty immune response to a pathogen-rich environment. This provides strong evidence that soft-palmed kids who dont play in the dirt are more likely to become asthmatic Eloi. It also shows how different approaches to theOrdnung produced unforeseeable effects.

Social experiments will always have unexpected results. For instance, belief in germ theory led to effective sanitation and the discovery of antibiotics. On the other hand, the secular faith in endless medical progresscoupled with reckless sexual liberationled to the rise ofantibiotic-resistant gonorrhea. Of course, strict monogamy precludes the possibility of gonad-devouring superbugs ever getting a foothold, but only a sex-negative yahoo would ever entertain the notion.

None of this is to say that religious traditions that reject the modern world will produce healthier children. Christian Scientists refute the benefits of modern medicine entirely, and the fewstudieswe have on themindicatea lower life expectancy. Various religions clearly motivate all sorts of counterproductive behavior. Whatever the spiritual benefits of martyrdom may be,strapping bombs to your childrenis rarely good for their long-term health.

What wecanconclude is that the structure of a societys moral universe will have critical downstream consequences. Some strategies will be more successful than others, depending on the environment and our standard of measurement.

From a Darwinian perspective, the Hutterites are doing alright, sneezes be damned. After a hard run of Old Country persecution in the late 1800s, adherents began immigrating to America. Most wound up on the harsh Dakota plains, where theyve been breeding ever since. An1880 U.S. censusfound just 443 Hutterites living in four communities. Despite a steady stream of sniffling kids who abandon ship and defect to pop culture,todaythere are more than 40,000 Hutterites in America spread across more than 480 communities.

AlongsideMormonsandHispanic Catholics, the Hutterites reproductive work ethic is paying off, especially when compared to their fellow secular Americans. Underlying belief systems appear to drivedifferential reproductive ratesademographic trendthat may determine the next centurys ideological landscape.

Apaperpublished inEvolutionary Psychological Sciencesthis month contributes to the mounting evidence that the future belongs to the children of God. The cross-sectional study, led by Lee Ellis and Anthony Hoskin, looked at a population of 2,511 university students in America and 2,059 in Malaysia, with a large female majority in both. The researchers used questionnaires about the subjects families to measure the connection between religious commitment and fertility rates.

Their results showed a strong correlation between the intensity of religious belief and number of offspring, particularly in the Muslim population under study. As another liberated generation screws around and tosses its gametes into the void, their devout neighbors are pairing off and making babies.

The authors readily acknowledge their sample isnt a global representation. The data only considers the parents of university students, which means childless people are excluded. Also missing are those sections of the population who send their children to religious colleges, or who shun secular institutions completely, such as Hutterites. Having admitted these limitations, the researchers offer their results as fuel for an important debate that is largely suppressed.

Secular progressives have imagined no religion for over a century now. Multiple academic disciplines put forward variations on the secularization hypothesis, but it was just their imaginations. Ellis and Hoskin condense these into a core assumption: As humans become more rational and scientifically enlightened, religiosity will fade. The authors then propose a biologically informed contra-secularization hypothesis which is based, ironically, on the very evolutionary principles which are supposed to replace primitive superstition.

The contra-secularization hypothesis is supported by plummetingbirth ratesin numerous zygote-squashing secular nations, especially Scandinavia and Eastern Europe, as well as the exploding populations in moretraditional regionsof the world like Africa and the Middle East. Even if we bracket the genetic aspects of Ellis and Hoskins argument, its obvious that the belief that this life is all we have, paired with birth control and abortions on demand, can make a serious dent in demographics. Creationists may be completely wrong about how the cosmos was born, but they clearly know how babies are created. And in a Darwinian calculus, expected reproductive rates are what count.

Different belief systems yield very different societies, and some societies are better equipped to respond to shifting historical circumstances than others.

By its very nature, the postmodern mind cant conceive of religions objective advantages. At least their New Atheist counterparts are sane enough to know that ideas make a difference, but they insist religion is a virulent meme that drives its hosts insane. The loudest antichrists warn us that religion will push us to civilizational collapse. What they fail to recognize is that traditional religion is the scaffolding that every great civilization is built on.

Thesecular utility of religion, as biologist D.S. Wilson calls it, is an open question. But its a question we have to take seriously. Society is the aggregate of individual behaviors. Behavior is motivated by belief. Different belief systems yield very different societies, and some societies are better equipped to respond to shifting historical circumstances than others.

Thats why I advocate for the absolute freedom of religion, including scientism, hedonism, and other secular variants. You never know what might work. But the freedom to conduct social experiments is empty unless were also free to openly criticize the varied results.

You can judge a healthy tradition by its fruits. If civilization is teetering, it may be because the supporting spiritual structure was torn out before another, sufficiently sturdy foundation was put in place. And if your sneezy offspring are getting thrashed by Morlocks, you should let them play outside more often.

Joe Allen is a writer and fellow primate who wonders why we ever came down from the trees.A lifelong student of religion and science, he has kept his hands dirtyas a land surveyor, communal farm hand, kitchen servant, andfor over a decade, climbing steel as an arena rigger.His work appears in various outlets from left to right because he prefers liberty to security. Daily interjections:@EvoPsychosis.

See the original post here:
The Darwinism That Fuels Atheism Actually Favors Religiosity - The Federalist

A popular way in which atheists try to explain religious belief is to label it a meme. The idea, advanced by evolutionary scientist Richard Dawkins, is that memes are units for transmitting cultural behaviour or beliefs, and they spread or self-replicate through the population in a manner analogous to genes in biology.

The theory has its critics in both science and philosophy, and among the unimpressed is the American academic and author Gary Gutting. In his latest book, Talking God: Philosophers on Belief, he quotes the atheist thinker Louise Antony when she says: Its presumptuous to tell someone else why she believes what she believes if you want to know, start by asking her.

Gutting, who is based at University of Notre Dame, interviewed a dozen philosophers some religious and some atheist for the book to explore the boundaries of reasonable belief. He describes himself as an agnostic Catholic (more of that in a moment!) but doesnt claim to have a monopoly on wisdom.

Atheists have some strong arguments, he says, but the weakest intellectual aspect of current atheism is its naive enchantment with pseudoscientific biological and psychological explanations of why people believe.

When you wrote this concluding comment in the book about pseudoscientific explanations for religion, had you Dawkinss concept of the meme in mind?

I was thinking of Dawkins but also of many other efforts to use science to explain religion away.

There are two problems here. First, the explanations are not detailed causal accounts of how people actually come to believe. Theyre merely hand-waving sketches of how belief might arise: for example, fear of death, social survival-value of shared myths. Theres no reason to think that, say, the well-educated and reflective believers, of whom there are many, are driven by such simple causes.

Second, even if we do accept these simple universal explanations of religion, similar explanations will just as well apply to agnostic and atheistic beliefs. Denials of the supernatural might arise from fear of what would happen to me if there were an afterlife. Or they might, as seems to have been the case with Jean-Paul Sartre, originate from a deep-seated refusal of a God who would limit my freedom.

You characterise agnosticism as a sort of honourable middle ground. But how would you respond to the argument that to be agnostic you must accept there is a realistic chance of there being a God, and that most agnostics merely accept a very slight or wholly theoretical chance?

I agree that there are agnostics whose doubt is the practical equivalent of atheism-like doubting the existence of extraterrestrials that look like chartreuse squirrels. My agnosticism takes the possibility of God seriously; its what William James called a live option, something that I can plausibly see myself as believing.

For me, the overall weakness of arguments for atheism helps makes theism a live option. In fact, Ive found that in an undergraduate class a careful reading of Dawkinss arguments against Gods existence generally does more to move students away from atheism than does a careful reading of Aquinass proofs for Gods existence.

Whats the best argument for belief in God, in your view?

For most believers, I think its some form of an argument from personal experience. Many people have strongly sensed the presence of an extraordinarily good and powerful invisible person who cares about them. Of course, merely having a strong sense that somethings there doesnt of itself give a good reason to think that it is there.

The fact that my son is sure that theres a monster under his bed doesnt provide a good reason for thinking that the monster exists.

The reliability of an experience also depends on how well it fits in with other experiences that I and others have and with my overall worldview. But many people, of diverse times and places, have had repeated experiences of a divine presence. And-for those with worldviews not limited by the dogma of scientific materialism-such experiences may be rightly seen as real possibilities.

Religious experiences cannot have the decisive force of our encounters with the material world, but I may well be rational in seeing them as support for the existence of God. This can be so even if the argument is not strong enough to rationally compel belief in God.

Similarly, two astrophysicists who disagree about the likelihood of intelligent life on other planets may both be rational in holding their opposing views. So religious experiences could make theism rational for a believer, even if they dont make someone elses atheism or agnosticism irrational.

You describe yourself as both agnostic and Catholic. How does that work?

I see religious commitment as having three elements. First, there is a commitment to a religious way of life engaging in rituals, reading the holy books, following moral rules as a good way for me to live.

I think that for many believers, this is the main or even only basis of their faith. They have a practical commitment to their religion but not necessarily any views about its intellectual significance. But many believers also have a commitment to their religion as a valuable way of understanding the world and their place in it.

Here I distinguish understanding from knowledge, since quite different, even incompatible, views may be good ways of understanding the world. So, for example, the views of human existence we find in Jane Austen and in Samuel Beckett could hardly both be literally true pictures of our lives; but each offers a fruitful framework for understanding what it means to be human.

The third element, knowledge, requires accepting the literal truth of doctrinal claims. This would include the doctrine of the real presence, as well as other central teachings, such as that God is triune, that Jesus was born of a virgin and rose from the dead, that we will all rise again and live forever in heaven or in hell.

Im open to the idea that such extraordinary claims may be literally true, but accepting them would require far more justification than we have available.

Here it may seem that Im ignoring the key distinction between knowledge and faith. But on any sensible view faith means belief on the word of someone else - e.g. the Pope, the bishops - as opposed to knowing from your own experience or reasoning. Faith is crucial in human life-almost everything we believe about science and history, for example, is based on what others have told us is true.

But believing on faith makes sense only if we know that our faith is based on reliable sources. It would be the height of foolishness to believe what the Pope and bishops tell us unless we knew that they were trustworthy witnesses. Nor would it make sense to say that we know the Pope and bishops are reliable just because they themselves say they are. We need independent reasons for thinking that we can trust them.

Traditional apologetics has tried to provide such reasons by complex historical arguments, but the arguments are not convincing and few believers pay any attention to them.

My conclusion is that we should treat the churchs doctrines as doubtful if they are meant to be literal truths about what is, was, or will be. They remain, however, valuable as stories or ways of thinking that enhance our understanding of human existence. Thats the residue of agnosticism in my Catholicism.

ASK A SAGE

Question: If you dont like theism, atheism or agnosticism, is there something else you can believe in ?

George Carlin replies: Frisbeetarianism . . . the philosophy that when you die, your soul goes up on a roof and gets stuck there.

Here is the original post:
Dear atheists, please stop calling religion a meme - Irish Times

The Case for Christ film, debuting nationwide this Friday, is the most authentic journey from hardcore atheism to faith. The film is based on Author, Journalist, former atheist, and now Pastor Lee Strobels life without Christ as he intensly seeks the truth behind the Christian faith that he once deemed bogus in order to save his wife and marriage.

Although Lee (Mike Vogel) and his wife Leslie (Erika Christensen) collectively decide not to induldge in faith as a married couple, Leslie makes the decision to turn back to God after their daughters near-death experience and her asking questions about who Jesus is.

The unexpected series of events sends Lee on an exploratory tirade with his investigative journalism in tow. Throughout the film, viewers are able to witness how an atheist fights to prove his beliefs as gospel through the use of science, historical facts, and general disbelief.

Many people have been a part of debates both online and in-person that discuss whether or not Jesus is a fairytale based upon scientific facts and anger towards the plights of the world. However, even with scientific evidence of the miracles of Christ and God, the doubt often continues to leave non-believers searching for more. So, when is enough evidence, enough evidence?

Before Leslie decides to become a born-again Christian, her marriage to Lee was considerably solid. However, as her faith grows, so does Lees rage and presentation of facts against Christianity.

Lees main argument is that his wife believes in something that no one else can see, and he only chooses to believe in things that he can see. To add insult to injury, Leslie tries to force her husband into becoming a believer, which only drives him further away.

In fact, there are several moments like these throughout the film that makes moviegoers wonder, Can a faithful and faithless love co-exist?

On social media, the answers vary in the form of everything from scripture that discusses the concept of being equally yoked to those who think you should meet in the middle.

C.B. Fletcher Twitter

Gary goes on to say that, as long as her children were not coerced into believing in God or atheism, he finds comfort in knowing they are making their own choices.

Case for Christ is a love a story between God, Leslie, and Lee. When we love someone we want the best for them and fight and are willing to fight on our loved ones behalf. Lee fought for his wifes sanity , while Leslie fought for Lees peace and salvation. And all of this took place as God fought for both of them to find Him and grow together.

It is the undying love between Lee and Leslie that keeps them going despite their differeces, and that love is what saves them both.

Check out the trailer for The Case for Christ below:

Read more here:
The Case for Christ: Can Atheism and Faithfulness Coexist Under One Roof? - UrbanFaith

I had intended to confine my long-jump from Senate controversies and the Carson case to the moth-eaten current state of the Enlightenment in the West to mylast two action-packed columns here. But the scope and vigour of the reaction they elicited obliges me to return to the subject for the last instance for what I promise will be a long time. Many thanks to readers for the approximately three quarters of the messages that I received that were positive and sensible, and betrayed no trace of proselytizing Christian zeal, which is a much too energetic and narrow focus than I am personally comfortable with(though, of course, I respect it, as I do all sane views on this contentious subject). I am less grateful for the unctuous assurances of the self-professed agnostics and atheists at pains to tell me they were law-abiding and civilized. I never implied otherwise, and have no problem with agnostics, who at least imply that their minds are open.

I have had as much as I can take for a while of the belligerent atheists who come crackling through the Internet assuming the airs of prosecutors, declaring ex cathedra that any suggestion of the existence of a supernatural force or that anything is not explicable by applied human ingenuity is medieval superstition. They have a trite little formula that they dont have to prove the existence of anything and so have the high ground in any argument and then lapse into Hitchensesque infantilistic mockery about pink-winged little men in the clouds. They are repetitive and obnoxious and their fervour betrays the vacuity of their position. I am declaring a moratorium for at least afew monthson trying to reason with these self-exalted champions of reason.

Because there was so much misunderstanding and overwrought, misplaced hysteriafrom some readers, I will wind this up by restating key points with mind-numbing simplicity. We have no idea how the universe, or any version of the life and context we know, originated. We have no idea of the infinite, of what was before the beginning or is beyond any spatial limits we can imagine, even with the great exploratory progress of science. Miracles sometime occur and people do sometimes have completely inexplicable insights that are generally described as spiritual. No sane and somewhat experienced person disputes any of this. But there is a cyber-vigilante squad of atheist banshees that swarm like bats over such comments and are hyperactive philistines better responded to with pest control measures than logical argument.

My contention is that it is more logical and reasonable to attribute these phenomena to the existence of a supernatural force or intelligence than either to deny that they exist, or to take refuge in the faith that they are merely aspects of our environment that we will eventually understand as we explore our planet and the contiguous universe.

I made the point that the Enlightenment that produced what is commonly called the Age of Reason started with a fusion of religious exuberance, scientific and intellectual exploration, and artistic and literary originality, all of which elements essentially reinforced each other. But the Enlightenment gradually adopted the position that science, exploration and reason are incompatible with religious faith, although the Judeo-Christian traditionthe role of conscience, the practice of justice, mercy, and forgiveness, along with intellectual curiosity and initiative are the overwhelmingly powerful formative force in our history. Montreals Paul-Emile Cardinal Leger was generally acclaimed when he addressed the scientific and intellectual communities at the Second Vatican Council and described faith as This greatest friend of the human intelligence.

I did not suggest that the probable existence of a supernatural intelligence required anyone to plunge into religious practice or worship of any kind. That is a matter of taste and people should do what works for them and avoid what doesnt. I did not imply for an instant that those who deny the probability of a supernatural intelligence, whom I defined for these purposes as atheists, were incapable of being honest and decent people. Of course, in our society, most people, including most atheists, are reasonably honest and decent and get through their lives without horrible outbursts of sociopathic behaviour. I did write that those atheists who purport to espouse the Judeo-Christian life without admitting the probability of some supernatural force are essentially enjoying the benefits of Judeo-Christian civilization while denying even the least onerous definition of its basic tenets. Thus do schism and hypocrisy raise their hoary heads.

As atheists renounce the roots of our civilization, they are troublesome passengers, and are apt to be less integral defenders of the West in time of challenge. They often dissent so uniformly and strenuously from any theistic notions that they have effectively established a third force that enjoys the society Judeo-Christianity has created while despising Judeo-Christianity and also purporting, generally, to despise the succession of dangerous adversaries that have threatened Judeo-Christianity, including Nazism, international Communism, and radical Islam.

Of course, an immense number of atheists, as defined here, fought with great valour over centuries and up to the present to defend our civilization. They certainly found it preferable to the enemies assaulting it.But they pose the difficulties of what Cardinal Richelieu called a state within a state (referring to autonomous 17thcentury Protestants) in renouncing Judeo-Christianity while enjoying and espousing an intellectually neutered version of it.They are effectively setting up a third option between Judeo-Christianity and its mortal enemies. This is an illegitimate option, intellectually, since it is really a hijacking of the West from its origins. It also does not gain any recognition from our enemies: the Islamic militants despise the West not because of the faith at its origins, but because it perceives the West now as a society without any spiritual views or values at all; as a wretched mass of materialist atheists (an understandable misapprehension at times). Presumably, we are all powerfully motivated to resist such an Islamic assault and will all presumably lock arms again and repel boarders when and where necessary, as we have since the rise of the Christian Era.

It is, however, and as I also wrote, a steadily more uneasy alliance between the atheists on one side and the theists and agnostics on the other, precisely because the commanding heights of our society the ranks of government, academia, and the mediaare so heavily dominated by aggressive atheists vocally contemptuous of Judeo-Christianity. The frictions in our own ranks become steadily more aggravated. Our Islamist enemies (which it need hardly be emphasized is far from being all Muslims) do not, when they contemplate us, detect our religious tradition, or any respect for anything except hedonistic and consumerist pleasures and spectacles. Of course, this is to some extent an illusion, as all polls and most experience show that the great majority of people in the West do accept the basic premise cited at the outset of this series of columns, that the most probable source of the inexplicable is a supernatural intelligence.

I also wrote that the atheists are becoming steadily more aggressive, more generally dismissive of the supernatural tradition, while swaddling themselves in commendable precepts that are generally variants of the Golden Rule and other such formulations. These are fine, but they will not in themselves assure a norm of social conduct and they have already led to the ghastly enfeeblement of moral relativism. Alternative scenarios emerge of equal worthiness, as right and wrong are concepts that are diluted by being severed from any original legitimacy. All schools of behavioural conduct compete on a level playing field and disorder gradually ensues. Man is deemed to be perfectible, the traditional matrix for authoritarianism. Where there is deemed to be no God the classic human deitiesor Robespierres Supreme Being, the Nazi Pagan-Wagnerian leaders, or the Stalinist incarnation of the toiling Slavonic masses replace deities. Anyone who imagines that our legal system, unto itself, will assure acceptable social conduct has had little experience of it. The entire apparatus of our society of laws has degenerated into a 360 degree cartel operated by and almost exclusively for the benefit of the legal profession.

Atheists are becoming steadily more aggressive, more generally dismissive of the supernatural tradition

I also wrote that, indicative of our deteriorating societal moral confidence and cohesion is our cowardly indulgence of sociophobic Islamwe both under-react to the outrages committed by Islamists and incite the inference that this is what religion produces. The implication, which was explicit in an exchange in this space last month, is that Islam is not more violent than Christianity, and that once embarked on the idea that any religious or spiritual conceptions at all may be worthy of consideration, that will include terrorist versions of religion. (That exchange had the added flourish that Nazism was deemed by my correspondent to be a discernible outgrowth of Christianity, an unspeakable falsehood and defamation.) There is even an element of this in the mawkish, excessive pandering to and amplification of the grievances of the native people in Canada. They have grievances and we have to address them more generously and thoughtfully than we have. But no one in the official leadership of Canada as an autonomous jurisdiction ever dreamt of imposing any version of genocide on them, and bumping John A. Macdonald off the currency and likening him to Hitler is a profanation made more scandalous and repugnant by its cowardly acceptance of historic lies.

I made all these points in gentle terms, as impersonally as I could, and dealt even with sharpish and laborious correspondence in the same way. These are, however, I submit, facts that have very serious implications for all of us, and we should not, as a culture and as a civil society, sleepwalk around them any longer.

National Post cbletters@gmail.com

Read the original:
Conrad Black: I put this as simply as possible: Many atheists are excellent, but atheism itself is hurting the West - National Post

The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. This is not just a lyric in a Lumineers song, but a universal truth that could be applied to loves sister in virtue: faith. The opposite of belief in God is not in fact that long despised enemy of godly people everywhere, atheism. The enemy of belief, rather, is run of the mill indifference. This notion is given credence by Tommy OHavers The Most Hated Woman in America, a recent film from Netflix. The film goes a long way in arguing that atheism isnt the converse of theism, but just another shade on the color wheel of belief, with all the pageantry and chaos which that frequently entails.

The film tells the (true) story of Madalyn Murray OHair (Melissa Leo), a woman who garnered notoriety in the early 1960s for suing the Baltimore public school systema move that ultimately led to a Supreme Court decision banning mandatory bible reading in the public school classroom. OHair then went on to found American Atheists, a national organization dedicated to advocating for the rights of atheists, while continuing to work toward ensuring the separation of church and state.

In the summer of 1995, OHair, along with her youngest son and granddaughter, was kidnapped and murdered by a former employee of American Atheist. Eventually it came to light that the murders were an attempt to seize the substantial amount of money OHair had laundered into offshore accounts throughout her time at American Atheists.

The films primary thrust is exploring the what, the why and the how of OHairs kidnapping and murder. Outside of the Supreme Court case that first brought OHair to the publics attention, OHairs activism on behalf of the atheist agenda is paid little heed by the filmmakers. The audience is left with a paint-by-numbers look at the seemingly inevitable corruption that bubbles to the surface when a grassroots movement turns into an organized institution.

The film is quick to indict OHair as no better than the corrupt religious leaders and institutions that she rails against. As she becomes the public face of unbelief, people start donating money to her and the movement she dubs The Cause, and with that comes the incorporation of American Atheists. OHairs rise to fame includes making the cover of Look magazine, where she was first given the films title phrase. We see her in the guest chair of those late 20th century cultural mainstays, Johnny Carson and Phil Donahue, talking fast and loose at a time when the public did not necessarily want its public figures to tell it like it is.

OHair quickly discovers the financial benefits that come with being the face of a beliefor non-belief movement, as it were. Most Hated makes a point of highlighting her collaboration with televangelist Bill Harrington, which consists primarily of their questionably authentic debates for and against religion, put forth for public consumption in the style of P. T. Barnum, andmore importantlydesigned for profit.

Melissa Leo as the hard-to-love OHair gives integrity and complexity to a character who could have easily been played for laughs. She never condescends to OHair and gives authenticity to a volatile and larger-than-life woman without overplaying or veering into camp. It is unfortunate that the rest of the film cannot live up to Leos incredible work, as the production values are shoddy and the writing is strictly TV-movie-of-the-week. The remainder of the casts talentwhich includes Peter Fonda, Juno Temple, Josh Lucas and Adam Scottis wasted in a film that primarily plays like a poorly done imitation of a Coen brothers film.

OHairs story does, however, raise questions worth investigating. The most significant: Can a deeply embedded commitment to unbelief avoid mirroring the very thing it opposes? It would seem that any cause worthy of faith and commitment cannot help but become organized, incorporated and hierarchical. An ideology, a faith, a movement, always begins rather formless, even chaotic, necessitating a leader to give it shape, be it Jesus, Lenin or Madalyn Murray OHair.

As dark a gloss as Most Hatedtries to put on organized movements, the fundamental reality seems to be that we need some kind of hero, or vaunted ideal (be it Jesus or Never Jesus) to give some sort of shape to our existence. And we like to run in packs, or prides, groups, coteries, sects, denominations, religions, take your pick; but whatever you call them, we like to be a part of them. We like to be a part of.

The reality is that people need something to believe in, even if that very thing just happens to be unbelief.

View post:
Renowned atheist is hated, murdered, revived in new Netflix film ... - America Magazine