[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

There are two good reasons to not attempt to get rid of severely harmful things: either we are powerless to do so, or their existence is necessary for a greater benefit. Geography and human nature fall into the former category, and politics into the latter. I suppose you could argue that anarchy wouldn't devolve into chaos, but that would need a whole other thread. Religion doesn't seem to fall into either of these categories.

Geography on its own does not account for the almost obsessive attitude we appear to have over lines on a map and who controls them, or else you would have no explanation for the existence of nomadic peoples or communes. It also fails to account for the fact that humans had little interest in land ownership as such until the Neolithic period. Likewise, human nature is a smorgasbord of different traits both positive and negative which make the occurrence of harm hardly inevitable or beyond our power to control - otherwise the human race would be in a constant state of orgiastic copulation and destruction. The extent of benefit provided by politics depends on what utilitarian measure you use and whether you class certain traits as positive or negative, but again that categorisation does not automatically follow. Also, an absence of politics does not equal anarchy - politics and governance are not one and the same, however much some may claim otherwise.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

If I ever do find the time and inclination, it won't be in a PM. You will be the first to hear though, if you like. I will comment on one of your replies though: "This presupposes that the sole purpose of religion is providing comfort, for which you have no evidence at all." Inferring things I haven't said is bad form. Why does a claim that religion gives no significant comfort necessarily imply a claim that religion could not provide any other benefit?

"Inferring things you haven't said" is not bad form if they form a logical part of singling out lack of "particular comfort" as a significant criticism of religion. Otherwise, singling out that trait above all others would seem somewhat perverse. If expressed solely in the context of an argument about whether religion provides comfort or not I would refrain from making such an inference, but in the context of "religion being a blight on the world" in general terms it is natural to assume you made reference to that trait over all others for a particular reason. If that assumption was too bold I apologise, but in the context of that argument the implication is that religion could only justify its existence in the face of your other points if it provided comfort, and that as it does not it is thereby a blight. Were that not the case, benefits in other areas would negate that criticism.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I don't think one way or the other. I find it the height of arrogance to pretend to have a meaningful opinion on something about which I am almost completely ignorant. In general though, a new idea which happens to fit the facts is exactly that; it seems silly to think strongly one way or the other until either evidence turns up or sufficient testing fails to turn up the expected evidence.

That is fair enough. I suppose it was a slightly roundabout way of demonstrating that science is just as capable as other fields on relying on theories without necessarily having the evidence to back them up. Dark matter is another good example.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

The last part is unconvincing; there's still a debate over evolution in the US and that's absolutely a done deal.

The debate over the existence of God is, I would contend, a bit more comprehensive and complicated than the creationist-evolution debate in the USA. For one thing, it's actually taking place within academia rather than a group challenging academic consensus, and were God's non-existence "a done deal" (to use your phrase) then some people really are wasting a lot of time and energy, ourselves included.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Also, whether or not god exists and whether or not Christianity is true are hugely different questions. Otherwise, the way you word this objection seems dishonest; there are many more good reasons than a simple lack of imagination to dismiss the bible as reliable evidence. I'm hardly a scholar on the subject, but there's plenty of literature about it. Everything I have ever read about the origins of Christianity and the bible lead me to believe that it is no different than any other religion; the attempts of young civilizations to explain that which was beyond their grasp.

I'm not talking about Christianity, and I find your attempts to pigeonhole me into the mould of "Christian apologist" both amusing and frustrating in equal measure. My point was that in order for the debate on God to have perpetuated for as long as it has done, both in academia and wider society, in the face of evidence you and fellow atheists would deem incontrovertible proof that God cannot exist or that his existence is highly unlikely, you would have to concede that either (a) there may well be something of substance upon which to form an argument or (b) there is a phenomenon which requires explanation. Thus far, the only explanations advanced have taken the form of widespread delusion, abrogation of rational thought or stubborn ignorance, none of which are particularly meritorious or scientific in their analysis.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Why so? It is always possible to simply say "He exists; he only exists outside of our reach." It's been done for millenia, after all. God used to be beyond the sky; when finally we ourselves reached beyond the sky we found no god. In any event, "we could find evidence if only we were able to look outside the universe" is no better in terms of falsifiability than Descartes' demons. Outside the universe isn't just beyond our abilities; it's so far beyond them as to be laughable as defense of an argument. It is essentially saying "It's possible to find evidence if it's possible to find evidence." Sure, technically true, but hardly useful.

Did I actually say that? No. What I actually said, part of which you seem to have ignored altogether, is that evidence which would confirm or refute the existence of God pretty categorically does exist even if at present it is not within our capabilities to reach it. If anything, I was arguing for agnosticism being the most sensible outlook, which doesn't reflect well on either of our positions when you think about it.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Descriptions of character aren't testable, but a god that seems so human in mannerisms - like most other gods - seems that much more likely to have come from human imagination. That was my point.

It suggests nothing more than that humans have a tendency to define everything in relation to themselves. You could adduce it as evidence that we're quite self-centered as a species, but that's about it.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Those speculated origins for the flood myth are just that; origins for a myth. These are things that we would expect of writings from early tribes; a local flood described as "the entire world drowned". These things all make sense of the bible as a record of myths, not as a record of the divine.

If you would look at your previous post again, you will note that you said that a flood as described did not happen. My response was to point out that it may well have done, not that "the entire world drowned" or that God's hand was behind it. In light of your objection to my inference into your "particular comfort" statement I find these inferences into mine quite ironic. If a flood which covered a significant portion of the known world at the time - which would limit itself more or less to the current Middle East - did occur, the credibility of the Bible as a record of historical, if not theological, events would be strengthened. You however seem to rule that out altogether which I find intriguing.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Another example, perhaps much more convincing: the entire story of Exodus seems to be almost completely false.

You will forgive me if I do not find the statement of "seems to be almost completely false" to be that convincing. There's enough uncertainty in there to drive an 18-wheeler through.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Jesus is the defining figure of Christianity; it would have made no sense to say "Zeus, Thor, and God".

In that case, I would ask that you nail your colours to the mast on one side of the "historical Jesus" debate or the other.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Is there any reason to think that these things would not remain? Pointing to the role of Christianity in our society in the past is as senseless as pointing to the dominance of men in science in the past; of course they were dominant, there were simply no other options. Once upon a time religion was the driving force behind education as well, but this has since ceased to be true. We do know however that being religious doesn't particularly alter people's character; people who are inclined to be charitable will be charitable whether they're religious or not.

The fact that they may remain after secularisation provides no more evidence that they have their root in secularism than the fact that trees may remain in cities proves that trees have their root in cities rather than forests. It is not a given that Christianity had to develop in Roman civilisation or Celtic, Germanic or any other society it became a part of - that was by no means a foregone conclusion in c.30 AD. There were other options in quite numerous quantity; the question becomes more one of why Christianity as opposed to others, and that is a much more complicated question. Your last point meanwhile appears to discount the role that religion may have played in a person's early development, even if they may subsequently abandon religion - principles and values learned at a young age tend to be most ingrained in a person and continue to influence their outlook and behaviour even if on a subconscious level.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

That's ridiculously monochromatic reasoning; the same can be used to justify anything that has an iota of positive value. What's pertinent is how good and how bad things are. Of course everything will seem neutral-value if you totally omit any measure of value.

With respect, you have completely and utterly missed the point. Science, government, politics and religion/philosophy are incapable of being objectively good, bad or indifferent because they rely upon humans to put them into effect. It makes about as much sense as claiming a spanner is objectively better than a pneumatic drill - outside of context of use, it's a completely banal statement. You cannot judge something as being "good" or "bad" without reference to its context, and on that basis all of the examples raised to date - religion included - come out with mixed results at best. All have blood on their hands, both metaphorical and literal in some cases, and to gloss over that fact with regard to science, government and politics yet snap back onto it in the case of religion is hypocrisy in its highest form.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Yes it is. Arguing only from extremes and ignoring the rest isn't rational, but neither is claiming that the extremes don't count. The possibility of dictatorships is extremely relevant to discussions of government, just as the existence of WBC and their ilk is relevant to discussions of religion.

Again with respect, this is not Wonderland - simply saying something is such does not make it so. I never claimed that the extremes do not count, but if you would look at Cody's post he referred only to extremes. However you try and frame it, that is not a rational approach any more than judging the merits of government solely based on their ability to result in dictatorships is a rational approach. It is relevant but by no means conclusive, and arguing otherwise is bordering on absurdity.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Leviticus 18:22. 1 Timothy 2:12. Certainly doesn't help, does it?

Cody was referring to oppression in Muslim countries, so referring to St Paul on that topic is a bit of a fail I'm afraid. A verse from the Qur'an would have been more applicable. Leaving that aside, if you truly wish to play the "quote the Bible" game I could direct you to Michael, but as a starter for ten I could throw in Matthew 7:1 and John 8:7. On a more general level, I could point to the acceptance of gays within the Anglican Communion and the following passage from the Catechism of the Catholic Church as negating the quote from Leviticus:

Originally Posted by Catechism of the Catholic Church

They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

On the subject of lack of women's rights in Muslim countries, were it a product of religion rather than societal structure you would expect that to apply to all Muslims regardless of location, which I can confirm from personal experience (having Muslim friends and lived in a city with a large Muslim population) is false.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Correlation doesn't imply causation, I grant you, but it's a hell of a strong correlation. What explanation would you offer for it?

In such circumstances, human stupidity, ignorance and fear of the unknown or different are good explanations, and none of them are confined to religion.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

You seem to continue dancing around the point. Yes, religion can have some small benefits. No, religion is not the only evil in the world. Yes, most religious people are not bad. These are not adequate defenses to the accusation that religion does significantly more harm in the world than good. Of course you can only be expected to address one point at a time, but you shouldn't conclude at the end of each of them things like "but nor does it make it a suitable scapegoat for the ills of the world" as though the point were meant to stand alone.

There appear to be at least two unproven assumptions in that statement: that the benefits from religion are limited to the small, and that religion is inherently evil. Both of those have no basis beyond your personal opinion at present, and in the absence of provision of evidence to support the claim that religion causes significantly more harm than good - or, to use your earlier wording, a "blight on the world" - there is really quite little for me to address. To put it in the context of a debate, I am waiting for the opening argument rather than the skeleton. In any event, I was not "dancing around the point" as you rather uncharitably put it - the claim was that religion is a "large part of the problem" insofar as ignorance and stupidity is concerned, and I responded that in the absence of evidence to support this, the mere fact that it can be a contributing factor to both is not reasonable grounds to make it the scapegoat, which is how religion is increasingly portrayed and is something I find intellectually dishonest in the highest degree. By all means make whatever claims you like about religion or anything else in life, but you'd best be able to back them up.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

I'm sure religion does provide these things for the religious, but that's only a tangible benefit if those things are notably less present in the non-religious.

Not necessarily - there may well be an alternative for the non-religious which provides the same function. That will vary from person to person and the mere fact that something may provide a similar benefit does not mean that religion cannot provide a tangible benefit at all. Tangible refers only to its observability and impact on the person.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

A great deal of your faith in Christianity seems to rest on the bible being somehow special among ancient religious texts; if this is so, I might suggest that you do some significant research into the origins and writing of the bible.

It is somewhat arrogant to presume, without asking, that I have not done "significant research" into the origins and writing of the Bible. I am fully aware both of the chronology and multiple authorship of the Bible, and of the process of compilation into a settled canon hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. As such, I would respectfully ask that you decline from making further assertions of ignorance. I would also again ask that you refrain from trying to pigeonhole me into the "Christian" box, as my arguments tend to come more from philosophy and the wider world rather than one book or religion. I would also ask what your response has to do with my objection to Cody's comparison to the tooth fairy or implications of mental illness on my part - or indeed the flippant use of such terminology. If you really wish to understand my rationale for believing in God and being a Christian I would be quite happy to explain this to you, albeit with the warning that the length of the explanation may well cure any insomnia that you may be suffering from. In the absence of such explanation, however, I would ask for a little more decorum in debate. I have not attacked your intelligence or views on this topic - at least not knowingly - and would ask only for the same in return.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Just because I don't respect Christianity doesn't mean I don't respect you. You are much more than just the sum of the ideals you subscribe to. Hating Christianity is not the same as hating Christians, just as hating mathematics isn't the same as hating mathematicians.

This is true up to a point; however, mathematics as far as I am aware does not bring with it a life philosophy or set of principles by which people live their lives. It can be a vocation or calling by any means, but I have yet to see it being used in an attempt to determine morality or ethics. Christianity, and other religions or life philosophies, is something which by definition plays a more substantial role in a person's life or at the very least reflects on them as a person, so in throwing around terms such as "evil", "delusional" or "blight on the world" there is an element of guilt by association, however unknowingly.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

Ideas need to be discussed; it's the only good way to separate good ideas from bad ones. Getting offended by criticism of your ideas shuts down honest and open discussion and ultimately benefits no one. This notion that some ideas should be beyond the realm of open criticism is incredibly insidious, and ultimately constitutes little more than a shield behind which bad ideas can hide.

To paraphrase Babylon 5, "On that, Fletcher, we can at least agree." Not sure whether you'd prefer to be Londo or G'Kar mind you - I leave that one to you as I'm off to bed, particularly as my desk nearly just collapsed on me. Say whatever you like, but I can take a hint.