False dichotomy here, I think. There are two different ways to approach this:

1) look at the number of altruistic behaviors displayed by theistic and non-theistic to see whether either group tends to perform altruistic acts moreso than the other.

2) as for the horrors perpetrated supposedly by religion, this is a much harder question to answer than most people think. If you really want to get into it, you’ve got to make some subtle distinction between religion being the cause of such actions, and religion as merely one factor in a web of culture, economics, and politics; an example: Alfred Crosby and a few other environmental historians have made the argument that both the Mongol expansion in the 1200s and the European crusades were societal reponses to climate change moreso than being driven by religious ideology.

As far as Hitch’s argument on the Lenin/Stalin issue, I don’t think your analysis of the argument is correct. The position he takes on Stalin (and Pol Pot and Kim Jong Il) is perfectly sound. (Harris and Dawkins take a similar stance.) Those regimes exuded (or in Kim’s case still exude) mostly “religious” attributes; highly dogmatic leader worship, head of state as god-like leader, etc. Reason and humanitarianism were hardly cornerstones of these organizations. The fact that they rejected Christianity specifically means very little. I actually think the atheist moniker is a misnomer, especially for the North Korean. He clearly thinks he is a god.

The point about MLK shows that one does not have to choose between the two. In this case humanism/atheism does share the side with religion (and Hitch says as much). You can have both. However, he poses a question to prove the point that religion is not necessary to meet humanitarian ends. Name a noble action performed by a religious persons for religious reasons that could not have ever been done by a non-believer for secular reasons. As yet no one can come up with one. But one can think of numerous horrific acts done in god’s name that would have never been performed otherwise.

Perhaps you missed my comment above when I said, “Personally to the extent that this movement is putting heavy emphasis on reason, facts, experiment, testing, etc., I welcome them. We need to a good dose of that in the US.”

I’m an agnostic about religion and religious claims about matters of fact. But I do think that spirituality is important, which to me means treating ones life, experiences, relations w/ others and responsibilities with ultimate regard. To me that addresses the sense of life and reality and is not a prescription to make particular claims about life and reality.

Now perhaps the use of the term “war” is a bit strong, but it wasn’t my term to begin w/.

But I do think that these writers do go overboard a bit. I recently read Hitchen’s book. In it he rightly praises MLK but argues that it is in virture of MLK’s humanism that we like him, not his Christianity. Apparently, for Hitchens humanism was a separate historical track from Christianity and springs from sources and considerations that bear no relationship to Christianity. Now as a matter of historical fact that is pure bunk. Humanism began w/ writers like Erasmus, a priest, and others in Catholicism that were stretching the envelope of acceptable truth in their day. Writers like Hitchens are seem compelled to pose their difference w/ supernaturalists t as an either/or. Either MLK is admirable for non-Christian/humanistic reasons or he can’t be admirable at all. That’s just silly.

Or take Hitchen’s counter to the argument that Lenin/Stalin were mass murderers and atheists and humanists. A claim often made by those who want to exonerate the crimes of, mostly, Christianity by basically arguing, “You think we are bad. The atheists were worse.” (Another silly argument for anyone w/ a healthy moral sense given that the appropriate response to any mass murder is not to bring out a counter and tally up the dead for an apologetic purpose.)

How does Hitches handle it? He argues that the problem w/ Lenin/Stalin, etc. is that they didn’t act like true humanists but like religious fanatics. In short, they behaved like Christians w/o their theology.

What a joke of an argument. He could have analyzed movements that lead to mass murder on other grounds–ones that would explain both the mass murders of the Bolsheviks and the Inquisitors. But he really can’t do that if his agenda is to put humanism/atheism in a position that it never shares the same side of an either/or way of posing a problem. They must be on opposite sides and we must choose between them.

But we don’t have to choose between them if we don’t want to…not finally or absolutely. So my problem w/ these writers is that they pose the same false dilemma that the supernaturalists do. You are either for us or against us. You either think that truth and social/cultural/personal value lies w/ us or them. But that’s simplistic and just as much so as when it comes out of the mouth of a frothing televangelist.
__________
“Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is.” (Ludwig Wittgenstein)

Your comments personify the typical wishy-washy position.

Clearly not reading (or hearing) what your interlocutor has to say (to rush right to your all encompassing truth) is the sign of a fundamentalist, I’m afraid.

I frankly don’t give a rat’s ass what you believe at home, but if you want to teach intelligent design as science, pass a “marriage” amendment, and/or blow up building for Allah, I have a BIG FUCKING PROBLEM!

Did I fucking take crazy pills? What belief do I have that wouldn’t past a sceintific evidence test? Name one. There very well may be good evidence on either side, but I’ll tell you one thing for sure, nothing I believe is entirely based on myths, 2,000 year old literature, blind faith and good intentions! People make bald assertions that don’t make any sense.

I admit there are many many many things I don’t know, and probably will never know. But there are some things I do know. And pointing those things out is not a fundementalist position.

Re: the second part of this claim (made not only by Dawkins) — pretty much the entirety of the signature violence of the 20th Century serves as a sharp rebuke to this assertion.

This is perfectly fundamentalist. Beliefs do not have to be substantiated by science quality evidence — that is why they are beliefs, not facts. In the same vein of your argument, atheists and agnostics have a belief narrative that would not pass the scientific evidence test, either.

It is the absolutist approach that envisions everyone that does not share the beliefs as some dark conspiracy. That absolutism does not really give rise to civil discussion, but crazy, paranoid rhetoric that sees those who do not derive their “truth” from the same source as an enemy (hence, the War on Whatever rhetoric).

What anyone’s spiritual beliefs are are of no consequence to any of the rest us of – until you insist that your beliefs are The Answer and that the community we all live in must be organized around that Answer. That should get a lot of righteous pushback, because that does deny that the rest of us a basic bit of humanity.

My problem with them is both tactical and intellectual. Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens (I don’t include Dennett in this particular list) are really saying three things, once you get down to it:

1) This is a purely naturalistic cosmos based on all the evidence we’ve yet seen, and that should be our working assumption

2) Religion is therefore not only wrong, it is delusional, and it is the source of much if not most if not all of societal injustice violence yada yada yada

3) Neither religious beliefs nor religious practices deserve any respect from anyone in society, because not only is religion pathological it is not really the source of morality

The problem with (1) is that it all depends upon your definitions, your evidence, and our models. If some of the more extravagant theories of Hawking, Vilenkin, Susskind, Deutsch, Gell-Mann and others prove out, there is plenty of room remaining for a lot of things “supernatural” in the Arthur Clarke sense of the word (“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”)

With regard to (2) there is a case to be made, but these critics make it BADLY. I will try to look up a review of Dawkins’ “God Delusion” in which a fellow Brit evolutionary biologist (also an active atheist) takes him to task for not only screwing up the details of religious history, but also of what appears to be intentionally misleading his readers about several points of evolutionary theory (I think, regarding group versus individual survival) to make his point. Listen to many biologists and cosmologists talk quietly around the edges and you will find that they are embarassed about these guys.

(3) is an “attack dog” stance that you generally go into when your ideas are not gaining any traction of their own. They are alienating the people in the middle by giving them the same phony choice that they get from conservative Christians, to wit: “my way or the highway [to hell, sorry AC/DC]….”

liberalgeek says, “Atheism and agnosticism have done quite well in the past hundred years with or without Dawkins.” He’s absolutely right. Dawkins’ major contribution to science will be his “selfish gene” thesis; ironically, he has not done much significant original research since then (for all the popular books he’s written). Other than that, he’s going to be remembered alongside other narrow-visioned scientists who were cranks when they got outside their field of expertise.

Harris creates straw man arguments rather than dealing with serious historical or theological arguments.

I have yet to see anyone make the case successfully that Hitchens is in it for anything other than the money.

Dennett strikes me as the only honest scholar in the bunch, but you have to read 300-500 pages to get his point. (PS he looks like Santa and when kids stop him in the airport he doesn’t say, “It’s all a lie, kid.” He just puts a finger to his lips and says, “Don’t tell anybody.” THAT unlike Dawkins is a man with class.)

I agree with his assertions and disagree with his goal and selected tactics.

“We don’t respect beliefs, we evaluate reasons.”

Having “disrespect” for someone’s beliefs, when these beliefs are unsubstantiated by evidence, isn’t crude, or mean, or dogmatic. It’s perfectly reasonable.

Here’s an update; there is no Santa Claus. If someone wants to wander through life believing in some fallacious bronze age myth – like the 5 year old who believes in Santa – that’s their business. But it’s also quite preposterous.

I’m guesing you probably wish you’d selected a different analogy. Because you’re not the person telling the ignorant kid the truth, you are the kid.

Honestly, if I had a debate about the nature of the universe and I walked away with them casting off their religion, I would feel like I told a little kid that there was no Santa Claus. (Note to the young Democrats that read the blog; Yes, there is really a Santa Claus).

The societal norms we follow are no more or less religious than Aesop’s fables or the Golden Rule.

What is concerning is that the Big 3 try to fool everyone by alluding that it was their particular religion which came up with the norms, and these norms are unable to exist without the Big 3.

It’s not hard to see that society and community is a product of humans coming together because of common traits, wants, and needs – i.e. – protection, food, etc. And if one of those common traits is believing in some sort of all-powerful being for whatever reason, I have no problem with that, but to say that humanity, community and peace is only achievable when you submit to an unverifiable entity is downright ludicrous.