If God Is Dead Can Religion Be Far Behind?

[wyaryan]

If you want to discuss the New Atheists -- Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, et al -- the Little Bang Sangha is holding a free-for-all on Saturday, Dec. 1, at Baan Suan Phai Vegetarian Restaurant, 304 Phahon Yothin Road (BTS Ari, exit 2, walk straight ahead, 300m to the left. Right after the gas station) from 10:30 am to 2 pm. We're showing Dawkins' BBC documentary "The Root of All Evil?", and will explore the relevance of atheism for Buddhism, particularly in Thailand. The discussion will be introduced by Dr. Will Yaryan and co-moderating will be Phra Cittasamvaro. More details avilable at http://littlebang.wordpress.com/

Edited November 24, 2007 by wyaryan

[camerata]

and will explore the relevance of atheism for Buddhism, particularly in Thailand.

What is your definition of "atheism?"

[Sarathi]

There are popular books these days by Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion, Christopher Hitchens - God is not Great, and others.

They are trying to popularise the idea that all religion is bogus, based on faulty scriptures that are no better than fairy tales (and much worse in that they damage people and society). In fact, says Dawkins, if you put any faith in such scriptures (gospels etc..) you are not only deluded, you are 'barking mad'

So they are the "New Atheists" - or "anti-theists" and their books are in bookshops all over the world including Thailand

Interestingly, though Dawkins does not attack Buddhism so much, it is only because he does not know enough about it. His line is clear - ALL religion is not only madness, but dangerous madness. Buddhism is not excluded. Hitchens does attack Buddhism more eloquently:

“An extraordinary number of people appear to believe that the mind, and the reasoning faculty – the only thing that divides us from our animal relatives – is something to be distrusted and even, as far as possible, dulled. The search for nirvana, and the dissolution of the intellect, goes on. And whenever it is tried, it produces a Kool-Aid effect in the real world.” (198)

Buddhism: “A faith that despises the mind and the free individual, that preaches submission and resignation, and that regards life as a poor and transient thing, is ill-equipped for self-criticism. Those who become bored by conventional ‘Bible’ religions, and seek ‘enlightenment’ by way of the dissolution of their own critical faculties into nirvana in any form, had better take a warning. They may thing they are leaving the realm of despised materialism, but they are still being asked to put their reason to sleep, and to discard their minds along with their sandals.” (204

Can Buddhists claim to be exempt just because there is no creator God? Not according to the New Theists.

As a Buddhist I am not even sure if I can be an atheist or not ...

[Grover]

If you want to discuss the New Atheists -- Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris, et al --

I thought Dawkins described himself as an agnostic, a "toothfairy agnostic" in his book the God Delusion.

The documentary sounds interesting though. Maybe you can report back for those who cant make it.

[Oleg_Rus]

Love those books.

Clear and simple language, I should have them long time ago - that would save me a great deal of time.

[garro]

Strange days we live in.

I read Dawkins book a few months ago and posted a thread about it then.

He made some points which made me think, but at the end of the day he has nothing to offer.

He is just another person pointing out the faults in others without offering anything positive in return.

This naysayers are making plenty of money and gaining celebrity without adding anyting to the planet.

These atheists point to science but forget that it is just another religion which relies on faith,

They are just as arrogant and closed-minded as any other religious fundamentalist.

Edited November 24, 2007 by garro

[camerata]

Buddhism: "A faith that despises the mind and the free individual, that preaches submission and..."

Evidently, Hitchens doesn't know much about Buddhism either.

[Sarathi]

Strange days we live in.

I read Dawkins book a few months ago and posted a thread about it then.

He made some points which made me think, but at the end of the day he has nothing to offer.

He is just another person pointing out the faults in others without offering anything positive in return.

This naysayers are making plenty of money and gaining celebrity without adding anyting to the planet.

These atheists point to science but forget that it is just another religion which relies on faith,

They are just as arrogant and closed-minded as any other religious fundamentalist.

What were the conclusions of the thread ?

I do think that Dawkins at least makes Atheism sound like fun, a badge to identify with. Hitchens simply lists his long tirade of criticism without offering anything positive. Yet, he is often quoted as the more intellectual of the bunch.

While I agree that Faith plays a part in science too, they do point out that they base their faith on evidence, rather than nonsensical scripture.

[suegha]

Strange days we live in.

I read Dawkins book a few months ago and posted a thread about it then.

He made some points which made me think, but at the end of the day he has nothing to offer.

He is just another person pointing out the faults in others without offering anything positive in return.

This naysayers are making plenty of money and gaining celebrity without adding anyting to the planet.

These atheists point to science but forget that it is just another religion which relies on faith,

They are just as arrogant and closed-minded as any other religious fundamentalist.

Excellent post garro!

[garro]

Strange days we live in.

I read Dawkins book a few months ago and posted a thread about it then.

He made some points which made me think, but at the end of the day he has nothing to offer.

He is just another person pointing out the faults in others without offering anything positive in return.

This naysayers are making plenty of money and gaining celebrity without adding anyting to the planet.

These atheists point to science but forget that it is just another religion which relies on faith,

They are just as arrogant and closed-minded as any other religious fundamentalist.

What were the conclusions of the thread ?

I do think that Dawkins at least makes Atheism sound like fun, a badge to identify with. Hitchens simply lists his long tirade of criticism without offering anything positive. Yet, he is often quoted as the more intellectual of the bunch.

While I agree that Faith plays a part in science too, they do point out that they base their faith on evidence, rather than nonsensical scripture.

Science relies on faith a great deal because;

1 Most people are not involved in scientific experiments

2 It relies completely on inductive logic which is only a theory and can never be proved

[longway]

Strange days we live in.

I read Dawkins book a few months ago and posted a thread about it then.

He made some points which made me think, but at the end of the day he has nothing to offer.

He is just another person pointing out the faults in others without offering anything positive in return.

This naysayers are making plenty of money and gaining celebrity without adding anyting to the planet.

These atheists point to science but forget that it is just another religion which relies on faith,

They are just as arrogant and closed-minded as any other religious fundamentalist.

What were the conclusions of the thread ?

I do think that Dawkins at least makes Atheism sound like fun, a badge to identify with. Hitchens simply lists his long tirade of criticism without offering anything positive. Yet, he is often quoted as the more intellectual of the bunch.

While I agree that Faith plays a part in science too, they do point out that they base their faith on evidence, rather than nonsensical scripture.

Science relies on faith a great deal because;

1 Most people are not involved in scientific experiments

2 It relies completely on inductive logic which is only a theory and can never be proved

but can be disproved

you make a fair point, but at least science is a faith that can change and, at least be perceived, to progress towards an understanding of nature.

i think that dawkins can be funny so he is positive in that way. he also espouses and belief in science, which has given us the opportunity to question the great claims religion often makes.

most religions are pretty stagnant, though from a religious person's POV there is no reason to change anything anyway.

Edited November 24, 2007 by longway

[SiriusBlack1]

I read Dawkins' The God Delusion and found it brilliant.

Dawkins calls himself an atheist, viewing the term "agnostic" as a copout. I call myself an atheist for the same reason -- it's an important question, so shouldn't you have an opinion about it? An agnostic says "I don't know if there is a God"; an atheist says "I believe there is no God."

Atheism is not a religion, because a rational person will renounce his atheism in the face of proof of the divine. Given the resounding absence of any such proof, the atheist maintains his disavowal of all myth and superstition.

Dawkins is most scathing about the evangelical religions because they insist that others must convert to their beliefs. This is what makes Christianity, and to a lesser degree Islam, so dangerous. Buddhists do not feel the need to proselytize because, if you do not attain nirvana in this life, you will get a chance in the next.

For criticism of Buddhism, Nietzsche is an interesting source. He calls the monastic tradition a denial of life, a withdrawal from the struggles of life born of nothing nobler than defeatism. (Though he was thinking more of the Christian monastic tradition than the Eastern.)

[suegha]

While I agree that Faith plays a part in science too, they do point out that they base their faith on evidence, rather than nonsensical scripture.

I base my faith on scripture which makes perfect sense. 30 years of reading and studying the bible has given me a totally sound faith.

[Sarathi]

Yes Seugha. That is one of the things Dawkins et al try to undermine, by pointing out inconsistencies etc... But the fact remains that different people can see the same thing, or read the same thing and come out with different conclusions. Therefore, in reference to an earlier comment that the atheist (scientist) would give up that belief in the face of proof of the divine, I think most religious people would give up their religion in the face of proof that their religion is false. It is the way that people read the information that is important in both cases, i.e. an emotive issue for all involved, and not one dictated by reason or impartial judgement.

The Event Will refers to though, in Bangkok next week addresses the question regarding Buddhists. Can a Buddhist be an Atheist too? Do Buddhists who have read Dawkins et al agree, disagree or not care ?

Remember that Dawkins and crew attack ALL religion, and do not exempt Buddhism just because it is not theistic.

[suegha]

Yes Seugha. That is one of the things Dawkins et al try to undermine, by pointing out inconsistencies etc... But the fact remains that different people can see the same thing, or read the same thing and come out with different conclusions. Therefore, in reference to an earlier comment that the atheist (scientist) would give up that belief in the face of proof of the divine, I think most religious people would give up their religion in the face of proof that their religion is false. It is the way that people read the information that is important in both cases, i.e. an emotive issue for all involved, and not one dictated by reason or impartial judgement.

The Event Will refers to though, in Bangkok next week addresses the question regarding Buddhists. Can a Buddhist be an Atheist too? Do Buddhists who have read Dawkins et al agree, disagree or not care ?

Remember that Dawkins and crew attack ALL religion, and do not exempt Buddhism just because it is not theistic.

There are no inconsistencies in my beliefs. I also think it's incorrect to separate scientists and believers per se, I know plenty of scientists who are believers. However, the media always cites the atheistic scientists as the authority on all things religious! Why is that? Also there is no proof that my beliefs are false.

Anyhow, why are there so many 'evangelical' atheists out there?

Edited November 24, 2007 by suegha

[longway]

Yes Seugha. That is one of the things Dawkins et al try to undermine, by pointing out inconsistencies etc... But the fact remains that different people can see the same thing, or read the same thing and come out with different conclusions. Therefore, in reference to an earlier comment that the atheist (scientist) would give up that belief in the face of proof of the divine, I think most religious people would give up their religion in the face of proof that their religion is false. It is the way that people read the information that is important in both cases, i.e. an emotive issue for all involved, and not one dictated by reason or impartial judgement.

The Event Will refers to though, in Bangkok next week addresses the question regarding Buddhists. Can a Buddhist be an Atheist too? Do Buddhists who have read Dawkins et al agree, disagree or not care ?

Remember that Dawkins and crew attack ALL religion, and do not exempt Buddhism just because it is not theistic.

There are no inconsistencies in my beliefs. I also think it's incorrect to separate scientists and believers per se, I know plenty of scientists who are believers. However, the media always cites the atheistic scientists as the authority on all things religious! Why is that? Also there is no proof that my beliefs are false.

Anyhow, why are there so many 'evangelical' atheists out there?

i dont really agree with your POV, but it is nice to have you here on the buddhist section. you always put your opinions accross eloquently and without rancour.

perhaps you were a buddhist in a previous birth.

[blaze]

Yes Seugha. That is one of the things Dawkins et al try to undermine, by pointing out inconsistencies etc... But the fact remains that different people can see the same thing, or read the same thing and come out with different conclusions. Therefore, in reference to an earlier comment that the atheist (scientist) would give up that belief in the face of proof of the divine, I think most religious people would give up their religion in the face of proof that their religion is false. It is the way that people read the information that is important in both cases, i.e. an emotive issue for all involved, and not one dictated by reason or impartial judgement.

The Event Will refers to though, in Bangkok next week addresses the question regarding Buddhists. Can a Buddhist be an Atheist too? Do Buddhists who have read Dawkins et al agree, disagree or not care ?

Remember that Dawkins and crew attack ALL religion, and do not exempt Buddhism just because it is not theistic.

I totally disagree that most people would give up their religion if presented with proof that undermines their faith. History and the study of cultures show that people WANT there to be a divine presense- people WANT an ultimate authority on moral issues- they WANT an explanation for 'why bad things happen to people- good as well as bad. And they WANT to live on after death. They WANT to know that they are not alone in this big cold universe.

They do not- as a species- WANT- to believe that man evolved from other life forms. They do not WANT to believe that once you are dead- it's game over. They do not WANT to believe that their existance is a result of mere biochemical happenstance. They do not WANT to believe that life has no purpose what so ever. They do not even WANT to believe that gobal warming may have disasterous consequences.

And therefore, many people will fight tooth and nail- using an odd mixture of reason and irrational faith to cling to their religious beliefs- despite evidence that would truly make them question.

Most of us do not want to believe the bleakness that science- our own rational inquirys in fact, so often lead us to. Yet it was from the willingness to confront that bleakness and apparant pointlessness of life that, in my understanding, Buddhism arose. And to be really contentious- let me suggest that any westerner interested in Buddhism first familiarize themselves with the great rationalist and darker than dark skeptic- Schopenhaur. (Who may have actually introduced the vedas and Buddhist thought to western philosophy).

So yes, science has, in its undermining of religion/superstition, forced us to face some very unsettling facts about our existence- but nothing that Buddah didn't face all those years ago- and from an understanding of that bleakness and hopelessness (which is contrary to the hope offered by religions like Christianity and Islam), offer a philosophical and practical method of coming to terms with and actually transcending the awful truths which an unblinkered view of life reveal- and most important, without invoking the supernatural.

Edited November 25, 2007 by blaze

[Galong]

Strange days we live in.

I read Dawkins book a few months ago and posted a thread about it then.

He made some points which made me think, but at the end of the day he has nothing to offer.

He is just another person pointing out the faults in others without offering anything positive in return.

This naysayers are making plenty of money and gaining celebrity without adding anyting to the planet.

These atheists point to science but forget that it is just another religion which relies on faith,

They are just as arrogant and closed-minded as any other religious fundamentalist.

This naysayers are making plenty of money and gaining celebrity without adding anyting to the planet.

Um, organized religion has PLENTY of money. I seriously doubt that Mr. Hawkins’ bank account will ever come close to, say, the Catholic church’s.

What they are ‘adding’ if that’s important to you, is the disassembling of a mindset that has caused as many wars as anything else in history. A current example would be the battle between Bush’s Christians and the Muslim world.

The most dangerous person on this planet is one who ‘believes’ that killing someone else or blowing oneself up will result in a better seat in the afterlife.

Advances in science are being held back by religious beliefs. If the money thrown into the churches was put into more worthwhile causes, such as fighting HIV/AIDS or cancer or anything else, that could make a difference. Oh, but wait, according the many of the faithful, AIDS is God's punishment for being a homosexual, even though that's not the only way people contract this horrible virus.

So, I beg to differ, what Mr. Dawkins and others are doing does have merit and could potentially add a lot to the growth of humanity. We are stuck in the Dark Ages and much of this can be contributed to organized religion. I have no problems with anyone's personal beliefs, but the organizations are dangerous and scary.

These atheists point to science but forget that it is just another religion which relies on faith,

Can you give examples? You mean that all of the medical advances, transportation, chemistry, math, engineering, the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, the earth is actually round and not flat, etc are all based on faith?

They are just as arrogant and closed-minded as any other religious fundamentalist.

Horse hockey… nothing, in my opinion, matches the arrogance of religious fundamentalists. I came from the bible belt and the crap I had to endure was part of what drove me to move to Thailand.

Your closed-mindedness is a prime example… science relies on faith… give us a break.

[Oleg_Rus]

...

+1

Just right. Perfect. Nothing to add.

[camerata]

Let's either stay on the topic of "the relevance of atheism for Buddhism, particularly in Thailand" or end the discussion, because atheism versus theism is boring and off-topic, and we've done it before.

If anyone can tell us how being an atheist or agnostic is an advantage over being a serious Buddhist (i.e one who practices the core teachings), I'd like to hear it.

Atheism is fine if one has a comfortable life in fortunate circumstances, but I don't see what it offers to those experiencing acute suffering. You never hear a quadraplegic or a jail inmate saying, "Atheism got me through this!" Practising Dhamma, on the other hand, offers a real solution to many of life's problems.

The usual definition of atheism is either "the doctrine or belief that there is no God" or "a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." Theravada Buddhism conforms to both definitions because what are sometimes referred to in English as "gods" or deities are simply (formerly human) beings in other realms with no power to influence events in the human realm. They are not gods in the normal sense of "A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality."

Personally I see Buddhism as atheistic unless atheism is redefined to mean "lack of belief in phenoma that have not been proven by science."

Edited November 25, 2007 by camerata
Added definitions of atheism

[blaze]

Let's either stay on the topic of "the relevance of atheism for Buddhism, particularly in Thailand" or end the discussion, because atheism versus theism is boring and off-topic, and we've done it before.

If anyone can tell us how being an atheist or agnostic is an advantage over being a serious Buddhist (i.e one who practices the core teachings), I'd like to hear it.

Atheism is fine if one has a comfortable life in fortunate circumstances, but I don't see what it offers to those experiencing acute suffering. You never hear a quadraplegic or a jail inmate saying, "Atheism got me through this!"

But isn't this precisely what Buddhism seeks to do? To 'get me through this'? And to do so without the intercession of divine creatures? Is not the core element of Buddhism the aleviation of suffering through the extinguishing of the self and all the desires and delusions which the self throws up at us?

If Buddhism were as simple as praying to Buddah- or God- to aleviate suffering- then- why the need for mindfulness etc? Just do what many Christians do- pray hard and hope you've been good enough that God at least listens- and then maybe lends a hand. I understand that Buddhism basically teaches that the aleviation of your suffering is in your hands and your hands alone.

Edited November 25, 2007 by blaze

[Sarathi]

I'm a Buddhist yet find myself agreeing with Dawkins on pretty much every count, except his claims that you can't be a real scientist, and religious.

I differ from him in so far as he has OMITTED consideration of Enlightenment or other genuine spiritual goals, and has only attacked religion as a social institution, and for being less able to describe say, evolution or biology, as well as he can.

So to go back to the real question here - can a Buddhist be an atheist ?

[camerata]

But isn't this precisely what Buddhism seeks to do? To 'get me through this'? And to do so without the intercession of divine creatures? Is not the core element of Buddhism the aleviation of suffering through the extinguishing of the self and all the desires and delusions which the self throws up at us?

Yes. Exactly. I added a bit to my post while you were writing yours. To me, Buddhism is atheistic in essence but it is quite different from the Atheism promoted by Hawkins et al.

[garro]

Strange days we live in.

I read Dawkins book a few months ago and posted a thread about it then.

He made some points which made me think, but at the end of the day he has nothing to offer.

He is just another person pointing out the faults in others without offering anything positive in return.

This naysayers are making plenty of money and gaining celebrity without adding anyting to the planet.

These atheists point to science but forget that it is just another religion which relies on faith,

They are just as arrogant and closed-minded as any other religious fundamentalist.

This naysayers are making plenty of money and gaining celebrity without adding anyting to the planet.

Um, organized religion has PLENTY of money. I seriously doubt that Mr. Hawkins' bank account will ever come close to, say, the Catholic church's.

What they are 'adding' if that's important to you, is the disassembling of a mindset that has caused as many wars as anything else in history. A current example would be the battle between Bush's Christians and the Muslim world.

The most dangerous person on this planet is one who 'believes' that killing someone else or blowing oneself up will result in a better seat in the afterlife.

Advances in science are being held back by religious beliefs. If the money thrown into the churches was put into more worthwhile causes, such as fighting HIV/AIDS or cancer or anything else, that could make a difference. Oh, but wait, according the many of the faithful, AIDS is God's punishment for being a homosexual, even though that's not the only way people contract this horrible virus.

So, I beg to differ, what Mr. Dawkins and others are doing does have merit and could potentially add a lot to the growth of humanity. We are stuck in the Dark Ages and much of this can be contributed to organized religion. I have no problems with anyone's personal beliefs, but the organizations are dangerous and scary.

These atheists point to science but forget that it is just another religion which relies on faith,

Can you give examples? You mean that all of the medical advances, transportation, chemistry, math, engineering, the fact that the earth revolves around the sun, the earth is actually round and not flat, etc are all based on faith?

They are just as arrogant and closed-minded as any other religious fundamentalist.

Horse hockey… nothing, in my opinion, matches the arrogance of religious fundamentalists. I came from the bible belt and the crap I had to endure was part of what drove me to move to Thailand.

Your closed-mindedness is a prime example… science relies on faith… give us a break.

I already mentioned in a previous post why science relies on faith.

I admire your faith in medical technology but surely you must know that most drugs originate from traditional herbal remedies.

I am sure that you are also aware that surgery was first practiced in India before the the rise of modern science.

I am also sure that you are familiar with the fact that many great mathmatical discoveries were made by followers of Islam.

I am glad to hear that Dawkins et al are publishing their books for the good of humankind.

Have they stopped charging for this 'literature' and attendence at their lecture tours?

I find it worrying that followers of atheism feel the need to preach to followers of other beliefs, such as Buddhism, about how they are getting it wrong but I suppose they are merely following the example of other evangelistics in their need to have everyone think the same as they do.

[Oleg_Rus]

Just do what Christians do- pray hard and hope you've been good enough that God at least listens- and then maybe lends a hand.

Yes, that what they do. in fact the mockery is that the God there is some big powerful guy, with short temper, unlimited power and mind of a child - likes candles, X-mas and long tearful speeches. Please, how primitive is it ?

Local religion (thai based) is more complex, and although it rendered into comics style fair tales and stories, the core is still there.

Those books is just fun to read, sort of mind games, something to laugh at on the bus ride or train. Nothing more. Thousands of years of studies, great minds, sages -> and couple of agnostics on another side. Its pathetic.

[camerata]

Local religion (thai based) is more complex, and although it rendered into comics style fair tales and stories, the core is still there.

Those books is just fun to read, sort of mind games, something to laugh at on the bus ride or train. Nothing more.

Which comic-style fairy tales are you referring to?

[blaze]

But isn't this precisely what Buddhism seeks to do? To 'get me through this'? And to do so without the intercession of divine creatures? Is not the core element of Buddhism the aleviation of suffering through the extinguishing of the self and all the desires and delusions which the self throws up at us?

Yes. Exactly. I added a bit to my post while you were writing yours. To me, Buddhism is atheistic in essence but it is quite different from the Atheism promoted by Hawkins et al.

I'm not sure it is different from the atheism promoted by Dawkins et al. Certainly though, the garden variety Thai practices would not meet with much approval from that crowd. But I suspect they'd say- given that there is no reason to believe in an intercessionary god, that there is no reason to believe in 'life after death', that there is no pre-ordained purpose to your life- you HAVE to make pesonal meaning of it- and Buddhism certainly does that. But that's not the thrust of the books. They don't pretend to be offering the solutions to our existential despair that arrises when gods are torn down- only to tear those gods down that reason might prevail.

Their fight is with irrationality- and irrationality institutionalized is, for them, horrifying. If any belief system- religious, medical, political- any- places superstition over empiricism- then they would want it torn down. And if any belief system emphasizes (as. for many people, Buddhism does) reason, questioning, proof, and ultimately, materialism (knowledge available only through the five senses)- then I can't see them having a problem. When they see people praying to Buddah as if he were a personal god- then that's when their dander gets up. Like if they were to see people praying to Pasteur- they'd be equally irate.

Edited November 25, 2007 by blaze

[camerata]

I'm not sure it is different from the atheism promoted by Dawkins et al.

It's different in the sense that Buddhism offers a way of life that leads to happiness and equanimity. As far as I can see, atheism is not about helping people to live happy and meaningful lives, it's about feeling superior to anyone who leads a spiritual life.

They don't pretend to be offering the solutions to our existential despair that arrises when gods are torn down- only to tear those gods down that reason might prevail.

Yes, but they don't offer any solution for existential despair, period. Does anyone here think a world full of atheists would be a good place? Reason would prevail all right - the reasoning that it's OK to get more of everything for myself at others' expense. I would prefer to see a world full of Buddhists, who believe that they will have a happier life by being unselfish. We only have to look at Thailand to see the effect of creeping secularism on society.

[SiriusBlack1]

Christians and Muslims HAVE been presented with proof that their holy books are a poor fit for the way the world really is. (It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of God)

The problem is, when confronted with a choice between reason and faith, the religious choose their faith. That is what makes religion so dangerous -- it is an active block against the exercise of reason.

[blaze]

I'm not sure it is different from the atheism promoted by Dawkins et al.

It's different in the sense that Buddhism offers a way of life that leads to happiness and equanimity. As far as I can see, atheism is not about helping people to live happy and meaningful lives, it's about feeling superior to anyone who leads a spiritual life.

They don't pretend to be offering the solutions to our existential despair that arrises when gods are torn down- only to tear those gods down that reason might prevail.

Yes, but they don't offer any solution for existential despair, period. Does anyone here think a world full of atheists would be a good place? Reason would prevail all right - the reasoning that it's OK to get more of everything for myself at others' expense. I would prefer to see a world full of Buddhists, who believe that they will have a happier life by being unselfish. We only have to look at Thailand to see the effect of creeping secularism on society.

Just for a start: the notion that "it's OK to get more of everything for myself at others' expense." is fundamentally irrational. Such an attitude will lead to massive social conflict and no matter how much you have 'gotten' - you will not be immune. It will lead to the depletion of the earth's resources and that's not 'OK'. Moreover- if you know anything about the history of Christianity- it was precisely this mentality that caused the destruction of the native cultures of the Western hemisphere under the guidance and encouragement of the church- and that gave rise to American capitalism- again encouraged and justified by scripture.

It is not up to Dawkins et al or anyone else to solve your- or my- problems of 'meaning of life'. All they are doing is showing that religion -religion that depends on the irrational and the supernatural- is more harmful than beneficial. The fact there is a spate of books on this subject now is due to the increasing influence of Evangelical Christianity on US foreign and domestic policy (from which no one on the planet is immune) and on the increasing role of fundamentalist Islam as a political force.

If a swarm of killer bees is swiftly moving up toward your town- do you alert the towns folk- or hold off till you yourself have formulated a solution as to how to get rid of them? (Not that religious people should be equated to killer bees- they- most of them- certainly can't- but my point is- these guys are pointing out a problem that threatens to make the world a worse place. What's wrong with that? Newspapers do it every day. And nobody says to the journalists- if you don't have a solution for the car accidents on 38th ave- then just shut up and quit disturbing us).

It is well and good to say, let the religious people alone- they aren't hurting anyone. But when the schools bow to the pressures of religion and start teaching creationism- or the notion that 3d party prayer is an effective tool for treating cancer- that blood transufsions for children are anti-God- even if it means the child (as my cousin did) dies as a result of that nonsense. When social legislation is derived not from reason but from the dictates of a two thousand year old book, no matter how popular- when large segments of society actively court war in the mid-east thinking this will bring on Armeggedon- when suicide bombers can be recruited on the promise of a glorious after life- when environmental issues are scoffed at because the fate of the earth is in God's hands (as Regans secretary of the environment, Mr. Watt, once said)- and when the lives of millions are deemed expendable since they are heathen and thus consigned to everlasting damnation- then people are getting hurt.

Their -or certainly Dawkins' goal (he has often said as much) is a world where where the fear of god's wrath is transformed into the fear of living out of harmony with the scientifically understood principles of sustainablility and ecological awareness- and where the love of god is transformed into love and compassion for our fellow man, and all the other life that lives on this vulnerable little ball spinning in the dark. Where the mystery of 'god's will' is supplanted by an informed understanding of cause and effect (Karma?) These are also the goals of secular humanism. Not a whole lot diffrerent from how a truly Buddhist world would look.

Edited November 25, 2007 by blaze