I wanted to mention something personal for me about this chapter. I don't have the book in front of me right now, so I don't have the name of the woman, but Hitchen's related a story about a woman who was afraid that her Grandfather was going to hell when he died and how that must have been a horrible situation for her.
The same thing happened to me! When I was about 8 my Grandfather had his first stroke and my parents kept saying that he was going to die soon. I was raised Catholic and my Grandfather was Methodist so I was really afraid that he was going to hell. I remember worrying about whether I should tell him about the Catholic religion being the only true religion so that he could convert and go to heaven. However, there was the fear that he might not convert, then he was doomed to hell, for sure. I ended up rationalizing the same way as the woman in the story. I thought that perhaps my Grandfather was ignorant of the Catholic religion and so could get by through some escape clause. It seems so ludicrous now, but t was very real and very troubling at the time. He actually didn't die at that time and when he did I didn't believe the bit about only Catholics going to heaven anymore.
One more thing, to make it worse, my parent's told me that I should pray for my Grandfather to die because he was in such bad shape. That only added to the awfulness of the whole thing as you can imagine. This part is still baffling to me.
It amazed me to read about the same thing that I had gone through as a child. I have to give it more thought, though, before I come right out with religion=child abuse or religion is not child abuse.

Suzanne and Lois, thank you for sharing those stories from your lives. I am not reading this book right now and have only read those two last posts. I just wanted to thank the two of you for putting yourselves out there.

Suzanne wrote:Geo wrote:

And like it or not, belief in spiritual entities is encoded into our genetic makeup.

I would be very interested in understanding this concept, you say it with such confidence. Spiritual practises, religious practises are cultural, culture is taught through mores and values. Religion is certainly not encoded into our gentic makeup. If this were true, there would be no discussion on atheism, it would not exist.

I have an unfortunate habit of assuming everyone has read everything I have. Regardless, I didn't mean to sound so confident.

You're right that religion, per se, is culture-based. What I should have said is that humans may be genetically predisposed to believing in a higher power. Whether or not that belief has served as an evolutionary advantage at some point in our development is an interesting question. Some evolutionary psychologists believe that belief offered advantages. In small tribes living a hunter-gatherer existence, sharing beliefs and coming to beliefs easily might have been advantageous. Meanwhile, Richard Dawkins has suggested that belief in the supernatural may be an evolutionary accident, a mere byproduct of a big brain that might have been useful at one time, but no longer offers adaptive value.

Anyway, there's lots of stuff out there about this.

Here's a great article that was published a few years ago in the New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magaz ... ion.t.html

Here's an excerpt from a book review about The God Delusion (http://www.londonbookreview.com/lbr0035.html)

Yet another issue that Dawkins addresses is the evolutionary roots of religion itself. It is clear that something that is so pervasive in human cultures must have evolved over time. Why is it that all cultures have God and religion? Again Dawkins turns to evolutionary theory, though in this case his arguments are far more speculative than those with which he attacks the God delusion or the idea of intelligent design. Rather than suggesting that there is direct evolutionary advantage to religious belief, he suggests that it is a by-product of those social and intellectual adaptations that have provided advantage in the past. This idea that the make-up of our brains pre-disposes us to believe in stories (religion), together with social advantages in terms of binding groups together, is appealing on many levels, but difficult to prove without additional research (a point that Dawkins himself makes).

Geo wrote:

I have an unfortunate habit of assuming everyone has read everything I have.

Reading material is so subjective. I have the unfortunate habit that assumes people choose to read only those materials that support a narrow belief system. On the topic of religion, there will never be any definitive answers, just many probing questions. No one can be considered correct, we are still asking questions. In that, lies the origin of religion.

There is no doubt the increasing cranium size through out the evolution process stems directly with knowledge and information. There certainly is a direct correlation between increasing brain size and the quality of tools manufactured for example. The more knowledge one gains, the more questions one asks. This certainly can be seen in children and their endless, “why”, “why” “why”‘s.

It’s understandable that eventually, man starting asking questions outside the realm of its existence and knowledge. With those questions, creativity was born. With creativity, comes art, and dance, and stories, and with stories, religion was born.

The religious figures in a hunter gatherer society were held in high esteem, they provided wisdom and attempted to give knowledge to questions that have no answers. It is logical that man used imagination to create a unique way to explain the unexplainable and to provide comfort to those who asked for the unattainable answer to “Why”.

Agnosticism may be a continuing of the evolution process in that agnostics seek enlightenment but applies critical thinking to answers received without the fear of alienation that was so present in the hunter gatherer societies, making religion a tool of survival. This is the group that I place myself in. However, continuing this line of logic, makes me wonder if it is humanly possible to be a true atheist. Does the true atheist stop asking questions when there is no true answer? Do atheists still wonder about the unknown? Is it humanly possible? I need to wonder more about this.

It is my opinion that the basis of religion stems with the capability to ask creative questions. It is my opinion, that religion originated with the ability for creativity.“Why”, will never be answered, my opinion will never be justified. "Question everything", that is human nature, that is encoded into our genetic makeup.

Suzanne
However, continuing this line of logic, makes me wonder if it is humanly possible to be a true atheist. Does the true atheist stop asking questions when there is no true answer? Do atheists still wonder about the unknown? Is it humanly possible? I need to wonder more about this.

I think you may have a different idea of what an atheist is as opposed to what we atheists actually are.

Atheists (at least none that I know) do not claim that there cannot be some sort of god, or prime mover of some sort. But we do not believe in those things with no evidence to support them.

Just because something is remotely possible does not warrant belief… especially the unwavering life consuming belief that religions often demand.

Atheists do continue the search, because the answers to date are lacking… it is the theist who thinks that they have the answers who is most likely to stop searching.

Atheists simply lack belief in gods and that is very possible, but we (for the most part) do not completely rule them out either.

As an example of the thought process I will use my favorite of the pink Venusian unicorns.

From what we know about the plant Venus and the mythical creature the unicorn it is vastly improbable that pink unicorns live on Venus.

Now we cannot be absolutely sure of this because the cloud cover of Venus is so thick we cannot see the surface to look for them.

No unicorns make their presence known form Venus so no normal person can rationally expect to find pink unicorns on Venus when or if we finally get some good views of the surface. So it is possible to not believe without being absolutely 100% positive.

If unicorns are there and evidence is found to support that then the new information can be processed and weighed in. Belief can be formed with the new evidence.

Similarly no belief in gods is necessary even while accepting the unlikely possibility that they might exist.

Later

my desire for truth, for seeking out answers to the unknowns are what caused me to lose faith.

I sought truth and found only pale lies in religion.

There are always answers, but perhaps the questions should be re-phrased.

"What is the meaning of life?"

Wrong question. Meaning is a human construct that works in concert with language and symbolism. Life has no "Meaning". What is the meaning of a volcano? what is the meaning of air? Useless questions.

Broadly speaking, you could say the replication of DNA is the "Meaning" of life. That may be an un-fulfilling answer, but it is probably not far off the mark.

Sometimes we become confused by the limitations of our language and common uses of words. There may be no clear answer at hand, but there are always correct answers. We might just be looking for them the wrong way.

Better questions are "What is that? How does it do what it does? How can we make ourselves better with this?" and others.

I am an atheist, and I'm ravenous for knowledge. I will not, however, accept fairy-tales as a substitute for a world view.

Frank wrote:

Atheists (at least none that I know) do not claim that there cannot be some sort of god, or prime mover of some sort. But we do not believe in those things with no evidence to support them.

My confusion of atheism lies in the above statement. If evidence can never be found to support the belief in a higher power than humans, how can an atheist claim that there may be one? I don't mean to be flippant Frank, I really don't. But to claim there may be some sort of a power opens a crack for belief. For belief to occur in that power requires faith. It is my understanding that atheists do not have faith.


Johnson1010 wrote:

my desire for truth, for seeking out answers to the unknowns are what caused me to lose faith.

I also, do not believe in fairy tales and I do not blindly follow the concepts and practices of religion. However, without faith, there is no possiblity that a god exists. This is my confusion Frank! I consider myself an agnostic. I do have faith, but, I do not go looking for answers to the unknown in a structured religion, I agree, that will lead to disapointment. You need to look within yourself for answers and prove them to your satisfaction, we are in agreement here too.

To ask what is a volcano, or how does a TV work requires evidence for satisfaction. But when a loved one dies and you ask yourself why, emotionally or spiritually, there is no evidence to rely upon for satisfaction, but asking it can be provocative.

Johnson1010 wrote:

"What is the meaning of life?"

Wrong question.

Who asked this stupid question?

Suzanne
My confusion of atheism lies in the above statement. If evidence can never be found to support the belief in a higher power than humans, how can an atheist claim that there may be one?

Atheists make no claim that there may or may not be a higher power, we simply admit that we cannot know everything and in that gap the possibility remains, however slight the chances may be.

Suzanne
I don't mean to be flippant Frank, I really don't. But to claim there may be some sort of a power opens a crack for belief. For belief to occur in that power requires faith. It is my understanding that atheists do not have faith.

Again we are not making any sort of claim we simply do not accept any of the claims brought before us to date.

But you are correct, we do not have religious faith and we do not believe, because that “power” has never been established to exist in the first place.

Suzanne
I also, do not believe in fairy tales and I do not blindly follow the concepts and practices of religion. However, without faith, there is no possibility that a god exists.

I do not understand this comment… logically a person has to admit that in the vastness of the universe (of which we see very little) there are possibilities that we have not even considered. Some sort of god could be one of them, I have zero problem admitting this. However the defined gods made up by men fall very short when looked at logically, historically and scientifically and there is no evidene to suggest that a god of any sort exists.

From what we see of the universe so far it appears to be self regulating following specific rules and laws… these laws do not waver for the faithful, we are clearly in charge of our own destiny, from my point of view no god is needed to clarify any of what we see or try to explain.

Suzanne let me ask you this… do you believe that Zeus exists and helps and punishes mortals based on their faith and behavior?

Assuming that you do not; can you prove absolutely that he doesn’t exist and do those things?

If you again say no, than you are an atheist as far as Zeus is concerned. I simply apply this standard to all gods in light of there being no evidence to support their existence.

Later

Suzanne: "It is my understanding that atheists do not have faith."

Everyone has faith. But simple faith and the Faith of religion aren't the same. For anything we believe, there must be sufficient reasoning or evidence. Some beliefs can have sufficient, but incomplete evidence or reasoning, so faith bridges the gap. The problem is that religion lacks sufficient evidence or reasoning. I have faith, but not in things that are likely untrue.

Hello Frank and Interbane and Johnson1010:

Frank013 wrote:

From what we see of the universe so far it appears to be self regulating following specific rules and laws… these laws do not waver for the faithful, we are clearly in charge of our own destiny, from my point of view no god is needed to clarify any of what we see or try to explain.

I wrote:

I do have faith, but, I do not go looking for answers to the unknown in a structured religion, I agree, that will lead to disapointment. You need to look within yourself for answers and prove them to your satisfaction,

Frank103 wrote:

logically a person has to admit that in the vastness of the universe (of which we see very little) there are possibilities that we have not even considered. Some sort of god could be one of them, I have zero problem admitting this. However the defined gods made up by men fall very short when looked at logically, historically and scientifically and there is no evidene to suggest that a god of any sort exists.

I wrote:

It’s understandable that eventually, man starting asking questions outside the realm of its existence and knowledge. With those questions, creativity was born. With creativity, comes art, and dance, and stories, and with stories, religion was born.

Interbane wrote:

Everyone has faith. But simple faith and the Faith of religion aren't the same. For anything we believe, there must be sufficient reasoning or evidence. Some beliefs can have sufficient, but incomplete evidence or reasoning, so faith bridges the gap. The problem is that religion lacks sufficient evidence or reasoning. I have faith, but not in things that are likely untrue.

Frank103 wrote:

Atheists (at least none that I know) do not claim that there cannot be some sort of god, or prime mover of some sort. But we do not believe in those things with no evidence to support them.

Frank103 wrote:

Similarly no belief in gods is necessary even while accepting the unlikely possibility that they might exist.

Johnson1010 wrote:

my desire for truth, for seeking out answers to the unknowns are what caused me to lose faith.

I sought truth and found only pale lies in religion.

There are always answers, but perhaps the questions should be re-phrased.

"What is the meaning of life?"

Wrong question. Meaning is a human construct that works in concert with language and symbolism. Life has no "Meaning". What is the meaning of a volcano? what is the meaning of air? Useless questions.

Broadly speaking, you could say the replication of DNA is the "Meaning" of life. That may be an un-fulfilling answer, but it is probably not far off the mark.

Sometimes we become confused by the limitations of our language and common uses of words. There may be no clear answer at hand, but there are always correct answers. We might just be looking for them the wrong way.

Better questions are "What is that? How does it do what it does? How can we make ourselves better with this?" and others.

I am an atheist, and I'm ravenous for knowledge. I will not, however, accept fairy-tales as a substitute for a world view.

I wrote:

Does the true atheist stop asking questions when there is no true answer? Do atheists still wonder about the unknown? Is it humanly possible? I need to wonder more about this.

It is my opinion that the basis of religion stems with the capability to ask creative questions. It is my opinion, that religion originated with the ability for creativity.“Why”, will never be answered, my opinion will never be justified. "Question everything", that is human nature, that is encoded into our genetic makeup.

I feel the need to apologize, Frank and Interbane, for including Johnson1010 in my salutation. I quoted him, the god inside me told me that is was the polite thing to do. His cloak of percieved intelligence remains untorn upon his head. Where you do not accept a concept without proof, I do not accept a concept riddled with contradictions.

The evidence of God will prove the invalidity of God.
To seek evidence of God will prove to be fruitless unless you are faithful.
To be faithful, you must submit to that which has no evidence.
If evidence is required, you have no faith
Without faith, God does not exist.
If God does not exist, you can not claim to believe