I just started reading the book last night and I’m really enjoying it, although the fantasy genre is not one I usually appreciate (didn’t get into Harry Potter, for ex.)

I found it interesting that what appears to be the evil overlords are a church with “Pope John Calvin.” Why the Catholic Church finds this offensive, I don’t understand. But I’m only on Chapter 4 ….

He lost me at “I boycotted all things French.”

How can I take him seriously after that?

i personally haven’t gotten into all the hype. but from what gist i have heard, i think the fear is that the movie will be so fantastic that droves of children will want to read the books.. ala. harry potter.. which is funny, cause kids like the hp books before a film was ever started. i don’t see it working the other way around as folks seem fear

An atheist’s position is untenable because it is impossible to prove that there are no “gods”?

Wrong. In a rational world, the one who is making assertions that contravene the natural order is ethically responsible to provide the proof.

At it’s root, atheism is as “religious” as “Christian”…

Only in a world where language is perverted nonsense.

Gavin -

Interesting take. I can’t say about the kids but the movie definitely pushed me to the books, which I hear are much darker. So I’m one that falls into your “other way around” category though I’m neither a kid nor interested in atheism. I’m curious as to the root of the conflict.

SoBeale - Given Pullman’s views, I anticipate that anything labeled a church in his writing is going to be depicted poorly. It’s what I expect considering the source and the admonition that he is an atheist/agnostic. I do find it interesting that in the real world, most Christians are willing to admit that the church is not a perfect institution while pursuing the things that the church does that do, in fact, make the world a better place. On the flip side, we have people like Pullman for whom the church is so evil and malodorous that it must be destroyed and banished from society. There is no good in the institution at all. One wonders where to begin talking to such people.

Thanks for the comments - even yours, Mack.

Blue

>At it’s root, atheism is as “religious” … a position as any other

Why oh why do religious folks have to go around saying such patently stupid things? It really undermines whatever good they might have to say.

Ror -

The challenge you face is in proving a negative. I don’t know if you only read the excerpt above or actually went to the blog and read the entire post.

In a nutshell, the best an atheist can do is say that he has not yet seen sufficient evidence to convince him of the existence of God. Believers, on the other hand, have.

No one is talking about “proof”. That would be outside the scope of the discussion. I am talking about evidence.

It is my experience that those deciding they have not seen sufficient evidence stop at that point and assume because they have not seen it, it does not exist. However, unless that person can claim to have experienced the sum total of all there is to know and experience, it is not possible to be intellectually honest and maintain the dogmatic position that God does not exist. It is more than possible that evidence sufficient to change your mind will show up this afternoon. If you are already predisposed to reject it, however, odds are you’ll not even recognize it if it does.

Thus, atheists cling to their beliefs just as dogmatically, just as religiously as do the faithful. Language, indeed, means thing. So does punctuation. That’s why the words were in “quotes”. Or are you rejecting the idea that the word “religious” can be used to mean “fervent” or “ardent” or any of another synonyms? If so, it would not seem to be me that has turned language into perverse nonsense.

Blue

Jon -

See my response to Ror. Far from “patently stupid”, my statement is logical, thought through and consistent.

Blue

Blue:

The challenge I face…?!?!

Guess again.

I’ll rephrase my point for clarity:

If a theist has reason to persuade one towards the belief in the existence of any “gods”, he or she bears the ethical and logical responsibility to provide tangible evidence to support such an assertion.

Unless you can do this, your labeling of atheists as dogmatic is indeed patently stupid.

If we could have faith without religion, and worship without church, I’d say we would all be better off.

In a nutshell, the best an atheist can do is say that he has not yet seen sufficient evidence to convince him of the existence of God. Believers, on the other hand, have.

I am not an atheist but I know quite a few and this does not describe their thinking at all. And it seems to me your argument relies solely on that one assumption being true.

I don’t want to put words in anyone’s mouth so if there are atheists out there reading this, please speak for yourselves on this matter. That said, the atheists I know say they don’t NEED to believe in God to have happy meaningful lives. Not that they haven’t seen sufficient evidence yet. They do not NEED it. And a lot of them view those of us who do believe as a little sad and pathetic, because we NEED to have this “crutch” called religion.

And again, to say atheists “cling to their beliefs” as dogmatically as religious believers do strikes me as rather ridiculous. I cling to my belief that Macs are the best computer and refuse to budge from that position; you might say I’m “dogmatic” but I certainly don’t belong to the “religion of the Mac.”

And I think in a post on religion it’s maybe a good idea not to use the actual word “religion” to mean a synonym like “fervent.” You know, just for clarity’s sake. If atheists are “fervent” it’s only because at this time in our country’s history there are political factions who are making a public issue out of it and saying patently stupid things like atheists shouldn’t hold public office.

Believing in the superiority of Macs only requres experience, not necessarily faith. Believing in God requires faith, and not necessarily experience.

Does that make Macintoshes and God the yin and yang of the universe?

Well said SB. Except for the Mac thing. Yall are nuts.

Well said SB. Except for the Mac thing. Yall are nuts.

Wait until my Motherboard comes back to claim her faithful … who’s gonna be laughing then, huh?

“Need” and “evidence” are separate issues.

Belief in the Judeo/Christian deity or Allah would arguably be a cause for despair rather than hope and joy. I wouldn’t want to live in a universe that has such an unjust all-powerful ruler. In that regard I appear to have company in many theists that believe in a “personal god” whose mind they profess to know intimately and which seems to approve of everything they do, and despise all that they despise as well. Of course, they are absolutely certain they themselves will escape eternal damnation. Ironically, I think they are likely correct about that.

When action or policy is advocated, causes given, or facts asserted moral individuals are compelled to demand evidence that the action or policy is justified or the facts in question are true. Evidence can be examined and logical inferences debated in order to determine whether or not the action or policy is indeed justified and wise or the facts in question are likely to be true. For example, if one made the statement that “America’s problems are a result of losing touch with God”, a moral person would be compelled to demand tangible evidence of the existence of “God” before even beginning to consider any other assertions predicated on the statement. Other examples include, “Katrina was divine retribution against tolerance of homosexuality”, and “Palestine belongs to Israel because God says so.”

Also, deciding whether or not any given belief or religion is true, and deciding whether or not it is by-and-large beneficial or harmful are separate issues as well; although arguably they are related.

WARNING: MINOR BOOK TRILOGY SPOILER - NO MOVIE SPOILER

I do think that there are atheists who fall into the atheism as religion category. I’ve read the dark materials books and I would actually reckon Pullman is one of these. I’ve met people who seem to be saying “God is so bad that I’m an atheist” - it’s like sticking fingers in ears and saying “Nah, nah, nah - can’t hear you God and cause I can’t hear you, you must not exist.” These folks really get up my nose. Give me that old time atheism any day over that.

I was “sold” these books on the premise that they were atheist fantasy. Don’t think so. Especially when you get to the end of the last book. Being anti-God or anti-Religion is not the same as being atheist. Not at all.

I won’t be seeing the movie - ’cause well, I just don’t make it to the cinema that much. But I really, really enjoyed the first book - but the second was just OK and the third - the one with all that atheism as theology was just annoying. What kind of corrupt atheism is it that has God and Satan battling it out for control of the universe and expects the reader to pick Satan. They all smelled equally bad to me.

Plus I hated Pullman’s lazy, fantastical version of evolution.

Ror!,

I look forward to your take on Vox Day’s book, The Irrational Athiest, that will be out in January.

Pink Kitty:

I found the essay, “The Irrational Atheist”. I doubt I will read the book but here is my take on the essay, which I hope is adequate to satisfy your curiosity:

http://reasonoverreligion.blogspot.com/2007/12/commentary-irrational-atheist.html