And the win goes to...

SicPreFix for pointing out the obvious.

I'd also add that, contrary to what Ms. Armstrong states, we don't need religion "to deal with the aspects of life for which there are no easy answers." Unless one wants to be spoon fed.

SicPreFix

is as inconsistent as he claims Karen Armstrong is. Our species does indeed have to understand and explain "transcendent improbabilities,etc." because we are genetically programmed to do just that; no other animal can mentally look into the future and see the consequences of its present actions. And that characteristic is intimately related to compassion, allowing both faith and reality to co-exist within us.

What Aquinas really said

The article quotes Armstrong as saying "Newton, Descartes and the scientific pioneers of the 17th century in the West believed they had found a proof for God. That would have made Thomas Aquinas turn in his grave! He said that you can't possibly prove God's existence."

To the contrary, Aquinas writes in his Summa Theologica 1st part, Question 2, Article 3: "The existence of God can be proved in five ways." http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#article3

Who needs deities?

It takes a strong will and a strong mind to be an atheist, and I guess not everyone has the stones. But reliance on a non-existent deity is not much different than a reliance on drugs, it's not real. Dawkins is real, and so is his science.

I don't believe in deities, and I wouldn't support any such creatures even if they did exist. Man needs to deal with the reality of life and death, and to find an answer to extending our too short lives. Glossing over life's finality with fictitious spirituality is fine and dandy for those that need it, but don't get in our way.

D

Doing unto others ...

... evolved before humans invented gods.

non-primate ethics :
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/12/08/0810957105.abstract

Pre-religious compassion:
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/16/6429.extract

Pro-social behaviour mediated through religious conformity nets a good reputation :
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/322/5898/58

Altruistic behaviour has long been observed in (presumably) religion-free creatures with (presumably) little concept of future reward.

Dale Jackaman

Karen Armstrong, a "fallen-away Catholic", is merely trying to salvage something - anything - from her previous years of certainty and security. Shaking that sense of loss is no easy task, but it can be done.

One good antidote is Fitzgerald's Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam.

http://www.okonlife.com/poems/index.htm

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same Door as in I went.

The Power of Early Indoctrination

Social & religious beliefs are passed on by early indoctrination of our children. Since the Age of Enlightenment, we have learned different societies have different 'beliefs', many of which are deeply held, and many of which are plainly inaccurate.

Beliefs however are distinct from human needs, wants and generally, 'human nature'. All societies know them: love, anger, hate, hunger, happiness, compassion, arrogance, etc. Those are universally understood, and create commonality between all societies (thank goodness). Belief systems mediate universal human needs and conduct, but often in different ways.

Religious belief systems SOMETIMES involve love and compassion, but many times, not. Some religious systems related to pantheons of deities and other supernatural beings, with little connection with individual "experience" or spirituality. Some focus exclusively on experience and spirituality.

What does this tell us? Love, compassion, ethical conduct, personal experience of wonder and awe ARE universal in people. But conceptually, they are independent of a societies particular theistic pantheon.

Once that becomes clear, there is no longer a requirement that Catholicism, or any other religion, MUST provide a foundation for ethical conduct and feelings of love and awe. Even better, it proves absent religion, humans will ALWAYS experience and refine these qualities.

I salute Karen Armstrong for grappling with these issues. For so many raised with the Catholic doctrine, it will be a life long event. But for those of us who weren't so raised, we can find love, compassion and ethical conduct outside a religious framework, just as Socrates, Gandhi, Einstein and Bertrand Russell did.

Excellent article of an obvious thoughtful book.

Bias

I have read a lot of Armstrong and heard a number of her interviews, and I think that she has a very weak understanding of the history of science and she presents the history of religion in a highly selective way. It's true that a literalist reading of scripture was not universally accepted in the past, but nevertheless, literalism has always existed and probably always will. The gradual development of science may indeed have partly caused a fundamentalist backlash. But fundamentalism/literalism was also a reaction against the very religious doctrines that Armstrong supports. Her key mistake (and it's the mistake many theists make) is that she views science as a competing ideology. That leads her to view non-believers as equal to religious fundamentalists. Science is a method, not a belief system. The practice of that method leads many people to seek evidence for the things they believe, and that in turn causes many to reject the supernaturalist aspects of religion.

Another characterisic of Armstrong's writings is to phrase her descriptions of 'god' is ways that are essentially impossible to prove or disprove, thus insulating her assertions from debate. Armstrong's God is really just a feeling, and that's nice. However, it's not very interesting for someone who wants to know how the universe really works.

Modernist Pseudo-science religion and atheism..

Judging Ms. Armstrong entirely from this review, for I know not otherwise of this woman, certainly her brand of quasi-religion is preferable and more approachable than those closer to religious fundamentalism or "literalism". Still, however, it is religion masked as a kind of pseudo-science/ pseudo-rationalist attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable.

That said, because it is likely that there will ever be so much "unknown" or technically "unknowable" about the universe, or at least so for a very long time yet, there will likewise remain room for different understandings, beliefs and interpretations around the full nature of life and the universe. But as an atheist myself, who outside of the evidences of "faith" seeing no serious evidence based need to interject the unseen hand of an intervening, all knowing "God" figure into the affairs of a material universe, I would prefer nonetheless to work in a kind of unity with "believers" in a world connected compassion, such as this woman expounds, around those issues where we do share a common interest and concern, than engage in the tit for tat quarrelsomeness about the "unseeable" and yet unknown that too often distracts us.

That as well said, I also accept that where "faith" is the operating dynamic, there is little need for evidence outside of "canticles", "feeling" and "tradition". I, on the other hand, continue to insist on knowable, of this mortal plane material based evidence. Though I am prepared to let all that slide, where there is a greater and more immediate cause need around human and planetary nature needs. This is more immediately important than any high brow, highfalutin philosophical or "of the ether" debate.(Though they may be useful as part of the scientific investigation of life and the universe.)

My point being, that at the human to human level, it needs to remain possible for "believers" and "non-believers" in an outside intervening hand, to be able to work together in the great causes of humanity and all planetary nature. Otherwise, if we divide along this ideological line, we likely are really doomed to a "kind of" Armageddon End Time.

hmm...

Scientific rationalization is a system of probabilities based upon observable date. Like religion, it is a belief-system driven by the awareness of our own mortality, our propensity for self-betterment, and our imaginative and creative functions. However, just like religion, science can only teach us so much, making the two mutually compatible. Though I'm not willing to count on religion to put bread on the table, I'm just as unlikely to count on science to save my soul. I'm willing to bet that some of the solutions lie outside of scientific law and rather, in our hearts.

hmmm religion

Science says belief without evidence is worthy of condemnation.

Religion says life without a higher purpose is worthy of condemnation.

A pox on both of their houses!

I don't need the threat of eternal damnantion to scare me into being a good person.

I also don`t need a body of peer reviewed research rigorously conducted under the principles of the scientific method to convince me to be a good person.

I see little difference between the people on either side of this "debate". Maybe Richard Dawkins is more likely correct in what he says (sure even 99% more likely, without getting too philosophical about what is actually knowable), but he`s just as much of an asshole about it as a fundamentalist raging at you to repent and accept Jesus. There are scientists who treat science as a religion, to the point where they exihibit all the same symptoms as the people they despise. I tend to ignore these types of people, whichever "side" they come from.

I appreciate anyone preaching compassion, it can help, but talk minus action equals zero. Providing a living example increases my appreciation to actual respect, which seems to be lacking here.

"There are big questions that need to be addressed." As though if we just set our best and brightest minds to it in some kind of Apollo Project we could come up with The Answer. It's fun to discuss, until people start claiming rightness and wrongness :-(

SicPreFix

very apt - the rest is just meandering nonsense meant to soothe over the bumps of the indoctrinated.

a wall of words cannot make fantasy real no matter the depth of "feeling" on the part of the scribbler.

'reproducible facts'

Not speaking for Armstrong, only myself. Reproducible facts or scientific proofs aren't really at issue or under question in this debate. It's the vast amount of other stuff we can't reproduce via scientific method that is open to interpretation. The stuff that has even Dawkins conceding he can't be certain of God's nonexistence.

Atheism, and its hard line proponents like Dawkins, fall into the same metaphysical trap that fundamentalist religious believers do. The result is a competition of dogmas. Dawkins' (God Delusion) has faced numerous criticisms for his shoddy, selective treatment of the history of religion and philosophy, underscoring the scientist's willful ignorance of the subject. John Cornwell noted, "there is hardly a serious work of philosophy of religion cited in his extensive bibliography." And do we need to get into the mountains of criticism issued against Dawkins' earlier 'reproducible facts' in the pseudo-scientific field of sociobiology to make a point? I hope not. But I digress....

As fascinating and important as the debate on religion is, the question for me (I am not a believer, by the way) boils down to "what have you done for humanity lately." Some people of faith, be they liberation theologians or radical Christian anti-poverty activist, have done good. In most cases, these people offer the only social safety nets in the absence of public funding (when was the last time you saw shelter beds or mass dinners for the poor served up by scientists and atheists?) And at the end of the day, one's actions toward others are the true measure of faith and belief.

I think Dawkins and Bill Maher, despite their tendency to ridicule religion, have valid positions that would otherwise carry much more social weight if they didn't let their egos, arrogance, lack of humility and dogma get in the way.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - A. Einstein

what a joke

Dawkins is as inoffensive as it gets.

calling him a fundamentalist simply exposes you as being immune to reason.

The only arrogance on display are those who continually seek privileges and entitlements over others in the name of their spurious beliefs.

2000 years of godly arrogance has led to untold misery across the Earth.

Only the benighted indoctrinated can blind their minds and believe to the point where they would strip the liberties of their fellow citizens so they may safely live within their bubble.

And react quite strongly when that bubble bursts as we can see by clerical supporters here.

MichaelT

Yes, I believe that hard-line atheism is a metaphysically untenable position, therefore a fundamentalist stance, and as such, an arrogant stance. The reproducible fact regarding first cause (or god, as some call it) is that there is no reproducible fact. On this score, Dawkins is right. But the converse is also true, which Dawkins seems to downplay for purposes of intellectual expediency. Dogma is dogma, any which way you slice it. Just because it is cloaked in the human convention of scientific method makes it no less dogmatic.

I actually agree with much of Dawkins, but am put off by his relentless attack on personal belief. Surely, not all religious belief is bad or evil. And surely, horrible historical acts of genocide have been done in the name of atheism (Stalin, Pol Pot quickly come to mind). Dawkins frames the history of religion in narrow terms that satisfy his argument, and he misunderstands and misrepresents the complex reasons why religion is attractive to people. What separates Armstrong from Dawkins is philosophical honesty and authentic intellectual struggle and humility. Dawkins is lacking in all three areas.

His arguments against creationism and fundamentalist religion (as indoctrination) are as good as they get, in my view. His broader argument against all religion is but a 'straw man.' And that's unfortunate because one detracts from the other.

Dawkins is intellectually lazy....

...repeatedly resorting to argumentum ad consequentiam to dismiss the claims of monotheistic religions as false.

"Millions of people have suffered so it can't be true" doesn't quite cut it when one strays into the realm of assertions about the fundamental nature of the universe/reality.

I'm also an atheist, but I'd have a very hard time making the sort of assertions Dawkins does with his level of confidence.

Not often...

It is not often that I comment on the subject of religion, but this is an excellent article on what appears to be a thoughful book...and kudos to the author of the article & The Tyee.

As I see it there is visible difference between that which is produced by humanity in terms of technology, art, science etc. and the presence of incredible complexity and diversity of the natural world, including the phenomena of consciousness itself. I take neither the side of a "God" or "atheism" - meaning to the me the absence of a Creator-Being as being the first cause for that complexity and diversity of the phenomenological world, including conscious. There are schools of thought, in the Buddhist and Vedic world, that assert different explanations: namely, that all there is, whether viewed as external phenomena or internal phenomena such as as thoughts, feelings, sensations, dreams, are merely the endless play of the non-dual 'background' energy of a self-arisen universe, and that the nature of such phenomena, including consciousness is interdependent on other phenomena, and essentially all phenomena are equal in their essential nature, namely pure emptiness- and the designation of attributes to such phenomena are merely designations by human consciousness, colored by science,religious, mythic or other belief structures.

Regardless of those abstractions, religion offers to a highly secular, materialist world some values that can only improve life on this planet and generate more happiness, namely such concepts as the interdependency of life, that life is precious & fleeting, that virtues such as compassion, patience, humility, tolerance, honesty, ethical conduct and right livelihod, as perhaps most importantly, the value of contemplation to politics, science, education, the healing arts, etc. Indeed, with view exceptions, we see little practice of ethics or contemplation in the politics or in the dominant mode of capitalist "growth economy", and the impact of that lack is evident in the global & local environmental crisis and the legal and factual exclusion & disempowerment of the poor, within BC, Canada and the world.

loving life as a 'godless' human being

i read the article and had so much to comment about but i see everyone has already covered much of what i wanted to say (and some far more eloquently).

for a moment i thought that perhaps karen might somehow cast a modicum of doubt on my atheism (still looking for a better word) but there is nothing there.

we can live fully grounded in this world, be in awe of all its wonder and mystery, be compassionate, love others unconditionally, be peaceful, have fun, laugh, raise children to respect life and others, and eventually die, without ever believing that there is something watching over us, listening for our prayers.

maybe when we finally realize that we are in fact on our own and there is nobody out there to "save" us in any way, we might take responsibility for ourselves and our planet and focus on ways to save our species instead of dividing ourselves as tribes.

Accuracy

Dawkins is quite capable of defending himself but it would be nice if people criticized what he actually says and not some caricature. Regardless of whether you like his style or not, he does not, contrary to what most of his critics assert, claim certainty. He proclaims doubt. Doubt is the foundation of science and of rational inquiry. I understand that many religious people feel the same way, but not fundamentalists.

Now, back to Armstrong, who writes, "Until the 17th or 18th century nobody understood the first chapter of Genesis as literal, but the new atheists are assuming that they did."

That is as untrue as her comment about Aquinas. Her scholarship is shoddy (or deliberately misleading?), yet she criticizes Dawkins for not being knowledgeable about theology. Irritating.

Booker, what is your basis

Booker, what is your basis for that assertion? Saint Augustine was explicit about the metaphorical nature of Genesis, and that's going back pretty far. Roman Catholicism has been teaching non-literal interpretations of various aspects of scripture for over one and a half millennia. Such debates began at the foundational Ecumenical Councils. In fact, Catholicism has largely been a reaction against successive fundamentalisms and scriptural literalisms over the centuries (they were called heresies). In fact, Catholicism is in large measure an institutionalized cultural immune system response against literalism and extremism. Modern Christian evangelical fundamentalism is indeed a modern phenomenon, and incompatible in many ways with orthodox Catholicism. Armstrong is essentially correct in this regard.

Unity in the here and now...

Interesting discussion, yet which only leads me still to conclude that I am at least "essentially" right, until somebody produces some serious evidence of the existence of an all seeing, all knowing "God" or "Godess". Feeling or traditiondoes not cut it.

But then, the weight is not on us non-believers to disprove or prove the existence of God, but thee Believers who have advanced the theory in the absence of believable evidence, snatched out of the sky, so to speak.

There is still, however, an earthly and human need for religious and non-religious folks alike, to resolve together the problems of actual existence needing resolution in time and space through action. Incantations and prayer just keep coming up short, however self-satisfying.

wayfarer...

you say: "I believe that hard-line atheism is a metaphysically untenable position, therefore a fundamentalist stance."

That strikes me as quite meaningless bafflegab. Could you explain it please?

Also, you say "horrible historical acts of genocide have been done in the name of atheism (Stalin, Pol Pot quickly come to mind)."

No. Full stop, no. The acts of violence and murder carried out by those people were most defnitely and specifically not carried out in the name of atheism.

Those leaders, and other potentially atheistic leaders who massacred their own and other populations did so for political, ideological, and often paranoia-based reasons that had nothing whatsoever to do with atheism.

coyoteman...

Yes, indeed. Those who make extraordinary claims are must provide extraordinary evidence to back them up. Anecdote, empty rhetoric, and wishful thinking will not do.

Letting daylight bloom ...

... clears cobwebs from the night-gloom.

Curiously, even orthodox Catholics used literalism to calculate the age of the earth; Clement of Alexander, Origen, Eusebius, Theophilus, etc. believed that since Adam was created on the 6th day after creation, that Jesus would come into the world in its 6,000th year.
The Venerable Bede (circa 672 to 735), an English monk, calculated the date to 3952 bc.
In the 7th century, the year of Earth's creation was calculated to be 5508 bc in Constantinople and used by the Eastern Orthodox church until the 18th century.
Later calculations in the Latin church put the date at 5199 bc as mentioned in the Roman Martyrology and published by the authority of Pope Gregory XIII in 1580. It was later confirmed in 1640 CE under Pope Urban VIII.

Just in time for his chats with Galileo.

Atheism and theism

are two sides of the same coin. Which is "Faith." Faith that there is no God on one side and faith that there is a God on the other.

The Truth is that a negative by its own nature can never be proven, while a positive must be defined before it can be proven. What "proof" of God's existence would then be sufficient for an atheist to acknowledge God's existence.

We have a 'free will' of limited quantity, but more than other animal life, while vegetables have life, but no free will, and minerals have neither life nor free will. If the proof of God involves His appearance in front of us, His prevention of every disaster, His granting of every prayer for intercession, then our free will is subverted to His will. Our free will is required for both atheism and theism to exist in all their variations. Our mutual error is attempting to impose our beliefs on one another, even though that imposition seems to be exclusively right and proper.

SicPreFix

SicPreFix, I suspect a lot of logic that doesn't fit your mold comes off as 'bafflegab,' but here goes....

You quote me then ask:

you say: "I believe that hard-line atheism is a metaphysically untenable position, therefore a fundamentalist stance." That strikes me as quite meaningless bafflegab. Could you explain it please?

Definition of terms is crucial to any debate, so let's get our definitions on the table. I define atheism to generally mean: the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. This is an untenable position. It is impossible to prove scientifically, or otherwise, that first cause(s) of some variety does not exist. Any claim that they do not exist is a matter of faith, in the same way belief that they do exist is a matter of faith. Even Dawkins admits this, grudgingly, in his "almost certain" thesis. Under my definition, Dawkins is not an atheist, or he is a deluded one.

You quote me and ask:

Also, you say "horrible historical acts of genocide have been done in the name of atheism (Stalin, Pol Pot quickly come to mind)." No. Full stop, no. The acts of violence and murder carried out by those people were most defnitely and specifically not carried out in the name of atheism.

Under Stalin almost the entire Orthodox priesthood were exterminated simply for being priests. If you want to split logical hairs on this or other acts done in the name of anti-religious rationales, go right ahead, but I can't promise I'll be taking you seriously at that point.

I throw a question back at you: do you deny that good things have been done in the name of religion? And please spare me the Crusades and burning-scientists-at-the-stake speeches. We can all agree bad things have been done in the name of religion. It does not follow that, therefore, all religious thought, expression or action is bad or evil, as Dawkins seems to deduce. Especially given that Dawkins pan-argument against all religion is specious at best, ignorant at very least.

As previously stated, I do not believe in god(s). But I do not have a sound scientific, logical reason to doubt a first cause, either. If you have some special metaphysical insight into the secrets of the universe, pray tell. Show me the tenable.

Mostly Harmless

Mass murderers, of any stripe, are not motivated by an excess of rationality.

Like Douglas Adams, increasing numbers of reasoning people are 'convinced' atheists.

"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."

Should it turn out that the answer to life, the universe and everything isn't 42 - well, don't panic.

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?"

I have to admit...

I find Armstrong's schaolarship a bit shoddy too. Early monasticism, Manichaeism, and most forms of Gnosticism were exceedingly literalist, (and that's not an exhaustive list) and most were also quite revisionist to boot. Early Christianity was spread to England by eremetic monks with incomplete and literalist understandings, which led to general rejection of Christian practice until visits by Burgundian and German monk-scholars helped clear up such matters as much as they were able.

My own regret is that more was not made of Pelagius, who postulated a much more logical, harmonious and frankly believable version of Christianity. It might have made it easier for me to share my wife's faith life, which alas, I share not.

To whose loss? Both of ours. After all, there are texts that are simply magic in their pregnancy with possibility... I defy anyone to read Ecclesiastes and come away finding a better text for Gordo's bedtime reading? Especially when it begins in such an unlikely fashion:

"Meaningless! Meaningless! Everything is meaningless!" said the Teacher.

Rather Buddhist in many ways, I rather think.

By the way, that's more my own tradition - Zen. Some commenters here could benefit from a few months serious and logical study of Zen koans, if only to demonstrate the futility of knowing everything with as much certainty as they do.

Well said, wayfarer, and with boundless patience.

Coyoteman

That said, because it is likely that there will ever be so much "unknown" or technically "unknowable" about the universe, or at least so for a very long time yet, there will likewise remain room for different understandings, beliefs and interpretations around the full nature of life and the universe.

In some ways, with your usual aplomb, you have put your finger on the problem. Religions do not address these things whatsoever, though they use their understandings, beliefs and interpretations of events and phsyical objects in the universe to introduce you to the object lesson....

...Which is, to study what it means to be fully human, while in community, not in solitary study as at a university, or in an empty room, as in a cult. Lord knows we have enough of those, and they have their good points as well as their bad.

But rather than the hard-of-thinking like me pontificating on what I'm struggling to come to know better for myself, better to let Armstrong herself speak to this point:

On the potential role of religion and mythos in everyday life:

"We are still having to deal with our mortality. We are still having to deal with lack of meaning in life. We are still asking about the nature of happiness, and how best to be a human being. We are on the brink of catastrophe. All the things we got right are in meltdown -- the economy is down, our international policies are turning against us, and the environment is in catastrophe. Think now, if we are so addicted to comfort, there is going to be a large distress, because we haven't cultivated the inner resources to deal with this. And religion is about cultivating these inner resources, so that you find within yourself a realm of transcendent peace, and deal with suffering. Everyone is capable of cultivating these resources, but only if we work at it. Religion requires hard work, which is one of the themes of the book. Not just singing a couple of hymns once a week -- it requires the golden rule all day, every day. It takes practice."

Anybody who thinks they've got this licked can show the rest of us the way. So far I haven't heard it yet.

Re: "Letting daylight bloom"

OilbertaRedTory, you're wrong. That was *never* Catholic doctrine, and was never taught as doctrine. It doesn't constitute any aspect of the belief system that has defined what a Catholic is through the ages. People of all stripes said all sorts of things at different times in history, and had all sorts of theories (some more influential than others). That doesn't make it doctrine. You're talking apples and oranges - No one had any way of telling how old the earth was until very recently, and scientists still aren't 100% certain. The "scientists" of the day lined up on all sides of that debate (ditto with Galileo, whose most ardent defenders were churchmen, and whose most determined detractors were rival scientists with a stake in upholding Ptolemaic cosmology. So what? Nothing changes).

Throughout its history Roman Catholicism has typically been at odds with scriptural literalism. At its core, that's really what the rise of Protestantism was really about (sola scriptura and all that). Unsuccessful suppression of literalism hundreds of years ago is one of the reasons the United States is so fundamentalist today. And now that mainline Protestantism is dying out (a consequence of late 20th century conflation of social gospel with liberal ideology in worship), it's the modern evangelicals who have picked up the literalist banner.

Faith conquers all,

Faith conquers all, especially logical thought.

Ed Deak.

Fiat lux

Fine, but there's nothing logical about the falsification of history. That's my only gripe with the new breed of "evangelical" atheists. That, and their absolute negation of the cultural dimension of world faith traditions. They're also blind to their own forays into fundamentalism and literalism. There are many kinds of fundamentalisms at work today, and religious fundamentalism is only one variety. When it comes down to it, Dawkins is just another kind of fundamentalist. What's worse, opposing fundamentalists seem to need each other to justify themselves, at the expense of rational and moderate discourse among thinking men & women of all creeds (and none).

Good take down on Armstrong nonsense here

"Armstrong's ideas about "fundamentalist atheism" are as strange as some of her ideas about religion itself. First, atheists don't "magisterially" evaluate the teachings of religion--and most of us did not became atheists from reading the arguments of Bertrand Russell or Richard Dawkins. Many of us rejected religion because we (especially Americans) were brought up in some faith and what we were taught simply did not make sense to us. We became atheists through the same process that Armstrong hopes people will become religious--by firsthand exposure to the rituals and practices of faith communities. Some religious dropouts (like Armstrong, who was once a Catholic nun) feel too lonely in a world unmoored from religion and eventually work their way back to a form of faith--call it liberal religion, whether in eastern or western forms--that seems more compatible with reason than they faith of their youth."

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/susan_jacoby/2009/10/thanks_but_no_thanks_from_a_happy_atheist.html

Catholic falsification of history

besides the very current cover up of the sexual abuse of children whch by definition is an attempt at falsifing history in the here and now, it was the first Roman Catholics who destroyed the libraries and engineering feats of the Romans. It was they who plunged western civilization into the dark age.

www.jesusneverexisted.com is a good footnoted source for the centuries of lies that the religious do not want you to see or know about.

Judge for yourself.

waste of time issue

It seems that this simple gem needs explanation:
"Faith conquers all, especially logical thought."
was no doubt meant to indicate that religious faith goes contra to logical thought.

I am amazed that any thinking human being can seriously give this subject the time of the day.
Religion is there for those who need a crutch to face everyday life, does that sound like you?

Hypocrisy

Seems to me the RC Church has plenty of problems in the here and now without debating what went on in the 4th century:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16priest.html?_r=1&hp

As for the existence of Jesus Christ, I think maybe I'll defer to the Jewish historian and Roman citizen Josephus (who wrote in the 1st century AD).

Still, he (Jesus) is NEVER the problem...what's been done since is...both good and bad.

Further definition of terms

[q]I define atheism to generally mean: the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist.[/q]

Some have taken pains to define atheism as the mere absence of theistic belief, i.e. disbelief in the claim that there is a god/gods/goddess.

Theist: "God [or someone] exists"

Atheist: "I do not believe that God [or someone] exists.

[Radical?] Atheist: "God [or someone] does not exist"

The latter position is as ontologically loaded as the first, and commits the fallacy of argument from ignorance, summed up by the old saw: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

When I refer to myself as an atheist I'm occupying the middle ground between....

alive.....When we ask the

alive.....When we ask the question from the faithful: If the world was created 7,000 years ago, how did all the polished rocks, miles from any flowing waters, or the fossils of all kinds of long extinct animals and life forms come from ?

The usual answer is: The Lord put them there to test our faith.

Also, the Lord apparently appeared to lots of prophets over the ages, telling them contradicting instructions, usually with the permission to go and hate and kill each other. As we see in Ireland, India and Pakistan and the everlasting fights between the thousands of Muslim and the approx. 2,000 Christian sects, all claiming divine orders.

In short: Faith conquers all, especially logical thought.

Ed Deak.

religion on one hand, science on the other foot

"Dawkins is quite capable of defending himself but it would be nice if people criticized what he actually says and not some caricature."

There's a little old Catholic lady who trudges with her walker past my house almost every morning on her way to the graveyard down the street to visit her late husband. A man like Richard Dawkins would say to her "your ignorance astounds me", or words to that effect. That seems to me even more rude than the fundamentalist telling me I will burn in hell. If he successfully convinced her to agree with him, I would even argue that you could consider her harmed. I would criticize what he actually says, if he were less of a jerk and I actually cared what he has to say. I've heard him speak, and wasn't very inspired. He seems like just a mouthpiece to me, using the tactics of those he seems to despise against them. Stooping to their level or whatever you want to call it.

I myself don't believe in angels or fairies or spirits or flying spaghetti monsters, but that doesn't mean I can't get anything useful out of reading the Qur'an without bowing down to Mohammed. Or that Buddhism is useless since I don't believe in reincarnation. Or that I can't learn anything from native American beliefs because I don't belive that animals can change form.

In the same way there is no reason to convince a religious person that they are deluded in order for them to appreciate scientific fact.

The whole religion vs science thing seems wrong headed to me, and I have a hard time understanding the people who seem so vehement about it, from either side.

The world was created by some kind of God, or some kind of big bang. Interesting intellectual conversation, but you weren't there, you can't go there, you can't do it all over again to show how it happened. Sure all the evidence leads to this conclusion, I do believe that the big bang is the best explanation we currently have, but I sure won't be surprised if some new scientific discovery leads to some new theory that makes all the current "authorities" (and their followers) look retarded. Not like it hasn't happened before! Sure the sensible people will go with the flow and accept the new normal, and probably say to themselves "well at least I didn't believe in God", but really everyone was wrong on all sides so I hope there is some humility. "Science is better because it's science", when it can be just as wrong, seems like a wobbly leg to stand on.

Perhaps we should also

Perhaps we should also define, together with the thousands of religions claiming to represent God, what science is?

I have seen so many screwed up scientific theories within my lifetime that it isn't funny.

Economists also claim to be "scientists", when in reality they're nothing more than priesthoods of certain destructive religions, in our present system the Priesthood of the Money God who hath no physical existence, but liveth only as computer figures.

Ed Deak.

Peter Dimitrov writes:

Peter Dimitrov writes: "...religion offers to a highly secular, materialist world some values that can only improve life on this planet and generate more happiness, namely such concepts as the interdependency of life, that life is precious & fleeting, that virtues such as compassion, patience, humility, tolerance, honesty, ethical conduct and right livelihod,..."

This may be true, but these values are not restricted to the religious domain. They can be found through, for example, open-minded experience and education. You'd have a hard time trying to find an athiest scientist who denies the interdependency of all living things and the preciousness of life.

PD contintues: "...a[nd] perhaps most importantly, the value of contemplation to politics, science, education, the healing arts, etc. Indeed, with [few] exceptions, we see little practice of ethics or contemplation in the politics or in the dominant mode of capitalist 'growth economy'..."

Why blame a lack of religion on a lack of ethics or contemplation? Many political leaders who seem to disregard ethics purport to answer to a higher power. The faithful and godless alike are subject to the corruptive capabilities of power.

As for history, no one can say with any certainty what a history is. History is written and rewritten and pieced together with disconnected puzzle pieces and full of bias and opinion. When we read history, we bring our own bias into our interpretation of it.

On religion and compassion: I've known a number of Christians who didn't display an ounce of compassion in their lives until they became parents. Does this mean that children and childless adults are not compassionate? No. It just proves that compassion is born of experience, and everyone's experience is different. That's one of the things that makes life so beautiful.

wayfarer ...

said:

"... do you deny that good things have been done in the name of religion?"

No, not at all. And while I will indeed spare you that which you do not want to hear, I will say that I do not think that the good outweighs the bad, nor is the existence of such good a palatable excuse for the plethora of the bad.

You also say: "If you have some special metaphysical insight into the secrets of the universe, pray tell. Show me the tenable."

Well, I do not have such an insight -- at least not one that could be meaningfully or comprehensivley discussed in such a limited space devoid of reciprocity -- though there are an awful lot of good writers out there (Sagan, Gould, Shermer, et al) who may provide you with some insight, though I suspect you may be familiar with many of them. However, if we define metaphysical as:

- Based on speculative or abstract reasoning.
- Highly abstract or theoretical; abstruse.
- Immaterial; incorporeal.
- Supernatural.

Then I think your request for "metaphyscial insight" and "the tenable" is effectively an oxymoron. No disrespect intended.

Stephen Hawking,

Stephen Hawking, Sir Isaac Newton's successor as Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, seems to have little problem allowing for the existence of God. What a poor scientist that must make him compared to the emininent proponents of scientific rationalism here on the Tyee discussion threads...

I'll ignore Gwest's off-topic Catholic-baiting (as usual); but MichaelT where on earth did you get such bilious nonsense?

Science is...

"the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena" (Nelson Canadian Dictionary).

There is a great distinction between scientific theory (and yes, there are a lot of crack-pot scientific theories) and scientific fact.

Scientific facts tend to be deduced through reproducible experimentation and quantifiable/empirical measurements.

Scientific theory is just that, theory. Some theories have merit, others none at all.

As for the science of the economy...economists should be lumped together with astrologists under the heading pseudo-science.

For a fabulous read that covers theology, metaphysics and quantum physics, check out Phillip Pullman's "His Dark Materials" trilogy.

For a good read that looks at the evolution of the relationship between science, philosophy and religion, check out A.N. Wilson's "God's Funeral".

Maybe God IS man?

In catechism classes I was taught that God is perfect and complete in every posible way.

Then in the very next breath I was taught that "He" - God the Father - would somehow be unhapy if we, using our "free will", disobeyed HIS commands.

Hmmmm, God would be "happier" if we made it to heaven, and somehow diminished if we wound up in Hell?

In the Rubiyat the pots on the potter's shelves are discussing their conditions and fate.

LXII

Another said—“Why, ne’er a peevish Boy,
“Would break the Bowl from which he drank in Joy;
“Shall He that *made* the Vessel in pure Love
“And Fancy, in an after Rage destroy!”

LXIII

None answer’d this; but after Silence spake
A Vessel of a more ungainly Make:
“They sneer at me for leaning all awry;
“What! did the Hand then of the Potter shake?”

ME2s wisdom...

Enjoyed your interesting piece, and quotes from the Rubaiyat, also one of my favourite philosophical/poetic writings from the ancient world.

As to your observation that maybe God is man, would certainly explain his many shortcomings, such as periodic rages and jealousy etc., to say nothing of shagging the naive Mary out of wedlock. :-) Then like a deadbeat Dad, leaving poor old Joseph and Mary, sans alimony/support, to raise the fruit of His loin's violation.

Certainly we might as well be His/Her eyes, ears and sensory interactions with the material world and of the flesh. :-)

Then we really do need fear. Mein Gott am Himmel! For He/She is Us, and making judgements based on our sensory, experiential and thought inputs!

Talk about a flawed God. :-) Which, as I've said, does explain much about the dude/dudess though: flies, maggots, disease, war, the food chain necessity of species preying upon each other. And the tendency of everything humans, and now God to touch, to turn to shit.

AS good a "belief/feeling" explanation as any, brother/sister. :-)

Among other things? ........

Thanks Coyoteman. Here's something else inconsistent about God "for whom all things are possible"

"This only is denied to God - the power to undo the past" unattributed

Religion

is a word based on the concept of something that "binds" us, either to an idea or institution or those who share beliefs with us. In that sense Atheism is just as much a 'religion' as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, the monotheistic belief system, or paganism of any kind, where we live on Turtle Island, or Atlas holds the world on his shoulders, or every object hold its own mystical inhabitant. The atheist rejects belief in what he believes to be an impossibility (for any reason, often misinformed, often private, sometimes personal) and holds to that belief just as fervently as the believer embraces what he accepts as real (just as often misinformed, private and personal).

mikev - the most recent possibility proposed about the Big Bang is that the Universe, now expanding, will slow, stop, then condense into some kind of particularity which will naturally expand into another Big Bang. The process has been repeating itself infinitely. Is this process harder to accept than "believing" that the Universe formed itself out of nothing for a one-shot chance of becoming reality?

Hawking g-d ; good for sales

When Stephen Hawking wrote that the 'theory of everything' means 'knowing the mind of God' in his Brief History of Time :
"In the proof stage I nearly cut the last sentence in the book... Had I done so, the sales might have been halved."

"An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!"

"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary."
Der Spiegel (17 October 1988)

"I think that it's important for scientists to explain their work, particularly in cosmology. This now answers many questions once asked of religion."
'Return of the time lord' in The Guardian (27 September 2005)

SicPreFix

You wrote:

Well, I do not have such an [metaphysical] insight -- at least not one that could be meaningfully or comprehensivley discussed in such a limited space devoid of reciprocity...

On this point, sir, we agree. And that's why the invented pubs.

Re: metaphysics

I like to keep definitions simple, so how about the standard def. - after the physics

Your conclusion:

Then I think your request for "metaphyscial insight" and "the tenable" is effectively an oxymoron. No disrespect intended.

I think you, in a roundabout way, prove my previous point that the unproven realm of metaphysics or discussion of first cause is untenable. Atheism, insofar as it asserts, with varying degrees of certainly, that first cause or god(s) does not exist, is vulnerable to this oxymoron. To say that some abstract thing, such as god, does not exist is as much a metaphysical statement as to say that said thing does exist.

No disrespect perceived, so none taken. In fact, I've enjoyed reading all comments in this section and am amazed by how civil Tyee readers have once again proven to be on a subject of controversy. So hats off to everyone.

OilbertaRedTory, I don't see

OilbertaRedTory, I don't see a counter-argument in the Hawking quotes you've selected. Am I missing something?

Hawking was pretty clear that the laws of the universe are based on reason, even if we don't understand it all yet, and that this doesn't preclude a creator. The orthodox Catholic teaching is that divine reason is imprinted on the fabric of the created universe; where contradiction is apparent, human interpretation of God must be in error. In other words, God cannot be contrary to reason. Catholic teaching has been fairly clear on this for, oh say, over a thousand years. On a fundamental level, this is a key different between orthodox Christianity and Islam. If you still not sure, you might be interested in reading the full text of the Pope's Regensberg Speech, in which Benedict enunciates the point http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

wayfarer ...

said:

"On this point, sir, we agree. And that's why the invented pubs."

Ha, ha, ha, yes indeed. Lovely. Couldn't agree more!

As for the rest ... well, I'm a wee bit tippled at the moment and am unable to fully comprehend what you are saying. So, I'll have a gander at it tomorrow.

By the by, wayfarer, thanks for being so respectful in your disagreement. After the initial cognitive dissonance of "how dare someone disagree with me, the mighty SPF!", this has become an interesting and pleasurable contretemps.

;)

Cheers.

SPF

On fixing the past...

"This only is denied to God - the power to undo the past" unattributed.."

Hmmm, ME2, again very much like in the material world of men and women. I suspect we all, as we "mature", have much that we would go back and fix, if we but could.

Does indeed again sound like we may be projecting upon to this hypothetical god/godess. :-)

mikev

Actually Dawkins isn't reading this, so is not capable of defending himself from your viscious personal attack. If you have any evidence that he would behave insensitively towards a bereaved old woman (as opposed to an academic in debate or a reader of an avowedly challenging book) please provide it. Otherwise withdraw your accusation!

replies

Des:
"mikev - the most recent possibility proposed about the Big Bang is that the Universe, now expanding, will slow, stop, then condense into some kind of particularity which will naturally expand into another Big Bang. The process has been repeating itself infinitely. Is this process harder to accept than "believing" that the Universe formed itself out of nothing for a one-shot chance of becoming reality?"

Yes that is quite common knowledge now, and offers a lot of interesting congruities, sadly not leading to much meeting of minds. I accept it. I wouldn't berate anyone for not accepting it.

"Actually Dawkins isn't reading this, so is not capable of defending himself from your viscious personal attack. If you have any evidence that he would behave insensitively towards a bereaved old woman (as opposed to an academic in debate or a reader of an avowedly challenging book) please provide it. Otherwise withdraw your accusation!"

Poor Dawkins! Well, there is the evidence that he wrote a fairly mainstream book called "The God Delusion", and that he speaks whenever and wherever and as publicly as he can about how pathetic religious people are. How about we take a browse through the quotes page on richarddawkins.net:

"Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the "know-nothings", the "know-alls", and the "no-contests""

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence."

"The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything"

"Religions do make claims about the universe--the same kinds of claims that scientists make, except they're usually false."
-Heh: so out of all the scientific theories that have been put forward throughout history, the majority of them have been correct, eh?

"But insofar as theology studies the nature of the divine, it will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine."

"Who will say with confidence that sexual abuse is more permanently damaging to children than threatening them with the eternal and unquenchable fires of hell?"
-Ummmm, I will?!?! WTF?!?!

Along with 50+ quotes from other people talking about how retarded religion is. I mean he hasn't gone and knocked on this little old lady's door like some kind of Jehovah's Witness, but he's not exactly confining his disdain to academic circles.

I don't disagree with the majority of what he says. I'm just saying that he is arrogant, insulting, insensitive, etc, etc - an asshole. Demand for withdrawl: denied.

Religious

ideas are seen as the opiate of the people by atheists but as salvation by the believers. A logical (logic is the ultimate science) description of what attributes God must have to be God is the basis of these arguments for and against His existence.

Atheists rightly belittle the opinion that so many believers express, or seem to express, that God lives in the sky, behind golden gates, sits on a throne, and made everything in a feat of magic 6,000 years ago. Believers get huffy when atheists make light of their beliefs, or call them stupid.

But which is easier to accept, that God is eternal, or that the universe is infinite? That we exist in three dimensions (plus time) in a Newtonian universe, or that everything is composed of vibrating strings of energy in eleven dimensions in the sub-atomic Einsteinian world?

As Pilate said to Christ in dismissing that which he did not recognize, "What is truth?" In this argument, anybody can same the same thing to anybody else, but nobody can claim to absolutely possess it.

My favourite line.....

My favourite line in this review by Sarah Buchanan (where she often reveals a nicely wicked sense of humour ) is where she nonchalantly drops this thought at the end of one of her paragraphs:

"the mysterious realm of the "unknowable," which seems to have become smaller and smaller as we pretend to get smarter and smarter."

Good observation, Sarah.

Knowledge is important but it isn't what makes us more intelligent. It's how we use it. Even Einstein himself believed that imagination was more important than knowledge.

In non-western traditions (and even in bits of western monotheism), the spiritual life is not a matter of merely adhering to a set of rigid propositions. Its heart and core is in the practice, in the ritual...in the experience.

Hinduism, for instance, is an almost indescribable bird, a myriad of complex, interwoven feathers. A way of life really, much like the religions of First Nations.

And Buddhism, too, gives little weight to the
importance of rigid doctrine, happy in its search for the unlimited and the indefinable.

So I'm not sure why there is such a need for certainty - for a rigid yes or no.

There is much to be said for Keats’s theory of negative capability – "where man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts,
without an irritable reaching after fact and reason".

Same wondrous lost feeling I get when I look at the night sky.

So far so good.

.

A still more glorious dawn awaits ...

... those whose awe and wonder includes reaching after fact and reason in the cosmos :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc

Heaven can wait

Atheists rightly belittle the opinion that so many believers express, or seem to express, that God lives in the sky, behind golden gates, sits on a throne, and made everything in a feat of magic 6,000 years ago. Believers get huffy when atheists make light of their beliefs, or call them stupid.

Athiests may belittle that opinion, but that's not an idea espoused by true believers, near as I can tell. Hell first made its way into the Jewish theology around 700BC, and Heaven around the intertestamental period, but at no time was Heaven a "here and now" state - it was always a place that would be created here on earth after the "Battle at the End of the Universe", a theological concept that had been around longer than civilizations, being already well-developed when Chaldea was young.

Being at a funeral today merely highlighted for me once again that the "sky pilot" in his fluffy white heaven that all the dead immediately go to without reservation is a creation of the modern secular world, especially the Western world.

There is no theological support whatsoever for a heaven and hell as is popularly believed to exist in the mass media (or rather the mass hysteria that passes for media these days). Priests who happen to cater to this popular fiction while performing funeral services are doing this only to avoid further upset for superstitious westerners who don't like their apple-carts turned upside down for (what appears to them to be) no reason. There may be a doctrine of "universal reconciliation" hung on most believers and their leaders these days, but it's an argument mostly constructed around the paradox between scripture, which is adamant about there being no reconciliation of the soul with God until after the end of the universe, and the ethereal, if well-meant, theology of sacrificial salvation of Christ as an extension of the philosophy of the original church fathers.

So, I say (as do most theologians), when our bodies go into the cold, cold ground, they only go into the cold, cold ground, and they don't come back, rise up or do anything but moulder and rot. What happens to our consciousness, I don't know. I can wait to find out, if you don't mind.

In the meantime, as Socrates said, "The unexamined life is not worth living", so let's continue to examine our lives very closely, and ask those around us to do the same.

Lynn

Aboriginals did not have a "religion" as we would define such, nor a belief in a "God".

Rather, they had a series of Creation myths, and a variety of supertitious, "pagan" beliefs (to us) along with various rules, non-transferable to today's times, which gave order to their societies.

The concept of a "Great Spirit" is a post-contact myth - along with many others - which have evolved in an attempt to make native cultures more palatable for Christian sensibilities.

This is not to say that native traditions were less valid than ours. Rather, they were perfectly adapted for the times in which they lived, And for those of us who view them as childlike and superstitious.....they would have been better advised - then as now - to have a close look at the various supestitions we still cling to.

None of this is to dispute your statement:

"So I'm not sure why there is such a need for certainty - for a rigid yes or no."

Throught time we've seemed to need the existence of something independant of the baseness of ordinary mortals to which we can appeal, and have created many mythologies to satisfy that need.

The sad thing today is that there doesn't seem to be a belief system around that is free of internal inconsitencies. Hence our reversion to the Golden Calf - the God of materialism.

SicPreFix - Hawking is faily

SicPreFix - Hawking is faily clear. He does not speculate about the nature of God nor does he endorse human interpretations & representations of God (I never claimed he did). He asserts the rationality of God's ("Creator") existence if the universe has a beginning point (the big bang). I find this compatible with Catholic teaching re. the Logos (my opinion here). Hawking also asserts that the open-ended theory of the universe does not require the existence of a creator. So he allows for both scenarios. My question to the spokesmen for scientific rationalism is: does this make him less rational than they, or any less of a scientist, as some seem to imply. See my actual comments above.

I'm fairly certain I'm not misreprenting Hawking's statements on the subject, as you claim. The issues of dogma, narrative, symbology, and history of the great religions is another issue entirely, which Hawkings doesn't touch (and I never claimed he did). Again, see my actual comments above.

A lovely piece from Carl Sagan

A lovely piece from Carl Sagan, Oilberta Red Tory. Exquisitely beautiful..... and while I would agree the "knowing" does not diminish the mystery or wonder, still I don't think science or the emphasis on certainty, logic and reason alone are the only means of passage - there are other equally splendid worm-holes/rabbit holes worthy of human exploration.

Certainly revolutionary art has both foreshadowed and accompanied revolutionary scientific discovery. Proust, Joyce, Woolf were busy blowing linear time apart. Cezanne was breaking apart old visual and spatial perceptions of reality. Some say the space-time distortions of the surrealists predicted Einstein's theory of relativity. I'm not sure science holds the trump card in this, we need both, as those great times of convergence evidenced in the Renaissance have proved throughout history.

Science for all its supposed emphasis on certainty spends a lot of time in the waiting room confronting uncertainty so why is uncertainty so threatening to some when it comes to exploring the existence or non-existence of God? I think it was Richard Feynmann, the physicist, who said the scientific "mystery" being explored was God... until it was solved. It then became knowledge.

I would add that there is an inherent danger when knowledge/certainty remains God and is not to be questioned.... as even certain knowledge can be a temporal thing.... certainties have been known to become uncertainties.... as man, scientists and science are all fallible.

ME2, enjoyed reading your comment, and I agree, but I don't think I mentioned God in relation to First Nations - what I was trying to say which I obviously said rather badly, was that Hinduism is a "way of life", a diverse belief system deeply integrated into daily communal life... and in that way similar to First Nations.

Whether we venture into the stars or stay home on Earth, we cannot escape what it means to be a human being and part of that very human adventure is our shared mythologies and belief systems...and why they have such deep meaning for us.

I don't agree with the often common assumption that our need for them is always a case of weakness.

Inner Space has its glorious moments, too

youtube, circa 1938 ;-) :

http://www.gemstone.org/gem-features/poems/yeats/poem-yeats-eng.html

A Comfortable Position?

"and held a comfortable position in the mysterious realm of the "unknowable," which seems to have become smaller and smaller as we pretend to get smarter and smarter."

Yeah, yeah, this is a perfect example the god-botherers use as science scarfs up the remaining territory that theologians claim is god-inhabited: the concept known as God-in-the-Gaps: if science can't explain it, then the lack of explanation might be because god might be there. Suffice it to say, it's a rear-guard action and invariably turns out to be intellectually vapid.

As to the rest of the article: you don't need god to be a nice person. The rest is guff.