Category Archives: Atheism

It is a truth universally acknowledged that the number of Americans who identify with Christianity is declining steadily, while the number of Nones those who refuse identification with any denomination or faith is growing sharply. Probably within five years or so, the nations largest religious group will be the Nones, as they move steadily ahead of evangelicals and Catholics. Assuming we care about the fate of religion, how worried should we be? Some argue that the churches are just undertaking a shakeout of their nominal adherents, to leave a solid and more active core, so maybe there is nothing to be all that worried about. Maybe. But we should at least consider the possibility that we really are seeing a precipitous decline in religion as such in religious practice and faith however broadly we define it. Things really might be as bad as they seem.

There are plenty of reasons why people would abandon their formal identification with churches. They might be appalled by religious activism in politics, or shocked by scandals involving clergy. However, those former adherents dont necessarily reject religion as such. As repeated surveys show, many of those Nones in fact seem to be quite religious-oriented, in terms of belief in God, and even of religious practice in some cases, a surprising amount. (Ryan Burge has a thoughtful survey of the whole issue in his notable recent book The Nones: Where They Came From, Who They Are, and Where They Are Going). So perhaps what we are looking at just a restructuring, a reboot, not an actual decline. And we have to be very careful indeed about how we frame the survey questions that produce such high numbers of Nones.

But here is the problem. If a person rejects that church affiliation, and abandons the religious community, how long can they maintain that solitary or non-affiliated religious practice before it dies altogether? Ten years? Thirty? And can that attenuated practice be passed on to the next generation? When does no religious affiliation transform into a simple No religion at all, seriously, and I mean it?

European evidence suggest that countries do indeed reach this point. A striking 2016 study showed only a third of Dutch people claiming any faith at all, with Christianity still the largest component, at 25 percent. That number was exactly paralleled by the quarter of the population who were outright atheists. Even the number who reported belief in any higher power, rather than a specific concept of God, is falling steadily. By 2017, 52 percent of British people reported having no religion, and the rate for people under 24 was 70 percent. The most significant growth was among those who accepted the label of confident atheists.

Those figures were rather worse than the larger European norm, but the picture of European detachment from religion is common. Across the region the proportion of the religiously unaffiliated is an impressive 24 percent, outnumbering churchgoing Christians. Besides the Netherlands, the unaffiliated figure is highest in Belgium, Norway, and Sweden, at over 35 percent. The lowest figures were for Ireland, Portugal, and Austria, at 15 percent. Throughout the region the great majority of these unaffiliatedthe Noneshad been baptized and raised Christian. Overwhelmingly those unaffiliated agreed with the statement that science made religion unnecessary for them.

Straightforward atheism has become a common creed, markedly so in some societies. In a recent survey, the proportion flatly asserting no belief in God was at its height in the Czech Republic (66 percent) and Sweden (60 percent), with high levels of disbelief in Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway, and Estonia. This trend is particularly pronounced in large cities. Berlin vaunts its role as the atheist capital of Europe, and 60 percent of residents claim no religion. In France, 11 percent of respondents accept Gods existence absolutely while 45 percent are less certain and 37 percent are atheists.

Just to take two examples, if you go back to 1960, then both Belgium and the Netherlands were high on the list of the worlds very religious societies, and Belgium was very Catholic indeed. Now look where they stand in the atheism stakes. They are also among the worlds most systematically liberal societies in terms of legislation and policies that have been passed in the teeth of bitter opposition form the respective churches.

The drift away from religion is so advanced, and progressing so swiftly, that some scientific surveys project the extinction of faith of all kinds from several nations by the end of the present century. A study presented to the American Physical Society in 2011 predicted that by the end of the present century, nine nations would be entirely free of religion. Six of these were European, namely Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. Very striking here was the inclusion of nations like Austria and Ireland, where levels of faith are presently holding up relatively well. Actually the study suggested that other nations might well be following a like trajectory, but their official statistics did not permit the kind of analysis that would permit such conclusions. Not included in the list, therefore, was Great Britain, which commonly appears alongside the Netherlands in listings of the worlds most secular societies. (The other three nations on the APS listing were all Anglophone members of the former British Empire, namely Australia, New Zealand, and Canada). Of course, any such long-term projections are tenuous, but the listing of countries is suggestive.

The decline of supernatural belief undoubtedly has occurred in much of the West, and faith continues to recede. As a character in one of Tom Stoppards plays aptly remarked, There is presumably a calendar datea momentwhen the onus of proof passed from the atheist to the believer, when, quite suddenly, secretly, the noes had it. We are now well past that point. But how much further will the process continue? Some very credible social scientists believe that recent trends herald the destruction of religion in any form we have known, if not the actual abolition of religious faith as such. In the short term, such analyses are chiefly based on European experience, but the long-term implications have global relevance.

One of the leading scholars on the religious implications of demographic change is David Voas, who declares unequivocally that

Religion is in decline across the Western world. Whether measured by belonging, believing, participation in services, or how important it is felt to be, religion is losing ground. Older generations die out and are replaced by less religious younger generations. Modernization has predictable and permanent effects, one of which I call the secular transition. . . . Certain major transformationssuch as the industrial revolution or the demographic transition (the decline first in mortality and then in fertility)occur exactly once in each society. These transitions are very difficult to undo. Back-tracking is exceptional and temporary: slavery isnt restored after its been abolished, nor do women lose the vote once granted. A transition is permanent, not cyclical or recurring; once out, the toothpaste wont go back into the tube. Secularization is such a transition.

Voas is speaking broadly of a decline in actual belief, rather than just institutional structures. Callum Brown is still more explicit. As he writes, The Western World is becoming atheist. In the space of three generations churchgoing and religious belief have become alien to millions. We are in the midst of one of humankinds great cultural changes.

Although these scholars are discussing the West, there is no intrinsic reason why the changes that have overtaken Western religion should not have their impact on a global scale and, ultimately, even in Africa. If such views are correct, then Christianity has a specific expiration date, to be followed after some delay by the other great faiths. At some not-too-distant point, perhaps in the mid-twenty-second century, God would become an extinct species.

In my recent book Fertility and Faith; The Demographic Revolution and the Transformation of World Religions, I suggested why we should take such views very seriously indeed, although my own conclusions were nothing like so pessimistic. But to return to a core question. At least for right now, we absolutely must not take Nones as synonymous with atheists, fine. But once they abandon religious affiliation, how long can those Nones retain any religious identity whatever? European examples suggest that it might not be more than a generation.

Id worry.

Just to end with a quote I have always liked. In seventeenth century England, there was a then-famous playwright called Sir William Davenant (1605/6-1668), who was suspected of being an illegitimate son to Shakespeare. Davenant strongly encouraged the tale, and the possible connection, however badly that reflected on his mother. Looking at the desperate religious wars around him in that era, all the fanaticism and violence, one of his friends tells us that His private opinion was that Religion at last, e.g. a hundred years hence, would come to settlement, and that in a kind of ingeniose Quakerisme. No more Catholics or Protestants (or Jews or Muslims), just a kind of peaceful ethical creed, devoid of sacraments or hierarchies, just waiting on the Inner Spirit. Love it or hate it, it was a fascinating prediction. And maybe an ideal creed for Nones.

My new Church of Ingenious Quakerism will go live shortly.

Read the original post:
What if the Nones Really Do Herald the Decline of Religion? - Patheos

Over the weekend, Hobby Lobby ran this full-page ad in newspapers across the country promoting Christian Nationalism.

It wasnt a surprise. Theyve done this for years. At this point, its almost embarrassing to see the out-of-context and even made-up quotations, but this ad got a lot of attention on Twitter because people realized just how extreme the Green family (which owns Hobby Lobby) is:

As theyve also done for several years now, the Freedom From Religion Foundation countered the ad campaign with one of its own:

While that ad ran in a handful of local newspapers, FFRF also promoted a web page they created a few years back that offers context and corrections for all the quotations used by Hobby Lobby.

Their annual rebuttal, however, prompted an angry response this morning from evangelist Franklin Graham:

Hobby Lobby is being attacked for running some beautiful full-page newspaper ads on July 4. The ad was titled One Nation Under God and included the Bible verse, Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord (Psalm 33:12). These positive advertisements have outraged enemies of Gods Word such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation. I hope this exposure for their ads, even though it was intended for harm, will actually allow even more people to read the message and appreciate what Hobby Lobbys owners, the Green family stand for. I thank God for the Green family, their Christian-run business, and their strong public stand for the Word of God and biblical values. Let them know you stand with them in the comments below.

There was no attack; there was only a response.

There was no outrage; there were only corrections.

But Graham is just proving the point of the critics online: Hes treating the people who believe in a secular nation as enemies. The only thing that Christian Nationalists hate more than the truth is when the truth is used to prove (over and over) that all they do is lie. Its worth pointing out that the low blow against FFRF is still untrue; theyre advocating for a secular government, like the Founders wanted, not one promoting atheism. FFRF believes Graham should have the freedom to practice his religion, too.

Meanwhile, Graham wants people to take a strong public stand for the Word of God and biblical values, which is a not-so-thinly-veiled way of calling for a theocracy or at least a nation where Christians and Christianity get better treatment than those who dont share their beliefs.

Its telling that even Michael Brown, the conservative writer who routinely promotes his own brand of Christian Nationalism, admitted that Hobby Lobbys ad sent the wrong message:

I do understand how others would read the ad as advocating for a theocracy (which I wholeheartedly oppose) and as for claiming that only Christians should run for office (which is ridiculous).

That is unfortunate, and thats why its important for us to make clear that we are not seeking to take over America and impose the Christian faith on the nation.

Will Franklin Graham admit thats not what he wants? Dont hold your breath.

More:
Franklin Graham Defends Hobby Lobby Ad: Its Critics are Enemies of God's Word - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

Editors note: Kristina Lee, a Ph.D. student in the Department of Communication Studies at Colorado State University, wrote this for The Conversation in June 2021. Colorado State is a contributing institution to The Conversation, an independent collaboration between editors and academics that provides informed news analysis and commentary to the general public. See theentire list of contributing faculty and their articles here.

Tennessees Constitution includes a provision that bars three groups from holding office: atheists, ministers and those engaging in duels. Efforts are under way in the state legislature to remove this exclusion for ministers, but not for duelists or atheists.

In January 2021, Republican Tennessee State Senator Mark Pody proposed Senate Joint Resolution 55 to amend Article IX of the Constitution of Tennessee to rid it of a clause that states no minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the Legislature. No mention is made in Podys resolution about Section 2 of the same article: No person who denies the being of God shall hold any office in the civil department of this state. Nor for that matter does the current bill mention Section 3s objection to those who participate, aid or abet a duel.

When Pody was asked why his resolution removes only the ban on ministers, his response was that it is best to clean up the constitution one simple step at a time.

Tennessee is one of seven states that has an unconstitutional ban on atheists holding public office. Although superseded by Supreme Court rulings, such bans are important. As a scholar of religious and political rhetoric who focuses on the marginalization of U.S. atheists, I believe they reflect the normalization of anti-atheism that has yet to be truly dealt with, or rarely acknowledged, in the United States.

Numerous state constitutions established laws banning both ministers and atheists when they were ratified.

The bans on ministers were framed as necessary to protect their sacred calling. The prohibitions on atheists were installed for a different reason. Atheists, it was claimed, could not be trusted to be good citizens in a democracy.

This sentiment was expressed by early enlightenment thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke both of whom influenced early American politicians. Locke argued in his 1689 Letter Concerning Toleration that those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist.

Bans on atheists and ministers are now unconstitutional due to Supreme Court rulings in 1961 and 1978. Tennessee is the last state to maintain an unenforceable ban on ministers in their Constitutions, while seven states still have their unconstitutional bans on atheists.

Although unenforceable, the bans periodically impede atheists wanting to hold public office. In 1992, Herb Silverman, an atheist activist and math professor, was denied a position as a notary public because of a ban in South Carolina. He had to sue the state before he could hold the position.

Meanwhile in 2009, Cecil Bothwell, a local Democratic candidate, won his city counsel race in Asheville, North Carolina but had to fight critics who claimed he was ineligible on account of his atheism.

These attacks continued for years after Bothwell was elected. H.K. Edgerton, a Black Confederate activist and one of Bothwells staunchest critics, complained in 2014 that the council had placed itself above the law for two terms with Cecil Bothwell sitting there passing rules and regulations and dictating law unlawfully.

David Morgan, editor of the Asheville Tribune, claimed his criticism of Bothwell was about upholding the state constitution, arguing If you dont like it, amend it and take out that clause.

Atheists have tried to do just that. But politicians show little interest in removing the bans on atheists that exist in state constitutions. As Todd Stiefel, an atheist activist, notes: If it was on the books that Jews couldnt hold public office, or that African Americans or women couldnt vote, that would be a no-brainer. Youd have politicians falling all over themselves to try to get it repealed. Even if it was still unenforceable, it would still be disgraceful and be removed. So why are we different?

These anti-atheist clauses and the failure to remove them reflect a phenomenon I call theistnormativity, which is the normalization of the belief in God as being tied to good and moral citizenship.

To many Americans, beliefs in God and Americanism has become synonymous. A 2015 survey found that 69% of respondents thought it was important to believe in God to be truly American. And Americans are expected to embrace national slogans such as In God We Trust and one nation, under God. Politicians are regularly asked to participate in public prayers to God before official meetings. And while they can request otherwise, the default assumption is that Americans will make an oath to God when taking public office or testifying in court.

While there is no ban on being an atheist in the United States, atheists have long been framed as un-American. When Democratic Representative Louis Rabaut proposed adding under God to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, he argued that an atheistic American is a contradiction in terms.

Even President Barack Obama simply acknowledging the existence of nonbelievers in his 2009 inaugural address led critics to question whether the acknowledgment was offensive and could lead to dangerous misunderstandings about our true nature as a nation.

And it isnt just the political right. When Bernie Sanders was running for president in 2016, leaked emails from Democratic National Committee leadership revealed a plot to try to out him as an atheist to negatively influence perceptions of him.

This political environment makes it difficult for open atheists to gain much political power. In a 2021 survey of Congress religious identity, only one person, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, identified as religiously unaffiliated. Eighteen members replied dont know or refused to answer the question.

Polling shows 4% of Americans identify as atheists, and about 23% identify more broadly as nonreligious. While identifying as nonreligious does not necessarily mean not believing in God, research suggests that as many as 1 in 4 Americans is atheist, but that most are unwilling to reveal this, even in anonymous polls.

As such, there are likely more atheists in Congress theyre just not open about their beliefs. In fact, in 2014, the American Humanist Association claimed that 24 members of Congress privately stated they did not believe in God but would deny it if outed.

Political analysts have long wondered if an atheist could become president. It would take a brave one to try, given that polls indicate that only 60% of Americans would be willing to contemplate voting for one.

Even theist presidents get criticized if they fail to show proper homage to religion. Biden, a Catholic, was the first president to not include God in his National Day of Prayer proclamation, a move Evangelical leader Franklin Graham called dangerous.

This anti-atheism extends beyond politics. Atheists face discrimination in the workplace and hiring practices. Parents who are religious often have an advantage in custody cases. Even though atheists are no more likely to commit crimes than theists, stereotypes surrounding atheist criminality and untrustworthiness persist. In court, atheist rape victims are less likely to be believed than Christian or religiously ambiguous victims.

It is in this context that the bans on atheists although unenforceable under Supreme Court ruling must, I believe, be examined.

While these bans may seem harmless, they represent anti-atheist prejudices that are ingrained in America. They remind atheists that, despite their beliefs being protected by the first amendment, being open about not believing in God has consequences.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

See the article here:
Why it matters that 7 states still have bans on atheists holding office - Source

Seth Mahigas resignation as Secretary of Atheists in Kenya was announced on the weekend because he believes in the Son of God, Jesus Christ.

Seths reason for resigning is that he has found Jesus Christ and is no longer interested in promoting atheism in Kenya, wrote president Harrison Mumia in an official statement published on Twitter.

For the past 18 months, Mahiga had been secretary for AIK. According to its site, AIK is the first officially registered non-religious organisation of its kind in the nation.

According to Statistadata from 2019, more than 85 per cent of Kenyas population identify as Christian.

Among AIKs objectives are the promotion and practice of open, rational, and scientific examination of the universe and our place in it, and to advocate that ethics and morality be meaningfully based on rational and humanistic ideals and values.

According to AIK, atheism is in the broadest sense an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

In light of such stated aims and beliefs, Mahiga evidently found his role untenable. But Mumias statement about Mahigas resignation is gracious and warm, thanking Mahiga for his service and wishing Seth all the best in his new-found relationship with Jesus Christ.

As Mahiga himself says at a church meeting filmed by Elevate TV Kenya, and shared on Facebook by AIK he had been experiencing difficulties in life before he decided to resign as secretary. The brief video also includes the pastor with Mahiga asking the congregation to give the Lord some praise in this house, hallelujah before stating that the Bible says: Every knee shall bow '

Comments on the video include: He cracked, what a waste of good brain . all it needs is brainwashing with lie that he will believe to be true. He could not handle the truth and how much was he paid for this PR stunt?; as well as more supportive notes such as a wise decision and Jesus is the way, truth and life.

Atheists in Kenya is seeking a new secretary.

Read the original:
God Bless the USA Bible gets cancelled - Eternity News

Photo: Michael Shermer, by Gage Skidmore, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

This is not your fathers creationism, says skeptic and atheist Michael Shermer in anew podcast with Stephen Meyer aboutReturn of the God Hypothesis. This is far more serious. And Shermer shows it by going two hours with Meyer, placing every objection before him that he can think of. The case in Meyers book is not creationism at all, of course, but Ill accept the compliment on Steves behalf. Shermer has my admiration in return. This is not your fathers village atheism, either. That a conversation like this is possible represents a hopeful sign for our culture. Its not a debate its a discussion between respectful, eminently thoughtful people, neither of whom is trying to win. We could all trying practicing that more with people who disagree with us.

I dont see any evidence by the end that Shermer has changed his mind (which, again, was not the intent). But when biology, physics, and cosmology are weighed together, I dont know what objection to Steve Meyers case he would hold onto. Every cosmology either has theistic implications, or ends up wrecking the basis for rational scientific investigation of nature. This may be the most interesting dialogue thatReturn of the God Hypothesishas sparked so far, and that is no small measure of praise. As a friend commented who heard it before I did, Whoa! Must listen. Whoa, indeed. Now I would like to hear a follow-up with some of the other sophisticated advocates for atheism Sam Harris, perhaps, above all.

By the way, at one point Shermer quotes extensively from the review of the book by biologist Darrel Falk (who doesnt touch the cosmological arguments at all). Meyer addresses Falks points concisely, but you can read a full response from geologist Casey Luskin and physicist Brian Miller here, here, and here. More to come on that front shortly. Miller has asked for a partial retraction from the entity, BioLogos, that published the review. No word as yet on that.

Go here to read the rest:
This Is Not Your Father's Creationism: Atheist Michael Shermer Meets Stephen Meyer - Discovery Institute

A man who served as secretary for Atheists in Kenya (AIK)resigned after finding faith in Jesus Christ.

Seth Mahiga worked for AIK for less than two years when he resigned. Mahiga could no longer work for a place that he didn't believe the message they promoted.

"Seth's reason for resigning is that he has found Jesus Christ and is no longer interested in promoting atheism in Kenya. We wish Seth all the best in his newfound relationship with Jesus Christ," AIK President Harrison Mumia wrote on Twitter.

The AIK shareda video of Mahigaat a church sharing his testimony of newfound faith.

The video garnered much excitement from the Kenyan Christian community.

"I've been going through some difficulties in life and then I decided to resign as the secretary so I'm so happy to be here," Mahiga says in the online video.

See more here:
Former Atheist leader in Kenya gives his life to Jesus - CHVN Radio

I post this article once a month, and the options have changed. Thanks for your support! The latest project Im working on involves a weekly Substack newsletter that sums up atheism-related news.

Over the past decade, what began as a personal blog has turned into a hub with several contributors and multiple posts per day. I create YouTube videos, put out a podcast each week, and have released books! More recently, I created a podcast about the history of the Pledge of Allegiance.

In order to facilitate all of this, I have a Patreon page.

If youd like to help out, you can pledge a certain amount every month (with rewards along the way!) from as low as $3 a month.

As always, Im grateful for the kind words and support you all send my way. Its a pleasure being a source of information (and solace) for you, and I hope to continue it well into the future.

If Patreon isnt preferable for you, you can use a credit card through Venmo (My address: Mpromptu at gmail) or send mail to P.O. Box 9734 Naperville, IL 60567.

And for those who prefer to make a one-time donation only, since Patreon doesnt allow those right now, you can always give via PayPal:

Thank you!

Follow this link:
Please Support the Work I Do Through This Site - Friendly Atheist - Patheos

Photo: Royal Society, entrance, by Tom Morris (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.

In previous articles, Casey Luskin and I have responded to Darrel Falks review ofReturn of the God Hypothesisfor BioLogos (see here and here). Now I will address how he greatlydownplayed the dire implicationsof the 2016Royal Society meetingfor the state of evolutionary biology.

As a quick recap: the Royal Society assembled many of the leading evolutionary theorists to discuss the limitations of the standard evolutionary model (SEM) commonly known as neo-Darwinism or the Modern Synthesis and to propose how an extended synthesis could be developed to address the explanatory deficits. Inthe opening talk, organizer Gerd Mller stated that the SEM could explain the modification or duplication of existing traits, but it could not explain such key challenges as the following (here,here):

This astonishing admission must be placed in its historical context for its implications to be fully appreciated. Since ancient times, philosophers and others have debated whether everything seen in the world was simply the product of natural processes or derived from the plans of a supreme intellect (here,here,here). The ancient form of the former belief is termed atomism, and it was motivated by the desire to discredit the commonly accepted view that the gods influenced the world. Mankind could then be fully liberated from the gods. The modern form is termed philosophical or scientific materialism.

This debate was reflected in the first-century writings of a prominent Christian leader, Paul, who authored a famous letter to the church in Rome.Early in the letter, Paul statesthat those who deny that the things that have been made reveal Gods invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature actively suppress the truth. As leading scholarCraig Keener explains, Paul was affirming the Greek philosophical schools (e.g., Stoics) who argued that the clear evidence of design in nature, particularly with the human intellect, point to a transcendent mind. At the same time, he was directly challenging the Epicurean philosophers who followed in the tradition of the atomists. One of their central beliefs was that evolution and a nascent form of natural selection justified ignoring the clear evidence for design in biology (here,here,here).

The atomist tradition receded into obscurity throughout the Middle Ages. It then reemerged during the Scientific Revolution with the success of physics and chemistry in explaining natural phenomena purely in terms of physical processes. It was further bolstered by the increasing popularity of skeptical and materialist philosophies.

The philosophy of materialism was embraced by Charles Darwin early in life. He hid this fact in his autobiography and instead portrayed himself as an honest seeker of truth. Yet his personal journals reveal that his intention from the beginning was to follow in the tradition of the atomists in purging teleology (aka design) from biology (here,here).

Toward this goal he imparted to natural selection God-like creative powers in order to replace the God of biblical tradition as the creator of life a view widely accepted at the time with a blind undirected process. This maneuver wasclearly describedby biologist Francisco Ayala:

It was Darwins greatest accomplishment to show that the complex organization and functionality of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process natural selection without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent.

It allowed skeptics, like the ancient atomists, to ignore the clear evidence of design in life. This point is well articulated by atheist Richard Dawkins in his bookThe Blind Watchmaker:

The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesnt agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up. (p. 4)

although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. (p. 10)

But herein lies the problem. The Royal Society meeting exposed the reality, carefully hidden from the public, that leading evolutionary theorists recognize that natural selection has no real creative power. The current situation harkens back to the famous comment bygenetics pioneer Hugo de Vries:

Natural selection may explain the survival of the fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.

The obvious consequences of the public learning about the impotence of Darwins designer-substitute required the secular scientific establishment to engage in what public relations professionals term damage control. This process typically entails a carefully orchestrated reframing of the facts, commonly known as spin.

Darrel Falk, as one of their key ambassadors, dutifully repeated such carefully crafted statements as the following,

The point of that [Mllers] talk was not to suggest that the theory of evolution is in crisis, as I think he [Meyer] implies. On the contrary, the speaker was calling for an approach to evolutionary biology which is less gene-centric

No speaker at the meeting implied there was a hole in evolutionary theory that might require intelligent input. Quite the opposite actually there was a concern that the meetings intent might be misunderstood or misrepresented. The intent was methodological: heres how evolutionary biologists can develop a more thorough picture of how evolution works.

In all fairness, Falk and other public defenders of Darwin truly believe these statements since they interpret all discussions of evolution through the lens of scientific materialism. In other words, they assume on faith that evolution must be true, and so identify any deficiencies in the theory as representing mere unsolved problems. I also attended the conference, but I interpreted the content of the presentations within the broader scope of the history I just described. Within that context, the implications of what was said, and what was not said, reveal a much different story.

Natural selection is the only mechanism that even in principle could mimic the activity of an intelligent agent in creating anything of at least modest complexity and ingenuity. This conclusion is highlighted by the fact that speakers at the conference showcased every conceivable alternative mechanism that could potentially help fill the explanatory deficits of the SEM. But not one shred of evidence was presented that any of the extensions could perform any feat beyond such trivial tasks as increasing a plants height, changing the number of digits in an animals limb, or performing other slight modifications to preexisting traits.

The current state of evolution can be compared to the crisis astronomy would face if physicists discovered that gravity stopped operating beyond 10,000 miles past a celestial body. The loss of the only feasible mechanism that could explain the motion of planets, stars, and galaxies would result in absolute pandemonium and despair.

Most materialist biologists will not so easily come to terms with their true predicament since evolution operates not only as a scientific theory but as a sacrosanct creation narrative for secular society. Nevertheless, with natural selection off the table as a designer substitute, the only sensible interpretation that remains for the overwhelming evidence of design in biological systems is that life is the product of an actual designer (here,here).

Link:
Darrel Falk Downplays the Ramifications of the 2016 Royal Society Meeting - Discovery Institute

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more all for only $19.99...

(a privative, and theos, God, i.e. without God).

Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism. Since its first coming into use the term atheism has been very vaguely employed, generally as an epithet of accusation against any system that called in question the popular gods of the day. Thus while Socrates was accused of atheism (Plato, Apol., 26, c.) and Diagoras called an atheist by Cicero (Nat. Deor., I, 23), Democritus and Epicurus were styled in the same sense impious (without respect for the gods) on account of their trend of their new atomistic philosophy. In this sense too, the early Christians were known to the pagans as atheists, because they denied the heathen gods; while, from time to time, various religious and philosophical systems have, for similar reasons, been deemed atheistic.

Though atheism, historically considered, has meant no more in the past than a critical or sceptical denial of the theology of those who have employed the term as one of reproach, and has consquently no one strict philosophical meaning; and though there is no one consistent system in the exposition of which it has a definite place; yet, if we consider it in its broad meaning as merely the opposite of theism, we will be able to frame such divisions as will make possible a grouping of definite systems under this head. And in so doing so we shall at once be adopting both the historical and the philosophical view. For the common basis of all systems of theism as well as the cardinal tenet of all popular religion at the present day is indubitably a belief in the existence of a personal God, and to deny this tenet is to invite the popular reproach of atheism. The need of some such definition as this was felt by Mr. Gladstone when he wrote (Contemporary Review, June 1876):

Moreover, the breadth of comprehension in such a use of the term admits of divisions and cross-divisions being framed under it; and at the same time limits the number of systems of thought to which, with any propriety, it might otherwise be extended. Also, if the term is thus taken, in strict contradistinction to theism, and a plan of its possible modes of acceptance made, these systems of thought will naturally appear in clearer proportion and relationship.

Thus, defined as a doctrine, or theory, or philosophy formally opposed to theism, atheism can only signify the teaching of those schools, whether cosmological or moral, which do not include God either as a principle or as a conclusion of their reasoning.

The most trenchant form which atheism could take would be the positive and dogmatic denial existence of any spiritual and extra-mundane First Cause. This is sometimes known as dogmatic, or positive theoretic, atheism; though it may be doubted whether such a system has ever been, or could ever possibly be seriously maintained. Certainly Bacon and Dr. Arnold voice the common judgment of thinking men when they express a doubt as to the existence of an atheist belonging to such a school. Still, there are certain advanced phases of materialistic philosophy that, perhaps, should rightly be included under this head. Materialism, which professes to find in matter its own cause and explanation, may go farther, and positively exclude the existence of any spiritual cause. That such a dogmatic assertion is both unreasonable and illogical needs no demonstration, for it is an inference not warranted by the facts nor justified by the laws of thought. But the fact that certain individuals have left the sphere of exact scientific observation for speculation, and have thus dogmatized negatively, calls for their inclusion in this specific type. Materialism is the one dogmatic explanation of the universe which could in any sense justify an atheistic position. But even materialism, however its advocated might dogmatize, could do no more than provide an inadequate theoretic basis for a negative form of atheism. Pantheism, which must not be confused with materialism, in some of its forms can be placed also in this division, as categorically denying the existence of a spiritual First Cause above or outside the world.

A second form in which atheism may be held and taught, as indeed it has been, is based either upon the lack of physical data for theism or upon the limited nature of the intelligence of man. This second form may be described as a negative theoretic atheism; and may be further viewed as cosmological or psychological, according as it is motived, on the one hand, by a consideration of the paucity of actual data available for the arguments proving the existence of a super-sensible and spiritual God, or, what amounts to the same thing, the attributing of all cosmic change and development to the self-contained potentialities of an eternal matter; or, on the other hand, by an empiric or theoretic estimate of the powers of reason working upon the data furnished by sense-perception. From whichever cause this negative form of atheism proceeds, it issues in agnosticism or materialism; although the agnostic is, perhaps, better classed under this head than the materialist. For the former, professing a state of nescience, more properly belongs to a category under which those are placed who neglect, rather than explain, nature without a God. Moreover, the agnostic may be a theist, if he admits the existence of a being behind and beyond nature, even while he asserts that such a being is both unprovable and unknowable. The materialist belongs to this type so long as he merely neglects, and does not exclude from his system, the existence of God. So, too, does the positivist, regarding theological and metaphysical speculation as mere passing stages of thought through which the human mind has been journeying towards positive, or related empirical, knowledge. Indeed, any system of thought or school of philosophy that simply omits the existence of God from the sum total of natural knowledge, whether the individual as a matter of fact believes in Him or not, can be classed in this division of atheism, in which, strictly speaking, no positive assertion or denial is made as to the ultimate fact of His being.

There are two systems of practical or moral atheism which call for attention. They are based upon the theoretic systems just expounded. One system of positive moral atheism, in which human actions would neither be right nor wrong, good nor evil, with reference to God, would naturally follow from the profession of positive theoretic atheism; and it is significant of those to whom such a form of theoretic atheism is sometimes attributed, that for the sanctions of moral actions they introduce such abstract ideas as those of duty, the social instinct, or humanity. There seems to be no particular reason why they should have recourse to such sanctions, since the morality of an action can hardly be derived from its performance as a duty, which in turn can be called and known as a "duty" only because it refers to an action that is morally good. Indeed an analysis of the idea of duty leads to a refutation of the principle in whose support it is invoked, and points to the necessity of a theistic interpretation of nature for its own justification.

The second system of negative practical or moral atheism may be referred to the second type of theoretic atheism. It is like the first in not relating human actions to an extra-mundane, spiritual, and personal lawgiver; but that, not because such a lawgiver does not exist, but because the human intelligence is incapable of so relating them. It must not be forgotten, however, that either negative theoretic atheism or negative practical atheism is, as a system, strictly speaking compatible with belief in a God; and much confusion is often caused by the inaccurate use of the terms, belief, knowledge, opinion, etc.

Lastly, a third type is generally, though perhaps wrongly, included in moral atheism. "Practical atheism is not a kind of thought or opinion, but a mode of life" (R. Flint, Anti-theisitc Theories, Lect. I). This is more correctly called, as it is described, godlessness in conduct, quite irrespective of any theory of philosophy, or morals, or of religious faith. It will be noticed that, although we have included agnosticism, materialism, and pantheism, among the types of atheism, strictly speaking this latter does not necessarily include any one of the former. A man may be an agnostic simply, or an agnostic who is also an atheist. He may be a scientific materialist and no more, or he may combine atheism with his materialism. It does not necessarily follow, because the natural cognoscibility of a personal First Cause is denied, that His existence is called in question: nor, when matter is called upon to explain itself, that God is critically denied. On the other hand, pantheism, while destroying the extra-mundane character of God, does not necessarily deny the existence of a supreme entity, but rather affirms such as the sum of all existence and the cause of all phenomena whether of thought or of matter. Consequently, while it would be unjust to class agnostics, materialists, or pantheists as necessarily also atheists, it cannot be denied that atheism is clearly perceived to be implied in certain phases of all these systems. There are so many shades and gradations of thought by which one form of a philosophy merges into another, so much that is opinionative and personal woven into the various individual expositions of systems, that, to be impartially fair, each individual must be classed by himself as atheist or theist. Indeed, more upon his own assertion or direct teaching than by reason of any supposed implication in the system he advocated must this classification be made. And if it is correct to consider the subject from this point of view, it is surprising to find to what an exceedingly small number the supposed atheistic ranks dwindle. In company with Socrates, nearly all the reputed Greek atheists strenuously repudiated the charge of teaching that there were no gods. Even Bion, who, according to Diogenes Laertius (Life of Aristippus, XIII, Bohn's tr.), adopted the scandalous moral teaching of the atheist Theodorus, turned again to the gods whom he had insulted, and when he came to die demonstrated in practice what he had denied in theory. As Laertius says in his "Life of Bion", he "who never once said, 'I have sinned but spare me

Epicurus, the founder of that school of physics which limited all causes to purely natural ones and consequently implied, if he did not actually assert, atheism, is spoken of as a man whose "piety towards the gods and (whose) affection for his country was quite unspeakable" (ib., Life of Epicurus, V). And though Lucretius Carus speaks of the downfall of popular religion which he wished to bring about (De Rerum natura, I, 79-80), yet, in his own letter to Henaeceus (Laert., Life of Epicurus, XXVII), he states plainly a true theistic position: "For there are gods: for our knowledge of them is indistinct. But they are not of the character which people in general attribute to them." Indeed, this one citation perfectly illustrates the fundamental historic meaning of the term, atheism.

The naturalistic pantheism of the Italian Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) comes near to, if it is not actually a profession of, atheism; while Tomaso Campanella (1568-1639), on the contrary, in his nature-philosophy finds in atheism the one impossibility of thought, Spinoza (1632-77), while defending the doctrine that God certainly exists, so identifies Him with finite existence that it is difficult to see how he can be defended against the charge of atheism even of the first type. In the eighteenth century, and especially in France, the doctrines of materialism were spread broadcast by the Encyclopedists. La Mettrie, Holbach, Fererbach, and Fleurens are usually classed among the foremost materialistic atheists of the period. Voltaire, on the contrary, while undoubtedly helping on the cause of practical atheism, distinctly held its theoretic contrary. He, as well as Rousseau, was a deist. Comte, it will be remembered, refused to be called an atheist. In the last century Thomas Huxley, Charles Darwin, and Herbert Spencer, with others of the evolutionistic school of philosophy, were, quite erroneously, charged with positive atheism. It is a charge which can in no way be substantiated; and the invention andonism of Ernst Hackel, goes far towards forming an atheistic system of philosophy. But even the last named admits that there may be a God, though so limited and so foreign to the deity of theists that his admission can hardly remove the system from the first category of theoretic atheism.

Among the unscientific and unphilosophical there have from time to time been found dogmatic atheists of the first type. Here again, however, many of those popularly styled atheists are more correctly described by some other title. There is a somewhat rare tract, "Atheism Refuted in a Discourse to prove the Existence of God by T.P." British Museum Catalogue, "Tom Paine", who was at one time popularly called an atheist. And perhaps, of the few who have upheld an indubitable form of positive theoretic atheism, none has been taken seriously enough to have exerted any influence upon the trend of philosophic or scientific thought. Robert Ingersoll might be instanced, but though popular speakers and writers of this type may create a certain amount of unlearned disturbance, they are not treated seriously by thinking men, and it is extremely doubtful whether they deserve a place in any historical or philosophical exposition of atheism.

REIMMAN, Historia atheismi et atheorum . . . (Hildesheim, 1725); TOUSSAINT in Dict. de thologie, s.v. (a good bibliography); JANET AND SEAILLES, History of the Problems of Philosophy (tr., London, 1902), II; HETTINGER, Natural Religion (tr., New York, 1890); FLINT, Anti-theistic Theories (New York, 1894); LILLY, The Great Enigma (New York, 1892); DAURELLE, L Atheisme devant la raison humaine (Paris, 1883); WARD, Naturalism and Agnosticism (New York, 1899); LADD, Philosophy of Religion (New York, 1905); II; BOEDDER, Natural Theologh (New York, 1891); BLACKIE, Natural History of Atheism (New York, 1878); The Catholic World, XXVII, 471: BARRY, The End of Atheism in the Catholic World, LX, 333; SHEA, Steps to Atheism in The Am, Cath. Quart. Rev., 1879, 305; POHLE, lehrbuck d. Dogmatik (Paderborn, 1907) I; BAUR in Kirchliches Handlexikon (Munich, 1907), s.v. See also bibliography under AGNOSTICISM, MATERIALISM, PANTHEISM, and THEISM. For the refuation of ATHEISM see the article GOD.)

APA citation. Aveling, F. (1907). Atheism. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm

MLA citation. Aveling, Francis. "Atheism." The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 2. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1907. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm>.

Transcription. This article was transcribed for New Advent by Beth Ste-Marie.

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmaster at newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.

Read the original here:
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Atheism

Im not religious. Im an atheist. This is a common statement today, especially in the West, but it is at heart an oxymoron. While atheism does not look like Christianity or Islam, the two largest religions in the world, atheism is a religion. This, of course, is a statement that has earned ridicule, slander and rage more than once. Many atheists will argue that the very definition of atheism is non-religious. While it is true that atheists do not believe in God, that does not mean that they are not religious.

Like any religion, atheism is somewhat difficult to accurately define. There will always be self-identified adherents who disagree with a single definition. Christianity, for example, could be defined as those who believe in Jesus Christ. This definition could also include, however, Christian Witches who see Christ as the God and another deity as Goddess. Most self-identified Christians, however, would not consider these Christian Witches to be true Christians. A more detailed definition of Christianity, however, could accidentally include Protestantism, for example, but exclude Catholicism.

Most definitions of atheism are rather simple, but they are widely accepted by both atheists and non-atheists. These definitions generally include what can be called the three tenets of atheism: 1) God or gods do not exist, 2) there is no life after death, 3) this material world is all that exists. Some self-identified atheists will accept that there are spiritual beings of some sort but reject any notion of a creator God or gods. Most atheists, however, reject any idea that there is a world beyond this one or beings beyond the natural. As such, the three fold definition of atheism is the one that will be used here.

Religious scholars have struggled for years to agree on a single definition that answers the question what is religion? Early attempts at a definition claimed that religion was simply a belief in God. This, of course, was not a definition that could encapsulate the religions of the East. Buddhism, for example, does not hold to belief in a single creator god, but no one today would claim that Buddhists are not religious. As such, the definition of religion continued to evolve over the years.

Based on some of the earliest definitions of religion, atheism is not a religion. Neither, however, is Buddhism, Hinduism, Goddess worship or, by some early definitions, Catholicism. Other early definitions, however, would also exclude atheism, but they would also count common superstitions, childhood nightmares, nationalism and the products of psychotic breaks or hallucinations as religions. Most people today would not call these religions either. According to later, more nuanced definitions of religion, however, atheism is a religion.

Frazers Golden Bough is an older work that studied religion and had a number of flaws, many of which are unsurprising in hindsight considering when the book was written. His definition of religion, however, continues to make its way into secular universities today.

Atheism fits Frazers definition of a religion. Most atheists believe in the proven laws of physics and scientific theories such as evolution and natural selection. These natural laws are beyond human control and are seen as controlling the material world.

Atheists do not believe that there is a divine. This, however, does not mean that James definition of religion does not hold true for atheism.

James makes it a point to explain that religion is about action as well as belief. Atheists do not believe in a god or in gods, and they act accordingly. So, they feel a lack of belief and experience only this world, which leads them to act as though there is no world but this one.

Note as well that James points out that these experiences are individual. A belief system does not need a structured hierarchy to be a religion. It just needs to be a collective set of beliefs and experiences. Those beliefs can certainly be a belief that this material world is all that exists, and those experiences can be the experience of a lack of any sort of divinity.

The creed of an atheist can be described in three points: there is no divinity, there is no afterlife and this material world is all that exists. Many atheists would tack and this material world is governed by natural, understandable laws onto the end of that creed. This creed, when laid out in simple terms, looks a great deal like the tenets of any other religion. These tenets, then, are how atheists in general orient themselves in the world. These three beliefs govern atheists lives and are used to help them make sense of both everyday phenomenon and to study that which is not yet understood. In the same way as other religions, atheists work to fit the entirety of their experience into their worldview. What other people experience as miracles, atheists turn inside out in an effort to explain with natural law, and they insist that there is a way to explain the unexplainable with their creed. Other religions attempt to make sense of the world in the same way.

Symbols is a somewhat vague term, but the rest of the definition is clear. Religion is a pattern of thought in people that helps them understand the world and becomes so ingrained in them that anything else seems unnatural. This is atheism to a tee.

Atheism has conceptions of a general order of existence. Those conceptions are generally the natural laws that science has identified. Just like some of the basic tenets in other religions, most atheists do not question these basic underlying assumptions. They cannot bring themselves to question neither natural laws nor the idea that life is based solely upon them even when those natural laws have been shown to be flawed and imperfect. When confronted with that fact, atheists will do the same mental gymnastics to justify their beliefs that they accuse Christians of doing when confronted with an unpleasant Bible verse.

Atheists also fit the second part of Geertz definition perfectly. The moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic. Atheists often claim that believing in deities is like believing in fairy tales. Their religion, the religion of atheism and natural law, is the only one that is rational or based in reality. Their beliefs, experiences and feelings seem to be uniquely realistic.

Atheism fits many theoretical definitions of religion, and it is also practiced like other religions. In daily conversation, atheism is equated with other religions. When asked, Are you a Christian? most atheists will respond with No, Im an atheist. Atheist, then, becomes a religious label just like No, Im a Buddhist. Atheists also evangelize, though they do not want to use that word to describe their conversion attempts. Evangelize is most commonly used in relationship to Christianity, but it can be used to describe other religions attempts to gain converts, and atheism aggressively seeks to create new converts. Many atheists feel a sense of obligation or desire to open peoples eyes to what they see as the folly of other religions. There is no difference between an atheist attempting to get a Jew to admit there is no God and a Christian seeking to get a Hindu to denounce the idea of reincarnation. Both people are trying to convert a person from one belief system to another. Atheists conversion attempts are also blatantly religious because they are focused on beliefs about and in God.

Like adherents of all religions, atheists run the gamut from moderate to zealous. Many atheists are happy to live out their beliefs quietly. Others, however, are zealots who insult, degrade and curse other religions. They see other religions as a plague on the earth that needs to be destroyed and replaced with worldwide atheism. Many of these are personally offended or angered by any signs of other religions, especially in a public area. As such, they seek to remove these reminders that other religions exist either through working to enact laws unfriendly to other religions or through vandalism and threats.

Atheists will also argue in favor of their beliefs until they are blue in the face, and they are often unable to bring themselves to empathize or understand the religious beliefs of another. This is because their own beliefs are so deeply ingrained that they struggle to contemplate that another set of beliefs might contain some truth. That isnt logical becomes much the same sort of rote response of denial that atheists mock when Christians claim something isnt in the Bible. Similarly, atheists will only accept what their religion values as proof. The rejection of all evidence beyond what their own belief system accepts is once again a sign of a zealous, and, in some cases, fanatical, religious adherent.

Atheism fits some of the most widely used and highly respected scholarly definitions of religion, and it also acts as a religion in practice. Atheism influences every aspect of its adherents daily lives just as Christianity or Buddhism does for Christians and Buddhists. It is not, however, often considered to be a religion. The most common misconception that keeps people from correctly labeling atheism a religion is the idea that religion is confined to beliefs in God, not beliefs about God or the actions taken as a result of those beliefs. Were religion merely beliefs in God, then Christianity, Islam and Judaism would technically be the same religion, and no one with any sense is going to argue that those three are actually one religion. As such, perhaps it is time that the list of major world religions is expanded to include the latest serious player on the religious stage: atheism.

Read more:
Is Atheism a Religion? | What Makes Atheism a Religion ...