Are they willing to accept the implicatons?  That there is no meaning to life, to history and at the end personal extinction?

You know, I am very much a believer myself.  Quite simply, Jesus is Lord.  But I have to say to Br Michael that his comment in # 1 above is the kind of thing that seems terribly short-sighted and offensive to those who are wrestling with whether or not there is a God.  I think it p;ushes them further away from the possibility of faith. 
I take it that those who do not believe in God would say something like the following:  ‘There is no meaning to life in the sense of something given.  But there is meaning in what we create through our loving, our creating, our concern for a better society and a better world.  We have to give meaning to the world.’  For you and I as believers this task is made immeasurably easier by the fact that we have God the creator who makes us stewards, and inspires and guides us through Christ.  But let’s not insult our agnostic friends by saying that their lives are meaningless or that there is no morality for them.  Surely only by respectful dialogue can be engage others.  Not, of course, that Christopher Hitchens is particularly respectful to religion!

Terry, I understand, but disagree.  It doesn’t have to be insulting or offensive to help people see the logical and practical implications of their worldview.  It’s love, if done with respect.  Of course, you can’t control whether another takes offense, but you can use care.

The fact is (OK, I mean, *my* belief in the scriptures tells me ) that without acknowledging God their lives are indeed meaningless and have no basis for morality (tho’ they may sometimes show moral behavior.)  As a wise one put it: vanity, nothingess, meaningless.  Does that cause a pang of depair in the listener?  Why is that?  Let’s talk.  That can lead somewhere! 

Let’s help them see the vanity of trying to create an utterly void sense of “meaning” out of their transitory existence.  If they were not created, by Somebody, for a purpose, what “meaning” can possibly ever come out of their life?  They “love” somebody?  So what, it’s just a chemical reaction or base instinct in the absence of a Creator in whose image we’re made.  They “create” something? So what, it will pass away.  Concern for a better society?  To what purpose would they want to subjugate their “natural” rights to self-preservation?

The Creator doesn’t just make these things easier for believers, he makes it possible.

But you have a point that we needn’t be rude about it, not that I think Br. Michael was rude, given the nature of the forum here.

Atheism is the new black.  It’s a bunch of people wanting to get in on a perceived rebellion against the norm, but like their politics or historical understanding in most cases its unexamined, uncommitted and a mile wide and an inch deep.  Of course much of that could be said for people who claim to be believers as well…

I think suggesting that people should believe in Jesus because a world without him is scary is not enough. It implies that one should choose a faith based on how “comforting” that faith is. (Perhaps choosing a faith that is comforting is how TEC came to its present state.) My non-believing friends would simply argue that it might be a dark world, but it is true, so they have to face it.  Instead, I try to point out how that dark picture does not match the reality that God put in our hearts—that there is a purpose to life, a desire to know and love and serve God.

The matter at hand is how wrong Dawkins is.

From the First Things website:
Remembrance of Deaths Past — and Present
By Robert Royal
http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=774

We often hear these days about the problems and misdeeds of “organized” religion. We much more rarely hear about the arrogance and downright atrocities of organized irreligion. Yet during the twentieth century, self-proclaimed scientific atheism in the form of communism killed 100 million people. As the old Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky used to say, people consider the Spanish Inquisition a blot on Christian history. And beyond doubt, it is. Yet the Inquisition killed, over three centuries—and after legal proceedings that are not ours, but were not mere show trials either—about as many as the Soviet Union killed on an average day. The high body counts of international communism were and continue to be a huge blot on the history of human rationality.

Also:
The Irrationality of Richard Dawkins
By Francis J. Beckwith

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=776

Ok, that was Dawkins, not Hitchins… cut me some slack, I haven’t had coffee yet. 

The the principle remains the same.

Militant atheism is responsible for the successful application of science to the problem of continued human existence with which it disagrees.  Stalin’s destruction of his own peoples makes Hitler’s pogrom of Jews, Gypsies, and undesirables and “unfit to live” seem like a little leaguer (which does not diminish the evil in either case).  Why atheists should have any qualms about this type of behavior is quite beyond the pale - or the residual of Christian morality which they have culturally received and so do not recognize.  But, in a world in which death is the ultimate bad thing, wouldn’t reassurance that there is no comeuppance embolden the daily grind for maximizing consumption, and minimize the need for the MDGs.  Here is a “gospel” that can really make the average, slightly morally or ethically troubled American feel “good” about him/her/its self and actions.  Unless they are praying for success….......

It’s not an atheists’ movement - it’s an anti-theists’ movement, and the promotion of the worship of self.

No wonder it’s so popular…

Wasn’t it C.S. Lewis that said education serves only to make man a more clever devil?

I forgot to add that Hitchens and his ilk remind one of the jealous toddler who after watching his playmate carefully build a block tower, knocks it down, sending blocks flying.

Anthony Flew wrote Theology and Falsification years ago. It is the best philosophical work I’ve ever seen on why not to believe in God.  Its assumptions, however, are based on a justificationist/evidentialist philosophy (most modern philosophies are such). The work fails if its assumption fail, and as far as I can see, that is the case.

Now if my anti-foundationalist, anti-evidentialist philosophy were to fail through falsification/refutation, I would have to be an atheist, since I can see no positive evidence for the existence of God which overcomes his arguments.

But until then, I’m a theist in my uncertain, but positively held belief in the Deity, because in the system of philosophy I accept, I find no compelling evidence again such a belief.

Virgil, I think I am right in saying that Anthony Flew did not write a book with that title.  He did, however, write a book Logic and Language which adopted the premise that you advance.  He had of course been influenced by the Vienna School and Carnap.  The principle of falsification holds true for scientific knowledge, generally ie you have to be able to state what would disprove the thesis you advance.  He had little time for religious faith - but true to his principles in old age had an out of the body experience when gravely ill.  It was not an epiphany, but it did move him from complete scepticism about the soul to a rather more open-minded stance.

A recent short essay on this topic from the other side—written by, of all people, a webcomic author—can be found here.

As to “meaning”—I’ve never understood why atheism must inevitably lead to the conclusion that everything is meaningless.  To an atheist, life has the meaning they choose to give it.  Yes, it will all pass in the end, but so what?

There seems to be some kind of conceptual gap between the way believers think about the universe, and the way atheists think about it, and it’s very hard for them to talk across it because they’re almost not speaking the same language.  Having some sympathies towards both camps, I can appreciate both positions; but I’m not sure how to find the language to bridge that divide.

But I do think that it’s insulting to suggest that atheists have not worked out the intellectual implications of their position.  Just because they haven’t reached the conclusions you think they ought to have reached doesn’t make them wrong.

Hmm, guess he never did shake off that Marxism thing. 2 Peter 2:22.

Thank you Ross no 17 for supporting my view that it is insulting to say of atheists that their lives are meaningless and, in effect, lacking in love.  I think, speaking from a Christian perspective, that there is always a basis for love in the mystery of human nature;  and where humans find love (in all its forms, including compassion) then they find meaning.  One of the differences between believers and non-believers is that the former find that love points us towards God, the author of love who made us in his image and likeness.  Non-believers seem to me (paradoxically) not to ask enough questions, questions such as:  Where did it all come from?  Is human nature design or blind chance with a dash of survival of the fittest?  Where does self-consciousness come from, including our abilitity to be inspired, to feel guilt, to be challenged to rise above ourselves, to be selfless?  For that matter, Rahner said that the human capacity to feel bored was one of the pointers towards transcendence.  Think about it - he was right, because boredom points to an inner dissatisfaction and yearning for something better.

“Thank you Ross no 17 for supporting my view that it is insulting to say of atheists that their lives are meaningless and, in effect, lacking in love.”

God is Love and loves even the atheists.  So why are we so ready to treat these people who do not know the love of God so harshly?  This book appears to be talking about a distorted view of God that is created by a broken religious community.  Just as Jesus confronted the pharisees, this book confronts the Christians who are trapped by a religious spirit.

So yes, the author has it wrong about God, but his evidence is what he sees and hears, and what he sees and hears is not flattering to God.  SO what is the call to us who supposedly know the true God?  Do we stamp our feet, have a tantrum and complain? or do we with Grace, help people to understand that God is not like that, He is like this….(Good and kind and not like a T19 commentary)

#16, your comment reminds me of CS Lewis’s (I think) comment that he didn’t think God existed and he was angry at him for not existing!

Clearly I should have previewed.  In my entry # 17 above I should have referred to # 14 rather than # 17.  And this clarification is probably about as clear as mud.

Gosh, TEC should jump on this cultural movement to avoid becoming irrelevant.  How long before it’s decided that atheism isn’t contradictory to core church beliefs?

It’s not THAT absurd….

21, Rolling Eyes, I fear the horse has already bolted the stable.  In the Uk the Sea of Faith Movement, headed by Don Cupitt, late of Emmanuel College, Cambridge (oh, the ironies of being in a college with that name) clearly espouses the view that there is no God in the sense of their being a supernatural being who is objectively real.  God in their sense is real because of the power of the idea of God.  But outside human minds there is no God.  A sprinkling of clergy belong to this movement.  Interesting that even aggrssively secular punters find the idea rather sad and pathetic, of clergy who are religious while denying any divine reality.

Someone who named Mr. Hitchens must have had a different opinion; thus, CHRISTOPHER!

Terry Lee, I think that athiests must be forced to face the implications of their worldview.  Athiesm is not value neutral and it is not presupposition free.  If their worldview is based ultimately on natural materialism then, I think that, if they are honest, they are on their way to embracing nihilism.
If life and indeed all creation is based on nothing but blind chance then there is no meaning.  We can, as you suggest, manufacture a meaning in order to avoid sliding into nihilism, but a manufactured meaning is only that, a manufactured meaning.  And many simply avoid the logic of their worldview because they cannot deal with the nothingness into which it leads them.

I was watching a Peacock today…  not even our most talented science fiction writers have ever concieved of such a creature….  nor any planet where something like this could just “evolve” itself into being…

I need little more proof of God’s existense than this little bird brained beauty…

# 26: The NT word ‘atheios’ means ‘without God’. The NT makes it clear it is possible to believe (as the demons do) in God’s existence but to be ‘without God’.

“A heavenly dictatorship would be like living in a celestial North Korea, except it would be worse because they could read your thoughts even when you were asleep,” said Mr. Hitchens in an interview. “At least when you die you get out of North Korea, which is the most religious state I’ve ever seen.”

Hichens has studied George Orwell’s thought and shares with him the realization that the Marxism he supported soon turns to totalitarianism. So it makes sense that, if Hitchens has a view of religion as totalitarian, he will devote his efforts to exposing and undermining belief in God. So, does bad eschatology leads people to reject God? I think so.

She of the Dancing Feet Sings
by Countee Cullen

And what would I do in heaven, pray,
I would my dancing feet,
And limbs like apple boughs that sway
When the gusty rain winds beat?

And how would I thrive in a perfect place
Where dancing would be sin,
With not a man to love my face,
Nor an arm to hold me in?

The seraphs and the cherubim
Would be too proud to bend
To sing the faery tunes that brim
My heart from end to end.

The wistful angels down in hell
Will smile to see my face,
And understand, because they fell
From that all-perfect place.

Actually, #21 is correct that TEC doesn’t have any problem with atheism (it’s the big tent thing, I think); at least one atheist has been consecrated bishop.

Reading “The Hitchens brothers: Anatomy of a row” in the 06/11/07 issue of The Independent [news.independent.co.uk], one comes to understand the Brothers Hitchens [ Peter and Christopher, both journalists ] are both capable of modifying views in mid-career, but that the latter has had a consistent Trotskyite view of all religion - including his generation of the term ‘Islamo-fascism’ - he despises it. Christopher refers to brother Peter [ an Anglican ] as ” mad, but with a logic to the madness” and Peter to Christopher as ” spiteful, but with a logic to the spite”. It is suggested in a review of the piece by Amy Welborn that Peter views Christopher as a ’ repressed seeker ’ ; not truly believing the views he is asserting,  which Christopher denies. Others have suggested that both have a foundation in the International Socialists as students, with Christopher having developed an early Trotsky-like hatred for the Pope, which he has allegedly maintained. Peter suggests to Christopher [ who admits to regularly drinking enough to ” stun or kill a mule ” ] that ” there is always, in the atheistic struggle with God, the fight against temptation. If it didn’t matter to you, why write a book about how wrong it is ?”

#33. Please enumerate the differences between Jack Spong and an atheist, other than that most self-respecting atheists don’t hold teaching positions in a Christian church. I am dead serious. At best he is a deist; I don’t think he even rises to panentheism. And these views were already published when he was consecrated.

I have no particular problem with calling you a Christian, Mr “Paine.” But that is typically understood to entail holding to some version of “Jesus is the Messiah,” whether one grants his divinity or not. (For example, JWs think Jesus to be lesser than the Father. And Mormons are polytheistic Christians who believe that any man may become a god. Interestingly, both Mormons and JWs believe the literal Resurrection and blood atonement to be essential to Christianity.)

Mr Spong does not grant any such thing about Jesus—neither divinity nor resurrection nor atonement in any form, nor even Messiahship—as I read him. Hence my contention. I am willing to grant that he may not be an atheist as strictly understood, but I don’t know of anything from him that justifies the label “Christian” as minimally defined above. And one who does not fit that definition is not a Christian no matter what s/he may call her/himself, any more than I’m justified in calling myself a Muslim even though I submit to God. There’s that pesky thing about Mohammed and the divine dictation of the Koran…

We know that non-Christians in ordained ministry are perfectly acceptable to at least one sitting bishop of TEC; see the recent Diocese of Olympia brouhaha. Again, it’s not that there are no Christians in TEC; it’s that TEC thinks it’s OK to have non-Christians in positions of teaching authority in the Church.

Let’s go back to #21’s sarcastic comment:

How long before it’s decided that atheism isn’t contradictory to core church beliefs?

It’s not THAT absurd….

Nobody said TEC is itself atheist. Just that it doesn’t think atheism (or other non-Christian beliefs) a bar to ordination or to continuance in ordained ministry. This is a demonstrated fact, not a slur.

One black swan is enough to disprove the contention that “all swans are white.”
—Karl Popper, paraphrased

P.S.

I’ve certainly not heard - since he was a bishop, that he has renounced Christianity and declared himself an atheist.  I suspect you are yourself making the declaration.  Which you of course have no right to do.

The difference is that some of us think that people are not entitled to call themselves whatever they want without being called on it.

If I call myself a Muslim while claiming that Mohammed was not really the final and most important prophet of God, are Muslims not entitled to call me on it?

Mr. Paine, I’m a black woman. The fact that I’m biologically male and have not a single African ancestor doesn’t mean a thing; I’m entitled to call myself anything I want and nobody can object to it.

Besides, I tan pretty dark… and I enjoy cooking and shopping.

Have I made clear what I’m saying by this example? Or are we using the same words with different meanings?

TPaine [#18, 33, 36, 37, 40, 42]: As best I can tell from a quick reading of this thread, only one comment [#19] seems aimed at you personally.

The criticial comments are largely aimed at ECUSA, its reappraising leaders, and their allies. Like many of us, these commenters have seen ECUSA turn a blind eye to manifest heresy even among its own bishops (e.g., Pike, Spong, and Bennison) even as reappraising bishops like Adams, Bennison, Bruno, Garrison, Howard, VGR, Smith of Connecticut, and Alvarez-Velasquez deal harshly with orthodox clergy and congregations. The Trinity and the Virgin Birth are not excess baggage. The Atonement was not a form of cosmic child abuse. Neither monotheism nor the gospel are inherently genocidal. Whether Christ physically rose from the dead is important.

Revisionist bishops tolerate (and in some cases propagate) such falsehoods. Yet they will not ordain or license Trinity or Nashotah graduates.

Against this background—-and much, much more—-orthodox Anglicans have increasing reason to wonder whether ECUSA is becoming a post-Christian church.

Perhaps you desire a “safe place” where you won’t have to hear such viewpoints. But many of us come here to inform ourselves and support each other as we face ECUSA leaders’ increasing hostility toward us and our faith.

Please don’t feed the trolls!  TPaine is clearly leading you down a rabbit trail.  However, I must agree with him that Spong is not necessarily an atheist, although he is clearly not a Christian.  While he doesn’t believe any of the tenets fo the Christian religion, I’m not aware that he denies the existance of God.

“Since I am an Episcopalian, when you attack the Episcopal Church, you are attacking me.”

I see. And since you are an American, when people criticize U.S. government policy, they are also criticizing you personally. Somehow I doubt you lie awake nights wounded by criticism of Bush Administration policy.

TPaine, I’m no elf, but it seems to this observer that you’re taking offense where none was offered, and side-tracking what had been a good thread about atheism.  Just my opinion.

TPaine, Just skimming the recent comments this morning, I saw Connecticutian’s “I’m no elf…” remark, which brought us to this thread.  This elf happens to have been offline for all but 30 minutes yesterday, and that 30 minutes was not spent elfing.  We don’t read all comments.  We catch what we can.  I’m not going to try and read all the comments here and figure out what offended you or “who started it.”  Skimming the thread quickly, I don’t see anything obviously needing editing or deletion. If we missed a personal attack on you that we should have edited, I’m sorry about that.  But I will second the commenters who have complained that you took this thread off topic and made it all about you.  Not appreciated.

And we ask that any commenter who wants to address a complaint to the elves, please write us personally.  Don’t subject the whole thread to your complaints about us or other commenters.  .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

—elfgirl

Tonight on Meet the Press Hitchens made, for me,  three major gaffes concerning his understanding of Christianity, at least in this country [ which probably doesn’t matter to those who art buying his book - why would they care ? ] 1. He suggested that we are all self-centered and that God is a projection of ourselves - so if He really exists it is only from that perspective. 2. That both Jefferson and Lincoln were non-Christians . 3. That Jefferson’s letter to the Providence ministers about separation of church and state was the real deal [ what Jefferson said was he wanted a wall to protect the garden of the church from the wilderness of the state ].