Forums

Posted: 13-09-2012 21:50 Post subject:

Rosh Hashanah: Science vs Religion

Documentary in which Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks meets three leading non-believing scientists and attempts to convince them of his position that science and religion need not be at war.

Religion and science are frequently set up as polar opposites; incompatible ways of thinking. The Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks begs to differ. For him, science and religion can, and should, work together. To mark Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, he puts his position to the test. He meets three non-believing scientists, each at the top of their field: neurologist Baroness Susan Greenfield, theoretical physicist Professor Jim Al-Khalili, and the person best known for leading the scientific attack on religion, Professor Richard Dawkins. Will the Chief Rabbi succeed in convincing the militant defender of atheism that science and religion need not be at war?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01mqvmv/Rosh_Hashanah_Science_vs_Religion/

Posted: 02-12-2012 14:47 Post subject:

Posted: 04-12-2012 10:23 Post subject:

Scouts welcome atheists a century after Baden-Powell demonised them
To the founder, Lord Baden-Powell, it was as much a peril for a young man to avoid as gambling, drunkenness, swearing or the wiles of the opposite sex.
By John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor
11:00PM GMT 03 Dec 2012

But more than a century after the Scouting movement was founded, it is finally preparing to recognise atheism on a par with Christianity and other religions.
The association is consulting its members on plans to draft an alternative oath without references to God, allowing atheists to become full members and Scout group leaders for the first time.

It follows accusation of discrimination and intolerance after an 11-year-old boy was barred from full membership because he said he did not believe in God.
George Pratt was told he could not join 1st Midsomer Norton Scout Group in Somerset, after saying he felt unable to make the traditional promise to do his best to do his “duty to God and to the Queen, to help other people and to keep the Scout Law”.

Although originally founded along Christian lines, the Scouts have long welcomed followers of other faiths as full members.
For more than 40 years, alternative versions of the promise have existed allowing Muslims to pledge allegiance to Allah and Hindus to substitute the words "my Dharma".
And earlier this year a new variation on the uniform was introduced for Muslim girls, with an optional head covering.
Meanwhile citizens of other countries are permitted to replace the phrase "duty to the Queen" with "duty to the country in which I am now living".

But although atheists who decline to swear the oath are allowed to become “associate” members and even help run Scout groups as helpers, they are barred from becoming full members or leaders.

Writing in The Daily Telegraph today, the chief executive of the Scout Association, Derek Twine, argues that the current rules simply force people to become “hypocritical or dishonest” by taking the promise against their own beliefs.
Describing the move as an “historic change”, he adds: “All bodies have to stay fresh and current, while remaining true to their founding principles.”
He goes on: "Let me be quite clear and reassure readers of all backgrounds: the original Scout Promise will remain untouched, but for those who have no faith, there would be a new alternative."

The shift in policy comes in marked contrast to the stance adopted by Baden-Powell. In his book of advice for boys, “Rovering for Success”, Baden-Powell ranked atheism alongside gambling, excessive drinking, smoking and even syphilis as a danger to be avoided. Shocked

Likening organisations for atheists as “sects”, he spoke of adherents as “enemies of the worst sort” and warned against “very offensive” attacks on religious belief.
“If you are really to make your way to success – ie happiness – you must not only avoid being sucked in by irreligious humbugs, but you must have a religious basis to your life,” he wrote.

Yesterday Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, said: “This is a move in the right direction.
“By adjusting their promise to include people without a religious belief, the Scouts will bring themselves in line with the reality of 21st century Britain, where more than two thirds of young people say they have no religious belief.”

Yesterday George Pratt’s father Nick said: “It’s good news, we will wait and see what transpires but if they let George back in that will be mission accomplished.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9719221/Scouts-welcome-atheists-a-century-after-Baden-Powell-demonised-them.html

Posted: 04-02-2013 18:16 Post subject:

What happens at an atheist church?
By Brian Wheeler, BBC News Magazine

An "atheist church" in North London is proving a big hit with non-believers. Does it feel a bit like a new religion?
Not many sermons include the message that we are all going to die and there is no afterlife. Cool

But the Sunday Assembly is no ordinary church service.
Launched last month, as a gathering for non-believers, it is, in the words of master of ceremonies Sanderson Jones, "part foot-stomping show, part atheist church, all celebration of life".

A congregation of more than 300 crowded into the shell of a deconsecrated church to join the celebration on Sunday morning.
Instead of hymns, the non-faithful get to their feet to sing along to Stevie Wonder and Queen songs.

There is a reading from Alice in Wonderland and a power-point presentation from a particle physicist, Dr Harry Cliff, who explains the origins of dark matter theory.

It feels like a stand-up comedy show. Jones and co-founder Pippa Evans trade banter and whip the crowd up like the veterans of the stand-up circuit that they are.
But there are more serious moments.
The theme of the morning is "wonder" - a reaction, explains Jones, to criticism that atheists lack a sense of it.

So we bow our heads for two minutes of contemplation about the miracle of life and, in his closing sermon, Jones speaks about how the death of his mother influenced his own spiritual journey and determination to get the most out of every second, aware that life is all too brief and nothing comes after it.

The audience - overwhelmingly young, white and middle class - appear excited to be part of something new and speak of the void they felt on a Sunday morning when they decided to abandon their Christian faith. Few actively identify themselves as atheists.
"It's a nice excuse to get together and have a bit of a community spirit but without the religion aspect," says Jess Bonham, a photographer.
"It's not a church, it's a congregation of unreligious people."

Another attendee, Gintare Karalyte, says: "I think people need that sense of connectedness because everyone is so singular right now, and to be part of something, and to feel like you are part of something. That's what people are craving in the world."

The number of people declaring themselves to be of "no religion" in England and Wales has increased by more than six million since 2001 to 14.1 million, according to the latest census. That makes England and Wales two of the most secular nations in the Western world.

Figures such as writer Richard Dawkins and comedian Ricky Gervais have made it fashionable to be more assertive about having a lack of religious faith and to think about what it means to be an atheist.

And writer Alain De Botton has unveiled a Manifesto for Atheists, listing 10 virtues - or as the press has already dubbed them "commandments" - for the faithless.
De Botton says he wants to promote overlooked virtues such as resilience and humour. He came up with the idea in response to a growing sense that being virtuous had become "a strange and depressing notion", which seems to chime with the Sunday Assembly's own mantra "live better, help often, wonder more".

He argues for a new breed of secular therapists to take the place of the priesthood and believes atheism should have its own churches, but adds: "It should never be called that, because 'atheism' isn't an ideology around which anyone could gather. Far better to call it something like cultural humanism."

There is a concern among some non-believers that atheism is developing into a religion in its own right, with its own code of ethics and self-appointed high priests.
Jones insists he is not trying to found a new religion, but some members of his congregation disagree.

"It will become an organised religion. It's inevitable. A belief system will set in. There will be a structure, an ethical outlook on life," says architect Robbie Harris.
He believes Evans and Jones have "a great responsibility" if the Sunday Assembly "continues to be as successful as it is now".
"There is a difficulty that it might become cultish and it might become about one person. You could set yourself up as a charismatic preacher, that's the danger."

Fellow congregation member Sarah Aspinall says: "I think Sanderson should step back and see himself as a mediator and an enabler, which I think he is obviously good at, and just bring people up to speak or read."

Jones says it is very early days and future assemblies will be less about him and more about the experiences of congregation members. He bridles at the suggestion he is starting a cult.
"I don't think I'm a charismatic preacher. I just get very excited about things and want to share that with people."

He says he has been overwhelmed by the public reaction to the Sunday Assembly and is exploring the possibility of setting up similar gatherings around the country.
"I wanted to do this because I thought it would be a wonderful thing," he explains.

The Sunday Assembly certainly did better business than at the evangelical St Jude and St Paul's Church next door, where about 30 believers gathered to sing gospel songs and listen to Bible readings.

But Bishop Harrison, a Christian preacher for 30 years, says he does not see his new neighbours as a threat, confidently predicting that their spiritual journey will eventually lead them to God.
"They have got to start from somewhere," he says.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21319945

Posted: 04-02-2013 21:01 Post subject:

Preacher: Does The Lord hear our prayer?

Congregation: No!

Posted: 11-02-2013 01:38 Post subject:

Here's a (surprisingly positive) description of this church service from a Christian point of view - I might have enjoyed this event actually. Despite the fact that I still don't get the point of an Atheist Service - but who doesn't enjoy a good talk and a sing-a-long? Laughing

Posted: 14-08-2013 13:43 Post subject:

Here's an odd article - the title reveals the bias - but it's full of loosely-referenced statements.

Are atheists mentally ill?
By Sean Thomas Religion Last updated: August 14th, 2013

Thanks to a couple of surveys, it’s being put about in certain circles that atheists have higher IQs than believers. That may or may not be the case, but one problem with this argument is that, if you accept "average group differences in IQ”, you get into all sorts of sinister debates which bien pensant atheist Lefties might find less to their liking.

So let’s not go down that unhappy road. Let’s dispense with the crude metric of IQ and look at the actual lives led by atheists, and believers, and see how they measure up. In other words: let’s see who is living more intelligently.

And guess what: it’s the believers. A vast body of research, amassed over recent decades, shows that religious belief is physically and psychologically beneficial – to a remarkable degree.

In 2004, scholars at UCLA revealed that college students involved in religious activities are likely to have better mental health. In 2006, population researchers at the University of Texas discovered that the more often you go to church, the longer you live. In the same year researchers at Duke University in America discovered that religious people have stronger immune systems than the irreligious. They also established that churchgoers have lower blood pressure.

Meanwhile in 2009 a team of Harvard psychologists discovered that believers who checked into hospital with broken hips reported less depression, had shorter hospital stays, and could hobble further when they left hospital – as compared to their similarly crippled but heathen fellow-sufferers.

The list goes on. In the last few years scientists have revealed that believers, compared to non-believers, have better outcomes from breast cancer, coronary disease, mental illness, Aids, and rheumatoid arthritis. Believers even get better results from IVF. Likewise, believers also report greater levels of happiness, are less likely to commit suicide, and cope with stressful events much better. Believers also have more kids.

What’s more, these benefits are visible even if you adjust for the fact that believers are less likely to smoke, drink or take drugs. And let’s not forget that religious people are nicer. They certainly give more money to charity than atheists, who are, according to the very latest survey, the meanest of all.

So which is the smart party, here? Is it the atheists, who live short, selfish, stunted little lives – often childless – before they approach hopeless death in despair, and their worthless corpses are chucked in a trench (or, if they are wrong, they go to Hell)? Or is it the believers, who live longer, happier, healthier, more generous lives, and who have more kids, and who go to their quietus with ritual dignity, expecting to be greeted by a smiling and benevolent God?

Obviously, it’s the believers who are smarter. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mentally ill.

And I mean that literally: the evidence today implies that atheism is a form of mental illness. And this is because science is showing that the human mind is hard-wired for faith: we have, as a species, evolved to believe, which is one crucial reason why believers are happier – religious people have all their faculties intact, they are fully functioning humans.

Therefore, being an atheist – lacking the vital faculty of faith – should be seen as an affliction, and a tragic deficiency: something akin to blindness. Which makes Richard Dawkins the intellectual equivalent of an amputee, furiously waving his stumps in the air, boasting that he has no hands

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100231060/are-atheists-mentally-ill/

Posted: 14-08-2013 14:01 Post subject:

Posted: 14-08-2013 14:14 Post subject:

Posted: 14-08-2013 14:15 Post subject:

Posted: 14-08-2013 14:19 Post subject:

Posted: 14-08-2013 22:11 Post subject:

Posted: 14-08-2013 22:57 Post subject:

Actually, with a little bit more generosity, even handedness and humour, Thomas might be making a good point. I'm also deeply suspicious of the sort of research that might harbour the possibility of subjectivity on behalf of the researcher.

Also, although it may well be true that humans are 'hard-wired for belief', what it is exactly that we're hard-wired to believe in, is still up for debate. Probably more about the evolution of social cohesiveness in social beings, than it's about invisible deities. And if that's the case, then there's probably an argument that says if belief or disbelief in an invisible deity becomes more important than social cohesion, then extreme belief or disbelief is moving off the dial from healthy, into mania.

Posted: 15-08-2013 01:30 Post subject:

I can't call myself an atheist, but...

I do think we're hard-wired to believe in something bigger than ourselves, outside of ourselves, that surrounds us, and is self-aware... because it's true for the first 9 months of our lives.

We may very well long for that early shared existence for our entire lives, not really understanding what it is that we miss so much. Just wanting it back, calling on it, imagining it's still there.