Joseph Farah and World News Daily

This post refers to two articles published on www.wnd.com by Joseph Farah. He promotes his site as "A Free Press For A Free People" but ironically my comments were censored. Don't you just love hypocrites.

Earthquakes and hurricanes, oh my For someone who at least pays some attention to evidence and reason when commenting on politics, the contrast when it comes to religious belief is astounding. With religious belief, which has no basis in reality, evidence and reason are irrelevant, and circular arguments for "gods" are king. It’s so convenient to write off any criticism as simply ridicule and mockery. Well, that is what Farah does to other religions, so what’s his point? Votaries of other religions can simply say he is wrong, with exactly the same weight of evidence (nil!). And the old canard about “no atheists in foxholes”...well what if it were true? You mean if someone believes something it’s automatically true? Say hello to fairies. Say hello to the Muslim hell for rejecting Allah and Islam.

The big same-sex marriage lie How many logical fallacies as well as poorly argued points can Farah make in 600 words? (1) the straw man in raising polygamy -- same sex marriage has nothing to do with it; (2) appealing to "God" while admitting that Islam condones polygamy -- well that involves "God" too so the argument against polygamy is self-contradictory; (3) but polygamy is even condoned in the Tanakh -- hence Farah can't even appeal to the Bible; (4) marriage in its original Biblical format was male ownership of women, not an elevation -- we "redefine" all sorts of "institutions"; (5) there are many actions/laws proclaimed in the Bible under the pretence of divine command which have no place in modern Western morality, hence appealing to divine command or the Bible for laws makes no sense; (6) marriage isn't "natural" -- the evidence shows that it is human made. If Farah wants to come up with an argument against same-sex marriage, he needs to work out a rational position.

Comfort without Religion

One of the criticisms that votaries of religion, and I suppose I am referring primarily to Christians, direct at non-believers, is that atheism cannot replace the comfort of belief in a god and the hope that comes from belief in an afterlife.

This issue cannot really be viewed as an argument for the existence of a god, but looks beyond such a question to the very pragmatic issue of the practicality of atheism. It suggests the pointlessly of an attempt to reduce religiosity in socieites as people will not let go of the hope of those beliefs.

Now in a naturalistic world, in which animals evolved, the role of 'hope' served by belief in agencies directing the world is quite a beneficial one if it aids survival in some way. And it doesn't take much of a thought experiment to consider that a mental state of hopelessness and pointlessness would not really be beneficial to survival -- it would be a disbenefit.

A consideration of what helps people in times of crises indicates that there are many elements at work. Certainly having control over a situation can be helpful -- think about believing that the gods control rain and praying to the gods for rain gives some control/hope in the siutation. But a very important part of coping with situations is the comfort of having friends and family around, or people who share the same situation and experiences. And the lesson from counselling, such as emerged in client-centred therapy, is the importance of someone who will listen and empathise and accept, but not be judgemental. In fact one of the benefits of having pets is that they provide 'unconditiional positive regard' to the owner, which is emotional very satisfying.

All this suggests is that while evolutionby natural selection has produced brains which can think abstractly, search for patterns and ways to control their environment, and which tend to anthromorphise everything; it has also produced social animals with instincts for a range of emotions and living in groups, who seek and get comfort and strength from each other. Facial cues, and other cues, communicate emotional states from sadness to fear; and instincts for empathy, care, and group loyalty kick in.

Religious institutions cater well for comforting people by offering a loyal and responsive group, and pushing strong social interaction -- including regular services and festivals. These do not require religion. And the variety of different types of social groups, and of course communtiy services, in modern, pluralistic, democtraic societies show this.

Now in Western societies, there is no strong atheist agenda to get rid of religion. The push is for secularism. So of course religious communities can continue to function, providing benefits to their members.

But we can see that evolution has provided us with very strong mechanisms to provide hope and comfort to people without appealing to the unknown. It's within us and with the groups we live with.

Flying the Banner of Non-Theistic Naturalism

"Religious belief of all kinds shares the same intellectual respectability, evidential base, and rationality as belief in the existence of fairies." AC Grayling

THEISM VS NON-THEISM

For too long, theism (and religion in general) hasn't had to deal with a strong vocal voice of atheism or anti-theism. It has certainly faced crises, the unbelievable incidence of Christian priests raping children being an obvious one. But there has been no high profile, consolidated front attacking the fundamental beliefs and, in particular, the existence of 'God'.

The closest in the 'West' would be the way in which science courses in schools teach evolution - no self-respecting education authority is going to let creationism into schools (and while the Christians would have you believe there is only one creationist account, there are in fact hundreds!). That side of the issue has been more or less accepted as part of the woodwork and, amazingly, chunks of the religious front have reduced the problem for them by accepting evolution as compatible with their God (giving in?)

The release over the last few years of several books on atheism, some of which hit the best seller lists, has caused a major upheaval for theists because these led to anti-God attitudes and anti-God arguments being popularised. It's in the bookshops, in the newspapers, on the television. It's being talked about.

And some of the precious concepts around God have been battered by the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris; not to mention airing the dirty underwear of a number of religions. (I would also recommend the writings of Stephen Law, AC Grayling and Massimo Pigliucci.)

The theist defence against the onslaught often has the air of anxious, flustered reaction. This is where many theists are on shaky grounds, because they have never had to defend their beliefs against such criticism. And the result? Out come the tired old theistic arguments from Aristotle to medieval philosophers, to CS Lewis, to the more 'modern' WL Craig and Plantinga.

And how do many theists on YouTube deal with atheists making comments on their videos, criticising their position? Many of them censor comments, not letting anything they don't like through. Ever see 'Pending Approval'? Only on a theist's channel (in my experience so far).
And the theist argument generally comes down to a 'First Cause', and the claim that 'God is uncaused' or 'God is spiritual and doesn't need to be created'. Hypothesis yes, but evidence? No. So far, these are just unfounded assumptions.

Well, that's my position, just to show there is another position out there. Not only is personal credibility (and feelings) at stake, but the very nature of who we are and how we got here!
IS THERE AN ANSWER?Having said all of the above (making a statement for the 'other side'), and while we can discuss and debate (which is a good thing), we do all have our different beliefs (and not just about religion and God). And the bottom line is that we need to have secular, pluaristic societies, where everyone has the opportunity for equal rights.

The EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS says it all.