Research on Belief in God

[Christian]

When you watch these debates between atheists and religious people on youtube, one thing you notice is that they are always in English, and a guesstimated 90% of them are taking place in the US (and some in Australia).

But what is with (continental) Europe? As a European myself, I could not name you a single person from the continent that is known for engaging in what Dawkins et all do, that is debating the religious. Heck, I don't even know if those public debates exist.

It seems contradictory, because on the face of things, there should be a lot more of these debates in Europe then in the US. Statistically, European countries have much more atheists, and many of them are at the same time very religious. State and religion are often closely intertwined.

Yet a public debate - in the sense of these US-organized debates - seems inexistant. And if public debate there is, it is focused on the relation between church and state, and not trying to prove or disprove the existence of any god.

Whether or not you believe in god seems to be kind of a non-issue on the continent. No one really cares, and no one can really be bothered to go up on a stage and deliver a flaming anti-religion speech à la Hitchens. Of course there are the Jehova's witnesses, but they are rather universally regarded as loopy. I have lived only in catholic countries. My impression is that, even though the churches do organize events and get-togethers and what not, and have their own monthly publications and so forth, this is only for a small community of "initiated" followers. The large majority of church-goers can't really be bothered to do anything besides go there every now and then on Sunday.

There are of course other reasons one could name for this difference between the US and Europe. English of course is a universal language. US colleges attract the best scientists. The US has a culture of "high school debate team" of which this is just an extrapolation.

Finally I think the big difference is that the religious, in the proper sense of the term, are a minority in a lot of European countries. Many people seem to follow a sort of "traditional catholicism" (for instance), that is, they partake in certain rituals because it is their tradition and their heritage, but these rituals do not have any religious meaning for them anymore.

I'd love to hear what people think on this, and if someone could share with me a (continental) European pendant to Hitchens for example, I'd be very thankful

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

I know that there are some debates like this in the Netherlands and in Great Britain. Off course you asked for continental Europe, so maybe the UK doesn't really count; but off course one of these guys who debates Dawkins et all is John Lennox, who's a mathematician from the UK. Here's a debate in the Netherlands between John Lennox and a Dutch professor at the university of Delft. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u1w4BzzzwI

I don't know too much about what's going on with this stuff in the Netherlands, but I do know some debates happen and these types of people sometimes get some attention in the media. I'll just name two Dutch examples. Cees Dekker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cees_Dekker) is a Dutch biophysicist and also a Christian who's participated in some of these debates. And from the more 'militant' atheist side, closer to Dawkins et all, there's **** Swaab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****_Swaab), a Dutch neubiologist, who's appeared in the media several times critiquing religion and I think he has also been involved in some debates.

EDIT; lol the second guy's first name is D i c k

 

[kingjr]

I think in large parts of Germany, at least where I live, somewhere betwen Cologne and Düsseldorf, people are pretty relaxed about religion (rheinischer Katholizismus ) compared to what you hear about the US.
My grandparents on my father's side were catholics and maybe the 2 greatest people i ever had the pleasure to know.

 

[rhubroma]

Anthropocentrism is absolutely un-Christian. The Church has combatted for centuries the freemasonic principle of 'Primacy of Man' because men are "weak".

Christianity, or rather the Judeo-Christian tradition, in fact established the spiritual, material and doctrinal basis for anthropocentrism, which certainly didn't exist among the ancient polytheists.

In contrast with Christianity, in fact, the ancient Greeks for example didn't retain that man was at the pinnacle of the natural order, with all the living creatures subordinate to him (Genesis); but in equality with all animate and inanimate things – thus belonging to nature, which they thought of as “that immutable backdrop, regulated by the laws of necessity, that no man nor god created.” (Heraclites) For this reason, even while having two names for “man”: ànthropos and anér, they hardly every used them, preferring the terms brotòs in the age of Homer and thnetòs in the times of Plato, which mean “mortal” and hence destined to die. The Greeks thus took seriously death and they didn’t concede themselves that which Aeschylus called “blind hope (typhlàs elpìdas).” Here lies the tragic essence of ancient Greek culture, according to which man in order to live is constrained to build a sense of existence before death beckons, which is the implosion of all sense.

For the ancient Greeks, therefore, the juxtaposition isn’t between life and death, as in the Christian conception, according to which, after the resurrection of the Christ, Saint Paul could say: “Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?” (1 Cor. 15:54); but between the life of nature, which for its implacable economy requires the death of each being, and the life of all individuals. In refusing to consign themselves to death, people should seek to prolong their lives through knowledge and consciousness (màthesis). They should also seek to dominate pain with virtue (areté), understood as having the strength and courage to live before adversity. For the ancient Greeks, in fact, one doesn’t die because one gets sick, but rather one gets sick because fundamentally one has to die. For this reason since nature concedes us life, we should prolong it as much as possible and when hardship and suffering arrives we should abstain from making a drama of it (substine et abstine) - in the example of Epicurean philosophy of calm detatchment from the world and its folly.

In promising life after death (what Nietzsche spoke of as “Christianity’s great stroke of genius”), Christian culture overcame the tragic aspect of ancient Greekness and, in doing so, became the historical victor; without, however, convincing the pagan Greeks, who, hearing Saint Paul on the Areopagus at Athens announce the resurrection of the dead: “Some laughed, others derided: do we have to hear this same old story again.” (Acts of the Apostles 17, 31-32)

Now it's interesting to consider this aspect of anthropocentrism in light of such phenomena in Western civilization as the Conquistadores, as well as nature, utility and market praxis.

 

[Echoes]

The neologism "Judeo-Christian" is in itself a fallacy.

No need to read further. If the premise is wrong, what follows is wrong.

 

[rhubroma]

The neologism "Judeo-Christian" is in itself a fallacy.

No need to read further. If the premise is wrong, what follows is wrong.

How else, Echoes, does one account for the biblical legacy (which, by the way, was the typological model for early Christian art in places like Santa Maria Maggiore and the Catacombs, as we can see in Santa Priscilla et al.)?

Don't confuse modern Israel in this, as I certainly don't. Thus, before the wind of the Counter Reformation set in and then rationalism, the typological and hermetic model guided the Catholic intelligentia through and through. The strand of cabala, for instance, which has become best known began in Renaissance Florence with Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494). Pico sought to harmonize Christian beliefs with kabbalah, which he considered a primal form of Jewish doctrine which originated with Moses (while others thought Moses was, in turn, instructed through the Egyptian Hermes Trismegistus like Cardinal Giles of Viterbo) and thus long presaged the teachings of Jesus. This parallels the treatment of the Hermetica by the circle around Ficino, namely the movement to recover the prisca theologia, the ancient theology, thought to be the fountainhead of religion and philosophy.

Typology and hermeneutics led to such occult philosophy in late antique, medieval and early modern Catholicism, therefore, it isn't "a fallacy," you just don't get the premise.

Mine is only a report of what actually took place.

 

[RetroActive]

How else, Echoes, does one account for the biblical legacy (which, by the way, was the typological model for early Christian art in places like Santa Maria Maggiore and the Catacombs, as we can see in Santa Priscilla et al.)?

Don't confuse modern Israel in this, as I certainly don't. Thus, before the wind of the Counter Reformation set in and then rationalism, the typological and hermetic model guided the Catholic intelligentia through and through. The strand of cabala, for instance, which has become best known began in Renaissance Florence with Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494). Pico sought to harmonize Christian beliefs with kabbalah, which he considered a primal form of Jewish doctrine which originated with Moses (while others thought Moses was, in turn, instructed through the Egyptian Hermes Trismegistus like Cardinal Giles of Viterbo) and thus long presaged the teachings of Jesus. This parallels the treatment of the Hermetica by the circle around Ficino, namely the movement to recover the prisca theologia, the ancient theology, thought to be the fountainhead of religion and philosophy.

Typology and hermeneutics led to such occult philosophy in late antique, medieval and early modern Catholicism, therefore, it isn't "a fallacy," you just don't get the premise.

Mine is only a report of what actually took place.

Luke 8:10
And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

Philosophy and Religion (?)

One of the best summaries I've come across about this whole mess that syncretizes east/west - ancient/ modern (psychology).

(it gets good about 20 min. in)
Robert Anton Wilson Explains Everything Part 3 - Consciousness Change
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsHGIqVdFqY

 

[Celeste]

I haven't had time to read through all of the postings on this subject so forgive me if I'm repeating something already in the thread.

Do not confuse "Faith" with "Religion" because the two things are not the same. They are obviously allied to each other in many ways but Religion is a collection of man made rules which often bare no relation to a Faith. Faith itself is difficult to explain to someone who does not have any strong belief in a spiritual being.

The concept of a God is not easy to get your head around but then neither is the Big Bang Theory. The problem is that neither Creationism or Big Bang(ism?) can get past the Julie Andrews moment. As Julie sang in the film 'Sound of Music' - "Let's start at the very beginning, that's a very good place to start...". Geneses says, "In the beginning God created....". But where did he come from? The same argument faces the Big Bangers who claim that the universe and everything in it was formed from a huge explosion. If nothing existed, what went bang?

Creationists say that God created the universe while the Big Bangers think that the universe created itself, out of nothing, by accident. I've come across many non-believers who turn out to be anti-religion but not anti-faith. As the old Blood, Sweat and Tears song (written by Carole King I think) said - "I swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell". I know that my relationship with God via Jesus enhances my life but I completely understand if other people find it a bit 'weird'.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Religion is a collection of man made rules which often bare no relation to a Faith.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

 

[Christian]

Some funny standups about religion:

Ricky Gervais - The Bible

George Carlin on Religion

Tim Minchin - Tony the fish

I feel like some standups about religion are a lot better than others. Some standup comedians just relate ridiculous things from the bible, underlined with some yelling of swearwords and that's it. I feel like that's kind of lazy, like, I can't come up with anything funny myself so I'm just gonna tell some ridiculous bible stories with a funny voice and that's it.

But these three I feel are pretty good. Gervais' style is much quieter, which I feel makes his bit a lot better than those of a lot of other comedians. I like when he says: He could have set "let there be man", there would have been man, definitely.

Carlin of course is the master himself... he touches on an aspect of modern religion that I find funny, which is the debate of whether or not it is possible that god is a woman. A lot of people will not use "he" anymore when talking about god, and there are even new versions of the bible that avoid this altogether. As an atheist, the problem is that you can't call that ridiculous without looking antifeminist. Carlin has found a way to ridiculize it without looking like an antifeminist.

Finally, Minchin touches on another problem that atheists often face: being called "close minded" by religious people for not believing in a higher power or for decrying the negative effects of religion on society. Minchin has found a good comeback: "If you open your mind too much your brain will fall out".

Enjoy - and if you know any other good ones you feel like sharing, please do!

 

[donbright]

God and Religion

One has to look at history and see that Jesus Christ did exist and was what he said He was. He said " I am the way the truth and the life" " For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son ( Jesus Christ ) that whomsoever believeth in Him should not perish but have eternal life " We have the choice to believe in our creator or there is a way that seemeth right
to us but only leads to death. It is your choice Life Or Death

 

[frenchfry]

When you watch these debates between atheists and religious people on youtube, one thing you notice is that they are always in English, and a guesstimated 90% of them are taking place in the US (and some in Australia).

But what is with (continental) Europe? As a European myself, I could not name you a single person from the continent that is known for engaging in what Dawkins et all do, that is debating the religious. Heck, I don't even know if those public debates exist.

It seems contradictory, because on the face of things, there should be a lot more of these debates in Europe then in the US. Statistically, European countries have much more atheists, and many of them are at the same time very religious. State and religion are often closely intertwined.

Yet a public debate - in the sense of these US-organized debates - seems inexistant. And if public debate there is, it is focused on the relation between church and state, and not trying to prove or disprove the existence of any god.

Whether or not you believe in god seems to be kind of a non-issue on the continent. No one really cares, and no one can really be bothered to go up on a stage and deliver a flaming anti-religion speech à la Hitchens. Of course there are the Jehova's witnesses, but they are rather universally regarded as loopy. I have lived only in catholic countries. My impression is that, even though the churches do organize events and get-togethers and what not, and have their own monthly publications and so forth, this is only for a small community of "initiated" followers. The large majority of church-goers can't really be bothered to do anything besides go there every now and then on Sunday.

There are of course other reasons one could name for this difference between the US and Europe. English of course is a universal language. US colleges attract the best scientists. The US has a culture of "high school debate team" of which this is just an extrapolation.

Finally I think the big difference is that the religious, in the proper sense of the term, are a minority in a lot of European countries. Many people seem to follow a sort of "traditional catholicism" (for instance), that is, they partake in certain rituals because it is their tradition and their heritage, but these rituals do not have any religious meaning for them anymore.

I'd love to hear what people think on this, and if someone could share with me a (continental) European pendant to Hitchens for example, I'd be very thankful

Although most European countries have a christian culture, there is very little fundamentalism. Nobody goes around making constant references to God and Jesus, except in places of worship.

This kind of wacko would have difficulty in Europe, thankfully.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/11/06/3589464/gordon-klingenschmitt/

 

[frenchfry]

One has to look at history and see that Jesus Christ did exist and was what he said He was. He said " I am the way the truth and the life" " For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son ( Jesus Christ ) that whomsoever believeth in Him should not perish but have eternal life " We have the choice to believe in our creator or there is a way that seemeth right
to us but only leads to death. It is your choice Life Or Death

This is one of the key manipulations used by the church over the centuries to control the population. The promise of eternal life - hey, I want that! It doesn't work as well now that people have learned to reason for themselves.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

Although most European countries have a christian culture, there is very little fundamentalism. Nobody goes around making constant references to God and Jesus, except in places of worship.

This kind of wacko would have difficulty in Europe, thankfully.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/11/06/3589464/gordon-klingenschmitt/

I think there is a very big difference between traditionally Protestant countries on the one hand and Roman-Catholic and Eastern-Orthodox countries on the other hand in this regard though.

Although the general culture of Protestant countries tends to be more secularized, paradoxically, the number of Evangelical/fundamentalist - or whatever term you want to use - Christians tends to be higher as well. The Netherlands, which ranks in the worldwide top 10 of countries with most Atheists, actually has a political party that is somewhat comparable to the Christian right in America. They have a few seats in the national parliament and in some areas they actually consistently win local elections (there is actually a bible belt in the Netherlands where they get most of their votes). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Political_Party

We actually have two other Christian political parties in the Netherlands. One is more mainstream christian-democrat, but the other one is fairly conservative as well.

 

[Echoes]

I think there is a very big difference between traditionally Protestant countries on the one hand and Roman-Catholic and Eastern-Orthodox countries on the other hand in this regard though.

And you know that your avatar/Mathieu is a Catholic making constant reference to Jesus as he's crossing himself before each race.

So he's a fundamentalist (sic).

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

And you know that your avatar/Mathieu is a Catholic making constant reference to Jesus as he's crossing himself before each race.

So he's a fundamentalist (sic).

Oh wow, I didn't even know that! In the Netherlands cycling has always been a catholic sport. A lot of Dutch cyclists come from the south of the country which is also the catholic part. Protestants do ice skating; there's actually a lot of really conservative reformed ice skaters, especially in marathon skating.

Also, on a very different topic which I thought I'd post about in this thread, I recently read an interesting article about the rise of Christianity in China. I think it's interesting to see how Christianity in China has a feel of being something modern that promotes freedom, human rights etc. and it is often advocated by human rights activists and highly educated people, whereas in Europe it sometimes is perceived to be quite the opposite.

http://www.economist.com/news/brief...nity-forcing-official-rethink-religion-cracks

For me, because I'm a christian, I always hear these stories about magnificent growth of Christianity in China, but it always comes from Christian sources, which tend to idealize it a bit. Reading a more neutral source about this topic was pretty interesting.

 

[frenchfry]

I think there is a very big difference between traditionally Protestant countries on the one hand and Roman-Catholic and Eastern-Orthodox countries on the other hand in this regard though.

Although the general culture of Protestant countries tends to be more secularized, paradoxically, the number of Evangelical/fundamentalist - or whatever term you want to use - Christians tends to be higher as well. The Netherlands, which ranks in the worldwide top 10 of countries with most Atheists, actually has a political party that is somewhat comparable to the Christian right in America. They have a few seats in the national parliament and in some areas they actually consistently win local elections (there is actually a bible belt in the Netherlands where they get most of their votes). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Political_Party

We actually have two other Christian political parties in the Netherlands. One is more mainstream christian-democrat, but the other one is fairly conservative as well.

I am anything but a specialist and probably generalised a bit too much. When travelling in some other European countries, I am often surprised by the religious presence (roadside statues and chapels for example).

Interestingly, my brother-in-law is a very practising orthodox, apparently the masses are 3 hours long! He rarely, if ever, mentions his religion when I see him and totally respects my atheism without judgement. My in-laws are all very practicing Catholics, and not at all evangelical in their approach to their faith. One of my sisters-in-law (not the one married to the orthodox) is an example of how being religious doesn’t necessarily make you a compassionate human being.

 

[Jspear]

Hello my atheists friends.
Any Bill Maher fans out there? Have any of you been following his recent talks on Islam?...hasn't had much good to say....

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/opinion/obeidallah-maher-muslim-comments/

You can google and find a lot of what he has said recently.
Anyone agree with him on his views on Islam?

 

[Echoes]

Oh wow, I didn't even know that! In the Netherlands cycling has always been a catholic sport. A lot of Dutch cyclists come from the south of the country which is also the catholic part. Protestants do ice skating; there's actually a lot of really conservative reformed ice skaters, especially in marathon skating.

I noticed that at the championship in Louisville (10.00). I like the way he does it: discreet, humble,...

Yes that's the theory by Mart Smeets, I think: cycling is a Catholic sport and Zoetemelk exported it to the Protestant North.

Besides, the three traditional countries of cycling in Europe are Catholic in their majority - France, Belgium and Italy - and since it's basically the sport of countrysiders/farm boys/mudmen, it's also a very conservative world. In France, it's very clear that the left hates cycling.

Hello my atheists friends.
Any Bill Maher fans out there? Have any of you been following his recent talks on Islam?...hasn't had much good to say....

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/opinio...slim-comments/

You can google and find a lot of what he has said recently.
Anyone agree with him on his views on Islam?

You bet many agree but of course it's massively wrong and shows the guys lacks historical and cultural knowledge. If you don't have historical knowledge, it's as if you were born yesterday and anyone in a highup position may tell you anything (said Howard Zinn). I stopped at the moment it says he mocked Obama for denying ISIS are Islamic. It's for certain that they are not. History provides evidence for that. They are Wahhabits, which means considered anti-Muslim heretics by traditional Islam. Obama is just a hypocrite. Who financed ISIS? Who provided weapons?

Jspear, I'd advise you to stop watching or reading CNN, waste of time.

 

[Jspear]

You bet many agree but of course it's massively wrong and shows the guys lacks historical and cultural knowledge. If you don't have historical knowledge, it's as if you were born yesterday and anyone in a highup position may tell you anything (said Howard Zinn). I stopped at the moment it says he mocked Obama for denying ISIS are Islamic. It's for certain that they are not. History provides evidence for that. They are Wahhabits, which means considered anti-Muslim heretics by traditional Islam. Obama is just a hypocrite. Who financed ISIS? Who provided weapons?

Jspear, I'd advise you to stop watching or reading CNN, waste of time.

Don't worry I don't watch or read CNN. I originally heard his recent talk on Islam on a radio show I listen to. I just grabbed the CNN article because that was one of the first ones I saw when I googled for the article.
CNN is way to liberal for me.

 

[Tank Engine]

Hello my atheists friends.
Any Bill Maher fans out there? Have any of you been following his recent talks on Islam?...hasn't had much good to say....

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/opinion/obeidallah-maher-muslim-comments/

You can google and find a lot of what he has said recently.
Anyone agree with him on his views on Islam?

Well I guess you were fishing for an atheist's views on Maher, so since Echoes is the only one to respond so far, you're still waiting

Of the comedians with similar views (e.g. Minchin, Gervais, Carlin), I find Maher the most irritating and simplistic (I like Minchin and Gervais). OK, he is a comedian and not a philosopher, but he seems to try and pass off a lot of what he says as "fact" and is often off the mark (Minchin's fish sketch is obviously non-scientific comedy). Female genital mutilation is not an "islamic problem".
This might be related to my "over this side of the pond" mentality (Carlin is also a bit heavy-handed for me).

I must admit I found the statistics from the Pew Center on the proportion of Muslims who support the death penalty very worrying. See

Link 1

There is no information on the sample size and it is unclear what exactly they were asked. On the other hand the variation in the results from different countries does suggest that in some countries support for the death penalty is VERY high.

However, from the Washington Post article

Link 2

It seems the figures relate to Muslims WHO SUPPORT SHARIA LAW. There is no information on what percentage of those describing themselves Muslims support Sharia law, so the figures are almost meaningless.

It's almost like asking those who say that they believe that the bible is god's word "Did god tell the Israelites to slaughter all the Midianites (apart from the female virgins)?" (Numbers 31) and then saying that is the proportion of Christians supporting the death penalty for idolatory.

 

[Echoes]

So since I'm not sure there are Muslim posters on these boards, I'll have to clarify this.

What is the sharî'ah? Sharî'ah means the "way", the "road". For Muslims, the objective of it is protecting our body, soul and our reason/mind. Protecting our health, in a way.

I don't see any problem with it.

Besides, I love it how atheists always resort to the OT in order to bash Christians. They really can't realise that Christians believe in the Gospel, not in the OT.

Oh and after CNN, now we have the Post. Great references!

 

[Christian]

What is the sharî'ah? Sharî'ah means the "way", the "road". For Muslims, the objective of it is protecting our body, soul and our reason/mind. Protecting our health, in a way.

I thought sharî'ah meant "law". Is this wrong, or can it mean different things under different circumstances? (Honest question)

 

[BigMac]

I thought sharî'ah meant "law". Is this wrong, or can it mean different things under different circumstances? (Honest question)

If I remember, etymologically, it is archaic Arabic for "pathway to be followed". Or road. It's origins are in the concept of Islamic religious law. The Way or Road or Path are the (Divine) law.

 

[Jspear]

I thought sharî'ah meant "law". Is this wrong, or can it mean different things under different circumstances? (Honest question)

Shariah is their law. It covers both religious and state issues. Of course for different groups it can mean different things. Shariah is derived from both the Quran and the Hadith. Obviously history and current events shows us different groups interpret the Quaran and the Hadith differently.