Amen

Now, let me think. What is the latest, greatest superstitious, cultist belief ? The one most dangerous to our way of life ? A western world phenomena ? A huge tax grab by civil servants ? Has been proven to be scientifically invalid ? mmmm, tap tap

Good one Ron, LMAO.

Complete and utter hogwash.

From the original supposition to the final conclusion.

Oh Global Warming ... for a second I thought you might mean the irrational worship of a junior senator.

It should be no surprise that someone who is taught an organized superstition would be more resistant to odd ideas than someone who has to build up and organize a philosophy from the beginning. This doesn't justify the organized superstition which remains superstition.

Gee, Jim,,,you are smart....

So if I understand you EBD you are suggesting that those who claim to be atheist often trust the paranormal and occult stories, while they condescend those who have faith in Christ, and the Biblical expaination for life.

They just want to create their own religion.

"They understood: Palin goes to church, so her beliefs are irrational."

But of course it's entirely rational for 'the one' to attended a 'hate America' and racist church proudly for 20 years. Yup, a pass on that.

The hypocrisy of left knows no bounds.

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing - they believe in anything."

- G.K. Chesterton

Okay, bear with me for a moment here…

For some reason I can’t seem to get my site added to Blogging Tories. Whatever.

My latest post is on the very real possibility, if trending continues the same, of a Lib/Dipper coalition.

IMHO, it’s time to cut to the chase, and put the boots to this asinine notion of “strategic” voting!

The consequences of the Libs and Dippers pulling off a coalition, IMHO, would be catastrophic.

Seriously!

I just want to get Conservatives, if they agree, talking about this.

A LOT!

whew - ebd, that's a lot of thoughts. If I may comment..

I don't think that the raucous and santimonious laughter against Palin was so much against her religious nature but against her being a 'rural Christian' rather than an 'urban Christian'.

After all, these same sophists see nothing objectionable about Obama's 20 year long sojourn with a racist, anti-American 'urban' church.

As for atheism (and I am one) I think that there are different types as well. You can have the arrogant mode, asserting that 'science knows all' and humans are 'all rational' and must be free of superstition...to the more humble type, which only asserts that 'I don't know if there is a god' and can't find any reason for accepting that there is. And that's as far as it goes.
I personally, don't accept a god, but I do accept that the universe is rational and ordered. A glance at a crystal, a hive of bees, a growing child, affirms such a conclusion.

The argument that the more liberal Protestant tends to be more likely to believe in superstition contradicts the urban/rural theme of Sarah Palin. The urbanites denigrate Sarah Palin because they define her as rural. And her church as 'not liberal Protestant'.

As for the Gallup Poll and 'house of worship', I think we'd need to know what is the nature of this 'House'. Is it Obama style or Palin style?

And finally, are academics superstitious? Some are, some aren't. I think those on the left perspective are more so than those with a conservative view.

Me , I have a difficult time trying to understand how incredibly wealthy socialists can reconcile their non-belief (spiritually) , with their unwavering belief (quasi-scientifically) of things unproven .

Studies of this nature need to be methodologically rigorous, with good controls so you know what portion of each tested group also intersects with the much larger subset of homo sapiens known as "morons". All we can really know for certain from the linked article is that this group definitely contains Bill Maher. Not necessarily because of his atheism, but because he thinks aspirin and the Salk vaccine are e-e-e-evil. What does he use for headaches, a rubber mallet?

It might also be helpful to know what sort of degree programs characterize the 34% of "grad students" who think "The X-Files", "Sabrina" and "Buffy" are documentaries. I don't want to throw stones, but I'm thinking there's not a whole lot of quantum physicists in that group.

Another example from the linked piece: "21% of self-proclaimed atheists believe in either a personal God or an impersonal force. Ten percent of atheists pray at least weekly and 12% believe in heaven." These numbers tell me that 21% of self-proclaimed atheists really need to look up the word "atheist".

They're also proof positive that there is no causal link between religious beliefs, or lack thereof, and lifetime membership in the moron brigade. Apparently, that's still open to everybody.

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing - they believe in anything."

- G.K. Chesterton

Posted by: JJM at October 5, 2008 8:42 PM

Chesterton's wrong. The fact they've stopped believing usually means they've had a traumatic experience, or lost something. I'm not much of a Christian, but I don't want to be associated with athiests. They strike me as being just as closed minded as the most radical religious fanatics.

Being quietly agnostic is another story, but then we're not hearing any arguments from that group, are we?

ET, there's no doubt that Palin is denigrated on a number of fronts, including her rural-ness, but I've seen that same "end of days" charge leveled at George Bush, who is certainly not of a rural upbringing.

It seems to me that the issue of religion is only "scary" when it's the faith of Conservatives/Republicans being discussed. Obama's personal faith has never for I've seen been on the 'scary' radar even as his pastor's political views were being attacked.

I'm not sure what you mean by "The argument that the more liberal Protestant tends to be more likely to believe in superstition contradicts the urban/rural them of Sarah Palin." I do have a bad head cold, so....

EBD: It does not necessarily negate your point, but your example is very poor. I would say that the viewers did not make the logical leap "Palin goes to church, so her beliefs are irrational." but rather that Palin (in your example) does not accept conventional physics which could be argued is a definition of irrational.

Regards,
John

The left has always cast the religious as backward, hidebound in their thinking and worthy of collective disdain.
This distopia of mutual respect powers the progressive movement.
Progressive thought is a 49 flavour ice cream shop.
If you don't like one flavour, you have many more to choose from and it's all free.
Me, I like vanilla.

Now this is hogwash (both the statement and the implication): "but rather that Palin (in your example) does not accept conventional physics which could be argued is a definition of irrational."

I believe that JJM misquoted Chesterton. I believe Chesterton said, “If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.”

I’m a politically involved Christian and find the secularism of this age totalitarian.

Recently, I was at what’s called “Lectio Divina”, a spiritual reading of scripture, with both quiet and time to meditate. A wise and humble priest led the meditation.

Here’s part of the reading, from Philippians 2: 1-17:

“[3] Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves.
[4] Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
[5] Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
[6] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
[7] but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
[8] And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.”

The shallow, brutal hurly burly of secularism and secular political life—talk about materialism and hypocrisy—has no room for the quiet and depth of wisdom contained here.

The vitriol directed at Christians, such as Sarah Palin by our so-called “tolerant”, left-wing, secular elites is a moral inversion of the most heinous proprtions.

Obama has taken extra effort to declare his Christianity throughout this campaign. This is to reduce the potential damage caused by his Muslim birth and early upbringing. But also to appeal to a broad and important demographic.

However, his Chicago church, where he was a member for 20 years, is beyond being a weird pseudo Christian sect, far outside the mainstream. It's dangerous.

Far different than Palin's religious belief and affiliation.

I agree with EBD.

The left are increasingly strange and irrational people.

To laugh at foolhardy Christian beliefs is not an attack on Christianity, it's an attack on the beliefs. In the SNL reference, it was probably an audience composed of a majority of self-described Christians who were doing the laughing...not atheists with a superiority complex. No matter how they describe themselves, people expressing a belief in the occult or the superstitious are generally ridiculed.

I can't really comment on the research cited by EBD because it's the standard "journalist-reports-science" article without details. However, let's ask a couple of questions:

-I hear correlations being reported, but nothing about causation...isn't it foolish to draw conclusions based on incomplete information?
-When asked about something "paranormal," are equivalent beliefs accounted for equivalently? By that I mean if an atheist reports that he believes in astrology but a Christian reports that he believes God controls his fate, is the atheist categorized as believing in the paranormal and the Christian not? I'd say they both believe in the paranormal and simply express it in a different way.

Actually I think it's really simple why the electorate is told not to trust "christian" politicians ... the word is ABORTION ... small "l" liberals don't want anyone making moral decisions for us and that one is the BIG TICKET. All serious christian are of one mind on that issue and will not agree that I have a right to make that decision for myself.

All that being said, I can be a conservative and be very comfortable voting for both McCain in the U.S. or Harper here because I know there are enough balances in place that these laws can't be changed ... but the big "L" liberals need to fear monger, both here and down there as though overnight these laws can be changed and the changes will be fully informed by christian morality and nothing else.

There are other moral issues that would be fully informed exclusively by christian morality .. but on no other subject is the decision SOOOO clear. Unfortunately as Conservatives we have no one but ourselves to blame as WE let the Christian Right hijack the agenda both here and even more in the US.

I don't want to be labelled as an 'atheist'. That has a negative aspect. I was raised Roman catholic and have not attended their cult shows since I was 9,except for weddings and funerals. The assumptiom that if you toss aside one superstition makes you more likely to embrace another is bunk.That implies that we are weak and need a figure to worship,because our own thoughs are insufficient.Organized religion is organixed superstition,scientology,catholicism,islam,all profess that believing will bring you to a better afterlife.BS,the only thing that I grabbed out of the RC doctrine was 'do onto others'and if you are an A-hole all week,a few minutes on Sunday makes you pure.BS again. I believe in myself,and if you think there is a higher power than yourself,you deserve whatever personal hell that brings you.

I agree, John, it was poorly expressed -- a bit of a leap and overly condensed. The audience didn't necessarily think "Palin goes to church, so her beliefs are irrational." But even if the larfs were about her non-acceptance of conventional physics, that irrationality was clearly portrayed as stemming from her faith.

Hey guys

Ever think they were laughing because Palin was essntially denying that global warming is human-created and therefore,outside of your little Flat-Earth society here, was revealing herself as ignorant?

In my experience, the largest group that wants to cram its religion down your throat are the athiests. Tied for second are the zoophiles and the eco-creeps.

Physicists believe in irrational numbers!

And engineers believe in pie ;-)

Best,

If the Libs and NDP joined, it would be a mixed blessing.
It could cost us this election. The Liberal base is centrist mostly.
This shift to the left would dawn on the electorate over the next term of government.
After that, the sane Liberals would move to the Conservatives, as the only remaining centrist party.
This could spell the doom of the left for many years to come. The Liberals know this.
To allow the coalition would be a capitulation to the NDP by the Liberals.
It's not going to happen.

RW in Big C writes, "By that I mean if an atheist reports that he believes in astrology but a Christian reports that he believes God controls his fate, is the atheist categorized as believing in the paranormal and the Christian not? I'd say they both believe in the paranormal and simply [?] express it in a different way."

Is that so? RW, there's nothing simple about it.

Along with believing in God, Christian belief includes, "Love thy neighbour as thyself", with the accompanying obligations to serve others. Where does astrology make such claims of its adherents? (To spell it out, RW, the gap between astrology and Christian belief is vast—and you didn’t even notice.)

Such naive, perhaps, but utterly sloppy, shallow, and dangerous thinking, on the part of the atheist cheerleader gang, fills me with disgust and some despair.

shows that traditional Christian religion greatly decreases belief in everything from the efficacy of palm readers to the usefulness of astrology. It also shows that the irreligious and the members of more liberal Protestant denominations, far from being resistant to superstition, tend to be much more likely to believe in the paranormal and in pseudoscience than evangelical Christians.

Nonsense. Traditional christianity IS a belief in the paranormal, in pseudoscience and is in and of itself, superstition. That means 100% of traditional christians cited in your surveys believe in the occult and the paranormal,witches, (Palin), and so on. Why exclude christian hocus pocus from any other superstition.

wallyj, your understanding of and feelings about the RC Church and Christianity are very negative: your right, but I think quite subjective and short sighted.

I doubt the SNL audience was composed of majority atheists. Modern Christianity is not so dogmatic anymore. Plenty of Christians could find those jokes funny. As an atheist I sure did, and I like Palin. SNL is not going to change my mind on things like that.

Chesterton is wrong and "dp" is right?

Who wouda thunk?

/In your dreams

I believe in Star Trek.

This comes as no surprise to me, as I've always understood the most common reasons for atheism are are combination of willful ignorance and a deficient education.

(Lookout, I do believe that JMM's Chesterton quote is accurate: at least this version is widely attributed to him.)

"Palin ... does not accept conventional physics which could be argued is a definition of irrational" - John, I keep hearing this type of charge against Palin but never any supporting evidence. Can you direct me to a source for Palin denying an established law of conventional physics?

Sheila wrote about abortion: "All serious christian are of one mind on that issue and will not agree that I have a right to make that decision for myself." The fact is Sheila, that in our world, there are dozens of serious moral decisions that we do not permit people to make for themselves. The liberal "pro-choice" people and the Christian "pro-life" people are not arguing whether all moral choices are strictly a matter of personal choice, only whether abortion is somehow "special" in this regard. The Christian world view has got some pretty clear guidelines about when personal choice crosses the line of morality. On what do non-Christians propose to base their guidelines?

"To laugh at foolhardy Christian beliefs is not an attack on Christianity, it's an attack on the beliefs" - Actuall no. It is just more of the currently fashionable elitism that allows some to dismiss believers as idiots without any real argument or critique of the content of the beliefs. That atheists and secularists find comfort in battling self-constructed, simplistic straw men versions of Christianity only exposes their inability and unwillingness to come to grips with serious questions of reality, morals and faith.

EBD - Bush is a Texan; he's not part of the urban sophist crowd - as is Obama.

My point about "argument that the more liberal Protestant tends to be more likely to believe in superstition contradicts the urban/rural them of Sarah Palin" was a poorly worded comment that the urban left insist that Palin is a superstitious follower of some witchlike cult Christianity. So, they are saying that her religion is NOT 'liberal Protestant' but is fundamentalist and is highly supersitious.
The two claims are contradictory.

real- there's no scientific evidence for AGW; there's a lot of evidence for cyclical warming/cooling. This conclusion is hardly confined to SDA.

The belief in AGW is, however, a metaphor of the superstitious view that Man is Sinful, Guilty of Evil, and will face a Fiery End unless he Controls His Evil Nature. It's certainly not a scientific view and dissent is not allowed. You either believe it..or you are a heretic. Hmm. Superstition.

Of course John, that's because π is transcendental, and Euler's identity is the most beautiful thing. Yet pie are not round, pie are squared. But seriously, I was seeding a point with that comment, namely that in discussion like this, people tend to say a lot of things about words like believe and rational. Oh yeah? Which definitions?

I mean, seriously, when people say rational, do they mean reasonable, logical, or a handful of other characterizations that have been debated at length by philosophers for millenia? What happens when people are debating with each other while at the same time not understanding that each is using a significantly different definition for a critical word?

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course, when one's in the mood, it's just something I've come to notice, over the years, especially in things like limited bandwidth theological discussions. It's an interesting phenomenon to study in its own right.

Do you believe in belief? How can you? How can you not? Call for Kurt Gödel, Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme courtesy telephone, please.

lookout:

Astrology is not a religion, it is a belief without any foundation in evidence. A Christian's belief that God's hand is guiding his life has exactly the same evidentiary foundation--none. In that respect they're comparable. Overall, though, I never equated astrology and Christianity. It's quite obvious that practicing the religion, for many adherents, involves the "love thy neighbour," type of thing that you mentioned...it gives some people a "moral compass" that perhaps they wouldn't otherwise have. It gives them meaning, which I'd never say about astrology.

With religion, you've got faith and morals. I have no problem if those are part of a politician's make-up, even if the morals don't match mine. In fact, about the only area where I disagree with the Christian right is on the matter of abortion, and since that'll likely never be addressed again in this country, I'm comfortable supporting the CPC. On the other hand, both religion and paranormal superstitions have foolish beliefs. This isn't the same as faith. Faith is the belief in something despite the lack of evidence (i.e., belief in God). Foolish beliefs are those things which a person chooses to believe despite evidence TO THE CONTRARY, such as young-earth creationism, intelligent design, and AGW. When politicians express such foolish beliefs I question their intelligence. Stockwell Day did so with the YEC thing...almost all of them these days are doing so with AGW.

In cases like the SNL situation described, it just so happens that the beliefs being ridiculed are those of many (not all) Christians. If a politician came out expressing a belief in astrology, I'd also consider that to be a foolish belief deserving of ridicule.

So ET, you believe in Magic Crystals. I base this statement from your Oct 5, 8:46 pm post.

I assume that is not your meaning but many assume stuff about Christianity that is just as silly.

The premise of the main post, that we are all rsponding to, is the amazing things that people will believe in without a grounding. It is astounding the mumber of people who believe that the DaVinci Code is based in reality. They get sucked into shallow belief systems that have little bases in common rationality. Weirdo televangelists preying on the gullible are to blame for the denigration of the Christian religion. Most Christians have very little idea about their own creed and I gather it is the same amongst Muslims. The reformation sure helped mainstream Catholicism. The protestant reformation has led to the current disbelief but fortunately Eastern and Western Catholicism has kept to the orthodoxy. Speaking as an agnostic of course.

Very well written EBD - love the "interrupting" technique!!!

...remember heathens, there are NO absolutes.

None.

None whatsoever.

Nope.

positively no absolutes.

Absolutely none.

Definitely no absolutes.

-------

Right.

rudy - I'm an atheist, and frankly, I don't think I arrived at this domain via a "combination of willful ignorance and a deficient education."

I don't think that either education or knowledge can lead anyone to believe in god. It's a matter of faith.

Any of the traditional arguments for accepting the reality of god (Aquinas) or even the later philosophical ones - just don't convince me; they end up as tautologies.

However, that the universe exists and functions within a logical reasoning, an interactive reasoning that also permits freedom, seems to me to be valid, from the observation, as I've said before, of anything in our world, whether it be a crystal, the composition of a molecule, the strange fact of so many flowers with five petals, the complexity of our biological realm..and so on. None of that can be due to the haphazard come-by-chance of neodarwinism. BUT, I don't accept an apriori Agential Will.

I also agree - there are a lot of serious moral decisions that cannot be made by oneself, because we are, as humans, not merely individuals but also, members of a society...and the world.

"Call for Kurt Gödel," and offer a piece of pi to Hilbert to console him.

Best.

Rudy: My response was in the context of what EBD wrote. I believe that Ms. Palin has now said that global warming is partly due to man and partly due to natural cycles (provided you grant her a little leeway in regards to grammar). That is a scientifically valid statement.

Regards,
John

I appreciate your civil response, RW. But, as you brought it up, let's look at abortion—logically.

In an article by Andrea Mrozek, in The National Post, Tuesday, September 23, 2008:

“When pro-choice social commentator Camille Paglia wrote that she sanctions ‘murder’ when it is called ‘abortion’, pro-lifers were horrified. They should have cheered.

“Her article—published recently on Salon.com—only briefly touched on abortion. But the offending comments were made as part of an attention-grabbing one-two punch. Paglia wrote that she is ‘a firm supporter of abortion rights,’ but then went on to say: ‘I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful … which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue.’ Almost every pro-abortion activist lives in a zone where they conceal what abortion really is—though they know that the procedure involves killing a person each and every time. The difference between them and Paglia is that they don't come out and say it.”

Now, RW, as both a firm believer in logic AND a strong supporter of abortion, for the full nine months of gestation, which Canadian jurisprudence allows, what do you think of that?

Don't you mean, John: I believe that is a scientifically valid statement.

If one wants to look at abortion (or anything else) logically, Lookout, then one has to define one's axioms. The problem is, people on opposite sides of the debate have incompatible axioms. And what does axiom mean, in this context? It means what one believes a priori. So arguing logically about abortion per se is generally useless, not that there's anything wrong with that, yet it remains the case that nothing will change until people's axioms change.

I believe there is only one axiom: existence exists.

After that, everthing else I believe is just my belief.

only idiots are absolutists

and most christians will not question their beliefs

You seem absolutely sure, GYM, that "only idiots are absolutists".

lookout:

I'm honestly a little mushy on abortion. As for the extremes: I don't support full-term abortion unless the mother's life is at risk because I think a full-term fetus has the most critical element of "life" ... consciousness. At the other end, I wouldn't object to an embryo without even a functional brain being aborted. I don't think that's murder or a crime against nature in any way whatsoever.

The far-left pro-choicers are unwilling to draw a line at the late end of pregnancy. I might choose to draw a line at a point where the medical consensus states that a fetus is viable outside the womb...what's that, 22 weeks? At the other end, the far-right pro-lifers are unwilling to draw a line at the early end, I assume because they believe that a fertilized egg has all of the necessary DNA to become a person, and so should be considered such. I disagree, and would support abortion up to a given period without question, whether that's 6 or 8 weeks or something.

What about the mushy middle? Well, the simple fact is that a woman's choice to abort her fetus does NOT impact society the same way that other outlawed acts do. It affects her and her family, but it isn't characteristic of the same type of disregard for other humans that is demonstrated by murders and other crimes. It's a choice that can be made by only one person, so even if it were murder, it would be a special case. Frankly, it's the mother who has to live with her conscience, and if she can do that then I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.

The problem is those extremes. With both sides, it's an all-or-nothing proposition, and both sides hope to use criminal law to guarantee their positions. Well, I don't think it's a criminal law issue...the lines I've suggested (early and late) are a medical and scientific issue that are best addressed with research and reasoned debate. When the religious right wing stops trying to impose their beliefs on others using criminal law... when the radical left stops trying to ignore the scientific evidence of consciousness in late-term fetuses...maybe then we'll have progress along the lines of what GWB has done in outlawing partial-birth abortions, but allowing (although not by his preference) earlier-term abortions.

Yup...it's mushy.

Great post. I am sure it is true, except that fundamentalist Christians do believe Maybe milder Christians have fewer loony beliefs than any other group?
I'll bet it's also true that younger people, (ie Gens X & Y), are more likely to have paranormal beliefs - despite the extra years of "education" they are supposed to have.

Is EBD Vitruvius?

Lookout,of course my beliefs are negative to you. I do not accept a mythical higher being,I do not acept a mythical belief in the alignment of the planets,I do not accept that the bumps on my skull mean anything other than I was talking instead of listening or running away. If you believe that some power other than your own is responsible for your life,you are foolish,vote NDP.

No, EBD is a good writer, and I'm not.

Vitruvius, your statement that it is useless arguing about abortion because of a priori beliefs would be a lot stronger if it were true that neither side is willing to look at factual data about abortion.

However, it is not as if there are not clear facts about abortion which could, (in fact should) be the basis for the debate.

An example of facts that are not merely axioms might include:

an unborn fetus is alive.

an unborn fetus is genetically human.

an unborn fetus, without interference will become a human baby.

abortion kills the unborn fetus.

Now, those are the facts about abortion. The question is why only one side, (the pro-abortion side) is willing to overlook those facts in the interest of supporting their own a priori position that in this case, killing a human is not morally wrong.

Pursuant to this thread and for your delectation,Mr V.,you and EBD are both entertaining and informative.

For some value of alive, Rudy. My point remains,
it's an axiological argument, facts don't enter into it.

Rudy,your facts are true. You speak from the viewpoint that every baby must be born. Think for a second that if the aborted babies were brought to term in the impoverished neighbourhoods,reserves,countries,and in the hands of the self-centred? An abandoned child,an unwanted child,will in all likelihood replicate itself. Where do we draw the line?

Malcolm Muggeridge, 30 years ago, from the End of Christendom --

Next to the genius of Pascal's works I would draw your attention to the beautiful lucidity of his mind, the wonderful clarity of his thought. Like all true believers, he was deeply skeptical. His intelligence was wonderfully astringent and critical. It is one of the fantasies of the 20th century that believers are credulous people, and that you have to be a materialist or a scientist or a humanist to have a skeptical mind. But of course exactly the opposite is true. It is believers who can be astringent and critical, whereas people who believe seriously that this universe exists only to provide a theatre for man must take man with deadly seriousness. I believe myself that the age in which we are living in now will go down in history as one of the most credulous ever. How could anyone look at television advertisments without reaching that conclusion? All those extraordinary potions that are offered to make your face beautiful, those things you can swallow to make your breath fragrant, are all apparently believed in to the extent that people buy the products. I have often thought that if I were a rich and adventurous man instead of an old and rather broken down one I should bring over a witch doctor from Africa and subject him to a course in television advertising to see how he would react. I think he would be green with envy. To think of al that weary slogging from African village to African village to dispose of his love potions and his jujus, while here, in the Western world, the most highly educated, the most progressive, the most progressive, the most advanced part of the earth, there is a resevoir of credulity beyond his wildest dreams.. The truth is that the farther our faith reaches, the more doubts is encompasses, as from the highest hills there are the fullest vistas. Six lines of John Donne expresses this very beautifully. He refers to truth as on a mountain top, a craggy mountain top:

Doubt wisely, in a strange way
To stand inquiring right is not to stray;
To sleep, or run wrong, is. On a huge hill,
Craggy and steep, Truth stands, and he that will
Reach her, about must and about must go;
And what the hill's suddeness resists, win so.

It frankly doesn’t matter who wins the election for Westerners. All four so called leaders , would be cannibals all eagerly , are poised over Alberta & Saskatchewan with knife & fork ready to feast on our recourses & lay us low. All in the name of human caused global warming which is just crazy. Like hello! They (The so called scientists involved in the UN scam) have almost all recanted of this con. How soon we forget the oil for food scam by these same parigans of verity. The biggist heist or sting in world history for the UN.

I think it best that for the first time in my life since I started to vote. T That he ballet will be spoiled, by putting Sara Palins name instead of any of these trough feeders, dippers, eco-nuts. With the conservatives acting like Brains boy's . Harper looks more & more like the Toronto lad he is.
In the Edmonton Sun editorial today they asked if they are all set to raid us again with glee, what use is Canada for us? It took 10 years for Canadians to recover the last plundering of the West.

In this economic climate with no one left to buy cars because of massive lay offs in our major industries out west, it will just speed it up. Ontario! There is no free ride. Eventually by doing this any recovery will be aborted.

Harper has become a faux Albertan if he ever was one except for a calculated act. He hijacked a movement that that represented the West’s hopes, just to plunder us a new or so it appears. I Am beginning to think he was just a plant by red Tories years ago under Brian’s red brigade. Yet this Nation has nobody even close to as competent as these sycophants of this Tory form of socialism. Liberal fascism. The other brands are just plain insane. What to do? I figure a lot of real conservatives & small l libertarians such as me will stay home or spoil their ballets as well. Some of us just cannot hold our noses anymore because who ever we vote for, is corrupted inevitably by the system as they become a dictator de-jour . Gee I think we seen Harper here for an hour in Alberta at this election junction so far? Now we know why.

Everybody has to believe in something. I believe I'll have another drink.

But seriously, if the religious right is allegedly dangerous because it believes in a superstition, then the socialist left is just as dangerous (if not more so) for the same reasons. They have merely substituted "society" for "God". Whereas the religous right believes God is omniscient and omnipotent, the socialist left believes government officials are omniscient and therefore should be omnipotent. They call upon government to solve all the problems in society, except that they've been saying that for decades and have often won elections and had opportunities to do so, and things don't improve.

Government officials don't have any mystical powers or knowledge that they didn't have before they were elected or appointed. And the difference between government and everyone else is that government can use force. It's supposed to use force to help us protect ourselves when others use violence against us -- but not at any other time, lest it become the villain instead of the protector.

We really need to get rid of the irrational, unwarranted faith in government.

Danm it, we've gotten way off EBD's original topics. My apologies, EBD, I should have punted earlier. My point, my on topic point, still is that the opposition between the pro-Palin folks and the anti-Palin folks is often axiological, and in the pantheon of philosophy that's post-epistemology, while the use of the reason and logic arguments is distinctly epistemological.

In other words, translating axiology into plain English: in cases like this it's not about what one knows epistemologically about Palin or any-one or -thing, it's about what one likes aesthetically and yet still considers ethically acceptable. There is, there must be, for better or worse, a certain amount of de gustibus non disputandum est about the whole matter.

Otherwise, you've got totalitarianism, be it theologic, scientific, or otherwise.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Further back in time, when there was greater cultural uniformity in North America, the importance and value of widespread if not universal adherence to a common system of ethical beliefs about how life should be lived was what was widely accepted.

Separation of church and state was also considered important, in the context of the lessons of history, but "one nation under God"- and this at the time referred to a Christian/Judeo-Christian deity - wasn't a concept that caused anyone any discomfort anywhere on this continent.

When I was growing up, every session of Parliament, and the provincial assemblies, and likely every government meeting down to the hamlet level, as well as every child's school day, opened with the recitation of the Lord's Prayer - and the singing of God Save the Queen, Oh Canada, and The Maple Leaf Forever, at least in school, but that's beside the point - and it didn't seem to do anyone any harm.

Just kidding,I would have said ka-ka and doo-doo a lot more.

check out Obamas church. the one that the MSM used to promote him as not a muslim , then through under the bus when the "inconvenient truth" came out.

http://www.tucc.org/index.php

I think all the comments here illustrate clearly why there needs to be a separation of Church and State.
When someone comes out and says I'm for this particular set of beliefs they don't mean to impose that belief system on anyone else, on the other hand, the unheard message is that anyone who doesn't share that belief is... less. By declaring oneself you've theologically drawn your line in the sand.
Way back when (does anyone even remember these days?) we were taught never to discuss religion or politics. Wise words designed to avoid discord amongst people with whom you socialise.
I was raised in a very old school style of religion. It was solemn and respectful and most of all private! I was led to believe that when you prayed to God it should be for others and if not it better be a big one.
In the last twenty years or so, with the amazing rise of evangelicism, I've found myself distancing myself more and more from any ties to religious belief. When I see people frivolously (and of course this is simply my own belief) praying for the minutia in their lives it actually offends me. Likewise, I find it offensive when someone (especially politicians) declares their belief like a challenge to all comers.
I would so much rather hear a candidates policies than their religious leanings.

Can't be the end of days because for that you need satanic figures dominating world politics, Israel returned to the promised land, a mass deception of most of the world's population, and the Leafs in the Stanley Cup.

So one thing's obviously missing.

the 3rd (and worst) negative experience in a church has turned me off to regular attendance.

the part about belief in the literal biblical writings is something I could never get around and ooooh I tried. turn a page and oops! there's another incredulous description to 'explain away'.

6,000 years for all this 'stuff' to show up? where did all the dirt come from on top on the fossils and oil deposits?

my position now: NONE of them have it right including all shades of agnosticism, atheism, fundamentalists and everything between.

NONE of them and especially mormons and cultists and most especially scientologists.

NONE. they all missed the mark; when a faith group digs in their heels, points at all the other religions and denominations and bellow 'they are all wrong', THAT is the only thing they got right.

the result is all faiths and denominations have umpteen other faiths and denominations pointing at them declaring that they missed the mark.

that is the ONLY thing they all have in common and curiously the only thing they all got right.

I belong to the Usedtobe denomination.

membership of 1.

Someone once said, "By their fruits ye shall know them."

Let's compare the fruits of two thousand years of Christianity and the vibrant civilization, including educational, health, and charity organizations, the legacy from which we still benefit. How about the great art? Who volunteers more time, talent, and treasure in our societies? Which group is always there when didasters stike, to serve those in need, of whatever religion? (It was my honour and pleasure to spend some time yesterday with Mother Teresa's Sisters of Charity who serve humanity worldwide.)

Look at the fruits . . .

The fruits of anti-Christianity? Check out the gulags, concentration camps, and killing fields. Check out the Brown Shirts, "Ministries of Truth"', our own HRCs. Now that Western societies are quite thoroughly secular, check out thwe attitudes and behaviour of a critical mass of the citizenry: considerate? altruistic? unselfish? cooperative/ coutteous? There's been a precipitous decrease in such behaviour over the last two decades, with adults massively abrogtaing their responsibility to teach their children manners and respect for others. (The Charter hasn't helped either.)

By their fruits . . . look around . . . and come to the logical conclusion.

"If you believe that some power other than your own is responsible for your life,you are foolish,vote NDP."

wally, wally, wally.

Do you reject Christianity's role in history?

How about all those crazy, self-professed Christians that got us to this place? Now compare that to where non-western/non-Christian countries have ended up.

? = Culture = ?

You might try filling in the blanks.

P.S. Abortion is not just a private matter: over 2 million since 1969--about 105 000 per year--is already having serious repercussions re the tax base and jobs, and more. Babies and children need goods and services, hence more jobs. These kids grow up and have more kids, hence more people--more people who need to be educated and then pay taxes.

As the baby boomers age and are more in need of health services, etc., the tax base and pension contributions are declining precipitously. Our declining population is going to have very serious, very negative, society wide repercussions. "By their fruits . . ." Open your eyes and use your head. (The MSM avoid doing both but that doesn't mean that we should.)

"An abandoned child,an unwanted child,will in all likelihood replicate itself."

What a horror! How terrible would that be that somehow this abandoned, unwanted child could find a place in life, a mate and create a family? I shudder to think about it.

When you start defining inconvenient people as other than human, as your use of the pronound "it" does, you head down a path that has been traveled quite a bit in the last century.

Amen, irwin daisy!

Perhaps the best thing to take home from this is that polling results don't necessarily reflect the reality of what's actually out there. This is the same junk science method that gets trotted out in support of gun control, global warming, and midnight basketball.

People lie to pollsters, y'know.

That being said, most Lefties of my acquaintance can believe as many as twelve impossible things before breakfast. That's what makes them Lefties. If they didn't hold mutually contradictory beliefs they'd be Conservatives.

The problem with religion is that it puts restrictions on you that are tough. You can't get divorced, you can't have sex without being married, you can't have an abortion, you have to go to church on Sunday, you have to help the needy and poor (even if they - in your opinion - screwed themselves up), you can't murder someone - in fact you're not even supposed to hate anyone - you have to treat everyone with respect and love them, you can't steal, and you can't even abuse yourself with drugs and alcohol - you can't possibly keep all these rules and regulations and so you are setting yourself up for failure - and the worst thing is that you have to make a commitment - you have to decide of your own accord to believe in something called God who is greater than you and therefore you must humble yourself - even though you don't know for sure although you have a slight inkling that there is something greater happening in the world and universe than your own existence.

I guess Bill Mayer is a lucky guy.

Abortion a private matter?

Not really.

Abortion by minorities in the USA has reduced the crime rate measurably.

I grew up in a town that had about thirty abortions a year. The overwhelmingly NDP teachers that supported abortion "rights" never seemed to make the connection to the missing twelve classrooms of kids when they were whining about declining enrollment several years later.

How do (small "L") liberals rationalize the common use of abortion to select male offspring with their stand on gender equality?

How do they rationalize the "miracle" of modern medical techniques to rescue the prematurely born that are much younger than the "unwanted" "blobs" that die painful deaths by saline induction or are partially born and then have their lives ended with a pair of scissors to the brain like a chicken at the hands of a farm wife.

How do they rationalize the subjecting an unarguably human entity to pain that they would be in an uproar over if a kitten were the subject.

Indeed, to paraphrase Pope, "man is not a rational being. He is a being capable of reasoning".

SNL will use stereotypes to create laughter at Sarah Palin. Without trying to parse the stereotypes and who holds them one must admit that it worked. The audience laughed.

Will this change the way anybody votes. I don't know.

I don't even know what I believe at times. This does not mean that others may not presume to know and to state categorically what I believe. Or anybody else they want to stereotype for their beliefs. Just as I have done with the apparent inconsistencies of the (small "L") liberals and abortion.

Wait a second, an irrational belief in a magical sky being counteracts other irrational beliefs? Wow.

Oh, sorry, I forgot that the Bible is REAL and those other things are just made up superstitions.

As an atheist, I wouldn't be quick to dispute the findings, not all atheists believe in irrational nonsense, but there are certainly those that do.

One thing that I look forward to is when some atheists learn to shut their mouths rather than being so eager to denounce Christianity, and learn to respect that the faith helps many people to get through circumstances in their lives that they may be otherwise ill equipped to deal with.

As an atheist, I wouldn't be quick to dispute the findings, not all atheists believe in irrational nonsense, but there are certainly those that do.

One thing that I look forward to is when some atheists learn to shut their mouths rather than being so eager to denounce Christianity, and learn to respect that the faith helps many people to get through circumstances in their lives that they may be otherwise ill equipped to deal with.

I'm not much of a believer, but I think a useful distinction to make is that between atheists, and anti-theists. Some people act positively offended at the thought that someone else might believe in a deity--most often, of the Christian sort.

RW on Oct 5 at 11:12PM wrote "I don't support full-term abortion unless the mother's life is at risk." I am an RN who worked many years in OB. I participated in thousands of pregnancy "terminations' for the sake of the health of the mother. In all but 2 of those situations, the baby lived. Those terminations are also called induced labor or C-sections. In the 2 instances where the baby died, it was not because we didn't try to save them. In no situation, is the mother's health improved by the baby's death. A pregnancy can be ended without killing the child. This is why even the pro-choice AMA and American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology both reject partial birth abortion and have stated publicly that there is never a medical reason for that procedure. Nor are there medical reasons for any late term abortion. Partial birth abortion, saline abortions, etc. are done solely for the purpose of producing a dead child. The mother's health has nothing to do with it.

First, Revnant, suck it up and vote.

Second, suspect the numbers of athiests who actually respect Christianity and Christians are the larger proportion of the whole. But, we're not controversial so don't make the front page. Also, the most rabid scrutiny of Catholicism comes from within the church. While raised Protestant, I can't speak for them. My enforced Bible study occurred at a Catholic University. There are nuns and priests by the boatload rending and twisting the scriptures to fit the latest liberation theology du jour.
In the meantime, one must question the intelligence of anyone unable to see the majesty of a document cobbled together from the common wisdom extant 2,000 years ago. The biblical scriptures are an actual wonder of the world. I lament the lack of spiritualism that prohibits my embracing more than just that common wisdom. And, if I became spiritual, Catholicism would be my religion of choice. The tradition and spirit of Catholicism are compelling beyond any other.

Furthermore, call it superstition but I am very comfortable with politicians blessing the country or nuns and priests handing out blessings. I gladly accept them. One never knows, do one.

Lots of good posts here. (Where’s wally gone?)

The death rattle of the Christian civilization of the West is being heard. Some rejoice—beware what you wish for. All of us, Christian or not—pay attention, anti-Christians—have benefited tremendously from (a short list) the creativity, dynamism, altruism, and rule of law bequeathed to us by the Judeo-Christian dispensation and the institutions that sprang from it.

Talk about conservation—reduce, reuse, recycle—we’ve now used up most of the moral capital that made the West strong. “Reduce”: reducing Christianity and its substantial spirit and practice of service and self-sacrifice is proving to be a disaster. I suggest that all of us “reuse”—though not “recycle” via cults—the second commandment: “Love thy neighbour as thyself”. Let’s remember that even non-Christians in the West have, for millennia, benefited from its initiatives.

I’m thoroughly tired of certain non-religious types—as penny would say, “are you a young person, perchance?”—who think all the good of our society just sprang, fully formed, from some non-religious, ethical void. The substantial goods in our society—fast receding in a secular age—are directly attributable to millennia of Christian thought and action. The secularization of once Christian institutions has not proven a great success. How can individuals and institutions thrive, when the new dispensation is “I have my rights”? It’s been my experience that the “rights” crowd is usually very busy committing a lot of wrongs. (Think HRCs.)

(iowavette, I appreciate your observations about the RC Church.)

your beliefs are the sum total of all you have experienced and all that has occured throughout history.

Lookout,I took an attitude adjustment .But,though I agree that christianity has contributed much,who knows how farther ahead we would all be if we didn't bow before mythical gods.Yours,his,and the other guys.

an unborn baby torn to pieces in an abortion is being viewed by the pro-choice the same way jews were viewed in the depths of the holocaust and viet cong by the US military: non-human ergo anything goes; its all legal and tidy and convenient.

if he/she isnt human what is he/she? a brick? a cucumber? 'bionmass'? all the parts are there in miniature AND they can live in an aquatic environment (try it some time), indeed, HAVE TO.

my parents were dirt poor their whole working lives. form 7 kids came 5 post secondary degrees and 7 independent business owners, and now the 3rd generation is doing even better.

abortion is not an option on the scale being employed; something dreadful is happening behind it all.

christians opposed slavery in the 1800s. uhuh, and christian nations organized it in the 1700s.

slavery is promoted in the bible NUMEROUS times with the usual modern day spin to explain it all away.

I ran across the same research piece last week. It didn't surprise me in the least. As an over-educated white male (root of all evil!) of mid-twentieth century vintage, I remember "laughing" like that SNL audience did at Fey's anti-religious allusions. Of course, at the time I had not determined my own perspective on the abortion issue, capital punishment, socialized medicine etc. With time, tide, experience and the maturity of years, these "holes" were filled in . By the time I was 45, I realized I was resolutely anti-abortion, agnostic, a capitalist dead-set against socialized anything, and a moderate supporter of capital punishment for particular crimes.

I have also noticed that the concept of "adolescence" currently extends to the mid-30s for all practical purposes. If we accept childishness from same, we must also expect the consequent lack of insight/depth and maturity from these same people. I believe this is what we're seeing in SNL audiences, in the MSM etc.

Sentiments of smugness, sanctimony, self-satisfaction and self-entitlement characterize children and the immature, but should not characterize whole sultures or nations of people. Unfortunately, these sentiments do seem to characterize whole generations of Canadians and Americans.

As most people here know, I am by God's grace a Christian. I don't view my belief as a set of rules to live by or a ritual I go through. My Christianity is a world view. It is the lens through which I test all things. It is not as some have suggested a panacea or a thing untried. I struggle with it everyday. However what I fine disturbing is the exclusive "I'm right - you're wrong therefore you're incapable of rational thought" attitude displayed by both the irreligious and the religious.

Each of us grasps but a part of the whole, therefore the more parts (world views) we bring together the more of the whole we have to work with. At the same time we must also recognize that not all parts of our individual belief is important to the gaining of the whole. My belief in "X" does not mean that "X" must be The determinant in all things. This simple fact is just one of those things given to keep us humble and only the truly arrogant insist that only their world view is valid.

Politics is not exclusive of science and religion. Science is not exclusive of politics and religion. Religion is not exclusive of politics and science. Any belief held in exclusion of all others is an impoverished belief and one hardly worth holding.

Therefore I say let us put aside our petty squabbles about nothing and listen one to another that we might understand the wisdom involved. Having once understood the wisdom we can thereupon determine the best way forward.

BTW God Bless all of humanity; seeking His blessing on only Canada seems somehow trivial.

wallyj writes, "But, though I agree that christianity has contributed much, who knows how farther ahead we would all be if we didn't bow before mythical gods."

I appreciate wally’s nod of the head to Christianity, but the question hardly furthers his take on this issue: I don’t think we would be farther ahead, and the equating of all gods doesn’t work either. I suggest watching the excellent HBO series, “ROME”, which portrays the craven excesses of a pagan society very—indeed, shockingly—well. The series ends long before the civilizing force of Christianity arrived. If Christianity had not come along, I shudder to think of centuries more of the routinely crass and astonishingly cruel behaviour showcased in “ROME”. I think wally, who takes for granted the civilizing influence of Christianity—which, BTW, we in the West are fast losing—might regret a world where its ethical precepts no longer influence individual and state behaviour: welcome to totalitarianism.

People are innately religious: as Chesterton points out, they believe in something or fall for anything. Many of those whose allegiance is to secularism and socialism appear to share the hallmarks of the religious believer, without Christian charity. In the 20th century, think the gulags, the concentration camps, and the killing fields of Communism, an ideology which banned religion, while demanding the total devotion of even those who weren’t its followers.

Please think! Be careful what you wish for . . .