The root of all evil

[Matt 0]

I went to a Catholic school and several of our RE teachers said 'look, a lot of this is clearly bollocks'.

 

One female RE teacher even explained that there's nothing wrong with soft porn and couldn't understand the fuss over images of the human body.

 

Bridget is right with the funding info. Faith schools, Catholic ones in particular, face a bleak future as there simply isnt enough diocesean cash to keep the upkeep- which is why many are now becoming specialist 'colleges' (technology college, science college etc) as it opens up a new route of funding from the govt.

 

I'm in agreement that state schools should not teach a religion, but it's important that the concepts are understood. We want children to make decisions for themselves, but make sure they are informed decisions.

 

The only thing going for faith schools is that they tend to get slightly better results- though this is now pretty much eroded- a long-term decay from the days when they were the last to go fully comprehensive. Of course proper education reform would render them obsolete but don't expect any of that in this 'one for all and all for one' shambles we have at the moment!

[Renton 18038]

 

I don't know what the case is with Emmanuel, but my understanding is that faith schools (voluntary aided) have to fund all capital building costs but receive revenue costs from the Local Authority (although they have to fund some revenue too).

 

I went to a Catholic school and RE was taught in a very fair, intellectually challenging way. In the past, teaching was very dogmatic but we debated moral and philosophical issues without being dictated to. Although, I must admit other religions were somewhat overlooked until 6th form.

 

Bridget, Emanuelle is specifically discussed in the God delusion. He [Dawkins] claims that Vardy only paid for 10% of the construction costs, but now it has been built he has the right to elect whichever governors he feels are fit and has the rights of admission into the "school" (meaning he can effectively disallow children from muslim or atheist parents, etc). Worse, after that, the state is responsible for 100% of the running of the school.

 

Maybe Dawkins is a liar. If so, I expect Vardy will sue his arse off. Somehow though, I know who I trust most........

[NJS 4002]

Emmanuel is a new-fangled Blair Academy not a "standard" Faith school which is how the 10% funding/let us teach lies is excused.

 

I went to a catholic school (christain brothers). RE was Catholics go to heaven if they're good, everyone else burns in hell no matter what they do.

[Meenzer 14136]

They are all sensible questions but the thing they suffer from is going from a position of where we are now. There are billions of galaxies in the universe with probably an infinte number of planets - the conditions here may not be the only ones which support life and there may be millions of planets "identical" to Earth where life may have evolved. You also have the multiverse theories which can help explain the "perfect" conditions in this one.

 

Biologists have identified about 9 stages in eye evolution which all provide an advantage and all exist in nature in various forms.

 

If people believe that "someone" kicked it all off and either did or didn't nudge things along here and there then thats fine - I don't agree but it seems farely rational compared to the Genesis literalists.

 

In that context however I can't marry that with christian faith. We are then expected to believe that a being capable of building that infinte universe waits 14 billion years until an ape evolves enough intelligence to distinguish right from wrong and then sends his son on a mission to one small tribe which he's picked out of thousands available to teach these beings about sin with the promise of eternal life after 70 years plodding around on earth. A mere 2000 years on and things are still ongoing but many of these beings believe that God will "write off" this 14 billion year project any day now.

 

As I said in this "universe view" the biblical God is even more absurd than he was before imo.

 

In some ways the "6000 year" christians could be said to be more "honest" in that their God view fits in with the picture as they see it.

 

I think this is why Dawkins sees "moderates" as just as dangerous as "fundamentalists" - they seem to want their cake and eat it in a way which seems even more irrational on some levels.

I'll second what Renton says (surely worth a in itself ) on this particular post. As has been stated or implied elsewhere in this thread - which has made for great reading, if I'm allowed to patronise every last one of you - the ultimate flaw in the religious approach to me is not the morals or principles involved, which both believers and atheists would surely be happy enough to classify under "basic human nature" at least to some extent, but the idea that we as a species and a planet are somehow special or different purely on the grounds of divine intervention. Anyone with the slightest inkling of our insignificant blue-green planet's place in the scheme of things - and you only have to hike out into the countryside and observe the night sky to see just how insignificant we are - would begin to have problems with that attitude, religion or no religion.

 

Part of my problem, though, as someone who classifies himself as an open-minded non-believer, is that so many people are willing to get hung up on the details. As a gay man with a partner who grew up as a regular churchgoer and choirboy (albeit relatively untainted, other than being assaulted by a couple of mobile phone pics of the choirmaster's cock - hallelujah!), even I despair when I see otherwise perfectly reasonable gay commentators in the US resorting to provocative points like this:

 

::When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

 

::I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

 

::I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

 

::Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

 

::I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

 

::A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

 

::Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

 

::I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

 

All very entertaining, obviously, but the point has been made that we're talking about a 2,000-year-old text cobbled together from various sources here. The factual basis for the Bible might be considered faintly laughable now, but if you compare it with the understanding of what we would call "science" two millennia ago... well, our beloved scientists weren't looking too clever either.

 

So I suppose it all boils down to whether you agree that religion should be allowed the power of interpretation and evolution (irony?) or not, particularly compared with the corresponding "scientific" concepts. I wouldn't claim for a moment to know either way, but I'm quite happy to sit in the middle on this one, happy to be an atheist, fortunate to live in a country where there aren't enough religious fundamentalists to threaten my lifestyle, but equally grateful to be able to stare up at the aforementioned night sky and feel suitably humbled, for whatever reason. Maybe it's a cop-out, but it works for me.

[Guest Patrokles]

Surely fundamental flaws in human nature are the root of the problems with society, and always have been. Religion/Science are just conduits for these flaws. As much shit has been done in the name of science as religion. So, Dawkins is talking nonsense again.

[NJS 4002]

Surely fundamental flaws in human nature are the root of the problems with society, and always have been. Religion/Science are just conduits for these flaws. As much shit has been done in the name of science as religion. So, Dawkins is talking nonsense again.

 

As much shit in the name of science compared to religion? - now thats nonsense.

 

Yes a lot of "evil" is men being bastards but sometimes the sense of "tribes" or "gangs" as defined by religions provides a very handy platform. 19 well educated, middle class men flew planes into buildings not because they thought it would so some good for the Palestinians or even because they hated America - they did it because they fundamentally believed they were going to paradise for doing it.

 

A lot of the old labels like nationality and even "tribe" are being blurred in moderm times due to mass migrations. It may be natural to form "gangs" but when those gangs are based on an attitude of "You're wrong, I'm right and I want to kill you for it" then thats obviously dangerous.

 

Sometimes blaming religion is too easy and I admit that, however I'd turn that around and say that excusing religions abberations as "human nature" is just as bad.

[Guest Patrokles]

Surely fundamental flaws in human nature are the root of the problems with society, and always have been. Religion/Science are just conduits for these flaws. As much shit has been done in the name of science as religion. So, Dawkins is talking nonsense again.

 

As much shit in the name of science compared to religion? - now thats nonsense.

 

Yes a lot of "evil" is men being bastards but sometimes the sense of "tribes" or "gangs" as defined by religions provides a very handy platform. 19 well educated, middle class men flew planes into buildings not because they thought it would so some good for the Palestinians or even because they hated America - they did it because they fundamentally believed they were going to paradise for doing it.

 

A lot of the old labels like nationality and even "tribe" are being blurred in moderm times due to mass migrations. It may be natural to form "gangs" but when those gangs are based on an attitude of "You're wrong, I'm right and I want to kill you for it" then thats obviously dangerous.

 

Sometimes blaming religion is too easy and I admit that, however I'd turn that around and say that excusing religions abberations as "human nature" is just as bad.

 

It's not nonsense at all, and it's not 'just as bad'. Scientists always have a bee in their bonnet about religion and its evils. Scientists can be just as evil, but in different ways- colder, more clinical. Icepick lobotomies. Electroshock therapy. It's just far far easier to be a successful religious crackpot than a successful, influential scientific one. If the latter were easier, we'd see H-bombs detonating left, right and centre. Besides, science has ENABLED atrocities on a far greater scale than ever before. The fact is, too, that many people are essential rotten, or motivated by greed or selfishness. Why do people make ammunition? Because it's the only job they can get. Then you look at the motivations behind some significant conflicts and you realise that essentially, it's all about power and greed. Religion and science are irrelevent, or exuses, in many cases. It's only in the case of the nutjobs/cults/sects/mad scientists that it becomes an issue. But overwhelmingly, it's about greed and love of wealth/power.

[Renton 18038]

Surely fundamental flaws in human nature are the root of the problems with society, and always have been. Religion/Science are just conduits for these flaws. As much shit has been done in the name of science as religion. So, Dawkins is talking nonsense again.

 

As much shit in the name of science compared to religion? - now thats nonsense.

 

Yes a lot of "evil" is men being bastards but sometimes the sense of "tribes" or "gangs" as defined by religions provides a very handy platform. 19 well educated, middle class men flew planes into buildings not because they thought it would so some good for the Palestinians or even because they hated America - they did it because they fundamentally believed they were going to paradise for doing it.

 

A lot of the old labels like nationality and even "tribe" are being blurred in moderm times due to mass migrations. It may be natural to form "gangs" but when those gangs are based on an attitude of "You're wrong, I'm right and I want to kill you for it" then thats obviously dangerous.

 

Sometimes blaming religion is too easy and I admit that, however I'd turn that around and say that excusing religions abberations as "human nature" is just as bad.

 

It's not nonsense at all, and it's not 'just as bad'. Scientists always have a bee in their bonnet about religion and its evils. Scientists can be just as evil, but in different ways- colder, more clinical. Icepick lobotomies. Electroshock therapy. It's just far far easier to be a successful religious crackpot than a successful, influential scientific one. If the latter were easier, we'd see H-bombs detonating left, right and centre. Besides, science has ENABLED atrocities on a far greater scale than ever before. The fact is, too, that many people are essential rotten, or motivated by greed or selfishness. Why do people make ammunition? Because it's the only job they can get. Then you look at the motivations behind some significant conflicts and you realise that essentially, it's all about power and greed. Religion and science are irrelevent, or exuses, in many cases. It's only in the case of the nutjobs/cults/sects/mad scientists that it becomes an issue. But overwhelmingly, it's about greed and love of wealth/power.

 

I can happily live without religion.

 

But if you want to live without science, you'll have to do without technology too. I suggest you log off your computer (obviously a product of science), get out your house, take off your clothes (almost certainly produced with the aid of materials science) and see how you like it. And when you get ill though hypothermia, don't expect a doctor to help. You can try praying to God though and see how far that gets you.

[NJS 4002]

Scientists may "enable" evil but they do not carry it out or kill in the name of science. I agree religion is sometimes used as a cover for greed but there have been atrocities carried out with no other motivation other than differing belief systems.

 

The accusation of scientists in general as mad or immoral beings who would explode H bombs "just to see what happens" is also absolute bollocks. I'd expect the next use of nuclear weapons to be bewteen Pakistan and India - a perfect example of religious conflict.

 

There have been some terrible uses of science through the ages but the benefits far, far outweigh the bad - something that can never be said about religion.

[Renton 18038]

Scientists may "enable" evil but they do not carry it out or kill in the name of science. I agree religion is sometimes used as a cover for greed but there have been atrocities carried out with no other motivation other than differing belief systems.

 

The accusation of scientists in general as mad or immoral beings who would explode H bombs "just to see what happens" is also absolute bollocks. I'd expect the next use of nuclear weapons to be bewteen Pakistan and India - a perfect example of religious conflict.

 

There have been some terrible uses of science through the ages but the benefits far, far outweigh the bad - something that can never be said about religion.

 

As you say, science just supplies the technology to make more efficient atrocities. It's rarely scientists that abuse the use of technology, but politicians for all sorts of motivations, including religious ones.

 

Besides, what is science? Surely it's just a thought process based on the rational evaluation of empirical knowledge. To compare it with religion is absurd frankly. There is one "science", but several faith based religions which are all in conflict with each other, not with science.

[Matt 0]

I'd expect the next use of nuclear weapons to be bewteen Pakistan and India - a perfect example of religious conflict.

 

Surely that is primarily a land conflict- they are fighting over Kashmir and terroitorial supremacy- not who is the 'true God'.

[NJS 4002]

I'd expect the next use of nuclear weapons to be bewteen Pakistan and India - a perfect example of religious conflict.

 

Surely that is primarily a land conflict- they are fighting over Kashmir and terroitorial supremacy- not who is the 'true God'.

 

At independence it was all India - the dispute arose when separate countries had to be established for the Muslims. Kashmir is nothing special - its just an excuse to enshrine their religious differences.

[Renton 18038]

I'd expect the next use of nuclear weapons to be bewteen Pakistan and India - a perfect example of religious conflict.

 

Surely that is primarily a land conflict- they are fighting over Kashmir and terroitorial supremacy- not who is the 'true God'.

 

Why were Pakistan and India partitioned like that in the first place though? Wasn't it largely along religious lines?

 

And what about Iran and it's threat to wipe out Israel - probably a more realistic scenario than an India-Pakistan war?

[NJS 4002]

And what about Iran and it's threat to wipe out Israel - probably a more realistic scenario than an India-Pakistan war?

 

Coin toss imo - I think the Yanks can hold back Israel more than anyone can hold back Pakistan/India.

[Renton 18038]

And what about Iran and it's threat to wipe out Israel - probably a more realistic scenario than an India-Pakistan war?

 

Coin toss imo - I think the Yanks can hold back Israel more than anyone can hold back Pakistan/India.

 

Aye, but should Iran get a nuclear weapon they might be mad enough to use it first.

[NJS 4002]

And what about Iran and it's threat to wipe out Israel - probably a more realistic scenario than an India-Pakistan war?

 

Coin toss imo - I think the Yanks can hold back Israel more than anyone can hold back Pakistan/India.

 

Aye, but should Iran get a nuclear weapon they might be mad enough to use it first.

 

I think we're back to Saddam and even Qadaffi territory - they many want/have wanted WMD and may spend money/time trying to build them but I think its a bit harder than is made out to succeed.

[Matt 0]

Why were Pakistan and India partitioned like that in the first place though? Wasn't it largely along religious lines?

 

And what about Iran and it's threat to wipe out Israel - probably a more realistic scenario than an India-Pakistan war?

 

The problem when dealing with issues in the Middle East is that you can divide most countries into religious denominations- it's the way the country has developed. You could equally say a lot of conflict is down to ethnic divisions- Kurds in Iraq and Turkey for example.

 

My problem is that too often every conflict is linked with religion therefore the argument follows that getting rid of religion would solve this problem- when of course it wouldn't. Right now the Sunnis and Shias are blowing seven shades out of each other in Iraq- they all beleive in the same God, Prohpet and so on- but do so in a very slightly different way. But it's not religious- it's tribal. Religions, like languages, evolve and develop their own nuances within an enclosed group of people. That is why in an increasingly globalised society those differences will be laid bare and will form the source of many conflicts for the forseeable future.

 

The Israel question however- is fundamentally a religious one- though there is obviously also a great deal of politics involved with regards to western control over oil-rich areas.

 

The "religion is all at fault" argument is way too simplistic, and it's implementation in policy would only serve to create even greater problems.

[NJS 4002]

Why were Pakistan and India partitioned like that in the first place though? Wasn't it largely along religious lines?

 

And what about Iran and it's threat to wipe out Israel - probably a more realistic scenario than an India-Pakistan war?

 

The problem when dealing with issues in the Middle East is that you can divide most countries into religious denominations- it's the way the country has developed. You could equally say a lot of conflict is down to ethnic divisions- Kurds in Iraq and Turkey for example.

 

My problem is that too often every conflict is linked with religion therefore the argument follows that getting rid of religion would solve this problem- when of course it wouldn't. Right now the Sunnis and Shias are blowing seven shades out of each other in Iraq- they all beleive in the same God, Prohpet and so on- but do so in a very slightly different way. But it's not religious- it's tribal. Religions, like languages, evolve and develop their own nuances within an enclosed group of people. That is why in an increasingly globalised society those differences will be laid bare and will form the source of many conflicts for the forseeable future.

 

The Israel question however- is fundamentally a religious one- though there is obviously also a great deal of politics involved with regards to western control over oil-rich areas.

 

The "religion is all at fault" argument is way too simplistic, and it's implementation in policy would only serve to create even greater problems.

 

I'm not saying that "banning" religion tomorrow would solve these conflicts but I think we should be willing to name and shame them for being a root of the problem.

 

A lot may be "tribal" but as I said above religion can be the reasons for the tribal divide and certainly an extra "spice" in the mix to exaggerate existing tribal differences. If you look at Ireland for example there are elements of politics and tribalism involved but at the core religion stands like a beacon as a simple label to which people raise their flag. In 2007 if you took away the religion of everyon in NI you'd have people who are indistinguishable on any other basis. That conflict may be on the wane but I'd apply that same reasoning to other places like Iraq. I don't have enough knowledge of how "intermingled" Sunnis and Shias are religion aside but clinging to those labels is a core problem.

[Isegrim 8941]

Scientists may "enable" evil but they do not carry it out or kill in the name of science. I agree religion is sometimes used as a cover for greed but there have been atrocities carried out with no other motivation other than differing belief systems.

 

The accusation of scientists in general as mad or immoral beings who would explode H bombs "just to see what happens" is also absolute bollocks. I'd expect the next use of nuclear weapons to be bewteen Pakistan and India - a perfect example of religious conflict.

 

There have been some terrible uses of science through the ages but the benefits far, far outweigh the bad - something that can never be said about religion.

Still a bit very simplistic view in my opinion, just to condemn religion because its violent past (Leazes would say that hindsight is a wonderful thing). If it was that easy to think of an areligious peaceful society you have to wonder why never in history such a society developed. And before you spring in, it also won't develop if you cut out "religious indoctrination" for a couple of generations. Religion has always been answering those metaphysical questions natural science couldn't answer. With scientific progress these questions might get fewer, but even that trend is questionable. In fact the current trend to irrational religious fundamentalism rather shows the opposite. There will always be metaphysical questions that science will hardly find answers to but mankind will try to cope with, e.g. the sense of life. And it is also hard to believe that the concept of transcendence will ever be abolished. Even the likes of Einstein (or more recently Stephen Hawkins) don't go that far.

 

In fact I do find it also a bit too simplictic to reduce religion/theology onto an antipode of natural science. The scope of religion is a bit broader than just that. It isn't just about describing or explaining natural phenomens by linking them to a higher being. Religion is much more also about answering questions in regard to morality and ethics. And in this regard Christianity has very much contributed to the development of our modern western society. As much as you are (probably) proud of the current western values like freedom etc., it is a historical fact that those developments are always linked to religion as well. Blanking out religion in this historical process would just be highly hypothetical.

[NJS 4002]

Scientists may "enable" evil but they do not carry it out or kill in the name of science. I agree religion is sometimes used as a cover for greed but there have been atrocities carried out with no other motivation other than differing belief systems.

 

The accusation of scientists in general as mad or immoral beings who would explode H bombs "just to see what happens" is also absolute bollocks. I'd expect the next use of nuclear weapons to be bewteen Pakistan and India - a perfect example of religious conflict.

 

There have been some terrible uses of science through the ages but the benefits far, far outweigh the bad - something that can never be said about religion.

Still a bit very simplistic view in my opinion, just to condemn religion because its violent past (Leazes would say that hindsight is a wonderful thing). If it was that easy to think of an areligious peaceful society you have to wonder why never in history such a society developed. And before you spring in, it also won't develop if you cut out "religious indoctrination" for a couple of generations. Religion has always been answering those metaphysical questions natural science couldn't answer. With scientific progress these questions might get fewer, but even that trend is questionable. In fact the current trend to irrational religious fundamentalism rather shows the opposite. There will always be metaphysical questions that science will hardly find answers to but mankind will try to cope with, e.g. the sense of life. And it is also hard to believe that the concept of transcendence will ever be abolished. Even the likes of Einstein (or more recently Stephen Hawkins) don't go that far.

 

In fact I do find it also a bit too simplictic to reduce religion/theology onto an antipode of natural science. The scope of religion is a bit broader than just that. It isn't just about describing or explaining natural phenomens by linking them to a higher being. Religion is much more also about answering questions in regard to morality and ethics. And in this regard Christianity has very much contributed to the development of our modern western society. As much as you are (probably) proud of the current western values like freedom etc., it is a historical fact that those developments are always linked to religion as well. Blanking out religion in this historical process would just be highly hypothetical.

 

 

I know my frustraion at what I see as peoples irrationality causes me to to sometimes go far in hoping for easy answers but I do take some issue with what you say. I accept some of your reasoning on Christianitys place in our development but I'd argue that that reflects a broader example of what I was arguing about in terms of the bible. I believe our inherent "goodness" allows us to see the nice parts of the bible and I'd say that same "goodness" is the driving force behind most progress in terms of civilisation rather than religion per se.

 

I have no problems with people asking the kind of questions you mention but I feel that the "easy" answers provided by organised religion are a cop out - As I said above our place in the universe leads me to emphasise the view that we are just evolved animals who though capable of many astounding feats are destined for no more than death.

 

I'd also argue that there is a direct correlation between the development of nations as "good" places to live and their rejection of organised religion. Its no coincidence that the most agnostic countries in the world are with a few exceptiions the most "civilised". I know history has played a part in that but moving forward education and rejection of dogma suggests progress, the increase of "believers" in third world countries with higher birthrates does not mean that we are seeing a rennaisance of faith.

[Isegrim 8941]

I'd like to know which "agnostic" civilised countries you mean.

[NJS 4002]

I'd like to know which "agnostic" civilised countries you mean.

 

Scandanavia, Japan, Canada, Australia, most of Western Europe for a start.

 

I know Japan does have a spiritual side but I don't think its the theistic one of the Abrahamic religions.

 

It could be said by some that the decline of religion in western Europe could be attributed more do an increase in "decadence" and materialism but I'd argue that its an increase in disillusionment with religion as reflected in the the recent Guardian poll where 82% of british people questioned felt that religion was "a bad thing".

 

 

More in general: League

 

I know there are anomalies there like Vietnam and there ae some very religious people in some of those countries but I do know , though I can't find the source, that that table almost matches the top "most developed" countries as defined by the UN in terms of social benefits, health services etc, etc.

 

Now I'm willing to accept that history has a role in all of that but I find it most interesting that the middle east which was one of the major cradles of human civilisation is now what I'd call the most backward on the planet - the reason? - not science thats for sure.

[Isegrim 8941]

I'd like to know which "agnostic" civilised countries you mean.

Scandanavia, Japan, Canada, Australia, most of Western Europe for a start.

I'd call none of these countries agnostic in any way tbh. Just take your example of Scandinavia. Sweden disestablished state church in 1999, in Norway they are just starting to discuss it. And despite of the separation between state and church religion still plays a major role in all of these countries.

 

For a more closer look at it, from your table I just take the example of Germany. Those figures of the link you posted don't talk the whole story. The numer of atheists in Germany is stated with 41-49%. A closer look at the official numbers still list 65% of the population registered as members of a church. You can examine this number even closer. In former West-Germany 75% of the population are registered as members of a church. In the part of the former GDR the figures are down to 27% which is mostly down to historical developments during the socialist regime (where religious indoctrination was replaced by political indoctrination btw). But even there the church played a major role, especially in toppling the regime in a peaceful way. Most of the mass protests that lead to the resignation of the government were directly connected to so-called peace prayers in the churches (most famous the one in the Nikolai church of Leipzig).

In reference to Germany and the number of people resigning from the churches you have also to consider a pecunary aspect. In Germany there is a church tax of 8-9% of your income you have to pay as long as you are officially registered with a recognised church.

 

I concede that religion seems to lose its relevance in many peoples daily life and that their believes change. People believing in the biblical (personal) god become fewer and the believes become more deistic (and I'd list myself among them). But I wouldn't mix this sort of atheism up with agnosticism or irreligiouism (if that is a word?). Christian values in their modern form (and biblical interpretation) are still playing a predominant role in today's society and politics. Therefore I think describing western states as mostly agnostic is a huge misunderstanding.

[Renton 18038]

I'd like to know which "agnostic" civilised countries you mean.

Scandanavia, Japan, Canada, Australia, most of Western Europe for a start.

I'd call none of these countries agnostic in any way tbh. Just take your example of Scandinavia. Sweden disestablished state church in 1999, in Norway they are just starting to discuss it. And despite of the separation between state and church religion still plays a major role in all of these countries.

 

For a more closer look at it, from your table I just take the example of Germany. Those figures of the link you posted don't talk the whole story. The numer of atheists in Germany is stated with 41-49%. A closer look at the official numbers still list 65% of the population registered as members of a church. You can examine this number even closer. In former West-Germany 75% of the population are registered as members of a church. In the part of the former GDR the figures are down to 27% which is mostly down to historical developments during the socialist regime (where religious indoctrination was replaced by political indoctrination btw). But even there the church played a major role, especially in toppling the regime in a peaceful way. Most of the mass protests that lead to the resignation of the government were directly connected to so-called peace prayers in the churches (most famous the one in the Nikolai church of Leipzig).

In reference to Germany and the number of people resigning from the churches you have also to consider a pecunary aspect. In Germany there is a church tax of 8-9% of your income you have to pay as long as you are officially registered with a recognised church.

 

I concede that religion seems to lose its relevance in many peoples daily life and that their believes change. People believing in the biblical (personal) god become fewer and the believes become more deistic (and I'd list myself among them). But I wouldn't mix this sort of atheism up with agnosticism or irreligiouism (if that is a word?). Christian values in their modern form (and biblical interpretation) are still playing a predominant role in today's society and politics. Therefore I think describing western states as mostly agnostic is a huge misunderstanding.

 

Got to admit the term agnosticism in the context NJS used confused me somewhat. However, most of these more "civilised" countries are certainly secular with a clear seperation between church and state. I'd settle for that.

[Isegrim 8941]

Got to admit the term agnosticism in the context NJS used confused me somewhat. However, most of these more "civilised" countries are certainly secular with a clear seperation between church and state. I'd settle for that.

Yep, but between that kind of constitutional secular state and an agnostic state is a huge difference. The leading German conservative party calls itself "Christian Democratic Union" and bases its policies very much on Christian values. In that regard Germany is hardly secular but especially not agnostic.

Edited January 7, 2007 by Isegrim