Recomended reading...

Here are some recent articles that give a feel for the rising temperature of religious debate the world over.


'Through a glass, darkly', by Jeff Sharlet, is an energetic insider's account of the zealous "Maximalist" movement. Think of it as a sort of backpacking-through-the-outback-of-American-Fundementalism with Jeff Sharlet as your undercover guide. Highly recomended.

'In the beginning' is a special report, from The Economist on the heated debate over creation and evolution gone global.

'We'd be better off without religion', by Ruth Glendhill, offers needed perspective on a debate that took place in London on March 28th, at which, the motion was "We'd be better off without religion."

Additionally, The DNA of Religious Faith, by David P. Barash, is a long, somewhat tedious article (with the sort of religious analogies that grate, save that one about the teapot), featuring some great overview, a few pearls of Atheist wisdom and some insight into a newly-charted dimension of the religious debate.

Religion... Benign? Nope.

In response to Bryan’s last post, I’m attempting to address the general question: “Is religion really a contributor to the ails of the world?”  The implied answer, I’m taking to be “No— religion is benign and the real factors are things like poverty, envy, greed, lust for power, limited space, etc.—the cornucopia of inequity and cause-for-conflict in the world. 

While these are all token contributors, religion—in countless cases throughout history—has provided the framework for war, and it continues to play a specified role. 

With respect to current events, I might ask, “What is the root cause of what we are reluctant to call ‘Religious War’ in the middle-east, preferring euphemisms like ‘Sectarian Violence’ and ‘War On Terror.’”  Surly those previously mentioned factors play a significant role in these disputes—and the root issues are confounded by rapid changes brought on by globalization—but the primary justification for bloodshed in the middle-east is inarguably faith-based. 

Take the Iraq War for example. The opposition (as we have been forced to learn) finds cause for war in the founding doctrines of Islam, which are intrinsically at odds with any non-conforming value system, explicitly promoting hostility and violence—and martyrdom—in pursuit of its ends. (***While it's worth mentioning that the majority of Muslims are indeed tolerant, this is an unlikely bi-product of the lessons found in the Koran***)

Similarly, the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is a religious battle that happens to be a dispute over territory (substitute “holy land”).

George Bush too, confers God on matters of war.

Religion then, from all sides, is used as a core justification for war, and in this sense, any suggestion that either conflict is not so much about religion, but instead "land" or “terror” or “hatred of our way of life” is a dangerous way of skirting the obvious.

The issue, as I see it, is that we have a normative way of insulating religious claims from the necessary degrees of scrutiny that govern all other ideas, including those immeasurably less consequential. Ignoring the role religion plays in today's conflicts, is yet another way of shielding all faiths from accountability for their beliefs.

Atheism (***originally posted on myspace***)

I read a bite-sized article recently called 10 MYTHS — AND 10 TRUTHS — ABOUT ATHEISM, by Sam Harris - and while it's not an ideal introduction to the ideas of Atheism (more of an entry-point, really) my immediate reaction upon reading it was to wanna post it as a MySpace bulletin; I decided a blog might be a better choice of context, though. After all, I have a diverse group of friends ranging from Christians and Quakers, to Deists, Agnostics and Atheists -- plus probably some new-agey crystal-worshiping types -- and while I know none of them would be offended by my posting an informative bit about Atheism, I thought this might be more constructive.

These are my thoughts: Why is it that religion is such an impossibly sensitive topic—among friends, even? I mean it's the one fundamental belief that we all have (or don't have), upon which arguably all of our meaningful decisions are somehow based, and yet the subject seems almost pathologically avoided in the presence of opposing viewpoints. Granted, I do have a few religious friends with whom I've managed to have meaningful discussions, and I don't want to marginalize them. But on the whole, there seems to be a threshold of emotion that you don't have to cross to know is there. In a sense, I feel obliged to the same terms of privacy that apply to one's sex-life, the difference being that belief and non-belief have everything to do with what motivates those around me. For this reason, I'd like to promote some online dialogue because in my experience, any disputing of religion (outside the context of mediated debate) is unpleasant; it either becomes uncomfortable, or loses any sort of focus, to the extent that I'd sooner propose the party topic "What STD's does everyone have?" than challenge the merits of religion in mixed company. It's just too steeped in emotion.

So why bring this anxiety to MySpace, Matt? What gives? I'm here to have fun and forget about things. And aren't you being kind of "psycho" about all this? Well, that's for you to know and me to find out -- I certainly don't mean to offend. Really, I'd just like to open the lines of communication in this here blog, so consider this an invite to share some information regarding Belief vs. Non-Belief; an article, a story, a reaction… anything is welcome.

I'll start with this.