OK, so I have gotten behind yet again on my blog.
As a stop-gap, an article entitled The Virtues of Godlessness by Phil Zuckerman has been making the rounds on both atheist and religious websites.
I found it on a blog call Fortune Cookies, and I posted my response to the article in the comments section there.
As the old saying goes, "statistics don't lie, but liars use statistics." Well, in this case, I think Zuckerman's numbers would not even qualify as statistics, and his expert analysis seems to be a rather half-hearted attempt to patch together a framework of quasi-facts and figures around predetermined theory. Considering the contents of his faculty profile page includes a list of favorite songs for atheists, I think my theory of a biased data set is in good shape. At least he likes Nick Drake and Elliott Smith.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Phil's bases much of his argument's origination on two claims. That Denmark and Sweden are the two happiest countries and that they are both primarily devoid of religion. Both claims seem to me to be quite subjective, and something that could be proved to either side, but they are claims that can spark a lively and interesting discussion, which is what he has done here.
I would say that his column is primarily opinion and that he doesn't attempt to use many facts (irrefutable proofs). So he pulls from quotes, studies, and situations that illustrate his point of view.
I would imagine that a Christian apologist could write a column or book that gives examples of how religion gives society the foundation they need for success. I would also imagine that an athiest could write a column, as is done here, that proves the oppostite. And I would also imagine that both articles would contain bits of truth.
Is it impossible for a society to function, be successful, and flourish without respect to any God? Certainly. I would argue that in this case Phil makes his error in the origin of his premise. His assertion that the purpose of religion is to promote a prosperous society, is in my opinion, incorrect. Human good can be a positive impact on society, but it is empty in the perspective of eternity.
Correction. I intended to type "certainly not" in the last paragraph. To maintain the integrity of this blog, I have fired my proof-reader.
What an intriguing article posted by the very well read Justus. I think Phil's arguments are both interesting, insightful, and encouraging. The last time I was skimming the good ol Book I never really noticed any societies getting all that better... the words and ways of Jesus are revolutionary and I would say the average American Christian today claiming Christianity as there faith isn't really living that faith out with high degrees of adherence to love, selflessness, and concern for neighbor. Maybe check out Greg Boyd's "The Myth of the Christian Nation" I like some of his thoughts on this topic. But again Justus a great article and wonderful fodder for thought.
First of all, maybe he should increase his sample size. If you're going to conduct a faux-experiment, at least use more faux examples and more faux-data. Particularly, citing three conservative Christians alongside three academic theologians doesn't validate the point he was going to make regardless of his illustrations.
However, his last paragraph is an indictment of sorts. Acknowledging that the Scandinavian countries lean towards social democracies (and ignoring the political debate on those grounds for the moment), he does point out that our Christian society (as he calls it) doesn't really live up to its billing. Barlow nails this in his comment above - and it is incumbent upon us believers to do that which the Government cannot, should not, or will not.
But good for him. The fact that Zuckerman is addressing this topic is encouraging in that it belies his need to justify himself and his beliefs. Query: why is it that Athiests frequently feel compelled to argue or prove that they're right? Could it be that something they dare not speak aloud is constantly tugging at their heart strings? Now, in fairness to Zuckerman, many Apologists also feel a similar compulsion to prove out their faith to non-believers in the way you would derive a mathematical equation. But, in my opinion, when Christians evangelize best, they *share* their faith rather than *argue* it. I don't feel like Zuckerman was sharing his atheism so much as attempting to prove it to me.
Great comments, everyone. This blog thing is starting to get fun.
Dr. RR and Barlow, you get at the heart of what pushed me away in my 20's. I grew up around a lot of people arguing and talking about their faith, but not doing anything about it. I never had a problem with God, but it took me a few years to realize that I had a problem with people like Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed who claimed to speak for God.
Whatever our differences, it is great to know fellow Christians who are humbly and diligently trying to live and share their faith.
Interesting that he cites U2's God Part II among his greatest songs for atheists. Maybe I'm just thick, but I guess I have misunderstood both U2 and that song for 20 years. Luckly, Zuckerman has set me straight...
Well, I'm not a Christian but my family memebers mostly are, ans I share the cultural/religious background. I enjoyed reading this comment discussion.
Good work, Justus! A blog post which inspires a thoughtful discussion is something to be proud of!
Thanks Larry!
Post a Comment