Siamang, for this gem on a recent Friendly Atheist post:
Paul Copan:
“And, second, granted that the major objection to belief in God is the problem of evil, does the concept of evil itself not suggest a standard of goodness or a design plan from which things deviate, so that if things ought to be a certain way (rather than just happening to be the way they are in nature), don’t such ‘injustices’ or ‘evils’ seem to suggest a moral/design plan independent of nature?”
Just because we can perceive good and evil, or light and dark, or loud and quiet as different as relative to each other does not mean there is an absolutely loudest thing, an absolutely brightest thing or an absolutely good thing.
There is no such thing as the loudest sound of all time, against which we measure all sounds for their relative quietness. Rather, all one needs is two sounds to measure relative difference.
If some kids in high-school are cool, and some are nerds, and most kids can agree on which are which, does that mean that the fictional character Fonzie exists? Would answering this question be an adequate way to discover whether or not Fonzie exists, or if he is instead a work of fiction:
And, second, granted that the major objection to belief in Fonzie is the existence of nerds, does the concept of nerdishness itself not suggest a standard of coolness or a style and demeanor from which nerds deviate, so these kids ought to be cooler (rather than just happening to be the way they act normally), don’t such ‘nerds’ or ‘wimps’ seem to suggest a separate standard of what makes cool kids cool independent of nature?
I guess if “Cool” exists, and we are able to perceive it and differentiate cool kids from nerds, then certainly Arthur Fonzerelli is a real living being and not a fictional character on Happy Days.
It was pretty lax for me. I woke up at 1:30AM and watched the inauguration via BBC’s stream from the comfort of my own bed. All the while, I was talking to a friend who was watching the inauguration in the US, and summarizing the whole thing to another friend in the US who was commuting from work.
Obama was my candidate of choice since early on in the primaries, so it was great to see him finally take the office of President. And of course, his speech was like velvety chocolate for the ears (uh, not velvety chocolate IN the ears, though). But I’m not emotional about this inauguration; I want to see what the Obama administration will do to bring about the change that was promised.
But anyway, something came up as I was talking to my friend, and I thought I should write it out so I don’t end up explaining it poorly on the fly. It probably wasn’t the best thing to say at the time, but as Rick Warren took the podium to read his prayer, I offhandedly mentioned that with all the prayers read at a government event, it was no wonder that people are unclear on what “separation of church and state” means.
As someone who does not believe in the existence of omniscient, life-creating higher powers, I couldn’t help but be pleasantly surprised with Obama’s “and non-believers,” and—conversely—disappointed that so much prayer is a part of the event.
Now, I didn’t realize that this point was unclear, so I have to apologize to my friend and offer this explanation: I am not offended by prayer. The basic ideas—those not relating to praising a specific notion of the divine—are often good and universal. I am, however, against the idea that there should be prayer at all in a publicly funded event representing the government. The content of the prayer is not the issue; the issue is its mere prescence. As encompassing as Rev. Warren and Rev. Joseph Lowery tried to be in their prayers (however encompassing you can be when you actively invoke the Judeo-Christian God: “The Scripture tells us, ‘Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God. The Lord is One.’”), it was inevitable that they failed to represent the beliefs of every United States citizen, and thus they suggested a specific notion of religion to everyone who watched… and they were indeed government-approved messages. Messages broadcast all over the world.
Here in Japan (and I’m sure many other places as well), people really think of the United States as a Christian nation. Other religions—much less people without religion—are not really considered when people talk about “Americans.” I have been assumed to be Christian merely by my citizenship. All my life, I have recited the Pledge of Allegiance with “under God” left in, said “Merry Christmas” during the holidays and “bless you” when someone sneezed, and respectfully bowed my head during prayers while solemnly thinking about what I could take away from the message. I am fine with removing religious references silently in my own mind, but I have a problem when the government is propagating religious notions… especially when those notions are going to every major broadcasting station on the planet.
Ideally, we want the United States of America to be a shining example of people from differing backgrounds with differing beliefs gathering together behind a common ideal of nationhood (that grows with time), under one star-spangled banner… it should not be an assembly of worshippers “under God.” Ideally, people should be proud that America is accepting of ALL beliefs… not just of their own.
Of course, that is still only an ideal. One that I hope we can move towards. And that is why I can’t remain silent on this seemingly minor issue of prayer. With its prominent place during a televised event meant to represent the United States to all its citizens and the world, It is really no minor issue at all.
