October 20, 2007
Why Believers Should Take Richard Dawkins Seriously
Richard Skinner in Ekklesia:
Now I think the critics of Richard Dawkins are in the main quite right. I say ‘in the main’ because Dawkins does make a number of valid points, particularly relating to the role of religion, and Christianity in particular, in the life of this country; but I agree that a large proportion of his book is indeed based on error. However, I don’t think it right for us to say, “Ah, well, not only theologians but even atheists have demonstrated where Dawkins has gone wrong, therefore we don’t have to take his views seriously.”
We do have to take his views seriously, for more than one reason. Wilson suggests, and I agree with him, that Christians should be grateful to Dawkins, because “he has gathered together all of the best arguments against God’s existence in one place, with the intention of debating them publicly.” Quite so, but I think there’s another reason to listen to Dawkins. It’s this: theological writers and others can point out at length that what Dawkins does is to set up a straw man – or rather, a straw God – and then demolish it; they can show that Dawkins has not really got to grips at all with a true understanding of God and the religious dimension; but the straw God that Dawkins sets up and then demolishes is often uncomfortably close to the notion of God that we Christians all too frequently seem to talk about, pray to and worship.
What Dawkins demolishes in this book may well be a misrepresentation of God, but it is a misrepresentation, an idol, that we Christians all too have often set up and espoused as the real thing. We should listen to Dawkins because doing so can help us reflect on what we claim to believe, or think we believe, or imply that we believe. His views can act as an acid to eat away the false and phoney elements of our faith.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 03:47 PM | Permalink
Comments
"Richard Dawkins in effect, even though he may not realise it, is pointing at a load of golden calves that we have fashioned over the millennia, and saying, “what a load of rubbish”. But of course, to rubbish a golden calf is not the same thing as to rubbish the living God."
THIS ARTICLE IS A LOAD OF RUBBISH. Could any religious person please define "the living god" that is "immanent and transcendent" and exists " outside the universe" and "dwelling within all things" in any meaningful way that is not just another theological "philosophical concept" that Skinner wants to get away from.
This article shows that the response that religious people have against criticism and demands for proof is to make their concept of god so vague as to be meaningless. The concept of god is just a function of moral and philosophical zeitgeist.
Posted by: Doyle | Oct 20, 2007 4:38:11 PM
"We do have to take his views seriously, for more than one reason. Wilson suggests, and I agree with him, that Christians should be grateful to Dawkins, because “he has gathered together all of the best arguments against God’s existence in one place, with the intention of debating them publicly.” Quite so, but I think there’s another reason to listen to Dawkins. It’s this: theological writers and others can point out at length that what Dawkins does is to set up a straw man – or rather, a straw God – and then demolish it; they can show that Dawkins has not really got to grips at all with a true understanding of God and the religious dimension; but the straw God that Dawkins sets up and then demolishes is often uncomfortably close to the notion of God that we Christians all too frequently seem to talk about, pray to and worship."
I would make two points here:
1) though Dawkins' book is quite valuable, I don't think it puts all the best arguments against God's existence in one place. It will not replace a much more rigorously reasoned book like John Mackie's MIRACLE OF THEISM, however boring Mackie may be, according to one of Dawkins' admirers.
2) Though Dawkins hardly gives a picture of Christian belief in all its manifest variety, to say that what he attacks is uncomfortably close to what a lot of Christians worship might be put much less self-servingly: Dawkins attacks Christianity as it's practiced and believed in by a lot of (maybe most) Christians.
The writer here doesn't go to the ridiculous extreme of Terry Eagleton--lambasting Dawkins for not coming to grips with Father Rahner or the John the Scot--but he ought to admit that Dawkins' hatchet job is performed on a big, ugly weed that merits the name "Christianity" as much as many finer specimens with the same name.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | Oct 20, 2007 6:06:16 PM
I second the reference to Mackie's "Miracle of Theism," and would add Michael Martin's "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification," for those who really want a crushingly thorough, door-stop-weight treatment of the subject.
The holy trinity of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens may be lacking quite a bit in philosophical depth, but at least they have roused a degree of popular interest in atheism that treatises like Mackie's and Martin's could never produce.
Posted by: JonJ | Oct 20, 2007 8:00:38 PM
Jon--
Dawkins needed to dumb down "The God Delusion" to try to come down to the intellectual level of our religious friends (a hopeless task). Harris presented in the"End Of Faith" a historical account with direct quotes from the Iron and Bronze Age mythology of the religious texts, so there really is not much interpretation from direct content (ah yes, but they are metaphorical- no reasonable person could believe that)-
Chris H is Chris H-- I think you know my thought on that one--
However, if any of you want to get in over your superstition based heads, take on Dennett---
You will be bleeding on the floor.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Oct 20, 2007 8:24:13 PM
Well, since to insist on perfect clarity is to betray an inability to grasp the concept of being beyond imagining, unconstrained by the limits of space and time as we are capable of comprehending them, his response is as good as any:
A more formal definition can be found here: http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm
Posted by: Carlos | Oct 20, 2007 8:41:47 PM
Screw your faith and it's weak drivel. We have been bludgeoned with fear and superstition for too long. It is now time to break free from the shamans and live free lives.
Posted by: Greg Stephens | Oct 20, 2007 8:45:12 PM
What freedoms do you feel are currently denied you?
Posted by: Carlos | Oct 20, 2007 10:18:04 PM
Sorry, my night to question assertions. What precisely is it about Dennett's opinions that you find so rapier-like? Can you be specific? On the topic of the claims of Religion, he seems no less Rationalist, and no more Empirical, than any committed Seminarian, he just seems to hew to a different altar.Posted by: Carlos | Oct 20, 2007 10:26:17 PM
Dawkins' book left me with the impression that he understands religion much less well than he understands physics, which would be logical enough; one is his professional and academic field and one is not. The book was akin to a vegetarian Chinese meal; not too bad but one is left hungry for a real meal an hour later.
Posted by: Bruce | Oct 20, 2007 11:43:55 PM
"Straw god", "Straw man" - I don't see much of a difference.
Posted by: beajerry | Oct 21, 2007 2:25:43 AM
Carlos,
Dawkins does not try to argue with definitions of God provided by religion. Instead he looks at the concept of God in the context of general rational thinking, which I think can be summarized as follows:
- Can there be an empirical test that will prove existence of God? If the answer is no (or that the question does not make sense), then God is creation of our minds. Dawkins also argues why the question cannot be redefined as "Science has to prove God does not exist".
- Do we humans have to have a philosophical concept of abstract God that is a creation of our minds? If the answer is no, then the concept of God is as good as, say, concept of private property - a concept that has both benefits and a costs and that humans should be defining and redefining openly and repeatedly. Dawkins argues that the cost vastly outweighs the benefits.
Which point are you disagreeing with?
Posted by: MrM | Oct 21, 2007 10:24:13 AM
MrM--
Most have not even read the book, nor looked at the argument (at least from my observations on their lack of actual knowledge of what is discussed)--
This all about narrative to satisfy the story in their heads.
(and mine of course also)
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Oct 21, 2007 12:19:42 PM
MrM
What point am I disagreeing with?
I was simply addressing (or empathizing) with Doyles complaint that there is no full definition of God which is not also a philosophical concept.
I will now, however, disagree with one of your points (which I assume you feel is an accurate representation of Dawkins' position) A thing may in fact exist regardless of our abilities to devise an empirical test. There may be things too small, too ephemeral, to diffuse, too vast, or at too far a remove for us to ever detect. That does not mean they aren't real, so I can't imagine using this as an argument against God. I'm not quite sure what your second point is supposed to mean, did you proofread it? But I will disagree with Dawkins that the cost of religion vastly outweighs the benefits. It should be instructive that the 20th century word MegaDeath was coined to describe what happened in the previous millennia when societies began to play God while rejecting His authority. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot. These mass murderers are the heritage Atheists can fairly lay claim to as uniquely theirs. All the rest of the modern world is so embued with the good works of believing men and women that it would be folly to ever claim you could have come up with anything nearly so charitable without their example and sacrifice.
Posted by: Carlos | Oct 21, 2007 5:23:04 PM
Carlos,
The Nicene creed? Are you f'ing serious? Believing that shite is a functional lobotomy. Virgin birth? Ressurection? Original sin? These beliefs are inconsistent with facts (not theories) of human ontogeny, physics and the evolution of our species. (I wont waste my time giving you specific examples, especially since the burden of proof is on you; the burden of disproof is not me, or Dawkins.) If you realy think that the nicene creed either claifies a definition of god or dissuades people from over-defining god, you are way to far down the faithhole (and infected with religious memes) to be reasoned with.
Posted by: Doyle | Oct 22, 2007 12:21:04 PM
I'm certain the authors of this site don't wish it to devolve to this level. For my part I am sorry to have elicited such vitriol. I don't think I have the rhetorical skills necessary to communicate to you that a concept of a thing is far different from the reality, or even non-reality, of a thing, or why that is even a valid notion to interject into this conversation.
Posted by: Doyle | Oct 22, 2007 1:06:58 PM
The previous comment (1:06:58 PM) should be by Carlos, not Doyle.
Posted by: Carlos | Oct 22, 2007 1:35:38 PM
Carlos,
I'm sure that any offensive posts could easily be deleted by the authors of this site. I am merely shocked and dismayed at the inanity of your ideas and hoped some strong words would provoke you to actually defend your position (that the nicene creed clarifies or is a formal definition of anything). While I didn't mean my post to be vitriolic, you also have no right to be offended because I have treaded on what you or others believe to be sacred (e.g virgin births, burning bushes and the like). Religious people find it okay to proselytize, but take offense and walk away when challenged. One of Dennett's main points is that religious ideas should not be off limits because they are sacred, but should be systematically studied like any other natural phenomenon- science, culture politics. My comments to you would not be half as harsh if we were debating the logical merit of a 4th century tax code rather than an ecumenical epitome.
Posted by: Doyle | Oct 22, 2007 6:44:04 PM
Doyle--
The Talking Snake has the final say on this board--
You just mount Mohammed's Horse, and fly on over, and get the Truth--
No reason or science is allowed--
Science is Satan!
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Oct 22, 2007 7:46:36 PM
Dave,
Thanks for showing me the rightious path to salvation. Thinking about "facts," "science" and "reality" always hurt my noggin anyway. Truth lies in the word of Yahweh, Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha,The talking snake or The flying spaghetti monster. RAmen.
On horse! Take me to my hat and seer stone!
Posted by: Doyle | Oct 22, 2007 9:22:29 PM
Bruce
Dawkins is a biologist, not a physicist. His argument about his relative lack of knowledge of God-theory is that having all the knowledge in the world about theology makes not a whit of difference. Anyone can say anything about God they like as there is (literally) nothing to say they are not right. Whereas in biology, there is a very large body of evidence and experimental confirmation that says some things are so and some are not so.
The big question is "why bother to have religion?". The opposing "why bother to have science?" is answered every day when you use any of the products of science-based technology (and they are everywhere - even where you think they aren't).
Understandably, this vast imbalance of practical applications makes athiests rather smug.
Posted by: Andrew C | Oct 23, 2007 8:15:23 AM
Doyle--
While the Talking Snake has been getting all the attention, one should not ignore the Ram---
He has a army of monkeys!
Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn
by BBC
Thanks to Ken Bromberg for the link.
Reposted from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6994415.stm
bridgeThe Indian government has withdrawn a controversial report submitted in court earlier this week which questioned the existence of the Hindu god Ram.
The report was withdrawn after huge protests by opposition parties.
The report was presented to the Supreme Court on Wednesday in connection with a case against a proposed shipping canal project between India and Sri Lanka.
Hindu hardliners say the project will destroy what they say is a bridge built by Ram and his army of monkeys.
Scientists and archaeologists say the Ram Setu (Lord Ram's bridge) - or Adam's Bridge as it is sometimes called - is a natural formation of sand and stones.
No evidence
In their report submitted to the court, the government and the Archaeological Survey of India questioned the belief, saying it was solely based on the Hindu mythological epic Ramayana.
They said there was no scientific evidence to prove that the events described in Ramayana ever took place or that the characters depicted in the epic were real.
Hindu activists say the bridge was built by Lord Ram's monkey army to travel to Sri Lanka and has religious significance.
In the last two days, the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has launched a scathing attack on the government for questioning the "faith of the million".
Worried about the adverse reaction from the majority Hindu population of the country, the Congress Party-led government has now done a U-turn and withdrawn the statement submitted in court.
The government asked the court for three months to try and sort out the issue.
Additional Solicitor General Gopal Subramaniam, appearing on behalf of the government, said they would set up a mechanism to hear concerns expressed by those opposed to the canal project.
The court adjourned the matter for three months saying they would take up the case again in January.
In the meantime, the court has said that dredging work for the canal could continue, but Ram's Bridge should not be touched
Road blocks
On Wednesday, Hindu hard-line organisations blocked roads across India to protest against the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project.
Commuters in the capital, Delhi, were stuck in traffic jams for hours as Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council) and Bajrang Dal blocked roads at various places.
Road blocks were also held in Bhopal, the capital of the central state of Madhya Pradesh, on the Delhi-Agra highway and on the Jaipur-Agra highway.
Train services were disrupted in many places across northern India.
The canal project proposes to link the Palk Strait with the Gulf of Mannar between India and Sri Lanka by dredging a canal through the shallow sea.
This is expected to provide a continuous navigable sea route around the Indian peninsula.
Once complete, the canal will reduce the travel time for ships by hundreds of miles and is expected to boost the economic and industrial development of the region.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Oct 23, 2007 12:07:12 PM
Of course you did. You meant to express hatred of my ideas and my temerity for having them. That's fine, though. I'm really not offended. There are many people who refuse to allow for anything they cannot measure for themselves. Maybe even most people. That I and many millions of other people have measured for ourselves and found God, not in the Gaps, not in our post-natal programming, but in the very way of the world is always going to be very irritating to the Sciencians of the world. Newton & Liebnitz both can never be fully canonized into your church because of this shared failing.
And no, I won't walk away when challenged, but neither do I have much to profess to those who cannot allow themselves to reach for more than what can be easily grasped. I am content to know that Atheists are a protected minority within our midst.
Posted by: Carlos | Oct 23, 2007 1:00:30 PM
Carlos,
So what in the "very way of the world" would allow ME to see YOUR god? What is it that you and millions (try billions for all religion) have "measured." Is it in the numerous reported virgin births? Spontaneous lasting combustion of shrubbery? The reanimation of rigored corpses?
Aren't you concerned that the subjective reality that you have in common with like minded individuals is a shared delusion? You claim that you will not engage people who cannot allow themselves to reach for more than what can be easily grasped. (I hope your are not refering to scientists as such kinds of people.) However if you have the truth, you should be welcome to putting your beliefs to a test.
Instead of clarifying your beliefs, you have just struck back with your own brand of vitriol againts "sciencians," their "church," and the protected atheist minorities (who I'm sure you would love to see eliminated from your deamon haunted world).
I have not claimed knowledge of the universe and reality that cannot be independently verified or at very least explained - you have. Furthermore, I have only expressed hatred for one idea - the Nicean creed - because it is nonsensical. On this, you HAVE walked away! I will continue to have my doubts that you are capable of rational thought until you explain to me how the Nicean creed holds any truth in the face of all eidence to the contrary.
Posted by: Doyle | Oct 23, 2007 3:03:38 PM
Well, present your evidence, and we'll see if I can measure up.
Posted by: Carlos | Oct 23, 2007 5:07:17 PM
Carlos,
You are insufferable. I now think that you must be pretending to be so daft. If not, here I will merely repeat what I said to you earlier:
"Virgin birth? Resurrection? Original sin? These beliefs are inconsistent with facts (not theories) of human ontogeny, physics and the evolution of our species. (I wont waste my time giving you specific examples, especially since the burden of proof is on you; the burden of disproof is not on me, or Dawkins.)"
Pick up a few textbooks from your local gammar school, read them, and then let me know if you still think virgin births, resurrection and Adam & Eve are or ever were possible (nicean creed). Then you can trumpet your underwhelming evidence while standing on a soapbox at a busy street corner.
Best,
D
Posted by: Doyle | Oct 23, 2007 6:45:44 PM
Now how are we ever going to have a reasonable conversation if you keep bouncing back and forth between two polarized positions?
In inviting you to present your evidence, I was merely responding to this:
When you said "eidence" I assumed you meant evidence. And I also assumed you meant you had some. Or failing even that, at least a sound argument. Now you seem to be jumping straight back to your previous position, and I have already responded to that.
But I will share with you something of what I believe, aside from my obvious irrational belief in astral pasta. I believe that all of what we will ever be able to empirically prove (or refute) about the whole of existence is less than the iridescence on the surface of a single soap bubble in a universe filled with them. I also believe that there is scientific support for such a statement. I further am willing to entertain the idea that it is possible that consciousness is similar in state to the universe, with much of what enables its temporal manifestation wholly outside the four dimensional universe we are capable of observing, and that the vast gulf between our mental abilities and those of the dogs apes and dolphins (surely we can agree on just how marvelously vast it is?) might possibly have some roots in more than just a denser array of transistors.
Given these two beliefs that I have, doubtless you are even more convinced of my irrationality, for though one is well grounded in theoretical science, the other is a folly. But at least when I pick a position I stick to it.
Cheers,
Carlos
Posted by: Carlos | Oct 23, 2007 8:38:34 PM
zzzzzz.
Dreaming of merging gametes, Australopithecine, exothermic chemical reaction of fuels and oxidants. 'No, Sadi Carnot, don't take grandma away forever' zzzzz
Huh? Explanation of nicean creed? Vague transcendental metaphysical hypothesis?
zzzzzz.
Posted by: Doyle | Oct 23, 2007 9:18:13 PM
Carlos, don't be a putz!
Posted by: Carlos' Dad | Oct 23, 2007 10:24:27 PM
Carlos,
What on this struggling, over-taxed planet are you talking about?!
Doyle has asked you to present evidence of some (any) sort for a specific position you hold. He hasn't asked you how you FEEL about it or whether you think scientists are blind to some amazing transcendental reality that only you can see (but tellingly, won't define)- he has asked you for EVIDENCE of what it is you believe. Of course, you can't provide it and wallow in the nebulous. No patent to be granted there... You even seem PROUD of the fact that you can hold onto a pre-determined position in spite of its lack of logical consistency.
Now if only you had read and understood Dawkins (and many others) correctly, you might even recognise yourself as one to whom he speaks. I won't hold my breath, although I had hoped Doyle might have received an answer many posts before this.
Posted by: MattInOz | Oct 24, 2007 1:58:45 AM
Doyle (or is it Dennett):
Oh good, he's asleep
Carlos' Dad:
I love you Daddy, please don't drink.
MattInOz:
Not quite. Doyle asked for a Definition of God that was more than a just a Philosophical Concept. I provided the Nicene Creed, which is not philosophical at all, more of a CV of God, in fact. Much Hoo Haa ensued...then he seemed to be claiming that he had evidence that the Nicene Creed was false; I invited him to share; he looped back to a previous position. I fail to see my error, other than to have engaged an inconstant foe.
MattInOz:
What lack of logical consistency do you refer to?
Just a quick note on the meaning of life that AntiTheists seem to get stuck on with some regularity. You are undergoing a test. The criterion for passing the test is developing Faith. The criterion is not a secret. The consequences of failure (likely some blend of metaphor and literal truth) are profound, as are the rewards of success.
What is not provided in your test booklet is the proof that your Faith is well founded, because that would obviate the Faith bit, and give you a fail on the course.
Posted by: Carlos | Oct 24, 2007 11:26:45 AM
Carlos,
I'm awake and done dreaming of all of they ways I could, were it my burden, refute the Nicene creed.
By the way, I thank you for comparing me to Dennett, who I consder to be a culturally important intellectual. While I do not I agree with everything he says, or believe that all of his hypotheses are valid, I do agree with the following quotes (from Breaking the Spell, 2006- soft cover) that I have gathered for your (Pascal's) wagering soul:
[Dennett writes of skepticism] If you persist, you are likely to get a response along these lines: “God can see you when you’re doing something evil in the dark, but he does not have eyelids, and never blinks, you silly rude person, and of course He can read your mind even when you are careful not to talk to yourself, but still He prefers you pray to Him in words, and don’t ask me how or why. These are mysteries we finite mortals will never understand.” People of al faiths have been taught that any such questioning is somehow insulting or demeaning to their faith, and must be an attempt to ridicule their views. What a fine protective screen this virus provides- permitting it to shed the antibodies of skepticism effortlessly.
pp. 206-7
If theists would be so kind as to make a short list of all the concepts of god they renounce as balderdash before proceeding further, we atheists would know just which topics were still on the table, but out of a mixture of caution, loyalty, and unwillingness to offend anyone “on their side,” theists typically decline to do this. Don’t put all your eggs in one basket, I guess.
pp.210-11
The mists of incomprehension and failure of communication are not just annoying impediments to rigorous refutation; they are themselves design features of religions worth looking at closely on their own.
p.217
Do you agree?
Posted by: Doyle | Oct 24, 2007 2:20:52 PM
Too bad, think how we could all benefit if you were only slightly more generous :-)Per comparing you with Dennett, my bad, but it was not meant as a compliment. I think Dennett, as an apologist for AntiTheism, makes a fine College Philosophy Professor.
The comparison was an acknowledgement of what I see as a similar style in said apologetics, namely denial and ridicule. Before accepting point one of Dennett above, I wonder if he could look you in the eye while he said it, as clearly ridicule IS what he is generally about in this sphere, although even he, when not lathering up the crowd, has pondered the wisdom of getting rid of religion, had you the power to do so. That said, I don't much care how you go about imagining the anthropomorphizing of God. If you want to poke fun at the silly theists, I have to give you a pass, since I spent 35 years doing just that (yes, I am a failed Atheist)
Per point 2. The list of things God is not is an exercise I have no interest in. I have found Him, you should too, but the common pathway is not to rule him out but to see if you might rule Him in, and we have some really good books on that. I don't care much about insulting people whose beliefs I find naive, even Atheists, generally, but I find much gold in the straw of most people. Mormons, Calvinists, Atheists, Muslims, Baptists & even many of my fellow Catholics (that would be an ascending order of rationality-so you got that going for you) have very interesting things to say, and I like to hold the door open.
Per point three. Feel free to take that assumption. For my part, on crossing back over the Tiber, those facets of Catholic Dogma and Scripture that initially seemed the most mysterious and incomprehensible have generally proved the most moving and rewarding once I gave up pretending I was far too wise to buy into them.
The good stuff is rocket science, in its own way, but until you give up refusing to believe in rockets you are not likely to get very far.
Posted by: Carlos | Oct 24, 2007 3:37:15 PM
Well Carlos, you have finally triumphed my will to counter your drivel. I will let someone else step in and take up the charge.
Since I now know you are a Catholic, and not some waffling transcendentalist, I at least have a sense of what you are REQUIRED to believe. I'm sure it is all rocket science to you. Good luck.
---
To anyone who is actually able to use the rational part of their brain, please wear or promote the use of condoms during sexual intercourse. (Also, feel free to make condom balloon animals and water-balloons to mock religious propriety.)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071023/hl_nm/honduras_aids_dc
---
Carlos, you may pray for my soul (sorry, sole or any other part of my shoe) and I will hope that you and yours don't contract any STDs or spread them to me and mine.
Posted by: Doyle | Oct 24, 2007 4:58:12 PM
Thanks for your contribution Dan.
The last two posts taught us both all we need to know, apparently.
Posted by: Carlos | Oct 24, 2007 6:01:57 PM
"The mists of incomprehension and failure of communication are not just annoying impediments to rigorous refutation; they are themselves design features of religions worth looking at closely on their own.
p.217
Do you agree?"
I think he's answered yes.
Posted by: anon | Oct 24, 2007 7:37:18 PM
"I think he's answered yes."
Indeed, as long as "failure of communication" is clearly understood as "just wouldn't listen"
Incomprehension vs. Incomprehensibility is clear enough on its own.
But the basic truths held by Christians are so simple even an adult can grasp them.
Posted by: Carlos | Oct 24, 2007 8:31:23 PM
Meanwhile, reality marches on:
Catholic condom ban helping AIDS spread in Latam: U.N.
by Reuters
Thanks to Alex for the link.
Reposted from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071023/hl_nm/honduras_aids_dc
TEGUCIGALPA (Reuters) - The rapid spread in Latin America of the virus that causes AIDS is made worse by the Roman Catholic Church's stand against using condoms, a U.N. official said on Monday.
Some 1.7 million people across Latin America are infected with the HIV virus or full-blown AIDS, and the epidemic is spreading swiftly with up to 410,000 new cases in 2006, up from as many as 320,000 new cases in 2004, according the UN AIDS program, UNAIDS.
"In Latin America the use of condoms has been demonized, but if they were used in every relation I guarantee the epidemic would be resolved in the region," said Alberto Stella, the UNAIDS Coordinator for Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica.
The Catholic Church, which holds sway in Latin America despite the rise in evangelical churches, opposes all forms of contraception and instead promotes abstinence as a way to avoid spreading AIDS.
"The fact young people start to be sexually active between 15 and 19 without sex education contributes to the spreading of the virus, as well as the fact that the evidence shows abstinence is not working," Stella told Reuters.
Latin America is home to nearly half the world's 1.1 billion Catholics, but the Church's position on premarital sex and contraception often clashes with modern values. Brazil, the region's largest Catholic nation, regularly distributes free condoms to try and bring down HIV infection rates.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Oct 25, 2007 1:39:14 AM
Carlos,
There are innumerable sensible and highly powerful explanations for why religions have arisen and why they hold such power over people (some more than others, I see...) I, and many others on here for that matter, could wax lyrical about the inconsistencies in doctrinal "thinking" and the evils that the ingroup/outgroup mentality of religion enables.
However, it has become apparent that you surrendered your free-thinking ability and sold out to the lazy answers some time ago and as such are immune from all the best arguments that could be made. I will waste my time no longer and bid you all the best.
Lest you think I have no experience of the nonsense you subscribe to, I was supposedly born and baptized as a RC child, whatever that means, and raised with the self contradictory rubbish for my formative years. It's noteworthy that a child could see through it all from the age of 12 or so. Thankfully was able to turf all that (and largely wean the parents off the tripe) and move onto live a fulfilling life free of inconsistency.
Good luck.
Posted by: MattInOz | Oct 25, 2007 2:00:02 AM
"It's noteworthy that a child could see through it all from the age of 12"
As did I. I was an avowed Atheist by the time I was 12. I even dared God to strike me down, right there on the spot.
Thankfully, I am bound by relatively little of what passed for sound judgment for me when I was 12.
Here in the comments sections of 3QD, there seems to be a large number of people who could throw down and demolish my world view if they wanted to. But they don't seem to want to very much.
There are some statisticans though: Surely you realize that the primary prohibition is against extramaritial sex. If only people would follow that rule, STDs and abortions world wide would slow radically. If they are not going to avoid sex (the first rule) what makes you think they would follow the second rule? You can't fairly claim condoms are not available. The UN distributes them globally by the supertanker load in order to promote more extramarital sex. Condom use in this country is virtually mandatory. Many of you swingers have no idea what sex actually feels like, and yet even here where you all use them, STDs are still epidemic, & more than a million abortions occur every year. Also, while hard numbers of new cases are apparently available in Latin America, we only have estimates here (right to privacy). We could only be under-reporting by a factor of 2 to be pretty much in-line with the far larger aggregate population that comprises Latin America. Apparently, people, you are not using your condoms-or they are not working. They are only 80-90% effective anyway, but weren't you paying attention in class? I have to say it doesn't sound like Reuters really provided you with a very balanced report.
Posted by: Carlos | Oct 25, 2007 7:18:38 AM
"If only people would follow that rule"
I have an idea, let's tell people to do something impossible, then blame them when they fail!
Posted by: anon | Oct 25, 2007 8:29:12 AM
I have an idea. Let's tell people something is impossible, demonstrate just how impossible it is (and how undesirable and ignorant) through our own lifestyles and media propaganda machine, then sit back and blame others when our goal is realized.
The coincidence of data between the rate of STD increases and changes in the Church's position is nil. Coincidence between the promotion of sexual freedom with wide distribution of condoms and the rate of STD increases, however, is very very high.
There is also an inverse coincidence between said spread of STDs and the effectiveness of the Church in communicating its message. I don't know, but my kneejerk response (yes, not only Liberals have them) is: Some of that is the Church's fault, some of it is by design by radical "thinkers" within the Church, and some is due to the shift away from parochial education and the exclusion from government school curricula of the conjoined concepts of morality and consequences.
Posted by: Carlos | Oct 25, 2007 10:13:52 AM
"Let's tell people something [abstinence] is impossible"
People find this out for themselves, no one has to tell them.
Let's see, we have two options:
(1) Change human nature to fit our policies.
(2) Change our policies to fit human nature.
How many people must die from HIV/AIDS (to give just one example) before you realize that (1) doesn't work?
Posted by: anon | Oct 25, 2007 4:16:46 PM
"Let's tell people something [abstinence] is impossible"
Consider just how much energy IS spent telling them. Why is it impossible now, but was not previously impossible? The laws of nature did not change. The laws of society did. Further, they changed during a lessening of Church influence over social policy, not an increase. It's hard to claim (well no, it's easy to claim, it's hard to credibly demonstrate) that the reason people are dying is because the Church tells them not to do something while at the same time the Church is being prevented from completing its dialog, its core message is being liberalized from within and fewer and fewer people are listening to it.
The Latin American countries with the highest rates of AIDs are reportedly:
Belize (less than 50% Catholic)
Bahamas (13.5% Catholic)
Barbados (4% Catholic)
(Figures from the CIA World Fact Book)
http://www.crosswalk.com/1180592/
Abstinence is not impossible, it's not even particularly difficult, and even if imperfectly practiced, it works each and every time that it is practiced. Monogamy is also 100% effective.
Wonder if there is any data showing how much time and modey goes into dis-promoting abstinance.
Over 42 million people are living with HIV/AIDS, and 74 percent of these infected people live in sub-Saharan Africa. Needless to say, the UN has total access to this population, no wicked Cathlolic "demonization" of condoms. And yet it leads the pack.
Posted by: Carlos | Oct 25, 2007 7:29:56 PM
Post a comment