I do not have statistics on hand (I can find them on request, though) but last I checked, more than half of all Americans believed that humans were created ex nihilo sometime within the last twenty thousand years.
That's Protestantism. Now Catholicism is a somewhat different goat to shave, both because it's larger and because it spans more diverse countries. An illiterate farmer who has never been exposed to modern science can be more easily forgiven for not knowing that HIV causes AIDS than the president of a major country.
Further, my statistics on the beliefs of Catholics are a lot more sketchy - partly because I have devoted less time to Catholic fundies than to protestant ones and partly because the statistics in question are simply not compiled - many more Catholics than Protestants live in third-world countries where surveys are hard or impossible to carry out (and where carrying out such surveys would not exactly be a responsible use of the limited available resources).
Nevertheless, it is my distinct impression that - reality-challenged, shall we say - beliefs about HIV/AIDS as well as outright totalitarian views of homosexuality, reproductive rights and the relationship between religion and politics are not limited to a 'small but vocal minority.'
I will defer commentary on the various Orthodox branches of Christianity to those more knowledgeable than myself, save to say that the Greek Patriarch says ominous things about secularism being the common enemy of Christianity and that the official leadership of the Russian Orthodox church has some extremely flaky views on homosexuality - no, let's not mince words here, they believe that beating homosexuals to death is entirely justified.
Additionally, even if we - for the sake of the argument - grant that only an insignificantly small minority of Christians are batshit insane, the fact remains that those madmen wield a power that is out of all proportion to their (claimed) status as insignificant minority.
Bush was put on the throne in no small part by the fundagelicals. Herr Ratzinger, for all intents and purposes, defines the Catholic Church. Fundamentalists run rampant in Eastern Europe, and the moderates have made a desultory showing. When the Christian Taliban holds an anti-gay demonstration or push for an incorporation of Christianity into the foundational framework of the Union, the great silent majority does not rise up and proclaim "Not in my name!" It is telling that even in a thoroughly civilised country like Germany, religious bigotry has managed to curtail daycare services, on the (sadly correct) theory that with insufficient daycare, women will not be emancipated in the workforce.
That politicians would pander to the fundies even if the were just a small but vocal (and rich - never forget that) minority is understandable. But the fact that the great silent majority of sensible moderates does not appear to punish them for it stretches credulity. Either that silent majority is not quite as great as some would have us believe, or it is not quite as moderate...
On the subject of what mainstream Christian theology says and does not say, it would be interesting to hear some arguments as to whether Herr Ratzinger is a part of said mainstream...
(As an aside, it might also be helpful if someone were to shed some light on precisely where Dawkins' ignorance of theology leads him to make ill-conceived arguments. The charge that he is ignorant of theology is frequently made. Compelling reasons that this matters more than a fart in a flashbulb - not so much.)
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Well it would be good if you could have another look at those statistics, please. The reason why I bring this up is: subtle differences.
From what I remember that statistic was based around the question. Did God created Heaven and Earth? Now if you answer this question with YES, you are by no means necessarily a Science denyer that believes the earth is only created 6000 years ago. Therefore skewing your whole argument right there at the start.
I say that sentence every Sunday and there will be lots of other people including scientists that have the same understanding and ability to distinguish between an article of faith and scientific research.
When I say: God created Heaven and Earth. It does not mean he opened a box and pulled out the parts or some such ex nihilo action. It means, that as a person of faith, God has given me responsibility to look after Heaven and Earth. It is his work, which he has entrusted us/ me to look after. That is of course only the beginning. That is the consequence of his creation act. It does not say anything about his box of tricks or how that happened. As a person of faith, I leave the answer to that questions to the experts. The how is irrelevant for a Theologian, and only hers (the Thologicans) interest in the world, might make her examen this.
Equally irrelevant is the question of the existence of God. In my seven years at University I never once had a discussion about if God existed or not: We discussed God's death, Negative Theology, Christianity without a Christian God; We discussed historical arguments about God's existance, Aquinas, Augustine, Anselm of Canterbury, and more modern ones like C.S. Peirce. We discussed, why some people are calling themselves Atheists, how many they were, what motivated them and some such. The question, if God existed was not a matter of material relevance. The consequence of the answer to the question was however (negative or positive), it is of great interest and the only interesting really.
"Ingolf U. Dalferth: In religious ... discourse the term `god' normally functions not as a concept but as an indexical which introduces a comprehensive scheme of orientation in terms of which believers understand and interpret the world and their particular place in it."
This is then where I come back to Dawkin. It is exactly the ignorance about this simple fact, that eludes him and why he talks past people that are interested in Science and his arguments on Evolution and are people of faith at the same time.
(Christian) Religion and its hierarchie is being used to manipulate, alienate, disenfranchise. Of course, as the Catholic Church would be the first to admit: We are all sinners. (Ratzi asking all the Church to pray for paedophile Priests).
But what is often not considered, that a rejection of organised mass Religion, does not necessarily leads to a enlightened, science based life. Why should it. Science in its idealist, abstract notion of right and wrong, either - or does have a hard time to come to terms with human nature, difficult moral choices, grey behaviour (as have fundamentalist statements in general). Sure, church might offer overtly simplistic answers to hugely complex matters, and might subsequently be wrong about things as well - on a pastoral level, these loud proclamations usually look very different however. (As seen by huge inner-catholic, inner-orthodox,... inner-muslim protest against these outrageous abuse of power by church leaders - Catholic Abortion Advice Centres that continues to be part of the Abortion administration process in Germany, f.e. Again, these questions are not answered in black or white, but on a specific individual level.)
In religious ... discourse the term `god' normally functions not as a concept but as an indexical which introduces a comprehensive scheme of orientation in terms of which believers understand and interpret the world and their particular place in it."
It's always interesting how people try to defend religion in terms of the most sophisticated possible form of it.
You (maybe not you Colman, but you in general) say it is sophistication, they (we, I) say - we are only taking serious your questioning of our position, and that is the way we can make sense of it.
The next step then of your (generic) reply being "haeh?!?" would have to follow further explanation and only some are able to do so. (I only ever read Dalferth, never heard or spoke to him personally, so would not really know, what he is like in everyday language, but I would guess not very different...)
Most people on this planet are worshipping a guy in the sky (or his representative) in the hope of an afterlife and other more immediate payback: that's the reality of religion for 5B people.
There have always been more sophisticated sub-cults within religions for those who find the folk version unacceptably simplistic.
from my conversations with "normal" people of faith, and the evaluation of countless of sociology of religion studies on this matter. the guy in the sky that is being worshiped is a far more complex beast than what you think. You disregard the complexities of faiths expressed and shown very easily by all the splits and differences in faith. (getting four different answers from three people f.e)
simply to say - ah Faithies just want their mobile phone in heaven (I actually heard that - about 15 years ago, how time flies...) and the seven virgins, (aeh damn translation error, it actually says raisins) is unacceptably simplistic.
If you want to be taken seriously by those +5B then putting them all in one pot is not conducive to that matter.
Ah, and that group is actually much bigger, than you give it credit for. That group is also open to discussions on issues that R Dawrkin raises.
Sweet Jesus! That only applies to the Abrahamic religions AND NOT EVEN ALL OF THEM!
So at the outset you are missing the majority of actual, practiced religion on this planet.
This is kind of absurd, slopping, thinking by (SOME) atheists can only give atheism a bad name--not that I care ;) The Fates are kind.
Now, do you have any specific criticisms (with arguments and evidence - not just dismissals as in your other comment) of what Dawkins has actually written or said in the links in the Diary ? Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.
