Not exactly.

I recognize that Joe made his claim in the context in which an ontological argument is appropriate -- but I think the nature of the original posting and subsequent re-posting above is such that claims are being made outside of that realm. And I'm not offering up "prayer serves people" to counter an argument that says "prayer never affects the world." I'm offering up an argument that says, "prayer affects the world by serving people."

If someone were to argue that attitudes towards cars had no effect on injury patterns resulting from cars, I would likely use you and your car phobia as a counter-example, just like I'm using Dr. King here.

"you" Tom, that is.

But I'm not making any claims based on statistical benefits of exercise. I'm arguing that the existence of a counter-example doesn't militate against an example unless the basis on which that example was introduced was its unique quality.

We disagree on the percentage of people whose lives might be altered with the introduction of regular prayer, perhaps because we disagree on what qualities define prayer.

Fair enough, Tom, those Free Inquiry types need to have their metaphysical potholes filled on occasion.

[this was to your former post]

[This message has been edited by Charles Reece (edited 04-19-2001).]

I will concede that a belief in the supernatural has a disproportionate role in inspiring racism and warlike behavior as long as that can be proven in a reasonable fashion.

I hope in turn that Joe will concede that prayer has played a disproportionate role in inspiring social justice and peace-like behavior.

Tom-- With all due respect, I think you're bringing a little too much anger and aggression to this debate. Whereas before I gave you the benefit of a doubt about misrepresenting my statement, now it seems that you are deliberately trying to twist it around. Forgive me if I'm wrong about this, but I think it's more important to address the underlying issue here rather than engage in verbal jousting with you.

I want this debate to be an honest and open exchange of views. I don't know how to deal with someone who is cunningly obtuse, or feigns ignorance of Northern Ireland, the Crusades, or pogroms. Sorry, but I am just not that clever.

I do think that you have a valuable perspective to offer, though, and I would be grateful if you would share it with us in a less cagey and confrontational way.

My theory regarding why folks haven't flocked to this discussion is simple: it's become the Battle of the Hectoring Know-It-Alls, and I'm certainly a guilty party. A few days back Chris Knowles and Alias posted thoughts for discussion and I was still in battle mode, so I ripped instead of discussing. Sorry, guys.

Joe, if you want to argue substance, then sorry, man, I'd suggest you stop complaining about my arguing technique and get to the meat of it. I was very forthcoming above with why I think your statements should be interpreted the way I did, just as Charles Reece was clear with how he thought I was making my argument. I don't think Charles was trying to misrepresent me, I think he was trying to understand me. That's why I answered his statements with elaboration, not just by complaining he was twisting my words. If you further disagree with how I characterized your statements on the utility of prayer -- specifically their broader-than-ontological asserted nature as summary statements -- please me tell further where and why I'm wrong. I've already responded to your initial complaint.

And truth be known, I'm really not bringing any sort of anger or aggression to this, except for the slight frustration expressed in the above paragraph. Please don't ascribe motives and moods; it just wastes time.

My comeback was intended to tweak your previous statement, which I read as "I'll admit this if you can prove it to my satisfaction and along the way please agree with my conclusions." That's a hilarious way to argue; I demand everyone who argues with me from now on to accept those tenets. Further, I'd love for you to explain to me how that's not an accurate intepretation of your generous offer.

Now obviously, in no way is refusing to accept a way of argument mean I'm feigning ignorance of abuses made in the name of religion. If that were true, than I should take your failure to mention the great boons to mankind that have been done in the name of religion as similar instances of ignorance or willful malfeasance. But that's silly. Basically, I think we could post for hours before we came to the not-very-remarkable conclusion that most of human achievement is linked to people who believed in the supernatural, as is most of human atrocity.

But do I believe that "belief in the supernatural" -- oy, what a definition -- has had a disproportionate role in inspiring racism and warlike behavior? Well, no, I really don't. Off the top of my head, I think biological impulse, politics, economics and topography have had slightly more to do with those two things than religion.

It's very complicated, though, and it's not easy to call a winner. For instance, I think the worst parts of American racism can be traced back to cultural modes put into place by the institution of slavery. I understand that institution to be one driven primarily by economics. Were there religious elements? Sure. A lot of historians are split over whether belief kept the slaves complacent or merely helped them to survive or both; any reading of 19th century sourcework will educate one to the fact there were both slaveowners and abolitionists operating from deeply held belief systems with supernatural tendencies. That's troubling, not very clear stuff, and I believe a far cry from labeling one contributing factor as disproportionate. One often underestimated in America is political elements -- for instance, the poisonous institution continued as it did because it purposefully wasn't dealt with by Founding Fathers because they were willing to risk a divided and eventually racist country if only that country would survive. There are topographical arguments, too -- for instance, the way the vastness of American land and potential American land transformed attitudes of free men and owners towards slaves and the concept of racial harmony. I also sincerely believe all of these factors can be seen as uniquely contributing to later periods of American racism. It goes round and round.

I'm about as rock-ribbed an atheist as they come -- I regard all religions as equal superstitious twaddle. I'm also not fond of the smug superiority endemic to many strains of Christians (or for that matter some strains of Jews, cf. Joe Lieberman) who flat-out claim religious people are more moral than non-religious ones. (I emphasize that there are plenty of religious people who DON'T fall into that trap.)

My feeling is that Christianity at its best provides a paradigm for good, decent, and generous behavior that has proven itself in any number of battles; but one must balance it against the hateful, divisive, and even brutal effects it has in the hands of lesser humans (which is an awful lot of us).

Like Joe (Zabel, not Lieberman), I don't believe prayer per se has ever done jackshit in terms of affecting the real world; what it has done, which I think is the point Tom is making, is provide a mental and spiritual focus to both individuals and groups, who then have gone on to achieve great things.

I think the view that religion is a Great Evil That Has Caused More Misery Than Anything Else In The World is simplistic and stupid. I think the view that religion is the Only Bright Shining Light In An Otherwise Fallen World is also simplistic and stupid.

Worship whoever you want, just behave decently. If the only way you can feel superior to someone is because of your belief system, that probably means you're not superior at all.

[This message has been edited by Kim Thompson (edited 04-20-2001).]

I agree with most of what Kim said. His interpretation of my argument is pretty accurate.