62 Komente

1. Blendi thotë:

   30 November 2006 @ 2:36 pm

   Qelloi qe lexova kete artikull te botuar kete muaj (Nentor 2006) ne WIRED Magazine. Ka lidhje te ngushte me temen e hapur, dhe tre personazhet kryesore ne te jane permendur dhe ne artikullin e NY Times me lart. Ben fjale per “kishen” e Jo-Besimtareve, ose Ateistet e rinj, nje version agresiv i ateizmit, qe jo vetem se nuk beson ne Zotin, por nuk toleron absolutisht idene e Hyjnise dhe te fese.
   Ateizmi i ri eshte si evangjelizimi me kah te kundert, ai predikon se ateistet duhet te jene aktive ne mohimin e Perendise. Artikulli eshte anglisht, do mundohem ta perkthej po u desh, por mendoj se pershtatet mire me temen.

   + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
   The Church of the Non-Believers
   A band of intellectual brothers is mounting a crusade against belief in God. Are they winning converts, or merely preaching to the choir?

   By Gary Wolf

   MY FRIENDS, I MUST ASK YOU AN IMPORTANT QUESTION TODAY: Where do you stand on God?

   It’s a question you may prefer not to be asked. But I’m afraid I have no choice. We find ourselves, this very autumn, three and a half centuries after the intellectual martyrdom of Galileo, caught up in a struggle of ultimate importance, when each one of us must make a commitment. It is time to declare our position.

   This is the challenge posed by the New Atheists. We are called upon, we lax agnostics, we noncommittal nonbelievers, we vague deists who would be embarrassed to defend antique absurdities like the Virgin Birth or the notion that Mary rose into heaven without dying, or any other blatant myth; we are called out, we fence-sitters, and told to help exorcise this debilitating curse: the curse of faith.

   The New Atheists will not let us off the hook simply because we are not doctrinaire believers. They condemn not just belief in God but respect for belief in God. Religion is not only wrong; it’s evil. Now that the battle has been joined, there’s no excuse for shirking.

   Three writers have sounded this call to arms. They are Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. A few months ago, I set out to talk with them. I wanted to find out what it would mean to enlist in the war against faith.

   OXFORD IS THE CAPITAL of reason, its Jerusalem. The walls glint gold in the late afternoon, as waves or particles of light scatter off the ancient bricks. Logic Lane, a tiny road under a low, right-angled bridge, cuts sharply across to the place where Robert Boyle formulated his law on gases and Robert Hooke first used a microscope to see a living cell. A few steps away is the memorial to Percy Bysshe Shelley. Here he lies, sculpted naked in stone, behind the walls of the university that expelled him almost 200 years ago – for atheism.

   Richard Dawkins, the leading light of the New Atheism movement, lives and works in a large brick house just 20 minutes away from the Shelley memorial. Dawkins, formerly a fellow at New College, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. He is 65 years old, and the book that made him famous, The Selfish Gene, dates from well back in the last century. The opposition it earned from rival theorizers and popularizers of Charles Darwin, such as Stephen Jay Gould, is fading into history. Gould died in 2002, and Dawkins, while acknowledging their battles, praised his influence on scientific culture. They were allies in the battle against creationism. Dawkins, however, has been far more belligerent in counterattack. His most recent book is called The God Delusion.

   Dawkins’ style of debate is as maddening as it is reasonable. A few months earlier, in front of an audience of graduate students from around the world, Dawkins took on a famous geneticist and a renowned neurosurgeon on the question of whether God was real. The geneticist and the neurosurgeon advanced their best theistic arguments: Human consciousness is too remarkable to have evolved; our moral sense defies the selfish imperatives of nature; the laws of science themselves display an order divine; the existence of God can never be disproved by purely empirical means.

   Dawkins rejected all these claims, but the last one – that science could never disprove God – provoked him to sarcasm. “There’s an infinite number of things that we can’t disprove,” he said. “You might say that because science can explain just about everything but not quite, it’s wrong to say therefore we don’t need God. It is also, I suppose, wrong to say we don’t need the Flying Spaghetti Monster, unicorns, Thor, Wotan, Jupiter, or fairies at the bottom of the garden. There’s an infinite number of things that some people at one time or another have believed in, and an infinite number of things that nobody has believed in. If there’s not the slightest reason to believe in any of those things, why bother? The onus is on somebody who says, I want to believe in God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, fairies, or whatever it is. It is not up to us to disprove it.”

   Science, after all, is an empirical endeavor that traffics in probabilities. The probability of God, Dawkins says, while not zero, is vanishingly small. He is confident that no Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Why should the notion of some deity that we inherited from the Bronze Age get more respectful treatment?

   Dawkins has been talking this way for years, and his best comebacks are decades old. For instance, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a variant of the tiny orbiting teapot used by Bertrand Russell for similar rhetorical duty back in 1952. Dawkins is perfectly aware that atheism is an ancient doctrine and that little of what he has to say is likely to change the terms of this stereotyped debate. But he continues to go at it. His true interlocutors are not the Christians he confronts directly but the wavering nonbelievers or quasi believers among his listeners – people like me, potential New Atheists who might be inspired by his example.

   “I’m quite keen on the politics of persuading people of the virtues of atheism,” Dawkins says, after we get settled in one of the high-ceilinged, ground-floor rooms. He asks me to keep an eye on his bike, which sits just behind him, on the other side of a window overlooking the street. “The number of nonreligious people in the US is something nearer to 30 million than 20 million,” he says. “That’s more than all the Jews in the world put together. I think we’re in the same position the gay movement was in a few decades ago. There was a need for people to come out. The more people who came out, the more people had the courage to come out. I think that’s the case with atheists. They are more numerous than anybody realizes.”

   Dawkins looks forward to the day when the first US politician is honest about being an atheist. “Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists,” he says. “Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. It just doesn’t add up. Either they’re stupid, or they’re lying. And have they got a motive for lying? Of course they’ve got a motive! Everybody knows that an atheist can’t get elected.”

   When atheists finally begin to gain some power, what then? Here is where Dawkins’ analogy breaks down. Gay politics is strictly civil rights: Live and let live. But the atheist movement, by his lights, has no choice but to aggressively spread the good news. Evangelism is a moral imperative. Dawkins does not merely disagree with religious myths. He disagrees with tolerating them, with cooperating in their colonization of the brains of innocent tykes.

   “How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?” Dawkins asks. “It’s one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?”

   Dawkins is the inventor of the concept of the meme, that is, a cultural replicator that spreads from brain to brain, like a virus. Dawkins is also a believer in democracy. He understands perfectly well that there are practical constraints on controlling the spread of bad memes. If the solution to the spread of wrong ideas and contagious superstitions is a totalitarian commissariat that would silence believers, then the cure is worse than the disease. But such constraints are no excuse for the weak-minded pretense that religious viruses are trivial, much less benign. Bad ideas foisted on children are moral wrongs. We should think harder about how to stop them.

   It is exactly this trip down Logic Lane, this conscientious deduction of conclusions from premises, that makes Dawkins’ proclamations a torment to his moderate allies. While frontline warriors against creationism are busy reassuring parents and legislators that teaching Darwin’s theory does not undermine the possibility of religious devotion, Dawkins is openly agreeing with the most stubborn fundamentalists that evolution must lead to atheism. I tell Dawkins what he already knows: He is making life harder for his friends.

   He barely shrugs. “Well, it’s a cogent point, and I have to face that. My answer is that the big war is not between evolution and creationism, but between naturalism and supernaturalism. The sensible” – and here he pauses to indicate that sensible should be in quotes – “the ’sensible’ religious people are really on the side of the fundamentalists, because they believe in supernaturalism. That puts me on the other side.”

   THREE YEARS AGO, Dawkins adopted a new word to demarcate the types of things he couldn’t believe in. The word is bright, a noun. Coined by Sacramento, California, educators Paul Geisert and Mynga Futrell to designate a person with a naturalistic worldview, bright was designed to be broader than the atheist movement; it is not merely God that is untenable, but superstition, credulity, and magical thinking in general. Dawkins happened to be present in the spring of 2003 when Geisert and Futrell unveiled their proposal at an atheist conference in Florida, and he subsequently issued a public call in The Guardian and in Wired urging its use. The monthly Brights meetup in London is among the largest. The main organizer, Glen Slade, is a 41-year-old entrepreneur who studied computer science at the University of Cambridge and management at Insead, Europe’s leading business school. Slade points out that political developments in Europe and the US have created new opportunities for consciousness-raising. “The war on terror wakes people up to the fact that there is more than one religion in the world,” Slade says. “I think we’re at a crucial point, when we admit that certain types of religion are incompatible with certain rights. At what point does society say, ‘Hey, that’s insane’?”

   Like Dawkins, Slade rejects those who might once have been his allies: agnostics and liberal believers, the type of people who may go to church but who are skeptical of doctrine. “Moderates give a power base to extremists,” Slade says. “A lot of Catholics use condoms, a lot of Catholics are divorced, and a lot don’t have a particular opinion about whether you are homosexual. But when the Pope stands up and says, ‘This is what Catholics believe,’ he still gets credit for speaking for more than a billion people.”

   Now that people are more worried about the fatwas of Muslim clerics, Slade says, this concern could spread, become more general, and wake people up to damage caused by the Pope.

   For the New Atheists, the problem is not any specific doctrine, but religion in general. Or, as Dawkins writes in The God Delusion, “As long as we accept the principle that religious faith must be respected simply because it is religious faith, it is hard to withhold respect from the faith of Osama bin Laden and the suicide bombers.”

   The New Atheist insight is that one might start anywhere – with an intellectual argument, with a visceral rejection of Islamic or Christian fundamentalism, with political disgust – and then, by relentless and logical steps, renounce every supernatural crutch.

   I RETURN FROM OXFORD enthusiastic for argument. I immediately begin trying out Dawkins’ appeal in polite company. At dinner parties or over drinks, I ask people to declare themselves. “Who here is an atheist?” I ask.

   Usually, the first response is silence, accompanied by glances all around in the hope that somebody else will speak first. Then, after a moment, somebody does, almost always a man, almost always with a defiant smile and a tone of enthusiasm. He says happily, “I am!”

   But it is the next comment that is telling. Somebody turns to him and says: “You would be.”

   “Why?”

   “Because you enjoy pissing people off.”

   “Well, that’s true.”

   This type of conversation takes place not in central Ohio, where I was born, or in Utah, where I was a teenager, but on the West Coast, among technical and scientific people, possibly the social group that is least likely among all Americans to be religious. Most of these people call themselves agnostic, but they don’t harbor much suspicion that God is real. They tell me they reject atheism not out of piety but out of politeness. As one said, “Atheism is like telling somebody, ‘The very thing you hinge your life on, I totally dismiss.’” This is the type of statement she would never want to make.

   This is the statement the New Atheists believe must be made – loudly, clearly, and before it’s too late. I continue to invite my friends for a nice, invigorating stroll down Logic Lane. For the most part, they just laugh and wave me on.

   AS I TEST OUT the New Atheist arguments, I realize that the problem with logic is that it doesn’t quicken the blood sufficiently – even my own. But if logic by itself won’t do the trick, how about the threat of apocalypse? The apocalyptic argument for atheism is the province of Sam Harris, who released a book two years ago called The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason.

   Harris argues that, unless we renounce faith, religious violence will soon bring civilization to an end. Between 2004 and 2006, his book sold more than a quarter million copies.

   This autumn, Harris has a new book out, Letter to a Christian Nation. In it, he demonstrates the behavior he believes atheists should adopt when talking with Christians. “Nonbelievers like myself stand beside you,” he writes, addressing his imaginary opponent, “dumbstruck by the Muslim hordes who chant death to whole nations of the living. But we stand dumbstruck by you as well – by your denial of tangible reality, by the suffering you create in service to your religious myths, and by your attachment to an imaginary God.”

   In midsummer, Harris and I overlap for a few days in Southern California, so we arrange to meet for lunch. I am not looking for more atheist arguments. I am already steeped in them. I have by now read my David Hume, my Bertrand Russell, even my Shelley. I want to talk to Harris about emotion, about politics, about his conviction that the days of civilization are numbered unless we renounce irrational belief. Given the way things are going, I want to know if he is depressed. Is he preparing for the end?

   He is not. “Look at slavery,” he says. We are at a beautiful restaurant in Santa Monica, near the public lots from which Americans – nearly 80 percent of whom believe the Bible is the true word of God, if polls are correct – walk happily down to the beach in various states of undress. “People used to think,” Harris says, “that slavery was morally acceptable. The most intelligent, sophisticated people used to accept that you could kidnap whole families, force them to work for you, and sell their children. That looks ridiculous to us today. We’re going to look back and be amazed that we approached this asymptote of destructive capacity while allowing ourselves to be balkanized by fantasy. What seems quixotic is quixotic – on this side of a radical change. From the other side, you can’t believe it didn’t happen earlier. At some point, there is going to be enough pressure that it is just going to be too embarrassing to believe in God.”

   Suddenly I notice in myself a protective feeling toward Harris. Here is a man who believes that a great global change, perhaps the most important cultural change in the history of humanity, will occur out of sheer intellectual embarrassment.

   We discuss what it might look like, this world without God. “There would be a religion of reason,” Harris says. “We would have realized the rational means to maximize human happiness. We may all agree that we want to have a Sabbath that we take really seriously – a lot more seriously than most religious people take it. But it would be a rational decision, and it would not be just because it’s in the Bible. We would be able to invoke the power of poetry and ritual and silent contemplation and all the variables of happiness so that we could exploit them. Call it prayer, but we would have prayer without bullshit.”

   I do call it prayer. Here is the atheist prayer: that our reason will subjugate our superstition, that our intelligence will check our illusions, that we will be able to hold at bay the evil temptation of faith.

   THAT WEEK in Los Angeles it is very hot. Temperatures in the San Fernando Valley, where I’m staying, set a record at 119. Intermittent power outages kill the lights, and the region is bathed in an old-fashioned brown smog that blurs the outlines of the trees. In the evening, as it cools to 102, I decide to enter the emplacements of the adversary.

   I am headed for the Angelus Temple, in Echo Park. A landmark of modern Christianity, it is one of the original churches of the surging charismatic movement. It is not the richest church, nor the most powerful, nor the most famous. But Angelus, founded by Aimee Semple McPherson in the 1920s, pioneered that combination of high production values and uplifting theology that began to purge the stain of hickdom from evangelical faith. Aside from being a historical shrine, the Angelus Temple is a case study in religious evolution. While the New Atheists are arming themselves against faith, faith itself renews its arms. Superstition, it turns out, is a moving target.

   In 2001, a merger with a thriving church downtown, run by the young son of a powerful pastor in Phoenix, brought renewal – not merely in the form of massive social outreach and volunteer programs, youth events, and Bible study groups, but also, as the church explains on its Web site, in the form of “new cushioned theater seats, Ferrari-red carpet, modern stainless steel fixtures, and acoustical absorbers hung decoratively from the ceiling similar to the Royal Albert Hall in England.”

   It is Saturday night, and I am greeted at the door by a blast of air-conditioning and a wave of sound. It looks like a rock concert. It is a rock concert. More than 500 teenagers are crowding the stage, hands uplifted, singing along. There is a 12-member band, four huge videoscreens, and a crane that allows the camera to swoop through the air, projecting images of the believers back to themselves.

   “How many people are excited to give to the Lord tonight?” asks a young man who saunters up to the front. He handles his microphone naturally; he is not self-conscious. “How many people are pumped up? You have a destiny. God has a plan. But you have got to sow some seeds tonight, or it is never going to happen.” Text flashes across the overhead screens, telling the teenagers how to make out their checks.

   Behind the lighting rigs and the acoustic panels, stained glass peeks out, a relic of McPherson’s era. McPherson was personally wild and doctrinally flexible. She had visions and spoke in tongues, but she tried to put aside sectarian disputes. Even today, the charismatic movement is somewhat careless of doctrine. There is room for theistic evolutionists, for nonliteralists who hold that each of God’s days in Genesis was the equivalent of a geological epoch, even for the notion that a check made out properly to the Lord can influence divine whim in the matter of a raise at work or a scholarship to college. Of course, evolutionary accommodation is controversial in the seminaries, and the idea of bribing God is rank heresy – no trained theologian in any Christian tradition would endorse it. But such deviations are generously tolerated in practice. The forces at work in a living church have little to do with intellectual disputes over the meaning of the Lord’s word. Having agreed that the Bible is inerrant, one is permitted to put it to use.

   This use is supremely practical. Pastor Matthew Barnett, onstage, wears the uniform of America – jeans with loafers, a short-sleeved knit shirt. It’s one of the costumes Kanye West wore on his Touch the Sky Tour, the same costume kids put on to go fold clothes at the mall. Like Kanye, like the kids at the mall, like millions of sober alcoholics, like Jesus, Pastor Matt – as he’s called – does not traffic in proofs. Instead he tells stories. For instance, Pastor Matt used to be fat. Every night at 10 pm, it was off to an orgy of junk food at Jack in the Box. Two monster tacos, curly fries, a chocolate shake. He was programmed. He was helpless. He could not resist. “The devil is a lion seeking whom he may devour,” Pastor Matt says. On the other hand, strength to resist temptation is an explicit promise from the Lord. Let us read from 1 Corinthians: God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

   Anybody who has ever been a teenager will recognize the relevance of Pastor Matt’s sermon. These are the years of confusion, temptation, struggles with self-control. Pastor Matt openly shares with the teenagers the great humiliation he faced when trying to lose weight. The pastor is trim and handsome now. He talks intimately with the teenagers about food, about sex, about drugs. He boosts them up. He helps them cope with their shame. He tells them that they are kings anointed by God, that they simply need to pray, and have faith, and be honest, and express their vulnerability, and work hard, and if they do these things they are guaranteed their reward.

   When he calls them to the stage, hundreds go. He puts his hands on their heads, and some cry. The altar call is a moving spectacle, and even we adults, we readers of Dawkins and Harris, we practiced reasoners and sincere pilgrims on the path of nonbelief, may find something in it that makes sense. Notwithstanding the banality of the doctrine, its canned anecdotes, and its questionable fundraising, Pastor Matthew offers a gift to his flock. They sow their seeds, and he blesses them. It is a direct exchange.

   THE NEXT MORNING, I seek to cleanse my intellectual conscience among the freethinkers. The Center for Inquiry is also a storied landmark. True, it is not as striking as the Angelus Temple, being only a bland, low structure at the far end of Hollywood Boulevard, miles away from the tourists. But this building is the West Coast branch of one of the greatest anti-supernatural organizations in the world. My favorite thing about the Center for Inquiry is that it is affiliated with the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, founded 30 years ago by Isaac Asimov, Paul Kurtz, and Carl Sagan and dedicated to spreading misery among every species of quack.

   I have become a connoisseur of atheist groups – there are scores of them, mostly local, linked into a few larger networks. There are some tensions, as is normal in the claustrophobia of powerless subcultures, but relations among the different branches of the movement are mostly friendly. Typical atheists are hardly the rabble-rousing evangelists that Dawkins or Harris might like. They are an older, peaceable, quietly frustrated lot, who meet partly out of idealism and partly out of loneliness. Here in Los Angeles, every fourth Sunday at 11 am, there is a meeting of Atheists United. More than 50 people have shown up today, which is a very good turnout for atheism. Many are approaching retirement age. The speaker this morning, a younger activist named Clark Adams, encourages them with the idea that their numbers are growing. Look at South Park, Adams urges. Look at Howard Stern. Look at Penn & Teller. These are signs of an infidel upsurge.

   Still, Adams admits some marketing concerns. Atheists are predominant among the “upper 5 percent,” he says. “Where we’re lagging is among the lower 95 percent.”

   This is a true problem, and it goes beyond the difficulty of selling your ideas among those to whom you so openly condescend. The sociologist Rodney Stark has argued that the rise and fall of religions can be understood in economic terms. Believers sacrifice time and money in exchange for both spiritual and material benefits. In other words, religion is rational, but it is governed by the rationality of trade rather than of argument. Stark’s theory is academically controversial, but here, in the Sunday morning meeting of Atheists United, it seems obvious that the narrow reasonableness of Adams can hardly be effective with the deal on offer at the Angelus Temple.

   “We’re lagging among the lower 95 percent,” says Adams.

   “You are kings anointed by God,” says Pastor Matt.

   As the tide of faith rises, atheists, who have no church to buoy them, cling to one another. That a single celebrity, say, Keanu Reeves, is known to care nothing about God is counted as a victory. This parochial and moralistic self-regard begins to inspire in me a feeling of oppression. When Adams starts to recite the names of atheists who may have contributed to the television program Mr. Show With Bob and David between 1995 and 1998, I leave. Standing in the half-empty parking lot is a relief, though I am drenched from the heat.

   MY PILGRIMAGE is about to become more difficult. On the one hand, it is obvious that the political prospects of the New Atheism are slight. People see a contradiction in its tone of certainty. Contemptuous of the faith of others, its proponents never doubt their own belief. They are fundamentalists. I hear this protest dozens of times. It comes up in every conversation. Even those who might side with the New Atheists are repelled by their strident tone. (The founders of the Brights, Geisert and Futrell, became grim at the mention of Sam Harris. “We don’t endorse anything from him,” Geisert said. We had talked for nearly three hours, and this was the only dark cloud.) The New Atheists never propose realistic solutions to the damage religion can cause. For instance, the Catholic Church opposes condom use, which makes it complicit in the spread of AIDS. But among the most powerful voices against this tragic mistake are liberals within the Church – exactly those allies the New Atheists reject. The New Atheists care mainly about correct belief. This makes them hopeless, politically.

   But on the other hand, the New Atheism does not aim at success by conventional political means. It does not balance interests, it does not make compromises, it does not seek common ground. The New Atheism, outwardly at least, is a straightforward appeal to our intellect. Atheists make their stand upon the truth.

   So is atheism true?

   There’s good evidence from research by anthropologists such as Pascal Boyer and Scott Atran that a grab bag of cognitive predispositions makes us natural believers. We hear leaves rustle and we imagine that some airy being flutters up there; we see a corpse and continue to fear the judgment and influence of the person it once was. Remarkable progress has been made in understanding why faith is congenial to human nature – and of course that still says nothing about whether it is true. Harris is typically severe in his rejection of the idea that evolutionary history somehow justifies faith. There is, he writes, “nothing more natural than rape. But no one would argue that rape is good, or compatible with a civil society, because it may have had evolutionary advantages for our ancestors.” Like rape, Harris says, religion may be a vestige of our primitive nature that we must simply overcome.

   A variety of rebuttals to atheism have been tried over the years. Religious fundamentalists stand on their canonized texts and refuse to budge. The wisdom of this approach – strategically, at least – is evident when you see the awkward positions nonfundamentalists find themselves in. The most active defender of faith among scientists right now is Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project. His most recent book is called The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. In defiance of the title, Collins never attempts to show that science offers evidence for belief. Rather, he argues only that nothing in science prohibits belief. Unsolved problems in diverse fields, along with a skepticism about knowledge in general, are used to demonstrate that a deity might not be impossible. The problem with this, for defenders of faith, is that they’ve implicitly accepted science as the arbiter of what is real. This leaves the atheists with the upper hand.

   That’s because when secular investigations take the lead, sacred doctrines collapse. There’s barely a field of modern research – cosmology, biology, archaeology, anthropology, psychology – in which competing religious explanations have survived unscathed. Even the lowly humanities, which began the demolition job more than 200 years ago with textual criticism of the Bible, continue to make things difficult for believers through careful analysis of the historical origins of religious texts. While Collins and his fellow reconcilers can defend the notion of faith in the abstract, as soon as they get down to doctrine, the secular professors show up with their corrosive arguments. When it comes to concrete examples of exactly what we should believe, reason is a slippery slope, and at the bottom – well, at the bottom is atheism.

   I spend months resisting this slide. I turn to the great Oxford professor of science and religion John Hedley Brooke, who convinces me that, contrary to myth, Darwin did not become an atheist because of evolution. Instead, his growing resistance to Christianity came from his moral criticism of 19th-century doctrine, compounded by the tragedy of his daughter’s death. Darwin did not believe that evolution proved there was no God. This is interesting, because the story of Darwin’s relationship to Christianity has figured in polemics for and against evolution for more than a century. But in the context of a real struggle with the claims of atheism, an accurate history of Darwin’s loss of faith counts for little more than celebrity gossip.

   From Brooke, I get pointers on the state of the art in academic theology, particularly those philosophers of religion who write in depth about science, such as Willem Drees and Philip Clayton. There is a certain illicit satisfaction in this scholarly work, which to an atheist is no better than astrology. (”The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a nonsubject,” Dawkins has written. “Vacuous. Devoid of coherence or content.”) On the contrary, I find the best of these books to be brilliant, detailed, self-assured. I learn about kenosis, the deliberate decision of God not to disturb the natural order. I learn about panentheism, which says God is both the world and more than the world, and about emergentist theology, which holds that a God might have evolved. There are deep passages surveying theories of knowledge, glossing Kant, Schelling, and Spinoza. I discover a daunting diversity of belief, and of course I’m just beginning. I haven’t even gotten started with Islam, or the Vedic texts, or Zoroastrianism. It is all admirable and stimulating and lacks only the real help anybody in my position would need: reasons to believe that specific religious ideas are true. Even the most careful theologians seem to pose the question backward, starting out with their beliefs and clinging to those fragments that science and logic cannot overturn. The most rigorous of them jettison huge portions of doctrine along the way.

   If trained theologians can go this far, who am I to defend supernaturalism on their behalf? Why not be an atheist? I’ve sought aid far and wide, from Echo Park to Harvard, and finally I am almost ready to give in. Only one thing is still bothering me. Were I to declare myself an atheist, what would this mean? Would my life have to change? Would it become my moral obligation to be uncompromising toward fence-sitting friends? That person at dinner, pissing people off with his arrogance, his disrespect, his intellectual scorn – would that be me?

   Besides, do we really understand all that religion means? Would it be easy to excise it, even assuming it is false? Didn’t they try a cult of reason once, in France, at the close of the 18th century, and didn’t it turn out to be too ugly even for Robespierre?

   THE DOCTOR for these difficulties looks like Santa Claus. His name is Daniel Dennett. He is a renowned philosopher, an atheist, and the possessor of a full white beard. I suspect he must have designed this Father Christmas look intentionally, but in fact it just evolved. “In the ’60s, I looked like Rasputin,” he says. Children have come up to him in airports, checking to see if he is on vacation from the North Pole. When it happens, he does not torment them with knowledge that the person they mistake him for is not real. Instead, the philosopher puts his fingers to his lips and says conspiratorially: “Shhhh.”

   Dennett summers on a farm in Maine. Flying in, I have a fine view of the old New England tapestry, which grows more and more rural as we move north: symmetrical fields with pale borders like the membranes of cells, barns and outbuildings like organelles, and, at the center of every thickening cluster of life, always the same vestigial structure, whose black dot of a cupola is offset by a whitish gleam. I know something of the history of the New England church, which began in fanaticism and ended in reform – from witch burning to softest Presbyterianism in a few hundred years. Now, according to the atheists, these structures serve no useful purpose, and besides, they may be conduits for disease. Perhaps it is best that we do away with them all. But can it be done without harm?

   Among the New Atheists, Dennett holds an exalted but ambiguous place. Like Dawkins and Harris, he is an evangelizing nonbeliever. He has campaigned in writing on behalf of the Brights and has written a book called Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. In it, the blasting rhetoric of Dawkins and Harris is absent, replaced by provocative, often humorous examples and thought experiments. But like the other New Atheists, Dennett gives no quarter to believers who resist subjecting their faith to scientific evaluation. In fact, he argues that neutral, scientifically informed education about every religion in the world should be mandatory in school. After all, he argues, “if you have to hoodwink – or blindfold – your children to ensure that they confirm their faith when they are adults, your faith ought to go extinct.”

   When I arrive at the farm, I find him in the midst of a difficult task. He has been asked by the President’s Council on Bioethics to write an essay reflecting on human dignity. In grappling with these issues, Dennett knows that he can’t rely on faith or scripture. He will not say that life begins when an embryo is ensouled by God. He will not say that hospitals must not invite the indigent to sell their bodies for medical experiments because humans are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights. Ethical problems must be solved by reason, not arbitrary rules. And yet, on the other hand, Dennett knows that reason alone will fail.

   We sit in his study, in some creaky chairs, with the deep silence of an August morning around us, and Dennett tells me that he takes very seriously the risk of overreliance on thought. He doesn’t want people to lose confidence in what he calls their “default settings,” by which he means the conviction that their ethical intuitions are trustworthy. These default settings give us a feeling of security, a belief that our own sacrifices will be reciprocated. “If you shatter this confidence,” he says, “then you get into a deep hole. Without trust, everything goes wrong.”

   It interests me that, though Dennett is an atheist, he does not see faith merely as a useless vestige of our primitive nature, something we can, with effort, intellectualize away. No rational creature, he says, would be able to do without unexamined, sacred things.

   “Would intelligent robots be religious?” it occurs to me to ask.

   “Perhaps they would,” he answers thoughtfully. “Although, if they were intelligent enough to evaluate their own programming, they would eventually question their belief in God.”

   Dennett is an advocate of admitting that we simply don’t have good reasons for some of the things we believe. Although we must guard our defaults, we still have to admit that they may be somewhat arbitrary. “How else do we protect ourselves?” he asks. “With absolutisms? This means telling lies, and when the lies are exposed, the crash is worse. It’s not that science can discover when the body is ensouled. That’s nonsense. We are not going to tolerate infanticide. But we’re not going to put people in jail for onanism. Instead of protecting stability with a brittle set of myths, we can defend a deep resistance to mucking with the boundaries.”

   This sounds to me a little like the religion of reason that Harris foresees.

   “Yes, there could be a rational religion,” Dennett says. “We could have a rational policy not even to think about certain things.” He understands that this would create constant tension between prohibition and curiosity. But the borders of our sacred beliefs could be well guarded simply by acknowledging that it is pragmatic to refuse to change them.

   I ask Dennett if there might not be a contradiction in his scheme. On the one hand, he aggressively confronts the faithful, attacking their sacred beliefs. On the other hand, he proposes that our inherited defaults be put outside the limits of dispute. But this would make our defaults into a religion, unimpeachable and implacable gods. And besides, are we not atheists? Sacred prohibitions are anathema to us.

   Dennett replies that exceptions can be made. “Philosophers are the ones who refuse to accept the sacred values,” he says. For instance, Socrates.

   I find this answer supremely odd. The image of an atheist religion whose sacred objects, called defaults, are taboo for all except philosophers – this is the material of the cruelest parody. But that’s not what Dennett means. In his scenario, the philosophers are not revered authorities but mental risk-takers and scouts. Their adventures invite ridicule, or worse. “Philosophers should expect to be hooted at and reviled,” Dennett says. “Socrates drank the hemlock. He knew what he was doing.”

   With this, I begin to understand what kind of atheist I want to be. Dennett’s invocation of Socrates is a reminder that there are certain actors in history who change the world by staging their own defeat. Having been raised under Christianity, we are well schooled in this tactic of belated victory. The world has reversed its judgment on Socrates, as on Jesus and the fanatical John Brown. All critics of fundamental values, even those who have no magical beliefs, will find themselves tempted to retrace this path. Dawkins’ tense rhetoric of moral choice, Harris’ vision of apocalypse, their contempt for liberals, the invocation of slavery – this is not the language of intellectual debate but of prophecy.

   In Breaking the Spell, Dennett writes about the personal risk inherent in attacking faith. Harris veils his academic affiliation and hometown because he fears for his physical safety. But in truth, the cultural neighborhoods where they live and work bear little resemblance to Italy under Pope Urban VIII, or New England in the 17th century, or Saudi Arabia today. Dennett spends the academic year at Tufts University and summers with family and students in Maine. Dawkins occupies an endowed Oxford chair and walks his dog on the wide streets, alone. Harris sails forward this fall with his second well-publicized book. There have been no fatwas, no prison cells, no gallows or crosses.

   Prophecy, I’ve come to realize, is a complex meme. When prophets provoke real trouble, bring confusion to society by sowing reverberant doubts, spark an active, opposing consensus everywhere – that is the sign they’ve hit a nerve. But what happens when they don’t hit a nerve? There are plenty of would-be prophets in the world, vainly peddling their provocative claims. Most of them just end up lecturing to undergraduates, or leading little Christian sects, or getting into Wikipedia edit wars, or boring their friends. An unsuccessful prophet is not a martyr, but a sort of clown.

   Where does this leave us, we who have been called upon to join this uncompromising war against faith? What shall we do, we potential enlistees? Myself, I’ve decided to refuse the call. The irony of the New Atheism – this prophetic attack on prophecy, this extremism in opposition to extremism – is too much for me.

   The New Atheists have castigated fundamentalism and branded even the mildest religious liberals as enablers of a vengeful mob. Everybody who does not join them is an ally of the Taliban. But, so far, their provocation has failed to take hold. Given all the religious trauma in the world, I take this as good news. Even those of us who sympathize intellectually have good reasons to wish that the New Atheists continue to seem absurd. If we reject their polemics, if we continue to have respectful conversations even about things we find ridiculous, this doesn’t necessarily mean we’ve lost our convictions or our sanity. It simply reflects our deepest, democratic values. Or, you might say, our bedrock faith: the faith that no matter how confident we are in our beliefs, there’s always a chance we could turn out to be wrong.

   Contributing editor Gary Wolf (gary@aether.com) wrote about emergencywarning technology in issue 13.12.

   http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html

2. Cheney thotë:

   30 November 2006 @ 3:22 pm

   Ekstremet duhen, na kujtojne se du duhet te rrime..

3. gjergj fishta thotë:

   30 November 2006 @ 7:10 pm

   God is Absolutely Good!
   by Gloria Copeland

   Throughout my years of getting to know God, I have learned that He is absolutely good. He has nothing in Him that even resembles selfishness. Since the first day of Creation, He has always been giving of Himself. Every aspect of His nature flows from His love for His creation and it is all good. Every day of my life is filled with His goodness.

   When God sent His Son into the earth, Jesus was anointed to preach good news—and only good news—and to demonstrate the goodness of His Father. He made this very clear the day He stood up among the religious leaders of His hometown, opened the book to the place of the prophet Isaiah, and described His purpose. We read it in Luke 4:18-19: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.”

   After reading from that book, Jesus closed the book, sat down and proclaimed, “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears” (verse 21).

   True to His Father’s Word, right up through the day He made His way to Calvary, Jesus did nothing but good. He never did an evil work His whole life. He didn’t know how to do evil. Evil wasn’t part of His makeup. It wasn’t in His character. He was anointed to be and do only good—just like His Father.

   Eager to Do Good to All

   It’s surprising the number of people who can read Scripture and determine God to be anything but good. All anyone really needs to do to come to the right conclusion about God’s nature is look at the actions of His Son.

   Jesus told His disciples that anyone who had seen Him had seen the Father (John 14:9). He went on to say, “The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works” (verse 10). He told them later, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise” (John 5:19). What did Jesus see His Father do?

   The Old Testament is filled with images of the character of God. Psalm 145:7-10 gives us a great picture of the goodness of our unchanging God: “[All men] shall abundantly utter the memory of thy great goodness, and shall sing of thy righteousness. The Lord is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy. The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. All thy works shall praise thee, O Lord; and thy saints shall bless thee.”

   Let’s look a little more closely at the psalmist’s description of the Lord.

   The Lord is gracious. In other words, He is disposed to show favor. That day Jesus read from the prophet Isaiah, He declared that the favor of God was present in their midst.

   Full of compassion. According to one Hebrew source, the word compassion means “eager yearning to do good.” The proof of our Father’s motivation to do good is clearly seen in Jesus’ ministry—providing the best wine at a wedding party, healing people with all kinds of diseases, casting out demons from tormented souls and raising people from the dead. He was God in the flesh—doing the goodness He yearned so eagerly to do.

   God is slow to anger and of great mercy. So many people think God is sitting on the edge of His seat, just waiting for someone to make a mistake so He can lower the boom. Nothing could be further from the truth. His mercy is great—He is ever ready to forgive. Jesus’ words to everyone He met were words filled with mercy, even when He confronted their sin.

   The Lord is good to all. It would not be God’s will to heal or deliver a few people and leave everyone else bound up by the devil. Peter preached in Acts 10:38, “How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.”

   His tender mercies are over all His works. Tender mercies means “deep love and affection.” “For God so loved” the world—all His works…He gave His Son. Glory to God! His deep love and affection—His goodness—cover us every moment of every day.

   This is the picture of our good God—always giving of Himself.

   Getting the Picture

   Now, we’ve heard it said that a picture is worth a thousand words! All anyone needs to do is look at Jesus—the walking, talking, moving picture of God’s goodness in action.

   In Matthew 11:2-6, we see that John the Baptist sent his disciples to ask Jesus to identify Himself. Jesus said, “Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see: The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.”

   In other words, “tell John you hear and see the goodness of God.”

   Jesus was created in the image of His Father, and all His ministry and works were expressions of His Father’s goodness!

   He said, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father…”(John 14:9).

   Still Seeing the Father

   And we are born again in that same image.

   Ephesians 2:10 tells us, “We are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

   Since the day He ascended to the right hand of His Father, Jesus Christ—the Anointed One and His Anointing—has fulfilled His ministry through His Body, the Church. It is still the ministry of Jesus, and we get to do the actual work of the ministry. The words of Isaiah 61 apply to His Body, just as they did to Jesus.

   The same Spirit of the Lord who anointed Jesus anoints you and me. The same Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead brings us out of spiritual death to life, out of darkness to light. And the Father’s purpose in our being born again is the same as it was for Jesus. We preach the gospel to the poor. We are anointed to announce freedom to captives and recovery of sight to the blind. Just like Jesus, we have the ability to send forth as delivered those who are downtrodden, bruised, crushed and broken down in calamity.

   In this Year of Total Fulfillment, the goodness of our Father is flowing through the Body of Christ in unprecedented ways. The devil is fighting hard to keep people thinking God is angry at them, or He’s out to get them. But he is fighting a losing battle, because we are out there preaching that God is good and His mercy endures forever! (Psalm 118:1).

   This is THE Day

   Jesus said to the people in the synagogue that day in Nazareth, “This day….” Total fulfillment of the goodness of God began on that day when Jesus declared His anointing. And it has never ceased. This is still THE day! This is our day!

   Jesus said to Zacchaeus in Luke 19:9, “This day is salvation come to this house.” Salvation means deliverance. Every one of us comes into the kingdom of God from the same beginning. We receive pardon. We get deliverance from danger and apprehension—freedom from fear. We receive protection and liberty. We receive provision. We receive health, restoration, soundness and wholeness. We receive God’s love and goodness!

   The day we receive the gospel is the day everything changes!

   This is the day of God’s grace. We don’t have to do a thing—we can’t do anything—for these favors from God to come to us, except believe and receive.

   Thanks to the participation of the Body of Christ, the good news of God’s grace is covering the earth. He is moving freely throughout the earth today in the Church He has established in every corner of the planet. Every day His Body is growing as more people believe and receive.

   Our message is the same as Jesus’ was, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel” (Mark 1:15). The kingdom of God’s goodness is here!

   Always Ready With Goodness

   Jesus was always ready to do and be good! His power was never in the “off” position. He was always “on” by the power of the Spirit. He was always in a healing, delivering mood. He was never in such a hurry that He didn’t have time to give out the goodness of God—lay hands on the sick or cast out demons.

   Anyone who came to Him received what they needed, if they simply put their faith out there. They came because they had heard about Him and believed what they heard. They came because they had a need and expected to receive. And He delivered!

   Every person who enters the kingdom of God enters a new day—a new way of life! We enter the life where the only thing God desires to do is cover us with His goodness. And once we take our place in that kingdom of “goodness,” we can’t help but tell other people about it.

   People come to Healing School at our meetings because they have heard about someone who was healed there. People come to me when they see me in the parking lot at the grocery store because they’ve heard me say God heals today and because I lay hands on the sick. People come to you because they heard you are a Christian who prays for people and things change.

   We are surrounded by people with needs of every kind. We just have to stay on the ready, just like Jesus did. We have to be available to them, and be willing to release the anointing of His goodness that God has deposited in us, and let someone make a draw on it.

   God Is Absolutely Good

   By always being ready, we stay in the flow of God who is always ready to give out His absolute goodness. He pours out His goodness to His children through us. His Spirit of goodness was always on in Jesus and He is on in you and me. Just like He did with Jesus, He disperses His goodness through us—His Body in the earth.

   Psalm 31:19 in the New Living Translation says, “Your goodness is so great! You have stored up great blessings for those who honor you. You have done so much for those who come to you for protection, blessing them before the watching world.”

   How do we stay “on” so we can release God’s goodness into our world? We must simply be receivers.

   The 20th century born-again rabbi David Baron commented on this scripture, “Goodness is that attribute of God whereby He loveth to communicate to all who can or will receive it all good. Himself is the fullness of good, the creator of all good. Not in one way, not in one kind of goodness only, but absolutely without beginning, without limit, without measure. He possesseth and embraceth all excellence, all perfection, all blessedness, all good. This good His goodness bestoweth on all and each according to the capacity of each to receive it.”

   God is no respecter of persons, but some people have more capacity to receive His good. That’s because they prepare for it more. They believe His Word, and act on His Word more. These people expect it more. They are receivers.

   Anyone can be a receiver of His goodness. And we can all increase our capacity to receive. All it takes is our going from faith to faith. Hearing the Word, believing the Word, speaking the Word, acting on the Word—with each step, our capacity increases.

   When we open ourselves to receive His goodness without measure, once the flow starts within us, He will make us conduits to allow His goodness to flow to others.

   God is not holding back any good thing from anyone. First Corinthians 2:9-10 in The Amplified Bible clearly tells us, “What eye has not seen and ear has not heard and has not entered into the heart of man, [all that] God has prepared (made and keeps ready) for those who love Him [who hold Him in affectionate reverence, promptly obeying Him and gratefully recognizing the benefits He has bestowed]. Yet to us God has unveiled and revealed them by and through His Spirit.”

   By the Spirit—by the same anointing that was in and on Jesus and is in and on you and me—we can know all the absolute goodness God has in store for us. Our job is to keep ourselves ready…to simply be “on.” We need to always be ready to tell someone about the good things God has done for us. We should be ready to share the compassion He has given us. We can willingly show His love and deep affection by the mercy we give others as He has given us. And we can graciously give free favors as He has bestowed so many on us.

   Every day God brings people across our path who have believed a lie about His nature. He has given us the same mission He gave Jesus, and He has anointed us to do it. Let’s stay “on!” Let’s be ready to tell them the truth—to demonstrate the truth—God is absolutely good!

4. gjergj fishta thotë:

   30 November 2006 @ 7:14 pm

   http://kcm.org

5. swed thotë:

   30 November 2006 @ 10:58 pm

   “E në fund, nuk duhet të pranohen ata që mohojnë Zotin. Premtimet, rregullat dhe betimet, që lidhin shoqëritë njerzore, nuk kanë ndikim mbi një ateist. Heqja e Zotit, qoftë edhe thjesht si ide, zhduk gjithshka”….

   Richard A. Shweder
   New York Times
   27-11-2006

   PLOTESISHT DAKORT

6. zana thotë:

   30 November 2006 @ 11:46 pm

   Une nuk doti besoja nje njeriu qe thote se Zoti Nuk ekziston.
   Do ta kisha frike…….

7. Agjent Operativ thotë:

   30 November 2006 @ 11:47 pm

   ‘Nqs Zoti nuk do te ekzistonte, atehre do ta kishin shpikur’
   -me duke se ateisti Nietzsche e ka thon ket-

8. Agjent Operativ thotë:

   30 November 2006 @ 11:56 pm

   November 21, 2006 New York Times

   A Free-for-All on Science and Religion

   By GEORGE JOHNSON

   Maybe the pivotal moment came when Steven Weinberg, a Nobel laureate in physics, warned that “the world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief,” or when a Nobelist in chemistry, Sir Harold Kroto, called for the John Templeton Foundation to give its next $1.5 million prize for “progress in spiritual discoveries” to an atheist — Richard Dawkins, the Oxford evolutionary biologist whose book “The God Delusion” is a national best-seller.

   Or perhaps the turning point occurred at a more solemn moment, when Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York City and an adviser to the Bush administration on space exploration, hushed the audience with heartbreaking photographs of newborns misshapen by birth defects — testimony, he suggested, that blind nature, not an intelligent overseer, is in control.

   Somewhere along the way, a forum this month at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in La Jolla, Calif., which might have been one more polite dialogue between science and religion, began to resemble the founding convention for a political party built on a single plank: in a world dangerously charged with ideology, science needs to take on an evangelical role, vying with religion as teller of the greatest story ever told.

   Carolyn Porco, a senior research scientist at the Space Science Institute in Boulder, Colo., called, half in jest, for the establishment of an alternative church, with Dr. Tyson, whose powerful celebration of scientific discovery had the force and cadence of a good sermon, as its first minister.

   She was not entirely kidding. “We should let the success of the religious formula guide us,” Dr. Porco said. “Let’s teach our children from a very young age about the story of the universe and its incredible richness and beauty. It is already so much more glorious and awesome — and even comforting — than anything offered by any scripture or God concept I know.”

   She displayed a picture taken by the Cassini spacecraft of Saturn and its glowing rings eclipsing the Sun, revealing in the shadow a barely noticeable speck called Earth.

   There has been no shortage of conferences in recent years, commonly organized by the Templeton Foundation, seeking to smooth over the differences between science and religion and ending in a metaphysical draw. Sponsored instead by the Science Network, an educational organization based in California, and underwritten by a San Diego investor, Robert Zeps (who acknowledged his role as a kind of “anti-Templeton”), the La Jolla meeting, “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival,” rapidly escalated into an invigorating intellectual free-for-all. (Unedited video of the proceedings will be posted on the Web at tsntv.org.)

   A presentation by Joan Roughgarden, a Stanford University biologist, on using biblical metaphor to ease her fellow Christians into accepting evolution (a mutation is “a mustard seed of DNA”) was dismissed by Dr. Dawkins as “bad poetry,” while his own take-no-prisoners approach (religious education is “brainwashing” and “child abuse”) was condemned by the anthropologist Melvin J. Konner, who said he had “not a flicker” of religious faith, as simplistic and uninformed.

   After enduring two days of talks in which ,the Templeton Foundation came under the gun as smudging the line between science and faith, Charles L. Harper Jr., its senior vice president, lashed back, denouncing what he called “pop conflict books” like Dr. Dawkins’s “God Delusion,” as “commercialized ideological scientism” — promoting for profit the philosophy that science has a monopoly on truth.

   That brought an angry rejoinder from Richard P. Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia University Medical Center, who said his own book, “Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine,” was written to counter “garbage research” financed by Templeton on, for example, the healing effects of prayer.

   With atheists and agnostics outnumbering the faithful (a few believing scientists, like Francis S. Collins, author of “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief,” were invited but could not attend), one speaker after another called on their colleagues to be less timid in challenging teachings about nature based only on scripture and belief. “The core of science is not a mathematical model; it is intellectual honesty,” said Sam Harris, a doctoral student in neuroscience and the author of “The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason” and “Letter to a Christian Nation.”

   “Every religion is making claims about the way the world is,” he said. “These are claims about the divine origin of certain books, about the virgin birth of certain people, about the survival of the human personality after death. These claims purport to be about reality.”

   By shying away from questioning people’s deeply felt beliefs, even the skeptics, Mr. Harris said, are providing safe harbor for ideas that are at best mistaken and at worst dangerous. “I don’t know how many more engineers and architects need to fly planes into our buildings before we realize that this is not merely a matter of lack of education or economic despair,” he said.

   Dr. Weinberg, who famously wrote toward the end of his 1977 book on cosmology, “The First Three Minutes,” that “the more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless,” went a step further: “Anything that we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.”

   With a rough consensus that the grand stories of evolution by natural selection and the blossoming of the universe from the Big Bang are losing out in the intellectual marketplace, most of the discussion came down to strategy. How can science fight back without appearing to be just one more ideology?

   “There are six billion people in the world,” said Francisco J. Ayala, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Irvine, and a former Roman Catholic priest. “If we think that we are going to persuade them to live a rational life based on scientific knowledge, we are not only dreaming — it is like believing in the fairy godmother.”

   “People need to find meaning and purpose in life,” he said. “I don’t think we want to take that away from them.”

   Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case Western Reserve University known for his staunch opposition to teaching creationism, found himself in the unfamiliar role of playing the moderate. “I think we need to respect people’s philosophical notions unless those notions are wrong,” he said.

   “The Earth isn’t 6,000 years old,” he said. “The Kennewick man was not a Umatilla Indian.” But whether there really is some kind of supernatural being — Dr. Krauss said he was a nonbeliever — is a question unanswerable by theology, philosophy or even science. “Science does not make it impossible to believe in God,” Dr. Krauss insisted. “We should recognize that fact and live with it and stop being so pompous about it.”

   That was just the kind of accommodating attitude that drove Dr. Dawkins up the wall. “I am utterly fed up with the respect that we — all of us, including the secular among us — are brainwashed into bestowing on religion,” he said. “Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence.”

   By the third day, the arguments had become so heated that Dr. Konner was reminded of “a den of vipers.”

   “With a few notable exceptions,” he said, “the viewpoints have run the gamut from A to B. Should we bash religion with a crowbar or only with a baseball bat?”

   His response to Mr. Harris and Dr. Dawkins was scathing. “I think that you and Richard are remarkably apt mirror images of the extremists on the other side,” he said, “and that you generate more fear and hatred of science.”

   Dr. Tyson put it more gently. “Persuasion isn’t always ‘Here are the facts — you’re an idiot or you are not,’ ” he said. “I worry that your methods” — he turned toward Dr. Dawkins — “how articulately barbed you can be, end up simply being ineffective, when you have much more power of influence.”

   Chastened for a millisecond, Dr. Dawkins replied, “I gratefully accept the rebuke.”

   In the end it was Dr. Tyson’s celebration of discovery that stole the show. Scientists may scoff at people who fall back on explanations involving an intelligent designer, he said, but history shows that “the most brilliant people who ever walked this earth were doing the same thing.” When Isaac Newton’s “Principia Mathematica” failed to account for the stability of the solar system — why the planets tugging at one another’s orbits have not collapsed into the Sun — Newton proposed that propping up the mathematical mobile was “an intelligent and powerful being.”

   It was left to Pierre Simon Laplace, a century later, to take the next step. Hautily telling Napoleon that he had no need for the God hypothesis, Laplace extended Newton’s mathematics and opened the way to a purely physical theory.

   “What concerns me now is that even if you’re as brilliant as Newton, you reach a point where you start basking in the majesty of God and then your discovery stops — it just stops,” Dr. Tyson said. “You’re no good anymore for advancing that frontier, waiting for somebody else to come behind you who doesn’t have God on the brain and who says: ‘That’s a really cool problem. I want to solve it.’ ”

   “Science is a philosophy of discovery; intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance,” he said. “Something fundamental is going on in people’s minds when they confront things they don’t understand.”

   He told of a time, more than a millennium ago, when Baghdad reigned as the intellectual center of the world, a history fossilized in the night sky. The names of the constellations are Greek and Roman, Dr. Tyson said, but two-thirds of the stars have Arabic names. The words “algebra” and “algorithm” are Arabic.

   But sometime around 1100, a dark age descended. Mathematics became seen as the work of the devil, as Dr. Tyson put it. “Revelation replaced investigation,” he said, and the intellectual foundation collapsed.

   He did not have to say so, but the implication was that maybe a century, maybe a millennium from now, the names of new planets, stars and galaxies might be Chinese. Or there may be no one to name them at all.

   Before he left to fly back home to Austin, Dr. Weinberg seemed to soften for a moment, describing religion a bit fondly as a crazy old aunt.

   “She tells lies, and she stirs up all sorts of mischief and she’s getting on, and she may not have that much life left in her, but she was beautiful once,” he lamented. “When she’s gone, we may miss her.”

   Dr. Dawkins wasn’t buying it. “I won’t miss her at all,” he said. “Not a scrap. Not a smidgen.”

9. zana thotë:

   30 November 2006 @ 11:57 pm

   çuna kini meshire ,une nuk kuptoj kaq mire anglisht

10. Agjent Operativ thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 12:03 am

    Hic mi thone qe u mblodhen ca shkencetare Anglo-Saksone ne nje konference ku denohej cdo perpjekje e fondacioneve si Templeton per te barazpeshuar religjionin me shkencen.

    3 dite ‘uau-uiu’ te gjithe dolen pa doreza per t’ia bere ftyren sallate ‘religjionit’ e per ti dhene kurajo njerezve te shkences qe te mos tulaten para dogmes por gjithmone ta sulmojne ate…llogjikisht kuptohet.

    Gjithe ideja sipas ketyre shkencetareve Anglo-Saksone eshte se religjoni dogmatik po merr ne qafe tere njerezimin. ..Richard Dawkins shkoi aq larg sa e quajti mesimin e parimeve religjioze si ‘child abuse’(abuzim femije)

11. Dori thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 1:08 am

    “Une nuk doti besoja nje njeriu qe thote se Zoti Nuk ekziston.
    Do ta kisha frike…….”

    Po të trokiti dikush në derë dhe të të thotë sapo i kishte thënë Zoti se duhet të veprosh kështu e ashtu, çfarë do të bësh:
    1. Do të vraposh të marrësh një lapës e fletore dhe do të fillosh të shkruash librin e shenjtë?
    apo
    2. Do t’i mbyllësh derën në fytyrë të lajthiturit?

    Ti s’i beson dikujt që nuk beson te Zoti por i beson atyreve që besonin se toka ishte e sheshtë po aq sa besonin tek Zoti? Ronald Regani tha “Beso, por vërteto” (për gjë tjetër por nejse), unë them “Vërteto, pa beso”, ndërsa fetarët thonë “Beso”.

12. Banago thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 8:30 am

    Jam dakord ne Zanen, nje njeriu qe nuk beson Zotin eshte pak veshtire ti besosh. Ideja eshte qe besimi ne Zot te lidh me veten tende gjithmone ate friken e ndeshkimit ne rest se ben diçka te keqe, dhe kjo pastaj kthehet natryshme ne ndergjegjie njerzore qe do te miren dhe nuk pranon te keqen. Nje atesit nuk e shoqerohet nga kjo ndjenje dhe asgje nuk e pengon te beje çte doje, perderisa mendon se nje jete ka, hajt ta shijojne ne çdo menyre.

    Per sa i perket Dorit, argumenti i tij nuk qendron kunder qendrimit te Zanes. Kjo sepse Zana nuk tha aspak qe hajt t’i vene veshin çdo te lajthituri qe pretendon se e ka frymezuar Zoti. Kjo eshte çeshteje tjeter.

    Ndersa per pune e atyre feve qe kane besuar dikur se Toka eshte nje tepsi gjigande, kjo eshte per tu diskutuar ne temen sa a jane te verteta mesimet e atyre feve apo njerzit i kane futur pak hundet ne meismet hynore.

    Per kete nuk duhet te harrojne qe jo te gjitha fete e kane konsideruar Token si tepsi edhe para se ta zbulonte shkenca qe ajo eshte e rrumbullakte.

    Une i jap te drejte Dorit kur thote se besimtaret thone thjesht “Beso”. Kjo eshte marrezi per njer njeri me logjikte te shendoshe, sidomos ne morine e feve qe ekzisojne dhe te gjitha pretendojne perjashtueshem se jane te verteta. Gjithashtu edhe per Ronald Reganin i jap te drejte.

    Njeri ne jete duhet te udhehiqet nga argumenti, nga fakti. Domethene, Verteto diçka pastaj besoje ate. Kjo eshte menyre e vetem per te ecur ne rrugen e duhur.

13. zana thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 8:34 am

    Une fene e shoh si bashkesi vlerash te moralit.,jo si burim nga mund te
    studioj astronomine.Ke te drejte Banago

14. zana thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 8:37 am

    Dori ,une nuk thashe asgje nga ato qe permend ti.Shihet se jemi pasardhes te denje te vullnetareve te rinise qe shembem me aq krenari kisha ,xhami e teqe

15. Cheney thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 9:02 am

    Persa kohe ideja e ‘maliqit’ do ti sherbeje shoqerise ne zbatim te ‘ligjit’ atehere une nuk kam asnje problem me zotin; perkundrazi, fatkeqsisht nuk kemi aq respektim te ligjit sa duhet, edhe midis atyre qe besojne te ‘maliqi’…

16. Banago thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 10:18 am

    Konsiderimi i Zotit si nje figure frikesuese e cila sherben vetem per te rregulluar çeshtjet shoqerore eshte pak e ngushte. Asnjehere figura e Zotit nuk eshte pare vetem ne kete kendveshtrim. Zoti gjithmone shihet si Meshirues dhe Fales para se te shihet si Ndeshukes i rrepte. Teme u ngushtuar per shkak te komentit te Zanes, qe tha se nuk do ti zinte bese nje atesiti, por ne fakt besimi ne Zot ka qindra ane te tjera per tu diskutar dhe jo thjesit te kosiderohet si nje e hedhur tej me perçmin dhe ta marrim ta perdorim kur ta na duhet.

17. Cheney thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 10:23 am

    Banago, jam dakort me ate qe thua me lart por duhet shkuar disi me tej, sidomos nese do te kemi parasysh se zhvillimi i mendimit njerzot ne 2000 vitet e fudnit eshte ’shumefishuar’ po 2000 here( ose te pakten keshtua deshiroj une)..|Ne nje linje paralere duhet te zhvillohet edhe definicioni i ‘zotit’..

18. banago thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 10:34 am

    Po, mendimi eshte i nderprere, por per efekt kohe. Shpresoj ta vazhdoj pake me vone

19. alb thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 11:08 am

    “Nuk ka ateist te sinqerte qe te diskutoj rreth egsistences se Zotit sepse nuk e njeh si koncept, nuk ka besimtar te sinqerte te diskutoji rreth egzistences se zotit sepse eshte i bindur ne te.”. referenca nuk me kujtohet.
    Plotesisht dakord.

20. Bex thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 11:26 am

    Alb, shume e qelluar kjo thenie. Do te deshiroja te dij se kush e tha kete…

    Ideja e Zotit dhe fese eshte e mire dhe ploteson nje nevoje shpirterore te njerezve. Eshte dem i madh qe ne praktike, vete sollen me shume vuajte, urrejtje, paragjykime, etj…. ne vend te paqes, dashurise, mirekuptimit, etj!!

    Kjo eshte sidomos e theksuar ne traditen monoteiste Judeo-kristiane-muslimane, ku qe te tri keto fe pretendojne te kene monopol total mbi te verteten!! Budistet perkundrazi, i kane pothuaj te gjitha parimet e Krishterimit, Islamit, Judaizmit por ata nuk predikojne nje zell te flakte qe i therret njerizit ta shpetojne boten nga te pafete! Ata synojne qe shpetimin ta gjejne nga brenda… Nuk po them se eshte religjion me i mire apo me i keq por Budizmi nuk shkaktoi asnjehere lufta fetare…

21. Mali i Madh thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 1:26 pm

    Feja gjithmone ka qene kunder kombit (kur romaket e perdoren si vegel nenshtrimi) sepse e heq vemendjen e njerezve nga kombi, dhe hallet e kombit. Dhe pastaj njerezit identifikohen sipas fese dhe jo nationalitetit ..dhe kjo perdoret nga disa shtete extremiste …ose me qellime pushtuese (sich kemi shtetet fqinje) ose kolonizuese (sic kane bere e bejne kristianet, ie anglia)
    FEJA E SHQIPATRIT ESHTE SHQIPTARIA

    *********************************************

    Ju lutem diskutoni ne Shqip. Me teper se 2/3 e kesaj pergjigje u fshine sepse ishin ne Anglisht

    Ll.

    *********************************************

22. Bex thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 1:34 pm

    “FEJA E SHQIPTARIT ESHTE SHQIPTARIA”

    Amen, Amin dhe Ashtu qofte!

23. Nardi thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 1:36 pm

    Me vjen keq qe duhet te te kundershtoje Mali i madh sepse ne fund te fundit ti ke mendimin tend.
    Feja nuk te heq vemendjen nga kombi dhe as nga hallet e tij por te meson ti duash te tjeret si veten tende.
    Keqperdorimi i fese nga politika eshte dicka tjeter.
    U provuan sisteme te cilat nuk e kane pasur moralin te mbeshtetur ne fe dhe kane deshtuar.
    Po marre vetem si shembull socializimin i cili ndertoi nje moral pa fe dhe rezultatet qene katastrofike per njerezimin.
    Po marre teorine e Darvinit ne te cilen u bazua socializmi per te hedhur poshte fene dhe kjo teori eshte hedhur poshte dhe kete e ka provuar vete shkenca.

24. Dirk thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 2:07 pm

    Une besoj se feja ne pergjithesi eshte nga te keqiat me te medhaja qe i ka ndodhur njerezimit, dhe arsyeja kryesore per luftrat gjate shekujve.

25. zhiron thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 4:49 pm

    Une do te thosha se zoti eshte nje krijese qe ka lindur bashke me njeriun dhe ai nuk egziston pa njeriun,nese po atehere nuk do te egzistonte njeriu …

26. zhiron thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 4:57 pm

    Njeriu krijon fantazon rron dhe vdes njehere e pergjithmon,transformohet ne nje gjendje tjeter,dhe kur kemi transformin nuk kemi rikthim ne gjendje te me parshme.GJyshja ramet past, me ka thene se :Qumshti mund te transfomohet ne kos ,por Kosi nuk mund te transformohet kurr ne QUMSHT ,!
    E si mund te transformohemi ne gjendjen e me parshme ,kur ndodh ndrimi i jetes ne vdekje !

27. Agjent Operativ thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 5:47 pm

    Dirk thotë:
    1 Dhjetor 2006 @ 2:07 pm

    Une besoj se feja ne pergjithesi eshte nga te keqiat me te medhaja qe i ka ndodhur njerezimit
    ———————————————————————-

    Fatkeqsisht shqiptari, duke qene rob i rrymave qyteterimore, nuk eshte ne gjendje te gjykoje te miren a te keqen e fese/religjionit. Se pari, gjuha shqipe nuk ka nje fjale te duhur per ta pershkruar vete konceptin
    religjion.

    Religare: ne latinisht do me thene ‘me lidhe’. Pra, religjioni eshte ajo qe lidh bashke nje turre me njerez dhe e ben bashkesine me te madhe se sa shuma e pjeseve te saj. E pare ne kete prizem Shqiptari e ka religjion aspak dogmatik: gjuhen,familjen, fisin, kombi-nacionin.

    Te gjitheve u duhet nje religjion perndryshe do te ishin anti-sociale si Ciklopet (analogji e Aristotelit kjo).

    Sa per fene dogmatike….nuk eshte e keqe ne vetvete. Behet e keqe kur nje sasi e madhe e njerezimit e perqafon dogmen duke perjashtuar cdo mundesi tjeter.

    Monoteizmi u shkon per shtat vetem fiseve te vogla nomade. Per dreq, Hebrejte u shumuan kaq shume sa u perhapen ne te gjithe qyteterimin klasik Helen e Rromak dhe mjaftonte vetem nje Hebre Helenik me pasaporte Romake qe te na sillte ketu ku jemi sot.

28. bytyqis thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 7:24 pm

    Pajtohem me Dorin!

29. alb thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 8:06 pm

    Agjent Operativ thotë:
    1 Dhjetor 2006 @ 5:47 pm

    “Monoteizmi u shkon per shtat vetem fiseve te vogla nomade.”
    O plako bota deri para nje shekulli e ca ka qene TEOKRATIKE, e udhehequr nga sisteme fetare, monoteiste per me teper, me institucione te qarta dhe funksionuse brenda shteteve nen qeverisjen e tyre. A ma shpjego pak me shume se si u shko per shtat vetem fiseve te vogla nomade.

30. emigrant thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 9:53 pm

    Me poshte mund te gjeni artikullin e GEORGE JOHNSON mbi kete teme qe e pruri ketu Agjent Operativ.

    (Nqse ju shpie udha ne NYC, ju rekomandoj ta vizitoni Planetarium-in. Dikur ka patur nje show shume interesant ne 3-D mbi universin. Gjithashtu, kerkoj paraptrakisht ndjese per cdo gabim ne perkthim, qe e bera pjese pjese duke hedhur nje sy tek peshku dhe nje sy tek puna.)

    Debat i forte mbi shkemcen dhe fene
    nga Xhorxh Xhonson

    Momenti kyç ndoshta ishte kur Stiven Uajnberg, laureat i çmimit Nobel ne fizike tha se “bota ka nevoje te zgjohet nga tmerri i gjate i besimit fetar”, ose kur nje nobelist ne kimi, Sër Harold Kroto, i beri thirrje Fondacionit Xhon Tempelton tia jepte çmimin e ardhshem 1.5 milion dollaresh per “perparim ne zbulimet mbi shpirtin” nje ateisti – Riçard Doukins, biolog evolucionist, libri i te cilit “Imazhi i rreme i Zotit” eshte nje best-seller kombetar.
    Apo ndoshta pika vendimtare erdhi ne nje moment me solemn, kur Nil deGras Tajson, drejtor i Planetriumit Haiden ne Nju York dhe keshilltar i administrates Bush mbi eksplorimin e hapesires, i stepi pjesemarresit me foto tragjike te te sapolindurve te deformuar nga defekte te lindjes – deshmi, siç sugjeroi ai, që në komandë është natyra e verbër, dhe jo nje mbikqyrës inteligjent.
    Mbledhja e ketij muaji ne Institutin e Studimeve Biologjike Salk ne La Jola te Kalifornise, e cila mund te ishte nje dialog me i butë mes shkencës dhe fesë, gjatë zhvillimeve të veta filloi ti ngjante nje mbledhje themeluese te nje partie politike te ndertuar mbi nje platforme te vetme: ne këtë botë të mbushur rrezikshëm me ideologjira, shkenca duhet të marrë nje rol evangjelik duke konkurruar me fene si rrefyesja e gjësë me madheshtore qe eshte rrefyer ndonjehere.
    Karolin Porko, nje shkencetare e nivelit se larte ne Institutin e Shkencave te Hapesires ne Bulder, Kolorado, beri thirrje, si me shaka, per themelimin e nje kishe tjeter, me Dr. Tajson si kryeprift, qe ti celebrojë zbulimet shkencore me fuqine dhe muzikalitetin e nje predikimi fetar.
    Ajo s’e kish krejt me shaka. “Ne duhet te nxjerrim mesime dhe te udhehiqemi nga menyra se si feja e arrin suksesin”, tha Dr. Porko. “Le tu mesojme femijve qysh ne moshe shume te vogel historine e gjithesise, bukurine dhe pasurine e saj te mahnitshme. Kjo histori eshte qysh tani shume me e lavdishme dhe e mrekullueshme - e madje me komode – se çdo gje qe ofrojne shkrimet e shenjta apo koncepti i Zotit qe di une.
    Ajo paraqiti nje foto te Saturnit the unazes se tij qe eklipsone diellin te marre nga anja kozmike Kasini, ku ne hije shquante nje njollez pothuaj e padallueshme e quajtur Toke.
    Ka patur plot konferenca vitet e fundit, zakonisht te organizuara nga Fondacioni Tempelton, qe duan te zbusin dallimet mes shkences dhe fese duke arritur ne perfundime metafizike. Por mbledhja e La Jolas e sponsorizuar nga Sajëns Netuork, nje organizate arsimore ne Kaliforni dhe e mbeshtetur prej Robert Zeps, investitor nga San Diego, nen siglen “Me tej se Besimi: Shkenca, Feja, Aresyeja dhe Mbijetesa”, shume shpejt u shnderrua ne nje debat te forte intelektual.
    Diskutimi i biologes se Universitetit te Stanfordit, Xhoan Rafgarden, qe donte te perdorte nje metafore biblike per ti kandisur koleget e saj te krishtere te pranojne evolucionin u hodh poshte nga Dr. Doukins si nje “poezi e keqe”, ndersa vete qasja e tij arrogante (edukimi fetar eshte “shpelarje trushe” dhe “abuzim i femijve”) u denua nga antropologu Melvin J. Konner qe tha se ai s’e mendonte besimin fetar si te thjeshtezuar dhe pa informacion.
    Pasi duroi dy dite diskutimesh ne te cilat Fondacioni Tempelton po rrezikonte te goditej per konfuzion ne dallimin mes shkences dhe fese, zevendespresidenti i fondaionit Çarlz L. Harper i Riu u kunderpergjigj duke i kundershtuar keto si “shkence per ideologji komerciale” qe promovojne per perfitim filozofine qe shkenca ka monopolin e se Vertetes dhe ato qe ai i quajti “libra pop te konfliktit”, si puna e librit “Imazhi i rreme i Zotit” i Dr. Doukins.
    Kjo solli reagimin e zemeruar te profesorit te mjekesise se sjelljes ne Qendren Mjekesore ne Universitetin e Kolumbise Riçard P. Sloun, i cili tha se libri i tij “Besimi i verber: Aleanca jo e shenjte mes fese dhe mjekesise” qe shkruar per tiu kunderpergjegjur “kerkimeve plehra” te financuara nga Tempelton, si per shembull efektet sheruese te lutjes.
    Me ateistet dhe agnostiket me te shumte ne numur se shkencetaret besimtare (nje numur i vogel shkencetaresh besimtare, si Fransis S. Kollins, autor i “Gjuha e Zotit: Nje shkencetar paraqet fakte per besimin”, ishin ftuar, por nuk munden te merrnin pjese ne mbledhje), folesit njeri pas tjetrit u benin thirrje kolegeve qe te mos hezitonin ne sfidimin e te shpjeguarit te natyres vetem sipas shkrimeve te shenjta dhe besimit. “Thelbi i shkences nuk eshte nje model matematik; ai eshte ndershmeri intelektuale”, tha Sem Herris, student doktorature ne shkencat neurologjike dhe autor i “Fundi i besimit: Feja, Terrori dhe e ardhmja e Arsyes” dhe “Leter nje kombi te krishtere”.
    “Çdo fe shpjegon menyren se si eshte bota”, tha ai. “Keto shpjegime jane mbi origjinen hyjnore te disa librave te caktuar, lindjen nga nje e vigjer te dikujt, mbijetesen e personalitetit njerezor pas vdekjes. Keto shpjegime pretendojne te jene e verteta.”
    “Duke iu shmagur diskutimit te besimit te ndjere e te forte,” tha z. Herris, “deri edhe skeptiket, po u bejne vend ideve qe, ne rastin me te mire, te çojne ne qorrsokak, e ne me te keqin, jane te rrezikshme. S’e di edhe sa inxhiniere e arkitekte duhen t’ia veshin ndertesave tona me aeroplane, perpara se ne te kuptojme qe kjo nuk eshte thjesht çeshtje e deshperimit ekonomik apo e mungeses se arsimit”.
    Dr. Uajnberg, autor i thenies se famshme “sa me teper gjithesia duket e kuptueshme, aq me e pakuptueshme duket gjithashtu” ne fund te librit te vet mbi kozmologjine “Tre minutat e para” (1977), shkoi nje hap me tej: “Ne shkencetaret duhet te bejme çdo gje qe mundim per te dobesuar bazen e fese dhe qofte kjo me ne fund ndihmesa jone me e madhe per qyteterimin”.
    Me nje konsesus te veshtire se tezat e medha te evolucionit permes seleksionimit natyror dhe te zhvillimit te gjithesise nga Shperthimim i Madh (Big Bang) jane duke humbur terren ne qarqet intelektuale, pjesa me e madhe e diskutimeve zbriti te strategjia: si shkenca te kunderpegjigjet pa u dukur thhjesht si nje ideologji me teper?
    “Ka 6 miliarde njerez ne kete dynja” tha Fraçisko Ajala, ish-prift katolik dhe tani biolog evolucionist ne Universitetin e Kalifornise, ne Irvain. “Po te besojme qe ne do ti bindim at ate jetojne ne menyre te logjikshme bazuar ne njohurite shkencore, ne jo vetem qe po shohim enderra ne diell – por edhe po besojme vete ne perralla”.
    “Njerezit kane nevoje te gjejne kuptim dhe qellim ne jete”, tha ai. “Nuk besoj qe ne duam tua heqim keto njerzve”.
    Fizikani i Universitetit Case Western Reserve, Lorens M. Krauss, i njohur per kundershtimin e vendosur per te dhene mesim te kreacionizmit, u gjend ne nje rolin prej të moderuari, rol i pazkonte per të. “Une mendoj se ne duhet te respektojme konceptet filozofike te njerzve po qe se keto koncepte nuk jane te gabuara”, tha ai. “Toka nuk eshte 6000 vjec e vjeter. Njeriu i Kennewick-ut nuk ishte indian Umatilla. Por nese ekziston vertet ndonje lloj qenie e mbinatyrshme – Dr. Krauss tha se ai nuk besonte – kjo eshte nje pyetje se ciles teologjia, filozofia, madje edhe teologjia nuk mund ti jape pergjigje. “Shkenca nuk e ben te pamundur te besosh ne Zot”, kembengul Dr. Krauss. “Ne duhet ta njohim kete fakt dhe te jetojme me te dhe duhet te pushojme se qeni kaq pretencioze rreth tij.”
    Mirepo kjo e beri Dr. Doukins te hidhej perpjete. “Une jam ngopur me respektin trushplare qe te gjithe ne tregojme per fene, perfshi materialistet mes nesh. Femijeve u mesohet sistematikisht qe ka nje lloj me te larte njohjeje qe vjen nga besimi, nga zbulesa, nga shkrimet e shenjta, nga tradita, dhe qe eshte e njejte ne mos me larte se dija qe vjen nga faktet reale!”
    Diten e trete debatet ishin nxehur aq shume sa qe Dr. Konnerit i erdh ne mendje fraza “fole gjarperinjsh”. “Me pak perjashtime te spikatura,” tha ai, “pikpamjet e shfaqura perpiqen te gjejne nese duhet ta godasim fene me shufer hekuri apo me shkop bejsbolli.”
    Pergjigjia e tij ndaj z. Morris dhe Doukins ishte therese. “Une mendoj qe ju dhe Riçardi jeni pasqyrime te skajshme te ekstremisteve te krahut te kundert,” tha ai, “dhe qe ju prodhoni frike dhe urrejtje nga shkenca.”
    Dr. Tajson foli me bute. “Argumenti bindes nuk eshte gjithnje i tipit ‘Ja ku jane faktet – ju o jeni nje idiot, o nuk jeni i tille’ “ tha ai. “Mua me shqetesojne metodat tuaja” – dhe u kthye nga Dr. Doukins - “qe jane kaq therese,…., e qe perfundojne thjesht pa rezultat”
    “I dokendisur per nje milisekonde, Dr. Doukins megithate u pergjigj “E pranoj me mirenjohje qortimin”.
    Ne fund ishte Dr. Tajson qe u vu ne qender te vemendjes. “Shkencetaret mund te tallen me njerezit qe nuk japin dot shpjegime te mjaftueshme per gjerat dhe terhiqen tek dizajneri inteligjent”, tha ai, “por historia tregon qe njerezit me te mencur qe kjo bote ka patur ndonjehere kane bere te njejten gje. Kur “Principia Mathematica” e Isak Njutonit nuk mundte te shpjegonte qendrueshmerine e sistemit diellor – pra pse planetet qe terhiqen ne orbitat e njeri tjetrit nuk jane perplasur te gjithe mbi diell – Njutoni propozoi qe pas matematikes ishte nje ‘qenie inteligjente dhe e fuqishme’ ”.
    Pier Simon Laplasi nje shekull me vone ndermori hapin tjeter. Duke i thene Napoleonit qe ai nuk kishte nevoje per hipotezen e Zotit, Laplasi zgjeroi matematiken njutoniane dhe hapi rrugen per nje teori thjesht fizike.
    “Ajo ç’ka me shqeteson mua tani eshte se edhe sikur ju te jeni aq lart sa Njutoni, ju arrini nje pike ku akomodoheni me madheshtine e Zotit dhe aty zbulimi juaj pushon,” tha Dr, Tajson. “Ju nuk avanconi dot me, por prisni dike tjeter te vije pas jush qe nuk e ka Zotin ne mend dhe qe thote: Ky eshte vertet problem interesant. Une dua ta zgjidh ate.”
    “Shkenca eshte filozofi e zbulimeve; plani inteligjent (hyjnor) eshte filozofi e padijes” tha ai. “Eshte dicka fondamentale qe ndodh ne mendjet e njerzve kur ata perballen me gjera qe s’i kuptojne.”
    Ai foli per nje kohe rreth nje mije vjet me pare, kur Bagdati mbreteronte si qendra intelektuale e botes. “Emrat e konstelacioneve jane greke dhe romake,” tha Dr. Tajson, “por dy te tretat e yjeve kane emra arabe. Fjalet “algjeber” dhe ‘algoritem” jane arabe. Por diku nga 1100-ta erdhi mesjeta. Matematika po shihej si veper e djallit. Zbulesa (libri i fundit i testamentit te ri) zevendesoi kerkimin shkencor dhe baza intelektuale u shkermoq.”
    Ai nuk e tha, por u kuptua qe pas ndoshta nje shekull a nje mijevjecari, emrat e planeteve, yjeve e galaktikave te reja mund te jene kinezçe. Ose mund te mos kete mbetur me njeri qe tu vere emer.
    Para se te kthehej ne shtepi ne Austin, Dr. Uajnberg sikur u zbut per nje moment duke e pershkruar fene me nje fare dashamiresie si nje teze plake dhe te çmendur.
    “Ajo ja keput genjeshtrave dhe sajon lloj lloj paudhesirash dhe po plaket, e ndoshta nuk i mbetet shume per te jetuar, por ajo ishte e bukur dikur,” u mellengjye ai. “Kur te kete ikur, ne ndoshta do na marre malli per te.”
    Por Dr. Doukins nuk degjonte nga ky vesh. “Mua nuk do me marre aspak malli” tha ai. “Hiç, hiç fare.”

31. Agjent Operativ thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 10:10 pm

    Emigrant! c’ben mo lumemadh? Do te ta vjedhin punen ata te Gazetes Shqiptare.

32. emigrant thotë:

    1 December 2006 @ 10:12 pm

    Agjent, me pelqeu si shkrim dhe disa bashkebisedues me pare thane qe mos i bini gjerat anglisht…..pune e madhe per gazeten shqiptare…

33. Nardi thotë:

    2 December 2006 @ 10:37 am

    A.Operativ,
    “Gjuha shqipe nuk ka nje fjale te duhur qe ti pergjigjet fjales religjion.”

    Vetem po ti permbahesh etimologjise se fjaleve do ta shikosh se sa e pasur eshte gjuha shqipe.
    Marrim fjalen FE(gj.shqipe)=RELIGJION (gj.e huaj).
    Fjala FE eshte gjuhe e paster shqipe dhe gjendet si rrenje ne shume fjale te huaja qe kane lidhje me besimin.
    p.sh ne italisht kemi fedele, fede, fedelta e cilat kane rrenjen baze fjalen FE (qe eshte shqip) por cuditerisht ata besimit fetar i thone religjion.
    Ndersa ne shqip a ke FE= a ke bese.

    Marrim fjalen religjion.
    Per te shpjeguar etimologjikisht fjalen religjion le te shpjegojme njehere fjalen MBRET.
    mbret= mb + ret
    Pra mbreti eshte figura me e madhe, eshte mbi gjithcka ose ka qene, bindja ndaj tij nuk vihej ne diskutim, eshte aq i madh aq i rendesishem sa qe eshte mbi rete.
    mbret=mb+ret= mbi + rete (kuptohet qe i dhe e jane zhdukur me kalimin e shekujve madje neper dialekte te ndryshme e gjene dhe mret).
    RELIGJION= ligji i reve
    Pra religjion qe do te thote fe a nuk ka lidhje me rete pra me qiellin?
    RELIGJION = re + ligj + on (ku on eshte prapashtese latine)
    Italianet ligjit i thone legge
    reve i thone nuvola
    re ne it. ka kuptimin e mbretit.

    E gjithe ajo qe doja te tregoja eshte se gjuha shqipe eshte shume e pasur dhe ndoshta se kam shpjeguar prejardhjen e ketyre fjaleve sic duhet por u perpoqa te jape esencen.

    Persa i perket “Monoteizmi i shkon pershtat vetem fiseve nomade” me vjen keq por je perseri gabim.
    Me ardhjen e monoteizmit bota filloi te ndergjegjesohej dhe largimi nga feja e vertete (besimi ne nje Zot) i ka shkaktuar shume luftra njerezimit.
    (Ketu nuk dua te ndalem shume:)

34. zana thotë:

    3 December 2006 @ 9:19 am

    Nardi!Do te kisha kerkuar te jemi pak me modeste e pak me shume re spekt per gjuhet e tjera.Dhe sidomos konsiderate per lexuesin e Peshkut.
    Religione vjen nga termi latin religo-rilidh ,bej bashke dy gjera ,njeriun dhe perendine.Kaq.Te lodhim nje here gjuhen tone te tjerave ka kush ju del per zot

35. Nardi thotë:

    3 December 2006 @ 11:30 am

    Zana,
    I respektoj gjuhet e huaja ne maksimum por mendoj se pa njohur gjuhen meme dhe pa e respektuar ate nuk mund te ecim perpara.
    Nuk eshte spekullim ajo qe une kam shkruar.
    Fakti qe jane gjuhe indioevropiane i ben me te aferta keto gjuhe me njera tjetren.
    Fakti qe te gjitha kane degezime si p.sh latinishtja dhe shqipja nuk ka degezime por qendron e vetme tregon dhe se sa e lashte eshte apo jo?
    Por fatkeqesia me e madhe qendron ne faktin se skemi dokumente te shkruara aq te lashta sa i kane fqinjet tane.
    Kjo na ben te ndihemi pak inferiore, por mua personalisht me pelqen ta besoj ate qe solla dhe per lexuesit e peshkut pa dashur te fyej askend.

36. LAURENT thotë:

    3 December 2006 @ 12:18 pm

    Zana nqs do me ushtru durimin lexo ketu
    http://www.forumihorizont.com/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=12365&perpage=10&pagenumber=5

37. zana thotë:

    3 December 2006 @ 4:12 pm

    Ok Nardi!Le te flasim per gjuhen tone.Nuk ke fyer askend por demton imazhin tend

38. Agjent Operativ thotë:

    4 December 2006 @ 5:03 pm

    Nardi thotë:
    2 Dhjetor 2006 @ 10:37 am

    Marrim fjalen FE(gj.shqipe)=RELIGJION (gj.e huaj).
    Fjala FE eshte gjuhe e paster shqipe
    ———————————————————————-

    “Fe” vjen nga latinishtja i dashur.

39. Nardi thotë:

    5 December 2006 @ 9:52 am

    Agjent ma shpjego nga latinishtja se ca do te thote FE?

40. berti thotë:

    5 December 2006 @ 10:29 am

    Nje shkencetar kerkon gjithe jeten nje njolle te zeze ne nje dhome plotesisht te erret , ndersa nje teolog e kerkon dhe pas 5 min thote: “E gjetaaaaaaaa”

41. Mali i Madh thotë:

    7 December 2006 @ 4:04 pm

    Shkenca shpjegon 99% te te gjitha gjerave ne bote (gjerat qe dihen).
    Feja shpjegon ekzakt 0%

    shprehjen e mesiperme e kam dejguar nga Richard Dwakins dhe nga natyralisti David Atenborough

42. Nardi thotë:

    8 December 2006 @ 11:16 am

    Natyralistet jane ateist, nuk mund te shprehen ndryshe.

43. blerta thotë:

    8 January 2007 @ 6:38 pm

    shum mir

44. bato bujku thotë:

    16 January 2007 @ 1:19 am

    Një ditë prej ditësh, një grup shkencëtarësh u bënë tok dhe vendosën që njeriu pat bërë goxha udhë dhe nuk ja kish më nevojën Perëndisë. E kështu i vunë gishtin njërit prej shkencëtarëve që të shkonte e t’i thosh Atij se kaq e patën me Të. Shkencëtari u ngjit te Zoti dhe i tha, “Zot, vendosëm që nuk ta kemi më nevojën. Jemi në atë pikë ku mund të klonojmë njerëz dhe të bëjmë plot gjëra të tjera të mrekullueshme, ndaj pse nuk vazhdon vetëm e të merresh me punët e tua?” Perëndia i vuri veshin me shumë durim e mirësjellje robit. Pasi mbaroi së foluri njeriu, Zoti tha, “Bukur shumë, si të duket kjo? Le të themi që po bëjmë një garë për bërjen e njeriut.” Për të cilën njeriu u hodh, “Xham, do ja dalim!”
    “Por,” shtoi Zoti, “do ta bëjmë siç bëra unë një herë e një kohë me Adamin.”
    Shkencëtari i përgjigjet, “Patjetër, nuk ka problem” dhe u përkul e mori për vete
    një dorë dhe. Perëndia e vështroi dhe tha, “Jo, jo, jo. Shko gjej dhe tëndin.”

45. bato bujku thotë:

    15 February 2007 @ 6:01 pm

    Një gruaje 45 vjeçe i ra infarkt dhe e shpunë në spital. Gjatë operacionit gati sa nuk vdiq. Në përpjekjen për jetë a vdekje pa Zotin dhe e pyeti “Më erdhi radha?”

    Zoti ju përgjegj, “Jo, ke akoma 43 vjetë, 2 muaj e 8 ditë jetë.” Pasi u shërua, gruaja vendosi të rrijë në spital e të bëjë një operacion plastik në fytyrë, në buzë, në gjinj dhe në bark. Madje thirri dikë e ndryshoi edhe ngjyrën e flokëve, edhe dhëmbët i bëri rruaza! Ngaqë kish kohë plot për të rrojtur, mendoi që mund t´i nxirrte ujë të zi. Pas operacionit të fundit, doli nga spitali. Duke u hedhur në anën tjetër të rrugës për në shtëpi, e shtyp një ambulancë.

    Mbërrin para Zotit, e pyet, “Mu duk sikur the se kisha akoma 43 vjetë? Pse nuk më hoqe nga rruga e ambulancës?”

    Zoti iu përgjigj: “Nuk e mora vesh cila ishe.”

46. e.T thotë:

    15 February 2007 @ 6:10 pm

    . :D

47. e.T thotë:

    15 February 2007 @