We (GULC) also had a kerfuffle last year about a girl getting a public interest type fellowship for summer work at a planned-parenthood type organization. I forget the details, but it made for some good copy in our school paper. Always made me think if volunteering at Bnei Brith would similarly violate their Catholic codes.

On the one hand you have organizations killing babies, on the other an organization that killed their God.

This is ridiculous. If you have a problem with Catholic beliefs, then don't go to a Catholic law school!

It really is that simple.

What a crap school. How about upholding the Supreme Law of the Land? Ya know? That whole SCOTUS thing?

This "school's" mission is fundamentally in conflict with the core values of our legal system.

pretty much all law schools are secular so if you don't want to go to a religious one you don't have to. st. thomas should be able decide both how religious they want to be and what policies they'll have, not encouraging volunteering at planned parenthood seems very reasonable.

10:57 - What if I wanted to establish an Islamic law school that gave full scholarships to male students and forced female students to pay their own way?

Would that be legal?

What 10:57 said. By the way, St. Thomas is no Georgetown, in fact, it was started by a bunch of folks who didn't think Notre Dame was Catholic enough. If you go to St. Thomas, you should know what you're getting into.

And by the way, you don't have to go to Georgetown either. You can always go to GW.

I think this is great. If a public interest group started that tried to work against minorities (let's call it the KKK Action Center or something) and a school didn't want to give pro bono credit for working there, fine. St. Thomas obviously doesn't see abortion groups as working in the "public interest" and fair enough.

Whenever your polls say "do you support" instead of "do you agree with" I always say 'yes' since I support any decision that is not any of my business, whether or not I think it is a good idea. (This happened most recently with the Jerry Springer poll.) I think that phrasing the question like this skews your results. In fact, I can't think of an instance where the 'no' side won in a question framed this way.

Where are the limits though?

If they say only "pro-choice" or "pro-abortion" groups are opposed to their Catholic values, they are sadly mistaken.

Would they prohibit pro bono work at ANY organization that could potentially conflict with their values? If so, more power to them, but it could have some absurd results.

If not, they shouldn't single out these groups simply because the issue happens to be very divisive.

oh one more thing: 11:01 There's clearly no law against that. You probably will be ineligible for federal funding, however, via Title IX.

I like this idea of an Islamic Law School where women have to pay to attend school and men don't. It's about time women learn there place in this world. Go Islam!

"Some students are just there for the former, and discomforted by the influence of the latter.:

Where's Mr. Grammuh Time?

A few years ago, an alum of Fordham undergrad donated money to purchase bronze school crests to be put in all Fordham University classrooms. They were put in, but there were complaints from some law students because the University crest had a Catholic Cross in in it, so the law school caved and took them down. It was pathetic because they were basically just ripped off the walls so you could still see the outline. It didn't seem reasonable to me that students could complain that a school's crest, a jesuit school which they voluntarily chose to attend, offended them and it would be taken down, but it seems like these are they days we live in: If my beliefs offend you and I am Christian, you will be accomodated, if your beliefs offend my sensibilities, its my problem. Oh, well.

11:12 - What is the grammatical problem? I don't see it.

Also, it seems you inserted a colon where you wanted to insert a quotation mark. Physician, heal thyself.

"What a crap school. How about upholding the Supreme Law of the Land? Ya know? That whole SCOTUS thing?

This "school's" mission is fundamentally in conflict with the core values of our legal system. "

The Supreme Law of the Land prevents private schools from telling schools what they can and can't do? Get a clue.

11:10- their standard is those groups "whose mission is fundamentally in conflict with a core value of a Catholic university" so your tangential conflcts theorectically shouldn't be an issue. Whether they are in practice is another question but that is the same issue we have with any of these type determinations which require some interpretation generally in the law.

Edit: ^students, not schools

11:09(2) - People who hold your views should not vote in these polls. If you don't think it's any of your business, don't cast a vote.

You are making this more complicated than it has to be. Most people read "support" as synonymous with "agreement."

Jeez, lawyers....

10:57 - There already is one. It's called Harvard. See recent press re: institution of Sharia law at the Harvard student gym (though I'm not sure if the administration has since come to its senses).

11:19 ----> Sharia law at the Harvard Law School gym???

If you forget to wipe down the stairmaster after using it, they cut off your hands.

And your legs, too.

Sorry 'bout that. I meant 11:01.

"10:57 - There already is one. It's called Harvard. See recent press re: institution of Sharia law at the Harvard student gym (though I'm not sure if the administration has since come to its senses)."

Six times a week at Harvard, no men are allowed to work out at a particular gym, due to requests from Muslim students. You may agree or disagree with this policy, but to describe it as institution of Sharia Law is quite a bit overboard.

Part of being an institution of higher education means being open to all ideas -- including ideas that the institution may not necessarily support. This is bogus.

11:14 - You are right about Fordham. Deeply disappointing, a Catholic school in name only.

Of course they have a right and a responsibility to protect Catholic values as a Catholic institution. You don't like it? Then don't go there. Get over it.

"People who hold your views should not vote in these polls. If you don't think it's any of your business, don't cast a vote."

There is an important distinction between "support" and "agree with" that is lost on most people. Many people "support" the right to abortion, but don't "agree" that abortion is morally proper. The whole point of federalism is that state rights should be "supported," even though the federal government may not "agree" with the choices made by the state.

St. Thomas is obligated to follow the Papal mandate of the Ex Corde document. A Catholic University is an interesting animal, though not an oxymoron. A University can be a place of learning and open its students to many different types of thinking without openly supporting an institution that is clearly opposed to a core Catholic value.

Harvard's gym rules barring men from using the gym = total wackadoodle nonsense. If everyone is charged the same amount to their student accounts for use of the gym, the men should either get a pro-rata discount or given the option of using another gym (maybe BSC) when the Harvard scarf dancing team practice is in session.

"Part of being an institution of higher education means being open to all ideas -- including ideas that the institution may not necessarily support. This is bogus."

Right, but providing public interest credit is offering support, not listening to ideas. There's no false advertising here; the student chose to go to a Catholic Law School. Students who don't see people when they look at sonograms, and want their educational institution to support that view, have plenty of educational options.....like, nearly every law school in the country.

Why are Catholics such assholes? I could care less about this post, but Catholics in general just suck (but don't swallow, that would be a sin).

First of all, a private school should be able to set pretty much any policy it wants to set, as long as it isn't getting federal funding and doesn't violate any laws. That's part of what makes this country great. You don't have to believe what everyone else believes, and you don't have to have the same values either. And if you want to discriminate based on something like abortion, there is no law saying you can't.

Isn't this St. Thomas policy more petty than asinine?

At Boston College, you can use your "Eagle bucks" at local stores, unless you plan on buying condoms. You can't get them at campus health services, and they won't allow you to use their institutions to get them anywhere else. Same principle here, just writ a bit larger.

Just petty really.

Sucking is also a sin... unless it is foreplay to intercourse within the context of marriage. Get it straight.

I think what 11: 43 meant to say was:

Why are Catholics (or conservatives, or liberals, or jews, or gays, or vegetarians, or evangelicals) such assholes? I could care less about this post, but Catholics (or conservatives, or liberals, or jews, or gays, or vegetarians, or evangelicals) in general just suck....

OK. Good points.
SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNEN TO 190K !!!

Does working for a prosecutor's office violate a "core Catholic value"? Because they sometimes kill people too when they request a death sentence. What about volunteering for Street Law, since public schools teach evolution, and evolution conflicts with the literal word of the Bible? I'd like to know the school's positions on these.
The problem here is that this seems to be a political preference rather than a religious preference, unless you're willing, as a Catholic, to embrace the staggering logical inconsistencies here.
The views of the Pope notwithstanding, it's hard to believe (and very alarming to see) that free-thinking adults undertake this kind of wholesale acceptance of book that was largely composed with an Iron Age worldview. Here in America, there is an intellectual emergency in progress.

Catholic dogma is in no way opposed to the theory of evolution. It conflicts where scientists say evolution implies that God doesn't exist.

I don't know how you came under the impression that Catholics interpret the Bible literally. That is certainly not the case.

11:51 - You should at least attempt to understand what Catholics believe before you criticize them. 1) Catholics have no problem with evolution; never have, never will; 2) Catholic teaching over the past 2,000 years generally does not object to the death penalty (see e.g., Aquinas or Augustine - not that you would).

To the extent there is an 'intellectual emergency in progress' in America, people who indulge in ill-informed criticisms may be part of the problem.

11:10(1) provides a nice example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. The problem is that the school isn't Catholic enough? So it should only be allowed to implement this policy if, say, it also bars pro bono credit to students who work with Iraq veterans (who fought in a war the Church views as immoral)?? Sheesh...

11:57 - Well then where, other than a literal interpretation of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" would a Catholic find reason to oppose volunteering for Planned Parenthood? Keep in mind that the school specifically referred to "Catholic" values when stating its opposition.

11:51, the DP is not a big concern in Michigan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Michigan

Hey, 11:29, you're bogus. Being "open to all ideas" doesn't mean the school has to give credit for them. Some ideas are pretty odious.

12:00 - Evangelium Vitae (JPII, 1995) definitely objects to the death penalty and permits it only in extraordinarily rare situations.

Why the hub-bub? If you want to volunteer for an organization that will put you into the eternal fires of hell you can go to Cooley or GULC. We at St. Thomas will not be a part of anyone's eternal damnation.

12:02 - There is a humongous difference between a literal interpretation of a single line of the Bible and what is generally acknowledged as a literal interpretation of the Bible (e.g., the universe was created by God in six days).

There are numerous sources of authority in the Catholic tradition outside of the Bible alone.

I wish all Catholics and Muslims would just sack up and abort themselves.

"Well then where, other than a literal interpretation of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" would a Catholic find reason to oppose volunteering for Planned Parenthood? Keep in mind that the school specifically referred to "Catholic" values when stating its opposition."

It's hard to know where to start, but 'thou shalt not kill' is hardly a specifically Catholic or Christian or Jewish concept. Catholics, like anyone else who opposes abortion, oppose it because it is the taking of an innocent human life (an intrinsically immoral act). This is a moral intuition common to humanity, although of course the Jewish and Christian Scriptures reflect it as well.

What 'catholic values' refers to is the process of moral reasoning that follows from that intuition. Namely, that it does apply to the fetus, which as a distinct genetic identity and often gender from its mother. Because of the gravity of the issue, the Church has said that it is required for Catholics to oppose abortion.

Your proposed 'literal' reading of 'thou shalt not kill' would forbid killing in self-defense or in a just war; none of which Catholics oppose.

One time I took a bible and smacked a Catholic's face with it.

"12:00 - Evangelium Vitae (JPII, 1995) definitely objects to the death penalty and permits it only in extraordinarily rare situations."

Yeah, but like I said, there is ample support for it in the writings of Augustine, Aquinas, etc. It's not a matter, like abortion, which basically has been opposed by the Christians since the 1st Century.

I strongly support any action by a religious institution which demonstrates the mental retardation of said institution.

This comes up quite frequently at GULC, where the Law Students For Choice group has basically been denied funding, forbidden from using certain campus space, etc. Likewise, students pursuing internships with - say - Planned Parenthood are denied summer funding through the pro-bono funding program.

It always strikes me as somewhat curious, and inconsistent, that the school seems to target the Law Students for Choice group, but appears to be less concerned about groups that advocate for gay rights....

If we're going to tow the Vatican line, shouldn't we just go all the way, or, admit that we're just a secular institution?

Yeah, I agree. Adhering to one's religious beliefs is kind of goofy.

I love how it has become so trendy to bash Christians. The people that do so usually see themselves as very sophisticated for doing so. Wow! You can mock a person. You're so hip!

Can I now pretty please here your thoughts on why all white males are evil?

Georgetown and, to an extent, the Jesuits, are known for being fairly ambivalent when it comes to matters like this. I'd guess that their permissive attitude toward a gay-straight alliance or whatever you have going on is probably a function of the strength of the pro-life movement with the church and the much more malleable standard when it comes to homosexuality. To be homosexual is not in and of itself a sin, it's the sex out of marriage, just like hetero sex.

White Christians suck. White Jewish Muslims to 190!!!

"To the extent there is an 'intellectual emergency in progress' in America, people who indulge in ill-informed criticisms may be part of the problem."

What could possibly be more ill-informed than accepting something (i.e., your belief that the Bible is the word of "God") without evidence? Justifying a belief by "faith" is asking me to take your belief out of rational discourse.

12:00,

If only you knew your own church as well as we uninformed atheists do. From a speech delivered by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2005:

Within the teaching about evolution itself, the problem emerges at the point of transition from micro to macro-evolution, on which point Szathmary and Maynard Smith, both convinced supporters of an all-embracing theory of evolution, nonetheless declare that: "There is no theoretical basis for believing that evolutionary lines become more complex with time; and there is also no empirical evidence that this happens."

This is a standard ID line, acknowledging the phenomenon (based on an utterly nonexistent distinction) of "micro" evolution and the change over time of the animal "kinds" that were supposedly on Noah's ark, but denying the phenomenon of speciation or the fact of a single origin of all life on Earth. In other words, the Pope is just another Discovery Institute hack.

Forgot to include the link to the speech: http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=2509&page=2

--12:31

Abortion has not been consistently banned by the Christian Churches since the first century.

Augustine himself stated that abortion was not murder because a fetus did not have a soul. Modern Catholic thinking is that ensoulment happens at conception; but prior to that time, ensoulment was thought to happen at quickening, i.e., when the baby kicks/moves around.

Also, before you go saying "oh, people just shouldn't go to Catholic schools"--perhaps you should count up how many law schools are Catholic schools. In some parts of the country, they may be the only game in town. Boneheads.

And the vast majority of American Catholics use and believe in contraception, and a slim majority are pro-choice. So please don't conflate Church doctrine (which, as other Catholics on the thread have pointed out, you are ignorant of) with the beliefs of individual Catholics.

Not only are we not literalists, we also believe that the ultimate authority is the individual conscience, not the Pope or any other clergy. The Pope may say that abortion is murder, and if my conscience tells me otherwise, I am bound by my faith to differ.

What Cardinal Ratzinger said about evolution before becoming Pope may change, since his predecessor stated that there was no conflict, and further, that "evolution is more than a theory."

That may seem like a tepid endorsement, but JPII was a smart guy and knew the difference between scientific fact and theory, so that statement is actually a very strong endorsement.

12:35,

That's true, but I'm more concerned about what the current Pope thinks on the matter than what his predecessor thought. Contrary to Catholic belief, I don't quite buy the line that the man sheds all of his prior attitudes upon assuming the papacy.

--12:31

12:35 and 12:38 - Are you telling me that the Pope has a more rational view of the world than the President?

12:43,

My dog has a more rational view of the world than the President.

12:26 -- Slavishly parroting Richard Dawkins doesn't make you "rational," just reflexive and unimaginative.

Ok 12:47, pointing out that believing in fairies for no better reason than you want them to exist is "reflexive and unimaginative"? Idiot.

12:31: "denying ... the fact of a single origin of all life on Earth"

Congrats. For apparently nailing down that "fact," you're a Nobel lock!

Back when I was in student government at GULC (mid 90's) one of the evening reps successfully argued to stop funding of the pro-life student organization because the pro-choice organization wasn't allowed funding. Maybe thats an approach.

There's where you're wrong 12:50. It's atheists that believe in fairies. Catholics are against that belief. Haven't you been following along? Come on!

12:50: more Dawkins tripe, right down to the name-calling. Expand your worldview. Read.

Lol-- do you have anything but ad hominems to offer, 12:54?

Yes. The only Dawkins I care about is Daryl. Break'n rims, baby! Break'n rims!

12:54

12:57, that last post was an ad hominem argument, in and of itself.

lol

Uh huh. You can scream "Dawkins!!" all you want (though I have no idea why that's an insult) but until you can give some defense of belief in the absence of evidence, you've got nothing.

I'm glad some people are backing me up here. Actually it's not Richard Dawkins, but Sam Harris. You would do well to read his book. I've read the Bible and heard your side of the argument, now it's your turn.

1:05: Even if that is true, what do you care for? You say you don't believe in God or religion, but your rantings against it are a religion. So what is I believe in Santa Claus? How gives a shit? Why is it your job to disprove that? I'm not forcing you to believe. Your argument is based on the fact that religion, having no verifiable proof of God, is devoid of logic . . . thus the followers are idiots, right?

Does your behavior seem rational or logical? Dawkins is making a ton of money from this. What's driving you?

Why is it my turn now? Your statement assumes that you are important enough for me to care about your opinion. You're mistaken.

None of you guys believe in that whole "god" fiction, right? You're all pretty well education? Or is it just easier for you than staring into the abyss of existential terror?

Digging yourself deeper and deeper, 1:14. Pointing out the bullshit of others is now a "religion"? That's a load of crap. And yes, belief in an invisible man in the sky without a shred of evidence in support of that proposition makes one an idiot.

GULC is full of it. The only Catholic identity GULC consistently represents is a seemingly arbitrary ban on pro-choice funding. The administration strongly supports gay rights. There is not a single cross on campus. In December the campus is decorated with Christmas lights, but no manger. Condoms are sold in the campus convenience store. GULC should just recognize that it is a secular institution and give up its ridiculous fight against the campus pro-choice movement.

1:05 - Let me give the (well my) honest answer.

I am Catholic. I use dogma to influence how I act. I defy anyone to find fault with "Love thy neighbour as thy love oneself" [please don't correct it, I know that is not it exactly]. Anyone have a problem with "Turn the other cheek"? Coz I don't. I am Catholic so, unlike pat robertson nutjobs, I don't take everything literally, I am not obssessed with the OLD testament, and I listen to my conscience. This last part is the ultimate loophole, as I look back at my teaching and my moral soul and follow the course that I believe based on my faith. I was taught by Franciscans, and the final leason they taught me was that it does not matter what your religion, what your faith, what you belive, our God rewards those who lead a good life. So lead a good life.

And why do we believe without proof, honestly, because we so badly want to believe it. I'm with Pascal on this one - When the option is nothing or everlasting life, I'll choose to believe in the latter. If you are right, we're all fucked anyway, If I am right then I get past teh pearly gates. Ultimate zero sum game.

12:43 - Charles Manson has a more rational view of the world than the president. My Chocolate Lab has a more rational view than the president.

"If only you knew your own church as well as we uninformed atheists do. From a speech delivered by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2005."

You'll notice if you read the whole speach that Ratzinger doesn't endorse this view; he notes it and moves on to his main point, which is that there is nothing incompatible with faith and science. The quote you have selected is from a speach which endorses precisely the opposite point of view you are imputing to him.

1:25, I am not talking about moral philosophy, I am talking about the empirical beliefs underlying the Christian religion, which many liberal Christians prefer to ignore these days. Could you not follow the same moral code without professing to believe in a lot of superstitious nonsense that underlies it? I accept a lot of the moral philosophy in the New Testament as well, but I do so because I find that it comports with my independent moral judgment, not because I believe that it has been dictated from on high by some invisible creator of the universe in whose existence I haven't the slightest reason to believe.

"Abortion has not been consistently banned by the Christian Churches since the first century. Augustine himself stated that abortion was not murder because a fetus did not have a soul. Modern Catholic thinking is that ensoulment happens at conception; but prior to that time, ensoulment was thought to happen at quickening i.e., when the baby kicks/moves around.
."

According to what you've said, Augustine did teach - once it was clear the baby was alive - that abortion was immoral. That's the same thing the Church holds today. Augustine was relying on the Aristotelian principle that movement indicates the presence of life. What you've demonstrated is that science has advanced, showing us that life in fact begins earlier than they were able to verify in Augustine's time, not that the Church hasn't opposed abortion.

"his main point, which is that there is nothing incompatible with faith and science." Which is of course a load of horseshit.

1:19, belief without current proof does not make you an idiot. Why go to name calling.

How about gut instinct? Have you never felt something, but had no reason to base your feeling on, only to see it come through. What about those who where sure sun was not centre of universe but could not prove it at the time? Or those who believe man could go into space before it was proven possible? Or those who believed we could get teh same satisfaction in a cookie but with just 100 calories? Were these people idiots or just a head of their time?

If Stephen Hawkins an Idiot? most of his ideas cannot be proven. We do not know that there are worm holes. What about those studying String Theory, are they idiots? No proof for multi universes.

What was there before the big bang? Do you KNOW? Are you so sure?

I like to think of the uiverse as an Ant Farm. To the Ant, the owner of the farm is God. I can't prove it, can't disprove it, just my gut. Put me there with the other idiots I mentioned above.

Correction, 1:19 - only if I'm wrong. But if I'm not, then you're the idiot.

Man, you're really getting worked up over something you don't believe in. Try talking a nice walk.

"his main point, which is that there is nothing incompatible with faith and science."

Which is of course a load of horseshit."

Well, he's probably more familiar with the issue than you. What's your argument?

1:30, So your problem is angels, abortion etc? That is like hating NFL because of the cheerleaders.

Whatever. Both schools get to be what they want to be. Students are the ones who choose where to go. If we made these schools support killing unborn babies then no one's school/club/organization would be safe. Next thing you know they'd make law schools get rid of the kosher kitchens so that the Jewish students would have to eat the same food as the goy. Everyone likes their space sometimes. Give St. Thomas and GULC theirs.

And for real, if you're in DC and just like abortion so much you want to do pro bono for it, go to American or GW, not GULC or Catholic. Figure it out.

"And yes, belief in an invisible man in the sky without a shred of evidence in support of that proposition makes one an idiot."

First, there is evidence. Perhaps you are too close-minded to see it. Calling over 90% of the world an idiot and thinking you know better than everyone else is the height of arrogance. For all the ranting about Christians being narrow-minded, this is a prime example that narrow-mindedness is not a function of one's religion but that one lacks the ability to recognize that intelligent people can disagree. You lack respect for others and your inflated ego is obnoxious.

1:33,

Your arguments are way off on many levels. First of all much of modern cosmology is based not on observation but on mathematics; it is therefore a deductive rather than an inductive process and observational verification is not a requisite to belief. There's also an enormous difference between string theorists who posit their view as a plausible hypothesis based on the available observational evidence and religionists who claim a monopoly on absolute truth and morality without any evidence whatsoever beyond the hearsay statements and nonsensical prophecies set forth by a semi-barbaric tribe of desert dwellers 2000-5000 years ago. Men in space and diet cookies were not beliefs unfounded in evidence; there's nothing irrational about looking at the current state of the world and extrapolating to what might be possible in the future based on current observations and understanding. No comparison to religion whatsoever in that. Finally, yes, the rationality of a belief is unconnected to its ultimate truth value, so a person who claimed to *know* (as opposed to offering a plausible alternative hypothesis; cf. string theory) that the heliocentric model of the universe was inaccurate prior to observational and experimental verification of that would themselves be acting irrationally-- but I don't believe historically that anyone actually held that view.

1:33 - the main difference is that Dr. Hawkins and his colleagues are constantly trying to prove (or disprove, if you listen to Karl Popper) their theories and models. Scientist do not ask you to have "faith" that a theory is correct, they want to prove it to you.

And really, are you equating Sting Theory with virgin birth and a talking snake?

Catholics are poor and smell funny. Muslims just smell funny and like to bomb things.

Jesus actually existed. Many people swore that they witnessed him perform miracles. Isn't that at least some evidence? Hell, it's more evidence than what's used in a lot of courts to get convictions . . . beyond a reasonable doubt.

1:39, Reality is not determined by democratic vote. I don't particularly care what percentage of the global population still clings to antiquated superstitions; even if I were the only person in the world to see through the gauze of religious nonsense I would be no less correct. I certainly, and with some humility, accept that I am fortunate to have the benefits of a strong education in a first-world nation and sufficient natural intelligence and curiosity to have reasoned my way out of the superstitious haze that continues to confound most of the world; if that is arrogance, so be it. My arrogance or lack thereof has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God or the transparent poverty of the arguments in his favor.

1:36,
My problem is with *God*. If you think that belief in God is tangential to religion, I respectfully suggest that that's absurd. But more to the point, as I suggested perhaps too implicitly in my comment to which you're responding, I also object to the religionists' approach to moral philosophy. Although, as I noted, I share some of the moral conclusions of contemporary Christianity, I do so on the basis of independent judgment rather than simple passive acceptance which religion holds to be the highest good.

1:41, you do realize that you are acting as if YOU have a monopoly on absolute truth.

FAITH is not KNOWLEDGE, if it were it would be FACT and not FAITH. These are very basic principles that you are falling down on. Anyone who says they KNOW there is a God and says that this KNOWLEDGE is based on their FAITH is using the word KNOW incorrectly. I believe in God, I do not know he is there but I choose to believe he is. Thus I am like the man who believed that Man could stand on the moon - joe bloogs who felt in his gut it was possible, bit the scientist guy who had the numbers in front of him.

My point is that they look at things at the time and had beliefs that were not grounded in evidence at that time. History is fulll of people who had BELIEFS and set about trying to prove them or make them work. Not all work. I BELIEVE you are being very insulting and judgmental when you mock those who believe.

It is you that is acting as if they KNOW there is no God, when really all you do of believe there is no God. True? Can you conceed that or are you too full of self assurance to accept that you act the same as those you despise?

One last point, who is to say that there will not come a day when science gets to the poin that we find the exact origin of the Universe (you do know that this is still unknown). We may get to meet our maker and discover we do have a soul that allows us to cross from this world to the next (somewhat similar to parts of string theory). And then we will be exactly like those who believed until science caught up with them.

12:25, you are wrong. The Bible says homosexuality is an "abomination."

1:25, you are a poster child for abortion.

GULC is private. It can do what it wants. If you don't like it, go to a state school.

Um, can I vote for "I don't care about how law students at some TTT law school fulfill their pro bono requirement?"

1:46, for the last time you have got Catholic confused with Evangelicals. We do NOT believe in a literal reading of the bible. Most Catholic Scholars accept that the first few books of the OLD tESTAMENT were written by several sourse and contain errors due to copying etc. Genesis is a story told to explain the world to a bunch of lost jews wandering the dessert.

Before you sput anything more please accept that with CAtholics we reside in the NEW Testament, with moral teachings from Jesus - who did exist, I hope you can conceed that - Letters from Peter and Paul, etc. Leave talking snakes out of the conversation (unless you are talking about Jesus in the Dessert, in which case again that is accepted as a vision he had.) And Virgin births, not impossible. The natural world has given us animals that impregnate themselves, so the power is there.

If you go to st. Thomas, what the hell did you think you were getting in to? There are plenty of other equally bad law schools that are non-catholic.

"Although, as I noted, I share some of the moral conclusions of contemporary Christianity, I do so on the basis of independent judgment rather than simple passive acceptance which religion holds to be the highest good..."

A couple comments: 1) I think you are a little too dismissive of Christians; you seem to be implying that they 'passively accept' rather than think through there positions. You may mean to say this, in which case I would question the basis for your assumption that you are some sort of heroic seeker of truth, whereas Christians who disagree with you are not. Rest assured, if Christianity did not meet the fairly exacting criteria of my 'independent judgment' I wouldn't be a Christian.

2) You say that you share 'moral conclusions' with Christianity. If there is not an absolute standard of goodness, then moral reasoning as an enterprise is a fool's errand. There is no point in stating you agree that something is right or wrong, when you reject the idea that there is a standard of right and wrong. If you do believe in a standard of right and wrong, then what is it's origin?

No 1:53, even if the existence of God is ultimately scientifically established (I don't see how that's possible, but we'll accept it for the sake of argument), the non-believers will *still* have been right to have rejected belief until acceptance became rational. It reminds me of what Bertrand Russell said in response to being asked what he might do if, upon dying, he found himself face to face with the Almighty, who demanded an explanation for his avowed atheism in life: "Sorry, God, not enough evidence."

Capitalization aside, your tenuous grasp of epistemology is hardly convincing, nor is the moon example. We know the moon exists. We can see it. The question of whether, and when, it would become technologically possible to travel there is of a different order entirely than is the empirical question of the existence or non-existence of God. There is no empirically observable answer to questions about the future because they are not statements of present existence. "There is a God" and "There are unicorns" are statements of present fact that presumably have an empirically testable truth value; statements about the future are simply not comparable.

"even if I were the only person in the world to see through the gauze of religious nonsense I would be no less correct."

This is the greatest example of what you speak against. How do you KNOW that you are correct?

1:55, You are also looking at the Old Testament that says Homosexuality is wrong. I wouldn't do that. Reread the passage on Sodom and Gomora, but read past the end. You know, to the bit about the father in the cave with his two daughters. If that section is used to knock homosexuality then it can be used to condone incest. Which is why I like being CATHOLIC AND NOT HAVING TO BELIEVE IN THAT Word for word.

2:00

1) That's interesting. Your acceptance of Christianity is based on your independent belief in the value of its moral precepts rather than in the factual truth of its empirical claims? Why? Would it be less true that God exists and that Jesus is the savior of man if the Bible commanded us to lie and steal and murder and commit adultery, rather than commanding us to abstain from those things? That's my point about passivity; it seems to me that a Christian who accepts the (empirically dubious) factual claims of Christianity is compelled to accept its moral claims as well without reference to their objective plausibity.

2) Nonsense. This is the classic religionist canard that atheism leads to moral nihilism. I assure you it is perfectly possible to make value judgments about human behavior without the belief that such judgments are compelled by an invisible parental figure.

GULC students give themselves abortions in class all the time. Its very distracting. I hate it.

"This is the greatest example of what you speak against. How do you KNOW that you are correct?"
That was probably worded inartfully, but my point was that the number of people who accept or reject a given proposition has nothing to do with its objective truth value. To put it differently, I could be wrong, but the fact that everyone else in the world disagrees with me doesn't establish that fact.

There is a cure for cancer.

Statement of present fact.
No cure has yet been found.
However we believe that we can find a cure.
Should we just stop looking?

Once a cure is found then it will exist, and as such it would have existed from day 1, we just did not find evidence for it yet. But the cure was always there.

There is a God.

Statement of present fact.
No God has yet been found.
However we believe that we will find God.
Should we just stop looking?

Once God is found then it will exist, and as such it would have existed from day 1, we just did not find evidence for it yet. But God was always there.

"I assure you it is perfectly possible to make value judgments about human behavior without the belief that such judgments are compelled by an invisible parental figure."

That's why I asked you to explain the grounds for those value judgments

Go read Kant and Mill, for a start.

"Your acceptance of Christianity is based on your independent belief in the value of its moral precepts rather than in the factual truth of its empirical claims?"

It's based on both; they are inextricably linked. If the moral claims appeared ridiculous, then I would reject the empirical claims, and vice versa. Why do you find the empirical claims dubious?

2:12 here, I have not read any response to my post, if any, but wanted to nip something in bud. I have a feeling that someone will attack evidence for a cure and evidence of God.

I take the Bible, Jesus, Miracles and Faith as evidence of God, but not proof. They do not establish clear cut God exists, but they offer evidence, they point the way, same as all the trials for cures.

Kant "Reason compels us to admit such a ruler, together with life in such a world, which we must consider as future life, or else all moral laws are to be considered as idle dreams… ."

He seems to agree with me...

The funny thing is that an argument for or against God is as pointless as debating how many angels can dance on top of a pinhead. My faith is mine, I do not seek to impose it on anyone else. Your faith that there is no God is yours, but you seem hellbent on imposing it on others. Your apparent desire that everyone accept there is no God is no different from a desire that everyone becomes Catholic.

You are the same as those you attack, because you refuse to conceed any ground, you insult people who disagree with you, anyone not enlightened as you is an idiot, nothing exists unless science proves it - thus science acts as religion (the ultimate final authority) to you same as those who believe that the bible is the final authority.

I enjoyed these posts as it allowed me to examine my faith, why I believe, and also introduced me to concept that it is not just religious people who are intolerant, narrowminded and stuck in their ways. That must be a human thing as opposed to a religious thing.

2:12, the big difference is that rational scientists looing for a cure for cancer don't have "faith" that there does, in fact, exist a cure for cancer. Current medical knowledge coupled with the observation that cures exist for other diseases suggests that there MAY be a cure for cancer, and these scientists' actions are motivated by their estimates of (1) the probability that a cure can be found and (2) the rewards of finding a cure. Their attitudes can be summarized as, "if there's a cure, we think we can find it!"

1:48, you said "Many people swore that they witnessed [Jesus] perform miracles." If I'm not mistaken, which I may be, these individuals did not each write down their testimonies. Instead, their purported testimonies were combined into one source, which is what we've received. We don't have many witnesses. We have one witness, which says, "Oh no, there were like totally a bunch of people there who all saw it, too." Don't be confused by one source telling you there are lots of sources--it's still just one source.

In other words, I could write a book tomorrow that says that on January 23, 1998, aliens came down from Saturn and ate all the earth's cheese, and a full 50% of the earth's population personally witnessed this event--3 billion people, give or take. Hide my book in a cave for 600 years. When future-people dig it up and say that they have 3 billion witnesses to the Great Cheese Eating Incident of 1998, they are being stupid, because in fact, they have one source. My bullshit book.

I think there is actually more historically reliable evidence that:

(1) A man named Jesus lived in the Middle East approximately 2000 years ago, he died by crucifixion, and subsequently appeared to many people who knew him.

than...

(2) The universe arose from nothingness without the intervention of some outside force, and then life on earth arose out of the random combinations of chemicals that happened to combine into single-celled life, and then that single-celled life randomly grew or combined into multi-celled life, and then that multi-celled life randomly became more and more varied to the extent that we can witness today.

Many people who personally observed the central truth claim of Christianity were transformed in such a way that they were willing to die for that faith. How do you "rationally" explain that?

Hi 2:31,

I'm an athiest Buddhist, and I enjoyed reading your post. I can't speak for the other athiests around here, but I have no problem with your faith, and I don't think you're an idiot. Faith is not logical, but who says people have to be 100% logical all the time?

To be honest, I still have some prejudice against the faithful, but I think it's because my only exposure to faith has been courtasy of the people who try to shove it down others' throughts. The reason I enjoyed your post is because you seem like an example of how faith can actually be a positive influence rather than a negative one. You are probably happier and kinder than most of the people posting here, including me.

Isn't this the greatest thread on ATL ever?

1:58 - I believe Jesus existed based on the writings of Peter, Paul etc., as I believe Winnie the Pooh exists based on the writings of A.A. Milne. Rather than to describe contemporay (althogh that's debated) events, could the Testaments not have been creations written to aid the Church's effort to convert the sun-worshippers?

Is it the official Catholic (as opposed to Evangelical) position that Mary was a hermaphrodite?

-- 1:46

2:34, Fine. You seem to live in a world were everything is cold and rational. I have experience in the science cancer world - not me, as I am a lawyer but mother and sister are in research. If you don't think that scientists involved in this are gripped by belief, and almost religious fervor, well you are mistaken based on my experiences. Humans are not robots, or scientific beings. We rely on gut, we rely on belief, we rely on that feeling that there is something more.

I also disagree with your sentance that rational scientists don't have faith there is a cure. I think history has shown that the best scientists have indeed had a *faith* behind a theory and they pursue it to its ends. In my experience, a scientist only gives up on a theory (and I mean truly abandons it) when there is clear evidence that it is wrong. I intend to do the same. I will believe until I have evidence that I was wrong. That evidence is not there.

I love when Christians call atheists arrogant.

Christians believe they have all of the answers to life, the universe, and everything (and more, that the being that created everything takes a personal interest in their sorry asses) while atheists are happy to answer "I don't know" to questions regarding the origin of the universe, but somehow it is the atheists that are arrogant.

2:40 - -You must have read the Jeff Spicoli Bible. That must have set you back some righteous bucks!

2:43, I assume you believe that there was a spaceship behind the Hale-Bopp comet that took the Heaven's Gate cultists to the afterlife? After all, people were willing to die for that belief.

In other words, willingness to die for a belief does not make the truth claims assumed by the belief objectively true.

Also, there are plenty of problems with the history of the bible if you care to look (start with Misquoting Jesus).

2:45, then these "scientists" are also idiots. Faith is poison.

"while atheists are happy to answer "I don't know" to questions regarding the origin of the universe, but somehow it is the atheists that are arrogant."

uh, no.....agnostics say "I don't know"....atheists say 'NO!, and it's child abuse for you to instruct children in Christianity.'

"I will believe until I have evidence that I was wrong. That evidence is not there."

This is a really sad statement.

"Many people who personally observed the central truth claim of Christianity were transformed in such a way that they were willing to die for that faith. How do you "rationally" explain that?"

Are we to take it, then, that the Hale-Bopp cultists are happily riding around in their comet-UFO right now?

"atheists say 'NO!, and it's child abuse for you to instruct children in Christianity.'"

Sigh. That has got to be the single stupidest thing Dawkins ever said. But it's hardly a necessary or mainstream tenet of atheism.

--1:05 etc.

"uh, no.....agnostics say "I don't know"....atheists say 'NO!, and it's child abuse for you to instruct children in Christianity.'"

Please don't try to sidetrack this into a semantic dissection of the terms for the godless. I used "atheist" to mean "someone who lacks a belief in any gods," which is the best definition of the term (not the canard "someone who affirmatively believes there is no god").

"(2) The universe arose from nothingness without the intervention of some outside force, and then life on earth arose out of the random combinations of chemicals that happened to combine into single-celled life, and then that single-celled life randomly grew or combined into multi-celled life, and then that multi-celled life randomly became more and more varied to the extent that we can witness today."

Actually, the Big Bang theory presupposes that an infinite mass existed right before the Universe was created, which is contrary to your "nothingness" nonsense.

I also believe that the general hypothesis of the origin of life is that the "random chemicals" first assembled into an RNA-like molecule, i.e., a molecule that could both store its own genetic information and catalyze reactions such as replication. Next came protein synhesis - it is well established that there were plenty of amino acids in the "primordial soup." Protein synthesis is by and large RNA catalyzed, even in the highest life forms today. So it is not far fetched that over a span of 4 billion years life could have evolved from a self-replicating RNA molecule to President Bush and beyond.

However, it seems pretty clear that one thing evolution has not created is a talking snake. :-)

2:21,

I don't know where that quote came from, but it doesn't matter; Kant's moral philosophy is drawn from pure reason and does not rely on any religious postulates, regardless of what he may have said elsewhere.

"Sigh. That has got to be the single stupidest thing Dawkins ever said. But it's hardly a necessary or mainstream tenet of atheism."

I agree, I was just pointing out that the poster was using a double-standard. If he's going to rely on fire-breathing televangelists as his standard for Christians, it's fair to bring up Dawkins in response. Atheists and Christians both think they have the answer; agnostics say I don't know.

Christians: what is so wrong with saying "I don't know" to questions about the origin of the universe?

If god created the universe, mustn't god be more complex than the universe, which necessarily implies in your worldview that god itself must have been created by something more complex than god? If your answer to this is that god created itself, why couldn't the universe have created itself?

"Atheists and Christians both think they have the answer; agnostics say I don't know."

This is not true and stupid. See 2:55(2).

"You are the same as those you attack, because you refuse to conceed any ground, you insult people who disagree with you, anyone not enlightened as you is an idiot, nothing exists unless science proves it - thus science acts as religion (the ultimate final authority) to you same as those who believe that the bible is the final authority."

You are an idiot (hey, just trying to make you feel better by fulfilling your expectations).

Science is not a body of knowledge, it is a process used for arriving at truth through testing of truth claims and rejecting those that fail the test. Therefore, saying that science is the same as religion is incorrect.

2:58 Surely it's relevant to the discussion that Kant acknowledged moral philosophy without a 'moral ruler' is nothing but 'idle dreams.

What you call 'pure reason' is simply a set of premises and deductions. As Kant recognized, if the premise that moral absolutes exist is incorrect; if the categorical imperative is not true, then any deductions from that premise (the process called moral reasoning) will similarly be invalid. The question remains, on what grounds do you base moral reasoning?

"I used "atheist" to mean "someone who lacks a belief in any gods," which is the best definition of the term (not the canard "someone who affirmatively believes there is no god"). "

uh...no. You are using the word incorrectly.

"atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

At some point we got sidetracked.

St. Thomas Law School. Planned Parenthood. Anyone?

3:18 St. Thomas Law School has the right, as a religious institution, to not provide pro bono credit to someone who wants to work for Planned Parenthood.

First of all, I'd like to know where Kant said your unattributed quote; in any event, he can be wrong about the implications of his own philosophy just as much as anyone else can. It wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened. Kant's theory of morality, which culminates in his well-known categorical imperative, relies in no way on religious belief or on the existence of God. Thus, God is irrelevant to the validity of Kant's system even if he himself failed to realize that.

In any case, like everyone else, I base my moral reasoning on my own moral intuitions, which are largely shared among humans across time and cultures because they were evolved to help our forebears live successfully in a mutually cooperative society in the ancestral environment on the African plains.

3:15, your own cite doesn't even support your argument. To deny or disbelieve is not the same as to affirmatively believe the opposite. However, the more important issue is why do you think the distinction matters?

I say I am an atheist, and by that I mean I am not ("a-") a person that believes in a god (a "theist"). Why do you think you've won something if you can paint me as a person that somehow affirmatively believes there is no god?

3:18, we got sidetracked because 3:20 is of course right and there's not anything else to discuss on that point.

Agnostics cannot be atheists and atheists cannot be agnostics.

The two groups can be grouped under the heading nontheists. The two share only a disbelief in a god. However, their rationales differ. An Agnostic disbelieves in God because s/he does not have enough proof to believe in a God or to not believe in a God. An Atheist disbelieves in a God because s/he affirmatively believes in the opposite: that there is no God.

The latest atheist line has been to try to confuse atheism with agnosticism to make atheism seem more reasonable and rational. Basic dictionary definitions prove the illogic of this confusion.

Additionally, Atheists espouse an inherently illogical belief system--the positive affirmation of a negative. Logically, you can't prove a negative, and, if you think about it, what an atheist believes--There is nothing above the human race that could have consciously had a hand in creating/directing us--is inherently illogical, because it denies all permutations of a higher power (e.g. He/She/It/They), including more advanced beings.

Additionally, Atheists espouse an inherently illogical belief system--the positive affirmation of a negative."

If it makes you feel better to believe this, then go right ahead. However, except for rebellious teenagers trying to shock and awe their parents, not a single person that calls himself or herself an atheist actually affirmatively believes that there is no god. On the contrary, every one of us simply lack the belief that there is a god. That's it.

" if you think about it, what an atheist believes--There is nothing above the human race that could have consciously had a hand in creating/directing us"

Any particular atheist may or may not have that belief, but it is not necessary to have that belief to be an atheist. The only defining characteristic of an atheist is the lack of a belief in any gods.

I'm not the guy who has been weighing in on the agnostic/atheist debate so far-- there are at least two of us angry atheists posting here-- but 3:31 is completely wrong. Personally I find the "agnostic/atheist" debate tiresome and semantic, the modern equivalent of angels dancing on pinheads, but to briefly explain why, the distinction disappears completely when burdens of proof are taken into account. The burden of demonstrating the existence of a phenomenon falls proponent of that phenomenon; if you want me to believe there are unicorns, show me one. Otherwise I'm justified in non-unicorn-belief. Agnostics and atheists, two terms for the same position, simply believe that theists have not met their burden of proof on the question of God's existence. Neither deny that it is possible that God exists, but, as I've said quite a few times above, the truth or falsity of a proposition is a separate issue from whether one is rationally justified in believing it.

"In any case, like everyone else, I base my moral reasoning on my own moral intuitions, which are largely shared among humans across time and cultures because they were evolved to help our forebears live successfully in a mutually cooperative society in the ancestral environment on the African plains."

Of course Kant could be wrong, but you have not provided any arguments that he is. You identify two sources for your moral reasoning:

1) Your own moral intuitions (a tautology); my moral reasoning is right because it agrees with my moral intuitions, which agrees with my moral reasoning.

2) "Which are largely shared among humans across time and cultures" and something about them being developed by evolution in Africa. My point (and Kant's) is that this begs rather than answers the question. Why do other people believe it? The fact that other people hold ideas or they developed via evolution doesn't provide insight into whether the content of the ideas are true or false. They are empirical observations. They may be evidence, but that can't answer the question of the basis of moral philosophy. As Kant's quote indicates, if the categorical imperative premise is incorrect, if there are no moral absolutes, then moral reasoning is pointless.

3:35=then you would be an agnostic, not an atheist. You are simply using the word incorrectly, and digging your heels in when presented with your own incorrect label.

And I wouldn't go around speaking for atheists everywhere and at all times. That kind of "we all think alike and I speak for everyone" mentality is a little too arrogant and nonsensical for a grown up.

3:37: unfortunately, dictionary definitions disagree with you.

3:37: see the following link, then argue.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

3:37: see also http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

Why is it inevitable that some Dawkins/Harris acolytes will always begin shrieking, "Belief in the absence of scientific evidence!! Magic man in the sky!!", whenever a discussion touches upon the topic of religion? And they call Christians dogmatic!

This thread isn't about your crackpot "proofs" against God's existence; it's about the right of a law school in the US to make a determination as to how students may attain pro bono credit. St. Thomas is well within its legal and ethical rights.

3:38,
I think your concept of morality is somewhat different than mine. Of course moral intuitions are subjective. Of course it means nothing more to say that a moral principle is "right" than to say that it coincides with my moral intuition, or, at most, with my considered moral judgment. So what? If that's what morality is, then so be it. Religionists try to claim some more objective or categorical content to their principles by attributing them to some higher power, but that's ridiculous; we all know, of course, that within the church there is as much disagreement about "God's will" as there is about morality in the secular culture. We atheists are just more honest about it.

3:36: you are incorrect, again, see the dictionary links posted at 3:40/3:41.

Why is this so hard for people defending atheists' rationale to come to grips with? The two terms are not the same. Period.

First of all I suspect that I've thought more about the concepts of agnosticism and atheism than have the Merriam Webster editors, and second, I don't see that those definitions are at all inconsistent with my premise that the apparent distinction collapses when the burden of proof on theists is taken into account.

3:37:

1. the Burden of proof question does not make any differences disappear. The burden is much less for an agnostic than an atheist.

An Agnostic merely believes that there is not enough proof to justify a belief in God. So you must convince them of a proof. However, to convince an atheist of a god, you must do more. You must a) first disprove their proof of the nonexistence of a god (i.e. show them their logic is wrong) and b) then prove the existence of a god.

2."Neither deny that it is possible that God exists".
This is simply false. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist. An Atheists denies that a god exists.

For God's sake (no pun intended) 3:50, did you even read my comment before responding? Neither atheists nor agnostics (to pretend for a moment that there's a difference) have *any* burden of proof! Go re-read my comment and get back to me.

And re-read the goddamn dictionary, too. As I've said ad nauseam before, denying that God exists (i.e., holding that theists have not met their burden of proof) is not the same as denying the *possibility* that God exists.

If you go to a private, relgion affiliated school, you should know what you are getting into. If you are a rabid atheist perhaps you should rethink your choice to attend that school.

3:47:
"First of all I suspect that I've thought more about the concepts of agnosticism and atheism than have the Merriam Webster editors"-----

That's a pretty arrogant statement, you must admit. Are you sure that no editor has seriously contemplated the heavy intellectual differences between philosophical words before? There are some pretty smart people working there, I wouldn't blithely comment that I'm more thoughtful about a particular subject than them.

Consider that "leninism" and "stalinism" have separate entries, despite the fact that many of regular users of the terms might consider them interchangeable. Especially since the definition of Stalinism notes that it is developed from, but not the same as, leninism.

The editors clearly contemplated terms that are often thought interchangeable but aren't--they are in the business of words. I wouldn't make sweeping statements about atheism and agnosticism being more intellectually backed up by your thoughts than a dictionary editors without more proof.

3:45 - Just as a preliminary, it's a sign of an underdeveloped respect for others when you say something like "we atheists are just more honest about it." Do you really think that atheists are the relentless pursuers of truth, and "religionists" are the intellectual rabbits afraid to pursue arguments to their logical conclusions?

As to your point about 'religionists'; I'm not sure what it is. My point is that in order for moral reasoning to be valid, there must be moral absolutes. This is not a religious point. It's a philosophical point. If there is no standard or categorical imperative if you prefer, talking about what is good or bad is like talking about whether the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus is better for children.

You seem to mean by morality, 'what I happen to like'. On those grounds you cannot say that anything anyone else does is wrong or right without meaning only 'I don't like that'. You seem determined to use the terms 'morality' and 'moral judgment', but you do not use the terms in any meaningful sense. It doesn't seem 'more honest' to me.

3:53--
You seem to be engaging in ad hominem attacks, and are using them to avoid the debate. And yes, I have read your statement.

Your statement at 3:53 begs off the question. You simply assume in your argument that an atheist has no burden of proof.

As I have pointed out, the dictionary clearly proves that this is wrong. An Atheist has the same burden of proof as the Believer/Theist, because an atheist does in fact have a belief in something--a belief in the nonexistence of God. Thus, an Atheist carries the burden as much as a Believer does---and the Atheist is handicapped by the logical truism that you can't prove a negative.

But what I was arguing was that for a Believer to prove his belief to an Atheist and Agnostic requires two different burdens upon him/her. The Agnostic burden requires one part, the Atheist two parts.

You can deny the facts before you all you want, including basic definitions of words, but quite simply, your argument is stubbornly stuck in stupidity.

The difference between atheists and agnostics is that agnostics allow the nutcases who believe in holy water to dictate the argument. If a religious person, who is attempting to prove the existence of some superbeing, is not made to unbderstand that they carry the burden of proof, then they can run rampant with micro-arguments and counter arguments. Fact is, an agnostic will accept this standard that theists have set, and "ask for evidence." Atheists will simply not allow a crazy theory to go unchallenged... and they will not allow those arguing in favor of that theory to dictate the rules such that they never have to prove the existence of something first.

2:48 here.

The Hale-Bopp/Heaven's Gate cultists are not analogous. They did not personally witness anything. The disciples of Jesus, on the other hand, had their worldview completely changed by their personal witness of the resurrected Jesus, and they evidenced that change through their actions. Are we really to believe that they were all either hallucinating or insane?

2:57, you are right that I caricatured the Dawkins view a little bit, but the point remains. All of that is much more speculative than the actual historical evidence about the resurrection of Jesus.

3:53--And denying that god exists is not equal to saying that theists have not met their burden of proof. That is akin to saying "Because you have not proven that Abraham Lincoln had homosexual relationships, I deny that he had them." That, as you can see, is a non sequitor and false. A true statement would be, "Because you have not proven that Abraham Lincoln had homosexual relationships, there is therefore no reason to assume he did so in future discussion." That, I suspect, is what you really mean.

No, 4:02, I do not find it arrogant to assert that while religion-based and non-religion-based moral reasoning is essentially identical and ultimately relies on our own individual moral intuitions, the religious are deluding themselves into believing that these principles come from some more eternal and inerrant source than their own fallible consciences. (I will concede that it is primarily a self-delusion, not a conscious effort to deceive others).

I do not need to read Kant to know that murder and rape are wrong. I don't need to read the Bible to know that either, and the majority of human beings over the course of history, who have read neither, were nevertheless aware of that fact. I further reject your appeal to the notion of "absolute" morality in terms of some kind of external platonic ideal. Each of us come pre-programmed with a set of behavioral principles that enable us to get along well enough with our fellow human beings to live in a relatively peaceful, coperative society for our mutual benefit. Dawkins (eek-- the atheist said "Dawkins!") explains the evolutionary basis for this fact reasonably well in The Selfish Gene. While different individuals' moral intuitions may lead to different outcomes in some individual cases, they are by and large more or less coextensive, and are further normalized by cultural cues and socialization. The religious yearning for "absolute" moral truth reflects yet another aspect of existential terror in the face of a chaotic, uncertain, and ultimately ephemeral universe which I find motivates much fervent religious belief.

The big question in my mind was whether this was an open policy, or whether it was until this time sort of quiet and ad hoc (as GULC's is). Did they discuss this with prospective students, that pro-choice work is verboten, or did they say something more like, "We're Catholic, which goes to our long tradition of scholarship and learning, so don't worry about the religious aspects beyond that" (again, as GULC basically does)?

In GULC's case, it's a whole lot of horseshit, because a chunk of their pitch is "Don't worry about the Catholic thing." I don't know enough about St. Thomas to say whether they are similarly disingenuous to prospective students.

4:05: I'm glad you can read the minds and repeat the arguments of all atheists, agnostics, and believers who have ever existed. Rather omnipotent of you.

are you seriously using the bible as your evidence for jesus' and god's existence. This has failed for 2000 years.

It's not a crap school. It is a private school and NOT supported by federal or state funds. They are well within their rights to make sure that all academic actions support the mission of the school, which is explicitly stated to be a Catholic one. If students have problems with a Catholic mission, they should attend a secular school.
And as far as upholding the law of the land, they aren't disallowing anyone from getting an abortion. They choose not to participate in supporting abortion.

409 - NO Lincoln existed...he could presumably be homosexual. God has not even been proven to exist. I will grant you though that unicorns may very well be carnivores.

4:08,
The comparison to Hale Bopp is right on point; it demonstrates how a charismatic personality can motivate otherwise rational human beings to even the ultimate acts of dedication to the "cause." Jesus was apparently such a compelling figure, just like Hale Bopp. Just like Jonestown. Just like every suicide bomber who now is *not* enjoying the company of 72 virgins. (This is all assuming of course that the historical claims made by the church regarding the martyrdom of the apostles are true).

4:09,
You may be right. I'll have to think about that more.

Good for St. Thomas and good for Georgetown! It's about time to see Catholic Universities standing up for their values.

4:10:

1. That's not what I called arrogant. Please re-read my criticism. Do not try to change the argument so you can preach on a high horse.

2. Actually, many cultures have believed that murder and rape are ok. For example, the Vikings felt that rape was perfectly acceptable, and that murder was actually commendable, because it showed ingenuity and bloodlust, both of which were highly valued. Or take the Mongols. Or the pre-Republic Romans. Or the ancient Assyrians.....

3. "Each of us come pre-programmed with a set of behavioral principles that enable us to get along well enough with our fellow human beings to live in a relatively peaceful, coperative [sic] society for our mutual benefit."----
That is a sweeping, utterly unfounded argument that disregards mountains of proof to the contrary.

4:13: You must have been captain of the debate team. Spot on.

421- thank you, and to think I didn't make moot court. pshaw!

Everyone calm down. There's no need to argue anymore. The son of god exists and I have proof. I saw him; you can too. He's on 42nd and Broadway holding up a sign that says, "The End is Near."

and 4:05, you are wrong about agnostics. It's not that we don't, or won't, debate with religious people, we just consider it a waste of time, and further, consider the existence or non-existence of god irrelevant to how we live our lives. We have a way of politely listening to someone even though we may completely disagree with them, and not feel the need to prove a point. But you're a lawyer, and don't seem to understand that.

4:10:
"in the face of a chaotic, uncertain, and ultimately ephemeral universe which I find motivates much fervent religious belief"-----

Your statement displaysa belief system in the universe which you share---and criticizes theists for having such belief systems.

You believe the universe is ultimately ephemeral. The burden is upon you to prove it so. Q.E.D.

4:10 - Well, it was kind of you to concede that 'religionists' are self-deluded rather than dishonest. Those types of acknowledgements of good faith are what the internet is for!

You wrote "I do not need to read Kant to know that murder and rape are wrong."

Nobody said you did, including Christians;

You wrote: "I don't need to read the Bible to know that either, and the majority of human beings over the course of history, who have read neither, were nevertheless aware of that fact."

Nobody said you did.

You then wrote: "I further reject your appeal to the notion of "absolute" morality in terms of some kind of external platonic ideal."

Um, didn't you just say that rape and murder were 'wrong'. What does 'wrong' mean? It's simply an a priori assumption to assert as you (and Dawkins do) that morality is a type of (evolutionary beneficial) collective hallucination. It could be that the fact that almost all people consider these things wrong points to the existence of a transcendental standard of goodness. It could be that it's a type of false-consciousness. Neither can be proven. What you were doing, however, was using the language of morality (right/wrong) while holding that it is a type of false-consciousness.

4:24: Speaks for all agnostics in all places at all times.
How all-seeing and all-knowing of you. ;)

If I misunderstood what you were calling arrogant, I quite honestly don't see how. Feel free to enlighten me. As to the rest of your objection, historically the ingroup/outgroup distinction has been much stronger, and I suspect that our evolved moral intuitions apply only to those identified as members of the ingroup. This makes perfect sense in an environment of small tribes of related individuals in competition with hostile neighbors for scarce resources. Speculating, I suspect that the expansion of our "ingroup" to include everyone in the world is more a product of socialization than evolution. But Jesus was hardly the first to identify one's "neighbor" as meaning essentially all humans.

I don't see how I can make any clearer that "wrong" means in contradiction to my moral intuitions and/or my considered moral judgments. I've said that already.

I also fail to see how an evolutionary explanation for an observed trait is an "a priori assumption." If a phenomenon can be explained naturalistically, the Occam's Razor would suggest that that explanation is favored over the invocation of some kind of amorphous and incoherent standard of "absolute" morality that somehow exists externally to any individual and yet is accessible to all through some mysterious mechanism.

Actually an addendum to my previous point about a priori assumptions. It's true, actually, that the scientific method does assume, a priori, that phenomena have natural causes (i.e., are not caused by supernatural agents). If there really are supernatural phenomena in the universe, it's not at all clear to me how science would distinguish them from simply unresolved naturalistic questions. That's a bit far afield from our current discussion, but I think it is an under-appreciated aspect of the scientific method, particularly among professed naturalists.

4:28:

1. What I called arrogant was your argument that your supposition that you had thought more about atheism/agnosticism that an editor at a major dictionary. Which is true. They study words, they deal in words, and they parse definitions and ask experts in the field. They clearly think about the words and their definitions. Please re-read.

2. "I suspect that our evolved moral intuitions apply only to those identified as members of the ingroup...Speculating, I suspect that the expansion of our "ingroup" to include everyone in the world is more a product of socialization than evolution"

A suspicion is not proof; it is only a hypothesis. You have not offered proof, only hypothesis, and yet you believe in your hypothesis. In other news, Believers in the hypothesis of God accept it on faith. In other words, you yourself believe in a hypothesis on faith and yet criticize others for believing in a hypothesis without proof.

4:31, I was just trying to clarify. You are using language in an unconventional way. Most atheists I've talked to freely admit that 'right' and 'wrong', are a type of collective false consciousness; an illusion of absolutism we hold onto. They avoid using those terms because they know that using them creates confusion, given that 'right' and 'wrong' in most rational discourse, means related or unrelated to truth in matters of morality. You mean by right and wrong only "I don't like that" or "I and some other people don't like that". I was just making sure you were aware that you were using the terms idiosyncratically.

4:35: I don't know if I agree. I think science takes the assumptions that any cause can be measured and documented, and that itself has a cause. I don't see science as opposed to the supernatural/God, but merely in the process of quantifying the supernatural and rationalizing it.

I believe I got your point about the dictionary confused with another post, to which I was responding, which did not use the word "arrogant." So I was not intending to respond to that point.

There is nothing wrong with hypotheses; to get into yet another far-afield discussion, there not and cannot be any such thing as absolute certainty in science (this is due to the nature of inductive inference), so informed hypotheses are the best we can ever hope for. My objection to belief in God is not that it is a hypothesis but that there is no evidence (or insufficient evidence, if you prefer) to justify belief in it.

anyway, I'm 4:42, and I'm out for the weekend.

4:42,

I suspect our disagreement is mostly semantic; once science quantifies and rationalizes a phenomenon, it is by definition no longer supernatural. But suppose that there really is a phenomenon that *can't* be explained by any law of physics. Maybe, for example, we never will find a Theory of Everything that successfully resolves the apparent inconsistencies between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and that's because God, every second, is actively intervening to hold the universe together. How could science ever discover that? It would have to leave the matter as an unresolved theoretical question, as it is now, and keep searching for a consistent answer ad infinitum.

4:26 - okay, okay, I should have used to word I, or the words most of us, or many of us, but hopefully, you still get my point.

4:24(2)

4:41,

I suppose my point is that the terms mean something different from what people perhaps think they mean (and more to the point, what the religious think they mean) when using them in normal parlance. I see no inconsistency between saying that something is morally wrong and acknowledging that that judgment is ultimately reliant on my own subjective standards, which are influenced by neurophysiology and by socialization.

Whatever. Step off the Catholic thing for a minute.

If St. Thomas believes that unborn babies are people it makes sense that they won't let you get "for the good" credit for expediting their murder for convenience.

If don't think unborn babies are people then you are on the wrong side of the next apartheid/slavery debate. The harder you fight now the worse you'll look in 50 years when kids in school are being taught about how "it's hard to believe, but our laws used to say that your mothers _owned_ you like property, and could kill you if they didn't want to raise you. Even your fathers couldn't stop them from doing it. Thankfully your parents and grandparents all survived or you'd never have been born."

If the babies are people then this has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with applying our laws, as written, including the 14th amendment, to treat them like people.

You don't have to have a religion to believe that murder is wrong, and even if you thought murder was okay we'd put you in jail for it. There's a box, we all have to live in that box, and killing helpless unborn people is outside of that box.

The atheist/agnostic semantic arguments are stupid and obsure the point. I do not have a god belief and I call myself an atheist. The fact that I call myself an atheist does not transform my lack of a god belief into an affirmative belief in the nonexistence of a god, no matter how many dictionary definitions of "atheist" you dig up.

Try to separate the right of the school to set its own curriculum standards from your personal opinion on abortion.

St. Thomas doesn't prohibit its students from working at Planned Parenthood. They merely decline to give credit for such work. Shouldn't a school be able to decide what it gives credit for? I think every school with pro bono requirements has criteria as to what does and does not qualify. Given that students chose St. Thomas for a Catholic education, I see nothing wrong with them declining to give credit for time spent working against Catholic beliefs.

For everyone talking about "facts", "evidence", and "empiricism", you need to go back to school and take some philosophy courses. Believing in God and believing in science are the same, i.e. they are both based on "faith." You believe in science. Empiricism ASSUMES that what we perceive (if we can even perceive at all or correctly) from our senses is real. Study Descarte and you'll realize that it all boils down to "i think, therefore i am." Anything beyond that is based on belief! So stop being so arrogant! Believing in the material world is no different than believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

May you be blessed by his noodly appendage. Ramen.

For everyone talking about "facts", "evidence", and "empiricism", you need to go back to school and take some philosophy courses. Believing in God and believing in science are the same, i.e. they are both based on "faith." You believe in science. Empiricism ASSUMES that what we perceive (if we can even perceive at all or correctly) from our senses is real. Study Descarte and you'll realize that it all boils down to "i think, therefore i am." Anything beyond that is based on belief! So stop being so arrogant! Believing in the material world is no different than believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

May you be blessed by his noodly appendage. Ramen.

"I don't see how I can make any clearer that "wrong" means in contradiction to my moral intuitions and/or my considered moral judgments."

But unless you have some sort of moral absolute that you're basing your "moral intuition" on, you're really just saying that "I don't prefer it" when you call something "wrong."

It doesn't matter if that preference comes from evolution. That skirts the issue. The fact remains that there must be some belief in a spiritual or supernatural *moral something* or else moral reasoning cannot make sense.

What the hell is wrong with you people. How could "yes" be winning. This is ridiculous.

It's a private religious school! Let them do whatever the F!@k they want! That's how, 7:53. If you don't like it, don't apply there.

7:53-- Do you really think that a school shouldn't be able to decide what it gives credit for? I think "yes" is winning because the majority of us recognize that the school should have a choice in crafting its curriculum, even if we would make a different choice. If it requires you to "A, B, or C" to get pro bono credit then why should someone be able to say "I want to do X instead and get credit for it!"

Again, the school isn't preventing the student from doing the internship. It's just stating that it isn't the work for which she will receive credit.

Catholic University Law School banned its students from starting an ACLU club. At the moment Georgetown Law School doesn't have one either, though I don't know if they actually banned it there. A university loses a lot of respect when it bans nations most prominent public interest law organization just because they advocate on the pro-choice, pro-gay rights side of things. I think law school graduates from these schools will suffer (especially Catholic University) as employers will know that the students haven't been exposed to a diversity of viewpoints during their education. Its 2008, time for people to move past the dark ages of church rule and toward the actual knowledge based on science and evidence - or at least not to force backward views on others, even if your institution has a religious affiliation.

So, 12:34, in your enlightened view, people of faith are backward and their beliefs have nothing to do with "actual knowledge" or "science" or "evidence."

Those of us living in the "dark ages" are far more tolerant of diverse viewpoints than you seem to be. For example, we don't call attorneys who don't belong to our church idiots.

12:34, sorry you didn't get in to Catholic (or maybe GULC, too?). Don't worry, someone will eventually stoop to hire from your crappy school. If you're lucky maybe you'll get to work for a partner from GULC, Catholic, Fordham, Notre Dame, BC, or some other Catholic school that does a crappy job training lawyers.

6:06,

Clearly your vaunted knowledge of philosophy begins and ends with freshman-level Phil 101. If you want to probe the epistemologically interesting problems with the scientific method, go read Hume's Treatise of Human Nature, specifically the sections dealing with the problem of induction, and spare us the solipsism nonsense.

2:51,

I believe what I said was that a person who ascribes belief in the absence of evidence and believes waving the name Dawkins around like a bloody flag constitutes a valid rebuttal is an idiot, and I stand by that statement.

"The fact remains that there must be some belief in a spiritual or supernatural *moral something* or else moral reasoning cannot make sense. "

Utter nonsense. As I've said many times already, I don't need any supernatural or spiritual authority beyond my own conscience, which, yes, is without question based on my subjective moral intuitions, to make meaningful moral statements. Neither do you; you just feel some need to pretend otherwise.

Using conscience is a poor example simply because it relates to your innate sense of right and wrong. Then it's easy to say that innate sense of right and wrong comes from somewhere. Call it what you want.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say here, but as I'm pretty sure I said above, once we accept the existence of moral intuitions (or "innate sense[s] of right and wrong," if you insist on a somewhat more mystical-sounding term), we have (at least) two possibilities to explain the existence of that phenomenon: 1) an evolutionary explanation drawn from well-established principles demonstrated ad nauseam in a variety of other contexts, which relies on nothing more than observable natural phenomena; or 2) a magical explanation that invokes some kind of supernatural/invisible world of Platonic principles and posits some unexplained mechanism by which we flesh-and-blood entities somehow have access to and interaction with that world. All else aside, Occam's Razor strongly favors the first explanation.

Actually to clarify a bit of what I've been saying regarding moral intuitions, I'm reminded of an article that I read back in grad school by Philippa Foot, the title of which I regrettably do not recall at the moment. Foot sought to synthesize the Aristotelian conception of the good life with Kantian concepts of the categorical and hypothetical imperatives. Foot denies that there is any such thing as a categorical moral imperative derivable from pure reason that applies of its own force to all moral agents, but asserts that the principles that Aristotle developed for the good (not only morally good in the modern sense but successful, meaningful) life in the Nicomachean Ethics, which are concededly contingent upon one's status as a human being as opposed to some other kind of moral agent but are nevertheless sufficiently broad to encompass *all* human beings, are the source of "hypothetical" imperatives which are nevertheless categorical to the extent that they apply to all human beings qua human beings. In other words, there is certainly no set of "moral" principles that exists in some abstract conceptual realm untethered to the context of the moral agent and the empirical realm that it inhabits, but there are principles by which it is universally true that a good or successful human should live, just as there are principles, say of aerodynamics, to which a good flying agent should conform. That being the case, it is no more surprising that evolution has led humans to an intuitive understanding of (some rough approximation of) those general principles than it is that natural selection has led birds and bats to a high degree of aerodynamic efficiency.

The Pope (who is Catholic) can hang out with George Bush as he wages an unjust war (according to the previous Pope), but Catholics must try to prevent non-Catholics from having access to abortion services. It's OK for actual Catholics to violate Catholic doctrine and enlist and kill in an unjust war, but it's not OK to for non-Catholics to violate Catholic doctrine by having an abortion. The Catholic Church is fundamentalist, not pro-life.

Do some pro-Palestine pro bono work at Cardozo. I'm sure it'd go over extremely well.

Pro bono work for killing babies... why not? I can't even imagine what would be offensive about that. Hey, maybe if you whine and sue enough, the school might even be forced to give you one of those cool colored cords to wear at graduation, like perhaps if you go the extra mile in your pro bono work.... you know, actually hold the kicking fetus down down as the abortion doctor punctures its skull and sucks its brains out. That would certainly be worthy of pro bono credit, right?

Back to the issue of St. Thomas... I attend a mildly religious law school. The school I attend is nominally religious (there are no classes during 'convocation') and we have also had issues getting funding for pro-choice events. However, the school does not advertise itself as a religious school and I think that makes a difference. I would not have chosen to attend my current school if I there had been any indication that it was overly religious. And by overly religious, I mean stifling debate and learning.

If, as a prospective student I had been made aware that St. Thomas was a stifling environment I would not have chosen to go there. However, I have no idea how they sell themselves. So it may or may not have been reasonable for the students wanting to do pro bono work for Planned Parenthood to expect to get school credit for that.

As a side note, St. Thomas recently "disinvited" Desmond Tutu from speaking there. However, Ann Coulter was allowed to speak there.

Link for the Desmond Tutu article.
http://articles.citypages.com/2007-10-03/news/banning-desmond-tutu/

Almost forgot, there have also been some disturbing racist incidents at St. Thomas recently.
http://www.startribune.com/local/11590211.html

Sorry, I'm Jewish, but even I think that someone who attends a Catholic (vs. secular) institution should expect that institution to abide by the Church's decrees. It's common sense. You don't like it? Go to a secular school.