Sunday morning rain is falling. My idea of rest day is watching Dinesh D'Souza debating with Daniel Dennett on whether God is a manmade invention or otherwise.

I'll post my thoughts later soon as I finish watching the 15-part YouTube videos.

In the meantime, here's part one. Enjoy. Feel free to post your thoughts on the comment section.

(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)

I just finished watching the 15-part video of the D'Souza vs. Dennett debate held at Tufts University. All in all it was a good and entertaining debate. Nothing new with the arguments. But I still recommend watching it from beginning to end. Now here's my take...

Before watching the debate my bias was with Dennett. I was rooting for him. I thought that Dennett would easily topple D'Souza's Christian worldview with rational and philosophical arguments. But surprisingly, not only was D'Souza a better debater (more articulate and passionate) than Dennett, he also scored points when he brought up the subjective and consciousness arguments. D'Souza also pointed out the limits of (hard) science and its subtle metaphysical assertions when it comes to questions such as morals, meaning, and human nature (see Part 6 of the debate). Between Dennett and D'Souza, in terms of passion, effectiveness, delivery, eloquence and persuasiveness, D'Souza had the upper hand.

However, this doesn't mean that D'Souza "won" the debate. In terms of delivery of his message, then yes, D'Souza was the better debater. But upon closer look at some of his arguments, there's nothing new that had not been rationally counter-argued before. His arguments about God (or the concept of God) range from Argument from Design to Cosmological Argument. Dennett addressed these arguments in his book Breaking the Spell, but unfortunately, he was not articulate enough in this debate to counter D'Souza. Or maybe because D'Souza just talked louder as if he was giving a sermon on the mount?

Take this argument for example. D'Souza said (see Part 5 of the debate):

"The premises of modern science themselves are based upon Christian metaphysics: the idea that the universe is rational, it obeys laws, these laws are accessible to our human minds. There is no Darwinian reason it must be so. Yes, we evolved, and I agree with Dan [Dennett] about this. But we evolved to survive, if you will, in hunter gatherer primitive environments. We did not evolve to figure out the rotation of the planets. We did not necessarily evolve to figure out the theory of relativity. So evolution can tell us why we survive and why we adapt. But evolution can't tell us why we believe certain things to be true."

Dennett didn't rebutt D'Souza on this argument. Too bad though because Dennett could've countered D'Souza with something like this:

Ok, let's say you are correct about the premise of modern science being based on Christian metaphysics. So what? All it says is that science has roots in a Christian culture. Algebra took root in Islam. As one of the main branches of mathematics Algebra had enriched our culture and has taken science to where it is right now. But as Sam Harris had eloquently put it,

"Whenever human beings make an honest effort to get at the truth, they reliably transcend the accidents of their birth and upbringing. It would, of course, be absurd to speak of “Christian physics” or “Muslim algebra.” And there is no such thing as Iraqi or Japanese -- as distinct from American -- science. Reasonable people really do have a monopoly on the truth. And while they might not agree about everything in the near term, common ground surrounds them on all sides. Consequently, there is no significant impediments within scientific discourse: It isn’t always pretty, but the conversation continues without appeals to force or deference to dogma. There are scientific dogmas, of course, but wherever they are found, they are set upon with hammer blows. In science, it is a cardinal sin to pretend to know something that you do not know. Such pretense is the very essence of religious faith."

As to the Darwinian imperative, D'Souza had a good point. That is if Darwinian evolution in its biological sense is used to explain the evolution of "reason", or consciousness if you will. But this is not always the case. That's why memetic methodology has been proposed. Also, the idea of memes (or core value systems) was adapted by Spiral Dynamics because it is a good model for (individual and cultural) human development. So the theory of evolution (with the use of memes) can also explain how humanity evolved to figure out the "rotation of the planets," and why people "believe certain things to be true."

IMHO, there is no runaway winner in this debate because none of them directly addressed the main point of the debate: God is a manmade (human) invention. This is not surprising, because they have to argue the existence or non-existence of God to address this point. And that is a metaphysical proposition which is impossible to prove or disprove. So they both ended up taking turns pooh-flinging at religion and atheism, while accusing each of other of "caricaturing" each other's position.

I think these God debates should be taken down a (metaphysical) notch and address something more concrete. For example, here are some concrete debate themes: Should different religions and their pros and cons be taught in schools? Should parents exclusively pass on their religion to their children? Should immigrants in secular countries be accepted if they refused to put the secular values of their host countries above their religious beliefs?

Dennett started the debate with a slideshow illustrating religion as a natural phenomenon (see Part 1 of the debate). This opening salvo was the highlight of Dennett's arguments. Dennett argued that religion evolved overtime just like music and language. So in effect Dennett implied that since religion evolved then God (or the concept of God) is also manmade. I was waiting for Dennett to ask D'Souza these questions: If religion evolves, and the concept of God evolves along with religion, does God evolve? What does this say about religions that have evolved but don't have a concept of God or a Creator (e.g. Buddhism)? Are non-theistic religion wrong because they don't have a concept of God?

In any case, I think the valuable meat of this debate is Dennett's very compelling argument that religions (at least the major world religions) and their pros and cons should be (compulsory) taught in schools (see Part 2 and Part 3 of the debate).



D'Souza agreed with Dennett (see Part 4) as long as Atheism is also included in the curriculum. Sounds fair enough to me.

Why?

Allow me to answer this from personal experience. I was raised in the only Christian country in Asia. By virtue of birth, my religion is Roman Catholic. We had religion classes in elementary and high school but the curriculum is all Christian (Roman Catholic to be exact). No religious comparison. No religious evaluation. We're required to memorize the Creed. We're required to make confessions and participate in Holy Communion. No reasoning was offered. It's basic dogmatic indoctrination. I reached college without being exposed to other religious beliefs (aside from Protestants which are essentially also Christians). The only time I got exposed to other religions was when I went out of my way and self-educated myself by reading a small booklet about world religions. That booklet was enough to stretch my understanding beyond the psychological fence of my own religion. I can't remember the exact title of that book and the name of the authors but I'm still grateful for it after all these years. It has been my stepping stone that guided my psychological development, enabling me to hold different perspectives at the same time and form value judgments based on a combination of those perspectives.

If a simple booklet on world religions was enough to help me in my psychological development, I think that teaching children about different religions (and their pros and cons; including Atheism) from a very young age will speed up their psychological development and minimize religious fundamentalism in the future, not to mention that children will be more alert with the pitfalls of some New Age hubris and cultish thinking. This would pave way for more secularization as well as "healthy" versions of religions. This is the truest sense of religious freedom.

In this sense, by making D'Souza agree to teaching different religions to children, Daniel Dennett had advanced his agenda a little further. So I think Dennett has some small victory to celebrate for, even if he was out-debated by D'Souza.

(Note: Since D'Souza is single-handedly taking on "the New Atheists," it would only be a matter of time before he debate Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. I'm looking forward to a D'Souza and Harris debate because among "the New Atheists" Sam Harris is the only one who had argued for psychological development and the contemplative science, i.e. meditation. I'm interested to see how D'Souza's Christian worldview would compare with Sam Harris's Buddhist worldview.)

I have yet to start reading Christopher Hitchens' God is Not Great and here he is again with a new book wittingly titled, The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever . Here's a description from Amazon:

" From the #1 New York Times best-selling author of God Is Not Great, a provocative and entertaining guided tour of atheist and agnostic thought through the ages--with never-before-published pieces by Salman Rushdie, Ian McEwan, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

"Christopher Hitchens continues to make the case for a splendidly godless universe in this first-ever gathering of the influential voices--past and present--that have shaped his side of the current (and raging) God/no-god debate. With Hitchens as your erudite and witty guide, you'll be led through a wealth of philosophy, literature, and scientific inquiry, including generous portions of the words of Lucretius, Benedict de Spinoza, Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, Mark Twain, George Eliot, Bertrand Russell, Emma Goldman, H. L. Mencken, Albert Einstein, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and many others well-known and lesser known. And they're all set in context and commented upon as only Christopher Hitchens--"political and literary journalist extraordinaire" (Los Angeles Times)--can."

This book is a collection of wisdom (atheistic) nuggets from philosophers, scientists, and modern thinkers of our time. Looking forward to adding this to my New Atheists library :)

Here's a video of Hitchens promoting his book on the Joe Scarborough program. I don't know why Joe Scarborough is afraid for his kids to read this book though. It's an unwarranted fear from an intelligent guy whom I admire from time to time. Ah, well.



But as much as I admire the audacity of Hitchens, his Atheistic bias is too strong and partial for me. So I suggest that you balance your holiday stockings with this classic book edited by Ken Wilber: Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists.

I think that these two books, taken together, are guaranteed to give readers a healthy cognitive dissonance that they need during the holidays. So stuff your fluffy stockings, wisely :)

There's an excellent discussion on the Zaadz Lounge. Bo haha started the thread with this question:

"Any advice from other parents?  I believe my most important job is a parent is to provide my little guy with as much information that I can so he can make informed decisions - most importantly religion and what roll it plays in his life.

"Does anyone out there celebrate all holidays and explain?"

Here's my response:

---

excellent question. well, i don't have kids (yet), but i sometimes imagine how best to raise a forward-thinking / tolerant child.

here are some ideas:

1) teach your kids *how* to learn not just *what* to learn.

2) expose them to different religious thoughts. i agree with Daniel Dennett's proposal.
see my blog post about it for more context :)
http://coolmel.zaadz.com/blog/2007/12/dsouza_vs_dennett_the_aftermath

3) if you can afford it, travel with your kids to different countries and expose them to different cultures.

my two cents.

----

Like I said, I'm no parent yet. So my answers are ideals I have. But what about you? How would you respond to the thread? Extra points for parents who raised (and/or still raising) forward thinking / tolerant children :)

(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)

I just started watching the videos from Beyond Belief 2007: Enlightenment 2.0. You can watch all the videos here.

I've skipped the other videos and went directly to Sam Harris's talk. In this talk Sam Harris expressed his reasoning for shunning the "Atheist" label. He did this before during the AAI 2007 (Atheist Alliance International) conference which, naturally, drew criticisms from (fellow) Atheists.



This is the reason why I like Sam Harris. He's not only intellectually fluffy but also ballsy. I think people who casually use the label "integral" should also take heed. Having said that, I'll go out on a limb and say that Sam Harris is probably the most integral among the New Atheists. There I said it. If you have doubts or you don't agree with me, go watch the video and let me know. I'm always open for discussions.

Thanks to RichardDawkins.Net for the heads up!

Note: The video I posted above is a 4-hour unedited version. It also includes a talk by Daniel Dennett, Jeff Hawkins, Daniel Lord Smail, and PZ Myers. Make sure to check out a short talk by the uber-entrepreneur Jeff Hawkins (see video at the 1:50 mark). Hawkins proposed to approach Enlightenment 2.0 a perspective of entrepreneurship. He basically agrees with Sam Harris about avoiding labels such as "Atheism."

The Beyond Belief 2007 (unedited) videos are quite long.  Most of them run for 4 hours. So get some popcorn if you're planning to watch them all :)

(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)

Paul Salamone (a buddy of mine and the dude behind the hip blog Foreignerd) posted an insightful comment in response to my blog post, The Portable Atheist: A Great Holiday Gift. Below is my response. My response went longer than I originally anticipated so I decided to make a separate blog post. Integral geeks, as well as critics, are invited to add their thoughts on the comment thread.

---

Paul said: ".... Either way, the real difference between the Wilber and Hitchens (who professes a belief in the transcendent and the "numinous" btw) positions on religion is a tactical one: would it serve collective human interests better to a) use the "conveyor belt" approach, or b) root out and destroy all religious idea-viruses before they can breed and mutate the next plague? The role of moral instruction, in the latter view, would be taken on by a reconstructed "rational religion" as advocated by Harris and others. Is it easier to inculcate this into the youth, or to raise them on tradition and hope the literalistic and warlike aspects of the sacred texts do not come back to haunt us?"

exactly! and that is what i'm exploring intellectually and philosophically. i think *both* approaches--(a) conveyor belt, and (b) rational rooting out--are useful strategies that can be used depending on the situation. for reasons based on human psychological development, rational "rooting out" would not work on people at the "fundamentalistic/mythic" stage. this stage would more likely respond to a gentler and gradual "conveyor belt" approach coming from their (moderate) religious leaders, while people at (to use the spiral dynamics terms) *orange* (scientific/strategic) and *green* (communitarian/egalitarian) are at the stage of rationality which would likely respond to (and even counter) the rational rooting out approach.

the "New Atheists" are *fleshing out* the rational rooting out approach, although Dennett's proposal of including world religions as compulsory subjects in class curriculum (in elementary and high school) is also a conveyor belt approach, albeit done in a much faster way (i.e. speed up development of children by exposing them to different religions at an early age).

the Integral camp (Wilber's camp), is *fleshing out* the conveyor belt approach (e.g. integral spirituality) which includes interfaith and inter-spirituality dialogues. however, its discussion is limited on the "interior" domain. the exterior domain (e.g. evolutionary biology) is not being discussed with experts in their particular domains.

now, the issue i'm noticing is that these two camps (New Atheists and Integral) are, unfortunately, not working together, at least in the public space. yes, there was an interview by Stuart Davis with Sam Harris, but that's it. and yes, there are was an interview with Ken Wilber wherein he addressed the New Atheists, but that is not a dialogue. Wilber just talked about the New Atheists with sweeping generalizations without acknowledging their differences! here's an excerpt from that article:

"Wilber thinks we are in the midst of an important "national conversation about science and religion," but he finds it "very disturbing" that the conversation spurred by Dawkins, Harris, and the others "assumes that everybody knows what we are talking about when we talk about religion. While science is something that we can fairly well agree on the meaning of, religion or spirituality has a very broad range of meaning."

i don't know if Wilber had read the books of the New Atheists, but his sweeping generalizations make me doubtful. first, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Harris, although they are dubbed by the public with "the New Atheists" umbrella, have their differences. Sam Harris doesn't even want to be called Atheist. Sam Harris even cited Wilber's book Sex, Ecology, Spirituality in The End of Faith. Dawkins, in his book, The God Delusion, dedicated a whole chapter to define the kind of God (i.e. Theism ) that he's criticizing. Dennett's Breaking the Spell, went into *painstaking* detail to describe his theories on religion (as well a covering other theories) with a proposal on how to study religions from a scientific standpoint, *without* disregarding the personal experiences of people (see the book's last chapter). And Hitchens, well, he's a sharp polemicist whom i find very entertaining. how do i know all these? because i've read their books.

my suggestion is, if you're into Wilber and his version of integral philosophy, don't just take Wilber's word for it when it comes to the New Atheists. go read their books and then analyze them with your own integral perspective. that suggestion applies to Wilber.

if Wilber thinks that we are in the midst of an important national conversation about science and religion, then how come he's not participating in these conversations? how come he's not doing dialogues (or even debating) with the New Atheists and adding his arguments on the "broad range of meaning" of religion and spirituality? i can only wonder.

another issue that i have with the Integral camp is that, aside from the closed-loop dialogues among people who resonate with the integral approach, its knee-jerk reaction is to dismiss the New Atheists as "reductionists." they caricature the New Atheists as simply debating the mythic God. well, that's partly true, but the New Atheists are doing more than that! they are elevating the discussion beyond *orange* and *green*. the New Atheists are doing the *dirty job* of taking the discussions in mainstream public, something the integral camp has yet to successfully accomplish. the New Atheists are the ones making noises and confronting the fundamentalists, religious egalitarians, theocracies, and postmodern thinkers who are shielding religions from being criticized in public.

way back in 1998, before the advent of the New Atheists, Wilber had written an excellent philosophical treatise on integrating science and religion called, Marriage of Sense and Soul. unfortunately, as insightful as it was, that book didn't get the public's attention (yes, it was read by Al Gore and Bill Clinton, but still). thanks to the New Atheists, the intellectual climate in the U.S. is now ripe to resurrect the theme of that book and put its treatise to the test of rational discussions (whether debates or dialogues) in the public sphere. i think it would be cool to publish an updated version of that book with additional chapters responding to the New Atheists. for what it's worth, with all the public attention the New Atheists are getting right now, it might even sneak in the integral worldview into public view.

however, as of now, i'm disappointed that there are no representatives from the Integral camp on conferences like Beyond Belief: Enlightenment 2.0; no official and public response to the New Atheists; no public discussions or debates; no acknowledgments of the partial truths that the New Atheists are espousing; no constructive criticisms of the New Atheists. imho, that's not very integral of them. i can only speculate why this is so.

first, maybe the integral camp sees the New Atheists debates as first-tier food fights, hence they avoid them like the plague. i disagree with this reasoning. i think this reasoning is naive at best, and elitist at worst.

second, the Integral camp (or its proponents) is not taken seriously (or out of the radar) by the academics, thinkers, philosophers, and scientists who are organizing these conferences. gee, i wonder why.

regardless of the reasons, by not participating on these discussions about religion in the mainstream public space, i think that the Integral camp is missing a big PR (public relations) opportunity to spread the integral worldview. at the same time, it's also missing opportunities for growth from constructive criticisms that would come out of these public discussions.

my two cents.

(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)

Ken Wilber explains his understanding of evolution on his blog. Check it out. Below are some key quotes and my commentary.

"A few critics have criticized my understanding of evolution by focusing on an occasional metaphor that I use and taking that for my actual understanding. One case is exactly the one that you give--namely, a wing taking "100 mutations" to form. I have no belief whatsoever that the wing actually took 100 mutations—that's just a way to state what you are stating, and also, more generally, that the complex forms of evolution that we see—such as the immune system—are not the products of mere chance mutation and natural selection. Rather, there is force of self-organization built into the universe, and this force (or Eros by any name) is responsible for at least part of the emergence of complex forms that we see in evolution."

When I read A Brief History of Everything more than ten years ago, my understanding of evolution was very minimal. So when I've read Ken's reference to "half-wing" I didn't take it as a "metaphor." I took it as his critique of the limitations of evolution. Below is the passage from the book:

"KW: Take the standard notion that wings simply evolved from forelegs. It takes perhaps a hundred mutations to produce a functional wing from a leg--a half-wing will not do. A half-wing is no good as a leg and no good as a wing--you can't run and you can't fly. It has no adaptive value whatsoever. In other words, with a half-wing you are dinner. The wing will work only if these hundred mutations happen all at once, in one animal--also these same mutations must occur simultaneously in another animal of the opposite sex, and they have to somehow find each other, have dinner, a few drinks, mate, and have offspring with real functional wings.

Talk about mind-boggling. This in infinitely, absolutely, utterly mind-boggling. Random mutations cannot even begin to explain this....But once this incredible transformation has occurred, then natural selection will indeed select the better wings from the less workable wings--but the wings themselves? Nobody has a clue.

For the moment, everybody has simply agreed to call this "quantum evolution" or "punctuated equilibrium" or "emergent evolution"--radically novel and emergent and incredibly complex holons come into existence in a huge leap, in a quantum-like fashion--with no evidence whatsoever of intermediated forms. Dozens or hundreds of simultaneous nonlethal mutations have to happen at the same time in order to survive at all--the wing, for example, or the eyeball."

(A Brief History of Everything p.20, 2nd Edition, Shambhala Boston, 2000)

Now, where is the indicator that the above passage was a metaphor? Maybe I just missed it. My bad. In any case, I'm not implying that Wilber doesn't understand evolution. But I want to ask the following questions:

-- How many readers took the above passage as metaphor? To those who have read A Brief History of Everything, did you take the above passage as a metaphor?

-- How come Wilber used a poor metaphor that have already been explained away by Dawkins (and other evolutionists, not to mention Darwin himself) when he could've just expounded on "self-organizing process" as he explained in his blog post?

-- As a reader of a non-fiction book, should the burden be on me to understand what the writer has written (whether he's referring to a metaphor or not), or does the burden lie more on the writer to clearly explain when he's presenting a metaphor?

Wilber continues on his blog:

"Also, as you point out, referring to random chance really means "I have no idea what is going one here"--and that is really what, in Sex, Ecology, Spirituality, I call the "philosophy of oops," as you rightly note. This is a huge hole in the mere chance and selection argument. These items are all meant when I use the metaphor of a 100 mutations. I am fully aware that selection carries forth each previous selection (which still has problems in itself—as you point out, why would a half wing make running easier???), but even if you give that to the evolutionists (which I am willing to do), it still has this gaping hole in it.

The alternative is to see some sort of Eros operating in the universe. It doesn’t have to be a metaphysical force, just an intrinsic force of self‑organization. As Jantsch put it, evolution is “self-transcendence through self-organization.” This is exactly the point Prigogine was making with dissipative structures, and exactly the point I am making when referring to wings or eyes: they are metaphors and examples for this extraordinary capacity of creative emergence that is intrinsic to the universe (exactly as Whitehead explained it). So, no, I don’t take this criticism of my work seriously, although it is a good example of flatland thinking, as you note."

Ok, fine. Since I'm in no position to evaluate Ken's understanding of evolution (I'm no expert) I won't even argue about that. For now, I accept that Wilber understands evolution as he claims. However, what I would like to see is Wilber having dialogues (or debates) with thinkers who are experts at the theory of evolution. I'd like to see Wilber sharpening his "Eros" theory by bouncing off his ideas from other thinkers who could talkshop with him about evolution at his level of understanding.

Having said that, I don't think Wilber would make friends within academia when makes statements like this:

"Publicly, virtually all scientists subscribe to neo-Darwinian theory. Privately, real scientists – that is, those of us with graduate degrees in science who have professionally practiced it – don't believe hardly any of its crucial tenets. Instead of a religious preacher like Dawkins, start with something like Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. And then guess what? Neo-Darwinian theory can’t explain shit. Deal with it.”

Too bad Behe's theory suffered an embarrassing defeat during the Dover (Intelligent Design) trial. Dawkins has a good reason to gloat.

Speaking of Eros (aka self-organizing force), it's easy for Creationists to hijack this theory and use it to support their Intelligent Design agenda. I wonder how Ken would differentiate his Eros theory from Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents. I have yet to see Wilber make this distinction.

Just want to give the following a compassionate shout out!

-------------

Want free conscious stuff?

Shift in Action Jubilee

"The web's largest media library on conscious change is available for FREE for 21 days (until Dec. 24th)."

"Hundreds of audios, teleseminars, and videos from visionary leaders and inspiring change agents are now available, with no email registration. This enormous giveaway of wisdom is at www.ShiftInAction.com."

see: http://www.ions.org/emails/SIA/jubilee_blast.htm

-------------

If you love What Is Enlightenment? magazine as I do, then give it some love :)

Donate now to What Is Enlightenment? magazine and help drive the next revolution in consciousness and culture.

"WIE is more than a magazine. It is a vehicle for the evolution of thought, striving to create a new culture. To succeed, we need your help. Your contribution will not only keep the presses rolling, but will help catalyze a transformation in culture that is so urgently needed."

see: https://www.wie.org/support/default.asp?ifr=hp-art

-------------

Want your holiday shopping to be more eco-friendly? Check out THE ECO GIFT EXPO 20007.

Julian is raving about it :)

"It's going to an amazing opportunity to get all your holiday shopping done under one roof in a fun festival atmosphere - and best of all the vendors are eco-friendly businesses from all over the country!

"So a convergence of eco-conscious businesses and consumers turning the holiday shopping madness into an opportunity for fun, community and voting with your dollars to support products and services that are working to be part of the green revolution!"

see: http://ecogift.com/

That's all for now. Cheers.

(Crossposted from www.c4chaos.com)

I just finished watching Mitt Romney's speech on Faith in America. You can check out the video here.

Romney's delivery is very good. I had to give that to him. His delivery was crisp, clear and concise on the matter of his faith. I almost wanted to admire him for that. But the contents of his speech, as good as it was, is just so freakin' mythic. And I have a problem with a (potential) President who has (predominantly) mythic values (whether Christian, Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist). We've already had two terms under a U.S. President to learn valuable lessons from the unhealthy side of mythic values, thank you.

Now, just to be clear, I don't know enough about Romney to cast a judgment on his values. For all I know he could be playing a religious facade to get the sympathy of the religious voters (e.g. Christian evangelicals) to garner votes (ala G.W. Bush), but deep inside his values could be different from what he publicly profess (of course, this applies to all candidates). However, based on what I've seen so far, Romney is indeed a man of faith (see this debate video). His professed faith is mythic to the core. And his speech stretches the gap between believers, not-so believers (moderates, those with no religious affiliation, agnostics), and non-believers (seculars, atheists). It elevates the believers (faithful) above the non-believers (faithless). Romney's preference of belief over non-belief is more divisive than unitive--a reflection of his (predominantly) mythic faith.

Listen to Romney professing his faith (see the text of his speech here):

"Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.

"Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

"There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God and the saviour of mankind. My church's beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

"There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church's distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths."

Notice how Romney appealed to people of all faiths while leaving out non-believers (those who have no religious affiliation, including seculars, agnostics, and atheists).

Romney continues:

"I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life's blessings."

Notice Romney leaving out people with Eastern religions (i.e. Buddhists, Hindu, etc.) His appealing on Christian and Muslim voters anyway.

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong."

Separation of state and church is a good policy. But in practice this separation is merely an illusion. In the U.S. the law takes precedence over religious freedom (e.g. if you're a Muslim, you can't implement the punishments of your religion (e.g. flogging) if it is prohibited by the law.) In the same sense, when the stakes are high, the religious faith of leaders, greatly influence their decisions on morally divisive policies (e.g. stem-cell research, abortion, euthanasia, going to war, etc.). And why is it that secularism is called by Romney as a "religion"?

Speaking of secularism, as far as I know, some of the New Atheists don't necessarily want to "remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God." On the contrary, you have all the right to profess your belief in public. However, your religion should not serve as a "cover" and make it a taboo to criticize the irrationality of your professed faith.

"Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another and a steadfast commitment to liberty?"

Is Romney implying that only people of faith can have these American values? Nonsense. What about the progressive European countries that are mostly secularized?

"I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired ... so grand ... so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away"

Huh? I'm not sure why empty Churches in Europe is an issue for Romney. Is he implying the U.S. is on a higher moral ground than secularized European countries based on the number of head counts in Churches? I might be missing something here.

"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilised nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed."

True. So how about taking it further? Daniel Dennett's proposal is actually not less religion, but more religion! Let's teach world religions to children at a very young age and give them the opportunity of making informed decisions.

If and when Romney wins this election, I just hope that he stick to his conviction.

"Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin."

Heaven help us all.


P.S. David Brooks has an excellent op-ed on Mitt Romney's speech on the New York Times. Check it out. Below is an excerpt.

"In order to build a voting majority of the faithful, Romney covered over different and difficult conceptions of the Almighty. When he spoke of God yesterday, he spoke of a bland, smiley-faced God who is the author of liberty and the founder of freedom. There was no hint of Lincoln’s God or Reinhold Niebuhr’s God or the religion most people know — the religion that imposes restraints upon on the passions, appetites and sinfulness of human beings. He wants God in the public square, but then insists that theological differences are anodyne and politically irrelevant."