[There is] an increasingly assertive, often obnoxious atheist offensive led in part by [Richard] Dawkins — the Oxford scientist who is author of the new best seller “The God Delusion.” It’s a militant, in-your-face brand of atheism that he and others are proselytizing for....The Christian Right has largely retreated from the culture wars? In-your-face atheists are "the Atheist Left"? Is this just a right-left political battle? I think at least some of this is a genuine debate about religion. Whether it's a cloaked political debate, a mixed political-religious debate, or purely a debate about religion, there is a place for pointed humor and harsh argument. I generally favor respecting religious beliefs. It's usually best not to go at religious people with mockery and contempt. For one thing, if you want to persuade people, it's usually better not to demonize them or call them idiots. But it's also a bad idea to stir up a lot of free-floating hostility. Nevertheless, we do need some strong voices in the mix, and I'd hate to live in a world where all the opinion was tamped down and moderated. I just hope that those who go in for mockery do it well. Dawkins is pretty good at it. He just needs more smart, tough people on the other side to joust with him.
[T]he tone of this Charge of the Atheist Brigade is ... contemptuous and even ... a bit fundamentalist.
“These writers share a few things with the zealous religionists they oppose, such as a high degree of dogmatism and an aggressive rhetorical style,” says John Green of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. “Indeed, one could speak of a secular fundamentalism that resembles religious fundamentalism. This may be one of those cases where opposites converge.”...
Now that the Christian Right has largely retreated from the culture wars, let’s hope that the Atheist Left doesn’t revive them. We’ve suffered enough from religious intolerance that the last thing the world needs is irreligious intolerance.
Note: In an amazing deviation from the usual NYT approach, Kristof's column contains an actual hot link that sends you away from the NYT website. (It takes you to Why Won't God Heal the Amputees? (Which is a damned good question.)) The link is right in the second paragraph, demonstrating an astounding trust in the reader's ability to remember to come back and finish reading the column. Talk about faith!
ADDED: Like me, Kevin Drum is incredulous about Kristof's assertion that the Christian Right has largely retreated from the culture wars.
Posts
151 comments:
I don't have time for a long comment, I'm getting ready to go to church with my family. For an athiest to claim they know enough about the universe to know that there is no God, gee that sounds like God, they know everything.
Anyway about your "damned good question" one partial reason is if God performed miracles all the time it would not take much faith to believe in him.
Anyway I look forward to reading the comments later
If you read any of Dawkins articles you get a sense of his strong contempt for religions. I don't think what he's looking for is counterparts to joust with. For him there is no discussion, only certainty.
Oddly enough he approaches his atheism with the very zeal he derides the religious for. I think it's quite easy to argue that Dawkins is himself a religious zealot.
Which begs the question of why most humans are hardwired to need a devotion to some philosophy to define themselves. His choosing to militantly advocate for nothing seems slightly crazier than advocating for something.
Why all the effort to steal meaning from so many peoples lives?
You might want to rephrase that question to "Why should God heal the amputees?".
I love when rational people try to justify (or not justify) natural events based on their "understanding" of God's mind. Our logic is probably not God's, and basing a hatred or disbelif of God on your personal wants/needs is childish at best.
It's like that old theological riddle: Since God is omnipotent, could he make a stone that he couldn't move?
well.. it could have something to do with the fact that sometimes religious people say things like this:
"He was young and handsome--his mother's hope...
He became corrupted! Soon his crime makes him old before his time. His back becomes hunched.
A devouring fire burns up his entrails; he suffers from horrible stomach pains.
See his eyes, once so pure, so brilliant; their gleam is gone! A band of fire surrounds them.
He can no longer walk; his legs give way.
Dreadful dreams disturb his rest; he cannot sleep.
His teeth become rotten and fall out.
His chest is burning up. He coughs up blood.
His hair, once so beautiful, is falling out like an old man's; early in life, he is becoming bald.
He is hungry, and he wants to eat; no food will stay in his stomach.
His chest is buckling. He vomits blood.
His entire body is covered with pustules; he is a horrible sight!
A slow fever consumes him. He languishes; his entire body is burning up
His body is becoming completely stiff! His limbs stop moving.
He raves; he stiffens in anticipation of coming death.
At the age of 17, he expires in horrible torments.
"The Fatal Consequences of Masturbation"
ploopusgirl: I think I'll go dredge up some ridiculous environmentalist screed just for balance. Or maybe I'll go get some of Stalin's rantings about collectivization.
The point being that stupid people say stupid things, and that religious people are not unique in that regard.
As for Dawkins: He's the literary equivalent of a troll poster.
The point about amputees -- and the reason it's a good question -- is that all the claimed miracle cures deal with internal disorders that the body might have cured in some way other than by divine intervention. The amputee's prayer is never answered and a body can't grow a new leg on its own: is that just a coincidence?
Uh, environmentalist != atheist.
Some bodies can grow new legs on their own. Just not mammals' bodies. There are some reptiles and/or amphibians that have this ability.
With all due respect to the religious out there (and I agree that people should try to be respectful), this is such an old and tired, relatavistic, and completely bogus comparison.
"Look, both atheists and religious fundamentalists are strongly opinionated! Well, I guess it must be a wash then, better stop paying attention..."
Really, I would love if Kristoff or Mr. Pew Forum could explain the "dogmas" of atheism, compared to those of religious fundamentalists. Evolution? Yes, most atheists believe in evolution. Science? Yes, most atheists believe in science. So I guess that's no different than believing something because a 2000 year old book says it happened?
Kristoff can snicker at the comparisons all he wants, but calling atheists fundamentalist in their approach is simply -- literally! -- an effort to equate something with its complete opposite.
"Key Point
If God intervenes with cancer patients to remove cancerous tumors, then God should also intervene with amputees to regenerate lost limbs."
This site is rather wordy, but not terribly clever... One cannot reason the way to or from god. Science has nothing to say on this issue, and to be frank I don't quite understand the need to supplant 'religion' with 'science'. I find the argument that either one would better serve mankind in his endeavors to get along with his fellows highly suspect.
Southpark recently wrapped up their latest season with a thrilling three-part series on this subject. They made Mr. Dawkins the unwitting gay lover of 'Mrs.' Garrison, which turned out to rather hilarious effect.
"The amputee's prayer is never answered and a body can't grow a new leg on its own: is that just a coincidence?"
It may be a good question, but answering it is not the province of science, or any form of empiricism for that matter. Anyway, it most certainly does not prove any kind of causation. The question is 'does God exist?' and, from where I'm sitting, the reams of prose the linked site go nowhere towards proving anything in either direction.
Professor Althouse wrote:
. Nevertheless, we do need some strong voices in the mix, and I'd hate to live in a world where all the opinion was tamped down and moderated. I just hope that those who go in for mockery do it well. Dawkins is pretty good at it. He just needs more smart, tough people on the other side to joust with him.
Nope. Call me cynical, but I've long suspected that there's a strong corelation between the venom of Professor Dawkins' "contemptuous" rhetoric and the promotions tours for his latest book, television program etc. Now, I'm not naive about the nature of life as a 'public intellectual' trying to get attention in the 27/7/52 media soup: Civil, thoughtful and nuanced just doesn't cut it if you want to get on the Rolodex of every rentaquote hack, op-ed page editor and talk show booker on your book tour route. And perhaps that's just the price you've got to pay for an open marketplace of ideas. I'm just not so sure.
Dawkins believes that the humanities should be shut down, too.
Not just religion, but the humanities.
He doesn't think that they impart anything that has scientific rigor.
He seems to be a fairly boring clod. I read his book on the correct interpretation of rainbows (Keats had it all wrong. I got the impression that he felt that the humanities: Shakespeare, the Bible, etc. were a lot hooey, and that only the science lab could impart truth.
He's a sort of Dexter, I guess. It's kind of fun that he thinks he's right about everything. He reminds me of a kid I knew in high school who had perfect SATs in both math and verbal and then worked at NASA but finally hanged himself. An obnoxious guy who was really full of himself. One of the funniest things he said was when he screamed at some Goth chick who was doing horoscopes at lunch that it's the doctor looming over the baby at birth that would have more of a gravitational field than any given planet!
He was just red in the face over the fact that she was doing horoscopes.
Pure types like Dawkins are rare, but it's fun when they do exist.
There are a good number of smart, tough people on the other side. But they don't get the press because, frankly, Falwell is the more accepted caricature.
I guess maybe the press doesn't find John Polkinghorne or Hugh Ross, for instance, as interesting.
Those who engage with Dawkins on his own level are around, and quite busy in the conversation. Inherit the Wind, however, is the standard narrative on this topic, and most folks don't want to hear otherwise.
Kettle,
How much did you read? I found the site a few months ago, and was struck by his extremely crisp and clever writing. At the time it was actually called "Why Does God Hate Amputees," but I guess he decided to be more respectful of the religious beliefs.
I highly recomend the site; it tries very hard to be pointed without being a screed. Contrary to Molon's suggestion, it is very clearly aimed at a respectful dialogue. You just can't help that there is such a huge gulf between the two groups.
Ann,
But if God healed an amputee we'd know that he exists! Can't have that. Of course, God wasn't above doing irrefutable miracles in biblical times, but clearly he's changed his style.
In any case, conceding the power of the "God works in mysterious ways" argument, I'd ask the question more generally: Why is every explanation for God's behavior completely compatible with him not actually existing?
I agree that the site is very, very good in positing rational inquiry on various religious beliefs. The amputee question is just one - but one of the best.
History, though, both debunks religion and suggests there is something to it - though Dawkins and others try debunking that as well.
History shows the Jews of long ago asking for stuff from the Main Man, and constantly getting it in supernatural ways that show to their own eyes clear evidence of Divine intercession. Dawkins and others would believe too, if they saw the Red Sea part, as Hebrews claimed it did when they faced mortal danger. However, since Old Testament times, God has not been so kind to Jews - yes to individual temporal achievement and the gaining of great wealth - no to any measure of peace and security. Christians who argue that God's favor was transferred to them and the Covenent of Moses broken with Christ's arrival have difficulty explaining why the Muslims then wiped out half of the original Dominion of Christ. The Muslims in turn seeth with rage - in no small part because their civilization that supposedly had all the blessings of Allah over the infidel was wrecked by Mongols, nasty internal divisions, and made into a rump culture of scant attainment compared to the Rise of Asia and the West.
Yet despite all that, when man sets up in a new location, no matter how remote - all races of mankind have a religion that comes with them and manifests in the first huts built or hunt trophies memorized in charcoal on cave walls. Religion appears intrinsic to mankind and his health and his flourishing through multiple generations. Purely secular cultures or those with pro forma religions not backed with true Faith seem to die out. From invaders imbued with religion to the current belief that secular societies will lose the demographic challenge to religious ones moving in.
Perhaps serious, deep reflection does show a non-existent God, a now-disengaged God long since abandoning the Jews, the Muslims, the Easter Island inhabitants version..But other serious reflections show "something is there". Something that allows religious societies to have advantage over atheistic ones.
So I - like all - must come to grips with Faith. A Catholic and skeptic of much that was taught, I somehow believed without anyone telling me to, even as a small child. Others around me with the same information, the same sort of parents guidance, didn't. Even where religion is a target of eradication - by Bolshies then Chicoms determined to wipe out Christianity, later Budhism and Confucianism and Islam - a substantial part of the population remains deep believers.
And even the bloodiest, worst Communist leaders have occasionally backed down in the face of this. Many believe the one thing Stalin did that helped his cause more than anything in WWII was rejecting his atheist Russian and secular Jewish commissars continuing their efforts to wipe out Christian faith, and re-legalizing observance of Russian Orthodox religion, in 1941. A distinct, evil, non-believer, Stalin was also a former seminary student who knew the power of Faith as an observor..and knew that much of his masses were missing their prime motivator and sustainer of strength and morale.
And even in China's worst years, Christians have emerged and today the Chinese Christian Faith continues to grow.
It is a deep-rooted need in mankind that stems from truth or some sort of evolutionary advantage.
"Ann, But if God healed an amputee we'd know that he exists! Can't have that. Of course, God wasn't above doing irrefutable miracles in biblical times, but clearly he's changed his style."
Frankly, I'm more impressed by a God that got the whole universe working according to one set of rules than one who has to keep intervening and tweaking his creation. The fewer miracles the better. I also think it's more impressive that a God would create us and leave us alone without doing special tricks to get our attention. He shouldn't have to beg for respect. The universe is enough. I'm impressed.
I guess I missed the Kristof column where he castigated the Christian evangelizers (Muslims, too) for their in-your-face insults and hectoring of unbelievers.
The number of well-known Dawkinslike militant atheists can be counted on the thumbs of two hands. The number of insulting, self-satisfied religious zealots are in the scores of millions just in this country.
Dawkins is the sort that I like to call a "Leftamentalist."
Dawkins is quite good at popularizing interesting ideas about evolution and genetics. I have no interest in his new book. I read the book on Unweaving the Rainbow, and IMHO the Keats-bashing was against the idea that science strips humanity of the senses of wonder and beauty. Richard Feynman had some good versions of this.
But Dawkins goes past explaining whyhe isn't religious to belittling those who are. As an atheist, it's probably similar to what many Christians feel when egregious idiocies are reported from Falwell, Robertson et al.
The obnoxious dogma that some atheists hold is shared with the noxious fundamentalists. It's: I'm better than you because of my beliefs
word verification:omitjs...close to but not quite omitjc!
"The number of well-known Dawkinslike militant atheists can be counted on the thumbs of two hands."
I'm sure the citizens of China and the ol' USSR, with its satellite nations would be shocked to know all the trouble was caused by 2 thumbs. But, being super geniuses I'm sure these 2 thumbs found a way to transcend time and space for the purpose of enforcing the official atheism.
I'm all for robust, no holds barred debate, but there's a time and place for different rhetorical strategies. Dawkis can be obnoxious and offensive, but he can also be funny and compelling.
My sense is that we're too easily offended. On the other hand, no doubt much of our public discourse is coarse and offensive.
Perhaps, a little more common sense and common decency are in order. Abraham Lincoln knew that high falutin langage would not persuade the Clary's Grove boys, and so he wrestled their champion and whupped him good. My guess is that a fair amount of salty language was exchanged.
On the other hand, Lincoln used a different approach at Gettysburg.
Knowing the difference is everything.
A column like this is a LOT more sophisticated than we are giving it credit for.
This is part of a recent trend in articles that hope to claim “Now that the Christian Right has largely retreated from the culture wars, let’s hope that the Atheist Left doesn’t revive them. “
They are going to (and are) try and spread the meme that “the culture war thing is over, we need to “move past” the divisive issues like abortion and gay marriage”
This article positions itself & the author as the “truly moderate” – by placing the Dawkins Atheism as one end of an extreme we need to move away from. (& the religious right as the other)
Barrack O’Bama is attempting the same (along with Hillary)
See the idea is; you claim to want to have “reasoned discourse” and bring back “civility” and “unite” --- and all the time you’re advancing your causes that lay at the heart of the culture war.
Gay marriage continues to advance through the courts & abortion fails to meet with any serious regulation or moderation.
“We’ve suffered enough from religious intolerance that the last thing the world needs is irreligious intolerance.”
See… religion is a red hearing in this argument. Its prominence is not the driver of this debate any more than atheism is. The moral questions (divide) over a series of fundamental values are. It’s a moral question in the end, just as legitimate for debate and discussion as the death penalty or taxing the rich or health care and so on.
But articles like this on help portray the opposition to the left as unworthy of the public square and the voice they exercise.
Its like saying, Lets call a truce guys- we will muzzle one (interesting I think) scientist discussing a philosophical point & You stop caring about the wholesale re-definition of are most important social institution & the moral worth of gestating fetuses in their Mothers wombs.
“These writers share a few things with the zealous religionists they oppose, such as a high degree of dogmatism and an aggressive rhetorical style,” says John Green of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. “Indeed, one could speak of a secular fundamentalism that resembles religious fundamentalism. This may be one of those cases where opposites converge.”...
Sorry no Sale…. Let the atheists speak all they want!!!! It’s an important and worthwhile discussion that we have not heard enough direct conversation about.
This has very little to do with the paramount cause’s of family formation and protecting innocent human life however. Atheists & Believers alike BOTH have a tremendous stake in such pressing and contentious issues.
The obnoxious dogma that some atheists hold is shared with the noxious fundamentalists. It's: I'm better than you because of my beliefs
How does it assert your superiority simply to say you think someone is wrong?
The problem is that religion plays an extremely prominent role in public life, which even moderate religionists insist that it should. Well, atheists in the Dawkins camp disagree. Why shouldn't they voice that opinion?
Why is every explanation for God's behavior completely compatible with him not actually existing?
Not just compatible, but entirely consistent (i.e., our expectations are the identical, not merely that the same outcomes are possible in both instances, but perhaps with varying degrees of probability)
I don't see why assuming that there is no God is any more or less arrogant than assuming that there is.
Wasn't Ann Coulter's point that Liberalism is a godless religion? Somebody should ask Kristof.
What I hate about atheists is that they set up this completely false strawman about what a religious believer is, and tar the strawman with all manner of charges.
The whole ridiculous website our hostess led us to appears to assume that Christians believe that God is actively working in the world, directly, without divine agents and that religion has never considered the problem of evil in the world.
Is this some kind of fantastic joke? I suggest that the Amputees website guy has never read the Bible seriously, or even Bible criticism. Believe the Bible or don't, but any intelligent peruser of the Book should note quickly that God rarely does anything. It is humans who act in the world. It is humans who do good. It is humans who do evil. If you want the amputees "healed," get off your lazy ass and contribute to the exciting field of prosthetics.
My favorite, though, is the prosyletizing charge. In my experience, it is atheists who are constantly nagging about beliefs in God, and suing about it. How is that not prosyletizing?
If you don't like religion, ignore it.
An awful lot of vocal "atheism" is directed at Christianity. They always have much less to say about radical Islam. I think that's partly why it's seen as a leftist/political movement rather than neutral commentary or opinion.
I'd hate to live in a world where all the opinion was tamped down and moderated.
But haven't you advocated moderating the dialog with Muslims in order not to alienate them?
"Why doesn't God cure the amputees?" seems to address only the aspect of faith that holds that God alone healed people in other medical cases.
But if you don't hold medical miracles as a central element of your faith, then what happens with amputees isn't particularly important.
One can believe in God and not hold that the Divine is some kind of medical wish-o-matic.
(I mean, does the fact that humans don't regenerate limbs in general disprove God? Why does the failure in the face of prayer change things?)
It seems to be to be a straw man argument constructed about flawed premises of some believers agruments, but not in itself particularly meaningful.
People who deride Dawkins as militant and angry do so so they can dismiss his work without reading it.
He doesn't come across as militant or angry in his "Why Does God Hate Amputees?" web site.
No. Just straightforward and insistent. He takes Christians at their word and shows how sill it all is. Or, should I say, their Word.
People like ndc dismiss it as seeming like an oversimplified straw man argument . . . without ever having clicked over to the site and seeing that an entire book is constructed around it, analyzing the problem in great detail and with great nuance.
But, let's face it, it wasn't meant for them. No one who believes in Santa wants to hear how Rudolph can't really fly.
What I want to know is, if prayer is so effective at curing disease, why don't Christians pay lower health insurance premiums?
Or, to put it another way, if you spent Sunday morning at the gym, your health-related prayers are more likely to be answered.
Craig,
Forgive me for asking such a personal question, but exactly where in the universe are you loggin in from?
"27/7/52"
:-)
Daryl -- If you don't think prayer is good at curing disease, you shouldn't pray to have diseases cured. Why does it bother you that other people pray to have diseases cured? Do your thing, Big Guy. Wail with it.
As for the praying people, "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you." Praying is a way of setting forth goals. It's a calling out for good. That's all it really is. What these people really want is to be cured of a disease, or to have people with diseases cured. If they want to express it in a wish to a diety, what's your problem with that?
I am not a churchgoer myself. I note, though, that churches give to the poor. They help the needy, and the sick and the old. They run hospitals and clinics.
What have you done, Daryl, that can rival these good works?
Is Dawkins, then, an "Atheistist"?
Daryl Herbert said:
"No one who believes in Santa wants to hear how Rudolph can't really fly."
You make Kristoff's point. It's arrogant and condescending to reduce, let's say Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica to belief in Santa Claus. Aquinas believed in God. He's silent on Santa, so that makes him "one of those" dolts you apparently despise. But he was a pretty smart fella. Reasonable people can reach different conclusions, but it takes a mean spirit to reduce his argument to belief in a fairy tale.
"Why doesn't God cure the amputees"
More like, why doesn't God stop evil hurricanes, and tsunamis. Surely these were not necessary, and a creator had to know it would affect primarily poor people.
I think Mencken is probably right -- this universe looks like the makings of an inferior, or juvenile god, and has long since abanoned us, and has moved on to bigger things. Or the universe is run by a board of gods, like a board of a corporation that is losing money.
So, the point of the amputees thing is to refute all religions by demonstrating that one small subset of religions -- those which believe in faith-healing -- are wrong?
That's an interesting idea: Walk up to a Zoroastrian who doesn't believe in faith-healing, and demonstrate that a religion other than his is wrong. Congratulations! He thought that other religion was a steaming pile to begin with. What was your point again?
Dawkins has a few problems with reality on this stuff:
First, it's trivial to demonstrate that a few aggressively atheistic doctrines have done a lot more evil in the world than religion has. It's contrary to all known fact, to try to paint religion as Intellectual Public Enemy #1. It just ain't. Compared to people attempting to do politics on scientific principles, from eugenics right on down to Marxism, religion comes off reasonably well.
Second, there's this notion that religion isn't "rational", and that this makes it bad because of the unquestioned assumption that everything not "rational" (filial piety, for example?) is bad. If, as in point #1 above, you choose your facts very, very carefully, you can make that look sensible to somebody who's eager to believe what you're saying. But the truth is, a lot of good, productive behavior can't be shown to benefit the individual at all: Why vote? Why return a wallet you find on the sidewalk? Why die for your country? How about philoprogenitiveness? Philoprogenitiveness is not rational, but anybody who thinks it's bad needs his head examined. Ergo, an irrational idea can be a good one.
Religion tends to provide communal cohesion, and it generally also gives people reasons to do the right thing when nobody's watching. It addresses the tragedy of the commons. This stuff is important. It can be argued that this stuff is indispensable, and it can certainly be shown that cultures that abandon it tend to collapse or get flattened by the neighbors within a few generations. Has Dawkins any better ideas? Can Dawkins show us a post-religious culture that has more than 1.4 children per couple? Is Dawkins, who as I seem to recall might know something about evolution, now under the impression that failure to reproduce is a winning strategy?
On the whole, y'know, if I want to find out how useful (or harmful) religion is to real people in the real world, I'll talk to an anthropologist rather than to an evolutionary biologist (heck, why not an electrical engineer, or a forest ranger?) who's operating on anecdotal evidence and personal animosity alone. Dawkins is farther out of his own field on this religion stuff than Michael Behe is out of his field in attempting to address evolution. And Behe is making a very great fool of himself.
Actually, I did click over and read a chapter. I don't think I'm interested in reading the whole book.
It appears to assume that for God to exist, God has to behave the way a certain particular subset of people have decreed that God should work: God is in the medical wish granting business, and because God fails to grant medical wishes in certain cases, we need to be able to explain that or God does not exist.
Says who?
What if God doesn't ever grant medical wishes: the outcomes in some cases merely seem to match up with the wishes expressed in prayer?
What if the changes that God effects are simply spiritual, emotional and intellectual ones? Suppose God doesn't work in the physical empirical world at all these days, except as the spark of the Divine in each of us?
Why does God hate the amputees may refute the arguments make by a certain type of fundamentalist, but I'm not sure that God confines himself to the fundamentalist view.
P.S. I'm an atheist. An atheist is no more obligated to object to religion than a pilot is obligated not to drive.
garage mahal,
A) Fantastic name;
B) "Surely these were not necessary"? Sez who? What's the point about poor people? What makes you so certain that God, if He existed, would agree with your politics? You could say that, if goodness is an attribute of God (sez who?), then He would have to be good, but who put you in charge of defining "good"?
I'm baffled by people who claim that God can't exist, because God's supposed to be perfect, and it's obvious that a perfect being would necessarily be just like them.
I mean, I'm not callin' it hubris or anything, but... how can you be so absolutely sure that God wouldn't be just like me, instead? Or like Karl Malden, or Merrell Fankhauser?
Regarding the NYT's use of a link within the story: clearly, it's because it's a TimesSelect column. They already have your cash, your eyeballs are irrelevant.
Kirk:
Heh... that should be 24/7, but since kidnapping and forced labour was outlawed, it's pretty hard to find good proof readers who will work for free. :) Still, I think my main point is an entirely valid one for debate despite the typo: Does Dawkins actually believe his more over the top rhetoric, or is it cynically playing up to a media culture where 'public intellectuals' are more likely to be noticed if they have a "provocative" soundbite for all occasions? And if so, does that really add anything substantive or useful to discussion of complex questions? I'd answer 'not entirely', 'yes' and 'no', but that's wide open to debate.
Something else I want to throw out there as a believer: many of can see how the world could be cruising along without God. We don't believe in God because we are somehow weaker and have some need that atheist don't have.
Many of us don't believe that God is somehow a combination of multivitamin and genie in a bottle.
If you don't like religion, ignore it.
The problem is that the world's religions don't let you ignore them.
I could just as well say, "If you don't like liberalism, ignore it." Or, "If you don't like Hillary Clinton, ignore her." Or "If you don't like islamofascism, ignore it."
Would you take that advice?
Well, in the US at least with the constitutional protections that people can expect, I think you ignore religion until it interfers with your life and they you fight the specific interference.
Using your example, I ignore Hillary Clinton until she takes an action that screws with my life, and then I do my best to reverse that action or to arrest that action before it occurs if possible.
I do not, however, go around trying to convince people that Hillary doesn't exists or try to eliminate her, etc.
The problem with Islamofascism is the fascism more than the Islam. Fight the fascism, ignore the Islam, as least in public life.
Seven Machos,
What I hate about atheists is that they set up this completely false strawman about what a religious believer is, and tar the strawman with all manner of charges.
I think you might be surprised how difficult it actually is to pose a critique of religious belief where the vast majority of people won't respond "Oh, well that's not at all what I believe, so whatever."
It's not a result of creating straw men. Religious beliefs are simply impossibly difficult to pin down, let alone the beliefs of a large group of people. Even where people know themselves what they believe, which they often don't, everybody believes something different.
The only way to appreciate this is to put yourself in the atheist's shoes, which few will do. Imagine, for instance, being thrown into a culture where everybody believes in some strange and ridiculous religion, but all for different and undefined reasons. Perhaps they have a religious text with all kinds of strange claims, which some believe literally, but most, if pinned down, will admit is mostly metaphorical. But they all agree that their religion requires them to sacrifice hundreds of young women into a volcano once a month. How do you show them reality?
Even with an analogy like that, I'm sure a 100 people will have a 100 different responses. Some will think it's offensive, some will see countless distinctions, some will say you should butt out either way, most will think things I couldn't predict. I think you miss the point, though, if you think they're simply straw men.
"Which is a damned good question."
So God could only exist if pain and suffering did not exist?
There was a very dark television show that I loved, called "Millennium." In one episode near the end of its run, there was a character by the name of Alex Vonteaux. The episode featured the protagonist trying to find and save him, while periodically there was a voice-over from his diary. One entry said something along these lines:
"God moves us not with rewards, but with pains and contradictions. He has given us not answers, but questions; an invitation to marvel!"
I do not know why God allows there to be crippling illness or injuries. That said, I am guessing that if there were no cripples, or pain, or similar that you would probably still not believe that there is a God. If so, then that would mean that the skepticism does not come from those things, so I am not sure why you think that the presence of those things would be what causes anyone to not believe.
Mackan,
You don't say anything: you simply prevent the sacrifice. The women cannot be deprived of life in the name of their religion.
It gets more complicated if you assume that the hundreds of women are capable of legal consent and willingly want to be part of the sacrifice. If your culture allows people to commit suicide under other conditions, I don't know how you are going to make a case that it shouldn't be allowed here.
Mackan -- When religious people try to interfere with my conception of public and private good, that is by definition a political issue, to be handled with political instruments (e.g., laws, votes, policies, wars, blockades, assassinations).
We are not talking about politics. We are talking about religion. We are talking about what people believe. What someone believes about God need not bother you. Millions of Christians believe that God works miracles, has a plan for then, yadda, yadda. So what? How is that hurting you?
The problem with atheists is the same problem with Jerry Falwell: both they and he are bothered simply by what you believe. Both they and he need to get over the need to feel right and the fascist desire to force others to change their beliefs.
I would love to be able to edit my post above to say
"The women cannot be deprived of life" instead of "cannot be deprived of life in the name of their religion"
It's not the religion that's the problem; it's the murder.
Also, Mackan, your analogy is ridiculous. What if I show you atheists who have a belief system that requires them to requires them to seize all private property and arrest and/or kill everyone who disagrees with them? How do you deal with that?
You sound like an overexcited undergraduate. Just like Dawkins.
The problem with atheists is the same problem with Jerry Falwell: both they and he are bothered simply by what you believe. Both they and he need to get over the need to feel right and the fascist desire to force others to change their beliefs. Not all atheists are evangelical in their beliefs. But why even frame this as an argument between two equally obnoxious groups? While I don't agree with Dawkins (I am agnostic), I am bombarded by people who are attempting to either convert me to Christianity or convince me there is a God. I have never been woken up on a Saturday morning by an atheist (or agnostic or muslim for that matter). I have never been approached on the street by someone, who acts as if they know me, and then starts telling me about how atheism has opened their eyes. Why do so many christians think they everything figured out and that I have to believe them? Then those same people, who have no problem acting like Amway salesmen on crack for Jesus, get all pissy when someone starts pushing back. [And, yes, I know that not all Christians are evagelicals but, an annoyingly large amount are. ]
No, I don't think an annoyingly large number of Christians are evangelicals; it's just that the small group who are aggressively Evangelical make up for for their lack of numbers in pure annoyingness.
On the one hand, I think you should probably remember, that as far as they are concerned, they are trying to save you from eternal hell fire. They really do have the best of intentions, however misguided.
On the other hand, you ought to be able to sleep late on Saturdays and I wish you could figure out a way to pre-empt their efforts: sort of an Evangelical no call list.
But I think we all face solicitation from people selling up crap we don't want. Maybe we don't get atheism forces on us, but we get half baked political theories, conspiracy plots, Paris Hilton related "news."
We all have to figure out how to avoid or reject the stuff we don't want.
I'm not sure why religion would necessarily be different.
How does it assert your superiority simply to say you think someone is wrong?
It doesn't. Neither does robust defense of separation of church and state.
But Dawkins and some other atheists go much further. The person isn't just wrong, they're deluded or evil. Or mentally defective.
Stevr wrote: "For an athiest [sic]to claim they know enough about the universe to know that there is no God, gee that sounds like God, they know everything."
I think this misconceives atheism, at least the intelligent atheism of Prof. Dawkins. It also gets exactly wrong where the burden of proof lies. Dawkins never says that he knows God doesn't exist. Instead, I believe this is his position: given the poor evidentiary showing that's been made for God so far, the hypothesis that he exists is of a very low order of probability. If you think he's wrong, you can set him straight by providing some evidence, any evidence, that God exists.
But based on the supernatural essense of God, any evidence is going to be hard to come by.
I think that it's natural for people to work to refute claims of "proof" of God's existance. If people were claiming that the girl who recovered from rabies proved that God answers prayers, then it's fair game to engage in a debate along those lines: if God alone cured her, why won't he cure amputees?
But I'd guess that the majority of believers don't think that you can ever expect any measure of proof; they recognize that belief is a not the product of reason, and they don't make arguments based on empirical examples.
Aaron Baker: your punk-ass "[sic]" pretty much proves "Stevr's" exact point, doesn't it?
Atheists are nothing if not annoying know-it-alls. Honestly, people: if you had to choose between being locked in a closet for all eternity with this Dawkins guy and aaron baker or with a guy who hands out evangelical Christian leaflets on the street and the world's most enthusiastic Mormon, which would you choose?
Aaron
Dawkins atheism is not "intelligent atheism" it is irrational atheism.
The rational thesis is that there has to be a supreme being (not necessarily the God of the three montheisms) who created everything that is, or at least maintains everything that is.
This can be demonstrated in a number of ways (read Mortimer Adler's book "How to think about God", which he said he wrote for pagans - he was a pagan at the time.)
Here's just one silly argument of Dawkins: He has said that nature progresses from the simple to the complex.
This is nonsense - a complete contradiction to the 2nd law of thermodynamics which says the universe is going from a state of low entropy (randomness, disorder), to a state of higher entropy (higher disorder). But evolution moves in the opposite direction disorder -> order. How can this be so?
Who wound things up?
What precipitated the Big Bang (maybe the Big Banger himself/herself)?
Thre's plenty of other arguments Dawkins never takes on - he simply creates a straw man theism and then attacks it with silly questions like "who created God?"
Mackan-
"How much did you read?"
I read about 7-8 pages worth of text. It's not bad writing, and the points the writer makes are quite good.
However, I concluded (perhaps incorrectly) that the main thrust of the argument was to point out places in the Word that apparently contradict what we see and experience. As a rigorous basis for categorically dismissing the idea of God, this falls a good deal short of sufficient. That's all I really meant.
"You just can't help that there is such a huge gulf between the two groups."
I don't see this as being only a matter of perspective; the kernel of religion is faith, while with science it is empiricism, (perhaps we can exclude mathematics from this, being that it is more firmly rooted in logical inference). To me this implies that definitive statements by one, about the other, are outside the domain of either epistemology; and never the twain shall meet.
That's why I didn't feel it was a terribly clever site.
(I do not practice any religion, and that includes atheism)
"I think this misconceives atheism, at least the intelligent atheism of Prof. Dawkins. It also gets exactly wrong where the burden of proof lies. Dawkins never says that he knows God doesn't exist. Instead, I believe this is his position: given the poor evidentiary showing that's been made for God so far, the hypothesis that he exists is of a very low order of probability. If you think he's wrong, you can set him straight by providing some evidence, any evidence, that God exists."
This is a probabilistic fallacy. You are only taking into account what you have actually seen. It means you are looking and one, and only one history - that which actually ocurred, while ignoring the infinite multitude of alternatives that might have. It also fails to take into account the expected return on faith.
Blaise Pascal had an interesting take on this back in the 17th century. He started out as an empiricist and mathematical prodigy, as well as something of a debaucher, but eventually turned to the church. His reasoning was something like,
'If I wager on an unguided universe, and god turns out to exist, then I'm in for an unpleasant afterlife; on the other hand, though there is little observable evidence to support the claim, if I bet on god, I have nothing to lose.'
The argument was compelling enough to convince him to more or less renounce science, and devote himself to the church (he wasn't able to stay completely away from math though...)
Although modern America presents us with many more choices in terms of religion, (as well as other things), the fact remains that, when considering the rewards and penalties related to religious belief, a truly practical human being would do best to bet on divinity!
We are not talking about politics. We are talking about religion. We are talking about what people believe. What someone believes about God need not bother you. Millions of Christians believe that God works miracles, has a plan for then, yadda, yadda. So what? How is that hurting you?
Well, fundamentally, I think it's obvious: the societal impact of religion is huge. Just look at about 90% of policy differences between social conservatives and liberals. You said that's not necessarily the case, but of course, we know that it is the case.
Which raises the question, so, is it wrong for Dawkins to challenge those beliefs anyway? Should he play fair like the rest, and simply stick to challenging people's superficial policy positions? Never touching on the actual root of the disagreement? I just don't see it.
I have to say, though, I think people are much more resilient than they're given credit for. You know, you may think Dawkins is obnoxious, but how many lives has he really ruined by challenging people's deeply held beliefs? People talk like Dawkins writing a book about atheism causes all kinds of innocents' lives to crumble around them. I don't want to sound callous, but I don't think it's true. People may get annoyed, possibly uncomfortable, god forbid they may reexamine some things, but I think they'll make it through. And of course, some people actually enjoy these books a great deal. And unlike with the sea of religionists, if Dawkins and Harris weren't writing these books, nobody would be.
Of course, this assumes Dawkins is right. But then, if he's wrong, it's probably all the more important that he air his grievances...
Mackan -- That's exactly my position. I don't like Dawkins. I wish to ignore him.
Why can't he and all the other atheists simply ignore religion? After all, people practicing their religions manifestly is not causing atheists' "lives to crumble around them." Why, then, does the nutty atheist father with no standing sue because his daughter's school says "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why does the ACLU pitch a fit when some little town in middle America wants to have manger scene in the public square? Why do atheists act as if their lives will, in fact, "crumble around them" unless there is no mention of God, ever, by anyone?
Let your ears hear what your fingers are typing, Mackan.
This is nonsense - a complete contradiction to the 2nd law of thermodynamics which says the universe is going from a state of low entropy (randomness, disorder), to a state of higher entropy (higher disorder). But evolution moves in the opposite direction disorder -> order. How can this be so?
Because the second law of thermodynamics only deals with closed systems. The universe may or may not be a closed system. Earth certainly is not a closed system.
Who wound things up? This is the reverse of what Dawkins does. Just because we haven't figured something out doesn't automatically induce supernatural explanations. It is at this point faith takes over. Dawkins's faith resides in their being scientifically based rational explanations for everything that can be perceived. Your faith leads you to God. Both positions are entirely reasonable and respectable. If, however, you come to my door before 9 am on a Sunday morning to proclaim either one, I will shout and curse at you.
when considering the rewards and penalties related to religious belief, a truly practical human being would do best to bet on divinity! Which God? If I accept Allah, but Jesus is savior, I'm damned. If I accept the God of the Torah, but Allah is true, still damned.
Actually, the God of the Torah is Allah, I think, so in terms of percentages. . . No I'm kidding.
Dawkins can question anything he wants; I don't think anyone wants to silence him.
But I think that many people who in general agree with him will think his argument is stronger and broader than it really is.
And I think for others with a "live and let live" attitude, they aren't looking for more intolerance or hostility from anywhere along the spectrum.
(and I think that the folks that seven nachos mentions, pledge dad, etc, seem every bit as wacky as the Falwells of the world)
Seven Machos:
"The problem with atheists is the same problem with Jerry Falwell: both they and he are bothered simply by what you believe. Both they and he need to get over the need to feel right and the fascist desire to force others to change their beliefs."
Oh yes, the problem with Jerry Falwell is that he gets bothered by some things. He's not an attention-hungry, homophobic misogynist prick or anything.
I don't understand why, just because Christianity is something that someone believes in and might feel positive toward, any discussion about it is absolutely off-limits and offensive. Millions of Christians believe that God works miracles--but if there is some sort of strong evidence that he doesn't, why the hell would you want to believe it anyway? Because it gives you more appreciation for sunsets and wildflowers?
I once knew a person that was pregnant, a Christian, loved kids and wanted lots of them. After she had a miscarriage, her boss walked up to her and told her that if she prayed more, God would give her her dead baby back! He'd put it right back in its cozy little uterus, which by the way had been recently scraped of all the miscellaneous tissues that goes along with a pregnancy, and she could just pick up right where she left off before that unfortunate little setback. Her boss' idea of miracles was sincere and well-intentioned; it was also ignorant and--since it reopened all sorts of fresh grief for her--hurtful. But why should anyone point that out to him? If living in a world where a benevolent deity forces his follower to suffer a painful miscarriage, but will restore the pregnancy if she begs hard enough, makes him happy, who am I to stop such beautiful joy?
tom faranda: "Here's just one silly argument of Dawkins: He has said that nature progresses from the simple to the complex."
LOLOL that's so silly and the idea is completely Dawkins'!!!!!!!!!! I'm curious as to what exactly made you think it was ok or relevant to start whining about evolution like that (Does believing in evolution make Dawkins meaner?). Also, I apologize that atheists ask such stupid things like "Who created God?" while leaving all the hard questions unanswered--like "Who created the Big Bang?"
Atheists are so evil.
Gosh, bosox. You don't sound contemptuous and fundamentalist at all.
I think we can all agree that Jerry Falwell is shrill. But who listens to him? What effect does he have on the world, except to make smug, condescending people such as yourself full of self-righteous indignation?
Who has said that discussion is absolutely off-limits and offensive? That's not the issue. The issue for Christians is: why can't a nativity be in the park at Christmas? Why can't say a pray at graduation or before the football game? Why can't I protest in front of an abortion clinic? Why is the government funding Piss Christ?
Also, I note that you repeatedly insult and mock Christians. Why not mock Muslims?
Mackan,
90% of policy differences between social conservatives and liberals.
That's spectacularly wrong. Where's the religion in the Second Amendment? Nowhere. The same goes for conservative preference for small(er) government, low(er) taxes, strong defense, lack of belief in the inherent goodwill of our enemies, a preference for private rather than state-mandated charity, and a tendency to judge the UN and the "international community" by what they do rather than by the marketing. Liberals tend to believe that the government is usually the best way to address problems, and that government is inherently more honest and efficient than private organizations, whether for profit or not; conservatives tend not to buy that jive. Liberals tend to favor other forms of intrusive government, like affirmative action; conservatives tend not to. It is characteristic of many liberals to see differences between the US and Europe as, by definition, proof of American inferiority; that view is not characteristic of conservatives, who if anything tend to be biased the other way. In general, conservatives believe that the way to influence people's behavior is through incentives and disincentives, while liberals are more likely to prefer other methods, like asking nicely or... I can't think of any others that aren't unproductively sarcastic.
That's about 90% of the differences right there, and none of it has the slightest connection to religion. Any rabidly atheist libertarian will broadly agree with the conservative viewpoints above -- and if they disagree, they'll be farther from the liberal position than the conservatives are, not closer.
And, no, you don't get to refute the above by claiming that conservatives only believe that stuff because they think God told them to, because "everybody knows" conservatives are just like that. You can't prove a contention by introducing it as an axiom, and you've got no business making fun of Jerry Falwell if you run around using that kind of "logic", so I trust you won't.
I'm not sure if greater conservative support for the "war on drugs" has a religious component or not; I don't relate to it all that well.
BoSox,
I don't understand why, just because Christianity is something that someone believes in and might feel positive toward, any discussion about it is absolutely off-limits and offensive.
Neither does anybody else. That's why nobody believes it. Lay off the strawmen, okay? They're getting pretty battered at this point in the discussion.
"Any discussion", FFS... People object to mindless belligerent hostility, that's all. And all they're doing is disagreeing with it. What, if anybody's permitted to disagree with you, you feel like you're being silenced? That's your problem, not theirs.
If the discussion isn't off-limits and offensive, apparently, why did you become so angry at Mackan, who argued with in a very calm tone from the beginning? You called him an "undergraduate". Most people would find that condescending, so I have no idea why you disapprove of whatever I did that was allegedly condescending.
"The issue for Christians is: why can't a nativity be in the park at Christmas? Why can't say a pray at graduation or before the football game? Why can't I protest in front of an abortion clinic? Why is the government funding Piss Christ?"
I thought the topic was about mean atheists, not all the ways Christians delude themselves into thinking that they are persecuted.
As to why I'm not mocking Muslims at the moment: do you see any Muslims commenting on this blog?
Super...: I meant that in regard to Seven Machos. kthxs for your kind instruction, though :) Patronize me a little more, please! Anything as long as it isnt belligerent hostility!!!
I don't think that US Christians face persecution, but I do think that sometimes a double standard is used in discussion of Christianity and other religions. Things that people would be hesitant to say in public about the illogic of any other religions for fear of seeming like intolerant jerks, they feel comfortable saying about Christianity.
Does Dawkins address other faiths?
I think that it's hard to make the case that Christianity is creating exceptional problems compared with other religions.
I'm not saying that he shouldn't address Christianity, but I wonder why refuting Christian belief takes priority.
Joe R
RE: thermodynamics - and the universe being a closed system. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, if we say the universe is all that is, then it certainly is closed system. As far as saying the earth isn't a closed system - certainly that's correct. So who wound up the universe, running counter to the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Has to be something outside the system - as in some supreme being.
Bosox
you seem to have anger management issues. I certainly didn't start "whining about evolution", since I have a couple of biology degrees and accept evolution as the best theory for explaining biological development. Nevertheless evolution simple -> complex runs counter to thermodynamics which says the universe is moving from order -> diorder. You have to come up with more than some "science is working on it" platitude to explain that. In fact it's really outside the realm of scientific study.
Seven Machos,
Except that ignoring religion is impossible. It's everywhere. It's a fundamental part of our society and culture. Does that mean people shouldn't show contempt for people who believe it? Sure, but it also means we all have a stake in it, not just those who go to church. As far as contempt goes, did you notice Kristoff's figure that less than 40 percent of people say they'd vote for an avowed atheist for any office? I'd also add that respect is a two-way street.
My point about lives crumbling was regarding Dawkin's books. Contrary to what many seem to think, I don't think Dawkins' books actually hurt anybody. I wouldn't say the same thing about fundamentalist religion. I think that hurts lots of people.
Still, though, if somebody wants to criticize Dawkins' book, be my guest! I wouldn't tell them "Don't criticize his views, that's not nice." Obviously, Dawkins' books affect all of us, and we're all entitled to respond.
Incidentally, the major difference between fundamentalist religion and non-fundamentalist religion? I'd say the recognition that it's a matter of faith, not knowledge, and that there are other legitimate persepctives as well. Many people, of course, read all the Dawkins books but still believe in god. I say good for them. Even if they're still religious, though, I think they benefit immensely from understanding Dawkins' perspective, which many share. I think they'd be much less likely to try to push their religious views on others, which a very large percentage of Americans remain willing to do, many without even realizing it.
seven asks: 'Why can't he and all the other atheists simply ignore religion?'
Uh, because 3 of the last 4 presidents of the United States are on record as saying atheists cannot be moral people?
Because religion is corrosive of social harmony?
Because religionists want to go through your library and pull out all the pagan books?
Because somewhere between 50 million and 100 million Americans say they believe disease is caused by demons?
ignoring religion is impossible. It's everywhere
I have encountered religion today only on this blog. And it's Sunday in the middle of America.
It is absurd to say that ignoring religion is impossible. It is untrue to say that it's everywhere.
Harry: come on.
(1) Citations, please.
(2) A lot of atheists want to go through the library and pull out religious books. (
(3) What difference does it make if a bunch of uneducated people think demons cause disease? Vietnamese people leave food outside for their dead relatives. Is it hurting anybody?
(4) Atheism is not corrosive to social harmony? Yeah, when I think Stalin and Robespierre and Mao, I think social cohesion. When I think Catholics and the local Lutheran church (and, for that matter, prayers at the mosque), I think corrosive and anti-social. Get real, dude. Try to at least sound serious in your absurd charges.
I agree with Ann: The universe is proof enough.
It never ceases to amaze me that if a stone arrowhead was found buried on Mars everyone would consider that proof of intelligent life on Mars, but the very Earth itself (much more sophisticated than a stone arrowhead, no?) is not proof that it was created by an intelligent life form?
Existence itself, the universe, the fact that the universe goes on forever... It takes more faith NOT to believe than it does TO believe in God.
As far as the amputee question, God isn't big on *poof* miracles whereas something appears from nothing. Weather, fish, loaves, cells... These things are already there. There's something to start with.
But one has to admit it is a good question, but it's only one. The believer can ask the atheist hundreds of unanswerable questions.
Super-electro,
That's about 90% of the differences right there, and none of it has the slightest connection to religion.
Oh, I completely disagree. I'm not saying a direct result of religious edict here, but religion clearly has a distinct and powerful impact on very many of those issues. This isn't a radical idea; ask Bill O'Reilly. I'd say America's conservatism on nearly all of those issues, compared to, for instance, Sweden, is very much a result of our religiosity vs. their secularism.
Generally speaking here, I'm talking about the southern Christian perspective, the George Bush perspective. I have to condescend here. This is about the good guys vs. the evil doers. It's about being Christian soldiers, in a constant state of battle. It's about righteousness, and yes, moral superiority. It's about the very idea that America is a Christian nation, and doesn't need to listen or pay attention to the secularists and worse in other nations. It's about skepticism toward man-created institutions. It's about wanting to maintain the Christian character in the face of immigration.
Of course, these are all characatures, and it's not that simple, and this doesn't apply to everybody; the libertarians and the neocons are the exception. But the effect is very real.
And that doesn't speak of the social issues, where it's much more pronounced, talking abortion and gay marriage. But these aren't just single issues, either; these bring large segments into the Republican party, for no other reason. Then this gets people like George Bush nominated by that party and elected president, also very largely because he has a rapport and relates with such southern evangelical voters. You tell me: would this guy have been elected in a secular country?
You certainly don't have to be Christian to be a conservative, but I think you'd have to be crazy to think it doesn't help, in more ways than abortion and gay marriage. Even so, those issues alone are huge.
Mackan --
1. I am conservative. I don't go to any church of any kind. If you think the Republican party is made up of anywhere near a majority of evangelical Christians, you are sadly, hideously mistaken.
2. How do you account for the millions and millions of Christians who are Democrats? If you think the Democratic party is made up of anywhere near a majority of secular atheists, you are even moresadly, hideously mistaken.
3. George W. Bush and Bill Clinton basically will be remembered as the same mediocre centrist president. Just like you can't tell much difference now between Franklin Pierce and Millard Fillmore.
4. Financial Times: Sweden’s new government plans to reduce the state’s role in the economy substantially, and will sell off government stakes in some of the country’s best-known companies, including SAS, the airline, and Nordea, the Nordic region’s largest bank. CIA World Factbook: Sweden. 87 percent Lutheran. Please get with the program.
5. American does not need to listen to other nations, nor should it. And they don't need to listen to us.
"Now that the Christian Right has largely retreated from the culture wars"
The Christian Right has largely retreated from the culture wars?
Yeah, that's got to be one of the more outrageously false statements I've heard someone make about the state of religion in America. Largely *losing* the culture wars, maybe. But there is, alas, no sign of a "retreat".
"[T]hose who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-- C.S. Lewis
From the reviews of the "God Delusion" I was apparently going straight too hell for just looking at it. Now after reading it I was quite impressed, but I think I was also Dawkins ideal target. I saw church as a total waste of time from well about 6 years old, it was just so boring, I mean Sundays could be spent doing better fun stuff. I have not been in church volunterily for my whole adult life. Do I have the anti-religious gene? Also I can't imagine totally closing my mind and going "neeh-neeh I am not listening to anything". Interesting Dawkins also say that the Bible is one of the more notable works of fiction in history, also he doesn't want too replace supernaturalism with some new-agey mysticism he rejects all pseudo science, for example he said there is no thing as "Alternative Medicine" only medicine that works or not, which is 100% true.
"Aaron Baker: your punk-ass "[sic]" pretty much proves "Stevr's" exact point, doesn't it?"
Mr. Machos, you can toss all the moronic insults my way you like; what I'm waiting for is evidence.
So far, all I'm seeing are hoary old chestnuts (i.e. the progression from less complex to more complex forms violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; give me a break). I fully understand the anger of a Dawkins or a Harris after years of reading and hearing this sort of sorry stuff.
Aaron
"So far, all I'm seeing are hoary old chestnuts (i.e. the progression from less complex to more complex forms violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; give me a break)."
yup. that's what it does. Simple -> complex violates the 2nd law. you need a better explanation than "give me a break"
At least as pertains to evolution, a "better explanation" has already been given and accepted. The 2nd Law applies exclusively to closed systems. Earth is not a closed system. The theory of evolution attempts to explain the diversity of life on Earth. Therefore, the theory of evolution cannot violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. That seems like a pretty airtight argument to me.
Evolution does not attempt to explain "who wound up the universe." Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, much less the origin of -- well, everything. The theory of evolution merely attempts to explain the diversity of life on Earth. Unfortunately, people often conflate evolution with separate and distinct theories in order to attribute the alleged problems with those theories to evolution. Sorry, but no.
Why Won't God Heal the Amputees?
Because He's too busy designing new birth defects, or maybe coming up with a new AIDS virus. Anyway, if He wanted amputees to have limbs, He wouldn't have taken them in the first place.
And re the Second Law, think of it this way: you are now a complex system. One hundred years from now, you will be a lot simpler.
This point:
"ignoring religion is impossible. It's everywhere"
...was addressed by Steven Machos:
"I have encountered religion today only on this blog. And it's Sunday in the middle of America. It is absurd to say that ignoring religion is impossible. It is untrue to say that it's everywhere."
To which I ask simply:
- can you buy beer on Sunday where you live, or a car? In MN they can't, and we can't buy a car in WI on Sun. Why?
Religion *is* omnipresent in many ways. Pretending otherwise is silly. Christianity is the target because it's the dominant religion. No one (except aggressive Christians) picks on Wiccans because there are only about a million of them in the US and they don't stop you on the street to stuff a pamphlet in your hand. Christians feeling "picked on" in America is analagous to white males in the work force feeling picked on. They already have every advantage, so losing any status feels like an attack.
Seven Machos,
Of course neither party is entirely anything. There's no question which party is more influenced by fundamentalist religion, though, is there? Which kind of proves, I think, that religion has influence.
Sweden isn't 87% Lutheran, though, by any standard definition. That's simply the historic state religion. I saw a recent poll saying that in Norway (very much like Sweden) less than 3 in 10 people believe in god. Scandinavia is generally recognized as about the most secular and liberal place in the West (I used to live there). But I could have said Europe generally.
I'm aware, of course, that most Americans don't like people who criticize religion. Even when attacking Muslims, most won't talk about the actual theology, except sometimes to argue whether it's a religion of peace or not. Personally, my view is that the world has only benefitted, and immensely, from people who have broken that rule, and criticized the religious beliefs themselves, on theological grounds. Of course, I'm not talking about suppressing religion, but challenging it, straight-forwardly, on its merits. I wish a lot more people throughout history had been willing to do that. Not that I blame them for keeping quiet...
Aren't we glad that certain people have done this, though? It certainly has always made people uncomfortable. It seems clear to me, though, that the West's assertion of secularism, perhaps in addition to its religious roots, has been a huge contributor to our success, compared to the various theocracies that are still out there.
seven, you need to get out more. Allow me to introduce you to Rev. Donald Wildmon and the American Family Association.
Belief in demon-caused disease may not affect you, unless you and your children get caught in an epidemic created by refusal to accept modern medical practice.
I grew up a Catholic surrounded by Southern Baptists. I promise you, they did not hesitate to tell me how to act. And if I resisted, they were pleased to use state power to enforce their backward superstitions.
As for social cohesion, my grandfather, who was a high muckety-muck Episcopalian layman, married (as his second wife) an Italian girl. He was able to use his considerable social prestige to get the local Grand Dragon of the KKK to meet the local Catholic bishop, defusing the war of the holy rollers against the Catholics, in that area, for that period of time.
Mackan - "world has only benefitted, and immensely, from people who have broken that rule, and criticized the religious beliefs themselves, on theological grounds. Of course, I'm not talking about suppressing religion, but challenging it"
I'm glad you finally came out and admitted what is obvious in your tone for the entire thread.
Danp said - "also he doesn't want too replace supernaturalism with some new-agey mysticism, he rejects all pseudo science"
So, he does want to replace religion? With some sort of scientificism? Did it ever occur to any of you that that battle has been fought before?
Reading this thread has brought a wry smile to my face. Communism vs. Capitalism. Christianity vs. Islam. Secularism vs. Religion. Scientificism vs. Religion. Blah, blah, blah. Different battles, different means, same goal - power.
Nice post Harry. You were asked for evidence of your fantastic statistical claims, and your response? One piece of anecdotal evidence. Thank you for so quickly and succintly evincing your lack of intelligence.
Oh, I'm sorry, Harry. I should have said "lack of intelligent contribution to the discussion." Sorry.
Simple -> complex violates the 2nd law. you need a better explanation than "give me a break"
Atheists don't believe in n supernatural beings. Believers don't believe in n-1 supernatural beings. Seems to me that believers bear the burden of explaining why the 1 differs from the n.
Whoever came up with HTML will spend eternity in hell. Anyway, if you click on the link in my comment above you'll find a refutation tom faranda's of the claim that evolution is counter to the second law of thermodynamics.
Man, The Jerk, that's not a gppd explanation if n > 1. Suppose n = 8. Then atheists believe in seven dieties. Also, what is n is a fraction? (Or zero or negative.) That's going to cause real problems.
Back to the drawing board.
yup. that's what it does. Simple -> complex violates the 2nd law. you need a better explanation than "give me a break"
We see simple things becoming complex things all the time in the world around us (e.g. an acorn becoming an oak tree), so obviously if that violates the second law of thermodynamics then the second law of thermodynamics is wrong.
Fortunately (for the physics textbooks of the world) the law isn't wrong, because it describes the behavior of a closed system. The earth is not a closed system; it receives 1.740×10^17 watts of power from the Sun. Simply put, Earth is able to become "more ordered" because the Sun is footing the bill.
Suppose n = 8. Then atheists believe in seven dieties.
I think you need to read it again, and you'll see that you are incorrect.
Also, what is n is a fraction? (Or zero or negative.)
"n" generally denotes a natural number.
not a gppd explanation if n > 1. Suppose n = 8. Then atheists believe in seven dieties.
You misread what he wrote. If n=8 then atheists *disbelieve* in 8 deities and Christians disbelieve in 7.
Also, what is n is a fraction? (Or zero or negative.)
As "n" is the number of postulated deities it cannot possibly be zero, negative, or fractional -- thousands of deities have already been postulated. In reality, of course, the value of N is infinity, as there is literally no limit on the number of gods that *could* exist.
As N-1 = N where N - infinity, both Christians and atheists believe the same number of gods don't exist. They differ only in how many gods they believe DO exist -- zero vs. one.
George W. Bush and Bill Clinton basically will be remembered as the same mediocre centrist president.
you think w. is a centrist heh.
good one.
Christians feeling "picked on" in America is analagous to white males in the work force feeling picked on. They already have every advantage, so losing any status feels like an attack.
Every advantage? I'm with you on this, but I find it annoying when people say things like that. Unless you're rich and beautiful, I don't think any group has every advantage...
CB,
Did I hide my position? I wasn't trying to. Yes, I think the world benefits from people like Dawkins, who don't just throw aspersions at other religions, but explains exactly why he think it's wrong. I think heretics do the world a lot of good.
So are you saying you stand against the liberalization of Christianity in the last few hundred years? Or you think the Church/hierarchies made those changes voluntarily?
cb, are you saying that the number of evangelicals in the US is under 50 million?
Not according to any survey I know of.
There is some question about how fervently any particular evangelical believes in X doctrine (like, say, divorce is sin), but everything I have said comes right out of Calvary Chapel, which claims to be the fastest growing sect in the country.
Evangelical. Belonging to or designating the Christian churches that emphasize the teachings and authority of the Scriptures, esp. of the New Testament, in opposition to the institutional authority of the church itself, and that stress as paramount the tenet that salvation is achieved by personal conversion to faith in the atonement of Christ. Dictionary.com
So, basically, "evangelical" = "Protestant." Yes, there are probably 50 million Protestants in the United States.
You are using a loaded term, Harry. It's unbecoming. Also, still waiting on the citation that "3 of the last 4 presidents of the United States are on record as saying atheists cannot be moral people."
So, basically, "evangelical" = "Protestant."
It covers many Protestant churches, but by no means all of them.
Simply put, Earth is able to become "more ordered" because the Sun is footing the bill.
I understood the point to be that the universe itself appears to be a closed system, and yet somehow it sprang from either nothingness or from a lower-ordered system. What "footed the energy bill" for the universe's, the sun's progenitors, the sun's, and ultimately our own energy?
I agree with Ann (!). The religious right have not withdrawn from their one-sided "Culture Wars." They will continue to exhibit paranoia ("War on Christmas") and hostility toward people not fitting their definition of normal.
But the atheism-religious fundamantalism debate is not left-right. It is religious-areligious.
Revenant:
"We see simple things becoming complex things all the time in the world around us (e.g. an acorn becoming an oak tree), so obviously if that violates the second law of thermodynamics then the second law of thermodynamics is wrong."
While your point is spot on, I think that the acorn->tree analogy is not so good. I suspect that the difference you see here is the result only of the simple appearance of the acorn. But really, the acorn and tree are isomorphic representations of the same information, albeit the latter transformed somewhat by the slings and arrows of weather and star crossed lovers and circumstance.
Maybe human creations, beehives make better examples.
Seven Machos: Why can't he and all the other atheists simply ignore religion? After all, people practicing their religions manifestly is not causing atheists' "lives to crumble around them." Why, then, does the nutty atheist father with no standing sue because his daughter's school says "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why does the ACLU pitch a fit when some little town in middle America wants to have manger scene in the public square? Why do atheists act as if their lives will, in fact, "crumble around them" unless there is no mention of God, ever, by anyone?
First, I don't why on earth you think all atheists act the same. That is obviously not true. And it is kind of like thinking that all religious people believe God intervenes in specific ways to cure individual illnesses, and then using that specific belief to deride all religious people.
Second, if you have no objection when a town in middle America wants to have a manger scene in the public square, can I also assume you have no objection if a town wants to post a banner in the public square saying "God is a fiction"? And if a town did that, do you think that Liberty Counsel or some other religious conservative organization would sue to prevent the state from taking a position on their religious beliefs? Would you consider that pitching a fit and tell them to stop acting like their lives will "crumble around them"?
(Note that I'm not in favor of a town doing that, as I believe the government should be neutral towards religion, just pointing out that the manger violates the neutrality goal just as surely as the statement of religion as folly.)
1. the atheism-religious fundamentalism debate...is religious-areligious That's some deep, substantive analysis, there, Alpha Liberal. What other profound insights do you have?
2. SteveS: What town has there ever been an issue about a banner saying "God is a fiction"? It must be fun to just make shit up and say: "see, the other side does it, too." Also, prohibiting something is not neutrality. Would you say that the government is neutral toward crack cocaine? What about murder? These are some of the silliest arguments I have ever heard.
understood the point to be that the universe itself appears to be a closed system, and yet somehow it sprang from either nothingness or from a lower-ordered system.
The universe itself, so far as we can tell, is getting less, not more, ordered and complex. The question "where did the universe come from" is a separate one, unrelated to either evolution or to the second law of thermodynamics.
What "footed the energy bill" for the universe's, the sun's progenitors, the sun's, and ultimately our own energy?
I'm pretty sure that it is understood that all of the energy in the universe was present in the point-mass that expanded in the "big bang", so that would be the source of energy for all of those things. I may be wrong, since I really don't understand where vaccuum energy comes from or if it constitutes energy being created. I'm pretty sure it does not.
Anyway, all causal theories about the ultimate origins of the universe boil down to either "it's always been here" (which is pretty seriously discreditted at this point) or a "causeless cause" (whether that's God or the big bang point-mass or whatever). Those are pretty much the only two options you can get without discarding causality (which, given that time didn't even exist "before" the big bang, may be the way to go).
Seven Machos: Obviously no town has posted such a banner, and perhaps if you had better reading comprehension skills you wouldn't have mistakenly characterized me as saying some town did and "the other side does it too," which is obviously not the point of my post.
"Prohibiting something is not neutrality." Yes, this is correct. Now find the place where I said anything at all about the government prohibiting religion, and maybe you won't look like someone who is attempting to use diversion to mask the fact that you have been definitively out-argued. Alas, I fear this is not possible.
Talk about silly responses.
Yes, Steve, obviously no town has such a banner or has tried to put one up. That's why I said you are making stuff up. The part where I said "make shit up" could have been your clue that I am aware that there never has been such a case.
If the Supreme Court is prohibiting a town putting up a manger scene, then the government is, in fact, prohibiting an instance of religion. You can rationalize it away all you want and you can call me stupid, but a prohibition is a prohibition.
Seven Machos, do you really think the government not doing something itself is the same as prohibiting it? To my mind, if someone talks about the government prohibiting something, that means that the government is stopping people from engaging in it. I would say it's a careless use of language to refer to the government's unwillingness to engage in something as prohibiting it.
As for the banner example, I am not making shit up. I am posing a hypothetical as a method of illustration of why the government's funding a manger installation is problematic. That's the point, not to claim "the other side does it too." And you haven't answered my question: would it be okay with you IF a government posted such a banner. And if is not, why is it okay if the government funds the manger?
Yes, Steve, obviously no town has such a banner or has tried to put one up. That's why I said you are making stuff up.
He was asking a hypothetical question. Thus the phrase "if a town wants to post a banner". It isn't "making stuff up" to ask how you'd react to a hypothetical situation, so you're either not bothering to pay attention to what Steve's writing or deliberately being an jerk by misreading it.
In any case, the answer to the question "why do some atheists want to make the government take 'under God' out of the pledge" is that it was put in there for the specific purpose of making it clear that the United States of America endorsed belief in God and considered it vital to what America is all about. It was placed in there to officially state that the USA is anti-atheism. Atheists would like that passage removed so that the federal government can revert to its previous long-standing status of having no official position on the existance of gods.
Even if you don't see the fairly obvious first amendment issues involved the federal government endorsing a god, it is easy to see why an atheist might be offended by the implication that he's a suboptimal American.
This quote says it all:
The poet, Czeslaw Milosz, wrote the following:
IF THERE IS NO GOD
If there is no God,
Not everything is permitted to man.
He is still his brother’s keeper
And he is not permitted to sadden his brother,
By saying that there is no God.
Well, let's see: Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush.
Yeah, that's 4. Reagan was the most vocal about excluding atheists from the body politic. Two of the other three tag along.
I'll let you guess which ones. (Hint: He didn't suck up to Rev. Bob Jones.)
I have no problem if Nevada, Missouri wants a manger scene; Atheistville wants a "God does not exist" banner; and Dearborn, Michigan wants a "Praise Allah for the holidays" parade. If town councils pass laws funding those things and a federal court's restraining order prohibits them, is there a prohibiton? Yes. Without question. Anyone who says there is not grossly misunderstands federalism.
In my view, the Establishment Clause prohibits the federal government from establishing a single religion as the U.S. religion. Nothing else.
Rev: Atheists would like that passage removed so that the federal government can revert to its previous long-standing status of having no official position on the existence of gods. You have pulled this one before. You seem to be under the mistaken belief that there was a "long-standing" time in American history when the United States government was more "neutral" toward religion than it is now. Please, tell us when that time was. Was it in the 1940s, when Betrand Russell was denied a teaching position at the CITY University of New York because of his atheism? Was it in 1900? 1776? Please tell us when the government was so much less tolerant of religious displays, so that we may be edified by your unique understanding of political history.
Harry: Those are not citations. I thought you are a journalist.
In my view, the Establishment Clause prohibits the federal government from establishing a single religion as the U.S. religion. Nothing else.
The "single" must be hiding in that same invisible part of the constitution where rights to abortions and gay sex are hiding, because it sure isn't part of the first amendment.
I will assume that your citation of New York *city* policy in response to my comments about *federal* policy was due to simple stupidity rather than dishonesty.
The United States government did not endorse belief in the Abrahamic god as official US policy until the 1950s. There were, of course, regular religious statements by American politicians and regular persecutions of non-Christians (and of the "wrong kind" of Christians, such as Catholics and Muslims) throughout American history, but they were not part of any consistent, official federal policy. This is because for most of our history the government still practiced federalism, which people like you occasionally pretend to care about when faced with a law you wish the federal government wasn't forcing on the states. The presumption that the federal government must meddle in every aspect of American life, combined with the early cold-war fear of "atheistic" communism, led the federal government to embarassingly write into law something which most Americans believed in their hearts, but which had no place in a nation in which belief in God has nothing to do with either citizenship or with the functioning of our system of government.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Do you really believe that there are more public displays of religion now than there were before WOrld War II? That's simply insane.
The Supreme Court first considered the question of financial assistance to religious organizations in Bradfield v. Roberts (1899). The federal government had funded a hospital operated by a Roman Catholic institution. In that case, the Court ruled that the funding was...permissible. In the twentieth century, however, the Supreme Court has more closely scrutinized government activity involving religious institutions...
Wikipedia is your friend, Rev. And the Google. It's free today.
And then there's this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights...
You are grotesquely, stupendously wrong to say that this country somehow has become MORE religious since World War II. It is an absurd contention on its face.
Hmmm...It's pushing Tuesday, and this went up Sunday. Still getting comments. Long in the tooth for an Althouse post, no?
Will the...uh..."discussion" end soon? My eyes have glazed over. I'd rather watch figure skating.
Who's winning, God or the atheists?
I'd bet the atheists did well in the technical program, but God beat them on style. It's just like God to pull off a stunt like that. I remember when the European judges only gave him a 6.8, while the Muslems gave him a straight 10.0, and the Americans a 9.2. I think that was God doing a solo program against the Marx/Lenin duo.
Now it's God vs. Dawkins. Dawkins has the loudest fans, but it's just too painful to watch. Let's change the channel.
Hey, isn't "Survivor" on?
Theo Boehm,
Dawkins has the loudest fans, but it's just too painful to watch.
As long as just about every American household has access to 24-hour-a-day religious programming, without a scant mention of atheists or atheism even in the vast majority of pop culture, let alone TV or the media, I'm going to have to disagree.
The reason many discuss it on the internet, of course, is that so many people have such a strong aversion toward anyone who discusses it anywhere else. (Well, you see the same aversion here, but here it's easier to deal with.)
Michael Oliver,
And he is not permitted to sadden his brother,
By saying that there is no God.
Really? If I believe my brother is drastically wrong about something very important to his life, you don't think I should tell him?
Should I just smile awkwardly whenever he brings it up?
As far as I'm concerned, if there's somebody who truly needs religion, I have little doubt they'll be able to recover it after a little theological discussion with an atheist. People who want to be religious, I find, are amazingly capable of returning to the fold. What many don't like to acknowledge, though: the extent to which many people are actually extremely grateful for having broken free of religion.
Of course, this all assumes that you should only tell people what they want to hear, which I think is kind of a terrible notion in the first place, but even so...
Hey, Mackan, looks like God has just won the technical program as well. Really time to change the channel. Maybe we could watch Wierd Al on YouTube or something.
Hey, Mackan, looks like God has just won the technical program as well.
Oh, I dunno. Usually you can't win a contest unless you actually show up for it. :)
Hey, Revenant, how would you know? You don't seem to have a TV set.
Screw you, Mackan, you arrogant ass. Nobody gives a crap if you think God is non-existent, so quite shoving it down everybody's face. You're worse than a freakin' JW.
BTW, you're last post used the word heretic, which is inconsistent with your previous posts. I was going to respond intelligently to you, but FU, you're too much of an ass. Oh, and I'm an atheist.
An earlier commenter doubted there were dogmas in atheism. This is not true. The non dogmatic approach to religious doubt would be agnosticism, the frank admission that one just does not know and that the canons of "evidence" prized by the scientific method yield no conclusive answer to the question. Atheism, however, is a positive assertion that god does not exist.
There is another tendency in the modern scientific approach, and that is to deny the existence of a nonmaterial soul or psyche. Following this materialistic premise, acolytes of the disciplines that call themselves scientific always study the mind as though it were merely an object, a thing with no inherent interiority, just a aggregation of atoms and sparks, albeit complexly "evolved."
The viewpoint of all religions, on the other hand, is to assert that the psyche exists also as a subject, independently of matter, in the sense that it is something other than just an aggregation of external interactions. This is why a scientist, when he is speaking as a scientist, can never convincingly say anything about love or loyalty, or sin and redemption, the way a poet or prophet can.
The two, theist and secularist, are always talking past each other; and just as it is maladroit for the believer to employ his stories in trying to describe genetics or cosmology, its is horribly, even dangerously superficial, when a scientist tries to speak of man's moral dilemmas as though they arise from merely external and material circumstances.
This program is really starting to suck. Time to change the channel.
Oooh! "The Medium" is on.
Now that Allison, she really gets some cool channels on her cable. She's got premium service.
You know, you can start getting reception if you pay your cable bill.
Hey, Revenant, how would you know? You don't seem to have a TV set.
Its not that I don't have a TV set, its that there's nothing worth watching. :)
cb,
This isn’t about arrogance. It’s a discussion about whether atheists are mean and contemptuous, or whether they’re entitled to promote their viewpoint. Clearly, I think they’re entitled to promote their viewpoint. Not only do I think it’s their right, but I think the world would be much better if they did so more often. Incidentally, I also think knocking on doors is the least worrisome trait of religious fundamentalists.
One interesting thing here: we haven’t even talked about why someone might be an atheist. We’re solely talking about whether atheists are entitled to express their viewpoint, or if they should simply remain silent, and allow most people to intensely dislike them. Amazingly, though, this discussion itself apparently annoys people a lot more than one, for instance, about whether the Bible is actually inerrant. Am I wrong?
It seems that possibly the one thing worse than even attacking people’s religious beliefs – which I don’t think I’ve even done here – is to stand up for those obnoxious atheists.
Religious person: "There is a God."
Atheist: "Atheists are entitled to express their viewpoint. Don't try to censor me. I have First Amendment rights!"
---------------
Religious person: "I don't think you should insult religious people and their beliefs."
Atheist: "Are you saying I am not entitled to express my viewpoint? I have First Amendment rights!!"
Onegoodmove has Richard Dawkins' and Sam Harris' response.
I'm not sure which bewilders me more - the tendency of _some_ Christians to interpret any diminishment of their religion's privileged place in American society as religious intolerance and persecution, or the assumption (typically on the part of the same people) that atheists are aggressively and obnoxiously forcing their views on all those about them.
Also, for what it's worth, most (if not all) atheists I've met subscribe to the view of 'there's no proof of a deity, so I'll live my life as if there WAS no deity,'
rather than 'Isn't it obvious to any thinking person that no God exists?!'
Science is not a zealotry it is proven(based on the accuracy of the times) laws of nature using a logical method- The Scientific Method. The reason athiests(Dawkins) seem pissy is because they have to argue with grown adults that act like childeren- saying that they believe something which has not been proven: like monsters, fairies and the afterlife.
Revenant, that's what they all say when they can't pay the cable bill.
Johnson has somewhere, perhaps in London or The Vanity of Human Wishes, a line about a "female atheist who talks you dead." Nice to know things haven't changed in 260 years.
Well, back to "The Medium." Allison's doing a bit of time travel tonight. Wished I could go back and ask Dr. Johnson just who he had in mind with that piece of Baroque snark.
Oops. Commercial's over. Gotta go.
(reaching for remote)
*Click*
Play Drums: Alright. Prove atheism. And while you are at, show us with scientific certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow.
This should be fun.
and drum roll ... Seven Machos pulls out all the stops in his 7th grade locker room debate skills:
"Alright. Prove atheism. And while you are at, show us with scientific certainty that the sun will rise tomorrow."
Science does not "prove" things. It is an iterative process of developing and testing postulates so that those that are retained are most consistent with the broadest range of phenomena. Oops, I went all polysyllabic on you there. So current models and data - the position of the sun in the HR diagram, the fusion cross-section for protons from quantum chromodynamics, the general theory of relativity, the Fermi-Dirac and Boltzmann distributions, the apparent approximate rotational symmetry of the universe - all are consistent with an expectation that the sun will rise tomorrow.
But HERE's the news flash: if it DOESN'T there are going to be thousands upon thousands of scientists crawling all over each other, proposing which parts of these models are wrong so that they can be corrected. Because science is not blindly committed to dogma, but to finding those principles that describe the way the universe actually behaves - even at the expense of throwing out hard -hard- won gains.
That's the false dichotomy - the straw man, if you will - of "believe in god or believe in science". Science is a means of iteratively developing understanding of natural phenomena -a means that has proven so wildly successful that desperate myth-mongers who forsee their power and influence withering in its onslaught, gird themselves for battle with it - and emphatically not a disembodied set of dogmas -"the sun will rise tomorrow" - to be taken on faith. Seven Machos – and his/her ilk – are so embedded in their faith-based, dogmatic world view that they can scarcely imagine a different way of thinking about and understanding the world, and it always shows through in their petulant demands to “prove it.”
Mackan,
You have been talking about promoting your viewpoint, which I agree you should be able to do, and in fact happen to be in the same idealogical boat. However, you have also been talking about attacking religion and 'converting' believers into non-believers, which you have stated is a good thing. I disagree that it is productive to engage is such activity, and as I stated, consider you an arrogant ass for doing so. That is no different than any other contemptuous person shoving their religion on anybody. Live and let live.
The only bad thing religion does is the minority of believers (who get all the attention, unfortunately) who shove it on other people. Converting regular people is not productive, as any unbiased view of the world would lead anybody to conclude that regular people need religion, and behave better with it. The nutcases would be nutcases with or without religion, they just use religion as an excuse to engage in their type of behavior.
cb,
I think my statement was more that non-believers do good by expressing their views to believers, whether anyone is converted or not.
I disagree with you, though, about the extent to which people need religion. My case in point is Scandinavia. There, we have several remarkably secular societies, that seem to work absolutely fine. Denmark recently polled as the happiest country in the world, with all the other Scandinavian countries up there as well, despite the fact that as I said earlier, apparently less than 3 in 10 Norwegians will say they believe in god.
Maybe that's a uniquely Scandinavian thing; I don't know. I'm won't say the world is capable of or should get rid of religion entirely. What I see pretty clearly, though, is that any extent to which religion is liberalized is a good thing. Even if people are happier being religious, I don't think that needs to be the fundamentalist "I know God, and everybody else is just not trying or evil" outlook. I think that outlook is purely harmful and unnecessary (not to mention wrong!).
And how do you get past that outlook? I see only one way: by people who disagree explaining exactly why they disagree. It doesn't mean they'll convert everybody, but it does mean everybody will have a better idea of what's actually going on. And again, I think people can handle the annoyance.
It's clear to me that you have an overly excited negative view of religious fundamentalists, which isn't necessariy a bad thing, but in effect, it's no different than an overly excited believer. Either way, I don't want to talk to either of you. Later, good luck with your conversion efforts.
Cf Evelyn Crunk's example - one of the things that _some_ religious believers frequently pillory science (or scientism) with is 'they're always changing their minds! Only God's truth is never-changing!'
Translated, that means 'when new facts become known that contradict our previous ideas, we ignore the new facts and stick with our previous ideas.'
Also, 'proving' atheism would be pointless - most philosophical atheists I've known take a materialist approach to life, the universe and everything. If there's evidence for something (gravity, human kindness/human cruelty, Zanzibar) the evidence is considered and the conclusions are drawn. There is no objective evidence that _I_ know of for the existence of God; people who choose to believe in God do so despite the absence of such evidence, those who do not believe do so because of the absence of evidence.
How is "God" different from Santa Claus to the child that believes in both?
How is the assertion that Allah, Krishna, Shiva, Buddah, Yahweh, do not exist, different from the assertion that the Christian god doesn't exist either?
The entire system of 'god' is directly set up in ambiguity to allow for any imagined explanation to manuever reality in order to reach the goal of retaining the preconvieced conclusion.
Atheism is not saying "i know everything, therefore i know there is no 'God'."
Atheism is stating that there is absolutely no evidence for any 'god', just like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Emperor being a descendent of the sun god,furthermore there is ample evidence that 'god' is used as a tool to control society and gain power, just like Santa is really a tool to convince kids to be good, or just have fun with a ceremony and get the 'fam' together to exchange presents, and therefor there is no real 'god' other than the concept that exist in peoples' minds and acts as a sociological tool.
As an agnostic, I recognize that I am not 'all-aware'.
Recognizing that an 'all-aware' being also knows this, I believe that we are given the means in which to validate 'truth' least we all end up literally drinking the kool-aid. Reason and understanding are then the only tools that I see that can be used to interpet reality such that I will learn 'truth' as I progress through my life.
Furthermore, I cannot put blind faith in an some ancient text written by other individuals. To do so would be to defer responsiblity for my own understanding. While I can review these texts for meaning, I must personally use my own reasoning in the interpetation of these texts (lest I end up drinking a figurative kool-aid).
In simplier terms, truth makes sense. It make sense in my mind as well as my heart.
This being said, what the hell makes sense about Christian mythology? Does it make sense that Jesus had to die so I could go to heaven because I was doomed from Adam and Eve's choices? Does it make sense that actions are less important than a belief that Jesus was the son of God? Doe it make sense that God would punish me because I don't believe in something that has absolutely nothing to do with how I relate to my fellow man (rightious choices have been around much longer than 2000 years)?
All these considerations lead me to one conclusion: whether or not Jesus existed is really quite irrelevant. We have no means in which to validate the story, many specific of the story don't make any sense and the belief is in no way coupled to how I choose to relate to others.
I'll admit I don't have all the answers. I just demand that others recognize that my answers are as valid as theirs and guarantee me the same position in whatever afterlife comes next.
Of course, many would choose to 'believe' otherwise.
Revenant, that's what they all say when they can't pay the cable bill.
It would be safe to say that I can't, metaphorically speaking, "pay the cable bill" for religion, as I lack the capacity for blind faith. I need evidence.
That's why I've always been an atheist, ever since I was little.
Evelyn fails to pull out her seventh-grade reading skills:
Science is not a zealotry it is proven
All areas of the human condition need critical self inquiry and the willingness to change one's opinion should the facts prove otherwise. Science accepts and learns from error, religion generally refuses to accept that it can be wrong. If you think otherwise and you are religious, state one incident in with your religious denomination has been wrong in the past and then has corected that error. It has to be your own denomination as it's too easy to pick a different religion and find error.
The one thing that can be said with certainty about religion is that most people in the world are wrong in their religious beliefs. If you are Catholic, 83 % of the world is wrong, if you are Mormon, 99.75% of the world is wrong, if you are Christian Science, then 99.996 % of the world is wrong.
Good question my foot. It's a weak straw man. Any good Catholic would shut this one down in a nanosecond.
The short response to this "delimma" is: it's a mystery. We don't know enough about God to understand why things are this way and reason alone will only take us so far. If you feel shaken by such arguements it only means your faith is weak.
If you have enough faith you will accept this explanation, and if not you won't. It's simply a matter of faith, which is, after all, a gift that God does not lavish on everyone. Period.
As an agnostic, I think that the biggest, fattest bit of hubris coming from atheists these days is the idea that they can justify atheism by reason alone.
As an agnostic, I think that the biggest, fattest bit of hubris coming from atheists these days is the idea that they can justify atheism by reason alone.
And the biggest, fattest bit of hubris coming from Christians is the fact that they can justify God by "faith" alone.
There is no reason to simply "believe" in anything the Bible says, so while we may not know everything about the Universe, reason and science are certainly much more reliable.
Furthermore, Atheism doesn't have to be justified, because everything it stands for IS justified. It simply doesn't stand for what CAN'T be justified. We cannot empirically justify God, so why should the burden be placed on those who DON'T claim God's existence to be true?
A biologist thought himself shrewd
And sat back in victorious mood.
He'd proved there's no God
And thought it not odd
He'd disproven what no one had proved.
A biologist thought himself shrewd
And sat back in victorious mood.
He'd proved there's no God
And thought it not odd
He'd disproven what no one had proved.
Post a Comment