[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
67 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
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"
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?
"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.
"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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So, basically, "evangelical" = "Protestant."
It covers many Protestant churches, but by no means all of them.
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.
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).
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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. :)
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*
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.”
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.
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