Log In | Register
49 Votes
193 Comments
Article Source: Sciam
Since the turn of the millennium, a new militancy has arisen among religious skeptics in response to three threats to science and freedom: (1) attacks against evolution education and stem cell research; (2) breaks in the barrier separating church and state leading to political preferences for some faiths over others; and (3) fundamentalist terrorism here and abroad. Among many metrics available to track this skeptical movement is the ascension of four books to the august heights of the New York Times best-seller list—Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf, 2006), Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell (Viking, 2006), Christopher Hitchens’s God Is Not Great (Hachette Book Group, 2007) and Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin, 2006)—that together, in Dawkins’s always poignant prose, “raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled.” Amen, brother.
Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance. I suggest that we raise our consciousness one tier higher for the following reasons...
Published to:
 | Rational Atheism | Sciam | Sun Aug 19 | 1 |
Stop Tracking
- © 2005-2007 Newsvine, Inc.
Code of Honor- Company Info
- Contact Us
- Jobs
- User Agreement
- Privacy Policy
- Copyright Policy
These are some good suggestions. We can't simply be an anti- something movement. That is the reason the democrats failed to win the 2004 election [one of them anyway].
What were the democrats anti- to? They lost in 2004 a) because their candidate was stale, b) they don't have different policies from the republicans. Many say that policies don't win you elections, so perhaps they just need to pick someone who isn't an embarrisment.
They were anti-war, anti-Bush, etc. They didn't effectively state the things they were for, instead focusing on the things they were against.
They were not anti-war, and aren't even now. Anti-Bush is so vague, surely they're going to be against the person they're running against?
Yes, they were. I don't know if you remember 2004 that well, but basically the entire Democratic campaign, whether intentionally or unintentionally, was built on anti-war sentiment. And Kerry has always been one of the bigger proponents of phased withdrawal of troops. (Remember his proposal to bring home 20,000 U.S. troops by Christmas 2006?)
And yes, the 2004 Democratic movement was very anti-Bush. Not just in the sense that Bush was the competition, but in the sense that he was damn near the only reason a lot of people were voting at all that year. Remember the fairly huge "Anybody But Bush 2004" movement?
I am not anti only a logical thinker who has been brainwashed by my enviroroment and now has evolved into a free thinking man. Gods where created by those that lived in caves, by those that were to lazy to hunt, the religions were used by those in power to keep the sheep in order. the 20th century became a time when the sheep started to ask questions and the later at the dawning of that century it became easier to break away from the ancient beliefs.
Now science is making religion look silly and more and more free thinking people are being freed from weired indoctrination. The age of Aquarius has started to bring an enlightenment that will eventually lead to freedom from religious indoctrination, better education will lead to a world free of the illusions of mystic madness.
I see the light.
Of course it will take about another 100 or so before my vision comes true. Unfortunatly the money God has great power.
Rational Athiesm--- A contradiction in terms.
Also should be ei not ie
Thanks. For some reason I got it right in the tags, but not the headline.
Also, how in it contradictory?
No wonder it was not in my dictionary.
It is an oxymoron because a rational examination of reality will result in the conclusion that a god is involved in the creation and direction of the universe.
BTW, a good article except for the ever present presumption that the atheist has cornered the market on reason and logic.
Yes. Clearly I forgot that it's perfectly rational to come to conclusions based on no evidence.
You make the same error most atheists do. You confuse proof with evidence. There is evidence for a god.
Scientists believe many things based on evidence and generally lack proof of their beliefs. It is the same with people who believe in God. They find the evidence convincing.
jpark -
I'm not sure I agree w/you regarding the issue of proof v. evidence. It would seem that while there may be some evidence for the divine, that evidence requires a leap of faith to be complete. That is no more convincing than those who find there is no evidence for the existence of God.
I agree that the concept of a God is in agreement with the evidence, however the concept of a God is not necessarily the only explanation for the universe's existence. That argument would create the same logical issues that many have found with the ontological argument for the existence of God.
None of it is conclusive - either way - which is why I believe people on both sides of the issue must use restraint and discipline to prevent, as the article states, an "irrational exuberance" for their position from addressing areas that it should not. Science is specifically designed to explain the natural world, not the supernatural - and faith is more appropriate for giving individuals direction in the absence of evidence. Using one to describe the other is like using a screwdriver on a nail -- wrong tool for the job.
There is evidence for a god.
Overwhelming claims require overwhelming evidence. Please feel free to provide some.
clearcache,
I agree with you mostly except this statement:
Faith without evidence is foolish. Faith is based on evidence.
Henry VII,
First, the faith of believers is not an overwhelming claim any more than Einstein's claim that the speed of light was constant and an upper limit. It is merely a belief based on reason and observation.
We have been over this road before but I'll give an example of information which would tend to convince someone who is open to convincing:
Thousands of years ago, when no human being had been to the north pole, Job knew that there was no land there. This was not confirmed until the 20th century. Job also knew that the earth was not supported by anything. This information was imparted to Job by God.
Um....I think you may need to recheck your definition of faith. Faith HAS to be without evidence, or it is irrelevant and unnecessary, since you'd have reasons...
You simply cannot have faith in something you have evidence for. It's like wishing you had a Hummer, while driving in your Hummer. It's pointless.
Also...
It's supported by physical matter...but it is supported and explainable through physically processes (including gravity, momentum, and others)
That argument is much like saying air doesn't exist because you can't see it. Which of course is idiotic, since we can test it in many ways without the naked eye...and hell, we CAN see it if it's cold enough outside to show our breath. God seems to miss a lot of the details of his creation when explaining things to people in the bible. Either that or he considered then unable to grasp the real concepts...in which case the old explanations are either invalid now that we have better understanding, or just plain wrong....so bringing them up seems a bit silly.....maybe that's just me though.
Rukh,
There is more than one definition of faith. One is trust, e.g., I have faith in my wife. Another is belief in something. To believe in anything without evidence is foolish. Certainty, in that instance, negates any need for belief. Jesus said:
Fallen angels of course are certain of God's existence. Man must believe based on the evidence.
The quote from Job about the lack of land at the north pole and the fact that nothing holds the earth up was just to show that Job had knowledge which he could not have obtained except by revelation.
Faith commonly means belief without evidence. When you believe in god you believe without evidence, there has never been evidence presented of a god's existence. Faith can mean trust, and that can be based on evidence, which not the case for theists and deists. Faith in god in irrational.
Irrational people will try to go over the Bible, interpret passages in the Bible to mean what they want them to, and then claim that it's evidence of revelation, even when in the same book, they get things dead wrong, in far less ambiguous ways. It's hilarious how bad these "proofs" are, that faithheads come up with. Can't they find better passages to deliberately misinterpret for their imaginary friend in the sky? The North pole isn't exactly empty, he mentions nothing of land, and the Earth doesn't "hang". Greeks predicted the semi-spherical Earth and something like atoms before the evidence of them.
jpark,
Stating that there is a god is an extraordinary claim. The fact that you have a book put together by Romans to control their people is not evidence of said god. Further, your interpretation of Job is quite a stretch.
I didn't interpret Job at all. I merely commented on his knowledge of the earth at a time when such knowledge was not apparent.
The Romans did not write the Old Testament nor the New Testament. Their religion was pantheistic.
The passage says nothing about the north pole. He simply states that the north stretches over nothing and that the earth hangs in the sky.
I didn't say they wrote it, but they did assemble it - choosing the parts they saw fit to include.
The Catholic church assembled the New Testament. The Roman Empire, as the Roman Empire, did not.
(I do note that the Roman Empire morphed into the Holy Roman Empire, but at that point, it was a completely different structure.)
You don't find those statements at that time in the history of mankind to be unexplainable by the knowledge extant at the time? The world suspected, but did not know, that the north pole was landless until the early 20th century. Until the heliocentric theory of the solar system, no one knew that the earth hung in space upon nothing.
The "Roman" Catholic Church assembled the bible at the behest of Emperor Constantine.
Yes. The Catholic church at the behest of the Holy Roman Empire assembled the New Testament.
(The old testament had been assembled many years before that).
You're an ass. (See? We can all sling dirt without substance! It just doesn't accomplish much.)
1. It was a letter directed to fellow atheists (a specific group of them, in fact).
2. I love how you make this criticism while making the same presumption about theism. Hypocrite.
I made no such presumption. Please point out where I implied or stated that a belief in God shows a more rational or logical mind.
jpark:
Since you quoted the Bible in defense of your definition of "faith," I will do the same for mine:
Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (KJV)
Sounds like he's saying faith is conviction in the absence of evidence. Saying that "faith" is just a synonym for "belief" strips all substantial meaning from the word.
Are you kidding me?
"[Rational atheism] is an oxymoron because a rational examination of reality will result in the conclusion that a god is involved in the creation and direction of the universe." -jpark
That's easy:
Implying one must be irrational to think otherwise. I don't think you understand the meaning of the word faith.
Or the meaning of science:
Scientists generally lack proof? Have you studied grade school science or math? I'm guessing your definition of proof is being able to see or feel something directly, otherwise your statement wouldn't make the slightest bit of sense. But scientists take hypotheses and work to prove or disprove them. That's the very point of scientific study. You can't directly see that the earth is round, but you do know it's been proven, right?
Danny McGee,
From the article:
The article implies that only scientists have the power of reason. I never stated or implied that atheists lack reason or logic. I only stated that an examination of reality would reveal that a god was involved in the creation and operation of the universe.
Matt Schwartz,
When I state that something is true, I do not imply or state that someone who believes otherwise is lacking in reason or logic.
You obviously don't have a firm grasp of what science is. Science builds models to understand our reality. Such models are called theories. Theories are neither true nor false. A good theory models reality well. Whenever knew knowledge challenges a theory, the theory must be re-examined and modified or discarded for a new theory. Such constructions are not proof of anything.
Oops, correctly quoting things is apparently beyond my writing skills. :)
This is such a laughable twist of his words that I'm not even sure it deserves a response. "[Our goal is to] raise people's consciousness to the wonders of science and the power of reason" is not even remotely close to an implication that only scientists are capable of reason.
The distinction between "atheism is irrational" and "atheists are irrational" is an insubstantial one.
You just apparently want an argument. When did I say atheism is irrational? I believe I am rational. I have been both agnostic and atheistic. I was not irrational then and am not now. Continued examination of reality convinced me that the atheism I once held was incorrect. Rational beings can change their viewpoints. People who cannot change may be irrational.
In your very first comment on this article! I've quoted the offending paragraph twice already! You called rational atheism an oxymoron! Seriously dude, are you stoned right now or just not paying attention?
If rational atheism is an oxymoron, then atheism is irrational. Basic logic for most, but you don't learn that at church.
You can be rational and hold an irrational belief. A belief is irrational if it is not congruent with reality. A lack of information can result in a rational being holding an irrational belief.
Atheism is not rational when you realize that god is involved in the universe. When you don't know that, you can be very rational and still hold that irrational belief.
When did I say atheism is irrational?
It isn't an irrational belief if you've never been presented with good evidence. It is irrational if you don't have that evidence, but you believe anyway [faith].
Strictly speaking, the only "rational" position is agnosticism, because there is never a way to completely remove doubt from the equation. Both theism and atheism are ultimately positions of faith, because definitive proof of the Almighty is impossible.
This might seem like a remarkably strong claim, but it's simple enough to show. Theism routinely relies on definitions with infinite properties (omnipotence, for example), but human have decidedly finite perceptions. So even if something like the rapture occurs, it would be a finite event (perhaps caused by aliens with very powerful, but not infinitely powerful, technology). There is always room for doubt. The question is whether it is reasonable to draw conclusions about God from such an event.
Reason works a little differently: it depends on assumptions. Both theism and atheism are reasonable conclusions to draw from the evidence if you make certain assumptions, and the two camps work from a very different set. Atheists tend to rely on assumptions like "Occam's Razor is a good criterion for testing a theory" and "emergent complexity can result from atomic simplicity." Theists tend to rely on assumptions like "complexity is evidence of intelligence" and "the consistency of physical laws is an auspicious omen." These assumptions are leaps of faith.
Skepticism holds that it is generally advantageous to make as few assumptions as possible. Agnosticism makes no assumptions (by definition), while atheism only makes a few. The vast majority of theistic arguments, however, make many assumptions. A normal Christian not only takes the existence of God on faith, but also takes on faith the divine parentage of Christ, the truth (or at least truthiness) of the Bible, and the active role of God in Earthly affairs, not to mention assumptions about divine justice, the afterlife, and the soul. Skeptics are more likely to be atheists than theists because atheism requires less faith than most varieties of theism.
But agnosticism requires even less. So long as there is room for doubt, people will either have to fill it with faith or remain undecided. Anyone who is telling you that their faith is the most reasonable is almost certainly operating from a set of assumptions (implicit and explicit) that produce that result - if you want to assess how reasonable you think their beliefs are, you need to press on and find out what their assumptions are.
Good comment Belarius.
Truth is a moving target. Whatever we know about anything, we never know everything about anything.
jpark -
Your text of Job 26:7 probably comes from the KJV, right?. Other translations state that the "north" actually refers to the northern sky. The original hebrew word used in that passage is "Zaphon". Usage of this word supports the idea that the sky is "hung" between the heaven and the earth. And, it can be logically argued that to people living in that area at the time, "North" did not likely mean the North Pole. Their view of the earth was very different from our own today.
I'm not saying your interpretation is definitively wrong, but this would point to some issues trying to base these aguments upon scripture, yes? Certainly there's an issue with trying to base these arguments upon a single line of scripture. I don't think a single line of scripture is enough to convince someone open to being convinced.
Belarius, yours might be the most intelligent and on-point comment I've seen since joining the vine a few months ago. Very well said.
clearcache,
Thanks for the hebrew lesson.
Review the verse again:
Whether the term 'north' referred to the north pole or to the sky over the north, it still means the same thing -- that the north was spread out over an empty place.
Belarius, you are incorrect. Agnosticism gives equal credence to the existence of a god and the lack of existence - despite that there is no solid evidence. Again, if I am not agnostic about unicorns - Why should I be agnostic about gods?
The only rational position is weak atheism. That is, realizing that you don't know whether a god exists or not - but knowing that without proper evidence, there is no reason to believe.
I suspect that what you're calling "weak atheism" is what I would call "scientific agnosticism." After all, the abscence of proof never disproves anything. God could exist but take no hand in the material world, for example. Imagine if, for example, the soul and the afterlife exists, with God acting as an arbiter for how you spend eternity, but God never interacts with physical reality in any way. There's no way to prove that this isn't the case because the proof would necessarily have to manifest in the physical world - in fact, it's very likely that world religions (having never heard from this hypothetical God directly) would have their core doctrines totally wrong. There simply wouldn't be any way to know.
On the other hand, in the absence of physical proof, it is also unreasonable to assert that something does exist when you criterion for existence is physical proof. As a "scientific agnostic," I would say that my own position is that the most parsimonious answer, given the evidence available, is atheism. But I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong if dramatic new evidence emerges. I generally describe myself as an atheist, and I think "weak atheism" as you put it describes my feelings - but I'm only an atheist because I'm also a scientist, and don't view my atheism as written in stone. So in practice, I'm technically an agnostic.
Belarius hit the nail on the head, IMO, and the issue doesn't need belaboring.
Henry VII, maybe you should be agnostic about unicorns. Certainly if the definition of a unicorn at all resembled definitions of God, you would be misguided not to be.
jpark, your Job quote is quite a poser for those who lack any understanding of how the biblical authors viewed the universe. They most assuredly did NOT believe that the earth was a sphere hanging in space. I'll quote Adrian Swindler's piece on biblical belief in a flat earth:
Your reading of Job fits quite nicely into the same vein as how psychics and cold-readers "commune with the dead." All it requires is for the believer to ignore the misses and laud the hits. In this case, your retro-fitting of the text of Job with modern information about the world only works if the contradictory evidence about how the biblical writers viewed the universe is simply ignored.
As far as the evidence for God, I haven't seen any that couldn't as easily be explained by reference to chance. In the end, your "evidence" always winds up settling on the question of infinite regression. Ultimately a God that is indistinguishable from Nature makes no difference.
I is a convenient argument to say 'Whatever is written in the bible actually meant something else and whatever was said really meant something else.'
You can always win every argument about anything that way.
It is convenient - it is also often quite true. Society was quite different 2000 years ago. I shudder to think how some will attempt to interpret today's pop advertising, music, etc. 2000 years from now.
My only point - a single quote is proof of very little, and given the dramatic differences in culture and society, it is difficult to say for sure what was meant. "Zaphon" is one of those words that translators have struggled with.
The point of your original quote was that the quote inferred knowledge of the earth that was not understood at the time. My point is that it doesn't necessarily mean that.
Thanks. A reasonable statement.
Of course, I was not attempting to prove anything, merely provide an example which would tend to make one think about the possibility of god.
On the other hand, it is highly inconvenient to your argument that, in fact, the Biblical understanding of the universe contradicts your statement, and that the ancient Hebrews were not the originators of the concept of a spherical earth, nor (in fact) that the writers of that time (~500 BCE) had no concept of a "North Pole" (having only the foggiest of notions as to what extended any further north than the north shore of the Black Sea).
You see, of the two of us, you're the one pretending that the Bible says what you want it to say, and as I've shown, you do so by ignoring what anyone would have understood the story of Job to mean when it was written.
There's my "interpretation"-- which rests on actual evidence as to the beliefs of the time about how the world was constructed;
and then there's your interpretation-- which rests on a creative fiction that retrofits modern knowledge onto a tiny passage in Job, and sort of waves a rhetorical hand over the fact that this supposed knowledge about the spherical shape of the earth and the presence of the north pole was never promulgated within the very culture that supposedly spawned it, all in hopes that the contradictions will disappear.
So, yeah... I'm completely aware of which one of us is creatively interpreting the Bible. But hey, don't let a pesky thing like evidence get in the way of what you want to believe.
Uh, yeah. Sure.
Of course, the explanation I offer is somehow twisting the words of the Bible to mean something other than what it "truly" meant-- a "truth" revealed first to Job by revelation; and now, through you, to all of us by virtue of your conviction that no other explanation suffices.
Yeah, you're not trying to "prove" anything.
I absolutely agree. And using my rational examination I can conclusively determine that it is a hermaphroditic hyena which wears pink spandex and drives a magical mystery bus.
Ansab - excellent point - and further proof that evolution is a bunch of hooey as well. After all, there's no way a hermaphroditic hyena wearing pink spandex could have learned to drive a magical mystery bus in the 6,000 years that the earth has existed. I mean seriously - who do scientists think they're kidding?!?
You haven't given anyone here any evidence at all for this apparently foregone conclusion that "god is involved in the universe."
Until you do, you're simply talking out of your ass on a self-righteous pedestal.
You said there was evidence for god? Show me some concrete evidence for god.
I'd love to see it.
Till then, simply being a broken record claiming to know the "right" way to interpret a very old novel will only lose you whatever shreds of respect you have left.
Ansab, you're sorely mistaken. The spandex is argyle. Shame on you for misleading the masses.
There is evidence if you want to find it. No evidence, including God shaking your hand will do if you don't want to see it.
The universe itself speaks to a creator. You doubtless understand the delicate balance of forces in the universe which allow stars, planets, carbon and carbon based compounds to exist. What defined those forces?
A forum such as this in inadequate for a full discussion of the evidence of God.
Perhaps you would like to comment on your belief that there is no evidence for God?
I wonder how that statement would fare in the scientific world you're trying to parallel "evidence" for God to:
There is evidence for gravity if you want to find it. No evidence, including falling flat on your ass will do if you don't want to see it. Hrm. Doesn't work so well there, now does it?
The universe itself speaks to a creator. Really? I've never heard the universe talk.
You're saying that without some sort of anthropomorphized creator dude, everything would go apes---? We see "order" in the universe because our minds are trained to recognize patterns. It doesn't point to some big man issuing commands from up on high.
Also, since your beleifs clearly lie with the God of the Bible, the "beauty of the universe" falls far short of being any sort of evidence for that kind of claim.
I ddin't ask for a "full discussion", I asked for any evidence of God.
Burden of proof is on the positive claim. That'd be like asking me to expound on why there's no evidence for space monkeys flying around Alpha Centauri.
I've given two reasons as evidence for God. Neither are acceptable to you. As I said, nothing will be sufficient if you determine that nothing will be sufficient.
Actually, it works just fine there too.
Actually, they're woefully insufficient as any defense for your belief in the Christian God.
I could just as easily say "The beauty of the universe points to the existence of mystical obsessive-compulsive supermice, whose OCD drove them to create such great order in the universe."
Both statements are equally valid using the "beauty of the universe" argument. That's why it's utterly meaningless in defending your concept of God.
So what was your second reason? I don't see it in your above comment.
You've made presuppositions about god's existence being needed...but haven't given any reasons why you think that might be the case...much like the flying monkeys around Alpha Centauri, that just isn't evidence...
Therein lies the problem with rational discussions with people that don't understand the concept of rationality or objective thinking. Unfortunately in such cases it's not likely that the conversation will get far.
jpark, I sincerely hope that you grow to understand the problem with your "argument" (if you could call a simple presupposition an argument...no rational person would...), but either way, discussing this topic with you has proven to be a massive waste of time (yours, mine, and other's), and I think I'll have to bow out now. If you ever want to have a real conversation, drop me a line. I'd be more than interested.
Jack Huang,
You discount thousands of years of documentation by the Hebrew people with multiple instances of God's interventions. It is, of course, a vast conspiracy to deceive.
You discount the evidence in nature itself. It is, of course, merely a chance happening despite the huge improbability of the universe.
That covers about everything, and none of it will be acceptable to you.
You mean the Bible? I'd love to see how you're going to ever begin to use concrete evidence to support all the fantastic claims in it. Man, if that's all concrete documentation, I guess the Greco-Roman legends must all be historical fact, as well.
There is some evidence that the Bible is loosely based in history. But, to take the leap to "everything in the Bible is absolutley true" is like saying that because there was a Trojan war, Achilles' body was whisked form the battlefield by the hand of a goddess, just like it's written in The Iliad said so. Don't make me go into Greek legends about sunrise and sunset. That'd just be embarrassing for you.
No, I told you why what you said isn't even the merest glimmer of "evidence in nature." It can be used to support absolutely anything.
As for improbability, I have no idea how you're going to measure that, but it exists now, which means it happened regardless of improbability. Good attempt, but you'll have to do better than that.
I'm truly sorry you're out of steam, because so far, you've proven yourself woefully inadequate in turning assertions into halfway-solid arguments.
I have thousands more of the Egyptians' testimony to the intervention of Ra, Amun, Horus, Set, Osiris, and that lot. Heck the Egyptians were "documenting" such "interventions" while the Hebrews were still figuring out that rocks weren't edible. Why are they wrong, and the Hebrews right?
Feel free to substitute Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, or any of the other myriad of religions that existed for millenia before there is any documentary evidence of a Hebrew nation, by the way.
As I've said before, it comes down to faith, not evidence.
My ability to type seems to be faltering today.
"... Achilles' body was whisked from the battlefield by the hand of a goddess, just like it's written in The Iliad [deleted]."
What it comes down to, jpark, is that your argument of intrinsic beauty contains no logical link to your conclusion of god. I hope you can at least see that "falling to the ground on your ass" links logically to "there is a force that surrounds matter and draws other matter towards it," whereas "the world is beautiful" has no such causal link to "god created the universe and gave us the bible."
If you can come up with such a link, and it manages to stand up to the scrutiny that such claims demand, I think we'd all be interested.
'The universe is beautiful' is not an argument I made. It is beautiful and frightening in many ways. The finely tuned values for the strong and weak forces, the weakness of the gravitational force, etc. is evidence for a creator.
You don't, of course, have to accept that as evidence.
My reason for commenting in this manner was to show that faith is not without evidence. There is no proof of God, just evidence. Evidence is useful if used, not useful if it is not used.
You haven't given us a reason for why we should accept that as evidence for a creator. That's the way it is. What about it makes it evidence for a creator? That it could have been any of an infinite number of other ways isn't much of an argument. It could have been completely random chance that we arrived at this particular configuration.
Why? You have a statistical sample of one universe to judge by, so the argument from statistics is not compelling in the least.
And of course, there is the more important lurking question: if the universe is so damn complicated that it requires a Creator, that Creator is at least as complicated. Who created him? If he requires no Creator, then perforce the Universe we see also requires none. That's not to say that there isn't one, but it does make the "evidence" you purport look an awful lot more like post facto rationalization rather than proof.
As I have already noted numerous times, I don't expect any evidence to be acceptable to an atheist. You have already decided that the evidence in existence is discountable.
I might challenge the existence of quarks. After all, no one has ever seen one and the evidence for their existence is spotty. If I say I don't find the evidence convincing, you can continue to tell me that the evidence is convincing, but I won't be moved because I have already decided it is not convincing.
It serves no purpose to continue to present you with evidence of God when you have already decided that he does not exist.
But I am not an atheist, per se. I'm agnostic. I don't believe the concept of God is provable within the sphere of human reason, and that belief, or lack thereof, is ultimately a matter of faith. You really have done nothing to disabuse me of the notion, as I've heard it all before and the gaping logical flaws remain.
The concept of God is not provable (absent cooperation by God). But it is possible to believe in the existence of God based on the evidence of his existence.
But you've given evidence of the existence of either magical transdimensional all-powerful sentient Jello shots, some sort of single anthropomorphic creator dude, or the Divine Six-Antlered Creator Elk.. or none of the above, or all of the above!
Choices, choices!
Personally, I like the trandimensional sentient Jello shots idea. I'm gonna use your evidence to support that one. Thanks!
You're welcome.
i'm just a little sad seeing so many sardonic comments and self-righteousness. i'm not really seeing much openmindedness on anyone's part so far with the exception of Belarius and maybe a couple others.
theist says: blah blah evidence
atheist says: whatever, that's not evidence
...repeat...
they're both right, since all this is subjective anyway. we all see and interpret the world, science, historical documents, works of fiction, etc in our own way. we see things different. i appreciate the desire to discuss, but so far this doesn't look like much of a discussion since both sides have foregone conclusions.
You have given no evidence specific to a god, much less the Abrahamic.
Go for it, but no one's trying to justify totalitarianism on the basis of the Charmed Quark.
Not yet.
There's a chance this is simply dragging the discussion deeper into irrelevant minutia, but you aren't really providing evidence. You're presenting reasons, certainly, and as I say elsewhere in the thread, reasoning is never self-evident because it operates on assumptions that others may not share. Which is why trying to argue either side of this debate with logic is a waste of time: my a priori can't beat your a priori, and visa versa.
I think we're at least somewhat on the same page in this respect:
But the same time, I think there is such a thing as good and bad argumentation. Good reasoning (a) doesn't rely on contradictory assumptions at different points of the argument and (b) can articulate reasons for why the assumptions are themselves well-founded. This is where science find tremendous strength: it approaches a problem from every angle it can, reinforcing a general finding with a variety of different arguments about diverse evidence. Where science can't delve, then, is the set of questions for which no evidence at all is (or can be) available.
My point is that saying "it's all subjective" can be something of a trap, because it doesn't excuse bad (i.e. internally inconsistent) reasoning.
I think the problem here is there seems to be two distinctly different definitions of the word evidence being used. jpark seems to be using the word evidence as a synonym for signs or affirmations, whereas everyone else uses the word as tangible proof. Even the slightest differences in interpretation or definition can cause this type of perpetual argument. If everyone can agree on the meaning this thread might be more rewarding.
Great article. Just what we need: some cold reason and not heated up ranting. Particularly good point about anti-something. Although I think that atheism (as I already stated somewhere else) has to put an anti-theist face in order to prove a point, and to be recognizable in (very often black and white) public and political debate.
Belarus Welcome. I was about to quit this article because all I read was faith based arguments on both sides. Thanks for some realism.
There is a core issue here. Science says the begining happened outside known natural laws. Religion agrees. The debate is on which type of laws then applied, there being no evidence either way. Present knowledge can not offer proof either way.
Logic mandates agnosticism which can lean either way but must be open to being wrong to be logical. Your first paragraph would also apply if God caused the big bang then ceased interacting with the universe. That is Deism.
Those who do not pretend to know everything about God must fight against those who insist upon enforcing their Santa-Claus-for-adults brand of religion.
Great seed Henry,
Also a great reminder for me. I sometimes find myself awash in the anti passion. I must remember this article as a sort of Mission Statement for myself. My Freedom not to believe is just as valid as others Freedom to believe. The article quotes Dr. King perfectly. Thanks Again Buddy...
No problem. I feel the same way.
Henry VII
Atheism denies the existence of any supernatural power. That is rational if you have an explanation of the beginning that could happen under natural laws. As far as I know science has no proof or even evidence of how the beginning began. Saying there is no proof of any god is not relevant. With no proof on either side being an atheist is irrational. Agnostic maybe, but not atheist.
No.
Atheism doesn't believe in the supernatural because there is no evidence of the supernatural. All atheists would change their positions if presented with adequate evidence. Agnosticism gives equal credence to the existence of god, despite the lack of evidence. I am not agnostic to the existence of unicorns, so why be agnostic to the existence of gods?
You are again dodging the real issue. There is no evidence or proof that a beginning under natural laws is possible. N O N E . You are taking the mirror image view of a creationist; firmly believing a dogma that can;t be proved or disproved. There is no proof of a divine creation or a natural creation so your absolutist position is irrational.
The unicorn adage is old and useless. I could prove pigs don't fly but that doesn't disprove flying airplanes. You are an extreme fundamentalist in your belief in natural creation and like all fundamentalist of any dogma you aren't willing to even consider any other possibility. A rational person is open to either possibility until one is proved to be true.
Yes, there is. The Big Bang is a rather good natural theory of the beginning of our universe with a lot of evidence behind it. Even if you don't acknowledge that it's "proven," it is a rationally defensible possibility, which is all that's necessary to make it rational to be an atheist under your terms.
And even if there were no decent natural theory for the beginning of the universe, it still wouldn't make atheism irrational. The assumption that in the absence of a good natural explanation one must invent a supernatural explanation in its place is the irrational position. It's a textbook argument from ignorance.
The Big Bang is a fairly solid explanation of how the universe began, though we don't know how the Big Bang started. There is still room to figure out that one, but there is no evidence to say that something supernatural started it. Plus what you're arguing is "God of the Gaps", which is a stance that most modern theologians don't take up anymore simply because if science ever did come up with the origin of the big bang (and all the other scientific anomalies which people attribute to God), and they probably someday will, the argument then collapses. In addition, saying that there is no explanation for how the world begins or there is a clear designer is one thing, but taking that and saying that the Christian God (or Jewish or Muslim God) thus exists still requires a leap of faith. Unless your a deist, a natural design argument can only get you so far.
Be clear on this. I am not arguing for the existence of God.The big bang was not the beginning and there is no evidence to support. The most often cited "evidence" is from 500 million years later, CBE. One scientist who wrote on this, I think Hawking, said " we do not and cannot know what happened in the first split second of the big bang. Unless he has been disproved, there is no evidence for the beginning.
And N O N E that it was caused naturally. So how, except on dogma, do you exclude either?
It's not. What went bang? Nothing? If something existed, the big bang was not the start. You still have no proof or evidence of the start, so absolute atheism is irrational.
Your view is from ignorance and dogma, not fact. You are inventing a "natural" cause in the absence of a proved supernatural one. That is your only basis.
I'm not saying God exists or does not. You are saying absolutely that the beginning was natural. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? ps A non-falsifiable theory is not evidence but only a guess at a possibility.
What dogma would that be?
When it comes to creation, my answer is "I don't know".
That, to me, seems more rational than creating a god to blame it all on.
"I don't know" does not exclude the possibility of a supernatural something. I can not prove nor disprove supernatural anything. But that is not a rational reason for faith in something no one can possibly know.
.O.K.,
Not knowing the beginning, I look at what we know so far. I am open to new theories for which there is evidence. What I refuse to do is fill in all of the gaps with a god simply because there was a plagiarized book about it millennia ago.
I agree with you that a Big Bang could not have been the absolute beginning. As it stands it might be impossible to know what was the absolute beginning. I think you can move forward, though. I don't think you have to know for sure how the universe began to have a belief or not in the existence of God. It comes down to faith.
You couln't be more wrong.
Please see Adam's The Nature of Science - Why Gravity is "Just a Theory"
No, I exclude supernatural explanations because there is zero evidence of anything supernatural ever existing. The whole concept of there being a division between "the natural and the supernatural" is based on the fact that we don't yet have natural explanations for certain things, not because we've ever observed anything that is not natural. As far as I'm concerned we live in the natural world, the natural is all there is, and the "supernatural" doesn't exist, because there is no evidence of it whatsoever.
1. I say nothing absolutely. There are no absolutes in science or in skepticism. 2. Where is your evidence that any sort of "supernatural beginning" is even a plausible possibility?
Kevin Burkholder...
You fail to point out that your reasoning applies to both sides. As I said I don't defend either view. I don't know is also no reason to "invent" a natural cure that was outside natural. Just as irrational.
Kevin Burkholderps
I will read that later. A theory does not prove anything, can't. It explains how and why something happens or could have happened in the past based on our knowledge today. Newton proved gravity exists, not by theory but by fact. As to the beginning, string, multiverse, quantum, all are theories of what could have happened but until an apple falls from that theory, there s no proof.
No, I exclude supernatural explanations because there is zero evidence of anything supernatural ever existing. The whole concept of there being a division between "the natural and the supernatural" is based on the fact that we don't yet have natural explanations for certain things, not because we've ever observed anything that is not natural. As far as I'm concerned we live in the natural world, the natural is all there is, and the "supernatural" doesn't exist, because there is no evidence of it whatsoever.
I'm not saying God exists or does not. You are saying absolutely that the beginning was natural. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?
1. I say nothing absolutely. There are no absolutes in science or in skepticism. 2. Where is your evidence that any sort of "supernatural beginning" is even a plausible possibility?
Sorry, hit wrong tab.
You need to understand logical fallacy. First I don't say God exists. That is irrelevant to the issue that atheism is illogical.You basically say God has not been proved and that we know of nothing that is not natural. So what? Science says whatever happened in the beginning happened outside all known natural laws. We have N E V E R observed anything that happened outside known natural laws, so by your logic both supernatural and natural are excluded for a cause of the beginning.
"God does not exist" Or do you mean maybe he does? You can't have it both ways. seems absolute to me.
You are exactly right. On both sides it comes down to faith, either in God or science. The trouble is that the atheist view will not accept that their belief is just as much on unproved faith as the deists.
O.K.,
Science does not prove anything, can't. But to characterize scientific theory as "only a guess at a possibility" is either disingenuous or uninformed.
I don't recall anyone doing that.
Danny McGee's point (#7.11) that there is "zero evidence of anything supernatural ever existing" in comparison to what we know exists naturally is valid. The same can be said in regard to "faith, either in God or science". There is zero evidence for God. Plenty of evidence for science. It is not an equal "faith".
Now you are being dislogical. Step by step.
Science can't prove anything so where is the logic in asking for proof of God.
To label religion as irrational when science has no answer is the definition of ignorance. You are sayint they have to prove their faith but you don't have to prove yours. Fallacy.
Steady state, cyclic, heliocentric, all invented scientific dogma.
Exactly equal to "we know of nothing that happened outside known natural laws, yet inventing this exception is said logical to explain natural beginning.
Irrational beyond belief. The topioc is the beginning, not God or science. Please give me one iota of evidence for a natural beginning, that is not faith but that can be checked out.
I, for one, am not asking for proof of God. Evidence would be good.
Just because an answer is not available does not make inventing one rational (I think I said something similar earlier). I have no faith in a non-answer. I just don't have an answer. To label religion rational just because science has no answer is the definition of ignorance.
That there is overwhelming evidence of nature and natural laws and zero evidence of anything supernatural would, to me, give more credence to nature over super-nature. But I could be wrong.
As I said, I don't discount the possibility that creation was the result of something supernatural. That does not mean that I would characterize that supernatural something as a "God". Nor would I build an entire religious belief system based on that possibility.
There have been thousands of gods through our history and as many belief systems. That the beginning may be the result of a supernatural occurrence does not inform anyone as to which god or belief system is the "reason".
I again point you to Adam's article as to "science can't prove anything". That does not invalidate science nor make scientific theory a guess, dogma, or faith. I have no faith in science. I have a certain level of trust.
There isn't any evidence of any kind about what existed before existence. Most agree that there can't be any, by definition. The position that God created the universe is a matter of faith automatically because no evidence exists or can exist. That the universe exists isn't proof that God exists, any more than it is proof that God doesn't exist.
In practice, science doesn't specify one way or the other. When science cannot answer a question, science says "this question falls outside the realm of questions we can make theories about." And science has very clearly specified on any number of occasions that it cannot make a ruling on God's existence, because God is not a falsifiable proposition.
What science can do and routinely does is demonstrate that specific claims made by theists run contrary to available evidence. The Earth is not the center of the solar system, despite dogmatic claims to the contrary. The Earth is not flat. The Earth is not 6,000 years old. Science has made persuasive arguments that support the evidence better than the dogmas it overturned on these topics, and continues to refine its arguments as new evidence becomes available. Wise theists have also refined their arguments, because they have recognized that dogma is, ultimately, subject to human fallibility.
Since wise theists understand that there is no contradiction between science and God (indeed, that science is probably the best way to understand God's creation), then casting the battle as being between science and God is silly. The real battle is between science and dogma, and dogma routinely comes out the loser (from an evidenciary point of view) when the two are in conflict.
Belarius Now YOU disappoint me.
You skipped a stage or two. Before the big bang was a trillionth of a second of explosion/expansion where known natural laws did not apply. Before that was a singularity in which known natural laws did not apply. Prior to that is before existence. Therefore also the the position that the universe came to exist naturally is a matter of faith automatically because no evidence exists or can exist. That the universe exists isn't proof it exists naturally or doesn't either.
QUESTION?
Do you then know why so many then ask the religious to present proof that God does exist?
Again you disappoint me. Geocentric, then heliocentric emerged as scientific, not religious theories. Flat earth was also a scientific observation and is mentioned in no religious book whatsoever.
I agree that religion and science complement each other and there should be no conflict.
On dogma, how the beginning happened is dogma on both sides, not just one and wise people of science and religion should admit that.
Kevin Burkholder
True, exactly as it would be for a natural beginning.
When you admit the question of a beginning can't be answered then it is ignorant to label one of two possible answers as ignorant. To label religion as irrational when science has no answer is the definition of ignorance
Just because an answer is not available does not make inventing one rational (I think I said something similar earlier). I have no faith in a non-answer. I just don't have an answer. To label religion rational just because science has no answer is the definition of ignorance.
AFTER the big bang, not before. Before science admits it does not and can't know. What happened after the big band in no way can be used as proof of what happened before, which science admids was outside natural laws.
Your first sentence is logical. God by definition is supernatural. If he created the universe it is highly he would let people know his rules.
And how many wrong scientific theories have been invented? Does that disprove quantum mechanics?
As many have trust in God. Again, if science can't prove or disprove God, then how cany any atheist require the religious to prove God-which science can't do- BEFORE atheists will stop labeling them ignorant. By this test, atheists would be ignborant because they can not prove a natural beginning.
No honest scientist would say we "can't know".....nor have I ever read anything by a respected science or peer reviewed publication about "admitting" that anything before the big bang "was outside natural law". Considering the big bang isn't considered terrible solid by many scientists in the first place..it's simply one of many current theories. However, even if what you say was 100% true, it still doesn't mean we should MAKE @!$%# UP to explain the origin of the universe. We should still be LOOKING for those answers, and I'm sorry, but religion is not in it for the search for truth, so regardless of the existence of god or not (nothing in science can ever be for or against the notion of god, being not a natural process or phenomenon), using baseless religious claims about the orgin of the universe does nothing to get anyone closer to the truth, even if they are RIGHT.
The "known natural laws" bit always trips me up. To me, that phrase means very little. There are either known natural laws that we know apply, or natural laws that we have yet to discover/define. It's relatively unimportant to the big picture to determine if the laws that applied a split second after the alleged big bang were natural or not. It is likely we won't know for sure because we will (hopefully) not recreate those conditions on that same scale any time soon.
Re: 7.16
Just to be perfectly clear, I was saying that belief or dis-belief in God comes down to faith (in my opinion at least.) I don't think science, at least good science, comes down to leaps of faith at all.
Hawking?? or someone speaking for him said both can't know and outside natural law; and it is logical. Big bang= big explosion, parts scattered all over. Could all this be crammed back inside a mere point of something to see what it was like? Time did not exist? What natural law covers that?
If the big bang "isn't considered terrible solid by many scientists in the first place..it's simply one of many current theories"; then doesn't that mean scientists routinely MAKE $%!& UP to explain the origin of the universe.
What is the status of baseless natural claims that are just made up then discarded?
And I'm nopt arguing for God as creator but only that naturasl theories of the beginning have the same level of proof as religious one, in both cases N O N E.
I don't admit that the question of a beginning can't be answered - it just hasn't be answered yet.
It is ignorant to assume that there are only two possible answers.
To say that a beginning may be natural or supernatural is rational. To claim religion is rational because science has no answer is "the definition of ignorance". A supernatural beginning does not rationalise or even support a religion. Supernatural is "outside of nature", not necessarily "God" (in the religious sense) and definitly not a specific god.
Not proof but certainly lends credence to nature. Science has admitted the beginning was outside natural law? I didn't know science was able to make that determination.
No, but quantum mechanics has it's own evidence. One religion has no more evidence than any other. One God has no more evidence than any other (or none at all).
There's a difference in meaning between "trust" and "faith".
Most atheist don't, or, if they do, its because the religious claim the absolute existence of God. What atheist will do is ask for a rational, reasonable explanation of religion.
I might be more inclined to believe that if you cited a source of some kind, but since you haven't, I have to stand by my statement.
That entire paragraph misses the point completely. There IS evidence for the big bang. It explains the early universe quite well, but it does not give a complete picture, and so is not considered solidly proven by many scientists. It is however accepted as one of the best current models of the early universe to use as a means to test many aspects of physics, and is constantly changing as that testing brings up new information, or disproves some small aspect of the theory...that's what theoretical science does. It creates a theory to try to reconcile the things we know, and can test directly, with the things we cannot test directly...then goes about trying to see if the theory can be disproved, and in the process get closer to the truth.
There is no reason to "MAKE $%!& UP" in science, a theory is always tested against things we CAN know, and/or test directly in some manner. Faith on the other hand does the opposite, and attempts to fill in the gap of information we can't test for and ignores the need for a connection to testable reality, thereby making it both useless in rational discussion, and in a search for truth.
I know enough about the physics to know that I don't know the technical details of the Big Bang well enough to speak with authority. But I can say with some degree of certainty that there exists a point before which no one, scientist or priest, can speak with authority. What existed before the singularity (if anything) and how it came to be is the realm of the unprovable. Any scientist who says otherwise (or discusses the unfalsifiable as if it were certain) simply isn't being scientific.
That depends on how you define "gravity." I'm serious.
This might be remotely true if "religion" were simply limited to "God might have affected things before the Big Bang." I hope you're not so naive as to think that that is the totality, or even a significant chunk, of religion.
That would be true if they weren't disproven and accepted as false by the scientific community. Too bad they were. Next.
Actually, it isn't. The burden of proof is on the positive claim: "A large colony of giant blue space bunnies with laser eyes orbited Vega a few thousand years ago." Is making that statement exactly as rational as "A large colony of giant blue space bunnies with laser eyes most probably didn't orbit Vega a few thousand years ago"?
For the sake of your sanity, I hope not.
The same goes for any claim about god before the Big Bang. The burden of proof is on the positive, extraordinary claim.
By dictating a book to a bunch of Middle Eastern nomads. Right. That statement only serves to discredit God as the creator of the universe.
Feel free to show us how you can prove that any of the "other" religious beliefs are "wrong," and how your personal concept of God is the quantum mechanics of religion.
I'm very interested in how you'll manage this.
Last time I checked, Hawking wasn't infallible. I'd also need a sourced quotation to believe you on that statement, anyway.
Hurray for empty declarations of unsupported assertions!
Their status is, as you say, discarded. Your point?
Also, I can guarantee that any "natural claims" you've ever heard of were far from baseless, even the discarded ones.
Even if you weren't lying by claiming that you're not arguing for God as a creator, the burden of proof is, once again, on the more extraordinary claim. We have no evidence at all of God. There is an insane amount of evidence for natural explanations for phenomena.
Going by that track record, well, I think you know where this is going, yar.
Working in a machine shop gives some perspective on the Big Bang! In one shop we worked to tolerances of .00002. That was accomplished with lapping. I personally have worked to .00004 on a surface grinder.
The big bang has as one of it's tenets that all the mass in the known universe came from someplace smaller than a cubic micron. That is .00004 or less on a side. We would say "fourty millionths". That is a very small place.
It takes a lot of faith to allow that theory to hold any credence. Even if you can handle the concept of infinite density or what ever.
This is all stuff that i've read about the big bang, i'm not pretending to be a mathematician. But i do know that it all supposedly came from a verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry tiny little place!
For freedom to be enjoyable we love our choices. Some thinketh, as they
are!! If ( I am) to be alive in Christ, then He is my meat and drink,
I live to fulfill His Righteousness in my human form because I have conscietiously
received favour of the Lord, that I can truly say, with (Job) "Blessed be the name
of the Lord , He giveth (and) taketh away."
Jesus of Nazereth is Lord of eternal life, He is the son of God full-filled in our Christ
forms! The honour of eternal life is believing and understanding the simplicity of
God creating me as His Christ-Dennis self-expression in this world.
We transmit life or death!
Atheists are enslaved human beings who are predestined to experience the "wrath" of God in their hearts.
Even satan believes in Christ (Jesus) as He is NOT the God of the Living.
Atheists are sinners full of self-righteous indignation!!!
As for me, I will love and serve God in the Spirit of Christ!
Thank you for that completely irrelevant comment. Try reading the article next time.
and then we wounder why we start taking on the "anti-" stance...
Thanks, I love you too.
Re: 8.
Go home please and let the adults talk. Thank you.
"As for me, I will love and serve God in the Spirit of Christ!"
Sweetie, feel free to love and serve whoever you want, but this comment of yours doesn't contribute to this discussion. Not even as a provocation. Try sarcasm next time (or it is forbidden ?). Or some tricky questions. Or whatever else that is not just a usual and dull parrot-like preaching. A word of advice: if you want to covert an atheist to whatever you believe in, just try to use the same language. Language of common sense. OK?
Marked as Advertising, I suggest we use the reporting system as intended.
Sounds a bit like a Dalek, doesn't it?
EX-TER-MI-NATE!
You people are being rude. Have you read above the comments directed at religious believers.Claiming to be adults for you is a stretch.
Rude? Rude is spamming Newsvine with comments that have nothing to do with the article. You simply think we are rude because you agree with him.
I am out of this discussion and all future atheist/religion discussion. Thjey go nowhere, repeat the same tired things and don't inform.
Of course it goes nowhere. How could it?
It's a simple loop....believer says there is a god, atheist asks for reason, believer gives none....if the conversation continues it usually is full of random insults and irrelevant junk from both sides until the question of reasons/evidence comes up again, and the loop starts over. There is really no progress to be had in that form of discussion, since there is nothing to discuss.
Funny, I remember someone saying "Religion is the opiate of the masses."
.O.K., I have a feeling that most of us aren't actually welling up with tears right about now.
Faith is belief in something you know isn't true.
Belief is the wound that knowledge heals.
Good article, good seed.
Wheel
Did you even read what you just wrote?
That's rich. Isn't it about time you deleted all your articles again?
Spiff, I haven't deleted anything, but feel free to delete any of yours.
Yes OK, I read it and I stand by it.
Wheel, no worries. Not directed at you.
Excellent article. As a theist, I am encouraged by the more positive tone that is presented here. One question I had, however:
What is the rational basis for this "higher moral principle"? I happen to agree with the conclusion. However, if there is no rational basis for this principle apart from raw sentimentality, how long before it is rationalized away, as has happened so many times in the past?
Survival and advancement of the species. Living within a society. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.
But survival and advancement of other species is enhanced when the "weak and delusional" are eliminated.
The problem with this policy is the old slippery slope. If you actively and categorically hunt down weakness and delusion, you generally end up with a cycle of violence that doesn't have a way to define when to stop. There's both sociological evidence and evolutionary reason to suspect that diversity is actually something that strengthens society, even when that diversity tolerates weakness and delusion.
Also, the type who pursue these sorts of policies are generally delusional, sometimes wildly so. Hardly someone you want making judgments about delusion. ;-)
Elimination of the weak and delusional would only create another group of weak and delusional. Slightly less weak and delusional than the previous group. So we should eliminate them, and the next group of slightly less weak and delusional...
Then when there are only two left, the weak and delusional one can be eliminated.
My wife is sometimes weak and delusional :) but eliminating her would not help with my pursuit of happiness (well, some days it might, but overall...).
Henry VII said he shouldn't be agnostic about the existence of unicorns as why you shouldn't be agnostic about the existence of god... but Belarus's whole point is you should be agnostic about unicorns. As a practical example you could look at Euler's conjecture which although difficult to disprove, did turn out to be false and Fermat's Last Theorem, which turned out to be true. You really cannot be solid either way with unicorns. If you want to take this a step forward, you cannot even be sure of your senses or that logic is valid or induction is valid. It makes no sense, it contractory and it sounds like pure rubbish, but in the end, this relies on assumptions. All this stuff relies on so-called self-evident truths (faith) and for different ppl they find different stuff to be self evident, obviously you think so with the inexistence of unicorns. Part of Shermer's point was that skeptics have to realize that they cannot be too critical and still remain a skeptic.
I agree. I'm also technically agnostic about gorgons, gryphons, and giants - but I'm inclined to say they don't exist based on the existing evidence. When I see strong evidence for them, I'll reconsider.
That said, it is my hope that we will soon understand genetics well enough to be able to create unicorns, which will render this point moot.
J Park and Danny McGee,
May I please recommend a video called "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" It is a thoughtfully done report on the work of a group scientist, most of whom Phd's, many with 15 or 20 years of research.
There is a narrative woven throughout that is neither boringly technical nor condescending.
Names Like Dean Kenyon, William Dembski, Michael Behe Jed Kosko make appearances along the way. It is very enlightening if there is any "techy" or "scientist" in your soul!! These people are hardcore and they bring an enormous level of authenticity to this report.
They never seek to convert anyone, they simply report what their data leads them to conclude. The closest the come to that is when Scott Minnich (sp?) says something to the effect that "if the" the data leads us to the conclusion the there is a being with a metaphysical component to it so be it."
There are a host of high graphic animations to help explain what they are saying about the workings of such things as; mitochondria, messenger RNA and such as that.
I wish i could afford to send you a copy. It is extremely entertaining and easily (for the most) followed.
The narrative woven into the mix is clear and never dogmatic or anything but informative.
Here is a link
Behe brings credibility to nothing.
Well what about the rest?
BTW why sayest that?
Bill Dembski is about as credible on evolution as Bill Kristol is on Iraq.
I state that Behe has no credibility because the scientific community largely regards him as without credibility. Read any of his books, and it is clear that he is trying to wrap science around god - and it just doesn't fit. Micro-evolution happens but macro-evolution is impossible in his most recent book.
The other 99% of molecular biologists tend to be rational.
Behe is a pariah in his own department and at Lehigh university. See Here.
Why would they regard him favorably, clearly he is a thorn in their collective sides! He represents some people who have lots of data (maybe i shouldn't use the "d word" in such august company) that makes them squirm.
On two different occasions i've been able to sit uninterrupted with two different Ph.d's. They both were phenomenal communicators. Frankly i found them to be a bit 'ruthless" in simply following the data.
What about Dean Kenyon, has he also fallen from grace?? Nobody picked on him!
There's a link to a portion of the video on my page guys. Take a look, you'll have to cut and paste though!! Or just go to you tube and search Unlocking the Mystery of Life.
What have you got to lose?
Henry, i'm sorry to have troubled you, i should have remembered, the masses usually are right, just forgot, i won't let it happen again.
spiffie re 12.3 what's your beef with Dembski?
Indeed, it must be a vast oppressive conspiracy by the overpowering scientific hegemony.
It can't possibly be that his bulls--- can be torn apart by anyone knowledgeable about science who doesn't regard him as the gateway for making their religious beliefs sound scientific. Nah. Can't be.
Good Math, Bad Math makes a small hobby of fisking Dembski.
Here are three of the more relevant ones:
Thanks, guess i should have done more homework.!!! Way over my head!!
Well maybe here
http://www.illustramedia.com/
Who is Illustra Media? Aside from noting tha the first video featured here is "The Case for a Creator," NCSE did a good bit of digging back in 2003 about the group:
Why do they always hide in the secrecy of front organizations? They're always posing as entities other than themselves. That's got to tell you something.
As old a Moody Bible Institute is it surprise me, not at all, that they would have associations.
If your happy with the prevalent rhetoric, that's your choice, but you all don't strike me as that sort.
Give it a go guys.
Or here
http://www.illustramedia.com/
OK please cut and paste, that works i just tried it.
Just got to thinking, sections are on you tube!!
trying, really
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Je1GdGpsxI
cut and paste works!!!
The whole notion of a separation of church and science is itself a capitualation to the idea that they both cannot thrive, together. If, however, you believe that church and science can live in the same universe, obey the same laws, respect one another, then why must they be separate at all? Indeed, they should be anything but - but rather, should be a part of the same continuum. While it may be prudent, then, for the State to not recognize any one faith above any other, it does not then follow that the State should fail to recognize the importance of Faith, itself.
Don't know how we moved from this article to the Church/State discussion, but you are correct. The founders of the Constitution never envisioned a godless state. They themselves were not godless. They prohibited the state from establishing a religion (and therefore serving as a religion), but they recognized and protected the notion that the individuals who served in government would, in fact, believe in God.
Any religious state is automatically bigoted against all others. It's a matter of freedom and equality.
That is why the American constitution prohibits a religious federal government.
Unfortunately, many today think that means the people in government must not be religious.
They can be religious, as long as they do not expound on religion when in the capacity of representing the gov't.
Of course, then there are the ones who elgislate using their religion. That is truly dangerous.
No, I would argue that the freedom of religion only means that there will never be a state-mandated religion or denomination, such as the Church of England. The Church of England became a tool of the government and, as such, the founders sought to prevent that from happening again. The founders, however, didn't believe that religion couldn't or wouldn't influence decisions made by those in the government. Go back 100 years and look at all the references top government officials made to the bible, to God, and religion in general. It was pervasive. It wasn't until the last half of the 20th century that it suddenly started becoming an apparent crime to do so. The problem isn't when a Senator allows their religious beliefs to guide their decisions and choices; after all, chances are that was why their constituents elected them in the first place. The problem becomes when the government starts mandating which religion you must adhere to and how. Remember that there is always an option for relief if you feel that a piece of legislation crosses that line, and there are many laws that are not laws anymore as a result. The system works, given enough time.
For the record:
" God is the creation of the human mind - Rayganye."
Hen
>>>>the reason the democrats failed to win the 2004 election…
…was because Ohio 2004 was a rerun of Florida 2000. (And also because Kerry proved himself as big a namby-pamby as the fruitcake Al Gore. BTW--I voted for both of them so don’t get snippy. The other side was so much worse. Although, is there any way I can unvote for Holy Joe Lieberman…?)
====
Wow, I managed to scroll down to the comment window without slitting my wrists. Why I click on these Atheist/Religious seeds anymore is beyond me.
BUT, in spite of the YouTube-like comment thread, I am glad I read the article. I've felt for a long time that the "new atheism" is not the right way, though I think I can understand the reasons behind its genesis (ahem).
But the question I have always wondered, and which reoccurred to me on reading the comments, is why is science so misunderstood among the religious, especially in the US, and why is it perceived as such a huge threat to religion. The only thing I can think of is the high number of fundamentalists/creationists/biblical literalists in that country. If you're one of those, then science is a threat. But otherwise, I don't see why science and religion can't peacefully coexist.
Indeed. There is no inherent threat from science against the concept of a god, but if someone holds to a belief that contradicts widely believed science, then you're gonna have some issues. Sadly it seems the US has a large amount of people with just those sorts of beliefs, and rather than even attempt to understand the problem in reconciling them with science, they get on the offense and attempt to get their views into school classrooms, or on the defensive whenever someone actually wants to enforce the separation of church and state.
Fully agreed with both of you.
And I often wonder why religion is perceived as such a threat. It goes both ways and if you want to know why both sides became increasingly militant and fundamentalist, just take a look at someone like Hector Avalos over at Iowa State University. He was the department chair for the Religious Studies department and is widely known for his frequent attacks and so-called debates on Christianity as well as president of the ISU Atheist and Agnostic club. Many of them come unprovoked and do nothing but get the other side into a battle-ready and defensive mode. Or how about the number of times an atheist moves into a community he/she knows is a religiously conservative community and then starts demanding that the community starts to accommodate them. It has been things like this that has put the religious right in the US on the offensive in so many areas. Hell, it is part of what prompted the creation of the Christian Coalition which was so instrumental in the Republican elections in 2000-2004. Fine. So you don't believe in God. There is a difference, however, merely believing something and actively going on an assault against those that don't. Yes, both sides are guilty of this, but when one is pushed, sometimes the only response is to push back. Why is science such a threat to religion? Why is religion such a threat to science?
Here is the other thing: Not everyone cares about science, religious or not. It isn't important to them. Now, it might be important to you, but for many it just isn't. Why should the artist care about science? Why should the musician? Or better yet, why should line worker at the local plant, or the accountant downtown? Science is important to you because I would assume it is involved in your line of work somewhere, but for so many, it simply doesn't. And when science doesn't matter to someone, neither will finding a need to reconcile their personal beliefs with it.
Atheists have a problem when it comes to their reliance on rational thought and the scientific method: You cannot disprove the existence of God any more than the Christian can, through the scientific method, prove it. Further, the atheist might define a rational conclusion based on evidence derived from the scientific method, while the religious might define a rational conclusion based on evidence derived from personal experience. Example: the old saying, "There is no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole." Personal experience guides the religious mind and often provides all the evidence they will ever need. Again, atheism's response is usually to attack the validity of the experience or even denigrate the individual as crazy, "indoctrinated", "brainwashed", etc. And you wonder why atheists are viewed so negatively sometimes?
Religion has historically dwelt in the gaps of scientific understanding.
When we didn't understand why lightning cracked across the sky, why thunder echoed in our ears, or why the Nile flooded with such regularity, we created religion to explain such things.
Of course, it also provided a very tidy framework upon which to spread and enforce social law. Morality was given a piggyback ride.
All this is well and good if it did not try to stymie scientific endeavour. I'm sure we can agree that it has done plenty of that already.
I think you'll find that many vocal Christians do not need much encouragement to pop into battle mode.
I don't know who Avalos is, but I won't deny that there are militant atheists who seemingly go on the offensive unprovoked. However, I would like some evidence for your assertion that atheists frequently move into religiously fundamentalist areas purposely to stir up the hornet's nest.
I think you'll find that often, the simple "just live somewhere else" argument is much more difficult to implement than it seems. I doubt there are more than a handful of atheists who purposely make their own lives miserable by moving into a religious fundamentalist neighborhood. It's usually a lot more painful for the atheist than for the religious community. Also, I think it's most probably the case that demanding the community "accommodate" them can usually be translated to asking the community to "not harrass" them. There was a recent NYTimes article about such a clash (I think the harrassed family was Jewish).
Also, it's often the case that an atheist may underestimate the vehemence of his new neighbors, and move in not knowing the hornet's nest he's relocating to. Would you say "just move away" to these people? I think not.
Ever since they realized that people were starting to seriously question their ways, the religious right has always been on the defensive. I'm sorry, but the somewhat implied "stop picking on the religious right" argument seems to simply be an extension of the classic "po' wittle oppressed Christian" tactic, when in fact Christians control almost every part of every level of US gov't.
You're right, that when one is pushed, often a favorite response is to push back. But, who's been pushing for the last couple millennia? Atheists are only now beginning to hint at pushing back. Compared to how Christians have "pushed" through history, we're still baby-faced angels.
Indeed, and only now are some atheists beginning to lower themselves to the level of countless Christians throughout history.
Science is a threat to religion only if one believes that religion should be the end-all authority on every facet of life. Science is a threat to religion only if one believes that religion is infallible. Science is a threat to religion only if it questions or disagrees on things considered immutable in said religion.
Religion is a threat to science when it tries to (and even worse, succeeds at) supplanting science in explaining things in ways more dogmatic than descriptive and passing that off as just as legitimate as science. (That was convoluted, but I hope you followed me) Religion is also a threat to science when it tries to stifle scientific discovery simply due to disagreemetn between scientific results and religious dogma.
Sadly, more and more people in America seem willing to be sucked into ever-more-dogmatic and prohibitive religious beliefs.
Would you be fine with one of your friends adamantly believing that plaid-coated unicorns created the universe by playing divine music through flower-quilted bugles, and legislated a set of morals dubbed the The Edicts of the Righteous Horn? How about most of the people around you? They'll never encounter unicorns, and they'll never need to actually seriously consider the beginning of the universe, so you shouldn't care at all, right?
If you're not entirely fine with that, maybe you can see why rational atheists are bothered by religion's social influence. If you are still totally fine, I ask you this:
What if America's currency said "In Unicorns We Trust" and your kids had to recite "One nation, under unicorns, ..." at the beginning of each school day? Would you be at all bothered?
What if people kept telling you that you totally shouldn't be bothered, because it's "just unicorns," and what the heck is wrong with that?
Even though you may be able to shrug off each individual issue in detached debate, they inevitably build up. To me, and I sincerely don't mean this as an insult, because I consider all religions on this level, your religion should be treated no better than a belief in creator unicorns.
We're fine with this, as long as it's kept personal. Many, many, many Christians have done a piss-poor job of that so far.
The vast majority of us only find a need to even make any comments when such "personal" beliefs are applied to matters decidedly non-personal, which very definitely affect our lives.
I don't know of Hector Avalos but seems to me that a Religious studies course should include frequent debates. Whether they can be legitimately characterized as "attacks" and "so-called", I can't say but I would assume that any debate of Christianity would be so characterized by a Christian (as would any religion by its followers).
And there's a problem with an atheist being president of the ISU Atheist and Agnostic club?
Can you provide an example of such an occurrence? Should it be that atheists are only allowed to live in an atheistic community and not where they want to live like everyone else can? And should it also be that atheists shouldn't be "accommodated" (afforded their rights as citizens) by the community?
What exactly are the demands that atheists are asking to be accommodated by their community that you find so troubling?
True, but as Jack has pointed out before, I'm not the one making the claim. The burden of proof, or evidence falls on those making such claims.
I don't know what that is an example of other than an insult or marginalization of atheists.
Think about that and compare it to an equally damning sentence starting with "The Christian response is usually to...". Here's one...
"Why atheists are viewed so negatively sometimes"? The Christian response is usually because they are evil and have no morals. They are hateful communists.
I never said or implied that was a problem; actually, I used that to point out his beliefs. And these debates? Far from fair debates or even within the context of truly seeking to educate. They are mere excuses for him to lash out (he used to be a pentecostal minister). A religious study debate, as you suggest, should at least have the goal of informing or educating, neither of which he does. And even when he has lost a debate, and he has by a large consensus, he'll never admit that he has and resort to denigrating those that say he did. The funny thing is, he never debates or argues with any other religious group on campus.
Before I go any farther, I want to emphasize that I am not discussing any of these points from a personal perspective. I have brought up everything I have under the desire for discussion and some-level headed debate, not for personal vindication or the such.
That being said, my response would be that the atheist knows full well the community they want to move to. If they don't think it would be friendly, don't live there. Simple as that. That's no different than why I will never live in California. I simply don't care for the community there, nothing personal, I just find the community in the Midwest much more to my liking and it matches up better with my personality and beliefs.
Two comments about this. First, the one of the points of the article was that the "new atheists" (a group whose tactics I do not generally support) should be less antagonistic, so in this sense, you may have a point regarding certain (but not all) atheists' attitudes towards religion.
However, while science itself (not to be confused with atheism) is threatening to religion only if you take a literalist view of the bible (and then, only in a passive way), certain fundamentalist groups are directly threatening science, in that they are attempting to change how (and even if) science is taught in schools (mainly in the US). So in this sense, it's easy to see why this "new atheism" has arisen in the first place. The result is an escalating war of words that cannot result in anything positive (to whit this thread). In fact, I'm not sure why I'm adding fuel to the fire. But there you go.
First off, I'm not in the habit of insulting others, but a wee-bit touchy are we? This was an example of the power of personal experiences on people and their ability to trump any amount of reason or scientific certainty. Some of the most potent stories in history involve the life-changing power a personal experience can have on someone, good or bad. In the end, our personal experiences with the world help shape our beliefs, attitudes, and the way we perceive our world more than any amount of science ever can.
I don't know if you can declare this is to be universally true.
I'd like some sort of support for such a declaration, in any case.
Further, it's very easy to underestimate the antagonism of a group of people who play up the "Christians are the epitome of good and tolerance" angle.
Jack, I would never pull out the old, "we're being persecuted" crap. Honestly, any Christian in the US that feels like they are being persecuted needs to go spend some time in Iran or Egypt or China. Also, you are quite right that Christians probably pushed first. Here is how I see it: Christians were used to being the authority on all things for a very long time and when that started getting challenged, you got the push-back at which point the other side started pushing back as well. For the record, I strongly disagree with the fundamentalists who are wasting so much time and energy trying to get either evolution out of the public schools or ID into them. I also disagree that the only reason someone should vote for someone is because they claim to be a Christian.
On another note, an atheist cannot definitively say there is no God. They can say they believe there is no God, but they cannot say there is no God. Likewise, a Christian can only say I believe there is a God, but cannot say there is a God. The burden of proof lies with both parties, not either/or, and since neither side can provide this proof, the existence or non-existence of God will always be a belief, but it will never be a scientific certainty. The problems occur when either side tries to assert their belief into the realm of that certainty.
I agree, and I have been embarrassed more than once my people who claim to be Christians but show no outwards signs of such belief. They are hypocritical at worst, just plain ignorant of their own faith at best.
Also, yes, that an atheist knows the community they are moving to is a generalization and I apologize for making it. I think my bigger point here goes beyond just atheists, and perhaps can be better summed as, "Know the community you are moving into, if you don't like, don't move there, but if you do choose to move there, at least try to live in peace within the community and respect the established norms and behaviors." Of course, like you point out, some communities are not so friendly, unfortunately.
I appreciate your comments, jmack02. It's a refreshing break from the many fundamentalist voices I encounter in science vs. religion debates.
Cool beans. You don't know how many times I hear that ol' line.
I fully agree. I'm an atheistic agnostic: I do not believe that any religion is anywhere close to a good description of some creator being, if it exists.
Also agreed.
Yes, sorry, but there are atheists in foxholes.
You talk about natural law and physical law. These are important in this context, but the importance of legal law should also be considered. Jews as well as Muslims have tied religion to faith, claiming that laws made by man is in reality God's law. Christian law does not go beyond the ten commandments, other laws may be inspired by the Bible, but they are not as unchangeable as those presumed to be written by The All-mighty.
The Vikings did not confuse their religion with law, so that when the Norse mythology was replaced by Christianity, the laws survived, but were often dressed up to look Christian for instance by Christian ceremonies. I think it likely that English common law is based on the viking thinking, while the formal laws come from pre-Christian Rome. The indication I am basing this theory on are the words used, like "murder" (Norse) as opposed to "homicide" (Latin). In both cases we avoided the trap of having a legal system written on stone tablets without an edit option. Other words Norse and English have in common is thief, steal, lie, bride, sword, knife, axe, hang, die - and the names of the week days.
The comments on this thread increasingly bear no relation to the article. Here's a summary of what it says (ahem):
Dear Atheist,
Here's some advice:
1. When you stand against something make sure you also stand for something.
2. Make a positive contribution.
3. Realize that you aren't always right.
4. Don't be a dick.
5. Promote tolerance, not righteousness, as the higher virtue.
Are these really such bad pieces of advice? Wouldn't theists also benefit from this advice?
That needs not be true. When you believe "nothing", that does not mean that "something" like faith, needs to be replaced by a gaping hole. According to your argument, as I understand it, the atheist needs to defend this gaping hole. But nothing can also be truly nothing, a non-event, a non-apparition, I am complete. We do not need to produce an anti-religion, a creed of atheism. For my part there is no hole I need to fill, needing to be covered up with natural laws and science. These matters are stored elsewhere.
I see religion in a social and cultural context, some times in a historical context. It is certainly not the religious types that should deliver the premises for my relationship to religion. Compare if you will to a buzzing mosquito, it enters my conscious mind just long enough for me to swat it. A second later the episode is forgotten. Religious convictions are like that mosquito. I do know something about the life of mosquitoes, since they too are part of the great tapestry of our world.
Actually, I agree with you. Atheism is not an ideology, and many atheists fall into a counter-cultural trap where they can only define themselves in terms of their enemy. In defending the gaping hole, they end up standing for nothing. When I say that they must stand for something, I mean that an atheist must think through their alternative not just to God, but to the things religion brings to the table (mainly, ethics and morality). As is often the case, in trying to shorten the message as much as possible, I lost some of the meaning. ;-)
There are some excellent theories of secular morality (I recommend the writings of Robert Ingersoll for the historically inclined), and an atheist who wants to argue that society can succeed without exclusively depending on religion must be ready to fill that gaping hole.
Just and observation: It is interesting to see how the self-same religions that were there before, reappear in the former soviet countries. This is certainly true of Russia and the Baltic states. This is despite 70 years of repression - people don't go looking for something new. In China Buddhism is reappearing everywhere, those newly built "tourist attraction" style temples are actually being used for devotion. But this reappearance of former traits is also true of other things. Seeing the Baltic states develop their democracies these days, I am reminded that the people there learned about democracy last time 'round - while for instance Belarus lack such memories.
Well, I agree with this, though I don't personally know any atheists who would say that god definitely does not exist. Mostly, they will simply say that it makes no sense for them to believe in something for which they see no evidence.
Well said Peter,
We don't say God definitely doesn't exist because we can't prove it, the same reason we don't say God definitely does exist. No proof, no belief. And I don't know where these folks get that stuff about atheism being a religion, that's just a completely illogical premise.
I've actually met quite a few Eastern Europeans, and they'll tell you that religion didn't disappear during Communism - it went underground. The practice of various forms of Orthodox Christianity was very widespread - it was also very discrete. You can't beat faith out of people with a stick - at most, you can silence them.
Sure, Belarius, but imagine my surprise when my companion, a top brass Chinese policeman suddenly bent his knees in front of this rather gaudy Buddhist altar. I am sure he is a party member. Also the altar did not have the religious air we are used to in our Christian societies. Interesting how the communist authorities accept some religions, while not others, undermining them, as the Lhamas of Tibet. Control is the key.
When one travels through Europe one gets used to seeing the steeples, at least one in every village. In the Baltic states there is little of that, I suppose they got torn down. it is as though the landscape is missing something. Plenty of steeples and domes in the cities, churches survived as storage facilities and such. Here in Norway poverty was the main reason why the tiny wooden churches survived 900 years. They are museum pieces now.