Letters to the Editor
-
The skeptic
And by the way, the word "skeptic" is defined as "One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions." It stems from the Greek word "skeptikos," meaning "to examine."
A true skeptic is one who questions and seeks answers based on the evidence, and is willing to change his or her position if the evidence demands it. A dogmatic pseudo-skeptic is one whose mind is made up based on personal bias and the self-esteem-boosting need to feel "right." No amount of evidence will change it. Or in other words, someone "not predisposed to believe in these things."
-
Beato Saint Hume
What consistently cracks me up about Atheistic proponents is their act of reverence for others of the same mind. Whether it be Darwin, Hume, et al, the reverence for these thinkers borders on the worshipful. How is having David Hume as your "Hero Philosopher" much different than revering a saint or a diety? The irony has not been lost on me how many Athiests, Secular Humanists and Evolutionists decry and mock religion yet revere and worship other evolved thinkers and philosophers.
As fallacious and prone to mistakes as human beings have shown themselves to be over the past few milennia, why should one individual finally nail it as to why life exists and why we're here? Re-reading Mr. Wolpert's article, he has some interesting points, but the last half of the article comes across as, "Because I said so."
Another off-putting trait of most Athiests, Secular Humanists, and Evolutionists is the overwhelming sense of smug condascention that comes from most of their statements and interviews, even when trying to affect a casual air.
I agree that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, and agree with many of it's conclusions. However, this does not necessarily negate my belief in the possibility that events or activites can exist outside of our sphere of comprehension.
You can push the argument of humans as being nothing more than organic matter too far, and end up with Soilent Green and expendable human beings. No thanks.
-
Could someone explain
Where in the scientific method the notion is that "miraculous claims require miraculous evidence". This guy claims everything from telepathy to qi (chi) is bunk, but as everyone who has bothered to delve into the subjects knows, there does exist some scientifically verifiable evidence. Maybe not enough to convince the hardened skeptic, but enough to know that there is something worth exploring.
Even in Red China, the godless communists, are researching qi (chi, prana) and finding some interesting things. I wonder in 50 years, when China is running the world, what this research will yield. I guess scientists like Wolpert will still have their heads up their tails.
-
I've watched religion distort the human mind.
My extremely religious grandmother has had night terrors since she was a young woman. She imagines that evil demons are coming to get her, and she runs around her house screaming bloody murder and calls the cops. The most disconcerting part is that she believes these episodes are real, not imagined.
She was raised by a strict matriarch who ruled over her with an iron fist, and, no doubt, constantly exposed my grandmother to horrifying imagery of the consequences of sin at a very tender age.
As my grandmother ages, she has become increasingly trapped in her own personal hell. That's a sad way to leave this earth, and I have no doubt that her religious dogmatism is the driver of this tragic ending.
People who say that religion can be comforting always baffle me. I guess they weren't raised in fundamentalism of any kind and found a warm, fuzzy religion of their own free will. I suppose that's a good thing, but I will never overcome the damage done by the fundamentalism I was raised in.
-
A self-esteem cult
"...It's all selected, but it's still very frustrating for those few of us who see through all that."
And with those words, had_enough, you again confirm my theory that this dogmatic materialism/skepticism/nihilism is, above all else, a self-esteem movement. This is the school of thought:
"I don't buy into any of this God business, and since God is crap, everything supernatural or paranormal must also be crap. How superior I am to all the rest of you poor deluded slugs! Not only am I able to see through the illusions of religion, but I am clear-headed and courageous enough to confront the fact that our existence is meaningless and that we are chemical/neurological automatons without free will, built only to spread our genes. How evolved I and the few like me are! I pity the rest of you."
I'm not a believer, but I'm also convinced enough by evidence of the paranormal (which is not paranormal at all but a barely-understood aspect of our reality) to see that there is much we don't understand. Human arrogance compels us to think we have the answers. True wisdom lies in knowing we do not.
-
cosmo, cosmo, cosmo
tsk. tsk. You wrote:
And I'd like Mr. Wolpert to explain how--or even, *gasp*, the atheist's least favorite question: why?--evolution selected for those who found an answer to a question that has no meaning.
++++++++
Religion is selected because it's a great way to help insure that DNA gets into the next generation. If you know your evolutionary theory, you know that DNA does one thing only: replicate. That is its sole purpose. Religious humans are more likely to survive, reproduce, and get their DNA into the next generation. This is just elementary.
In every generation there are a few atheists. They are outliers. Evolution may be elegant, but it's not airtight. A few of us defectives show up in every generation, but we're hardly influencial, evolutionarily-speaking.
I'm not saying we inherit religion in our DNA directly. That'd be completely wrong. Rather, we inherit a distinct inclination, from birth, toward belief in the flying spaghetti monster, and cultural pressure does the rest.
I ask myself about the meaning of things daily, and then remind myself that there is no answer. That it's a stupid question. We are the functioning of molecules merely. Doesn't mean I can't enjoy my life, though. I do. But I don't fool myself about the nature of reality by camouflaging that reality with idiot belief. Idiot belief says there's a spirit in every cloud, every tree, every blade of grass. No different than saying Jesus died for our sins. Same deal. It's all idiot belief.
Actually, the idea of immanent "spirit" is slightly less stupid, since there is energy in every thing. But the elaborate theologies designed by humans are as fanciful, and wrong, as Ptolemy's theories of planetary motion. Those worked for the people who believed in them, but they were completely wrong in defining reality. Religion is the same.