Letters to the Editor
-
truth without proof
> But the idea that science alone
> can lead us to truth is questionable.
> There's no scientific proof for that.
This is such an odd statement. It seems to imply that "science" is some kind of strictly regulated methodology for finding truth.
All science has to say about "truth" is that you can't say something is true unless you have evidence that proves something is true.
So is Haught suggesting that we should be open to calling something true without there being any evidence that it is true...?
-
Talk about fuzzy thinking
This is one of the worst articles I have read in Salon. Steve Paulson allows John Haught to use hope, purpose, meaning and truth as if they were essential to life and love. No Pagan would need to use these terms - do elephants, mosquitos and roses need hope, purpose, meaning and truth to live? Are these life forms 'nihilist' because they don't need religious morals? And no scientist would consider these to be scientific words. Truth? Hope? These are fun philosophical topics, like the number of angels dancing on pin heads, but are not essential to science.
Of course 'consciousness' is central to Haught understanding of humans. And he implies that no other life forms have consciousness - convenient for him but with NO data or support.
It is also amusing that Haught condemns Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris because they "talk about the most fundamentalist and extremist versions of faith, and they hold these up as though they're the normative, central core of faith" and then he attacks only the ideas of the most extreme scientists. For example, he uses an example of a scientist (Weinberg) who writes a book wondering if science might find god and in this article that becomes SCIENCE.
Haught 'believes' in a drive toward greater complexity - a nice religious belief but I doubt science has found that theory has much scientific support. And his belief in an "intensification of consciousness" seems to have little empirical support - since we have no shortage of wars, cruelty or other basic human behaviors.
And this quote is too religious to even need comment - "And we should expect -- and hope for -- the universe to keep becoming "more"
Or this, stating that we all believe something - "If you understand purpose as actualizing something that's unquestionably good, then consciousness certainly fits. It's cynical of scientists to say, off-handedly, there's obviously no purpose in the universe. If purpose means realizing a value, consciousness is a value that none of us can deny." I would certainly request a definition of consciousness and some support for consciousness being unquestionably good (much less exclusive to humans).
Finally, the closing paragraphs about religion are worthy of a freshman all-night bull session.
Happy Solstice.
-
Why the Majority Will NEVER Be Atheist
Wow, this thread seems to really have struck a chord with a lot of people. I see no good reason to be upset about any of this. Regardless, the one thing that atheism doesn't have and never will have that religions do is a BOOK of laws, stories, doctrines, etc. from a SUPERNATURAL source. You could put all the atheist beliefs in a book together, but it will always be from man, never "dictated" from God or some other higher being (Bible, Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.)
You don't have any text or organization because you believe in NOTHING. Believers will ALWAYS reign over you and that makes you mad. Sorry guys.
-
the anger is familiar
The anger I sense from the posted letters remind me of when I was an atheist. When I had to think of religious thought, it invoked anger in me, like "what a pack of idiots that they are brain-washed by a man-made idea of god" etc and so forth.
What drew me away from being a declared atheist wasn't a church, holy book or a person. I was enrolled quantum mechanics at Bucknell University and one day in class I was struck with the thought that science IS exactly like a religion. Measuring and quanitifying probabilities that sub-atomic particles, which is taken on assumption that they exist at all, may or may not be a particular state seemed a lot like .... faith.
That was years ago and faith has become important to me. There is a creator. How the creator made the universe, that is something for the scientists to figure out. If Darwin is correct and I would say he is, thank you Darwin for the knowledge. But when answering as to why the creator made the universe, that is something that is found personally.
Sorry if I pissed off anyone. I am sure I did, atheists and christian fundamentalist are so easy to predict. Those groups are more alike than they even know.
-
Waiting for research results....
It's true that I am no expert on theology. When the subject of theology produces its first result, I will endeavor to become informed about it. In the meantime I will stick to physics and mathematics.
Good luck with your deep research, Dr. Hought. Let me know if you ever get anywhere with it.
-
@katandmoon
re: "...you can't deny the basic truth: HUMANS created religion..."
Last time I checked, HUMANS created science.
And logic.
"Dialectic, which is the parent of logic, came itself from rhetoric. Rhetoric is in turn the child of the myths and poetry of ancient Greece. That is so historically, and that is so by any application of common sense."
-Robert M. Pirsig
-
Must Theologions Always Use Wooly Thinking
I'm glad Salon asked Haught why we can't have hope without God. Haught's answer, alas, was evasive and unsatisfactory.
I'm an atheist, and I certainly have hope. For instance, I hope I'll tell my wife and son that I love them tonight. Unless I get into a fatal car accident on the way home, I will. So, the chances are really good that my hope will be fulfilled. On the other hand, I hope I'll win today's MegaMillions lottery jackpot of $163,000,000.00. The chances of that are about the same as the chances that I will be involved in a fatal car accident caused by a great white shark crashing through my windshield. So, my hopes are not particularly high. Still, I have hope. Fortunately, I'm fairly good at dealing with disappointment.
That ability, the capacity to have hope and cope with disappointment is an important part of becoming an adult. Unfortunately most adults are unable to mature to the point that they can successfully cope with the fact that they are not immortal. The important thing to learn about being able to deal with disappointment is that it doesn't mean that one disappointed, it just means that one can continue to function and have hope despite that disappointment.
My loved ones and I must eventually die, just like everything else. That makes me sad, but it is inevitable. I must accept it and move on. I must instead remember that there is no reason that I must be here. The mere fact that I exist, that I am aware of my existence, and that I can find joy in so much of my existence is a serendipitous thing.
Serendipity in nature goes hand in hand with capriciousness. That is why bad things happen to good people. We cannot have everything. That is natural, unavoidable, and okay. Science cannot today explain everything. It may never be able to explain everything. We may not be capable of understanding everything. That doesn't make science bad, or require us to look elsewhere for answers. It merely requires us to cope with the disappointment of not having all the answers, and to have hope that we will learn more with these precious brains that we have by chance evolved.