Letters to the Editor
-
Anonymous -- Permalink Tuesday, December 18, 2007 03:40 PM
Insults do not constitute an argument.
But they do confirm religious claims of 'morality' to be a fraud.
The religious typically resort to insults instead of valid argument because, after all, they lack any valid argument.
Next.
-
ScottsValleyBob
In a universe full of infinities, we have absolutely no idea about virtually anything.
Other people lack your ignorance, bob.
You were probably unaware of that.
-
Not So Fast
"The traditions of religion and philosophy have always maintained that the most important dimensions of reality are going to be least accessible to scientific control. There's going to be something fuzzy and elusive about them. The only way we can talk about them is through symbolic and metaphoric language -- in other words, the language of religion."
I'd say that the modern atheist movement is a reaction against religion of a different kind than you define here. The problem lies with religions that have nothing fuzzy or elusive about them. The folks that brought us 9/11 do not believe that their religion is a metaphor. And the Christian fundementalists here in the US would not either.
Sorry, I'm not buying what you're selling here.
-
It's not a creed, its a method
I could only read so much of this. When I got to this, "It's(science) a deep faith commitment because there's no way you can set up a series of scientific experiments to prove that science is the only reliable guide to truth. It's a creed." I couldn't go on.
If there are other reliable methods for inquiry other than the scientific model I would like to hear about them. Mr. Haught doesn't offer any, just this vague comment.
The scientific model isn't a creed, it is simply a method.
As I told some Jehovah Witnesses once, if some one comes up with a better explanation than evolution for life I hope to be the first to embrace it. Religion isn't that explanation. It is simply an antiquated system founded on myth and superstitution. The only reason it endures is because of childhood indoctrinations. Mr Haught is still trying to reconcile his brainwashing as a child with the new reality. Most agnostic and and atheist have gone through those same struggles and we empathize with him.
My favorite quote is from Stephen F. Roberts, "I contend we are both atheist, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
-
Why must it be one or the other?
Many theologians find in the theory of evolution evidence of a Creator's magnificent self-disclosure, and the research of many scientists (one of many examples: Nobel Physicist Charles Townes) lead them to ask the deeper questions of life, why are we here, why do we suffer, what makes our life meaningful, and so on, that lie outside the realm of science.
The overlapping region between religion and science beckons people with open minds seeking spiritual and scientific truths. Is it not possible that wildflowers of insight will bloom on it if nurtured with humor and humility?
-
Atheism...
...is not a system of beliefs, but a result of a certain system of beliefs. Chief among these beliefs is that reality is real and fantasy is not. We try to understand the world via science, which is obviously the best tool we have for understanding how the world works, how it's put together, etc. This is not a matter of opinion. Mencken had it right. I know it sounds rough, but there is no objective rule that says we have to split hairs about the relative merits of different belief systems.
Fine, say an atheist has faith. We have faith that rigorous, objective analysis of reality is the only clear window through which to look at the world. It's a sort of faith which doesn't require a leap, and if you still insist on calling that "faith", well, I don't know what to tell you. I guess you just don't want to disturb the house of cards meticulously built for you.
Sound elitist? I guess I can't argue it isn't. So be it. You should try it though. It requires nothing but intellectual honesty and genuine curiosity about the world.
Join the fold! Convert to this kooky, nutty sect of ours that attempts with humility to understand the world through proven, tested, rock solid methodology.
Well, maybe not always with humility, but I'm sure you can understand our frustration.
Can you?
-
ScottsValleyBob
We have hints, of course, and have discovered that time and space are infinite.
Re Stephen Hawking: the facts suggest that the universe is finite but unbounded, and not infinite as you suppose. If the Big Bang theory is correct then time cannot be infinite either, but has a definite beginning. Keep in mind that the job of the purveyors of your bible-school 'education' was to strictly avoid teaching you anything about science.
For me it is not too hard a stretch to imagine a universe full of powerful beings having fundamental interests in life, even our life.
You'd think we'd have seen one of these "powerful beings" if the universe were "full" of them, but we haven't.
We don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, either. You, of course, are free to believe you're the Czar of all the Russias if that's what you want.
By the way. How are you with the Tooth Fairy?
-
@ benthead
benthead wrote:
if you want to believe these procedural methods are the only operations in the universe that can apprehend meaningful ideas, go right ahead. But I dare say most scientists (or at least theorists of science, and definitely historians of science) would not agree.
Well, given that recent surveys (e.g. 'New Scientist') have disclosed a majority (> 60%) of scientists are atheists I would have to disagree. Physicists like Steven Weinberg most assuredly would dispute there are any "alternative modes" that can apprehend anything meaningful.
Let us begin with basics. The most basic basis of meaningfulness is the ability to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for the entity claimed. A necessary condition is that which must be in place for an event or entity to occur-exist.
For example, a car must be out of the garage for an accident to occur, and a hydrogen cloud must already be present in space for an emission nebula.
A sufficient condition is that which - if present - means the event MUST occur, or entity must exist. Thus, lack of brake fluid for the car on the highway is a sufficient condition for an accident, just as a nearby source of ionizing radiation (to the hydrogen cloud) is a sufficient condition for an emission nebula.
Now, what are the respective conditions for the existence of "God"? If religion cannot provide these, then it is meaningless and no amount of neologisms, or verbal manipulations can change that -whether from Haught, Eagleton or anyone else.
Terry Eagleton, an avowed atheist who knows his theology and philosophy, does a pretty good take-down of the "new atheists" in an article in the London Review of Books.
Sorry, but much as I like the London Review it is not a quality, prime source. If his "take down" were that convincing or great it ought to hbave appeared in a peer-reviewed paper in an established Journal of Philosophy.
When you get a citation on one, let me know. Until then, all Eagleton is doing is offering his own subjective ruminations and conjectures, and in a general mass media forum. Nothing to write home about.