Letters to the Editor
-
Here's a theory for you...
...Salon posts this sort of thing knowing how retarded it is. They know that it will generate a lot of responses and a lot of hits from people arguing all day. There are already 260+ comments! Happens every time.
People like this Paulson character won't exist in this country in another hundred years. It's a natural response to want to fight when your nonsense is under attack, and when there is now such a thing as popular atheist books, unthinkable even 50 years ago. It seems like there is a battle going on between religion and science only because the believers are making a huge, defensive fuss that they didn't need to even make before. Fewer and fewer people are attending church, and that's a fact. There will be a lot of talk of a "personal God", and then a "personal god", and then, well, "I believe that there might be something out there" and then "God? What for?".
-
ec
"On one point, John Haught is entirely correct: The "new Atheism" and its principle algorithm, the Scientific Method, is a philosophy, and requires the assumption that the world can be understood through observation. "
That is not correct. Science shows that many aspects of the world are understood through observation and subsequent analysis using logic and mathematics. It does not say anything about other things. It is not clear what the limits are.
-
You sure know how to get us going, Salon!
Well, I read/skimmed the article about John Haught becuase I felt obligated to see what his arguments were. Because I am interested in knowing the truth about things. If my thinking about religion is flawed, I want to know about it!
I saw the most wonderful quote recently: "Faith means not wanting to know what is true." [Nietzsche]
Anyway, I think the folks at Salon are both trying to be fair and balanced by posting an article like this, and also being very savvy. You know you will spark a torrent of letters with an article like this, don't you Salon? ;-)
I was really, really happy to read so many well informed, well reasoned letters on this topic. It gives me hope that there are a lot of intelligent people out there!
Thanks everybody!
-
Ok, how about enlightening us backward atheists?
Anonymous wrote:
The rashly arrogant, generally dumb-as-stumps and undereducated evangelical atheists who proudly strut their belief system as though it were an Ivy League Ph.D. without realizing its total philosophical bankruptcy
Okay, grandiose, pompous and enlightened god-boy, how about getting off your high horse and providing us heathen with your grand insights? Can you? After all, we are "dumb as stumps"?
On what basis is our position one of "philosophical bankruptcy"? Please elaborate, and do so at length. You can start by providing the necessary and sufficient conditions that support the existence of a deity.
Generally, godists, god-talkers, believers commit TWO logical errors: 1) affirming the consequent (stating that which they must prove, e.g. they need to SHOW a “soul” or "God" even has a sound epistemology and empirical basis FIRST; and 2) Ignotum per ignotius, or seeking to explain the not well understood by the less well understood.
In this case, human consciousness is identified with the “not well understood”, but the “soul” (not even defined properly) is surely the less well understood.
WHAT IS “soul”? What enables one to isolate its existence in some life forms, from others? What properties does it possess that uniquely differentiate it from normative human consciousness? If it is alleged to be “behind and running consciousness” then what unimpeachable evidence is there for it?
How or why are we "philosophically bankrupt" for asking these questions, then treating religion as trite tomfoolery when no decent answers are on offer?
If religion, god-belief were even minimally acceptable - as opposed to recycled codswallop - some sort of substantive answers ought to be available, what are they?
Now, so you know - my background is as a former Roman Catholic who attended Loyola University in the 1960s, and took courses in Theology, Metaphysics, Comparative theology, biblical exegesis and textual analysis, and Philosophy. In none of those courses did I behold an inkling of meaning or sense, only pedantic, self-referential foolsihness. Which is why I changed major to physics.
Now, great Anon, perhaps you can accomplish what all those profs at Loyola couldn't and tell me exactly what I need to process to avoid the fate of "philosophical bankruptcy".
-
The ugly truth...
is that society doesn't need religion or "faith". The whole "The divinity of Jesus is too important to investigate" crap was enough to convince me this guy is full of shit. I haven't read all of the responses, though I'm sure there are probably a few "Your all fools! Accept Jesus! Vote republican!" trolls on here. There always are with these things. But the traditional argument that society needs religion to prevent chaos simply doesn't hold water anymore. Most atheists are law abiding citizens who pay their taxes and go to work and donate to the Salvation Army this time of year so the idea that piety is needed for a "moral" society doesn't cut it.
Perhaps the reason "heathens" like Dawkins and Hitchens and the like are so appealing is because religion has become so unappealing these days. Most churches in America care more about your sex life than your soul and openly condemn policies designed to clean up your air and water and help the poor (you know, the people Jesus was most concerned with) and make healthcare more affordable. To be honest, I'm surprised they haven't lost more adherents just for those stunts alone.
When we look at those trying to do these things, most of them are not from the Jesus camp (or at least not the fundamentalist wing) but are those wacky heathens who couldn't see that Bush was God's representative here on earth. If the conventional excuse for religion (IE, that religion is needed to keep order in society) is not only no longer applicable, and in fact has been inverted where it actually is creating more problems then it solves, as I believe it is doing today, then perhaps it is time to openly talk of getting rid of it. If those on the other side want to talk about religion in the public square, then perhaps the need for religion itself is where that conversation should start.