Letters to the Editor
-
Is What All There Is?
I'm grateful for Dr. Haught's eagerness to separate the religious from the secular in matters of education and governance. I am happy to make common cause with him on these points. But beyond that, I can only marvel at the mesmerizing fog of words with which he preserves his state of mystification. To me what really separates the Abrahamic religions from everyone else he mentions -- the atheists new and old, the Buddhists -- is that the former have built a whole worldview around the fear of death. This I presume is what he means when he questions the "justification" for "hope" in an atheist worldview. The hope, my friend, is that we will save our species from people so maddened by the fear of death that they bring it raining down on us like a tropical storm. That's ambition enough for a thousand lifetimes. And "purpose" enough, too.
-
A rebuttal to Stormcrow's rebuttal
Stormcrow,
Haught's hypocrisy stems from the fact that after taking great pains to reconcile science and religion, he makes the lofty pronouncement that an event of such religious magnitude (the alleged resurrection) must not, indeed cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny. His argument is not that science is not yet advanced enough to "see" such an event, but that science as a method is devoid of religion.
As to your other point, sure, science may possibly one day be able to answer millions of questions that remain mysteries today. They may discover how the universe began, or definitively posit the reasons for the extinction of the dinosaurs. They may even be able to "prove" that J.C. actually rose from the dead (perhaps with some finely tuned time-traveling resurrectronometer?). I don't know about you, but I'm not holding my breath on that last one.
-
@walter_map
religion necessarily rejects factual reasoning, and is therefore dishonest by its nature, and is therefore immoral
Dude, chicks don't go for Randian stuff anymore... Plus, Mommy needs the computer, so close the porn windows and go do your homework. Clean the premises before you check them.
-
the abyss stares back into you
Atheists get angry because they are tired of straw man attacks against them.
Theists get angry also claiming they are tired of straw man arguments against them.
Both claim they 'know' the truths and implications inherent in the other.
Both sides use definitions no sane representative of the other side would use to make their own case, then cry foul when the same is done to them.
Everyone talks, no one listens - too busy explaining what the 'other' really means. Defining 'other' the way they truly wish they were - so that they can get a real good hate on. As opposed, in all likelihood, to simply being a neighbor, a face on the bus, the stranger that smiled at you. Actually listening, you run the risk of maybe understanding or even liking the person as a whole that you long to hate for a specific. And where's the territorial primate fun in that?
Why will the world still be a hateful place once the last priest is strangled by entrails, or when Kingdom finally Comes?
Because of us.
Serious argument depends on mutual respect, and this is often hard to engender when disagreements turn vehement. The social psychologist and game theorist Anatol Rapoport (creator of the winning Tit-for-Tat strategy in Robert Axelrod’s legendary prisoner’s dilemma tournament) once promulgated a list of rules for how to write a successful critical commentary on an opponent’s work. First, he said, you must attempt to re-express your opponent’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your opponent says “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.” Then, you should list any points of
agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement), and third, you should mention anything you have learned from your opponent. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism. I have found this a salutary discipline to follow– or, since it is challenging, to attempt to follow.
-Daniel Dennett
Pretty simple. And Theists, you must admit an Atheist has expressed a pretty sound moral principle...
And Atheists, before you feel smug and point to this as proof that an Atheist can be moral - stop.
More important than stating that an atheist can be moral is whether you have been moral.
More important than pointing to Jesus Christ as proof of Christianity's morality is whether you have been moral.
Because if all we are going to do is count on our belief's theoretical morality as excusing our actual behavior, then we are in trouble. Worse, if we feel that our belief's rightness gives us that excuse, then neither atheism or theism offers anything I care to learn. I truly would prefer the company of someone who believed in Santa Claus if they felt it helped them be a better person.
Look at your letters and ask yourselves if you've acted as human beings (against odds biological or spiritual - pick your poison) should. Because maybe the real division is between those of us who want a better world and those that don't. And if you actually, seriously believe that no one who is 'other' to your beliefs can manage the day to day reality of being good and deserving of respect, even if you disagree with the theories that led there, then the problem isn't atheists or theists. The problem is you and always has been - people who place ideas above human respect.
Theists, many of you say humans are insignificant in the face of God.
Atheists, many of you say humans are insignificant in the face of a blind uncaring universe.
Then let's start here. Because to me, the implication I choose to take from both of you is that life is fragile and short, that we are all lost and frightened in ways we fear to admit, and that in the end, simple human decency is what gets us by. And that is enough.
-
Anonymous 01:27 PM
I used the name "Bible" because it includes the new testament.
If I was talking about the old testament I would have called it the Torah.
The New Testament is supposed to be a telling of history too, it is supposed to describe the life of Christ, who is in Christian belief, a historic figure.
The blood libel against the Jews is basically that Jesus' Crucifixion was due to the Jewish people of the time asking for Barrabas instead of Jesus when asked by Pontius Pilot who should get pardoned - as was his custom.
It is a downright lie. The custom never existed, and besides, as people who got crucified were rebels (As per Roman history on the subject) it basically tells us that the Romans were idiots. I mean, you have a rebellious province and you release the most popular rebel to celibrate a festival?