Letters to the Editor
-
@Anonymous
Okay, fair enough, and indeed, I do accept the 2nd law and do not expect to see the coffee cup reassembling itself. But I cannot prove that it won't. Any reasoning process has to start somewhere, with a premise, but where does that premise come from? Perhaps it's a consequence of another deductive process, but if you keep tracing this back, you eventually get to first premises that you simply have to accept as true, without deductive proof, be they the axioms of set theory, the validity of our sensory inputs, or the consistency of how the universe works.
My point really is that human beings, including both hardcore atheists and religious fundamentalists, all have an incomplete understanding of the universe. And we all fill in the blanks by accepting certain things as true -- the premises on which we base our subsequent reasoning. I consider this faith. I have no formal education in philosophy, so if that's not the correct term for this phenomenon, then my mistake.
But my point remains that everybody accepts many things as true without formal proof. Believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster or that the earth is flat is patently ridiculous. But for atheists and scientists to claim that everything we observe, experience, and feel can be completely understood through reason is equally ridiculous and fundamentalist. Maybe someday we will have such complete understanding, but that day is too far away to justify the triumphal pronouncements of some atheists. Until then, faith (not necessarily in God) is essential.
-
Droogoy
"Well, let's get a handle on the magnitudes we're talking about here."
Yes, it is very small, but there is no sudden threshold or phase change. And classical physics implies that any scale size is still "classical". I prefer to keep to keep quantum nature in the back of my head even for classical stuff.
-
Since you asked, ELYDOG
Let’s see.... BlackSun calls Haught a “science-trashing religious partisan.” Haught is not trashing science by any stretch.
Scotswoman writes: “John Haught is truly, deeply, maddeningly ignorant of science, evolution and atheism.” Which is why the pro-Darwin side hired him to testify in the Dover case?
Art Guerilla believes “Religioinistas WANT to impose THEIR beliefs on society.” Nothing in the interview even remotely suggests that Haught has an agenda to impose on society.
LYNX calls him “Just another Fool.” Catholic U doesn’t hand out PhD’s to any old fool. Georgetown professorships don’t go to fools either.
Bobr900 sounds very afraid with “All threats to democracy and the rule of law are coming from Scalia and his so called Pro-lifers/family values bunch of weirdos and creeps. And this theologian is one of THEM.”
Sequel fears religion will “turn the USA into the 3rd Reich.” Not Possible. Capitalism is the religion of the USA. So long as pay-per-view porn is profitable, no religion that looks down on it will get any more power or influence than it already has.
St. John (the poster) wrote “for a Roman Catholic priest to advance himself as an expert on religion/science is ludicrous.” In fact Haught is not a priest, and he doesn’t try to advance himself as an expert. Science & Religion is merely his field of study.
I don’t defend the Catholic Church. If I were so inclined, I’m hardly qualified. Further, I don’t attack athiests or athiesm, I merely observed some embarassingly dumb rants by athiests in response to this article – and I think that is Salon’s objective in publishing these pieces. I rather like Hitchens, and agree with him on several points. The Catholic Church respects him enough to have invited his input on the question of whether to Canonize Mother Teresa.
Since you brought up the condom issue, here is my 2 cents on that: Point to millions of AIDS victims who weren’t using condoms because the Pope told them they shouldn’t. You can’t. I’d argue that not a single homosexual gives a rat’s ass what any theologian thinks about his sexual practices, and yet HIV infections still happening in the gay community in 2007. Furthermore, a significant majority of practicing Catholics ignore the Pope on alot of things, birth control included. People don’t wear condoms, because they don’t like them. We elitists can presume that the Pope and the Fundies in the US are getting in the way of condom use in Africa all we want, but if we’re honest, we know it’s not Benedict & GWB’s fault this time.
“Condoms are almost undiscussable within a marriage” in Africa, according to Lois B. Chingandu, director of Safaids, and anti-AIDS organization in Zimbabwe. “It is something associated with casual sex. If a wife uses a condom, the message is that you have been unfaithful. If she even initiates the discussion, it tips the power scale. Men resist quite a lot, and it can result in violence.” NYTIMES 11/13/2007
-
@ Darby
I'm interested in your ethical pragmatics. You seem to be saying that earthly consequences of behavior are what dissuade you from considering the possibility of becoming a murderer/pillager/whatever. (It may not be cool to admit that, but I can understand it! When I got a divorce, I lived in a capital punishment state, and I really thought about that when I considered killing that jerk!) I'm curious about something you didn't touch on--what about things for which there are no consequences, really? Say, injuring someone who has no recourse? Imagine you're transported back to medieval Russia as a nobleman in charge of a bunch of serfs. You need them to work, and abusing one as an example not only has no consequences, but it's pretty darn effective. Why not do it? Or let's say you just wanted to whup up on a serf, really bad. Would there be a reason not to do it? (I know you're not going to tell me that low serf morale would negatively affect your economic status.) Serious question, not a debate, I'm just really interested to see what the answer is.
-
@ jfsee11
jfsee11: "...atheism is predominantly a luxury of the wealthy, educated, First World elite..."
Wow! Like dental care? Is that racist and classist too?
Your arguments are impressive if only for their creativity and earnestness. But logically they don't hold up. You are trying desperately to justify your faith in God. We get that. But its driving you to say some pretty outrageous things. Science is not a religion. You know that. Be serious.
That it hurts your feelings if I doubt the existence of a heavenly afterlife for your father or a supernatural god who answers your prayers is not a compelling argument for belief. You know that too, right? I am sorry if it hurts you but physical truths are not generated by your emotional needs. Kids sometimes cry when they find out about Santa's true identity. Is it better to keep lying to them into adulthood. Would that even work?
The coffee cup analogy is just silly. Unless you are speaking to another defensive believer or an inexperienced teenager I doubt anyone will take your arguments seriously. But I think you are mulling over these ideas well...keep it up...but try doing it with an open-minded goal of understanding reality, not simply to justify your current beliefs or push away the critics that frighten you.