Letters to the Editor
-
How many atheists
There are some Harvard studies, some work by the PEW trust and some others that seem to agree that 15% of the population identifies itself as secular. That is, people who would say their religious preference is None. These studies also found that about 5 poercentage points of this 15% were atheists - that is, people who claim not to believe in God. This would yield 45 million secular Americans with 15 million atheists.
-
sorry ~ trajectories!!
sorry for the misspelling
-
Dawkins a Fundie?
"Richard Dawkins, for example, would argue that evolution is inherently atheistic. That's exactly what the fundamentalists are saying. They agree on that."
I am not sure that this a fair representation of Dawkins viewpoint. I don't think he would argue that evolution either argues for or against creationism - his argument is that there simply is no evidence for the existence of any god. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think Dawkins would agree that no amount of evidence in favor of evolution can disprove the existence of a god(s). Nevertheless, he rejects the repeated attempts to label him as a fundamentalist who is no different from the theist fundamentalists because he remains open to the idea that a god could exist - he just doesn't think there is any likelihood of this evidence ever being produced. To quote Dawkins from his Salon interview:
“Well, technically, you cannot be any more than an agnostic. But I am as agnostic about God as I am about fairies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot actually disprove the existence of God. Therefore, to be a positive atheist is not technically possible. But you can be as atheist about God as you can be atheist about Thor or Apollo. Everybody nowadays is an atheist about Thor and Apollo. Some of us just go one god further.”
-
Why is it...
That Hindu temples, Jewish temples, Buddhist temples, Sikh temples, and Muslim temples are filled with scientists, physicians, engineers, teachers, musicians, and other scholars who manage to maintain both a first-rate intellect and some form of religios faith? Why can't Christians do the same?
Yes, the ID and creationist camps can trot out the odd Ph.D. or the odd Jewish creationist, but the fact remains that the core of ID and creationists in the United States is Christian. Why??? What is it about American Christianity that reduces so many of its adherents to a child-like state of scientific denial? For the record, I had a Christian upbringing, and even as a child I was shocked at the disrespect for science and the heavy reliance on fairy tales.
-
gimmegirl's "Why is it...?"
I can't speak for the other religions, but as for Judaism, it is not a creedal religion. I.e., it is based on what you do, but not what you believe. I'm just a layperson, but I heard a rabbi say "Judaism is not a creedal religion" many times. Elaine Pagels mentioned something similar (you can just go to a seder, you don't need to profess a particular belief, you are still a full participant) in the article about her in The New Yorker years ago when her book The Origin of Satan came out.
I feel that in this thread, people are considering not only religion but also science as creedal. If you accept evolution, people (Dawkins, some letter-writers) argue, then you must be atheist, for instance.
Science is testable hypotheses. Religion is faith (or a way of life). I do agree with Gould's idea of nonoverlapping magisteria. I don't think we need these litmus tests or the mutual exclusivity of science or religion.
I would even go so far as to say that our psychological health depends on all sorts of irrational beliefs.
I know this is not an ivory tower issue, to wit, the battles over evolution in our school ~ that's why Numbers' call for better teaching of evolution is so needed ~ and the constant pressure for prayer and other religious expressions in public schools. But I think "eternal vigilance" will always be involved ~ we will constantly have to fight for rational science and separation of church and public school, people aren't just going to wake up, embrace science, cast religion out the public-school door, and then things will just stay that way.
-
Blind Faith
The "truth" is not subject to a popularity contest. It is not relevant how many people accept or reject evolution as the truthful explanation for the origins of life on this planet. The "truth" is not a referendum on a ballot. The human need to want utopia will not make it so. Wishful and magical thinking does not impact life. Hogwarts, perhaps regrettably, does not exist . . . or does it? I know a number of young people who think so, and their faith will not be shaken by the absence of evidence supporting their belief.
The words expressed in New Testament (and other holy books) are the words of men, passed on down the ages to other men, translated from other languages and re-translated - by whom - will never been known. With respect to the New Testament, there were four "gospels" selected because they were more easily understood by the illiterate population.
I am humble enough as an agnostic to admit that there are "facts" about existence that are at present unknowable. The "facts" I am referring to are those not susceptible to scientific examination based on the principles of empiricism using the tools and collective intellect as it exists today. If God exits, then God exists. If not, then not. In either case, it will make no difference to how I behave and interact with others. The best reason not to do wrong is because it is wrong, not to guarantee a ticket to paradise.
-
Clockwork & random watchmakers
Really, how many Christians (or nonchristian religionists for that matter) reject science part and parcel?
Am I the only person who thinks this war on science like the war on Christmas is largely a canard dreamt up by a few fringe loudmouths, but largely unrelated to actual feelings and beliefs of populace?
I believe in the facts and timeline of the evolution of the species, but I also believe in a creator god who has a hand in everything. Does that make me a creationist? I think the notion of the universe starting with two naked teenagers in a garden as believable as luminiferous eather, but because I do believe in a creator god am I excluded from the science club? Is my acceptance of scientific theory somehow suspect because I accept an untestable conjecture along with my acceptance of testable theory?
Science provides no complete answers. It provides only results of various tests; we then analyze these results and find an answer we accept. However within every accepted theory there is always an unprovable conjecture. Whether that unprovable conjecture is the belief in randomness and chaos, or a belief in a clockwork subatomic machinery of existence, or a belief in any number of various as yet unknown forces, these theories are logically accepted but are no closer to a provable truth than the theory that an unknowable sentient likewise influences the universe.
I like many physicists find the notion of randomness and chaos anathema. Unpredictability is not the same as randomness, yet laity in science often conflate these notions. As I do not believe in randomness, I do not believe that evolution is random, but instead simply unpredictable as we do not have knowledge of all the factors at play in the unwinding of the genetic clock of an individual creatures DNA.
This belief in an ordered universe (incidentally an ordered universe is considered by many to be necessary for science to hold any truth) does conveniently coincide with my belief in a creator god, but neither is reliant or exclusionary to the other. One can believe in an ordered universe and not believe in a creator god, just as one can believe in a creator god and not believe in an ordered universe. It is only my personal assessment of my observations to lead me to these two unprovable conjectures, some one else analyzing the same results might come to different conjectures to fill in the gaps, but neither can truly be said to be superior, as the facts alone to not favor any of the conjectures.
Perhaps in all the vitriol over this issue we are missing the greater truth. Humanity as a whole is not stupid, nor do we accept poorly thought out or easily disprovable ideas.
There are those who will cling to their ideas at the expense of all reason and observation, but they are a small minority on all sides of any issue. Humans are rational and when presented with facts accept those facts. Likewise when no facts are provided rational humans establish conjectures to link one fact to another. Acceptance of that conjecture does not preclude acceptance of the facts, and it is disingenuous of loud mouthed schnooks on both sides of the issue to imply that they do.
Science is the quest to understand creation, whether creation was in fact created or not science does not and can not give an answer. The implication that it can, either to mathematically prove or disprove God, is a misapplication of the field, and honestly makes you look like a fool, whichever side of the debate you are on.