Letters to the Editor
blunderdog
Published Letters: 509 Editor's Choice: 10
-
Self-Expression
[Read the article: I need a new dream]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Do something creative. The relative availability of technology that makes it possible to conceive and create incredible art makes it possible for people to make their own experimental films, music, images, etc...
If nothing else, pouring the same passion and energy that went into the letter into another personal expression will likely be cathartic.
-
@ debaser
[Read the article: I don't believe in atheists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hm.
<<I think the point people are trying to make (at least I am) isn't that people take the results of scientific experimentation on faith, but rather they take the scientific method on faith.
<<look, at some point you have to realize that, at least philosophically, you have to have faith (or trust) that the universe is intelligible and the scientific method provides all the answers.>>
This is polite and articulate, so worth a reply. It is still incorrect, however.
Scientists don't "have to have faith" that the universe is intelligible. Where did you get this notion? Science can either:
1) Find a theory that gives us predictive power
2) FAIL to find a theory that gives us predictive power
No scientist needs "faith" to test gravity on the surface of the Earth. What he does is drop a bunch of things and watch them fall. After that, he posits, "Hmm...I speculate that any physical thing I drop will fall."
If his hypothesis is good, he'll find, every single time, that when he drops a physical thing it falls to the ground.
There's no "faith" involved here. If the theorist is a good scientist, he would be totally delighted to come across an example of some physical object that he drops and DOESN'T fall, because that would force him to re-assess his theory.
Meanwhile, UNTIL he encounters the object that doesn't fall when he drops it, he applies his "theory" as a predictive tool. Not because he has "faith" in it. Because it has predictive power.
Honestly, anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with quantum physics has to know this. Quantum physics demonstrably violates some of our "laws" of symbolic logic.
That doesn't stop scientists from using it, and that doesn't prevent it from being science.
------------
Also, given that I'm an atheist (the non-positivistic kind, usually referred to as "agnostic" in the US), I'd like to mention that the man who asserts that "there is no God" has more in common with the guy who asserts that "there is a God" than either of them have with the guy who says, "I can't make an assertion one way or the other on that question."
The third guy is the one who is expressing humility. The first and second guys are both a bit too sure of themselves. That's hubris there, whether it's in the assertion of God's existence OR non-existence.
Remember that part of the "definition" of God is that his existence can't be proven/disproven.
"God" is a commonly occurring word with very little meaning, if any at all.
-
@ Lynx & palindromebeta
[Read the article: I don't believe in atheists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm surprised you didn't mention the other type of atheist. I'm of this "fourth" type and most atheists I know are as well. The one that asserts "there is no evidence for a God or gods" and derives from that that there is no reason for belief in said God or gods.
There's no evidence to suggest such a thing exists means the same thing as "there is no basis for assertion on that question."
I think that this "fourth type" of atheist is pretty well covered by anyone who doesn't make the claim that God doesn't exist.
'Remember that part of the "definition" of God is that his existence can't be proven/disproven.'
"No ... I don't remember that." --palindromebeta
Of course, a believer might not understand that, because they might not be able to see that there could exist more than one "definition" for God, I suppose. But let's get right to the crux of it:
If you believe in God (I'm assuming you're a theist), what evidence that he DOES NOT exist would you accept?
Looking at it simply, if belief in God is actually a matter of faith, then no theist would ever accept any evidence against His existence.
If you assert that there is no evidence which would "prove" God's nonexistence, you've completed the argument for why God is inherently unprovable.
If you can list the evidence that you WOULD accept as "compelling" proof against God, then surely you can offer compelling evidence for His existence as well.
(This is incidental to the problem disproving the "existence" of something "supernatural, although that's a reasonable point to raise as well. This is simply an illustration of the fact that God is an inherently unprovable concept.)
-
@ palindromebeta & AnOptomist
[Read the article: I don't believe in atheists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Looks like I'm probably too late, but I liked your hypothetical fertility god in the Empire State building. It's a good analogy, and of course by broadening the discussion to include the pantheistic god-lites, I wouldn't argue it.
I can only reply that he's not "the" God of the monotheistic religions which I think everyone means when we're discussing atheism vs. theism.
---------
@ AnOptomist
First, I wish you'd correct the spelling of that screenname. It's nothing that'd ever bug me in a post, but as the SN, it comes across as sarcastic.
Second, as an atheist, I sought the source of faith in God for some years. I gave up because no matter where I looked, I couldn't find a personal belief (a sincere one, that is) in the thing that I'd been raised to call "God." (Raised Catholic.)
I was perfectly willing to accept God's devices as incomprehensible, too. I never asked, "If there's a God, why does my life suck so much?" I figured anything He'd be doing would be far beyond my mortal comprehension.
Despite that, there was never a time when I felt what you theistic believers feel from "God." Perhaps it's a bit of brain anatomy that doesn't occur in everyone.
One way or the other, if you don't have it, there's no faking it.
Just because I identify as an atheist doesn't mean I'm not prepared to sacrifice my offspring (or yours) on a mountain when God (I mean the REAL big-G) tells me to. He just hasn't told me to, yet.
-
People Hate Bankers
[Read the article: Economists surprised consumers aren't superhuman]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And economists are conflated to take some of the rap.
I've perceived a great deal of anti-economist sentiment amongst the less privileged economic classes, but I think it's more of a general loathing towards anyone who talks about what people "should" do with their money.
Much of it is likely simple anti-intellectualism directed at the people who exercise a lot of control over how society functions.
The most common working American day-to-day experience of money is that it's a commodity one has very little control over. Paychecks already have taxes, insurance costs, and other assorted fees deducted. Every financial transaction carries some cost which is completely non-negotiable by the "customer." Minor legal problems, health care expenses, gasoline prices--all things which people generally experience as rather capricious hard costs.
For decades, banks and other financial companies have very strongly promoted the notion that the only way to prepare for the future is to invest in the stock market. Many people followed that advice and have not been pleased with the results over the past 20 years.
Often, just when a worker has been subjected to the crunch of a business cycle, and could benefit from access to their investment wealth, the stock market has suffered too. When your 401K is worth 60% what you invested and your home is in danger of being foreclosed on, it's tempting and easy to look back at your formerly enthusiastic advisors with some anger.
-
Seems an Awful Lot Like Abortion to me...
[Read the article: Why they stunted their daughter's growth]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's a medical procedure that the parents, who have already dealt with the psychic and emotional difficulty of dealing with such a situation, have decided is the right decision for their circumstance.
Just as most posters here would likely support the woman's decision to end a pregnancy, I feel compelled to support the parents' right to make this kind of difficult and very PERSONAL decision.
First and foremost, a bit of humility is in order before throwing out the hurtful personal judgements about these individuals.
The only people I would EVER trust with decisions of this sort of sensitive and lifelong decision are the child's parents. No external agency (whether it be government or concerned neighbors or snoopy internet readers) should get involved in cases like these.
-
If a Woman can't Rent out her Womb
[Read the article: India's "womb rental" industry]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...what CAN she rent out?
I say more power to any womb landlady. And sure, wombs in India are cheaper. So are most things.