Letters to the Editor
droogoy
Published Letters: 567 Editor's Choice: 9
-
@ benthead
[Read the article: The atheist delusion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]benthead wrote:
if you want to believe these procedural methods are the only operations in the universe that can apprehend meaningful ideas, go right ahead. But I dare say most scientists (or at least theorists of science, and definitely historians of science) would not agree.
Well, given that recent surveys (e.g. 'New Scientist') have disclosed a majority (> 60%) of scientists are atheists I would have to disagree. Physicists like Steven Weinberg most assuredly would dispute there are any "alternative modes" that can apprehend anything meaningful.
Let us begin with basics. The most basic basis of meaningfulness is the ability to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for the entity claimed. A necessary condition is that which must be in place for an event or entity to occur-exist.
For example, a car must be out of the garage for an accident to occur, and a hydrogen cloud must already be present in space for an emission nebula.
A sufficient condition is that which - if present - means the event MUST occur, or entity must exist. Thus, lack of brake fluid for the car on the highway is a sufficient condition for an accident, just as a nearby source of ionizing radiation (to the hydrogen cloud) is a sufficient condition for an emission nebula.
Now, what are the respective conditions for the existence of "God"? If religion cannot provide these, then it is meaningless and no amount of neologisms, or verbal manipulations can change that -whether from Haught, Eagleton or anyone else.
Terry Eagleton, an avowed atheist who knows his theology and philosophy, does a pretty good take-down of the "new atheists" in an article in the London Review of Books.
Sorry, but much as I like the London Review it is not a quality, prime source. If his "take down" were that convincing or great it ought to hbave appeared in a peer-reviewed paper in an established Journal of Philosophy.
When you get a citation on one, let me know. Until then, all Eagleton is doing is offering his own subjective ruminations and conjectures, and in a general mass media forum. Nothing to write home about.
-
Ok, how about enlightening us backward atheists?
[Read the article: The atheist delusion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]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".
-
"Infinities"?
[Read the article: The atheist delusion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]ScottsValleyBob wrote:
In a universe full of infinities, we have absolutely no idea about virtually anything.
Really? Then care to explain how it is that spacecraft manage to land on Mars or Venus? Or how your computer with its millions of electronic components came to be? Yuh think it just happened by magic?
The fact is that knowledge is currently being added at the rate of one entire Oxford University library every six months. This is all iron clad, useful knowleddge, from the significance of cytochrome -c in evolution, to entanglement in quantum dots, to the spherical harmonics from UV data that disclose dark energy.
As for "infinities", I've no idea what you are talking about. What "infinities"? Please elaborate and then show they are so ubiquitous and considerable that the inhibit all but very meager knowledge as you claimed.
I await your answer with bated breath.