Rereading my post from Friday, I notice that I never actually answered the question I posed in the title. Is atheism a civil rights issue?
Happily, other bloggers have stepped into the breach. Mike Dunford gets us started:
Atheists, unfortunately, do face a great deal of discrimination. Actually, I should rephrase that. The discrimination is not faced by all atheists. It's faced by those people who, for whatever reason, choose to publicly identify themselves as nonbelievers. For one set of examples, you need look no further than child custody cases. Volokh has a laundry list of appeals court cases dealing with child custody. In all of these cases, judges - people sworn to uphold the Constitution - decided that a religious upbringing is “in a child's best interest,” and used that as a factor in restricting custody rights of non-religious parents. There are plenty of other examples, many cited in the posts I linked to in the first paragraph.I'm not trying to evoke (or, for that mater, spark) anything comparable with Selma, Alabama, but I think that when you have judges berating you for the damage that your lack of belief does to your children, you're talking about more than just a public image problem. The legal protections are there, so atheists don't face wholesale, legalized discrimination. That's good, but there are still a hell of a lot of retailers out there.
See the original for links.
P.Z. also weighs in:
There are unconstitutional laws on the books in several states that in principle preclude atheists for running for any office; that is a civil rights issue. We have schools that try to make our kids take a loyalty oath which includes acknowledging a nonexistent god; that is a civil rights issue. We have government support of ridiculous “faith-based” charities that exclude secular institutions; that is a civil rights issue. We have widespread bigotry against atheists that is encouraged by authorities -- try living in the rural midwest if you think there aren't such situations going on all the time.
Again, see the original for links.
Ed Brayton also piles on:
The last part is a quote from Grothe's column. I can only say that Grothe is abysmally ignorant if he really believes that there is no such thing as atheist-bashing. All he has to do is talk to the plaintiffs in practically any church/state lawsuit filed in the last century. He will find that each of them, almost without exception, received harassing and threatening phone calls, emails, letters and comments. Here's a recent example that involved not atheists but a Jewish family who was challenging Christian prayers being offered in the schools there.This goes back a long, long way. The families that filed lawsuits to end the mandatory pledge of allegiance, forced prayer in schools and other forms of Christian hegemony almost invariably received death threats and required police protection. Their homes were vandalized (one had dog feces smeared all over their porch), they were told that if they didn't leave town “something bad might happen.”
In some cases the harassment has been so bad that the courts have allowed suits to be filed anonymously, as in Doe v Santa Fe (which still didn't stop the harassment; they simply went after anyone they thought might be involved, including a Baptist family that literally had to get up and leave the church after being pointed out by their own pastor during a sermon). Even a Federal judge, himself a Christian, came in for the same treatment in the Dover trial. To pretend that such harassment does not go on is folly.
You know where to go to find the links.
What is plain from these examples is that there is indeed genuine discrimination and bigotry (as opposed to mere distaste) directed at atheists. And it is not just found in a handful of isolated cases. That said, the civil rights dimension is not the primary front in the battle for the social acceptance of atheists. As I explained in my previous post, the point of the comparison with past civil rights movements is not to compare levels of hardship. It is to emulate the tactics that have led to success in the past.
Comments
Right on. The discrimination faced by lesbians and gay guys is quite different from the discrimination faced by Blacks; yet both are discrimination, and in both cases, it's a civil rights issue. Similarly for the discrimination faced by atheists.
Posted by: Jonathan Lubin | July 2, 2007 9:05 PM
If you look at the Boy Scouts of America's legal web site, bsalegal.org, you will see the classical 'atheism is a immoral/unethical choice' and 'only theists can be the best kind of citizens' justifications for characterizing their official no atheist members policy as not being personal creed discrimination of the type that disqualifies non-profit membership organizations from receiving government subsidies and support.
Of course, all beliefs are in some sense choices, but for many people this is not a choice in the same sense as choice of clothing, it is more a decision arrived at by considering evidence and applying logic with significant personal political orientation context involved also, and as such it is an element of our conscience and of who we are. There is simply no good basis, none, for permitting two legal standards, a general government non-discrimination standard for theists and another government discrimination standard for atheists.
Posted by: Explicit Atheist | July 2, 2007 11:34 PM
While no atheist would disagree about widespread discrimination against them, what's even more galling is that to simply stand up for your own rights, you are attacking the other party's beliefs, and are "hostile" to religion. Atheists must remember to keep a clear, rational mind when confronting religion, and not become angry. Use the reasoning that brought you to your atheism. We must remain to be the same person we want them to become: compassionate, accepting, tolerant, rational. Of course this is how I have seen most atheists behave already, as we realize our time here together is short, yet still our name is impugned... however let's never embellish the truth in our defense, it is all we need.
Posted by: guyanakoolaid | July 3, 2007 5:05 AM
From bsalegal.org 'That Boy Scouts also has traditional values, like requiring youth to do their "duty to God" and be "morally straight" is nothing to be ashamed of and should not be controversial. No court case has ever held that Boy Scouts discriminates unlawfully, it is unfortunate here that anyone would characterized Boy Scouts' constitutionally protected right to hold traditional values as "discriminatory." That is just name-calling.'
The BSA gets millions of dollars each year in government grants, plus an unknown amount of government subsidies (land and office rent subsidies) and other government support. That government assistance would be unlawful if governments upheld their non-discriminate mandates.
Posted by: Explicit Atheist | July 3, 2007 8:42 AM
If it was only about having laws on the books, then lynching of blacks in the deep South a couple generations ago would not have been a civil rights issue, since there are indeed laws against that sort of thing.
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | July 3, 2007 10:04 AM
I think it is a bit over reaching to say that Atheism is a civil rights issue IF the intent is to elevate the rights of Atheists over any other group.
America is a democracy -not a theocracy- so as a Christian I feel a great appreciation for and responsibility to our system of government. I'm glad we live in a country where people can disagree openly and debate ideas on Weblogs such as this without fear of government forces kicking down the door and hauling us away.
My idea of a "perfect world" would be where no one was injured in any way by any one; where the rights of all were upheld and protected. Since we do not live in such a world, each group must stand and fight for its rights.
I wish I could convince Atheists to see it my way, but I am very glad that neither they or I have absolute power with which to force the other into submission.
Throughout the centuries the rights of many have been violated by individuals, governments, courts and those claiming to represent Christian and Atheistic points of view. I truly believe that there are many Atheist who want exactly what I want: a country full of clear thinking and well behaved people living at peace that is only disturbed by the passionate debate about our ideas.
Unfortunately this will probably never fully be realized. I feel compelled to add that even Jesus said to his followers that there would be trouble and persecution for them. And of course we all know that Jesus' claims of deity landed him on a cross.
I truly hope that all Atheists' rights will be protected.
Posted by: Bill Mossburg | July 3, 2007 10:08 AM
...well, it isn't.
Posted by: MartinM | July 3, 2007 10:26 AM
After reading Grothe's original article several times over and reviewing some background information on the issue of different types of "rights" and their definitions, I think this issue is being falsely contained within the definition of "civil" rights.
Within our Bill of Rights, we have an amendment to our constitution which protects our right to worship as we please, defined as one of our basic human rights. This protects our choice of which religion we follow, but I think, more importantly, it protects us from being forced by other people or by our government to follow a particular religion. As a Christian, you can not be forced to worship the Gods of Hinduism, and vice versa. Follow this to its logical conclusion and no one can be forced to follow any particular religion, meaning that atheism and agnosticism are protected under this particular right.
So at its root, no, perhaps atheism and agnosticism are not civil rights issues. They are bigger than that, falling under the protected basic human rights listed in that very important document laid out by our founding fathers.
That said, however, if someone's status as an atheist or an agnostic causes someone else to discriminate against them and limit their civil rights (losing a job, child custody issues, renting an apartment), then OF COURSE it becomes an issue of civil rights. It doesn't matter if this occurs one time or a million times. It doesn't matter if it reaches the magnitude of discrimination experienced by African Americans or by homosexuals, it is still an issue of civil rights if someone's civil rights have been limited in way directly related to their choice not to follow any particular religion.
I have also said in other comments on other blogs that Atheism and Agnosticism, as publicly vocal viewpoints, are in their infancy and THAT may be why they have not been subjected the to level of discrimination experienced by other groups. I think that will change as more and more non-theists become more confident and outspoken in their views. A larger population of noisy atheists and agnostics will simply scare the pants off of the extreme religious right, and I think they will respond with an increase in discriminatory behavior. Then this discussion will be null and void and even Nisbet and Grothe will recognize that this is indeed a civil rights issue of significant magnitude.
Posted by: LCR | July 3, 2007 4:30 PM
Agreed about strategy, guyanakoolaid, but I would disagree about "widepsread discrimination." I'd add that emphasizing only the civil rights issue, rather than working to increase mind-share, or emphasizing only how dumb theists are and how smart atheists are, rather than promoting competitive and satisfying alternatives to the religious and supernatural worldviews, only hurts us. What Nisbet says in this regard oughtnt get our hackles up. This is a conversation the blacks, gays and women have had, and Nisbet's kind of argument eventually won influence among the strategizers in those groups (especially for the gay rights movement, with which I am most familiar).
And yes, Jason, until 1961 (the Torcaso decision), atheists were prevented from testifying in court, holding public office, etc. No one disputes this, and we didnt in our two articles from three years ago that created this kerfuffle.
What we did dispute is whether or not atheists really now need to wage a civil rights struggle, replete with Marches on Washington, etc., as some atheist leaders suggest.
Atheists now have constitutionally guaranteed civil rights in America, the same that protect religious belief. What what we don't have is popularity and mind-share. Neither a Buddhist, Wiccan, Satanist, or communist would likely anytime soon be elected to high office, but none needs to respond by starting a civil rights movement all their own. Can you imagine a Wiccan civil rights movement, with strained analogies to racial and sexual minorities' struggles for civil rights? As I have cited elsewhere, certan leaders in the atheist movement say that where atheists are in terms of their civil rights is where gays and lesbians were 25 years ago, and that that atheists actually need Marches on Washinton in order to "achieve our rights." But again, atheists already have their civil rights in America. They don't have popularity, but popularity isnt a civil right. And there are things we can do to gain more mind-share and popularity without dishonestly pretending to wage a pitched civil rights struggle, likening our movement to the civil rights struggles faced by gays, blacks and women. Atheists do not suffer comparable harm. And as a gay man, I find it slightly offensive when a fellow atheist suggests we atheists do.
And yes, as I have stated elsewhere, just because we currently do have our civil rights, it doesnt follow that with this Supreme Court that we will always have them. We do need to be vigilant, and to work hard to defend the civil rights we currently have (and teh civil rights of all Americans, which are threatened). But to defend the civil rights atheists are now afforded is not the same thing as to pretend we should be pitched in a civil rights struggle on par with racial and sexual minorities (again, as certain leaders of the "atheist movement" do in fact say, and with which we originally took exception).
Regarding learning from the other groups: to quote myself (something only necessary when people appear not to have read what you have said on the subject before arguing with you about your position):
In case people want to read some of the things we said on this topic: the original article that Nisbet cited is at:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=grothe-dacey_24_2
and a followp article is at:
http://djgrothe.com/Response_to_Tabash_and_Downey.pdf
Posted by: D.J. Grothe | July 3, 2007 6:04 PM
This is nothing like other civil rights cases. Atheists such as Dawkins despise religion and are waging a verbal war against it. Why should religious believers feel any compassion for a group that despises them?
Of course some atheists mind their own business and are tolerant of religion. But many do not.
Atheism is probably not very good for children, but that is not a reason for teaching them religion. Atheism is increasing and it might cause a lot of damage, but of course pretending to have faith is useless.
I think there are some deep truths in religion, in general, and it's a shame to deprive children of these truths, and the happiness they can generate. Of course, religion has often been used to control and frighten children, so it cuts both ways.
Posted by: realpc | July 3, 2007 8:20 PM
realpc,
Do have have any evidence to back up your claim that atheism is bad for children? I will say this, I am bringing up my children to believe in reason and science.They still are quite young, nevertheless, I have to hold my breath everytime my 5-year-old tells me that the topic of God or Jesus popped up in his Kindergarten class, because he sees nothing wrong with stating that there are no such things as gods (much like elves or dragons), I keep expecting that his teachers or his friends parents are going to treat him differently because of his family's beliefs. This was my experience, growing up atheist, whenever I came out I usually lost friends, or was threatened with some sort of physical harm from "god fearing Christians."
I moved my family to a very diverse neighborhood, filled with Muslims, HIndus, Jews, Christians and Atheists. The only serious problem we have yet faced came when my son's gymnastics instructor asked a group of 5-year-olds to bow their heads in a prayer circle at his public elementary. I went straight to the administration who agreed that in the interest of preserving the multi-ethnic and diverse nature of the neighborhood that the instructor would be asked not to repeat this activity. Funny, the adminstrator never thought to mention the Constitution though. The gymnastics instructor quit. Sad really, she was. afterall, asking non-christian children to participate in her religious traditions. I can't help but feel that all we have done was dodge the first bullet. In time, sadly, my children will learn just how intolerant people really are of atheists.
Tah reminds me, is it harmfull to children to be an atheist about Zeus, Odin, or Vishnu?
Posted by: BigO | July 3, 2007 8:35 PM
Atheism and religion are 2 completely different things. Atheism being lack of belief in a deity while religion is merely a set of guiding principles that you choose to hold as important. The trick is to think of religion without God. In my opinion it's better to live peacefully and responsibly because it makes the world a better place for me and for those around me rather than to do it because I'm afraid I'll be punished by God for not doing it. It means you have to think about your actions and their consequences all the time.
Posted by: Mark Herbert | July 3, 2007 9:12 PM
"Tah reminds me, is it harmfull to children to be an atheist about Zeus, Odin, or Vishnu? Posted by: BigO | July 3, 2007 08:35 PM "
Odin, yes. Zeus no cause he is busy with the ladies and vishnu I think not because he'll get you next time around.
Posted by: Kevin | July 3, 2007 9:39 PM
Big O reasonably asked: realpc,
Do have have any evidence to back up your claim
The Troll never bothers with such pathetic details. He simply makes shit up.
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 3, 2007 11:21 PM
"is it harmfull to children to be an atheist about Zeus, Odin, or Vishnu?"
God is a concept that is known by many different names. It's the same concept though. Believing in a god, or gods, gives you a perspective on life which is very different from atheism. Now, there is no benefit in believing in lies or hallucinations, and of course that's what you atheists think religious people believe in.
I don't think atheists have special access to the truth about the universe. You have chosen to not believe in anything not already understood by science -- assuming that science pretty much already understands all the basics.
There is no way to settle the argument. Some believers have sound reasons for believing, we are not all meekly following authorities. Science cannot answer the question, and often it comes down to personal experiences.
My personal experiences of god are valuable and meaningful to me. My life would be greatly diminished without faith. I'm sad that so many children are being raised without faith, because lack of faith can forever close the doorway to spiritual awareness. It's too bad.
As compensation, they will have faith in the potential of science and humanity. I have so very little faith in humanity, but then I am not everyone. For your children, it will have to be enough.
I love science, but it is not my religion. My religious faith is in things that are beyond my understanding. So how can I believe in things I can't completely understand? Well, I accept that, as an earth animal, I have limits. I can believe and trust without having all the facts. If I waited for all the facts, I would wait forever, because god is infinite.
Posted by: realpc | July 4, 2007 8:14 PM
Realpc,
You know that most people of faith would disagree with you vehemently on this point that all gods (Vishnu, Zeus, Odin . . .etc) are just different names for the same concept. In fact, throughout history, much blood has been shed in defense of one creed's "concept" of god over another's.
Be as sad as you like about children being raised by atheist parents. I was raised as such and have turned out just fine, and my own chidlren seem to be developing as well as any other kids.
I think I know where the middle ground is here though. You seem to have a Universalist take on religion, so try this one out. I'm free to choose my own concept of god, no? So my god is REASON. And I teach my children to love reason and to be devoted to reason. And when we look up into the night sky together we find both a sense of wonder and peace in knowing that we, as human beings, have used reason to answer many of the most pressing questions posed by the very existance of our Universe, but still know that we have much yet to learn. For bedtime stories my children ask me to tell them about the Big Bang, or how the Earth and Moon formed, or about the Evolution of human kind. And each night I tuck them in, and they do not say prayers to some other big daddy in the sky, instead they exercise their own minds and imagine answers to those deep mystical questions that only small children would ever ask. And where will they find these answers? From Zeus? Thor? Whole pantheons of gods? No. The answers come from REASON. God is a concept you say? Fine, our "god" is reason.
Posted by: BigO | July 4, 2007 10:42 PM
Reason is fine, but severely limited. There is so much more than what our little brains can grasp.
As for different religions fighting over which one is correct -- well that's human nature. One more reason for me not to worship the human brain and its reasoning abilities.
I don't think you have found the perfect "religion," although it seems you feel that way. There is infinitely more to this universe, or universes. To me the universe is alive and intelligent and I belong to it, am part of it. Therefore I am significant and my life has special meaning. When I trust the universe, my life can be amazingly wonderful. When I separate my ego from the universe, I suffer terribly.
How could I have this kind of faith in a dead, mindless universe? As an atheist, your universe is dead. How can your children feel connected to something infinitely greater than humanity and its little brain?
Faith is powerful, as even materialist science recognizes. What you believe tends to happen. If you believe you are a good, smart, successful person, you probably will be. No mysticism is required to explain this.
But I think faith is far more powerful than science recognizes. If I believe and trust there are gods who care about my life and its unique purpose, I am a very different person than if I consider my life to be the result of pointless accidents.
Now which philosophy is true -- yours or mine -- is not easily decided by reason. I could write long arguments to support my views but there isn't time, and you would continue believing what you prefer anyway.
However, my faith is based on reason. I don't worship reason like you, but I do try to use it. And reason has led me to have faith, and to value faith.
Posted by: realpc | July 5, 2007 10:23 AM
"How can your children feel connected to something infinitely greater than humanity and its little brain?"
Stardust, we are all stardust. Every molecule, every atom inside of our bodies was formed within a star. We are connected to the Universe, no spiritualism or religion proper is needed to recognize that. You have never given me a compelling reason to believe that taking gods out of our explanation of the Universe (or rather, never inserting them in the first place) is actually harmfull to children. What is harmfull to atheist children is when theists try to force them to pray, threaten them violence with or inact physical harm upon them, or treat them as social outcasts because they see no more validity in the belief in gods then they do the belief in unicorns.
Posted by: BigO | July 5, 2007 10:53 AM
See BigO, toldja so.
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 5, 2007 12:24 PM
realpc says:
"As an atheist, your universe is dead. How can your children feel connected to something infinitely greater than humanity and its little brain?"
Um... no... not dead. The universe (not "mine"... "ours") is breathtakingly alive and complex. As a scientist, I am in awe of its complexity and grateful to be a part of it (ESPECIALLY because it so statistically unlikely to happen). And why should I limit myself to humanity and "its little brain"? Because of my understanding of science and evolutionary theory, I have a more complete understanding of just how interconnected all life is. We are more that just humanity. We are part of life itself. How fortunate we are and how fortunate my children are to be alive in this world. I don't need a god for that awe and gratitude. In fact, I would strongly argue that a belief in a god distorts and disguises the magnitude of complexity that surrounds us and takes away from that awe with an absurdly and falsely simple statement of "God did it".
"If you believe you are a good, smart, successful person, you probably will be. No mysticism is required to explain this."
There is nothing wrong with faith, but notice that there is no need in faith in a mystical being ("no mysticism is required" as you say) in order to lead a good, moral life and for good things to happen to you. Faith in yourself, faith in your friends and family, faith that "love will find a way", and faith that there are good people in this world regardless of their beliefs.
"If I believe and trust there are gods who care about my life and its unique purpose, I am a very different person than if I consider my life to be the result of pointless accidents."
I agree with your word "different". I would have objected had you used the word "better". But I certainly hope that you NOT are suggesting that as an atheist, I do not have a unique purpose? My purpose may not be "God-given", but that doesn't leave me with a life less meaningful. But without a dependence upon God, you must work independently (and with those other small-brained humans) to make sure your life has purpose and meaning.
Posted by: LCR | July 5, 2007 12:29 PM
LCR,
God(s) loves you just as much, whether you believe or not. I am not any more special than you just because I believe I am connected to a living universe. You are just as connected as I am -- your conscious ego just doesn't know it.
"Faith in yourself, faith in your friends and family, faith that "love will find a way""
Yeah, that's the trouble. As long as your friends and family never let you down you'll be ok. As long as you don't go broke or get sick, and there's always at least one devoted human at your side.
There were times I felt there was no one with me. Yes I had relatives but I could tell they thought I was a loser. Those were the big turning points in my life, when I had nobody except some vague unfathomable thing I call god. When I felt I had nothing and no one, I could finally ask for help, and you always get it when you finally ask.
And we all end up alone at the moment we realize yes it's over now. No friends and family can go with you. So if you have depended on them all your life, as a secular humanist, however strong the love you will have to leave it here.
It's human nature to focus on the real people in this world who we can see and touch. But they are the shadows, and god(s) is the reality that generates the shadows. When you love friends and family you actually love your god, who gave them to you.
Yes it's fine to love the shadows, to value reason, and all that. But it's unfortunate to deny the reality that generates it all.
Now as I said, there is no use having faith just because faith is good and powerful and protective. Your faith has to be in something you absolutely think is true.
Contemporary scientific "naturalism" is robbing millions of children of the real power of faith. Our education system has decided what is true. But it's ok, because science and reason have given us Prozac.
Posted by: realpc | July 5, 2007 12:53 PM
realpc says,
"God(s) loves you just as much, whether you believe or not."
See, that just makes me chuckle. Its so like my son telling me how cool SpongeBob is and how it would be fun to live in Bikini Bottom. My son is only four, however, and still understands that Spongebob, regardless of how "cool" he is, is not a real being. God is a creation of man and exists only in the believer's mind. I recognize that you feel this concept of "God's love" is a valuable truth and a beautiful, comforting thought, but to someone who doesn't share your particular delusion, the idea that a god loves me is about as useful as saying "SpongeBob loves crabbie patties".
You also said:
"And we all end up alone at the moment we realize yes it's over now. No friends and family can go with you. So if you have depended on them all your life, as a secular humanist, however strong the love you will have to leave it here."
Interesting viewpoint. See, I don't depend upon my family and friends in the way you suggest. They are a wonderful part of my life, but I am responsible for myself and my actions. When I die, I die. That is the end of my life and yes, I leave behind my family and friends and the love I have for them. For that reason, I had better make sure that I lived my life to the fullest, doing my best to be kind and good and to leave this world better for my being here. I don't need the comfort of a god for that, nor do I need some mythical belief that I will still have life after death to remove that fear of death. I don't fear dying. I only fear not taking full advantage of this one life I was given.
"It's human nature to focus on the real people in this world who we can see and touch. But they are the shadows, and god(s) is the reality that generates the shadows."
People are only shadows and God is what is real? I find that idea absurd and sad. To put real, flesh and blood people second to an imaginary being is twisted and an insult those people in your life.
"But it's unfortunate to deny the reality that generates it all."
Couldn't agree more. But as an atheist and a scientist and a person, I am not denying the "reality that generates it"... I dedicate my life to a greater understanding of the natural world around me. By depending upon an imaginary being to get you through life, you are denying reality.
"Contemporary scientific "naturalism" is robbing millions of children of the real power of faith."
Again, your idea of what is "real" is anything but.
Religion is robbing millions of opening their minds to the incredible complexity and wonder of the universe because it makes many (not all) people believe that it is okay not to look any further than a holy book or a god. They close their eyes and exist in an ignorant bliss waiting for an afterlife that won't come. THIS is the life we have now. This is the time to think and explore and learn and be curious and question what we see and hear and feel. To close ourselves to that is truly a crime and a waste of life.
"But it's ok, because science and reason have given us Prozac."
Did you mean that as a joke or are you serious? Either way, it gave me more insight into the type of person you are and the way you view life. You are welcome to your belief in a god. You couldn't pay me enough money to make me live your life as you do. What a false, limited life that would be.
Posted by: LCR | July 5, 2007 3:12 PM
You think you know the truth, LCR, but you don't. I don't believe in god(s) because I need a a pacifier. I believe because reason has led me to the conclusion that the universe is alive. But I'm glad not to be under the delusion of atheism anymore. Faith is not limiting. You have your own kind of faith, in science, which provides your foundation and sense of reality. Science is a religion for you and other secular humanists. That's fine, but you don't recognize it as religious faith. You don't see that you don't actually know the truth, and that ultimate truth is beyond all of us.
My faith is in the infinite unknowable. I don't imagine I have the truth. If I saw good evidence for scientific atheism, I would be an atheist. I was an atheist before I started questioning the authorities. I thought religious believers were stupid. Now I think that yes, they may believe some ridiculous things but all that matters is their faith in something greater and beyond. It doesn't matter what they call it. No, I don't like fanaticism or intolerance any more than you like it. But fanatical intolerance is generated by human nature, not by religion. Plenty of atheists are fanatical and intolerant.
And I'm glad I don't need Prozac. I do not think medical science and its chemicals are the answer to our spiritual cravings.
Posted by: realpc | July 5, 2007 4:18 PM
D.J. Grothe | July 3, 2007 06:04 PM wrote
"Atheists now have constitutionally guaranteed civil rights in America, the same that protect religious belief. What what we don't have is popularity and mind-share. Neither a Buddhist, Wiccan, Satanist, or communist would likely anytime soon be elected to high office, but none needs to respond by starting a civil rights movement all their own. Can you imagine a Wiccan civil rights movement, with strained analogies to racial and sexual minorities' struggles for civil rights?..."
I can imagine a Wiccan civil rights campaign to allow use of Wiccan holy objects instead of bibles when taking a government oath, to have Wiccans participate in making start of government meeting prayers, to have a Wiccan symbol recognized in military cemeteries (they recently got this), to permit Wiccans to utilize military chapels to worship (if there are any refusals as I recall there may have been in the recent past), and such. And to hold demonstrations in favor of such basic equality goals. I don't understand why you have trouble imagining this, it seems plausible and reasonable to me.
Posted by: Explicit Atheist | July 5, 2007 4:50 PM
"You think you know the truth, LCR, but you don't."
Strawman. I never claimed to. :-) I don't seek truth (however you define it), I seek understanding and knowledge.
"I believe [in god(s)] because reason has led me to the conclusion that the universe is alive."
Define "reason". Science uses reason and logic. I don't think that is what you mean by "reason" and therefore you use the incorrect word.
"But I'm glad not to be under the delusion of atheism anymore."
You used the word "delusion"... your refusal to see the irony is adorable!
"Faith is not limiting."
That depends upon what faith you are talking about. Faith in reality (friendship, family, the search for knowledge) is not limiting. Faith in myths is limiting. It closes doors left and right.
"Science is a religion for you and other secular humanists."
False. It is the direct opposite of a religion.
"You don't see that you don't actually know the truth, and that ultimate truth is beyond all of us."
Again you falsely speak of "truth". That is not the intent of science. The search for "truths" falls into the realm of philosophy and religion, not science which only seeks understanding and knowledge of the world around us.
"My faith is in the infinite unknowable."
That's very poetic but meaningless.
"I don't imagine I have the truth."
But with no evidence, you believe that an imaginary being does.
"I was an atheist before I started questioning the authorities."
What "authorities"? And you were never an atheist. I think you were more likely non-religious, meaning you were non-practicing. You express no understanding about what atheism actually is. You don't speak with any knowledge of how an atheist views the world.
"But fanatical intolerance is generated by human nature, not by religion. Plenty of atheists are fanatical and intolerant."
"Plenty", huh? Supporting evidence?
Yes, intolerance and bigotry are natural expressions of within group vs. between group behaviors, but guess what? Religion and a belief in a god are also natural expressions of our human need to understand the unknown (and by the way, religion encourages intolerance and bigotry... examples abound in the Bible). Just because they are natural expressions of human nature, doesn't decide whether or not the behaviors are good or bad. Is/ought fallacy. So 50 years down the road, it is my great hope that we as humans realize that religion and belief in mystical beings can be just as damaging to society as intolerance and bigotry. That is where my "faith" and hope resides.
Posted by: LCR | July 5, 2007 5:58 PM
"What "authorities"? And you were never an atheist."
I was an atheist just as much as you are, and for the same reasons. I thought science had demonstrated, with logic and evidence, that there are no "supernatural" beings. I believed the authorities -- college professors -- because I assumed they had special knowledge and understanding. Back then, I thought people became professors because they were special and knew more than the rest of us.
My faith in all kinds of authority has been shaken and demolished over the years. I read all kinds of books and realized the important questions are still unanswered. My professors weren't lying -- they thought they knew the truth, as it had been passed down from their professors.
"Religion and a belief in a god are also natural expressions of our human need to understand the unknown"
And atheism and disbelief in a god are also natural expressions of our human need to understand the unknown
Posted by: realpc | July 5, 2007 7:08 PM
It's human nature to focus on the real people in this world who we can see and touch. But they are the shadows, and god(s) is the reality that generates the shadows
And people wonder how religion can promote such violence. Who cares about killing a bunch of shadows?
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 5, 2007 7:17 PM
"My faith is in the infinite unknowable."
That's very poetic but meaningless.
I disagree. It means he worships ignorance. Shocker.
"I was an atheist before I started questioning the authorities."
What "authorities"? And you were never an atheist. I think you were more likely non-religious, meaning you were non-practicing.
Or he was just angry at his gods. Tons of fundies think they were atheists, but they reveal quite clearly (as he did again in his last response) when they talk about it that it is no atheism we atheists would recognize.
"But fanatical intolerance is generated by human nature, not by religion. Plenty of atheists are fanatical and intolerant."
"Plenty", huh? Supporting evidence?
He's from the creationist wing that thinks in terms of raw figures, not proportions. Thus, 100,000 intolerant atheists in the world would qualify as "plenty" to him, despite it being less than 1% of the total.
Either that, or he just made it up, as he does with irritating regularity. You might as well try to have an intelligent conversation with a furbie.
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 5, 2007 7:44 PM
Ok I meant that other people are shadows with respect to our faith. Putting your faith in other people is like depending on shadows. That is not to say we are shadows. However, we are reflections of the creative powers of the universe, and our isolated separateness is an illusion.
It's human nature and human politics that promote violence, not religion. It would be hard for any religion to compete with Marxism as a promoter of violence. Religion can't be separated from other aspects of human society, so it takes the blame.
You can respect other people and life in general whether you are religious or not. You can be moral and live a happy life whether you are religious or not. But denying religion means closing a door to worlds of experience and great sources of wisdom.
Religion is not for everyone. In the past, everyone had to at least pretend. But it's like anything -- not everyone is into sports, or mathematics, or wine-tasting. To each his/her own.
Let's say you were completely tone deaf and couldn't see why people got exited over music. You would not assume they were all hallucinating idiots. You would just say music is not one of your interests and leave it at that.
It's the same with religion and atheism. You don't get a kick out of religion, so don't bother with it. But you don't have to wage war against it.
Posted by: realpc | July 5, 2007 7:57 PM
No, realpc, you don't speak with the voice of an atheist, even one who used to be an atheist. You do speak as one who seems to have an ax to grind with the "authorities", i.e., the professors from your college days. You questioned the authorities and came to see that atheism was false? You incorrectly equate professors with atheism. They are not one and the same and this false connection makes your story come across as a fairy tale. Only if the majority of your science professors were atheists would this ring true and that scenario doesn't represent your average science department on our college campuses. And, yes, I speak from experience on this matter.
RE religion and violence, yes, religion absolutely promotes violence. To say otherwise reveals a complete lack of understanding of the bible's contents as well as an appalling failure on your part to recognize the religious history of our world. Have you ever heard of the Crusades? How about the Inquisition? Maybe 9/11 rings a bell? All are violent events in our history related directly to religious intolerance of others, and sadly, they are only a few of many such events.
"You don't get a kick out of religion, so don't bother with it. But you don't have to wage war against it."
And I would be delighted to leave religion alone. Keep it to yourself, practice your faith as you see fit privately in your home and house of worship, and I will gladly leave you alone. I promise not to cross the threshold of your church and pester you with challenges to your beliefs.
HOWEVER, if you choose to speak up in a public arena, such as this one, if you take your faith from a private setting to one where all individuals of various world views may gather, then it is not only my right to speak up and challenge the inconsistencies and falseness of those beliefs, it is my responsibility as a citizen and a scientist to question them publicly so that others are aware of the contradictions and hypocrisy of religious belief. To remain silent is to give the false impression that I condone it... and I would be setting a terrible example for my children if I did that. I will not tolerate the willful ignorance and intolerance found in many religious beliefs that could lead to additional violent events that will threaten the peaceful world my kids have every right to expect in their future.
Posted by: LCR | July 5, 2007 10:44 PM
Let's say you were completely tone deaf and couldn't see why people got exited over music. You would not assume they were all hallucinating idiots. You would just say music is not one of your interests and leave it at that.
Yes, IF the things these people said about their musical experience was consistent, both with established facts and each other. But with religion that isn't what we get. We get the equivalent of all of you sitting in a room claiming to be listening to music, with one of you claiming to hear opera, another metal, a third the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, and a fourth a dog whistle. Then, sorry, any reasonable person would conclude that you were either hallucinating or lying.
But you don't have to wage war against it.
Yes we do, as long as you keep trying to use your religion to deny children a decent science education, or sexual education, or to stop legitimate scientific research, or to control what women do with their bodies. Stop that, and we'll be no more concerned about you than we are about people who believe in astrology.
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 6, 2007 12:15 AM
You're talking to me, Science Avenger? I'm not an intolerant Christian, not even a Christian. I'm a pro-science, liberal, scientist.
All the things you and LCR blame religion for should be blamed on human nature and its politics. If you could abolish religion, you would still have plenty of intolerance and violence. The Marxist revolutions are perfect examples of this.
The Old Testament is full of war and violence -- but that's because human civilization has always been violent. The Old Testament is as much about history and politics as it is about religion.
You think that abolishing religion would free the world from ignorance and hatred. No, you're wrong, it is not that simple. Ignorance and hatred have other causes. You're making the same mistake that Marx did -- he despised religion and his followers did their best to get rid of it. Then they proceeded to murder everyone who opposed them, everyone who stood in the way of their creation of an ideal society.
I am not equating athieism with Marxism, just showing that eradicating religion won't solve the problem.
And by the way LCR I never said ALL professors are atheists. But college is where the message of scientific atheism is being passed along, increasingly. I wouldn't mind if the message were true or in any way supported by scientific evidence. But it is just another ideology, based on faith and personal preference. Just like all the different religions who each insist they are the only true one.
Religious intolerance started with monotheism, by the way. Polytheistic religions do not insist that only their gods are real. They understand that god is infinite and unlimited, and can take on any form.
Posted by: realpc | July 6, 2007 9:46 AM
You're talking to me, Science Avenger? I'm not an intolerant Christian, not even a Christian. I'm a pro-science, liberal, scientist.
You're an equivocating ignorant lying troll with no respect for evidence or logic who simply makes shit up (eg I've never said or implied that abolishing religion would free the world from ignorance and hatred) rather than deal honestly with the arguments people actually make.
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 6, 2007 10:16 AM
realpc said:
"All the things you and LCR blame religion for should be blamed on human nature and its politics."
As I have said, and you refuse to acknowledge, religion (and ITS politics) is ALSO an expression of human nature and is directly linked with violent acts of intolerance.
"If you could abolish religion, you would still have plenty of intolerance and violence. The Marxist revolutions are perfect examples of this."
Strawman. Never said there wasn't violence outside of religion. No one has. But examples of extra-religious violence does NOTHING to reduce the severity, the horror, and the injustice of the violence and loss of human life that results from religiously inspired/sponsored agression and intolerance.
"You think that abolishing religion would free the world from ignorance and hatred."
No, I don't. Strawman argument. See above. But, yes, it would sure help.
"And by the way LCR I never said ALL professors are atheists."
You need to read more carefully. I said "majority" of your science professors, which is what YOU implied, and that is still an incorrect generalization.
"But college is where the message of scientific atheism is being passed along, increasingly."
College is where people are taught to think and reason and process information and to explore other cultures. That's why students sometimes become non-believers... not because their professors teach it, but because they reason it out for themselves. Reason and logic are the enemies of blind religious faith, not college professors. You appear to have a massive chip on your shoulder about the "authorities" in our universities and its skewing your view of reality.
"I wouldn't mind if the message were true or in any way supported by scientific evidence. But it is just another ideology, based on faith and personal preference."
That's right, scientific facts and evidence are the result of personal preference. How foolish of me to have not seen this before.
To put it bluntly, you are no scientist, you were never an atheist, and I seriously doubt you are a "liberal" in the true sense of the word. Your lies are tiring and you are obviously not actually reading and processing what I (and others) are saying. Science Avenger is correct. This is a futile exercise.
Posted by: LCR | July 6, 2007 12:13 PM
"scientific facts and evidence are the result of personal preference"
Of course not. But scientific atheism has nothing to do with scientific facts. It's a preference, a way to help its believers feel superior and non-ignorant. Why do you think Dawkins calls himself and his followers "brights?"
It's also a way of have hope for future generations. Science will find answers and improve the lives of your descendents.
Posted by: realpc | July 6, 2007 12:24 PM
"But scientific atheism has nothing to do with scientific facts."
First and foremost, science says nothing about god because it can only answer questions about the natural world, not the supernatural. It can only speak to those things that are testable, which does NOT apply to issues of faith and religion. It is impossible to prove god exists, but it is also logically impossible to prove that god DOESN'T exist, so science has no more to say on atheism than it does on god.
Individuals like myself, who question the existence of god, look to science, not to prove that god doesn't exist, but to see if god is even necessary at all. We read and learn about the natural processes that have shaped our world and many of us have come to the conclusion that a supernatural being was not necessary to create what we see today. Therefore, unless someone produces evidence that a god does exist (and I'm not holding my breath), it is unnecessary to believe in the existence of a god.
So, no... "scientific atheism" is not a wishy-washy preference. It is a conclusion based upon the available evidence, something you can't seem to understand because you do not understand how science works. For scientists and students of science, the goal is not superiority over non-scientists. That sounds a lot like a goal of one religion competing against another... and science is not a religion, it is a process, a tool, a method of study. Science is not an ideology that competes for followers. It does not seek faithful. It can't. That is not how it works. The goal of science and those who practice it is simply a more complete understanding of our natural world.
That is important, so I will repeat it:
THE GOAL OF SCIENCE IS SIMPLY A MORE COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF OUR NATURAL WORLD.
Until you get that (and you don't), this conversation is at a dead end.
Posted by: LCR | July 6, 2007 7:50 PM
"many of us have come to the conclusion that a supernatural being was not necessary to create what we see today."
Right -- you are using science for what you just said it cannot be used for. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that the world could have been thrown together by chance -- unless you believe the neo-Darwinist propaganda.
Nothing in science supports your atheism, so atheism is a philosophical preference, just like any religion.
(I believe in evolution).
Posted by: realpc | July 6, 2007 9:22 PM
realpc,
Read it again. You are not getting it, perhaps because you don't want to.
Atheism is not a belief that there is no god. Atheism is a lack of belief in any god. Do you see the difference?
And I didn't say that science supports atheism. I said that nothing in science supports the existence of a supernatural being. That is a HUGE difference. If there is no support for the existence of a god, the default position is atheism, which again is a LACK of belief in a god. Until anyone provides empirical evidence of a supernatural being, there is no logical reason to believe in one.
And you can't possibly UNDERSTAND evolution (the word "believe" is incorrect as evolution is a process, not an ideology) and use the term "neo-Darwinian propaganda" at the same time. No self-respecting person of science would say that, as they would understand what a ridiculous term it is. Yet another lie we can attribute to you.
Posted by: LCR | July 7, 2007 12:08 AM
So LCR, you won't believe in anything until scientists have provided evidence for it?
----
And you may define atheism that way, but it's typically defined as a denial that anything considered "supernatural" can possibly exist.
----
I believe in evolution, and I don't believe the current standard theory adequately explains it.
There are two positions on evolution:
A. Life is an unlikely accident in a mindless universe.
B. Life is a natural expression of a living universe.
Position A is being taught in biology classes. So metaphysics is being injected into science. Students are taught that scientists can explain life, when in fact they cannot.
Posted by: realpc | July 7, 2007 7:01 AM
"So LCR, you won't believe in anything until scientists have provided evidence for it?"
Please read carefully. I said "anyone", not "scientists"... it just has to be empirical evidence.
"And you may define atheism that way, but it's typically defined as a denial that anything considered "supernatural" can possibly exist."
I don't care how it's "typically" defined. "Typical" does not equate with "correct", especially in this particular definition.
"I believe in evolution, and I don't believe the current standard theory adequately explains it."
Then you are managing to believe in something that you do not adequately understand. Not very scientific of you.
"There are two positions on evolution:
A. Life is an unlikely accident in a mindless universe.
B. Life is a natural expression of a living universe."
No! No! No! Again, you display just how very little you understand anything in this discussion. Evolution has nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to say on how life began. That falls under the study of abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution can not occur until life (and reproduction of some sort) already exists.
Let's reiterate. You don't understand what atheism is, so you could not possibly have been an atheist. You don't understand basic concepts of science, so you can not be a scientist. You don't understand the basic principles of evolution, and you spout creationist nonsense ("neo-Darwinian propaganda" and confusion with abiogenesis) and yet you say you "believe" in evolution.
The only person you could possibly be fooling is yourself.
Posted by: LCR | July 7, 2007 11:37 AM
A. The origin and evolution of life is an unlikely accident in a mindless universe.
B. The origin and evolution of life is a natural expression of a living universe."
Is that a little better?
"Then you are managing to believe in something that you do not adequately understand. Not very scientific of you."
Right, if you define science as the delusion that we can completely understand things. By that definition, I am not scientific.
Posted by: realpc | July 7, 2007 1:21 PM
Yeah, LCR, all you science types think you are so smart. Of course the origin of life is a natural expression of a living universe. If it were an unlikely accident in a mindless universe, it would take, gosh, billions of years for it to happen, and we all know it happened in just a few days.
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 7, 2007 1:31 PM
"Is that a little better?"
No.
"Right, if you define science as the delusion that we can completely understand things. By that definition, I am not scientific."
Actually, given your opinion of those "authorities", I would guess this WOULD be your cynical definition of science. I would prefer "Science is a method or process by which we can strive to understand things in our natural environment." And even then, you are not being scientific.
Posted by: LCR | July 7, 2007 4:55 PM
Science Avenger chastises:
"Yeah, LCR, all you science types think you are so smart."
We do? :-) I actually believe that scientists aren't really any smarter than anyone else. I just think they are clever enough not to blather on about a topic they know little or nothing about. When they lack knowledge about a particular topic, most of them know well enough to admit it and ask lots and lots of questions to resolve their ignorance.
realpc could really benefit from putting that into practice.
Posted by: LCR | July 7, 2007 5:13 PM
I am a "science type." Yes you can be scientific without being an atheist.
And I agree LCR that scientists aren't smarter than non-scientists. They just have specialized knowledge in some area. I admit my area of specialization is not biology but I have asked lots and lots of questions and read lots and lots of books. And since the internet, have read lots and lots of blogs like The Panda's Thumb.
I think the evolution controversy is extremely important, extremely interesting.
I'm happy being a non-atheist but have no interest in converting you or anyone. You're happy being an atheist, and we should all just live and let live. My concern is with logic and evidence. These questions are so difficult and subtle, so easily twisted, I just can't resist getting involved in this debate.
I am constantly called a Christian creationist or a right-wing fanatic, just because I am skeptical about the neo-Darwinist consensus. Scientific atheists refuse to believe an educated scientific type could ever doubt the neo-Darwinist orthodoxy.
Posted by: realpc | July 7, 2007 9:27 PM
"Scientific atheists refuse to believe an educated scientific type could ever doubt the neo-Darwinist orthodoxy."
No, the "scientific atheists" (which strangely includes many non-atheists) are simply able to recognize dubious arguments against the science when they see them. That they don't credulously accept any half-baked criticism of a consensus that's been developed over decades to centuries doesn't amount to enforcing a rigid "orthodoxy".
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 7, 2007 10:02 PM
Posted by: Stanton | July 8, 2007 1:45 AM
Stanton,
You don't understand anything I said, or didn't read it. I said I believe in evolution, repeatedly. I don't believe random mutations plus natural selection are adequate to explain evolution. The standard accepted theory is that random mutations plus natural selection are the essential basis of evolution.
I do not doubt evolution, and all the evidence is for evolution, not for the standard current theory.
Scientists admit they can't explain the origin of life, but they insist they have explained the origin of species. Then we hear about all the overwhelming evidence for evolution, but no evidence at all that the explanation is true.
There is a difference between adaptation and the origin of new species, but this difference is denied or minimized.
I am criticizing your certainty that life originated and evolved as an unlikely series of accidents in a dead universe. I believe the origin and evolution of life is a natural expression of a living universe (I realize I said that but have to repeat everything constantly).
I am not a Christian creationist, or a Christian. I believe in evolution. I do not think science has explained evolution.
That is the essence of the debate. ID is not Christian creationism. It's almost impossible for people to understand that there can be something other than two irrational extreme views.
Posted by: realpc | July 8, 2007 7:25 AM
Time to dump realpc in the killfile. It's become increasingly obvious that this guy is the lowest of low-hanging fruit.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | July 8, 2007 8:24 AM
Aww, ya big meanie Tyler! I don't think he's so bad. I'm actually keen to hear what on earth a "living universe" is, as opposed to our "dead" one. What does that actually mean? That the universe is alive? It is. What do you think we're made out of?
realpc: regarding the apparent objections to evolutionary theory / macroevolution, are you familiar with stuff like this? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
(Note also the link at the top of that page to http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)
I mean, I'm willing to hear objections to the evidence, but to deny it altogther seems, well, ignorant. You seem a pretty intelligent human, so maybe you'll come up with objections that haven't already been answered over and over again. But if you can't, well, you just seem to have staked out a position in the early stages of an argument that was lost a long time ago. That just seems pointless.
Posted by: SmellyTerror | July 8, 2007 11:48 AM
I said I believe in evolution, repeatedly.
You also lie repeatedly. To wit:
The standard accepted theory is that random mutations plus natural selection are the essential basis of evolution.
No it isn't, and that has been explained to you numerous times, yet you keep on lying like a good little troll.
Tyler is right. It's time to deny this propogandist his podium.
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 8, 2007 11:49 AM
Science Avenger,
This was recently discussed at PT, but I guess you missed it. After a long conversation, everyone involved seemed to admit that random mutations plus natural selection is the basis of it all. The other stuff just modifies slightly. I did not see you object.
Posted by: realpc | July 8, 2007 12:48 PM
Then you didn't look very carefully, I was one of the first objectors, and everyone involved did NOT "admit" any such thing.
Yes, IF, sexual selection is counted as part of natural selection (to which I objected then and object now), and IF genetic drift, gene duplication, and all the other types of variations that occur are included as "random mutation", then it would suffice.
But that isn't what you mean when you chant "NS + RM" and you know it. It's just another liars game of equivocation with you, as is everything else. You can't make your ignorant arguments against the entirety of evolutionary theory, so you attack a straw man subset.
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 8, 2007 1:25 PM
RM + NS is the essence of the current standard theory, and you know it. The variations have no purpose or direction AT ALL, according to NDE. The variations are not aware of their environment -- the organism they are part of, or the environment outside the organism. NDE DEPENDS on the hypothesis that nature is not intelligent, that intelligence depends on and is generated by physical brains. NO OTHER system (unless designed by humans) can have intelligence. ONLY BRAINS.
And yet, you have practically no idea how brains work, how they generate intelligence.
Your NDE theory absolutely insists that nature is not intelligent. Yet it somehow, by chance and selection, generates intelligent organisms with brains.
THAT is your theory, and THAT is what ID questions.
It seems to me that ID is being pretty reasonable, questioning dogmatic assertions that have no evidence behind them.
So of course you love it when people confuse NDE with evolution theory in general, and when they confuse ID with Christian creationism. Then you can win easily. It is not so easy for you to win when the real questions are being debated.
Posted by: realpc | July 9, 2007 10:02 AM
"Your NDE theory absolutely insists that nature is not intelligent. Yet it somehow, by chance and selection, generates intelligent organisms with brains."
Your objections are absurd. Are you trying to establish an argument that only something intelligent can produce intelligence? And do you understand you have nothing to back up that belief but conjecture?
I have no idea why an unthinking natural set of instructions (i.e., those who reproduce more successfully in a given environment will pass on more of those genes that led to their success) should cause anyone consternation over the fact that one end result of those instructions is an intelligent brain.
Nature has no legs and yet somehow it has produced creatures with legs.
Nature has no wings, no lungs, no heart, no leaves, no reproductive organs, no pollen, no tentacles, no gills... and yet it has produced organisms with all of these features.
Do you have a problem with the evolution of all of these features (and more) or is it just intelligence that you have a problem with? Because intelligence is a physical expression of our genes and our environment, no more and no less than any other expression. Our brain may still pose as a puzzle for neurobiologists because of its complexity, a puzzle that time will help solve, but in the long run it is simply a product of evolutionary processes, ALL OF THEM, just like all other fascinating and incredible physical structures.
Your objections, which you share with ID enthusiasts, have no merit as you are establishing false, non-existent, unsupported boundaries to the evolutionary process, based solely upon the point that YOU can't possibly imagine how it could happen.
Posted by: LCR | July 9, 2007 12:13 PM
"Our brain may still pose as a puzzle for neurobiologists because of its complexity, a puzzle that time will help solve, but in the long run it is simply a product of evolutionary processes,"
That is a statement based entirely on faith in the ideology of materialist science. If you like believing it, fine, but at least admit it's faith. And let other people choose their beliefs, rather than trying to indoctrinate every child into your preferred ideology.
Can you see that your prediction is a hope, not a fact? Should children be taught that something is true because you expect that there will be evidence some day?
Posted by: realpc | July 9, 2007 8:16 PM
It trolled thusly: That is a statement based entirely on faith in the ideology of materialist science.
That's like claiming the theory that the Egyptians built the pyramids without the help of aliens is based on faith until we can provide a step-by-step explanation for how they did it. Never mind that there is no evidence whatsoever that aliens have ever visited this planet, or even exist at all.
Egyptians existed, and there is no reason they couldn't have built the pyramids, therefore they are the most reasonable hypothesis. That's not faith. Believing aliens had to have helped them is faith. It doesn't matter if we can't explain every single step of the process. First demonstrate that there even are aliens, and then we'll talk. Until then, Egyptians are all we've got to go on, and whether or not you have personal difficulty accepted that they were capable of such a thing is completely irrelevant.
The creationist/IDer attacks on evolution use the exact same flawed reasoning. Evolutionary mechanisms exist, and are capable, in principle, of accomplishing all that evolutionary theory asks of them. Therefore they are the most reasonable hypothesis. That's not faith. Believing some designer had to have lended a hand is faith, because there is no evidence that there even is a designer. Of course, when you explicitly forbid even discussing the nature of the hypothetical designer, it's really tough to acquire evidence for it. That naturally is why ID's designer remains such a piece of conjectural puffery.
Posted by: Science Avenger | July 9, 2007 9:52 PM
realpc said:
"Can you see that your prediction is a hope, not a fact? Should children be taught that something is true because you expect that there will be evidence some day?"
Two points that you overlooking/ignoring/ignorant of:
1. I base my confidence in science not on hope, nor upon faith, but simply upon experience. Open your eyes and take a look at human history, particularly in relation to advances in science. Read a science book, for gosh sake. Think of the progress that has been made in medicine, in astrophysics, in neuroscience, in engineering, in agriculture... we, as a species, using science, have been to the moon, for heaven sake! The problems we have managed to solve using science and our curiousity and our imagination is utterly awe-inspiring (more so than any god could inspire, frankly). Considering what we have been able to accomplish, how dare you suggest that we might NOT be able to decipher the mystery of the human brain in the next 100 years...
2 ... unless people like ID supporters manage to convince others that things are too hard, or too complicated, or meant to remain a mystery since we can't possibly understand how or why God works. To assume that we CAN'T better understand the world around us is certainly a path to failure.
No, science hasn't solved all of life's mysteries... not yet and perhaps never. We are mearly fallible humans after all... we will need lots and lots of time. Who are we (actually, you) to say that we should stop looking for answers to those my