I've never read a column by Dan Gardner in the Ottawa Citizen before, but I think I've been missing something, at least judging by his recent observations on how three Ottawa city councillors (by name: Marianne Wilkinson, Rainer Bloess, and Doug Thompson) have done so much to advance the cause of atheism in the city. Ottawa public transit allows religious organizations to adorn the city's buses with their propaganda, but the "Sensitive Three," as Gardner calls the councillors, don't want the bland freethinker message, "There's probably no god. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" to be similarly displayed because they, as believing Christians, are "offended." How does this silliness about being offended advance the cause of atheism? Gardner lays it out:
Just look at what the Sensitive Three have already accomplished. Ads by religious organizations are permitted on city buses, within certain guidelines, and some of those ads explicitly or implicitly assert the existence of god. By refusing to run ads that claim the opposite, the councillors have exposed the double-standard that rings religion like an electrified fence.[snip here, but follow the link and read the whole thing; it's great]
What really grates on Ms. Wilkinson and the very sensitive people she speaks for is that the ad’s claim is contrary to what she believes to be true. There’s nothing more to it because there’s nothing more to the ad.
Now, advertising routinely makes claims that some people do not accept. Pepsi tastes better than Coke. Fox News is fair and balanced. Marianne Wilkinson should be re-elected. God exists.
No reasonable person would think for a moment that these claims are demeaning to those who disagree with them, nor would they think twice before admitting them to the public forum. I, for one, disagree with all these statements and yet I feel not the slightest urge to suppress them.
[another snip, and more great stuff omitted so as to stay within bounds of "fair use"; go read the column]
For laying bare this illogical and indefensible double-standard, we atheists thank the Sensitive Three.
But that’s not the end of the gratitude we must express. Not at all. Every person who agrees with the statement “there’s probably no god” is further indebted to three councillors and the OC Traspo officials whose blinkered stupidity got this bus rolling in the first place.
Look at the paragraph above. See the statement “there’s probably no god”?
The Freethought Association of Canada wants to pay a great deal of money to put that on the side of buses so it can be splattered with slush and ignored by people shivering at bus stops across the city. By stopping them from doing so, the Sensitive Three turned the ad into news. And now that very same statement is popping up in reports and commentaries across the country. (Dan Gardner, Ottawa Citizen)
Good for you, Dan Gardner (who writes on the Ottawa Citizen's blog every Wednesday, Friday and Saturday). Careful, though. On Sunday, Wednesday and Saturday there's a column by one David Warren, who writes typically pedestrian crapola about why Darwin is wrong:
It is perhaps worth mentioning, moreover, that as a class, I have found the people I refer to affectionately as “Darwinoids” — those who defend Darwinism explicitly because it is materialist, evolutionist, scientistic, and atheist — are the rudest of all my correspondents, not excluding radical feminists. I received a considerable volume of mail some years ago from radical Islamists, and in retrospect I must say they were, by comparison to the Darwinoids, consistently modest and respectful, even when delivering death threats. And let me add, most appeared to be far better informed about the Shariah, than any of the Darwinoids about Natural Selection. (David Warren, "Why I continue to defy Darwin")
Mr. Warren, who claims no scientific expertise but claims considerable sophistication when it comes to modern evolutionary theory, is the mental leavings of the usual crank with a fixation about atheism. He lies for rhetorical effect when he goes on to say that correspondents who understand the science of evolution tend to agree:
They grasp that what works on the microevolutionary scale is an open question on the macro level; that it is going to remain open in the foreseeable future. And they allow, as Charles Darwin himself allowed, that Darwinism makes an ugly ideology.
[snip; follow the link for even more at risk of your sanity; not recommended if you have hypertension]
For as I have repeatedly observed, and as anyone may observe, contemporary biology owes very little, if anything at all, to The Origin of Species (though much to the evolutionary paradigm, which long pre-dated Darwin). Darwin’s may be the Victorian family portrait on the wall, but the advanced work in genetics and microbiology, and the actual fieldwork in natural history, would be no different had Darwin somehow escaped being born.
So why do I bother with him? I should have thought the reason was obvious, in this “Year of Darwin.” The man has survived, not as a man, nor as a biological theory, nor even as a chapter in the history of science, but as a living cosmology and philosophy of life — with a remarkable power for evil. And while it will be dismissed as “guilt by association,” the fact that Darwin’s portrait was also very publicly on the wall, as the scientific ancestor for Nazi eugenic schemes, and Communist notions of scientific materialism, should give its supporters real pause.
You know what's coming next, don't you:
Materialist, evolutionist, scientistic, and atheist ideologies, which deny the ontological uniqueness of man, were responsible for the slaughter of well over 100 million souls in the last century, and we await the score for this one. And they have always been able to depend on a cheering section of fellow travellers and useful idiots, wherever intellectuals congregate.
I oppose “Darwinism” for two reasons. The lesser one is that, as science, it is not merely superannuated, but false. As such it is unhelpful to real empirical science, for it provides conceptual obstacles that get in its way. But that is the lesser reason, and one relies on nature herself to provide the material that cumulatively overturns the false hypothesis.
The greater reason to oppose “Darwinism” — in exactly the way it is presented today by Richard Dawkins and various other proselytizers for an activist Atheism — is that the ideas encased in this old amber are incredibly vile and destructive. The hypothetical reduction of man to a chance product of “natural processes” undermines, and can only undermine, all moral values, and replace them only with exigencies.
The Ottawa Citizen. From the sublime on Wednesday, Friday and Saturday (well, maybe not sublime, but certainly cogent) to the ridiculous (and characteristically narrow minded) on Sunday, Wednesday and Saturday. Watch out on Wednesday and Saturday. You might get mental whiplash.
- Log in to post comments
I believe that between the Man and the god: there is more that a Missing Link !
Warren uses the term "Darwinism" in lieu of the word "evolution" -- manipulative and intentionally inaccurate language. But not to fear: He also used the word "ontological" in his column, and I doubt the creationist/ID crowd can understand multi-syllabic words like that.
Thanks for the link to the Gardner column!
It's like blaming Newton for the V2 ballistic rocket..
(first article was pretty good, though)
It's like blaming Newton for the V2 ballistic rocket..
HAHAHAHAH! I like that!!!
Hey. Guys like me need a break. Anybody?
I'm an admirer of Darwin and the power of his insight. Even more I marvel at the power of genetics and the application of evolutionary principals to so many fields of human endeavor. It's just that I can't seem to get inside. You know, get tight with the movers and shakers of Militant Darwinism and really be a part of, you know, the heart of the movement.
C'mon, somebody!! Please give me just one of the secret passwords. Maybe show me just one of the secret handshakes. Please? I'd be very quiet and not break anything.
How come a course rube like Gardner gets to know about this stuff and I am left clueless? Can't the conspiracy to remove morals and decency from human life and create a race of scientific zombies be just a little more open and welcoming? For guys like me?
Mr./Ms. Wrot? Would you like to step over here for a moment, I have some information for you from [whisper] the Darwinian cabal *wink* [/whisper]. Just step around the corner with me into this convenient dark alley.
*delivers blackjack whack*
When will they learn to stop asking so many questions?
*drags unconscious Wrot away for re-education*
Ha! That's funny. I like it.
But when you say "they" are you counting the elevator boy?
And oh, Mister is accurate and there are two T's in Wrott. As a crude estimate.
Mr. Wrott!
Good heavens, so sorry for the misunderstanding! It seems my reading of the intel was a bit mistaken. The communique clearly has but one "t", so it seems I have the wrong meddlesome individual.
Here, this ice pack should help the with the swelling.
This elevator boy you mention, where is he located? Just curious. *shifty eyes*
Elevator boy is an allusion to an old Firesign Theatre routine. If you knew it you'd get it. If you don't know it, I suggest starting out with Waiting for the Electrician, or Someone Like Him and then working your way up to the hard stuff. ;^)
I'll have to check this out. I've seen references before, and I'm a fan of laughing, so I think this may be a worthwhile enterprise. Thanks!
Well, with a positive attitude like that you'll soon be asking that musical question,
"Oh, how can you be
Two places at once
When you're not
Anywhere at all?"
In the mean time, you can wait here in the sitting room or sit here in the waiting room.
David Warren:
Ruder than radical feminists? 'Darwinoids' should blush with modesty at this high praise. (Alternatively, 'Darwinoids' should bash Warren for his sexism more often.)
Discipline in routine! Train them to go to bed before 8 o'clock and say 'grace' by rotation. Trained by routine as early as a little child.
Thealogian, Simon Morris, who is an evolutionary paleo-biologist, has aligned the truth of evolution with our life experiences, by his words-orthogonal to every -day experiences.
Any biology student can understand that Homo sapiens and chimpanzee have 99% common genome, and with rat have 97%. The evidences of evolution are prominent. LUCA hypothesis maybe one day proves that our DNA had been given by viruses. So, what do the discoveries mean to our self-understanding?
How crucible experiences are life experiences- it has taken a long way to evolve our body and all biological structure by nature laws. It has passed all the crucible steps.
As early as a child to educate them the wisdom of life by discipline; learn well a second language or a good musician need 20,000 hours in study- a child immerses in TV and computer game end up with low performance, so go to sleep earlier is essential. To say grace to understand the meaning of thanksgiving and reverence in each day will build up the strong mental foundation until aged. Sigmund Freud until his age of 89 had affirmed the value of introspection in biblical wisdom to a personâs intellectual and mental life.
Scientists can lead to live with the song of creation- humbly express that we are created and appreciate our creatureliness. The distinctive character of human was not recorded in old book; nevertheless our unexpected encounter.
Economical crisis has followed the law of evolution. Any system abused in the earlier stage can not sustain long. Even human beings have compassion and intervention, so what do you think about the billion history of nature? Can we say to this hardship, life is good?
The reason believers freak out about atheist messages on buses:
Religion operates in nonverbal parts of the brain that are intimately linked to personal sense of identity.
When someone perceives a slight against themselves in this area (directly or by implication), it produces a sense of being offended in a way that is difficult to verbalize directly. Instead it comes out indirectly, as an attempt to shut off the source of the discomfort. Thus, ban the atheist messages from the buses.
Knowing how this works should make it possible for people to address it directly by "going meta" with those who object to e.g. atheist messages, evolution, etc. If you use the right language, you might get through to these people; otherwise, their level of bombastic rage will increase thereby providing support for the hypothesis.
Speaking here as someone who is unconventionally religious, embraces science, and is more than willing to be objective about these things.
The convergence focusing on the truth of evolution and creation is the important hallmark for human civilization. Lack of one side is incomplete and always unbalanced; therefore less vibrant and less viable. We don't need to rely on Charles Darwin's Natural Theology- the first cause and second cause model, neither ID makeup; our emptied mind can tell the beauty or ambivalent nature and maintain the stance beyond the perilous reductionist and materialist.
The song of creation is open-ended and universally imaginative and mindful; it depicts our biological crucible past and also our hopeful destiny as lonely and distinctive beings on the Earth.
Quoted Simon Morris again, "the scientist who boomingly â and they always boom â declares that those who believe in the Deity are unavoidably crazy, âcrackedâ as my dear father would have said, although I should add that I have every reason to believe he was â and now hope is â on the side of the angels."
So whats the point of the message besides taking a shot at those who believe?. It's like the jerk that went to a Catholic church to get a cookie and making a show of stuffing it in his pocket to piss off those in attendance.
Probably expresses there is evidence to suggest such a conclusion. The absence of evidence is not evidence or proof that something does not exist.
If you are certain that your belief that there is no God is true. Your certitude is an act of faith.
There is no proof one way or another, and even if God exists, nobody knows what his/her/it's nature is. Maybe when the concept is accepted it will be known as another name, invented by some scientist.
It's like Einstein rejecting the Aether in his theory of special relativity since there was no evidence of it's existence, which is now called a quantum medium, and both are the same thing, just do not call it Aether. In fact, today some are arguing that Einstein invented the New Aether with his theory of general relativity, and hence the quantum medium, since it must be new as his special theory of relativity disposed of the Old Aether only to be resurrected from the ashes as the New Aether 11 years later. A miracle.
In any event man was not meant to comprehend the higher power behind the universe and mans creation (via evolution or otherwise), or to know for sure there is such a higher power. Like the Aether and Quantum medium, we can only try to understand. But it is kind of mind boggling to believe this is all an accident of nature, so until we have a better understanding of the universe, I tend to agnosticism.
Religion is a different animal than just believing in a higher power. It is a creation of the ruling elite for control purposes. That said, it gives people comfort and generally is harmless, except those fundamentalists who are intolerant of others beliefs, or when politicians use religion to get support for their policies.
Not sure the world would be a better place w/o religion to be honest. Seems the worst wars and human rights abuses have occurred in the age of secularism and enlightenment.
Today a new (old) religion for the secular is being created, it is disguised as science called Gaia worshipping and AGW where man is a sinner against nature and will burn in a green hell on earth if they do not mend their ways of over consumption. These secular fundamentalists seek a means of controlling those who have rejected the traditional religions.
Darwin and Malthus have provided ammunition to those Marxists who seek Global control, although thats not their fault. Nobody seriously questions that Darwins science was embraced by Social Darwinists which then led to the Eugenics movement that the Nazis embraced. This neo-malthusian eugenics movement still exists today, disguised by Orwellian language and controlled by the secular fundamentalists to achieve their globalist agenda.
Politics has also taken on religous over tones, the Church of Republicans and Church of Democrats with Obama the Messiah currently in charge.
In fact there are so many different types of religions, traditional, secular, political, and people are so divided as a result, there is nothing to bind people to one another as a society except nationalism and Bush kind of took the luster off that. Nope, I don't think we are much better off today than when there was a single state religion. Troubled waters ahead.
I may need Ms. Karen Armstrong's interpretation of how fundamentalist has distorted religion; she said, "It is important to realize that fundamentalist movements are not an archaic throwback to the past; they are modern, innovative and modernizing. At the heart of their reaction has been the transfer of what was once regarded mystical and unsayable, into a dangerously inward-looking and quasi-scientific literalism."
We need to empty the misconception and misunderstanding of religion due to the distortion of religion. Infact, the true enemy of religion is fundamentalist's pseudo-religion; an absolute idolatory worship.
So, empty it and kill it; therefore you will allow sciece and religion to flourish in your mind. IMO.
(...)"there is nothing to bind people to one another as a society except nationalism"(...)write pft
that only the god-flag allows the human being to get closer to somebody It is true of the truth.
Evolution now is seen universally; the cosmos, biological world and human beings.
What is the distinctive part of human beings? What is the universal mind?
If Simon Morris' saying that evolution is orthogonal to our every-day experiences, then the economic crisis and solution is not exempted from the principle of evolution. Or science is science and economy is economy, dichotomy?
There are laws of survival. It is wisdom.