Looking for some ungodly inspiration? Here are some possibilities:
-
Revere optimistically sees atheism as becoming mainstream. I think this is the virtue of the open and aggressive discussions about atheism going on — there are more freethinkers out there than polls reveal, and they are silent because of the oppression of the majority. We are demolishing the societal avoidance of considering atheism; the goal isn't exactly evangelical, since I don't think we're necessarily "converting" people, but more a matter of giving people the freedom to reject gods.
-
It's time for the Carnival of the Godless #66. 600 more, and we launch the Apocalypse.
-
Richard Dawkins has assembled some succinct rebuttals to criticisms of The God Delusion. I particularly liked his response to the claim that "people need religion". No, they do not. I don't, Dawkins doesn't—and it's not as if we are weird mutants. You could say that people need stories, people need reconciliation, people need consonance with their world, and religion tries to provide those things…but the message we need to get across is that religion is a flawed, illusory, and erroneous strategy for providing for human needs, and we can do better.
-
The Paszkiewicz/LaClair case has been settled. No blame was attached to either side, but the settlement does make it clear that teaching Biblical superstition as history is not to be permitted, so it's an implicit rebuke, although Paszkiewicz still gets off scot-free.
- Log in to post comments
Y'know, it really doesn't bother me one bit if people believe in God.
But I sure wish people could see that belief in God does not obligate you to harm others. In fact, if that "in His image" stuff is true, maybe the opposite.
Nice article by Dawkins. It's not like anyone will care, since people will just regurgitate the same arguments pretending he never addresses them, but it was a nice, succinct piece.
An Immaculate Injection is needed STAT!
You just sent us to the Dawkins piece because he mentions you, didn't you, PZ?? THat was sneaky! ;-)
Recently the pope declared that his god was going to punish drug dealers after they die. As opposed to before they die, when it might be helpful. Apparently the pope believes in an extremely maladapted god. That level of maladaption suggests his god is mentally ill. This chronic habit of waiting until after death, when it is too late to change a life, and then punishing dead people, as if cause and effect will run backward in time to affect the living, is prima facie evidence that the pope's god is as crazy as a shithouse rat.
Atheists explanation of their positions does not count as evangelizing because:
1) The motivation is not to convert to a particular ideology. This is especially true when the communications are directed at discussing why atheists don't believe in god, pointing out fallacies, etc. It's not like Dawkins is trying to convert them to communism or some other positive ideology.
2)Often the explanation is required to counter what are defamatory claims from the other side. If somebody were to claim Jews are evil and wish to drink the blood of non-Jews then a Jew disputing this claim is not evangelizing.
BTW, I don't think there is anything wrong with evangelizing just so long as it is not done in an intrusive and obnoxious fashion. Merely writing a book is not intrusive nor obnoxious so it's silly to be upset with either Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins even if you think they are trying to get converts. In fact, I do believe they are trying to change the way people think, but not being leaders or members of any ideological organization I think this is a silly charge.
"...giving people the freedom to reject gods." I like that. You are right. While I do hope that people will eventually abandon religion, they need to do this on their own. All I can do is help and provide encouragement.
He credits you and you didn't even mention it
Hitchens' god is not Great:
Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2 in Books
Woo hoo!
Dawkins: "I recently heard a prize specimen of I'm-an-atheist-buttery quote this and then substitute his own version: "I believe in people, and people believe in God.""
Dawkins should have credited anthropologist Mel Konner of Emory University for this quote.
The mistake that Dawkins keeps making is that he believes that atheism (and anti-teleology and metaphysical naturalism) are the only views compatible with science, and hence are the only legitimate conclusions of a reasonable mind.
Dawkins proves that the ability of science alone to inform human understanding is limited. Many atheists would have serious problems with Dawkins' views on criminal culpability ( http://tinyurl.com/34aefe ), trial by jury ( http://tinyurl.com/jqge4 ), and ape rights ( http://tinyurl.com/cmbap ).
How many times must it be said? Atheists do not make saints out of men. Scientists do not make saints out of men.
I worship neither Darwin nor Dawkins. I sing not their praises nor consider them infallible. Even the mighty PZ has human frailties.
Even were the quotes in context, Darwin's puppy beating does not falsify modern evolutionary theory. Newton's political and professional backstabbing does not falsify modern gravitational theory. Disagreeing with Dawkins' views on jury trials does not suddenly *poof* a God into existence. Likewise, agreeing with Dawkin's views on jury trials does not suddenly *poof* a God into nonexistence.
YOU LIE! What about your mutant superpower, huh!!!?
How very arrogant you are. Dawkins' views are clearly not entitled to special respect merely because he is fighting to increase acceptance of atheism and rationalism in the public world. But offering up his opinions as proof that scientific knowledge doesn't confer wisdom or discernment is ridiculous. You're taking for granted that his positions are absurd and incorrect, and the support you have for those slanderous implications is that "many people" would find them objectionable.
Well, many people are idiots, as can be witnessed by the number of people who are utterly unable to comprehend and accurately describe evolutionary theory, much less 'accept' it.
Perhaps the positions Dawkins espouses are worth more than a cursory and reflexive examination. Not because Dawkins is anyone special, but because knee-jerk responses are often a poor idea and new ideas ought not to be rejected merely because they don't match our prejudices.
I defended Dawkins in the 90s Science Wars against self-righteous Gould-Lewontin disciples who had not bothered to read him directly. I'm still rankled when certain bloggers glibly dismiss Dawkins' views on evolutionary biology as "naive." At one time Dawkins and I belonged to the same scientific organization. My copy of the Selfish Gene is signed. I feel especially entitled to criticize him on these matters.
Like Peter Singer, many of Dawkins' views on public policy - which he explicitly (and quite questionably) claims are informed by, if not wholly derived from, science - are risible in their unsophistication and arrogance. He attempts to use the authority of science to push his blinkered views, most notably his muddling of metaphysics and method that is the cornerstone of his New Atheist proselytizing.
Caledonian: "But offering up his opinions as proof that scientific knowledge doesn't confer wisdom or discernment is ridiculous."
It may not be proof, but it's certainly consistent with that position.
Who better than an atheist to rain on the New Atheist parade? Trust me, it's for your own good. (Kind of like male infant circumcision.)
"The mistake that Dawkins keeps making is that he believes that atheism (and anti-teleology and metaphysical naturalism) are the only views compatible with science,..." #10, Culogo
Atheism is the only view on god compatible with a scientific mindset, as the scientific mindset requires evidence. No evidence for god means there's no god. Similarly, lack of telos in the universe is an observation, not an assumption of science. Ditto for supernatural forces, with the added caveat that it's hard to see what the word "supernatural" actually means.
Besides, "metaphysical naturalism"? That's creationist jabber. As is "scientism", btw. We don't hold with your kind 'round here.
It looks to me as though Round 2 is inevitable in the Paszkiewicz/LaClair case, given that Paszkiewicz's status remains unresolved. He was not involved in the settlement at all and his lawyer declared, "There are people who think my client is the victim." (It's a terrible thing when you're not permitted to impose your cultish beliefs on your public school students.) We'll hear more when the board decides the teacher's future assignments or when his lawyer files a lawsuit against the board for interfering with his "academic freedom" to depart from the syllabus. And I'm sure that Paszkiewicz will be unhappy with the settlement's provision that school faculty and students will be taught more about separation of church and state and the difference between science (evolution) and religion (creationism).
chucko: "Besides, "metaphysical naturalism"? That's creationist jabber."
Eugenie Scott is a creationist? Massimo Pigliucci too?
http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v6/n12/full/7400589.html
Pigliucci, incidentally, used to hold the Stenger-Dawkins view:
http://www.rationalists.org/rc/1998_spring/provine-scott.htm
But he came around to the correct position, as I am certain many of you currently filled with atheist zeal eventually will. Perhaps even PZ himself.
Colugo, perhaps you could offer us an example of a thing science examines that is not 'material'.
Even better, give us an example of a new thing science could find that wouldn't be 'material', and explain to us why that thing wouldn't fit into the category.
Best of all, tell us what the scientific definition of 'material' is and explain what category of things are outside it.
Can you do any of those things?
Let's assume for a moment that we have a coherent definition of 'natural' and 'supernatural' that lets us use the categories meaningfully.
If scientists are limited to methodological naturalism, that means that they cannot even speculate as to how supernatural things might be interacting with the natural phenomena they're observing. Which means that, even when their hypotheses and models fail to conform to what they observe, they cannot modify their models in an attempt to make them accurate.
That totally abolishes the idea that anything can actually be accomplished in science.
In reality, 'nature' is what we can observe and what can affect us. It's all physical, material, whatever you want to call it, but there's no thing which can be said to exist while being part of the natural, observable world. Science has previously expanded its conceptions of what sorts of things exist far beyond what our naive, everyday human experiences tell us. This idea that existent things can be supernatural, or supernatural existent, is silly.
New Atheist proselytizing.
Dawkins deserves tons of credit for going after the religious in a political culture that has been poisoned by fundamentalist stupidity.
We should be grateful for his efforts.
Caledonian, explain the relevance of your challenges. Of course science is by definition only concerned with natural phenomena. What of it?
Scientists like Tipler and Stenger are more alike than their respective supporters realize because they both fail to respect the distinction between their science and their philosophy.
The challenges deal with the "material vs. nonmaterial" issue, while you're talking about the subject of the next post, "natural vs. unnatural". You seem to have substituted one for the other without noticing or perhaps even distinguishing between the two.
How very interesting...
CalGeorge: "Dawkins deserves tons of credit for going after the religious in a political culture that has been poisoned by fundamentalist stupidity."
That's fine. We all have our views and pet causes, there is an open marketplace of ideas, religious fanaticism is bad etc. I don't have a problem with any of that.
Simply stated, this is my problem with the New Atheists: They conflate atheism with science itself.
Prof. Dawkins was on The Sunday Edition with Michael Enright this morning. I love my CBC, even though their website sucks.
Anyway, with a bit of luck the interview will show up here in the next few days.
That last comment was meant in a joking manner -- I don't usually speak as if I were in a western. And I may have a subconscious motivation to be attacked on two threads in the same day for being an appeaser and an atheist zealot!
However, it is the case that "metaphysical naturalism" is used in relation to "methodological naturalism". The terminology here was invented to distinguish the two positions by people arguing variations on the pursuit of science being compatible with god belief, which is of course what Scott and Pigliucci, both atheists, have argued, both of them with the stated purpose of reconciling god believers and atheists by giving a way for god believers to also believe in the methodology of science. Which works, I guess, as long as one is careful not to apply reason to god itself, but it's still shoddy thinking. The term is also used by creationists with a more philosophical bent - a couched way of saying that atheism is a faith.
But as long as a person isn't trying to make excuses for god believers there's no point in making these distinctions. One could just as easily say let's apply science to everything except ghosts or esp or tambourines. It's just another one of these words for making one's prejudices seem like one of many acceptable positions.
"They conflate atheism with science itself."
Atheism is a conclusion of science. That is: there is no experimental and observational evidence for gods. It's that simple. If one is being intellectually honest to oneself, the conclusion of science today is that there're no gods.
That could change with future observation, but right now the theory holds up to many decimal places. Doesn't mean a person can't compartmentalize - believe in a god and do good science for instance. But it isn't consistent.
Yes. Caledonian is making a false connection. He wants "atheism" to mean something more than a rejection of Gods when ever someone discusses "personal" views outside that sphere. This is tantamount to living in some town where no one owns *any* gun, having someone new move in that owns a rifle, which they only used to hunt rabbits on wilderness trips, and making the stupid assertion that they obviously are not **your** kind of anti-gun person, but some sort of "*new* anti-gun" person, because they don't share 100% of all your opinions about guns. Apparently, atheists are not allowed to hold opinions about anything without it somehow being A) derived from their atheism or B) by logical extension, some sort of special dogmatic assertion made by such people about *their* version of atheism.
So, Cal... Why don't we really get stupid and start making denomitions. We can have one that likes mozart, but hates pop music, another version of atheism that likes horror films, while another doesn't. It worked well for religion. It doesn't matter how sane or insane your ***completely unrelated*** beliefs are to religion, there is some church some place that will happily make *that* opinion a matter of dogma for your church. But, do we really want **you** telling us that Dawkins of some sort of Southern Baptist Atheist and therefor can't attend to Orthodox Athiesm meetings Caledonian? I mean, I really want to be clear just what the hell you are implying here by conflating his secondary opinions, which by rights do not **have** to be based on his atheism, beyond that it helped on some level to inform them, with what *kind* of atheist he is supposed to be.
If you really think its so damn important, go form a Separatist Atheism group in protest, and let the rest of us get on with ignoring the stupidity and arrogance of such a move.
Yeah, I'm glad Dawkins pointed out how patronizing that lcaim is. It's one thing to say that many people will always consider supernaturalism the more compelling conclusion. But that they need it? That they'll collapse into despair and criminality without it...whereas we, with our superior minds, do just fine? Bleh. That's just buying into religion's claims of its own indispensability.
I hope that this was a joke.
Does Dawkins attain some sort of theoretical limit on how far science can inform human understanding? If he or any other individual scientist happens to have a silly or uninformed opinion, does that mean science can say nothing on that subject?
In any case, if you disagree with his views on same, feel free to explain why. I'd never read about them before you provided those links, and I was surprised at how closely they resemble my own. I'm indebted to you.
Mr. Myers says people don't need religion. That he doesn't need religion and that Dawkins didn't either. That many people do just fine without religion.
He is right. It is not religion that we need - it is a relationship with the Creator that we need. Religion is man-made - our attempts to reach God. But God sent His Son to provide a way for us to have a relationship wtih Him.
It is a good thing that God is a God of grace, patient, and not wishing for any to perish. Otherwise, He would have punished us for our sins and unbelief a thousand times over.
Why do we need God? Because without His sustaining power, we wouldn't be able to live. He holds the scientific laws in place that give us rain, sunshine, air, and everything we need to exist. He gives us food from which we gain strength to do what we do. He gives us talents and abilities that enable mankind to make new discoveries and solve problems.
So, Mr. Myers, although we don't need to believe in God to enjoy the blessings of God's common grace shown to both believers and unbelievers alike, in reality we do need God whether we recognize it or not. This is because without his sustaining power, we would cease to exist. Well, at least that is what the Bible says. That is what Christians believe.
Now I know this is not a popular view on this blog, but I just wanted to point out that it is not religion, but rather a relationship with the Creator God, the source of both physical and spiritual life, that we really need.
jim
Wrong. I want people to recognize what "acceptance of science" really means. And it most certainly does NOT mean giving lip service to scientific findings while disparaging and slandering the scientific method.
Good science requires consistency. It's rather like saying that one can be a good employee while embezzling from the business - the two are incompatible. A person can be a good employee in all ways other than stealing money, but the embezzelment removes that person from the "good employee" category.
Same with science. You cannot be a good scientist while suffering a gross inconsistency in your thinking.
Jim said:
I just wanted to point out that it is not religion, but rather a relationship with the Creator God, the source of both physical and spiritual life, that we really need.
And the evidence for this is...?
How does he prove any such thing? If you want to know my opinions on these topics... On the first, I think neurobiology isn't as far as he seems to think it is. So what? On the second, I think juries are a good idea if they are composed of people who have received the full education necessary for a judge, which is very similar to Dawkins' view, it seems. On the third, I precisely agree with Dawkins, and I absolutely don't see why we should use anything but science to make decisions in all three areas. What have I missed?
Sufficiently ineffable supernatural entities remain possible, simply because they aren't falsifiable. At first glance, the principle of parsimony argues against them, but whether it's even applicable here is a good question. I must mention that I haven't read Stenger's book; I'm too apathetic to get it. :-)
How is that not religion?
Evidence? For example, what makes you think that "scientific laws" are even capable of somehow collapsing if nobody "holds them in place"?
Why the infallibility of the one and **only** version of the Holy Babble he has read (all other versions being nonexistent), never mind the thousands of other texts describing thousands of other *sources* for the universe and fictitious things "holding it together". lol
Did you expect a rational defense of such a claim?
Lots of people have done very good science who also hold god belief, Cal.
What the hell is Jim going on about?
Joe bless the kook.
Well, I have a few thoughts...
First off, Dawkins has as much right to proselytize, if he wishes, as the religionists he lambastes. Now I'm not quite sure how it plays out in Dawkins' home country of the UK, but in the United States, if you have any belief in free speech at all, you really have to accept that point, and also accept that you don't have the right not to be offended.
Second, here's the thing about the supernatural: if it exists, and interacts in any way with the physical world -- any way at all -- it is not supernatural, it is part of nature and would, if confirmed, be investigated as such. If it exists and does not interact with the physical world, it is irrelevant and need not be paid any attention at all to, especially given that there is no way to observe it. If it does not exist, it does not exist, but you can't prove a negative of that sort. In any case, the idea that something is outside the realm of science is simply wrong -- if it's outside science, it is something we can't study to begin with, and therefore may as well not exist.
As for the idea that atheism is the only sustainable view of God for a rationally-minded person, I don't agree for two reasons: one, the inability for even the Faithless to agree on exactly what atheism means, and two, Deism is sustainable as long as the Deist understands that it is a speculative belief that cannot be confirmed. The idea of a personal, involved God should be nonsense to a rationalist, though, since the definition of an "Act of God" (in the theological sense, not the actuarial) seems to be largely undefinable.
And yet when the two come into contact, it always screws up the science. Remarkable, that.
BBC reporter, Scientology air dispute
Jesus. And I've always told people there was no such thing as a atheist fundamentalist.
The traditional concept of god is incompatible with the most basic concepts and techniques of science.
And actually referring to deities as an explanation is disallowed by the scientific method.
So how exactly are the two compatible? Would you care to explain? Or perhaps offer an example of a scientist producing useful results by resorting to faith?
Aww, Caledonian! Don't tell us you've gone all soul-y now? Just when I was thinking of making badges and t-shirts with "Flesh Machine" printed on them!
Well, ok, not quite, but now that I've written that, it seems like a great idea.
This concept that some people seem to have that those of us who hold similar views to Dawkins on some issues cannot disagree with him on other issuees seems to be a very odd one. For instance, I agree with Dawkins about the jury trials and the ape rights, and his GD book is a very good read. I also hate, despise and loathe all religion with probably more vitriol than Dawkins would enjoy.
But even given all that, I really did disagree with him in GD when he said that certain religious people should have crossed their fingers and lied about their beliefs to avoid going to the stake. To me, that just isn't the way to live. To give in to threats of violence is, I think, to lend support to those methods. I simply don't think that is moral. Likewise, I like to think that I would go to the stake for my non-belief. Who knows if I actually would, but I believe that it would be the "right thing to do."
Of course, this is all just my opinion. I can't point at a particular thing in the world and say "look, *that* shows that my moral position is right." But that's what makes ethics interesting, I contend, and also why ethics is not science.
Hmm. There is an alternate way of looking at lying, which unfortunately can cut both ways, Sargeist. Basically, if you are the only person in a room that knows a meteor is going to hit the building, but everyone else says you are a fool and should die for making such a claim. Is it better to die for it, or live, but continue to try to find other ways (up to a point) to convince everyone to leave the building? This may have been Dawkins' thinking on the matter. If you are right, what good does it do anyone to be the one that dies first, especially if you are the only one that is right? And a lot of those people that died for their religion held views that where radically against the same sort of idiots version of religion we have a problem with today, and for one that would have been less offensive to progress and science. Those people where a minority then. They died for almost nothing, since standing up for your ideals only count if it convinces someone, and its damn hard to convince more people as a corpse.
The down side of this is, of course, that you hope the ones that have insaner positions and are against progress, etc, **will** continue to be stupid enough to die, rather than find a way to keep fighting for their causes. lol That is why, while I quite understand the view, it can work both ways. You want to Francis Bacons of the world to not die for the supposed sin of contradicting the church, and the Falwells of the world *to* die instead. It instead tends to even over time, or worse, to be highly uneven, because I think we can say that the real con artists are highly unlikely to die for anything. To twist a saying, "For evil to prevail, all it takes is for evil men to weasel out, while good men die for their causes."
How does he prove any such thing? If you want to know my opinions on these topics... On the first, I think neurobiology isn't as far as he seems to think it is. So what? On the second, I think juries are a good idea if they are composed of people who have received the full education necessary for a judge, which is very similar to Dawkins' view, it seems. On the third, I precisely agree with Dawkins, and I absolutely don't see why we should use anything but science to make decisions in all three areas. What have I missed?
Sufficiently ineffable supernatural entities remain possible, simply because they aren't falsifiable. At first glance, the principle of parsimony argues against them, but whether it's even applicable here is a good question. I must mention that I haven't read Stenger's book; I'm too apathetic to get it. :-)
How is that not religion?
Evidence? For example, what makes you think that "scientific laws" are even capable of somehow collapsing if nobody "holds them in place"?