More Active Posts
Front Page
Onward, atheist soldiers
 |
 446 Comments |
Atheist Christopher Hitchens, author of the bestselling God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, showed once again on Thursday night, Oct. 11, that he takes no prisoners. At Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., he debated Alister McGrath, Oxford professor of historical theology and author of Christianity’s Dangerous Idea.
Hitchens highlights: Christ’s atonement for sins was an immoral act, God is a sinister dictator, Christian repentance is masochistic, humans are little more than quasi-chimpanzees, and Christianity is similar to Marxism and Nazism.
McGrath politely attempted to counter Hitchens’ attacks on Christianity one by one, finally asserting that God is not a “celestial dictator” but a “celestial liberator.” McGrath’s generous eye contact and Oxford reserve, pitted against Hitchens’ well-rehearsed vitriol, did not induce a standing ovation from the Georgetown crowd, but he did raise thought-provoking questions, including: “In a world where reason and science do not deliver what we once thought they did, on what can we base our lives if we are to know what we are truly living for the good, the beautiful, and the true life?”
The King’s College, New York City, is sponsoring on Oct. 22 a debate between Hitchens and Dinesh D’Souza, author of What’s So Right About Christianity.
 |
Topic: Editor's Choice, Front Page, Odds & Ends |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: alister-mcgrath, apologetics, atheism, Christopher-Hitchens, God-is-Not-Great |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
“on what can we base our lives”
Facts. Not delusions. Facts.
“Christian repentance is masochistic”
masochism: A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences.
Yeah, that’s the Christian religion. The problem is the “all people have sinned” myth. What a horrible belief. What a terrible way to waste a life.
“God is a sinister dictator”
That’s being nice to the man-made Bible God. The Bible God is as disgusting as the know-nothing people who invented it. It murders babies for fun. If there is a Bible God, it should be hunted down and executed.
QWERTY:
I was going to answer your foolishness by saying that it wasn’t worth a response, but that would have been a response, so . . . never mind
#2, You believe in an invisible man, and I’m the one who’s foolish?
I too am invisible to you, yet you belive in me enough to communicate with me?
Right, metanoia. What is that? Your proof for the magic man?
Hitchens continues to be the poster boy for certain elements of the media. What I can’t figure is why his antics back in May were largely ignored my almost every major media out (actually, I can figure this out, but the rhetorical comment is often effective
). You know, the time when Hitchens showed up drunk to an exclusive NY dinner club meeting (hosting by David Horowitz), proceeded to make anti-Semitic remarks, insulted a member of the club (a priest, who also happened to be a 9/11 hero), and had to be physically restrained twice as he flew into rages aimed at said priest. Isn’t it funny how those speaking engagements by Hitchens don’t wind up on the front page?
Read about it at http://www.americanvision.org/foolsheart/
blog/2007/10/hitchens-proves-worthy-of-village.html or http://www.takimag.com/site/article/hitchens_unhinged_part_i/
No QWERTY, not proof, just irony.
Have a great evening. I’ve got a meeting with the magic man in the morning and I don’t want to be late.
TJ (#6), I can find something I don’t like about all of today’s famous atheists. What I like about them is I’m glad some people are speaking out against this terrible god disease which seems to be taking over the world. This disease is responsible for 2 wars we are in right now, and it’s responsible for the terrible science education in this country. Religion has become a problem that can’t be ignored, so I’m grateful there are people who are trying to do something about it, even though their cause seems hopeless.
Actually, qwerty, that is quite a simplistic way of looking at it. You are equivocating all religions, which isn’t a very fair or enlightened position to take. Of course, one could likewise point to the tens of millions of death caused by the atheistic regimes of the 20th century, but counting noses never proved someone right or wrong.
Furthermore, your talking points don’t really sound much different from those atheists you “don’t like.” Your insulting rhetoric sounds very much like that of Hitchens, and your simplistic analysis/generalization (along with this “disease” notion) of Christianity sounds remarkably like things I’ve read from Dawkins. I’m not accusing you of copying, just encouraging you to be a bit more original in the things you say. For example, it’s been pointed out to you numerous times that your “invisible man” is a pretty weak straw man fallacy (and not much different from Russell’s “Celestial Teapot” or Dawkins’ “Flying Spaghetti Monster”), and yet you continue to go the well with it. It does not help your position to continually present bad arguments (I should point out that one of Dawkins friends — also an atheist — remarked to him that he shouldn’t expect anyone to take him seriously since he hasn’t bothered to actually research Christian beliefs). If you are really interested in “speaking out” against the religion, then it would benefit you to use good arguments rather than bad ones.
As far as “disease” goes, one might ask for you to generate scientific proof for this. In addition, you might wish to note that since the vast majority of the world is religious in one form or another, and you are in a decidedly small minority by comparison, perhaps a better hypothesis for you would be that atheism is the “disease.” That would at least be a reasonable starting point for you to explore.
At any rate, your comments in post one are highly insulting and quite beneath you. I would politely ask that you not post such insults against the Almighty again.
“I would politely ask that you not post such insults against the Almighty again.”
No can do TJ. Your man-made Bible God is a bloodthirsty savage, and the people who invented it were sick in the head.
“You are equivocating all religions, which isn’t a very fair or enlightened position to take.”
The heck it isn’t. All religious beliefs are pure garbage. All this supernatural magic is worse than insane. I don’t care if it’s the Christian belief in the Resurrection, or the Muslim belief that the Moon was split in half. It’s all nuts, and it’s disgraceful there are people who still have these weirdo ideas.
“I would politely ask that you not post such insults against the Almighty again.”
After 9/11/2001, and after one million dollars of taxpayer money was wasted trying to dumb down science education in Dover, Pennsylvania, the “Almighty” invention deserves nothing but constant ridicule.
Qwerty, you’re simply committing the same logical errors. That is simply bad reasoning. You’ve had this explained you, even by unbelievers. You make category errors, false analogies, straw men, beg the question, etc. You are not helping your position.
I asked you, quite politely I think/hope, not to post your insulting opinions with regard to blog. Yet, you do not respect my request enough to anything but continue to post more of the same. This greatly disappoints me. Since reasoning with you and attempting to make a polite request does no good, I shall bid you farewell.
Sorry, that should have said “with regard to God on this blog.
“I’m not accusing you of copying, just encouraging you to be a bit more original in the things you say”
Right. How many different ways are there to say all religious beliefs are bloody stupid? This isn’t rocket science. Nothing could be more obvious than the insanity of supernatural beliefs. There really isn’t anything worth adding to the fact all religions are worthless, dangerous, and should have been obsolete long ago.
“As far as ‘disease’ goes, one might ask for you to generate scientific proof for this.”
My evidence is 9/11/2001, the Dover trial, and countless other examples. The god disease rots people’s brains. It’s a serious mental illness that makes people immoral and unable to understand simple scientific facts that conflict with god-did-it.
The Muslims caused a lot of damage on 9/11, but the Christians, who unfortunately have totally infested our country, cause harm every day they lie to their children about science. It’s for a good reason our nation of 300 million people have to import scientists. It’s because the god disease makes people afraid of science. The god nuts think science is a dangerous threat to their magic beliefs and they are right. Eventually scientific discoveries will make all religions obsolete. It’s going to take a long time, but that’s only because it will be difficult to solve the child abuse problem called religious brainwashing.
TJ, do you actually expect people to respect your delusions? That would be like a believer in a flat earth demanding his belief be respected. Before 9/11 religious insanity could be ignored. Now it would be immoral to ignore it. 9/11 was made possible by the heaven belief, a belief shared by both Christians and terrorists. Heaven is a dangerous myth, and anyone who still believes it is part of the problem.
Hitchens highlights: Christ’s atonement for sins was an immoral act … humans are little more than quasi-chimpanzees …Christianity is similar to Marxism and Nazism
If Hitchens makes statements like statements, it would behoove him to actually provide his source of morality. If it is only his own subjective opinion (i.e., it makes him feel icky), then it is pretty much worthless. If Hitchens’ worldview is correct, then morality is merely a facade.
Likewise, if humans are only advanced chimps, that’s not very helpful either. If Hitchens is correct, then he is merely a quasi-chimp. Most reasonable folks don’t go around asking chimps for their opinions on these matters.
And of course the third statement is just plain silly. It is a great example of a terrible false analogy.
Since nothing was mentioned in the article, and since he didn’t have to be restrained from physically attacking McGrath, I will assume that Hitchens was sober for this one.
“When you are arguing against Him, you are arguing against the very power that makes you able to argue at all.” C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
I guess atheists like Christopher Hitchens have two choices: they can thank God for giving them a mind, the power to reason, and the freewill to argue against Him, or they can thank the materials that make up the universe, the miraculous appearance of complex genetic information and irreducibly complex structures and systems found throughout the biological world (all this information supposedly supplied by genetic copying mistakes), the miraculous ability of humans to think about the same materials that supposedly made them and provided a mind for them to reason with…
“In a world where reason and science do not deliver what we once thought they did, on what can we base our lives if we are to know what we are truly living for the good, the beautiful, and the true life?”
The very premise of this sentence is nonsensical. Do we live in such a world? What is it that “we” thought reason and science would deliver that reason and science have not?
In a question so full of intellectual dishonesty, what thoughts are meant to be provoked? “Wow, how did someone with such fatuous things to say get himself invited to speak in front of large groups of people?”?
So the choice we seem to have in this instance is between a drunken misanthrope and a say-nothing feel-good. Truly the rock and the hard place (or the brandy bottle and the dish towel, as it were).
Speaking of fatuous, how fitting that C.S. Lewis is quoted above me …
TJ said “if humans are only advanced chimps”.
That’s not really fair to the chimpanzees. Chimpanzees have evolved to be good enough to survive in their environment. Their close relatives, the humans, have evolved to be good enough to survive in their environment. Neither would be better than the other in the other’s environment. Humans are better tool makers, but very few humans would last very long in the chimpanzees’ environment without their modern inventions.
It’s true the progress of humans has been amazing, but it’s important to remember we have not always been on top of the food chain. Only 5 million years ago, the ancestors of modern chimpanzees and the ancestors of modern humans, were the same species.
Don’t believe that? Then you must be a holy roller, because only the god nuts can’t accept science that conflicts with their everything is magic beliefs.
Randy: “the miraculous appearance of complex genetic information and irreducibly complex structures and systems found throughout the biological world”
Randy, that was a nice mix of Discovery Institute lies about science, and the childish belief in miracles. This is another big problem with theists. Since they are gullible enough to believe there’s an invisible man in the sky, they are gullible enough to believe almost anything. So they choose to believe everything they don’t understand is a miracle. This is why lazy people like religions so much. Religions give the lazy person an excuse to not do the hard work of thinking and making discoveries. All they have to do is say god-did-it and any problem can be solved instantly.
TJ said about the atheist this thread is about: “it would behoove him to actually provide his source of morality.”
I’ve seen this before dozens of times. The god nuts can’t figure out how somebody could have any moral values without a belief in the bloodthirsty bible god. It’s called common sense TJ. Even the dumbest person can figure out what is right and wrong. An invisible man in the sky is not required to figure this out.
The last place I would want to get moral values from would be the man-made bible god who enjoys murder. The boring bible is full of examples of god trying to wipe out humans. The Noah’s Ark myth is my favorite. In that story we learn how really disgusting the Bible writers were. They invent a god who tries to drown almost everyone, along with every land animal on earth. It’s from these sick insane stories the god nuts think is a good source for moral values. It’s no wonder Christians have a long history of burning people alive, and throwing people into gas chambers. They were just trying to be like the invisible man they believe in.
Hitchens Unhinged
by Richard Lawrence Poe
October 09, 2007
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/hitchens_unhinged_part_i/
Here’s a side of C.H. that I’ve never seen before. But given his hatred of a “sinister dictator” he claims doesn’t really exist anyways, I guess it’s really not all that surprising.
I pity the man, and hope God has pity on him, too, and brings him to faith.
“hope God has pity on him”
Why should anyone care if somebody else’s invisible friend has pity on him? If Hitchens read that, he would be laughing at you Frank.
“brings him to faith.”
Faith. That would be the process of non-thinking. Lazy people love faith, because thinking is hard work for them.
Why is it only theists who deny scientific facts like evolution? What’s their problem? I suggest the problem is insanity.
For example I just read this news article from Canada. Somebody from the Canadian chapter of Creation Ministries International is speaking at a church. Here it is:
“We have an advantage!” he tells the rapt audience, “we have the history book of the universe right here! We have an eyewitness account. God the creator was there when the universe was made and He wrote it all in the Holy Bible.”
This person wants his audience to disregard all of 21st Century science because the Bible, written many centuries ago, is all the information they need.
It gets worse, much worse.
When Tas Walker hits the stage,he focuses on the geological evidence that supposedly supports creationist belief that the Earth was created on Sunday Oct. 23, 4004 BC, and that this event was soon followed by a global flood that only Noah’s family survived in the Ark.
I would bet more than half of the people who read and/or write on this blog believe most or all of the above paragraph.
After reading about this belief our planet was magically created on 10/23/4004 BCE, 6,011 years ago, instead of forming naturally more than 4 Billion years ago, why should any rational person not think Christians are insane?
Adam, I found the question a bit confusing as well. I have heard McGrath speak and have several of his books, and he usually frames things more clearly than this (he should have simply asked for CH to provide a rationale for meaning in the universe, but I don’t think that “quasi-chimpanzees” generally provide such sort of reasoning, and why would anyone care anyway…). I certainly don’t agree with him on everything, but he is generally an effective communicator, and the comment may not have been completely representative of him (and considering CH was sober, his comments may not have representative either
). I am glad that the consensus, though, even among folks from completely different worldviews, is that he is not “winning” anyone to his side (regardless of what you or I think about McGrath). This sort of thing just exposes the futility of his particular arguments.
QWERTY:
—-”Humans are better tool makers, but very few humans would last very long in the chimpanzees’ environment without their modern inventions.”—-
How, then, did humanity get to the point where it even had “modern inventions”?
TJ:
Asking someone to provide a meaning to the universe is also begging the question and somewhat meaningless in its own terms. What would a “meaning” to an entire universe even look like? What you would be asking with such a question is nothing but a confirmation of the desired outcome (in this case, god is the meaning). Why should I assume there is a meaning to the universe?
As far as the new spate of atheist literature not winning anyone over, that is simply untrue. I could name at least 1 from my own personal experience and a handful more who, after reading either Harris’s, Hitchens’s, Dawkins’s, or Dennett’s book, are asking questions they did not ask before; forbidden questions. Another impact is that they solidify the agnostic. These books sell very well for good reason.
Adam Beckham post 26,
It is demonstrable that modern humans are less well trained to live in the wild than chimpanzees are naturally. We are also not as well equipped to exist in the wild on our own without modern tools than older human cultures. We can discuss any number of lost in the wild examples here.
But of course that explicitly raises the criticval question: recent experiments demonstrate that humans are more adept at organizing socially than chimpanzees.
Which then leads top the following observation: when modern humans first appear, perhaps 150,000 years ago until perhaps 50,000 years ago, humans appear to be marginal scavengers always operating on the edge of extinction. Perhaps 50,000 years ago, humans become capable of effectviely hunting every large animal on the face of the earth. To some extent tools improved, but the tools aren’t that different.
Beckham, Good question. I should say very few modern humans would last very long in the chimps’ environment.
My point was it’s not fair to chimpanzees to say humans are advanced chimps. Every species has their advantages. Humans have larger brains and other advantages. Chimps can climb trees faster than humans. Birds can fly. Other animals can live in the sea. Humans are a big deal, but not the big deal the holy rollers think they are. We were not specially created. We are not separate from other animals. Humans are just one branch on the tree of life. We have the same ancestors the other Great Apes have.
Most Christians deny humans are just an ape species. They deny this proven fact because they are too lazy to study the evidence, because they are so ignorant they think evolution is a joke, and because this fact we are just animals like any other animal, blows apart every incredibly stupid religious belief they have.
TJ post 25,
it is not clear to me that you can prove objectively that there is meaning to the universe or as Adam Beckham notes that it is even a reasonable question to ask “what is the meaning of the universe”.
It is possible to ask what meaning do I give to [choose subject]?
But such a question is a personal statement. And I suggest that the universe as a whole simply does not care whether you ask the question or not.
when modern humans first appear, perhaps 150,000 years ago until perhaps 50,000 years ago, humans appear to be marginal scavengers always operating on the edge of extinction.
Before then, when it was probably even more difficult to survive, our ancestors were more likely to live long enough to pass on their genes to the next generation if they were a little smarter than the others. This Natural Selection is what gave today’s humans larger brains. The god nuts don’t understand simple proven ideas like natural selection, so they think it was all magic. The god invention is good for nothing but making people stupid.
I like the way Hitchens writes. I probably wouldn’t invite him to dinner. If I did, I would tell my wife to hide the wine out in the woods.
I heard Dawkins interviewed on the radio a week or so ago. He expressed himself well, though a bit intemperately.
If Dawkins and Hitchens got together and adopted a foster child, it would surely be qwerty.
I will encourage my granddaughter to be an atheist, as will her mommies, but she will still be welcome in our house if she becomes a believer (as long as she doesn’t attack her mommies).
I bought my daughter a copy of Dennett’s Breaking the Spell a year ago, with instructions to give it to my granddaughter when she turns 15.
Of course, it may be obsolete by then, as the Rapture may have taken place by that time.
Or as my wife sometimes says, “Scotty, beam me up! Now would be a very good time!”
Why should we assume there isn’t meaning in the universe?
And if there isn’t meaning, then why is QWERTY getting so upset at religious people? It shouldn’t matter right? The future of our planet is hurtling towards a fiery end - based on science - so who cares about anything, right? To be consistent I would think that QWERTY and other true atheists wouldn’t be so passionate about their ideas.
savedbygrace post 32,
so as you have stated it, the universe would have had to have a form of sentience so it could have meaning. Otherwise the meaning is in our observation of it.
So the objective proof for sentience in the universe so it could have meaning?
A slightly different logical failure than the one I expected, but close enough.
The universe wouldn’t need sentience but there could exist something outside the universe - like the one who created it - that gives it a reason for existing.
why is QWERTY getting so upset at religious people?
Not upset, Mr. Grace.
I just think stupidity is disgusting. There’s no excuse for it. Theists are people who want to remain children forever. They prefer to live in a fantasy world instead of the real world. They are afraid to face facts. They don’t care about all the religious violence they cause. They don’t see anything wrong with brainwashing their children to make them as stupid as they are. The god nuts are disgusting and a disgrace to the human race.
I have learned you, by the way, are a big part of the problem. You are the typical creationist who is too lazy to understand science. Instead you spread ignorant lies about science.
Just please keep your ignorant god-did-it insanity out of our public schools.
It shouldn’t matter right?
Why should it not matter if there are stupid people starting religious wars, and stupid people threatening science teachers?
Why should it not matter if we have to import scientists because most of our population is so childish they use supernatural magic to explain everything?
Why should it matter? We are all worm food. Our ultimate end is non-existence.
savedbygrace post 34,
excellent.
The universe would have meaning because of the meaning attached to it by some other entity, not because the universe itself has intrinsic meaning.
Now give me an objective proof of the entity?
It is doable but requires some care on your part.
Maybe later. I have to go worship the magic-man in the sky and thank him for this meaningless universe that he created for me.
savedbygrace post 38,
ah and you are so close to an unassailable position!
I am not going to my church today due to a collapsing of chores etc. since my niece arrives tonight.
Musing:
Attempting to divorce human success from tool-making is like trying to divorce chimpanzee success from climbing. You cannot pick and choose parts of a species; you must take the whole or nothing at all.
“Without X, Y, or Z” musings are pointless.
savedbygrace:
—-” Why should we assume there isn’t meaning in the universe?”—-
For the same reason we should assume that distant planets are not made of jam; we have no reason to think there is a meaning.
I cannot speak for QWERTY, but I find myself infuriated by religions because they often act as umbrellas under which the destructive take shelter.
—-” Why should it matter? We are all worm food. Our ultimate end is non-existence.”—-
Why do I need someone else to give my life meaning? Can I not simply provide my own? (And, more importantly, can we not provide our own as a collective?)
Adam Beckham post 40,
without directly disagreeing with you (since I suggest we are quibbling the details) it is suggestive that cro magnon and neanderthal tools were nearly identical up until perhaps 50,000 years ago.
The eivdence suggests we did not change genetically.
Yet we have a change in:
1) tools
2) migration patterns (settling Australia)
3) change in kind of hunting patterns
all at what are arguably from a geological perspective at “nearly the same time”.
Something appears to have changed and it does not appear to have been genetic.
Mr Meaner: there would appear to be an opening for you here!
AdamBeckham post 40:
and I agree completely with your statement:
“Why do I need someone else to give my life meaning? Can I not simply provide my own?”
Your follow on comment:
“(And, more importantly, can we not provide our own as a collective?)”
though, potentially reopens savedbygraces’s apparent arguments
From the post;
Christianity is not similar to Marxism. Chronology dictates that Marxism is a shallow imitation of Christianity to the extent that the Labour party in England once campaigned on the promise of a New Jerusalem.
In a world where reason and science do not deliver what we once thought they did, on what can we base our lives if we are to know what we are truly living for the good, the beautiful, and the true life?
Some adherents oversold reason and science. Using the language of the day they couched it in religious terminology. And even if rationality has not lived up to its hype, this is not reason (ironic slip) enough to fall back to the previous position, that is the original redemptive linear historical vision of the universe.
#18 Randy
Or one could curse God for giving him/her the brain matter to deduce that the existence of God is questionable or in materialistic formula one could curse God for creating his/her brain in such a way that belief is not biologically possible. Of course the logical inconsistency above is similar to the options you present.
The compulsive need to attach meaning to the universe forces us to think beyond the individual. The communitarian nature of meaning also acts not to different than high school peer pressure. Accordingly, those who insist on a different meaning to the universe will be ostrasized or persecuted. These communitarian groups frequently employ violent methods of crowd control to keep adherents and gain new ones. In that way, Christianity and Marxism differ only slightly. An interesting conversation would be the extent to which science meets the same communitarian qualities. Personally I find it easy to quote Camus who insist that humans naturally demand meaning and thus create it for themselves.
Camus famously stated that the central problem of philosophy is whether or not to commit suicide.
I wonder how many evangelical Christians seriously think to themselves If Christ had not died for my sins, I would have no reason to live.
They sure seem worried that atheists have no reason to live.
The other basic question is Why be good?.
I think I will live today because I told my wife I would plow today. I don’t think I will go postal today, either, perhaps because it is Sunday, and the Post Office is closed.
As so many Christians here rhetorically ask atheists, Why not rape? I do also wonder what kind of violent sexual fantasies (along with homosexual sexual fantasies) they feel Jesus is keeping them from perpretating.
Well, today, I will tend my garden. Tomorrow, I will go to work. After I get off the ferry, I will go past a post office. It will be open …
I’m assuming you will all have a grip on Monday, and it will be safe for me to mail a letter.
#43
I didn’t read #43 before I posted my message.
I think this falls into the categories of Great Minds Think Alike and Small Minds Run in the Same Rut.
Musing:
I was not aware that savedbygrace was actually making arguments, what I see is petulant sarcasm and whining.
Also, “cro-magnon” (actually homo sapiens) and homo neanderthalensis were very different genetically. (source: http://tinyurl.com/33tm2m )
Also, the “cro-magnon” lived specifically in France, because they are just a regionally labeled group of our kind. The Neanderthal, however, lived in many different places; places “cro-magnon” did not.
I don’t know where you are getting all of that.
Adam Beckham post 46,
actually my understanding is that neanderthals range was limited but cro magnon was indeed modern man, but I suggest we are quibbling here. You are correct that all evidence to date shows that cro magnon and neanderthal were different genetically.
The observation that:
1) tools
2) major migration (Australis)
3) major hunting
are approximately contemperaneous (at least by geologic scale) is, as I understand it, demonstrated in the archaeological record.
This is discussed in “Mapping Human History” although there are other sources.
“Mapping Human History” argues that this is due to the development of languages as we know it.
I am not sure that the argument for language is as solid as “”Mapping Human History” suggests.
But since humans advance both from an evolutionary perspective and a cultural perspective, I think the cultural argument is compelling.
We have developed a culture capable of coordinating group activities on a scale which chimpanzees can not even conceive. And when we do that, no other species can effectively compete with humans, even though indiviudually each of us is very puny.
Sorry that should be:
1) the rapid improvement of tools
Random
its like deja vu all over again. I posted the answer before you posted the answer.
Check the last line of Voltaire’s Candide where the Liebnizean philosopher is rebutted by Candide;
“That is well put,” replied Candide, “but we must cultivate our garden.”
Now I must cultivate my only garden, my daughter wants to go out. Far more meaningful than my bookshelf or a blog.
oopps that should be; “I posted the answer before you posted the question”
HRW post 49,
darn I was about to make that obsaervation on the Candide quote and then thought better of it.
Given Random’s comment and the religious context, I think the quote is very apropos!
Thanks!
#35 #35 “I just think stupidity is disgusting.” That sounds like the bumper sticker “Mean people suck”, where the statement reflects the thing it claims to hate.
We keep asking the question, “Just why do militant atheists spend so much time spewing hate about something they don’t believe in?”
I think I understand Hitchens and Dawkins and even Qwerty. I have a similar “disgust” when I see Catholics in poor countries crawling on their knees to some statue or when I see Muslims venerating an assassin or Hindus and pagans worshiping false gods or Mormons following the nonsense of Joseph Smith or Scientologists venerating space aliens and on and on. It is sickening to see so much energy wasted on foolishness. All we can do is try to be tolerant and shake our heads in bewilderment.
However, atheists have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. By relegating all religion to myth they have dismissed ultimate truth which is beyond the reach of science. What is ironic is that this willing ignorance of religion prevents them from recognizing that they are deeply immersed in the very thing they despise. Atheists have their own gnosticism, pretending to have a higher knowledge, having risen above the “nonsense of faith”. Yet, their claim to special knowledge is no different than any other religion.
They say their faith is in science, yet as McGrath points out, science has not and cannot answer the important questions about the meaning of life. Instead, atheists place their faith in all sorts of fanciful ideas like Carl Sagan’s aliens or spontaneous generation. The faith of atheists allows them to fill in the gaps where science cannot tread, which they defend with the fervor of religious zealots.
I admit that the Bible does not help their situation. The Bible freely admits that it is a stumblingblock to those who had the law of Moses and foolishness to those who did not. Jesus spoke in parables which he said was purposely so people would not understand. The law seems harsh and the Old Testament God seems cruel and pernicious. It took me years of study to break through and begin to understand the terrifying nature of the biblical God, a perfection that incinerates all imperfection. If religious people barely spend that kind of time, what can we say of atheists who reject such things out of hand?
So I sympathize with atheists, much like I sympathize with smokers. I want to help because they will reap what they sow. Ideas have consequences. Having staked out a position of ignorance, they have their reward.
XION:
What are “the important questions about the meaning of life” that people should work to answer?
xion post 52,
Hmmm, I am aware of very few scientists who say that thier faith is in science.
Science says nothing about beliefs, so it is unclear how one can have “faith” in science at least as traditonally understood from a religious sense.
Adam Beckham post 53,
and continuing in the vein of your question, why should people work to answer them?
A history professor of mine once said that it is not the answers history gives us that are important but the questions that either arise out of history or that we ask of history.
Similarly we have people here ready with the answer yet not knowing the question. Perhaps they should start with the question.
I’ve, with random assistance, already supplied two answers to my question; tend your garden and make your own meaning worthwhile to avoid suicide.
I would like to explain why all religions, all religious beliefs, and all gods, will be obsolete some day. Maybe not completely obsolete because there will always be some mentally ill people, but religious people could some day be as rare as flat earth believers.
I’m encouraged by how much importance most Christians and almost all Muslims give to the threat of evolution. It will be evolution, along with future discoveries that explain how life began, that eventually kills off beliefs in supernatural magic.
Already evolution is a proven fact, a fact denied by most religious people because they know what a threat it is to everything they believe. The evidence is growing so fast, and it’s so powerful, there will eventually be no creationists left. It will take a long time, but that’s only because lying about science has become a big business, and there are now countless people whose careers depend on spreading lies about evolution. But in the end the liars have to lose their immoral war on science.
I will explain why I know evolution has to be accepted by everyone eventually. Then I will explain why the acceptance of evolution will eventually cause virtually everyone to throw out all supernatural beliefs.
Probably even creationists have heard about DNA Paternity Testing. They probably even know the results from this testing are always 100% correct.
There are chunks of DNA called variable markers which are inherited. The inheritance of varible markers in DNA is the same principle applied to paternity testing. When the same variable markers are found in the exact same place in the DNA of two species, biologists can say with 100% certainty that those 2 species inherited those varible markers from the same common ancestor. That’s the proof, the lead-pipe evidence, and there are countless examples of this proof, for many evolutionary relationships, including our close relationship to chimps. The ignorant creationist response (it was the common magic man!) just doesn’t work. The creationists can’t explain these perfect tracers of genealogy. Creationists will try to explain it anyway, but every biologist knows they are liars or don’t know what they’re talking about.
Because of this solid proof for evolution, evolution has to be completely accepted some day. A few million people, who have been brainwashed with magic beliefs beyond any hope, will have to drop dead before evolution can be accepted, but sooner or later there will be no creationists left.
After evolution is accepted by everyone, a hundred years from now, a thousand years from now, or whenever, then what happens?
People will now know humans are just an ape species, just animals. How could the heaven belief survive? How could the Resurrection belief survive? How could all the god-did-it beliefs survive? Evolution makes all these beliefs look as dumb as they really are. Eventually the acceptance of evolution will kill all religions.
Good comments (52) Xion!
Qwerty writes: “Eventually the acceptance of evolution will kill all religions.”
Never happen Qwerts. And when you’re dealing with THE CREATOR GOD, that’s more than man-made religions.
“Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of the Father.”
The above is a perfect example of “endism” which traps even the most ardent western athiest. The trajectory from ignorance to knowledge, the progression from ignorance to the supremacy of science is not much different than the trajectory proposed by the redemptive strain of western linear history. Once evolutionary thought triumphs and brings the “New Jerusalem” how will it answer the Buddhist challenge.
Evolutionary thought?
Do you also say Gravity thought?
Evolution is just a scientific fact. Nothing more.
My family prayed for you this morning, Ed/Qwerty.
Qwerty (24): Why should anyone care if somebody else’s invisible friend has pity on him? If Hitchens read that, he would be laughing at you Frank.
Frank: Of course he would. It’s part of the schtick.
Nevertheless, I pity the man, and hope God has pity on him and brings him to faith.
Dittto for you, qwerty.
(At which Qwerty laughs at me. Because it’s part of the schtick.)
Evolution and gravity are both theories which have been tested and proven correct as far as we know. Certain corrections to the original theory of gravity were made by Einstien and others to accomadate new observations. Science is then fluid and malleable as observations are made. Various elements, including bias, error, environment, politics, affect our observations and thus our theories need constant updating and criticism. This is as factual as you can go with any science.
As far as theories go, evolution has encoutered more interference and errors due to political and religious bias. Unfortunately, some of its advocates have responded to both evolution and its critics with too much enthusanism and have given evolution a far bigger role than it deserves.
Instead of remaining strictly biological or within the realm of physical science, some adherents insist on extending it to human history, society and culture. The science of evolution gets meshed with the social political theory of classical liberalism which posits the concept of progress which will lead to “the promised land” or “heaven on earth”
Your post #57 commits exactly the same fallacy. Taking evolution out of the scientific arena and extended to social history. When science is used in this way, its used in a manner similar to social science and the humanities in which the ultimate test is not science but the performance of humans. In which case you are betting on a dark horse and require more faith than a religious man who knows humans make errors. A religious man believes heaven was created by a God whereas a social evolutionist, using the same linear redemptive historical approach, places his faith in humanity to create heaven on earth eventually. In this case, I’m not sure who needs more faith.
Here’s an interesting question about evolution: If survival of the fittest is the precept on which evolution is based, and we suppose that we came from monkeys, why are there men, and apes, but no ape-men? How is it that the prior form on the supposed evolutionary chain survived to this day and age but the intermediate stages between apes and men were all wiped out? Neanderthals, Australopithecus, and all the other supposed “intermediate forms” are gone, but men and apes still both walk the earth. How is that, if only the fittest survive? Shouldn’t the fact that the ape-men were more “fit” than the apes suggest the apes should have died out and been replaced by them? Also, how is it that men somehow evolved into three races with distinct characteristics (Mongoloid, Caucasian, and Negroid,) when those characteristics a. provide very little inherent advantage and indeed, provide some DISadvantages (Scandinavians and Irishmen sunburn easily for example, and Asians/Indians cannot hold their liquor,) and b. can still intermarry and interbreed with no difficulties? In fact, have NO significant genetic differences between them, but are in fact the same species, regardless of outer appearance? Why, in the domain of survival of the fittest, would racial characteristics like yellow skin or white skin survive? Indeed, how would they have evolved in the first place? They certainly aren’t necessary for survival, and don’t really give any advantages. And why only three types? Why did men supposedly only evolve on one continent and migrate elsewhere? Why didn’t different kinds of men (or man like creatures,) evolve simultaneously worldwide? Why do no legends from ancient times speak of ape men if men supposedly at one time lived side by side with their earlier evolutionary counterparts? Only in historically recent times do any myths speak of ape men (most notably Sasquatch or Bigfoot in the Pacific Northwest, or Yeti or Abominable Snowmen in the Himalayas.)What happened to the different apemen? Why do fossil records barely show anything of their existence? Also, you state that evolution is a proven scientific fact. I beg to differ. The THEORY of evolution is unprovable without traveling back in time. Also, it is not scientific. One of the tenets of science is that to be accepted as scientific, a theory must be conclusively either provable or DISprovable. The theory of evolution cannot be proven, and it cannot be disproven. Therefore, despite its acceptance into the scientific community, it is NOT scientific under the laws of science. Furthermore, the theory of spontaneous beginning of life violates a proven scientific law, that of biogenesis, which states that all living things MUST come from other living things. This theory has been proven over and over again. Scientists can manipulate existing life in a lab, but never ONCE have they succeeded in creating life from inanimate things. If they can’t succeed in a lab with perfectly controlled conditions, how am I supposed to believe that it happened accidentally
in nature?
OUTKAST:
What is the point of telling people that you prayed for them? What is with the Christian fascination with letting everyone around them know the substance of their prayers?
Is there some piousness trophy that I am unaware of?
HRW:
Why should the study of human society divorced from the physical sciences?
“Taking evolution out of the scientific arena and extended to social history.”
hrw, I don’t even know what social history is. I’m only looking forward to the day there is an end to religious stupidity. When religious insanity ends, there’s going to more human progress than ever, because the world will not be held back by worthless superstitions. Science makes supernatural magic unnecesary, so science is going to be what eventually kills religion. I am just stating an obvious fact, which is made more obvious by the god nuts who keep attacking science. They are attacking science, especially evolution, for a good reason. It’s an obvious threat to their insane beliefs, especially the belief humans were magically created to be separate from other animals.
Adam, outkast and VS are the two know-nothing pests on this blog who just harass people and never contribute anything. They are good examples of how religion rots the brain.
Speaking of rotting brains, what the heck is Barracuda babbling about?
Well said HRW #64. No one should disagree with the science of evolution, i.e. collecting and correlating evidence. However, the blind faith of militant atheists like Hitchens and Qwerty prevent them from seeing the boundaries of that knowledge.
XION:
What boundaries are you talking about and how do you know they are there?
Barracuda:
I think your confusion arises from your not knowing that men are, in fact, apes. I have no idea what you mean by “ape-men”, but I think it reveals that your scientific education consists of sci-fi movie-watching.
Adam — its like the Pharisees public praying increases their self esteem and makes them feel safe.
The separation of the physical and human sciences could easily be blamed on the university structure which developed in the late 19th and early 20th century. Prior to this the two were often mingled producing far from satisfactory theories. Marx proposed his economic theories were as scientific as the physical science given marxism the inevitability and sanction it should not have had. (Interestingly Friedman is one of the few economists who insists on the same status). More pertinent to this discussion, social darwinist tried to make the same jump leading to eugenics, Matlhus and Spencer. In the present era, we have post-modernist who insist that science is as malleable and biased as the social sciences. Most of their attempts to employ a differing prespective to science have had diasasterous results including Marxist science and feminist science. However, Foucault and others have made us realized the influence of power as part of science with his study of criminality and medical science. Historians have proposed ecometric means of studying as an attempt to make historical scholarship more scientific — however counting the number of lashings a slave expereinced did not enhance the study of the American South as a reading of slave narratives.
Given the failures or bad results the marriage of social and physical science has produced, a divorce is a good idea.
barracuda
you confuse the survivial of the fittest with the entire theory. the incredible variety of the human species can be due more to selective breeding than anything else — a different facet of the same theory of evolution. A quick look at your neighbouring canine demonstrates a larger diversity which can still mate. You should also remember a monk who cross pollinated some peas. Given our racist tendencies today, the defective white persons were probably ostracized from the pack thus encourage more defects until they reach the ultimate aberration in the human species the blue-eyed blond.
The transitional species did not survive simply because they couldn’t. The human animal is incredibly fragile and earlier variations didn’t have the brain power to make it.
qwerty
you are social history as our the young earth creationist here.
Society is nothing but a grouping of physical beings; the failures result from our lack of understanding the physical processes of those beings.
Why pretend that they are actually separate when the only evidence that they are separate is a perception of “failure”.
Are we really supposed to pretend that social states do not depend on physical states? Is a group of people with high serotonin levels going to operate the same as a group with low serotonin levels? What about resource access?
What you are trying to do is carve a niche for something supernatural to sit in and it does not work.
Adam #53 What are “the important questions about the meaning of life” that people should work to answer?
You already know the answer. These questions are common to all of us. We may take sides on various issues and make enemies, but in the end we are all brothers, part of humanity. We are all born. We will all suffer and die.
Here are some of the big questions that science cannot answer:
- Is there life after death?
- Why are we here? What is our purpose?
- Why is there evil?
- Are people ultimately held accountable for their actions?
- What makes something right or wrong?
- Is something wrong even if no one ever finds out?
- What is ultimate love, justice, goodness, beauty, liberty, …?
- Is laying down your life for another worth it? If not, why would anyone do it?
- Is there a God? If so, why is he silent?
- Are the answers to these questions knowable?
- etc.
Adam
All theories have boundaries beyond which their applicability is questionable. I would not take my Marxist interpretation of the English Revolution and apply it to growth of the black moth over the white moth in post-industrial England. When Marxists posit a proletarian science against a bourgeoise science, I know the boundaries have been breached. When the evolutionary theory is used to explain the English Revolution, I know the boundary has been breached. When Qwerty announces the eventual triumph of evolution over religion in human culture due to its superiour science, the boundary has been breached. Evolution cannot be used in social theory since this presupposes rational actors and a natural state (which is hypothesized) For that matter, a theist can easily accept evolution and simply assert a First Mover.
#69 What boundaries are you talking about and how do you know they are there?
The boundary is where one crosses from hard science into cosmological speculation.
The scientific aspects of evolution are indisputable and are precisely the same as for creation or any other theory of origins. No one can dispute real science, i.e. knowledge gained using the scientific method, because it is demonstrable. What one can dispute is the imaginative myth-making that tries to weave together a story which is declared to be true far beyond what the facts can support.
Nicely stated HRW #75.
Society is a grouping of physical beings, however the sum is greater than its parts. We separate the study of physical science and social sciences not merely on the perception of failure to integrate but on the very real existence of differing goals, methods and results of the respective studies.
Both social states and physical states influence each other. And indeed our brain matter is the determinant in how we might act, however, I will assert that its the interaction of our brain matter with the environment which produces the human (and cultural) personality. BTW, the Annales school of history produced an immense body of research in the 60s and 70s asserting the primacy of the physical world as the causul agent in human history. Fascinating stuff but eventually dismissed.
And no, I’m not trying to create a niche for the supernatural rather its a niche for the human actor, its fallibility and agency, in both the individual and cultural sense.
Xion
obviously my concept of boundaries differs than you but if you agreed with me entirely, your reputation would suffer. (Okay you do agree with me #77 — now I’m worried)
As for your questions in the same order;
- No
- not important or no reason
- there isn’t
- No
- 1) our brain matter 2) societal need/approval
- No
- philosophical mental masturbation
- No, lack of thought, an irrational thing called love, demand for prodigy
- Probably not, essentially not important since s/he/it isn’t very communicative. see #7
- see above
Not so hard. Questions only become difficult if you want certain answers.
“When Qwerty announces the eventual triumph of evolution over religion in human culture due to its superiour science, the boundary has been breached.”
Triumph of evolution? Evolution, a proven scientific fact, does not need any triumphs.
I only pointed out the obvious fact that evolution just happens to conflict with some very dumb religious beliefs, and for that reason evolution just happens to be a major threat against religions and will likely some day cause religions to be obsolete.
Your “the boundary has been breached” doesn’t mean anything.
If you think evolution is not a threat to religions, and if you think the acceptance of evolution has not already caused a very large number of people to give up religions, then please explain why. “the boundary has been breached” does not say anything. What boundary?
“For that matter, a theist can easily accept evolution and simply assert a First Mover.”
Now you are calling the magic man a “First Mover”.
I am suggesting, that in the future, way into the future, maybe many thousands of years from now, the human race is going to grow up. The magic man or first mover or whatever you want to call religious insanity is going to become obsolete, for the simple reason it’s just plain stupid to believe an invisible man had anything to do with anything. What else but science and science education is going to make people understand this?
Adam/hrw: Christians are instructed to pray for their friends and enemies alike, and often remind those around us (who are hurting) that we are praying for them.
Ed/Qwerty has been hurting for awhile now, and several of us have therefore been praying faithfully for him. We’ll pray for you now, too!
Evolution and religion are not mutually incompatible. Science in general has not led to the demise of religion nor over the long term has it threaten religion. The Catholic church initially balked at the Corpernican revolution but the eventual victory of the heliocentric universe contrarian to literal biblical belief did not kill religion. Religion adapted (just as evolution would assert). Neither did the geological revolution of the 1800s empty the churches. Evolution will likewise not triumph over the human desire for religion; be it neurological in orgin or part of some grand teleological plan. In the end, young earthers will continue to assert its all a trick to test their faith, and more realistic theists will speak of a First Mover or watchmaker god. And in-between the two extremes various peoples will justify their faith. Nothing new
Outkast
you are instructed to pray in the closet. Your behaviour is the light to the world and your prayer belongs in the closet. Don’t get the two mixed up.
Adam, Musing:
To be technical, I did not say anything about assigning meaning to the universe, but rather I said “he should have simply asked for CH to provide a rationale for meaning in the universe.” Not a whole lot of difference, of course, and probably too hastily constructed on my part to be of much value. If you go back