the atheism delusion

[arely staircase]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Autumn (a host of the General Discussion forum).

The author has testified against the teaching of creationism and so called intelligent design in schools. In this interview he argues that those who dismiss the very idea of God are engaging in blind faith as well.

An anti "intelligent design " theologian takes on the new athiests.


http://www.salon.com/2007/12/19/john_haught/

What do you think?

14 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Poll closed
	religion holds all the answers
	0 (0%)
	science holds all the answers
	11 (79%)
	neither hold all the answers. science and religion are compatible as one deals with "how" amd the other deals with why.
	1 (7%)
	other (please explain)
	2 (14%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Fumesucker]

1. IBTL

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. If god intervenes in history, count me out

If you want to call the Higgs the God Particle, sure...will the Higgs care one way or the other if I Exist? Not so much.

[MellowDem]

3. Atheists simply lack belief in god/gods...

they do no necessarily positively assert that there is no god, quite a few just say they don't know but they think it very unlikely, but of course that comes down to what you define as god. Some definitions of god are so vague and meaningless it's pretty illogical to say that you have a belief it doesn't exist, rather than being more honest and saying you don't know.

When it comes to specific gods of religions, like the god of the Bible, there is a lot of evidence, due to the numerious specific claims made, that that very specific god does not exist, and saying so is not "blind faith" at all, but based on the contradictions of the text and the plentiful evidence that the text is wrong on many claims it makes.

[Bucky]

8. Actually, I'll bet you could find two atheists who disagree on that point.

Some indeed really do posit that there's no god. Those are the ones who go to hell first.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

12. Even before Hitler?

See how I did that? (I Godwined before the lock.)

[Bucky]

35. Good one

whoa....

[Matariki]

9. I thought it was an agnostic who says they don't know

and an atheist who actively believes there is no god?

(and I thank god I was raised by two agnostics)

[elleng]

11. Yes, correct, been 'agnostic' forever,

'I'll believe it when I see it.'

[MellowDem]

16. No...

A person is either an atheist or a theist. There are agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. Agnosticism deals with knowledge, not belief.

This video explains it well.

[arely staircase]

33. what you call agnostic theism is

the position held by the "new athiests" that Hought is responding to.

[patrice]

30. Definition of what would be a God is a special problem for rationalists. I don't have to imagine

what a certain chemical is in order to see its effect, or the absence thereof, in one or more sets of circumstances. Assuming that you can do the same thing with something that would be what a God is doesn't work the same, because first you have to imagine what the definition of God is (an oxymoron in and of itself) before you can test the universe for THAT and, if the universe provides no evidence of your God, that doesn't "prove" anything, it just means that your definition may be wrong, or your test may be wrong, or both of them may be wrong. In any case, you are engaged in a circular process that is based upon the definition of something that you don't think exists in the first place. None of this makes any sense for an honest rationalist.

This is why I think rationalism should really just not have anything to say about something that is not rational, although I know that Albert Einstein DID talk about the relationship between science thinking and spiritual thinking, but then he's a better qualified rationalist than I am.

[NightWatcher]

4. So those who don't "believe" in the Tooth Fairy, only "believe" that there is none on faith?

That's about as crazy as trying to disprove a negative.

[Notafraidtoo]

18. Thats the way i see it.

Not believing in magic beings doesn't make it faith,the only reason religion and fantasy when it comes to the magic is different is more people believe in the religious magic but their is no evidence of either,its not faith its i have no evidence of its existence their for id be a fool to believe.

Not that i think others are fools for believing,nothing wrong with faith until it is used as a tool to destroy and harm others.

[patrice]

32. I think that's the point.

[arely staircase]

34. exactly nt

[Warpy]

5. As we begin to know more and more through science

Religion continues to diminish in the size and scope of its answers.

Atheists are hardly delusional, they simply haven't seen any evidence for god or gods and are too honest to pretend. Nor are they religious in any way, given the lack of holy writ, dogma, officiators, and dedicated buildings in which to be atheist.

Religious people constantly make these silly ass arguments and it's high time they stopped. It's insulting.

[onehandle]

14. Atheist Church Set to Go Global

Echoing with joyful song and with a congregation bent on leading better lives, this London church is like any other -- except there's no mention of God.

Britain's atheist church is barely three months old but it already has more "worshippers" than can fit into its services, while more than 200 non-believers worldwide have contacted organisers to ask how they can set up their own branch.

Officially named The Sunday Assembly, the church was the brainchild of Pippa Evans and Sanderson Jones, two comedians who suspected there might be an appetite for atheist gatherings that borrowed a few aspects of religious worship.

Held in an airy, ramshackle former church in north London, their quirky monthly meetings combine music, speeches and moral pondering with large doses of humour.

"There's so much about Church that has nothing to do with God -- it's about meeting people, it's about thinking about improving your life," said Jones, a gregarious 32-year-old with a bushy beard and a laugh like a thunderclap.

http://news.discovery.com/human/life/atheist-church-set-to-go-global-130308.htm

[arely staircase]

36. someone should open a vegan steakhouse next to it

Eom

[Bucky]

6. I don't have a problem with atheism, religion, OR science.

But just out of curiosity, religion is the how and science is the why, right?

[arely staircase]

10. Hought makes a good anqlogy in the interview

It is something like this: if I am asked why there is water boiling on the stove I could say it is because water molecules are moving faster and faster as it converts from a.liquid to a solid or I could say because I want some tea. Both would be right.

[Tikki]

7. I don't believe in god as anyone has described it....

but I do believe our perceptions of things change....and that is a good thing.



Tikki

[liberal_at_heart]

13. I put other.

I believe in the scientific process and I believe in evolution and the Big Bang. I don't believe in creationism. I don't know if there is a god and don't really plan on asking because I don't think anybody knows. Anybody who claims to know for sure that there is a god or that there isn't a god is an arrogant fool.

[arely staircase]

19. i believe in evolution, the scientific method , the big bang theory too

But I don't believe they can explain, love, forgiveness and compassion. One must not be religious to engage in or experience such things. But I do believe these things transcend science.

[liberal_at_heart]

23. I agree. I also believe in things like practicing love, forgiveness, and compassion.

Science can really only tell us what we can observe about how our brain chemistry reacts to love or how society acts regarding love, but to put those things into action you go outside of science. Religion talks a good talk when it comes to love, but often does just the opposite. So sometimes to practice love, forgiveness, and compassion you have to look outside both science and religion.

[arely staircase]

26. i don't disagree with any of that eom

[Silent3]

15. Franky, I'm sorry, that's a stupid set of poll choices (rescued only by having "other" as a choice)

Why assume that ALL of the answers are somewhere, or, if not that, the totally different idea of science and religion being assigned to "how" and "why"?

How about science having a lot of good answers, religion not having any particular area of expertise that can't be found through non-religious methods, and maybe a bunch of answers possibly being beyond our reach, with the universe having no particular obligation whatsoever to provide us with a methodology to find out everything we might want to know?

[arely staircase]

22. i agree the choices are inadequate

Hence "other" as you observe. The possible responses are probably to great for a choices in any poll.

[Newest Reality]

17. I chose other.

I think that there are many modes of inquiry into the nature of reality.

Each mode is specific to both its own methodology and sphere of exploration. While there can be cross-modal comparisons, intersections and overlapping, each mode has its own category.

However, all forms of exploration of reality rely on two factors that influence to what degree we can understand the reality of phenomena, consciousness, matter, etc.

First, there is the bias of our own sensory apparatus and the conceptual filters that we apply to our investigations. For instance, science has shown us that the spectrum of our senses, in total, are an extremely small portion of the entire, vast electromagnetic spectrum. Whatever tools we devise and utilize to explore the macrocosm and the microcosm are, to some degree, limited and we can assume that as our tools improve our data will increase and change.

Then, there is the fact that, despite the close correlations of our data and mathematical models of what we have observed and recorded so far, all information is, in essence, an abstraction and not the "thing in itself". Baring direct experience, (see above) we seem to only be able to end-up with an approximation, no matter how close we may be able to come to the actuality itself.

Religion appears to have, or assumes, insights into the cosmological nature of the Universe and its origins, (although Buddhism essentially avoids aspects of that in its cosmology) claiming a spiritual authority. However, to me, religion is actually about a certain band in the spectrum of intellect that has specialized itself and given itself, (via memes, "miracles", traditions, etc.) the ability to separate its own form of symbolic abstraction from the more academic and sundry type of mental activity. It is more about subjective experience and comes closer to mirroring how the mind itself can function in its ability to reify experience and translate it into "higher order" categories that it are branded "spiritual", unique, magical and beyond ordinary intellect.

From my understanding, no matter how ethereal or academic abstracts are, they all fall into the same category of derivative fabrications and, in that sense, are biased, by nature limited, and in contrast to direct experience itself.

Atheists are free to argue against something that can be considered an absurd proposition, (even in a religious sense when you go into more thoughtful and deeper definitions of God) but that does lead them into arguing a negative about a non-entity as per their beliefs. Yet, in a way, I do support political efforts by atheists as their efforts represent a refreshing reaction to years of persecution of "non-believers" by dominant religious institutions for centuries.

[Logical]

20. God(s), IMO, are 100% made up. No proof at all. None. Zero! n-t

[Apophis]

21. Religion needs to die.

[rug]

25. Nice avatar. The Sky God?

So, why does religion need to die?

[LittleBlue]

24. Science answers my questions

For others, maybe not.

It does not concern me unless you try to impose it on me.

[arely staircase]

27. + 1 nt

[backscatter712]

28. This false-equivalence horseshit again?

Atheism is marked by the lack of faith, not a "faith" in no deities.

This is the same drivel that's on FAUX "News" saying that Democrats are the same as Republicans, or that young-earth creationism should get the same respect as evolution, or that global warming deniers should get the same coverage as NASA's climate change scientists.

Well guess what. The false equivalence is false.
Democrats are not the same as Republicans, Young-earth creationism is a fucking fairy tale, evolution is a scientific fact backed by mountains of evidence, man-made global climate change is also a fucking fact, and deities do not exist.

You asked for my opinion...

[OffWithTheirHeads]

29. I've said this before, I'll say it again. If you have any grasp of the magnitude of

The known universe, you would have to be brain dead to not think that there are things going on out there that we don't understand. You would also have to be brain dead to think that some blond, middle Eastern, surfer dude is sitting on a throne in the clouds paying attention to everything we do.

[rrneck]

31. Other.

It depends on the questions you are trying to answer.

[Autumn]

37. This does not meet the SOP for GD

Please repost in Religion.