Agnostics are not Atheists and they deserve their own forum.

[redqueen]

111. I had to come back to this, because damn...

Last edited Sun Jul 29, 2012, 03:29 PM - Edit history (1)

Let me make clear that I accept most of the New Atheist's criticism of religious bad behavior over the centuries, and of theology itself. I just don't accept turning science into a new religion until it can show it has all the answers, which it hasn't, and probably never will.

Where is the idea of "turning science into a new religion" coming from? Oh yeah that's right, it's a complete strawman.

Atheists have no evidence—and certainly no proof!—that science will ever solve the question of why there is something rather than nothing. Just because other difficult-seeming problems have been solved does not mean all difficult problems will always be solved.

Um, no. I don't understand the insistence that unless you can figure out how "something" came from "nothing", that you must admit there might have been a supernatural being who waved her hands around and maybe a wand or something and POOF! there we go, something. Here's an idea, perhaps many atheists accept we might never find out, yet that doesn't cause them to suddenly decide to start saying, 'Oh! Well in that case, maybe there is a supernatural origin!' (Which would in fact be an example of actual childlike faith.)

Solving difficult problems can be done using science, though it may never solve all problems ever. One thing is certain: No "difficult problems" have ever been "solved" using religion... or whatever other magical type thinking this guy thinks must necessarily take over when science fails.

You know about the pons asinorum, right? The so-called "bridge of asses" described by medieval scholars? Initially it referred to Euclid's Fifth Theorem, the one in which geometry really gets difficult and the sheep are separated from the asses among students, and the asses can't get across the bridge at all. Since then the phrase has been applied to any difficult theorem that the asses can't comprehend. And when it comes to the question of why is there something rather than nothing, the "New Atheists" still can't get their asses over the bridge, although many of them are too ignorant to realize that. This sort of ignorance, a condition called "anosognosia," which my friend Errol Morris is exploring in depth on his New York Times blog, means you don't know what you don't know. Or you don't know how stupid you are.

When it comes to the qusetion of how "something" came from "nothing", nobody gets over the bridge unless they resort to making things up. Which is all well and good in theoretical adventures, yet that doesn't serve as a persuasive argument to decide that since no one has come up with a convincing theory, that there simply must be a supernatural explanation. And I can say quite confidently that any theoretical explanation worth seriously considering will not be supernatural, and if any theory is ever proved, it will be proved by science. Does that certainty indicate that I somehow "worship" science? Is that a type of faith? No, that's understanding how knowledge works.

FFS ... what a steaming load this ranting editorial is.

The funny part is how he thinks it's atheists who are smug. Nice job proving otherwise, guy.