Dawkins urges atheists to “come out of the closet,” wear scarlet letter “A”
posted at 3:18 pm on August 3, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Via doubleplusundead, all that’s missing is an irritating, consciousness-raising chant. “We’re here, we’re … not crippled by superstitious fear, get used to it”? Doesn’t flow. “We doubt, we’re out, get used to it,” maybe? Alas, nothing rhymes with “skeptical.”
Here’s the homepage, which marks a new stage in the transformation of “new atheism” from rational argument to aggrieved identity group. Starting with the clumsy borrowing from gay rights slogans in a transparent attempt to appropriate the mantle of persecution and ending with Dawkins’s letter, which concludes with a dopey exhortation to throw atheist “coming out” parties, darned if he isn’t going to have himself a capital-m Movement whether or not there’s a pressing need for it.
Some of our commenters call this sort of thing evangelical atheism but a moron with a scarlet “A” on his chest really isn’t trying to convert you. He’s just trying to get in your face in his own passive way and remind you that nonbelievers exist in case you missed Hitchens’s last thousand appearances on cable news or somehow avoided his, Dawkins’s, and Sam Harris’s ubiquitous books. I hate to frag a guy on my own side but honestly, we can do without these pity parties.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 »
No, I feel it is incidental to my identity.
I think being an Internet Geek is more my identity. :D
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 3, 2007 at 5:10 PM
I think that it should be mandatory for ALL atheists to wear Chicago Cubs T-shirts. That way we could quickly identify them for the losers that they truly are. (Sorta’ clarifies the true meaning of Miller’s “Loserfest” term, donchathink?)
BTW, just in case you were wondering, Satan is a New York Yankees fan — but then, he believes in God.
CyberCipher on August 3, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Esthier on August 3, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Thanks…I was responding to your question to HeIsSailing, in which he said,
I was taking up your question about the identity issue:
And trying to illustrate how it may start as taste, but can evolve into identity.
RushBaby on August 3, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Now, now Don’t hold back. Let us know how you really feel.
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 3, 2007 at 5:12 PM
Sure we’re passionate about it. But passion is subjective, no?
Enrique on August 3, 2007 at 5:13 PM
You’re very right on your first point. Some people should be muzzled.
On the second, it’s true that other things define them as well, but, to me anyway, the two aren’t mutually exclusive. I can identify someone as a Christian and as the other things you reference.
It’s impossible anyway. If you want to be convinced, then I might have a shot, but if you don’t want to be, then it can easily be a frustrating exercise in futility.
Except that you’ve said that Jesus was both against religion and for it; that all would have happened long ago before the definition could have changed.
By the way, the word Christian means, belonging to Christ; that’s how the first Christians got the name. That hasn’t changed. People may misuse the word, like Phelps and his incestuous, cultish clan, but dogma and blaspheme can’t change that fact.
The rest is nothing.
I don’t mean this as a semantical argument. Religion doesn’t reside within a particular belief system; it resides where dogma and legalism matter more than the core of a person and the core of the spiritual philosophy that initially brought those people together in the first place.
Basically, my take on Christianity vs. religion is what Dickinson’s take was.
http://www.bartleby.com/113/2057.html
Esthier on August 3, 2007 at 5:14 PM
Hugo Chavez, is that you?
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 3, 2007 at 5:16 PM
Not exactly - we just have a better grasp on what we don’t know.
Enrique on August 3, 2007 at 5:16 PM
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 3, 2007 at 5:12 PM
I considered responding to foxforce91’s somewhat over the top comment, but I read it again, and decided to pass. He had a boss that accused him of being in a cult. Hard to stay irritated at foxforce when I would like to give that POS boss a piece of my mind.
RushBaby on August 3, 2007 at 5:17 PM
Wouldn’t it make more sense with nothing on it?
Or:
[______________________________] is Great!……fill in the blank……..
profitsbeard on August 3, 2007 at 5:18 PM
“Belonging to” - in other words, being Christian is to be a slave.
I guess we’re not so far off on our religious views, Esty! :)
Enrique on August 3, 2007 at 5:19 PM
I’m a Frisbetarian.
We worship the great god Whammo.
We live by the teachings of his prophet son Frisbee.
We believe that when you die your soul gets stuck on the roof and you can’t get it down.
Kowboy on August 3, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Not really, it’s more like “you like that, well, I guess I hate it then.”
In the political world we’ve dubbed it BDS.
It takes no more thought to make it a point to ALWAYS disagree with someone than it takes to ALWAYS agree with someone. Either way, you’re letting someone else do the thinking for you.
Sure.
And that’s how I’ve always viewed it.
I suppose I can see that.
Esthier on August 3, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Kowboy on August 3, 2007 at 5:19 PM
Kool! Got an emblem?
RushBaby on August 3, 2007 at 5:20 PM
TheSitRep on August 3, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Yeah, exactly like that, except Christians believe that people are enslaved no matter what they do and that being owned by God is better than the alternative.
Minus the power and actual sincerity in the statement.
Esthier on August 3, 2007 at 5:23 PM
I think you’d lose people. Plus it wouldn’t carry the martyr image very well.
Esthier on August 3, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Yep. John identifies himself as the “bond servant of Christ.”
The Christian worldview maintains that everyone is a slave–it’s just a matter of what you’re a slave to.
In that vein, bond-servants chose to be slaves. you can bicker and argue about whether it was a good choice, but recognize the free will, and free thinking, involved in it.
TexasDan on August 3, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Well, I believe people are free, and DAMN that’s creepy, Esty.
Enrique on August 3, 2007 at 5:28 PM
Your analogy maybe true of certain religions or sects of Christianity, but for the believer to disregard the witness, it is not the witness of one man - it’s the witness of many.
Regardless, I’m not here to argue the credibility you give to people, I don’t really care - but our court of law allows observation as fact with the strength of numerical collaboration. Again, you can disregard that as the witnesses were in error, deceived, or Rosie’s favorite: it’s a conspiracy.
Spirit of 1776 on August 3, 2007 at 5:29 PM
cue Bob Dylan’s “gotta serve somebody” while reading the above.
TexasDan on August 3, 2007 at 5:29 PM
He there is no mention of gay people . Y’all need to talk about gay people!
TheSitRep on August 3, 2007 at 5:31 PM
It’s not an uncommon theme among religions. Reaching enlightenment is about freeing yourself of yourself. And really, if a spiritual ideology isn’t trying to offer you a better shake at life, then it’s kinda worthless, which I’m sure is the conclusion you’ve come to anyway.
Esthier on August 3, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Sure, that’s normal. Christianity is a big part of your identity, so you view it within the identity of others. I don’t consider my atheism important enough to be part of my identity, so I tend to focus on other facets in others.
I have cousins who are Mennonites, and who, objectively, are extremely religious. But when I think of them, that’s about the last thing that comes to mind. She can make the best pizza you’ve ever eaten, entirely from things they grew/raised themselves. He’s a lumberjack, and harvests new growth wood using these freakin’ ginormous, gorgeous draft horses. I saw their youngest daughter get stung by a wasp once, and she didn’t even cry. They’re the most caring, generous people I know.
These things are far more interesting to me than the one-word adjective that names their religion.
Tanya on August 3, 2007 at 5:33 PM
It’s one of the so-called paradoxes of Christian faith that slavery to Christ is in fact what sets us free. This becomes non-paradoxical when you consider slavery to the alternative, and when considered in the light of God’s goodness to us.
TexasDan on August 3, 2007 at 5:35 PM
I’ll see if I can find The Sinner, okay?
CyberCipher on August 3, 2007 at 5:36 PM
What about gays that don’t believe in god.
I think Gaytheists need protection too.
JayHaw Phrenzie on August 3, 2007 at 5:38 PM
That’s a bad way to view arguments. If you can only convince someone who wants to be convinced there really isn’t a point. If it were obvious or rational you wouldn’t need to only try to convince the gullible.
Jesus taught a certain way and wasn’t dogmatic when he was on Earth according to The Bible, God (who according to Christians is Jesus) is dogmatic. It is possible for Jesus (God) to be viewed in two different ways. But I don’t really see what you’re arguing about. Do you think that Christianity is simply the teachings of Jesus or does Christianity mandate believing Jesus died and was brought back to life or does it mandate believing in a certain section of The Bible, et cetera?
The funny thing about religion and Christianity in particular is how many different sects there are of it claiming to be Christian. Which are the truth Christians? No doubt you’ll get a biased answer depending on who you ask.
And how do you know your version of Christianity isn’t a corrupt bastardized version of the religion? Answer: you don’t. And if you don’t know what gives you the right to criticize other people who think their version is correct and what gives you the right to attempt to enforce your version on the public?
I like that.
It still requires thought. More so than being taught something since birth and never questioning. If you don’t follow it you have a conscious reason for not following it (however weak it may be), but if you do follow it you’re just shuffling along with the herd.
Man’s perception is the greatest deception of all. Common. Simply because people say they see something does not mean it exists, it might, but what do you think the world would be like if we viewed the world like that? Practically I think it’s a pretty cool idea (is that shirt really red?), realistically though? Not so much.
No matter how good you may think it sounds when I read it all I think of is: “Yeah you’re a slave, but you’re a good slave!”
And if we’re gonna talk about gay people I think we need to talk about the verses in Leviticus right before and after that section where it says it is immoral to have sex with a woman on her period and a sin to eat the meat of animals with hooved feet.
Nonfactor on August 3, 2007 at 5:51 PM
Ironically, they do not have reason on their side nor do they argue from it, they argue from empiricism. It is a fallacy and it makes them wrong.
Tim Burton on August 3, 2007 at 6:09 PM
I don’t know if anyone posted this yet; I don’t think I saw it scrolling through the threads.
Wouldn’t this just be how atheists nail themselves to a figurative cross?
catmman on August 3, 2007 at 6:32 PM
I’m with you Allah - bring it on!
Ann on August 3, 2007 at 6:40 PM
I have my BA in Religion, with an emphasis in Biblical studies, and a minor in Koine Greek, which is the original language of the NT. I also have two semesters towards my M.Div., and although my Hebrew is rusty it is still useful. I have translated many portions of the OT & NT, from their original manuscripts. I have also extensively studied the science of textual criticism, literary criticism, epistemology, Christology, and ecclesiology. I say all this to inform you that nearly all biblical assertions you made in your post are incorrect.
Weight of Glory on August 3, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Ok, are they illiterate now, or just stupid?
Did nobody read “The Scarlet Letter” in school? Do they not know what it stood for?
Or do you really want to explain to everyone you meet that you’re standing up for Atheism and not Adultery?
Unless you are standing up for Adultery too. Which will be any educated/literate person’s first suspicion, so don’t exepct loads of support there.
gekkobear on August 3, 2007 at 6:53 PM
M
Nonfactor,
You can not possibly be serious! Some of the greatest theological thinkers were once completely against Christianity, who then converted. I know I have mentioned C.S. Lewis before on this site, but I would encourage you to read his autobiography “Surprised by Joy” he was raised Anglican, became an ardent atheist, and then came back to Christianity in the ecclesiastical form of Anglicanism shortly after he began teaching at Oxford (or was it Cambridge I forget off-hand). Please, please read. If you want I could send you a reading list of some books that might correct some of you mistaken claims of what Christianity is all about.
Weight of Glory on August 3, 2007 at 6:56 PM
I have no problem with this shirt.
Instead of saying “God bless you” when one of them sneezes, I’ll say, “Society excuses you for your expulsion of an irritant, and possibily the spread of germs, thru an unavoidable bodily function”.
Yeah, that should do it.
madmonkphotog on August 3, 2007 at 7:25 PM
You got that part right.
Atheism seems determined to act like every other religion. I sort of hoped they might be different … but in recent years they’ve adopted dogmatic thinking, abandoned any real skepticism of their OWN beliefs, become belligerent in the face of rational questions … and now they’re leaping on the “help, help, I’m oppressed!” bandwagon.
You’d think atheists would at least try to be different. The irony really is staggering.
They remind me very much of liberals who wear “question authority” t-shirts … but never stop to question the authority that gave them the frickin’ t-shirt.
If atheism was really about rational skepticism, about challenging *ALL* dogmatic beliefs … I’d be all for it.
Unfortunately, modern atheism has now adopted all of the worst aspects of orthodox religion.
It reminds me of the political spectrum … which is obviously not a continuum but a circle: if you go far enough left you’ll wind up on the right, and vice versa.
Atheism is wandering so far into its own rigid thinking and desperation to be a recognized victim group … that I now have trouble telling hard-core atheists and religious zealots apart.
They all think they’re 100% right about things they can’t possibly be sure of. That’s both ironic and scary. And funny, after a few beers.
Professor Blather on August 3, 2007 at 7:28 PM
What about us agnostics? Where is my t-shirt? Damn Dawkins already took the A…
I supposed you can only spout off about what you believe exists or don’t believe exists eh? I think both sides need to calm down and go to a spa or something.
What ya call someone who is an insomniac, agnostic and dyslexic? (Someone who stays up all night wondering if there really is a Dog) ;) Now lighten up!
mojowire on August 3, 2007 at 7:30 PM
More deep irony.
In my experience, most self-identified atheists seem allergic to actual “free thought.” They are tied into a narrow, stringent belief system, and unfortunately - it is a belief in a non-existence. They tend to have their self esteem tied up in the idea that they are smarter than those who believe in something thus they cannot even ponder the possibility that there might be something other than nothing.
Free thought? Atheism, as it is usually practiced, is the farthest possible thing from free thought.
Agnostics, on the other hand … or even people of faith willing to honestly question their faith … that’s where free-thinking is found.
The instant you declare knowledge of some grand truth - you gave up the right to call yourself a free thinker.
Well, unless you want to make me giggle a lot.
Professor Blather on August 3, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Did you see that new hospital the atheists just built?…neither did I.
That is the foundation of difference between believers and non believers.
One gives, the other takes. The atheists (and your welcome) get to enjoy the harvest that the religous have sown. Hospitals, education, disaster relief, care for the elderly, care for the out casts of society, and a standard that can be debated, but never torn up and discarded, forgotten.
right2bright on August 3, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Until some of them (the atheists) lay the doctrine on ya’ that “There is no such thing as absolute truth. Everything is a relative shade of grey, dontcha’know?” Maybe THAT’s the greatest irony of all. For many atheists, there just is no such thing as an absolute.
CyberCipher on August 3, 2007 at 7:44 PM
Absolutely!
Weight of Glory on August 3, 2007 at 7:50 PM
absolut!
*hic*
RushBaby on August 3, 2007 at 8:03 PM
My only Biblical assertions were that The Bible says Jesus taught more idealistically and God (of New and Old Testaments) was more dogmatic. How is that wrong?
For a religious people to say “we don’t know whether or not God exists” is the same for someone to say “we don’t know whether or not Russel’s teapot exists,” or “we don’t know whether or not we’re living in the Matrix,” et cetera. The second you cross into that territory you become a Solipsist.
But I would agree with your other point, nobody can claim to know the grand truth, even atheists know this, but being an agnostic really is another word for being a Solipsist. I view being an atheist more as someone who denies the illogical. Of course you could make an argument that nothing is illogical in the universe. Debating Solipsism is impossible, you can never prove them wrong. Debating religions however? You can certainly prove them wrong (The Bible, The Qur’an, et cetera).
Nonfactor on August 3, 2007 at 8:07 PM
Let’s begin.
First, when you say “the Bible says” I will assume that you are referring to the synoptic Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, plus the Gospel of John. Second, it is a gross misrepresentation of the theological concept of The Kingdom of God (a theme present in most of the imagery of the gospels, from Christ entering into Jerusalem on a donkey, which was a sing of royalty, to the constant refrain of HIs disciples of “are you going to establish the Kingdom now?)to reduce Christ’s words to Idealism. Third, Christ made so many dogmatic statements that that is precisely why the Pharisees crucified Him. (”Iam the way the truth and the life. No man can come to the Father except by me.” Any one who has seen me has seen the Father.” “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”) There are many more dogmatic statements but I think it would be a good idea for you to read the NT or re-read it, to find those out.
Moving out of the gospels, you enter the epistles of the apostle Paul, and everything from the book of Romans to II TImothy is full of dogma. Paul was first century, so to say that Christ was non dogmatic is to say that Christianity was already lost before 70 AD.
If I am reading that right, then it is appearent that you don’t have a lot of knowledge of the Trinitarian ideas that are throughout both the Old and New Testaments, and the trinatarian issues that were resolved in the Council of Nicea (325 AD) and the Council of Chalceadon (451 AD).
Weight of Glory on August 3, 2007 at 8:30 PM
You’ve out Bibled me.
Nonfactor on August 3, 2007 at 8:38 PM
Damn I missed a religious thread and I don’t have time to post. Wave to the usual participants. =)
frreal on August 3, 2007 at 8:40 PM
Ah, well…it’s getting late anyway. Listen, do read Lewis’ “Surprised by Joy” I think you would enjoy it. Take care.
Weight of Glory on August 3, 2007 at 8:43 PM
NonFactor (and others):
Do you want to discuss further the following philosophical question of:
“can atheists account for the metaphysical existence of, and their epistemological access to abstract entities, laws of logic, propositions, etc”?
I don’t mean to be uncomfortable or present you with time difficulties.
But I did enjoy our discussion in the past.
ColtsFan on August 3, 2007 at 9:14 PM
Fantastic question! And it must be the starting point. Well done.
Weight of Glory on August 3, 2007 at 9:16 PM
What a waste of time. Who cares whether someone is or isn’t. Attention seeking nonsense.
jeanie on August 3, 2007 at 9:31 PM
Laws of logic like any other laws are man made. Good and bad are simply words, right and wrong are what we use to define our actions. A problem when dealing with these metaphysical things is that they were often coined by deists (Descartes specifically). It’s easier to say that a God exists and simply dismiss the rules of logic as tools created by that God, but it still doesn’t prove anything. Simply because someone can “account” for one thing or another does not make it true or logical.
So would I be able to account for these metaphysical things? I think I could, given time and a lot more research, but I also think it boils down to what questions you’re asking: how, why, what, et cetera. What is obviously the easiest of the three, how the second most (and something I touched on–them being man made), but why is always the most difficult to answer when talking about the abstract, but there are many things to account for these rules, whether or not they’re logical or not is another question.
Nonfactor on August 3, 2007 at 9:43 PM
As a semi neutral party in the whole Atheist vs Christian grudge match (I’m a pagan), I’d like to say that Atheists bug me way more than Christians. Christians will eventually agree to disagree, but Atheists will just keep insisting you’re wrong and tell you what a drooling knuckledragger you are for daring to disagree with them. Every atheist I have met has also had that smug self important attitude and sense of superiority.
Etain P on August 3, 2007 at 9:55 PM
With good reason.
Nonfactor on August 3, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Too much?
Nonfactor on August 3, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Nonfactor, thanks for the reply.
I know lack of time is an issue.
Would you like to discuss (not “debate”—after all, it is a matter of ultimate presuppositions or “first principles”.
It is not a matter of ColtsFan being smarter or more gifted than anyone else. It is just presuppositions that underline our different worldviews.)
this question on the Lion of Judah-Journal website in the future? I could open up a thread below:
http://lionofjudah.squarespace.com/journal/
ColtsFan on August 3, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Thank you for the object lesson in why people prefer Christians to smug snarky Atheists, Nonfactor.
Etain P on August 3, 2007 at 10:30 PM
Testicle?
jeffNWV on August 3, 2007 at 10:38 PM
Christians are this, religious people are that. I can only smirk when someone tells me what I am or am not based on a label. Not all Christians are religious in the colloquial sense. Some of us are just quietly spiritual (I don’t typically attend religious services) and live our lives by a certain belief system without getting caught up in the dogma of the thing.
I really don’t care what religion someone is or who they sleep with or what band or sports team they favor. It’s America. It is only when they get in my face about the issue that I care (gay pride screechers come to mind most immediately). I’d wager that the vast majority of people buying those shirts are attention whores trying to be edgy and provocative. Having payed someone to be able to advertise for them will tell me that the person wearing the shirt is neither enlightened or particularly bright.
deepdiver on August 3, 2007 at 11:58 PM
Yeah I’d like to. I won’t be able to this weekend but sometime in the future would be great.
Apparently my sense of humor does not translate over the internet.
Are you serious? Of all the people who “get in your face” on certain issues you single out “gay pride screechers”? I’m guessing they’re a regular harassment for you or you simply don’t support them.
Nonfactor on August 4, 2007 at 12:42 AM
Just make a comment at the website, “Lion of Judah-Journal”. We will pick a topic in the distant future, and then just talk.
Other skeptics, atheists are welcome to make comments, or join in.
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 1:06 AM
I agree. Even atheists, just like Christians, rely on presuppositions. I think William James, contra Clifford’s **evidential maxim*, was right.
Everyone has unproven “first principles” or presuppositions.
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 1:11 AM
Where I live we don’t have a lot of protester/rally type things. In the last few years I had some gay pride rally people “get in my face” in person on a few occasions waving their signs in my face as I was walking on public sidewalks so they were the ones who as I said “come to mind most immediately”. I don’t want anyone in my face about their issue as I’m just going about my evening. I meant it more literal than it probably read to most people.
deepdiver on August 4, 2007 at 1:14 AM
Some of the smartest philosophers I have ever read were atheists. There are extremely bright scholars on both sides of the issue.
Atheism is a sub-section of the philosophy of religion.
Atheists simply answer “No God” as their response to primary questions in the philosophy of religion.
Atheism cannot ultimately appeal to empirical “science,” without first re-defining and eroding the very definition of science into a brand new definition, one often called “naturalistic science”, which is not science.
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 1:21 AM
Atheists may not be able to prove that a God doesn’t exist, just as we can’t prove that Russel’s teapot doesn’t exist, just like we can’t prove we’re living in the Matrix, et cetera. But to take this route of discussion isn’t a religious argument it is a Solipsists argument.
What atheists can do is prove that the Christian God doesn’t exist by showing falsehoods in The Bible or prove that the Muslim God doesn’t exist by showing falsehoods, or prove that the Grecian gods don’t exist by showing falsehoods, et cetera.
Nonfactor on August 4, 2007 at 1:21 AM
Bottom line: atheists don’t believe in God or gods. It isn’t a religion so much as bald is a hair color. You aren’t born a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim. You are born not believing in a God; it isn’t so much a philosophy as the natural state of things.
Of course atheism cannot appeal to physical or emotional experiences it isn’t it’s purpose (if there is a purpose). Human experiences are very fickle things. To claim God exists because someone believes they’ve experienced Him isn’t so much empirical as it is insane.
Nonfactor on August 4, 2007 at 1:26 AM
Showing falsehoods in the bible to disprove the Christian God only works if one takes the bible literally.
deepdiver on August 4, 2007 at 1:32 AM
Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga would say,
“your basic belief in FSM runs into defeaters.”
There are propositions that defeat your belief in FSM, thus there is no epistemic ground or “warrant” for belief in FSM.
The heart of the Intelligent Design controversy seems to be this:
intelligence versus chance, concerning origins.
As a Christian, I do not want Genesis 1-2 taught as doctrine in public high schools for a number of reasons. But neither do I want ***methodological naturalism*** either. This is because methodological naturalism is not science.
Just teach plain science seems like the best idea.
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 1:34 AM
But it is a philosophical discussion in the sub-category of the philosophy of religion. For example, atheist Michael Martin is an atheist philosopher who specializes in the philosophy of religion. Since it is a philosophical discussion, atheists, like everyone else, (thanks to insights from William James), rely on un-provable, first principles, presuppositions.
I am not arguing “burden of proof” here. I am just pointing out that atheists, just like theists, have un-provable, hidden presuppositions, “first principles.”
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 1:40 AM
I think I may have a better comparison. Look up Tolson (2006) and a US News and World Report article called ‘The New Unbelievers’. There is also an issue of Wired talking about ‘The New Atheism’. Paraphrase -
Only thing is, Dawkins & friends are using double speak here. They don’t want to retire religion, as much as replace it. With their own brand of Atheism. Now compare to this, by Daniel Pipes (”The Danger Within: Militant Islam in America” 2001). Paraphrase -
Dawkins is doing nothing more than practicing his own form of taqiyya with this campaign and his aims. It starts with shirts. It will continue with moonbat atheist extremists. I wonder how his views mesh with those of the Russian group Nashi. It would be an interesting comparison. After all, every good socialist/communist/nutcase needs their own group of colored shirt wearing thugs to get their message across right? I know a few atheists. They consider Dawkins their version of a televangelist. That’s a thought. When is he going to start his own little athevangelism TV network?
Send me $1000, and the nonexistent powers that be will heal you! (sarc)
Suihei Deloi on August 4, 2007 at 1:42 AM
By the way, deepdiver, I wanted to extend the welcome mat to participate in any future discussions at Lion of Judah-Journal. Your comments there would be appreciated.
I agree with you, in a sense.
In order to “show falsehoods in the Bible…”, atheism must first do the impossible: they must be able to metaphysically account for rationality, and they must be able to epistemically account for how brains made of molecular, physical, spatial neurons can interact with invisible, non-spatial, immaterial, real abstract entities like propositions, laws of logic, concepts, etc.
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 1:43 AM
As you probably already know, not all Christian theists use the above faulty line of argumentation to show that God exists.
Some of us use the Argument from Truth because we are convinced that everyone uses the laws of logic in the act of reasoning. The question is: how does a worldview account for the immaterial laws of logic?
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 1:47 AM
Are you a White Sox fan?
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 1:49 AM
Jesus did not teach socialism. Socialism depends on an unrealistic, optimistic view of human nature.
Jesus’s teachings on “community” were restricted to the Church, and were not related to the role or function of government.
Jesus did not teach socialism because that would be in opposition to Jesus’ negative view of human nature.
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 1:59 AM
Nonfactor makes a good point here.
“Free thought” is also why I do not want “science” to be held hostage by the narrow confines of “naturalistic science,” or methodological naturalism. MN is not science.
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 2:02 AM
That is a good place to start. The chapter on naturalism is, I think, the way to go for correct lines of thinking. C.S. Lewis, I think, (I haven’t read that book in years) is arguing against the idea of atheists being able to even use the faculty of reason.
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 2:09 AM
Are you referring to the belief among atheists:
“that there is no absolute (derived from “all is relative”), except the absolute that there are ‘no absolutes’, absolutely?”
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 2:20 AM
Sorry, you beat me to it earlier.
I just got off work, and I am trying to play catch-up.
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 2:23 AM
Because Jesus Christ Himself repeatedly emphasizes the centrality of Truth. If Christianity is false, then that is serious business. As a Christian, I take seriously Christ’s commands to seek out the truth. I welcome serious, skeptical inquiry.
Believing a false religion sincerely, or only on the basis of emotion, is believing a lie.
So I take seriously the comments of atheists, skeptics, etc.
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 2:29 AM
Thank you for your clear, detailed reasoning. Thank you for patiently taking the time to explain your position in detail.
I think we have narrowed the issue down for purposes of future discussion:
are the laws of logic man-made?
If the answer is YES, then the naturalist can go continue believing wholeheartedly in naturalism (atheism) because there is no longer any philosophical threat to his system **outside of nature**
But if the answer is NO, then that raises serious, impossible rational difficulties for the naturalist.
I think the evidence points in the direction of negative. The immaterial laws of logic are not man-made; thus they are outside of naturalism, and cannot be explained within naturalism at all.
May I open a thread on Lion of Judah-Journal in the distant future?
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 2:35 AM
And if we accept the premise that The Bible is not a literal document than Christianity is moot. Did Jesus literally exist or was he simply an embodiment of the power struggle occurring in Judaism?
And the difference here being that theists take these current unknowns and prescribe a God to them. Simply look at the Grecian gods and how current unknowns were given gods to explain them. Was that a rational way to deal with those unknowns? No. When your (in general) answer is “God must make it happen” you’re coping out on the entire discussion. Certain “principles” aren’t really principles at all so much as they are truth. They are truth not because God made them truth, they are truth because logic and reason (human conditions so far as we know) dictate their truth. For example “y is y” you don’t need a God to explain, excuse, or create that truth for you.
What doctrine of morality is Dawkins preaching? What doctrine does he say you must follow or face the consequences? Don’t be fooled, he isn’t attempting to “convert” people to “atheism” (an extremely loaded suffix -ism is). What he is doing (and don’t assume I agree with him 100%) is getting atheists into the public eye. Many religious people can’t deal with this and to combat it they’ll claim that what Dawkins is really doing is attempting to [insert hyperbolic speculation here].
Our brains are capable of amazing things we don’t yet know about. Our brains can make us see things that aren’t there, hear things that aren’t there, taste things that aren’t there. There are even plants and chemical compounds that alter the way our brains work. Take some LSD and I’m sure you’d be amazed at how a mass of tissue can create a dream world of polka-dotted unicorns jumping over cherry rivers while you fly off a waterfall in a canoe. Can we account for this? We know that the chemical affects a certain portion of the brain, but we don’t currently know exactly what it does. Does that mean God is responsible? The Native Americans and many other peoples thought drugs made them closer to God, but as time goes on we’ll see that the answer isn’t as wondrous as the religious may think, which isn’t to say it isn’t just as beautiful.
As I said y is y; I hope we can agree on that. But a y-shaped stick does not equal another y-shaped stick seeing as how they may vary in length, size, color, et cetera. The immaterial can be measured, not by a ruler, but by the human mind.
Socialism or anti-materialism in an individualistic sense, not the form defined by Marx and Engels. Didn’t Jesus teach to give up your worldly possessions? That if someone were to steal your material possessions from you you should let them and not care about it? Sure, I was using socialism loosely, but anti-materialistic is a definite yes.
Definitely the topic for discussion.
Sure thing. I’ll visit the site when I have time, but remind me again the next time a religion thread pops up.
A brief tangent on metaphysics. Our perceptions are very very weak. It’s one point I can agree with Descartes on. Given our weak perceptions how do we know what is true or real? When I dream it sometimes feels as though I’m not dreaming at all, and what’s happening in my dream is really happening. How do we know we aren’t in a dream state this very moment? How do we know we aren’t simply a thought floating in space thinking up this world for ourselves? Descartes answer was “cogito ergo sum.” Thought for Descartes was the answer as to how we know we exist, but here is where I disagree with him. We can think in a dream, we can do everything we’re doing now in our waking life in a dream; so how do we know we really exist? The answer? We don’t. There are two possibilities in my mind for reality. We are either dreaming and everything is fake or we are real and everything else is real. But an even more compelling question for me is: what does it matter? I can deny the idea of a dream world (the Matrix) because it is irrational in relation to all of my experiences on Earth. We dreaming we may be able to fly, but flight is not irrational. The laws of logic do not change. So about reality? Who cares? It’s all about your physical (waking) life, and if this water bottle in front of me doesn’t exist it sure is a good dream.
Nonfactor on August 4, 2007 at 2:58 AM
This is a good point.
I agree that many people have argued a “God-of-the-gaps” view. My position is not to defend every religious viewpoint in the past. My position is:
can atheism both metaphysically and epistemologically account for the laws of logic? I answer no.
While I agree with you that a “God-of-the-gaps” mentality is mistaken, I also think that a “Naturalism-of-the-gaps” is wrong also.
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 9:27 AM
But atheism, as a system, does not believe there is a mind.
I am not telling you what you as an atheist personally thinks or does not think. I am only suggesting that your worldview does not teach that.
Christians believe in immaterial minds. Atheism, as a system, does not. They believe in human brains as a piece of matter. Atheism, as a system of beliefs in the philosophy of mind, denies the immaterial element.
Well, what is the matter with matter?
The answer is that there is much evidence that suggests that our brains are actually minds. Much discussion in the philosophy of religion borrows heavily from literature in the philosophy of mind because of this same issue: do we have material brains or do we as humans have minds?
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 9:36 AM
Yes, that is my basic axiom. I believe in the immaterial laws of logic. I hold that the law of contradiction is foundational and necessary for a credible worldview.
My argument is: since we know that the law of contradiction is necessary, what worldview best accounts for the necessity of the laws of logic? My answer is that
atheism cannot metaphysically (on the existence level) and epistemologically (on the knowledge level) account for the laws of logic.
Christians do not have this problem.
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 9:40 AM
Nonfactor, thanks for your clarification.
For the individual Christian believer, Jesus Christ made commands concerning wealth and money. But these principles were not directed at government. Government re-distribution of wealth was never advocated by Jesus.
I think the Religious Left has a very shallow, un-Biblical, false philosophical foundation.
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 9:44 AM
Nonfactor, thanks again for your good comments and active discussion.
I have to head to work right now.
It is enjoyable discussing deep philosophical principles with Nonfactor because Nonfactor does indeed attempt to use reason, laws of logic, correct argumentation, etc. Unlike talking to a member of the American Left, we can make some progress because we both are using the laws of logic in establishing our philosophical points.
My only purpose was never to question Nonfactor’s **personal** use of the laws of logic, but rather his worldview.
Again, thanks for the dialogue.
take care.
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 9:49 AM
Get me one with “Allahpundit” under the ‘A’ and let them ask EH?.
MSGTAS on August 4, 2007 at 11:01 AM
The original shirt only makes sense if there is a target on the back.
MSGTAS on August 4, 2007 at 11:04 AM
Colts Fan.
Good Morning! It is so good to read someone who approaches a defense of Christianity from a more classical appraoch, rather than the current “I feel that God is true”. Yes, the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Lewis’ Miracles deals with the pure naturalist’s problems supporting reason. If nothing is supernatural, then the brain and all of its functions are part of the natural cause and effect relationship. If this is the case then the very proposition “there is no God” has no realtion to truth, but is simply the only thing that person could have said due to the various natural proceses in his mind. For Lewis it was necessary to believe in the supernatural if for no other reason than to save man’s reason. From there, Thomas’ Summa can take you a long way.
Weight of Glory on August 4, 2007 at 11:18 AM
Good morning to you too. :-)
Yeah, the current subjectivism of “postmodern apologetics” opens up Pandora’s box of multiple problems. The “Emergent” church’s apologetic style is, I think, ultimately self-refuting. There are some good things about modernity. Not everything is bad about modernity. Indeed, even postmoderns still use aspects of modernity every single day.
One philosophical question which I wish I had more time to carefully explore is Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against Naturalism.
It seems that Naturalism encourages the Darwinian idea of the “survival of the fittest” or “reproduction of genes”.
But mere survival or reproduction of genes has absolutely nothing, by itself, to do with the non-natural concept of “knowledge” or “truth”.
Indeed, “knowledge” or “truth” cannot be reduced or eliminated to naturalistic presuppositions. These concepts cannot be “explained away by reference to” or “reference via” naturalistic notions of the Darwinian survival of the fittest. That is precisely why in atheist philosopher writings the notions of modality, concepts, propositions, abstract entities, rationality, knowledge, truth, etc. seem so “odd” in a supposedly naturalistic universe. They seem “odd” because they are in conflict with the Grand Metaphysical Story of Naturalism, i.e. the naturalistic account of origins, etc.
Thanks for your earlier comments. I am at work, so I cannot always post comments now.
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 11:55 AM
I was not clear or helpful concerning the above earlier quote.
What I meant to say is this. The Darwinian paradigm, (the evolutionary development of homo sapien ) , given the alleged “truth” of Naturalism, does not explain or justify why mankind’s **truth-conducive faculties** do in fact produce “truth-yielding” propositions.
That is, practically, the Darwinian paradigm may tentatively explain how a robust, strong 250 pound man may be able to physically beat up a human competitor, and thus “pass on his genes”, yet it does not explain or justify the existence of human reason or the “odd” faculty of the mind.
I say, “odd”, because, given the alleged assumption of Naturalism, it is “odd” because it is in direct conflict with Naturalism. That is why naturalists want to reduce or eliminate the “odd features” of their worldview.
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 12:16 PM
Eh, I don’t really mind. It’s summer so all of the undergrads are off campus right now - I haven’t gotten a good dose of self-important aggrieved moral exhibitionism in almost two months.
omriceren on August 4, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Has anyone read The Scarlet Letter? Good book people. I recommend it.
aengus on August 4, 2007 at 2:41 PM
That’s my point. Atheists cannot account for it currently, but neither can the religious. Religious people do use this “god of the gaps” to attempt to explain the metaphysics of the human mind, but they haven’t proven anything.
I can guarantee you that eventually people will understand the brain and will be able to explain it without the use of a God, just like we did with the Grecian gods.
There is a material connection to the immaterial things we experience; we can see this when parts of our brain react when we think about something or when we take certain drugs. I don’t see how you come to the conclusion that atheists don’t believe in the human mind as a world view. The Orthodox world view believes that 1) God (or gods) exists 2) God has a plan (a good plan) 3) Humans cannot know that plan and thus must take “a leap of faith” 4) Humans must obey the teachings or else be punished. The naturalistic world view says that 1) There is no God thus no plan 2) There is a natural cycle to life that humans are a part of (humans aren’t the highest beings on Earth as described by the Orthodox view) 3) Humans must become their own gods in deciding what moral actions are right. Historians and philosophers can belong to both Orthodox and Naturalistic world views, but even naturalists can find an immaterial “meaning” to history. No where in both those world views is the immaterial capabilities of the mind disregarded.
Religious people cannot claim to understand the mind simply because they believe in an immaterial being.
And why can’t they be the same thing? Is it possible that our material brains act as immaterial minds? If we are to believe the studies of biologists, yes.
I think the underlying question here is: does our brain act without a cause? Does the brain do something and then we react or do we do something and the brain reacts? I don’t see how if the brain acts without a cause it proves the existence of the supernatural; it proves the existence of a complex organ in our body, but definitely not the supernatural.
Whenever you say “atheists cannot account for X” my only answer is “yet,” but I would remind you that neither can the religious.
Nonfactor on August 4, 2007 at 2:44 PM
I understand that many naturalists believe that the “Great Success Stories of Science” somehow paves the way for “naturalist-friendly” solutions to perplexing and disturbing problems facing all versions of atheism.
But it is impossible to “reduce” or eliminate the human mind to the brain (”matter only”), for the same reason it is impossible to reduce or eliminate the non-natural (and non-man made) immaterial, non-spatial laws of logic.
The religious “can” not because the religious are better people than atheists. The religious “can” not because the religious, by default, are smarter than the atheists. The Bible teaches that knowledge is an act of grace alone.
We “can” because we have a worldview that both metaphysically and epistemologically accounts for the immaterial laws of logic. Metaphysically, unlike naturalism, the immaterial laws of logic are not in inherent conflict with our worldview. Epistemologically, we do have access to these non-causal abstract entities through our human minds. Our worldview teaches this.
Maybe I can open up a thread in the future?
I would enjoy your active participation and dialogue.
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 3:45 PM
No the religious can’t account for it at least not, as you put it, “yet”. Bryan posted something a few months back I don’t know if you read it, saying that a scientist he worked with was studying time pockets (it wasn’t called this exactly) that contained multitudes within days. He contrasted this scientific theory with the creation of the world in six days as outlined in Genesis. Does anyone remember this post? I can’t find it through the search function. I forget what it was called. Bryan, if you’re reading this can you link to it?
aengus on August 4, 2007 at 4:10 PM
contrasted=compared
Whoops!
aengus on August 4, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Nonfactor did you read The Grand Inquisitor as I counselled (twice) on an earlier thread? If so, what did you think?
aengus on August 4, 2007 at 4:20 PM
Aengus, you (and others) are welcome to continue the excellent discussion at
http://lionofjudah.squarespace.com/journal/
I think Allah may be pulling the thread for new ones soon.
ColtsFan on August 4, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Here let me save you the time.
Miracles are impossible in the natural world, because it is impossible for the natural world to violate natural law. An infinite God who created this world and created natural law can simply violate natural law or work around it.
The issue is if this is rational. It is, because turning water into wine does not violate reason, it violates natural law.
With apologies to Catholics (I’m about to step on your toes a bit), this is why I reject the “miracle” of transubstantiation. I do not reject it just based on Scripture (though there are plenty of arguments against it), I reject it based upon logic. It can’t be both bread and the body of Christ at the same time and in the same respect.
Why? Well, God would not nor could not create a circle that is a square at the same time and in the same respect. Why can’t He if he is infinitely powerful?
The answer lies in his nature. He is infinitely rational and making a square circle (r.t) is irrational, it would violate His nature.
Nonfactor, Hey I responded to you in this thread from a few months ago. This topic brought it back to my memory and and checked it. I thought you may want to read the last two posts.
Tim Burton on August 3, 2007 at 9:50 PM
Tim Burton on August 4, 2007 at 6:04 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2] 3 »