Also telling militant atheists to cool it: Theodore Dalrymple
posted at 8:25 am on September 12, 2007 by see-dubya
Share on Facebook | regular view
There are many fundamentalisms, including rigorous atheism, and they all have their zealots. As John Derbyshire said of the acolytes of Reason (before he himself donned her grim mantle) :
Does it not occur to you liberals, not even for a passing instant, that by purging all sacred images, references, and words from our public life, you are leaving us with nothing but a cold temple presided over by the Goddess of Reason — that counterfeit deity who, as history has proved time and time and time again, inspires no affection, retains no loyalties, soothes no grief, justifies no sacrifice, gives no comfort, extends no charity, displays no pity, and offers no hope, except to the tiny cliques of fanatical ideologues who tend her cold blue flame.
I regard the militant fringe of atheism to be equally as alarming as Allahpundit finds the theocratic fringes of Christianity. And, as AP linked in yesterday’s quote of the day, that Cold Blue Flame is burning uncomfortably hot and sulfurous these days–so much so that it’s embarrassing their co-irreligionists.
Now Theodore Dalrymple, probably my second favorite conservative atheist, gets tons of insane hate mail from the militant, identity-politics-atheist crowd, and puts his finger on where that hatred can lead and has led before:
Not long ago, while I was in France, the centenary of the final separation of church and state was celebrated. It was presented as the triumph of reason over reaction, of humanity over inhumanity, and I am not entirely out of sympathy for that viewpoint: I certainly don’t want to live myself in a state in which a single religion has a predominant or even strong say in the running of it. And yet the story was far more nuanced that that triumphantly presented.
For example, a fascinating book was published on the occasion of the centenary reproducing the iconography of the anticlerical propaganda that preceded the separation by thirty years; and on looking in to it I saw at once that it was exactly the same in tone as anti-semitic propaganda. There was the wickedly sybaritic hook-nosed cardinal in diabolical scarlet, the thin hairy spider, representing the economic interests of the church, whose sinister legs straddled the whole globe, and the priest who welcomed innocent little children into the fold of his black cloak. One has to remember that almost the first consequence of secularism in France, as in Russia, was unprecedented slaughter.
Meanwhile a Catholic bishop died unshriven Sunday after eight years in police custody in Communist China, for the heinous crime of leading an underground church.
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:
Why do atheists think reason is the antithesis of belief? A belief in a higher power makes a lot of sense, there is nothing unreasonable about that. Atheism, if adopted in rejection of simple agnosticism, becomes a militant belief system that can, and has, led historically to massive slaughters on the alter of “reason”.
jihadwatcher on September 12, 2007 at 8:49 AM
Belief in God does not equate to absence of reason, for many have reasoned themselves into becoming believers (e.g. Antony Flew and C.S. Lewis). There are many, many intellectuals in the evangelical realm and in theological academia.
What about those who are not walking about with a head full of theological evidences? Alvin Plantinga’s “belief as properly basic” theory is a justification of not needing to provide evidence and probability. The same theory can be applied to many atheists, who know only a few misconceptions to regurgitate as reason for not believing in God, and have not done any true “reasoning” to come to an intellectual conclusion that naturalism reigns supreme.
jediwebdude on September 12, 2007 at 9:11 AM
A long time ago I worked with an atheist that completely changed my view of atheism. Our conversations showed me that there are two types of atheists; ones that believe so deeply in God that they have to tear down everything with even a hint of religion and those that don’t believe in a god at all and as a result don’t care one way or another about other people’s beliefs.
jmarcure on September 12, 2007 at 9:17 AM
Saying atheists believe reason to be the opposite of belief is a strawman. Most atheists don’t feel the need to believe in gods and hate being pressured into going through the motions prescribed by most belief systems. That’s it.
I agree that campaigning to destroy religious imagery is counterproductive, but trying to stop forced (or pressured) religious observance has its merits.
shirgall on September 12, 2007 at 9:24 AM
Most agnostic type atheist could give a rats ass what anyone else believes.
There are however the extremist type atheist that believe in atheism as a religion, they are like JoHos, always ready to spread there own beliefs.
I’d be willing to bet that you could divide atheist into two camps.
Radical atheist and objective atheist.
The radicals will 9 out of 10 times be liberals.
Objective atheist will almost always be conservatives .
TheSitRep on September 12, 2007 at 9:24 AM
That is total crap.
As someone who believes deeply in God and respects Christians among others because I just do not know enough about God to know for sure whether they are right or not and who disagrees with atheism, this diatribe against reason — one of God’s greatest gifts — is bull.
Reason gives us no comfort and pleasure yada yada unless you mean the joy of a child (I know this from experience) learning about science and mathematics and how intricate and awesome it is, it gives no comfort unless you could modern medicine (it saved my life — of rather great comfort to me — and I’m really grateful for the anti-inflamatories that recently relieved my love’s pain), it offers protection through advanced weaponry, allows me to fly to other countries, which is pretty damn nice — for the sake of being near those I love — and on and on.
I don’t bash religion as such. For the most part, it is a positive force and removing the possibility of a higher power, true atheism, will lead some to cleave to the worst ideologies imaginable — as sometimes will warped religious fundamentalism.
But he should spend a little less time running down Reason and all its gifts of which I’ve described very few.
Christoph on September 12, 2007 at 9:26 AM
You can believe in whatever you want. Does not ater the fact that “Gods” are imaginary.
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 12, 2007 at 9:39 AM
He’s not bashing reason. He’s only bashing the worship of reason, which should be unnecessary for those who claim to worship nothing.
Esthier on September 12, 2007 at 9:41 AM
I’m No. 1!
And I didn’t even know you cared… sniff
saint kansas on September 12, 2007 at 9:42 AM
Esthier, Reason has brought us all the gifts I mentioned and far more like the keyboards we’re typing on, the network that unites us, and WordPress.
Hoo-yah WordPress.
A person could be forgiven for “worshiping” reason over religion because reason has brought us all of these very real miracles — or did I not just text my girlfriend in another continent with an update to the Tsunami warning in issued for her while she’s out with her friends at dinner — wait, I did — and religion has brought us tales of miracles.
So, yes, people who believe in reason have a point. Some fanatics are looneys, yes, but most love it when the bridge is built, the fridge works, or their child recovers from an infection and is not added to the incredible child mortality statistics before reason swept Europe.
Christoph on September 12, 2007 at 9:47 AM
What amazes me is that atheist fundamentalists—Hitchenites, if you will—seem to feel that Christianity is not merely a benign error of belief, but is harmful or even dangerous to individuals and to society as a whole.
How else can the evangelistic fervor of such atheists be explained? They preach—yes preach—at their audience as though Christians must be redeemed from the hell of belief, and as though converting society of a more avowed atheism is necessary to save the world from the dread threat of some unholy Christianist cabal.
Such christophobia, exuded by these self-professed saints of science and reason, debunk them as the high priests of rational thought they believe themselves to be.
clark smith on September 12, 2007 at 9:51 AM
Because the very definition of “faith” is to believe in something that you can not prove or have no evidence to
.
But this is where atheist also fail the logic test, they can not prove god does not exist.
.
There is a huge difference in knowing and believing.
.
The believer wont be persuaded even with mountains evidence, whereas the scientist is always looking for all knowledge and evidence especially data that is contrary to his knowledge set. Science is a quest. A scientist is the purest seeker.
.
All I am reasonably sure of is that no book from the middle east contains the answer.
.
And if that is what you base your knowledge or believe on then you are fooling yourself.
TheSitRep on September 12, 2007 at 9:52 AM
Jay, rather than persuade me on the issues of theology and spirituality, your militant atheist and uncharacteristically stupid posts on religion just undermine any support for your other comments.
Dalrymple seems to imply this.
Jaibones on September 12, 2007 at 10:03 AM
DING!DING!DING!DING! You are spot on, SPOT ON!
-A Secular Conservative who could not care less whether people are religious, loves and respects many religious traditions and rituals, and whose closest friends are deeply religious.
Miss_Anthrope on September 12, 2007 at 10:05 AM
Derbyshire, beneficiary of the House of Reason vs House of God debate, reasons that we might be careful what we wish for. As nearly everyone else involved in this debate has noted: does anyone want to compare the volunteerism and charitable giving of the U.S. Jewish and Christian communities to any other segment of American society?
The world you want to create — the European model, increasingly — would look at a tsunami in Sumatra and think “they are increasingly Muslim, militant and hateful; let them figure this out on their own. I don’t see what’s in it for me.” Wouldn’t it? They seem to try and offset the Cold Blue Flame of logic with mandatory government confiscation policies. Great.
Jaibones on September 12, 2007 at 10:10 AM
I think the only other thing I’d add to your comment is that some Agnostic Conservatives donate to charity too.
At least I know I do. :)
Miss_Anthrope on September 12, 2007 at 10:11 AM
God created us with a hole in our soul that only He can fill. You can try everything but it won’t work. We’re made that way. We will die that way. When you fill the hole with God/Jesus, you have a new life. You will never go back to the old one.
PoliticallyIncorrectSandy on September 12, 2007 at 10:14 AM
Yes, I’m fully aware that the magical glowing box in front of me that is currently filling with words is in fact a product of reason, or more accurately, science.
However, I don’t worship the glowing box or the tools that brought the magic box into my office.
If I’m going to worship something, I’m going to worship something that is greater than me, something greater than mankind.
No matter what you may think of me, reason is not beyond me or anyone I know who actually takes the time to care. Even our brightest people are still people.
I appreciate reason and do not take it for granted, but I see no point in worshiping it.
Esthier on September 12, 2007 at 10:19 AM
“Fact” is a mighty powerful word. You do have references that will show us these facts. Right? The very simple fact is that there is no factual evidence for or against there being gods. So your statement is nothing more than your belief that there are no gods, nothing more, nothing less and like our existence completely meaningless.
jmarcure on September 12, 2007 at 10:23 AM
Phrenzie: You can believe whatever you want. It does not change the fact that God is real.
This could be said in much the same about anything that is real. You could not believe in the sky. But if there is a sky, it exists nonetheless.
Faith pertains to knowledge of things that are not directly sensual; A comprehension or evidence of the unseen, and a substance to the things which have been promised and hoped for. Faith may not be truth, but faith must be pointed toward what is true. You can have faith in anything unseen or hoped for; the difference is having that faith in what is true.
Many atheists have faith – some good faith, others a perverse faith. I cannot be assured of their salvation, but I am also aware that I am rarely in a position to change their mind or even influence them.
There is substance and form, and some possess one and not the other. It is better to possess faith with only substance than faith with only form. Faith with only substance looks like Bill Whittle or Robert Heinlein; they cannot ascribe their belief to a specific deity or tradition, but yet they can see what is unseen and hope for what is promised despite attempts to prove otherwise. In some ways it is merely a long view; but it is also a kind of vision that sees past chance and anxiety.
People will see God anywhere if they need to, this of course is traditional and is described in the phrase “God is all”. The second phrase to go along with it (to complete the paradox) is “God is not of this world.”
I honestly could care less if you don’t believe in God; believing in him or not is not the most important thing; even the demons believe in him. What is important is faith in the promises of God.
If you cannot believe in him, I can only pray this is sufficient. No one can choose for you.
RiverCocytus on September 12, 2007 at 10:26 AM
Reason is the faculty through which science is practiced: not religion.
Christoph on September 12, 2007 at 10:27 AM
Yes, but one can study reason without studying science, which is why I included that parenthetical.
I’m fully aware that religion does not lead to science and was not claiming otherwise.
Esthier on September 12, 2007 at 10:35 AM
I wish.
angryoldfatman on September 12, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Yeah, there’s nothing better than insulting martyred Christians. Then again, most who have the Darwin fish have no idea the icthus was born out of a time when Christians were used as human torches as a means to learn of fellow believers.
Esthier on September 12, 2007 at 10:47 AM
Christoph, that is false. Even Paul had said, “Let us reason together.’
Faith, Religion, if true, gives one access to -knowledge- that surpasses that of the senses. Faith and Reason are not opposed or separate but like the ‘x’ and ‘y’ axes of a graph; orthogonal.
RiverCocytus on September 12, 2007 at 10:47 AM
I never said they are separate. THAT is false.
I said that religion is not the methodology behind science, reason is.
Never once did I say reason or science do not come from God. I said they do.
Christoph on September 12, 2007 at 10:49 AM
No offense, Cristoph, but you just unintentionally gave me an awfully fine laugh, and proved Derbyshire’s point – which you called ‘total crap’ – far more eloquently than he did.
Read what you wrote. You talked of joy, of children, of comfort, of life, of gratitude, and of love.
I doubt you’ll get my point, but it’s a funny one. Reason gave you none of those. You may find them in the fruits of reason, but reason has absolutely nothing to do with them. Especially love.
Thanks. I needed that reminder.
Professor Blather on September 12, 2007 at 10:52 AM
I lined up all of the ‘Masters’ that the human race has ever know,…all of their philosophies & word-speak.
I applied my REASON to pick the ‘One’ whom I would fashion my life after.
It wasn’t hard. I reasoned that anyone who would give up His life for me that I might continue to live was worthy to be followed. Ah reason, a fine mental apparatus!
lobosan5 on September 12, 2007 at 10:55 AM
.
There is a huge difference between knowing and believing: “knowing” = “believing” + hauteur.
This is pure fantasy. In the real world the head of every scientist is filled to bursting with all manner of biases and preconceived notions, just as is the head of any common yokel. Their conclusions can be just as arbitrary when faced with evidence suggesting divergent conclusions. There’s nothing more magical, noble, or truth-inducing about a scientist’s flawless lab coat, than there is in a farmer’s mud-covered overalls.
Further, in the scientific community, a rigid orthodoxy exists. The quickest way for a scientist to lose standing, funding, and influence is to challenge that orthodoxy. As a scientist it’s much safer to nod with your colleagues and call a fragment of bone ‘the missing link’ than to suggest anything else and be out of a job tomorrow.
Again, the notion that “A scientist is the purest seeker” is sheer fantasy.
A scientist’s livelihood and career is predicated on not “looking at all knowledge and evidence”–and, most especially, in not drawing conclusions–that may prove contrary to the “perceived knowledge set” of scientific orthodoxy.
A “pure seeking” scientist would be eaten for lunch by the scientific community; the pressure to conform–most especially in such matters as human origins–is overmastering and absolute.
clark smith on September 12, 2007 at 11:02 AM
Professor Blather, no offence intended (believe it or not), but as usual Christians respond with simplistic attacks missing the whole point.
Joy, Love, etc., aren’t “reason”… I don’t love my girlfriend because of “reason”… it’s rather unreasonable when I think about it… she lives many thousand KM away and one of us to emmigrate… there are easier ways of doing soon…
However, it is an open question on whether they derive from God or nature. I believe God created nature and love, etc., derive from nature.
Atheists believe the world came into being on its own through mathematical and perhaps other natural principles and joy and love derive from nature.
There is a LOT … and I mean a lot… of evidence in neuroscience for joy and love being natural phenomena.
The evidence for the positive fruits of reason is easy to see… if God is all powerful, then one logically has to hold him responsible for child rape, genocide, syphilis, and children born with deformities.
It is hardly beyond understanding a person could see the positive effects of reason and “worship” it as opposed to God.
I don’t worship God, incidentally. I acknowledge there is an intelligent creative force behind the universe.
I will never WIN a debate with your religious mind and there is no point in me trying.
Christoph on September 12, 2007 at 11:11 AM
Clark:
Someone quite wicked once said, “In this world, the weak feed upon the strong.”
They say great wisdom married to a wicked will creates a monster. It’s true.
RiverCocytus on September 12, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Moronic. One of the weakest and, frankly, stupidest arguments in all of Christianity.
God “gave up” his life of being a man on Earth, totally threw it away, to return to being an immortal all powerful God.
Stunning sacrifice.
Christoph on September 12, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Prof. I struggle/reason with the issues in this thread, but have only tortured conclusions, so am mostly here to read what others have to say. But I wonder if the “especially love” part is especially true. Sometimes I can begin to take apart why I feel the way I do about my wife and kids. Many issues enter that picture, including sex, immortality, a desire to do something useful with my life, fear of loneliness, and even some of the Jung stuff–search for the “anima”, transference of our desires onto another, etc. etc. So, I’m not sure how your examples conclusively make your point. Signed. Struggling.
JiangxiDad on September 12, 2007 at 11:14 AM
The triumph of reason, perhaps.
btw, this is how I feel about talking politics with libs.
JiangxiDad on September 12, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Christoph: Were you a God once to know what it is to give up that authority to become a man?
Have you no fear of God?
RiverCocytus on September 12, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Why did you do that?
Why did you line up all the ‘Masters’ of our species and pick the ‘One’ whom you would fashion your life after? Why didn’t you just spend your life learning from each of them, from experience, from the successful (and unsuccessful) people around you, and decide for yourself what is true?
Christoph on September 12, 2007 at 11:20 AM
An all-powerful, all knowing God who knows everything that will happen from the beginning to the end of time, including that his brief time on Earth, very hard in the end, but NOT the worst time a human has ever spent to live, would then leave him back up in Heaven with the Father who, Christianity teaches is, is part of the Godhead along with the Son.
It’s retarded to say this sacrifice exceeds that of a soldier who has doubts that their even is a heaven giving up his life in battle to save his mates.
Absolutely stupid.
Christoph on September 12, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Tell me your list of completely original ideas. I would be amazed if they could fill a paragraph.
It is a fool who reinvents the wheel.
RiverCocytus on September 12, 2007 at 11:23 AM
You’re answering my question nicely:
The answer is no. Why should we assume foolishly that it is only the sacrifice that matters? Is it not God becoming Man that is important? And the exaltation of the humanity of Christ to the highest places that gives us access to God himself what we require? Is it not, only that, which gives any soldier even the slightest hope that he may live again despite dying?
Why do you mock God, Christoph?
I will not sit in the seats of mockers.
RiverCocytus on September 12, 2007 at 11:26 AM
I wouldn’t pick out someone who claimed to be God and was nailed to a cross as my model.
I’d pick a successful soldier, or farmer, or business person, or good parent, or all of these depending on what stage in my life I was to learn from.
At an rate, I wouldn’t pick the ‘One’ from the ‘Masters’. That’s crazy. And shows a strong predilection toward a religious outcome regardless of where the facts lead.
At any rate, you throw out the ultimate red herring. I leave a long passage about a variety of people I would learn from and you attack me saying I don’t have original ideas. Therefore, you imply I should be learning from others.
Your point is stupid.
Christoph on September 12, 2007 at 11:30 AM
But this is where atheist also fail the logic test, they can not prove god does not exist.
Krydor on September 12, 2007 at 11:30 AM
I don’t. I mock those who think God going through a few days of pain when there has been MASSIVE pain throughout history for humans, animals, and others, probably on multiple planets, and galaxies (remember, there are more galaxies in the universe than there are stars in our galaxy) is somehow a huge sacrifice.
I don’t “mock” the creator. I do not believe the creator is so stupid as to come down to earth to con people to believe that a few days of being tortured before heading back up to heaven is such a great sacrifice we should all bow down and worship.
Christoph on September 12, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Really? Your thrust is weak. Have you heard of the saints? If Christ seems too high, certainly they are low enough for you or I to emulate.
Or is the Protestant version of Christianity the only one that exists?
RiverCocytus on September 12, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Without such there is no veritable hope of salvation. There is only sentiment and wishing. For that, you may as well worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
RiverCocytus on September 12, 2007 at 11:35 AM
I have no problem with someone learning from or emulating saints or even Christ.
I said that above.
They all have strong points. Many of Christ’s philosophies and teachings I have found compelling.
My point was going into it in advance with the conclusion that you would simply “pick” from the ‘Masters’ the ‘One’ shows an incredible religious bias to start with.
It doesn’t even show him biased to choose a particular religion, but by God he was going to end up with one.
And moving on… regardless of that… Christ’s great sacrifice… wasn’t really.
Unless he was a man, which I expect was the case, and not and never a God.
In which case, if he died for his ideas and loyalty to God, however misguided, that would be a great sacrifice.
Christoph on September 12, 2007 at 11:38 AM
He certainly was a man. But he was also God. It was his humanity which ascended into heaven, that, as Psalm 24 says, “Open up ye ancient doors, that the King of Glory may go in.”
To say he was only a man is Arianism, an ancient heresy, and to say he was only a God is to say he really didn’t die, since God cannot die. Both theologies lack in that they do not account for what actually occurred.
RiverCocytus on September 12, 2007 at 11:45 AM
I doubt it.
Christoph on September 12, 2007 at 11:56 AM
But… if he was, then he sacrificed very little indeed.
Christoph on September 12, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Again, you focus on what was lost, and seem to miss what was gained. Paul said, “It is because everything that was good was achieved in it.”
I’m not sure what quantifying what he lost proves either way. Someone could simply find a way to sacrifice more.
The difference between being God and being Man is infinite. It’s a step that no man can take, as no man is God, save Christ Jesus himself.
lobosan5’s point: A soldier may sacrifice his life to save a country, a nation, even the whole population of the world! But only God may sacrifice his life to save men for all time.
Thus, Christ’s sacrifice is indeed greater than any other. The cost is not necessarily the point.
RiverCocytus on September 12, 2007 at 12:08 PM
I am not as militant as some on here accuse me of being.
I accept that it is very likely that we will be stuck with religion forever.
There is too much political advantage for the elites and too much solace for the downtrodden for this crutch to be cast off.
All I do is state my opinions clearly and unambigously.
You can believe in god, santa claus, the easter bunny, harry potter and Gandalf the Grey for all I care. They are all equally fictional.
I offer no evidence of what I know to be true, because fanatics do not care about evidence.
The bane of religious faith is education. Keep educating yourself and at some point a critical mass will be reached and the truth will be self evident.
Or don’t and enjoy “knowing” that your invisible friend has your back after your death.
As long as my rights aren’t being trampled on and I am not being killed for my heresy, what do I care.
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 12, 2007 at 12:13 PM
It makes accepting death easier, certainly. Though, I’d imagine there are other ways to go about it.
If all men were identical, this would be true. Instead, my ongoing education led me back to God. The world has certain inconsistencies that require faith.
RiverCocytus on September 12, 2007 at 12:17 PM
The fact that there are still many things that we do not understand does not indicate the presence of god.
In fact, choosing god as the answer, often stops the search for real truth.
In 200AD we knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. There was no point in researching it, because everyone knew it. in 2000AD, we know better.
Belief that God placed Earth at the center of a universe that “he” created does not alter the fact that earth is an insignificant planet orbting an insignificant sun in an onscure section of an average galaxy.
God is not an answer, believing in “God” is a decision to stop looking for the real answer.
Also, in regards to belief in God making it easier to accept death. It would be even easier to accept my eventual death if I believed that in the afterlife, I would have a body like Arnold Schwarzenegger, a bank account like Bill Gates and Osama’s 72 virgins (not the white raisins, though). But, as cool as that would be, I still have a hard time believing that is what’s waiting for me.
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 12, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Which is true no matter what side of the debate they are on.
You’re ignoring the power of knowing exactly how painful your experience will be while offering nothing to show that His was not the most painful.
This isn’t something that I care to prove, but to marginalize the sacrifice based on these ideas is to do something simply because of you own bias.
I can’t currently recall another case of a man sweating blood out of pure stress over what is to come.
Whatever you say of Jesus, he was whipped up to the point of death and executed at one of the most brutal times in human history.
On top of that, if you believe the theology, He took upon Himself the whole of mankind’s sin and suffered the wrath of abandonment from God, hence the “why have you forsaken me?” part, something He’d never previously known.
Man will only know this type of pain in hell. In fact, this is literally what hell is, the complete absence of God.
Again, I don’t care to argue that His suffering was the worst in all of human history. I only mean to argue that your dismissal ignores several things about it. And whether you believe the theology or not, this is what Christians believe Jesus did.
And yes, it’s not that Jesus suffered that draws Christians to Him but that in His suffering, He created a pathway to God, something completely novel as previously only religious authorities were given that path.
Esthier on September 12, 2007 at 12:24 PM
This is a little narcissistic, don’t you think?
If we’re all as educated as you are, then we’ll all believe exactly what you believe.
Of course this presupposes that you believe what the most intelligent person will naturally believe. I certainly don’t know you, but I find that improbable.
Esthier on September 12, 2007 at 12:27 PM
That is an accurate statement about no person being identical and reaching critical mass.
The information that led me from religion is the exact same information that led one of my college friends to religious “zealousness,” as she termed it. And we were equally intelligent and learned, or about as close as you could get.
Miss_Anthrope on September 12, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Hold the phone, Jay. You misread me. I said Faith, not God. ‘Faith in God’ is not redundant. The idea that they will be discovered is currently unseen and is something hoped for. This is faith.
Well, belief in God raises a whole lot of new Questions, like who exactly is the God in whom you believe? The person who uses him as a stand-in answer to stop all inquiry would do so with or without him.
Quite, but such a thing would not necessarily make you more courageous. I do not know for certain what will happen when I die. I do however have a great hope in the one whom I know.
RiverCocytus on September 12, 2007 at 12:32 PM
christian, muslim, jew, hindu, wiccan….atheist. i am not interested in your opinions, but please enjoy your beliefs on your own time and in your own homes and churches. please follow one maxim: “mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself.”
thank you.
ming666 on September 12, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Yes. Each person does have a unique path back to their creator. But, whether they get there or not depends on choices they make. I cannot say for certain that the fact the education leads you toward or away from God means you’re going the wrong direction.
Big doubts make room for big faith, I’d say.
RiverCocytus on September 12, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Antithetical to many of the systems which you described, but a nicely executed platitude nonetheless.
If you don’t want to hear the opinions you have hands with which to cover your ears, or eyes.
I love my country.
RiverCocytus on September 12, 2007 at 12:38 PM
This has got to be one the lamest excuse I have ever read. It is even lamer than the “You have to agree that any intelligent person would agree with…blah, blah, blah”
jmarcure on September 12, 2007 at 12:41 PM
It may sem lame to you, but in thread after thread on Hot Air, it becomes apparant that Facts are irrelevent to most Christians.
There is no point in presenting evidence to people that have “faith” in that which there can be no evidence for.
I do agree that it seems arrogant and I know that I will be flamed for stating this, but in my opinion the belief in “god” is considerable evidence of a lack of inteigence or education. At least one of the two must be missing. Either that or a powerful sef delusion must be in place.
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 12, 2007 at 12:52 PM
I’m not religious, and I find this to be overly close-minded and condescending. It is also a gross generalization of HA posters who are religious.
I won’t argue that all of us have moments when the facts don’t sink in…it just happens to everyone. But I find your statement as a whole to be simply untrue.
Miss_Anthrope on September 12, 2007 at 12:59 PM
FYI, JayHaw –
Not trying to flame you…at all.
Miss_Anthrope on September 12, 2007 at 1:03 PM
I possess intelligence,
Learning I do not lack.
Delusions I have few.
I simply see the mountain
from a different side.
Hopefully you see the mountain too?
RiverCocytus on September 12, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Which one was it, lack of education or lack of intelligence, that Francis Bacon suffered from? Or Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.? Or any one of countless other examples of well-educated intelligent people believing in God?
angryoldfatman on September 12, 2007 at 1:09 PM
…Isaac Newton, Thomas Aquinas, J.S. Bach…
see-dubya on September 12, 2007 at 1:19 PM
I’m an aetheist, and that Dalrymple article makes amazing sense. I would recommend reading the whole thing.
Clark1 on September 12, 2007 at 2:18 PM
I always find it hilarious when people misspell intelligence while questioning someone else’s.
Honestly, the grammar troll in me wants to tear up your written attack on the lack of intelligence in believers.
Esthier on September 12, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Whether or not you find this surprising, believers agree with you on this one which is why some of us had been able to find work in areas like science and mathematics.
Work so easy even a believer can do it.
Esthier on September 12, 2007 at 2:44 PM
o
You fail to see the irony of this sentence. Faith is to believe. If you can prove something, then there is no need for belief. I don’t believe it is Wednesday. I know it is Wednesday. If I believe in anything, I naturally can’t prove it. But is that to argue that believing in things that are not possible to be proven, unreasonable?
There are many scientists, most of whom are atheists, who strongly believe in extraterrestial life. Is that belief also unreasonable? They certainly can’t prove it. I can’t prove that conservatism is better than liberalism. But I believe it to be. And so do you. By your logic, it is also unreasonable to believe such a thing. I believe that islam is a threat to our future. But I certainly can not prove it is. Is it therefore unreasonable to believe such? In otherwords, you are saying that all beliefs are unreasonable.
Anyone who is only willing to believe what can be proven, is someone with a very limited mind, as what can be proven increases every day and not all realities are measurable in a laboratory. God will never be proven, nor should He be while you are alive. How you conduct yourself without such proof will be the measuring stick by which you will be judged.
jihadwatcher on September 12, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Yes, my typo proves you are correct. I now believe in god.
Not.
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 12, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Welcome Mr. Smith. I see that you ARE a scientist. (I presume that you could not have known to post this if you had not experienced it first hand.) I don’t remember that last time a commenter blew the needle off of my truth gage, but this comment of yours was a regular tsunami of truth. I’ve been reluctant to tell the other participants here about this for quite some time now, mostly because I wasn’t sure whether or not they’d believe me.
After more than 30 years of studying and working as an engineer/scientist, I am more than ready to corroborate Mr. Smith’s testimony here. He is telling the truth. Science is fraught with politics, petty squabbles, deception, falsifications, plagiarism, snake-oil salesmanship and all manners of human failings/frailties imaginable. A synopsis of my observations over the past 30 years is as follows:
1) New ideas that are accepted as scientific fact are frequently discredited within a single human being’s lifetime. Sometimes it takes longer,(for example, when Newton’s ideas about gravity and the laws of motion were radically revised by Maxwell, Einstein, and by the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s). Today’s astronomy is the most laughable of all. The nature of the universe has changed multiple times within my own lifetime. Oddly, most people never do learn that equating science with truth is dubious at best. Scientific theories can only be disproved, never proved. The longer they last the test of time (without being disproved) the more comfortable we are with assigning them a “higher probability” of truth. But that is all. Just a probability.
2) What passes for science these days is laughable. The situation is SO bad that I have privately likened modern day science to the NEW religious orthodoxy of the 21st century. Funny thing, the worshippers (mostly atheists) that bow at the alter of 21st century science (as their God) don’t seem to be all that different from the religious zealots of centuries past who were all too eager to burn anyone at the stake that they found threatening. The fact is, most of what passes for science these days IS religion. I say this because the adherents to these “beliefs” or “faiths” have absolutely no hope of constructing a control experiment that is capable of disproving their pet theories. When the pontificators postulate theories that are impossible to disprove and insist that others accept their ideas as fact, that is not science — it’s the worst kind of religion.
3) I don’t know what to say to those people that still champion reason (or rationalism) as the panacea for all our ills. People who believe this are SO many centuries behind the rest of us, they remind me of Muslims. Those that championed the idea that reason alone is sufficient (Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz et. al.) were discredited long ago. The glaring lack of completeness of this approach for accounting for what we experience as physical reality in our everyday lives or for giving us any hope or meaning are enough to put most people off at the outset. But if you need a case study as evidence that points to the failure of this approach, look no further than communism – the most colossal failure of the 20th century.
4) Some of the more interesting stuff going on today is happening in the field of neuroscience or the study of the brain. Findings that were recently published in medical journals show that brain damaged people whose capacity for reason and logic are intact, but who are incapable of emotion are virtually paralyzed (like deer in the headlights) by their disorder. The most revealing symptom that these unfortunate people exhibited was their total inability to make even the simplest decisions. It seems that the emotional component of the brain was absolutely essential in order to function as a normal human being. Reason and logic are not enough.
I droned on here far too long. I apologize for my verboseness. See ya’ in another thread.
CyberCipher on September 12, 2007 at 4:51 PM
I see you watched Borat and/or lived through the 80s.
Surely you don’t believe that was the point of my post. Just in case, I sincerely just think it’s funny and do always chuckle a tad when anyone attempts to insult anyone’s intelligence with a post full of grammatical train wrecks.
I’m not even asserting that these mistakes are proof of lower intelligence as you like to claim with those who believe in God. I just think it’s funny.
Esthier on September 12, 2007 at 5:07 PM
That’s certainly an interesting revelation.
Esthier on September 12, 2007 at 5:21 PM
You did not point out any grammatical error from my post. Just the one typo.
One thing that is even more amusing than a typo in the word intelligence is a self righteous, self appointed arbiter of the English language that feels superior when other people have defective “l” keys on their keyboards.
Of course, who am I to judge…
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 12, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Except that you are judging, everyone who believes something different than what you do.
It’s true, I didn’t point out your other errors. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any.
But no, I don’t feel superior to you. I just make it a point to proof my posts before calling someone else stupid or refrain from calling others stupid. The latter really is preferable.
Honestly, you seem to be offended here because of some typos I caught (yes, more than one), when all the while, you’re insulting at least half of the earth’s population.
I don’t grammar troll everyone who posts here, but I can’t help but note the humor when someone posts mistakes in their post about the lack of intelligence of others.
If you don’t find humor in that, then I’ll have to conclude that you’re humorless.
Esthier on September 12, 2007 at 6:48 PM
Although I completely agree with you on the self righteous part. As I’ve stated in a different thread, I’m not a fan of those who are convinced of their own self righteousness.
You may believe that I fall into that category, but I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth.
I laugh when people call others stupid on the Internet with grammar mistakes in the very same post, but that’s not because I’m better than anyone but just because it’s funny, like a T-shirt I’ve found online that says “YOUR RETARDED.”
Maybe you disagree with my taste in humor, but I’ve got a T-shirt company that agrees with me.
Esthier on September 12, 2007 at 6:52 PM
Now is as good a time as any to repost this while I continue reading the replies in this thread.
Nonfactor on September 12, 2007 at 7:47 PM
JayHaw Phrenzie on September 12, 2007 at 7:48 PM
An appeal to authority is probably one of the most juvenile fallacies to use in a discussion such as this one. Socrates was a fascist, he believed in the Grecian gods, he was also intelligent, yet at the same time he was ignorant. As are billions of others on this planet.
Genesis is a contradiction. You offer the evidence to even the most learned Christian and you will see how quickly they abandon logic, intelligence, education, and reason. I don’t completely agree with JayHaw considering that there are many religious people (Christian, Muslim, et cetera) who are intelligent and educated, but these intelligent and educated people abandon their intelligence in favor of bias when discussing their God.
And to all the people clinging onto the hope that they’re using reason in believing in their God I have three words for you: leap of faith. To believe in a God you must make three gigantic assumptions: 1) God exists 2) God has a Plan 3) Because humans do not possess the knowledge of God they must accept this plan as good. Reason is not involved anywhere in these three assumptions.
Nonfactor on September 12, 2007 at 8:28 PM
Remember, folks: Believing in something bigger than yourself is the height of arrogance.
ZK on September 12, 2007 at 8:51 PM
ming666 on September 13, 2007 at 8:35 AM
Comment pages: