Video: Hannity and Goldberg on the media’s “atheism agenda”
posted at 9:15 pm on May 15, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Traffic is in the tank, notwithstanding Pelosi’s slow-motion meltdown, so I turn forlornly to the one reliable comment-generating topic we have. I like Goldberg but I think this is simply lame: The fact that America’s demographics are trending (slightly) away from Christianity and towards disbelief is, to me, a far more important story than how many charitable donations believers make versus non-believers. The latter is fun as a jumping-off point for argument about which side is more generous but the former is profound insofar as it affects electoral reality. As for Goldberg’s point that atheism is “hip” in Manhattan, that’s even lamer. There’s no love lost between me and urban liberals, but even I’m willing to pay them the minimal respect of assuming that their deepest beliefs about the world are based on something more profound than what happens to be “trendy” in their immediate vicinity. Never would I suggest that Christians are stupid or superficial for believing as they do. Why can’t Bernie reciprocate?
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: « Previous 1 2
…insinuate?? daily. Have the guts to actually say it- never.
Beta, remember?
ExTex on May 16, 2009 at 8:54 AM
Well first I’m going to drive to the town my university is in to attend a weekly pro-military/US rally. It’s only an hour or so drive. The best part about, aside from the awesome people there, is the freaking bagels.
I pity so many HA readers who may have never had a NY bagel. This store across the street sells the freshest, biggest, most monstrous bagels I’ve ever seen. So I get one with a huge coffee. That’s the second best part. Only problem is I have to walk by all hippies across from us to get there.
Oh well.
What about you?
blatantblue on May 16, 2009 at 8:54 AM
Any time you want to discuss anything, let me know and I will email you. And if you don’t, that’s fine.
Loxodonta on May 16, 2009 at 8:56 AM
Oh I’ll discuss religion with you anyday. You aren’t someone who gets all crazy on the issue, and I know you can talk about it rationally
blatantblue on May 16, 2009 at 9:00 AM
It’s been so long since I’ve had real New York bagels. My first girlfriend was Jewish and got me addicted. Garlic bagel with real cream cheese. Good grief, I am dying here.
Today is like almost every other: readings, music, food, chores.
Loxodonta on May 16, 2009 at 9:01 AM
LOL Garlic bagels are indeed good. I like everything, pretty much. I’ll eat any bagel. It’s all about the water.
Same with NY pizza — the water, its pH levels, and all that jazz react differently with the yeast, flour, all that other stuff, etc etc. So it’s hard to replicate that stuff in other places.
Enjoy your day! I’m sure I’ll nbe back sometime today.
blatantblue on May 16, 2009 at 9:04 AM
As I said, if you want me to email you, ask. I’ll email your site. If not, I can discuss anything you want here. It would be convenient if it were on the thread topic, though.
Loxodonta on May 16, 2009 at 9:04 AM
Well spoken and I am in agreement. It seems to me that those crying about the “lack of religion” feel that if everyone submits to their beliefs, everything will be transformed and become magically delicious.
Hick on May 16, 2009 at 9:05 AM
The other day, when Ed was talking to Hugh Hewitt, he said that the traffic on Hot Air was still pretty high. So, my question is, do you and Ed have different ideas about traffic levels? Or does traffic taper off in the evening and that is what you are counting?
Just curious.
myrenovations on May 16, 2009 at 9:08 AM
The whole reason that the Evangelical movement blossomed during the 70s and 80s was as a reaction to a liberal activist Supreme court. A series of rulings (school prayer, abortion, etc.) brought them out of the woodwork as they felt assaulted by a government that was seeking to undermine their values. Their posture was defensive, not offensive. The only reason their posture seems offensive today is because they are trying to undo the mischief that the courts have unleashed apon this country since the 1960s. Believe me, if the Supreme Court clock could be turned back to about 1960 most evangelicals would be perfectly happy to get out of politics. Isn’t that the definition of true conservatism? Isn’t it holding on to long held traditions and limiting the power of goverment to undo them by force? I take issue with the charge that evangelicals are somehow operating outside the roots of the Republican party. All they are trying to do is reclaim lost ground which to me is totally consistant with conservatism and small government principles.
frank63 on May 16, 2009 at 9:31 AM
I’m very glad Christianity has helped you become a healthy productive person and Atheist does carry a connotation of animus.
Speakup on May 16, 2009 at 10:07 AM
Evolution is not a wholly random process as you seem to be saying and it has no need for an intelligent guide. Postulating a Star Wars like force is as much a non sequitur as is saying “god did it.” It can never be repeated often enough that the theory of evolution makes no attempt to explain the origin of life itself. That would be abiogenesis an area where rapid progress is being made toward the discovery of the natural chemical and physical processes which allow life to come to be with neither divine nor dark side intervention.
Annar on May 16, 2009 at 10:17 AM
JiangxiDad on May 15, 2009 at 9:54 PM
Exactly. What good is talking while Rome burns?
justincase on May 16, 2009 at 10:25 AM
AoSHQ sez his traffic drops off dramatically after work hours. Since AP takes the late shift and is a real pessimist, I find it difficult to believe his concerns are real. Does he really expect high traffic on a Friday night in late spring?
Blake on May 16, 2009 at 10:43 AM
oh yeah evolution is all in all..
right4life on May 16, 2009 at 10:46 AM
really? guess you need to explain it to this guy then…
right4life on May 16, 2009 at 10:48 AM
lol wishful thinking…from the article that mentions this wonderful discovery…
link
sounds like INTELLIGENT DESIGN…
right4life on May 16, 2009 at 10:54 AM
The media’s other new agenda is vegetarianism. On CBS this guy admitted, “I think in less than five years, there will be such a stigma attached to eating meat and dairy, that it will be similar to smoking cigarettes today.”
Going Veg
Okay, so that’s one story. Then I saw another “news” segment with Kathy Freston, famous veggo, talking to some crank scientist about how meat eating causes cancer. Yup, the liberals are going full speed ahead with the whole agenda.
PattyJ on May 16, 2009 at 11:10 AM
I can’t remember which founding father said it, but he said that a democratic form of government can only work if the populace is Christian. And after much thought, I believe it.
We watched “Expelled” last night. Excellent framing of the issues. You see, whether you are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, or whatever, you operate by a worldview – and that worldview is what I mean in this context when I say “Christian”. I’m not talking about theological creeds.
The Declaration of Independence voices a Judeo-Christian worldview – that we have a Creator who says all human life is sacred. Because human life is sacred, it has a right to be lived even if it is weak, stupid, or a drain on society. It was created to be free. It also has inherited sin and is prone to transgress the rights of others. The role of government, then, is to allow people to be free up to the point that they transgress someone else’s freedom. People form governments so that the rights of each individual are protected according to justice – each life equal under the law.
The atheist Darwinism view is that man is an animal. Period. Animals do what animals do, and nature sorts out the strong from the weak. If a lion kills a deer it’s just how things are. Mugger kills another, that’s just how things are. Nothing is sacred. Government is the powerful controlling the less powerful. The powerful don’t want to be mugged so they say they will gang up on and kill/imnprison/whatever anybody who mugs somebody else. Sheer power. If the majority says a child with a harelip should be denied all medical care, so it goes. If the majority wants to pool the money and give it equally regardless of who does the work, so it goes. As long as a dictator can muster the power to rule, that’s what animals do.
Those views are diametrically opposed, although some outcomes may be similar.
The atheist view could come up with the Constitution but it could never come up with our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. And the Constitution could only be a consentual agreement of the governed, which can change daily. It only means something if people will adhere to it willingly, or if they can be made to follow it by threat. If violent Islam has the power to take over the world, they deserve to have the world because they are the superior force in it. If Hitler is able to rid the world of its handicapped and “undesirables”, more power to him. Justice is a luxury for the society which has the willpower to live by it. A person is only as free or as “sacred” as his/her neighbor is willing to let him be.
In that worldview, a person can believe the myth that life is sacred and right and wrong exist. But in a strict materialist sense, right and wrong can only really be a myth that one either does or doesn’t accept – almost certainly because of the molecular changes in his/her brain, which were already determined when time began and the inviolable patterns of causation started the dominoes falling the only way they can. Freedom, choice? Myth. Everything happens because the dominoes fall as they must. There is no responsibility because there is no choice, no free will. The “laws” of nature are the only reason anything happens as it does.
I’d be really, really interested to hear your reaction, AP. I know you support some of the “conservative” ideas (those that conserve what America was founded on, the Declaration of Independence). Why do you support those ideas? Is human life sacred? Why or why not? What difference would it make to the USA if more and more people reject the reasoning in our founding document – the “self-evident truth” that human beings are created equally sacred, with rights bestowed by their Creator which cannot be taken away by government or another person, only violated? The only worldview which makes those claims is the Judeo-Christian one, which is the heritage of this nation. Is that worth conserving? Is it just myth?
justincase on May 16, 2009 at 11:15 AM
What a mess! Where to begin?
How about at the end, where Hannity says Fox News, which crushes all other 24 hour news outlets every time the ratings come out, is not mainstream—it’s “alternative” media. It could be argued that Rush and FNC are the mainstream.
As to the point that conservative christians aren’t invited on the talk show circuit when they write a book that other conservative christians buy, two responses: 1) conservative christians don’t much watch the so-called “mainstream media,” and when they do it’s not to get information on conservative christianity—the demographics aren’t there to support it. Second, conservatives want left-leaning media outlets to publish more right-leaning opinions, but they don’t want right-leaning outlets to publish more left-leaning opinions—Fairness Doctrine for thee, but not for me.
Some people do become atheists because it’s hip. Most people become christians because their parents trained up their children in the ways of christianity. Just because you and I, AP, put thought into deciding our religious (dis)beliefs does not mean everyone else did. I did not get the impression that Goldberg was insulting us as mere followers of a trend—I think he was accusing the media of being trendy for taking our side.
hicsuget on May 16, 2009 at 11:19 AM
You should apologize to your fingers for making them type that load of drivel. Atheism and materialism are not the same thing. Also, Christianity ruled Europe for centuries—with an iron fist, no less—before the secular Enlightenment paved the way for a nation founded on individual rights. If it really were a Christian principle that all men are endowed with the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, such rights would have been a feature of the Holy Roman Empire, or of the Spanish Inquisition. It was not from the Christian bible that Jefferson got his ideas.
hicsuget on May 16, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Hicsuget, is human life sacred? Why or why not?
justincase on May 16, 2009 at 11:28 AM
People who regard membership in a so-called organized religion as the only accepted form of personal belief are too narrow to get the irony.
sanguine4 on May 16, 2009 at 11:33 AM
From dictionary.com:
Definitions 5, 6, and 7 apply; 1 does not. The reasoning is quite simple: my life is sacred to me, my life is better, and better-protected, in society than outside of society, and Jefferson’s notions of individual rights must be implemented for society to exist as such.
My life is much more securely-protected in a society founded on Jefferson’s secular notion of rights than on the Church’s notion that life is sacred—individual rights are a principle that is not subject to change, whereas a Church’s dogmas are subject to revision on a whim. Today my life may be “sacred” to you, but tomorrow I may be a heretic who needs to be removed from this earth so I do not turn away others from the path of salvation—after all, this life doesn’t really matter anyway; it’s the Hereafter that is important.
hicsuget on May 16, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Who would you rather be walking w/as a car suddenly spins out of control as you are crossing the street….
A. someone who pushes you to get themselves out of harm’s way
B. someone who remains neutral, waiting to see how it will spin out
C. someone who gets killed to save you
lobosan5 on May 16, 2009 at 11:43 AM
So your argument is: hang out with Christians so you can use them as cannon fodder?
hicsuget on May 16, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Why is your life sacred to you? Is it sacred to anybody else? Would there be anythng wrong with somebody else mowing down your life with total irreverence? Why or why not?
Do I understand correctly that you are an atheist but not a materialist?
justincase on May 16, 2009 at 11:55 AM
really?? that’s what you drew from A.B. & C.
you are thinking like an atheist, my dear…..
I wasn’t offering an argument…only a choice.
.
finally,……choosing door#3….would you view a friend who saved your live at the cost of his/her own as ‘cannon fodder’?
.
so, muchacho….who would you choose??
lobosan5 on May 16, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Forgive my ignorance, but where did Jefferson get his ideas on individual rights? Was it just a belief of his or did he point to some documentation for it?
justincase on May 16, 2009 at 12:05 PM
The common definition of evolution is:
“Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.”
This does not include abiogenesis which is a separate question.
Annar on May 16, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Why is my life important to me? I have a difficult time believing that you asked that question in good faith.
Yes, something would be wrong with someone else murdering me–it’s a violation of my right to live, and thus an attack on all of society. (Read John Locke’s Second Treatise for the argument).
Yes, I am an atheist, but not a materialist.
Let me ask you this: why is your life sacred to you? If someone kills you tomorrow, you’ll get a permanent break from the pain and suffering that is life on earth and get to spend eternity in heaven, which, from what I have been led to believe, Christians think is a nice place.
hicsuget on May 16, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Also, I admire your recognition that human institutions can change on a whim. There are even some who hold that “Christianity” can change on a whim, or that its doctrines are made by men. If that was true, I would have the same contempt as you do. The history of the church and secular governments points to the reality that people of every persuasion can be both loving and hateful, and most of us have a little bit of both. Like we’re more than animals but less than perfect.
justincase on May 16, 2009 at 12:14 PM
ROFLMAO
Annar on May 16, 2009 at 12:20 PM
My life is sacred to me because God, who gave it to me, holds it sacred. For anybody else to take my life would be stealing what is not theirs.
I would love to go Home right now. But my work here apparently isn’t done yet. I wouldn’t like for someone to kill me because it would mean that something is very wrong with them and I don’t want something to be wrong with them. Also it would be painful for my family and I love my family and don’t want them to suffer if they don’t have to.
Since you’re not a materialist, does that mean that you’re open to the possibility that there are real things that we can’t necessarily detect through scientific methods? It’s true that Darwinism and materialism aren’t the same thing, and I’m glad you brought that out. They often fit together to equal atheism but not always so it’s hard to know which term to use when talking about that combination.
justincase on May 16, 2009 at 12:22 PM
That just might be the stupidest thing I’ve read on here in a while. And that’s saying something.
What you believe determines how you think and view the world. It determines how one thinks about a particular issue, or even an entire political system. It drives a person’s morality, for good or bad. Worldview is what frames a person’s entire outlook on life. And yet you say, “Who cares, it doesn’t matter”?
It’s time for you to graduate from kindergarten, Spiritk9.
2Brave2Bscared on May 16, 2009 at 12:40 PM
Saying that no intelligence was necessary is an act of faith on your part. The best way I can explain the whole intelligent design thing is to say imagine a couple of men who grew up in some primitive civilization suddently came in contact with a computer. They are amazed at all the things it can do so they assume there must be some god or spirit in it that’s causing it to do everything it does. Then after time one of the men investigates and discovers that’s it’s really the software inside the computer that’s causing it to behave as it does. “There’s no god in this computer, it’s this programming software that’s making it behave as it does” he exclaims to the other guy. Well the man who found the software is like the atheist who keeps pointing to all the ways the laws of chemisty and physics behave. In essence he keeps trying to explain the computer’s behavior by pointing to the software. What the Intelligent Design proponent is trying to say is yes it’s software that runs the computer, but someone had to program the software. Software doesn’t create itself. And matter and laws don’t create themselves either.
As far as evolution, there is a huge difference between a scientific theory which can be tested in a laboratory and one that can not. Microevolution, which involves gradual change within a species, has been observed (aka finch beaks, peppered moths, etc.) On the other hand, Macroevolution, which involves changes from one species to another, has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory due to the long periods of time that would be necessary for it. In fact the fossil record is very weak when it comes to Macroevolution, something that troubled even Darwin himself. Lots of inferences and assumptions need to be made in order to accept Macroevolution as a “proven” fact. Just because an ovewhelming number of scientists accept something does not mean it’s correct. A generation ago the scientific consensus was that the earth was headed for a deep freeze. Now just a few decades later the consensus has flipped 180 degrees and global warming is the accepted theory. Does this mean science is bogus? Of course not. It just means that once we get outside the laboratory and start making inferences based on partial evidence (as is the case with evolution), new facts can come along and quickly change current assumptions, sometimes drastically.
frank63 on May 16, 2009 at 12:46 PM
I’m an Aristotelian. Aristotle said that the world we perceive is the world that exists. If something exists, it is potentially detectable by scientific methods, but not necessarily detectable by our present scientific methods. For instance, it seems likely that gravity waves exist, but no detector yet built has been sensitive enough to measure them.
Also, as an Aristotelian, I do not believe in non-sensory perception. If something exists, it will make some sort of mark on the physical world, and we (at least potentially) can perceive that mark. We will perceive it, though, through the use of our senses and rational faculties, not through ESP or aura stimulation or through some god talking in our hearts.
hicsuget on May 16, 2009 at 12:50 PM
Excellent explanation, frank63.
The latest theory of origins for the universe that I was looking at was the inflationary theory. Some scientist had shown that according to the “laws”/tendencies we see in nature, everything could have come from nothing. If the laws were in effect. But then the question is what makes the laws/causality? If they brought the universe into existence, they had to predate the universe… which points to something beyond our universe causing all law/causation.
Logically speaking, there has to be something eternal which has brought this universe – or any other universe – into existence since any other answer begs the question of first cause. Something that may or may not have observable matter but certainly has power and, considering the order that comes out of seemingly fairly random subatomic phenomena, intelligence.
That’s not the same issue as the origin of species, but the origin of life and the origin of the universe are both similar questions that science may never be able to answer – and especially if we say the scientific answer HAS to be atheist. Barring an eternal force, there will always be another “Why?” to find out – like a two-year-old who follows up every answer with “Why?”
justincase on May 16, 2009 at 1:00 PM
.
On the average true
The number of Americans willing to proudly declare anti Christian ideals has increased. The MSM, the Schools, and two political parties have created an environment towards that end along.
There had been a counter pressure for a long time, making people fearful to admit they hate Bible based religions
People see what they wish to see. They hang out with like minded folk and count each other in their estimates
I do see in many religious communities the orthodox orders are growing and the gay/lesbian/Christ-as-a-metaphor orders are slacking. Observe the age of the sisters doing rosary with Mother Angelica
The big ‘Learn to Love thyself as God loves Thee’ megachurches are in growth stage. That would be expected, since mainstream denominations have faltered in their beliefs and the new churches built on prosperity and self love are a useful docking point for those who were not tethered in the first place
The faltering economy favors belief and the economy is not going to recover until the Boomers are dead. Many of them will go down swinging and fill up the Self Love churches as they face the shocking finale to their articial world
That does not prove belief is dying. It means the Boomers are dying
entagor on May 16, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Human life is not sacred. Saying that it is is just one of those touchy feelgood things people like to say, like “Have a nice day”.
If human life were sacred there would be no abortions, certainly not past a couple of months. The speed limit would be 10mph, if that. There would be no wars. Medical care would consume over half the budget. The list is almost endless.
MB4 on May 16, 2009 at 1:05 PM
Time and space both are properties of the universe, and do not exist independently of it. Your statement is meaningless in the same way that x = 1/0 is meaningless.
hicsuget on May 16, 2009 at 1:08 PM
Hicsuget,
Fascinating. Have you heard of any of the phenomena where people who have no brain waves or heartbeat for an extended period of time – for instance, when having aneurism surgery – are still able to tell what happened to them while they had no brainwaves? Or they’re able to describe specific phenomena that they could not have seen from where their body was located?
Do you consider specific knowledge to be a mark on the physical world that must be considered in any explanation of reality?
Do you think there is reality beyond what we can perceive? For instance, it’s been a long time since I checked into this so it might be out of date, but string theory talks about particles potentially entering and leaving our universe from dimensions we can’t detect. It kind of fits with the scientists who talk about “dark matter” – mass that has to exist if our current formulas are correct, but which we can’t detect. Of course, science is always developing so maybe we’ll be able to detect it in the future, but for now the only evidence we have is the failure of our current formulas to explain what we observe.
Any thoughts about that?
justincase on May 16, 2009 at 1:08 PM
MB4, if “sacred” means protected, then what you say makes sense. But sanctity can be violated. That’s what’s talked about in the Declaration of Independence – that in order to protect the inherent dignity and sanctity of every human life we form governments, because people or governments can violate the God-given sanctity of any human being’s life.
So I’m not sure what you mean? Could you explain it a bit more? Thanks!
justincase on May 16, 2009 at 1:12 PM
hicsuget at 1:08
Right. Time and space couldn’t have caused the universe. If natural laws come from nature itself those laws could not have created nature either. Like my physical body couldn’t cause my own conception because my physical body didn’t exist before my conception. See what I mean?
justincase on May 16, 2009 at 1:15 PM
Spoken by a true non-student of history, Atheism and Christianity! Christian writ is for grown ups! Until you are able to read and comprehend “big boy” literature you might consider not commenting on it. You show your total lack of understanding of our precepts, doctrine and faith by your shallow references to historical events as though they have anything to do with our Creator and/or His relationship with us through our Savior Jesus Christ…
sabbott on May 16, 2009 at 1:17 PM
I haven’t heard about the phenomena you describe in your first paragraph–I don’t associate with New Agers who believe in that sort of thing. I’ll look into it.
I didn’t understand your second paragraph. Could you rephrase it?
As for your third paragraph, scientists don’t actually believe in string theory or dark matter. They are hypotheses posited to attempt to explain certain evidence that our current mix of General Relativity and Quantum Chromodynamics does not explain. However, both string theory and dark matter imply new evidence that has yet to be observed. Neither will be confirmed as a theory until such evidence is observed–for right now, they’re just interesting guesses.
As to your question about what can and cannot be perceived: we (clearly) do not perceive all that exists all the time. If something exists, and if its existence is relevant to us, we will eventually perceive its existence somehow. If particles are spontaneously created out of dimensions we cannot access, we will observe their creation in our present dimension. If dark matter exists, we will observe its gravitational effects. If something exists that cannot possibly be perceived, then by definition it is irrelevant because by definition it cannot interact with the rest of the universe in such a way as to affect us.
hicsuget on May 16, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Action speaks louder than words … … … but not nearly as often.
- Mark Twain.
MB4 on May 16, 2009 at 1:25 PM
so hicsuget…. A., B., or C.?!
lobosan5 on May 16, 2009 at 1:27 PM
B. Neither A nor C would be much fun to be around all the times when a car isn’t spinning out of control.
hicsuget on May 16, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand.
- Mark Twain
The rise of the West had much less to do with democracy than with the rise of secularism. The West’s advance was chiefly related to the decline in the influence of religion that sought the truth by “looking in” to see what God had to say, and its replacement by looking out, deriving authority from observation, experimentation and exploration.
The original figures to draw attention to this were Bishop Robert Grosseteste, early in the 13th century, the first person to imagine the experiment, and his contemporary, St Thomas Aquinas, the first man to imagine a secular world, a world without God directing everything. Secularism is not the same as atheism, of course, both Grosseteste and Aquinas were priests. But they helped us to escape from the overbearing medieval view that the world has meaning and pattern only in relation to God [or Allah].
- Peter Watson
MB4 on May 16, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Exactly. Allah posts and gloats whenever the atheists bash Christianity or Christians or even any theist, and then criticizes Goldberg for fighting back! Sorry, Allah, doesn’t wash.
Christian Conservative on May 16, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Hicsuget at 1:17PM
It’s kind of fun checking into what different people say and the evidence they give. Ultimately, everything that I don’t observe myself leads to questions of the observer’s accuracy. Right now it’s really hard to know wno to believe because anybody – anybody – can either be mistaken or outright lie. So I understand your hesitance. Often the discussions I’ve had with agnostics has come down to the issue of whether the evidence was convincing enough. Good reason for intelligent people to come up with different conclusions. I might still have some of the links about that stuff so let me know if you have trouble finding it.
The second paragraph was about whether knowledge counts as an observed phenomenon. If a person knows something that doesn’t fit our current theory, should that call the theory into question?
For instance, one atheist I was talking to was Buddhist. He basically said “So what?” to my evidence that Jesus rose from the dead. He said others have risen from the dead. When I asked him for evidence he sent to me a site about a guy who was clinically dead and when he “came back” he was healed of his disease. But he also had knowledge that led him to some great discovery. It was challenging to me because he also said New Age-ish things that don’t fit with Christianity. So what do I do with what he says – particularly if some of what he “learned” in the experience panned out? For me, I can’t just say he’s nutso because he had to have gotten that knowledge from somewhere, just as surely as if he had “come back” with a big X carved into his chest. Knowledge is a tangible thing. I still don’t know exactly what to make of that information. Stuff like that keeps me humble. lol.
So anyway, my question is if you consider knowledge a tangible physical piece of evidence that has to be accounted for.
I think the dark matter was proposed because of the gravitational effects we observe that can’t be explained by the small amount of matter that we observe. I thought it was a similar thing with string theory but between that and the quantum stuff I have to admit it’s pretty confusing.
And not just to me either. I was talking with one materialist about the quantum stuff and neither one of us could understand what causes the macro effects we see (that appear as laws) since they come as a sum result of fairly random movement at the quantum level. Since the big objects always follow gravity, we could assume that’s because the quantum particles follow gravity. But they don’t. The smaller particles do things that we don’t observe on the big level – like entanglement. Why does entanglement happen sometimes but not always? If for some reason all the subatomic particles in an object were entangled, would the object itself be entangled? If so, that would cause really freaky observable events that defy what we call “laws”, like gravity.
Sorry this is so long. The world is a fascinating place.
justincase on May 16, 2009 at 1:46 PM
MB4 at 1:25
Do you mean that life is not held sacred among us?
If so, I totally agree. We can have great ideals but we never live up to them. It’s like there’s a speck in our eye. Our eye knows how it’s supposed to be, it feels that something’s wrong, but we can’t make it right.
justincase on May 16, 2009 at 1:52 PM
How did secularism bring meaning to the world? Perhaps it freed us from the bad excesses of the medieval world view (as a Christian I concede that many foolish things have been done and believed in the name of God). However, what we certainly lost with it was the belief that there is any transcendent meaning at all in the universe. The only meaning that can exist in a secular atheist world is the meaning each person chooses to give it. So Hitler’s view of the world was just as valid as yours or mine I suppose.
frank63 on May 16, 2009 at 1:57 PM
No, not at all. What I have been espousing is what Reagan campaigned on. Reagan did not make social conservatism the centerpiece of his campaign at all. He campaigned on
.
That is what he wanted the GOP to be about. Reagan did not call people a RINO, Democrat-lite, or tell them to leave the party, for not being socially conservative enough. He was glad to have them around, as long as they believed in that the GOP stood for. He did not place some litmus test on how socially conservative one was in order to be a good Republican.
Its rather galling that the Evangelicals are trying to tell the non-evangelicals to basically to take a hike and find someplace else to go, if we arent going to place their religious values above what the Republican Party was tradionally about.
firepilot on May 16, 2009 at 2:01 PM
MB4 at 1:35pm
I suspect that a lot of “religion” in Medieval times was actually just a human quest for power. If you read the writings of the early church – first and second centuries CE – most of it is evidence-based. It’s when religion joined with political power that religion was massively corrupted.
Religious people and “enlightened” people are both still people, and prone to corruption. That’s the one truth of the Bible that I doubt anyone could seriously question, unless they are entirely amoral.
It was when the Roman church gave absolute trust to a single person (the pope) above their reliance on the record of Scripture (much of which had to be validated in the real world just to be included in Scripture) that evidence-based reasoning went by the wayside.
At least that’s my understanding. I could be wrong on that.
justincase on May 16, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Even Jesus appealed to the evidence of the Prophets who foretold of Him, His miracles, and the voice of God as observed by those present as the reason for people to believe Him. According to the record from that time, the risen Jesus ate fish and bread and invited a doubter to put his hand into the puncture wound in His side. He wanted them to have observable evidence so they could have intelligent faith.
A lot of what organized religion says is actually pretty far away from what the Bible itself is like.
The humanists didn’t invent critical inquiry. They unburied it from its takeover by the political church. Unfortunately, they didn’t seem to learn the thing the Medieval times should have shown them: that man is very fallible. We can work to better ourselves but there are limits to what we can accomplish because human nature is still human nature.
justincase on May 16, 2009 at 2:18 PM
The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind to filch wealth and power to themselves. They, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.
- Thomas Jefferson
Rather like Al Gore (another thread) today.
MB4 on May 16, 2009 at 2:25 PM
“When you say “radical right” today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye. ”
Barry Goldwater
firepilot on May 16, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Please name one example of someone trying to make the Republican party a religious organization. You can’t compare the Republican party of 1964 to the Republican party of today because that was before the courts changed the social landscape of America. The hot button issues of social conservatives today (abortion, gay marriage, school prayer) were non issues in 1964. Most of these changes did not come from the democratic process but by liberal court fiat. Social conservatives are just trying to undo what was forced on us by a liberal activist court. Isn’t that a Republican value… the respect for states rights, the democratic process and judicial restraint?
frank63 on May 16, 2009 at 2:56 PM
MB4 at 2:25
Yep.
justincase on May 16, 2009 at 3:45 PM
That’s exactly right justincase. Atheists try to claim that science has answered all the questions that religion used to answer. But the reality is that all science does is push the questions further back. You eventually come to a dead end where you either believe matter and energy popped into existance from nothing, or you accept that there is an eternal intelligent force which is above and beyond all that we can ever know.
frank63 on May 16, 2009 at 4:13 PM
frank63 at 4:13pm
I had to laugh in “Expelled” when Richard Dawkins was saying he thought maybe life on earth came from aliens from a different universe who had naturally evolved to the point where they could create life on earth.
He doesn’t get it. He just doesn’t get it.
justincase on May 16, 2009 at 4:26 PM
I saw that movie just this past week. The irony of Dawkin’s alien theory is that by offering it he is proving the very point Intelligent Design is trying to make…that all the evidence points to an intelligent force as the source of life on Earth rather than a blind watchmaker. Basically, Dawkins is willing to concede that life on Earth may have come from an intelligent force if that intelligence is an alien from another planet. But if the intelligent force is God then that just can’t be. He is so blind to his bias against religion.
frank63 on May 16, 2009 at 4:38 PM
Exactly.
justincase on May 16, 2009 at 4:45 PM
(Sorry; I had some real life stuff to do for a while.)
Re the first bit: The more strange and unusual the claim, the more direct the evidence I require. With regard to things like resurrection from the dead, I demand a much higher standard if proof than with regard to, say, the assertion that New York strip is on sale at the corner grocer. Specifically as regards theology, one must remember that Muhammed and Joseph Smith did as good a job of convincing their contemporaries they were prophets as Jesus. A standard of proof set low enough to lead one to believe of the religions would lead one just as well to believe several others besides.
Yes, it is because of unexpected gravitational attraction that dark matter was proposed–the alternative was to rewrite the theory of gravity, and completely altering our understanding of the Big Bang. (Thermodynamics predicts that the big bang would have yielded a certain ratio of photons and neutrinos to massive particles, and the ratio we observe is the same as that predicted. If dark matter exists in the hypothesized quantities, then we’ll have to rethink just about all of cosmology.) Because it would require a rethinking of most of astronomy, dark matter will not be accepted as a theory without some additional evidence for it.
As regards quantum mechanics, one of my physics professors had a poster on his door that read: “Insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results. Quantum Physics is doing the same thing twice and getting different results.” String theory attempts to explain the oddities observed at the quantum level in a more sensible fashion, but (kind of like ID) it adds no predictions.
Gravity, btw, does operate at the quantum level; it is just 1×10^36 weaker than the electric force. It is only because the universe has a roughly neutral electric charge, and because gravity is always attractive, that we can observe its effects at all.
Back to the question of epistemology you raised, I am always considering new evidence to re-evaluate my position on everything–I am not interested in believing falsely that I know what is right; I am interested in knowing what is right. I may well change my mind about so-called supernatural phenomena later as more evidence comes in. But I will not believe in it without adequate evidence. And if any “supernatural” claim is true, then by definition the phenomenon is natural after all.
hicsuget on May 16, 2009 at 5:45 PM
If I wanted to hear anything from Hannity, I’d just listen to Limbaugh first. I mean I liked him when it was him and Skeletor on there but now he’s just ho-hum same thing day in day out.
scrubbiedude on May 16, 2009 at 6:44 PM
EPISTEMOLOGY
Speakup on May 16, 2009 at 11:05 PM
Never Aye Aye…
Beyond your personal predilections though, the comparison Bernie is highlighting is the hypocritical behavior that the MSM continually exhibits viz Socialist-Conservative, Athiest-Christian, Democrat-Republican pairs. The point of Bernie’s message is that he’s an eye witness to the selective and biased process of News dissemination (manipulation) by the folks that control the Media. To expect “reciprocation” from Bernie here, is an invitation to ply poker, where the dealer is using a stacked deck.
“Let’s Roll”
On Watch on May 17, 2009 at 1:06 AM
hicsuget at 5:45pm
(Never apologize for real life. I had 2 graduation parties to go to, a sprinkler system to fix, and “The Empire Strikes Back” to watch with my kids for the first time ever. =)
It makes sense that a more extraordinary claim would require closer scrutiny because it matters more. Like the dark matter thing – you don’t want to have to shift a whole paradigm over something you have little evidence for. Sometimes paradigms do need shifting – like heliocentrism – and sometimes it’s little nagging things that add up to provide the convincing evidence.
What kind of evidence seems strongest to you? You mentioned the claims of various “prophets”, several of whom lived a long time ago. What kind of evidence would most rouse your interest and make the claim credible to you?
Yeesh. Seems like you have a better grasp of physics than I will ever have. I’m impressed. I love the physics professor’s poster. Ain’t that the truth! I understand the complaint about ID not making predictions. I see ID more as a critique of the sufficiency of Darwinism to explain all the data, kind of an admission of what we don’t know rather than a statement of what we do know. In that regard it’s not really science. Maybe more of history and probability. If there really are more dimensions beyond our observation as string theory suggests, it makes sense that there aren’t any predictions.
One OT question I have for you – since you obviously have some knowledge and might be able to help me. If the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, could that affect what have always been assumed to be constants – like gravity, polarity, rates of decay, etc?
Your epistemology sounds pretty reasonable to me, depending on what the standard of evidence is. A friend of mine who was a prof at MIT keeps talking about a mathematical proof that “proves” (lol) that we can’t prove anything without first accepting at least one assumption on faith. I’ve spoken with people who would only even consider a religious or historical claim if it could be proven – which can never happen. So their agnostic/atheist belief could never be falsified, for all practical purposes. To have convinced them of a miracle would be a greater miracle than the miracle in question. lol
I once wrote down all my objections to a particular religion’s claims and then went over each objection and applied it to my own beliefs. That was really interesting. Helped me understand where my agnostic and atheist friends were coming from.
This thread may get far enough down on the page that we can’t access it any more. If that happens, please know that I’ve enjoyed our conversation and would love to learn all kinds of stuff from you if we meet up again in another thread.
justincase on May 17, 2009 at 1:41 AM
Your question about the constants of physics changing over time is a tricky one. Everything we think we know about the far-flung reaches of the universe is based on the assumption that the laws of nature are the same everywhere; that the conditions in a particle accelerator on earth today are the same as they were 10 billion years ago in a young galaxy 10 billion light years away from our present location. This may not be true, but we have no way of testing it. We have no reason to believe that the laws of the universe change with time, and if they do, then we can know nothing, so we assume they remain constant. The Hume link Speakup gave talks to this point.
It’s been a while since I studied philosophy or math rigorously, but I too recall a conjecture that no system can be proven from within itself–something must be taken axiomatically. Taking something axiomatically is not necessarily the same thing as taking something on faith. Aristotelian philosophy, at least as interpreted by Ayn Rand, rests on three axioms: Existence exists, Perception is the act of perceiving that which exists, and A thing is itself and acts in accordance with its own nature. The opposite of this, of course, is Plato’s claim that the world we do not and cannot perceive the world as it actually exists. For me, the Aristotelian axioms do not require faith to accept–the mere fact that I exist and that I can act with efficacy in the world speak to their truth. But to prove them, one must first accept them, then discover the rules of logic (as Aristotle did), and then return to prove them–it’s a circular, question-begging argument to prove anything entirely from within. That does not mean that nothing can be proven; it just means that there is always at least some room for intelligent men to disagree in good faith.
Regarding the extraordinary claims of prophets, I probably wouldn’t even believe them with my own eyes. Ever watch Cris Angel on E!? He’s an amazing street magician, but he’s just an actor in a carefully-planned performance. If he were to say that he were performing miracles instead of magic tricks, I could not disprove it unless he consented to a rigorous investigation of his methods, and what self-styled prophet would submit to an insult like that?
Nor would an accurate prediction of a cataclysm be adequate for me to believe–people make such predictions all the time, and the law of large numbers suggests that sometime someone will get it right. To decide after the fact that, because a particular prophecy came true, therefore the prophet knew rather than guessed, is to engage in the logical fallacy of Confirmation Bias. To be believed, a prophet would have to make numerous, specific predictions, and to say not just that he knows they will come true, but also how he knows they will come true, and the how will have to be through a means accessible to more persons than just himself.
What would it take for me to believe in a particular religion? Its God would have to turn me into a wild ass for a few years, as the God of the Hebrews allegedly did to Nebuchadnezzar–just about every other miracle listed in the Bible, assuming they actually happened, could conceivably have been coincidence or parlour trick.
hicsuget on May 17, 2009 at 11:25 AM
What if a God turned your sister into a wild ass for a few years? (Gosh, that sounds funny. lol)
I think I hear you saying that you can only believe something “miraculous” if it happens directly to you. Is that what you’re saying?
I went back and read that account after you mentioned it and Nebuchadnezzar talks about losing, and later being given back, his sanity. Daniel says the king was given the mind of an animal and thus lived as one. I wonder if Nebuchadnezzar knew he was insane in the middle of all that, or if he only recognized it once he snapped out of it. I wonder what exactly snapped him out of it.
Does that instance – if it’s true, as it would be if it happened to you – seem convincing to you because of the exactness of the detail, the timing, or what? He could have been given a hallucinogen or something that made him insane, couldn’t he? – a parlor trick? And even if it wasn’t a drug or something natural that caused the insanity, couldn’t the timing have been coincidence?
I’m not asking this to be stupid or contentious, but because I want to understand what kind of evidence is credible for you.
If a prophet says he/she knows that numerous, specific predictions will come true because he/she was told that by a deity, and then those specific predictions come true, would that explanation of how he/she knew be enough for you to believe that he/she really heard a “voice”? (Oh, I went back and read that the means would have to be accessible to more persons than just himself. Would you have to be one of those persons? Would it make any difference if another person – in a totally different situation – also says they eard the same thing through a “voice” as well? Would corroboration between two or more independent prophets increase the believability that it truly was prophecy rather than coincidence?)
I’m trying to answer that for myself and it kinda goes back to the story about the guy who claims to have come back to life and who in the process acquired knowledge nobody knew before. I was in quite a pickle because I had argued with others that someone rising from the dead should be reason enough to believe them. I found myself changing my story to say that it would be reason enough to believe that a soul can leave and re-enter a body. But how do we know if that soul is lying to us? It showed me that my real epistemology was different than I thought it was. Made me question whether my own belief really is falsifiable.
So I know there are a lot of variables that are different with every situation, but you seem very reasonable and I’m just curious about your thoughts.
What if a prophet DID submit to a rigorous investigation of what was claimed as a miracle and his arch-enemies could only agree that it wasn’t magic or trickery?
I enjoy your writing. You explain things well.
justincase on May 17, 2009 at 3:58 PM
It’s been a while since I went to Sunday School–I remembered the story as saying he was literally turned into a wild ass. There are a number of non-supernatural causes for going temporarily insane. Me, or someone I could observe, being literally turned into a wild ass would convince me that something was afoot.
Even if I were convinced that something were afoot, though, I would not necessarily be convinced of the truth of any particular religion. In most of the theology debates I have on HotAir, the other side makes the following argument: X is true; therefore God exists; therefore every word of the Bible is confirmed as true. To get from proof that God exists to proof that one specific scripture is 100% accurate requires far more evidence. Thomas Paine, in The Age of Reason, argued that in order for him to accept a revelation as valid, it must be revealed directly to him himself; what is revelation for another man is to him only hearsay.
Remember the story of Moses going before Pharaoh? Pharoah’s magicians cast their staves down on the ground and they turned into snakes, then Moses’ staff turned into a snake and ate theirs. The moral was that there are many gods that can work miracles, but that the God of the Hebrews could work the most powerful miracles. Some sects of Christianity (including the sect I was raised in) allege that witchcraft is real, whereas mainstream Christianity now denies this. If rigorous investigation revealed that something abnormal was going on, it still would not prove that it was an act of God and not a miracle on the part of Satan.
For further reading on questions of epistemology, I recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Karl Popper. His approach is the one used by most modern scientists.
hicsuget on May 18, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2