Skip to comments.The New Atheists: Researchers Crusade against American Fundamentalists (EuroPress Alert)
Posted on 10/28/2006 8:46:36 PM PDT by Jacob Kell
In the United States, atheists are becoming an ostracized minority. But now evolutionary biologists are trying to turn the tables: According to their argument, religion is the source of evil. Morals and selflessness are not God-given - they are the result of evolution.
When Richard Dawkins, a zoologist at Oxford University, steps up to the altar he seems visibly pleased to see the pews in the church fully occupied. In the best Queen's English, he reads from his book: "The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully."
(Excerpt) Read more at spiegel.de ...
When scientists take political stances such as this, they only do their field more harm than good. Nobody trusts a science led by partisans with agendas.
With no G-d, what moral axioms do they use to call religion evil?
And the carnivorous evolved animals who currently eat their prey alive while administering great pain, just what kind of morals and selflessness has evolution given them ?
Heh. That must be why I've seen stacks of "The God Delusion" and like-minded works on front-table displays in every bloody Borders and Barnes and Noble in the Inland Empire, instead of being burnt in bulk in the parking lot. Minority? Yeah, I guess. Ostracized? Well, it's not exactly Germany in the Thirties, is it?
Flame-proof suit on! : )
Yep, those Khmer Rouge who are champs at murder were so religious weren't they? And Stalin and Hitler were regulars in the church pews too. Chairman Mao was always found in prayer wasn't he?
It's juat you. You might need the suit for your deathbed though.
It's juat you. You might need the suit for your deathbed though.
It's juat you. You might need the suit for your deathbed though.
It's just you. You might need the suit for your deathbed though.
More on the topic, it seems.
It just keeps coming.
The ultimate irony; evolution gave rise to the very morals it denies.
They show a form of "morality" in their rivalries with one another, and most of all in the solicitude they have for their offspring. The pack instincts of dogs make them a model of the virtue of loyalty. Their hunting behavior was of course their original attraction to men who ardently pursued the same practice. Anyway, I'm pretty sure most carnivores strive to kill their prey before they eat them, as they are a lot more cooperative as a meal when dead.
Note the Pythagoreans were vegetarians on moral grounds. Cf. Ovid Metamorphoses, Book XV, for an imagined discourse of Pythagoras abhoring and warning against the practice of slaughter for food. This is an argument and an appeal, not a divine commandment. He acknowledges carnivores as animals whose nature is "savage and untamed", and hence not models for human behavior.
It's not anti-science nor superstitious at all. If you disagree, please show me where.
However, they do have a bias that they adhere to from the beginning, just like evolutionists.
I like the author's name "blech" -- exactly what i think of Dawkins.
Sadly, this is not entirely true. Think of the environmental science activists like Micheal Mann and his hockey stick.
Good point, but I'm afraid it will be missed by those that don't already get it.
People who are bad at making good moral decisions are usually the best at justifying themselves, and the least good at understanding morality. The guy quoted at the top of the article of coarse thinks he is too good for God. We are talking psychosis here. It is both fascinating and unnerving to try to talk sense about morality with someone desperately hiding from God.
I was thinking from the perspective of logic. As C. S. Lewis demonstrated in The Abolition of Man, everybody has moral axioms, whether or not they are consciously aware of it. Dawkins and Harris seem to fall firmly into the "not" category. To save myself a rant, they (as summarized in the article) blather endlessly about why a species adopts a set of behaviors, but present no reason why I, or any other individual, should adopt those behaviors.
Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct in human behavior.
Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Their favorite ones, that of a condescending oligarchy of secular humanists. Looking back to the glory days of likes of Freud, Jung, Sanger, and other so-called scientists who zealously fought to deny the presence of God, our modern day Illuminati do not merely deny the existince of God, they openly hate Him and work diligently to lash out at Him. On the one hand, they worship at the altar of Charles Darwin's evolution theory, supposing man to be no more noble than apes. On the other hand, they feel it their role to enlighten man from the chains of religion as if they have some moral duty to do so.
Truly, the athiest of the day is in a moral dilemma. If one were to bonk them over the head with a large stick, they would protest, but on what grounds? If we're simply the product of evolution, then let the process play itself out, bonk 'em on the head. Survival of the fittest, baby.
I've not read Abolition of Man, but I am a big fan of Lewis, too.
And, from the piece:
But now evolutionary biologists are trying to turn the tables: According to their argument, religion is the source of evil. Morals and selflessness are not God-given - they are the result of evolution.
Turning the tables? That's rich. There's always been a certain anti-God strain in some of those who push evolution as the answer to how we came to be. I wasn't gifted with an intellect designed for understanding complex science, but that said, that also makes it impossible for me to accept evolution as fact, because my lack of understanding requires a leap of faith. And, if I'm going to make any leap of faith, it'll be with God.
Here's a piece by Tom Wolfe that I found a while back, that's pretty good.
Well, we transcended Communism, perhaps one day we will also transcend evolution.
Religious believers will have the last laugh, if for no other reason than they will still be around, merrily reproducing, long after the liberal atheist evolutionists have extincted themselves through contraception, abortion, gay marriage, and euthanasia.
The hilarious irony of it all is, Dawkins and his ilk who reverence Darwinian evolution with greater fervor than the children of Israel reverenced Jehovah, are slated for annihilation by their own Darwinian god. In strict obedience to his edicts they are strangling themselves with their own hands and leaving the field to the religious infidels they detest.
Actually, unless you are 'designed' or 'evolved' as a carrion eater, most uncivilized carnivores prefer their prey to be alive when eaten. Dead animals tend to go sour very fast. Lots of bad bacteria and other disease organisms proliferate in a dead carcass. FYI - I eat meat killed professionally and cooked of course. However, sushi is fairly decent if fresh.
That is what they are best at, unfortunately. While working in Hollywood I once heard an old hippie say to someone he had not seen in a couple of decades, 'Wow, you are still alive ?'.
The ancient City-States in Greece learned similar lessons long before the single god religions appeared. The story goes that the Thebans actually fielded a fighting force comprised of all gay men (called the Theban Sacred Band). The theory was that gay men would fight stronger if their gay lover was fighting next to them. Unfortunately for the gay 'Sacred Band', the bisexual Macedonian Alexander the Great slaughtered them all in one battle. A marble lion statue still stands at Chaeronea where the Sacred Band are buried. Apparently, some lessons take thousands of years to be learnt.
"Religion is the source of evil"
- Karl Marx
Rom. 1:21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.
Postmodernism is the latest in a long line of absurdities."
"...Freudianism says that all beliefs and behaviors flow out of certain psychosexual complexes ...all beliefs except, of course, Freudianism, and all behaviors except, of course, the behavior of expounding Freudianism.
Evolutionism says that all characteristics, including the development of thinking brains, are selected naturally to favor survival...not necessarily the apprehension of truth; this belief suggests that the very organ which conceives of evolution is oriented to produce useful theories, but not necessarily true ones. And radical postmodernism rejects the universal truthfulness of every other belief while assuming its own position as the
only universally true one."
By Professor McLaren
Ok, let's see here... If religion is the source of evil, and morals and selfishness are a result of evolution (morals being blamed on religion) then evolution must be the source of evil. I got it.
I Cor 1:18-23For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
The wisdom of this world is that we don't need God, science can do it for us. Science has made my life much more comforatable and has spared it, but I don't see making it the main reason for my existance.
They use the same thing that the God people do: subjective human decision making.
B.S. Someone who doesn't need the crutch of faith has nothing to be ashamed of. Quite the reverse, if you ask me.
Of course they do. They wouldn't be creationists if they didn't.
Just sneaking on to the end of the discussion...This is what the Vedas say:
There are four kinds of people who do not surrender to the Supreme Lord. One is those whose knowledge is stolen by illusion - great thinkers, intellectuals, scholars - who think themselves so wise, that they are greater than God. Therefore they are befooled by their worldly knowledge, and true wisdom is stolen away. They cannot see the truth, although they think themselves wiser than everyeone else.
Also reminds me of this story:
A simple boatman is rowing a great scholar across a wide river. The scholar looks up at the sky asks the boatman - "Have you learned astronomy? Look at the sky - the vastnesses - the plantetary movements - do you know this science?"
The boatman answers thus: "No, I'm a simple boatman and I haven't had time for higher education."
Then the scholar sees the huge river and asks: "Well, have you studied the currents of the rivers, and oceanography, and climatology?"
The boatman again answers: "No, I've had no time to study all those sciences."
The scholar asks him a couple of more questions, and the answer is the same each time. Then the scholar sees that a storm is brewing, and after asking the boatman about the science of weather, (to which the boatman answers again in the negative), the boat starts to take on water as the waves rise.
The boatman now asks the scholar: "O scholar, the boat is about to sink. We have to swim for the shore. Do you know how to swim?"
The scholar in fear says: "No, I never learned."
We all have to face death. Will we die like a foolish man who considers himself wise - in fear and confusion? Or will we trust in God and know that He will be there to take care of us? We have that choice. Obviously a person doesn't need to be an illiterate to have faith in God. But placing faith in one's own or others' intellects is a sure fire way to drown.
Well, Hitler was a Catholic and a creationist who believed that he was doing the work of Providence. And as for the others, if they were atheists, they didn't kill because their atheism told them to (unlike some religious people), they killed because they believe in the irrational system of Communism. It is that irrationality, be it based on religious or nonreligious feeling, that is objectionable.
LOL... Magic fruit, talking snakes, a woman being turned into salt...
LOL... The atheist is not "hiding from God" anymore than you could be said to be "hiding from Frodo the Hobbit." One does not hide from fictional characters. And to the atheist, God is a fictional character.
But if there are no absolutes, there can be no standard by which to determine right and wrong, good and evil. It's ALL subjective. Therefore your opinion on the subject and your value system and perception of *moral* is as worthless as you think those of the religious people you despise are.