Posted on 03/30/2007 6:20:58 PM PDT by buccaneer81
Atheists Split Over Message By JAY LINDSAY
BOSTON -
Atheists are under attack these days for being too militant, for not just disbelieving in religious faith but for trying to eradicate it. And who's leveling these accusations? Other atheists, it turns out.
Among the millions of Americans who don't believe God exists, there's a split between people such as Greg Epstein, who holds the partially endowed post of humanist chaplain at Harvard University, and so-called "New Atheists."
Epstein and other humanists feel their movement is on the verge of explosive growth, but are concerned it will be dragged down by what they see as the militancy of New Atheism.
The most pre-eminent New Atheists include best-selling authors Richard Dawkins, who has called the God of the Old Testament "a psychotic delinquent," and Sam Harris, who foresees global catastrophe unless faith is renounced. They say religious belief is so harmful it must be defeated and replaced by science and reason.
Epstein calls them "atheist fundamentalists." He sees them as rigid in their dogma, and as intolerant as some of the faith leaders with whom atheists share the most obvious differences.
Next month, as Harvard celebrates the 30th anniversary of its humanist chaplaincy - part of the school's chaplaincy corps - Epstein will use the occasion to provide a counterpoint to the New Atheists.
"Humanism is not about erasing religion," he said. "It's an embracing philosophy."
In general, humanism rejects supernaturalism, while stressing principles such as dignity of the individual, equality and social justice. If there's no God to help humanity, it holds, people better do the work.
The celebration of a "New Humanism" will emphasize inclusion and diversity within the movement, and will include Pulitzer Prize-winning scientist E.O. Wilson, a humanist who has made well-chronicled efforts to team with evangelical Christians to fight global warming.
Part of the New Humanism, Wilson said, is "an invitation to a common search for morally based action in areas agreement can be reached in."
The tone of the New Atheists will only alienate important faith groups whose help is needed to solve the world's problems, Wilson said.
"I would suggest possibly that while there is use in the critiques by Dawkins and Harris, that they've overdone it," he said.
Harris, author of "Letter to a Christian Nation," sees the disagreement as overblown. He thinks there's room for multiple arguments in the debate between scientific rationalism and religious dogmatism. "I don't think everyone needs to take as uncompromising a stance as I have against faith," he said.
But, he added, an intellectual intolerance of people who strongly believe things on bad evidence is just "basic human sanity."
"We do not jail people for being stupid, but we do stop listening to them after a while," he said in e-mailed comments.
Harris also rejected the term "atheist fundamentalist," calling it "a silly play upon words." He noted that, when it comes to the ancient Greek gods, everyone is an atheist and no one is asked to justify that to pagans who want to believe in Zeus.
"Likewise with the God of Abraham," he said. "There is nothing 'fundamentalist' about finding the claims of religious demagogues implausible."
Some of the participants in Harvard's celebration of its humanist chaplaincy have no problem with the New Atheists' tone.
Harvard psychologist and author Steven Pinker said the forcefulness of their criticism is standard in scientific and political debate, and "far milder than what we accept in book and movie reviews."
"It's only the sense that religion deserves special respect - the exact taboo that Dawkins and Harris are arguing against - that people feel that those guys are being meanies when applying ordinary standards of evaluation to religion," Pinker said in e-mailed comments.
Dawkins did not respond to requests for comment. He has questioned whether teaching children they could go to hell is worse in the long term than sexually abusing them, and compares the evidence of God to evidence for unicorns, fairies and a "Flying Spaghetti Monster." His attempt to win converts is clear in "The God Delusion," when he writes of his hope that "religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down."
A 2006 Baylor University survey estimates about 15 million atheists in the United States.
Not all nonbelievers identify as humanists or atheists, with some calling themselves agnostics, freethinkers or skeptics. But humanists see the potential for unifying the groups under their banner, creating a large, powerful minority that can't be ignored or disdained by mainstream political and social thinkers.
Lori Lipman Brown, director of the Secular Coalition of America, sees a growing public acceptance of people who don't believe in God, pointing to California U.S. Rep. Pete Stark's statement this month that he doesn't believe in a supreme being. Stark is the first congressman to acknowledge being an atheist.
As more prominent people such as Stark publicly acknowledge they don't believe in God, "I think it will make it more palatable," Brown said.
But Epstein worries the attacks on religion by the New Atheists will keep converts away.
"The philosophy of the future is not going to be one that tries to erase its enemies," he said. "The future is going to be people coming together from what motivates them."
--
Really, without God, we really are just zombies. If that's the one thing you choose to believe in, your conflict is your own doing.
Since we have no rhyme or reason to bad people getting their just desserts in this life and none to good people having over-the-top bad things happen to them, there can be no expectation that things are different when we die.
What could be a more just dessert for bad people than ETERNAL punishment? You seem to want less than that.
Belief in God is all about hope, which is a selfish motivation-- although it's natural. Having hope makes us more comfortable. It's not grounded in reality, though. It's a sort of crutch to get through the day. Jessica's family knows now what Jessica discovered inside a trash bag-- there is no hope. It's not real.
That's strange. Hope is a selfish motivation? Greed and lust and jealousy and envy and pride are all selfish motivation, but how did you come up with hope as a selfish motivation? It IS possible to love your enemies, and it IS possible to have hopes for them when you know you will receive nothing in return.
If Jessica is in heaven, what greater hope can there be? Projecting your atheistic views on Jessica Lunsford is mighty selfish on your own part, don'tcha think? It gives you greater validation of your own views to use her terrible death as a crutch for your despair.
You believe that God didn't need a creator, that he created himself.
Simply saying, "well bad things/good people blah blah blah" doesn't cut it. If you agree that there is an order to the universe, to our solar system, to our planet, to our very DNA, then you have to agree that there is One who directed these things to their right order.
You're saying that it's impossible for the universe to have things of advanced structure randomly, but you believe that a creator has/had advanced structure-- far more advanced than anything we are aware of, if you're right-- randomly and out of nothing. Human DNA's existence is much more probable than God DNA (or whatever is his structure).
If there is no right order, there is no God, and thus, by definition, no moral guidelines by which man should bother conducting himself.
Basic golden rule morality is necessary for creating a society (keeping the social contract) and it's actually a system that is beneficial to the person and not just to others-- as it's sort of an insurance policy (be good to others, treat them the way you want to be treated in case you need to be treated nicely because you're in a bind). It's symbiotic. These relationships are found in nature, and those organisms don't believe in God.
What could be a more just dessert for bad people than ETERNAL punishment? You seem to want less than that.
My point was that people want to believe that bad people will be tortured forever, but the reason for believing that is because of a desire and not reason or any facts. Just because you want something to be true, that isn't evidence that it is true. People are just unhappy with the truth sometimes. The universe doesn't owe us justice or anything. In fact, the evidence suggests that since the known world operates in such a way that things we wished wouldn't happen, do in fact happen, that we should not assume that things are different in some other life created by the same entity. Why would the rules be different? If you believe in the universe having perfect order, that would be order. As an aside, the universe and the Earth and humans have many flaws-- which would seem to trim away evidence for any intelligent design.
That's strange. Hope is a selfish motivation? Greed and lust and jealousy and envy and pride are all selfish motivation, but how did you come up with hope as a selfish motivation? It IS possible to love your enemies, and it IS possible to have hopes for them when you know you will receive nothing in return.
What I meant is that, like the kid who believes in Santa Claus because he wants the presents on Christmas morning (which is a reason for belief based on selfishness and not on reason or evidence), the same applies to hope. Hope is something that makes us feel good, like a drug. People don't want to give up that drug because they like how they feel when they use it. It doesn't mean that using that drug is the best course of action. It's easy to believe in hope because it gives you a high.
If Jessica is in heaven, what greater hope can there be? Projecting your atheistic views on Jessica Lunsford is mighty selfish on your own part, don'tcha think? It gives you greater validation of your own views to use her terrible death as a crutch for your despair.
If God wanted Jessica dead, he could have used a softer touch. He killed a fly with a sledgehammer. I'm not at all in despair, actually. I'm a very happy and upbeat person.
It depends on your definitions of those things. I could argue that God has done more evil things than any human. There are people who do good and who do bad, all at various times. There is no indication-- none-- that there is cosmic justice that rewards good and punishes evil. So, it's not rational to believe in "good" and "evil" in the way you mention.
It is silly to think there can be any kind of expectation of what things are like after we die basing our assumptions on this life.
It's no more silly to make expectations based on stories in a book. There are many religions and they have varying-- wildly-- beliefs about the afterlife. None has any more logic than another.
Good and evil don't depend on one's definition. If that were the case one could define things like killing or raping children as "good" (and this has been defined as such by some) and things like feeding the starving as "evil" (and this has been defined as such by some).
I could argue that God has done more evil things than any human.
No, you literally cannot.
Depends on your definition of 'atheism.' If by atheism you refer to militant atheism, where the possibility that any sort of deity might exist is denied in principle, then you are correct. But that definition of atheism is a strawman lacking any utility, since few 'atheists' are actually that dogmatic and closed-minded.
If a self described "atheist" is not 100% certain that there is no God then, by definition, he is an agnostic.
Being a true atheist requires more blind faith than was shown by St. Thomas.
Sir, I have the right to define both what I believe, and the term to be used to describe that belief. Just as do you. I don't tell you what term to use to describe your belief, philosophy or religion, and I expect you to accord me the same courtesy.
Sir, I have the right to define both what I believe, and the term to be used to describe that belief. Just as do you. I don't tell you what term to use to describe your belief, philosophy or religion, and I expect you to accord me the same courtesy.
I have no idea what you are but I surely won't know by your use of English words in a context where they mean whatever you choose them to mean.
I myself am an agnostic by the English dictionary definition; "One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism." with "true atheism" being the 100% certainty, no doubt about it, belief that there is no God.
You may call yourself whatever you please but that does not change the English language.
"How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." ...... Abrahan Lincoln
The Dictionary says: "a·the·ist, n. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."
Note that it explicitly says nothing at all about the degree of certainty, nor about whether the belief is held as an article of faith that is not subject to challenge (i.e, as a fundamental axiom taken as true without proof.)
The idea that atheism requires any faith is a calumny not supported by the dictionary, nor by the usual understanding self-professed atheists typically have of their own philosophical position.
But you are, of course, free to understand the term as you wish.
So, by that standard, a frightened Catholic priest that denies that he believes in God when a Communist Commissar puts a gun to his head is an "atheist".
By that standard, Bill Clinton, who stated in no uncertain terms that he "did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski" was a "faithful" husband.
The dictionary definitions of "atheist" and "faithful" assume that the person in question actually says what he means and means what he says in regards to his religious beliefs or his extramarital conduct.
Therefore, Clinton, the self-described faithful husband is unfaithful regardless of what words he mouths and the self-described atheist who is not certain whether God actually exists or not is an agnostic and not a true atheist no matter what words he mouths.
Of course, we can now start debating what the meaning of the word "is" is.
That's not good logic.
"In order for there to be nothing, there must be a distinction."
No. If there is nothing, then that's all there is. It's called the empty set. The quantity of all things that exist is zero.
"The fundamental principle of existence is the distinction."
Distinction is a concept, and regards the fact that individual things that exist can be differentiated. Distinguiability occurs when the first thing other than nothing exists.
In a WIRED magazine that came out a few months ago, they had an article on the "NEW ATHEISM" movement. The intellectual fathers of this movement were all academic men who had decided that it was time for full out destruction of modern religions. They even went so far as to promote removing children from their parents in order to make sure they were not indoctrinated into religion. These gentlemen included the author of the "GOD DELUSION" book, and seemed to be in agreement that they had to make all people embarrassed to even mention God or a belief in God. This strategy is being carried out by their true followers in the MSM by attacking Christianity every Easter by stressing that Jesus was not who he claimed to be but just another man. As we know from prior events, the MSM is quite comfortable whacking Christianity vs. another religion like Islam, so Christianity will be the first religion to get the full treatment.
To summarize, this new atheism approach outlined by the academic elite, will be heavily promoted in our future by the media and entertainment types as part of their strategy to get rid of religion in general. I fully expect this type of nonsense to escalate much like the global warming propaganda.
That's not good logic.
It is a contradiction to say all of the following:
If you can show otherwise, I and the world of logicians would really like to see that proof.
<sourcery>In order for there to be nothing, there must be a distinction.</sourcery>
No. If there is nothing, then that's all there is. It's called the empty set. The quantity of all things that exist is zero.
In order for there to be an empty set, it must exist. The empty set is distinct form nothing. Therefore, nothing can only exist locally (relative to some context,) and cannot exist universally.
<sourcery>The fundamental principle of existence is the distinction.</sourcery>
Distinction is a concept, and regards the fact that individual things that exist can be differentiated. Distinguiability occurs when the first thing other than nothing exists.
Nothing is also a concept, as are 'exist,' 'fact', 'proof,' and 'thing.'
Distinction does not exist as a side effect of the existence of different things. Different things exist as a side effect of distinction/differentiation (or alternatively, both things and distinctions are co-causitive.)
More so, in fact. Because while radical Christians only foster ignorance and bigotry, only Radical Islam advocates murder in its name.
Whose existence?
Whose existence?
Reality has always existed. Its fundamental mode of operation is the distinction, such as the distinction between past, present and future. Thus there is change and transformation.
"It is a contradiction to say all of the following:
1. For all X, if x exists, then x was created.
2. God exists (and therefore satisfies the first predicate)
3. God was not created
Your logic does not apply to God. He was not created, so your number one is bad.
Re: If there is nothing, then that's all there is. It's called the empty set. The quantity of all things that exist is zero.
"In order for there to be an empty set, it must exist. The empty set is distinct form nothing. Therefore, nothing can only exist locally (relative to some context,) and cannot exist universally."
The empty set is a rational construction used to describe something. The empty set can not exist w/o someone to ponder it and in fact can not if there is nothing. There are no distinct forms of nothing. Nothing is indistinguishable from itself.
nothing = nothing.
There are no subsets in the empty set, because each would be equivalent to the empty set.
"Distinction does not exist as a side effect of the existence of different things. Different things exist as a side effect of distinction/differentiation (or alternatively, both things and distinctions are co-causitive.)"
Distinction depends on distinguish ability, which is a property of things. Nothing is indistinguishable from itself, and also any subset of it. That is because it is it's own unique identity. That means if there's nothing, then there's no distinguish ability, or anything else. If any thing exists, it has properties which give it distinguish ability. It is those properties that are fundamental. Distinction itself is a conclusion, or result.
I agree with that.
Its fundamental mode of operation is the distinction, such as the distinction between past, present and future.
So you are saying time is the proof of reality?
Thus there is change and transformation.
Is this change directed or happenstance?
It's not my logic, but that of Rutles4Ever in post 141, who said "Anything that exists was created." I am simply demonstrating the logical contradiction between the assertion that "Anything that exists was created" and the assertion that "God exists."
You can, of course, adopt a different set of assertions than were stated by Rutles4Ever, such as "Anything except God that exists was created" and "God exists." Then there is no contradiction. But once you permit one exception to the rule that "anything that exists was created," it becomes much more difficult to justify the universality of that rule. If God is an exception, why not other things? Why not everything?
The empty set is a rational construction used to describe something.
As are all the terms in every statement anyone ever makes.
The empty set can not exist w/o someone to ponder it and in fact can not if there is nothing.
The empty set can exist whether anyone ponders it or not. Same as anything else. And nothing cannot exist universally, since 'nothing' is itself something. Absolute nothing is a logical contradiction, and its universal existence would be a clear example of a violation of the Law of Non-Contradiction.
There are no distinct forms of nothing. Nothing is indistinguishable from itself.
Nothing is always distinct from whatever is not-nothing. That is intrinsic to what it is. It can only be defined as the negation of existence--which requires both that existence and negation exist.
Oh, OK.
"You can, of course, adopt a different set of assertions than were stated by Rutles4Ever, such as "Anything except God that exists was created" and "God exists." Then there is no contradiction."
In order for anything to exist, there must be an underlying physics to support the existence. There can be no being w/o an underlying physics to support that being. That means that existance itself can't be created. Also, existence can not be created out of nothing.
"The empty set can exist whether anyone ponders it or not."
No. COncepts and rational constructions only exist, because of the machinery the underlying physics provides to support it's existence. W/o the physics and the machinery, there is nothing. Nothing is simply realized and contemplated, becausee of the machinery that supports it.
" nothing cannot exist universally, since 'nothing' is itself something."
If nothing exists, it is a universal. It means there is only nothing, and no existence can possibly arrise out of it. nothing != something The concept of nothing is something. It is a member of the set of concepts, which is a subset of existence.
"Nothing is always distinct from whatever is not-nothing. That is intrinsic to what it is. It can only be defined as the negation of existence--which requires both that existence and negation exist.
Negation is a logical operation. The concept of nothing is defined. It is not the result of any logical operation. The logical operation itself depends on the definitions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.