Posted on 08/02/2007 9:15:56 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Atheism has nearly always been with us in one form or another, but the atheists we’ve been hearing the most from lately—chiefly Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris—are a new breed. Unlike the old-school humanists, the new atheists—or anti-theists, as some of them prefer to be called—don’t want to just deny the existence of God, they want to wipe religion off the map.
Christopher Hitchens follows this pattern with his new book, belligerently titled God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. In his first chapter, called “Putting It Mildly,” Hitchens writes, “I will continue to [respect my friends’ religious traditions] without insisting on the polite reciprocal condition—which is that they in turn leave me alone.”
But this is something that religion is ultimately incapable of doing. “People of faith,” Hitchens continues, “are in their different ways planning your and my destruction, and the destruction of all . . . hard-won human attainments. . . . Religion poisons everything.”
The way Hitchens lumps all religions and all believers into one category here is typical of his tone throughout the book, and typical of anti-theists in general. They don’t argue; they yell. They’ve decided that, simply because they dislike religion, there is no reason to respect it. In their minds, it’s stupid, dangerous, and that’s all that needs to be said.
That’s why I believe the anti-theist movement, as hot as it is right now with books like Hitchens’s topping the bestseller lists, is doomed to fail. The moment you take it seriously and start to study it, it falls apart. There’s no substance, just anger and a lot of hot air. Because anti-theists simply ignore evidence and arguments they don’t like, they’re ill-equipped to deal with them rationally.
The old-guard secular humanists are questioning this new trend, and rightly so. Most traditional atheists simply had their own belief system, and if we wanted our belief system that was okay. The new breed reflects the death of truth. They’re like the communists who feared religion more than anything else because it was a competing truth claim. The Star of David and the cross have been scandalous to every totalitarian leader.
Many traditional atheists and humanists seem to recognize the parallel and feel uncomfortable about it. As Gary Wolf writes in Wired, “The New Atheists have castigated fundamentalism and branded even the mildest religious liberals as enablers of a vengeful mob. Everybody who doesn’t join them is an ally of the Taliban.”
“Even those of us who sympathize intellectually,” he writes, “don’t want the New Atheists to succeed.”
When you think about it this way, you have to wonder if the anti-theists, in their heart of hearts, are a little uncomfortable with their own beliefs. After all, if you really believe that truth will win out—and to Hitchens and company, their idea of truth is so obvious that it cannot fail to win—you can let other people make their own claims and live by their own beliefs without feeling the need to destroy everything they stand for.
Because Hitchens and the others cannot do this, their polemics are destined to lead not to the end of religion, but to the collapse of their own movement. Not before, of course, they have gotten very rich. It’s not irrelevant to the debate that Dawkins, Hitchens, and Sam Harris sold one million copies of their angry diatribes last year. At two dollars a book for royalties, that’s not bad.
ALL such articles are going to claim the raw meat is 100 billion years old, that's those people's religion. In the real world, raw meat doesn't last 100 billion years. If it's protected by bone it might last a few thousand.
Well, it actually says 68 million, so you’re only off by 9932000000. And I must have missed the part about “raw meat”, because in the stuff I read it said collagen. And you might also be interested to know, the researcher who originally made this find, Mary Higby Schweitzer, makes no qualms about her strong Christian faith.
Even though this advice was not directed at me, I was interested enough to peruse the topic.
In summary, it was interesting stuff about the universe not having any net energy, thus explaining how nothing was necessary to make it (being that mass itself can come out of energy). Relatedly there was the view that atomic events can be "without cause". Much related commentary inferring from this the idea that this universe could have come into being "without cause". The most developed speculation I found introduced the concept of a mind-boggling number of universes developing randomly (without cause) apparently to explain how our carbon-based life freindly universe could have happened randomly:
The so-called "anthropic coincidences," in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be "fine-tuned" for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms. (Stenger, 1996)
Is this what you were driving at?
To be fair, I hardly think you should call someone ignorant for not being up to speed on this kind of stuff.
In a quick once-over analysis, I'm inclined to view it as far from sufficient to explain the existence of our universe. One apparent logical confusion being the language "without cause". Which boils down to an acknowledgment of randomness in physics (also called the uncertainty principle I believe).
But it seems the developed arguments use "without cause" in a different way, not logically inferred from such a principle. An example of a typical word association fallacy. To support the more developed argument "without cause" is being equated to "from nothing". And even the concept of "nothing" is fallaciously being associated with "absence of mass and energy".
Seems we are no closer to eliminating the need for something which transcends the universe then before. Even if you consider that there is more then one "universe" (quoted because the meaning of the word "universe" implies there can be only one. Perhaps we should call them "realms of physics", and consider them all part of the universe).
Disclaimer: this is mere first impression, perhaps the inferences you want to make from this will seem more logical after I chew on them for a while.
<attempt at humor>Hmm, if "nothing" created the universes, perhaps "nothing" is all powerful, and "nothing" is all knowing. Then I must ask you...IS NOTHING SACRED?!?</attempt at humor>
Hitchens admits publicly that he writes in an inflammatory tone for the purpose of getting attention and selling books, just like Ann Coulter. You can't read anything more into his "tone" other than that he wants to sell books and get himself on TV shows to promote his book.
studing and learning from God’s superior creative work (your option is studing and learning from a complete lack of intelligence (first cause)), is what lead to those discoveries. Mans attempts to annoint himself Highest intelligence, by rationalizing away the creator from his creation have hijacked the word “science”. I will keep on studing the creativity seen in Gods creation. and give credit where due.
Those that see Government as Highest Authority and attempt to usher in peace on earth (utopia/their version of it) are responsible for the bloodiest attrocities, Hitler,+ atheist such as Mao,Stalin, Pol Pot...
a relationship with God, has and hopefully will continue to accomplish: hope, compassion, humility, selflessness, creativity, increased true wisdom, integrity, true peace (not just empty Words), and true longevity (defeating death, not just postponing it).
www.cureinternational.org
www.worldvision.org
www.salvationarmy.org
www.allgodschildren.org
I recall the Jodie Foster character, who was throughly noble and and had decisively earned the honor to be the one chosen to attempt contact, was passed over in favor of a total A-hole who had obstructed her research at every turn during the previous years. The decisive factor being prejudice against her because she was an atheist.
Was this blatant emotional manipulation also in the book?
“Even though this advice was not directed at me, I was interested enough to peruse the topic.”
Andy, I’m proud of ya for making the effort and doing that research. And I really mean that, no sarcasm whatsoever.
“In summary, it was interesting stuff about the universe not having any net energy, thus explaining how nothing was necessary to make it (being that mass itself can come out of energy). Relatedly there was the view that atomic events can be “without cause”. Much related commentary inferring from this the idea that this universe could have come into being “without cause”. The most developed speculation I found introduced the concept of a mind-boggling number of universes developing randomly (without cause) apparently to explain how our carbon-based life freindly universe could have happened randomly:
The so-called “anthropic coincidences,” in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be “fine-tuned” for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms. (Stenger, 1996)”
Yes, that was exactly what I was driving at. It is also called the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. I happen to subscribe to that. (so does S. Hawking) It makes sense given all the experimental evidence in favor of it, i.e., the results of the Double Slit experiment, the existence of Virtual Particles, quantum entanglement and the fact that quantum computers (albeit simple ones to date, more complex ones on the way) work.
“To be fair, I hardly think you should call someone ignorant for not being up to speed on this kind of stuff.”
Sorry, have to disagree with you here. If you are arguing for Creationism, you need to understand what Science says as well. I don’t mean “ignorant” in an insulting or pejorative way, I mean it in its truest sense: lacking knowledge.
“In a quick once-over analysis, I’m inclined to view it as far from sufficient to explain the existence of our universe. One apparent logical confusion being the language “without cause”. Which boils down to an acknowledgment of randomness in physics (also called the uncertainty principle I believe).”
I’ve given it a lot more than a quick, once-over analysis. I’ve been thinking about it a great deal for more than 20 years. Given all of the experimental evidence to date, right now it is the most reasonable explanation as to why we exist. Actually, it is a far simpler and more rational explanation than postulating an anthropomorphic deity who is supposedly infinitely merciful and infinitely loving and created the Universe as an act of love - then left us here to fend for ourselves.
“But it seems the developed arguments use “without cause” in a different way, not logically inferred from such a principle. An example of a typical word association fallacy. To support the more developed argument “without cause” is being equated to “from nothing”. And even the concept of “nothing”
Since matter/energy has been proven to come into existence spontaneously from the vacuum, isn’t it more reasonable to assume that an infinite number of dimensions exist and that these particles are in those dimensions when they are not here? Look up “M-theory”. There was no need for a creator - these dimensions always existed - and sometimes collide - causing new universes to be created - like ours in the Big Bang.
“Seems we are no closer to eliminating the need for something which transcends the universe then before. Even if you consider that there is more then one “universe” (quoted because the meaning of the word “universe” implies there can be only one. Perhaps we should call them “realms of physics”, and consider them all part of the universe).”
The thing that transcends the universe is the multiverse - the sum total off all possible universes at once - all of the alternate quantum realities in existence.
“Disclaimer: this is mere first impression, perhaps the inferences you want to make from this will seem more logical after I chew on them for a while.”
Again, kudos to you! Please DO chew on them for awhile. Please also look up “virtual particle”.
“attempt at humor Hmm, if “nothing” created the universes, perhaps “nothing” is all powerful, and “nothing” is all knowing. Then I must ask you...IS NOTHING SACRED?!?/attempt at humor”
Humor noted, and appreciated. [grin] My solution is no worse than postulating a God that was always there. One can ask the same question, “Who created God?” Answer; “He was always there”. “Who created the alternate dimensions?” Answer: “They were always there.” Because of the experimental evidence, I prefer the latter explanation. Of course, if new evidence were to come to light, I would and could reconsider my opinion.
I'm not sure if Hitler claimed to be Christian, but in any case he was not being a Christian when he was doing the things he is infamous for.
Just for the record, I’m not an atheist, but an extremely skeptical agnostic. If you didn’t know that, and observed my life, you would likely assume that I was a very devout Christian.
In that case you are closer to being a Christ-follower then those implementing the Spanish Inquisition. Being that the way you live your life is more in accordance with the teachings and examples of Christ. Those torturing the Jews may have been convinced they were following Christ, but I believe it when Jesus warned that there would be those that called Him "Lord, Lord" and yet be damned on the day of judgment when He will tell them "I never knew you". And there are many examples of Jesus being harsh on the religious hypocrites of His day. The term "brood of vipers" being used more then once.
http://www.davnet.org/kevin/essays/hitler.html
The evolutionary model of the world has a comparatively simple posited origin, very remote from the present in time. All the familiar features of our world are presumed to have evolved due to natural events progressing according to natural laws over the ten billion years or so which transpired since the posited origin event.
In contrast, a creationist view is an interventionist view. It posits a Creator manipulating the material world using some sort of super-natural powers, which are never discussed. The most scientifically objectionable manipulation, which is patently ridiculous in my view, is the insistence that a Creator somehow manipulated atoms and molecules to form the DNA of some thousands or millions of different “created kinds”. This verges on the philosophical conceit of the universe-created-just-as-it-was-ten-minutes-ago.
I will also repeat my claim that the language of Genesis gives considerable support to a naturalistic view of life origins. God says, “Let the earth bring forth grass ...” and “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature ...” and “Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind ...” .
To me, this leaves ample scope for inquiry into the natural means by which these events might have occurred. Of course, the creation is also divided into stages, which is very suggestive of an evolutionary view.
http://www.lawandreligion.com/nurinst1.shtml
http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/deadlymedicine/narrative/index.php?content=biological
I suggest you check out a couple sites site, of course blindly regurgitating atheistic dogma is far easier...Hitler used many words to accomplish his goals (ending pain and suffering through the irradiation of the “inferior” and “diseased” . so if Hitler said it it must be true?
no, but the starting premise of the existence of Morality to begin with depends on the Cause of Morality, (is morality more than a change over time, subjective opinion of mans mind? or are right and wrong independant of mans opinion of right and wrong?)
what is the Cause of Morality,
who is the Final Authotity on Morality? and why should we Listen to that Authority
man I give up on spelling.
man I give up on spelling.
man I give up on spelling.
“Contact” is a novel; “Demon Haunted World” is nonfiction. Did the guy that wrote “King Kong” think there really were giant apes? I don’t think so.
“Contact” is a novel; “Demon Haunted World” is nonfiction. Did the guy that wrote “King Kong” think there really were giant apes? I don’t think so.
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.