The Devil’s Delusion

[PoliticalChic]

The following is from "The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions," by David Berlinski...

1. There are those who argue that science is in opposition to religion, and that science offers sophisticated men and women a coherent vision of the universe.

2. There have been four powerful and profound scientific theories since the great scientific revolution was set in motion in the seventeenth century:
a. Newtonian mechanics,
b. Maxwell’s theory of the electromagnetic field,
c. Special and general relativity
d. And quantum mechanics

3. English mathematical physicist Roger Penrose has described the theories as “sometimes phenomenally accurate,” but a “tantalizingly inconsistent scheme of things.” The result, we know better than we did what we do not know, and what we have not grasped: how the universe began, how the mind functions, why we are here, how life emerged, or, with assurance, that it did.

4. No scientific theory touches on the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses. When and if one questions the meaning of life, the number of his days, he hardy turns to algebraic quantum field theory for the answer.

a. Prominent figures have hypothesized that we are merely cosmic accidents. Bertrand Russell, Jacques Monod, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins have said it is so…and it is an article of their faith based on the confidence of men convinced that nature has equipped them in ways the rest of us cannot bear to contemplate.
There is not the slightest reason to think that this is so.

5. While science has nothing of value to say on the great and aching questions of life, death, love and meaning, what the religious traditions of mankind have said forms a coherent body of thought. It is a system of belief both adequate and more fitting to the complexities of our existence: recompense for suffering, principles beyond selfishness. Reassurance.
While I do not know if any of this is true, I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false.

 

[catzmeow]

Does regurgitating other people's thoughts strike you as a meaningful contribution to the board?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Does regurgitating other people's thoughts strike you as a meaningful contribution to the board?

If you didn't find it interesting, it seems a less than intelligent investment of your time.

Perhaps you should rethink your investments on the board.

 

[Avatar4321]

Makes some good points. Though I would point out that not all religions have coherent bodies of thought.

 

[catzmeow]

.” The result, we know better than we did what we do not know, and what we have not grasped: how the universe began, how the mind functions, why we are here, how life emerged, or, with assurance, that it did.

We actually have a fairly clear understanding of how the mind functions, and we learn more every year. We probably will never know how life emerged or how the universe began (but then, mythology/religion don't answer these questions accurately, either). And, "why we are here" also isn't something that religion can answer with any certainty. Faith is not a fact. It may be comforting, and if you require comfort over cold answers, that's fine, I suppose, but you should disabuse yourself of the notion that your beliefs are somehow more secure than theory.

When and if one questions the meaning of life, the number of his days, he hardy turns to algebraic quantum field theory for the answer.

Unfortunately, religion can't provide accurate/testable/secure answers, either.

Translation of your OP: "I'd rather have palatable imaginary answers spoonfed to me than acknowledge that I may never know the answers to some questions, or may have to make up my own."

 

[del]

well pasted

 

[PoliticalChic]

.” The result, we know better than we did what we do not know, and what we have not grasped: how the universe began, how the mind functions, why we are here, how life emerged, or, with assurance, that it did.

We actually have a fairly clear understanding of how the mind functions, and we learn more every year. We probably will never know how life emerged or how the universe began (but then, mythology/religion don't answer these questions accurately, either). And, "why we are here" also isn't something that religion can answer with any certainty. Faith is not a fact. It may be comforting, and if you require comfort over cold answers, that's fine, I suppose, but you should disabuse yourself of the notion that your beliefs are somehow more secure than theory.

When and if one questions the meaning of life, the number of his days, he hardy turns to algebraic quantum field theory for the answer.

Unfortunately, religion can't provide accurate/testable/secure answers, either.

Translation of your OP: "I'd rather have palatable imaginary answers spoonfed to me than acknowledge that I may never know the answers to some questions, or may have to make up my own."

1. See that, you did find something of interest in the OP.

2. "We actually have a fairly clear understanding of how the mind functions,..."

Sir John Maddox, editor emeritus of the foremost journal of science, Nature, wrote in a classic Time magazine essay, “How the brain manages to think is a conundrum with a millennial time scale. All animals have brains so as to be able to move about. Signals from the senses- eyes, ears, nostrils, or skin, as the case may be- send messages to the spinal cord, which moves the limbs appropriately. But thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined. The faculty of being conscious of what is going on in the head is an extra puzzle.” (“Thinking,” March 29, 1999, p. 206)

3. "I'd rather have palatable imaginary answers spoonfed to me ."

Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown, has written in “Finding Darwin's God,” that a belief in evolution is compatible with a belief in God.

Francis Sellers Collins , physician-geneticist, noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HG) has written a book about his Christian faith.

Then there was Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. (above from Wikipedia).

And Einstein: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Seems I'm in good company, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

well pasted

That response means that I'm more well-read than you, eh?

 

[Old Rocks]

Science concerns itself about observations and evidence concerning natural phenomona. It has nothing to say about the 'supernatural', is such actually exists.

As for the 'Great aching questions of Life' that is mosty emotional philosophic claptrap. We live and die, do the best we can for ourselves and those around us. Trying to find some Great Meaning in it All is about the same as a dog or cat trying to understand what we are doing when we are on the computer.

Enjoy life for what it is, note the beauty around you, live the day you are given, for tomorrow days may not be yours.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Science concerns itself about observations and evidence concerning natural phenomona. It has nothing to say about the 'supernatural', is such actually exists.

As for the 'Great aching questions of Life' that is mosty emotional philosophic claptrap. We live and die, do the best we can for ourselves and those around us. Trying to find some Great Meaning in it All is about the same as a dog or cat trying to understand what we are doing when we are on the computer.

Enjoy life for what it is, note the beauty around you, live the day you are given, for tomorrow days may not be yours.

Interesting post, Rocks.
What I like about it is how it highlights the dif in points of view. I don't mind you having this point of view, but it seems that lots of folks on your side are put out by those of us who have faith, who look for meaning in life, and of life.

Now, Berlinski comments on those scientists who beleive as you do, or who the WSJ has referred to as 'militant atheists,' and he has an interesting suggestion as to why this view has gained prominence today...

Now, get this: Could not the rise of militant atheism be a reaction, albeit a cautious- even a pusillanimous one, to the violence of Islamic religiosity?

An attempt to push back against this particular iteration of a religious viewpoint without being open to the very real possibility of physical attack?

Take on Christianity...which is open to attack, yet will not cut one's head off.

 

[hortysir]

Dawkins:


Evolution of the brain occurred over the three million years between our simian ancestors and the advent of Homo sapiens about a million years ago. The strangest feature of the process is that the capacity of the brain should far exceed the needs of mere survival. A further curiosity is that, once the brain was fully formed, the enormous differentiation of cultures occupied mere millennia, while only the twinkling of an evolutionary eye separates us from the earliest records of any civilization

 

[del]

well pasted

That response means that I'm more well-read than you, eh?

only on your home planet, sweetheart.

wherever that is

 

[LOki]

The following is from "The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions," by David Berlinski...

1. There are those who argue

--SNIPPED TO THE CRUX OF THE BISCUIT--​

4. No scientific theory touches on the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses. When and if one questions the meaning of life, the number of his days, he hardy turns to algebraic quantum field theory for the answer.

a. Prominent figures have hypothesized that we are merely cosmic accidents. Bertrand Russell, Jacques Monod, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins have said it is so…and it is an article of their faith based on the confidence of men convinced that nature has equipped them in ways the rest of us cannot bear to contemplate.
There is not the slightest reason to think that this is so.

Valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence available actually offers the "slightest reason to think" "that we are merely cosmic accidents." As unsatisfying and thin as such evidence may be, the conclusion drawn from it as such cannot be an article of faith.

OTOH, it IS an article of faith to assert some superstition as a valid alternative.

5. While science has nothing of value to say on the great and aching questions of life, death, love and meaning, what the religious traditions of mankind have said forms a coherent body of thought. It is a system of belief both adequate and more fitting to the complexities of our existence: recompense for suffering, principles beyond selfishness. Reassurance.
While I do not know if any of this is true, I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false.

I think the underlying point here is that the scientific community doesn't consider faith to be a valid source of conclusions, and as such doesn't concern itself with superstition.

 

[uscitizen]

well pasted

That response means that I'm more well-read than you, eh?

Just more pasted.

 

[mudwhistle]

Science concerns itself about observations and evidence concerning natural phenomona. It has nothing to say about the 'supernatural', is such actually exists.

As for the 'Great aching questions of Life' that is mosty emotional philosophic claptrap. We live and die, do the best we can for ourselves and those around us. Trying to find some Great Meaning in it All is about the same as a dog or cat trying to understand what we are doing when we are on the computer.

Enjoy life for what it is, note the beauty around you, live the day you are given, for tomorrow days may not be yours.

Interesting post, Rocks.
What I like about it is how it highlights the dif in points of view. I don't mind you having this point of view, but it seems that lots of folks on your side are put out by those of us who have faith, who look for meaning in life, and of life.

Now, Berlinski comments on those scientists who beleive as you do, or who the WSJ has referred to as 'militant atheists,' and he has an interesting suggestion as to why this view has gained prominence today...

Now, get this: Could not the rise of militant atheism be a reaction, albeit a cautious- even a pusillanimous one, to the violence of Islamic religiosity?

An attempt to push back against this particular iteration of a religious viewpoint without being open to the very real possibility of physical attack?

Take on Christianity...which is open to attack, yet will not cut one's head off.

Militant atheism is just a byproduct of runaway political correctness.

40 years ago some of the legal claims would result in the claimant being run out of town.

I don't agree with running someone out of town simply because of their beliefs, but I do get tired of some of the ridiculous hypocrisy on display by those who feel that Christians lack tolerance.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I believe my brain is still evolving. At least, at this point in time, I no longer drag my knuckles.

 

[editec]

Science seeks only to understand how the plumbing works.

Religion seeks to explain why it exists to begin with.

N'er the twains shall meet, I suspect.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The following is from "The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions," by David Berlinski...

1. There are those who argue

--SNIPPED TO THE CRUX OF THE BISCUIT--​

4. No scientific theory touches on the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses. When and if one questions the meaning of life, the number of his days, he hardy turns to algebraic quantum field theory for the answer.

a. Prominent figures have hypothesized that we are merely cosmic accidents. Bertrand Russell, Jacques Monod, Steven Weinberg, and Richard Dawkins have said it is so…and it is an article of their faith based on the confidence of men convinced that nature has equipped them in ways the rest of us cannot bear to contemplate.
There is not the slightest reason to think that this is so.

Valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence available actually offers the "slightest reason to think" "that we are merely cosmic accidents." As unsatisfying and thin as such evidence may be, the conclusion drawn from it as such cannot be an article of faith.

OTOH, it IS an article of faith to assert some superstition as a valid alternative.

5. While science has nothing of value to say on the great and aching questions of life, death, love and meaning, what the religious traditions of mankind have said forms a coherent body of thought. It is a system of belief both adequate and more fitting to the complexities of our existence: recompense for suffering, principles beyond selfishness. Reassurance.
While I do not know if any of this is true, I am certain that the scientific community does not know that it is false.

I think the underlying point here is that the scientific community doesn't consider faith to be a valid source of conclusions, and as such doesn't concern itself with superstition.

Of course, that is exactly what militant atheistic scientists would have you think...believe.

1. Physicist Victor Stengler writes: “Astronomical observations continue to demonstrate that the earth is no more significant than a single grain of sand on a vast beach.” The more science teaches us about the natural world, the less important the role human beings play in the grand scheme of things. (Berlinski)

Is that your perspective as well...that you are of no more moment than a grain of sand? If that is your evaluation of yourself, it certainly is different than my view.
But...who knows? You may be correct about yourself.

Science writer Tom Bethell notes, “an article of our secular faith that there is nothing exceptional about human life.” Thus, we can add this ‘atheism-article-of-faith’ to the others, materialism, and moral relativism, that form the Cliff-Notes of modern Left wing dogma.

2. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Amazing admission - Lewontin Quote

Now....what does that say about your drivel about superstition?
Kind of makes your post sound absurd, doesn't it.

a. What kind of absurdities? “The God gene hypothesis proposes that a specific gene (VMAT2) predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences. The idea has been postulated by geneticist Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, and author of the 2005 book The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes.” God gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Was there a gene for being gay? Anyone find it? Hypostheize it?
How about one for being a slave owner? No?
Why not?

Militant absurd atheism.

 

[Wiseacre]

I see no reason why science must be in opposition to religion. For those who do not believe in God, science is the means to try to explain how things work. For those who do, science is a way of explaining how God did it. Geez, why can't we just live and let live about stuff like this?

 

[uscitizen]

Science concerns itself about observations and evidence concerning natural phenomona. It has nothing to say about the 'supernatural', is such actually exists.

As for the 'Great aching questions of Life' that is mosty emotional philosophic claptrap. We live and die, do the best we can for ourselves and those around us. Trying to find some Great Meaning in it All is about the same as a dog or cat trying to understand what we are doing when we are on the computer.

Enjoy life for what it is, note the beauty around you, live the day you are given, for tomorrow days may not be yours.

Interesting post, Rocks.
What I like about it is how it highlights the dif in points of view. I don't mind you having this point of view, but it seems that lots of folks on your side are put out by those of us who have faith, who look for meaning in life, and of life.

Now, Berlinski comments on those scientists who beleive as you do, or who the WSJ has referred to as 'militant atheists,' and he has an interesting suggestion as to why this view has gained prominence today...

Now, get this: Could not the rise of militant atheism be a reaction, albeit a cautious- even a pusillanimous one, to the violence of Islamic religiosity?

An attempt to push back against this particular iteration of a religious viewpoint without being open to the very real possibility of physical attack?

Take on Christianity...which is open to attack, yet will not cut one's head off.

Militant atheism is just a byproduct of runaway political correctness.

40 years ago some of the legal claims would result in the claimant being run out of town.

I don't agree with running someone out of town simply because of their beliefs, but I do get tired of some of the ridiculous hypocrisy on display by those who feel that Christians lack tolerance.

Ohh the Christians tolerance is legendary.
My way or burn in eternal torment.