The Devil’s Delusion

[NLT]

well pasted

What a dick

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

Techy...I believe that you would find the Berlinski book interesting...

"In many ways, the issues raised by the existence of moral laws suggest a surprising connection between the laws of physics and the laws of morality. In both cases, questions arise very quickly as to the source of such laws and the reason for their truth.
We do not know why the laws of nature are true, even though we can sense that the question hides some sort of profound mystery."
Berlinski

 

[catzmeow]

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)

Big difference between what we knew in 1999 and 2011. Got anything better?

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.

Doesn't address my points: that religion's answers are no more certain than those of science.

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.

Relevance? Some scientists choose the comfort of faith. This is not a logical validation of faith's answers.

Seems I'm in good company, huh?

No. I think those people are much smarter and more creative than you are. They actually had thoughts. You have cut and paste.

 

[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.

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.

First, PC, I am not an atheist. An agnostic.

Christianity will not cut one's head off? The people in the southern states of our nation considered the KKK a Christian organization, and made lynching people of color a weekly celebration.

Those who have God on their side, who are 'hearing' the voice of God, seem capable of any atrocity in the name of God, no matter what the name is.

 

[Old Rocks]

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

I would never have guessed!

 

[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.

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.

I feel the same about militant athiesm as I feel about militant Christianity, or any other militant 'faith'. If you have to shove it down people's throats, it is because it does not have enough validity to stand on its own.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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?

And yet, there is the constant attack of militant atheists, such as Weinberg...

1. In 2007, physicists Steven Weinberg addressed the “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” conference. This Nobel Prize winner claimed “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” He was warmly applauded.

a. What was the religious provenance of poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, Zyklon B, heavy artillery, napalm, nuclear weapons?

2. Christopher Hitchens wrote…” God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything!”
Well, then how do with reconcile science with abortion, fetal stem-cell research, euthanasia, infanticide, cloning, animal-human hybrids, among the other ‘gifts’ of science, an ideology bereft of any sense of responsibility to human nature.

a. Sam Harris, in “Letters to a Christian Nation,” writes that “qualms” about stem-cell research are “obscene,” because they are “morally indefensible” because they represent mere “faith-based irrationality.” Can you say ‘slippery-slope’?

5. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients.
Would they do so based on their whim?

a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.” Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

b. "Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland?" [Berlinski]

 

[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.

First, PC, I am not an atheist. An agnostic.

Christianity will not cut one's head off? The people in the southern states of our nation considered the KKK a Christian organization, and made lynching people of color a weekly celebration.

Those who have God on their side, who are 'hearing' the voice of God, seem capable of any atrocity in the name of God, no matter what the name is.

The 20th century was hardly an age of faith...yet we find well over one hundred million slaughtered....
....which of these were religious leaders?
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot…

It is bigotry, Rocks, which links a belief in God with the the kind of things you mention.

 

[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?

And yet, there is the constant attack of militant atheists, such as Weinberg...

1. In 2007, physicists Steven Weinberg addressed the “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” conference. This Nobel Prize winner claimed “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” He was warmly applauded.

a. What was the religious provenance of poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, Zyklon B, heavy artillery, napalm, nuclear weapons?

2. Christopher Hitchens wrote…” God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything!”
Well, then how do with reconcile science with abortion, fetal stem-cell research, euthanasia, infanticide, cloning, animal-human hybrids, among the other ‘gifts’ of science, an ideology bereft of any sense of responsibility to human nature.

a. Sam Harris, in “Letters to a Christian Nation,” writes that “qualms” about stem-cell research are “obscene,” because they are “morally indefensible” because they represent mere “faith-based irrationality.” Can you say ‘slippery-slope’?

5. In 1984, Holland legalized euthanasia, the right of Dutch doctors to kill their elderly patients.
Would they do so based on their whim?

a. “The Dutch survey, reviewed in the Journal of Medical Ethics, looked at the figures for 1995 and found that as well as 3,600 authorized cases there were 900 others in which doctors had acted without explicit consent…. they thought they were acting in the patient's best interests.” Involuntary Euthanasia is Out of Control in Holland

b. "Euthanasia, as Dr. Peggy Norris observed with some asperity, "cannot be controlled." If this is so, why is Harris so sure that stem-cell research can be controlled? And if it cannot be controlled, just what is irrational about religious objections to social policies that when they reach the bottom of the slippery slope are bound to embody something Dutch, degraded, and disgusting? How many scientific atheists, I wonder, propose to spend their old age in Holland?" [Berlinski]

for good people to do bad things, it takes religion

I think most of the time religion is used as a pretext to do bad things for some other unrelated reason. Most religions preach peace and good will, do they not? Most call for proselityzing converts rather than outright murder, which is specifically outlawed.

And BTW, religion is also a reason why people do good things too. Many of our most cherished democratic ideals, such as equality before the law.

 

[InDoctriNation]

Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, etc. were motivated to kill by a fundamentalist adherence and religious devotion to a political ideology, not by their lack of belief in a deity (Hitler wasn't an atheist by the way, the Nazis believed that God was on their side). I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is, as it appears to be one argument from authority after another. You quote somebody in a position of some authority as saying that euthanasia cannot be controlled, and then automatically assume it as a factual statement, not simply an opinion. You're gonna have to do a little better than that.....you know, like make an argument in your own words if you are capable of doing so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

Well, yes and no. I'd say that most of the long-running mainstream ones do. I think it is also noticeable that those same religions agree with each other on an amazing number of points (usually not the supernatural-ish ones, but the way-to-live-your-life ones).

 

[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.

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.

Nope. Your quote-mining effort does not render my assertion that, "Valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence available still actually offers the "slightest reason to think" "that we are merely cosmic accidents", absurd.

And 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 STILL an article of faith to assert some superstition as a valid alternative.

AND ... what is actually absurd, is this notion of yours that scientists (or militant atheists even) must accept absurdities.

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

No scientist is compelled to accept this hypotheses. upon what valid basis do you support your claim that scientists (or militant atheists even) must accept this hypothesis?

Was there a gene for being gay? Anyone find it? Hypostheize it?

No scientist is compelled to accept this hypotheses. upon what valid basis do you support your claim that scientists (or militant atheists even) must accept this hypothesis?

How about one for being a slave owner? No?
Why not?

I would say that it's a fact of reality that scientists (or militant atheists even) DO NOT have to accept any absurdities what-so-ever.

Militant absurd atheism.

Yes. Well, OTOH, depending upon the specifics particular to a faith, the superstitious are in fact obligated to accept absurdities--they MUST accept them.

What kind of absurdities? Consider these as examples:

• If you step on a crack, you'll break your mother's back.
• There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
• When confronted by the disobedience of the beings He created in His own image, the ONLY solution available to this omniscient, omnipotent, and loving Creator was to cover the entire Earth with water, bringing ALL life to the brink of extinction, murdering infants as well as killing kittens and puppies in the process.

Absurdly retarded superstitions.

 

[G.T.]

Quoting people who believe the same as you do, whether they be scientists or not, doesn't reaffirm anything except that you lend too much credence to other fallible human beings.

I'll never understand why supposedly intelligent people get such reactions by saying such common sense or easy to surmise stuff, it's baffling. There are zero profound revelations in the OP's paste job.

There are zero profound revelations in any of the follow-up paste jobs.

In the end we're still left with: some people believe, some people don't, nobody knows who's right. Science has most definitely accounted for an abundance of answers about life that Religion never addressed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

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.

Nope. Your quote-mining effort does not render my assertion that, "Valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence available still actually offers the "slightest reason to think" "that we are merely cosmic accidents", absurd.

And 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 STILL an article of faith to assert some superstition as a valid alternative.

AND ... what is actually absurd, is this notion of yours that scientists (or militant atheists even) must accept absurdities.

No scientist is compelled to accept this hypotheses. upon what valid basis do you support your claim that scientists (or militant atheists even) must accept this hypothesis?

No scientist is compelled to accept this hypotheses. upon what valid basis do you support your claim that scientists (or militant atheists even) must accept this hypothesis?

How about one for being a slave owner? No?
Why not?

I would say that it's a fact of reality that scientists (or militant atheists even) DO NOT have to accept any absurdities what-so-ever.

Militant absurd atheism.

Yes. Well, OTOH, depending upon the specifics particular to a faith, the superstitious are in fact obligated to accept absurdities--they MUST accept them.

What kind of absurdities? Consider these as examples:

• If you step on a crack, you'll break your mother's back.
• There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
• When confronted by the disobedience of the beings He created in His own image, the ONLY solution available to this omniscient, omnipotent, and loving Creator was to cover the entire Earth with water, bringing ALL life to the brink of extinction, murdering infants as well as killing kittens and puppies in the process.

Absurdly retarded superstitions.

1. "No scientist is compelled to accept this hypotheses. upon what valid basis do you support your claim that scientists (or militant atheists even) must accept this hypothesis?"

I'm not the one responsible for the quote...a geneticist is. Did you miss this?

"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"

a. Quote-mining?
Richard Charles "Dick" Lewontin (born March 29, 1929) is an American evolutionary biologist, geneticist and social commentator. A leader in developing the mathematical basis of population genetics and evolutionary theory, he pioneered the application of techniques from molecular biology such as gel electrophoresis to questions of genetic variation and evolution.In a pair of 1966 papers co-authored with J.L. Hubby in the journal Genetics, Lewontin helped set the stage for the modern field of molecular evolution.
Richard Lewontin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Didn't have to search far for a major scientist admitting, as a scientist, that "one must accept absurdities."


2. "the superstitious are in fact obligated to accept absurdities."
Surely you know that there are aspects of science that are accepted in the scientific community...yet are propositions without a great deal of evidence.

Accepted, because the offer potential benefits.
The community of faith accepts propositions....in the area of 'supernatural' because these beliefs offer not potential, but existenteial benefits.
These include considerations of morality, good and evil, right and wrong, subjects which influence life, and about which science has nothing to say.

3. You have weakened your position with the following:
"What kind of absurdities? Consider these as examples:
If you step on a crack, you'll break your mother's back.
There's a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Absurdly retarded superstitions."

I know of no major religion that espouses the above. Do you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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)

Big difference between what we knew in 1999 and 2011. Got anything better?

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.

Doesn't address my points: that religion's answers are no more certain than those of science.

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.

Relevance? Some scientists choose the comfort of faith. This is not a logical validation of faith's answers.

Seems I'm in good company, huh?

No. I think those people are much smarter and more creative than you are. They actually had thoughts. You have cut and paste.

1. "Big difference between what we knew in 1999 and 2011."

I'm sure you have added a great deal of knowledge between '99 and 2011...
...you and the other "we."
So that I might better be able to address you, would you identify yourself as neuroscientist, neurologist, neurosurgeon, or psychiatrist in research, academic, or clinical setting?

Surely you wouldn't include yourself in the "we" if you didn't have specific insights in mind...

2. And, consistent with those insights and added knowledge, could you elucidate the answer to the point that Sir John Maddox made:
"...thinking involves the consideration of alternative responses, many of which have not been experienced but have been merely imagined."

You can explain that, can't you...
...or, are you merely a wind-bag?

3. "... that religion's answers are no more certain than those of science."
That is certainly acceptable...the point of the OP is very close to that statement.

This, from the OP:
"No scientific theory touches on the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses."

And, from post #7:
"science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. "

... it seems that you agree that both deserve equal footing, as you state
" no more certain than those of science"...just different areas of expertise.

4. "Some scientists choose the comfort of faith. This is not a logical validation of faith's answers."
You miss a very important point.
Science has no responsibility to mankind, no obligation to consider right and wrong in its design. This is not about comfort, but about considering limitations in the direction of science.

Militant atheist scientists expect humanity to be just fine without the morality that faith outlines.
What makes men good? Certainly they are not good by nature. In fact, frequently, the contrary. Does science have an opinion?
Well, "Perhaps," Richard Dawkins speculates, "I... am a Pollyanna to believe that people would remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God." Why should people remain good when unobserved and unpoliced by God? - Yahoo! Answers

I assume that you believe the same.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

I feel the same about militant athiesm as I feel about militant Christianity, or any other militant 'faith'. If you have to shove it down people's throats, it is because it does not have enough validity to stand on its own.

"... shove it down people's throats..."

An example of that, please.

 

[amrchaos]

I always thought that science was a philosophy about the natural world. It studies the physical existance of the universe and things that are contained in it.

Religion was a philosophy on how to live this life. It focus on man's well being, and living with other humans as well as provide concepts useful to establish justice, citizenship, societies and government and more.


This "war" that appears to exist between science and religion is mainly due to how early religions were established. In early times, before a person would convert to a religion, he would ask if the religion was "True" or "False". Was it sensible, in other words. The early theologians usually did not have an easy answer for this question, so they intuited a model of the world with a heirachy that positions man in it-- Or they copied an already existing model and repositioned man in it. The priests then convinced people that the world worked under their model and used it to justify their religions. (This, of course, results into a form of circular logic if one points out that the religion and the theological model are one and the same!)

Of course, the question of what is a "true" religion does not hinge on the properties of the physical universe, but whether or not the religion teaches an appropriate way of living.

Thus "Truth" regarding religion is quite different from "Truth" regarding science. Comparing the two will only lead to misunderstanding of what religion actually is and what science actually is.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

As a Physicist, I really hope you religious whackos can get Science declared a religion so, as a High Priest of the Science Religion, I can get the same SPECIAL tax privileges the other lesser religions get.

 

[catzmeow]

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

Well, yes and no. I'd say that most of the long-running mainstream ones do.

So, the idea that God created himself as a human so he could kill himself as an atonement for a human condition created by God so that God wouldn't feel the need to torture those humans forever seems coherent to you?

I guess if you have multiple personality disorder it might...

 

[catzmeow]

I'm sure you have added a great deal of knowledge between '99 and 2011...
...you and the other "we."
So that I might better be able to address you, would you identify yourself as neuroscientist, neurologist, neurosurgeon, or psychiatrist in research, academic, or clinical setting?

brain development research 2000-2011 - Google Scholar

Here you go. Happy reading! Apparently, at the PC household, science stopped in 1999.



Get back to me when you've done a little more research on the subject, because I really don't feel obligated to cover 12 years of research that you haven't done in this format.

ktkxbai.