Great, now the hosts are breaking Godwin’s law. Good work.
Andrew, look, for every analogy or tale of the evil's of religion, someone can find a counter. Same with science. Science also lead to the bombing of Japan at the end of WWII. Science is an empty vessel, and can be a dangerous weapon without some sense of morality to guide it. Religion can also be twisted to justify horrible things.
And this is the point. Religion, science, all of these aspects of what it means to be human...they mean nothing until humans guide them forward. They have power to do great good or great evil.
And by the way, that wasn't really breaking Godwin's Law. I wasn't using a Nazi analogy. I was pointing to an example of science being used to do harm. I wasn't likening someone to Nazi's--certainly not evolutionists. I am an evolutionist.
This is a blog that accepts all viewpoints and we're not against passionate debate, but you're entering territories that cross the bounds of civil debate. Your opinions are welcome, but your outlandish accusations and personal attacks are not. Think of this as your one and only warning to stick to our policy.
Since when did elitist become such a dirty word, anyways? And why solely in the realm of politics? I don't refer to a good doctor or a smart professor as elitists in order to call them out in some way.
Andrew, the Nazis used Darwinian theory to promote their pure race ideology and "science" and science itself is a tool that can be used for good or ill, much like religion.
The Discovery Institute is a fringe organization and in no way represents the vast majority of modern Christians. Once again, matoko, you paint in the broadest of strokes, eschew evidence in favor of your own bloated opinions, and fail to see the larger picture because you have such a very set vision of how you perceive things to be.
"Expelled" was an idiotic "documentary" and Derbyshire's critique of it was spot-on. That said, most of the Christians I know (I think ALL of the Christians I know) believe in evolution and do not want to see creationism taught in school.
Elizabeth, you may be right. I agree, it must be frustrating on a certain level...though at the same time, I think it should be viewed more as an opportunity than as something to be bitter over. Every expansion of media technology has lead to a wider potential dispersion of media and commentary, from the printing press to cable news to the blogosphere. And yes, each generation takes that new medium for granted....
Thanks. You're right, and I may have been a little too sarcastic...
So what's the point? So people believe things that have consequence. Everything has consequence. Stalin was an atheist, right? Was it his belief in power and his lack of faith in a power higher than himself that lead to his madness and murder? I don't know. Belief or lack thereof has consequence, and to each individual or situation that changes. Who says that belief in God is any more detrimental than the loss of that belief? We are in muddy waters assigning such certainties to such unquantifiable data. I am vehemently opposed to teaching creationism in school, but far more opposed to the idea that somehow we need to snuff out that viewpoint. There is such thing as the rule of law, and our particular laws should protect us from creationism, and protect our church's as well from the secularism of the State.
No, of course I have no proof of that, Bob. I do believe that such a book is a form of shock-literature, though. And of course it has sold far more copies than any of his previous works, which is fine. I just don't think it's the most intellectually honest pursuit Dawkins has undertaken.
But similarly, science demeans itself when it used as a proof of the non-existence of god. Science is not meant to provide unfalsifiable answers, nor is it intended to answer questions that can only admit of unfalsifiable answers. To do so is to turn the scientific method on its head. And in so doing, science demeans itself because it loses part of its very essence.
...is brilliant. Indeed, I often feel the same when religious types try to push religion overtly into legislation, that it demeans Faith. Same with science in the context you use here.
And to the rest of you, nobody here is preaching anything other than there is no point in proving or disproving God's existence. I don't see any of these posts as apologetics for Christianity or the Christian God at all. Maybe I'm missing something. It's funny though, the one thing that seems to bother people the most is proselytizing by the religious on the non-believers. This, I too feel is a problem. And yet, when atheists do it, you jump to their defense with as flimsy a rebuttal as "Well you do it too!" or "You did it first!"
And no, I certainly don't speak for most theists on this matter. I speak only for myself. And I disagree with other religious types as often as I do with atheists. In fact, this is really more a matter of debating against the wrong questions, not the wrong ideas.
Interesting point Bob. I think that by strong executive I was referring more to the expanded boundaries of Presidential power, not the strength of the man in office. As exhibited by our last President, even a very weak man can make great strides in expanding the role of the executive office.
James, very good points on snark. Indeed, it is merely a rhetorical device and as with all rhetorical devices, it serves its purpose. When in Rome....
Bob, I know. Christianity has drifted a teeny, tiny bit from its original stated purpose. That there are even things like the Prosperity Gospel sends shivers through my soul. Am I being too harsh to Dawkins et al with that quote? I don't mean to lambaste their body of work, just the work that tries to proselytize atheism. I'm an anti-missionary, no matter the faith.
James Williams--The text I was referring to specifically of Dawkins' was "The God Delusion" which does, indeed, attempt to disprove God. I know he's written about biology already, which is exactly why I recommend he do so again. It is of a far finer vintage than his atheism-peddling. Show, don't tell.
sidereal--exactly. That's the nail. I see you've hit it directly on the head.
Good points, Bob. However, I do sum up Dawkins's arguments in my second paragraph, I think? The point being, it's fine to make money, but the effort here is so entirely pointless that the minds of these authors, be they Hitchens, Harris, or Dawkins, et al could all be used to much greater effect arguing or discussing worthwhile topics. As in, not merely atheism for atheism's sake, or to pounce on religious people or religion, but to discuss perhaps the wonderful world of science, history, and so forth. The reason I harp on their money-making is that this can be the only explanation to write this sort of pointless screed. It's not an intellectual pursuit at all, because the intellectual ends of each of their pieces are so hollow and meaningless. I'd go off on Warren or the other faux-Christian writers (and yes, I'm sorry, but the purpose of Christianity is not to build wealth but to live simply and good and with as little as possible) but that's not the topic at hand. Still, food for thought. My words for the televangelists and the Rick Warrens of the world would be far, far more harsh than my words for the Atheist Joy Luck Club, you can be sure.
I'm not in any way trying to bash atheism or atheists, and I agree that most atheists, like most conservatives, are not of the Dawkins or Coulter variety. Thanks for your thoughts...
McCain thinks we're vain because we make use of modern technology to publish our thoughts. Good lord. Did you know, back in my day before the printing press we had to shout our thoughts from atop a large boulder! Now you damned vainglorious youngsters can actually participate in the conversation! And you don't even have to walk seven miles through the snow to do it...
You damn kids should be working in, er, journalism with all those great journalism jobs being created each year....because 2009 is just exactly the same as previous pre-internet decades when people actually still read newspapers.
Ah, I think there is the makings of a debate over the merits of populism in this site's future. Suffice to say, my view is that populism in this nation was born with Andrew Jackson. It lead directly to the advent of an extremely powerful Presidency, and has been the cause of basically our country's warlike nature ever since. More on that, though...
One difference is that while politics can be tried and tested, and parody or satire can be an effective political tool, faith or non-faith or whatever you'd like to call it, is in the end unprovable. Now when we enter into the realm of politics and religion--Sullivan's Christianism etc etc--than those same tools become effective again. Voltaire was as often as not lampooning the powers behind religion, and often he fell into the same trap that many of today's atheist's for hire fall into (or the religious when they attack atheists): there is simply no end to this debate. It is pointless in the extreme. Faith or the lack thereof is simply circumstantial, and people aren't often convinced one way or another save through life experiences.
Exactly right, both of you. It's little more than a political tactic to create an "us and them" mentality and rally said Middle America against Dems and anti-Palin conservatives. Ironically, few of the policies set forth by the RS McCain's of the world and the Bill Kristols et al are populist in nature. I don't have a problem with that, as I'm pretty sure populism has gotten us into more trouble than good. It's the farce that bothers me, the sneaky under-handed way they use people and don't just come out and say what they mean.
Good points, all. I think there are times for polite debate and times for snarky debate. Usually when you're up against the unstoppable force of extreme stupidity a bit of snark can go a long ways...
I'd say there's a strong link between decline in religion and State sponsorship of Religion--i.e. the Church of England. Also Europe has a historical tie to religious conflict that America doesn't have. Our wars have been largely secular ones.
The GOP is in for some rough times, to be sure, matako. But no religion? Are you kidding? See it's statements like those that do your sensible comments an injustice...
Thanks, Chris. I remember that game, too, though I was just a boy at the time. This was our first real shot at greatness, and even though we lost, hot-damn what a game!
Regarding Hawkins et al my final take on the matter is they're all just out branding themselves and selling books. That's their right, of course, and I'm sure it makes them all lots of money. But like the religious folk I admire, I admire the quiet, thoughtful, and respectful non-believers the most.
On “Falsifying the Unfalsifiable”
Andrew, look, for every analogy or tale of the evil's of religion, someone can find a counter. Same with science. Science also lead to the bombing of Japan at the end of WWII. Science is an empty vessel, and can be a dangerous weapon without some sense of morality to guide it. Religion can also be twisted to justify horrible things.
And this is the point. Religion, science, all of these aspects of what it means to be human...they mean nothing until humans guide them forward. They have power to do great good or great evil.
And by the way, that wasn't really breaking Godwin's Law. I wasn't using a Nazi analogy. I was pointing to an example of science being used to do harm. I wasn't likening someone to Nazi's--certainly not evolutionists. I am an evolutionist.
"
matako:
We have a commenting policy which you would do well to adhere to.
This is a blog that accepts all viewpoints and we're not against passionate debate, but you're entering territories that cross the bounds of civil debate. Your opinions are welcome, but your outlandish accusations and personal attacks are not. Think of this as your one and only warning to stick to our policy.
Thanks.
On “eating my vegetables”
Since when did elitist become such a dirty word, anyways? And why solely in the realm of politics? I don't refer to a good doctor or a smart professor as elitists in order to call them out in some way.
On “Falsifying the Unfalsifiable”
Andrew, the Nazis used Darwinian theory to promote their pure race ideology and "science" and science itself is a tool that can be used for good or ill, much like religion.
"
The Discovery Institute is a fringe organization and in no way represents the vast majority of modern Christians. Once again, matoko, you paint in the broadest of strokes, eschew evidence in favor of your own bloated opinions, and fail to see the larger picture because you have such a very set vision of how you perceive things to be.
"
"Expelled" was an idiotic "documentary" and Derbyshire's critique of it was spot-on. That said, most of the Christians I know (I think ALL of the Christians I know) believe in evolution and do not want to see creationism taught in school.
On “eating my vegetables”
Elizabeth, you may be right. I agree, it must be frustrating on a certain level...though at the same time, I think it should be viewed more as an opportunity than as something to be bitter over. Every expansion of media technology has lead to a wider potential dispersion of media and commentary, from the printing press to cable news to the blogosphere. And yes, each generation takes that new medium for granted....
Thanks. You're right, and I may have been a little too sarcastic...
On “Falsifying the Unfalsifiable”
Andrew,
So what's the point? So people believe things that have consequence. Everything has consequence. Stalin was an atheist, right? Was it his belief in power and his lack of faith in a power higher than himself that lead to his madness and murder? I don't know. Belief or lack thereof has consequence, and to each individual or situation that changes. Who says that belief in God is any more detrimental than the loss of that belief? We are in muddy waters assigning such certainties to such unquantifiable data. I am vehemently opposed to teaching creationism in school, but far more opposed to the idea that somehow we need to snuff out that viewpoint. There is such thing as the rule of law, and our particular laws should protect us from creationism, and protect our church's as well from the secularism of the State.
On “Tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury…”
No, of course I have no proof of that, Bob. I do believe that such a book is a form of shock-literature, though. And of course it has sold far more copies than any of his previous works, which is fine. I just don't think it's the most intellectually honest pursuit Dawkins has undertaken.
On “Falsifying the Unfalsifiable”
Mark, this:
...is brilliant. Indeed, I often feel the same when religious types try to push religion overtly into legislation, that it demeans Faith. Same with science in the context you use here.
And to the rest of you, nobody here is preaching anything other than there is no point in proving or disproving God's existence. I don't see any of these posts as apologetics for Christianity or the Christian God at all. Maybe I'm missing something. It's funny though, the one thing that seems to bother people the most is proselytizing by the religious on the non-believers. This, I too feel is a problem. And yet, when atheists do it, you jump to their defense with as flimsy a rebuttal as "Well you do it too!" or "You did it first!"
And no, I certainly don't speak for most theists on this matter. I speak only for myself. And I disagree with other religious types as often as I do with atheists. In fact, this is really more a matter of debating against the wrong questions, not the wrong ideas.
Believe and let believe. Or not believe.
On “In defense of snark”
Interesting point Bob. I think that by strong executive I was referring more to the expanded boundaries of Presidential power, not the strength of the man in office. As exhibited by our last President, even a very weak man can make great strides in expanding the role of the executive office.
James, very good points on snark. Indeed, it is merely a rhetorical device and as with all rhetorical devices, it serves its purpose. When in Rome....
On “Tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury…”
Okay, in reverse order:
Bob, I know. Christianity has drifted a teeny, tiny bit from its original stated purpose. That there are even things like the Prosperity Gospel sends shivers through my soul. Am I being too harsh to Dawkins et al with that quote? I don't mean to lambaste their body of work, just the work that tries to proselytize atheism. I'm an anti-missionary, no matter the faith.
James Williams--The text I was referring to specifically of Dawkins' was "The God Delusion" which does, indeed, attempt to disprove God. I know he's written about biology already, which is exactly why I recommend he do so again. It is of a far finer vintage than his atheism-peddling. Show, don't tell.
sidereal--exactly. That's the nail. I see you've hit it directly on the head.
"
Good points, Bob. However, I do sum up Dawkins's arguments in my second paragraph, I think? The point being, it's fine to make money, but the effort here is so entirely pointless that the minds of these authors, be they Hitchens, Harris, or Dawkins, et al could all be used to much greater effect arguing or discussing worthwhile topics. As in, not merely atheism for atheism's sake, or to pounce on religious people or religion, but to discuss perhaps the wonderful world of science, history, and so forth. The reason I harp on their money-making is that this can be the only explanation to write this sort of pointless screed. It's not an intellectual pursuit at all, because the intellectual ends of each of their pieces are so hollow and meaningless. I'd go off on Warren or the other faux-Christian writers (and yes, I'm sorry, but the purpose of Christianity is not to build wealth but to live simply and good and with as little as possible) but that's not the topic at hand. Still, food for thought. My words for the televangelists and the Rick Warrens of the world would be far, far more harsh than my words for the Atheist Joy Luck Club, you can be sure.
"
I'm not in any way trying to bash atheism or atheists, and I agree that most atheists, like most conservatives, are not of the Dawkins or Coulter variety. Thanks for your thoughts...
On “eating my vegetables”
McCain thinks we're vain because we make use of modern technology to publish our thoughts. Good lord. Did you know, back in my day before the printing press we had to shout our thoughts from atop a large boulder! Now you damned vainglorious youngsters can actually participate in the conversation! And you don't even have to walk seven miles through the snow to do it...
You damn kids should be working in, er, journalism with all those great journalism jobs being created each year....because 2009 is just exactly the same as previous pre-internet decades when people actually still read newspapers.
On “In defense of snark”
Ah, I think there is the makings of a debate over the merits of populism in this site's future. Suffice to say, my view is that populism in this nation was born with Andrew Jackson. It lead directly to the advent of an extremely powerful Presidency, and has been the cause of basically our country's warlike nature ever since. More on that, though...
On “atheism and monsters”
One difference is that while politics can be tried and tested, and parody or satire can be an effective political tool, faith or non-faith or whatever you'd like to call it, is in the end unprovable. Now when we enter into the realm of politics and religion--Sullivan's Christianism etc etc--than those same tools become effective again. Voltaire was as often as not lampooning the powers behind religion, and often he fell into the same trap that many of today's atheist's for hire fall into (or the religious when they attack atheists): there is simply no end to this debate. It is pointless in the extreme. Faith or the lack thereof is simply circumstantial, and people aren't often convinced one way or another save through life experiences.
On “In defense of snark”
Exactly right, both of you. It's little more than a political tactic to create an "us and them" mentality and rally said Middle America against Dems and anti-Palin conservatives. Ironically, few of the policies set forth by the RS McCain's of the world and the Bill Kristols et al are populist in nature. I don't have a problem with that, as I'm pretty sure populism has gotten us into more trouble than good. It's the farce that bothers me, the sneaky under-handed way they use people and don't just come out and say what they mean.
"
Good points, all. I think there are times for polite debate and times for snarky debate. Usually when you're up against the unstoppable force of extreme stupidity a bit of snark can go a long ways...
On “Casino Politics”
I'd say there's a strong link between decline in religion and State sponsorship of Religion--i.e. the Church of England. Also Europe has a historical tie to religious conflict that America doesn't have. Our wars have been largely secular ones.
On “Good show Cardinals…”
Yeah, it was a damn good game regardless of the outcome. Damn good.
On “Casino Politics”
The GOP is in for some rough times, to be sure, matako. But no religion? Are you kidding? See it's statements like those that do your sensible comments an injustice...
On “Good show Cardinals…”
Thanks, Chris. I remember that game, too, though I was just a boy at the time. This was our first real shot at greatness, and even though we lost, hot-damn what a game!
On “atheism and monsters”
Bob, of course. We all cross the line at times.
Regarding Hawkins et al my final take on the matter is they're all just out branding themselves and selling books. That's their right, of course, and I'm sure it makes them all lots of money. But like the religious folk I admire, I admire the quiet, thoughtful, and respectful non-believers the most.
"
Bob, I deleted your post because you crossed the line. We have a commenting policy, and you need to stick to it.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.