If it were up to me, Dawkins and Tyson would be sent to live together on an island somewhere far, far away....
People who claim they have objective truth, whether they arrive at it from religious texts or a quasi-religious antitheism, are almost always best avoided.
Or to put it another way, just because you're offended doesn't mean you're right... and just because you're offensive also doesn't mean you're right.
Originally shared by David Strumfels
I love truth too (which doesn't mean I always possess it, of course); unfortunately, too many people love to be offended somehow and so those dedicated to truth have to run a gauntlet whenever they open their mouths.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/25/richard-dawkins-defends-ahmed-mohamed-comments_n_8194526.html?1443183545
Antitheism. Great word. Yes, I am an Antitheist. And a priest, at the same time. Nice. Thanks for sharing. It's really time for the atheist's religion.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, too many people who should know better equate a passion for the truth with an egotistical view that they have all the truth. Dawkins has made it clear otherwise in The Blind Watchmaker that "I may be wrong sometimes..." but that he cares deeply about the truth. It's this caring about truth so deeply that leads to people taking offense at some things he says, and today's society has an addiction to never being offended -- the left is particularly obsessed with this addiction, to its own discredit I hold.
ReplyDeleteI'd gladly go live on that island with them!
ReplyDeleteAtheist religion? What a perfect non sequitur.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the religious is that they use the taking of offense as a shield against dealing with reality. It does not matter whether you dislike a Dawkins, or a Harris, or a Tyson. What does matter is whether you can refute what they have to say with an evidence-based argument. If you cannot do that, I submit that some introspection is in order.
ReplyDeletePerhaps they are not the real problem.
"It's this caring about truth so deeply that leads to people taking offense at some things he says, "
ReplyDeleteOf course it could just be because he's actually not as clever as he thinks he is and is saying things which are many people can see are actually wrong and stupid. The being offended/offensive tells you exactly nothing about whether it's correct or not.
I cautiously agree with him on Tim Hunt, think he's barking mad about clock boy, and totally and utterly wacko on eugenics (a.k.a. aborting those with Down's syndrome because it would be immoral to let them live).
As for atheism not being a religion :
ReplyDeletehttp://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2015/01/the-unthinking-atheist.html
Rhys Taylor
ReplyDelete"he's actually not as clever as he thinks he is" is just ego bragging, for he is certainly light-years cleverer than his critics. As for atheism being a religion, name one positive article of faith you have to believe in to be one. Even its entymology makes its meaning clear. And whoever said they can't be unthinking? -- that evades the issue (something religious apologists always have to do.)
Rhys Taylor
ReplyDeleteGood article link. Now I know a new word: "Antitheist". Makes sense to me. There are many unthinking antitheists out there, unfortunately!
David Strumfels
ReplyDelete" for he is certainly light-years cleverer than his critics"
Expertise in one area is no guarantee of expertise in another. I wouldn't presume to doubt his abilities as a biologist, but that doesn't mean he's any cleverer in any other area. I don't find much of his anti-religion rhetoric to be all that clever (which is not to say I disagree with everything he says either).
Or, as Socrates put it :
"Last of all I turned to the skilled craftsmen. I knew quite well that I had practically no technical qualifications myself, and I was sure that I should find them full of impressive knowledge. In this I was not disappointed. They understood things which I did not, and to that extent they were wiser than I was. But, gentlemen, these professional experts seemed to share the same failing which I had noticed in the poets. I mean that on the strength of their technical proficiency they claimed a perfect understanding of every other subject, however important, and I felt that this error more than outweighed their positive wisdom. So I made myself spokesman for the oracle, and asked myself whether I would rather be as I was - neither wise with their wisdom nor stupid with their stupidity - or possess both qualities as they did. I replied through myself to the oracle that it was best for me to be as I was."
I am not sure if you read the article or skimmed it, but I would encourage you to do so. I stress over and over again that it is not most atheists that are religious, just the small subset who are absolutely "certain" that deities don't exist. That's your positive article of faith right there. Belief that deities do not exist is different from a lack of belief in deities.
"whoever said they can't be unthinking?"
In a way, they did - see article. That particular subset to which I refer are so "certain" that they are right that they cannot even acknowledge when they are refusing to consider alternative viewpoints.
" -- that evades the issue"
No, it is the issue. The antitheists claim that the religious are guilty of blind faith; IMHO they themselves are equally guilty of this.
Certainly, a memeologist of his calibre wouldn't suppose words were created in immutable forms at the beginning of language?
ReplyDeleteRhys Taylor When someone looks for something, and it's not there, it's not a belief the something is not there. It is a fact that it is not there. This is not blind faith. Claiming "blind faith" would imply you never looked!
ReplyDeleteUnder the definitions I see above, everything is a belief.
I would be happy to believe in Gods (and fairies) . I just need just have one come down from Valhalla and show me, repeatedly. But they have been looked for, with carefully controlled experiments, from the smallest to the largest scales of the universe, millions of times, and have yet to show up. It is quite reasonable to conclude they do not exist. This is not a belief. Its a fact.
Fred Beckhusen I would also advise you to read the article linked above. I know it's very long, but if I make it any shorter I'd have to cut out important points.
ReplyDelete"When someone looks for something, and it's not there, it's not a belief the something is not there. It is a fact that it is not there."
I lost my glasses once. I looked everywhere, all over the house, every place I thought they could possibly be. I never found them (true story). But they definitely did exist. Obviously they must be somewhere I haven't looked, though God knows where that could be...
This is of course the classic "you can't prove a negative". And as I say in the article, that's a perfectly reasonable point of view. I don't know how many times I have to emphasise this, but I am NOT, repeat, NOT saying that all atheists are religious or have a blind faith. I merely contend that there is a small subset of atheists : antitheists, who would not believe in God under any circumstances, and more importantly, refuse to believe that religion has ever done anything good no matter what evidence is presented before them.
"Reasonable conclusion" is completely different from "fact" IMHO.
You can't prove unicorns don't exist, either. Or hydrogen clouds know you are looking at them. Both are not something to base conclusions on on. You conceded a fact that your glasses were not in any place you looked. You should stop there, and not conclude the unbelievable assertion that God knows where. Obviously they exist somewhere else without a God knowing, and it should be equally obvious that the flying spaghetti monster knows as much about where they are as your God does.
ReplyDeleteFred Beckhusen The "God knows where" was facetious, I am an agnostic. And I did say they must exist somewhere else.
ReplyDeleteWe need a new font to express sarcasm.:-)
ReplyDeleteWell, amen to that ! :D
ReplyDelete