I'm pretty sure the average person doesn't actually know of string theory's existence well enough to either believe or disbelieve in it.
Both of which would be retarded perspectives, since we have no evidence either way for it that isn't dealt with equally well by competing hypotheses (which is what it should be called: the string hypothesis). An example would be loop quantum gravity, for those interested.
Hang on, let me make up some "God Loves Global Lorentz Invariance" protest signs...
I get where people are coming from with the whole "Science/Math is a Religion" angle, but it seems incredibly stupid to me. Science and math get religionized when people treat them as mystical black boxes from whence emerge iPhones and trips to the moon. It's like saying that areospace engineering is a religion because, duh, cargo cults. With the exception of people too wrapped up in untestable hypotheses to back down without loss of face, science and math aren't religions for the people actually engaged in knowing shit about them.
The string hypothesis is hardly untestable, just not testable at current limits of instrumentation, for its current predictions. It is hardly a fully explored hypothesis, so people are constantly formulating it's various ramifications to try and find a large enough effect that it can explain conclusively that other hypotheses cannot. The same goes for other theories.
As far as I know, no one refuses to admit defeat when the evidence goes against them. The point is, no evidence has gone against anyone.
Well, 'untestable using current examples of the hypothesis and currently available instruments' pretty well satisfied my definition of 'untestable'. And I was referring to a few physicists who will argue themselves blue in the face that one or another brand of unified theory is Absolutely, Incontrovertibly [True/False] at the drop of a hat. I knew a relativistic astrophysicist whose hatred of supersymmetry was the stuff of legends despite that his competing idea (something or other involving vortices in a time-space superfluid) had an equal lack of experimental support. We had a colloquium that mentioned the LHC and the Higgs in passing. This guy stood up and started holding forth at full volume about how if they found the Higgs he would eat his own pants.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Would you go around saying that to people you meet if they asked you your beliefs? No I wouldn't think so. No sane person would. Besides, one cannot possibly know all the religions out there, therefore, again, Agnostic. Christians try to convert non-believers. Atheists try to convert agnostics. I'm not sure which is worse.
As far as a Christian is concerned—a Christian who believes in Yahweh, the god described in the Old Testament, who magically had a son by impregnating a virgin, a son who is himself and magically rose from the dead—your beliefs are basically indistinguishable from my beliefs as an atheist.
The difference between you as an "agnostic" and me as an "atheist," with respect to the Christianity and Islam and Hinduism believed by billions of people, is infinitesmal.
I think just calling yourself an atheist would get the point across better, which is after all the goal of communication and words.
I thought if you can simply say, "I dunno," then you're an agnostic
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I used to be agnostic thinking that believing in the absence of a creative force was still a form of belief.
Today I'd still say that while what we understand of the universe is a fraction of a pinprick, the concept of a sentient creative force seems like a sentimental and subjectively conditioned idea. So I guess I just used to call my atheism agnosticism.
Sam on
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
I used to be agnostic thinking that believing in the absence of a creative force was still a form of belief.
Today I'd still say that while what we understand of the universe is a fraction of a pinprick, the concept of a sentient creative force seems like a sentimental and subjectively conditioned idea. So I guess I just used to call my atheism agnosticism.
I used to call myself atheist, but then that usually result in 3 hours of debating.
Now I just call myself 'Secular Humanist', get a strange look, and go on with my life.
Casually Hardcore on
0
Options
ZampanovYou May Not Go HomeUntil Tonight Has Been MagicalRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
I usually just tell people what I think and let them categorize me if they want. I don't really see a need for me to categorize myself. I guess technically I'm agnostic right now? Basically I like to think/talk about what the afterlife might be, but pretending to know just seems pointless. Why build your life around attempting to ruin the surprise? Everyone gets to find out eventually.
You know, the nice thing about discussing religion with agnostics and atheists is that they don't get offended when you ask deep questions and offer strong criticism about why they believe what they believe.
With religious people though, it seems that half of them get offended at the very notion of a reasonable debate about religion, and the other half get offended as soon as you make any kind of criticism at all. There's like 1 or 2% that just don't care and are happy to debate you. I enjoy that 1 or 2%.
You know, the nice thing about discussing religion with agnostics and atheists is that they don't get offended when you ask deep questions and offer strong criticism about why they believe what they believe.
With religious people though, it seems that half of them get offended at the very notion of a reasonable debate about religion, and the other half get offended as soon as you make any kind of criticism at all. There's like 1 or 2% that just don't care and are happy to debate you. I enjoy that 1 or 2%.
I'd say that both sides get pretty offended when you ask deep questions and offer strong criticism. Perhaps religious folk are more prone to it, but I'd say at least the majority of atheists and agnostics throw get pissy when you don't accept their axioms.
You know, the nice thing about discussing religion with agnostics and atheists is that they don't get offended when you ask deep questions and offer strong criticism about why they believe what they believe.
With religious people though, it seems that half of them get offended at the very notion of a reasonable debate about religion, and the other half get offended as soon as you make any kind of criticism at all. There's like 1 or 2% that just don't care and are happy to debate you. I enjoy that 1 or 2%.
I'd say that both sides get pretty offended when you ask deep questions and offer strong criticism. Perhaps religious folk are more prone to it, but I'd say at least the majority of atheists and agnostics throw get pissy when you don't accept their axioms.
That doesn't make any sense, annoyed perhaps, but why would I be offended if you asked me whether or not I believed in the dark overlord Sauron or Voltron?
override367 on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
But Podly, who could possibly find some of your comments about Heideggerian ontotheology anything other than perfectly clear?!
I dunno, surrealitycheck, but somehow they do! It is baffling!
@override367: I was responding to the ambiguous "deep questions" part. I would wager that, yes, when it comes to religious issues, atheists/agnostics would probably not be as sensitive with the issue.
You know, the nice thing about discussing religion with agnostics and atheists is that they don't get offended when you ask deep questions and offer strong criticism about why they believe what they believe.
With religious people though, it seems that half of them get offended at the very notion of a reasonable debate about religion, and the other half get offended as soon as you make any kind of criticism at all. There's like 1 or 2% that just don't care and are happy to debate you. I enjoy that 1 or 2%.
You hang out with some mellow people. I'd say the people that generally tend to identify vocally with "athiest" are made up of about half of people who are damn pissed off that anyone believes in God and are super hostile to anyone that doesn't agree with them.
Anecdotal evidence and all that, but I don't think that being religious or being non-religious makes you any more willing to consider that the way you look at the world is wrong.
LoserForHireX on
"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to give into it." - Oscar Wilde
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
You know, the nice thing about discussing religion with agnostics and atheists is that they don't get offended when you ask deep questions and offer strong criticism about why they believe what they believe.
Incorrect, the people at rationalskepticism.org are often (though not always, and not all) major toolbags.
You know, the nice thing about discussing religion with agnostics and atheists is that they don't get offended when you ask deep questions and offer strong criticism about why they believe what they believe.
With religious people though, it seems that half of them get offended at the very notion of a reasonable debate about religion, and the other half get offended as soon as you make any kind of criticism at all. There's like 1 or 2% that just don't care and are happy to debate you. I enjoy that 1 or 2%.
You hang out with some mellow people. I'd say the people that generally tend to identify vocally with "athiest" are made up of about half of people who are damn pissed off that anyone believes in God and are super hostile to anyone that doesn't agree with them.
Anecdotal evidence and all that, but I don't think that being religious or being non-religious makes you any more willing to consider that the way you look at the world is wrong.
Really?
You do realize that a conservative Christian believes that non-belief in God means you most likely go to hell, right? When a Christian engages in religious dialogue with a non-believer and the non-believer gives some kind of criticism, it's like he's tempting the Christian to go down a path that leads straight to eternal hell.
In fact, Christianity is often set up to protect you from reviewing that the way you look at the world, I would say.
I identify as agnostic atheist or secular humanist because it makes people realise I'm not all DEFINITELY NO GOD NOPE CASE CLOSED I WILL FIGHT YOU IF YOU SAY OTHERWISE or 'well I don't know there might be and there probably is but maybe not because...'
As I noted at the beginning of this thread, I identify as "agnostic theist".
And Melkster, I'll revise my earlier comment: I think the aggressive, impolitic attitude that more secular individuals take on when talking about religion is similar in appearance, but (likely) very different in cause and specific claims made.
There is, on "both sides" (I use this phrase for expediency, not for any kind of accuracy), an unwillingness or inability to entertain certain breeds of opposing ideas, but I think, again, that it's simply a surface similarity, the guts, the inner workings of the positions are radically different. Comparisons on a few specific leves are appropriate, but I think that you are correct, there's something else at work underneath.
I "identify" rarely if ever. If I'm called out on the subject of religion and can't weasel my way out of giving a straight answer, I call myself a pantheist, explain what that means, and hope nobody thinks overly hard about it.
My close friends all know I'm an atheist, but Jesus Christ, you'd have to be some kind of God-damned lunatic to advertise such a socially polarized position here in God's Country, 'murrica. Of course I believe Jesus Christ was a man if he existed at all and the fiercest damnations that God can muster amount to no more than the hot air of the preacher who pronounces them, but I'm not about to proclaim the good word to my employers, my professors, and local law enforcement.
Curious, isn't it, that my temerity knows no bounds here on the Internet, but I clam up the second a Christian with power over me is listening? Must be my irrational paranoia, because there couldn't possibly be any reason to fear right-thinking, moral Christians.
And I'm not posting from the fucking bible belt, here. I've lived in CA, PA, ID, and now OR, all in relatively liberal places, and always I've come to the conclusion that while it's safe to discuss religion honestly with a few friends, it absolutely is not worth losing your job (or attracting the evangelical attention of a coworker who will proceed to bury you in leaflets) when it's just so easy to conjure a white lie about the UU or some other phantom religious affiliation. Claiming pantheism isn't even a lie, and it has worked (for me) like a fucking charm.
Yeah, I actually prefer to talk about my beliefs rather than just throw out a couple of labels.
Loren Michael on
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
i just call myself atheist because my country isn't so dumb about religion. (well, most people aren't that dumb about it, still enough crazies though.)
"I don't get down with that supernatural stuff" is my standard line. The term is vague enough that people can think what they want, but it accurately conveys my actual beliefs.
And I'm not posting from the fucking bible belt, here. I've lived in CA, PA, ID, and now OR, all in relatively liberal places, and always I've come to the conclusion that while it's safe to discuss religion honestly with a few friends, it absolutely is not worth losing your job (or attracting the evangelical attention of a coworker who will proceed to bury you in leaflets) when it's just so easy to conjure a white lie about the UU or some other phantom religious affiliation. Claiming pantheism isn't even a lie, and it has worked (for me) like a fucking charm.
Mmmm, what I wouldn't give for an evangelical coworker who would try to bury me in leaflets.
Claiming pantheism isn't even a lie, and it has worked (for me) like a fucking charm.
i.e. you believe in all Gods equally, which is to say not at all? Sneaky, I approve. I'm surprised it doesn't end with people giving you shit, though.
I don't think that's pantheism that you're thinking of.
Yeah, what I'm talking about here is the claim that the phenomenal universe is God. So I'm not really saying that I believe in God; I'm saying that I believe in the Universe. Of course, there's some added "spiritual" (though this really is compatible with a positivist, materialist, or physicalist worldview, whichever labels you prefer) significance there that I wouldn't expect every atheist to agree with me on, but I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to the incessant claim by theists that there is a moral hazard in failing to acknowledge "something greater than oneself."
Some of the ill-considered adolescent atheism out there leads to a sort of solipsism/egoism/nihilism that I find extremely distasteful, and I think these kids would do well to read some Carl Sagan.
Claiming pantheism isn't even a lie, and it has worked (for me) like a fucking charm.
i.e. you believe in all Gods equally, which is to say not at all? Sneaky, I approve. I'm surprised it doesn't end with people giving you shit, though.
I don't think that's pantheism that you're thinking of.
Yeah, what I'm talking about here is the claim that the phenomenal universe is God. So I'm not really saying that I believe in God; I'm saying that I believe in the Universe. Of course, there's some added "spiritual" (though this really is compatible with a positivist, materialist, or physicalist worldview, whichever labels you prefer) significance there that I wouldn't expect every atheist to agree with me on, but I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to the incessant claim by theists that there is a moral hazard in failing to acknowledge "something greater than oneself."
Some of the ill-considered adolescent atheism out there leads to a sort of solipsism/egoism/nihilism that I find extremely distasteful, and I think these kids would do well to read some Carl Sagan.
And most of them do, eventually. Most of the "look at how atheist I am" types I've met over the years have been in the mid-to-late teens. By 20 or so, most of them grow out of atheism-as-rebellion and realize that they've been obnoxious little shits in ways that being an atheist doesn't demand.
There is one guy in my Christianity class this semester who clearly has yet to get the memo though, since whenever he's asked for input, his answer usually amounts to "It's all made-up/wrong/lies so it doesn't matter", regardless of the question.
Yeah, that's why I call it "adolescent atheism;" I'm hoping that this is a phase that will pass (I know I was in it and still am to some extent) but man oh man do dudes like your example who is apparently opposed to learning about Christianity in a Christianity class* piss me off. It's like, go ahead and feed into the cultural assumption that atheists are jackasses, why don't you. Motherfucker.
*Now, if he were a minor, and compelled into such a class against his will, it would be another matter. But this dumbass signed up for a college course whose material he has no interest in, apparently? Genius maneuver.
And I'm not posting from the fucking bible belt, here. I've lived in CA, PA, ID, and now OR, all in relatively liberal places, and always I've come to the conclusion that while it's safe to discuss religion honestly with a few friends, it absolutely is not worth losing your job (or attracting the evangelical attention of a coworker who will proceed to bury you in leaflets) when it's just so easy to conjure a white lie about the UU or some other phantom religious affiliation. Claiming pantheism isn't even a lie, and it has worked (for me) like a fucking charm.
Mmmm, what I wouldn't give for an evangelical coworker who would try to bury me in leaflets.
I have a coworker who started off pretty hardcore right wing Christian (Oklahoma). Guts church (look it up if you don't know what it is), masturbation is bad, sex before marriage is bad, etc. 4 years later I've mellowed him enough that he enthusiastically watches Sam Harris videos (though the thinks Christopher Hitchens is just way too offensive and Dawkins is a bit dull), and I finally got it through his head what the whole passage about spilling your seed on the ground actually means. He does routinely comment that he wishes I would talk to his wife about it.
He does routinely comment that he wishes I would talk to his wife about it.
:winky:
Edit:
Aw, son of a bitch, I didn't realize this thread died two days ago. I guess I should close my browser window when I go home for the day. I guess I should add some real content to compensate.
My hierarchy of theism is:
Theist = Believer
Deist = Non-religious believer in general, non-specific divinity
Agnostic = believes that knowing about an extra-planar deity is functionally (or definitionally) impossible either way
Atheist = Lacks a specific belief in any kind of supernatural cosmology; does not entail active disbelief
Anti-theist = active disbeliever in the possibility of the supernatural or divine
I'm being way more literal with the etymologies than common parlance, but I feel like this has better granularity for a lot of people like us. What's interesting is that everything below Theist is functionally the same. None of them are paying particular attention to invisible spirits, it's just a degree of warm fuzzies in the philosophy.
I know I'm a little late to the thread, but I loved this ep. of Community and so I have to respond:winky:. To me, the bottom line is that agnosticism is truely the only "theology" that makes sense. Its not lazy at all. IMO, atheism is just another religion. Some of these guys crusade harder than the religious. Scientifically, atheism is simply an irresponsible viewpoint. To maintain the idea of "If I cannot see it, then it isn't there" goes against everything that science is. Does that mean that I believe in religion or a specific god? Of course not, but I'm not going to claim that the existence of a god is impossible. In fact, given the odds and the sheer vast measure of the universe, its probably likely that there at least exists beings who could be perceived as gods anyway.
Hi. I apologize if this comes off a bit condescending, that is certainly not my intention. But I do see a pretty huge misunderstanding of what people who call themselves atheist mean when they give themselves the label of atheist.
I have found that most people who call themselves atheist are using that term to say that they do not believe in any of the theistic religions that people on this planet believe in. They don't say they can prove that something in the universe that "could be perceived as gods" don't exist. They don't say "if I cannot see it, then it isn't there." They simply state that the religions they have encountered do not have the evidence to back up their claims, and they therefore do not believe in them.
Many atheists that I've met are also very scientifically minded. They understand the importance of agnostic positions on certain issues. But they also understand the importance of putting aside theories that have been demonstrated to most likely be false. When it comes to religion, they take the position against the theory of Jesus' divinity (or other religion's major dogmas) just as they do against the theory that vaccines cause autism. Though it can't be 100% disproven, there's enough evidence to take a stance. In the case of vaccines, that means that you'll go ahead and vaccine your kids. In the case of religion, that means you'll go ahead and not go to Church and not believe in Christian teachings. They wouldn't call themselves agnostic on the issue of vaccines and autism, so they don't call themselves agnostics on the issue of the Christian god. It just so happens there's a word for people who don't believe in God and aren't agnostic on the issue: atheists. So they call themselves atheists..
I know a guy by the name of Richard Dawkins who claims to be a scientist, yet seems to be very minded in the realm of belief. I've read his book and watched him in several interviews, and for all intents and purposes he's come to believe that he's the king of the atheist agenda, I would disagree, but whatever. My problem with this school of thought is that people like Dawkins have become so enthralled in the anti-religion crusade that it seems that they've forgotten about science. Science is about discovery, experimentation and innovation, but rather it seems that some people at the fore-front of science are more concerned with engaging in juvenile arguments with the religious. My point is that I think it would be more productive and better for everyone in the long run to get back to focussing on advancement and discovery rather than just trying to convince religious people that they're wrong. If people like Dawkins spent more time in the laboratory and less time on TV and Radio, I just think that we'd be a lot better served in the picture.
My point is that I think it would be more productive and better for everyone in the long run to get back to focussing on advancement and discovery rather than just trying to convince religious people that they're wrong. If people like Dawkins spent more time in the laboratory and less time on TV and Radio, I just think that we'd be a lot better served in the picture.
I know a guy by the name of Richard Dawkins who claims to be a scientist, yet seems to be very minded in the realm of belief. I've read his book and watched him in several interviews, and for all intents and purposes he's come to believe that he's the king of the atheist agenda, I would disagree, but whatever. My problem with this school of thought is that people like Dawkins have become so enthralled in the anti-religion crusade that it seems that they've forgotten about science. Science is about discovery, experimentation and innovation, but rather it seems that some people at the fore-front of science are more concerned with engaging in juvenile arguments with the religious. My point is that I think it would be more productive and better for everyone in the long run to get back to focussing on advancement and discovery rather than just trying to convince religious people that they're wrong. If people like Dawkins spent more time in the laboratory and less time on TV and Radio, I just think that we'd be a lot better served in the picture.
Heres the first page or so of his latest book(The greatest show on earth) that addresses this:
Imagine that you are a teacher of Roman history and the Latin language, anxious to impart your enthusiasm for the ancient world — for the elegiacs of Ovid and the odes of Horace, the sinewy economy of Latin grammar as exhibited in the oratory of Cicero, the strategic niceties of the Punic Wars, the generalship of Julius Caesar and the voluptuous excesses of the later emperors. That’s a big undertaking and it takes time, concentration, dedication. Yet you find your precious time continually preyed upon, and your class’s attention distracted, by a baying pack of ignoramuses (as a Latin scholar you would know better than to say ignorami) who, with strong political and especially financial support, scurry about tirelessly attempting to persuade your unfortunate pupils that the Romans never existed. There never was a Roman Empire. The entire world came into existence only just beyond living memory. Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, Catalan, Occitan, Romansh: all these languages and their constituent dialects sprang spontaneously and separately into being, and owe nothing to any predecessor such as Latin.
Instead of devoting your full attention to the noble vocation of classical scholar and teacher, you are forced to divert your time and energy to a rearguard defence of the proposition that the Romans existed at all: a defence against an exhibition of ignorant prejudice that would make you weep if you weren’t too busy fighting it.
If my fantasy of the Latin teacher seems too wayward, here’s a more realistic example. Imagine you are a teacher of more recent history, and your lessons on 20th-century Europe are boycotted, heckled or otherwise disrupted by well-organised, well-financed and politically muscular groups of Holocaust-deniers. Unlike my hypothetical Rome-deniers, Holocaustdeniers really exist. They are vocal, superficially plausible and adept at seeming learned. They are supported by the president of at least one currently powerful state, and they include at least one bishop of the Roman Catholic Church. Imagine that, as a teacher of European history, you are continually faced with belligerent demands to “teach the controversy”, and to give “equal time” to the “alternative theory” that the Holocaust never happened but was invented by a bunch of Zionist fabricators.
Fashionably relativist intellectuals chime in to insist that there is no absolute truth: whether the Holocaust happened is a matter of personal belief; all points of view are equally valid and should be equally “respected”.
cont
The plight of many science teachers today is not less dire. When they attempt to expound the central and guiding principle of biology; when they honestly place the living world in its historical context — which means evolution; when they explore and explain the very nature of life itself, they are harried and stymied, hassled and bullied, even threatened with loss of their jobs. At the very least their time is wasted at every turn. They are likely to receive menacing letters from parents and have to endure the sarcastic smirks and close-folded arms of brainwashed children. They are supplied with state-approved textbooks that have had the word “evolution” systematically expunged, or bowdlerized into “change over time”. Once, we were tempted to laugh this kind of thing off as a peculiarly American phenomenon. Teachers in Britain and Europe now face the same problems, partly because of American influence, but more significantly because of the growing Islamic presence in the classroom — abetted by the official commitment to “multiculturalism” and the terror of being thought racist.
It is frequently, and rightly, said that senior clergy and theologians have no problem with evolution and, in many cases, actively support scientists in this respect. This is often true, as I know from the agreeable experience of collaborating with the Bishop of Oxford, now Lord Harries, on two separate occasions. In 2004 we wrote a joint article in The Sunday Times whose concluding words were: “Nowadays there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a fact and, from a Christian perspective, one of the greatest of God’s works.” The last sentence was written by Richard Harries, but we agreed about all the rest of our article. Two years previously, Bishop Harries and I had organised a joint letter to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
[In the letter, eminent scientists and churchmen, including seven bishops, expressed concern over the teaching of evolution and their alarm at it being posed as a “faith position”at the Emmanuel City Technology College in Gateshead.] Bishop Harries and I organised this letter in a hurry. As far as I remember, the signatories to the letter constituted 100 per cent of those we approached. There was no disagreement either from scientists or from bishops.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has no problem with evolution, nor does the Pope (give or take the odd wobble over the precise palaeontological juncture when the human soul was injected), nor do educated priests and professors of theology. The Greatest Show on Earth is a book about the positive evidence that evolution is a fact. It is not intended as an antireligious book. I’ve done that, it’s another T-shirt, this is not the place to wear it again. Bishops and theologians who have attended to the evidence for evolution have given up the struggle against it. Some may do so reluctantly, some, like Richard Harries, enthusiastically, but all except the woefully uninformed are forced to accept the fact of evolution.
They may think God had a hand in starting the process off, and perhaps didn’t stay his hand in guiding its future progress. They probably think God cranked the Universe up in the first place, and solemnised its birth with a harmonious set of laws and physical constants calculated to fulfil some inscrutable purpose in which we were eventually to play a role.
But, grudgingly in some cases, happily in others, thoughtful and rational churchmen and women accept the evidence for evolution.
What we must not do is complacently assume that, because bishops and educated clergy accept evolution, so do their congregations. Alas there is ample evidence to the contrary from opinion polls. More than 40 per cent of Americans deny that humans evolved from other animals, and think that we — and by implication all of life — were created by God within the last 10,000 years. The figure is not quite so high in Britain, but it is still worryingly large. And it should be as worrying to the churches as it is to scientists. This book is necessary. I shall be using the name “historydeniers” for those people who deny evolution: who believe the world’s age is measured in thousands of years rather than thousands of millions of years, and who believe humans walked with dinosaurs.
To repeat, they constitute more than 40 per cent of the American population. The equivalent figure is higher in some countries, lower in others, but 40 per cent is a good average and I shall from time to time refer to the history-deniers as the “40percenters”.
To return to the enlightened bishops and theologians, it would be nice if they’d put a bit more effort into combating the anti-scientific nonsense that they deplore. All too many preachers, while agreeing that evolution is true and Adam and Eve never existed, will then blithely go into the pulpit and make some moral or theological point about Adam and Eve in their sermons without once mentioning that, of course, Adam and Eve never actually existed! If challenged, they will protest that they intended a purely “symbolic” meaning, perhaps something to do with “original sin”, or the virtues of innocence. They may add witheringly that, obviously, nobody would be so foolish as to take their words literally. But do their congregations know that? How is the person in the pew, or on the prayer-mat, supposed to know which bits of scripture to take literally, which symbolically? Is it really so easy for an uneducated churchgoer to guess? In all too many cases the answer is clearly no, and anybody could be forgiven for feeling confused.
Think about it, Bishop. Be careful, Vicar. You are playing with dynamite, fooling around with a misunderstanding that’s waiting to happen — one might even say almost bound to happen if not forestalled. Shouldn’t you take greater care, when speaking in public, to let your yea be yea and your nay be nay? Lest ye fall into condemnation, shouldn’t you be going out of your way to counter that already extremely widespread popular misunderstanding and lend active and enthusiastic support to scientists and science teachers? The history-deniers themselves are among those who I am trying to reach. But, perhaps more importantly, I aspire to arm those who are not history-deniers but know some — perhaps members of their own family or church — and find themselves inadequately prepared to argue the case.
Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips . . . continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.
Why, then, do we speak of “Darwin’s theory of evolution”, thereby, it seems, giving spurious comfort to those of a creationist persuasion — the history-deniers, the 40-percenters — who think the word “theory” is a concession, handing them some kind of gift or victory? Evolution is a theory in the same sense as the heliocentric theory. In neither case should the word “only” be used, as in “only a theory”. As for the claim that evolution has never been “proved”, proof is a notion that scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting.
Influential philosophers tell us we can’t prove anything in science.
Mathematicians can prove things — according to one strict view, they are the only people who can — but the best that scientists can do is fail to disprove things while pointing to how hard they tried. Even the undisputed theory that the Moon is smaller than the Sun cannot, to the satisfaction of a certain kind of philosopher, be proved in the way that, for example, the Pythagorean Theorem can be proved. But massive accretions of evidence support it so strongly that to deny it the status of “fact” seems ridiculous to all but pedants. The same is true of evolution. Evolution is a fact in the same sense as it is a fact that Paris is in the northern hemisphere. Though logic-choppers rule the town,* some theories are beyond sensible doubt, and we call them facts. The more energetically and thoroughly you try to disprove a theory, if it survives the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact.
We are like detectives who come on the scene after a crime has been committed. The murderer’s actions have vanished into the past.
The detective has no hope of witnessing the actual crime with his own eyes. What the detective does have is traces that remain, and there is a great deal to trust there. There are footprints, fingerprints (and nowadays DNA fingerprints too), bloodstains, letters, diaries. The world is the way the world should be if this and this history, but not that and that history, led up to the present.
Evolution is an inescapable fact, and we should celebrate its astonishing power, simplicity and beauty. Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past. Given that, in most cases, we don’t live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes, we shall revisit the metaphor of the detective coming upon the scene of a crime after the event and making inferences. The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eyewitness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time.
I know a guy by the name of Richard Dawkins who claims to be a scientist, yet seems to be very minded in the realm of belief. I've read his book and watched him in several interviews, and for all intents and purposes he's come to believe that he's the king of the atheist agenda, I would disagree, but whatever. My problem with this school of thought is that people like Dawkins have become so enthralled in the anti-religion crusade that it seems that they've forgotten about science. Science is about discovery, experimentation and innovation, but rather it seems that some people at the fore-front of science are more concerned with engaging in juvenile arguments with the religious. My point is that I think it would be more productive and better for everyone in the long run to get back to focussing on advancement and discovery rather than just trying to convince religious people that they're wrong. If people like Dawkins spent more time in the laboratory and less time on TV and Radio, I just think that we'd be a lot better served in the picture.
ajk
It's difficult to focus on, say, the achievement and discovery of outer space, other planets, orbital mechanics, and relativity if a huge segment of the population believes the sun revolves around the earth and/or the sky is a solid firmament, as per the Word of Yahweh.
Also, I'd argue the central point of science is the discovery of truth, and in the process, the weeding out of falsehood. As it turns out, most of what is described in (for example) the Bible is ... false. In some cases, such as its Mesopotamian creation myths and flood stories, spectacularly false.
Posts
Well, 'untestable using current examples of the hypothesis and currently available instruments' pretty well satisfied my definition of 'untestable'. And I was referring to a few physicists who will argue themselves blue in the face that one or another brand of unified theory is Absolutely, Incontrovertibly [True/False] at the drop of a hat. I knew a relativistic astrophysicist whose hatred of supersymmetry was the stuff of legends despite that his competing idea (something or other involving vortices in a time-space superfluid) had an equal lack of experimental support. We had a colloquium that mentioned the LHC and the Higgs in passing. This guy stood up and started holding forth at full volume about how if they found the Higgs he would eat his own pants.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The difference between you as an "agnostic" and me as an "atheist," with respect to the Christianity and Islam and Hinduism believed by billions of people, is infinitesmal.
I think just calling yourself an atheist would get the point across better, which is after all the goal of communication and words.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Which is dumb, but we've gone over and over that in here.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Today I'd still say that while what we understand of the universe is a fraction of a pinprick, the concept of a sentient creative force seems like a sentimental and subjectively conditioned idea. So I guess I just used to call my atheism agnosticism.
I used to call myself atheist, but then that usually result in 3 hours of debating.
Now I just call myself 'Secular Humanist', get a strange look, and go on with my life.
People need to learn to be more patient.
PSN/XBL: Zampanov -- Steam: Zampanov
We're just not that important. Even "immortality" through offspring and lifetime contributions to society is just semantic sentimentality.
With religious people though, it seems that half of them get offended at the very notion of a reasonable debate about religion, and the other half get offended as soon as you make any kind of criticism at all. There's like 1 or 2% that just don't care and are happy to debate you. I enjoy that 1 or 2%.
Unfortunately, I have this stupid spiritual twitch occasionally, that I just can't seem to chuck.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I'd say that both sides get pretty offended when you ask deep questions and offer strong criticism. Perhaps religious folk are more prone to it, but I'd say at least the majority of atheists and agnostics throw get pissy when you don't accept their axioms.
That doesn't make any sense, annoyed perhaps, but why would I be offended if you asked me whether or not I believed in the dark overlord Sauron or Voltron?
I dunno, surrealitycheck, but somehow they do! It is baffling!
@override367: I was responding to the ambiguous "deep questions" part. I would wager that, yes, when it comes to religious issues, atheists/agnostics would probably not be as sensitive with the issue.
Jim
And
ummm
Sally
You hang out with some mellow people. I'd say the people that generally tend to identify vocally with "athiest" are made up of about half of people who are damn pissed off that anyone believes in God and are super hostile to anyone that doesn't agree with them.
Anecdotal evidence and all that, but I don't think that being religious or being non-religious makes you any more willing to consider that the way you look at the world is wrong.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Incorrect, the people at rationalskepticism.org are often (though not always, and not all) major toolbags.
Really?
You do realize that a conservative Christian believes that non-belief in God means you most likely go to hell, right? When a Christian engages in religious dialogue with a non-believer and the non-believer gives some kind of criticism, it's like he's tempting the Christian to go down a path that leads straight to eternal hell.
In fact, Christianity is often set up to protect you from reviewing that the way you look at the world, I would say.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
And Melkster, I'll revise my earlier comment: I think the aggressive, impolitic attitude that more secular individuals take on when talking about religion is similar in appearance, but (likely) very different in cause and specific claims made.
There is, on "both sides" (I use this phrase for expediency, not for any kind of accuracy), an unwillingness or inability to entertain certain breeds of opposing ideas, but I think, again, that it's simply a surface similarity, the guts, the inner workings of the positions are radically different. Comparisons on a few specific leves are appropriate, but I think that you are correct, there's something else at work underneath.
I dunno about that.
My close friends all know I'm an atheist, but Jesus Christ, you'd have to be some kind of God-damned lunatic to advertise such a socially polarized position here in God's Country, 'murrica. Of course I believe Jesus Christ was a man if he existed at all and the fiercest damnations that God can muster amount to no more than the hot air of the preacher who pronounces them, but I'm not about to proclaim the good word to my employers, my professors, and local law enforcement.
Curious, isn't it, that my temerity knows no bounds here on the Internet, but I clam up the second a Christian with power over me is listening? Must be my irrational paranoia, because there couldn't possibly be any reason to fear right-thinking, moral Christians.
And I'm not posting from the fucking bible belt, here. I've lived in CA, PA, ID, and now OR, all in relatively liberal places, and always I've come to the conclusion that while it's safe to discuss religion honestly with a few friends, it absolutely is not worth losing your job (or attracting the evangelical attention of a coworker who will proceed to bury you in leaflets) when it's just so easy to conjure a white lie about the UU or some other phantom religious affiliation. Claiming pantheism isn't even a lie, and it has worked (for me) like a fucking charm.
i.e. you believe in all Gods equally, which is to say not at all? Sneaky, I approve. I'm surprised it doesn't end with people giving you shit, though.
I don't think that's pantheism that you're thinking of.
Yeah, what I'm talking about here is the claim that the phenomenal universe is God. So I'm not really saying that I believe in God; I'm saying that I believe in the Universe. Of course, there's some added "spiritual" (though this really is compatible with a positivist, materialist, or physicalist worldview, whichever labels you prefer) significance there that I wouldn't expect every atheist to agree with me on, but I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to the incessant claim by theists that there is a moral hazard in failing to acknowledge "something greater than oneself."
Some of the ill-considered adolescent atheism out there leads to a sort of solipsism/egoism/nihilism that I find extremely distasteful, and I think these kids would do well to read some Carl Sagan.
And most of them do, eventually. Most of the "look at how atheist I am" types I've met over the years have been in the mid-to-late teens. By 20 or so, most of them grow out of atheism-as-rebellion and realize that they've been obnoxious little shits in ways that being an atheist doesn't demand.
There is one guy in my Christianity class this semester who clearly has yet to get the memo though, since whenever he's asked for input, his answer usually amounts to "It's all made-up/wrong/lies so it doesn't matter", regardless of the question.
*Now, if he were a minor, and compelled into such a class against his will, it would be another matter. But this dumbass signed up for a college course whose material he has no interest in, apparently? Genius maneuver.
:winky:
Edit:
Aw, son of a bitch, I didn't realize this thread died two days ago. I guess I should close my browser window when I go home for the day. I guess I should add some real content to compensate.
My hierarchy of theism is:
I'm being way more literal with the etymologies than common parlance, but I feel like this has better granularity for a lot of people like us. What's interesting is that everything below Theist is functionally the same. None of them are paying particular attention to invisible spirits, it's just a degree of warm fuzzies in the philosophy.
I know a guy by the name of Richard Dawkins who claims to be a scientist, yet seems to be very minded in the realm of belief. I've read his book and watched him in several interviews, and for all intents and purposes he's come to believe that he's the king of the atheist agenda, I would disagree, but whatever. My problem with this school of thought is that people like Dawkins have become so enthralled in the anti-religion crusade that it seems that they've forgotten about science. Science is about discovery, experimentation and innovation, but rather it seems that some people at the fore-front of science are more concerned with engaging in juvenile arguments with the religious. My point is that I think it would be more productive and better for everyone in the long run to get back to focussing on advancement and discovery rather than just trying to convince religious people that they're wrong. If people like Dawkins spent more time in the laboratory and less time on TV and Radio, I just think that we'd be a lot better served in the picture.
ajk
Heres the first page or so of his latest book(The greatest show on earth) that addresses this: cont
The plight of many science teachers today is not less dire. When they attempt to expound the central and guiding principle of biology; when they honestly place the living world in its historical context — which means evolution; when they explore and explain the very nature of life itself, they are harried and stymied, hassled and bullied, even threatened with loss of their jobs. At the very least their time is wasted at every turn. They are likely to receive menacing letters from parents and have to endure the sarcastic smirks and close-folded arms of brainwashed children. They are supplied with state-approved textbooks that have had the word “evolution” systematically expunged, or bowdlerized into “change over time”. Once, we were tempted to laugh this kind of thing off as a peculiarly American phenomenon. Teachers in Britain and Europe now face the same problems, partly because of American influence, but more significantly because of the growing Islamic presence in the classroom — abetted by the official commitment to “multiculturalism” and the terror of being thought racist.
It is frequently, and rightly, said that senior clergy and theologians have no problem with evolution and, in many cases, actively support scientists in this respect. This is often true, as I know from the agreeable experience of collaborating with the Bishop of Oxford, now Lord Harries, on two separate occasions. In 2004 we wrote a joint article in The Sunday Times whose concluding words were: “Nowadays there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a fact and, from a Christian perspective, one of the greatest of God’s works.” The last sentence was written by Richard Harries, but we agreed about all the rest of our article. Two years previously, Bishop Harries and I had organised a joint letter to the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
[In the letter, eminent scientists and churchmen, including seven bishops, expressed concern over the teaching of evolution and their alarm at it being posed as a “faith position”at the Emmanuel City Technology College in Gateshead.] Bishop Harries and I organised this letter in a hurry. As far as I remember, the signatories to the letter constituted 100 per cent of those we approached. There was no disagreement either from scientists or from bishops.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has no problem with evolution, nor does the Pope (give or take the odd wobble over the precise palaeontological juncture when the human soul was injected), nor do educated priests and professors of theology. The Greatest Show on Earth is a book about the positive evidence that evolution is a fact. It is not intended as an antireligious book. I’ve done that, it’s another T-shirt, this is not the place to wear it again. Bishops and theologians who have attended to the evidence for evolution have given up the struggle against it. Some may do so reluctantly, some, like Richard Harries, enthusiastically, but all except the woefully uninformed are forced to accept the fact of evolution.
They may think God had a hand in starting the process off, and perhaps didn’t stay his hand in guiding its future progress. They probably think God cranked the Universe up in the first place, and solemnised its birth with a harmonious set of laws and physical constants calculated to fulfil some inscrutable purpose in which we were eventually to play a role.
But, grudgingly in some cases, happily in others, thoughtful and rational churchmen and women accept the evidence for evolution.
What we must not do is complacently assume that, because bishops and educated clergy accept evolution, so do their congregations. Alas there is ample evidence to the contrary from opinion polls. More than 40 per cent of Americans deny that humans evolved from other animals, and think that we — and by implication all of life — were created by God within the last 10,000 years. The figure is not quite so high in Britain, but it is still worryingly large. And it should be as worrying to the churches as it is to scientists. This book is necessary. I shall be using the name “historydeniers” for those people who deny evolution: who believe the world’s age is measured in thousands of years rather than thousands of millions of years, and who believe humans walked with dinosaurs.
To repeat, they constitute more than 40 per cent of the American population. The equivalent figure is higher in some countries, lower in others, but 40 per cent is a good average and I shall from time to time refer to the history-deniers as the “40percenters”.
To return to the enlightened bishops and theologians, it would be nice if they’d put a bit more effort into combating the anti-scientific nonsense that they deplore. All too many preachers, while agreeing that evolution is true and Adam and Eve never existed, will then blithely go into the pulpit and make some moral or theological point about Adam and Eve in their sermons without once mentioning that, of course, Adam and Eve never actually existed! If challenged, they will protest that they intended a purely “symbolic” meaning, perhaps something to do with “original sin”, or the virtues of innocence. They may add witheringly that, obviously, nobody would be so foolish as to take their words literally. But do their congregations know that? How is the person in the pew, or on the prayer-mat, supposed to know which bits of scripture to take literally, which symbolically? Is it really so easy for an uneducated churchgoer to guess? In all too many cases the answer is clearly no, and anybody could be forgiven for feeling confused.
Think about it, Bishop. Be careful, Vicar. You are playing with dynamite, fooling around with a misunderstanding that’s waiting to happen — one might even say almost bound to happen if not forestalled. Shouldn’t you take greater care, when speaking in public, to let your yea be yea and your nay be nay? Lest ye fall into condemnation, shouldn’t you be going out of your way to counter that already extremely widespread popular misunderstanding and lend active and enthusiastic support to scientists and science teachers? The history-deniers themselves are among those who I am trying to reach. But, perhaps more importantly, I aspire to arm those who are not history-deniers but know some — perhaps members of their own family or church — and find themselves inadequately prepared to argue the case.
Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. It is the plain truth that we are cousins of chimpanzees, somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys, more distant cousins still of aardvarks and manatees, yet more distant cousins of bananas and turnips . . . continue the list as long as desired. That didn’t have to be true. It is not self-evidently, tautologically, obviously true, and there was a time when most people, even educated people, thought it wasn’t. It didn’t have to be true, but it is. We know this because a rising flood of evidence supports it. Evolution is a fact, and [my] book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.
Why, then, do we speak of “Darwin’s theory of evolution”, thereby, it seems, giving spurious comfort to those of a creationist persuasion — the history-deniers, the 40-percenters — who think the word “theory” is a concession, handing them some kind of gift or victory? Evolution is a theory in the same sense as the heliocentric theory. In neither case should the word “only” be used, as in “only a theory”. As for the claim that evolution has never been “proved”, proof is a notion that scientists have been intimidated into mistrusting.
Influential philosophers tell us we can’t prove anything in science.
Mathematicians can prove things — according to one strict view, they are the only people who can — but the best that scientists can do is fail to disprove things while pointing to how hard they tried. Even the undisputed theory that the Moon is smaller than the Sun cannot, to the satisfaction of a certain kind of philosopher, be proved in the way that, for example, the Pythagorean Theorem can be proved. But massive accretions of evidence support it so strongly that to deny it the status of “fact” seems ridiculous to all but pedants. The same is true of evolution. Evolution is a fact in the same sense as it is a fact that Paris is in the northern hemisphere. Though logic-choppers rule the town,* some theories are beyond sensible doubt, and we call them facts. The more energetically and thoroughly you try to disprove a theory, if it survives the assault, the more closely it approaches what common sense happily calls a fact.
We are like detectives who come on the scene after a crime has been committed. The murderer’s actions have vanished into the past.
The detective has no hope of witnessing the actual crime with his own eyes. What the detective does have is traces that remain, and there is a great deal to trust there. There are footprints, fingerprints (and nowadays DNA fingerprints too), bloodstains, letters, diaries. The world is the way the world should be if this and this history, but not that and that history, led up to the present.
Evolution is an inescapable fact, and we should celebrate its astonishing power, simplicity and beauty. Evolution is within us, around us, between us, and its workings are embedded in the rocks of aeons past. Given that, in most cases, we don’t live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes, we shall revisit the metaphor of the detective coming upon the scene of a crime after the event and making inferences. The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eyewitness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time.
Also, I'd argue the central point of science is the discovery of truth, and in the process, the weeding out of falsehood. As it turns out, most of what is described in (for example) the Bible is ... false. In some cases, such as its Mesopotamian creation myths and flood stories, spectacularly false.