We should at least give Dawkins credit here for knowing what he rejects. Here we meet an atheist who understands the difference between belief and unbelief. As for those, like Armstrong, who try to tell believers that it does not matter if God exists -- Dawkins informs them that believers in God will brand them as atheists. "They'll be right," Dawkins concludes.
So the exchange in The Wall Street Journal turns out to be a meeting of two atheist minds. The difference, of course, is that one knows he is an atheist when the other presumably claims she is not. Dawkins knows a fellow atheist when he sees one. Careful readers of The Wall Street Journal will come to the same conclusion.
Mac fanboy: I love macs and I hate PCs!
Other person: Well, but Macs are "personal computers" so PCs are good!
When I read it last weekend I just couldn't get past how Dawkins' deliberately dismisses the whole of theology and the gnosticism by saying something like, well if you redefine the idea of god as something other than my straw man then I have no argument for you (paraphrased and editorialized, btw). Seems a little lazy and disingenuous to me. He's a condescending fuck with no demonstrated ability for transcendent thought. His loss.
science can answer pretty much any question about the observable world now Really?
science can answer pretty much any question about the observable world now
You can hate religion, but if you ignore the spiritual and psychic aspects of being human, you are decidedly ignoring a key dimension to being human.
You can hate religion, but if you ignore the spiritual and psychic aspects of being human, you are decidedly ignoring a key dimension to being human. Kinda like cutting off your arms because you don't like to play baseball.
But by my way of thinking, atheists are pretty fundamentalist in their stance, too.
Read that link carefully, because then you might understand better what the person who originally wrote John 1:1 was trying to communicate. Not only is God not a man, he's not a being.
He goes on to (admittedly with reluctance) concede that evolution has produced creatures all around the world that believe an individual should, "Do unto others..." whenever possible.
I won't pretend to quote directly, but he basically implied that morality is a universal truth that we have discovered and not created. I was shocked.
because at the end of the road, it resulted in you, richard?
now why would an avowed rationalist and skeptic make such an error as that unless some deep seated impulse was at work?
We cannot speculate about the Logos after the coming of Christ, who is the divine Logos in the flesh, and who sent the Holy Spirit to the world and "teaches us all things." The mystical experience spoken of by the classical Greeks is abstract and conceptual. That is, in ancient Greek philosophic contemplation, the soul or spirit goes outside the body to be liberated. Philosophy plays only a linguistic role in Orthodoxy, lending the use of its terminology after the terms have been transformed and purified of their secular meanings, "Christianized" philosophy and culture, as Father Georges Florovsky used to say. A master of spirituality, a monk of Mount Athos, describes this point in the following manner: "Many of the Greeks tried to philosophize, but only the monks found and learned the true philosophy." The Logos became flesh and revealed to humanity the divine revelation. He is the Truth and through him we can attain knowledge of the divine will. The metaphysical patterns of the philosophic speculation of the Christian revelation distort the divine mission of the incarnate Logos.
It could that the universe has always existed in some form or another, always obeying these laws and forces, but that is not totally satisfying to me.
We quantify and describe the way these bits interact with each other. In the case of a photon, we describe it as a particle, even though it has no geometric volume like a particle of dust would. We also describe it simultaneously as a wave, even though when observed in a certain way, it is more like a particle.
But sooner or later, it appears, this reductionism breaks down to some fundamentals that we can't explain. Why does a photon travel at a constant speed? It just does. Its a "law." Why does mass attract mass? It just does. Its a "force." Furthermore, it remains to be seen if we can nail down a perfectly consistent, quantitative theory of everything. Like it or not, when you run your equations, certain axioms must be accepted on faith.
What answers? With all due respect, jefficator, it does not sound like you had any actual questions to ask her. According to your story, Armstrong was telling a familiar parable/fable/analogy/story, and you sought to upstage her--to trip her up--by adding what you believe(d) to be a very clever paradox and twist to what she was saying. I think you may have been motivated more by attempting to have a "gotcha" moment than by wanting to enter into a conversation.
"I agree with the "weak troll is weak" comment.
These people were very strong believers. They believed in their "communism", "maoism" or whatever. They killed anyone who disagreed with any part of their strong beliefs. One small component of their beliefs was atheism."
in “The Egg and the Sperm: How Science Has Constructed a Romance Based on Stereotypical Male-Female Roles” (1991), Emily Martin shows how scientists have superimposed cultural sex stereotypes inappropriately onto the process of fertilization, resulting in inaccurate descriptions of cell and molecular interactions, faulty understandings of the physiology of fertilization, and skewed research priorities.
The consequences of the labels stay inside your head.
This most certainly isn't the case, and its not due to some psychological error or failure of logic. It has to do with the epistemology of science and logic, ie what constitutes knowing, truth, and objectivity.
The consequences of the labels stay inside your head.
The objective purity and certainty you are seeking though science is a chimera.
Well for one . . . our theory of gravity is completely broken.
I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.
I might revel in the world of intelligibility which still remains to me, but although I have an idea of this world, yet I have not the least knowledge of it, nor can I ever attain to such knowledge with all the efforts of my natural faculty of reason. It is only a something that remains when I have eliminated everything belonging to the senses… but this something I know no further… There must here be a total absence of motive - unless this idea of an intelligible world is itself the motive… but to make this intelligible is precisely the problem that we cannot solve.
- Immanuel Kant
6.52 We feel that even when all possible scientific questions have been
answered, the problems of life remain completely untouched.
What is the nature of that reality and how did you come to know it?
Why would you (or I or anyone) defend your (or mine, etc) version(s) of that reality (let's say a scientific version) over another (let's say unscientific or solipsistic), if not through sense-experience (empiricism), deductive/inductive/abductive reasoning (rationalism), and their ultimate combination (modern scientific inquiry)?
So the question then is the way in which one's thoughts overlap, connect, match up with the world: one cannot say there are two separate and totally disconnected boxes (one's thought and the reality outside one's thought).
« Older The New York Review of Ideas... | Chernobyl Today: A Creepy Stor... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt