Religion
Related: About this forumWho Really Works Hardest to Banish Ignorance? (Science is almost totally incompatible with religion)
Science's dispassionate stare examines issues publicly, exchanges information openly, discusses awkward points objectively, and builds up a network of interdependent ideas and theories that progressively expose the complex as an outcome of the simple. Religion's inwardly directed sentimental glow reflects on issues privately, exchanges information by assurance and assertion, discusses awkward points by warfare, terror, and coercion, and builds up a network of conflicting ideas that conceal ignorance under a cloak of high-flown yet empty prose.
Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation. Science, with its publicly accessible corpus of information and its open, scrutable arguments, can lead the wondering to an understanding of the entire physical world. (Below, of course, I shall have to argue that that is the entire world.)
Science respects the power of the human intellect; religion belittles it. Science gives us the prospect of full understanding, for it continues to show that, given time, there is no aspect of the world that is closed to its scrutiny and explanation. Religion disarmingly avers that human brains are too puny to achieve full comprehension. Yet science is progressively advancing toward complete knowledge, leaving religions bobbing about in its wake.
--snip--
Here, though, we must be very careful to distinguish between questions that have been invented and questions that at least seem to be real. Only the latter are likely to lead to true understanding of the world; the former merely expose the psychological condition of individuals and societies who invent them. I am afraid that, in my view, most of the questions that so exercise the religious are of the former, empty kind. Thus, whereas it may seem to be a perfectly legitimate question to ask, What is the purpose of this universe?, in fact that question is a transposition from everyday life. There is no need for this universe to have a purpose: it could be a wholly purposeless accidental entity.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=atkins_18_2
Entire article at link.
On the Road
(20,783 posts)this "scientific atheism" sounds more and more like a religion every year. When your existence depends on criticizing a certain group, you start to resemble that group after a while.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)I would like to better understand how atheism is like religion
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)When you actually know what it is you are talking about and want to say, come on back.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)But feel free to give us a list of the ways that religion has banished ignorance down through history.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)Why is it that many atheists seem unable to debate with believers honestly. This article is just one more "Believers are idiots by definition and religion is worthless in and of itself" piece of tripe.
Trajan
(19,089 posts)please explain
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Seems like typical projection to me.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)rexcat
(3,622 posts)whereas science is based on observations made in the natural world and reproducible experiments are done there is nothing to debate.
on edit: your ability to project is astonishing!
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)2. More atheist bigotry
Why is it that many atheists seem unable to debate with believers honestly. This article is just one more "Believers are idiots by definition and religion is worthless in and of itself" piece of tripe.
Why is it that many theists seem unable to debate with non-believers honestly. This post is just one more "Non-believers are idiots by definition and non-belief is worthless in and of itself" piece of tripe.
I changed three words on your post to make point, which is likely to go right over your head, that it appears that you are the one dealing with your own bigotry. Your hatred of those who do not share your beliefs and your religion is widely apparent and neither liberal or progressive.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)based on an alleged quote by Richard Dawkins that you can provide no evidence for, and the supposed failure of atheists here to repudiate that "quote". Try being honest yourself for a start, then we'll talk. Prove that you didn't just make that up.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)that commanded him to refrain from bearing false witness.
But evidently it doesn't, so he can just pull out his fictitious Dawkins "quote" whenever he wants, and attempt to shout down others with his screams of "BIGOTRY!"
And as usual (sadly), the liberal, tolerant believers who claim to want civil discussion and dialog remain silent and on the sidelines.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)will be back to work soon..on someone not in their little clique.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)and in and of itself religion has no intrinsic value. it only has value to *some* human beings.
to sum.. sounds about right.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)If science can, it has a lot of catching up to do. We've been elucidating that aspect of the human condition for a very long time. Certainly not as long as our efforts to understand and control the world around us, but apparently the need to wrap some sort of aesthetic or spiritual narrative around the mechanics of existence occurred as an important part of the development of the species. Certainly the requirements of aesthetic priorities continue today as an integral part of our physical existence on the planet.
Form follows function, and part of the function of any tool we have ever used is its potential to propel us into an uncertain future.
Atkins offers us an optimistic expectation that science will be able to measure and quantify the human spirit, but is still unable to offer any hope that quantification will produce predictability. And he does it by denying the need for any evidence that it can accomplish that goal. Such an optimistic expectation of success using an appeal to ignorance sounds a lot like an expression of faith. Especially after a five paragraph paean to the virtues of science over religion. I guess science truly works in mysterious ways.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)I think you will find he gets right to the heart of what you are talking about.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Between that gadget and Amazon "one click" I'll never find time to make the money to pay for the shit.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)BAM! Instant library. "Hey, what happened to the balance in my checking account?"
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Something about holding the book on my hands and turning actual pages.
I got the Kindle for fiction, which I consider disposable, and had planned to keep buying nonfiction books but it doesn't seem to be working out that way. It's starting to look like now that only only books that I am really sure will stay in the "permanent library" like art books with colorplates or authors that seem to have the potential for serious sociocultural longevity. From what I've seen of Harris, he's not there yet. But he is interesting and he has a habit of being right about a lot of stuff. He might make it out of the "cloud" and onto the shelf yet.
The plus for the Kindle is it's portability. At the moment I have about a dozen books "on deck" not including the entire Harvard Classics (got that one for three bucks). Many of the greatest classics can be had for free. And I can prop the Kindle up without having to hold it, leaving me free to eat and read at the same time under less than optimum lighting conditions, a luxury greatly appreciated by my favorite coffee joint.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)all the historical religious baggage that has patronized that borderline.. in both meanings, patronized.. for as long as the rich have pretended to be religious.
dimbear
(6,271 posts)For one of your answers
Just a helpful hint.