One of the key blindspots of atheistic scientists it seems to me is their inability to distinguish between beliefs based on evidence and beliefs based on presupposition. There seems to be the assumption that any "religious" position is antagonistic to some kind of "normal" view of any civilised democracy. The "normal" view of any civilised democracy is of course secular humanism - atheism- the worship of man as the highest authority. What they seem to have missed and be apparently completely blind to is that this secular humanism is just as much a "religious" position and faith as any other "religious" position. Its assumed "normal" and superior status is just another kind of religious orthodoxy seeking to impose its dogmas upon a society. Many people including top scientists seem to be entirely blind to this.
I thought Geoffrey Lean's article very perceptive.
14 comments:
"...secular humanism - atheism- the worship of man as the highest authority."
Of all creationist arguments this one has to be the most stupid. The whole point about atheism is that you don't believe in anything to worship. We don't worship. There is no church of atheism - we don't need one. Neither do we need to congregate so as to not pray. Get over it.
Being an atheist doesn't pre-load your thoughts so "..beliefs based on presupposition" are irrelevant. What I do take exception to is the confusion between evidence and belief - but only from a scientific perspective. I don't care if you think the earth is only 6000 years old or that humans suddenly appeared on earth. If you are religious you can believe whatever you want. The only problem comes when your beliefs fly in the face of evidence to the contrary - especially science. Because of your "presuppositions", or rather their infallibility, you assume the scientific standards of scrutiny (evidence) to be irrelevant to the issue at hand. Beliefs based on evidence are subject to revision in light of new evidence. If supposition is the only basis of accountability then anything is possible, even god.
You seem to be confused about the difference between religion and science. Science is not a democratic process in the way religion is. It doesn't require critical mass to sustain itself - who worships Thor anymore ?
Science stands on evidence alone, not beliefs. ID will never address that standard because it knows it cannot provide it. There are scientist who are atheists, just as there are scientist who are theistic. There is no such thing as 'atheist science'. That's a red-herring needed to promote the politics of religion.
This is a spoof comedy site.....right?
It's evolving
Rhetoric heavy and evidence free posting says a lot about you and nothing about the issues.
Why does God always choose the dim ones to defend him?
Is now a good time to call Poe's Law on this site?
Does anybody know if Andrew or Antony believe in a 6000 year-old Earth?
I don't think either of them do.
I'm not so sure they have the same faith in ID they used to either?
Brian..."I'm not so sure they have the same faith in ID"
Their arguments do seem to have that "going through the motions" feel about it.
Recycling natural theology and pretending that's it's all new and sciencey can't be much fun.
Especially after twenty years.
Plus the fact that the raison d'être of ID was to circumvent US legislation preventing the teaching of religion as science. This scam is utterly irrelevant to the UK, and as Dembski et al. have now given up the pretence of doing science, post Dover, there is not a whole lot left to talk about.
Alan,
Sadly they have too much invested to abandon the idea completely. Fundamentalist preaching, of any flavour, will take hold wherever it is given a free ride, even here. I see the silence as a time of regrouping and reinvention. Fortunately, the basis of their arguments will remain the same so will be readily addressed. It's just painful.
What I find ironic is the damage they are doing to their faith base. Information is too readily available so I see this being a target - I expect to see stadiums being hired to hold 'computer-burnings' before too long!
Sorry, Brian, I should have said I thoroughly endorse your initial comment. Is Andrew a mind reader, able to tell atheists what they believe?
@ Andrew
And why does it matter what anyone else believes or doesn't believe, Andrew? What business is it of yours? I don't know that your religious beliefs are, and I don't want to, but I fully support your right to have them. Just don't try inflicting them on schoolkids, mkay!
Speaking of preaching, Brian...
Creationism and ID will be here as long as atheist preachers keep hammering home the point that evolution makes God superfluous.
People of faith have a right to try to substantiate their faith using scientific evidence. A faith based on mere feelings and not on hard evidence can easily vanish after a few generations.
Maybe if you could show believers how evolution is compatible with their faith--and by that I don't mean merely slapping God on evolution as a mere afterthought, I mean a complete synthesis--maybe then you'll see creationism plummeting in popularity in those parts of the world where religious belief is going strong.
A word to the wise: mockery won't achieve what you'd like to achieve.
But of course words themselves are the most subtle and seductive idols created by humankind, the original facsimile "reality" in which we now ALL "live".
And just because you prattle on about some ancient self-serving cultic and tribalistic god-idea created long ago in the childhood of man doesnt mean you know or understand diddly squat about to live a truly God REALIZING life.
"Science stands on evidence alone, not beliefs."
....The faith in that statement beats any religious commitment hands down!
Post a Comment