Following the publication of Alain de Botton’s new book Religion for Atheists, there has been a curious development: a fight between atheists.
At one level the conflict looks crazy. The only condition for being an atheist is that you reject all supernatural explanation. In that sense, de Botton is as much an atheist as it is possible to be. What could the fight possibly be about?
The secular position leaves open two large topics on which there can be disagreement. How should you think about people who do have religious convictions? And what might religions have been getting right – even if their foundational beliefs were false? De Botton’s answers to these questions set him apart from militant atheists. And they reveal a great deal about the underlying character of his own philosophy. (He is understandably, but wrongly, thought of as a primarily a populariser.)
De Botton starts from the view that religious belief should not be mocked or humiliated. Clearly, faith plays a profound and highly valuable role in the lives of very many people. It is destructive – and cruel – to try to abolish or ridicule such faith until atheism has evolved ways of meeting those needs.
De Botton’s point is that the exciting question about religion is no longer “is it true?” but “how should we imagine and address the needs that take individuals to religion.” People bring immense longings for emotional order, for depth of meaning, for grandeur, beauty, forgiveness and compassion into their religious lives. These needs should be taken very seriously – even if you think that they have been attached to false beliefs.
Equally, religions have accomplished at least some very impressive things. It’s not simply that religions “inspired” great art, architecture and music. That misses something crucial. Religions got great results in these fields because of the way they approached them. They asked architects to build so as to generate a reliable sense of utmost solemnity and grandeur; and they honed this expertise over long periods of time. It was the deliberate aim, not just the background faith, that made the difference.
The architectural theme came to a head recently over de Botton’s proposal to raise a secular temple in London’s financial district. The plan is to construct an elegant column that will invite people to contemplate the longest history of humanity: a monument to the long-term, in the heartland of short-term decision-making. The leader of militant atheism Richard Dawkins was not impressed and described it as a waste of money, from the point of view of advancing a secular world-view.
In a curious way this is a seminal moment for atheism. Its first generation was militant because it had to fight to be heard. The second generation of atheism simply does not have this problem. There are very large numbers of people who have no problem at all with a secular outlook. And the form in which most people – in Australia today – are likely to encounter religion is as a modest, very kindly and considerate attitude to life. The horrors of arrogance and brutality are in the past, even though older people still bear some scars.
Militant atheism is, in this state of affairs, counter-productive. It argues violently against people who are, for the most part, obviously very good and decent and sincere. Of course there are a few exceptions even now (and in the US there may be more than a few) but dealing with this hardly requires massive intellectual firepower. But if religion is linked to meanness and bullying, those problems are defects of personality, which will never be touched by logic or evidence. In a sense, militant atheism’s problem is that it has already achieved all it can.
The challenge is not really to defeat religion, but to give the impulses behind religion their best and more fruitful expression. Is it possible to link what was consoling and noble about religions to a secular project?
Religion for Atheists is simply the latest iteration of a grand project, which has been gradually taking shape in de Botton’s work. This is the view that ideas become powerful in our lives not merely when we understand them, but when they become habitual, when they are shared communally, when they are supported by external prompts. This is a further development of his concern with ideas to live by.
It’s not enough just to say what those ideas might be. You need to think though how we use ideas, or fail to use them, in everyday situations. He is extending the attitude of the Stoic Emperor, Marcus Aurelius.
When Aurelius called on philosophy as an aid, the problems he had in mind were things like his own susceptibility to flattery. He already believed that flattery was poison, he already knew he should not complain about how busy he is. So, in his Maxims, Aurelius endlessly reminded himself of why he thought as he did: he was trying to burn some central ideas into his brain.
This principle of reinforcement can be extended in multiple ways. It may be that a beautiful building helps focus our attention on key beliefs; that a piece of music disposes us to feel the importance of certain emotions. Catholicism in particular exploited this insight. But the insight remains even if you reject some (or all) of the foundational beliefs of that religion.
The appeal of religion, then, is that it acts as a reinforce and supporter of whatever our key beliefs happen to be. So, if you come to the conclusion that an entirely secular approach is correct, then you should want much of what was best in religions.
As I see it de Botton is trying to piece together an account of how we can get the culture that we need. The beauty and scale of this project is very unexpected today – yet so important.
Mat Hardy
Lecturer in Middle East Studies at Deakin University
I've never quite understood the rationality behind what you call 'militant atheism'. To me it seems just as dogmatic as Catholicism of the most conservative kind. I also don't get people who dump on Christianity but then rave about how "beautifully spiritual" people in India are, or else head off to a meditation retreat based upon Native American shamanism.
Tim Paton
Automotive Engineer
I could just as easily say that I don't get people who dump on Islam or Hinduism (or Native American Shamanism or Pastafarianism or Celestial-Teapotism) but then rave about how their Christian god is the one true way to salvation.
People have different beliefs, religions or spirituality to you. Get used to the idea.
I'm also not sure how Indian spirituality or shamanism are in any way relevant to your previous comment about "militant atheism". I don't know anything about shamanism, but I understand most Indians are theists.
My atheism has no dogma attached to it, and I've never been involved in any kind of atheist militia... if such a thing exists.
CH Soames
Cytogeneticist
There haven't been many atheists through history as dogmatic as the most conservative Catholics. Even if you compare the activities of the Inquisitors with those of the Stalinists, In the darkest days of Communist anti-religion, the Catholics probably still had the cake they took centuries ago.
Read morePeople who through ignorance idealise the 'spiritualism' of exotic lands do so because although they crave the brain-sensation of contemplation of the unknowable that goes with belief, they can't get that…
Joseph Bernard
Director
Religion has been a big part of Human history for as long as we can tell, with many different examples of thought used to try explaining what is probably the same human experience. What seems to have been extrapolated out from these beliefs is a code of behaviour (rules) which we have used as the tool for expected behaviour or you will burn in some sort of hell. The new “secular” rules have just changed the venue and called it jail.
The fact that so many people have held on to these beliefs for…
Read moreTony Linde
Tony Linde is a Friend of The Conversation.
retired
One point that has to be countered. Religion is not the source of our 'code of ethics'. Ethics arise from our need to lead fruitful lives in a social context. Various religions may have adopted some and distorted other natural ethics and invented a whole slew of unnecessary and invidious alternative 'ethics' but they most definitely are not the source.
Tony Linde
Tony Linde is a Friend of The Conversation.
retired
The idea that militancy in atheism is no longer necessary is wrong. As long as religions are permitted to occupy a privileged position in our communities, are allowed to poison children's minds in their 'faith-based' schools, then we need to be militant in our opposition to religion. The problem is that most people, like the authors, think that much of what might be considered normal or natural and non-harmful in our societies is the product of hundreds of years of indoctrination. Read Barthes' Mythologies.
Tim Scanlon
Author and Scientist
Good point Tony.
Ethics and morality are a societal construct not a religious one. Evidence of this is the way most societies have similar rules, regardless of religion.
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
Indeed Tony. Religion can have some of my respect when it gets its grubby little hand out of my pocket. Render unto Caesar indeed. Pffft.
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
Indeed Tim, see my previous point. Most of the things we ascribe to religion are merely evolutionary adaptations. With the disgusting exception of circumcision of course which was simply about tribal ( read jewish) identification.
Michael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
"Science, I feel, is somewhat deluded, if we think we can come up with some unified theory without factoring in the “life” force and “consciousness”.. "
Exactly!! Why dont we have some sort of neuro science that studies conciousness and the bra.....oh wait a minute you are talking shit
Tim Scanlon
Author and Scientist
Militant atheist?? You mean when asked what religion an atheist is, they respond with "none" and are forced to defend themselves against a tirade of abuse about how stupid they are for not believing in God, that's militant is it?
Because I remember the last time an atheist came knocking on my door to deliver the word of science.
James Walker
logged in via Facebook
No, it's never happened has it?
But athiests trolling on the internet, preaching but not understanding science...how many seconds has it been since that?
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
Dunno Jim, why don't you tell me?
Michael Dwyer
Misanthropist
"Militant atheism is, in this state of affairs, counter-productive. It argues violently against people who are, for the most part, obviously very good and decent and sincere."
By what measure are these atheists militant and there arguments violent? Does asking for evidence for claims and not accepting a privileged place for religion in our society make one militant and violent?
Tony Linde
Tony Linde is a Friend of The Conversation.
retired
Quite right, Michael.
Matthew Thredgold
Software Engineer/Secondary Teacher
I find the term "militant atheism" offensive.
I think it is a made up term by those politically and religiously opposed to atheism. So called "militant atheist" Richard Dawkins is a measured, articulate, and generous writer and thinker. He is not encouraging people to blow up buses in Pakistan, or bomb markets in Nigeria, or shoot youth in Norway, or yell at shoppers in Rundle Mall, or encouraging suicide bombers, or issuing fatwahs, all of which would be a good indication of militancy. He is arguing calmly about scientific truths and how not lying to children and sectarianising them might be a good idea. Calm, civil and polite does not equal militancy. Being right about things does not give those who are wrong about things the liberty to brand him militant.
De Botton's an atheist and an aesthete. Other atheists are more or less concerned with aesthetics. There is no controversy. There is no story.
Colin MacGillivray
Retired architect
I dislike being called a non-believer.
I believe the universe, earth and life on it was created by, and evolved from, the Big Bang over 13 billion years ago. This belief is validated by science.
Q- How should you think about people who do have religious convictions?
A- They have a brain defect that in the future will be able to be cured, if they want.
Q- And what might religions have been getting right – even if their foundational beliefs were false?
A- Providing a place for people to meet and feel good about themselves, like the masons or rotary.
jamie jardine
student
"I believe the universe, earth and life on it was created by, and evolved from, the Big Bang over 13 billion years ago. This belief is validated by science."
Five hundred years from now it is quite possible that this belief too may seem as ridiculous as the creation myths currently espoused by some religous fundementalists. Faith in the validity of science is essentially no different to the faith people five hundred years ago held in the the absolute authority of the Catholic church. I'm not saying science is wrong, but rather pointing out that for the layperson much of science too is faith based..
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
The difference is that Science ADMITS its mistakes. When was the last time you heard the church admit that its dogma is wrong (unless you count the doctrine of limbo which I believe has been abolished - I think it was John 23rd???) One day I suspect that Christianity will fess up that it was all a ruse but of course by then it will be too late. Peace:)
jamie jardine
student
Unfortunately science cannot tell us much about our subjective human experience, about the nature of the mind and this is why people still look to religion for answers. Science does a good job at explaining the nuts and bolts of material reality, but the mind or consciousness is immaterial and currently beyond its grasp.
This aspect of our experience then needs to be addressed in a more meaningful way, the typical simplistic arguments of God vs no God or science vs religion stifle discussion. Maybe this is what the author meant by militant athiesm in the article, these issues are not as cut and dry as some would have you believe.
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
I disagree. Have you read Stephen Pinker's book, The mind? Today we have a greater understanding of how the mind integrates knowledge and experience than at any point in history. We will unlock its secrets at some point. Religion then will have nothing to add. This "God of the gaps" approach to religion is on a collision course with itself to destruction.
jamie jardine
student
Books on psychology leave me a bit cold, if you want to better understand the human condition try P.D. Ouspensky's "In search of the miraculous", it's a cracking read, peace..
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
It's not about psychology at all. Really I can recommend it very highly. I don't need to search for the miraculous. I have found the closest thing to it is how star stuff managed to create consciousness. Evolution is all you need to contemplate if you are in search of the source of all wonder.
jamie jardine
student
Or maybe it's consciousness that creates star stuff, every heard of the uncertainty principle?
jamie jardine
student
Sorry meant the observation problem, not the uncertainty principle..:)
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
Well yes actually. Have you read Capra's book The turning point
http://www.amazon.com/Turning-Point-Science-Society-Culture/dp/0553345729
I think he was way off the beam but perhaps it's just the benefit of hindsight. The book is nearly thirty years old. And no, I don't think consciousness created the universe. Seriously, how would you design a study to test that proposition?
jamie jardine
student
No, but I have read his book The Tao of physics which is a beauty. Consciousness creating reality may be difficult to test but that's no reason to discount it..
Joseph Bernard
Director
would it be a stretch to consider that consciousness is a continuum and that it permeates the universe.. here in this shell is but a tiny bubble that cannot exist here and nowhere else.. we are but a concentrated little bubble here on this planet but it must also exist in many other points at in a wave of different concentrations.. just like matter and antimatter (dark matter).. space is probably an illusion
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
Ah yes it is.
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
Yes. Yes it would. Next question.
Joseph Bernard
Director
So if there are other bubbles of consciousness in the universe, there are probably different degrees of consciousness, maybe a superconsciousnes..
The use of the word "God" is a man made construct that means many things to many different people.. What it is really is yet to be discovered and so to say it exists or does not exist is almost a meaningless discussion..
I invite you to watch this youtube presentation by Paul Davis.. It is a very interesting scientific persective.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tB1jppI3fo
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
I have not accepted your proposition there are "bubbles" of consciousness in the universe so you can stop repeating it unless you are going to provide some manner of proof. I have read Paul Davies book The fifth miracle - I saw him when he was in Melbourne for the writers festival ten years ago. I have also read his book The mind of God. While I admit he has some interesting ideas I think his starting point in a lot of discussions is a bit suspect. There is nothing particularly special about consciousness for example. Even his theory the Universe must have been designed for life since how else could it have arisen given the bizarrely improbable nature of it has been shot down by Dawkins in my humble and considered view.
Seamus Gardiner
Citizen
There is something special about consciousness if you're undergoing it. Other than that I guess it is too banal to mention.
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
You will have to better than that. What is it that makes consciousness so special? Approximately six billion people in the world have it. Seems fairly pedestrian to me. Like I said earlier, wind the clock a few million years and it might never have happened. It's not an end point in itself you know.
Seamus Gardiner
Citizen
Mmmm touchy. I was alluding to the personal subjective nature of the phenomenon.. I.e. to each of us the personal experienced phenomenon is literally special. The comment about banality alluded to your point about its commonality (ie 6billion humans and maybe to some degree other mammals )
If you want to question the special nature of consciousness as a property, well the hard problem of consciousness is still not any easy question to answer, the problem of the 'observer' in quantum mechanics seems pretty special to me too. Do you have any special insight into these problems that would render them trivial or at least non- special?
Joanna Richardson
public servant
I am an agnostic rather than an atheist, taking the position that since there is only this life in this body, I do not need to worry whether God/s exist or not. But there is little point in being rude about other people religious/spiritual beliefs except when they interfere with human rights and good education.
I like the idea of seeing what needs religion caters for and trying to adapt is to a secular society. Christians have lent and Muslims have ramadan both of which were largely about exercising…
Read moreTony Linde
Tony Linde is a Friend of The Conversation.
retired
Thanks for the reference to Hogfather, Joanna. I've long held that the Discworld series contains the only books you need to devise a decent and workable system of ethics for humanity (and trolls, dwarves, orcs etc).
Paul Hensby
logged in via Facebook
I'm an atheist who understands the need some people have for religion. I appreciate the wonderful religion-inspired art and architecture that adds to our quality of life. But I don't believe in a God, heaven and the rest of what religion means. I also hold the opinion that religion should not be forced on to us through education or any other state backed initiatives. I'm not sure whether this makes me militant or not, but one thing's certain - religion has within it the encouragement of militant and violent behaviour, far more so than atheism.
Jack Smith
Comedian
Bad ideas exist to be destroyed. It is important to respect all members of society, but there is no need to apply the same respect to ignorant ideas.
You may as well argue the "militant" pro-vaccination lobby are not doing enough to convince the moderate "anti-vaxxers" that vaccines don't give you autism. Or that they are being "counter-productive" if they don't try to take away some good parts of an anti-vaccine worldview...
Lots of "nice people" could sincerely believe any idea. It doesn't mean the rest of society needs to embrace it. "Militant atheists" generally support your right to believe whatever you want, it just doesn't make your idea immune from criticism.
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
I disagree with the fundamental premise of Alain. Religion exists first and foremost as an instrument of social control. To attempt to conflate this with all of the good works that are done in the name of religion while ignoring all of the evil is a grave mistake. Even IF there is a "God" part of the brain, pandering to it or attending to it is not necessarily conducive to the survival of the species. At the commencement of recorded history religion may have conferred an evolutionary advantage, probably the main reason for its survival in the face of reason. Today that excuse can no longer be used. Belief in God has outlived its purpose. The need for spirituality should be countered with a sense of wonder in the natural world. Evolution is miraculous enough for me. We will never have as deep an appreciation of humanity without understanding this. Religion is NOT necessary.
James Walker
logged in via Facebook
[snort] The reason religion is so greatly feared by totalitarian regimes is that it offer a way to free yourself from social control!
Last figures I saw put the life expectancy of religious people at 7.5 years greater than that of athiests....and climbing. Shoots down everything you say, doesn't it.
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
Religion is the ultimate totalitarian regime. Believe in me or suffer eternal torment. You don't get much more threatening than that. I will need an authority for your proposition regarding life expectancy.
Debbie Hoad
student at University of Canberra
One of the reasons that religion is so good at controlling people is that it acknowledges and often meets certain human needs, or because it recognises and taps into other aspects of human experience. Religion is not necessary, but it will continue to flourish as long as people insist that those needs/experiences are the result of religion and not the reason people respond to it.
I believe that De Botton is not trying to argue (at all) that we need religion. He is just acknowledging that there are things religion does well and that secular experience can benefit from considering not WHAT religion does, but HOW it does it. This is not because religion or religious belief is important, but because the (non-harmful) methods employed by religion (that acknowledge human nature and need) are part of the reason it endures (when it shouldn't).
Stuart Burns
Researcher, Broadcaster, Horticulturist
Alain De Botton confuses the artefacts of cultural support for religions with the machinery of the religion itself. Religion is a belief, the support mechanisms around it are inspired by those beliefs, but they are not the same thing. The churches and art and social constructions that go along with religions may have benefits for people as a whole, where the belief systems do not.
It's all very well to set up shop as some kind of alternative to Richard Dawkins, but it's a cheap publicity stunt, especially as Dawkins spends at least a chapter of the God Delusion considering the positive contributions of religion to our culture.
To call atheists brutal, or horrific for questioning ideas is an inexcusable exaggeration, while religious people of every stripe the world over are physically and emotionally abusing and even killing people for their actions or just for existing.
James Walker
logged in via Facebook
Your distinction betwen the beliefs and trappings of religion is a good one. My own fear is that by adopting the trappings, Alain loses the core, most valuable aspects of religion in general and Christianity in particular.
Debbie Hoad
student at University of Canberra
He seems to feel he is losing the least valuable aspects. As an ex-believer, I agree.
Michael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
it’s ridiculous to use indoctrination techniques to teach people to be freethinkers…you’re teaching them what to think instead of how to think. It’s a good way to get people to memorize things, but a bad way to get people to understand things… and understanding is critical.
When religion promotes morality they are not actually teaching morality they are teaching rules usually with bad slippery slope arguments - Religion has been an utter failuire
Where de botton finds the good in religion…
Read morePat Loria
Research Librarian
The "militancy" of atheism is that it demands scientific evidence for what is essentially non-scientific knowledge. On the other hand, scientific knowledge is being challenged/updated/replaced all the time.
Matthew Thredgold
Software Engineer/Secondary Teacher
That is not the definition of the word militancy.
Joseph Bernard
Director
I suspect that given the responses we should use the word "emotional" rather than "militant"
comments suggesting that atheism demands "scientific evidence"? where is the method here?
to simply say religion is irrelevant when probably 90% of the planet subscribe to one belief or another is that "scientific"?
The world is not black or white and the answer lies somewhere in between.. Lets face it Atheism is yet another "Ism" which needs to be treated with the same suspicion as any other "Ism"
Matthew Thredgold
Software Engineer/Secondary Teacher
Joseph,
No it isn't just another "Ism". Atheism is solely the lack of belief in any supernatural entity. You can put all the cultural baggage you like onto it, but it doesn't make you correct about anything.
As for the "answer" being not black or white, but somewhere in between, what was the question?
And why would you not ask for evidence to any outlandish claim? The opposite of that is gullibility.
Pat Loria
Research Librarian
Like the outlandish claim of not believing in the supernatural, without any evidence at all to support that position? Where's the science in that?
Maybe we shouldn't believe in atheism (a-atheism?), because there is no evidence to support its central thesis (the outright denial of the supernatural).
Agnostics adhere more to the scientific method, as they suspend belief until further evidence (be it scientific or spiritual) compels them one way or the other.
Pat Loria
Research Librarian
One definition of militancy: the number of posts by atheists whenever an article on religion appears in The Conversation.
Tim Paton
Automotive Engineer
Agnostic does not mean that one is waiting for further evidence.
Agnosticism is an acknowledgement that there is not, and can not be, an absolute certainty because there is no proof either way.
Gnostics - those who have absolute certainty of their beliefs one way or the other - are, in my opinion, deluded.
I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I have absolutely no reason to believe that there is a deity, but can not provide concrete evidence to prove this to be the case. Just like I can't provide concrete evidence to prove that there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden.
There are no fairies. There is no God. It is incumbent on those who claim the existence of these things to provide a plausible reason why we should believe that they are there.
Pat Loria
Librarian
Because you already know God is there.
Tim Paton
Automotive Engineer
I do?
More than I know that the fairies are there?
Based on what evidence?
And how do you prove that... to pick one at random... Vishnu isn't there?
Pat Loria
Librarian
Come on, be honest. There are certain things that can be classed as "common knowledge", whether or not people believe in them. Knowledge and faith are two completely different things. Besides, I didn't say Vishnu wasn't a real spiritual entity - I just choose not to believe in him.
Tim Paton
Automotive Engineer
You say "common knowledge", I say "irrational superstition".
I'm happy to leave it at that.
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
Indeed it is incumbent on those proposing a departure from conventional thinking - i.e. that which we perceive through the eight senses, that God exists. It is not incumbent upon me to prove his non existence - that is the null case or the default position since it accords with the facts at our disposal.
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
Of there there is common knowledge. Coming in out of the rain is an obvious example, more obvious even than "don't run with scissors".
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
What is this "non scientific knowledge" to which you refer? If you are referring to superstition masquerading as fact you will have a hard time convincing me.
Michael Shand
Michael Shand is a Friend of The Conversation.
Software Tester
"One definition of militancy: the number of posts by atheists whenever an article on religion appears in The Conversation" - Look if you are going to suggest that expressing opinions about a subject that interests you then makes you militant then you might be militant yourself? Also, Atheists are not just atheists...they can be humanists, secularists, religious, socialists, unemployed hippies, bankers, right wing left wing....to call someone an atheist says very little about them.
You sound very much like someone who has never heard the arguments against her position
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Facebook
“Like the outlandish claim of not believing in the supernatural, without any evidence at all to support that position? Where's the science in that?"
Reversing the burden of proof is the usual ploy of the theist. You should make the effort to understand what you're talking about, atheism is simply a lack of belief in any deity, it makes no claims about whether one (or more) exists or not.
Prove to me that unicorns exist, if you think they don't, explain why?
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Facebook
Joseph, in almost every case the term “militant atheist" is used by theists who feel the need to demonise non-believers for having the temerity to express opinions based on evidence and honesty rather than wishful thinking.
Even if 90% of the humans on the planet subscribe to one belief or another, so what? It doesn't make those beliefs any more evidentially based, it only illustrates that humans are predisposed to grasp for supernatural explanations when no logical, natural explanation is available to them. It's called faith.
In a way, the world is black or white, you have the choice of supernatural explanations for what you don't understand or you can apply the scientific method which sometimes leads to answers and sometimes to the path theists fear to tread, admitting that for the present, “we just don't know."
Joseph Bernard
Director
Blair,
Read morethis is a very emotional subject and the use of terms like "militant", "temerity" and "wishful thinking" in a general sense makes less sense than acknowledging that 90% of the planet follow some sort of belief. At least give people some credit and respect for their view or reality.
as for black and white, why do we have to have a choice? Science is a method of observation and just because we cannot see anything outside of our narrow frequency band of light does not mean they do…
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Facebook
Joseph, I don't care what people choose to believe so long as they refrain from forcing their particular superstition on others. So long as theists demand exemptions like tax breaks or exemptions from antidiscrimination laws, they forego any right to respect.
“Science is a method of observation and just because we cannot see anything outside of our narrow frequency band of light does not mean they do not exist.. "
You might want to familiarise yourself with the concept of the electromagnetic…
Read moreKevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
Indeed Blair, as I stated earlier people can believe in the flying spaghetti monster if they like they can do it while they get their hand out of my pocket. The Rodent raised the promotion of sectarianism to an art form with the manner in which he funded some religious schools - the cult of the Exclusive Brethren being a classic case in point. This is not the job of the Government. In fact if you read the Constitution it is in direct violation of it. s.117 to be precise.
Joseph Bernard
Director
I find it interesting that so many people want to believe something and i know there are a number of different reasons which are almost not even related to each other.. eg "social' structure through to the "super natural" and "God" or our existence..
Sorry, but everyone has their interests and i find this whole discussion of' 'ism' vs 'ism' a reflection of the human condition, egos and the fear of the unknown.. call it what you like.
as for Kevin's comment.. 'What is it that makes consciousness so special? Approximately six billion people in the world have it. Seems fairly pedestrian to me. '
I would like to quote "Hitch Hiker’s guide" where the number of people on the planet is a finite number, but it seems the universe is infinite.. so divide a finite number by infinity and you get ZERO.. so what the heck are we doing here? .. well i am off to get some sex .. have a great weekend guys. :)
Debbie Hoad
student at University of Canberra
"Because you already know God is there."
Arrogant, and untrue.
John Harland
bicycle technician
Gods are a human construct, just as science is. Both are frameworks within which we order our understanding of the world.
Both science and religion can be dogmatic, or an earnest search for meaning.
Both science and religion attempt to codify the infinite complexity of our surroundings into ideas that are comprehensible to the human mind.
And Kevin, science can sometimes take a long time to acknowledge its errors, and not all religions are as slow to acknowledge their mistakes.
But the…
Read moreKevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
Ah yes the old Newtownian - Cartesian paradigm criticism. If the whole of religion is greater than the sum of its parts then it eludes me. If it allows a more comprehensive appreciation of science by attacking it at every turn then it seems a very funny way to go about it.Rachael Kohn has argued in Curious obsessions that deeply religious individuals have extended our understanding through their contributions to science. The exceptions she writes of prove the rule. Religion and science are antithetical to one another.
James Walker
logged in via Facebook
The reason that science is so useful, is that it has attacked itself at every turn, never allowing any principle to be unchallenged. Blaming other concepts for doing the same is bizarre.
Exceptions do not prove rules. They disprove them. This is, among other things, a basic principle of science.
If science and religion were antithethical to each other, it would have been impossible for great scientists, from Isaac Newton to Francis S. Collins, to be so profundly religious.
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
Ah yes but religion attacks science without rules or justification. At least when science questions prevailing wisdom it does so with some manner of intellectual rigor. You cannot say "God did it" without appreciating the unintended irony of this. Exceptions do not necessarily disprove rules. PV still equals nRt but not under all conditions. The next thing you will be telling me is Einsten believed in God:)
James Walker
logged in via Facebook
No; the rules for religious attacks on science are ethical ones. The longest ongoing battle between science and religion is on the issue of vivisection, a battle that began during the early middle ages. (During the Classical Era, slaves were vivisected!)
Any religious attack on science must have an ethical basis. The most obvious case of this jumping the tracks is regarding evolution - the springboard of the whole creationist mess was caused by Social Darwinism, an evil monstrosity that (falsely) claims to be based on the principles of evolution; look into the history of William Jennings and others. (From personal experience, if you get to the core ethical fears of Creationists, you're far more likely to make progress than if you just repeat the evidence).
Joseph Bernard
Director
Russel,
I do not know If Einsten did not believe in God, but it seems that He did not believe that God played Dice.. well He has been quoted as saying this whether you believe that or not :)
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
Ah Joe mate, this quote is not difficult to find:
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist."
Check mate I think. Peace:)
Debbie Hoad
student at University of Canberra
Not checkmate, in fact. When you quote Einstein on belief in a god you need to encompass his whole view.
"I'm not an atheist..."
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
Einstein was not an atheist. Neither was he a theist (which is why he would be considered an atheist from the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest). He was in fact a deist.
"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."
So please stop doing that. :)
Seamus Gardiner
Citizen
Ahem, that would be checkmate...
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
I am NOT an atheist. I am a proud antitheist. Not only do I not believe in God, I believe that belief in God is a disease. It offends against basic common sense. It offends against reason. There is probably only one thing worse for humanity than belief in God and that is religion.
Mark Duffett
logged in via Facebook
Thank you, Kevin V Russell, for exemplifying the very definition of a militant atheist. Glad we got that sorted.
Benice Spark
2nd year PhD. candidate Literary Theory at Deakin University
Militant atheism as represented here by M.V. Russell and indeed, R. Dawkins in God Delusion, is clearly the absolute belief or faith in its own ideology to the exclusion of other beliefs.
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
So are you a militant theist?
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
You don't need "faith" to be an atheist. I've say it already but you only need to rely on your eight senses. And a little deductive reasoning. You do however need to have faith to believe in some sort of God there being no observable proof for its existence.
Jonathan Maddox
Software Engineer
"you only need to rely on your eight senses"
:^)
Care to enumerate?
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
Shirley you jest?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_eight_senses_of_the_human_body
Blair Donaldson
logged in via Facebook
Er Benice, have you ever read any of Dawkins works? Dawkins doesn't claim absolute knowledge as to the existence or otherwise of a god, he just doesn't believe in one himself. He also rightly criticises those people of faith who use their beliefs to subvert reason, evidence and human decency among other things. What's wrong with that?
“Militant atheism” only exists in the minds of insecure theists who need comforting justifications to acknowledge the reality of people who dare to think differently to them.
Chris Mack
Student
Of course there are differences between atheists. Once you have accepted and rejected religion everyone has differences of opinion based on their own moral values. "emotional order, ... depth of meaning, ... grandeur, beauty, forgiveness and compassion" can be derived from these personal moral values and the exchange of ideas with others of both different and similar opinions and all are very much alive without religion. Equally a "deliberate aim" can be collectively galvanised through other groups…
Read moreJohn Bourke
Student, LLB, BSc
Though slightly off point, this statement from Max Weber may provide food for thought:
"Who ‐‐ aside from certain big children who are indeed found in the natural sciences ‐‐ still believes that the findings of astronomy, biology, physics, or chemistry could teach us anything about the meaning of the world? If there is any such 'meaning,' along what road could one come upon its tracks? If these natural sciences lead to anything in this way, they are apt to make the belief that there is such a thing as the 'meaning' of the universe die out at its very roots. "
Tim Paton
Automotive Engineer
Who -- aside from certain big children who still believe in fairy tales -- think that the world needs to "mean" something?
Kevin V. Russell
logged in via Facebook
Really its only the left over bits of the brain which are concerned with the meaning of life anyway. The dinosaurs were here for hundreds of millions of years and weren't concerned with these things. Humans have faced mass extinctions several times over the aeons. There is no need for "meaning" to be attributed to life. Once you accept this you can get on with your life. Peace.
Michel Syna Rahme
logged in via email @hotmail.com
"Its first generation was militant because it had to fight to be heard. The second generation of atheism simply does not have this problem."....I have no idea how you reached that conclusion sir, could you please share how you reached that conclusion?
That article could be picked apart and burnt.... and I do not want to burn any bridges leading East, but with respect, that article to me seems wholly biased and based from a western privileged perspective and does not reflect the state of circumstances…
Read moreDebbie Hoad
student at University of Canberra
I'm astounded by how much of the conversation following this article focuses on the atheist vs theist viewpoint. But then this reveals exactly what de Botton claims - that it's a shame how focussed we still are on the question of whether or not religion is true, when there are more interesting questions to ask and answer. de Botton is addressing atheists, and his book is written for atheists, for whom the question of god's existence has been answered unequivocably and who should, he argues, be moving on to other things. Which is not what's happening here.
Val Wicks
Secretary
"It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists". --Mohandas Gandhi
Val Wicks
Secretary
Pascal's wager:
If we do not believe in God and God does not exist, we neither win nor lose.
If we do not believe in God and God does exist, we lose.
If we believe in God and God does not exist, we neither win nor lose.
If we believe in God and God does exist, we win.
Shirley Birney
retiree
If the religious ceased meddling in politics and bludgeoning society on the "abominations" of birth control (7 billion and counting..), abortion, gays and lesbians or euthanasia, they may be less irritating.
It's arrogant of the religious to scoff at the sciences when they are incapable of proving the existence of a supernatural deity (which ever one that may be) or even that the deity is a "he."
Or that the earth is six thousand years old - that's absurd.
Church attendances can be uplifting and a comfort to many and good works are performed for the disadavantaged, but please, less exploitation of the masses - here's looking at Cardinal Pell, and his brainwashing of the faithful (and beyond) on his nonsense about climate change.
http://news.discovery.com/history/bible-new-testament-forgery-110518.html
Mark Duffett
logged in via Facebook
There are a lot of people hung up on the phrase 'militant atheist'. It seems to me that what people mean by it is more akin to 'evangelical atheist'. Is that a term we could agree to use instead?
Debbie Hoad
student at University of Canberra
:) Yeah, because that phrase isn't also completely loaded or anything.
Michel Syna Rahme
logged in via email @hotmail.com
I would have done so earlier but I haven't had access to a computer for a week, I want to apologize to John Armstrong for ONE thing I said in my text above. It was wrong of me to attack the Title and Office and Attire of the author in the heat of the moment, just like I think it was wrong of Mr Armstrong to classify "ACTIVE ATHEISTS" as 'Militant Atheists' - as I expected more from him - a leader in Philosophy. I urge him and Alain to change the word 'Militant' and replace it with 'Active'. If John…
Read moreMichel Syna Rahme
logged in via email @hotmail.com
I would have done so earlier but I haven't had access to a computer for a week, I want to apologize to John Armstrong for ONE thing I said in my text above. It was wrong of me to attack the Title and Office and Attire of the author in the heat of the moment, just like I think it was wrong of Mr Armstrong to classify "ACTIVE ATHEISTS" as 'Militant Atheists' - as I expected more from him - a leader in Philosophy. I urge him and Alain to change the word 'Militant' and replace it with 'Active'. If John…
Read moreMichel Syna Rahme
logged in via email @hotmail.com
"A classical conception of conversation takes convergence as its final – if distant – goal. When intelligent, reasonable and cultivated people disagree there is almost always some hidden confusion or failure of evidence that explains the lack of harmony. But with time and care these failings can be made good. Classical conversation is the mutual aid in the joint pursuit of the truth."
Since reading and commenting on this article, I have read all of John Armstrong's article's for The Conversation…
Read moreSean Healy
logged in via Facebook
But there will never be any possibility of National Socialism's setting out to ape religion by establishing a form of worship. Its one ambition must be scientifically to construct a doctrine that is nothing more than a homage to reason. - Adolf Hitler.