Your and Maani’s contention that the neo-atheists are disproving god? To quote you:  “Maani, Hedges, I myself make based on familiarity with these atheists/authors, not any personal beliefs or a prejudice. Darwin is being pre-empted by atheists like Harris, Dawkins et al to disprove God.” This is flat out not true.  Neither Maani nor you, nor Hedges are right about this.

The support is in the texts of Dawkins, Dennett, and Mills.  I do not intend to give a book report on any or all of these brilliant current atheists. But I will cite their books:  Dawkins:  The God Delusion.  Dennett:  Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.  David Mills:  Atheist Universe.  Now just because Dennett’s book has the title it does not signify that he Dennis Dennett uses Darwin to disprove God (for whatever that might mean, but it is your phrase), nor the existence of god. Readers may seek answers for themselves.  If you read these authors, then you can point out specific quotes to support your thesis that they use Darwin to disprove the existence of god.

The point of the longer second paragraph in my post is quite self-explanatory. But to help you out.  There was no mention of Collin’s competency (that is a clever self-serving spin you put on my post).  Justification apparently in your case is very subjective.  I gave exact definitions of scientific evidence.  Collins does in fact does not do that.  Please provide it for his six premises if you think he does.  All “scholarly” work does not warrant field respect.  Often people, scientists included, do scholarly work that is challenged and unacceptable.  That does not mean a particular scientist is incompetent, it might mean he/she arrived at the wrong conclusions.  Which in my opinion is exactly what Collins has done.  If you wish to turn this discussion into a critique of Collins’ work, that is fine.  It is ridiculous to claim that Collins is more scholarly than Dawkins or Dennett, or Sam Harris.  You need to name “other scholars” who argue convincingly they “are out of their element with depth of education.” It is a laughable insinuation and claim. 

Yes, I guess you have “pretty much said what [you] have to say,” as far as I can see you haven’t said much anyway except try to defeat my contentions that there was no use of Darwin to disprove the existence of god, first of all since that is not what Darwin was doing, nor did Dawkins, Dennett, Mills, and Harris use Darwin’s work to disprove the existence of god.  Atheists do not make that attempt at all.  They say there is no credible evidence provided for the existence of god.  This is the point you apparently wish to avoid discussing.  You have not provided one shred of evidence for your case.  Even your bringing up Collins is merely as a reference but no quotes, or page numbers provided so we could verify what you say. And it is seriously in question whether you have made any positive comment at all on behalf of your claim.  I have already said I would be willing to change my nonbeliever status if any scientific evidence were provided that shows a supernatural being exists that interacts with humankind and has the common attributes of god:  omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence.  I think anything that would have those big four O’s could be entitled to be called a god.

Since our argument does not seem to be able to get past the present form, I suggest two things:  1) a reading of the Wikipedia entry, Existence of God, following everyone of the links provided within that essay and then arrive at one’s own conclusion.  There are 19 ‘See Also’ links and 15 ‘Further reading’ links that should provide ample reading both for and against both of our positions, and 2) that our particular discussion is closed.

Shenonymous,

I did explain to you precisely my problem with your responses, stream of consciouness...you did finally give an answer to the question I posed twice very specifically and that Main argued.....You contend that Maann is not correct. It’s a beginning. Where is your support for that response.

As for your lengthy second paragraph, I am mystified. What is your point? That Collins is not competent to debate because he is a Christian? that Darwin is not being inappropriately exploited? that Collins is out to lunch about creation? that no one has ever read Dawkins or Harris but you? 

I find your analysis of Collins less than objective. I have read his work and other authors you refer to. I do not agree with everything he says but he justifies his positions. I found nothing in Collins’ work that was less than scholarly. In fact he is far more scholarly and detached than Harris or Dawkins, who cleary and personally disrespect faith- based people and do not understand certain aspects of theology. They ought to get more in depth education before they critique. They are out of their element, as other scholars have argued. 

I’ve pretty much said to you what I have to say… by broadbrushing, your specific responses to points others make are hard to discern...You like to presume that I am too simpleminded to discuss things with you on your more advanced level and that you are far more versed. Maybe so, probably not. I do not know what point you are making. What is in your head is not necessarily evident on your post. 

Joan

If you took the time to read Dawkins, Dennett, Mills you would see that they never attempt to disprove the existence of God but continuously say there is no scientific evidence to support the notion that there exists supernatural beings.  Now there is a distinction between disproving a claim and saying there is no scientific evidence for such a claim.  My response does have a thread of logic to it all the way from string theory (which Hedges refers to in his also quite packed article) to Dostoyevsky, and I do admit to embellishing my arguments to make a point, and if those who read them cannot connect the dots, well so be it.  I certainly can connect dots but there is a lack of them to connect.  I am happy to explain if you would say exactly with what you are having a problem.  Is Maani right or not, no he is not. 

Collins Evangelical orientation is precisely germane particularly if he claims Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Dennis Dennett, and David Mills attempts to disprove the existence of god using Darwin, or even if Darwin is left out of the equation.  If he didn’t do that, then I fail to see why you used him as a reference.  To recapitulate, first of all the famous atheist guys have not made the attempt to disprove the existence of god and certainly did not use Darwin towards that end.  If they say there is no scientific evidence there is a god, that does not disprove it.  It simply says there is no evidence.  And scientist Collins does not provide evidence even among his famous six premises.  He makes the dogmatic statement that the universe came into being out of nothingness, about 14 billions years ago.  This is an unproved theory.  Second premises is ambiguous with the words “improbabilities” and “appear.” He admits in premise number three that the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, but he accepts the substance of evolution theory and natural selection.  And after that, he suggests no supernatural (god) was required).  His hypothesis of morality is dubious given there are other scientists who have contradictory theories.  He provides no evidence that since he cannot explain the existence of human morality, it can be attributable to a very ambiguous “spiritual” nature.  The constant hemming and hawing about providing real evidence is the crux of the problem.  I would be willing to admit a supernatural being exists if evidence is provided.  Now maybe the idea of evidence is not clear so here are a few synonymous phrases:  substantial criteria, indisputable demonstration, incontrovertible specimens, unassailable manifestation.  You might read the discussion between Collins and Dawkins God vs. Science in the Time Magazine, Sunday, Nov. 05, 2006 By David Van Biema at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,15551 32-5,00.html
but be sure to read the entire article not just the first page.

Shenonymous

Your entire response to my last post makes my point about triggering also sorts of reactions..…

Born again, Evangelical is beside the point, not germane to the issue… Collins is a scholar. He echoes the arguments that others… Maani, Hedges, I myself make based on familiarity with these atheists/authors, not any personal beliefs or a prejudice. Darwin is being pre-empted by atheists like Harris, Dawkins et al to disprove God. I asked you …is Maani right about this or not? Yes or no? 

In your response, somehow you got involved in discussions of death and pain and emotions and Buddhism and string theory, electrons, Dostoyevsky, necessary and sufficient conditions, exactness, “Dennett’s own (personal) science” (?), “ the scientific kind of non –empiricism” whatever that may mean…etc thoughts that are not central to the question at hand debate or if they are, you failed to connect the dots.

I cannot find your answer to this basic question about the meaty issue of this entire debate. Please exhume.  Limited mental ability that I may have, I know this little bit about the art of argumentation. It requires a certain mental discipline… staying on point and addressing the specific points.

Joan

I take everything you said, Maani, as a compliment.

Shenonymous:

The level of your condescension, self-aggrandization and conceit is truly stunning.  And it is clear that you do not realize just how obnoxious your attitude is.  And no, it is not about being honest and direct about one’s opinion or position.  It is about the self-important way in which you debate, and the snidely dismissive comments your make to others.

You may be “smart,” but you could really use a few lessons in humility and courtesy.

Peace.

Inasmuch as Collins is a born-again Evangelical Cristian, Joan, I am not surprised at the quote you easily found.  The fact that death and dying affected him so much to propel him out of his atheism shows his fear of death and dying.  Atheists in general do not have such fears, at least the ones I know including myself and I have seen much death and dying.  Personally I find human pain and death quite strong arguments against the existence of a god.  It is also interesting that you take my response to Maani as passionate.  I suppose any response could be considered passionate since to be unemotional one would have to ignore being and interacting in the world much as Buddhists teach.  But I am not a Buddhist, and sensuously live in the world as a participant in it in many and various ways both passionately and intellectually.  If you could point out a buried point of mine I would be happy to exhume it for you.  Your claim that I respond with “all kinds of different ideas...” is sort of a red herring on your part.  If you would elucidate on those as well I would be happy to simplify them down to your level of thinking.

Observations do not attempt to “explain” others’ arguments, but to be objective one would make personal comments instead. 

Hedges’ reference to string theory as a theorized phenomenon that “no scientist has ever seen...” implies that because there is no “firm ground” for science to believe it exists, and that somehow makes it similar to religious mysteries.  Yet Christians, and all religions for that matter, postulate an unseen deity, yet fervently believe in such supernaturalities. Partly Hedges’ point.  But because two things are inexact does not sufficiently nor necessarily connect them in any other way.  I would argue that there is nothing that is exact, neither you nor I, nor anything else.  Particularly if one uses science to try to grasp reality.  We all know there is a lot of space between electrons… and that they are always in motion, and that everything we experience we experience them in an absolute historical sense, never in a now context, always as past events.  And if we are compelled to accept these logically consistent ideas, for if we didn’t an extreme consequence would present itself, that everything would come to a bloody halt, well maybe not bloody since that is much too sanguine, but let’s revise to say everything would come to a very cold halt, and therefore, equating irrational beliefs in supernatural beings really has nothing to do with the scientific kind of non-empiricism.  Hence Hedges’ comparison is falsely premised.  Seems to me that Dawkins and Dennett, et al, find their own arguments and own science to justify their non-belief in deit(ies) even if they do reference evolution as a scientific fact.  As I said, facts are in the public domain.  I use none myself, neither Darwin, Dawkins nor Dennett (the Big Ds).  I just simply don’t believe and no one has ever offered any rational proof that I should.  Oh, I did use another D when I was a teenager, Dostoyevsky, as a reference for atheism once.  His questions were quite eloquent.

Shenonymous,

My point is not about Maani. It is about my attempts to follow your responses to points being made. You are very passionate about the subject but your responses to specific points get buried. I would just hope to see them more clearly. It seems that he makes a point and that triggers you to respond with all kinds of different ideas…

It’s not patronizing anyone…it’s an observation.

Case in point…this Hedge’s piece is roughly about contemporary atheism and Darwin…It is my observation that the contemporary atheists have cast the debate about evolution with evolution and God being mutually exclusive. It is one or the other, not both. That is the debate I hear in the press and in the books being published on atheism and Christian apologetics that are responding to the challenge. As best I see it, this is the nitty- gritty of the public discussion about evolution vs. God. That in this day and age in the context of the public debate that high school science teachers would maintain that evolution precludes belief in God seems a reasonable contention, Darwin’s original intentions notwithstanding.  Bottom-line, Is Maani wrong in his overall contention that Darwin is being misused? Yes or no? 

On another issue, if you have read Dawkins or Harris and not understood Darwin (ie Darwinism) as being used to disqualify God from creation and everything else including ethics, I think we read tracts differently.  Here is a quote from the first book I grabbed from my shelf…”Atheism has evolved in the decades since O’ Hair was its most visible advocate. Today it is not secular activists like O’ Hair who make up its vanguard- it is evolutionists. Among several vocal proponents, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett stand out as articulate academics who expend considerable energies to explain and extend Darwinism, proclaiming that an acceptance of evolution in biology requires an acceptance of atheism in theology.” “The Language of God” Francis S. Collins, pp 160-161. 

Joan

Interesting, Joan, that you feel you must explain Maani’s points.  Do you do that for everyone?  It is a patronizing habit.  As long as I have been interacting with Maani. which has been for many, many months, I have noticed he has always been able to handle his own questions whether or not I think he supports them well, and even if I think he spins things in a counterclockwise direction; well we have and can handle it in response.  I think Maani and I have no enmity between us.  Just differences of opinion.  I certainly do not have any for him.  Perhaps you do not have enough “faith” that Maani can deal with his own arguments?

Do you have your own questions?  Also you might go back and read the entire forum to catch up with what has already been discussed. 

To deal with your comment, however, please read Maani, August 4, 1:09pm, here I will quote it for you:  “… I invite you to ask 100 high school students what Darwin set out to prove, and I bet you a dollar to your dime that they say, “that God does not exist,” rather than “that the theory of special creation is wrong” (which is what he REALLY did). 

From Maani’s invented survey, the legitimate inference is that Darwin’s theory is grossly misinterpreted by high school teachers and high school students are going around with a false notion of what Darwin did.  And yes, one could extrapolate, however erroneously, Darwin’s theory of evolution as a counter argument to the existence of supernatural beings.  However, that is not the only conclusion the theory yields, and you are incorrect to think that it is, unless you are willing to say that all of today’s invocation of Darwin are seriously fraudulent .  I suggest you read all the literature on evolution and Darwin.  If high school teachers are using Darwin as the primary source as an example of an attempt to disprove God (which was not too well put by you I have to say, better to say disprove the existence of god), then that high school is in violation of the law of keeping religion out of public schools, whereas evolution is the approved curriculum for science classes.  But that is another issue.  Let us say that is what is happening, my broad brush stroke nevertheless would certainly cover that possibility as well as if Darwin texts were used directly.  It is moot whether Dawkins, Dennett, and others such as David Mills exploit Darwin’s theories.  The theory stands on its own and it is in the public domain for a purpose, for others to use and to exploit.  Darwin himself wanted this to be the case.  However, it is incumbent upon those using another’s theory to state the theory accurately not debase it for one’s own villainous purpose.  I have read much of Dawkins, Dennett and Mills, and many others and have not seen anywhere where Darwin was misused.  The theory neither provides nor not provides evidence of the existence or nonexistence of a god.  If you want to make a supported case that Darwin’s theory of evolution does anything more than investigate the diversity of organisms and the process of natural selection then please be our guest. 

You state my point exactly.  I was giving recorded evidence of Christians murdering innocent millions in the name of their god and Maani was counterarguing with those killing millions in the name of politics.  I argued “A” and Maani argued “B.”

Painting with wide brushes does cover a lot of area, I call it the Wide Sweep Approach.  It covers gaps that most likely would have been relevant issues.

Everyone,

Please excuse last post...hit the wrong key as you probably realize… My apologies…

Shenonymous,

When you are painting with your broad brush, you are arguing points Maani has not made...but more or less arguing against points you interpolate from his ideas...not countering what he specifically says…

For instance, as best as I can ascertain, Maani never said Darwin set out to prove that God did not exist. Anyone who has read the contemporary atheists such as Harris, Dawkins et al sees that they are exploiting Darwin as a means for empirically demonstrating that God does not exist. Today invoking Darwin, the propostion is an either/or propostion...If there is evolution, there is no God. This debate is THE DEBATE on which teaching evolution in public schools centers. It extends from the classrooms to the steps of the Vatican. Hence Maani’s contention that Darwin certainly is being used to as an attempt disprove God, whether this was Darwin’s intention or not. These are two different points, Darwin’s intent and how his work a being used by others. 

Understanding the specific points of an argument is crucial to the kind of conclusion that can be legitmately drawn or the critiques it is reasonable to make in response. If someone argues about “A” , it seems rather freewheeling or like a stream of consciousness to be responding by arguing about “B”.

Joan

Shenonymous,

yuareacinfusg di

Shenonymous:

Could it be?  Are we actually finally in agreement?  LOL.

I accept your most recent post in its entirety, and am glad that we have at least come to a point where we agree on most, and agree to disagree (politely..LOL) on other points.  I particularly appreciate your phrase “self-described Christian Nazis,” since, if the hypocrisy of Christians is one of your bugaboos, the historically incorrect claim that Hitler and the Nazis were “Christians” is one of mine (as you well know).

Ultimately, you are correct: the murder of ANY NUMBER of people in the name of ANY religious or political system is abhorrent, and should be condemned in the strongest terms.

Peace.

Pieces!  Maani...I apologize, I don’t recall your lamentations.  But I’m contented you have.  And I have no argument with your count of the millions killed by communists.  I thought I made that clear yesterday.  Oh well, I’ll say it again.  You are indubitably correct in giving the multitudinous count of those murdered by communists (and let’s not leave out the self-described Christian Nazis who exterminated millions of Jews!).  As I shall have to make my point again, it is comparing apples and cucumbers in comparing killing done in the name of god (i.e., the Christians which I briefly charted yesterday) and killing done for political power (communist and Nazis).  I do believe there is a categorical difference.  But you refuse to see it.  Aside from being a non-militant atheist in the same vein as say Buddhist atheists who abhor violence, but also just as a human being, I detest those fascist murderous communists.  They were quasi atheists and full of their own hubris, as some atheists and theists are. I do not pretend to give exception, or immunity, to the idea that atheists cannot also be hypocrites.  As I defined the word yesterday, there are pretenders in all views of the existential.

Shenonymous:

“My point is that there was killing done using their god as justification, which you fail to acknowledge.”

Given your comment to Joan about how long you and I have been debating this, I find it just a bit snarky that you would claim that I have never acknowledged that atrocities were committed by Christians in the name of their God; indeed, not just acknowledged it, but lamented it as well.

Also, by your own count, 2,503,000 were killed by Christians in a 200-year period ending in ~1300. But let’s assume that is a conservative number and raise the bar to 3 million - or even 5 million.  Lenin and Stalin ALONE killed TEN TIMES THAT MANY - yes, in the “name” of their “atheist” beliefs - in about 50 years.  And this doesn’t include Mao (~30-60 million), Hitler (~10 million) or Pol Pot (~5 million).  I appreciate that you are making my case for me.  LOL.

Another error you make is assuming that, unlike Christians who have a God and a set of (presumed) tenets to which they can be (and often are) hypocritical, atheists do not, and are thus immune from hypocrisy.  To suggest this would be the height of arrogance and conceit.

As for totalitarianism, I again refer you to “Sacred Causes” by Michael Burleigh.  I believe it will open your eyes to things you seem blindered to.

Peace.

Intentionally so, Joan.  Maani’s theme(s) are not very compelling and I’ve known his viewpoint(s) for a very long time.  We are not new at our arguments with each other.  There actually have been aspects of Maani’s views that I agree with, but I haven’t seen any lately.  When there are few dissenters within a religion, then most of the members (the majority, if you will) become the same hypocritical hue as the fanatics by default.  If it is a fact that high school students are given false impressions, let us say particularly in this case, Darwin’s entire theories, and whether or not he proposed a proof of the nonexistence of god, which he did not, we can only suppose the Intelligent Designers or some other such catechismic dogmatic and fanatic religion have got the instructors by their proverbially didactic balls.  Furthermore, these intentionally misinformed high schoolers become misinformed adults who intentionally and systematically have not been taught to think for themselves.  However, there are those who have argued brilliantly and in my opinion correctly that there is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, of a supernatural being, or beings if one believes in the pluralistic notion of gods.  Depends on what one has been taught to suspect is the truth and how to prove the truth of claims.

Shenonymous,

When you paint with a broad brush, you brush over the details which I think has been Maani’s theme. The details sometimes change viewpoints significantly.

Joan

Maani:  Perhaps the Crusaders were two hundred thousand in number, however they killed Muslims and Jews by the way to the tune of two million!  Christians along the way of their path gave the Crusaders sustenance, if they didn’t many of them were killed as well.  All that being said, I would agree that not all Christians were involved in the atrocities.  The fact that there were atrocities and massacres is what is important.  My point is that there was killing done using their god as justification, which you fail to acknowledge. 

In discussing ideas, Marx’s or anybody else’s, the elements of an idea do not belong to any particular domain, religion or political.  Furthermore, seeing the dynamics of an idea are really the seeds of creativity in any area of human action, basically Marx’s ideas were not that bad.  It is only when those tyrants of totalitarianism appropriated those ideas that it turned evil.  Unfortunately communism easily falls under this political disease.

Just to put a slight perspective on western “religious” murders, here is a rough estimate of the killings by Crusaders (1095-1291 AD) on command of Pope Urban II:
Charles Mackay, “Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the
Madness of Crowds:(1841): 2,000,000 killed in all Crusades.  Others put it at 1,500,000. 
Other Individual Events:
According to Davies: Crusaders killed up to 8,000 Jews in Rhineland
Paul Johnson:  A History of the Jews (1987): 1,000 Jewish women
Gibbon:  Battle of Nice [Nicea]:  300,000
Crusaders vs. Solimon of Roum:  3,000 Moslems massacred.
1098, Fall of Antioch: 100,000 Moslems massacred.
1099, Fall of Jerusalem:  70,000 Moslems massacred.
Siege of Tyre: 1,000 Turks
Richard the Lionhearted executes 3,000 Moslem POWs.
Fall of Christian Antioch: 17,000 massacred.

Peas and good night.  Tamarra is another day.

Shenonymous:

“What comparative Christian few are you talking about Maani?”

I am talking about the fact that the Crusades and Inquisitions were carried out by less than 200,000 people out of a total global Christian population at the various times of many millions, and then tens of millions.  Given this, how do you justify painting with your broad brush?  And no, not every Christian who was not actively involved in these atrocities tacitly supported them either.

Re Marx, it is just as hypocritical to steal a religious idea and then cover your tracks by denigrating and dismissing religion as it is to claim to be a Christian and do something un-Christian.  Your semantic argument doesn’t hold water.

“Just show me in Darwin where he said he was proving that god did not exist.”

You completely (deliberately?) missed my point.  My point was not what Darwin did or said (and I really don’t need lessons from you here, so your entire exegesis on Origin and Descent is wasted, at least on me), but rather what the scientific and educational communities TEACH about Darwin, or at very least leave the IMPRESSION that they leave re Darwin’s work.  THAT is what makes its way into the minds of impressionable high school and college students who go on to become badly educated adults - who then read books in which rabidly zealous atheists (and scientists, no less!) like Dawkins leave the same impression.

I agree that “hypocritical adherents” to ANY faith are worthy of refutation and perhaps even disdain. Your problem is that you see them as the majority - even the overwhelming majority - while I believe them to be the minority (even if only just so).

Peace.

On Darwin… Cont.
Then in The Descent of Man, there are eight references regarding god. In Chapter 21, the last chapter, 4th paragraph, “The belief in God has often been advanced as not only the greatest, but the most complete of all the distinctions between man and the lower animals. It is however impossible, as we have seen, to maintain that this belief is innate or instinctive in man. On the other hand a belief in all-pervading spiritual agencies seems to be universal; and apparently follows from a considerable advance in man’s reason, and from a still greater advance in his faculties of imagination, curiosity and wonder. I am aware that the assumed instinctive belief in God has been used by many persons as an argument for His existence. But this is a rash argument, as we should thus be compelled to believe in the existence of many cruel and malignant spirits, only a little more powerful than man; for the belief in them is far more general than in a beneficent Deity. The idea of a universal and beneficent Creator does not seem to arise in the mind of man, until he has been elevated by long-continued culture. He who believes in the advancement of man from some low organised form, will naturally ask how does this bear on the belief in the immortality of the soul. The barbarous races of man, as Sir J. Lubbock has shewn, possess no clear belief of this kind; but arguments derived from the primeval beliefs of savages are, as we have just seen, of little or no avail. Few persons feel any anxiety from the impossibility of determining at what precise period in the development of the individual, from the first trace of a minute germinal vesicle, man becomes an immortal being; and there is no greater cause for anxiety because the period cannot possibly be determined in the gradually ascending organic scale.’ This is comparatively brief and hardly a proof offered for the non-existence of god. 

All this notwithstanding, and since I have saved you all the work, you may now have a better understanding of Darwin’s activities, and I further suggest that you make a comprehensive study strengthen your knowledge on this topic.

It is my style to use a wide brush when covering a variety of topics, that way I avoid leaving too many bare spots. 

The word “stole” with reference to Marx is a mere expression meaning he found a useful idea from Christianity, but it was taken directly from your post “are you aware that Marx stole the basic concept of communism from Christianity?  It is your style transform semantically but it doesn’t work here with me.  Asking the question has nothing to do with morality, by the way, hence defense is not necessary.  I am ecstatic I shined a light on hypocrisy, as it did need illumination. 

I harbor no hatred, unbridled or otherwise, nor disdain for religion, it is the hypocritical adherents that are despicable and rank.

What comparative Christian few are you talking about Maani?  And exactly what acts are you talking about?  I don’t claim to be fair in any case.  The Crusaders were not being “fair,” were they?  I have no idea how you judge atheists, you seem to be judging them on some criteria.  What might that be?

Glad you admit there are ignorant adults.  Just show me in Darwin where he said he was proving that god did not exist.  In his introduction to Origin of the Species he made no mention of proving the non-existence of god, nor in his conclusion did he conclude the non-existence of god.  And if you read each of the chapters you would see that he was intent on explaining the diversity of organisms and describing the process of natural selection.  Would you care to provide a section of the book that supports your accusation?  Now if you were to offer up Locke and/or Hume as having taken the challenge of providing scientific grounds for religious beliefs you might have some substance for argument although you would lose on those grounds as well since they were unsuccessful. 

From Darwin’s diary, it is shown he was attached to the church, and never entertained the idea to prove the nonexistence of god.  Here are some relevant entries: --My chief enjoyment and sole employment throughout life has been scientific work; and the excitement from such work makes me for the time forget, or drives quite away, my daily discomfort. I have therefore nothing to record during the rest of my life, except the publication of my several books. Perhaps a few details how they arose may be worth giving.

--After having spent two sessions in Edinburgh, my father perceived, or he heard from my sisters, that I did not like the thought of being a physician, so he proposed that I should become a clergyman. He was very properly vehement against my turning into an idle sporting man, which then seemed my probable destination. I asked for some time to consider, as from what little I had heard or thought on the subject I had scruples about declaring my belief in all the dogmas of the Church of England; though otherwise I liked the thought of being a country clergyman. Accordingly I read with care ‘Pearson on the Creed,’ and a few other books on divinity; and as I did not then in the least doubt the strict and literal truth of every word in the Bible, I soon persuaded myself that our Creed must be fully accepted.  See next post for a completion of this train of thought.

Shenonymous:

“I judge religions by the acts of its members on behalf it their religion.”

And herein lies your problem.  You are judging the entirety of Christian thought and Christendom by the actions of a comparative few.  Not exactly fair, is it?  I don’t judge atheists en masse by the actions of Stalin, Lenin, Mao et al.

Your prior post deserves complete parsing:

“I suppose if you want to take what immature high school students want to say about science you can do that. Since it is exactly not what Darwin set out to do at all, it is rather adolescent of you to take the sentiments of the many ignorant teenagers over the record of the one, Mr. Darwin.”

Those “immature high school students” grow up to be the ignorant adults that I hear the same thing from.

“Obviously you don’t quite understand what Darwin was doing...”

I almost don’t want to honor this with a response; anytime you want to debate Darwinian theory - or, indeed, any “hard” science, including physics, geology, paleontology and biochemistry - with me, feel free to take your best shot.

“...nor do you demonstrate that you understand the concept of “the masses” but seem to think that it is some kind of unified whole that acts rationally as if it were a single being itself.  But observing the religious collective it is easily seen that religion acts as a palliative and infectiously conditions their individual minds collectively to follow some fictionalized mythical supernatural being rather than develop their own critical thinking and judiciously moral minds.  And sorry to see that you have been infected as well. In saying religion is the opiate of the masses is saying the masses of religious individuals use religion to avoid using their own thinking minds about questions of morality and existence.”

Really?  So not only do you judge the entirety of Christendom by the actions of a comparative few, but you now make a broad-brush generalization that believers do not possess “critical thinking and judiciously moral minds.” You bury yourself in your own foolish - and hopelessly insupportable - comments.

“Does it matter if Marx “stole” the concept from Christianity?”

Given that YOU are the one who is “shining a light” on “hypocrisy,” I find this question morally indefensible.  Of course it matters!  Just as you are correct that it matters that people who self-proclaim as Christian do things that are against the tenets of their claimed belief.

“Being dispossessed of one’s own mind but following as if lemmings do not evolved human beings make but makes them lemmings.”

Believers = lemmings?!  Again with the insupportable broad-brush generalizations!  Despite your claims of having “respect for the necessity of religion,” your unbridled hatred and disdain for it is transparent.

Ultimately, you undermine your entire position when you attempt to debate as you do, with broad-brush generalizations, denigration, disdain and dismissal.  And that is sad, because you are obviously a very intelligent woman.

Peace.

Silly question Petros.  Seems the so-called nazis (who set up their own secular religion) and so-called atheist communists killed in the name of their agenda, totalitarianism.  Don’t you think? Well depends on how you define hypocrite.  In the Greek it means ‘actor,’ ‘prentender,’ not so irrelevantly.  Christians killed the millions they massacred acting or pretending to be on behalf of their god.  So did the Muslims by the way kill the multitude supposedly acting on behalf of their god. 

What exactly are the philosophical arguments and implications for your understanding of atheism?  And if Christian doctrine says one thing but the Christians do another thing that is hypocrisy within the scope of their religion.  And if it abuses, tortures, on behalf of their religion that teaches benevolence, that too is hypocrisy.  I judge religions by the acts of its members on behalf it their religion.

Of course it is ridiculous to debate how many people have been killed on behalf of a religion, isn’t it?  Whatever is done in the name of a religion is outside the realm of morals, right?  And of course whether killing is morally right or wrong has nothing to do with religion.  That is why the sixth commandment in the Judeo/Christian religions says, Thou shalt not murder (or kill according to Catholocism).

If atheist did not kill in the name of God then why did they kill?  In the name of themselves? 

Also, the hypocrite argument is quite irrelevant to any discussion of religion or atheism for that matter. 

I don’t judge atheism by it’s extreme followers, I judge it by it’s philosophical arguments and implications.  The same thing with Christianity, I don’t judge it by it’s hypocrites or it’s abuses, I judge it by it’s main tenets and philosophical and social implications. 

To debate how many people have been killed by what view of the world is ridiculous and childish.  To debate what makes killing morally right or wrong is another thing.

Happy to take up the argument where we left off in May, with much renewed energy!  Well Maani, I suppose if you want to take what immature high school students want to say about science you can do that.  Since it is exactly not what Darwin set out to do at all, it is rather adolescent of you to take the sentiments of the many ignorant teenagers over the record of the one, Mr. Darwin.  Obviously you don’t quite understand what Darwin was doing nor do you demonstrate that you understand the concept of “the masses” but seem to think that it is some kind of unified whole that acts rationally as if it were a single being itself.  But observing the religious collective it is easily seen that religion acts as a palliative and infectiously conditions their individual minds collectively to follow some fictionalized mythical supernatural being rather than develop their own critical thinking and judiciously moral minds.  And sorry to see that you have been infected as well.  In saying religion is the opiate of the masses is saying the masses of religious individuals use religion to avoid using their own thinking minds about questions of morality and existence.  Does it matter if Marx “stole” the concept from Christianity.  By the way, where does it talk about the multitude being drugged in Acts 4:32-35?  Hogwash, not at all.  Being dispossessed of one’s own mind but following as if lemmings do not evolved human beings make but makes them lemmings. 

So we quibble over the number of murdered.  Atheists who have killed others did not kill in the name of god!  But those hypocrite Christians did!  There is no justification for either murderers.  But those who kill calling on god’s graces to do so in my mind are the greater miscreants and cowards.

Shenonymous:

You say, “[S]cience is not out to prove a God does not exist...”

Really?  I invite you to ask 100 high school students what Darwin set out to prove, and I bet you a dollar to your dime that they say, “that God does not exist,” rather than “that the theory of special creation is wrong” (which is what he REALLY did).  And I know this because I hear it all the time from high school and college students, as well as from adults.

And how can you make such an absurd statement in the light of such books as Dawkins’, Dennett’s, and especially Stenger’s “God: The Failed Hypothesis?”

Second, you say, “Religion is the opiate of the masses as Marx once remarked.”

Are you aware that Marx stole the basic concept of communism from Christianity?  Here is the relevant Scriptural text: “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common...Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.” (Acts 4:32-35)

Get that?  From each according to his ability (to produce or provide), to each according to his need. The basic foundation of Marxism, stolen from Christianity.  And then he has the temerity to call religion “the opium of the people?” Hogwash.

Finally, you talk about “weighing the total weight” of those killed vis-a-vis religion and those killed vis-a-vis atheism.  I have taken up that challenge more than once, and you have failed to provide any evidence to refute it.  The total number of those killed in Crusades, Inquisitions, holy wars, witch burnings, etc. is estimated at perhaps ~75 to 100 million IN ALL OF RECORDED HISTORY.  Yet the number of people killed (deliberately or via policies) by just five men - Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot - was over 150 million IN JUST 60 YEARS!

I strongly suggest you read “Earthly Powers” and “Sacred Causes” by Michael Burleigh, arguably the most respected historian of the collision b/w politics and religion.  They will give you a better understanding of killing and murder vis-a-vis “religion” and vis-a-vis “atheism.”

Peace.

Who wants to weigh the total weight of bodies of those murdered by Christian Crusaders, those murdered by the Inquisition, and German Christians and Italian Fascists, then the millions killed by Christian America of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and let’s see, how about all those South American natives slaughtered by the Catholic Conquistadores, and then most recently by the Christian President of the United States the millions Iraqis killed, against the total weight of those murdered by the communist totalitarian Russia and China combined?  I haven’t even touched on those killed on behalf of Allah.  But Christians and Jews will do to make the point.  I’m sure other better historians of those murdered in the name of religion than I can remember a lot better than I can.  Let’s see....hmmmm...what is a dead human murdered in the name of a god worth?

Yeah, whose peace?

Looks like Albert did have a few carbuncles on his ass from sitting on the agnostic fence.  But if anyone wants to read the simplistic Wikipedia entry for his religious views, which are not quite as Maani editorially expresses, there are also in that article many links to clarify for yourself Albert’s beliefs. 

Baruch Spinoza’s god was a pantheistic god and if Albert said he believed in Spinoza’s god then what conclusion ought we to come to? 

Albert speaks of the “professional” atheist in one of Maani’s quotes but please do focus on the part of the quote, “whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth,” where Einstein clearly understands the source of the “professional” atheists’ zeal.  Fetters by the way means shackles, chains, manacles.  And Maani’s quotes also shows Einstein spoke of the “fanatical” atheist where he is equating that kind of ardor with the same as the fanatical religious.  And with that quote I quite agree with Einstein but the quote ought to be read carefully for the gravity with which he is describing the agony of the atheists likened to self-freed slaves who continue feel the weight of their chains though the chains are no longer being worn.  Furthermore, in the truncated Einstein quote, “To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted … by science...,” Maani fails to note that science is not out to prove a God does not exist, science eloquently says there is no evidence that a God exists and it is incumbent on those who say there is such a supernatural being to prove it . 

While there might be the professional atheist, and Dawkins, Sam Harris, and a few others might be called “professional,” because they write books and give lectures, speak at freethinker’s conventions, there are also other kinds: iconoclasts, pragmatists, deists, and those among whom I classify myself, humanist absolutes.  If one is going to talk intelligently about something, they ought to know exactly what it is they are talking about, otherwise they are just talking out of their asses.  I invite anyone interested to read a most lucid book, The Atheist’s Universe, David Mills, instead of reading Maani’s and my perennial bickering over the god/no god issue on these forums along side any book about religious doctrines and come to reasoned conclusions on your own.  All this having been said, although I am an atheist as described, and amazing as it may sound, I do have respect for the necessity of religion just as Einstein did whose Ideas of a personal god were closer to atheists than the religious.  Religion is the opiate of the masses as Marx once remarked.  You need some kind of social control for the ignorant mobs and religion when practiced true to their moral attitudes is one of the best methods to do that.

evilive:

While perhaps not exactly “genocide,” Stalin and Lenin most certainly DID engage in “slaughter” based on the creation of an atheist society.  Stalin and Lenin both had numerous churches blown up, and murdered believers SOLELY because of their belief.

You need to read a little more history.

As for the slaughter of indigenous people to “save” them, this is clearly not true of the largest genocide in history: that of the Native Americans. It was not “saving” them that led to their slaughter, but “manifest destiny”: the belief that we were “entitled” to the “new land,” and that they were simply in the way.  (That they were “savages” simply made it easier to justify.)

Peace.

Well you and that god of yours will have to catch me first!

so sorry if this is posted 2 times. (if and whenever it finally posts.)

Maani:

You really are trying to spin everything you say aren’t you?

Lets go over your quotes quotes again.

“"Perhaps.  However, when “science” and “rationality” held sway over public policy, government spending, etc., they gave us (among other things) poison gas, high explosives, eugenics, Zyklon-B, napalm, ICBMs and nuclear weapons. None of these things came from the minds of believers.”

That bolded part right there puts the lie into your attempt to spin it into “My comment was simply that the “inventions of death” most commonly used today were the result of “science” (i.e., “coldly,” without any thought toward morality or ethics) and not of “faith.””

Once again, much like hedges, make claims that are fully untrue and fully unsupported.  And that is not even getting into the fact that science need not be cold, immoral or unethical.  People can be, and the application of technology can be, but science is not.  Science simply is.  It’s like calling a wave evil because it wipes away your sand castle.  You are attempting to have it both ways, you want people to acknowledge that science is evil, and laying blame for everything on it (without supporting your case) while at the same time trying to cast the ‘faithful’ as benevolent (also without supporting your case).  Please do not think we are so stupid as to not see through that rather weak attempt on your part. 

“The legitimate issues caused by faith/religion are NOT addressable through “science.” They are issues of politics, culture, sociology, psychology, etc.”

Followed by your backtracking:

“As for my comment about “politics, culture, sociology, psychology, etc.,” and your comment that “these are sciences,” you deliberately twist my intent: they are not “hard” sciences like physics, biology, etc.  Yes, perhaps I should have made that clear: that “the issues being addressed by the “New Atheists” are not addressable through HARD science.” But I think you knew very well that that was what I was saying.”

How could i deliberately twist your intent.  You flat out said that science can not address issues because those issues are not in the realm of science.  Your attempt to demarcate ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ science is reminiscent of the common creationists/I.D. attacks on evolution, and holds just as much weight.  And again, just like hedges, you make claims about the ‘new atheists’ that you then fully fail to support with any evidence. 

And yes, much to your chagrin, i do know exactly what you are saying, and I know exactly how you are wrong in your misguided attempt to say it.

Shenonymous:

“Exactly where did Albert say he was an agnostic?  I provide references, can’t you?”

From a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950 (Einstein Archive):

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic...I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth.”

From a conversation with Hubertus, Prince of Lowenstein (quoted in “Towards the Further Shore,” by Victor Gollancz):

“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.”

From an article published in Nature, 1940:

“To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted … by science...”

From a letter, August 7, 1941 (Einstein Archives):

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who - in their grudge against the traditional ‘opium of the people’ - cannot bear the music of the spheres. The wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims.”

From an interview with George Sylvester Viereck, circa 1930:

“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”

As an aside, when asked by Viereck whether he believed in the historical Jesus, Einstein replied: “Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”

Peace.

Blind of faith need to believe they are right, in order to support the business of power and control with so many pockets to be picked.

Hey, Maani, how can anybody spin the exact words Albert spoke?  You remind me of the spinning Sufis.  Twirling twirling twirling for mindless ‘mystical’ ecstacy.....Exactly where did Albert say he was an agnostic?  I provide references, can’t you?

You are quite right mill.  However, when Maani purposefully attempts to exploit Einstein’s beliefs to prop up his own arguments, and since Einstein is one of my heroes ,who I know was not a believer as Maani wishes he was, I have to say something. That is one of the values of these free thinking forums.  That being said, Einstein never made a claim about the existence of god.  Others attributed many things said by him that he never did say nor ever even implied, and he made that perfectly clear.  However, the title of this article has to do with Darwin and Hedges brings in a kaleidoscope of scientists and atheist scientists to make his feeble case by erroneously attributing to Dawkins a fabricated thesis that meme theory is science. He obviously did not read Dawkins The Selfish Gene Chapter 11, pp189-201 (paperback).  Dawkins said meme theory was like gene theory (science). Obviously you don’t know what a simile is.  But I have read four of Dawkins books and Hedges is plain wrong.  Unfortunately an interloper of the mind attempted to pimp science in the name of Einstein.  This hysteria is also in the face of recent attempts by Christian Apologetics to use science to give some credence to the unrestrainedly fanciful, bizzare actually, and unsupported views of their religious dogma, including the author of this article, Hedges.  Most everybody here abouts know that I am an absolute atheist, and that I will make a pitch for truth every time no matter where prevarication shows up, whether you like it or not!  I would think if you want us to not discuss Darwin or Einstein you might just take a hike and go to some other forum.  This is not an argument about the existence of God.  BTW, I never leave the o out of God.  If you believe in a God then you are selling him short an o.  But that might be better than selling him long as fact.

Mill:

Ultimately, I am with you on this, and I thank you for this very cogent and concise assessment.  Bravo.

Peace.

Shenonymous:

Feel free to continue to rationalize, justify, spin and attempt to semanticize your way out of this one all you like.

The fact remains: the word Einstein used consistently and continually to define his beliefs was “mystical,” which has a very specific definition, which I am certain Einstein was well aware of.  And he stated, without refutation, that he was NOT an atheist, but an agnostic.

All the cerebrating and intellectualizing in the world doesn’t change that.

Peace.

niloroth:

Strange that you should repeat something that I HAVE been saying for quite some time - something that others here (perhaps not you) have refuted, directly or tacitly, over and over: that scientists and rationalists CAN be (and often are) believers.  My comment was simply that the “inventions of death” most commonly used today were the result of “science” (i.e., “coldly,” without any thought toward morality or ethics) and not of “faith.”

As for my comment about “politics, culture, sociology, psychology, etc.,” and your comment that “these are sciences,” you deliberately twist my intent: they are not “hard” sciences like physics, biology, etc.  Yes, perhaps I should have made that clear: that “the issues being addressed by the “New Atheists” are not addressable through HARD science.” But I think you knew very well that that was what I was saying.

Peace.

Maani:

Just the fact that you could even post the following two things places you fully outside the pale logic.  (not that i have come to expect any less of you.)

“ Perhaps.  However, when “science” and “rationality” held sway over public policy, government spending, etc., they gave us (among other things) poison gas, high explosives, eugenics, Zyklon-B, napalm, ICBMs and nuclear weapons.  None of these things came from the minds of believers.”

Aside from leaving out all the wonderful things that science and rationality have done, you once again set up the false premise that people who are scientists and rationalists can’t be believers?  And/or that all believers have to abandon science and reason?  And i know it is way to much to ask that you even begin to back up your assertion about all those things being solely invented by atheists?  I know you kinda suck at the backing up your statements thing, so i won’t hold my breath.

“The legitimate issues caused by faith/religion are NOT addressable through “science.” They are issues of politics, culture, sociology, psychology, etc.”

These are sciences.  And, can even be looked at in the light of evolution.  The book I previously mentioned by Robert Wright called ‘the moral animal’ might be a good starting point.

interesting thread, with Einstein and Darwin, deep thoughts expressed and argued.

i’m struck tho’ about how much the thread is like political spin - so, with out singling out any poster .....  if we can argue that Darwin or Einstein believes in G-d (or doesn’t), that some how affects the validity of the argument.

neither Einstein nor Darwin are experts at G-d, theism, or religious beliefs.  they were REALLY good at their work in the natural world.

it is painfully true that brilliant minds do not necessarily show genius across the intellectual spectrum.  that Darwin uncovered evolution or Einstein (perhaps his wife, so some speculator’s view) uncovered relativity means nothing for the debate of G-d or not.  their pronouncements on the existence (or not) of G-d are no more relevant than anyone elses.  If you want to understand how species change, or light bends .... that IS another story.

politicians do this, and are falsely stained by this same technique.  take some person (Rev. Wright), find the connection to someone you need to tear down, then POUND POUND POUND how that someone else ( e.g., a person running for President) must be of the same cloth.  Nonsense.

i read Einstein for physics, Darwin for biology, not for theological guidance in any direction.  their thoughts on evolution/relativity can be subject to independent verification/refutation.  what refutes their words on religion?

why do others want to trumpet their nonexpert views in the domain that is religion?

Stretch your rubber band however long you want Maani, you completely and purposefully misunderstand his intention.  Agnostics are those who sit on a fence and get carbuncles on their “unsure” ass.  Albert was never one to get carbuncles.  You might check out his corpse. 

He has stated unequivocally that, by the age of twelve, he had rejected any sort of theistic religion. He could no longer bring himself to believe in any sort of miracle-performing God of the sort that was supposedly revealed in the Torah, the Bible or the Koran.

But the ideas of miracles and revelation are definitionally required of theism. When he used the expressions “God”, or “the Lord”, or “the Old One”, he was referring to the god of some nontheistic (i.e., atheistic) religion. But which God was he talking about?
Einstein was the son of Jewish parents. Was he, therefore, referring to Moses’ Jewish God? Or, he spent a good deal of his life in Christian America, so was he referring to the Christian God, the Pantheistic trinity of Father, Son, Holy Ghost? Or could he have been referring to some other god? There are over 240 gods in whom people have believed.

Maybe Einstein was a deist? Not so since he rejected the concept of any sort of supernatural being or god distinct from nature. His god is to be identified with nature itself.

Clearly, Einstein’s “God” is not at all like the God that most people think of when they hear the word. Neither is the “God” of the famous cosmologist and mathematician, Stephen Hawking, whose talk of “the mind of God” has given comfort to many religious believers. Hawking also is a pantheist. When asked by CNN’s Larry King whether he believed in God, Hawking answered:

“Yes, if by God is meant the embodiment of the laws of the universe.”

Or he might have been a pantheist.  Pantheists believe that nature itself deserves to be called “God” since nature itself deserves our feelings of reverence and awe. For the pantheist, nothing is more worthy of reverence, or even worship, than the awesome power and beauty of the cosmos itself.  See reference below.

Pantheism provides to an emotional need many people feel for a spiritual (as opposed to materialistic) values, a need to value something beyond themselves or even the human race.

Pantheism has a long and distinguished history. It has included several philosophers especially the seventeenth century philosopher Baruch Spinoza. Certain versions of Taoism are pantheistic. So is Therevada Buddhism. As Einstein pointed out:

“[Therevada] Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity.”

Einstein undubitably was a pantheist. In his own words:

“A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestation of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this sense alone, I am a deeply religious man.”

Moreover, Einstein strongly resented having his religious convictions misrepresented:

Check out the cogent reference:
Did Einstein Believe in God?
http://www.eequalsmcsquared.auckland.ac.nz/sites/emc2/ tl/philosophy/einstein_god.cfm