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

Shenonymous:

Actually, I am quoting him DIRECTLY from a letter that was just sold at auction.

He also said - and I QUOTE - “In the 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 makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views…I want to know how God created this world.  I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element.  I want to know His thoughts.  The rest are details.”

True, even here, Einstein was not referring to what we commonly call a “personal” God, or “religion” as that word is defined via a particular dogma or doctrine.

But neither was he an atheist.  And let us be clear on our terms.  “Atheist” is a position of CERTAINTY: “there is no God.” “Agnostic” is a position of at least SOME uncertainty: “I do not (and possibly cannot) know enough to state for a CERTAINTY that God (or some higher conscious power) does not exist.”

As well, Einstein consistently described his beliefs as “mystical.” According to Webster, “mystical” is defined as “having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence; involving or having the nature of an individual’s direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality.”

If Einstein had not meant the above, he could easily have chosen another word to describe his beliefs.

Thus, Einstein was, by his own admission on a consistent basis, a “mystical agnostic.” He was NOT an atheist.

Peace.

If you can’t own him, misquote Albert, right Maani.  Everyone knows Albert Einstein was an atheist.  Cherry picking partial quotes is dishonest.  But then is that new behavior for the religious?

Einstein was an atheist by any traditional definition of God.  He said “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.  If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.” This quote can be found in Albert Einstein: The Human Side,, Princeton University Press, 1981. 

Some people twang rubber bands to make fool’s music too.

Some random responses:

Vermonter said, “Unlike too many religious people, no modern atheists call for wars against those with other views, despite what Hedges tries to imply.”

I guess you are not considering Stalin, Lenin and Mao “modern.” Although “inner directed,” all of them specifically “declared war” on all those in their respective societies who believed in God.  And the number of people these three murdered IN JUST 60 YEARS (~100 million) is almost double the most LIBERAL number of people estimated to have been killed in all of the holy wars, Crusades, Inquisitions, witch burnings, etc. in ALL OF HISTORY (~50-75 million).

Mill said, “Mr. Hedges writes as though rampant anti-theist nonemperical humanism is controlling important things, like public policy, government spending, popular opinion. If only - instead the opposite holds.”

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.

troublesum said, “What Rilke wrote a hundred years ago rings even truer today: “...the whole so-called ‘spirit world’, death, all these things that are so closely related to us have through our daily defensiveness been so entirely pushed out of life that the senses with which we might have been able to grasp them have atrophied.  To say nothing of God.”

I would add the following quote from Einstein, re radical atheists: “They are creatures who — in their grudge against the traditional ‘opium for the people’ — cannot bear the music of the spheres.’ The problem of God...is too vast for our limited minds.”

demar said, “Could anyone explain to me why the left is pushing back on writers such as Sam Harris?”

Those “pushing back” against the “New Atheists” (Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Stenger, Hitchens et al) are doing so because these people are incorrectly and inappropriately “using” science in order to address some legitimate issues about faith/religion.

I use the example of the rubber band: if you stretch it to its furthest point and let go, it goes almost to its further point in the other direction before resting in the middle.

In addressing legitimate issues re faith/religion - which they feel are “extremist” - Harris et al are pulling the rubber band to its extreme in the other direction.  However, this only makes them just as “extremist” (as rabid, polemical, “fundamentalist” atheists) as the rabid, polemical, fundamentalist believers they abhor and denigrate.

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

Thus, the “left” (and, of course, the faith-based community) are “pushing back” in order to bring the rubber band to its natural resting place in the center.

Peace.

From just a rudimentary internet investigation on “Kekulé’s theory” I found the general belief is that the “snake eating its own tail” vision came after his work on the structure of benzene was completed and was not considered the catalyst for his findings.  My guess is that it added mystery and awe to his public persona and at the same time caused him some embarrassment among contemporary scientists.  There reportedly had been a lampoon version of his vision with “monkeys holding hands in a ring formation” circulating before the “snake” dream was made known.

And then there is this: “Evolutionary science, however, swiftly became for many a surrogate religion. It was used to promote racism and pseudo-science, such as eugenics, a theory of biological determinism invented by Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin. It was turned like a club on religion and used to justify exploitation and neglect of the poor and disadvantaged.”

I ask you who are these “many”? Where is the historical account of this abrupt shift from theology to cosmology? Where are the “Galtonians”?  Galton was an important scientist and advanced a number of fields.  That he was incorrect on a few select and perhaps repugnant points has been corrected not by religion but by science.  Is it surprising that corruption can take hold in most human thoughts and endeavors?  Does that negate fact?  Did the earth stop orbiting the sun when Galileo was forced to recant heliocentrism?  Human exploitation existed prior to both religion and science. Human exploitation based on science is a crime. Human exploitation based on religion is the “stuff that dreams are made of”. Religion spawns religions in the great circle of tribal warfare. Sort of a “snake eating its own tail” or a “guy with his head shoved up his own ass”.

Well here’s part 2 if it can get posted. This particular TD website is almost as crazy as Hedges…

Part 2
His attack on the theories of Dawkins, Dennett, et al, is grandstanding at its worst really; his arguments are weakly supported.  His accusation that they are proposing a “meme religion” is ridiculous at best.  If one were to actually read “The Selfish Gene,” chapter 11 to be exact, or Blackmore’s “The Meme Machine.” one with half a mind could see they are likening the transmission of “memeplexes” of religion as how cultural behaviors are exchanged.  It is no more a religion as Darwin’s theory of evolution.  There are no meme churches nor tithing plates to donate money to as do all the religions.  Uh, pardon me.  If it is wanted to call all scientists pastors of their theories then that is an insane stretch of defintion.

Religion has a definite connotation, as a belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers as regarded as creator and governor of the universe.  There is no worship of meme theory just as there is no worship of gene theory.  The fact that there is no worship at all among a growing number of the population must be the classic Shakespearean rub.

Seems like Hedges would like the Dark Ages to return and send science to the hell he invented.

This site does not work right!  Hmmm.  Looks like my post got posted doubly and the second part didn’t.  Too bad.  Weird that I can’t get logged in for this forum but all the others are working just fine????  Haunted?  Naw, ain’t no such things as ghosts.  I posted a full comment on the Secular Fundamentalism site which seem to be a clear site to carry on the discussion from this forum.  See you there, maybe.

In his good book, The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins begins chapter 2, The Replicators, pg. 13 paperback, with the sentence, “In the beginning was simplicity.” It is the mantra of all good science whether we are talking about the nature of a benzene molecule, string theory, snakes eating their own tails, dark matter, a unified field theory, an uncertainty principle, Darwin’s theory of evolution, a theory of cultural transmission, or the notion of an abstract idea such as Truth.  It would be a good idea to apply it also to any notion of god, which is what actually happened when the change from polytheism to monotheism occurred to the mind of mankind (using the term mankind because it is from the mental devices of men that the idea of god sprang much in the same way that Athena sprang from the mind of Zeus, whole and ready to take on the world, except of course Athena was hidden there by her mother! and it took an ax to let her out of Zeus’s head).  You must pardon this amusing digression.

Christopher Hedges wants to offer his usual bargain basement philosophy with a shopping bag full of examples that cultural traditions are somehow transmitted through some non-rational means in opposition to Richard Dawkins’ completely rational idea of meme conveyance.  Except Hedges exaggerates with unholy exuberance in order to shine brighter than the actually dull thesis he offers.  Such as when he says dark matter can be seen!  See his 2nd paragraph.  He wants to make the case that science is as elusive in its knowledges as theology (we can let philosophy and. every other human endeavors go since we know he is really after exonerating theology).  He sort of takes the Berkeleyan view that if you don’t see it, you don’t know if it really exists.  The problem with Hedges’ comparison is that science knows its limitations and knows it works on inference and implication where as theology thinks is has a grasp of Truth.  Science always leave the door open to questions and evaluation, whereas religion demands faith its dogmas are true. 

Hedges says, with only derivative understanding “There are forces in the universe that will always lie beyond the capacity of the human mind.” The really big problem is to say that science is no always directly empirical is a fact is incorrect and Hedges’ edifice falls flat on its face.  Nothing is every directly empirical since nothing is ever experienced directly.  Not even oneself!  There is always a “time” delay in cognition of the sense of oneself and all reflections of oneself is thereby delayed.  We are always viewing even the thoughts in our own minds in a historical perspective.  Because it takes “time” for thoughts to travel around the synapes and come to rest in the region of contemplation or if you prefer, reflection.  We never experience the world or ourselves directly except as sensations immediately occur without thought about them.  We are constantly and helplessly inferring ourselves and the world.  We imagine ourselves and the world in which we find ourselves.  Hedges’ eccentricity for religion is to criticize science and scientists imperfectly.  Do with it what you will.

Thanks for the list.  There’re a few I haven’t read and would like to.  Hang in there.

“The atheistic scientists hold the rather naive belief that if God exists he can be found in the same way they discovered electrons.”

It seems to me the naiveté is rather the opposite - just because those practicing the scientific method have not yet measured something in no way indicates that those practicing religion somehow can.

In fact, religion has yet to provide any testable, repeatable methods of knowing that aren’t readily available to those unbridled by religion.

Senses atrophied… boy, you can say that again.

Gmonst,

I have to agree with you. The intuitive (feelings) are as important as the logic, and can only be at maximum efficiency when operating interdependantly.

(mysterious as it is)

The new atheists are offended at the idea that there could be anything in the universe greater than themselves.  The atheistic scientists hold the rather naive belief that if God exists he can be found in the same way they discovered electrons.  We all tend to believe that apprehending God is easy and that we are all capable of it.  What Rilke wrote a hundred years ago rings even truer today: “...the whole so-called ‘spirit world’, death, all these things that are so closely related to us have through our daily defensiveness been so entirely pushed out of life that the senses with which we might have been able to grasp them have atrophied.  To say nothing of God.”
Rumi, the Islamic spiritual and literary genius, said, “the man who doesn’t worship God will worship an idol, and the idol of every man is his own ego.” Ours is the culture of idolatry.

“Quantum physics demolished the assumption that physical elements are governed by fixed laws.

Science is often as inexact and intuitive as theology, philosophy and every other human endeavor.” ...

This statement is simply wrong and belies a person who doesn’t understand what science “is”.

Mr. Hedges writes as though rampant anti-theist nonemperical humanism is controlling important things, like public policy, government spending, popular opinion.

If only - instead the opposite holds. 

imagine a world where reality, commonly defined, strongly shaped the opinions of those who are in real control, whether those controllers are theists or not, scientists or not, politicians or not

and then they acted like they cared about the rest of us as a result

Look, before you throw your take on “meme theory” at me, explain what the flyin’ f*ck is “Harvard Divinity School”? Does graduating from such an institution give you license to use a “divining rod”? If so, could said rod help you to find a clue?

I had no idea “Professor Irwin Corey” was alive and well. Enough of the “onward Christian soldiers apologist hysterical double-talk” please. There’s nothing left worth reporting is there TruthDig? You hired this guy and now don’t know what to do with him. You keep throwing him on stage hoping the audience will finally “get him”. It ain’t working, there’s nothing to “get”.

These Harris quotes do not discuss “moral hierarchies among human beings” or “[using] these hierarchies to sanction violence”. Although Harris disagrees with Islamism, this isn’t the stated reason he’s advocating violence. He’s advocating violence in self-defence because he thinks Islamists pose a threat. I don’t happen to agree with what Harris says, but Hedges was criticising uncited atheists for holding genocidal attitudes, and that wouldn’t be the content of the criticism I’d level at Harris.

It is possible for you to have a different mental representation of the procedure for making a cup of coffee from the person who taught you how to do it, while both of you have exactly the same functional ability to carry it out. Memetic replication doesn’t require that mental representations be physically similar in the way that DNA is, only that they’re functionally so. It may turn out that they’re physically similar as well, but this isn’t necessary for replication or natural selection to occur. To my knowledge, Dawkins has never made any claims either way about whether the mental representations are similar so you’re not criticising the theory as he presents it.

The theory of memes only consists of the claims that ideas can recognisably be transmitted from person to person and that this transmission is imperfect. From that it follows logically that natural selection will occur. As I said earlier, these claims should be completely uncontroversial to anyone who has ever learnt anything from anyone or indeed communicated anything whatsoever. But if you think these claims are untrue, then you shouldn’t be afraid that atheists will “take memetic ideas and use them to nightmarish purposes like mind control.”

(...continued from previous comment)

b) Belief in the absence of irrefutable evidence
Some physicists may consider string theory “plausible” despite there being very little empirical evidence in support of it, but considering something plausible is a far cry from believing in it. These same physicists might also regard opposing theories as equally plausible, but remain open minded about which is correct. It’s misleading to equate this with what happens in religion, where doctrine is not merely regarded as plausible, but embraced via leaps of faith that are encouraged as virtuous.
The more general strategy of attempting to present atheism as simply another kind of faith relies on conflating faith with uncertainty. All scientific knowledge is provisional and subject to refinement on the basis of further evidence. In that sense, scientists are never completely certain they’ve found ultimate answers, but what they are doing is siding with whatever the available evidence tells us is the best account available at the present time. In this way, science progresses towards theories that make increasingly accurate predictions. For instance, while Newtonian mechanics predicted observations very well, Einstein’s Relativity superseded it because it predicts them even more accurately.
People like Dawkins and Dennett have repeatedly made it clear that they are technically agnostic in the sense that they don’t believe it’s possible to prove with absolute certainty that there is no god (just as it is impossible to prove anything with absolutely certainty), but they note that this technical agnosticism applies to the existence of all conceivable gods, including ones like Zeus that people have historically believed in and others like the Flying Spaghetti Monster which as yet has no known adherents, but the existence of which is also something we cannot rule out. And the same line of reasoning prohibits us from ruling out with absolute certainty that there’s a teapot orbiting the Sun between the Earth and Mars. We also cannot say for sure that I don’t have a second head that is immaterial and invisible, but which likes to sing songs from the musical Annie (though inaudibly). And on it goes… It’s technically true that we can’t rule out the existence of such things in absolute terms, but this fact is profoundly uninteresting. We all but rule out such possibilities by arguing from the best explanation, which is very different from adopting a position on faith. Historically, there is of course a strong tradition in theology of doing the same thing. Paley’s design argument was an argument of this type. Prior to Darwin, an atheistic account of the apparent design found in living things was incapable of providing what the biblical account of creation provided.

The point about the non-rational source of scientific ideas was made in connection with Kekulé’s dream, but the discussion of string theory centred around the “many physicists” who he says think the theory is “plausible” despite “no scientist [having] ever seen a string.” In both discussions, it’s clear that Hedges was inviting the reader to draw a comparison between beliefs that apparently have some scientific prestige on the one hand and religious beliefs on the other, the basis of the comparison being that they both lack the support of rationality and/or evidence. The strategy, which he uses throughout the article, is to attempt to paint atheists as hypocritically embracing many of the very features they criticise in religion. For instance, Hedges labels the new atheists as “the high priests not of science but the cult of science.” If they are literally ‘priests’ of a ‘cult’, the criticisms they level at (other) religions would have to apply equally to themselves.

So let’s look at whether these comparisons are justified:

a) Belief in the absence of rationality
Scientists engage in non-rational processes all the time, but ‘non-rational’ shouldn’t be confused with ‘irrational.’ Non-rational processes are those that are neither rational nor irrational because they don’t involve drawing conclusions. Some non-rational processes include physical activities like walking that don’t involve thinking at all, but there are also non-rational thought processes like remembering and the creative process of coming up with ideas. Thought processes that involve drawing conclusions will fit into the categories of either ‘rational’ or ‘irrational’ rather than ‘non-rational.’
The important point is that atheism isn’t hostile towards everyday non-rational behavior, but towards irrational behavior (drawing conclusions in an illogical way), which they argue is a property of all religions. Non-rationality and irrationality are easily confused, and doing so would make the argument of an atheist look hypocritical, so although Hedges was careful to use the word ‘non-rational,’ he was inviting a misunderstanding that would work in his favor.

(to be continued...)

Hedges attributes ideas and positions to the “atheists” that he does not in any way shape or form support with evidence.

Hedges writes:
“The atheists, while they do not endorse the hierarchy of races or espouse the crude racist doctrines of earlier Social Darwinists, continue to argue that natural selection is social selection. They continue to create moral hierarchies among human beings and use these hierarchies to sanction violence. They do this because they insist we are moving toward a final good. This is not a position supported by human history, human nature or evolutionary biology.”

Notice the serious lack of citation, or reference, or in fact, even any idea who it is who holds these beliefs.  Other than of course to label the “atheists”. 

Now, to take one of Hedges favorite boogymen, lets get a quote from Dawkins:
“Now, to the matter of Darwin. The first thing to say is that natural selection is a scientific theory about the way evolution works in fact. It is either true or it is not, and whether or not we like it politically or morally is irrelevant. Scientific theories are not prescriptions for how we should behave. I have many times written (for example in the first chapter of A Devil’s Chaplain) that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave. I have several times said that a society based on Darwinian principles would be a very unpleasant society in which to live. I have several times said, starting at the beginning of my very first book, The Selfish Gene, that we should learn to understand natural selection, so that we can oppose any tendency to apply it to human politics. Darwin himself said the same thing, in various different ways. So did his great friend and champion Thomas Henry Huxley.”

So once again, Hedges is tilting at windmills, creating straw men to knock down, and full on fabricating the positions of those he rails against.  Sadly, this seems to be typical of him when writing about anyone who does not ascribe to the same watered down, mealy mouthed, make believe version of theology that he does. 

Nice try again Hedges, but like all the other ones, you are quickly shown for your ignorance and bias.  How long till this one falls off the front page out of shame?

Hedges’ piece and the responses make an interesting illustration of some cases in point. Those whiny assaults on religion surely speak to Hedges’ position that there has been little evolution in humanity’s supposed journey to perfection, becoming intellectually superior masters of the universe that Dawkins predicts from what scientific evidence, I do not know. His contention is mystifying for sure. I would not accept some of that whiny anti- religious reasoning from a freshman philosophy student, never mind potential biologic geniuses we are purported by Dawkins to be evolving into.

Now onto memetics…there is no empirical evidence to support the existence of a meme much less the bizarre theory that Dawkins proceeds to build on this fantasy/entity. The only science, if it be science, on passing along societal mores and group think has been done by anthropologists. And Dawkins ridicules the idea of the virgin birth as fantasy! At least Christians honestly call this notion a miracle…Who are the realists here?

Lastly, certain atheists here make another of Hedges’ points beautifully. Hedges argues that the new atheism is just intellectual repression disguised as a new form of intellectual enlightenment …as Maani suggests, read a book or two on the topic that the potential masters of the universe are discussing in order to grasp first the nuances of the theological/scientific points before attempting to refute them. This way these points can be addressed intelligently and one would not have to resort to the “Neanderthal” tactics of bashing and browbeating those who disagree with you. So much for intellectual evolution and the new repression of diverse thought.

As far as I can see, Hedges is right on the money here.

Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Leeuwenhoek, Pasteur, Curie, Washington Carver, Pascal, Brahe, Kelvin, Maxwell, Faraday, Darwin - deists or Christians all.  Some of them believed that the scientific truths they discovered only further revealed the “glory” of God; some did not.  But none of them saw any conflict between science and the scientific method on the one hand, and faith and religion on the other.

This puts the lie to accusations that somehow “believers” have not only contributed nothing to science, but that they stand in opposition to it.

As for string theory (which is actually NOT a theory, but only a hypothesis), multiple universes, much of quantum mechanics (including the hypotheses that a particle can spin in both directions at once or be in two places at the same time), etc., since none of these can EVER be tested, non-falsified or even properly subjected to the scientific method, they hold no more weight than a belief in God.

Indeed, I had a short debate with Victor Stenger recently on this topic.  In addressing how the universe began, if not by a Creator (since science accepts that “something” cannot be gotten from “nothing"), he spoke of a “pre-universe” that either collapsed and then “re-exploded” or a deSitter universe which essentially “leaked,” causing the “Big Bang.” I asked, “Since your hypothesis can NEVER be tested, non-falsified or subject to the scientific method, aren’t you essentially asking us all to take it ‘on faith’?”

Since this was at an informal meeting of a chapter of CSI (Center for Skeptical Inquiry) - and he assumed he would be speaking only to “the choir” - he stood in shocked silence for a moment, and then hemmed and hawed through an answer which basically simply repeated what he had said before.  I then asked, “But if we are asked to take this hypothesis ‘on faith,’ why is that any different from asking you to take God ‘on faith?’” His response, after a short pause, was, “Well, it seems unnecessary to suggest a theological explanation when there are perfectly good scientific explanations.”

Even some of the atheists in the room saw th