The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-Believer

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by vurt

it's no where near the end of the story... so... what the hell is your point, Khorum?

What's my point? I made my point with my very first one-line post early in the thread and YOU folks did your chicken dance trying to reduce it. We've gone from denial to "OHNOES ARROGANCE" to "Garbage" to Surlok's nihilistic existentialism (my personal favorite) and now your attempt to diminish LeMaitre's contribution to the Friedmann-LeMaitre model. Incidentally, LeMaitre's "footnotes" goes a little farther than his simple observation of the red shift, he actually laid the framework for the modern Big Bang cosmological metric.

I just defended my original statement: that some of those giants whose shoulders you're standing on were RELIGIOUS people and you've had the good grace to agree. But you KNOW my whole point, you've been trying to wiggle around it for a page now. Question is, what's YOUR point?

[vurt]

Funny you mention Mendel, because he's a lot like our friend LeMaitre. While LeMaitre did actually advance cosmology (because Einstein didn't believe his own equations), Mendel brought little if anything to the scientific theory of genetics. Now I know what you're thinking, he's The Father of Genetics. It is absolutely true that he was the first to discover the underpinnings of inheritance, but the truth is, like our friend LeMaitre, it wouldn't have made much of a difference whether Mendel was ever even born.

The "Rediscovery" of Mendel's Work

Correns, de Vries, and Tschermak are all credited with the "re-discovery' of "Mendel's Laws" because of a priority dispute. The truth is, they all (or at least some of them) independently discovered "Mendel's" laws of inheritance, and they probably knew a lot more about what they found than Mendel did himself. Mendel served as a means to resolve the priority dispute, and not much else. Don't get me wrong, Mendel did notice something before anyone else did, and he does deserve credit. But the fact of the matter is that whether Mendel had lived or not, there were plenty of discoverers to fill his shoes.

Now that all the Mendel bashing is out of the way, there's still the matter of Khorum's point. Just what exactly does he think it matters that Mendel was a priest?

[vurt]

Originally Posted by Khorum

I just defended my original statement: that some of those giants whose shoulders you're standing on were RELIGIOUS people and you've had the good grace to agree. But you KNOW my whole point, you've been trying to wiggle around it for a page now. Question is, what's YOUR point?

Well that's exactly the problem. You think that them being religious is a point and I don't, in the same exact way as Isaac Newton being deeply religious having no relevance on the legacy of his scientific insights. Religious people are allowed to do science too.

[The Ancient]

Originally Posted by vurt

it wouldn't have made much of a difference whether Mendel was ever even born.

You say that as if nearly all our scientific discoveries weren't being researched concurrently by different people. Most of the big scientific names weren't the only people to come up with their ideas, they usually just have the distinction of getting published first.

Originally Posted by vurt

Well that's exactly the problem. You think that them being religious is a point and I don't, in the same exact way as Isaac Newton being deeply religious having no relevance on the legacy of his scientific insights. Religious people are allowed to do science too.

I think Khorum was attacking the indignatious tone a lot of the atheists on this board seem to take when they decide that they are inherently more scientific and logical than religious or spiritual people, which simply isn't true. At least, that's how I always feel when these discussions come about.

[Schatze]

It is true now, though. Level of education is negatively correlated with religiosity. What is the number of non-believers in the US, 7-10%? When you get to actual scientists, the number of believers:non-believers is completely inverted compared to the general population. As you get to the most distinguished scientists (National Academy of Science) etc., the ratio of believers:non-believers moves even further from the general population.

No one who is rational will argue someone who is religious is incapable of being rational or whatever. Nor would anyone who knows any bit of the history of science fail to realize that modern science was literally built by the Catholic priesthood and by religious believers of many different creeds.

But now, present day, it's pretty hard not to see the anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism that has been epidemic among some (American) religious protestant sects.

However, applying something that seems to be generalized to a particular individual isn't a wise thing to do. On the other hand, individuals will feel a generalization specifically targets them, even if it does not. And stupid theist vs. atheist debates are borne of this.

[vurt]

Originally Posted by The Ancient

You say that as if nearly all our scientific discoveries weren't being researched concurrently by different people. Most of the big scientific names weren't the only people to come up with their ideas, they usually just have the distinction of getting published first.

Mendel's work was a generation before the "rediscoverers". But in general, you're absolutely right.

Originally Posted by The Ancient

I think Khorum was attacking the indignatious tone a lot of the atheists on this board seem to take when they decide that they are inherently more scientific and logical than religious or spiritual people, which simply isn't true. At least, that's how I always feel when these discussions come about.

Well one thing's for sure: no one on this board is more logical or scientific than any of the names we're dropping, religious or otherwise. There are some incredibly bright people who believe in God, but none of them believe in God because they're smart. By definition, the existence of God is not based on any logic or science (well, it used to be; before people realized it don't work); these people just believe. And hey, it might inspire them to pursue their research, but it has no bearing on any scientific facts they may uncover.

[vurt]

Originally Posted by Schatze

It is true now, though. Level of education is negatively correlated with religiosity. What is the number of non-believers in the US, 7-10%? When you get to actual scientists, the number of believers:non-believers is completely inverted compared to the general population. As you get to the most distinguished scientists (National Academy of Science) etc., the ratio of believers:non-believers moves even further from the general population.

No one who is rational will argue someone who is religious is incapable of being rational or whatever. Nor would anyone who knows any bit of the history of science fail to realize that modern science was literally built by the Catholic priesthood and by religious believers of many different creeds.

But now, present day, it's pretty hard not to see the anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism that has been epidemic among some (American) religious protestant sects.

However, applying something that seems to be generalized to a particular individual isn't a wise thing to do. On the other hand, individuals will feel a generalization specifically targets them, even if it does not. And stupid theist vs. atheist debates are borne of this.

The figures are quite staggering, "A recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God."

One could always say, "what about the 7%???" But, come on.

[Schatze]

if I wasn't lazy and had SPSS on this computer, I'd figure out which analysis of variance to do and how to organize it and crunch the numbers.

I have no doubt the results would be significant to the .000 level though, but truth to tell, just eye balling those descriptive statistics should give anyone the gist of what those numbers mean.

Again, the difficulty is even though it's clear you can make a generalized statement about science and religiosity, individuals will always necessarily think that it's a specific attack on the individual level.

[Linus]

Originally Posted by The Catechism of the Catholic Church

St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: "See, we are beautiful." Their beauty is a profession. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One who is not subject to change?

33 The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God's existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the "seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material", can have its origin only in God.

34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality "that everyone calls God".

35 Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith. The proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

III. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH

36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason." Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God's revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also "about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error".

IV. HOW CAN WE SPEAK ABOUT GOD?

39 In defending the ability of human reason to know God, the Church is expressing her confidence in the possibility of speaking about him to all men and with all men, and therefore of dialogue with other religions, with philosophy and science, as well as with unbelievers and atheists.

40 Since our knowledge of God is limited, our language about him is equally so. We can name God only by taking creatures as our starting point, and in accordance with our limited human ways of knowing and thinking.

Just FYI, I think a lot of people have misconceptions and/or don't realize just how humanist and how open to reason and science the Church is these days, comparatively...

[Surlok TP]

Originally Posted by Linus

Just FYI, I think a lot of people have misconceptions and/or don't realize just how humanist and how open to reason and science the Church is these days, comparatively...

They have to be,knowledge is far more easier to gain these day HI2U internet.

Some kid that's only been taught in a public school in some small town somewhere isn't going to have the power to seek out other answers to the degree a kid in the city would have 10 years ago thanks to libraries and such.

These days with things like the internet different points of view can reach far greater audiences then they ever could before. People see shit on you tube and question it for better or worse and the Church has to have answers to these questions.Same as any other organization has to have answers to the questions that come up.Conspiracy theories revolving 9/11 for example would have had much much much less exposure 15 years ago than they do today.The Government would have had alot less to answer for on that occasion since so much information they used to be able to hide was out in the open for everyone to see on the net.

[vurt]

The Church progresses in the wake of society. Things haven't been the same since Luther, and it's only getting worse.

[Schatze]

It tends not to be Catholics who're on the side of anti-intellectualism. They still are responsible for the foundation/running of many universities around the world. Sure there are some, but they tend to be the Mel Gibson variety.


I go to a (ostensibly) Catholic university. Most of the priests and nuns who're around have multiple MA/PH'ds both in theology and in a science/social science. But compare a Catholic university to say, one of the fundamentalist protestant universities. Hell, you can't even really compare them. Non-accredited diploma mills + Liberty university? Heh.

[Lefazz]

I'm an atheist, but was raised in a southern Baptist setting. Even at an early age I always felt something wasn't "quite right" with some of their beliefs. But quite honestly, I feel the world would be a better place if people believed in the basic tenets of the Judeo-Christian faith (i.e. the Ten Commandments [minus the ones revolving around the belief in the God, of course!])

Conversely, I DO feel it's a problem with our leaders being overly religious. Being a person that loves science and astronomy it kills me that we haven't made an effort to get ourselves into space. I can't help but wonder if the powers-that-be see no necessity in it since, by their own faith, they see humanity as a doomed race ultimately marching towards Armageddon. I mean, why bother exploring/colonizing space when HEY one day (soon!) the believers will be taken up by the grace of God and Satan will rule the Earth for 7000 years or whatever.

It's sad, really. Despite the fact that humanity is more of a blight on this world at our current point in history -- ALL of this will be lost if we don't expand beyond this planet and take life to the stars.

Sorry about the semi-off topic rant, but this is something I feel pretty strongly about.

[The Ancient]

Originally Posted by Lefazz

Conversely, I DO feel it's a problem with our leaders being overly religious. Being a person that loves science and astronomy it kills me that we haven't made an effort to get ourselves into space.

It's not religion that keeps us out of space, it's the gigantic, difficult-to-justify budget expenditure.

[Grumath]

Originally Posted by The Ancient

It's not religion that keeps us out of space, it's the gigantic, difficult-to-justify budget expenditure.

Having worked at NASA and knowing tons of people who still do, I can't disagree that the budgeting and bloated bureaucratic mess is ridiculous most of the time. BUT, one just has to study history to see that cultures that stop exploring lose their drive, creativity, and essence to grow/thrive and eventually crumble into mediocrity or nonexistence. Space is what we have left to explore at this point (that or making the Abyss Special Edition a reality). Our future need for more space, resources, new challenges, etc all lead down that path sooner or later IMO.