"religion is a fairy tale, hogwash, balderdash, nonsense and a device for rationalizing horrible deeds."
yep.
christianity is, anyway.
Submit News News
Fishy Atheists
- May 18, 2009 18:13:54
- Read all 165 comments
- +7 raves
- Stanley Fish continues talking about and with atheists on his NYTimes blog. Opening paragraph:
According to recent surveys, somewhere between 79 and 92 percent of Americans believe in God. But if the responses to my column on Terry Eagleton's "Faith, Reason and Revolution" constitute a representative sample, 95 percent of Times readers don't. What they do believe, apparently, is that religion is a fairy tale, hogwash, balderdash, nonsense and a device for rationalizing horrible deeds.
He explores the issues of science, faith and proof, and then turns to the accusation that the religious believer is all about simplistic, happy solutions, free of tension:
Some readers find a point of vulnerability in what they take to be religion's flaccid, Polyanna-like, happy-days optimism. Religious people, says Delphinias, live their lives "in a state of blissfully blind oblivion." They rely on holy texts that they are "to believe in without question." (C.C.) "No evidence, no problem -- just take it on faith." (Michael) They don't allow themselves to be bothered by anything. Religion, says Charles, "cannot deal with doubt and dissent," and he adds this challenge: "What say you about that, Professor?"... Read full article »
According to recent surveys, somewhere between 79 and 92 percent of Americans believe in God. But if the responses to my column on Terry Eagleton's "Faith, Reason and Revolution" constitute a representative sample, 95 percent of Times readers don't. What they do believe, apparently, is that religion is a fairy tale, hogwash, balderdash, nonsense and a device for rationalizing horrible deeds.
He explores the issues of science, faith and proof, and then turns to the accusation that the religious believer is all about simplistic, happy solutions, free of tension:
Some readers find a point of vulnerability in what they take to be religion's flaccid, Polyanna-like, happy-days optimism. Religious people, says Delphinias, live their lives "in a state of blissfully blind oblivion." They rely on holy texts that they are "to believe in without question." (C.C.) "No evidence, no problem -- just take it on faith." (Michael) They don't allow themselves to be bothered by anything. Religion, says Charles, "cannot deal with doubt and dissent," and he adds this challenge: "What say you about that, Professor?"... Read full article »
Top Comment
atheist: "Where did your God come from?"
me: "I don't know. Scripture says God has always existed"
atheist: "[laughing] so you have this blind faith God spontaneously appeared"
me: "do you believe in the Big Bang"
atheist: "of course I do, there is substantial scientific proof it occurred"
me: "where did the original matter that caused the Big Bang come from?"
atheist: "it was always there"
me: "so you have this blind faith that all the matter in the universe spontaneously appeared?"
- - At this point the atheist usually ends the conversation - -
I'm waiting for the paradox in America when atheism is declared a belief system by the courts and hence is deemed a religion. Any efforts by the government to distance itself from Christianity (or Judaism or Wiccans or Muslims or Buddhist or Jedi Knights) will be making atheism the official state religion. And the government is prohibited by the Constitution from promoting a state religion.
The Big Bang
God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
"How (your) discussions with an atheist usually ends:
atheist: "Where did your God come from?"
(you): "I don't know. Scripture says God has always existed"
atheist: "[laughing] so you have this blind faith God spontaneously appeared"
(you): "do you believe in the Big Bang"
atheist: "of course I do, there is substantial scientific proof it occurred"
(you): "where did the original matter that caused the Big Bang come from?" "
ME: "I have no Idea."
you?
Atheism will never be declared a "religion" because it isn't. The courts will never declare it "a belief system" because the courts don't do things like that.
The government does not have to make any efforts to "distance itself from Christianity" because America is a secular nation, and no religion (or beliefs system) is closer to the government than any other; that's how it should be.
You spend a lot of time arguing with yourself and worrying about atheism and the government. Why?
And I don't see how that relates to your statements about the courts and the government.
You don't want to continue that conversation with a real person?
I won't end it where you're fictional "atheist" did. And I won't laugh at you like your fictional "atheist" did, either.
As far as the courts and government. For the sake of this exercise lets agree atheism is a faith-based belief system. It could then be argued that by removing religious symbols from government property so that nothing is on display, the state is now promoting the faith-based belief system atheism. Hence creating a paradox. Its kind of like dividing by zero:
I don't know where your statement about "belief in nothing" comes from. That doesn't apply to anything I've heard in atheist ideas or my own . "Belief in nothing" makes no sense. I believe in everything that's real. There is an entire universe of things to believe in.
Removing religious symbols from government property is about not promoting one "religious" belief over another. Having no religious symbols on government property in NO WAY promotes atheism. It simply doesn't promote any religion over another. Saying that it promotes atheism is a purposely false, purposely misleading statement. It's like saying that, since Ford motor company doesn't put a religious symbol on the cars they make, the Ford motor company is thereby promoting atheism.
Matter
Space
Intelligence
The first two I can understand easily. The third is at this point beyond my understanding, as are many principles and phenomena of science.
The Hebrew word used in the Bible for 'create' (baurau) simply means 'to organize' that which is already there. Science proves that matter and energy are interchangeable. And evidence of 'dark matter' (actually zero point energy) shows an abundance of energy to be cconverted into matter. This does not, however, explain the first cause of the 'creation' or the 'big bang'. What or who was the cause of it? Why did it take place in that particular section of the universe where it happened? What particular situation existed that would have caused the 'bomb waiting to be detonated"? What led up to that build-up of excess energy and 'demanded' its conversion into matter? No answers yet.
The latest scientific theory of the origin of the universe (according to cutting edge physicists) is that "a disturbance in the vacuum" was the cause. This smacks of the Ex Nihilo creation (something from nothing) that the religionists were until late HIGHLY criticized for. Now the scientif...
Matter
Space
Intelligence
The first two I can understand easily. The third is at this point beyond my understanding, as are many principles and phenomena of science.
The Hebrew word used in the Bible for 'create' (baurau) simply means 'to organize' that which is already there. Science proves that matter and energy are interchangeable. And evidence of 'dark matter' (actually zero point energy) shows an abundance of energy to be cconverted into matter. This does not, however, explain the first cause of the 'creation' or the 'big bang'. What or who was the cause of it? Why did it take place in that particular section of the universe where it happened? What particular situation existed that would have caused the 'bomb waiting to be detonated"? What led up to that build-up of excess energy and 'demanded' its conversion into matter? No answers yet.
The latest scientific theory of the origin of the universe (according to cutting edge physicists) is that "a disturbance in the vacuum" was the cause. This smacks of the Ex Nihilo creation (something from nothing) that the religionists were until late HIGHLY criticized for. Now the scientific community has adopted the same philosophy and no one bats an eye? No explanations of the reversal, no apologies, no excuses. Just act as if it was obvious all the time and go on as if nothing is amiss. Perhaps the two disciplines have some common ground after all? ;>)
The "whys" and the "cause" are the realm of philosophy and mythology. Science only looks at the available evidence,
Ah, but they DO adopt a philosophy, however temporary. They call them 'theories' and they change them often, for the same reason diapers are changed often.
"The "whys" and the "cause" are the realm of philosophy and mythology. "
You disappoint me. I expected you to claim that the whys and hows were being homed in on, that time would tell or some such thing. Instead of defending science, you retreat into relegating such answers to the domain of philosophy and mythology? You evidently have far less faith in science than I gave you credit for.
No event ever happened without a cause. It is the law of cause and effect that science adheres to religiously. A truly homogeneous system of zero point energy, spread equally throughout the universe, does not suddenly transform into spontaneous matter without an underlying cause. That is science. Perhaps it is the science of God, but still science. Saying it is myth or legend or philosophical in nature does not obviate the need to explain it in a rational and satisfactory way. Much as ripples in a pond expose the need to explain the cause of the disturbance, so does your big bang BEG explanation of its prime mover. A rock does not throw itself into a pond. And even if it could, where did the rock come from?
"A disturbance in the vacuum...." It begs the question, my friend.
I'm sorry that I "disappoint" you because I won't take the bait. The "whys" are not necessarily being "homed in on". The "hows" are the realm of science. Science may never be able to explain the cause behind reality, because there is no evidence . . . . yet. That does not negate the answers science has found or the theories proposed.
You want to "retreat" into mythology and superstition because science can't answer all the questions you pose - go ahead.
Science is just beginning to catch up to the science promoted for ages, but unexplainable, in many religions. Frankly,I have been deeply impressed with the factual information tucked away in religious script and oral tradition. It simply takes less 'faith', less stretch of the imagination and less stress on credibility to accept it than some of the stuff I have been told by mainstream science as truth. And I can give you examples with rational alternate explanations, for such things as Plate Tectonics, a world-wide deluge and ice ag...
Science is just beginning to catch up to the science promoted for ages, but unexplainable, in many religions. Frankly,I have been deeply impressed with the factual information tucked away in religious script and oral tradition. It simply takes less 'faith', less stretch of the imagination and less stress on credibility to accept it than some of the stuff I have been told by mainstream science as truth. And I can give you examples with rational alternate explanations, for such things as Plate Tectonics, a world-wide deluge and ice age, the age of the earth, evolution alternative, the missing water canopy over earth, earth's orbital change discrepancies, etc. And it all makes sense, but was once laughed at and dismissed out of hand--by 'scientists' who now allow that perhaps these were the causes after all. Scientists are no more pliable in many cases than the religionsist they accuse of being closed-minded.
http://deeperthings.webs.com/...