Posts by Nick Melchior
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
quote>It seems to me that agnosticism is the only strictly rational position on spirituality. Unfortunately, many athiests prefer not to accept that their own religious belief (the unprovable assertion that there is no god) is open to serious critique.</quote>
I'm not sure that the absence of something needs to be proved. Surely the responsibility is on the person asserting the presence of soemthing which there is no measure for?
-
What we believe or do not believe is not arguable. What we feel or do not feel is not arguable. Neither is it able to be proven or not. That is the point. It just is.
But why we believe it and feel it and whether it is reasonable to feel and believe it are arguable. That is the point here.
And Russell has already said it better than me but I've never accused all religious people of being intolerant (which is patently and demonstrably untrue) but some religious people do believe that religion is the basis of all morality (which is equally untrue).
Russell's issue about religion making people feel better about themselves/the world etc and therefore being ok is an interesting one. Dawkins presumably thinks that lying to yourself (or making yourself believe an untruth) to make yourself feel better is not ok, Russell (and my Mum) say otherwise. As I get older I tend to think that the latter argument makes sense but I've never felt envious of people with strong faith because of their moral certainty etc.
In terms of Satanists, I have no time for them. I like to mock Hare Krishnas however.
-
I use god as a standard noun to mean a supreme being. Capitalising it gives to much creedence to theist beliefs. ;)
-
I thought Dawkins response to the old "evolution is God's way of doing this" argument was pretty good.
Paul, of course science doesn't answer moral questions. But his rejection of moral questions as "remarkably stupid" in that Salon interview implied that we should be concerned with them.
Anyway, I've never met an anti-theist who did beleive in god, but I guess Deborah's argument could stand.
-
Atheists don't believe in god. Anti-theists are against god.
The Russian Anarchist Mikhal Bakunin once said (something along the lines of) that if god did exist it would be necessary to destroy him. The argument runs that putting our faith in a supreme being ingrains a respect for natural heirarchy and 'the natural order' in us that prevents the realisation of freedom. Therefore, even if god was real, it would be a bad thing.
Luckily for us, he's not.
-
Dawkins may be a hero but he's also an old crotchety pain in the ass contrarian.
I'm firmly in the camp of anti-theist rather than atheist and found the Time intro sort of annoying:
"Roman Catholicism's Christoph Cardinal Schönborn has dubbed the most fervent of faith-challenging scientists followers of "scientism" or "evolutionism," since they hope science, beyond being a measure, can replace religion as a worldview and a touchstone."
I think the more interesting question is why people continue to see religion as the only source of morality when so many of us have world views that aren't based on divine revelation. Science informs my moral questions and beliefs but certainly doesn't define them.
Dawkins seems relatively unconcerned about moral questions or deeper philosophical questions to the point where he tends to ridicule those who are (see the Salon.com interview last month) which is slightly irritating.