I know we've been around this particular mulberry bush frequently and recently, but thought this was an interesting contribution:

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2007/12/18/john_haught/

Uh, yeah. I stopped reading a couple of paragraphs after he explicitly stated that the logical end of atheism is nihilism. Does he become less fuckwittastic sometime after that? Or do I go ahead and swear out a jihad on him?

Um yeah, I have to admit that I posted the link on the basis of what it looked like being about, and ended up feeling about the same way as you did (and as the commentators on the Salon site did) about the whole article once I'd read it.

Not sure whether to ask for a thread-lock, delete the thread or maybe try to salvage a discussion that actually addresses some of the issues intelligently. But I guess we *have* already done the 'Dawkins either doesn't really understand religion or oversimplifies for rhetorical reasons' bit...

By which I mean: Hey, I appreciate you and all, brother. But Haught comes straight out of the blocks and goes directly to the old Christian standby of "without religion, you believe in nothing." Which is plainly false if for no other reason than the fact that I have no religion, yet I fervently believe that he needs to be clubbed like a baby seal for trotting out that idiotic, offensive old saw for the half-witted and fully-Bibled.

So if there's a really good contribution later in the article, I'm not favorably disposed enough toward him to go hunting for it.

Ah. Just saw your reply. Fair enough. No thread deletion is necessary. You'll just have to stand in the pillory.

And furthermore... Hail Satan!

quote:

Uh, yeah. I stopped reading a couple of paragraphs after he explicitly stated that the logical end of atheism is nihilism. Does he become less fuckwittastic sometime after that? Or do I go ahead and swear out a jihad on him?

I think you had him at "less fuckwittastic".

G.K. Chesterton did way better with his old 'solipsism as self-contradicting insanity' riff, I think.

(note: I LOVE G.K. He could've argued God into admitting He was only a figment of G.K.'s imagination.)

quote:

Originally posted by Splitcoil:
And furthermore... Hail Satan!

'Only two houris? And they're not virgins? Oh well, they're my daughters: that's a plus.'

Split:

quote:

...if for no other reason than the fact that I have no religion, yet I fervently believe that he needs to be clubbed like a baby seal for trotting out that idiotic, offensive old saw for the half-witted and fully-Bibled.

Gad, I do love your way with words.

I disagree with his opinion that the logical implications of atheism would lead to nihilism, in fact I think that the logical path would more likely head in the other direction. That's assuming that I'm even capable of thinking about the subject logically at all. He seems to have started with that answer before he asked the question.

I guess that I like he acknowledges that you can be good without religion, but I dislike that he seems to believe you can't be optimistic without it. I also think that he is correct when he suggests that some of the more militant atheists insist on seeing religion, and the religious, through a very biased lens.

In any case in the interview he did make a few points that I agreed with.

Specifically that we need to continually reassess our beliefs in the light of new information, or new perspectives on old information. We can't have a reasonable claim to rationality if we just take the party line and stick with it when the evidence says otherwise.

Creationism makes a good example for that. The belief was fine back in the day, but since archaeological evidence proves the world is older than the six thousand years they accept uncritically; and since all the evidence suggests that Darwin's hypothesis was the right one it's time for that particular school of thought to start dealing with the evidence we DO have instead trying desperately to find something we DON'T have.

I also agree with him that Intelligent Design isn't real science. I'm not saying I don't believe in a conscious direction behind the creation of the universe, I just don't believe that it is scientifically supportable. Until and unless that situation changes, it's just an aspect of theology and it should stay out of science class.

"They're Nihilists"

"Must be exhausting."

- The Big Lebowski

quote:

But Haught comes straight out of the blocks and goes directly to the old Christian standby of "without religion, you believe in nothing."

Without my Almighty Invisible Friend, I am Nothing. Yes, it is tragically absurd. I believe (I do not *know* but I beleive) that no one in this world survives without hope, yea, hope in something like a miracle somewhere somewhen.

But to charge that, unless one's hope is dressed in desert robes or at least shrouded in some Trust the Force mist, one believes in nothing, has all the dignity of a copyright lawsuit.

Not to mention what The Big L said. Maintaining faith in nothing is Sisyphean squared.

quote:

I also agree with him that Intelligent Design isn't real science.

One of Kenmeer's Pet Peeves: 'ID isn't *real* science.'

Yes it is, I say, just real science that has dismally failed every test its hypothesis requires of itself. At this point, I would say it isn't a valid theory, and relish the massive understatement of what I just said.

I read Michael Behe's book way back in, like, '97, before I knew there was an ID/evo debate. It was just a cool book. (Really. Clearly written, funny at places.) Made ye think. Hey, that's always fun.

I then watched as every postulate he put forth fell over at the slightest touch.(I think that's what you call them: postulates. Sounds like eczema.) He'd raised some fine points; they just dulled on contact.

So: real science, just like ye olde ether theories were real science. Just badly failed science. Now, if one wishes to claim that the ID 8movement* isn't real science, especially since it exists on faith alone anymore, fine. But then, no *movement* is science. It is only a meme tide.

ID ain't science as it can't be falsified completely which is the important characteristic of science.

quote:

Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:

quote:

But Haught comes straight out of the blocks and goes directly to the old Christian standby of "without religion, you believe in nothing."

Without my Almighty Invisible Friend, I am Nothing. Yes, it is tragically absurd. I believe (I do not *know* but I beleive) that no one in this world survives without hope, yea, hope in something like a miracle somewhere somewhen.

But to charge that, unless one's hope is dressed in desert robes or at least shrouded in some Trust the Force mist, one believes in nothing, has all the dignity of a copyright lawsuit.

Not to mention what The Big L said. Maintaining faith in nothing is Sisyphean squared.

Camus was wrong about the redemption of absurdity in my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by kenmeer livermaile:

quote:

I also agree with him that Intelligent Design isn't real science.

So: real science, just like ye olde ether theories were real science. Just badly failed science. Now, if one wishes to claim that the ID 8movement* isn't real science, especially since it exists on faith alone anymore, fine. But then, no *movement* is science. It is only a meme tide.

One could argue that "scientific movements" become so after the fact, proven or disproven as they become.

quote:

Originally posted by Hasa:
ID ain't science as it can't be falsified completely which is the important characteristic of science.

I know, I've heard all that before. It's a squeaky quibble. Fairies ain't science because we can't prove they don't exist. I think it was Einstein said, "Nothing is impossible?"

ID is testable. It can fail to positively prove its assertions. So it can't b e proven to be impossible. Big deal.

Relativity denies the possibility of FTL travel. Emphatically and exhaustively.

Likewise time travel.

This is because it is an extremely precise set of equations that rigorously cover each other's ass. Relativity has the luxury of saying 'It can't be done -- according to all these wonderful laws of nature that, to date, have not failed in their predictions'.

But then, relativity is not a ToE, so it ultimately suffers the same problem with its assertions (FTL travel is impossible) that ID suffers.

But: relativity works. To date, ID hasn't, and worse, every hasn't moves it further from respectable plausibility.

Science has gotten as silly in some respects as those Abrahamic thumpers it so despises.

quote:

Camus was wrong about the redemption of absurdity in my opinion.

I loved reading Camus' rambling observations on life at large. His descriptions of the beach at Algiers, stuff like that. But I couldn't read The Myth of S. (*yawn*)

And, having dropped out of high school, I escaped The Plague, The Stranger, et al.

Hasa is right about Popper's criterion for what is and isn't science. Intelligent Design is not at all science under that definition, because its key idea is a hand-wave. "Here's all this complexity, and we can't think of any other explanation, so someone musta done it." That's not testable. And that's the 'hard core' (in Lakatos' terms) of the research program. There are various empirical matters around the edges that are testable, and as kl has said, the tests on these are coming back negative for ID as well, but I'd still feel comfortable claiming that the program as a whole is not science.

(though as I think I've said before, in some ways the 'is it or isn't it science?' question is about as (un)useful and (un)interesting as the 'is it or isn't it cyberpunk?' one)