Reading I Don't Believe In Athiests right now.

[Kai]

There seems to be much talk about how religion or spirituality has no more use these days. Hodges says that athiests fill this gap with science and create a new sort of faith with utopian visions of technology and wonder, a "glorious future". I like how he talks about religious understanding taking time and effort, and is often belittled.

The three Athiest figures that he continually brings back are Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, btw.

Edit: I didn't realize before that Hitchens called for a first strike nuclear attack on the "Islamic" world.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Sounds similar to the criticisms of John Gray in Black Mass.  He was very critical of the drive to utopianism and perfectibility as well, claiming it was behind the horrors of the 20th century.  It could be that walling off those drives in a religious garb, of that of the unattainable Ultimate Ideal may put them in a mental and philosophical place where they do the least harm...at least in theory (as no doubt theocracy is also one of the guises of utopian perfectionism gone out of control).

Perhaps. I just think fundamentalism in any context, that is, holding to beliefs strongly when evidence is lacking or contrary, leads to this sort of close minded drive to some idealized state.

Because, if you 'know' how the universe works, then there will be some sort of ideal you can visualize. This is not so easy when you are unsure.

Rata's right--great summation.  Fundies of any type are abhorrent.  I think those of us like myself holding very strong opinions can fall into this easily...and I remember how hard it was to "fall out" of the fundi-ness I'd been brought up to "believe" in as well.

I agree totally... It's been an exhauting process trying to rid myself of true belief and I still occasionally find it popping up in an attempt to help me TELL PEOPLE WHAT IS RIGHT.

Stupid prison

[Iason Ouabache]

Also, a prominent athiest hack (who otherwise does good scientific work IIRC) is Myers of Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/)

What specifically do you have against PZ? I've read his blog on a regular basis for months and have only seen one or two things that I would call egregious.  The Cracker incident ruffled a lot of feathers, but I see exactly why he did it and don't think he stepped over the line.

The three Athiest figures that he continually brings back are Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, btw.

Edit: I didn't realize before that Hitchens called for a first strike nuclear attack on the "Islamic" world.

Yeah, Hitchens is an ass and Harris makes some hasty generalizations about moderates and liberals enabling right wing crazies.  I don't see why so many people have problems with Dawkins though.  The only criticisms I've seen are of him being "arrogant" and "full of himself". I've never seen anyone point out where they think he is wrong. 

[Kai]

Also, a prominent athiest hack (who otherwise does good scientific work IIRC) is Myers of Pharyngula (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/)

What specifically do you have against PZ? I've read his blog on a regular basis for months and have only seen one or two things that I would call egregious.  The Cracker incident ruffled a lot of feathers, but I see exactly why he did it and don't think he stepped over the line.

The three Athiest figures that he continually brings back are Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens, btw.

Edit: I didn't realize before that Hitchens called for a first strike nuclear attack on the "Islamic" world.

Yeah, Hitchens is an ass and Harris makes some hasty generalizations about moderates and liberals enabling right wing crazies.  I don't see why so many people have problems with Dawkins though.  The only criticisms I've seen are of him being "arrogant" and "full of himself". I've never seen anyone point out where they think he is wrong. 

Myers is a partistan hack. What bothers me is that he claims to be for science but in many ways is just a blind follower. I got tired of him after an incident where I claimed all the elected democrats to the senate was a pyhrric victory due to the passage of gay marriage bans in several states, if even that, and I got jumped on. These people are just as selfish and shallow as everyone else but they don't see it because they are so blinded by science and their vision of idealized utopia.

Dawkins is probably not so bad, but he did coin the term Brights, and he has Athiest fundie followers.

Just because people do good science doesn't make them deep, introspective, moral, or plesant. They have all the flaws of everyone else but they don't recognize it and they should know better.

[Jenne]

Sounds similar to the criticisms of John Gray in Black Mass.  He was very critical of the drive to utopianism and perfectibility as well, claiming it was behind the horrors of the 20th century.  It could be that walling off those drives in a religious garb, of that of the unattainable Ultimate Ideal may put them in a mental and philosophical place where they do the least harm...at least in theory (as no doubt theocracy is also one of the guises of utopian perfectionism gone out of control).

Perhaps. I just think fundamentalism in any context, that is, holding to beliefs strongly when evidence is lacking or contrary, leads to this sort of close minded drive to some idealized state.

Because, if you 'know' how the universe works, then there will be some sort of ideal you can visualize. This is not so easy when you are unsure.

Rata's right--great summation.  Fundies of any type are abhorrent.  I think those of us like myself holding very strong opinions can fall into this easily...and I remember how hard it was to "fall out" of the fundi-ness I'd been brought up to "believe" in as well.

I agree totally... It's been an exhauting process trying to rid myself of true belief and I still occasionally find it popping up in an attempt to help me TELL PEOPLE WHAT IS RIGHT.

Stupid prison

Heh, I don't think it's bad to do that, just bad to not consider you might be wrong somewhere.  And that what's right for you might not always be right for someone else, but then, I guess you wouldn't be so "right" if there were all those caveats, eh?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Sounds similar to the criticisms of John Gray in Black Mass.  He was very critical of the drive to utopianism and perfectibility as well, claiming it was behind the horrors of the 20th century.  It could be that walling off those drives in a religious garb, of that of the unattainable Ultimate Ideal may put them in a mental and philosophical place where they do the least harm...at least in theory (as no doubt theocracy is also one of the guises of utopian perfectionism gone out of control).

Perhaps. I just think fundamentalism in any context, that is, holding to beliefs strongly when evidence is lacking or contrary, leads to this sort of close minded drive to some idealized state.

Because, if you 'know' how the universe works, then there will be some sort of ideal you can visualize. This is not so easy when you are unsure.

Rata's right--great summation.  Fundies of any type are abhorrent.  I think those of us like myself holding very strong opinions can fall into this easily...and I remember how hard it was to "fall out" of the fundi-ness I'd been brought up to "believe" in as well.

I agree totally... It's been an exhauting process trying to rid myself of true belief and I still occasionally find it popping up in an attempt to help me TELL PEOPLE WHAT IS RIGHT.

Stupid prison

Heh, I don't think it's bad to do that, just bad to not consider you might be wrong somewhere.  And that what's right for you might not always be right for someone else, but then, I guess you wouldn't be so "right" if there were all those caveats, eh?

Purrzactly (see, that's me overcoming my furry brick) 

I think the problem with guys like Dawkins is that they draw conclusions:

"Blah and Blah and Blah Therefore, Religion is Wrong, Stupid and if you teach it to your kids its worse than physical abuse"

See thats much like:

"Blah and Blah and Blah Therefore, being Gay is Wrong, Stupid and if you allow your kids to be gay they will burn in Hell and it will be your fault."

"Blah and Blah and Blah Therefore, Belief is Wrong, Stupid and if you teach it to your kids its worse than being stuck in the Land of Thud during coleslaw season!"

[Jenne]

I have to warn my husband against this--he's the WORST.  He's a reformed Muslim...and he's a Westernized Afghan.  Goddamn but he had to overcome a LOT of prejudice, ignorance and preconceived "ideals"...and some of them are so in-grained (and I believe culturally so) that they pop up in bizarro areas.

I have warned him that he may be sooo far on the atheist side that he might drive his children to religion just by sheer will of his intolerance of it.

[Iason Ouabache]

Myers is a partistan hack. What bothers me is that he claims to be for science but in many ways is just a blind follower.

Yeah, I was kinda put off on how he covered politics over the last couple of months.  There's a way to root for your team that is still civil and he didn't even try to do that.

I got tired of him after an incident where I claimed all the elected democrats to the senate was a pyhrric victory due to the passage of gay marriage bans in several states, if even that, and I got jumped on.

I will try not to jack this thread but the Democrats winning Congress and the presidency will be good for people in favor of gay marriage in the long run.  The only way to get gay marriage approved in ALL states is to go through the Judicial Branch. And guess who gets to stack the Judical Branch for the next 2-8 years...

These people are just as selfish and shallow as everyone else but they don't see it because they are so blinded by science and their vision of idealized utopia.

Blinded by science?

You are going to have to explain what you mean by that one. I do agree with you on the utopian ideals though.  There is no possible way to get rid of religion completely.  People have a need to believe in the illogical. Attempting to legislate belief is like trying to piss up a rope.

Dawkins is probably not so bad, but he did coin the term Brights, and he has Athiest fundie followers.

Yeah, the whole Brights thing never made sense to me.  It's like they never stopped to think about how people might react to the implication that everyone not in their group was a Dull.

Just because people do good science doesn't make them deep, introspective, moral, or plesant. They have all the flaws of everyone else but they don't recognize it and they should know better.

Agreed.  The Cult of Personality is bad no matter who is in charge.

[Kai]

Blinded by science meaning in awe of technological development and their own ego gratification and research so much that they can fail to see anything outside their ivory tower, that humans don't operate by the scientific method, and that physics cannot derive the root of happiness.

Blinded by religion means in awe of sacred development and their own ego gratification and dogma so much that they can fail to see anything outside of their rectory, that humans live in a pluralistic society, and that morality is not absolute.



Its the same thing.

[OPTIMUS PINECONE]

One of his early points is that humans cannot become morally perfect.

     Nonsense! Just look around you here on P.D!

[Kai]

One of his early points is that humans cannot become morally perfect.

     Nonsense! Just look around you here on P.D!

Roger would say: "I don't have to practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."

[OPTIMUS PINECONE]

One of his early points is that humans cannot become morally perfect.

     Nonsense! Just look around you here on P.D!

Roger would say: "I don't have to practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."

     He IS The Good Reverend

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

One of his early points is that humans cannot become morally perfect.

     Nonsense! Just look around you here on P.D!

Roger would say: "I don't have to practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."

     He IS The Good Reverend

Where IS he lately? I MISS HIM. 

[Requia ☣]

I think I saw the 'lets nuke the middle east' guy speak.  The Objectivist society at my Uni brought him in.

[Kai]

Have been reading more of this book. He just seems to be expanding upon the general premise with more and more examples, the general premise being fundamentalism (of any type) = bad. I need to finish the book before I can really synthesize any particular thought about it.

Also reading Born Digital right now, by Palfrey/Gasser, or more like skimming it. Most of the stuff they talk about, like identity, personal information sharing, internet dossiers, etc, are things we either take for granted or have talked about extensively.