Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Darwin and the Intelligent Design Brigade
by Paddy Shannon, Socialist Standard
Reposted from:
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/feb09/text/page13.html
Evolution is perhaps the strongest theory in modern science, but still the most controversial. Why after all this time does it still generate such ferocious opposition?
“Christian Right Lobbies To Overturn Second Law Of Thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics, a fundamental scientific principle stating that entropy increases over time as organized forms decay into greater states of randomness, has come under fire from conservative Christian groups, who are demanding that the law be repealed.
Calling the second law of thermodynamics "a deeply disturbing scientific principle that threatens our children's understanding of God's universe as a benevolent and loving place," they are spearheading a nationwide grassroots campaign to have the law removed from high-school physics textbooks. The plan has already met with significant support in the state legislatures of Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Tennessee, Georgia, and Mississippi.”
Before you start worrying, this was a satirical item from The Onion, back in 2000, aimed at religious people who reject Darwinian evolution. However it’s not really an exaggeration. Religious fundamentalists who reject evolutionary theory are also rejecting geology, astronomy, Einsteinian and Newtonian physics, in fact the whole body of scientific knowledge going back to first principles, and replacing it with a couple of anonymous books and a God who, as Bill Hicks pointed out in relation to dinosaur fossils, must be a liar and a practical joker.
Yet these religious people don’t choose to attack Newton, or the theory of gravity, or light, or quantum physics. Why evolution specifically? If you haven’t already seen it, try watching Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial (2007), which is freely available online. This is an award-winning documentary describing the headline-grabbing court case between parents and the School Governors in Dover, Pennsylvania in which the governors were trying to force creationist ideas into biology classes and the parents were trying to stop them.
In the end the parents won, and the creationists were humiliated. But as you follow the interviews with protagonists on both sides of this celebrated case, you begin to see what it is that motivates those on the religious side of the debate. It is fear.
They are afraid that without God as first cause there really is no relevance to life. They fear that science is taking the heart out of the human experience and replacing it with numbers. They fear that a world with no meaning is a world with no mercy.
It was fear that originally incited the famous campaigning reformer William Jennings Bryan to take the prosecution case in the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, fear that naked social darwinism would rampage across any possibility of social justice, would justify the worst excesses of unrestrained capitalism. This was the fear – and the profound misunderstanding of Darwinism – which drove Christians to break themselves against the juggernaut of science, and continues to drive them today.
It would be, from a scientific or a socialist perspective, so easy to laugh at these people as superstitious children. After all, they cannot win. Despite the recent avalanche of anti-religious books from the likes of Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Christopher Hitchens and others, there is no real danger of a return to a religious Dark Age. Of course they are wrong. Of course their arguments are ludicrous.
At the same time it is possible to feel some compassion for the fear and the desperation these, mostly ignorant and uninformed, people have, confronted with a world they don’t understand and in which they feel utterly helpless. Science to them is gas chambers, nuclear bombs, death rays, spy satellites and mind control. Wild stories about Earth-eating black holes and ‘strangelets’ guaranteed front-page coverage worldwide for the switching on of the Large Hadron Collider, an event only normally of interest to particle physicists.
People fear what they don’t understand, and in general society is scientifically illiterate, a situation many scientists find worrying. In public surveys on the supposedly dangerous substance Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO), which can corrode iron and kill humans if inhaled, up to 90% of respondents voted that it should be banned (DHMO = H20). (Source: New Scientist, 27 Sept 2008, p.76).
Socialists should care about the religion versus science debate because the theory of socialism is built on scientific principles, and anything which threatens rationality and evidence-based thinking must be anathema. However we should also be capable of seeing the larger picture. This isn’t really about Darwin, or the laws of physics.
This is about people who need to have a reason to go on living, which capitalism isn’t giving them. It’s about people’s need to believe in something, which capitalism doesn’t supply or has taken away. And it’s about having some hope for the future, of which capitalism has none. The world really does need some intelligent design, but in its business of living, not in its biology.
Socialists, as atheists, have to understand what some scientists seem unable to grasp, that the battle of ideas is not just a battle of the mind, it’s a battle for the heart. We can no more win hearts with economic methodology than scientists can with peer-reviewed research. If we scoff at notions of ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’ because these things are not measurable in laboratory experiments, we utterly miss the point. The desperate argument of creationism is at one level a comedy of human stupidity. But at a deeper level it is a tragedy, the pathos of a human condition adrift and desolate in a world which cares only about money and believes in nothing at all. This is what Moslems and Christians despair about, and this is something with which we can surely empathise. This is the ‘sigh of the oppressed’ in the heartless world of the 21st century. Despite appearances to the contrary, capitalism is slowly and methodically destroying religion. What we need to do, as socialists, is recognise the emotional vacuum this is creating, and strive to fill it, before something infinitely worse does.
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/feb09/text/page13.html
Evolution is perhaps the strongest theory in modern science, but still the most controversial. Why after all this time does it still generate such ferocious opposition?
“Christian Right Lobbies To Overturn Second Law Of Thermodynamics
The second law of thermodynamics, a fundamental scientific principle stating that entropy increases over time as organized forms decay into greater states of randomness, has come under fire from conservative Christian groups, who are demanding that the law be repealed.
Calling the second law of thermodynamics "a deeply disturbing scientific principle that threatens our children's understanding of God's universe as a benevolent and loving place," they are spearheading a nationwide grassroots campaign to have the law removed from high-school physics textbooks. The plan has already met with significant support in the state legislatures of Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Tennessee, Georgia, and Mississippi.”
Before you start worrying, this was a satirical item from The Onion, back in 2000, aimed at religious people who reject Darwinian evolution. However it’s not really an exaggeration. Religious fundamentalists who reject evolutionary theory are also rejecting geology, astronomy, Einsteinian and Newtonian physics, in fact the whole body of scientific knowledge going back to first principles, and replacing it with a couple of anonymous books and a God who, as Bill Hicks pointed out in relation to dinosaur fossils, must be a liar and a practical joker.
Yet these religious people don’t choose to attack Newton, or the theory of gravity, or light, or quantum physics. Why evolution specifically? If you haven’t already seen it, try watching Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial (2007), which is freely available online. This is an award-winning documentary describing the headline-grabbing court case between parents and the School Governors in Dover, Pennsylvania in which the governors were trying to force creationist ideas into biology classes and the parents were trying to stop them.
In the end the parents won, and the creationists were humiliated. But as you follow the interviews with protagonists on both sides of this celebrated case, you begin to see what it is that motivates those on the religious side of the debate. It is fear.
They are afraid that without God as first cause there really is no relevance to life. They fear that science is taking the heart out of the human experience and replacing it with numbers. They fear that a world with no meaning is a world with no mercy.
It was fear that originally incited the famous campaigning reformer William Jennings Bryan to take the prosecution case in the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, fear that naked social darwinism would rampage across any possibility of social justice, would justify the worst excesses of unrestrained capitalism. This was the fear – and the profound misunderstanding of Darwinism – which drove Christians to break themselves against the juggernaut of science, and continues to drive them today.
It would be, from a scientific or a socialist perspective, so easy to laugh at these people as superstitious children. After all, they cannot win. Despite the recent avalanche of anti-religious books from the likes of Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Christopher Hitchens and others, there is no real danger of a return to a religious Dark Age. Of course they are wrong. Of course their arguments are ludicrous.
At the same time it is possible to feel some compassion for the fear and the desperation these, mostly ignorant and uninformed, people have, confronted with a world they don’t understand and in which they feel utterly helpless. Science to them is gas chambers, nuclear bombs, death rays, spy satellites and mind control. Wild stories about Earth-eating black holes and ‘strangelets’ guaranteed front-page coverage worldwide for the switching on of the Large Hadron Collider, an event only normally of interest to particle physicists.
People fear what they don’t understand, and in general society is scientifically illiterate, a situation many scientists find worrying. In public surveys on the supposedly dangerous substance Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO), which can corrode iron and kill humans if inhaled, up to 90% of respondents voted that it should be banned (DHMO = H20). (Source: New Scientist, 27 Sept 2008, p.76).
Socialists should care about the religion versus science debate because the theory of socialism is built on scientific principles, and anything which threatens rationality and evidence-based thinking must be anathema. However we should also be capable of seeing the larger picture. This isn’t really about Darwin, or the laws of physics.
This is about people who need to have a reason to go on living, which capitalism isn’t giving them. It’s about people’s need to believe in something, which capitalism doesn’t supply or has taken away. And it’s about having some hope for the future, of which capitalism has none. The world really does need some intelligent design, but in its business of living, not in its biology.
Socialists, as atheists, have to understand what some scientists seem unable to grasp, that the battle of ideas is not just a battle of the mind, it’s a battle for the heart. We can no more win hearts with economic methodology than scientists can with peer-reviewed research. If we scoff at notions of ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’ because these things are not measurable in laboratory experiments, we utterly miss the point. The desperate argument of creationism is at one level a comedy of human stupidity. But at a deeper level it is a tragedy, the pathos of a human condition adrift and desolate in a world which cares only about money and believes in nothing at all. This is what Moslems and Christians despair about, and this is something with which we can surely empathise. This is the ‘sigh of the oppressed’ in the heartless world of the 21st century. Despite appearances to the contrary, capitalism is slowly and methodically destroying religion. What we need to do, as socialists, is recognise the emotional vacuum this is creating, and strive to fill it, before something infinitely worse does.
Comments 1 - 50 of 77 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #331683 by Quine on February 1, 2009 at 10:35 am
They fear that science is taking the heart out of the human experience and replacing it with numbers.
Unweaving the rainbow. The sad part of a narrow view of this majestic Universe.
Other Comments by Quine
3. Comment #331687 by debacles on February 1, 2009 at 10:42 am
"Calling the second law of thermodynamics "a deeply disturbing scientific principle that threatens our children's understanding of God's universe as a benevolent and loving place,"...
That's it. I'm out.
Other Comments by debacles
4. Comment #331691 by mordacious1 on February 1, 2009 at 10:44 am
Comment #331687 by debacles
That part is from the "Onion".
Other Comments by mordacious1
5. Comment #331696 by MatthewL on February 1, 2009 at 10:48 am
They insist that they are too complex to only be made of chemicals, to which I say:Instead of de-valueing yourself, doesn't that show how amazing chemicals are?
Science still has a heart to it.
Other Comments by MatthewL
6. Comment #331703 by debacles on February 1, 2009 at 10:57 am
Things are bad when you can't tell the satire from the thing being satirized. I really stormed off there. HA Other Comments by debacles
7. Comment #331706 by JAMCAM87 on February 1, 2009 at 11:01 am
Calling the second law of thermodynamics "a deeply disturbing scientific principle that threatens our children's understanding of God's universe as a benevolent and loving place," they are spearheading a nationwide grassroots campaign to have the law removed from high-school physics textbooks. The plan has already met with significant support in the state legislatures of Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Tennessee, Georgia, and Mississippi.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! But what about that mean old theory of gravity which makes everything fall and hurt itself! I think we should remove that one too and also lets just remove the childrens brains while we're at it, wrap them in cotton wool and bury them deep underground and play some loud christian rock music.
Other Comments by JAMCAM87
8. Comment #331712 by Kit Finn on February 1, 2009 at 11:10 am
With the exception of the last two paragraphs, that was a really great article. Shame it sought to replace one ideology with something verging on another...That said, I'd prefer to live in a socialist state than a theocracy.
Other Comments by Kit Finn
9. Comment #331713 by Jack Rawlinson on February 1, 2009 at 11:10 am
Well, I suppose the plug for socialism is to be expected in a paper called the Socialist Standard, but it'll probably put a few people off, which is a pity since the article is mostly good sense.I say that as a bit of an old lefty myself, by the way.
Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
10. Comment #331714 by F_A_F on February 1, 2009 at 11:14 am
FFS I get so frustrated with comments like:This is about people who need to have a reason to go on living, which capitalism isn’t giving them. It’s about people’s need to believe in something, which capitalism doesn’t supply or has taken away. And it’s about having some hope for the future, of which capitalism has none. The world really does need some intelligent design, but in its business of living, not in its biology.
Sonce when does science offer suggestions of how best to live your life? It doesn't! It simply states fact, or at least provable theory by observation. Just as a priest can offer me, as an atheist, secular consolation when a loved one dies. But as soon as he starts making unprovable claims about the universe, he is to be disregarded.
Once the religious learn that scientists/atheists are good people too, they can stop worrying about how our statements of fact contradict their holy books and start getting on with each other.
Other Comments by F_A_F
11. Comment #331744 by debacles on February 1, 2009 at 11:48 am
Nice. HAHA
Once they realize their side of the argument has no real basis, they can claim to be very subtle satirists.
Other Comments by debacles
12. Comment #331747 by devolved on February 1, 2009 at 11:52 am
"Religious fundamentalists who reject evolutionary theory are also rejecting geology, astronomy, Einsteinian and Newtonian physics, in fact the whole body of scientific knowledge going back to first principles..."It would be helpful to have some examples. as it is this is simply mud slinging.
Perhaps you'd like to read a scientist's reason for rejecting evolution by following this link
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/6172
Other Comments by devolved
13. Comment #331751 by debacles on February 1, 2009 at 11:59 am
Devolved...you subtle satirist you...that is satire right? Other Comments by debacles
14. Comment #331753 by Bonzai on February 1, 2009 at 12:01 pm
Devolved
What is a Th.C. and a Th.L.? Looking at the man's bio it proves the point that to reject evolution you have to reject a whole bunch of other sciences. One of the man's books is called "dismantling the big bang".
BTW, I can't find a list of his peer reviewed publications. He published in the Creationist journals. Just because you have a M.Sc. (or even a Ph.D., but Alex apparently doesn't have one,--unless a Th.C. or a Th.L. is equivalent to a Ph.D.) doesn't make you a scientist if you have stopped doing credible scientific research after you get your degree. It seems that it would apply to Mr. Alex Willaims,--if he has actually done any credible research at all.
Other Comments by Bonzai
15. Comment #331764 by MadMonkey on February 1, 2009 at 12:09 pm
"Evolution is perhaps the strongest theory in modern science, but still the most controversial."
Only among the usual gang of fools...
Other Comments by MadMonkey
16. Comment #331766 by JAMCAM87 on February 1, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Devolved,
Joke yeh'
Other Comments by JAMCAM87
17. Comment #331775 by Mr DArcy on February 1, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Just back from Davos chaps! Jolly good show out there. We were all suitably humble and contrite, and the lobsters and Mersault had to be smuggled in over the pass so as not excite all those pesky reporters. (Bloody pestilence that lot!).
What's all this about socialists and creationism? Bloody dimwits! Of course there's hope. Without bloody capitalism, all those stupid workers would be on the street. Oh bugger, some of them are already? Never mind, we'll get the authorities to deal with them.
Now that mountain air really makes the mind think of higher things! Yes this beautiful world really couldn't be any better, and it's going to last forever!
Other Comments by Mr DArcy
18. Comment #331838 by sonnygll on February 1, 2009 at 1:08 pm
That article was good, it brings up a good point about fear (which leads to their anger of course). It does make me feel sorry for them. I always did feel sorry for people enslaved by religion though. Now granted I am a bit of a liberal, but socialism goes too far and it really hasn't worked in the past. Much like what was recently proven by conservatism (it failed). Liberal democracies with a high percentage of non-religious people seem to be the most successful countries in the world. The evidence suggests that's probably the best way to go. So I really think a well regulated form of capitalism is better than full blown socialism.I still like the article though.
Other Comments by sonnygll
19. Comment #331936 by Rawhard Dickins on February 1, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Isn't it time to drop the "theory" bit and start using "process of.. ". Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins
20. Comment #331939 by Goldy on February 1, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Comment #331936 by Rawhard Dickins
Probably better to teach people what "theory" actually means...
Other Comments by Goldy
21. Comment #331940 by lazlow on February 1, 2009 at 3:26 pm
This is about people who need to have a reason to go on living, which capitalism isn’t giving them.
So, if we take away their God they would have no reason to go on living and stop breeding? That reminds me of a theory I read about.
Other Comments by lazlow
22. Comment #331962 by kenny756 on February 1, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Comment #331936 by Rawhard Dickins
no because theory is the correct scientific term. You will probably confuse people even more if you refer to it as the process of evolution. They might think it has been promoted to a higher standard in science or something lol
Other Comments by kenny756
23. Comment #331975 by King of NH on February 1, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Am I truly supposed to feel sorry for the religious? Does this article propose that it makes people sad to think that their petty and vindictive God has not granted them the earth to treat as they wish, and that we should RESPECT that!?!
NO!
It is good they see their world crumble the way it is good for an abused spouse, a neglected child, or a successful CEO. It is good that they see the curse of their addiction to the opiate religions.
It is absolutely absurd to think that these people are intellectually or emotionally more fragile, too delicate, to open their eyes to the reality around them. These are not passively ignorant children, they are aggressively ignorant adults.
I don't knock on their doors and ask "Have you heard the good word of Nietzsche?" I don't demand to include "...one nation, under Plato..." in the pledge or "In Newtonian Physics We Trust" on the currency. I simply ask that they educate themselves or sit down, shut up, and allow their children a better future than a narrow minded superstitious world of hunger and poverty.
Science is not test tubes. Science is not jet engines. Science is not nuclear energy. Science is a beautiful quest for unbiased truth. Science comes from our emotional drive to know. If the creationists wish to call science a religion, then in comparison it is the world's most inclusive, productive, and peaceful (given allowance for beer driven debates on the feasibility of parallel universes).
I do not pity those that long for the days of witch trials, submissive women, ignorant children, and total submission to a dark and mysterious wood.
Other Comments by King of NH
24. Comment #331984 by black wolf on February 1, 2009 at 4:37 pm
Frog Hop - A Frog And His Atheist Spread A Word:Frog Hip Hop
Other Comments by black wolf
25. Comment #331993 by ANTIcarrot on February 1, 2009 at 5:00 pm
331975: "Science is not test tubes. Science is not jet engines."Though arguably science is what keeps their children safe in a car crash, and what stops the roofs of their megachurches from collapsing.
Other Comments by ANTIcarrot
26. Comment #332000 by NMcC on February 1, 2009 at 5:37 pm
Bloody hell! No sooner do I decide to stop posting for a while, and an article from my Party's journal, The Socialist Standard, gets published on RD.net. Nothing to do with me, I should point out.Incidentally, the Socialist Standard has always opposed religion (those holding religious views are barred from membership of the SPGB on the grounds that our philosophy rules out the existence of imaginary friends, as well as pixies and fairies). For those who might be interested further, amongst other ideas, the SPGB denounced the Bolshevik coup in Russia as early as the beginning of 1918 on the grounds that it was minority led and dictatorial and could only end in disaster, and, in fact, has always opposed any form of minority action and dictatorship. The SPGB also opposes the idea of leadership (it has no 'leaders' as its members are not followers). It eschews violence as nonsensical and counterproductive. It has always been against the State on the grounds that it is society as a whole that must be educated, motivated and organised before there can be any talk of genuine Socialism and that the best thing to do with the political state is to get rid of it as soon as possible. The SPGB pioneered the idea - before it ever occurred to any Trotskyist - that what existed in Russia and China, and in other countries, was capitalism run by the State - not Socialism.
Finally, we have produced a rather fine pamphlet - Are We Prisoners of Our Genes? - on Darwinism and evolution - a copy of which was sent to Richard, I believe. In fact, I think there was a letter from Richard published in the Socialist Standard not so long ago.
Other Comments by NMcC
27. Comment #332001 by Eshto on February 1, 2009 at 5:39 pm
What's wrong with capitalism as long as it's regulated? Other Comments by Eshto
28. Comment #332011 by mmurray on February 1, 2009 at 6:15 pm
NMcC:The SPGB also opposes the idea of leadership (it has no 'leaders' as its members are not followers). .... It has always been against the State on the grounds that it is society as a whole that must be educated, motivated and organised before there can be any talk of genuine Socialism and that the best thing to do with the political state is to get rid of it as soon as possible.
At the risk of taking this thread off-topic before it has got going why are you not the Anarchist Party Great Britain?
Michael
PS: I was interested to discover while googling that there is a SPEW which is the Socialist Party (England and Wales) not, as I thought, the Society for the Promotion of Elvish Welfare.
Other Comments by mmurray
29. Comment #332078 by madcap on February 1, 2009 at 8:59 pm
"Evolution is perhaps the strongest theory in modern science..."No offense to Darwin, Dawkins and other great evolutionists, but I would hardly call it the "strongest theory in modern science." Strong, to be sure, but on par with general relativity? Quantum mechanics? I doubt it.
Also interesting praise from an adherent to a failed theory of economics- namely socialism (by which I mean real socialism, not our modern mixed economies).
"Despite appearances to the contrary, capitalism is slowly and methodically destroying religion. What we need to do, as socialists, is recognise the emotional vacuum this is creating, and strive to fill it, before something infinitely worse does."
Yes, that's just what we need. Replace religion with ideology. Trade one opiate of the masses for another.
Other Comments by madcap
30. Comment #332081 by Bonzai on February 1, 2009 at 9:11 pm
This is about people who need to have a reason to go on living, which capitalism isn’t giving them. It’s about people’s need to believe in something, which capitalism doesn’t supply or has taken away..
Hmm.. then why are creationists typically affiliated with the Christian right, who also champion unrestrained capitalism? Remember McCain and Palin attacked Obama for 'spreading the wealth' as if it was something shady or criminal? Their 'socialist' fear mongering appealed to the fundamentalist voters who believed in creationism,--the base.
The article makes some good points, but this just doesn't ring true.
Other Comments by Bonzai
31. Comment #332102 by DoctorMelkor on February 1, 2009 at 9:52 pm
16. Comment #331753 by Bonzai What is a Th.C. and a Th.L.? Looking at the man's bio it proves the point that to reject evolution you have to reject a whole bunch of other sciences.
If I remember correctly THC is tetrahydrocannabinol, the active ingredient in marijuana. I think this probably explains a fair amount.
Presumably THL is something related, perhaps an active metabolite.
^_^
Other Comments by DoctorMelkor
32. Comment #332104 by aquilacane on February 1, 2009 at 9:54 pm
What these people don't realize is that they've been living a meaningful life without god the whole time. They decided what had meaning in their life, and they decided it was god. They can still decide, but now, there is so much more available to them. Other Comments by aquilacane
33. Comment #332112 by moderndaythomas on February 1, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Comment #331679 by NewEnglandBob
Nonsense. Medical advances, basic sciences and product development are among many capitalistic endeavors which can bring hope for the future.
Can't help but to point out that profit above all else is a prime motivator for much of the scientific research being conducted in the field at the moment.
If there's no promise of capital gain, it's not worth a patent.
Free inquiry, to me, seems to be part and parcel to socialism, at least in the sense that discovery would be unhindered by a pharmaceutical companies greed.
But then I'm just a pinko Canadian, after all.
Other Comments by moderndaythomas
34. Comment #332139 by beanson on February 1, 2009 at 11:25 pm
What we need to do, as socialists, is recognise the emotional vacuum this is creating, and strive to fill it, before something infinitely worse does
He assumes that a scientific wonder of the universe cannot fill the gap that religion leaves.
It won't, perhaps, for the highly religious but that is only because they have been indoctrinated at an early age to belive in nonsense.
We must stop the practice of brainwashing the young- the universe is a object worthy of reverence without positing bearded old men in the clouds
Other Comments by beanson
35. Comment #332142 by Bonzai on February 1, 2009 at 11:42 pm
beanson
Don't be naive, the scientific wonder of the universe appeals to people like Einstein or Dawkins, or the young and/or romantic. It can be fun, but to many people it lacks a deeper, emotional appeal.
Einstein found the haunting vision of an impersonal universe liberating, yet Pascal was terrified by the same vision and withdrew into religion. You can't assume everyone can derive his pleasure from the same thing.
Most people find their meanings in family, community and friends, not from the faint echos of far away galaxies or the intricate dances of atoms. Instead of gazing up to the star, their feet are firmly planted on the soil. Pleasure and happiness are very mundane things, there is probably no poetry or music of the sphere in such activities, yet these are what motivate many to live and have children..
Dawkins also advised people to seek imortality in writing books, creating art or music. But how many can do that?
People in a way are simple,--I don't mean it in a patronizing way,-- yet it is often the simplicity that eludes the intellectuals. I always think that Dawkins is brilliant as a scientist and an intellectual, yet somehow I don't think he understands people.
Other Comments by Bonzai
36. Comment #332145 by beanson on February 1, 2009 at 11:52 pm
I'm not talking about the simple pleasures of everyday life. Of course that's where most people derive their mundane consolation. But that is not what the religious fear losing when they fear the removal of their god I don't think, after all these things are tangible and real and we all benefit from them regardless of our worldview.
It is the deeper, more philosophical consolation of a universe with a 'meaning' that they fear the loss of.
I happen to think that this 'meaning' can be replaced by a reverence of the mystery (at present) of the universe. (Also a regard for science, man's acheivements etc.) I also think that anyone eduacated to understand the majesty and mystery of the universe will find their desire for wonder poorly served by bible stories
Other Comments by beanson
37. Comment #332148 by Bonzai on February 1, 2009 at 11:56 pm
It is the deeper more philosophical consolation of a universe with a meaning that they fear the loss of.
If they need meaning then the 'reverence of the universe' is of no help. Because the truth is bad news, as far as we can tell the whole bloody thing is meaningless. Pascal had a first hand vision of that grand mystery, yet he recoiled in horror and withdrew deeper into religion. It was meaning that he sought and science offered no consolation.
Other Comments by Bonzai
38. Comment #332155 by beanson on February 2, 2009 at 12:05 am
BonzaiDepends what you want in your 'meaning's
If they interpret 'meaning' as having a component of authorship then yes they should give up now
Other Comments by beanson
39. Comment #332156 by mmurray on February 2, 2009 at 12:06 am
No, if they need meaning then the 'reverence of the universe' is of no help. Because the truth is bad news, as far as we can tell the whole bloody thing is meaningless. Pascal had a first hand vision of that grand mystery, yet he recoiled in horror and withdrew deeper into religion. It was meaning that he sought and science offered no consolation.
I don't think it's just meaning that people are looking for. I overheard a conversation sometime ago between two people who seemed to share a sort of eastern / new age view of life. One of them, who had had some challenges that year, made the interesting remark that `nothing happens until you are ready for it'. I can see that that would be a comfort if it was true but in my experience it's not. However the scientific view of the world isn't going to provide that sort of comfort that the universe somehow cares about us. The exact opposite in fact.
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
40. Comment #332160 by Bonzai on February 2, 2009 at 12:10 am
beanson
Who are you to tell people to 'give up now'? Just because guru Dawkins told you that there is only one way to live? A bit arrogant, I think. This is one reason why 'new atheism' can be a turn off to some people, it is too aggressive, too holier than thou. Why can't you just live and let live?
Other Comments by Bonzai
41. Comment #332161 by beanson on February 2, 2009 at 12:10 am
Bonzai-I was using the term 'give up now' as a sort of rhetorical flourish rather that as a direct command to be taken literally- perhaps I should have put a smiley after it =)
Why can't you just live and let live?
Try telling that to the Taliban! =)
"Just because guru Dawkins told you"
my guru is Steve Zara =)
(hey I'm getting used to these smileys =))
Mmurray says
However the scientific view of the world isn't going to provide that sort of comfort that the universe somehow cares about us. The exact opposite in fact.
Well in one sense of course the universe does care for us- we are part of the universe after all and we care for each other
But pure reverence of the mystery of the whole will get you a long way metaphysically
=))=))=))=))=))=))=))=))=))=))=))=))=))=))=))=))=))=))=))=))=))=))=))
Other Comments by beanson
42. Comment #332164 by carbonman on February 2, 2009 at 12:12 am
Nice article but it closes with a false premise:
the battle of ideas is not just a battle of the mind, it’s a battle for the heart.
Er, no. Common sense is perfectly compatible with compassion. They can work together. They are not mutually exclusive.
Other Comments by carbonman
43. Comment #332220 by gos on February 2, 2009 at 1:18 am
Bonzai:Dawkins also advised people to seek imortality in writing books, creating art or music. But how many can do that?
Hi, I'm from Iceland. It has been estimated that approximately half of all Icelanders see print at some point in their life :)
The literacy rate here is 100%, barring the dyslexics who fall between the cracks in the educational system. Our strongest cultural legacy is the Sagas, and literature is highly thought of.
Granted, the fact that there's only 300.000 of us has a lot to do with this as well.
Other Comments by gos
44. Comment #332221 by mmurray on February 2, 2009 at 1:18 am
Nice article but it closes with a false premise:
the battle of ideas is not just a battle of the mind, it’s a battle for the heart.
Er, no. Common sense is perfectly compatible with compassion. They can work together. They are not mutually exclusive
Doesn't the use of `just' mean that the battle of ideas is a battle of the mind and a battle for the heart?
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
45. Comment #332222 by Bonzai on February 2, 2009 at 1:21 am
gos
Nice to hear about the high literacy rate in iceland. But I am under the impression that being literate is not enough to make you a writer imortalized by your work. Maybe I set the bar too high.
Other Comments by Bonzai
46. Comment #332239 by NMcC on February 2, 2009 at 1:31 am
carbonman writes:'"...the battle of ideas is not just a battle of the mind, it’s a battle for the heart.'
Er, no. Common sense is perfectly compatible with compassion. They can work together. They are not mutually exclusive."
Hear. Hear. Well said. I'm a member of the party that publishes the Socialist Standard and I can't stand that nonsense about 'the heart' being the place where a 'battle' supposedly takes place. Last I heard, the purpose of the heart is to pump blood around the body and has no bearing whatever on one's emotional state at all.
Other Comments by NMcC
47. Comment #332248 by gos on February 2, 2009 at 1:39 am
Bonzai:The point was that 50% see print - the rest was intended as a quick list of elements that define a culture where the idea of finding immortality through your writing isn't so far-fetched.
Other Comments by gos
48. Comment #332260 by rod-the-farmer on February 2, 2009 at 1:50 am
I found the article hampered by obscure grammar, such that I had to read some paragraphs several times to figure out what was meant. This one in particular
It would be, from a scientific or a socialist perspective, so easy to laugh at these people as superstitious children. After all, they cannot win. Despite the recent avalanche of anti-religious books from the likes of Dawkins, Michael Shermer, Christopher Hitchens and others, there is no real danger of a return to a religious Dark Age. Of course they are wrong. Of course their arguments are ludicrous.
I wonder what the current problem of fundamental, and/or militant religious thought would be termed, if not a return to the dark ages.
I also thought it strange the author thinks that if people lose their religion, all that is left is capitalism, which will not satisfy them. Gee. Surely there are other isms that come into play for the de-faithed. Methinks the satire bled into the entire article.
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
49. Comment #332289 by Dougsharp on February 2, 2009 at 2:32 am
Anyone who has a fear of what life would be like without God, simply point them in the direction of Scandinavia. Scandinavia has some of the happiest people on earth (Denmark & Sweden), one of the countries with the highest standard of living in the world (Norway) and in general the some of the lowest levels of crime in the world. Oh ! and they are also the least religious countries in the world !Buy them a copy of "Society without God" (Phil Zuckerman)
Other Comments by Dougsharp
50. Comment #332305 by The Hogfather on February 2, 2009 at 3:09 am
" In the end the parents won, and the creationists were humiliated. But as you follow the interviews with protagonists on both sides of this celebrated case, you begin to see what it is that motivates those on the religious side of the debate. It is fear.
They are afraid that without God as first cause there really is no relevance to life. They fear that science is taking the heart out of the human experience and replacing it with numbers. They fear that a world with no meaning is a world with no mercy.
It was fear that originally incited the famous campaigning reformer William Jennings Bryan to take the prosecution case in the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925, fear that naked social darwinism would rampage across any possibility of social justice, would justify the worst excesses of unrestrained capitalism. This was the fear – and the profound misunderstanding of Darwinism – which drove Christians to break themselves against the juggernaut of science, and continues to drive them today. "
Well done to Paddy Shannon- she has hit the nail right on the head. This really is the big problem that we have to fight. It isn't really about evidence and logic, I think we have already won those arguments, the real battle is the one against fear. Many of these Creationists are warm, kind hearted people who think they are doing good. Superstitution has turned them into people who are completely dependent upon an invisible man in the sky. It is exteremely sad to see, and I have to say that I really do feel sorry for them. We have to show them that all is not lost when God is no longer part of the picture, far from it, we get to see the wonder of the Universe for what it truly is.
The biggest crime Religion has committed on the people is, in my view, the propagation of the myth that without God there is nothing, no beauty no philosophical inspiration. This is the source of so many problems for the Atheist. For example, the main reason why people are so easily offended when even the mildest criticism is put forward about religion, is that the populas realise that there are people out there (and many of them) whose whole philosophical crutch is entirely dependent on God. Of course it shouldn't really be the Atheists who are criticised, rather Religion for leading people into this completely untenable abyss.
Likewise the Evolution Vs ID/Creationism "debate" isn't really about evidence, testability, falisification or explaning things. It is rather an entirely philosophical debate. Creationists are motivated by fear- and they are convinced they are right, that religion is the only path to inspiration. This is why we see films like Expelled that are so keen to champion the idea that Atheism leads one to moral bankrupcy, because it fits so perfectly with their world view.
Other Comments by The Hogfather
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #331679 by NewEnglandBob on February 1, 2009 at 10:28 am
Education is the cure for fear.
Nonsense. Medical advances, basic sciences and product development are among many capitalistic endeavors which can bring hope for the future.
Other Comments by NewEnglandBob