51. For God's Sake

Comment #31557 by etny on April 13, 2007 at 8:38 am

From European background and culture, I moved to the US 10 years ago, only to see the takeover of the US government by right-wing Christian fanatics. This has been a truly painful, almost surreal experience. How bigotry, raw hypocrisy, cult-like medieval thought came to rule the most powerful and "greatest" democracy in the world is simply astounding.
Now I know that the US could turn into a theocratic dictatorship in a heartbeat.
In this context, one can understand why Dawkins' and Harris' books are such hits in the US. They are the antidote to this deadly epidemic.
They are food for the resistance, for both seculars and smart believers.
But I am keeping my French passport handy, for the day those millenarian religious hypocrite fools realize their master plan.

52. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30171 by etny on April 7, 2007 at 6:13 am

Like many others, Charles Moore is missing the point.
As many innovative thinkers before him, Dawkins is in a fight against the establishment. And when David fights Goliath, strong and sharp words are needed if one is to make any impression.
Moore should instead focus on the impact that Harris and Dawkins are having on the debate. Why are these books selling so well? Why are rooms packed whenever one of them speaks? That's the interesting question.
And part of the answer is that most religions are, more and more evidently, antiquated myths, totally ill-adapted to the rational worldview of the 21st century. And that people, atheists and many believers alike, are tired of these repressive and backwards myths, with their ridiculous clergies and institutions, still having so much power and impact on the world.
Dawkins and Harris are spelling out loud what many people think but might not have the courage to admit to themselves, or the capability of putting into words in such an eloquent manner. Dawkins, Harris, and others, are acting as catalysts and liberators in a great war of ideas. Moore should be thankful for that.

53. The God Debate

Comment #29207 by etny on April 2, 2007 at 4:58 am

"Altruism comes out of knowing there is more than this life, that there is a sovereign God, that I am not God. We're both betting. He's betting his life that he's right. I'm betting my life that Jesus was not a liar. When we die, if he's right, I've lost nothing. If I'm right, he's lost everything. I'm not willing to make that gamble."
This is the most appalling statement I have read in a long time. This is amongst the lowest degree of religion and humanity. Any mature human being, any humanist, regardless of his creed, can only feel disgusted. So that's what it's all about: FEAR. SELF-INTEREST. HOPING FOR THE JACKPOT.
What cowardliness, pettiness, arrogance, and downright stupidity.
Most frightening is that this form of belief is at the root of religious fanaticism, intolerance and cold violence. You worthless atheists will roast in hell, thinks he, just because you have not "believed". Oh man, we (atheists and intelligent believers) definitely have a fight on our hands.

54. Science, Faith, and Evolution

Comment #24952 by etny on March 9, 2007 at 1:10 pm

It was indeed my characterization, because it seems to me, and I may be mistaken, that it is an underlying consequence of Dowd's thought.

In any case, it should be quite clear, see bellow (reposted), that he is another brand of creationist. Would Sagan have agreed with this? I'll let you form your own opinion. Personally, I don't buy this non-coincidental billions-year evolution of the universe toward the goal of self-consciousness.

Again, Dowd wrote:
" We now see a universe of nested creativity (atoms within molecules within cells within organisms within planets within galaxies, like Russian nesting dolls) perfectly suited for life and reflective consciousness. Is this just a happy coincidence? I doubt it. Scientists themselves are thus moving out of a mechanistic way of thinking to an organic, or living systems, worldview. Evolution, from this perspective, can be embraced as God glorifying, Christ edifying, and scripture honoring."

Do you see my point?

55. Science, Faith, and Evolution

Comment #24912 by etny on March 9, 2007 at 7:44 am

I don't mean to criticize preacher Dowd as an individual. It is not my place to do this anyway. He is most likely a far better person than I.
But if what you are looking for is unvarnished truth, not comfort, then you have to cast his vision as a desperate (deluded) attempt to adapt a metaphysical outlook to the physical world.
In the end, Dowd is just offering another version of creationism, as clearly illustrated in articles posted on his web site
http://www.thegreatstory.org/GivingGodGlory.html

" Many Christians over the last century and a half have understandably rejected evolution because, until recently, evolution has been depicted as a chance, meaningless, mechanistic process. The growing edge of evolutionary thinking today, however, points to a very different understanding of the cosmos. We now see a universe of nested creativity (atoms within molecules within cells within organisms within planets within galaxies, like Russian nesting dolls) perfectly suited for life and reflective consciousness. Is this just a happy coincidence? I doubt it. Scientists themselves are thus moving out of a mechanistic way of thinking to an organic, or living systems, worldview. Evolution, from this perspective, can be embraced as God glorifying, Christ edifying, and scripture honoring."

I don't think Steven Jay Gould would have agreed with this. Being is awe of the universe is one thing. But believing some form of God is involved is another.
I actually find this version of creationism harder to believe than young-earth theories… 14 Billion years just for us?!!!
But hey, I may be wrong, as everyone else.

56. Science, Faith, and Evolution

Comment #24849 by etny on March 8, 2007 at 9:27 pm

God's plan, according to Dowd:
"Human beings are not separate from the universe. We are the universe. After 14 Billion years, of unbroken evolution, now becoming conscious of itself. We are literally nature uncovering its own nature"
I keep wondering, how can rational people ever believe that we humans, who may only live as a conscious race for a few thousand years (before blowing ourselves up or the like), are the crown jewel (and ultimate purpose) of 14 BILLION YEARS of (God-directed) evolution.
How desperate for meaning, how tortured by cognitive dissonance must one be to utter such blatant nonsense, and with such passion and assurance. Our capacity for arrogance and self-delusion never ceases to amaze me.

57. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #23991 by etny on March 4, 2007 at 3:27 am

2 points:

- Never overlook the jealousy factor of critics toward highly successful authors like Richard and Sam, especially when these authors are succeeding so astoundingly on their critics' own turf.

- Richard (or Sam's) arguments may not always seem scholarly or intellectually refined enough for people who have spent their whole life studying the issue in all its intricacies. Nevertheless, they pose the key questions and are right on target for the level of sophistication of most believers (and non-believers). The proof lies in the fact that these books are such best-sellers.

Again, believers and non-believers alike should be thankful to Richard, Sam, Dennett and others: faith unexamined is as worthless as life unexamined.

58. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23492 by etny on March 1, 2007 at 4:43 am

There is one thing that we may fail to see:
Dawkins is a deeply honest person, an educator, and not a fundamentalist. Consequently, he is still and always looking for the best way to convey his ideas. Certainly, he is walking a fine line between being too politically correct and diluting his message, and being offensive to people of faith, thereby harming his message.
This is why he may have appeared, at times, a little subdued in this interview. But I think it was out of honesty more than mere calculation. He is genuinely seeking for an effective middle ground.
I am always amazed, anyway, by Richard's honesty, thoughtfulness, and scientific attitude.
Whether one has "faith" or not, it should be recognized that Richard is doing a great service to society by posing very real questions.
As someone of faith, I believe that faith unexamined is as worthless as a life unexamined.
Thanks Richard.