Comments on: From Faitheist to Fundagnostical

By: bill don

bill don — Mon, 06 Dec 2010 20:27:53 +0000

“I will say that there is one part of religion, besides all of the obvious bad stuff, that I really don’t like. It’s the fact that religions teach children & adults that it’s a virtue to believe things in the absence of hard evidence. When religions do that it’s bad, because it could lead people to trouble. It could lead them to lose their money, their emotional security, or even their lives. Get rid of all the bad parts of religion, keep the good stuff, and if you are religious, keep it to yourself.” – Joshua Hunt

What do you consider hard evidence my friend? Have you done all the research required to fully believe and become a member of the atheistic religion? Atheism is not a new trend and it is entrenched in its own tradition just as bad if not worse than any other religion out there. Neo-atheists such as Hitchins and Dawkins are no worse than any religious zealot throughout the world. They have their beliefs and are passionate about them. They base what they believe on so-called evidence but who gives them their evidence? Scientists who are not objective in their research give them their evidence. You like to challenge religion because it is not based on “hard evidence” and yet you fail to see that most evidence which “proves” that God does not exist is fabricated. Case in point, a scientist years ago placed a spotted moth on a tree. The moth blended in perfectly with the tree bark. There were moths of other colors but they were eaten because they did not fit in. This particular scientist “proved” that this particular moth evolved as a result of natural selection and survival of the fittest. So for years scientists had “hard evidence” in favor of natural selection. The problem is it was all an elaborate hoax. For more info see:

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/pepper.shtml

So I ask you again; what is considered “hard evidence”?

By: Joshua Hunt

Joshua Hunt — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:59:17 +0000

Thank you so much for this post Dr. Shermer! I have atheist friends who don’t understand the points you make in this post. I’m going to share it with them, because they think you are something that you are not. An “accomodationist”. I’ve seen you debate the religious/theists and you call them out on their BS. You make your points clearly, forcefully, and without hesitation/timdness. You pretty much sum it up with, “religion is good when it’s good and bad when it’s bad”.

I will say that there is one part of religion, besides all of the obvious bad stuff, that I really don’t like. It’s the fact that religions teach children & adults that it’s a virtue to believe things in the absence of hard evidence. When religions do that it’s bad, because it could lead people to trouble. It could lead them to lose their money, their emotional security, or even their lives. Get rid of all the bad parts of religion, keep the good stuff, and if you are religious, keep it to yourself.

By: Michael Kingsford Gray

Michael Kingsford Gray — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:36:32 +0000

I agree with the call for scientific stats & figures to back up the nebulous claims of the benefits of weak-kneed accomodationism.
One must include the simple fact that this faithiest experiment has been conducted since at the time of the putative Socrates, and has yet to gain any headway over the god-believers.
That is one hell of an experimental period.
Compare that with the obvious success that the no-godly-codlers such as Dawkins, Hitchens, etc have achieved in say the last handful of years.
The difference is startling!
The conclusion is inescapable: accomodationism just doesn’t work.
It has failed in its 2300 year experiment, and I have no reason to believe that it will continue to fail for another 2 millennia. It just DOESN’T work.
Not in the short term, nor the long term.

By: tmac57

tmac57 — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:58:54 +0000

“…but I think it is equally (or more so?) unintelligent to posit that it can be known for sure there is no God.”
Or posit that it can be known for sure there IS a God, by your own logic.

By: Overburden

Overburden — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:44:45 +0000

Millie Bleu
Your ‘rant’ is understandable, your reasoning is not.
No ‘physical(your word)evidence’ proves or disproves the existence of a deity. Science doesn’t look for something our emotions (fears)tell us exits. You believe in your god because humans are, as you indicated, incapable of thinking ‘outside the box’. You are no different, being human, emotional, humbled and in awe of the cosmos, you have chosen the ‘god box’. While somewhat imaginative for the earlier citizens of earth, the notion of god(s), a humanoid deity at best, still remains a poor solution for explaining our existence – consciousness. A ‘creator’ conceived by the minds of men because there isn’t any ‘knowable’ answer for life, is counter-intuitive farce.
You believe in your god because you choose to, not because of any ‘scientific’ evidence it exists – faith – and you do so with the preponderance of scientific evidence indicating it does not.
You are right as you are wrong. And your rigid, unquestioning belief without evidence is not reason, only a form of denial.

By: Anna Balfour

Anna Balfour — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 10:44:12 +0000

Regarding Mr. Shermer’s statement at the beginning of his article, who exactly was he “giving thanks” to?

By: Millie Bleu

Millie Bleu — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 16:43:24 +0000

A couple of thoughts. I heard you say that an alien civilization 500,000 years ahead of us can probably create life, just as (you said) we are close to creating life. You also said you do not believe alien civilizations visit this planet because it’s too far away (I agree alien civilizaitions do not visit this planet). My question is, if aliens created life but haven’t visited our planet, how did life get here? I would posit they are not creating life but are merely copying the creation of life that already exists. If those aliens can create life, who created their life, and so on and so on? I also heard you say that arguing for Intelligent Design runs into the problem of who created God and that no one can solve that dilemma. Actually, that isn’t so. First of all, when you say “life,” you are referring to our physical kind of life. You think that’s the only kind that exists. Why do you think in such a small box? Conscious existence cannot be in any form but physical? Why? This is the failing of modern science! It is incapable of thinking beyond its own small box, because it thinks only in the physical. If anything exists beyond the physical, it states it cannot know about it, but then it goes into utter arrogance by saying nothing beyond the physical exists at all! Really?? Where did it get such all-knowing information?? The fact that anything exists at all argues for a Supreme All-Powerful Intelligence. I find your argument that God must have had a creator to be juvenile. If he lives outside of our reality and in a form totally other than ours, then he doesn’t have to have anything except himself. Furthermore, we are incapable of understanding anything beyond our own reality, our own five senses. We cannot conceive of the inconceivable, yet that does not mean it does not exist. It most likely DOES exist. Look at this enormous universe, and then think that it may be universe within universe within universe — and tell me with a straight face that you have it all figured out based on your puny ability to reason via your five senses and a little bit of math. You say there is no God, because you have him in a box of your own making. Your thinking is mostly likely informed by Sunday School lessons taught by old maids who made you feel bad, and you have images of a devil in a red suit carrying a pitchfork. In other words, you are thinking stereotypically in your dislike of faith. Clear your minds of such thoughts and admit that you DON’T ACTUALLY KNOW. When one truly admits to himself that he DOESN’T ACTUALLY KNOW, humility ought to ensue. Christian socalled “fundamentalists” teach what I have stated above, that God is unknowable and unreachable unless he reaches down for us, that we can’t get to him on our own. In other words, he sent a bus to pick us up because we never could have driven to him ourselves. A further thought is that we can’t see the forest for the trees, we don’t have all the data, we don’t know the end of the story, etc. etc. You think it is unintelligent to believe in God, but I think it is equally (or more so?) unintelligent to posit that it can be known for sure there is no God.

By: Mick

Mick — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 10:11:54 +0000

As that is exactly what he did, I suppose the answer is yes.

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:28:42 +0000

As can be seen here again the anti-rationalists deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent the opinions of others for strategic purposes. I didn’t call all liberals doutchebags and that is obvious, but if my value is discriminating between right and wrong then if he can portray me as making blanket statements then that serves his end. You can tell how annoyed he is that I am advancing the notion that some opinions can be right and others can be wrong because this concept is antithetical to his whole philosophy.

Another obvious point of misrepresentation is when the issue of ad hominem is brought up. If I value logic then I must be shown to be using logical fallacy. In my arguments I do not make any point with ad hominem, but I do throw out the occasional insult AFTER I make my point for flavor. This presentation is misrepresentation because I said as much in my posts already. However the main purpose of pointing out these particular insults is more likely to be an attempt to confuse the issue by making my discussion of a mindset sound like nothing more than a series of insults. Since I am examining an epistemology rather than a conclusion (although I discuss conclusions first and then examine epistemology because if conclusions are not addressed and I just spoke of why somebody was advocating something then that would be logical fallacy) anti-rationalists will try to suggest that since I am talking about how people come to arrive at conclusions I am therefore accusing them of having bad intentions. If I am just accusing them of having bad intentions then they can claim that I can never know their heart and so on.

This description of course is incorrect and is only arrived at because they have their philosophy in reverse. Anti-rationalists move from ethics into epistemology rather than the other way around. Figuring out how we know what we know has nothing to do with intentions but rather it is simply figuring out how we know what we know. In the same way that ethics have nothing to do with metaphysics, ethics has nothing to do with epistemology. Either reason, logic, and evidence are the proper method of gaining knowledge or they are not. When I speak of anti-rationalists I am referring to people who reject reason as unethical.

Objective reasoning is not the gold standard of skepticism, it is skepticism. Skepticism would be meaningless if there were not an objective reality that existed and an epistemological process of reason and logic that could identify that reality.

By: Stephen J. Levine, MD

Stephen J. Levine, MD — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 22:56:59 +0000

I agree with you Dr. Shermer. To be a critical thinker, one must be able to come up with one’s own view of the world without being called an accommodater. There is no orthodoxy to critical thinking and insistance on the former stiffles the latter.

There is a big difference between what we know and what we don’t know. Anyone who doubts that need only look at the realm of quantum mechanics where all of our classical physical conceptions go out the window. In fact, it turns out that classical physics is just a special case of quantum mechanics applicable to things our size and speeds closer to our realm of experience.

The idea that evolution is The Hand of God cannot be proved or disproved. On what authority, then, does criticism of this belief stand? It is beyond the realm of science at this point.

Insistance on Correct Thinking and claims of blasphemy are of primitive derivation. What power is going to punish us for thinking incorrectly? If such a power exists, what skin off its nose is there that it is believed in? Requiring someone to believe in you is a human failing.

sjl