Slashdot Mirror

Because they get in my way. They bring up religion and then expect me to be tolerant of them. I'm tired of people spouting off religious bollocks at me and keeping silent.

As a Christian, I agree with this in a way. People bring up atheism and then expect me to conform to its supposed neutrality and superiority. I'm tired of having people spout off atheistic bollocks at me and keeping silent. ;-)

Seriously, though, we are both in the pursuit of truth here, we just happen to have reached different conclusions. More importantly, it's admirable that you're willing to make your views known. These days, people are often branded "intolerant" and "biased" when they speak up against falsehoods. "Tolerance" used to mean "respectful disagreement," but now it frequently means "never, ever criticize anyone's beliefs."

Christians are guilty of forgetting that we have an obligation to create a level playing field for all ideas to be aired. This is implicit in our duty to treat others better than we treat ourselves, and our conviction that this is the best vehicle for truth. Whenever Christians have failed to do this, throughout history, it has been disastrous. Whenever Christians have adhered to this, truth has been served.

Of course, atheists don't escape criticism here, either. There's a common misconception that atheism is an obvious, default, and neutral starting point; add "God" and you get theism. This "presumption of atheism" is only possible for "weak" atheism or agnosticism. The assertion that God is a "fairy tale" is epistemically equivalent to the theistic assertion -- and since both assertions carry a number of nontrivial implications, atheism cannot be viewed as the "rational" subset of theism. They are distinct sets that are almost disjoint.

In other words, some propositions have no neutral ground. Occam's Razor does not apply to such situations. This is easy to see if you take certain other binary examples: humans are either equal, or they are not equal. The axiom of choice is true, or it's not. God exists, or God doesn't. Which position is neutral? One of them will be true, but neither of them is neutral. But invariably, one position -- or its implication -- gets promoted as neutral, and is therefore taught in every grade school. Hmm.

Or take, for instance, Christopher Reeve's statement regarding stem cell research: "When discussing matters of public policy, no religions should have a seat at the table." This is hardly a level playing field; in fact, it is espousing strong atheism over theism while claiming to be neutral.

Perhaps I'll dig at this a bit more: I've given reasons why Christians should welcome debate (even though they often don't). Is there a comparable duty within atheism?

(Finally, though you may be sick of hearing this, it's relevant to note that the premier exponent of the presumption of atheism argument was ex-atheist Antony Flew. So even the "weak" position has come under well-deserved scrutiny. =)

--
Dum de dum.

For those who can't hack the left-of-center politics at UCLA, I have two local suggestions for alternatives:

Alternative 1, for those wanting to study Political Science, Business or Law: Pepperdine, Malibu, CA.

Yes, you can study at a law school where Kenneth Starr is the Dean! And that's just the beginning. Pepperdine was founded by Southern Baptists and is almost thoroughly Conservative-run. Only the school of Education and Psychology (why am I not surprised?) harbors liberal rebel scum. If you avoid that bastion of hippie-dom, you are good to go. And besides, it's in Malibu. Righteous waves and babes in bikinis. You know you want it.

Alternative 2 for those wanting to get their Divinity degree: Biola, La Mirada, southern Los Angeles County, CA.

The Bible Institute Of Los Angeles has been known as the province of fire-breathing Fundamentalist Christians for about a century. You don't have to go to the Southeast and the Bible Belt to get that old time religious education, it's right there. Perhaps the only place more hardcore than Biola is Bob Jones University.

Both of these places are realistic alternatives for those who would rather not go to UCLA. I guarantee you, you will not have your precious Right-Wing political preferences challenged either place. You might have to pay more, because both of these are private institutions, but that wonderful feeling of not having to listen to grubby liberal eggheads spouting off with opinions that Rush and O'Reilly and Hannity tell you are "just plain wrong" is priceless, right? Right?

Um, did you happen to get a look at when the article you directed me to was published? The note at the top even says:

"[Editor's note: This article no longer represents Flew's current position. For the most recent information, see Antony Flew Considers God...Sort Of.]"

See also this interview.

So, I will not amend my signature. I admit it is a little misleading, because what Flew appears to believe in is not "God" with all the normal connotations that word carries, but it is certainly more accurate than, "Anthony Flew is still an atheist."

Of the two options you mention, Special Creation usually connotes the first (intervening), whereas Theistic Evolution connotes the second (fine-tuning in creation). Intelligent Design, in the strict use of the term, does not necessarily make any claims about origins, but rather studies intelligent action as the best explanation for different kinds of order.

Generally, Christians working in the natural sciences are mostly commonly Theistic Evolutionists, then IDers (long ages), and only very occassionally into Young-Earth Creation (YEC), in which case they will belong to an organization like Answers in Genesis. The first two perform meaningful research IMHO, whereas AIG spends most of its time promoting YEC in churches as the only possible option for Christians.

Something like the Anthropic Principle is consistent with either ID or Theistic Evolution, as is Antony Flew's recent adoption of some kind of Aristotelian Deism (not Theism but no longer strictly Atheism, even by Flew's usual agnostic definition) which appears to have been motivated by ID concerns (requiring intelligence as an information source for DNA). See the following interview:

http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/

Of particular interest is the bold claim at the end that Ayer and Russell would have agreed with him had they lived as long. As Richard Carrier summarizes at SecWeb:

...he is increasingly persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs, nor does it provide any postmortem salvation. He says he has in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a distant, impersonal "prime mover."

Source: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=369

Flew is not, of course, a scientist, a point Carrier makes several times, and his views should be understood rather as those of a (respected) philosopher.

Some Muscovites who buy pirated CDs consider themselves fundamentally Christian. Some Americans who pirate CDs consider themselves fundamentally Christian.

fundamentalism:
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.
a. [often Fundamentalism] An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.
3. [according to hb253 and some moderators] someone who ignores the prominent principles of a religion but twists minor principles to support something they personally desire to do, eventually laying aside conscience, allegiance to truth, and the rights of others.

I think AC, your post comes from one who does not get it, and by rushing to the defense of religion where no assault is being perpetrated, you miss the mark completely.

Well, it turns out that parent was responding to this:

Excellent response. It's too bad religion isn't as honest in their theories.

which is certainly an attack -- it's a charge of dishonesty. Mild by /. standards, but also typical fare for this site. So, yes, there was an attack.

It is human nature to "know" how or why things are the way they are. You choose your explanation to be God. It is a nice and easy way to go about life, believing that everything has a purpose, but you do not need know what that is because you have God. Scientists, on the other hand, have a driving desire to learn. This has nothing to do with "anti-religion" or a desire to prove there is no God. In fact, you may find that quite a few scientists do believe in God or a "creator" or what have you. They just don't try to use this "God" concept to explain away the unexplainable.

I think this severely misunderstands the state of Christian thought. If you look at the work of, for example, J.P. Moreland or Alvin Plantinga, you will see that they do not appeal to God as an explanation for the inexplicable. Instead, they believe in God because they believe that the evidence points firmly in that direction.

I teach science: H.S. Chem and Physics. I have a driving desire to learn, and I try to spark in my students a driving desire to learn and to analyze carefully, critically, and honestly. I also am an evangelical Christian (to use a loaded, ill-defined term) with an (additional) academic background in theology. I guess I would fit your description of the scientist who does believe in a God. So I have no problem with your suggestion that science and Scripture might converge on "God" as the "final answer to the Theory of Everything", and I heartily endorse your suggestion that science can give us a greater understanding of God. Indeed, I teach my students to think that way.
The problem I have is that you portray scientists as neutral pursuers and purveyers of knowledge. They aren't. It turns out (speaking philosophically here) that everyone has a prior notion of the answer to the "does God exist?" question. This is why the question has been and continues to be unresolved philosophically. Our prior judgment on that question entirely colors our judgment as to what "counts" as proof of God's existence. It's a vicious circle, and philosophers have been unable to untangle it.

Scientists are no exception to the rule, and it comes out in all sorts of ways. For instance, take Richard Dawkins, chair of the "Public Understanding of Science" at Oxford. He has written extensively promoting evolutionary thought. So far, a seemingly neutral scientific question, right? But his books contain not only an scientific defense of evolution, but also several defamatory comments about Christianity. It turns out that he integrates his scientific worldview with his atheistic worldview, and uses his position to promote both simultaneously. And so it goes in the world at large. No man is a neutral player on the "God question"; no evidence is ever evaluated without a priori judgments as to how much proof is enough proof. That is where "faith" comes in. For careful thinkers, Faith is not a substitute for evidence. Instead, it is a willingness to evaluate a certain amount of evidence in favor of God's existence, over agains

Being a Christian and seeing the scripture (mainly Rev 13:16-18) of my relgion banded about so much I thought I would link to a bunch of different translations which can be found Here. But some have mentioned that they would prefer to see the orginal text, well this one is the closest I can find (the web site has a bunch of other versions clicky here).

My reason is simple, for only by looking at how man sees this text can we hope to discern the meaning behind this very poetic prophecy.

Oh yeah, I think its a dumb idea by the way talk about one great way to track the movements and purchases of a people. Welcome to 1984.

Being a Christian and seeing the scripture (mainly Rev 13:16-18) of my relgion banded about so much I thought I would link to a bunch of different translations which can be found Here. But some have mentioned that they would prefer to see the orginal text, well this one is the closest I can find (the web site has a bunch of other versions clicky here).

My reason is simple, for only by looking at how man sees this text can we hope to discern the meaning behind this very poetic prophecy.

Oh yeah, I think its a dumb idea by the way talk about one great way to track the movements and purchases of a people. Welcome to 1984.

Who needs the Gut when you can look at a machine-readable Latin Vulgate at http://unbound.biola.edu/ ?

And that's what the Gutenberg Bible is - a Latin Vulgate. I think it would be interesting to do this work on the Gut but...wouldn't it be easier to work from a text that is already machine-readable?

-uso.

Don't forget the New American Standard translation, the other major English translation.

Be careful with the NIV, though. It's quite a good translation, but you have to be aware of what you're getting when you read it. The translators used the "dynamic equivalence" philosophy, to make it easier to read. That means they took the more difficult sentences and rephrased them, changing both grammar and vocabulary to a more straight-forward reading level. (Every translation involves interpretation, but dynamic equivalence adds a second layer of "putting it in your own words.")

Here's some good resources:

Unbound Biola -- Bible search. Most of the major English translations, along with 30 or 40 other languages, ancient and modern.

Read the Bible -- 50 or 60 translations, English and otherwise. Some are available for download, as are the necessary fonts.

Ah, you see, Scientology is not like other religions, that's what they admit themselves. But the real reason why they're different is how they publish information.

Other religions give their religious texts away free of charge, but Scientology decided to give it away through losing a number of court cases, accidentally giving away the the documents freely as part of legal paperwork. Other religions spread the word by choice, this religion spreads the word by shooting themselves to the foot all the time.

I mean knowing NOT to run an executable from a computer you don't know SHOULD be common sense no?

It was only a few years ago that, as a system administrator, I reassured users that there was no possibly way they could get a virus from reading email. This was in response to the GoodTimes 'virus'. Little did I suspect that our, um, good friends at Microsoft would allow Outlook to run scripts.

You can't assume that only executables will spread viruses in future. However, this isn't the main point. If users hear that they may get a virus using a particular P2P network - even if they have to be morons to catch it - how many will avoid the P2P network anyway?