mr_jez ([info]mr_jez) wrote,
@ 2009-01-31 11:27:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Attenborough on 4
There was a thought-provoking little snippet on Radio 4 this grey and blustery morn.

The presenter introduced Sir David Attenborough as a well-known atheist, and he corrected her, expressing that he hoped he was a well-known agnostic. In the following brief exchange he said that he considered having a closed mind in this area to be unscientific, but that empty speculation was pointless.

I'd like to see more moderates like that, and less extremists.

(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]blue_swirl
2009-02-01 01:24 am UTC (link)
Well, this is the thing. I admit that it's a possibility that God(s)/pixies/leprechauns/demons/Father Christmas/The Easter Bunny (and so on) exist. But if we're talking about things that might be true, it might be true that communism is the best system of government.

However, I've looked at history, read the theory, thought about it logically and rationally, and have come to the conclusion that it probably isn't the best way forward. It's still a possibility though, and my mind is open to anyone that can present a good argument. This doesn't make me ag-communist though, it makes me anti-communist.

The probability of communism being the best system of government has to be much, much, higher than that of the existence of extra-dimensional beings with magical powers. Hence, atheist.

If we go around saying that anything that's possible are equally valid explanations, we're not going to make any progress in finding out what actually is going on.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]mr_jez
2009-02-01 02:12 pm UTC (link)
See, that sounds to me like you're a sane and rational agnostic.

And I particulraly agree with this...

"If we go around saying that anything that's possible are equally valid explanations, we're not going to make any progress in finding out what actually is going on."

You might enjoy the link given below, not for the Catholicism, but for the attempt to tease apart science and religion in this context.

Cheers.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]blue_swirl
2009-02-01 06:06 pm UTC (link)
Let's put it this way. It's possible that one day, without warning, I'll spontaneously turn into a penguin. However, I'm not about to rush out and buy penguinification insurance. ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]mr_jez
2009-02-01 11:47 pm UTC (link)
*smiles*

Yeah, that's kinda what I thought.

Without the penguins... ;o)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]sinvokasha
2009-02-01 07:01 am UTC (link)
Someone recently sent me this and I think it's a pretty good summary of a lot of the issues I have with the extremists of the atheism camp.

I find it somewhat amusing when I the Satanist am finding the views of Catholics (the author) and Lutherans (the friend who sent me the link) more agreeable with my own than those of many recent atheists.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]mr_jez
2009-02-01 01:54 pm UTC (link)
Aye, it's laugh or cry really, isn't it? ... ;o)

I rather liked this snippet, "Now there are only two sorts of people who think Scripture is supposed to be The Big Book of Everything: New Atheists and Fundamentalists (who are more alike than either realizes)."

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]blue_swirl
2009-02-01 06:28 pm UTC (link)
A quick read places this particular text into the "complete bollocks" camp. Sorry.

I've never seen any serious atheist use this argument:

Objection 1: It seems that God does not exist, because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

In fact, make it a case for the existence of God, swap out "evil" with "good" and you have an argument I've seen religious apologists use time and time again.

[T]he New Atheist is full of moral prescriptions and proscriptions: We should be teaching children about Darwin. We should not be teaching children religion. We should have greater tolerance for sexual diversity. We should not be subjecting infants to circumcision. We ought to be doing X, we ought not to be doing Y, etc.

This is a complete misunderstanding of the basics. The new atheists don't say "we should never ever do X or Y", that's the job of the over enthusiastic religous types. The new atheists say that "we should think about things rationally and logically, and this suggests that doing certain things is pretty stupid in certain contexts". For example, the practice by a small Jewish sect of removing the foreskin after circumcision by sucking it off should probably be avoided because it resulted in the death of several infant boys who contracted genital herpes. Circumcision in some circumstances can be the healthiest thing to do.

The thing that annoys me, and other atheists, is people saying "act X is the right thing to do, no matter the circumstances, because it's my religion." If the chap in the link actually understood what Dawkins/Harris/Dennet/Hitchens etc were trying to say, he would realise that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]mr_jez
2009-02-02 12:20 am UTC (link)
From my perspective, being outside of both camps looking in, I can say I've met plenty of atheists *and* religious apologists who, a) use versions of the argument in question to attempt to prove that there is, or is not, a God, and, b) endeavour to tell other people what they should do.

And, sadly, a lot of them are all too serious about it! ... ;o)



(Reply to this) (Parent)

(8 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…