Printable View
This might be a worthy read. There's an excerpt online as an article.
http://www.alternet.org/rights/80449/?page=entireQuote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hedges
BTW, the author believes that utopian visions for societies in themselves breed danger, no matter what their content. He argues that while individuals can progress morally, the progress for societies in terms of ethics is non-linear and further argues that there might be no moral progress at all.
Oliver
Hmmmm.
Quite an angry, frightened article in my view. I haven't read any of these atheist writers he speaks of except for Richard Dawkins, so I can only comment on him, and to be honest, i didn't find much to take issue with in "The God Delusion". I actually found him to be a good writer, with interesting ideas. I certainly don't agree with all of them, but none of them struck me as 'dangerous'. Pretty benign stuff.
Dawkins makes it VERY clear in his introduction that his argument is against the idea of a personified God - as in Old Testament, Man-with-a-long-white-beard supernatural guy.
I have to say I agree with him there - I personally find the idea of God as an actual dude to be pretty bizzarre.
Hedges writes in the above article "They [atheists] propose a route to collective salvation and the moral advancement of the human species through science and reason" !
As though that is an horrific idea!
Shock, horror!!!! Science and reason!!!!!! (Why, because there are so many scientists and secular humanists out there strapping bombs to themselves?)
Maybe I'm not well-read enough (and i haven't read any of those other guys) but Dawkins certainly is NOT advocating killing people who have religious beliefs, or going to war against religious governments.
"[Harris'] assertion that the war in the former Yugoslavia, for example, was caused by religion was ridiculous..... The war had far more to do with the economic collapse of Yugoslavia than religion or ancient ethnic hatreds."
Atheist writers (as well as writers of all other leanings) are right to argue against religous nutterism, and point it out where they see it, and there is certainly plenty of it to be seen in most war zones, including Bosnia.
I can't see why that freaks this guy out so much.
Anyway, I could spend all night sitting here picking out quotes from this article to disagree with, but the basic gist for me is that I think science and reason are good things to base a society on. I'm actually passionate about the concept of separation of church and state, of secular government. Spiritual beliefs should be personal and private. It is pretty much ONLY in secular societies that people have that freedom. Including the freedom to not believe in anything.
I know where I'd rather live. So in those respects, I'm with the atheists.
I appreciate that Richard Dawkins has at least really thought hard about why he doesn't believe in God, unlike alot of religious leaders and gurus that advocate "Blind Faith". He obviously hasn't had any supernatural experiences (that he knows about, or remembers anyway), so why should he believe?
I would probably think less of him if he believed blindly.
rant, rant, rant.......
Anyway I'm convinced that science will eventually explain supernatural phenomenon, and already has to some extent. And I feel very strongly that humanity most certainly is moving towards SOMETHING. Not neccesarily "Utopia", but evolution is heading somewhere, even if our societies aren't. I think the natural human drive to become more, to learn more, to think more, to experiment more, is speeding up that evolution.
Maybe that could be called a drive towards 'utopia' but isn't that a good thing?
Hyperbole, plain and simple hyperbole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinkerbell
Oh, BTW: How many people's lives get destroyed because of "laws of the market", our understanding of economy, of "rational" foreign policy, "healthy" self-interest? How many scientific inventions have served mass-destruction and misery?
There has been scientific progress (in terms of things we can do), but no moral progress (in realising which things we should and shouldn't do). If science would help moral progress, it would not have invented better ways to kill more effectively (millions in seconds) than better ways to live. How many scientists have hidden behind "neutrality" of their science to develop devices of mass destruction, or unleashed technologies of unknown impact just because they can? (How many studies actually and accurately depict the effects of gene-modified food on us, of gene-modified organisms on the eco system, of medication residues on the environment compared to the myriads of studies that praise what they are paid to praise?)
A seeming paradox in two statements. Unless you mean "something" could also be extinction of the species. Then I fully agree - we're moving somewhere. Blindly and without any guidance, but at least we're moving. Isn't that what progress is about - moving along? Never mind where to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinkerbell
Our environment is full of toxic or unknown substances we don't know enough about. Our drinking water is full of medications. Our environment makes 10% of the population sick with auto-immune diseases, but we do not see that as a reason for pouring all our resources into remedying that. Actually, real reason seems to be strangely absent from all of society's decisions. Which is the author's point. Morally we haven't evolved very much as societies.
You have just given a perfect example how this is supposed to be better than others and directly linked all of religion to suicide bombings. So now it's my turn, I guess? Do I now radically propose "Science equals neutron bomb"? Good grief. *sigh*Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinkerbell
But - You haven't touched upon what has been actually said at all - scientism, not science is the problem. The irrational belief in a "rational utopia" for which there is not even scientific proof. At no point the author argued against having science as such. He argued against the type of thinking that declares science to be our salvation, humanity to be perfectable except for those pesky "blind faith" people. He says we should beware of the blind worship of science as much as of the blind worship of any religion. He makes a case against "blind worship" of *anything*, including science.
Doesn't that make an agnostic, not an atheist?Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinkerbell
Oliver
And now I'm going to piss both of you off, and say that it's not religious nutterism, (I like that) or scientism that is the problem- it's our underlying drive to make 'missions' out of ideology (whichever one you pick) and use it to control others.
It's our drive to be controlled by ideology. However, we seem hardwired for this behavior, so I offer no good ideas or solutions.
Touché!
*buggers off*
;)
Oliver
Yes alright.... i'm prone to those from time to time. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Korpo
Anyway - I second the 'touche' and also bugger off....