Frank Walton of Atheism Sucks! briefly stopped by to link to his views on The Rational Response Squad’s Gift of Life Day. After reading a few posts at Walton’s blog, I saw his reaction to the ‘debate’ between Richard Dawkins and Bill ‘falafel’ O’Reilly (you can read my more visceral reaction here). In this post I wish to firmly argue in favor of Dawkins’ position – even though I think he communicated his message very poorly to a demagogue. Much has been made (and Walton’s post and subsequent comments are a prime example) of Dawkins’ words ‘We’re working on it.’ What I think Dawkins failed to communicate was that science is always working on it; there is no finality to discovering the Truth.

Continue reading Dawkins & O’Reilly

Lately I’ve been encountering something that is disturbing to me. There is a popular version of postmodernism — an on-the-street version — far from the literary deconstruction where it was born. It seems to over-simplify a great deal of information, leaving behind a great deal of the nuance and intelligent dialogue for a sort of shallow relativism. Taking up the slogan of our age, it pronounces “whatever” on every aspect of life and every human endeavor. For one thing, such thinking uses the label “pluralism” to equalize and homogenize all faiths. Deep down, it believes religion is like blue jeans — all that’s different is the label.

Continue reading On Pluralism

I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism. (Albert Einstein)

This is the second and final post of my two (and a half) part series on naturalism, and why I reject the existence of the supernatural. My atheism, my unbelief (or disbelief, or rejection, if you will) of the existence of the Christian (or any other, for that matter) god is the result of my naturalistic worldview, specifically, the end result of accepting the scientific method, then methodological naturalism, and then philosophical naturalism. This post is a bit long, but I’ve tried to keep it straightforward in its presentation. I hope you enjoy!

Continue reading Naturalism, pt. II

Drunkentune and I (soulster) thought we’d like to send each other some questions via email and share the answers with the readers of this blog. Here are three questions by drunkentune concerning my understanding of Christianity:

Drunkentune: Dominionism [wiki] is in part control of all parts of being: the control of the mind within congregation, the control of the dominionist’s body and the bodies of those that violate the dominionist’s rules of conduct, be them homosexual or abortionist, and ultimately, control over the environment. Calvinism [wiki] is the requisition of control to a higher power and absolving all responsibility. I see that all classes of Christianity have different interpretations of scripture that seem to pull from different worldviews existing independently of the Bible or their belief. A Christian may find any message he chooses in the Bible to fit his worldview, or a verse may reinforce such a worldview that had only begun to grow. Is it possible to learn what Jesus meant, or is it that, since Jesus’ words have been used historically for any purpose, is it worth it to even attempt such an endeavor?

Continue reading Drunkentune’s Christianty Questions

According to a Harris poll this last October, most adult Americans believe in God (73%), but fewer would say they are absolutely certain (only 58%) [here]. According to Harris, both these numbers have declined over the past three years from 79% who believe and 66% who are absolutely certain. [For a broader view of religious opinions, check out this listing of several news polls] Continue reading Faith in the West

Since we began this blog, some key differences in worldview have been emerging between myself an others.  That is a good thing, not because we disagree, but because I am truly learning about myself and others.  This difference is becoming foremost in my mind: I am not a reductionist.  I find holism [wiki] attractive and emergence [wiki] convincing, but not reductionism [wiki] (though when I say that I might mean "greedy reductionsim").

In The Blind Watchmaker, Richard Dawkins coins the term "hierarchical reductionism" in which he says everything can be explained by simplier things just one order lower than a particular thing and it's related components.  Humans, and all things human, like culture and psychology, can be explained by the things one order lower — namely as the sum of aspects of animal biology. Continue reading My Doubts on Reductionism

I am a secularist, an atheist, a skeptic, and… a Jew. Surprise you? I guess not. I suppose I do fit the stereotype, but there’s always a kernel of truth in a generalization somewhere.
For example, take this joke, if you will:
Q: What do you call a Jew that doesn’t believe in God?

[Just drag your mouse after the “A:” to see the answer]

A: A Jew.

I made it up myself (a small pat on the back), and if you personally know a Jew, it demonstrates that a ‘Jew’ isn’t necessarily Jewish.

There are many intellectual atheists who proudly call themselves Jews and observe Jewish rites, perhaps out of loyalty to an ancient tradition or to murdered relatives, but also because of a confused and confusing willingness to label as 'religion' the pantheistic reverence which many of us share with its most distinguished exponent, Albert Einstein. (Richard Dawkins)

I find each of my labels to be in the minority wherever I go. I’d like for a minute to tie all four of these positions together, and give you a general overview.

Continue reading The Loyal Opposition

In the comments to the post “How to Talk to Atheists,” Matthew explains what he terms the “Spectrum of Belief”:

I think this is a fairly standard way to arrange the spectrum of belief: atheist-agnostic-theist.

This serves as a good spectrum for starters, with many more possible subcategories fitting into each of these and occasionally some overlap.

Drunkentune responded with some helpful information about the variety of terms and options out there:

Traditionally, there have been three categories. However, I think that belief has a more diverse spectrum, ranging from 1. apatheism [wiki], 2. ignosticism [wiki] (I happen to consider myself an ignostic or non-cognitivist [wiki]), 3. strong (positive) atheism [wiki], 4. weak (negative) atheism [wiki], 5. agnostic atheism (doesn’t know, but doesn’t believe), 6. apathetic agnosticism (doesn’t care either way), 7. agnostic theism (doesn’t know, but believes) [wiki: all forms agnosticism], 8. pantheism [wiki] (the universe is God), 9. deism [wiki], and finally, 10. theism [wiki]. Some theists from ~7 to 9 consider God to be “love” or something utterly different than many other theists. I’m sure there’s a lot more I missed, but that’s what I could recall in approximate order [wiki links added by me].

Continue reading The “Spectrum of Belief”