I'm not sure how science can tell us, as a people who need to make moral and ethical decisions on a daily basis, how to act.
It tells us a lot about how the world functions on a physical level. It gives us the ability to devlop new technologies which can change the method of actions we choose. In fact, science* does it's best to avoid making any kind of value judgements.
I think the goal of religion is primarily to propogate values which allow a society to function with some degree of unification of purpose. To some extent secular law has replaced that need in more modern times which probably explains the loss of some of religions power over the masses, but hundreds of years of religious influence has significant inertia and will only die very hard - if at all.
Note that science (IMHO) has no place in that role at all. If science is the pursuit of knowledge then it can't in itself be good or evil. It can be put to each purpose equally well by those who understand it, as well as every shade of grey in between. If someone is preaching faith healing over modern medicine, I will consider religion to have overstepped it's natural boundries in that instance.
*Although to be fair, scientists themselves are not always so diciplined....
That doesn't make any sense. There isn't an 'atheism' for people to do anything 'in the name' of it.
What atheists do is not 'in the name' of atheism.
What dictators do to suppress religion (or, far more commonly, to suppress one religion) is not 'in the name of atheism', it's in the name of securing and retaining power by removing another power base and keeping the population cowed.
What particular examples were you thinking of?
True, but of course homo sapiens sapiens is the first life-form in the solar system to be able to step outside evolution. It cannot do so entirely, but to take single example infertility no longer wholly prevents women giving birth, nor men fathering (in the biological sense) children.
Therefore we are able to choose what type of life we live - a nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw, devil take the hindmost life, or a nurturing, caring one. Or somewhere in between.
I didn't say it could. I said it could help us. For example, consider social interaction. The scientific model of Game Theory can help me decide how to act towards my fellow human beings. Similarly, the religious model of Karma can help me decide how to act towards my fellow human beings.
Another example: consider hygiene. The scientific model of the Germ Theory of Disease can help me decide how to stay healthy. Similarly, the religious model of Obeying Leviticus to Please God can help me decide how to stay healthy.
Personally I find Karma a more useful model than Game Theory, and Germ Theory a more useful model than Leviticus.
I was thinking of state atheism in various countries. I'm also aware of killers who have claimed to be acting in the name of atheism.
In most cases, such evil acts have been done in the name of specific atheistic beliefs or sets of beliefs. For example:
* The belief that all religions are a negative force in the world.
* The belief that all religions are superstitious and backwards.
* The belief that all religions are outsider ideas.
* The belief that all religions are untrue.
* The belief that all religions are valueless.
In some cases, evil acts have been performed in the name of atheism in general. As you correctly observe, this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Regretfully, people don't always act in ways that make sense, and the religious do not have a monopoly on irrational behaviour.
The creation of the universe, given the existence of a God that wishes to create a universe, is not improbable. Thus both theories require one event that people may find improbable.
Thanks, Martin, but that was so vague as to be of no help whatsoever. I have no way of knowing whether you are thinking of things which I too, on reflection, would consider 'in the name of atheism', or whether I would argue my point that there was a different justification.
Now here's an organisation that's crying out for Barry to join.
Society of the Godless - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
sometimes known as the Union of Belligerent Atheists.
Pity it was wound up in 1947.
Last edited by John S; 25th-January-2008 at 01:35 AM. Reason: what the hell!
To your first point: As far as I understand it, those that believe in God, would assert that God has always existed. The concept of time began with the creation of the Universe, but as God is outside the Universe the concept of what was 'before' does not exist. Our understanding of time conditions us to the concept of 'beginnings' which is why we can understand the concept of the beginning of the Universe. Once you imagine a realm without time the concept of always 'being' is possible. Therefore your suggestion that God being created was an 'improbable' event is meaningless.
To your 2nd point: Scientists say that Cosmic Background Radiation is evidence of the Big Bang. Yet this is not direct evidence of the Big Bang because science also accepts that the Universe could not have begun from a singualarity in this way. That's why science fudges it by concentrating on the moments AFTER the Big Bang. So how can you have direct evidence of something that could not have existed?
And here we are again: The equivalence of science and religion. Science says the evidence that religion offers cannot prove something that doesn't exist AND then in return offers evidence of something it also proves cannot exist. No difference.
Nice to get back to the thread title isn't it?
Karl Marx said "religion is the opiate of the people". That's an atheistic belief. State atheism was instituted in the name of that atheistic belief, and was occasionally evil in nature.
Atheists make excuses for State Atheism in precisely the same way that Christians make excuses for the Inquisition and Buddhists make excuses for Bhutan and Scientists make excuses for Social Darwinism. They convince themselves, I guess.
Yes but the "state atheism" (Communism) in each case was a belief system* in all but name: sacrosanct texts, inviolable commandments, restrictive language, identified heresies, and so on. The USSR even had its own variation on Christ (Lenin) and holy sites of pilgrimage aplenty (Lenin's Tomb, Stalin's Hut, the Aurora). It may have been non-divine, but it was a belief system where rational thought was secondary.
For China, substitute Mao for Lenin. For Albania, substitute in Norman Wisdom instead .
*Using the term "belief system" to avoid offending religious folk, and to point out the disinformation inherent in describing the state attitudes of these countries as "atheism".
Edit: hadn't read Martin's last post - this is basically descending again into an argument about what the term "atheism" means. I understand it to mean something like "an aversion to belief systems", religious or otherwise.
No he didn't and no it isn't. He said, in context: "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. "
So although "opium of the people" on its own, as its often quoted, sounds like a negative comment on religion - in actual fact the whole sentence is quite poetic and suggests that religion is what gives life meaning for people.
There is no such thing as atheistic belief, but states have tried to eradicate religion - as I said before thats about power and control (and as StuartM said, its wrapped up in a particular belief system of its own). The fact that these states performed very evil acts is not connected to "atheism" - even if "atheism" was a thing...which of course it isn't - it's just a label.[State atheism was instituted in the name of that atheistic belief, and was occasionally evil in nature
Hmm I read "state atheism" as just another way of saying "secular democracy" which is what all "western democracies" have. This is just and right; the state should NOT be religious so that the populace can have any religion they want with no bias and feel marginalised by a state sponsored religion.Atheists make excuses for State Atheism in precisely the same way that Christians make excuses for the Inquisition and Buddhists make excuses for Bhutan and Scientists make excuses for Social Darwinism. They convince themselves, I guess.
Eradication of religion in a country is a different thing, it is an active process to force people to live a certain way, but it has nothing to do with atheism - as atheism is a negative, simply a lack of belief or denial in gods. Thats certainly one thing you cannot force on anybody - without extensive brainwashing anyway.
You are mixing two different questions up.
How did the big bang happen?
Did the the big bang happen?
They are not the same. You are claiming 'denial' when in fact it's ignorance.
Science accepts it cannot currently explain how the big bang occurred (outside some bleeding edge, more or less unsubstantuated string/quantum gravity theories). Science also accepts it has no evidence, direct or otherwise, that might indicate how the big bang occurred.
That is (the 'how' question) irrelevant to the different question of 'Did the big bang occur'. To which there is direct evidence (directly related to the fact in dispute) via background radiation, expansion of universe etc.
Science would argue that although it cannot prove 'how' the big bang occurred, it has accumulated more than enough evidence, direct, circumstantial and indirect, to prove the big bang did occur. I guess it's up to the individual whether they believe it or not...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks