• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

New Atheists?

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Magical meaning creative, not necessarily religious, yes?


And science is honest about not answering "why". It doesn't create an answer and sell it as truth. It informs us about how things are.

But let's note, science does take a lot of creativity. This is how advances are made. It's just that the ideas have to be tested and verified FIRST.


Yes, at the margins of knowledge science requires creativity, imagination, and a willingness to question any and all previous assumptions, of course.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Yo, s'up? Oh you mean the poet Shelley, as you were.



I don't believe poetry or great literature requires magic, other than in a very laboured metaphor. Nor have I ever seen a so called new atheist suggest we have to choose between scientific technology and literature?



Tucking the why all the way back there was clever, kudos, but it remains a begging the question fallacy, since we don't know there is a why. Of course Stephen Hawking was also an atheist, so it's unlikely he intended the question to mean what you seem to be implying here. You should also stick a yet in there, as you can't know what science may help us understand in the future.


Yeah, you keep telling me what Stephen Hawking meant, and citing his atheism. Read the concluding chapter of A Brief History of Time, and tell me what he’s saying - or rather, what he’s asking - there. You will find that he left a lot of questions open. Acknowledging the limits of our understanding, and that there will always be more questions than answers. This is what great thinkers always do, and what devotees of “scientism” as opposed to science, almost never do. Those of limited vision declare arguments closed; great minds always leave room for doubt.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
To believe in God, soul, heaven, hell, end of days, judgement, resurrection, reincarnation, deliverance, etc.; a scientist will have to make huge compromises. There are no revelations in Hinduism, Upanishads or Gita, and there has been none to 'reveal' anything. This is a monotheist/Abrahamic thing. Sure, Hindu/Buddhist analysis of things and philosophy is second to none. Sure, I too talk about impossibility of any God/Goddess or soul to exist. Discussions are interesting. However, I am not one to be impressed by mention of names. Buddha said in 'Kesamutti Sutta' that one should think for his/herself.


See, all that stuff is what religion means to you . You throw away all the superstition, fair enough, but in throwing away the meaningful stuff too, you are in danger of throwing away the baby with the bath water.

I notice you don’t throw it all away though; culturally, you are still a Hindu, it seems. And philosophically, a Buddhist.

The mention of names is not intended to impress btw. It’s simply referencing one’s sources, and giving context to ideas. I’m all for thinking for oneself, but reading widely from a variety of sources is always worthwhile in my view.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
We are full ourselves. We are in decline and we are trying to rest on the laurels of our imagined past.
Strange that the rest of the world has now seen that side of America, but too many Americans just can't see it themselves. Why do you think Putin is acting up in Ukraine lately? Because he's seen into the weakness that used to be strength.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I notice you don’t throw it all away though; culturally, you are still a Hindu, it seems. And philosophically, a Buddhist.
You can congratulate me for being smart. I am not just a cultural Hindu, I am an orthodox Hindu. I never intentionally overstep my religion (except for small things like drinking, or perhaps eating beef if it was available in Delhi, or having an extra-marital experience when I was younger). And Buddha to many Hindus is the ninth avatara of Lord Vishnu, so no problem if I follow him. His views were close to 'Advaita'. ;)
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Strange that the rest of the world has now seen that side of America, but too many Americans just can't see it themselves. Why do you think Putin is acting up in Ukraine lately? Because he's seen into the weakness that used to be strength.


That’s a very America-centric view of geopolitics if I may say so. Putin’s strength comes from his own country’s weakness. Russia’s back is against the wall, and a cornered animal is always dangerous. I wish you could understand how worrying it is, that Americans simply cannot see this. Ukraine joining NATO would be like Canada joining the old Warsaw Pact.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Indeed. Critical thinking gave us the iPhone (and the H-bomb). Magical thinking gave us Milton, Blake, Keats and Shelley. It’s not a matter or either/or, unless we choose to impose such limited horizons on ourselves.

Similarly, science can tell us much about how the universe works; but it cannot tell us why, in the words of Stephen Hawking, “it went to all the bother of existing in the first place”.
Why just the bomb? Why not the nuclear power that provides so much of the world's energy these days? Science gives us tools -- but how we use them is not a science issue.

I've read Milton, Blake, Keats and Shelley -- and lots more besides. That's not magical thinking, they are all looking at ourselves, humanity, from different perspectives, just as visual artists like cubists do. These are excellent tools for us to try and understand ourselves better, but they do not claim that we are anything more than we are, either.

As to whether science can tell us the "whys" of creation -- it can't -- that is hardly made any better by claiming that God has a reason. We still don't know what that reason may be, and we are thus not one millimetre further ahead.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Strange that the rest of the world has now seen that side of America, but too many Americans just can't see it themselves. Why do you think Putin is acting up in Ukraine lately? Because he's seen into the weakness that used to be strength.

I was talking to a couple this past summer who were conservative, but seemed reasonable. I mentioned American Exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny as an example of our past hubris. And he stopped me to say that he believed American Exceptionalism. I was boggled.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Probably. Perhaps we could agree on the definition given by the OP in the Scientism on Wikipedia thread. But that still wouldn’t get us anywhere, because the apologists for dogmatic hardline atheism would claim nothing fitted the description. Isn’t that a No True Scotsman fallacy? I know how you love to claim “fallacy”.

Hard-line atheists might be something I can accept with a proper demonstration of objective evidence, but this is usually just atheists who are more vocal about religion's more pernicious influences. Hypothetically I'm not sure it would be a no true Scotsman fallacy, since I don't atheists creating a sub group here, merely contesting what represents scientism, and who is being labelled as promoting it. As I said I was falsely accused several times in that thread, so I find the judgments dubious.

So probably best to let it go. Won’t be long though, you can bet, before yet another atheist declares religion dead and “Science” the victor, in a combat that never happened.

I haven't read any atheists claiming that, and given the number of theists of various stripes in the world, it seems a fairly dubious claim I must say. Though I'm sure somewhere there is an atheist saying something just as idiotic. Science is just a method or methods, a toolkit for helping us understanding the natural physical world and universe, and for gaining knowledge about it.

Incidentally, I am aware that a lot of the antipathy towards religion from some quarters, is down to creationism vs evolution.

Oh I pity children whose educations have been blighted in that way, and that's not just condescension. My antipathy is not to those who have been indoctrinated in such denials, but towards those who want to further blight the education of children by introducing creationism into schools, as if it is a choice between that or the fact of species evolution. My antipathy is towards actions, and not towards people or beliefs, though it is obvious some beliefs are pernicious.

For the record, I think creationists are deluded (though the universe does appear to have a had a moment of creation, 14 billion years ago).

Creation? Now that's a begging the question fallacy. The universe in it's current form had a point of origin in the big bang, if that's what you mean. There is no objective evidence that any creation was involved.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Yeah, you keep telling me what Stephen Hawking meant, and citing his atheism.

Did I claim to know what he meant? I'm pretty sure I just expressed doubt about your claim, you do seem to struggle with that distinction.

Read the concluding chapter of A Brief History of Time, and tell me what he’s saying - or rather, what he’s asking - there. You will find that he left a lot of questions open.

Of course, but he was nonetheless an atheist, I'm simply stating the fact, not trying to making any assumptions or appeals to authority here.

Acknowledging the limits of our understanding, and that there will always be more questions than answers. This is what great thinkers always do, and what devotees of “scientism” as opposed to science, almost never do.

You make me smile, you don't see how dogmatic you're being I'm sure. but anyone who doesn't share your view seems to have that accusation looming over them. Not believing in any deity or deities is not a claim, it requires no certainty or any evidence, anymore than I need to drain Loch Ness in order to be dubious about the claim a dinosaur has managed to remain hidden in its depths. Mysteries can be fun to play with, they can even be productive if one uses one's imagination to examine new ideas and gather proper objective evidence to support them. However labelling everyone who disbelieves claims that are based on nothing more than imagination and anecdotal claims as closed minded is the very kind of dogmatic approach you are trying to accuse others of.

Those of limited vision declare arguments closed; great minds always leave room for doubt.

Well QED, you're implying that atheists are dealing in absolutes, but this I'm afraid shows your lack of perception not mine, which is fine, it doesn't make any difference to my atheism. However, my atheism is not a claim, nor is any argument closed, some arguments are simply irrational, or not supported by any objective evidence, and I disbelieve such claims, beliefs and arguments, as I can see no other way to remain unbiased and open minded.
 

lukethethird

unknown member
Incidentally, I am aware that a lot of the antipathy towards religion from some quarters, is down to creationism vs evolution. For the record, I think creationists are deluded (though the universe does appear to have a had a moment of creation, 14 billion years ago).
'the universe does appear to have a had a moment of creation', but it is the 'creationists that are deluded',
I see.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
You mention the "extent of what religion is" and "what religious faith is about" but give no hint as to what you mean.
My posts are too long as they are already. :) I do talk about this quite a lot in other posts. In brief, it's far less to do with beliefs, which have to do with the mind, as it about the heart and its quest for meaning and purpose, belonging and connection, and so forth.

I did post a thread some time ago that explained in more detail some of my thoughts: Belief, Faith, Experience, and Adaptation

The section on Faith digs a lot deeper into this. But I have thoughts beyond that as well. You can see how this contrasts with the notion that faith and belief are the same things. They are not.

I had rather thought that those things were totally individual, unique to each believer, but perhaps you see it otherwise -- could you provide some clarification?
Of course they are personal and unique to the individual, because we are all different in certain regards. But there is also a lot in common. The experience of love is unique to the individual as well, but we all share that in common. We are able to communicate its meaning because of that, despite the individual differences. This is true of pretty much anything in life.

My explanation in that link to my thread may help. Plus the subsequent posts in that thread I made do as well. Unfortunately that thread never go any traction, because the member I was posting to got himself banned for some unknown reason. ;)
 
Top