Rational Atheism...Food for thought

[LindaNY]

This is some serious food for thought. Many of the scientists I know claim to be Atheists.

www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleId...rc=most_popular

Since the turn of the millennium, a new militancy has arisen among religious skeptics in response to three threats to science and freedom: (1) attacks against evolution education and stem cell research; (2) breaks in the barrier separating church and state leading to political preferences for some faiths over others; and (3) fundamentalist terrorism here and abroad. Among many metrics available to track this skeptical movement is the ascension of four books to the august heights of the New York Times best-seller list—Sam Harris’s Letter to a Christian Nation (Knopf, 2006), Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell (Viking, 2006), Christopher Hitchens’s God Is Not Great (Hachette Book Group, 2007) and Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion (Houghton Mifflin, 2006)—that together, in Dawkins’s always poignant prose, “raise consciousness to the fact that to be an atheist is a realistic aspiration, and a brave and splendid one. You can be an atheist who is happy, balanced, moral and intellectually fulfilled.” Amen, brother.

Whenever religious beliefs conflict with scientific facts or violate principles of political liberty, we must respond with appropriate aplomb. Nevertheless, we should be cautious about irrational exuberance. I suggest that we raise our consciousness one tier higher for the following reasons.

1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Atheists cannot simply define themselves by what they do not believe. As Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises warned his anti-Communist colleagues in the 1950s: “An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be.”

2. Positive assertions are necessary. Champion science and reason, as Charles Darwin suggested: “It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science.”

3. Rational is as rational does. If it is our goal to raise people’s consciousness to the wonders of science and the power of reason, then we must apply science and reason to our own actions. It is irrational to take a hostile or condescending attitude toward religion because by doing so we virtually guarantee that religious people will respond in kind. As Carl Sagan cautioned in “The Burden of Skepticism,” a 1987 lecture, “You can get into a habit of thought in which you enjoy making fun of all those other people who don’t see things as clearly as you do. We have to guard carefully against it.”

4. The golden rule is symmetrical. In the words of the greatest conscious­ness raiser of the 20th century, Mart­in Luther King, Jr., in his epic “I Have a Dream” speech: “In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrong­ful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline.” If atheists do not want theists to prejudge them in a negative light, then they must not do unto theists the same.

5. . Promote freedom of belief and disbelief. A higher moral principle that encompasses both science and religion is the freedom to think, believe and act as we choose, so long as our thoughts, beliefs and actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others. As long as religion does not threaten science and freedom, we should be respectful and tolerant because our freedom to disbelieve is inextricably bound to the freedom of others to believe.

Continued.....click link

[Deleted]

IMHO, "rational atheism" is an oxymoron ... in that one cannot "prove" a negative by the process of belief.

Atheism is the belief that their exist no god nor gods - unlike the skeptics and agnostics who either do not claim to KNOW ... or remain in doubt - the Atheist expounds the proposition of finality - the KNOWLEDGE that their exist no God or Gods - yet -

Should such a god being or beings exist who do not wish to BE KNOWN by the Atheist ... how can the Atheist KNOW?

Atheism is an intellectual fraud ... a cheap suit of rationalist chatter to cover a religious stance (secular humanism for example ... man is the god of man) - or simply a political position - aka soviet-communism or social Darwinism, etc.

[cocojax]

My opinion is that religion is religion, I don't think it has any place in medicine..this is my own opinion....Why should religion or a belief in God stand in the way of potential cures for diseases. If it offends your religious beliefs then you have the right not to participate, that does not mean you have the right to block help for other people. I certainly would never force someone to have a medical procedure that goes against their beliefs.

[LindaNY]

Bravo and well said, Ellen. Exactly!!!

[Deleted]

Well - a moderator storm has descended upon me ... I seem to stand accused of religious intollerance and of blocking health care for others and of standing in the way of potential cures for disease ... and all for entertaining the thought that Atheism is perhaps NOT a RATIONAL philosophy. Note, I didn't say it was WRONG or even incorrect nor contrary to fact ... just not RATIONAL - and made the counter point that the skeptic and the agnostic positions were rational and the that Athiesm is irrational like relligious belief itself and seems to be a special case of quasi-religious belief ... i.e. the negaive position ...and thus irrational.

And for this I'm elected dark counter force to scientific progress ... and seconded to boot ... sorry to have stepped upon what is obviously your beliefs and faith (or is that non-belief and counter-faith ... so hard to tell without a scorecard). Perhaps you should wear an inverted cross or something so that one may understand that yours is also a faith-based shun and slander private club... just like some who wear an upright cross with an upside down viewpoint towards scientific (i.E. RATIONAL SCIENTIFIC) progress.

[cocojax]

I meant nothing personal to your post, I was actually commenting on Lindamt's post, sorry if you thought I was responding to you that was not my intention. I would never bash someone else's post, because we are all entitled to our own opinions...

[LindaNY]

... I seem to stand accused of religious intolerance and of blocking health care for others and of standing in the way of potential cures for disease

No one accused you of religious intolerance at all. I don't know where the heck you got that idea. No need to get "snarkey".

We are all just expressing opinions, for heavens sake. We all have our personal beliefs and don't try to impose them on anyone. Live and let live, I say.

I'm not a religious person, but am a Christian. Never the less, I do not think religion should stand in the way of science.

I have worked for many years with doctors of all faiths and also those who claim to be athiests.
What difference does it make?
It doesn't matter one little bit to me if someone believes in a God or not.

[larrynz]

Linda you said "I'm not a religious person, but am a Christian"
That fits me exactly, I think the Ten Commandments are still valid today.
As an example I would see it wrong to kill a person for their organs, its claimed that happens to prisoners in China. So it could be said I would stand in the way of medical science.
I also think the topic is a bit complicated for a forum, very easy to misunderstand.

[LindaNY]

You are so right, Larry. It is a bit complicated for this forum.

The example you sighted is a good one. I would be totally against that and would therefore stand in the way of medical science.
Something like that should never be tolerated.

[cocojax]

It is a complicated subject for a forum, however if someone kills in the name of science they would be dealt with according to the law...not according to religion. I personally would never condone killing and that was never even a consideration when I posted. I cannot speak for other people just myself...law certainly has a place in science just like any other walk of life...I again was speaking about my own country, we could never be responsible for what 3rd world countries do, that is a whole different ball game, so to speak. What is so great is that we can discuss differing opinions here.

[larrynz]

if someone kills in the name of science they would be dealt with according to the law...not according to religion.
.......................................................................
Cocojax western laws are based on the 10 commandments, hard to separate law and religion.

[cocojax]

Larry, I see where you are coming from but here in my country if you cut someones organs out, or committed any crime, you would not go to church to be punished, you would go through the legal system... I specifically was talking about stem cell research and the fact that religion should not come into play....I am done...