A reader sends this interseting clip from 2004 in which he spells out his views on “evolution, George Bush, religion in America versus Europe, the utility of belief irrespective of whether it’s true or not, the response to science within Muslim countries, and whether or not Stephen liked God and religion in a personal sense.
Well yes, if you are willing to tolerate a positive answer. If you are not willing to tolerate a positive answer, well … your quarrel is not with us, really.
Weinstein, an atheist himself, didn’t realize that atheism today means illiteracy, innumeracy, and total control by the biggest totalitarian power — with no appeal. 2 + 2 better make 5. Atheism has no values to defend.
Torres makes quite clear that, to get on at Salon, you’d have to be a stiletto Stalinist. The new atheists have the advantage of at least being interesting people.
Hey, we’ve always given them that. And who cares about Salon anyhow?
To summarize Scientism of the Gaps: No mountain too high, no river so wide that sheer chaos cannot contrive to create an inextricably interlinked system that seamlessly navigates it. Even though chaos never works that way in your own life, you must believe — if you are really science-friendly — that it works that way at the foundation of all of life, the entire universe and all that.
Soave: “The AHA gave Humanist of the Year awards to the author and activist Alice Walker—who promoted anti-Semitic conspiracy theories—and also to Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood who promoted eugenics and white supremacy. Sanger’s legacy is so complicated that her own organization is currently disowning her.” Apparently, Rebecca Goldstein and Steven Pinker, also AHA award winners, have written an open letter, asking the AHA to reverse course.
As a reader puts it: From anti-God hero to trans-racist zero… But the thing is, who cares about the American Humanist Association without people like Dawkins?
Egnor: [t]he logic pointing to God’s existence is overwhelmingly stronger than the evidence and logic supporting any other scientific theory in nature. Aquinas’s First Way proof of God’s existence, for example, has exactly the same structure as any other scientific theory. The empirical evidence is the presence of change in nature. Because infinite regress is logically impossible in an essentially ordered chain of changes, there must be a Prime Mover to begin the process and that is what we call God.
Logic and evidence both point to the existence of God, whatever atheists may think: Michael Egnor addresses three arguments in Steve Meyer’s new book, The Return of the God Hypothesis.
Who cares any more about the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster? (You can look that up on the internet if you are not sure what it means. On the other hand, maybe you needn’t bother.)
Meyer: I was not surprised to hear outspoken atheists or scientific materialists explaining why they doubted the existence of God. What shocked me was the persuasive talks by other leading scientists who thought that recent discoveries in their own fields had decidedly theistic implications.
In discussing implication logic and first duties, Wikipedia on ID came up yet again. The lead’s manifest failure to be responsibly objective, descending into slander from the outset, speaks volumes: Intelligent design (ID) is a pseudoscientific argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as “an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins”. Proponents Read More…
More scandalous still, Gödel was not a Darwinist: “I believe that mechanism in biology is a prejudice of our time which will be disproved.”
Michael Egnor: The fact that the universe is tuned — that is, the fact there is any consistency at all in the laws of physics — demonstrates God’s existence. This is Aquinas’ Fifth Way, which is the proof from design.
Apparently, claims of that sort are not working out. Could these people try common sense before they go over a cliff?