Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

If atheism is not a religion, in some meaningful sense…

Categories
Atheism
Culture
Darwinism
Intelligent Design
News
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

… why are there atheist chaplains at U.S. colleges now?

New York Times:

LOS ANGELES — When Bart Campolo broke with the church almost five years ago, he immediately began to feel something missing.

It wasn’t so much that the pastor’s son no longer believed in God; he’d never been that much of a believer anyway. What he missed, Campolo said, was what the church had represented to him: a place where like-minded people could gather for fellowship, to pursue moral justice, to help one another and to try to live good lives.

So the onetime United Methodist youth minister, who worked for decades with the poor in inner-city neighborhoods in Philadelphia and Cincinnati, figured he’d try to keep doing that by presiding over what he cheerfully calls “a church for people who don’t believe in God.”

Campolo, 51, joined a growing movement of college “humanist chaplains,” arriving at the University of Southern California last September. More.

It’s the sort of one-two punch we’ve come to expect in current cultural life.

They persecute people who see the world differently, but then claim to be victims whenever there is pushback because, you see, they are “not religious.” Lazy and conniving people still fall for it.

And they are, of course, Darwinism central. No longer so much a theory of evolution as a cultural moment.

See also: Re Chapel Hill shootings: new atheist Sam Harris says no atheism to see there

New atheists score higher than conservative commentators on “certainty.” Surprised?

Just for fun: Why atheists can’t get dates

Meanwhile, there are some atheists you’d want to know out there. (“First Things magazine covers atheists who are rescuing design”)

Simple rule, easy to follow: Avoid everyone who thinks that our brain are shaped for fitness, not for truth. In other words, girl, he isn’t at fault for deceiving and dumping you, and you aren’t at fault for whatever you do as a result. And ain’t we all happy now?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
StephenB: ID’s methodology can be expressed in a flow chart as a step by step process. Zachriel
Yes, the ID flow chart is an elaboration of designer-of-the-gaps.
Again, anyone can make a false claim from a position of ignorance. Show me the flow chart, outline its steps, and explain where the God-of-gaps argument can be found. Of course, you cannot, since you don't know how the design inference begins, how it develops, and how it ends. Why you would presume to evaluate a process that you know nothing about is a mystery.StephenB
March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
05:45 PM
5
05
45
PM
PST
Yes, the ID flow chart is an elaboration of designer-of-the-gaps.
And archaeology, forensic science and SETI are all designer of the gaps arguments. Also Zachriel has been made aware of ID's testable entailments. Its usual willful ignorance means nothing, as usual.Joe
March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PST
StephenB: you learn what a thing is, then you give your opinion about it. The process cannot be reversed. Actually, science is an interplay between observation and hypothesis. A yet to be tested hypothesis can be considered an opinion, an opinion that has specific and distinguishing entailments. StephenB: ID’s methodology can be expressed in a flow chart as a step by step process. Yes, the ID flow chart is an elaboration of designer-of-the-gaps. As you reintroduced the subject, what is the mechanism to implement the posited design; the who, what, when, where, how. What is the evidence of the mechanism of implementation?Zachriel
March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PST
Zachriel
We accepted your position arguendo, that ID is based on an inference.
You didn't acknowledge the fact that the inferential process is a methodology and that Aurelio Smith was wrong to say that "ID has no methodology." If you are going to weigh in on that discussion, then you need to take one side or the other. There is no middle ground.
So we asked about the obvious entailments. It seems that if you claim ID is based on a valid inference, and that this constitutes evidence ID is not religion, then examining the quality of the inference would be relevant.
You have it backwards. First, you learn what a thing is, then you give your opinion about it. The process cannot be reversed. One cannot evaluate the quality of something without first knowing what it is. That should be obvious. ID's methodology can be expressed in a flow chart as a step by step process. If religion was included or presupposed in any way, it would be found in one of those steps. Anyone who claims, therefore, that a religious component is a part of that same process should be able to tell us at which point in the process it occurs. If he cannot, then he is just making something up.StephenB
March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PST
KF: Do I need to more than mention that blame projection in a day when over the past 100 years well past 100 millions have been murdered by militantly atheistical regimes, is unseemly? KF Not at all,as long as you mention the religious regimes' carnage in the previous 4,000 and adjust for increase of productivity in the means of murder.velikovskys
March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PST
StephenB: You have the same problem as Zachriel and CHartsil. You want to evade a challenge by issuing another challenge and changing the subject. We accepted your position arguendo, that ID is based on an inference. So we asked about the obvious entailments. It seems that if you claim ID is based on a valid inference, and that this constitutes evidence ID is not religion, then examining the quality of the inference would be relevant. Nonetheless, we'll move the question elsewhere.Zachriel
March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PST
Do I need to more than mention that blame projection in a day when over the past 100 years well past 100 millions have been murdered by militantly atheistical regimes, is unseemly? KFkairosfocus
March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PST
Timaeus, I like to highlight the grand statement framework of the US Constitution that makes the connexions plain:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity [--> Links not only to the covenantal view in DoI but also onwards the sequence of calls to prayer, penitence and thanksgiving starting with May 1776 issued by Congress], do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America . . . . [Main Body, Arts I - VII] . . . . Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord [--> which ever-living Lord, per Rom 1:1 - 5 . . . nb attempt to replace this with "Common Era" which in reality is Christian Era!] one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth [--> delivering on para 2 of 1776 DoI]. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names. . . . . [AMENDMENTS].
It is worth counter-poising to RVB8's bitterness and hostile dismissiveness the far more successful and historically important US declaration of 1776:
When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness [--> directly antecedent, indeed doubly so as the Articles of Confederation had failed to adequately deliver]. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27 and discussion in Locke], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
It suffices to note that this marked a new accession of growing liberty and reformation towards justice and self government of a free people that still shapes the world today. KFkairosfocus
March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PST
Aurelio Smith
No idea how [has] causal adequacy,
Rather than try to run a bluff, it would be better for you to just admit that you don't know the meaning of causal adequacy. Clearly, you do not.
inference to the best explanation (when not having any explanation)
"Inference to the best explanation is also a form of ampliative reasoning; with it we reason from the premise that a hypothesis would explain certain facts ....." (Stanford Encyclopedia) Obviously, you didn't know that many scientific disciplines, including ID and even your own precious Darwinism, uses this same methodology.
Irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance and a default to “best explantion” without having one.
I didn't ask you for your uninformed opinion about irreducible complexity. I asked you for a definition. First, learn what a thing is and then give your opinion about it. Don't try to reverse the process.
Abductive reasoning can work.
"One can understand abductive reasoning as "inference to the best explanation" (Wikipedia) First, you say that an inference to the best explanation doesn't qualify as a methodology. Then, you say that abductive reasoning, which is the same thing, can work. In any case, your ridiculous claim that "ID has no technology" has been soundly refuted. It would be better for you to simply acknowledge your error and move on.StephenB
March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PST
rvb8
I too am in awe of creation. I see the utter unreasonableness of my existence as proof that, I am very lucky to be where I am.
You speak of Luck like it is something that exists, can you prove me where Luck is? Do you believe in Lucky amulets as well? Your existence is objective and it is based on objective causes. If i throw you a rock you will not blame the rock neither the laws of physics, you will blame me, my action, my idea to throw you the rock which was immaterial at first and then took shape.
I fail to see why this is proof of anything, except that I am possible. If I win the lottery are you seriously suggesting that proves the existence of god? Or is it rather proof that a series of random numbers selected by me,does have a chance of coming up randomly in a random selection?
The Lottery Machine has to draw probabilities from something physical for you to exist, since everything physical began the Lottery Machine had to begin as well. That's why the Lottery Machine is a flawed allegory, it needs to participate and buy a lottery first (to have something physical first) and then win.
I find the ‘random’ hypothesis far more reassuring than the ‘design’ idiocy. This is because I don’t trust a designer, especially after experiencing the disaster of the incompetent design.
Can you prove me that Randomness exists? A Random even is something that cannot be determined neither can determine anything, such an event can exists only in a state of Nothingness where the absence of everything cannot determine something.
Remember, however devine Motzart, Leonardo, Shakespeare, and Einstein are, you are not they. Your human guaranteed rights are just that, human guaranteed, god is not required. In fact, in the countries where god is required for law, they have no justice, imagine, with god, no justice, without, the Constitution.
I don't understand what you are trying to say...
Thank god, for atheists.
Yes thanks God for Atheists because Atheists couldn't exist without God, Atheist comes from the Greek word Atheos/?????, the word means without God, the Atheists Epicurean Philosophers knew that they could not disprove God so they lived their lives like there was no God. They created their own moral system that was based on Nature (Materialism), do you want to know how this ended up? They supported murder, incest, rape, slavery, woman abuse, hedonism, greed, they even supported the worship of the Cesar as God at the absence of a transcendent one. What Atheism has offered us? Nazism ans Communism? Both were products of Atheistic Philosophy Marxism and Leninism, in the Communism Manifesto it clearly states that the State is based on dialectical materialism.JimFit
March 9, 2015
March
03
Mar
9
09
2015
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PST
rvb8: The Declaration is the tacit metaphysical underpinning of the Constitution. Most of the Founders whose ideas went into the Declaration and Constitution were Christians, Deists, Masons, etc. They almost all believed in God -- some more a Deistic or philosopher's God, perhaps, but still God. The fundamental premise of equality is not merely posited in the void, but metaphysically justified by the connection with the creator. Of course, modern legal philosophers frequently like to downplay any connection between the Declaration and Constitution, and say that we should reason strictly from the Constitution. Well, perhaps from a legal point of view that is correct; but the metaphysical guts of the Constitution involve the assumption of a sanctity of the individual that the State has no right to touch. Where does that sanctity come from? It's not a question of bringing particular claims about God, e.g., claims about Jesus or revelations to Moses, into the courtroom. It's an acknowledgment that equality is grounded in createdness. That's what gives equality its metaphysical bite. There is no guarantee that throwing God out of the legal environment will lead to less brutal or arbitrary court rulings. The courts under Stalin and Mao were not exactly known for gentleness and balanced judgment, were they? I wonder if Solzhenitsyn thought that Russian courts and laws were generally good. You have in mind, of course, countries like Australia, New Zealand, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, etc. You imagine that they have good legal systems because they keep God out. But of course they all inherit the deep moral base of centuries of Christian culture. It's relatively easy to show that modern secular humanism is mostly secularized Christianity (and secularized Judaism). The moderation of Western courts, their commitment to fundamental human dignity, etc. has a great deal to do with the Bible-influenced past of the people who practice law in them.Timaeus
March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PST
Sorry about the sentence structure. However, I said 'Constitution', why did you bring in 'the Declaration'. I'm no expert, but aren't they different documents? I don't think my meaning is incoherent, it is this. When god is allowed into the judicial system of any country you have brutality and arbitrary ruling. When man throws god out, rationality and generally good laws (if not enforcement) prevail.rvb8
March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
09:47 PM
9
09
47
PM
PST
"I see the utter unreasonableness of my existence ..." I hope you are speaking only for yourself, rvb8. My existence is quite reasonable, even if yours isn't. For that matter, the existence of "devine Motzart" is quite reasonable as well. And by the way, regarding your syntactically incoherent final sentence: in the Declaration of Independence, it is asserted that all men are *created* equal -- with the word "created" implying that the nation founded on the principles of the Declaration is a nation in which God, not man, is the ultimate guarantor of human equality, rights, and dignity.Timaeus
March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
09:16 PM
9
09
16
PM
PST
Ah yes, who can forget 'cedesign proponentsists'? So the original was 'creationists' and then someone sloppily, and smoking gunnishly added 'design proponents'. Clownish in its unprofessionalism, and also undeniable. And yet UD does indeed deny a connection to Christianity and goddidit arguments. The level of cognitive, intense denial going on here is freudian.rvb8
March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PST
StephenB @ 16 to Aurelio Smith
No such thing has been documented. Defend your claim.
Every one knows about the notorious missing link : cdesign proponentsists
Evolutionists think the former is correct, creationists accept the latter view.
Evolutionists think the former is correct, cdesign proponentsists accept the latter view.
Me_Think
March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
08:00 PM
8
08
00
PM
PST
JimFit, I too am in awe of creation. I see the utter unreasonableness of my existence as proof that, I am very lucky to be where I am. I fail to see why this is proof of anything, except that I am possible. If I win the lottery are you seriously suggesting that proves the existence of god? Or is it rather proof that a series of random numbers selected by me,does have a chance of coming up randomly in a random selection? I find the 'random' hypothesis far more reassuring than the 'design' idiocy. This is because I don't trust a designer, especially after experiencing the disaster of the incompetent design. Remember, however devine Motzart, Leonardo, Shakespeare, and Einstein are, you are not they. Your human guaranteed rights are just that, human guaranteed, god is not required. In fact, in the countries where god is required for law, they have no justice, imagine, with god, no justice, without, the Constitution. Thank god, for atheists.rvb8
March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PST
ppolish @ 3 Interviewer: If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design? Susskind: I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics.Silver Asiatic
March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PST
Atheists believe that they are random cosmic mistakes that nothingness spewed without free will or purpose, can an atheist show me where does science supports Nothingness, Randomness and Luck or where these 3 exist? Of course not, they are beliefs that Science rejects! Science works only with Determinism and Determinism points to a Creator since our existence came after a fine tuned chain of events that the Creator pre-determined with His first cause. When Atheists ask proof they want proof of a material God and that's a mistake since we are not Pagans, asking proof of a Material God is like asking proof of a Material Consciousness, i can raise my hands, yell, kick you in the nuts but you still won't be able to feel, observe, listen,taste my Consciousness as an entity, proof of God? The Whole Creation is proof of God since everything around us was determined by the first cause which is God.JimFit
March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
04:26 PM
4
04
26
PM
PST
Aurelio Smith
That many ID proponents are religiously motivated and the whole idea of ID was to subvert the Edwards v Aguillard decision is fairly well documented.
No such thing has been documented. Defend your claim. Even if your assertion was true, and it isn't, the researcher's alleged motives have absolutely nothing to do with the integrity of his methods. Do you know the difference between a motive and a method? SB: Show me where ID’s methodology involves any religious claims or presuppositions.
My point is that there is no ID methodology, religious or otherwise.
You don't have a point. You are simply making a wild claim from a position of ignorance. Inasmuch as you have declared that ID has no methodology, define the following terms and tell us whose methodology they apply to if not ID: Causal adequacy Inference to the best explanation Abductive reasoning Causes already known to produce the effect The explanatory filter Irreducible complexityStephenB
March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PST
SB: What does the theme of a post have to do with ID’s methodology, about which you obviously know nothing? Aurelio Smith
Wow, are you really going to enlighten us with the first ever exposition of ID methodology in a biological context? I’m all ears. Please expose away!
You have the same problem as Zachriel and CHartsil. You want to evade a challenge by issuing another challenge and changing the subject. On the table is the claim that ID is "about" religion. Show me where ID's methodology involves any religious claims or presuppositions. Explain how the theme of this thread has anything at all to do with that claim.StephenB
March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PST
StephenB: Accordingly, it begins with an observation, continues with an analysis, and ends with an inference to the best explanation.
That’s fine and dandy. One of the entailments of the claim is that there was or is a mechanism to implement the design; the who, what, when, where, how. What is the evidence of the mechanism of implementation? 12
Read for context, please. The issue I was responding to was the false (and thoughtless) claim that ID is "about" religion. Your comment has nothing whatsoever to do with ID's methodology or the religious presuppositions that are alleged to inform it.StephenB
March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PST
StephenB: Accordingly, it begins with an observation, continues with an analysis, and ends with an inference to the best explanation. That's fine and dandy. One of the entailments of the claim is that there was or is a mechanism to implement the design; the who, what, when, where, how. What is the evidence of the mechanism of implementation?Zachriel
March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PST
Aurelio, here is a recent vid where Susskind offers "three explanations for fine tuning"; https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2cT4zZIHR3s&feature=youtube_gdata_player I'll edit in another vid from the 2015 Breakthough Prize ceremony that has the co-discoverer of the expanding Universe suggesting God too. Give me a minute.... Near the end of this talk on the discovery of a physical Cosmological Constant Andre Linde asks the panel for any explanation of fine tuning besides the multiverse...."God, but I'm not Religious" is an answer. Good answer, true answer, scientifically accepted answer to the evidence. The first 10 minutes and last 5 minutes are applicable to our God is an answer discussion... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OjH5B8FpqWUppolish
March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PST
CHartsil
So is UD ready to drop the canard of ID not being religious?
Are you still trying to peddle that nonsense? ID is a methodology for detecting design similar to the one used by many other disciplines. Accordingly, it begins with an observation, continues with an analysis, and ends with an inference to the best explanation. The steps have been documented in a flow chart. If you think that religion is involved, then tell us at which step in the process it makes an appearance. Of course, you cannot because ID's methodology does not include a religious element.
You guys make as many religious posts as pseudo-scientific ones.
That is an illogical statement. What does the theme of a post have to do with ID's methodology, about which you obviously know nothing?StephenB
March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
10:41 AM
10
10
41
AM
PST
So is UD ready to drop the canard of ID not being religious? You guys make as many religious posts as pseudoscientific ones.CHartsil
March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PST
"CHartsil, fine tuning is accepted as evidence of God. No debate, proof of the acceptance as evidence is available in many places. By many Scientists, by many Atheist Scientists too." Making the specious claim ad nauseum doesn't make it so. Especially when your argument is still "1 planet out of 400 trillion supporting life is evidence that those 400 trillion planets were collectively fine tuned to support life." "New Atheist hope to cure by preaching and evangelical action. Dumb Twit Pics and Twitter debates galore. Spreading the word. Atheism is bad religion." That would be counterproductive as religiosity is inversely proportional to intelligence and education. So the best way to get rid of religion is for people to learnCHartsil
March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PST
CHartsil, fine tuning is accepted as evidence of God. No debate, proof of the acceptance as evidence is available in many places. By many Scientists, by many Atheist Scientists too. Fine tuning is widely accepted as evidence, but not proof. God is not provable. Or falsifiable. Back to Atheism as Bad Religion. Dawkins preaches "Together we can cure Religion". His most popular T-shirt design based on sales. How to cure? By gene manipulation? Nope. Thinking it will just go away on its own? Nope, it's spreading. Killing believers? Nope thank goodness. New Atheist hope to cure by preaching and evangelical action. Dumb Twit Pics and Twitter debates galore. Spreading the word. Atheism is bad religion.ppolish
March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PST
>fine tuning of the Universe >I still think 1 planet out of 400 trillion supporting life is evidence that those 400 trillion planets were collectively fine tuned to support life.CHartsil
March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PST
Aurelio, fine tuning of the Universe is commonly accepted as evidence of God. Not proof, but very very strong evidence. Most scientists would agree. Atheist Physicist Susdkind among many many others admit fine tuning is evidence of God. Evidence of a multiverse too. Take your pick;)ppolish
March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PST
Atheism is a religion for it has a dogma: there's no God...Enezio E. De Almeida Filho
March 8, 2015
March
03
Mar
8
08
2015
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PST
1 2