Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Quote of the Day

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Some [men] kill because their faiths explicitly command them to do so, some kill though their faiths explicitly forbid them to do so, and some kill because they have no faith and hence believe all things are permitted to them. Polytheists, monotheists, and atheists kill – indeed, this last class is especially prolifically homicidal, if the evidence of the twentieth century is to be consulted. Men kill for their gods, or for their God, or because there is no God and the destiny of humanity must be shaped by gigantic exertions of human will . . .

Men will always seek gods in whose name they may perform great deeds or commit unspeakable atrocities . . . Then again, men also kill on account of money, land, love, pride, hatred, envy or ambition.

Does religious conviction provide a powerful reason for killing? Undeniably it often does. It also often provides the sole compelling reason for refusing to kill, or for being merciful, or for seeking peace; only the profoundest ignorance of history could prevent one from recognizing this. For the truth is that religion and irreligion are cultural variables, but killing is a human constant.

David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions, 12-13

 

Can anyone possibly doubt that these claims are true.  They are practically self-evident.  Thus, the currency of the “religion is the cause of all violence” dogma currently fashionable among the new atheists is all but inexplicable on rational grounds.

 

Comments
I appreciate Hazel’s honest response on the other thread, and continue to ask Allen MacNeil to clarify. -----Hazel writes, “So, no I don’t believe the things that CS Lewis, or anyone, mentions are objective truths. They are human truths, filtered through the human condition, and subject to all the complexity of both our human nature and the circumstances in which we find ourselves.” That is an honest expression of a deeply held belief, and the contrast is fair enough. C.S. Lewis’s whole point was to prove that morality was not subjective or relative, but objective and universal, not conditional, but absolute. So, Lewis and Hazel disagree. Fine. Allen, however, claims to agree with Lewis’s proposition. Yet, there is a problem here. To disagree about the origin or source of the natural moral law is to disagree on matters of vital substance. If I understand him correctly, Allen believes that the “natural moral law” is a function of human interaction. But Lewis’s whole point was that the “natural moral law” is that toward which human interaction is to be ordered. It is not something humans create or socially construct; it is something that humans discover through the use of unaided reason. Also, Allen has stated many times that nothing is absolute, which means that the natural moral law would also have to be conditional. So, I question whether he believes in any kind of objective, unconditional morality appropriate to human nature, though I am sure he can disabuse me of that notion if I am wrong. Meanwhile, I don’t understand why he refers to Lewis’s exposition of the “natural moral law” as his position, since it appears that the only thing they do agree on is description of the code, which is something, but not nearly enough. If I am being unfair, I will acknowledge my error.StephenB
April 25, 2009
April
04
Apr
25
25
2009
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
Deleting a new thread is bad enough; deleting it after people have posted comments is unconscionable.mauka
April 25, 2009
April
04
Apr
25
25
2009
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT
Gil, what happened to your LS-DYNA thread?
It is still available at www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/news Gil dismisses simulations of biological evolution which contradicts what Dr. Dembksi, Atom and others stated in the discussion of the Simulation Wars thread.sparc
April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT
Off-topic: Gil, what happened to your LS-DYNA thread? There were already five or so comments. Now the post and the comments are both gone.mauka
April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT
Wes Elsberry has a nice comment on how moral certainty contributed to the Holocaust.mauka
April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT
This whole business of opening a new thread, declaring victory (against all evidence), and then closing comments before anyone could reply was a bit... strange.mauka
April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT
It also still say,
No one, not a single person, has attempted to rebut the conclusion. Therefore, we must conclude that there is no rebuttal. The materialists are silent; they cannot speak.
which is wrong. The "materialists" (which is actually wrong, because most of us with opposing views are not materialists) were not silent, and we certainly had things to say in rebuttal. I know Barry doesn't accept any of what we said as constituting a rebuttal, but it's inaccurate to say that no one attempted a rebuttal, and that we were silent. So maybe Barry could could amend the post to be more accurate and fairly stated.hazel
April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT
Barry, It appears that the "Bleak Conclusions" thread has been closed to comments, but the "Materialist Concede" thread still says that it (Bleak Conclusions) is open for comments if anyone wants to meet your challenge. That doesn't seem fair.Ludwig
April 24, 2009
April
04
Apr
24
24
2009
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT
I disagree with Allen MacNeill. Truth is not "provisional." While it may be incomplete, it is invariably absolute. "Ascertainable truth is partial, piecemeal, uncertain and difficult." Bertrand Russell Nevertheless, once attained it is absolute. That is what the "well trained" scientist beieves. "Facts which at first seem improbable, will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty." Galileo Darwinian mysticism is not a good example.JohnADavison
April 23, 2009
April
04
Apr
23
23
2009
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
Thank you, StephenB. You make authoritarian arguments when you invoke a super-human giver of natural laws and when you say "Someone or something has to call the shots." Are Edmond Burke and Russell Kirk among your intellectual icons? Secular states seem to have thrived in recent history, and isn't division of power a major factor in the success of parliamentary governments? I will now retire from this thread, and respectfully leave last words to you.Adel DiBagno
April 23, 2009
April
04
Apr
23
23
2009
05:11 AM
5
05
11
AM
PDT
DATCG @ 254: "My question still remains a legitimate one. Do atheist as a rule support pro-life movements? Or, are they more likely to support pro-abortion as a majority position?" A more accurate question would be, Do atheists support a mindless piece of flesh over a thinking being? I can't speak for all atheists, but I put the spirit ahead of the flesh every time.djmullen
April 23, 2009
April
04
Apr
23
23
2009
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
----Adel: "I think it comes down to a power struggle. Power of the people vs power of a tyrant or a tyrannical oligarchy." Here is the difficulty. Democracy is fine, but it can't be just any old democracy. The people can be just as tyrannical as a tyrant, or as the founders feared, a "tyranny of the majority." Only the "natural moral law" can arbitrate between all the competing "archy's" and "isms" and "ocracys" including, dare I say it, the mobocracy or, as some have described it, "pure democracy." Someone or something has to call the shots. If it isn't the "principle of natural law," which yields "natural rights," it will be some person or persons who grant and take away rights at their own pleasure.StephenB
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT
StephenB, I appreciate your willingness to engage with me. Of course, I disagree with the premise of your post #247. The kernel of this disagreement is your requirement for an ultimate supernatural authority to compel or encourage solidarity on what I see as a secular issue. I think it comes down to a power struggle. Power of the people vs power of a tyrant or a tyrannical oligarchy.Adel DiBagno
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PDT
----Allen MacNeil: ....truth” is a matter of relative confidence, not absolute conviction.” Are you absolutely sure about the truth of that statement. You have just refuted yourself by affirming a truth after declaring that truth doesn't exist.StephenB
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
---Adel: "I would not try to reason with a political tyrant. I would, by whatever political means available, as far as possible within existing law, work to overthrow the tyrant." Part of the political battle consists of mobilizing a group effort and persuading all concerned that you have the moral high ground. It is not enough, for example, to say, "this is a very unpleasant sitiation, let's end it." You have to say, "This isn't right! I violates our dignity as a human beings." You have to be able to look the tyrant in the eye and say, "My rights don't come from you, they come from someone higher than you." He may well not listen, but everyone else will be listening and many, maybe most, will be willing to fight for the principles involved. On the other hand, they will not likely fight for or even defend a risky proposition for the sake of someone else's sentiments or carefully informed opinions. The American experience, for example, was founded on the proposition that God, not the state, or even popular will, that grants rights. What the state can give, the state can take away. Sadly, most on this thread neither approve of or even understand that principle, which means that their willful ignorance places my freedom in jeapordy.StephenB
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
Barry has said that arguing with someone who does not believe in "objective truth" is "utterly pointless." Therefore, one should never try to convince someone to believe in objective truth, since argument depends on their both accepting it.David Kellogg
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Allen MacNeill, "That is why this website clearly isn’t about science by any accepted definition of that term, because any well-trained scientist understands that all of our understandings about nature are provisional, not absolute, and that “truth” is a matter of relative confidence, not absolute conviction." Except when it comes to disbelieving ID and accepting evolution, right? But, I think you're on to something when you say that "nature" in particular, and not "truth" in general, is provisionally known. For, we know such things as truth independent of nature--things like the law of non-contradiction. But, we have no equivalent knowledge of nature, for all we can do is study her effects. We have no knowledge of nature's inner synthesis like we do with the knowledge of truth and logic. We can see why it is reasonable to send a pickpocket to jail--we take liberty from a man who takes liberties. But we have no equivalent insight into why a bird should fly and also lay eggs, or why any of the laws of nature are the way that they are and not some other way. We do not have this knowledge nor insight into nature.Clive Hayden
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
StephenF [219]:
Yes, I understand that it is based on your wishes, but what if someone else’s wishes conflict with yours. Why should the wishes of those who prefer the golden rule be honored over the wishes of those who prefer “might makes right?” —-Adel Dibagno: “To keep the peace. To have a civil society. No gods needed.” But the tyrants don’t want a civil society, they want to make slaves of you and me.
Who are these tyrants? Are you thinking of intellectual or political tyranny?
Why should they accept your golden rule when they have already decided that they need not abide by it. By what standard to you tell them that they have no right to enslave you? They say they have every right to do it because they have more power. You may prefer to be free, but they prefer that you should be a slave. People has always wanted to be free, but usually to no avail. Why should the tyrant honor your wishes?
I would not try to reason with a political tyrant. I would, by whatever political means available, as far as possible within existing law, work to overthrow the tyrant. In the intellectual sphere, I am free to disagree.Adel DiBagno
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
For an independent appraisal of Alan Fox I offer the following from my weblog - http://jadavison.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/why-banishment/#comment-1853 comments #498-500JohnADavison
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
I deleted Alan Fox and banished him from any further participation. Fortunately I was able to escape his evil clutches just in time, due largely to the help of AB, whoever that is. His history where I am concerned speaks volumes. He is also a regular at After the Bar Closes. Need I say more? I have nothing more to say about Alan Fox and wouldn't have responded at all if he hadn't lied.JohnADavison
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
I have deleted virtually nothing on my weblog.
Virtually is a bit of a stretch! One could compare this to this.Alan Fox
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
I see Alan Fox is responding to commments directed at Allen MacNeill, not Alan Fox. I have deleted virtually nothing on my weblog. As a matter of fact I collect insults, publish them and identify their sources whenever possible. Alan Fox's comment #239 is a flagrant bald faced lie which should surprise no one. I also have never "edited" any comments other than my own, another bald faced lie. You talk about ad hominem attacks being frowned on here: what kind of hypocricy is that? Alan Fox has once again proved that he has nothing of substance to offer here or on any other forum where he is still allowed to speak. He has always been nothing more than a one man "goon squad" for Wesley Elsberry, Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary Myers. He has followed me for years always with the same purpose, to make me look as awful as possible. He has a very special affection for me. It is called geriatrophilia. He likes old guys a lot, at least this one. If his comments are allowed to stand, it will only prove that blatant lying is acceptable here at Uncommon Descent.JohnADavison
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
John A Davison, I realize that you are already on record that you will never respond to me again, a posture which gives me a decided advantage. You write:
I think it is very amusing that you are willing to expose yourself to the kind of ridicule I am so very willing to heap upon you. Your atheist colleagues, Paul Zachary Myers, Wesley Elsberry and Richard Dawkins wouldn’t dream of leaving their “closed union shops” to expose themselves as you insist on doing here. Like yourself, they stifle all dissent in their own domains but at least have the good sense not to make fools of themselves by leaving the security of the “Alamos” that their intellectual ghettos have always been.
I think you may be overestimating the power of your ridicule, John. You also have your own "Alamo" blog, where you routinely delete and edit comments that you don't like. There is a whiff of hypocrisy, there, I suggest.Alan Fox
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
Allen MacNeill I realize that you are already on record that you will never respond to me again, a posture which gives me a decided advantage. There is nothing "provisional" about atheist Darwinism. The notion that phylogeny was intrinsic in the properties of prebiotic matter is the most absurd assumption in the history of science. If that were true, the production of metabolizing, reproducing and evolving life would have been achieved in the experimental laboratory long ago. I don't subscribe to a "provisional" view of science either. All of science has proceeded based on absolute truths which may have been incomplete but never "provisional." Just as ontogeny proceeds in a series of compulsory, predetermined, irreversible steps so has all of science done the same. "Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control." Albert Einstein The Darwinian fantasy is a "blind alley" as William Bateson described it, a "deceit" as Soren Lovtrup described it, "incompetent" as St. George Mivart described it and a "hoax" as I have described it. I think it is very amusing that you are willing to expose yourself to the kind of ridicule I am so very willing to heap upon you. Your atheist colleagues, Paul Zachary Myers, Wesley Elsberry and Richard Dawkins wouldn't dream of leaving their "closed union shops" to expose themselves as you insist on doing here. Like yourself, they stifle all dissent in their own domains but at least have the good sense not to make fools of themselves by leaving the security of the "Alamos" that their intellectual ghettos have always been. Darwinism is dead as the proverbial hammer. That anyone with an IQ above 90 can still believe any of it is a mystery.JohnADavison
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
04:19 AM
4
04
19
AM
PDT
DATCG, I appreciate the fact that you properly reframed the prolife issue @177, @234, and @235. As you suggest, it was meant to be less about personal experiences and more about the atheist demographic.StephenB
April 22, 2009
April
04
Apr
22
22
2009
01:46 AM
1
01
46
AM
PDT
Just as the atheist Darwinians have always pretended that they have no critics, so the Creationists pretend they have no allies. In each case it is either their way or the highway. Apparently here at Uncommon Descent it is far more important to "debate" than to discover, to declare and to conclude, which is what real science has always been about. Carry on, keep "debating." I will go elsewhere to find a receptive audience for my heresies. "Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty." Galileo Oh Galileo, if that were only true. One hundred and fifty years of much more than "scant explanation" has still failed to defeat the atheist Darwinian hoax. It is alive and thriving, attracting more and more dedicated followers as the forces of evil which it represents continue to dominate a Western culture which has lost its way. It is hard to believe isn't it? Not at all. The proof is right here at Uncommon Descent and elsewhere. To challenge the biggest joke in the history of science is still regarded as a criminal offence.JohnADavison
April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
11:14 PM
11
11
14
PM
PDT
Allen, not sure if you were addressing the following to me or someone else... "Who that was is none of your business (nor anyone else’s), at least until the secret ballot is repealed in America." I do not want to know who your vote, but was making a point about atheist voting along lines of liberal policy that usually includes pro-abortion stand. Libertarian stats I do not have at hand and no time to search, but I do appreciate you not wanting to spend federal funds on abortion around the world. Although, I'm not sure how that is consistent with your stance on federally funded embryonic stem cell research. There are some obvious famous names like Penn Jillette who defend Libertarian principles. We are most likely in agreement over the deceptively named Bill "Emloyee Free Choice Act" which lifts protections from workers rights to a secret ballot. I live in a Right to Work state. Sorry my responses are so late. And I just saw your response above to Atheist quotes which I may not get to tonight.DATCG
April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT
Allen said, "Might that be because thee are many more Judeo-Christian-Muslim-Mormons than atheists/agnostics?" Yes, it is a determining factor in overal rates, but not actual rates of atheist pro-life or pro-abortion support. That is why I limited it to 1% or under. But the actual percentage of atheist in America is 5% of Americans in a quick search. My question still remains a legitimate one. Do atheist as a rule support pro-life movements? Or, are they more likely to support pro-abortion as a majority position? Note also that I was careful to say that the "religious" population is all over the place for various reasons. From an atheist website and Barna Group study in 2006:
"47% of political liberals are unchurched(have not attended religious services in last 6mos), more than twice the percentage found among political conservatives(19%)" The study also showed 19% of conservatives are unchurched, making about 12 million conservatives who are likely candidates of libertarian, are social liberals or agnostics in social policy, maintaining a strictly fiscal conservative view of limited government spending. The point is media often reports, the great majority of Americans always quoted at high numbers of 80-90% are not active Christians. In fact, the atheist site estimated 73 million adults are unchurched, which when including children swells up to 100 million Americans. This paints quite a different picture and shows that over generalization of some stats regarding religious beliefs are misleading. This shows the population can be misunderstood at large. But Allen, are you arguing that Pro-Life advocates are a majority in the atheist demographic? Or, do you concede the point that your experience is an anamoly? "As for the number of atheists that I know who are members of the organizations that you list, I don’t know." Fair enough. Then is it fair to say you instead of "all" your athesit friends defend the rights of the unborn(beside their personal family) is at the very least overstated on your part? "I find that most people I know do not push their beliefs on me, and so I don’t really know what organizations they support (or don’t support)." OK, to me this is a concession that not "all" your atheist friends defends the rights of the unborn. You simply are saying now, you do not know. Thanks. "As for myself, I support the American Friends Service Committee (the service arm of the Society of Friends/Quakers, of which I am a long-time member). Friends are very pro-life (including an absolute stand against the death penalty under any circumstances), but they are also committed to personal, usually silent, non-coercive witness for our beliefs. Does that answer your question?" I was not asking about your personal life. Your answer does explain more. Your Quaker friends are religious believers, not atheist. They believe in Christ teachings. And I am familiar with the information you provided about them. But yes, you answered my question orignially when you said that you "do not know" about your atheist friends. Which is a change from "all" your atheist friends defend the lives of the unborn. The point I am making again is that if what you said originally was true, then is was a rare anamoly of atheist. Again, are you suggesting otherwise?
DATCG
April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT
BarryA @ 32:
mauka, do you actually have something to say in response to the point of the post, i.e., that men kill for a wide variety of reasons and there is no reason to single out religious belief as the sole or even primary motivation for violence? If not, kindly move along to another site and let the grownups discuss the post.
BarryA @ 224
Hazel, you are a deeply irrational person.. Thus, arguing with you is utterly pointless. Move along to another site.
Barry, now I'm a little confused. You articulated a new moderation policy that stated, "As a general rule, so long as your comment is not defamatory profane, or a vicious personal attack, you can say pretty much what you want...if you keep your comments restricted to ideas and not attacking people, you should have no problems passing muster here." Yet above you twice ask posters to leave UD because you don't care for the content of their posts, and additionally insult hazel with "you are a deeply irrational person," which is a purely ad hominem statement. Moreover, elsewhere posters have been ejected from UD since the articulation of your new moderation policy because of content posted on other blogs - although you explicitly stated that others with critical blogs are welcome, so long as they comport themselves appropriately at UD:
I’m just wondering Clive, Let’s say a person such as, oh, PZ Meyers wanted to post here and he kept his language cordial and non-insulting, would he be welcome to post? I would be interested in reading what he has to say without all the hyperbole that is a part of his language in his own blog. I might enjoy seeing how others here would challenge him. Maybe I’m ignorant, but has he ever posted here? Barry Arrington 03/13/2009 10:41 pm I’ll answer that. If PZ — or anyone else — came here and minded his manners, he would be more than welcome. I’m not holding my breath though, because PZ does not appear to be able to rise above adolescent name calling.
So, what IS the moderation policy at UD? Are you regretting some of the above? Whatever it is, it seems quite inconsistently applied, and you seem to reserve for yourself the right for, if not adolescent name calling, then mid-life name calling.Diffaxial
April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT
Hazel, what you have yet to realize is that no amount of argument or evidence is enough to shake the blind and sneering confidence of those who believe that they possess the absolute, objective truth about all of reality. That is why this website clearly isn't about science by any accepted definition of that term, because any well-trained scientist understands that all of our understandings about nature are provisional, not absolute, and that "truth" is a matter of relative confidence, not absolute conviction. So, if it makes you feel less like you're pounding your head against the wall, you could leave. I, for one, will miss your posts, and I suspect that those silent readers of this website, whose minds are not absolutely, unshakably already made up, will miss your calm, reasonable, and compassionate voice here amid the raucous cacaphony of the smugly self-righteous.Allen_MacNeill
April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT
1 2 3 9

Leave a Reply