Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Is PZ Myers the Future of Secular Humanism?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

UD moderator Clive Hayden referred UD readers to an article at SuperScholar.org titled “The Future of Secular Humanism.” The article itself focused on a rift between the secular humanism old guard, represented by Paul Kurtz, and the new guard, represented by Ron Lindsay, who apparently ousted Kurtz from the various humanist organizations he had founded. The rift was over the place of religion in society and whether secular humanism should take a harsh line against it.

Hayden sees this rift as representing a deep-seated internecine conflict, with the implication that such conflict will undercut the effectiveness of secular humanism as a cultural force (though he doesn’t draw that implication explicitly). My own view is that secular humanism is being co-opted by the new atheism and that Kurtz’s humanist vision is on the way out.

Paul KurtzI’ve been party to at least two debates that Kurtz organized and have met him personally. He’s a gentleman and sees civility as a prerequisite to free and open discussion. As a humanist, he values humanity.  The problem is that he views religion as irrational and counterproductive to society, so it’s hard to justify civility vis-a-vis religion (is it possible to have a civil discussion with a holocaust denier?). And without religion, it’s hard to justify a high view of humanity — humans, in that case, become merely evolved animals.

PZ MyersAnd so, Kurtz, who’s in his 80s, passes the baton to his spiritual son … PZ Myers, who’s a generation younger and in a better position to follow out the logic of Kurtz’s vision. Actually, I could have chosen any number of younger humanists/atheists, but Myers is emblematic of what we are seeing and can expect to see. Instead of Kurtz, who established Prometheus Press to get a fully articulated secular humanist vision before the public, Myers has the blog Pharyngula, in which he trades in sound-bites and insults.

In a Facebook/Twitter culture where people’s attention span is down to zero, Myers’ blog represents the new face of secular humanism, or perhaps I should say the new atheism. Indeed, I have to wonder how long the phrase “secular humanism” will be around. If it stays, it will be through inertia, because the new generation of humanists/atheists divides humanity into us and them — the enlightened vs. the idiots — and despises the outsiders. They take pleasure in hatred. Paul Kurtz didn’t.

By the way, here are the YouTube videos referred to on the SuperScholar.org site in which Kurtz is lectured on why he was shown the door. It’s not often that we see the other side’s dirty laundary (or our own side’s, for that matter). It’s 20 minutes and some of it requires wading through, but it has some high points and is quite instructive:

Comments
Well LarTanner, the ancient Hebrews were the only ones who got the transcendent origin of the universe right: Among all the 'holy' books, of all the major religions in the world, only the Holy Bible was, and is, correct in its claim for a transcendent origin of the universe. Some later 'holy' books, such as the Mormon text "Pearl of Great Price" and the Qur'an, copy the concept of a transcendent origin from the Bible but also include teachings that are inconsistent with that now established fact. (Ross; Why The Universe Is The Way It Is; Pg. 228; Chpt.9; note 5) ,,,perhaps it is just your bias (emotion) against God that makes you want to try to confuse matters so much of what is so clear?bornagain77
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT
BA77 (31)
The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted.
Oh. I guess that settles it, then. And no, the ancient Near East was a big place. I meant to include ancient Babylon, Ugarit, Canaan, Egypt, Mesopotamia. What became Hebrew monotheism borrowed laws, proverbs, and stories from elsewhere. By the way, why did you not expand on your reasoning for your 4 answers in #26? I'd like to hear your thinking on these answers. Also, I think the first premise would have to be qualified a bit. For example, how do we define "perfect"--as perfect from your perspective, mine, Osama bin Laden's, Aristotle's, or Jo-Jo the amazing dolphin's? What do we mean by exists? Do we mean lived and breathed at one time? Do we mean is here right now? To me the ontological argument is too much swiss cheese when it's really examined. JAD (32) -- Seems like we agree on lots. I've never been in the position described in your scenario. If someone asks me a direct question and wants to know what I think, I do my best to share my thoughts. Encouraging a suffering friend to accept my arguments seems rather distasteful beside the point. Would you encourage your suffering friend to become a believer? That seems rather immoral and opportunistic to me. UBP (33) --Uh...OK. Sorry, but I don't get the "obvious error" of questioning whether there actually _is_ an "ultimate reality" or whether it's simply a mental tool. I've written on the issue and have concluded the latter. Clive (34) -- "Truth works this way." What is it with the slogans around here? We're not talking about truth (capital t or otherwise). We're talking about reasoning and whether there is any necessary relationship between (a) the existence of deities and (b) the value of human life.LarTanner
November 29, 2010
November
11
Nov
29
29
2010
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
LarTanner,
If atheism is true, life is ultimately empty and meaningless.
Really? You really think logic works this way?
Truth works this way.Clive Hayden
November 28, 2010
November
11
Nov
28
28
2010
11:29 PM
11
11
29
PM
PDT
#28 "I think the concept of ultimate reality is fantasy." Your concept as to the fantasy of ultimate realities should prove interesting as you take your last breath. Just perhaps, another person might not wait until then to grasp this most-obvious error. It might seem to them that your concept of a fantasy is rather like permission to be ignorant - no matter what lay ahead.Upright BiPed
November 28, 2010
November
11
Nov
28
28
2010
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PDT
LarTanner #28
No, I don’t agree with Carrier. I think the concept of ultimate reality is fantasy.
But that was my point above at #20. “If atheism is true, life is ultimately empty and meaningless.” Notice I didn’t say that atheists can’t find or invent some kind meaning for themselves. I would argue psychologically we can’t live without meaning. But a personally invented meaning is not ultimate meaning.
If you think that I would WANT my friend to be at the end of his rope, then you must think I’m a terrible friend. But I don’t know why you would make this kind of judgment about me.
So you agree with me then that atheism is not a positive belief. If it were a positive belief you would see it as a way to encourage your friends, wouldn’t you?
In any event, when real problems strike I find that gods are usually irrelevant, so faith has no need to enter into the way a friend will support another.
But for someone like Steve his faith is that God has a purpose for his life, and that everything, including tragic events like the death of daughter has a purpose and a meaning. So if you were his friend that is something that he would have confided in you, and at critical time would want to confide in you. Indeed, in the account he provides in his book friends do come the emergency room. They do pray. They do have brief discussions about God and faith. So do you encourage him in his belief or do you try to talk him out of it? Maybe not at the moment but maybe a few days or weeks later. If you are convinced that what you believe is true, why wouldn’t you?john_a_designer
November 28, 2010
November
11
Nov
28
28
2010
07:45 PM
7
07
45
PM
PDT
LarTanner you state: 'If the ancient Near Eastern priests, (I take it you mean Hebrew monotheism), could see what we’ve done to their ideas and beliefs, they would have a great chuckle.' Yes they would be 'chuckling' with joy at the stunning empirical confirmation for Theism: The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole. Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics - co-discoverer of the Cosmic Background Radiation - as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discover Cosmic Background Radiation http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=3594 “There is no doubt that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing.” George Smoot – Nobel laureate in 2006 for his work on COBE “,,,the astronomical evidence leads to a biblical view of the origin of the world,,, the essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis is the same.” Robert Jastrow – Founder of NASA’s Goddard Institute – Pg.15 ‘God and the Astronomers’ Prof. Henry F. Schaefer cites several interesting quotes, from leading scientists in the field of Big Bang cosmology, about the Theological implications of the Big Bang in the following video: The Big Bang and the God of the Bible - Henry Schaefer PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5222493 Entire video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSThtmA1J_U "The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude." Prof. Henry F. Schaefer - closing statement of part 5 of preceding videobornagain77
November 28, 2010
November
11
Nov
28
28
2010
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
John (#25): No, I don't agree with Carrier. I think the concept of ultimate reality is fantasy. BA77 (#26): Come on, God is the basis of reality? Does that even mean anything? If the ancient Near Eastern priests could see what we've done to their ideas and beliefs, they would have a great chuckle. John (#27): If you think that I would WANT my friend to be at the end of his rope, then you must think I'm a terrible friend. But I don't know why you would make this kind of judgment about me. In any event, when real problems strike I find that gods are usually irrelevant, so faith has no need to enter into the way a friend will support another.LarTanner
November 28, 2010
November
11
Nov
28
28
2010
05:43 PM
5
05
43
PM
PDT
LarTanner, I very much appreciated your story about Mitchell Heisman. Whatever the theoretical explanations may be they are all rather meaningless, unless they can somehow be connected with the very real here and now. After all, that is where we all live, isn’t it? http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-meaningless-life-worth-living.html Here is a story that I think is very significant. It is a true story about a Christian business man/ part time missionary named, Steve, who ten years ago lost his 20 year old daughter. By the way, I had a chance to hear Steve speak a couple of years ago. I found him to be a very good, if not gifted, speaker. There were several sessions, with about 700 people in attendance for each, where he talked extemporaneously for almost an hour each time. He may have been a little long winded but was anything but boring. I found him to be a positive and enthusiastic, with a wonderful sense of adventure. And top it all off, he was stand-up-comic funny… Of course, he became very serious and emotional, choking back tears, when he related the story of losing his daughter.
This particular chapter of Steve’s life begins sometime in 1999 when his musically talented daughter, Stephanie, asked him if she could drop out of college for a year so that she could travel internationally with a Christian music ministry. Steve was very reluctant but after seeing how much her heart was set on the opportunity he gave in and gave her his consent. A year later in July of 2000, after a year of international travel, Stephanie called to inform her parents that the tour was finished. She was coming home. When Steve picked her up from the airport in Orlando, she was the same beautiful, healthy, excited girl that he had said goodbye to a year earlier. Of course, seeing her dad for the first time in over a year must have made it extra exciting and special for Stephanie . At home Stephanie was greeted by family and friends who had thrown together an impromptu welcome home party. However during the celebrations she complained of a head ache. Her parents suggested that she go back to her bedroom and lay down. When her parents came to check on her, Stephanie complained that her head was pounding. To comfort his daughter Steve put his arm around her and began to pray for her. Suddenly he felt her body tense and heard her make a little yelp. Then both Steve and his wife noticed that Stephanie’s eyes had rolled back in her head. Something was very wrong with their daughter. This was more than a headache. This was something serious. It took a few minutes for the ambulance to arrive. It took a few more minutes for the ambulance to reach the hospital. Steve insisted to the EMS crew that he be permitted to ride along in the ambulance with his daughter. At the hospital while Steve and his wife were waiting in the emergency room, he began to sense that things were not going to turn out well. In his book he writes, that as a “black cloud of despair shrouded me I could feel my faith slipping away… I felt my lifeline trust in God’s power and protection slip through my numb fingers… The great blackness was covering me. The cord of faith I had trusted and followed since my dad had been jerked from life was running out. The end would soon pull through my hand and I would be lost.” As he struggled with his faith he turned to his wife and told her what he was thinking. “Ginny,” he said, “I think Steph is dying. I don’t think she is coming back.” Shortly, afterwards a doctor with tears in his eyes confirmed what Steve already knew. Stephanie had experienced a massive cerebral hemorrhage. Her brain was no longer functioning. She was brain dead.
Okay Larry, it’s your turn. Here is your chance. If you were Steve’s friend how would you comfort and console him? Remember he is at the end of his rope, his faith has just about run out. Isn’t that exactly where you want him?john_a_designer
November 28, 2010
November
11
Nov
28
28
2010
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT
JAD @ 17 That is an odd comment. You should be an atheist if you do not believe there are any gods. Its got nothing to do with how nice the people are.zeroseven
November 28, 2010
November
11
Nov
28
28
2010
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
BA77, I don't get why your point 3 is correct. Why couldn't a maximally great being exist only in a few possible worlds? Also as Lartanner points out you could substitute "a" being for any possible number of beings and it would make as much sense (or lack of sense).zeroseven
November 28, 2010
November
11
Nov
28
28
2010
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
LarTanner, 1 No 2 No 3 No 4 Yes Your story is wrong in its presupposition, since God is the basis of reality. A basis which can be 'measured', contrary to your preconception: Scientific Evidence For God (Logos) Creating The Universe - 2008 - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995300 Explaining Information Transfer in Quantum Teleportation: Armond Duwell †‡ University of Pittsburgh Excerpt: In contrast to a classical bit, the description of a (photon) qubit requires an infinite amount of information. The amount of information is infinite because two real numbers are required in the expansion of the state vector of a two state quantum system (Jozsa 1997, 1) --- Concept 2. is used by Bennett, et al. Recall that they infer that since an infinite amount of information is required to specify a (photon) qubit, an infinite amount of information must be transferred to teleport. http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/duwell/DuwellPSA2K.pdf Single photons to soak up data: Excerpt: the orbital angular momentum of a photon can take on an infinite number of values. Since a photon can also exist in a superposition of these states, it could – in principle – be encoded with an infinite amount of information. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/7201 Ultra-Dense Optical Storage - on One Photon Excerpt: Researchers at the University of Rochester have made an optics breakthrough that allows them to encode an entire image's worth of data into a photon, slow the image down for storage, and then retrieve the image intact. http://www.physorg.com/news88439430.html Atom takes a quantum leap - 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been 'teleported' over a distance of a metre.,,, "What you're moving is information, not the actual atoms," says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2171769/posts As a side light to this, leading quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler's footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting reality, at its most foundational level, is 'information'. "It from bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom - at a very deep bottom, in most instances - an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that things physical are information-theoretic in origin." John Archibald Wheeler Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/8638/Default.aspx The restriction imposed by our physical limitations of us ever accessing complete infinite information to our temporal space-time framework/dimension (Wheeler; Zeilinger) does not detract, in any way, from the primacy and dominion of the infinite transcendent information framework that is now established by the quantum teleportation experiment as the primary reality of our reality. Of note: All of this evidence meshes extremely well with the theistic postulation of God possessing infinite and perfect knowledge. This seems like a fitting place for this following quote and verse: "To see the world in a grain of sand, and to see heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hands, and eternity in an hour." William Blake Psalm 19:1-2 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. John 1:1-3 In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made. (of note: 'Word' in Greek is 'Logos', and is the root word from which we get our word 'Logic') Moreover it is possible to 'physically' infer that Christ did indeed rise from the dead: General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/5070355 and is indeed worthy of our praise: Revelation Song - Kari Jobe - Slideshow http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5566201/bornagain77
November 28, 2010
November
11
Nov
28
28
2010
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
This is what Richard Carrier wrote in a link to one of your links:
The ultimate meaning of life is to live it. There is no big mystery about that. But life would not be worth living if it knew no happiness or love. It has been well argued since Aristotle that happiness is the ultimate aim of living, for it is the only thing we seek for itself. Everything else we pursue for some other reason, but we seek happiness for no other reason than to be happy. And though the preacher loves to attack the hedonism which he thinks this entails, in actual fact his own religion is based on the very same principle. For all the goals of religion are sought for some other reason, except the ultimate goal of eternal happiness.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/ought.html Do you agree with Carrier here? “The ultimate meaning of life is to live it.” That sounds to me like a little rhetorical "sleight-of-hand".john_a_designer
November 28, 2010
November
11
Nov
28
28
2010
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
BA77,
“God is the Being that couldn’t possibly not exi[s]t.”
That makes a nice bumper sticker. I'll put it next to the one that says "Omelos is the place that couldn't possibly not exist." Let me ask a few questions: (1) Is it possible that 2 or 20 or 400 equally-maximally great (or poor, or mediocre) beings exist? (2) Is it possible that a maximally great being does not exist? (3) Is it possible that a maximally great being exists that is not the god you worship? (4) Do you you think your #3 and #4 items are unproblematic? Carl Sagan tells a story that seems pertinent here:
At a dinner many decades ago, the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to the toast, "To physics and metaphysics." By "metaphysics," people then meant something like philosophy, or truths you could recognize just by thinking about them. They could also have included pseudoscience. Wood answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it seems to make. He consults the scientific literature. The more he reads, the more promising the idea becomes. Thus prepared, he goes to the laboratory and devises an experiment to test it. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are checked. The accuracy of measurement is refined, the error bars reduced. He lets the chips fall where they may. He is devoted only to what the experiment teaches. At the end of all this work, through careful experimentation, the idea is found to be worthless. So the physicist discards it, frees his mind from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else. The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded as he raised his glass high, is not that the practitioners of one are smarter than the practitioners of the other. The difference is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.
LarTanner
November 28, 2010
November
11
Nov
28
28
2010
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
LarTanner, as well, a former atheist, and a atheist, Tippler and Barrow respectively, provided the rope for their own hanging by the ontological proof. The story behind their 'hanging' is in this video: The Anthropic Principle - Fine Tuning Of The Universe - Michael Strauss PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323661/bornagain77
November 28, 2010
November
11
Nov
28
28
2010
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT
LarTanner, "God is the Being that couldn't possibly not exit.",,, Though a few ID proponents frown on the ontological proof for God, I like it for it turns the very heart of atheistic thinking on itself to prove the existence of God. (needless to say, when you can use the premises of your opponents own argument to defeat itself, the argument is not very well founded, to put it mildly) notes: The only other theory possible for the universe’s creation, other than a God-centered hypothesis, is some purposeless materialistic theory based on blind chance. Materialistic blind chance only escapes being completely crushed, by the overwhelming weight of evidence for design, by appealing to an infinity of other un-testable universes in which all other possibilities have been played out. Yet there is no hard physical evidence to support this blind chance conjecture. In fact, the 'infinite multiverse' conjecture suffers from some very serious flaws of logic. For instance exactly which laws of physics, arising from which material basis, are telling all the other natural laws in physics what, how and when, to do the many precise unchanging things they do in these other universes? Plus, if an infinite number of other possible universes must exist in order to explain the fine tuning of this one, then why is it not also infinitely possible for a infinitely powerful and transcendent Creator to exist? Using the materialist same line of reasoning for an infinity of multiverses to explain the extreme fine-tuning of this one we can surmise; If it is infinitely possible for God to exist then He, of 100% certainty, must exist no matter how small the probability is of His existence in one of these other infinity of universes, and since He certainly must exist, then all possibilities in all universes automatically become subject to Him since He is, by definition, All Powerful. To clearly illustrate the absurdity of what the materialists now consider their cutting edge science: The materialistic conjecture of an infinity of universes to explain the fine tuning of this one also insures the 100% probability of the existence of Pink Unicorns no matter how small the probability is of them existing. In fact a infinity of universes insures the existence of an infinity of Pink Unicorns an infinite number of times. Thus it is self-evident the materialists have painted themselves into a inescapable corner of logical absurdities in trying to find an escape from the Theistic implications we are finding for the fine-tuning of this universe. The preceding argument has actually been made into a formal philosophical proof: Ontological Argument For God From The Many Worlds Hypothesis - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4784641 God Is Not Dead Yet – William Lane Craig – Page 4 The ontological argument. Anselm’s famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 7. Therefore, God exists. Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God’s existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn’t appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God’s existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=4 I like the following concluding comment about the ontological argument from the Dr. Plantinga video: "God then is the Being that couldn't possibly not exit." Ontological Argument – Dr. Plantinga (3:50 minute mark) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXvVcWFrGQ Dr. Bruce Gordon - The Absurdity Of The Multiverse & Materialism in General - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5318486/bornagain77
November 28, 2010
November
11
Nov
28
28
2010
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
If atheism is true, life is ultimately empty and meaningless.
Really? You really think logic works this way? Forgive the self-promotion, but I've written about this topic before and I think you might benefit: http://larrytanner.blogspot.com/2010/10/ultimate-meaning-index-of-posts.htmlLarTanner
November 28, 2010
November
11
Nov
28
28
2010
08:12 AM
8
08
12
AM
PDT
tgpeeler, I try to put myself in the atheist's shoes. If I were an atheist would I be promoting unbelief, as some kind of belief? I find that kind of thinking to be absurd. If I were an atheist I think I’d mind my own business and leave other people alone. If atheism is true, life is ultimately empty and meaningless. Why try to impose those beliefs on anyone else? However, if for some reason (some irrational reason) I wanted to advance the cause of atheism I wouldn’t do it by imitating religion. The new atheists and secular humanists not only imitate religion but they imitate the worst parts of religion. For me that completely destroys their credibility. These people are nothing more than egotistical blowhards. And, you don’t need to be very smart to be one of those.john_a_designer
November 28, 2010
November
11
Nov
28
28
2010
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
j.a.d. @ 2 "Maybe it is just to let everyone else know how superior and rational they are and attract other people who share their beliefs." That's how they advertise themselves but they are anything but. All rational thought is grounded in first principles and recognizes the sovereignty of reason in matters of truth. They SAY they are rational yet they deny the existence of God, which is demanded by reason. They SAY they are rational and then Dennett, for example, in Breaking the Spell, says that the universe created itself. (It's the ultimate bootstrap.) How rational is that? Ugh. The stench of hypocrisy... They are pathetic and not serious intellectuals (when it comes to philosophy/truth/worldviews) at all, any of them. Of course, neither am I but I know that...tgpeeler
November 27, 2010
November
11
Nov
27
27
2010
08:43 PM
8
08
43
PM
PDT
Hey Barb, Maybe the site is not to be taken seriously, but not for the reason you give. It doesn't say this is the list of the "greatest" 50 books but the "most influential." Yes, Dan Brown writes potboilers, but this one has influenced a lot of people that Christianity is nonsense. So I think they're right to include it on the list.kibitzer
November 27, 2010
November
11
Nov
27
27
2010
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
Neil Rickert: Have you ever looked at the vicious and ugly things that religious people so often say about atheists?
Why should I be an atheist if they are no different or better than religious people?john_a_designer
November 27, 2010
November
11
Nov
27
27
2010
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
Barb (#15)
So why is it that the new atheists like Myers, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are all unkind and vicious?
Have you ever looked at the vicious and ugly things that religious people so often say about atheists?Neil Rickert
November 27, 2010
November
11
Nov
27
27
2010
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
Re: kibitzer at #1: I stopped taking that site seriously the second I noticed that on their list of the 50 greatest books they included The Da Vinci Code. Re: Neil Rickert @ 14: Yes, there is a wide range of human personalities. So why is it that the new atheists like Myers, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are all unkind and vicious? They certainly don't approach religious people with the idea of 'we disagree but we should respect each other's dignity and ideas'. Instead, they tell religious people that they are deluded, insane, stupid and wicked.Barb
November 27, 2010
November
11
Nov
27
27
2010
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
A general comment. There is a wide range of human personalities. I'll suggest that PZ Myers is somewhat of an outlier in that group, so you probably shouldn't assume that he is typical. His pharyngula blog has a large following, but in large part that is because of PZ's wit. As for the changes at Secular Humanism - times change, organizations change, leadership changes. And sometimes it gets messy. Evangelical Christianity has been changing too, and some of the changes at other organizations are a response to that.Neil Rickert
November 27, 2010
November
11
Nov
27
27
2010
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
Try this for the link that bornagain77 is trying to post. I think this will work. I'm listening now, but I might not listen all the way through.Neil Rickert
November 27, 2010
November
11
Nov
27
27
2010
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={42F345D1-A875-41AD-8591-71515CB69803}bornagain77
November 27, 2010
November
11
Nov
27
27
2010
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
one more try: www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={42F345D1-A875-41AD-8591-71515CB69803}bornagain77
November 27, 2010
November
11
Nov
27
27
2010
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT
here is the Michael Behe vs. Michael Reiss in the UK http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={42F345D1-A875-41AD-8591-71515CB69803} you may have to cut and paste the link in browserbornagain77
November 27, 2010
November
11
Nov
27
27
2010
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT
Dr. Dembski, The next person Christopher Hitchens has debated after you is Tony Blair, former UK PM Tony Blair and Christopher Hitchens debate religion http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11843586bornagain77
November 27, 2010
November
11
Nov
27
27
2010
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT
Methinks secular humanists make a good case for their being just evolved animals. IOW when pressed for evidence taht humans and chimps share a common ancestor all they have to do is say "Hey just look at us!".Joseph
November 26, 2010
November
11
Nov
26
26
2010
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
oops there appears to be a problem with the link, or how I typed it in perhaps. Anyhow it's easy to come by, Paul Kurtz's "Darwin Re-Crucified" is archived at the Secular Humanist.zephyr
November 26, 2010
November
11
Nov
26
26
2010
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply