Aliens and atheism

For a few decades now extra terrestrial life has been a common area of conflict in the dialogue between Theism and Anti-theism / Atheism.
It is an absurd but somehow interesting back and forth; even if only because it deals with angels, aliens, demons, and extra dimensional entities.
It's a fun, spooky, weird topic.
A good fit for the Faustian, methinks.


On a friend's recent blog post at EGNORANCE (about the subject of the new RC Pope Francis, of all things) this was brought up (once again).
So, I thought a word or two was due on the subject:

The argument so far....

Atheist/Materialists/Positivists in 1970's: The apparent lack of life in our solar system makes the idea of (a) God absurd. Why would He create such a massive universe just to leave it empty? Obviously the answer is: God is not there.

Theists in 1970's: With the Lord God, all things are possible. We believe in intelligences other than mankind. They are self evident. These intelligences may or may not be little green men living on Mars or some other local planet, but they are here with us in our universe. Life is part of God's plan.


Atheist/Materialists/Positivists in 2010's: The possibility of abundant life in the universe is a clear indication that the religious teachings about God, and even belief in His existence, are dangerously delusional. Life beyond our earth would be final proof than mankind is just a random, accidental, unexceptional, run of the mill organism on a tiny, insignificant (?)  planet on the edge of a unimportant(?) galaxy.

Theists in the 2010's: With the Lord God, all things are possible. We have always believed in intelligences other than mankind. They are self evident.  A discovery of unknown / alien life would no more effect the Abrahamic faiths than the discovery of a new type of animal on earth. God created the Cosmos (the Heavens and the Earth), not just Earth and not just mankind.
ALL life and everything is part of God's plan to us, the theists. 

Final Score:

Materialists 0 / 2 Theists
(Points rewarded for coherence and consistency of position)

So what do we take away from all this besides a chuckle?
Nothing too profound, really.
Nothing that a few minutes thought on the subject would not reveal.
Pretty much the same thing we see with most of these  scientistic / materialistic arguments.

Simply put, we see that  the materialist argument has been force to adapt by means of a reversal of position  (now conceding the distinct possibility of other intelligence agents in our cosmos, in this specific case).

The theistic position, on the other hand,  is consistent: Other intelligences exists in our cosmos.
We see the ideological strand of the atheistic and theistic creeds: Nihilistic 'insignificance' and 'randomness' pitted against wonder, purpose, love and hope. No contest..
And finally we see an effort to prove our experiential reality an illusion, which would of course refute ALL science as subjective experience and render the entire materialistic argument once again (self) refuted. Non coherent and thus nonsensical.

This is contrasted with the entirely coherent position that God's self proclaimed mission in one of life and that the limits are His to set.
Whether or not you're religious or even believe in God I am sure, my dear readers, that you can see the contrast between the totally polar realities that these two world views render.
Choose your truth carefully.
It's quite possibly the biggest choice you'll ever make.... at least in this reality.

N.E.R.R.D.S

N.E.R.R.D.S
Nihilistic Ego-centrist Recursive Reductionists for a Despotic Socialism.


Who are the N.E.R.R.D.S?
If this were a Bond movie, they would be the  lackeys working the death ray for the man with the white cat. If this were a comic book, they would be the bad guy's technicians busily working on the cogs of the doomsday machine.
They are the willing sycophants.
They are easy to detect: Always easily intimidated, outraged, offended and otherwise ruffled by any display of tradition, morality, altruism and most especially courage.

Don't confuse N.E.R.R.D.S with harmless garden variety school kid nerds.
The latter is simply a developmental stage of insulated industrialized children (usually male runts) that normally ends with a first pairing around the age of sexual maturity (later for some). They may look very similar to nerds but the N.E.R.R.D.S of which I write are far more dangerous.
They are an insidious intellectual rash upon our civilization. They weaken us from within.
Let me absolutely clear: These are not simply lads addicted to masturbation and Japanese animation. These are not over grown girls with a taste for rainbow knee-socks and Boba Fett dolls.
The  N.E.R.R.D.S are adults. Many are very powerful and well connected. N.E.R.R.D.S  hold all non N.E.R.R.D.S in the deepest contempt.
In fact, they hold most other   N.E.R.R.D.S in contempt too! 
N.E.R.R.D.S is/are a 'worldview'. They are a belief and way of life; some would say ideology. I would not go so far, but I would say they are very prone to certain ideological movements, such as communism.

Where are the  N.E.R.R.D.S ?They call themselves many things and often identify with groups.    
Many adherents of the N.E.R.R.D.S way are members of a scientific community, a member of an educational facility, and quite often of the political or legal classes.  Microcosms are the reality of  N.E.R.R.D.S. and consequently the entertainment industry (from films to video games) is riddled with N.E.R.R.D.S. and those they seek to convert. They have also been known to infiltrate positions of influence in the military and even the clergy.  

Where do N.E.R.R.D.S come from?As bizarre as it may seem, these folks are physically normal human beings. They are not from another world, or of some different sub species of mankind....at least not yet.
N.E.R.R.D.S are thought to be the product of a spoiled/ruined childhood.
Much like certain sturgeon who cannot or do not have the will to mate lurk at the bottom of lakes and grow to massive sizes, so do the N.E.R.R.D.S result from an initial lack of mental and physical maturity. This process is sometimes known as the 'emotional lobotomy'. This lack of depth can usually be traced to a materially spoiled childhood in which affection was replaced with 'things' by busy parents or by the child itself; hence the strong psychological fixation with material nature (specifically technology and gadgetry) and the common (within the N.E.R.R.D.S movement) predisposition to the autistic like inability to comprehend the immaterial.
The immaterial and qualitative world have little or no meaning to the N.E.R.R.D.S. adherent. If it (anything) can not be empirically proven, measured, and reduced to equations - it does not exist to the follower of the N.E.R.R.D.S path.  

What do  N.E.R.R.D.S  want?

It's all in the name.
Nihilistic: They don't believe in anything. More specifically they believe in nothing. Futility would be a word that sums up the N.E.R.R.D.S view of existence ('worldview'). One famous neurosurgeon has summed up this central N.E.R.R.D.S concept as 'shit happens'. 
Ego-centrist: There is one immaterial thing in the N.E.R.R.D.S 'worldview'  and that is the self. The 'religion of me', as the N.E.R.R.D.S faith is sometimes called, is explicitly hedonistic and self interested. The fear of personal extinction is at a hysterical pitch among N.E.R.R.D.S.  ME, I, MYSELF are the holy trinity of the N.E.R.R.D.S paradise.
Recursive: N.E.R.R.D.S love paradox and openly despise logic. They seek to undermine logical thinking (inference and deductive) by a kind rote and litany they refer to as 'memes'. 
Reductionist: Many who have closely studied and observed the  N.E.R.R.D.S movement first hand feel this aspect may be the central key stone of their faith/belief system. There seems a literal need among  N.E.R.R.D.S thinkers (for lack of a better term) to reduce all the complexities of existence to the simplest interpretation. This need may well be connected to lack of socio-sexual maturity and general apathy enabled by the nihilism. 
For Despotic Socialism: They may be globalist (internationalist/communist) socialists or more of a regional (ie fascistic or 'national') socialist bent - but all the N.E.R.R.D.S true believers are politically inclined to the Hegelian left and almost always propose the most dramatic forms of social controls in the form of despotic police state style tyranny.
Liberty and freedoms are gladly scrapped in the name of 'security' and 'progress' in the mind of those who follow the way of the  N.E.R.R.D.S. Again, this is attributed by most experts to a fear of personal extinction. Those of the  N.E.R.R.D.S creed fear being abused and have faith in a 'nanny state' system to protect them from 'bullies' who 'scare' and 'offend' them. 

How to deal with  N.E.R.R.D.S.:N.E.R.R.D.S. must be confronted openly and using their own (so called) 'Darwinian' model. They need to be 'naturally selected'.
Their argument (and quite often their physiology and psychology) is very weak, and by their own standard should be discarded ('fall by the wayside') for a stronger and healthier outlook with a more robust and charismatic leadership. Such improved outlooks abound
In order to control a . N.E.R.R.D.S outburst remember to think like a  N.E.R.R.D.S !
The need to belong and to 'be cool' is the N.E.R.R.D.S. emotional/psychological Achilles heal, just as logic is the intellectual weak spot.
Use both!
Tell the N.E.R.R.D.S. people when they are being offensive.
Make their offensive comments and doctrines uncomfortable to proselytize.
Remember: Discomfort is literally FEARED by the N.E.R.R.D.S.
Redefine their propaganda terms!
When they say 'terminate', redefine to 'kill' or 'murder'.
When they suggest a 9 month old baby in the womb is 'just a foetus' (or any LIVING BEING is 'just' any THING) correct them for all to hear.
Keep in mind that N.E.R.R.D.S. will fail as a movement. It is doomed from the beginning. All we can do as responsible, moral, adults is hasten it's end and remove ourselves and all we hold dear from that failure.  

Consider: It is inevitable that the N.E.R.R.D.S. movement should suffer collapse, but the trick is to separate that crash from our own culture(s). 
We do not want to be dragged down to the bottom with the N.E.R.R.D.S. wreck. 


"What is a N.E.R.R.D.S? He's the guy who is offended by a town hall prayer, but tells you should abort your kid and  put down old grandma for the sake of the trees or dolphins or whatever as he commutes to his lab so he can spray bunnies eyes with cosmetics and vivisect some monkeys for 'science'."
-Anonymous 

Atheist intolerance strikes AGAIN....

In yet another attack on the culture and heritage of a people, the Freedom From Religion group based in Wisconsin is attempting to force  a small town in Alabama to change it's welcome sign because it has a bible verse in it.
The intolerance and totalitarian slant of these Atheistic groups is becoming more and more apparent on both sides of the 49th as they push the envelope of community tolerance to the limit.
Who will reign these fanatics in? I cannot be sure, but I am sure we wont have to wait long for the Hegelian backlash.

From FOXNEWS

Alabama Town Vows to Defy Anti-Religion Group

By Todd Starnes

It’s the story of David versus Goliath.


“David” is the small Alabama town of Sylvania, population 1,800. “Goliath” is the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter to the town demanding that they remove Bible verses that were posted on four welcome signs. They said the signs were unconstitutional.


“Sylvania Welcomes You,” the signs read. “Ephesians 4:5 – One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism.”


“The Sylvania ‘welcome’ signs are not welcoming,” wrote FFRF attorney Patrick Elliott. “They affiliate the government with one religion, Christianity, and exclude others.”


“No court would uphold this blatant violation of the Constitution,” read his letter to television station WAAY. “Local governments have no place in making position statements on such matters.”


Mayor Mitchell Dendy originally had the signs removed two weeks ago. However, he resigned due to an unrelated matter. The acting mayor and city council decided the signs needed to be reposted.


“We’re putting the signs back up and we’ll see what happens,” acting mayor Max Turner told Fox News.”If we don’t stand up for something, it won’t be long before we’ll have to go to the woods to have church.”


Turner said it’s time to draw a line in the sand and fight back against the FFRF.


The 80-year-old acting mayor said to the best of his knowledge there are no atheists living in Sylvania and he said dozens of citizens are supporting their decision.
“We as Christians should stand up for what we believe in as much as them people stand up for what they believe in,” he said, noting that he was prepared to “go down trying to defeat the Devil.”

Good on YOU Alabama!
As do most Canadians, I love the South.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye5BuYf8q4o

South Korea finds smuggled capsules contain human flesh

One of the most disturbing media-feeds I have read in ages.
Here we see the 'product' of the infanticide industry. No longer content with the forced killing of millions of Chinese infants (mostly girls of course) it seems the 'product' of that industry is becoming more and more available overseas. First it was in the form of stem cells, but those can now be made from other more morally palatable sources. Now the 'product' (dead infant flesh) is making it's way back to it's roots: Cannibalism.
People are EATING them in pieces and in capsules.
While western politicians play friendly with this regime praising them for their eugenics programs; these evil swines are taking women's baby girls, killing them, and FEEDING them to cannibal savages who think it is beneficial to ingest newborn or unborn baby flesh - for a profit.
Also found on CTV.




The Associated Press

Updated: Mon. May. 7 2012 10:26 PM ET

SEOUL, South Korea — South Korea has seized thousands of smuggled drug capsules filled with powdered flesh from dead babies, which some people believe can cure disease, officials said Monday.

The capsules were made in northeastern China from babies whose bodies were chopped into small pieces and dried on stoves before being turned into powder, the Korea Customs Service said.

Customs officials refused to say where the dead babies came from or who made the capsules, citing possible diplomatic friction with Beijing. Chinese officials ordered an investigation into the production of drugs made from dead fetuses or newborns last year.

The customs office has discovered 35 smuggling attempts since August of about 17,450 capsules disguised as stamina boosters, and some people believe them to be a panacea for disease, the customs service said in a statement. The capsules of human flesh, however, contained bacteria and other harmful ingredients.

The smugglers told customs officials they believed the capsules were ordinary stamina boosters and did not know the ingredients or manufacturing process.

Ethnic Koreans from northeastern China who now live in South Korea were intending to use the capsules themselves or share them with other Korean-Chinese, a customs official said. They were carried in luggage or sent by international mail.

The capsules were all confiscated but no one has been punished because the amount was deemed small and they weren't intended for sale, said the customs official, who requested anonymity, citing department rules.

China's State Food and Drug Administration and its Health Ministry did not immediately respond to questions faxed to them Monday. Chinese media identify northeastern China as the source of such products, especially Jilin province which abuts North Korea.

The Jilin food and drug safety agency is responsible for investigating the trade of such remains there. Calls to the agency and to the information office of Jilin's Communist Party were not answered Monday.

The South Korean customs agency began investigating after receiving a tip a year ago. No sicknesses have been reported from ingesting the capsules.

No sickness? Sickness of the soul: EVIL.

Religious intolerance reaches new lows.... of intelligence!

From FOXNEWS.
A group of 'Atheists' deliberately defile a religious ritual intended to bless travellers on a Florida Highway.
What better way to spend a weekend that pissing on someone else's faith!
Maybe next weekend they will spend their free time mixing pork into Kosher and Halal meat aisles? Maybe blowing horns at the local Buddhist Stupa while the Monks Pray? Or maybe they just HATE Christianity? Poor folks.
There is obviously some serious daddy issues at work here. Maybe a little bit of a compensation problem too.

Seriously now, if they had ANY idea what a blessing was or who makes them, they would know that defiling the act does not render it powerless. It makes them look intolerant and stupid.
But what do they care? They don't have the intelligence or willpower to understand - they just HATE. It is easier and they are lazy, and 'bored'.  

LAKELAND, Fla. –  A group of atheists in Florida spent part of their weekend washing away a blessing placed upon a local highway by a religious group.

Armed with brooms, mops and "unholy water," the atheists gathered Saturday to symbolically clean up holy oil that Polk Under Prayer put down on Highway 98 near the Pasco-Polk county line last year, Bay News 9 reported.

"We come in peace," Humanists of Florida director Mark Palmer announced before he and members of other atheist organizations launched their cleanup. "Now that's normally what aliens say when they visit a new planet, but we're not aliens, we're atheists!"

According to the report, Palmer said Polk Under Prayer's blessing "sends a very bad signal to everyone in Polk County, and [anyone] who travels through Polk County who doesn't happen to be Christian."

The unblessing project, he explained, was "not about atheist rights" but about "welcoming everybody into Polk County."

“When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger.”

"“When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger.” ― Confucius"

This is a brief review of an excellent polemic work I finished about a week ago.
Late last year I was given the heads up by a blogger friend, Dr Michael Egnor, on an excellent book by philosopher and sometimes apologist Edward Feser. The work  is called " The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism",  and I had tried in vain to get it on my book list. I waited patiently to no avail. I read reviews and several synops, but it never showed. Eventually, sick of my griping about it and no doubt sick of listening to my philosophical rants about Platonic and Augustinian ideas, my wife decided to change the channel and order it in from Amazon. 
What a treat!
It had been years since I rummaged through my inherited volumes of Aristotle and Aquinas (dad was a history/philosophy major/prof)...and I must admit the idea of picking up these HUGE works again was intimidating. Sitting on shelf in what is supposed to be a dining room they loom like Cathedrals next to the comparatively  teeny-tiny shack-like paperbacks by Descartes, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Locke and many other 'moderns'. Like comic books next to collection of Wells, Kipling, or Poe, the moderns seem much more accessible, but at the same time obviously less well thought out - even simply judged just by sheer volume of language.
Big ideas take big, long, explanations... and big long times to read. 
Feser came to the rescue. Here is a young, fresh, new take on the arguments that gave us logic and reason - before a few 'enlightened' minds repackaged them clumsily and tied them in ribbons of fallacy and self refutation. 
Feser is what is commonly known as an Aristotelian-Thomistic thinker (A-T henceforth). His logic and reason are OLD school. Like a breath of fresh air, he argues for the objective and common sense approach to science and reality. His purpose is purpose.
Perhaps it would be better to say he is counter-non-purposefulness.
He denies the trendy-hipster nihilism of today's scientific and philosophical elites with a real American flair. 
This wonderfully written work is not for the lazy minded or uninitiated in the works of the philosophical masters, You need a little background - but not much, as Feser does a great job of countering his own arguments, just as Aristotle and Aquinas did. He lists objections and demolishes them with military precision.
Some of the oh-so-hip ideas treated to a damn good tomahawk strike are eliminative materialism, Darwinism (social and dogma), Paleyism (intelligent design), the 'landscape', 'evolutionary psychology' and 'theory of the mind', positivism/scientism, and of course the academic elitism that promotes such pseudo-scientific nonsense as holy writ.  These concepts are shown as lunacy, fallacies, based on fallacy, or just sometimes banal and irrelevant. 
He discusses and dissects the popular arguments of men like Richard Dawkins, Michael Dennet, and Peter Singer. But he also takes on serious academics of the 'Enlightenment' . Hume, Kant, Locke, Descartes, and company. Feser exposes the real motive behind the movement and the costs and effects of that reductive trend.
Naturalism is not spared a very sceptical look, either.  
This is no 'flat earth' type argument or work. Quite the contrary.
Feser seeks to open the mind and expose modern dogma for what it is: Vapid and unguided self refutation in the name of nothingness and randomness; arrogant and very, very silly.
I could not agree on his central premise any more.

We do not, however, agree on every point.
There was some notable team sports-like 'partisanship' that seems to infect every polemic work written in the United States for the last 30 or so years and lumps unrelated issues together to impress a target audiend. Constant references to an extinct 'liberalism' (the American word for 'secular progressive' or collectivism), comparisons between pot smoking and immorality (I am reminded of the Sesame Street segment 'Wich one of these things does not belong here? Which one of these things is not the same') but that can be forgiven considering the charged historical context in which it was written and the very nature  of this work; which is obviously polemic.
Another note of disagreement is the treatment that scholastics like Feser give the animal world. While I completely agree that humans are exceptional beings and that we hold a very special place and purpose in the order of things - I cannot agree that animals have no ability to reason.
Less? Sure.
Different? Definitely.
But I would not concede they do not reason at all. I have far too much personal experience with many types of critters to buy into that line. In all honesty I think the 'right' and 'left' both tell themselves this and include it in their stance with equal measure (ie man is superior to the lowly beast, or man is just another lowly beast) in order to justify the large scale industrial nastiness committed on them as a justifiable comfort or indulgence. I think we, as a people, tend to sleep better at night when we, in our utterly consumerist/materialist society,  imagine the animals we treat so cruelly to stock our meat aisles with cheap cuts as incapable of sorrow and pain and as soulless, or in the case of many scholastics like Feser as lesser souls more or less mortal, single use souls.
Again, the times we live in.
I prefer the guilt and shame of knowing the objective truth: Animals have a different purpose and final causality, but they TOO are God's creatures. They too transcend. I tend to think like the Hebrews of old along these lines.
All that noted, this book is a great work. Not just good, but great. The arguments against a strictly material approach to reality are flawless and inescapable; AND it actually makes you WANT to pick up those massive dusty volumes of the A-T and scholastics in order to get into them.
Over-all I would give his work a 4.5/5. Top notch stuff.
Feser ends his work with the title of this blog-post. He sums up his argument for function, purpose, cause and effect with a brilliant observation by the Eastern Master Confucius.

“When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger.”
 And with that the finger is raised to new Atheism, who's faithful clergy clearly do not even notice the moon being presented to them. 

Personal note: Thanks for the tip, Mike. Hardcover has been ordered to sit next to my David Berlinsky collection and confuse my children for years to come;  and the "Summa"  and "Causes" dusted off and 'ready to rock'.  The wife will enjoy the change of venue, I am sure :P

Religion useful for atheists too!

An unusually moderate take from an agnostic/athiest rationalist.

Could this be the end of 'new Atheism' and a return to sober Agnosticism by the intellectual elite? Don't hold your breath!

It is nice to hear, however, the sane approach to this metaphysical mental exercise still exists; that one may still think freely within the 'free thinker' movement.
Kudos to De Botton for taking a stand against negativity and ant-religious bigotry.
A new title for my book list :)

Religion useful for atheists too, author argues (from CTV.ca) 

What if instead of mocking religions, atheists could borrow the very best ideas from? That's the question author Alain de Botton asks in his intellectually challenging but highly readable new book, "Religion for Atheists."

De Botton argues that it's possible for those who don't believe in God to look to religion for insights on everything from how to communicate ideas well, to how to build a sense of community, to how to keep our egos in check.

De Botton, who has published bestselling books on a range of subjects, from the philosphy of love, to architecture, to travel, has little patience for the debate about whether God exists. There will never be an answer to that one, he insists.

But he says for too long, his fellow atheists have wasted so much energy arguing with the faithful about whether the doctrines of religion are "true."

"Atheism has really been put on the map by what I call New Atheists, like Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens. They've been very successful, but at the same time, they've gone a little far with a negative direction. They've identified atheism with a hatred of religion – not just non-belief, but mockery and loathing," de Botton told CTVNews.ca recently when he was in Toronto.

While these "noisy fringes of atheism" -- as he calls them -- have dominated the public debate about atheism, he believes there remains "a silent majority" of atheists who don't necessarily hate religion and don't believe that "religion poisons everything," as Hitchens so fervently believed.

"I think there is a middle who think, ‘Look, maybe the doctrines of religion are not that convincing, but Christmas carols are nice, and religions rites of passage are nice,'" he says.

Those atheists who have been so quick to dismiss religious faith have failed to notice what makes religions as institutions so compelling, de Botton says.

There are a number of things that religion gets right, de Botton argues. The way they use music, religious art, and lyricism to inspire, or example. Or the way that every religion in the world emphasizes time for quiet reflection, to take a step back and to be reminded of our need for humility in a greater universe.

All religions have also always focused on architecture, building worship spaces designed for reverence, says de Botton.

"They know that the space you're in really affects your mood. It can inspire awe or calm, or gratitude, or love. The secular world thinks of humans as just brains that don't need that, and that our eyes are not affected. Whereas, or course, we are integrated beings and the space we're in can influence our ideas," he says.

He writes that secularism has been so concerned with personal freedom that it has missed the opportunity to guide humans on how to live.

"So opposed have many atheists been to the content of religious belief that they have omitted to appreciate its inspiring and still valid overall object: to provide us with well-structured advice on how to lead our lives," he writes in the book.

He writes that "no existing mainstream secular institution has a declared interest in teaching us the art of living." But he says the keys to the art of living can easily be found by sampling a bit of each of the world's religions.

It is that idea that de Botton knows will anger religious believers. Religions are not buffets where you can pick what you like and discard the rest, they protest. But de Botton argues that the downfall of many of the world's faiths is their insistence that followers "must eat everything on the plate."

"I think you can pick and choose morality from different religions," he says. "I know that sounds bizarre and I'm a fan of commitment. But the idea of having to commit to only one faith seems bizarre.

"I understand it if you're a believer. But as a non-believer, it's no more important to stick to one faith than to stick to one kind of novel as a student of literature. Imagine if you said, "I really like Jane Austen." And someone said to you, "Well, I hope you'll only be reading Austen then, and not picking and mixing and reading (Vladimir) Nabokov next." You would think, well why not?"

De Boton says just as we can appreciate different aspects of Austen and Nabokov's writing, so too can we appreciate the Zen Buddhist emphasis on compassion or the Jewish emphasis on forgiveness.

"Why not pick and mix ideas?" he asks.

'Oh God!' Dawkins admits he is agnostic

A funny tidbit in the adventures of Captain Materialism himself....

'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist': World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic

By SUZANNAH HILLS

Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist - admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can't prove God doesn't exist.

The country's foremost champion of the Darwinist evolution, who wrote The God Delusion, stunned audience members when he made the confession during a lively debate on the origins of the universe with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Professor Dawkins, the former Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, is a dedicated admirer of Charles Darwin, regarding the Victorian pioneer of evolution as the man who explained ‘everything we know about life’.

But when Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams suggested that Professor Darwin is often described as the world's most famous atheist, the geneticist responded: 'Not by me'.

He said: 'On a scale of seven, where one means I know he exists, and seven I know he doesn't, I call myself a six.'

Professor Dawkins went on to say he believed was a '6.9', stating: 'That doesn't mean I'm absolutely confident, that I absolutely know, because I don't.'

They were discussing 'The Nature of Human Beings and the Question of their Ultimate Origin' when Professor Dawkins admitted he was agnostic rather than an atheist

The two high-profile figures were debating whether Biblical writers 'got it wrong' by not saying that the universe is billions of years old.

The Archbishop said: 'The writers of the Bible, inspired as I believe they were, were not inspired to do 21st century physics, they were inspired to pass on to their readers what God wanted them to know.

'In the first book of the Bible is the basic information - the universe depends on God, humanity has a very distinctive role in that universe , and humanity has made rather a mess of it.'

But Professor Dawkins said he was 'baffled' by 'the way sophisticated theologians who know Adam and Eve never existed still keep talking about it'.

This latest admission by Professor Dawkins comes after he was left lost for words name the full title of his scientific hero’s most famous work during a radio discussion last week in which he accused Christians of being ignorant of the Bible.

In his frustration, he resorted to a helpless: ‘Oh God.’

ORIGINAL:
 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html#ixzz1nP2peVtT

The Marine Memorial vs The Offended Atheist

Courts - POLITICS

Supporters of a war memorial cross deemed unconstitutional last year by a federal court plan to ask the Supreme Court to reverse the decision, amid a growing fight nationwide over the use of religious symbols to honor fallen troops. A nonprofit legal firm, Liberty Institute in Washington D.C., planned to file its petition Thursday to preserve the 43-foot cross on federal land atop San Diego's Mt. Soledad -- the same day the group called on combat veterans and supporters to demonstrate at the picturesque site overlooking the Pacific Ocean in the suburb of La Jolla. The Supreme Court has signaled a greater willingness to allow religious symbols on public land, and the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill last month that writes into law the propriety of displaying such markers at war memorials. Last year's ruling by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals capped two decades of legal challenges over the 1913 monument, which became a memorial to Korean War veterans. A number of other military memorials on public lands across the country have been challenged in recent years by civil liberty activists and atheists who say they violate the separation between church and state. The Supreme Court in 2010 refused to order the removal of a congressionally endorsed war memorial cross from its longtime home atop a remote rocky outcropping in California's Mojave Desert. But Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-San Diego, said he is not relying on the courts. He introduced the bill passed by the House in January that would codify the existing practice of allowing religious symbols at military monuments established or acquired by the federal government. Hunter said he drafted the bill with the Mt. Soledad monument in mind but it goes beyond that. "This isn't just about San Diego," Hunter told The Associated Press. "This about the rights of members of the military to adorn gravestones and war memorials to honor those who fought in wars with whatever the heck they want to have there, period. If you want to take down a war memorial cross or take any kind of religious symbolism off any war memorial because you say it's unconstitutional, then you would have to take the crosses off every headstone in national cemeteries from Arlington to Fort Rosecrans." Hunter said opponents have been getting out of hand, challenging even personal memorials, like a pair of unsanctioned crosses on a remote rocky hilltop on the Marine Corps base of Camp Pendleton put up by individual Marines to honor fellow fallen troops. The crosses are surrounded by thousands of rocks carried up by Marines, some of which are accompanied by handwritten messages. Opponents complained about the crosses, which cannot be seen by the public, after The Los Angeles Times wrote a story about them on Veteran's Day 2011. "It's getting old, getting burdensome and costly," Hunter said. "It's time to put an end to it." Members of the American Civil Liberties Union that won the lawsuit in the 9th Circuit said the bill ignores the Constitution, which they argued was written to ensure government monuments do not exclude people based on their beliefs. "Congress cannot, by definition, authorize the government to violate the Constitution," said David Loy, the ACLU's legal director in San Diego. "It's unconstitutional for the government to sponsor and maintain this particular cross that is visible for miles. The point of a war memorial or veterans' memorial is to remember all veterans." 

FOUND ON:   http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/09/group-to-ask-supreme-court-to-save-war-memorial-deemed-unconstitutional/?test=latestnews#ixzz1ltLwiDpM

FIrst the banner, now the oath....

Cheered on by their victory over the the various town square Santas, School grad ceremnonies, Military funerals and grave-sites,  and of course the 'prayer banner' of Cranston HS; the Atheist movement has now set it's sites on the US pledge of allegiance.

ACTON, Mass. –  A family has reportedly asked a Massachusetts judge to order a school district to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Interestingly enough, the plaintiffs, who are atheists and call themselves the "Does" to protect their identity, are not citing the establishment clause of the First Amendment in making their case. Instead, they are challenging the Pledge on the basis of the Massachusetts Constitution's guarantee of "equal protection."

The Does argue that schools discriminate against atheist children by taking part in a pledge that makes them feel “marginalized,” the Boston Herald reports.

Superior Court Judge Jane Haggerty will hear arguments Monday in Doe vs. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District.

In another challenge against saying the Pledge of Allegiance in Brookline Mass., a group called "Brookline Pax" had asked the town to vote in favor of a resolution calling for the school committee to rescind its Pledge of Allegiance policy and stop the Pledge from being recited in the schools.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/13/family-asks-judge-to-order-massachusetts-school-district-to-remove-under-god/?test=latestnews#ixzz1mIwu3Pkk

So, because a few kids have fringe beliefs that make them feel 'left out' they want to alter or even SCRAP this oath?

What is science?

FROM EGNORANCE

What is science?

New atheists invoke 'science' as the pinnacle of methods to find truth.

In fact, atheists of a positivist inclination assert that science is the only way to know truth. By science, they explicitly mean methodological naturalism. Implicitly, they presume philosophical naturalism.

But what is 'science'?

Traditionally, as understood by philosophers from the ancient Greeks to the scholastics, scientia was Latin for "knowing" and "understanding". Scientia was an organized body of knowledge. It did not refer only to knowledge of nature. Theology was scientia. Ethics was scientia. Knowledge of nature was referred to as natural philosophy.

From the early modern period, science came to refer to scientia of the natural world. It has generally been distinguished by the scientific method-- a system of testing hypotheses about the natural world. Science came to mean primarily the acquisition of knowledge about nature that permits the manipulation of nature.

Understanding nature is, of course, still philosophy. It is still a kind of knowing. Scientia of nature, understood classically.

Science is stipulated to be the study of nature. So, of course, it cannot adjudicate the existence of the supernatural. It is a way of knowing tailored to knowing nature. And science understood as metaphysical naturalism does not presuppose natural causes. It presupposes natural effects. Supernatural causes are very much in the purview of natural science, as long as they have natural effects. An obvious example of a natural effect with a supernatural cause (by definition!) is the Big Bang. Nature itself cannot be caused by nature.

The question as to whether nature is all that exists is a question beyond science. It is a philosophical question broadly. It is a metaphysical question specifically.

From metaphysics, the argument that nature is all that exists is extraordinarily weak. Only two metaphysical arguments of any substance at all have been advanced to defend the assertion that nature is all that exists.

Hume proposed that perhaps nature, not God, is the ground of Being. If one must stop in causal regress, why not stop at nature, instead of God?

The reply to Hume preceded Hume. Scholastics had pointed out centuries earlier that the ground of existence must itself contain the principle of its own existence. It must not be contingent. But nature is contingent. It changes constantly, and its components begin and cease to exist continuously. In fact, we now know that nature (the universe) had a moment of beginning. It could not be its own cause of existence because nothing can cause itself to exist. Existence must be caused by Something outside of nature. That Something must Itself have an essence (what It is) that is existence (that It is). The Cause of nature must be outside of nature. Supernatural.

Kant understood the power of this argument, but he denied that we can extend logic to the supernatural. He asserted that all that we can know is the reality presented by our senses- the phenomenal. Reality-in-itself-- the noumenal-- was unknowable to us. he did believe in God, but he believed that God could only be known through the moral law in each of us-- the Categorical Imperative, but not through logic.

There are two problems with Kant's reasoning. The first is that the inference to the Prime Mover/First Cause/Necessary Existence is a deductive argument that extends only through the phenomenal-- through the world as known to the senses. The Ground for Existence is the conclusion of arguments restricted to phenomenal premises. We can validly infer that a Ground for Existence must exist based solely on phenomenal arguments. The nature of the Ground for Existence may be noumenal, but its necessary existence is demonstrable. The argument is phenomenal, and valid.

The other problem with Kant's critique is that if we understand the Ground for Existence as entirely beyond human understanding, including the conclusion that such a Ground exists, then we violate the Principle of Sufficient Reason (the PSR). The PSR asserts that everything has a reason for its existence. It of course does not assert that we currently know the reason for everything (we obviously don't), but it asserts that a reason for everything does exist.

If the Ground for Existence is Kantian noumenal, and intrinsically unknowable and beyond confirmation of its existence, then the PSR is violated. But is the PSR is violated for the universe, then it is violated for each component of the universe. If nothing in the universe needs a reason for its existence, then science and logic are without foundation. 'It just happened' becomes an acceptable explanation for anything and everything.

If Kant is right, then the reasoning Kant used to arrive at his conclusion is without ground. Kant's argument is ultimately self-refuting.

The atheist may reply that the need for a Ground for Existence must apply to God Himself, and therefore recourse to the supernatural doesn't spare us infinite regression.

The atheist would be wrong. God is supernatural, and therefore not a "thing" in need of explanation. If fact, only a supernatural Ground can stop infinite regress. God's essence is His existence.

Science is the study of nature using the scientific method. It has no traction on supernatural questions.

Metaphysics, which does have traction on questions of ultimate reality, provides a powerful and thus far unrefuted argument for His necessary existence.

Link between Atheism and Autism in study

Atheism as an Autism?

"People with 'mild' forms of autism are more likely to be atheists, according to a controversial new study - and more likely to shun organised religion in general."
Or so states a study from Boston, quoted in the UK's Daily Mail and found here.

It seems people of sub to normal intelligence with 'mild autistic' tendencies, such as Asperger's syndrome, are inclined to be Atheist, more so that other belief systems.
Funny how that compares to the Platonic view of the cave, isn't it?
Is medical science finally catching up with philosophy. Or is it that this kind of dustbin diagnosis, evolutionary psychology driven, mind as matter stuff has finally turned on its own? I am sure we will see as more of these studies are duplicated.
The researchers involved are quick to warn: "'It is important that people with autism have the freedom to make their own choices about their beliefs and receive the support they need,'"
I would think it is important to let them be happy. If their Atheism is of no matter, then let it be. If it is ruining their life, a caregiver has the DUTY to help them out of that monistic box. Not to convert, but to release.
They also note: "'This doesn’t mean that a huge proportion of atheists are high functioning autistics (though there may be a larger proportion than the general population).'"
So, you don't have to be mentally limited, or psychologically myopic to be an Atheist- It just helps a whole lot if you are? I am almost offended for the Atheists....almost.

NK Death Camps revealed in detail

Glorious Leader's Korea may have no Religions but that of the state, they may be officially communist and Atheist by creed , but they believe in Hell. In fact, they manufacture Hell here on earth.
New images in the UK's Daily Mail give us a clear view into the secret death camps of Communist Korea:

"The North Korean government may deny their existence, but photos taken from space have revealed in unprecedented detail the concentration camps that are used imprison more than 200,000 citizens.
Men, women and children are forced to work seven days a week as slaves and eat 'rats, frogs, snakes, insects' and even faeces to battle starvation in the camps."

One man, imprisoned in one of the larger camps as a child thinks they must be growing, as more Koreans are sent to be worked to death.
"'The camp definitely looks bigger. For example, new buildings for prison guards weren't there before. I can only assume that means there are more prisoners being held and therefore more security is needed.'"
The evidence certainly backs his claims.
This is what happens when nations are reduced to ideological constructs, when God is banished and men take His place; when morality is seen as a sliding scale and justice as a tool for power. This is what happens when the Good do nothing.
This is what we pretend is not possible 'in the 21st century!'
This is the modern face of Evil.
Banal, clinical, official, progressive, scientific, practical Evil.

The blind painter.

A man went to the painters apartment to ask him some questions. On the freshly painted door was the word 'Artist'.
The man entered and asked the painter, 'Why do you use the word artist instead of painter?'
'For there is only one true art, and that is the painting of images. Do you wish your image preserved?'
The man thought for a moment and asked, 'What about sculptures and busts?'
The painter replied, 'There is no real or true sculpture, only carvings in rock. These rock carvers are no artists, they do not understand how to properly preserve an image. They make idols and stones for temples well enough, but they cannot make art. They do not paint.  How can you see colour in a rock? Men who believe in true sculpture are deluded and live in an illusion.'
The man nodded politely and smiled, but not he did not quite agree. He somehow felt restricted by these ideas.
The man crossed the studio and looked at the remarkable detail in the paintings hanging on the wall.
He spoke before he could think better, '...and what of the poet?'
'HA!' said the painter, who looked as if the idea upset him.
Red faced he spat, 'Those fools? They would not recognize art it if was their own mother! They simply mix words and make pretty sounds like birds. They cannot preserve your image, as I can.'
This last thing was true, thought the man.
He agreed to the fee and paid the painter with silver coins.
Afterwards the man observed the painting. It was extremely accurate and absolutely normal looking. It looked as if he had seen it many times before. It looked almost real, but it wasn't.
'Now THAT is art!' Said the painter with pride.
The man gave his thanks, and left.
As he stood in the front of the apartments looking at his painting he wondered to himself.
He could see no fault in the works of the painter. It looked as if he stared into a mirror.
But there was something lacking.
He began to wonder of the painter had somehow missed something.  Something a sculptor may have given form to, or a poet may have felt and sung.
The man looked back to the painters door and the word 'Artist'.
Now that he looked closely he could see that below those words, covered in a coat of fresh paint were older titles. He could not make out much of it, but two words were clear enough to read beneath the pigment.
Atheist.
Monist.
The man now understood.
The painter was blind.

P. StG.
ad 2011