It doesn’t force you to be an atheist

Posted on April 18, 2009 by Michael

Evolution simply allows you to be one.

There are two primary reasons people reject evolution: ignorance and assumption. The ignorance is abundantly obvious; creationists are wholly unable to go toe-to-toe with anyone who has a modicum of knowledge about evolution. Ignorance isn’t a crime, but it’s far from a virtue. Assumption, on the other hand is less clear.

People equate evolution with atheism: if you believe in evolution, you must be an atheist. It’s not that far off the mark, but it does make assumptions. Evolution does not force atheism, it simply allows for it. But let’s not confuse the specifics. Evolution absolutely does deny the existence of virtually every god that man has so far created. The more popular gods out there come with a whole bag of characteristics that are incompatible with reality – the most notable that humans are an intentional result of some sort of pre-ordained plan. This is inconsistent with an intense compilation of science that shows humans are a product of a long timeline of change and adaptation; humans are no more pre-ordained than a snail or where a falling rock will land. Contrary thought it wishful thinking unsupported by evidence.

Of course, the magic playland of human-created gods isn’t the same as the concept of a hands-off, deistic being. An intentional creator of the Universe has the possibility of existing, even if it’s tremendously unlikely. Most people don’t like this idea because it offers a cold and useless explanation for the Universe; a deistic being says how the Universe came to exist, but doesn’t make humans as special as most people like to think. Beyond that, it still leaves open the question of how the deity itself exists. It’s a useless middleman that is equal in validity to any theistic beliefs, just without all the baggage.

Filed under: Evolution | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

It doesn’t force you to be an atheist

Posted on April 18, 2009 by Michael

Evolution simply allows you to be one.

There are two primary reasons people reject evolution: ignorance and assumption. The ignorance is abundantly obvious; creationists are wholly unable to go toe-to-toe with anyone who has a modicum of knowledge about evolution. Ignorance isn’t a crime, but it’s far from a virtue. Assumption, on the other hand is less clear.

People equate evolution with atheism: if you believe in evolution, you must be an atheist. It’s not that far off the mark, but it does make assumptions. Evolution does not force atheism, it simply allows for it. But let’s not confuse the specifics. Evolution absolutely does deny the existence of virtually every god that man has so far created. The more popular gods out there come with a whole bag of characteristics that are incompatible with reality – the most notable that humans are an intentional result of some sort of pre-ordained plan. This is inconsistent with an intense compilation of science that shows humans are a product of a long timeline of change and adaptation; humans are no more pre-ordained than a snail or where a falling rock will land. Contrary thought it wishful thinking unsupported by evidence.

Of course, the magic playland of human-created gods isn’t the same as the concept of a hands-off, deistic being. An intentional creator of the Universe has the possibility of existing, even if it’s tremendously unlikely. Most people don’t like this idea because it offers a cold and useless explanation for the Universe; a deistic being says how the Universe came to exist, but doesn’t make humans as special as most people like to think. Beyond that, it still leaves open the question of how the deity itself exists. It’s a useless middleman that is equal in validity to any theistic beliefs, just without all the baggage.

Filed under: Evolution | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

It doesn't force you to be an atheist

Posted on April 18, 2009 by Michael

Evolution simply allows you to be one.

There are two primary reasons people reject evolution: ignorance and assumption. The ignorance is abundantly obvious; creationists are wholly unable to go toe-to-toe with anyone who has a modicum of knowledge about evolution. Ignorance isn’t a crime, but it’s far from a virtue. Assumption, on the other hand is less clear.

People equate evolution with atheism: if you believe in evolution, you must be an atheist. It’s not that far off the mark, but it does make assumptions. Evolution does not force atheism, it simply allows for it. But let’s not confuse the specifics. Evolution absolutely does deny the existence of virtually every god that man has so far created. The more popular gods out there come with a whole bag of characteristics that are incompatible with reality – the most notable that humans are an intentional result of some sort of pre-ordained plan. This is inconsistent with an intense compilation of science that shows humans are a product of a long timeline of change and adaptation; humans are no more pre-ordained than a snail or where a falling rock will land. Contrary thought it wishful thinking unsupported by evidence.

Of course, the magic playland of human-created gods isn’t the same as the concept of a hands-off, deistic being. An intentional creator of the Universe has the possibility of existing, even if it’s tremendously unlikely. Most people don’t like this idea because it offers a cold and useless explanation for the Universe; a deistic being says how the Universe came to exist, but doesn’t make humans as special as most people like to think. Beyond that, it still leaves open the question of how the deity itself exists. It’s a useless middleman that is equal in validity to any theistic beliefs, just without all the baggage.

Filed under: Evolution | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »

Einsteinian Religion

Posted on November 18, 2008 by Michael

There are these perverse notions floating around about what Einstein believed or didn’t believe regarding religion and god(s). The page at Conservapedia – which deserves no link – will give the impression that Einstein believed in some sort of conscious, higher power. Any research will show this is highly unlikely. Einstein believed in ordering physical principles to the Universe which are ultimately far beyond the understanding of humans. This is not a god at all, which is why it’s somewhat unfortunate that he used the term “god” to describe these ordering principles. On the one hand, it’s misleading and it tends to invite people to attempt to associate a brilliant thinker with their own positions, as if appeals to authority confer truth to a statement or thought or idea. On the other hand, there’s a certain poetry to his language; we should all appreciate personification in our literature.

Ultimately, Einstein was an agnostic. Precisely where he stood on, say, Richard Dawkins’ Scale of Religiosity is unclear. I suspect he may be slightly to the left of someone like Carl Sagan (physically assuming “1” is left and “7” is right – see scale video). That may place him as a 4, as I would place Sagan as a 5. Unfortunately, neither man can clarify at this point. However, it is quite clear that neither one believed in any personal god – the seeming indifference of Nature to our plights, our planet, our solar system, our galaxy, it all indicates a lack of personality, of personalization, no matter how much poetic personification we like to use.

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 17 Comments »

Be good for goodness' sake.

Posted on November 14, 2008 by Michael

Recently, an atheist bus campaign was brought to fruition in the UK. Its point was to convey a message that worrying about what happens after life really doesn’t do much to improve what’s happening during life. Now there is a new humanist campaign. This one takes place in the United States.

DENVER — Ads proclaiming, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake,” will appear on Washington, D.C., buses starting next week and running through December, sponsored by The American Humanist Association.

…

“Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion.”

While the religious who are utterly offended by the notion that morality can exist outside their world of make-believe will object to this message, they really shouldn’t. It does one of the few good things religion has going for it – it reaches for a sense of community. As one of the social animals, humans need the contact and closeness which religion has the ability to harness. Hopefully this humanist message can help to foster the community sense by appealing to the wide-spread desire to simply be a good person.

It’s too bad people like Bill Donahue are under the delusion that morality somehow comes from religion. See a video with the same general idea here.

Codes of morality, of course, have always been grounded in religion. For those of us in Western civilization, its tenets emanate from the Judeo-Christian ethos. By casting this heritage aside, and replacing it with nothing more than the conscience of lone individuals, we lay the groundwork for moral anarchy. And that is because there is nothing that cannot be justified if the only moral benchmark is what men and women posit to be right and wrong. Indeed, every monster in history has followed his conscience.

The man is blatantly wrong. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say he isn’t willing to stone a woman to death for adultery or any other absurd command that is in the Bible. It’s morally repugnant by today’s standards. But what makes Donahue not cast (physical) stones? It certainly isn’t the idea of morality in his religion or from his god. The very reason he (and all others) pick and choose from holy books and philosophers is that our sense of morality comes from somewhere outside these books.

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »

Be good for goodness’ sake.

Posted on November 14, 2008 by Michael

Recently, an atheist bus campaign was brought to fruition in the UK. Its point was to convey a message that worrying about what happens after life really doesn’t do much to improve what’s happening during life. Now there is a new humanist campaign. This one takes place in the United States.

DENVER — Ads proclaiming, “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake,” will appear on Washington, D.C., buses starting next week and running through December, sponsored by The American Humanist Association.

…

“Our reason for doing it during the holidays is there are an awful lot of agnostics, atheists and other types of non-theists who feel a little alone during the holidays because of its association with traditional religion.”

While the religious who are utterly offended by the notion that morality can exist outside their world of make-believe will object to this message, they really shouldn’t. It does one of the few good things religion has going for it – it reaches for a sense of community. As one of the social animals, humans need the contact and closeness which religion has the ability to harness. Hopefully this humanist message can help to foster the community sense by appealing to the wide-spread desire to simply be a good person.

It’s too bad people like Bill Donahue are under the delusion that morality somehow comes from religion. See a video with the same general idea here.

Codes of morality, of course, have always been grounded in religion. For those of us in Western civilization, its tenets emanate from the Judeo-Christian ethos. By casting this heritage aside, and replacing it with nothing more than the conscience of lone individuals, we lay the groundwork for moral anarchy. And that is because there is nothing that cannot be justified if the only moral benchmark is what men and women posit to be right and wrong. Indeed, every monster in history has followed his conscience.

The man is blatantly wrong. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say he isn’t willing to stone a woman to death for adultery or any other absurd command that is in the Bible. It’s morally repugnant by today’s standards. But what makes Donahue not cast (physical) stones? It certainly isn’t the idea of morality in his religion or from his god. The very reason he (and all others) pick and choose from holy books and philosophers is that our sense of morality comes from somewhere outside these books.

Filed under: News, Politics and Social | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »

Atheist Bus Campaign

Posted on October 22, 2008 by Michael

Guardian writer and blogger Ariane Sherine offered an idea about beginning an atheist bus campaign. It looks like it has come to fruition. Well done.

Now we just need a far more important campaign geared toward generating interest in evolution and science in general.

Filed under: Misc | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

« Previous Page