Atheists' Billboard Causes Controversy

[geo]

Certainly much of early science was performed by theists. For much of history, if you didn't want to be stoned to death, burnt at the stake, or lynched, then theist was all that you COULD be. At least in public.

Point me to a historical source that backs that claim.
Start with Galileo. What record do we have that backs your claim that men like this professed faith only because they didn't want to be stoned to death.

I'm betting you can't

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) who knew Galileo, had conceptions of God that were considered unorthodox by many of his peers. For example, Hobbes argued that all things, including human thoughts, and even God, and heaven and hell were materialistic in nature. He was accused of atheism (which at the time meant only that his beliefs ran contrary to the teachings of the established church). Many of his ideas were considered blasphemous—punishable by death—and he did seek refuge in Paris for many years. Whether Hobbes censored himself or professed faith that he did not really believe is a matter of speculation by historians. But certainly it's not difficult to imagine that someone living during such violent times would do or say anything to avoid being executed. Hobbes himself discussed self-preservation as everyone's fundamental natural instinct and argued that it was essential to ground political philosophy on that basic principle.

[ant]

Certainly much of early science was performed by theists. For much of history, if you didn't want to be stoned to death, burnt at the stake, or lynched, then theist was all that you COULD be. At least in public.

Point me to a historical source that backs that claim.
Start with Galileo. What record do we have that backs your claim that men like this professed faith only because they didn't want to be stoned to death.

I'm betting you can't

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) who knew Galileo, had conceptions of God that were considered unorthodox by many of his peers. For example, Hobbes argued that all things, including human thoughts, and even God, and heaven and hell were materialistic in nature. He was accused of atheism (which at the time meant only that his beliefs ran contrary to the teachings of the established church). Many of his ideas were considered blasphemous—punishable by death—and he did seek refuge in Paris for many years. Whether Hobbes censored himself or professed faith that he did not really believe is a matter of speculation by historians. But certainly it's not difficult to imagine that someone living during such violent times would do or say anything to avoid being executed. Hobbes himself discussed self-preservation as everyone's fundamental natural instinct and argued that it was essential to ground political philosophy on that basic principle.

"speculation"? "imagine"?

I'm glad we agree that blanketing historical figures with comments like "they were all afraid of getting stoned or burned at a theist BBQ is speculation.

Common misconceptions abound regarding the Galileo saga. It was much more complex than an us vs them match
Hence my challenge to prove the oversimplified claim that natural scientists of the past were by and large atheists at heart

[geo]

"speculation"? "imagine"?

I'm glad we agree that blanketing historical figures with comments like "they were all afraid of getting stoned or burned at a theist BBQ is speculation.

Common misconceptions abound regarding the Galileo saga. It was much more complex than an us vs them match
Hence my challenge to prove the oversimplified claim that natural scientists of the past were by and large atheists at heart

Who's making the claim that natural scientists of the past were atheists? I would agree it's rather pointless speculation for the most part. And, yet, it's also true that Galileo's defense of heliocentrism put him at odds with the church and his writings banned as a result. His arguments had to be framed in accordance with Biblical scriptures that were held as absolute truth. It certainly seems likely that some prominent figures were atheists (by the modern definition of the word) and remained silent for fear of prosecution.

[Robert Tulip]

I'm uncertain how effective the strategy to pay for billboards to proclaim it. If atheists want to sit down and talk about how threatened they feel by it now after eons of Xmas holidays, then perhaps there are better ways to start the discussion.

I think this is a great part of the misunderstanding about atheists. Our desire to sometimes promote our beliefs (or lack thereof) doesn't come from feeling threatened by religion. It comes from our belief that the world would be a better place with more rationality and less superstition.

Ant, are you disagreeing with Colin's assertion that "the world would be a better place with more rationality and less superstition"?

This question of the status of reason is at the core of the ethical problem of religion. Resort to citing the good works of the church as a defence of faith is rather lame. Christian superstition was a big factor in creating the dark ages, and continues to have many negative impacts. Scientific enlightenment has proceeded in the face of hostility from the church, on cosmology, evolution, and now on the question of the existence of Jesus Christ.

The world would improve if people based their opinions on evidence rather than fantasy. Religion is a big stumbling block for such ethical improvement. Atheists do not have all the answers, and can often make false assumptions. Evidence alone may not be adequate to form an ethical view on complex problems. But evidence is a very good starting point. Believing things that are not true, such as the literal existence of God, does not help us to assess the evidence. If Christians were slightly less brittle about their farcical views it would help raise the tone of public debate.

[Interbane]

Neo Darwinists and Religious fundamentalists are both detrimental to society. Both have one thing in common - they are fundamentalists with myopic views that discourage civil discourse between the two. What both lack is a sense of humility for the complexity of nature (creation) and man's place in it.

I agree with this.

Both sides have a thirst for universal truth.
Both the scientific and theological intellectual community apply logical means to arrive at theoretical conclusions, open to further examination by successors.

Although both sides may have a thirst, it is the theologians that believe they have a universal, or at least absolute, truth(except the agnostics, in general). I'm speaking of the intellectual echelon closest to the foundational teachings. For example, those scientists that closely follow the philosophy of science. In holding a belief as absolute or universal, intellectual humility is thrown out the window. This is true at the same time that great humility is held in other beliefs. However, the inflexibility of that single belief is a roadblock that affects everything else.

Also, while logic may be used by both parties, the starting assumptions are vastly different. I could agree that one theological argument or another is logically sound, but there is no getting around the initial assumptions, which if false, renders any logic that follows moot.

Another way to word it is that when comparing apples to apples, a scientist true to the philosophy behind science is necessarily agnostic on many things. A theologian true to his teachings(what would we call the foundation of theology?) is not agnostic, but holds a stance of certainty. The scales are not balanced when comparing these two. There is more humility to the scientific stance than the theological one, a conclusion which follows from the level of certainty in their beliefs.

It's unfortunate that simplistic conclusions are deduced by common folk who get their information from news bites circulating inflammatory events:

1) Islamic Extremists bombed a US Embassy - ALL muslims want to eradicate us.

2) Billboards denouncing atheism are sprinkled around certain areas - ALL christians consider atheists evil

3) Neo Darwinists ridicule people who believe in divine providence - ALL scientists do not believe in a divine creator.

Scientific materialists and religious fundamentalists DO NOT have authority to speak for all scientists and all people of religion.

People have a tendency to think in binary, it takes less brain space than thinking in spectrums. I agree with you that this type of thinking is damaging.

The ITC accepts current scientific explanations that seek to explain secondary causation.
The ITC believes that science can only explain secondary causation, not primary causation. It believes in divine guidance as PRIMARY CAUSATION.

Is the distinction of primary versus secondary causation a distinction that is arrived at after observation and critical thinking? Meaning, is it a conclusion arrived at from the ground up? It seems the motive to categorize causation in this way is driven not by the way the world works, but instead by seeing it as the best method to arrive at the desired conclusion. Aquinas and the ontological argument is an excellent example. What evidence do we have that there is any such thing as "primary causation"?

It is beyond the scope of science to profess the non-existence of an intelligence governing primary causation without a method to deduce it by scientific means. To conclude 'There is no god, it's all randomness" is arrogant presumption about the complexity of nature.

I would argue against anyone who held such a conclusion. To say "it's all randomness" ignores causation.

To say that there is no god is not as arrogant as saying there is a god. Both are ontologically positive claims, but the latter requires more assumptions.

I'm glad we agree that blanketing historical figures with comments like "they were all afraid of getting stoned or burned at a theist BBQ is speculation.

I agree with arguing against blanket statements, but that does not mean the truth is on the opposite end of the spectrum. Although not all atheists of that time would be afraid of religious retribution, it makes sense that most would. Those who expressed their beliefs publicly would be in even greater danger, and I think it would be the rare exception that such a person would make the proclamation without fear. At least if they were sensible.

That said, there is nothing within geo's statement that is a blanket statement; you've erected a sort of straw man. He used the word "certainly", but look at the context. I think his point stands.

[Robert Tulip]

prove the oversimplified claim that natural scientists of the past were by and large atheists at heart

Yes, all real natural scientists are atheists, by definition. To the extent they are not atheist, they are not natural scientists. There is no evidence for God. Science is about evidence. Belief in the supernatural is quite stupid in this day and age. When real scientists support false ideas, it is just a political tactic.

Those who claim to be scientists and not atheists are liars, idiots, cowards and/or hypocrites. Science is atheist. Supernaturalism is obsolete.

Generally, when scientists such as Descartes have proclaimed doctrines such as deism, the primary motive is to get the bigots off their back.

[johnson1010]

Ant:
Superstitious thinking is a component of literalist fundamentalists and NOT the intellectual theological community.

Lots of people have superstitions, and to the extent that those superstitions are not really relevant, I have no problem with them. As they become more relevant, they become more of a problem. So, people who toss salt over their shoulders are wrong about what they imagine that action does for them. But I don’t bother to correct them. It doesn’t matter if they want to toss salt over their shoulders.


But I do have a problem with this guy’s superstitions.





I likewise don’t really have any beef with the intellectual theological community and so it isn’t that group which I am spending any time on. They aren’t the problem. There are plenty of inconsistencies within their mythology, and the extent to which they accept that mythology as well, but they are the salt tossers.

Who needs to be educated are those who try to force intelligent design into the science class room. Those who hold positions of authority in areas they have no knowledge of, and who don’t bother to learn, thinking that their mythology has superior information on the subject.



When in fact their mythology can be demonstrated to be factually dead wrong on nearly every topic to which it is applied. Yet their determined faith is unyielding to the light of reason, and the expectation that the facts of the situation could and should change the opinions of those who hold beliefs inconsistent with those facts.

Those are the people I address, Ant. Those are the people who I try to inform, and barring that, inform others of the dangers of that mode of thought.

It seems to me that you aren’t a part of that crowd, Ant. I don’t accuse all Christians of this behavior and attitude. However, you are demonstrating a problem with this team-spirit camaraderie of religion. You should be on the rationalist’s side. You know there will be no glorious Armageddon and return of a literal Jesus. You know that we should in no way look forward to the end of the world. But by refusing to call out fundamentalists, moderate Christians allow their virulent stupidity to fester.

That boil needs to be lanced, and if moderate Christians won’t do it, then I will. We need to grab that tarp they have thrown over their ignorance and peel it off. Let’s let some fresh air and sunshine get to it.

Neo Darwinists and Religious fundamentalists are both detrimental to society. Both have one thing in common - they are fundamentalists with myopic views that discourage civil discourse between the two. What both lack is a sense of humility for the complexity of nature (creation) and man's place in it.

What do you mean by “neo Darwinists”? Indulging the mythical fantasies of literalism is nothing but populism. Give the people what they want to keep them dumb and happy.

What should I do when someone tells me that papa smurf made my pants? Despite my knowing beyond any reasonable doubt that he’s wrong, you want me to say, “….yeah, maybe!”

It's common knowledge of students of history that not only has there been differing opinions between the two, there also and continues to be differences WITHIN each.

This is true, Ant, but we are talking about categorical differences. Differences in religion are things like, which day is god’s favorite day? Some say it’s Saturday. Some say it’s Sunday. Some say it’s Friday.

In other words, base-less speculations put forward as revealed absolute truth about the preferences of an invisible being which has no evidence in support of its existence in the least, much less what day of the week it favors.



The arguments within science come from new ideas and those ideas being vetted against reality. Does your idea match observation? In many cases it doesn’t, yet the person with that idea would REALLY like to have been right… so he might persist. But if he’s wrong, then he’s wrong and that’s what we need peer review for. Because while any one scientist may be blind to the faults of his ideas, science is not. It is a system designed to root out mistakes and wishful thinking in order to arrive at a closer picture of the true state of reality.

Religion does not, and could not have such a system to arrive at a closer version of the truth because it has assumed it’s “truth’s” on faith, which insists that there could be no problem with the pre-assumed truths from the outset. There is no way to determine which day of the week is god’s favorite, because there is no way to determine that god even exists, and no way to check his preference against reality to determine which belief is closer to the truth.

They are not equivalent.

Ant:
The ITC accepts current scientific explanations that seek to explain secondary causation.
The ITC believes that science can only explain secondary causation, not primary causation. It believes in divine guidance as PRIMARY CAUSATION.

Interbane:
Is the distinction of primary versus secondary causation a distinction that is arrived at after observation and critical thinking? Meaning, is it a conclusion arrived at from the ground up? It seems the motive to categorize causation in this way is driven not by the way the world works, but instead by seeing it as the best method to arrive at the desired conclusion. Aquinas and the ontological argument is an excellent example. What evidence do we have that there is any such thing as "primary causation"?

Well put.

Ant:
Point me to a historical source that backs that claim.
Start with Galileo. What record do we have that backs your claim that men like this professed faith only because they didn't want to be stoned to death.

I'm betting you can't

I did not intend to paint the professed theists of the time as putting on a façade of belief, but rather pointing out that historically human culture has been dominated by religion and indoctrination was nearly inescapable. Those who did break the bonds of indoctrination would be wise to keep quiet or face torture and death for admitting their disbelief.

There can be no argument that the religious of the past have not exacted brutal punishment for nearly any excuse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_burning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale

In 1535, Tyndale was arrested and jailed in the castle of Vilvoorde outside Brussels for over a year. He was tried for heresy, choked, impaled and burnt on a stake in 1536. The Tyndale Bible, as it was known, continued to play a key role in spreading Reformation ideas across the English-speaking world.[2] The fifty-four independent scholars who created the King James Version of the bible in 1611 drew significantly on Tyndale's translations. One estimation suggests the New Testament in the King James Version is 83% Tyndale's, and the Old Testament 76%.[3]

And that last for a theist who was trying to bring the bible to a broader range of Christians, not make atheists of them.

And while it is true that there were many convinced theists who greatly advanced science, they rejected magical creation in so far as they knew the naturalistic explanation.

They believed in the god of the gaps. Isaac Newton was confronted by mysteries which were thought to be god’s domain. He knew that there was a way to understand physics that were currently mysterious and the realm of god. He tackled the problem, invented calculus to define the paths of planets and the arc of a thrown rock. He de-mystified, and unplugged a mystery from the real of god. And so, when he describes “Newtonian physics” he doesn’t tell us to rely on god to describe an ellipse.


But when his mind hit a road block, he blames the rest on God.


Later, Laplace tackles the same problem that Newton was working on, finds the answer, and no longer needs god to explain the situation. This is always the case.


God is the blanket we throw over our ignorance. Who, now, could credibly describe their television as the work of god, and not man? But what was lightning to the Greeks?

So while Newton and others embraced god for the things they did not understand, they left him behind for the things that they did understand. If those great minds lived today, with all the advances we have now, all the explanations for that which was previously mysterious, and in a culture where you are not stoned to death for dismissing magic as a credible explanation, would they still be theists?

Neil DeGrasse Tyson tackles the god of the gaps here, speaking to the history of great minds at the cusp of what they understood.



The evidence suggests that, at least in our age, the more you understand about the world, the less likely you are to believe in a personal god.

I confess there is no way to know which way Newton would fall, but I am fairly confident how he would choose.

One of my favorite youtubers has a good video on this topic.



And a video exploring a list of "scientists" who doubt evolution in favor of magical creation.



This speaks to the idea of the god of the gaps. Do scientists reject knowledge in favor of a belief system?

Usually, no.

[geo]

Neo Darwinists and Religious fundamentalists are both detrimental to society. Both have one thing in common - they are fundamentalists with myopic views that discourage civil discourse between the two. What both lack is a sense of humility for the complexity of nature (creation) and man's place in it.

What do you mean by “neo Darwinists”?

I'm confused about this as well. Neo Darwinism is simply a modern version of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Darwin knew very little about genetics, for example, and modern evolution scientists—Neo Darwinists, if you will—incorporate our current knowledge of genetics into a new synthesis that allows us to better understand the mechanisms of evolution.

[ant]

Yes, all real natural scientists are atheists, by definition. To the extent they are not atheist, they are not natural scientists.

Those who claim to be scientists and not atheists are liars, idiots, cowards and/or hypocrites. Science is atheist. Supernaturalism is obsolete.

Generally, when scientists such as Descartes have proclaimed doctrines such as deism, the primary motive is to get the bigots off their back.

As much as I'd like to take your comment seriously, I can't. You are committing a logical fallacy:

You are also being overly presumptuous by speaking for scientists throughout time.
No one can do that.

[ant]

His arguments had to be framed in accordance with Biblical scriptures that were held as absolute truth.

That is a facile understanding of the complexity of the Galileo saga and the internal and external climate that existed.

It was Realism (copernicus, Kepler, Galileo) vs Intrumentalists (Bellarmino, Urban VIII, the Collegio Romano, and most astronomers of the time).
(Intrumentalism defined as scientific theories acting simply as tools for providing plausible explanations.)

The Church wanted Galileo to provide evidence for his claims. Galileo could not, thererfore the church requested that he officialize his claims as being plausible explanations.There were clergy, theologians, and officials on both sides of the issue.