Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A friend sent this: Dawkins asks for help for “openly secular” families

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

File:A small cup of coffee.JPGEvery so often, we get to the bottom of the In Bin. It’s how we know Earth has a centre, for sure. Anyway…

Openly secular? Which means what, exactly? Chopping down the municipal Christmas tree? All the trouble today comes to people who just want to follow their faith in peace, but can’t.

Meanwhile, she makes people who don’t go to church sound like the Nepal earthquake. No wonder our friend said, do these people know how they come off?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Search Uncommon Descent for similar topics, under the Donate button.

Comments
'As to the question of consistency, I’m not sure that I am significantly less consistent that anyone else.' Absolutely, Dave, but this is just the point. No materialist - at least publicly - follows through with their theoretical, psychopathic nihilism. Because that's what materialism predicates. But I was mistaken: not all atheists are materialists. I should have checked back. It's the antithesis of Thatcher's (Baroness Cardboard) reciting the Prayer of St Francis (in all seriousness and with a straight face). But then.. perhaps not in all seriousness, in her case, however deadpan her delivery. Disingenuousness, writ large, though.Axel
May 15, 2015
May
05
May
15
15
2015
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
Hi Axel,
IF I understand this correctly, DaveS just does not understand that his personal morality is not really the issue here. Rather it is its inconsistency with his materialist belief. Rather, his morality is presumably a hotch-potch, but essentially, a cultural inheritance from the days of Christendom. I have atheist/agnostic in-laws who generally have outstanding Christian values that have often put me to shame. But I commensurately doubt their philosophical consistency.
However I'm not a materialist (I'm pretty sure I'll go to my grave without knowing whether materialism is true). Certainly I have inherited a lot from Christianity. In fact, I attend church regularly with my spouse, so while I am not a believer, it continues to influence me. As to the question of consistency, I'm not sure that I am significantly less consistent that anyone else. The Christian teachings that I have internalized mostly center around the second Great Commandment, which to me is very consistent with acting in my own long-term interests.daveS
May 15, 2015
May
05
May
15
15
2015
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
Hi dl,
DaveS, “Perhaps if you did lose your faith, your perspective would (quite radically) change?” I don’t think my perspective would change much if at all. I periodically re-evaluate my fundamental beliefs. The fundamental morality never changes. I know that conflicts with statements from some other pro-ID people (I’m 100% pro-ID) but in my case anyway, I think morality is independent of ID beliefs.
I feel much the same way, in that if I found myself convinced that ID is "true", I doubt my morality would change a great deal. Our differences tend to be exaggerated a bit on websites such as this where contentious issues are discussed.daveS
May 15, 2015
May
05
May
15
15
2015
05:25 AM
5
05
25
AM
PDT
IF I understand this correctly, DaveS just does not understand that his personal morality is not really the issue here. Rather it is its inconsistency with his materialist belief. Rather, his morality is presumably a hotch-potch, but essentially, a cultural inheritance from the days of Christendom. I have atheist/agnostic in-laws who generally have outstanding Christian values that have often put me to shame. But I commensurately doubt their philosophical consistency.Axel
May 15, 2015
May
05
May
15
15
2015
04:07 AM
4
04
07
AM
PDT
DaveS, "Perhaps if you did lose your faith, your perspective would (quite radically) change?" I don't think my perspective would change much if at all. I periodically re-evaluate my fundamental beliefs. The fundamental morality never changes. I know that conflicts with statements from some other pro-ID people (I'm 100% pro-ID) but in my case anyway, I think morality is independent of ID beliefs.dl
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT
goodusername: Threads like this have me wondering if psychopathy is far more common than I thought. Either that or people are just very bad at understanding the source of their own compassion and morality. Lighten up. People on threads like this make a great sport of ridiculing the contradictions and incongruences of materialists. We all know that materialists can and do love their daughters as much as dualists. Even though the idea of 'love' violates the tenets of scientism that they mostly hold dear. People on threads like this also get told stuff like: "its nice that you have found purpose in your life" - as I was told - the apparent great sport being to ridicule the concept. My response to friendly atheist was to propose an experiment to sit his daughter down and tell her that her face has no purpose. Then immediately outline the logical connection between 'purpose'and 'meaning' to explain to daughter that her face has no meaning for friendly atheist. Not being true, friendly atheist bowed out of discussion.groovamos
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
05:07 PM
5
05
07
PM
PDT
JimFit,
The death of the sick babies for your shake is not something bad on atheism, they die and their problems also dies, what it follows is eternal oblivion, to feel guilty about a death you must put yourself after death and look at the purpose of their lives and say that these babies died unfairly. When you do this you trespass your atheism since nothing continues after death. A true atheist would say, they died, i will die someday, no problem, both we will end up on eternal oblivion, nothing wrong happened.
I guess I don't know of any "true" atheists then. Anyway, in my experience, people place great value on their own lives and their loved ones' lives, so I would absolutely never want to take that from anyone.daveS
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
04:18 PM
4
04
18
PM
PDT
daveS
I don’t know whether materialism is true, so I don’t have a response to the first part. Regarding this last sentence, I really don’t have a great concern for any afterlife judgment; that’s not a factor in my decision making.
But you said
Some things are worse than death. I would prefer to die rather than push the button on your scenario.
The death of the sick babies for your shake is not something bad on atheism, they die and their problems also dies, what it follows is eternal oblivion, to feel guilty about a death you must put yourself after death and look at the purpose of their lives and say that these babies died unfairly. When you do this you trespass your atheism since nothing continues after death. A true atheist would say, they died, i will die someday, no problem, both we will end up on eternal oblivion, nothing wrong happened.JimFit
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT
BA77,
daveS, hypothetically ‘squashing babies’ and dismembering babies for real in abortion clinics are, contrary to you pretending they are not related, directly related. In fact abortion makes the ‘hypothetical’ issue much more personal since it is no longer a hypothetical situation you are talking about but is a real situation that happens to the tune of over a million times a year in America.
I'm not pretending they aren't related. Again: 1) I believe OldArmy94 will never behave in the manner he described, even if he were to deconvert. Source: people deconvert every day and don't flip out and start murdering people. 2) I'm not going to push the button! :-)daveS
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
JimFit,
daveS First of all i am not saying that atheists in their daily life will be immoral, i am just saying that between their life and a good action they will choose their lives since this is the only thing they have.
Some things are worse than death. I would prefer to die rather than push the button in your scenario.
Exactly! I was expecting that answer, i do it because it feels right inside me, this goes straight against materialism because it implies that what it feels right carries transcendence. On Materialism death is not something bad, death is natural and death leads to eternal oblivion therefor no judgment, what you need to have an opinion about the death of the sick babies for your survival is a third observer outside space and time after you have died to say “AHA, this guy was wrong because he sacrificed these babies for his own life”. Even as an atheist you think the afterlife judgment, you think like a theist.
I don't know whether materialism is true, so I don't have a response to the first part. Regarding this last sentence, I really don't have a great concern for any afterlife judgment; that's not a factor in my decision making.
Both Theists and Atheists have their moral compass on something transcendent, its called conscience.
While I don't know about the "transcendent" part, I do agree that we all have a conscience. So there's that, anyway.daveS
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT
bornagain77 lets leave outside of the discussion the abortions, i think it can be shown that morality steams from something transcendent and that clearly doesn't support Materialism.JimFit
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT
daveS, hypothetically 'squashing babies' and dismembering babies for real in abortion clinics are, contrary to you pretending they are not related, directly related. In fact abortion makes the 'hypothetical' issue much more personal since it is no longer a hypothetical situation you are talking about but is a real situation that happens to the tune of over a million times a year in America.bornagain77
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
02:59 PM
2
02
59
PM
PDT
BA77,
daveS, you are a non-Darwinian, non-materialists atheist? to repeat, consistency is not your strong suit.
Please, easy on my scroll-wheel. :-)daveS
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT
daveS First of all i am not saying that atheists in their daily life will be immoral, i am just saying that between their life and a good action they will choose their lives since this is the only thing they have.
At some point, possibly right here, I’m just going to have to say “because that’s how I feel”. Is it really necessary for me to explain why? My point is that despite your statement (my bolding added):
Exactly! I was expecting that answer, i do it because it feels right inside me, this goes straight against materialism because it implies that what it feels right carries transcendence. On Materialism death is not something bad, death is natural and death leads to eternal oblivion therefor no judgment, what you need to have an opinion about the death of the sick babies for your survival is a third observer outside space and time after you have died to say "AHA, this guy was wrong because he sacrificed these babies for his own life". Even as an atheist you think the afterlife judgment, you think like a theist. Both Theists and Atheists have their moral compass on something transcendent, its called conscience.JimFit
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT
BA77,
daveS, and yet you cannot account for why you find abortionists dismembering babies reprehensible.
Again, I've said nothing about abortionists one way or the other. Please see my posts to OldArmy94 and JimFit for what I actually am saying.daveS
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
daveS, you are a non-Darwinian, non-materialist, atheist? to repeat, consistency is not your strong suit. Perhaps you should take a lesson from Friedrich Nietzsche and try to live honestly, and consistently, within your chosen atheistic worldview?
Ravi Zacharias reads from 'Parable of the Madman' by Friedrich Nietzsche https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO5MytakLy8
of note:
The Heretic - Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? - March 25, 2013 Excerpt: ,,,Fortunately, materialism is never translated into life as it’s lived. As colleagues and friends, husbands and mothers, wives and fathers, sons and daughters, materialists never put their money where their mouth is. Nobody thinks his daughter is just molecules in motion and nothing but; nobody thinks the Holocaust was evil, but only in a relative, provisional sense. A materialist who lived his life according to his professed convictions—understanding himself to have no moral agency at all, seeing his friends and enemies and family as genetically determined robots—wouldn’t just be a materialist: He’d be a psychopath. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/heretic_707692.html?page=3 Darwin's Robots: When Evolutionary Materialists Admit that Their Own Worldview Fails - Nancy Pearcey - April 23, 2015 Excerpt: Even materialists often admit that, in practice, it is impossible for humans to live any other way. One philosopher jokes that if people deny free will, then when ordering at a restaurant they should say, "Just bring me whatever the laws of nature have determined I will get." An especially clear example is Galen Strawson, a philosopher who states with great bravado, "The impossibility of free will ... can be proved with complete certainty." Yet in an interview, Strawson admits that, in practice, no one accepts his deterministic view. "To be honest, I can't really accept it myself," he says. "I can't really live with this fact from day to day. Can you, really?",,, In What Science Offers the Humanities, Edward Slingerland, identifies himself as an unabashed materialist and reductionist. Slingerland argues that Darwinian materialism leads logically to the conclusion that humans are robots -- that our sense of having a will or self or consciousness is an illusion. Yet, he admits, it is an illusion we find impossible to shake. No one "can help acting like and at some level really feeling that he or she is free." We are "constitutionally incapable of experiencing ourselves and other conspecifics [humans] as robots." One section in his book is even titled "We Are Robots Designed Not to Believe That We Are Robots.",,, When I teach these concepts in the classroom, an example my students find especially poignant is Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks, professor emeritus at MIT. Brooks writes that a human being is nothing but a machine -- a "big bag of skin full of biomolecules" interacting by the laws of physics and chemistry. In ordinary life, of course, it is difficult to actually see people that way. But, he says, "When I look at my children, I can, when I force myself, ... see that they are machines." Is that how he treats them, though? Of course not: "That is not how I treat them.... I interact with them on an entirely different level. They have my unconditional love, the furthest one might be able to get from rational analysis." Certainly if what counts as "rational" is a materialist worldview in which humans are machines, then loving your children is irrational. It has no basis within Brooks's worldview. It sticks out of his box. How does he reconcile such a heart-wrenching cognitive dissonance? He doesn't. Brooks ends by saying, "I maintain two sets of inconsistent beliefs." He has given up on any attempt to reconcile his theory with his experience. He has abandoned all hope for a unified, logically consistent worldview. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/04/when_evolutiona095451.html Existential Argument against Atheism - November 1, 2013 by Jason Petersen 1. If a worldview is true then you should be able to live consistently with that worldview. 2. Atheists are unable to live consistently with their worldview. 3. If you can’t live consistently with an atheist worldview then the worldview does not reflect reality. 4. If a worldview does not reflect reality then that worldview is a delusion. 5. If atheism is a delusion then atheism cannot be true. Conclusion: Atheism is false. http://answersforhope.com/existential-argument-atheism/
bornagain77
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
OldArmy94,
It’s just that IF they truly believe that materialism is the only reality, then why bother with all of the niceties? Do what you can get away with as often as you can, and don’t waste any time or resources on anyone or anything that doesn’t serve your own needs. It’s a no-brainer, really.
I don't really have a position on materialism, but one answer to this is that spending time and resources on others often returns far greater benefits to oneself. In other words, it's in your own best interest not to try and get away with whatever you can and exploit others, but rather to give as much as possible.daveS
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT
daveS, and yet you cannot account for why you find abortionists dismembering babies reprehensible. To quote you, your morality boils down to,,, “because that’s how I feel”,, ,,, but I can give a coherent reason for why you, and everybody else who hasn't had their consciousness seared by sin, feels that way about abortionists dismembering babies. The reason why you, and everybody else, feels that way is because,,,
“The first principle of value that we need to rediscover is this: that all reality hinges on moral foundations. In other words, that this is a moral universe, and that there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws.” – Martin Luther King Jr., A Knock at Midnight: Inspiration from the Great Sermons of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.
bornagain77
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
I didn't know my comments would stir up such a storm. Here's the deal. Atheists are free to live as they choose and practice morality if they wish. It's just that IF they truly believe that materialism is the only reality, then why bother with all of the niceties? Do what you can get away with as often as you can, and don't waste any time or resources on anyone or anything that doesn't serve your own needs. It's a no-brainer, really. Now, as a Christian, I have absolutely no desire, hidden or open, to live this way. In fact, I fully desire to practice goodness, compassion, love and all the other values that reflect my faith in an eternal God. Of course I fail to live up to that..often. But that's where the redeeming grace of Jesus Christ comes alive.OldArmy94
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT
BA77,
So daveS, let me get this straight, it is a big deal for you personally that abortionists would dismember babies but you can’t tell me why your morals may be better than his, or perhaps even why his morals may be better than yours? Perhaps you even find it morally offensive to vote against abortion since it might take away his moral right to dismember babies?
I don't know where you're going with this. AFAICS, my morals are very similar to others I interact with, most of whom are Christians. I consider myself very normal in that regard. I am not making any claims about the morality of abortionists. Rather, I am simply disagreeing with the statement that OldArmy94 made above. I would neither accept the proposition that JimFit described nor do I take abuse of infants lightly. Just like exactly 100% of the other posters here, I'm sure. Yet I'm an atheist.daveS
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT
JimFit,
Okay, why is it horific and why you will have guilts?
At some point, possibly right here, I'm just going to have to say "because that's how I feel". Is it really necessary for me to explain why? My point is that despite your statement (my bolding added):
Yes, if his life depending on it and someone said to him that if he want to save his life all he had to do is to press a button that would kill babies with 1% chance to survive from terminal illness in some abandoned third world country he and other atheists would do it, a true Christian wouldn’t do it, he would prefer to die than to kill someone else.
I would not push the button.daveS
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
BA77: "So daveS, you say that it is no big deal that an abortionist would dismember babies" ?? daveS: "No, I didn’t say that. What are you talking about?" daveS previously: "I don’t claim that mine (i.e. my morals) are better than anyone else’s. (presumably including abortionists and Hitler?)" So daveS, let me get this straight, it is a big deal for you personally that abortionists would dismember babies but you can't tell me why your morals may be better than his, or perhaps even why his morals may be better than yours? Perhaps you even find it morally offensive to vote against abortion since it might take away his moral right to dismember babies?
“The first principle of value that we need to rediscover is this: that all reality hinges on moral foundations. In other words, that this is a moral universe, and that there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws.” - Martin Luther King Jr., A Knock at Midnight: Inspiration from the Great Sermons of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. God, Immanuel Kant, Richard Dawkins, and the Quantum - video Morality and free will at 9:00 minute mark https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQOwMX4bCqk
bornagain77
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT
Okay, why is it horific and why you will have guilts?JimFit
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
JimFit, I still would not press the button, for exactly the same reasons.daveS
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
daveS Not millions, some babies that have a terminal illness and have 1% chance to survive in some unknown land, where you can't see them.JimFit
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
12:37 PM
12
12
37
PM
PDT
bw, Thanks for the input. I agree with much of what you say.daveS
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT
JimFit,
What keeps you from not pressing it?
First let me make sure I understand the scenario. In order to save my life, I could press a button which would have the effect of killing millions of third-world children, correct? If that's right, then I hope no one here or anyone I know would accept that offer. It sounds horrific. It would be impossible for me to live with the guilt, knowing I had sacrificed the life of millions just to perpetuate my own.daveS
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
@daveS No one does seem to be answering you about what oldarmy said. I don't think for one second that he or anyone else for that matter who denied an existing faith in God would do such things on a whim. I think it is just more the idea that atheists seem to preach one thing, yet live another. Not that they live lives without morals or anything like that, but they do seem to live as if there is more to it than just pure indifference as Dawkins put it. I am a Christian, but I don't expect people who don't believe in God to automatically behave a certain way, I grew up in a culture with very little understanding of the concept of God and they were far from barbaric, they were perhaps the kindest race I have met so far :) I would say this though, almost every atheist I know personally who has come to reject God has only gone on to become a more bitter and selfish person, now I have only a small sample size of less than 10 people so I don't intend to extrapolate, but I do feel sorry for them, their "enlightenment" has certainly not bought them and obvious benefits despite now being more "free". :( Back to old army though, I think it can be annoying for people of faith to watch atheists lead boring (non-hedonistic) lives, because there are many Christians that, were it not for their faith, would be some very naughty people and that is for sure! I know for are a fact there are many that would be out there drinking themselves stupid, having sex with everyone they could, abusing drugs and not giving a crap about others... so when atheists don't fit that bill - maybe it just rubs it in their noses a little I don't know. Just a guess. Anyway, I don't think it is a great argument, and everyone is different. Keep up the exchanges though!bw
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT
BA77,
So daveS, you say that it is no big deal that an abortionist would dismember babies
?? No, I didn't say that. What are you talking about?daveS
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
As a flaming Christian Theist who has not been to church on a Sunday in many years, I feel the open secular women's pain. Although I did not watch her vid sorry. I'm one of those "nonreligious" folk that Dawkins and Dennett seem so proud of lol. BTW, by "flaming" I mean "very outwardly" and not burning eternally yikes. Jesus Loves:)ppolish
May 14, 2015
May
05
May
14
14
2015
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply