Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

You can’t have them, atheists!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The atheist blog Ungodly News has just released a Periodic Table of Atheists and Antitheists. While I admire its artistry, I deplore its lack of accuracy. At least three of the people listed as atheists or anti-theists were nothing of the sort: Albert Einstein, Mark Twain and (in his final days) Jean-Paul Sartre. I realize that the last name will shock many readers. I’ll say more about Sartre anon.

I’m a great admirer of Einstein (who isn’t?) and a fan of Mark Twain, whose house I visited in December 1994. And I thoroughly enjoyed reading Sartre’s Les Mains Sales (Dirty Hands) in high school. When he wrote that play in 1948, Sartre was a militant atheist, but as we’ll see, Sartre’s views changed in his final years. These three authors I treasure, so I say to the atheists: you can’t have them!

There are three more people on Ungodly News’ periodic table who, in the interests of historical accuracy, I have to say don’t belong there either: Charles Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley and Bill Gates. All three are (or were) agnostics, not atheists, and as I’ll argue below, while these thinkers all reject the claims of revealed religion, none of them deserves to be called an anti-theist. It is an undeniable historical fact, however, that the ideas disseminated by Darwin and Huxley have caused many people to lose their faith in God.

Atheists love to claim Albert Einstein as one of their own, but he was nothing of the sort.

[This post will remain at the top of the page until 6:00 am EST tomorrow, June 28. For reader convenience, other coverage continues below. – UD News]

It is well-known that Albert Einstein rejected belief in an afterlife, and did not believe in a personal God who answered prayers. Nevertheless, he did believe in a Mind manifesting itself in Nature. That was his God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck’s book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein remarked:

I’m absolutely not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza’s pantheism, but admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things. (Frankenberry, Nancy K. 2009. The Faith of Scientists: In Their Own Words. Princeton University Press. p. 153.)

In 1929, Albert Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.” (Isaacson, Walter, Einstein: His Life and Universe, pp. 388-389, Simon and Schuster, 2008.)

According to Hubertus, Prince of Lowenstein-Wertheim-Freudenberg, Einstein said, “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.” (Quoted by Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, New York: World Publishing Company, 1971, p. 425.)

For an overview of Einstein’s religious views, I’d recommend this article in Wikipedia.

Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) certainly wasn’t an atheist either. As he wrote:

To trust the God of the Bible is to trust an irascible, vindictive, fierce and ever fickle and changeful master; to trust the true God is to trust a Being who has uttered no promises, but whose beneficent, exact, and changeless ordering of the machinery of His colossal universe is proof that He is at least steadfast to His purposes; whose unwritten laws, so far as the affect man, being equal and impartial, show that he is just and fair; these things, taken together, suggest that if he shall ordain us to live hereafter, he will be steadfast, just and fair toward us. We shall not need to require anything more.

— Mark Twain, from Albert Bigelow Paine, Mark Twain, a Biography (1912), quoted from Barbara Schmidt, ed, “Mark Twain Quotations, Newspaper Collections, & Related Resources”.

Was Twain anti-religious? Certainly. But anti-theist? No. Twain loved to make fun of God, but he also believed God was big enough not to be troubled by such mockery:

Blasphemy? No, it is not blasphemy. If God is as vast as that, he is above blasphemy; if He is as little as that, He is beneath it. (Ibid.)

Twain’s views on the afterlife, like his views on Providence, varied throughout his lifetime, but his daughter Clara said of him: “Sometimes he believed death ended everything, but most of the time he felt sure of a life beyond.” (Phipps, William E., Mark Twain’s Religion, p. 304, 2003 Mercer Univ. Press.)

What about Jean-Paul Sartre? According to his personal secretary Benny Levy (a.k.a. Pierre Victor), an ex-Maoist who became an Orthodox Jew in the late 1970s, Sartre had a drastic change of mind about the existence of God and started gravitating toward Messianic Judaism, in the years before his death. This is Sartre’s before-death profession, according to Pierre Victor: “I do not feel that I am the product of chance, a speck of dust in the universe, but someone who was expected, prepared, prefigured. In short, a being whom only a Creator could put here; and this idea of a creating hand refers to God.”

What was Simone de Beauvoir’s reaction, you may be wondering?

“His mistress, Simone de Beauvoir, behaved like a bereaved widow during the funeral. Then she published La ceremonie des adieux in which she turned vicious, attacking Sartre. He resisted Victor’s seduction, she recounts, then he yielded. ‘How should one explain this senile act of a turncoat?’, she asks stupidly. And she adds: ‘All my friends, all the Sartreans, and the editorial team of Les Temps Modernes supported me in my consternation.’

Mme. de Beauvoir’s consternation v. Sartre’s conversion. The balance is infinitely heavier on the side of the blind, yet seeing, old man.”

(National Review, NY, 11 June 1982, p. 677, article by Thomas Molnar, Professor of French and World Literature at Brooklyn College; see also McDowell, Josh and Don Stewart, eds. 1990. Concise Guide to Today’s Religions. Amersham-on-the-Hill, Bucks, England: Scripture Press, p. 477.)

The transformation in Sartre’s political and religious views near the end of his life is revealed in a book of conversations between Sartre and his assistant Benny Levy, conducted shortly before his death, Hope Now: The 1980 Interviews (University of Chicago Press, 1996). The publisher of the book described the changes as follows:

“In March of 1980, just a month before Sartre’s death, Le Nouvel Observateur published a series of interviews, the last ever given, between the blind and debilitated philosopher and his young assistant, Benny Levy.

They seemed to portray a Sartre who had abandoned his leftist convictions and rejected his most intimate friends, including Simone de Beauvoir. This man had cast aside his own fundamental beliefs in the primacy of individual consciousness, the inevitability of violence, and Marxism, embracing instead a messianic Judaism. (…)

Shortly before his death, Sartre confirmed the authenticity of the interviews and their puzzling content. Over the past fifteen years, it has become the task of Sartre scholars to unravel and understand them. Presented in this fresh, meticulous translation, the interviews are framed by two provocative essays by Benny Levy himself, accompanied by a comprehensive introduction from noted Sartre authority Ronald Aronson.

This absorbing volume at last contextualizes and elucidates the final thoughts of a brilliant and influential mind.”

(See Hope Now: The 1980 Interviews, Jean-Paul Sartre and Benny Levy (ed.); translated by Adrian Van den Hoven, with an introduction by Ronald Aronson, University of Chicago Press, 1996).

Curious readers can find out more by having a look at Part II (section 34) of Tihomir Dimitrov’s online book, 50 Nobel Laureates and other great scientists who believed in God.

So, was Jean-Paul Sartre an atheist, or even an anti-theist, at the end of his life? Evidently not.

There are three more names which don’t belong in Ungodly News’ Periodic Table of Atheists and Antitheists:

(1) Charles Darwin. Although his book The Origin of Species undoubtedly caused many readers to lose their religious faith, Darwin himself was not an atheist. As he wrote in a letter to John Fordyce, an author of several works on skepticism, on 7 May 1879: “It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist… In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. — I think that generally (and more and more so as I grow older), but not always, — that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.”

Darwin remained close friends with the vicar of Downe, John Innes, and continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the church. (See this article for more information.)

Atheist? Obviously not. Anti-theist? I think not. The man was an agnostic.

(2) Thomas Henry Huxley. Huxley was an agnostic (a term he coined himself in 1869), rather than an atheist. Here is his account of how he coined the term:

When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain “gnosis,”–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of “agnostic.” It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the “gnostic” of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took. (Huxley, Thomas. Collected Essays, pp. 237–239. ISBN 1-85506-922-9.)

In a letter of September 23, 1860, to Charles Kingsley, Huxley touched on the subject of immortality:

I neither affirm nor deny the immortality of man. I see no reason for believing it, but, on the other hand, I have no means of disproving it.

Pray understand that I have no a priori objections to the doctrine. No man who has to deal daily and hourly with nature can trouble himself about a priori difficulties. Give me such evidence as would justify me in believing in anything else, and I will believe that. Why should I not? It is not half so wonderful as the conservation of force or the indestructibility of matter. Whoso clearly appreciates all that is implied in the falling of a stone can have no difficulty about any doctrine simply on account of its marvellousness.

Or as he put it in another letter to Kingsley, dated May 5, 1863, when discussing the immortality of the soul and the belief in future rewards and punishments:

Give me a scintilla of evidence, and I am ready to jump at them.

According to his Wikipedia biography, Huxley even supported the reading of an edited version of the Bible (shorn of “shortcomings and errors”) in schools. He believed that the Bible’s significant moral teachings and superb use of language were of continuing relevance to English life. As he put it:

“I do not advocate burning your ship to get rid of the cockroaches.”
(THH 1873. Critiques and Addresses, p. 90.)

I submit that while Huxley was certainly a fierce opponent of organized religion, he can hardly be called an anti-theist.

(3) Bill Gates. According to the very link cited by Ungodly News, Bill Gates is an agnostic, not an atheist. In his own words:

In terms of doing things I take a fairly scientific approach to why things happen and how they happen. I don’t know if there’s a god or not, but I think religious principles are quite valid.

Does that sound like the utterance of an “anti-theist” to you? No? I didn’t think so either.

Albert Einstein, Mark Twain, Jean-Paul Sartre, Charles Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley, Bill Gates – that’s six mistakes altogether. That doesn’t sound like a very accurate periodic table to me. I’d say Ungodly News has got some ‘splainin’ to do!

Comments
Sonfaro, thank your for your thoughtful replies. I put my answer on the "PZ open cut quote mines" thread to avoid another threadjacking. I'ts # 153.dmullenix
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT
PS: And, on track record of what happened when I tried to refocus the PZM accusations against Jonathan Wells thread on the original post, if I were to seriously try to return this thread to its proper focus, I would be accused of hijacking the thread. See the turnabout accusation tactic?kairosfocus
June 30, 2011
June
06
Jun
30
30
2011
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
F/N 3: By way of illustration of the rhetorical tactics I am correcting, kindly observe, how this blog began at the OP with the theme:
The atheist blog Ungodly News has just released a Periodic Table of Atheists and Antitheists. While I admire its artistry, I deplore its lack of accuracy. At least three of the people listed as atheists or anti-theists were nothing of the sort: Albert Einstein, Mark Twain and (in his final days) Jean-Paul Sartre. I realize that the last name will shock many readers. I’ll say more about Sartre anon.
How, then did it get dragged away form that into a point where I have had to spend a fair piece of time defending myself from personally loaded attacks? Simple, scroll up: red herrings --> strawmen --> ad hominems. QED. Let's do better, next time. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 30, 2011
June
06
Jun
30
30
2011
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
F/N 2: The specific type of ad hominem is the turnabout, false or misleading accusation; a compounding form of the original attack that boils down to trying to drag the target of the ad hominem down into an immoral equivalency, via the old blame the victim trick.kairosfocus
June 30, 2011
June
06
Jun
30
30
2011
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PDT
F/N: It is now plainly a habitual, standard tactic used by radical secularist advocates [of the sort Alinsky seems to have been trying to create], to drag a distractive red herring across the track of a serious but inconvenient issue, drag it away to a strawman caricature soaked in ad hominems and to ignite with incendiary polarising rhetoric. Now, it seems that to point this out when it happens is regarded by them as offensive. Sorry, if you play by those rules, it is entirely in order to point it out and correct it, for that is a way to the utter breakdown of civil discourse. Here at UD, observe the interaction with Dr Liddle over many weeks now. She has not resorted to those uncivil tactics and there is actually a blog thread in which I have publicly commended her for her different spirit. You will search in vain for anywhere that I have accused her of playing the trifecta fallacy. So, in fact what is going on is a slanderous ad hominem that distorts WHY it is that I have had to point out the poisonous, polarising tactics at work, to the point of actually having had to put up a thread on that topic. I suggest that an unfortunately wide cross section of secularist advocates need to take a leaf or two from her book.kairosfocus
June 30, 2011
June
06
Jun
30
30
2011
08:47 AM
8
08
47
AM
PDT
Sonfaro: Thank you. I would add that it is racist beyond belief to presume how someone should think because of his racial background, ESPECIALLY when that is sustained in the teeth of correction that points out exactly why Jamaica is a -- sadly now apostate -- Covenant, Christian nation. And, this gets very, very personal when one of he martyred Christian heroes of Jamaica is per family tradition my grandmother's Great Uncle. The patent insensitivity to what was done -- and this was not the only ad hominem circumstantial used -- is itself utterly revealing. Sorry, but the behaviour of DM was and continues to be bigoted, village atheist level anti-christian, and outright racist. That, sustained in the face of correction and warning from several sources. (If it was mere innocent ignorance,the summary of Jamaica's relevant history SHOULD have been adequate corrective. Tha tit plainly was not is all too revealing of underlying attitudes that cannot stand the light of day.) That we now see the addition of cyber-stalking in the wider context of what is being discussed in and around UD tells us a lot about the level of what we are dealing with. We better wake up now. Before it is too late. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 30, 2011
June
06
Jun
30
30
2011
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
Inedium: The sad facts are there to back up my corrective remarks above. Period. In addition, it seems that some evolutionary materialism anti design theory advocates are now resorting to plain cyber-stalking. Are you SURE this is the sort of company you want to keep? GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 30, 2011
June
06
Jun
30
30
2011
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
kf is this "Pardon my frankness, but you are a proved racist and antichristian bigot" really the way you want to handle conversations? I mean, your track record to call arguments thrown at you "ad hominem oiled in ignited strawmen"* will be even funnier when you post stuff like this, but I am not sure if this is really in your best interest!? *Checked the correct phrase with Google: "...strawmen, duly soaked in oil of ad hominem, which are then ignited ...". Of course there is some variation in the 31 hits, so I am not sure about the "official" version.Indium
June 30, 2011
June
06
Jun
30
30
2011
08:04 AM
8
08
04
AM
PDT
Hey DM, I’m not sure I agree on some of your points, and I’ve tried to spell out why below. Note: I just got back from work and I’m a little tired, so if something looks wrong I’ll try to explain it when I wake up later… My first issue starts here: -“First, he hijacks the thread from quote mining to the foundations of morality in # 33.” Wasn’t he responding to your defense of Dawkins… in a thread about PZ no less? And technically speaking I think the mod ‘Hijacked’ the thread, and that was only in passing response to NR, ne? You ran with the mod, then KF ran with you. Skipping ahead… -“LEVITICUS 25:44 ‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have – you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you.” That must have provided a lot of comfort to the pius and enterprising Christian slavers who purchased your ancestors and transported them across the Atlantic, to die in the cane fields without ever seeing their loved ones again.” This was an allowance from God to the specific nation of Israel at a time when slaves were still considered human. It’s not for us. That the Portuguese/Spanish/French/English/Whatever would miss that is a human error, not a biblical one. Also, I’m fairly certain that not all the slavers were Christian (Though there were undoubtedly many). In fact, I’m POSITIVE not all slavers were Christian. Why do you feel the need to generalize an entire faith with a few misguided men anyway? This is the kind of thing that would make KF think you’re being intolerant. -“The African tribes who used to raid rival tribes for slaves to sell to the Christians undoubtedly got their morals from their religions too. As did the Muslims who ran an equally large slaver operation in their sphere of influence.” The African tribes who raided their rivals did so out of greed, not any sort of moral obligation. Can’t speak for the Muslims, but I’d wager it’s the same with them (is Alan[that muslim ID poster guy] here? Maybe you can clarify buddy…) -“Of course, here in the US, the slave states quickly became the Bible Belt when they discovered that the Bible [explicitly] authorized and approved of the chattel slavery they were practicing.” The Bible does not authorize the kidnapping of people for slavery. It condemned kidnapping period. In fact, you were supposed to be put to death for stealing and selling someone. And as most of the slave trade involved kidnapping how can one say the bible authorized the African Slave Trade? It’s nuked from the outset. The bible was okay with indentured servants, criminals, and prisoners of war working as slaves. It was not okay with the kidnapped. -“It wasn’t just the American South that felt that way, of course. A mob of Christians chased the great abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison through the streets of Boston and he narrowly escaped lynching at their hands.” (Sorry for the misspellings.)” And? WLG was a Christian himself wasn’t he? Most of the abolitionists during the time were (gotta love ‘em Quakers). It’s not like ALL the Christians of America were promoting slavery, the church(es) was(were) getting torn apart by the issue. This is another instance where one might interpret you as being bigoted, as the picture you seem to be trying to paint is “Christians and ONLY Christians started and ran the slave trade, so black folks shouldn’t be Christian.” -“All of this is demonstrably true. The Bible does explicitly allow the type of chattel slavery that plagued the US and the Caribbean nations.” I’m not sure this is true at all. It goes against “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, “love your neighbor as yourself”, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” etc… In fact, it goes against most of what is taught in the New Testament. If we were regulated to only the laws and rules for the specific Jewish Theocracy at a time when slavery was part of a social hierarchy, then sure, this may be the case. But we don’t have just one testament. And we aren’t subject to those rules anymore (at least Christians aren’t. Is there a jewish poster here who can clarify the current jewish position?) -“[…]I mentioned that KF is black and you can see the results, both in the PZ thread and here.” It’s not just that you mentioned it. You basically questioned why a black man would be a Christian period, which is an awkward and frankly ill-conceived thing to ask for numerous reasons. “1: It’s not racist to mention your race or your heritage or the Bible’s part in the kidnapping and the conversion into property of your ancestors.” No, but it is sort of ignorant of what was going on at the time. As I’ve already said, Kidnapping for slavery was a huge no-no for the jewish people, and if we’re supposed to match up their slavery to ours it should still have been a no-no. The pro-slavery christians used the bible to try and justify what they were already doing, they didn’t do because it was in the bible. It’s not like they read it and went, “Hey, look, it says we can steal negros from their homes… let’s do it!” The slave trade was going strong before the more religious slave owners started cherry picking verses and what not. Kinda how the Nazi’s used Darwin to establish their master race thing (note: I AM NOT EQUATING NAZI’S AND EVOLUTION -_-). Hitler hated the jews (and everybody else) long before he got hold of Darwin. He just used it to his advantage. -“2: Saying that someone should be concerned with the fate of their ancestors and wish to prevent a similar fate from overtaking other people is not thinking or acting on “closed-minded racial stereotypes.” Quite the opposite, in fact. It’s a statement that only carries weight if you’re an intelligent person with the capability of thinking for himself and acting to prevent future harm.” It has to be asked: what’s with the high horse dude? -“3. I am not an antiChristian bigot or any other kind of bigot. Dictionary.com defines “bigot” as “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.” Well, my mother, my late father, my sister and about 90% of the rest of my family are or were Christians. Maybe half of my best friends are Christians. I tolerate them all pretty well, even though I think they’re mistaken about their religion. I also send my nephew $100 a month to finance his missionary activity. (I do this mainly to get my niece and nephew to China while they’re at the age where they can pick up Chinese effortlessly. I might still finance my nephew if he was childless because he’s a good man with useful skills to teach and his wife is a registered nurse and I think they’ll do more good than harm in China despite being missionaries.)” That’s all well and good I guess… -“4. As a white man who doesn’t subscribe to Biblical morality, I think slavery is an offense against humanity, one small step below murder and torture. If I was a black man, I would feel the same way with the added knowledge that I would have been in danger of being enslaved myself because of my skin color barely a century and a half ago. And if I was a black man descended from slaves, I would feel all that and I’d also feel the horror of knowing that this Biblically approved sin had actually struck my ancestors and devastated their lives.” But you’re not a black man. You’re a white man trying to get in the mind of the black man and failing miserably. You’re ranting about a bunch of Old Testament verses and throwing race out for no reason all the while avoiding the new testament which is the side of the book Christians actually use, and ignoring all the good the book and the faith itself has done for black people. Not just Caribbean but around the world. Heck you’re ignoring the good it’s doing African nations now. This is the kind of thing KF is talking about when he throws the racist label at you. Now I don’t think you’re racist… I just think you’re ignorant. And a little too smug for your own good. I hope I’m wrong though. Take care. - SonfaroSonfaro
June 30, 2011
June
06
Jun
30
30
2011
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
kairosfocus at 91 and 92: “DM: Pardon my frankness, but you are a proved racist and antichristian bigot who refuses any and all correction. Your comments are therefore of zero credibility F/N: And, my point would still sand if DM were of African ancestry, as, the point of racism is to think and act based on closed-minded racial stereotypes. DM has some serious explaining and an apology or two to carry out.” You can generally tell when kairosfocus is losing a debate: he automatically starts slandering his opponents. For examples, click on “Search” at the top of the page and enter oil of ad into the box and see for yourself. If you want to see where these particularly disgusting slanderous charges of racism and bigotry came from, go to the “PZ open cut quote mines” thread. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/pz-open-cut-quote-mines/ First, he hijacks the thread from quote mining to the foundations of morality in # 33. In that post, he casually slanders non-theists by saying that for us, “terms like evil and good etc become simply tools for cynical emotional manipulation and programming of populations and individuals”, that “For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible.”, that we either have to change our arguments or we are racist, that we say “that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality]” and winds up with this gem: “If you do not hear in this the anticipation of Alinsky’s cynical polarisation tactics, and jack-boots marching in torchlight parades and the secret police knock on your door at 4 am, it is because you are not listening closely enough. I do not exaggerate when I say our civilisation is in mortal danger.” Pretty every day stuff for kairosfocus, actually, and it all rests on the assumption that theists (Christian theists, to be specific) have a better grounding for their morality than non-theists, which I regard as a false belief. I replied with, “What you want to watch out for is basing your philosophy on religion. For instance, as a black man in the Caribbean, you must be well aware of the disasterous consequences of verses like: LEVITICUS 25:44 ‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have – you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. That must have provided a lot of comfort to the pius and enterprising Christian slavers who purchased your ancestors and transported them across the Atlantic, to die in the cane fields without ever seeing their loved ones again. The African tribes who used to raid rival tribes for slaves to sell to the Christians undoubtedly got their morals from their religions too. As did the Muslims who ran an equally large slaver operation in their sphere of influence. Of course, here in the US, the slave states quickly became the Bible Belt when they discovered that the Bible explicitely authorized and approved of the chattel slavery they were practicing. It wasn’t just the American South that felt that way, of course. A mob of Christians chased the great abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison through the streets of Boston and he narrowly escaped lynching at their hands.” (Sorry for the misspellings.) All of this is demonstrably true. The Bible does explicitly allow the type of chattel slavery that plagued the US and the Caribbean nations. KF, of course, had no comeback for this because it’s true and I provide plenty of quotes later in the thread to support my position, although I by no means exhausted the supply. But never fear, I mentioned that KF is black and you can see the results, both in the PZ thread and here. Sorry KF, but: 1: It’s not racist to mention your race or your heritage or the Bible’s part in the kidnapping and the conversion into property of your ancestors. 2: Saying that someone should be concerned with the fate of their ancestors and wish to prevent a similar fate from overtaking other people is not thinking or acting on “closed-minded racial stereotypes.” Quite the opposite, in fact. It’s a statement that only carries weight if you’re an intelligent person with the capability of thinking for himself and acting to prevent future harm. 3. I am not an antiChristian bigot or any other kind of bigot. Dictionary.com defines “bigot” as “a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.” Well, my mother, my late father, my sister and about 90% of the rest of my family are or were Christians. Maybe half of my best friends are Christians. I tolerate them all pretty well, even though I think they’re mistaken about their religion. I also send my nephew $100 a month to finance his missionary activity. (I do this mainly to get my niece and nephew to China while they’re at the age where they can pick up Chinese effortlessly. I might still finance my nephew if he was childless because he’s a good man with useful skills to teach and his wife is a registered nurse and I think they’ll do more good than harm in China despite being missionaries.) 4. As a white man who doesn’t subscribe to Biblical morality, I think slavery is an offense against humanity, one small step below murder and torture. If I was a black man, I would feel the same way with the added knowledge that I would have been in danger of being enslaved myself because of my skin color barely a century and a half ago. And if I was a black man descended from slaves, I would feel all that and I’d also feel the horror of knowing that this Biblically approved sin had actually struck my ancestors and devastated their lives. Your problem is that the Bible has too many downright evil verses in it to make it a suitable foundation for any system of morality and you can’t formulate an effective argument to the contrary. Moderators: I’ve been lurking on Uncommon Descent since its beginning and I’ve seen many people unceremoniously kicked off the blog for trifling offenses that are nothing compared to KF. Why do you accept this kind of repetitive slander and slagging from kairosfocus? I'm sure it hurts your blog. I suspect that many regulars here wish KF would grow up and stop the slander and I don’t doubt that many ID sympathetic people come here, read his posts, and never return. I’ve seen you discipline a few ID regulars for insults that pale in comparison to KF’s everyday output. Why do you allow him to get away with it?dmullenix
June 30, 2011
June
06
Jun
30
30
2011
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT
No, I think there is lots of morality in the world, even though I regard the world as material (in a very broad sense – I do not think that everything that can be said to exist is material, just that everything that can be said to exist has causes intrinsic to the world) So why do we disagree? Possibly because we mean different things by morality. I have no doubt that we mean different things by morality. In fact, it seems that in every conversation, we mean different things by every word in question. Inevitably I ask what these things could possibly mean to a materialist, and I get responses in metaphors. I ask for the metaphors to be cashed out in materialist terms, and when that happens, I point out that there is no (morality, free will, decision making, etc) to speak of. Just blind mechanism - unless those things are taken to be real and irreducible, in which case it's not materialism. At that point, the metaphors immediately come back in full force, and so the cycle repeats. A similar pattern pops up when talk of emergence rears its head. Emergence functioning either as a more poetic term for 'blind, purposeless mechanistic causation, but labeled for convenience' or 'magic for the modern philosopher and scientist'. While I know that you are always frantically looking for ways to get everyone agreeing, let me repeat something I've said in the past: Sometimes disagreement is present because there is, in fact, a disagreement. Not mere miscommunication. In fact, it's even possible for someone to profess that they do in fact believe in morality, but when you ask them to explain what morality can possibly be on their world view, you find that they're just pointing at either some ultimately arbitrary rules, personal feelings or cultural leanings grounded in whim which is grounded in close to nothing, and calling it 'morality'. I am using it in the sense of: the concept that there are things we should do, as opposed to things we want to do. And I'd like to hear what this means under a materialist worldview. Someone can say 'I should not eat this wedding cake, even though I want to.' on the grounds that 'Because I want to get thin.' Sure, you can play that off as 'Doing what we should, rather than what we want.' But it adds up to a word game - the 'should' is borne out of another 'want'. I think calling that morality would be a joke. Likewise, I'm not doubting that someone can come up with some rules like Monopoly. 'Do not pass Go', or 'You should not pass Go, even if you want to'. No doubt, within the context of Monopoly, there is a 'should' that trumps 'want'. So long as you agree to the Monopoly rules, etc. Of course, that's back to 'want' anyway. Long story short, I don't doubt that materialist can think they shouldn't eat whole wedding cakes, or that they should not pass Go. If that's the morality in question, it does a marvelous job of looking like 'no morality at all'.nullasalus
June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT
Hi Lizzie, according to Panda'sThumb you were Christian theist in Jan 2007. Just in case you don't know when you switched, lol.Mung
June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
Atheist here. This sort of post irritates me slightly, as it feels very much like you believe you are personally attacking me. Here is my input. I don't care what you believe. I don't care what the scientific minds I look upto believe. I look to myself and form my own opinions based on the evidence presented before me. I am not out to hurt you, and I am not out to take away your rights to believe in what you believe in. However, I feel justified in defending my position. These people are people I do, indeed, look upto, but not for religious beliefs. I look upto them because they had great ideas, or great drive. Religious standing has no effect on my opinion of someone. That is, unless it is forced upon me. Please understand, I am not trying to downplay your beliefs in any way, but I am asking you to allow other people what you yourselves desire; the ability to stand by your beliefs (or lack thereof) without discrimination. Simply put; don't antagonise atheists, and they will likely not antagonise you. You are free to believe what you choose, but please allow people to be able to choose themselves. Teach about God and religiously-derived theories in a theology class, not in a science classroom. Do not force people to speak of their allegiance to a god they do not believe in. Reversed, this would be like forcing a Christian to renounce God, just to fit in with other people who would exile them otherwise. Nobody wants to be discriminated against. Everybody just wants to live a life of their own choosing. Please take this to heed, and try not to openly attack others beliefs. I don't. Have a nice day.sleepygamer
June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
"Pip and the Edge of Heaven" by Elizabeth Liddle. Wow, good on you Lizzie! It looks like just the sort of book my 4 year old daughter will enjoy (and my 2 year old daughter for that matter!) so I've ordered it from Abebooks. At the very least, it will confuse their mother, my partner (an atheist by the way who has now stopped believing in evolution - must be something I said!). "What's this book you've bought?" "Lizzie wrote it" "Who's Lizzie?" "One of the people I debate with online" "And she wrote a kid's book?" "Yes" "I don't get it. You spend too much time arguing with people on the internet!"Chris Doyle
June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
12:44 PM
12
12
44
PM
PDT
But if you're a pantheist, weren't you part of it all, from the very beginning? ;)Mung
June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
No, I wasn't. I spent half a century as a relatively conventional theist :) As far as my religious history goes, I was christened an Anglican, went to Quaker boarding school, became a Quaker, was later confirmed as an Anglican, then joined the Roman Catholic Church (early 20s). All that time I was a theist, and remained so until I was about 54 IIRC (I can look up the date). I even wrote a book about God once :) http://www.amazon.com/Pip-Edge-Heaven-Elizabeth-Liddle/dp/0802852572 (A very little book)Elizabeth Liddle
June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
I could describe myself as a pantheist. But many pantheists also describe themselves as atheists.
Hi Lizzie, How long have you been a pantheist? Would yo say you've been one from the very beginning?Mung
June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
08:10 AM
8
08
10
AM
PDT
F/N: And, my point would still sand if DM were of African ancestry, as, the point of racism is to think and act based on closed-minded racial stereotypes. DM has some serious explaining and an apology or two to carry out.kairosfocus
June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
DM: Pardon my frankness, but you are a proved racist and antichristian bigot who refuses any and all correction. Your comments are therefore of zero credibility. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT
KF at 84: "PS: It is also worth reading CY here." It is also worth continuing down to 78 for my reply to CY.dmullenix
June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT
I guess what I'm saying is, don't your parents have a lot to lose if they're wrong? Does that worry you?Berceuse
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
10:13 PM
10
10
13
PM
PDT
Berceuse: Gil, I’m sorry if this is a presumptuous question. I don’t know what kind of Christian you are, but are you worried about the fate of your father’s soul if he doesn’t believe in Jesus? I'm a born-again evangelical Christian (after 43 years of devout, militant atheism up until the age of 43 in 1994) who attends a semi-charismatic church. I play piano in the praise band and am involved in Christian apologetics. Our pastor is an extraordinarily brilliant fellow with a Ph.D. who has been a part-time professor at Vanguard University for many years. Every few weeks we get together for morning coffee and conversation at Starbucks. Our conversation includes my interest in ID, science and technology, ethics, historical Christianity and Christian theism, contemporary society, and the like. He always recommends a book or other resource for me to investigate. (Of course, he is familiar with ID and the vicious war being waged in academia against anyone who challenges Darwinian orthodoxy.) Last week he recommended That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis, which I had not yet read. My parents are both lifelong atheists, but seem to have softened under my influence. My mother was run over by a drunk driver a few years ago while walking her dog. The dog, her precious pet, was killed instantly. At age 86 my mother was thrown down the street by the impact, head over heels on the pavement. She was life-flighted by helicopter and miraculously survived with no broken bones but severe injuries that someone half her age should not have survived. Of course, when I heard the news from my dad, I immediately contacted all my Christian friends and the prayer group at our church to pray for her. Since then she has asked me and my Christian friends to pray for her on multiple occasions. My father has also softened under my Christian influence and testimony. But here's the bottom line: I have nothing to lose and everything to gain, even in this life. If I'm wrong, and I'm just a bunch of chemistry that came about by chance and natural selection, I'll lose nothing when I die because my life will have been ultimately completely pointless and meaningless. And even if I'm just a bunch of chemistry that came about by chance and natural selection, my Christian faith and my association with such people as my pastor will have enriched my temporal life at least for a time -- an enrichment that I would never have had the opportunity to experience as an atheist.GilDodgen
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle: Pardon. You are begging the question, again, despite many, many corrections. A scientific description can provide an empirically warranted conclusion, and it routinely infers across necessity, chance and choice. As long as science is concerned to seek the truth about our world -- a "correct" description [even Lewontin concedes this goal] -- in light of empirical evidence, and as long as there are reliable signs of necessity, chance and choice, then one may scientifically infer to necessity, chance and/or choice. To a priori rule out possibilities when inconvenient for an evo mat worldview -- what the recent radical attempted redefinitions of science do -- is a major exercise in question-begging, censorship and frankly propagandistic indoctrination. This is yet another point of disappointment, for this has been pointed out enough times that it should be clear enough, and its grounds should be just as clear. But, my main point in my comment above was that this remark in 81:
“Evolutionary materialism” whatever that is, is not “amoral” except in the sense that all science is “amoral” – it’s about what is, not about what should be.
. . . should not be on the table now, not after so much discussion and explanation. What evo mat is about should be in no significant dispute. (And each of the varieties of evolution I listed in cascade, is in the relevant literature spoken of as just such an evolution. I have used the descriptive term to speak to all of them in the context of the underlying materialistic worldview.) In addition, science as praxis is most definitely not -- had better not -- be amoral. mateiralism is an amoral worldview, but the people who cling to it canot excape the inevitability of morality. Some even mange to do fairly well by comparison with otehr human beings. But if one thinks oneself to be "moral" in any really commendable sense of that term, one is in a state of sad self-delusion and complacency. At out best, we struggle to consistently do the right, which is why the Apostle Paul targets PERSISTENCE in -- thus penitence towards and a determination to keep getting up and move in the right direction -- the path of the good and true in Rom 2, as what God rewards. At our best, we struggle, and by God's grace we sometimes make some progress. (Indeed, the greatest "saints" speak of this, consistently.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
Well, obviously I'm sorry you're disappointed, kairosfocus, but I can only say what I think. And I think we've got our wires crossed on the other thread, because you were actually saying the same as me a few posts up! You write:
Evolutionary materialism is a description of a worldview that envisions the cosmos forming from hydrogen to humans on chance plus necessity through cosmological, solar system, chemical, biological and socio-cultural evolution.
Well, most people would only call the second last part "evolution" but I would agree that that is a fairly good "material" description of events from Big Bang to now (if rather short!)
It is materialistic because it either explicitly or by the backdoor route of implications of so-called methodological naturalism, will only accept matter, energy, space and time interacting under forces that are reducible to chance and necessity as constituting reality.
No. It's materialistic because it is a materialistic description, which is the only kind of description that scientific methodology can provide. It has nothing to do with a "worldview", and a great many people, including Einstein according to the OP, regard the materialistic description as inadequate to convey the mystery of existence itself. Actually, and me. But it doesn't make the materialistic description any less good as a materialistic description. I hope that helps to make my position a little clearer.Elizabeth Liddle
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
BA: Excellent, thanks. Gkairosfocus
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
04:24 PM
4
04
24
PM
PDT
PS: It is also worth reading CY here. PPS: I draw particular attention to Provine's 3rd point as a consequence of naturalistic evolution.kairosfocus
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
To piggyback on kf's well informed comment; Atheism Cannot Justify Morality - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5LhbR5-Euobornagain77
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
04:22 PM
4
04
22
PM
PDT
Dr Liddle, Pardon, but this is a second disappointment in a row. Evolutionary materialism is a description of a worldview that envisions the cosmos forming from hydrogen to humans on chance plus necessity through cosmological, solar system, chemical, biological and socio-cultural evolution. It is materialistic because it either explicitly or by the backdoor route of implications of so-called methodological naturalism, will only accept matter, energy, space and time interacting under forces that are reducible to chance and necessity as constituting reality. A classic statement is of course Lewontin's a priori materialism remark in NYRB 1997, which the linked context will immediately show is backed up all the way to levels like the US NAS and the US NSTA as typical of institutionalised materialism presented as "science." Perhaps you dispute the inherent amorality of such a worldview [whether or not it wears the lab coat], Therefore let us clip a classic statement of this from the same era, by William Provine of Cornell U, at the U Tennessee -- it seems, his native state -- Darwin Day address, 1998:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them. Human free will, however, is another matter. Even evolutionists have trouble swallowing that implication. I will argue that humans are locally determined systems that make choices. They have, however, no free will . . . . Without free will, justification for revenge disappears and rehabilitation is the main job of judicial systems and prisons. [[NB: As C. S Lewis warned, in the end, this means: reprogramming through new conditioning determined by the power groups controlling the society and its prisons.] We will all live in a better society when the myth of free will is dispelled . . . . How can we have meaning in life? When we die we are really dead; nothing of us survives. Natural selection is a process leading every species almost certainly to extinction . . . Nothing could be more uncaring than the entire process of organic evolution. Life has been on earth for about 3.6 billion years. In less that one billion more years our sun will turn into a red giant. All life on earth will be burnt to a crisp. Other cosmic processes absolutely guarantee the extinction of all life anywhere in the universe. When all life is extinguished, no memory whatsoever will be left that life ever existed. Yet our lives are filled with meaning. Proximate meaning is more important than ultimate. Even if we die, we can have deeply [[subjectively and culturally] meaningful lives . . . . [[Evolution: Free Will and Punishment and Meaning in Life, Second Annual Darwin Day Celebration Keynote Address, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, February 12, 1998 (abstract).]
This is of course simply a riff on Hume's point hat the is deoes not ground the ought, as modified withthe proviso that the exception is Creation-anchored theism, where the inherent goodness in the Creator-God is expressed in creation, especially that aspect which has the power of choice thus to love and be virtuous. Only such a God is sufficient to ground OUGHT as a foundational IS. Evo mat, by contrast has no such is and is inherently amoral, so it reduces oughtness to tastes, views and feelings backed up by community power. As a descendant of slaves, I am instantly wary of such radical relativism, for excellent reason for it immediately means that the reformer, for instance is automatically "immoral," save when he succeed. "If it succeed, none dare call it treason." Plato long since pointed out the terrible dangers inherent in an inextricably bound up in such evolutionary materialism -- yes, it is an ancient view. This, from The Laws, Bk X: _______________ >> [[The avant garde philosophers, teachers and artists c. 400 BC] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature and of chance, the lesser of art [[ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial . . . They say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only . . . . [[T]hese people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that can ground OUGHT. (Cf. here for Locke's views and sources on a very different base for grounding liberty as opposed to license and resulting anarchistic "every man does what is right in his own eyes" chaos leading to tyranny.)] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might [[ Evolutionary materialism leads to the promotion of amorality], and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [[Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality "naturally" leads to continual contentions and power struggles; cf. dramatisation here], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [[such amoral factions, if they gain power, "naturally" tend towards ruthless tyranny; here, too, Plato hints at the career of Alcibiades], and not in legal subjection to them . . . >> _______________ Sorry, but he objectors who think they can brush aside the issues by suddenly challenging the descriptive term, evolutionary materialism as a term not in common usage [it is simply making he particular variety of materialism in view specific], are in grave error, as usual. And, amorality alone is more than enough reason to conclude that evo mat is an absurd and dangerous view, indeed on my considered opinion [per the cutting edge of the Categorical Imperative], an IM-moral and destructive one, for those who know full well where it points and the consequences of that. A much simpler conclusion is to accept that morality is an objective reality -- what Hitler did or rapists do is REALLY wrong, and loving one's neighbour as oneself is REALLY right -- and that it then is evidence pointing to the grounding reality of our cosmos: The Good, Loving Creator God. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT
"Evolutionary materialism" whatever that is, is not "amoral" except in the sense that all science is "amoral" - it's about what is, not about what should be. And people who do not believe in God, or consider "God" merely to be a metaphor for the mysterious order of the universe, not a personal God or someone who will judge us at our deaths, are not "inescapably amoral". Many of us are deeply moral - we consider very carefully the ethics of our actions and try to leave the world a better place, or at least no worse, then when we arrived in it. For us, that is our immortality. We ask no more.Elizabeth Liddle
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT
JJ: You have managed to dodge addressing the actual issues of evidence and warrant, as well as a fairly substantial set of linked discussions, to carry on complaining about BA 77. That tells us a lot. BA has raised issues, and I have raised issues through links. You have yet to seriously respond on the merits. As for evolutionary materialism, the already linked will suffice to show that it is self-referentially absurd, both on its inescapable amorality, and on its implications for the credibility of the human mind as a knowing, reasoning entity. So, if someone does not doubt Evo Mat seriously, that says more about that person than it does about BA 77. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply