Transcendence Line

[Sriram]

Outrider,

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed"

That's a beautiful quote from Carl Sagan you have given. This quote highlights how Sagan and some other scientists of that era had a very mature and philosophical view of life in spite of being such great scientists. They are examples of what I would call 'Stage 3' scientists (refer my thread on 'them and us').

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There's a fairly hefty quasi appeal to authority going on here on Vlad's part, it seems. Sagan was a great man and a superb science communicator and his legacy will endure, but his views on God and religion (which I suspect were based very much on the need for diplomacy in an atypically religious nation - another mantle that Neil DeGrasse Tyson has inherited, which Dawkins doesn't need to) are of minor interest, surely? Vlad's fulsome encomiums of Sagan and Cox bears out Dawkins's withering but not inaccurate comment on the Templeton Prize going to scientists prepared to say something nice about religion.

.......As opposed to saying nasty things.

The bottom line is that there are a group of educated men who have retreated to resorting to the circularity of philosophical  materialism coupled with a Alf garnettesquesque approach to religion redolent of our friend Ippy.

[Shaker]

.......As opposed to saying nasty things.

When something was placed so far beyond criticism for so very, very long that even the slightest murmur of questioning on the least little point was met with persecution, hideous torture and an horrific death, Vladster, even in more civilised times slight dissent (let alone full blooded criticism) is apt to appear thus.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you think Dawkins lacks wonder, you should do what you've obviously failed to do so far and actually read him, Vlad. Unweaving the Rainbow - about this issue specifically - would be your best place to start. It was written specifically to refute the daft but prevalent notion that science, while useful, is rather dully utilitarian and inimical to a sense of wonder about the cosmos (something that no scientist worth his or her salt would ever say, incidentally). If anybody needs to read it, Vlad, surely you do.

As for DNA of blessed memory - presumably you haven't encountered his quote: "I'd sooner take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."

Dear Shaky.

I am not deficient in or of wonder thank you nor wonder in science nor the natural world though I can understand that your ruling dogma prevents you from ever accepting that..

If you have a sense of wonder or derive wonder that is great. I am not about to reflect your intellectual totalitarianism by suggesting you go hither and thither to find wonder.

[Shaker]

I never said that you lack wonder; you asserted that Dawkins does and Adams did (#20 and #22)

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I never said that you lack wonder; you asserted that Dawkins does and Adams did (#20 and #22)

Yes and I supported my assertions by saying Dawkins prefers the dismal message of atheism and Adams slaps down any sense of wonder by his smart arsed, suburban, sixthform flippancy towards the cosmic and transcendant.

[Shaker]

Yes and I supported my assertions by saying Dawkins prefers the dismal message of atheism and Adams slaps down any sense of wonder by his smart arsed, suburban, sixthform flippancy towards the cosmic and transcendant.

So you're equating atheism with a lack of wonder after all, then? But not when it comes to Highly Smiley Brian Cox (atheist) - why is that?

Atheism qua atheism doesn't do "messages" - it's a position on the existence of gods.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you're equating atheism with a lack of wonder after all, then? But not when it comes to Highly Smiley Brian Cox (atheist) - why is that?

Atheism qua atheism doesn't do "messages" - it's a position on the existence of gods.

Are you saying that atheism does not carry a dismal message?
Dawkins would not agree with you on that one.

After atheism has 'done away' with the existence of God it is automatically obliged to have messages about a whole host of things I'm afraid. It is as much a portal as the wardrobe is I'm afraid.

[Shaker]

Are you saying that atheism does not carry a dismal message?

Yes - not to me, it doesn't, anyway.

Dawkins would not agree with you on that one.

What does he say about the 'message' of atheism and its supposed dismalness? More to the point, where does he say it, so I can check for myself? Your claim does not seem to match up with anything of his that I've read - but then, I've read him

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes - not to me, it doesn't, anyway.What does he say about the 'message' of atheism and its supposed dismalness? More to the point, where does he say it, so I can check for myself? Your claim does not seem to match up with anything of his that I've read - but then, I've read him

Dawkins has said plenty on death being the end and Christian non acceptance of it. He has said plenty about the basic purposelessness of the universe.......as you should know if you have read him.

[Shaker]

Dawkins has said plenty on death being the end and Christian non acceptance of it. He has said plenty about the basic purposelessness of the universe.......as you should know if you have read him.

I have, but don't recall very much about death (apart from the by now very well known "We are all going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones" passage). There seems to be nothing any more dismal about the purposelessness of the universe than about the purposelessness of a mountain such as Ben Nevis. The latter doesn't perturb me in the least so why should the former? I think you're going to have to be more explicit on your sources here.

[Enki]

Dawkins has said plenty on death being the end and Christian non acceptance of it. He has said plenty about the basic purposelessness of the universe.......as you should know if you have read him.

He has indeed said much on the subject of death being the end and much on the Christian non acceptance of it.

He has indeed said plenty about the basic purposelessness of the universe.

He has also said much on the positive life affirming qualities and the sense of awe and wonder that he holds as an atheist. Indeed he seems to firmly reject the idea that life has to be necessarily dismal simply because one is an atheist.

[Outrider]

Yes and I supported my assertions by saying Dawkins prefers the dismal message of atheism and Adams slaps down any sense of wonder by his smart arsed, suburban, sixthform flippancy towards the cosmic and transcendant.

What's dismal about 'the message of atheism'? Is it, somehow, preferable to accept the baseless assertions of religion about next lives leading to the acceptance of horror in this life?

After atheism has 'done away' with the existence of God it is automatically obliged to have messages about a whole host of things I'm afraid. It is as much a portal as the wardrobe is I'm afraid.

No. Even individual atheists aren't obliged to, but some do - that's where you get things like 'Humanism' coming in.

Dawkins has said plenty on death being the end and Christian non acceptance of it. He has said plenty about the basic purposelessness of the universe

Yes, he's said that what purpose we have comes from us, not from outside... I fail to see why that should be inherently 'dismal'?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

.

Yes, he's said that what purpose we have comes from us,

Which rather leads us to wonder for the rest of our lives whether our purpose is any better than something merely 'pulled out of our arses' I would have thought.

Unless you wish to elaborate on Dawkin's clichéd deepity.

[Outrider]

Which rather leads us to wonder for the rest of our lives whether our purpose is any better than something merely 'pulled out of our arses' I would have thought.

Which would be a sight more meaningful if you could in any way show that the Jesus myth wasn't repeatedly pulled out of arses for almost two thousand year or so. Any philosophy can be dismissed as 'pulled out of your arse' if you want, it's hardly an attempt to engage, is it?

Unless you wish to elaborate on Dawkin's clichéd deepity.

I'd say it was fairly self-explanatory, really, which bit was it that you failed to grasp? There is no intrinsic 'purpose' to reality, or our presence in it. Therefore, individually and collectively it's up to us to decide for ourselves what purpose will be. I'm not sure how, exactly, you'd need that principle elaborated upon.

O.

[Outrider]

Outrider,

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed"

That's a beautiful quote from Carl Sagan you have given. This quote highlights how Sagan and some other scientists of that era had a very mature and philosophical view of life in spite of being such great scientists. They are examples of what I would call 'Stage 3' scientists (refer my thread on 'them and us').

Apart from the definition of atheism, I'd agree with him entirely. There isn't sufficient information to categorically deny the concept of gods, it's inherently difficult to demonstrate that something doesn't exist. Of course, you've already seen my commentary on the idea of 'stage 3' people.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Which would be a sight more meaningful if you could in any way show that the Jesus myth wasn't repeatedly pulled out of arses for almost two thousand year or so. Any philosophy can be dismissed as 'pulled out of your arse' if you want, it's hardly an attempt to engage, is it?

I'd say it was fairly self-explanatory, really, which bit was it that you failed to grasp? There is no intrinsic 'purpose' to reality, or our presence in it. Therefore, individually and collectively it's up to us to decide for ourselves what purpose will be. I'm not sure how, exactly, you'd need that principle elaborated upon.

Ahh a hedge. What you are saying is we have to have a purpose but there is no purpose.
If there is no purpose there is no virtue in making one up for yourself..........unless you concede that a purpose is needed. As usual you are treating us to self contradictory Riderballs.

[Shaker]

The degree to which you can misrepresent and simply fail to comprehend never fails to depress and impress simultaneously, Vlad. Outrider was explicating the difference between proximate and ultimate meanings.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The degree to which you can misrepresent and simply fail to comprehend never fails to depress and impress simultaneously, Vlad. Outrider was explicating the difference between proximate and ultimate meanings.

Oh yes Shaker and we can always count on you extolling us to ignore the big questions and just be good little Humanist secularists sweating the small stuff.

[ProfessorDavey]

Outrider,

"An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God.

That isn't an accepted definition of atheism at all. Indeed it seems to be completely turned on its head.

An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of god or gods, not someone who is certain they don't exist. As I am sure you will appreciate certainty and belief or lack thereof are different things.

And typically atheists aren't atheists because they have compelling evidence against the existence of god - which is non-wens as you cannot prove non-existence - no typically atheists are atheists because there is no evidence (let alone compelling evidence) for the existence of god or gods.

[Udayana]

Of-course Sriram was quoting Carl Sagan there ... who himself is being taken out of context... he was not defining atheism, but trying to describe his own outlook.

[Udayana]

No that is not said in so many words, but the implication is clearly there!   It goes something like this:

- You cannot have experienced what I have, because you are not spiritual/have a closed mind/are a materialist/etc.

Humans are competitive and claim superiority at practically every opportunity, rightly or wrongly. If nothing else transcendence should mean being above such silliness.