Sean Brady Steps Down

[T Fearon]

What questions?

[Main Street]

Poking holes in religious text does provide hours of entertainment, however, regardless  that what the bible says, or the koran, or Judaism says, can't be defended on rational or empirical grounds, none of that debunking process disproves a belief in God.
it's a form of cultural arrogance for all these new atheists (all of them westerners)  to then make a claim that God doesn't exist  because the main religions have irrational belief systems. The irrational nature of those belief system does not refute a belief in God.
To believe that material science can answer all the unanswered questions regarding the universe is a type of faith that is essentially religious in nature. It is merely belief, not science but scientism.
The atheist will look at the universe and see no proof of God's existence and the spiritualist will look at the same universe and see everything as proof of God's existence.

It is great that of the 6 billion people currently residing on our planet, you know only westerners question the existence of god.  If that is the case, which you seem to know for certain, why do you think that is, maybe because westerners can question the state view of god without fear of beheading, stoning, exile, family being tortured etc.   

Sorry for the misunderstanding , I presumed the term 'new atheist' was understood. Atheists are certainly a worldwide phenomena,  however
'new atheist' is a term used to group a trend in atheist writers
eg Victor J. Stenger's "The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason"  others such as
Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, have come to be known as the "New Atheists." Predictably, their works have been controversial and attracted a good deal of critical reaction.
My post is directed  to the pseudo science dogma of the 'new atheists'.

[Hardy]

Poking holes in religious text does provide hours of entertainment, however, regardless  that what the bible says, or the koran, or Judaism says, can't be defended on rational or empirical grounds, none of that debunking process disproves a belief in God.
it's a form of cultural arrogance for all these new atheists (all of them westerners)  to then make a claim that God doesn't exist  because the main religions have irrational belief systems. The irrational nature of those belief system does not refute a belief in God.
To believe that material science can answer all the unanswered questions regarding the universe is a type of faith that is essentially religious in nature. It is merely belief, not science but scientism.
The atheist will look at the universe and see no proof of God's existence and the spiritualist will look at the same universe and see everything as proof of God's existence.

It is great that of the 6 billion people currently residing on our planet, you know only westerners question the existence of god.  If that is the case, which you seem to know for certain, why do you think that is, maybe because westerners can question the state view of god without fear of beheading, stoning, exile, family being tortured etc.   

Sorry for the misunderstanding , I presumed the term 'new atheist' was understood. Atheists are certainly a worldwide phenomena,  however
'new atheist' is a term used to group a trend in atheist writers
eg Victor J. Stenger's "The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason"  others such as
Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, have come to be known as the "New Atheists." Predictably, their works have been controversial and attracted a good deal of critical reaction.
My post is directed  to the pseudo science dogma of the 'new atheists'.

Could I hear more on this pseudo science dogma?

[Main Street]

Poking holes in religious text does provide hours of entertainment, however, regardless  that what the bible says, or the koran, or Judaism says, can't be defended on rational or empirical grounds, none of that debunking process disproves a belief in God.
it's a form of cultural arrogance for all these new atheists (all of them westerners)  to then make a claim that God doesn't exist  because the main religions have irrational belief systems. The irrational nature of those belief system does not refute a belief in God.
To believe that material science can answer all the unanswered questions regarding the universe is a type of faith that is essentially religious in nature. It is merely belief, not science but scientism.
The atheist will look at the universe and see no proof of God's existence and the spiritualist will look at the same universe and see everything as proof of God's existence.

It is great that of the 6 billion people currently residing on our planet, you know only westerners question the existence of god.  If that is the case, which you seem to know for certain, why do you think that is, maybe because westerners can question the state view of god without fear of beheading, stoning, exile, family being tortured etc.   

Sorry for the misunderstanding , I presumed the term 'new atheist' was understood. Atheists are certainly a worldwide phenomena,  however
'new atheist' is a term used to group a trend in atheist writers
eg Victor J. Stenger's "The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason"  others such as
Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, have come to be known as the "New Atheists." Predictably, their works have been controversial and attracted a good deal of critical reaction.
My post is directed  to the pseudo science dogma of the 'new atheists'.

Could I hear more on this pseudo science dogma?

Start here with what I have already written,
"To believe that material science can answer all the unanswered questions regarding the universe is a type of faith that is essentially religious in nature. It is merely belief, not science but scientism."
That in a nutshell is an explanation of what i regard is the pseudo science of new atheism.

[Hardy]

Again, that is true, but as useful as a lighthouse in a bog in casting any light on anything relevant, since I can't think of any sensible person who believes that. But science is the only reasonable approach to discerning the truth of how the universe works materially. Or have you got a better one?

[muppet]

Again, that is true, but as useful as a lighthouse in a bog in casting any light on anything relevant, since I can't think of any sensible person who believes that.

Do I have this right?

Science takes the high ground as it is evidence based, thus relegating religious beliefs to the status of superstition. But the counter argument is that trusting science is nothing more than another belief, and thus self-evidently defeats itself by making science a belief?

[Hardy]

Muppet, I'll let MS answer that for himself, but the idea of 'trusting science' would misunderstand the scientific method. It's the suggestion that anyone (sensible) believes that science proposes the answers to questions of a philosophical nature that I was rejecting. Some may be misled by the rejection by science of faith-based assertions. Saying 'I don't believe you because you have shown me no evidence' is not the same as saying 'here's the right answer'.

[muppet]

MS criticises the arrogance of those who point to the irrational beliefs systems of the main religions. But isn't that the nature of science, regardless of agenda, to examine and explore the consensus and put it to the test? If the outcome is unfavourable for a particular accepted norm, that is hardly the fault of science?

[Hardy]

Yes - if the scientific method is described as arrogant it's a misplaced use of emotional language. It's like rejecting quadratic equations because you don't like them. Or like Basil Fawlty attacking his Austin 1100 with a Sycamore branch.

[T Fearon]

So are we to reject everything that doesnt have a scientific explanation completely out of hand?

[Hardy]

Do you read the posts before you respond to them?

[muppet]

So are we to reject everything that doesnt have a scientific explanation completely out of hand?

What?

You worship flying saucers driven by wooly mammoths!

[T Fearon]

No,but there are lots of things that science can't explain,like recovery from diagnosed terminal illness.Science explains the workings of this world to a certain extent,but not the next.

[muppet]

No,but there are lots of things that science can't explain,like recovery from diagnosed terminal illness.Science explains the workings of this world to a certain extent,but not the next.

This merely points out that medicine has room for improvement, not that everything unexplained must be a miracle.

[Main Street]

Again, that is true, but as useful as a lighthouse in a bog in casting any light on anything relevant, since I can't think of any sensible person who believes that. But science is the only reasonable approach to discerning the truth of how the universe works materially. Or have you got a better one?

The new atheist approach is not scientific but they claim science and reason.
All very fine to explore and examine concepts such as qualia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia but the new atheists are akin to  false prophets making false claims.
Perhaps you are not acquainted with the writings of the new atheists as they claim the science and reason platform  for their beliefs and perhaps you have read here the criticism for Tony who expressed aspects of his belief system. My point is simple the new atheists who claim the science ground are no different than the belief system Tony has
Let's take one popular book "The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason"
The atheist beleif system  centers around naturalism  and I quote from the author
"the view that all of reality is reducible to matter and nothing else--is sufficient to explain everything we observe in the universe, from the most distant galaxies to the inner workings of the brain that result in the phenomenon of mind."
However that statement is false as we don't have an adequate materialist/naturalist explanation of subjective conscious experiences (qualia). And naturalist/materialist proponents have – like most Western thinkers – only addressed cosmological issues regarding efficient cause, never touching on the subject of material cause.
reference Aristotle  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

This new atheism is  scientism, a belief system, religious in nature, not much different than Tony's
New atheists dispute that existence of God is beyond the science and argue that absence of evidence for God is, indeed, evidence of absence when the evidence should be there and is not.
I would compare that to a belief in the immaculate conception.