"The Trouble with Atheism"

Posted by Olly Robinson on 28 July 2008 | 4 Comments

Tags:

Recently, the Scientific and Medical Network held a conference in Switzlerland called "The Challenge of Dogmatism and Fundamentalism in Science and Religion". It was considered whether scientists can become as dogmatic and closed to alternatives as fundamentalist religious believers, and it was concluded that yes, quite clearly they can. This debate has recently been on TV too. Rod Liddle presented an excellent programme called The Trouble with Atheism which argues that the problem is rigid certainty, whether that is found in science or religion.

The programme is avilable on Youtube. The first installment is below. To watch the remaining six installments, go to http://www.youtube.com/ and search for "The Trouble with Atheism".

The programme is informed, sensitive and interesting. John Polkinghorne, an honorary member of the Network is featured in Part 3. Bernard Carr, a director of the Network, is featured in Part 4.

Dr Olly Robinson


Post your comment

Comments

  • You say its not possible to be reasonable AND a theist.

    Well I am a theist, and an academic psychologogist, and most people would say I am pretty reasonable.

    Although my theism comes from a deeply felt sense as well rationality, here are some brief logical points that support theism, in my opinion.

    - Scientific laws are abstractions. There is no account in science that accounts for their appearance, existence or gives a location for their existence. You can either say they don't exist, which is problematic for a scientist, or come to the conclusion that a law needs a lawgiver, and a mind in which it can exist
    - Mechanistic causality is a junk idea. Just to say that something came before something else and therefore caused it is rubbish. Every event can be a cause or an effect depending on which way you look at it. The idea of Will as a cause is more coherent, and certainly more convincing as a First Cause.
    - Science and philosophy have no truck on the question of why there is something rather than nothing. We all know that the manifest world evolves, but why there is a manifest domain at all is beyond science, and so answering it in terms of a being, rather than a mechanism, does not refute any science at all
    - Science can state facts about the world that is accessible by the senses, because it uses and requires the excellent tools of observation. This DOES not mean that there is not a whole sphere of reality beyond our senses. That is not science, it is closed-mindedness, pure and simple.

    Do point out any logical errors that you see in the above.

    Olly

    Posted by Olly Robinson, 30/07/2008 2:33pm (4 years ago)

  • Except people like you (quakers and the like) are the minority. The majority of people are more... absolutist.

    Well, insane people tend not to have faith because the voices in their head would count as evidence. In this case we are dealing with a guy who is perfectly same and logical- he just starts from mad premises.

    As for Buddhists being "good" I'd like to remind you of the fact the Japanese government had to crack down on them because they kept on interfering and attempting to seize power. Or Tibet. The Buddhists aren't as wonderful as people like to think.

    As for
    Madness, small-mindedness, anger, intolerance, bigotry
    , yes atheists can also possess them. However, it isn't a requirement. The first two are for religious belief. You have to be capable of double think and able to ignore evidence and conflicting views to be a theist now a days.

    I mean theodocy gets responded to with "free will" despite the fact that people are deterministic- free will makes no logical sense either.

    I'll stop ranting. My point was that you can't be reasonable AND be a theist. Now, most are able to compartmentalize, but some aren't. That is the problem- when the irrationality leaks out. Like people praying... and then the refusal of medicine. After all, God will intervene! Most normal people are smart enough to act as if God doesn't exist when it comes to medical problems- they see doctors.

    Posted by Samuel Skinner, 29/07/2008 2:32pm (4 years ago)

  • Hi there,

    My reading of his programme was that scientists can become intolerant and dogmatic, as well as those of religion.

    Liddle is Church of England, however is a fierce critic of fundamentalist religion and the involvement of religion in politics and matters of state.

    It is true that many religious believers are "batshit insane" as you so eloquently put it, but as a psychologist I am deeply aware that a lot of insane people have no faith or spirituality at all.

    Madness, small-mindedness, anger, intolerance, bigotry. All these can be found in religious and secular groups. To pretend that these attributes cling only to religious groups, as you would seem to, is a bit partially sighted.

    I would also mention that many religious groups, such as the sufis, buddhists and the quakers, are not so much into faith, and much more into direct experience of a non-verbal truth, and open exploration of that truth. As a Quaker myself, I would consider myself closer to an agnostic than to a fundamentalist Christian myself.

    Posted by Olly Robinson, 29/07/2008 2:32pm (4 years ago)

  • Well, the reason we are "intolerant" and "dogmatic" is because people actually take faith seriously- like this guy.

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/02/mailvox-sharpening-knives.html

    If he a crank? Nope- noted apologist who wrote the Irrational Atheist. You can buy it on Amazon.com or read it for free from his site. He isn't fringe.

    So, excuse the rabid intolerance for the faithful- it just happens many of them are batshit insane.

    Posted by Samuel Skinner, 29/07/2008 2:31pm (4 years ago)

RSS feed for comments on this page | RSS feed for all comments