Comments on: Atheists Attack Atheist Article http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/01/06/worthy-of-the-onion-atheists-attack-atheist-article-for-pointing-out-that-scientistss-work-gives-them-a-sense-of-meaning/ Where science collides with life, slams into culture, crashes with politics, and gets totaled. Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:28:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Physicalist http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/01/06/worthy-of-the-onion-atheists-attack-atheist-article-for-pointing-out-that-scientistss-work-gives-them-a-sense-of-meaning/#comment-87311 Physicalist Sat, 08 Jan 2011 04:56:56 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=14849#comment-87311 We might want to take into consideration the US military's <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2011/01/more_on_the_militarys_spiritua.php#more" rel="nofollow">test on spirituality</a> when deciding whether it's independent of religion. We might want to take into consideration the US military’s test on spirituality when deciding whether it’s independent of religion.

]]> By: Egbert http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/01/06/worthy-of-the-onion-atheists-attack-atheist-article-for-pointing-out-that-scientistss-work-gives-them-a-sense-of-meaning/#comment-87309 Egbert Sat, 08 Jan 2011 02:32:29 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=14849#comment-87309 Mark @32, I think that if we are to have any coherent discussion, then we need to understand that the word 'spirituality' has connotations with religion and the supernatural. Your meaning of the word spirituality is not the same as other people who use the world spirituality. As for the idea that people are in need of some kind of quest for meaning and purpose, then perhaps that is true for people who fall into psychological nihilism or pessimism, but not for those with a healthy emotional and psychological outlook on life. Words like 'awe', 'wonder', 'joy' are good enough descriptions for what a person is feeling, but to call them spirituality is to begin to make such feelings incoherent. Mark @32,

I think that if we are to have any coherent discussion, then we need to understand that the word ‘spirituality’ has connotations with religion and the supernatural. Your meaning of the word spirituality is not the same as other people who use the world spirituality.

As for the idea that people are in need of some kind of quest for meaning and purpose, then perhaps that is true for people who fall into psychological nihilism or pessimism, but not for those with a healthy emotional and psychological outlook on life.

Words like ‘awe’, ‘wonder’, ‘joy’ are good enough descriptions for what a person is feeling, but to call them spirituality is to begin to make such feelings incoherent.

]]> By: Sili http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/01/06/worthy-of-the-onion-atheists-attack-atheist-article-for-pointing-out-that-scientistss-work-gives-them-a-sense-of-meaning/#comment-87308 Sili Fri, 07 Jan 2011 23:32:36 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=14849#comment-87308 <blockquote>Christians like myself have been told that we’re not “real” Christians by the fundamentalists because we don’t accept the literal truth of the Bible, etc. Because we stray from their very strict philosophy. They think we’re basically anti-Christians, the devil in sheep’s clothing, etc., because we do things like accept evolution.</blockquote>Well, if you believe - as you must - in the literal truth of<blockquote>And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; [...] who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.</blockquote>then how can you leave out the "by whom all things were made" and "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible." bits and say that they're not supposed to be taken literally? <blockquote>Now atheists like yourself are being told that you’re not a “real” atheist by your own fundamentalists.</blockquote>Who has said that Mooney is not an atheist? As far as I know he does not believe in any gods or other supernatural beings. That's all it takes to be an atheist. I fail to see what's "fundamentalist" about that.

Christians like myself have been told that we’re not “real” Christians by the fundamentalists because we don’t accept the literal truth of the Bible, etc. Because we stray from their very strict philosophy. They think we’re basically anti-Christians, the devil in sheep’s clothing, etc., because we do things like accept evolution.

Well, if you believe – as you must – in the literal truth of

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; [...] who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

then how can you leave out the “by whom all things were made” and “We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.” bits and say that they’re not supposed to be taken literally?

Now atheists like yourself are being told that you’re not a “real” atheist by your own fundamentalists.

Who has said that Mooney is not an atheist? As far as I know he does not believe in any gods or other supernatural beings. That’s all it takes to be an atheist. I fail to see what’s “fundamentalist” about that.

]]> By: vel http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/01/06/worthy-of-the-onion-atheists-attack-atheist-article-for-pointing-out-that-scientistss-work-gives-them-a-sense-of-meaning/#comment-87301 vel Fri, 07 Jan 2011 17:39:20 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=14849#comment-87301 if people mean feeling say feeling, don't say "spirituality". If you do, you seem no better than the theists who try to redefine words to make themselves feel better. What was the necessity of using the word "spirituality" if you didn't mean having to do with some "spirit" or "soul"? Why keep using that word when it has connotations and denotations that are completely theistic/supernatural? if people mean feeling say feeling, don’t say “spirituality”. If you do, you seem no better than the theists who try to redefine words to make themselves feel better. What was the necessity of using the word “spirituality” if you didn’t mean having to do with some “spirit” or “soul”? Why keep using that word when it has connotations and denotations that are completely theistic/supernatural?

]]> By: TTT http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/01/06/worthy-of-the-onion-atheists-attack-atheist-article-for-pointing-out-that-scientistss-work-gives-them-a-sense-of-meaning/#comment-87296 TTT Fri, 07 Jan 2011 14:29:29 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=14849#comment-87296 @37: isn't the whole point of complaints about those awful Gnu Atheists that they keep writing these popular books that stir up the public? Dawkins in particular speaks to a very broad audience, and in a tone hardly different from that of the here-venerated Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World." @37: isn’t the whole point of complaints about those awful Gnu Atheists that they keep writing these popular books that stir up the public? Dawkins in particular speaks to a very broad audience, and in a tone hardly different from that of the here-venerated Sagan’s “Demon-Haunted World.”

]]> By: chris y http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/01/06/worthy-of-the-onion-atheists-attack-atheist-article-for-pointing-out-that-scientistss-work-gives-them-a-sense-of-meaning/#comment-87295 chris y Fri, 07 Jan 2011 13:50:43 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=14849#comment-87295 There's really very little point in paying attention to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Communist_League_%28Fourth_Internationalist%29#Regarding_similar_groups" rel="nofollow">Sparts of the sceptical movement</a> these days, because they no longer really speak to anyone outside their own claques. Shame, really. People like Myers and Coyne used to be good communicators of actual science to the public, and it's a pity to see such talents vitiated. There’s really very little point in paying attention to the Sparts of the sceptical movement these days, because they no longer really speak to anyone outside their own claques. Shame, really. People like Myers and Coyne used to be good communicators of actual science to the public, and it’s a pity to see such talents vitiated.

]]> By: Jean Kazez http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/01/06/worthy-of-the-onion-atheists-attack-atheist-article-for-pointing-out-that-scientistss-work-gives-them-a-sense-of-meaning/#comment-87294 Jean Kazez Fri, 07 Jan 2011 13:32:56 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=14849#comment-87294 I'm not sure I'm convinced you can substitute science for religion, and get all the same "spiritual" satisfaction. The science of religious experience seems to say otherwise. In Jonathan Haidt's book "The Happiness Hypothesis," religious experience (at least the kind people have in churches, etc.) is characterized as essentially social. It's a matter of feeling "elevated" by being in a group where everyone has feelings of reverence, gratitude, love, and so on. That's not what people get from doing science. (It's equally true, of course, that the satisfactions of science aren't all obtainable through religion). It might very well be that the closest substitute for religion (for the skeptic) is actually some social activity like working together on a cause, or even going to a concert. This is good news, because these social experiences are available to all, and there are a lot of people who want scientists to do science, but aren't particularly attracted to it themselves. I’m not sure I’m convinced you can substitute science for religion, and get all the same “spiritual” satisfaction. The science of religious experience seems to say otherwise. In Jonathan Haidt’s book “The Happiness Hypothesis,” religious experience (at least the kind people have in churches, etc.) is characterized as essentially social. It’s a matter of feeling “elevated” by being in a group where everyone has feelings of reverence, gratitude, love, and so on. That’s not what people get from doing science. (It’s equally true, of course, that the satisfactions of science aren’t all obtainable through religion). It might very well be that the closest substitute for religion (for the skeptic) is actually some social activity like working together on a cause, or even going to a concert. This is good news, because these social experiences are available to all, and there are a lot of people who want scientists to do science, but aren’t particularly attracted to it themselves.

]]> By: Chris Mooney http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/01/06/worthy-of-the-onion-atheists-attack-atheist-article-for-pointing-out-that-scientistss-work-gives-them-a-sense-of-meaning/#comment-87292 Chris Mooney Fri, 07 Jan 2011 04:04:48 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=14849#comment-87292 I want to thank everyone for the good comments and reasonable tone here. I'll have more soon. I want to thank everyone for the good comments and reasonable tone here. I’ll have more soon.

]]> By: George Faulkner http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/01/06/worthy-of-the-onion-atheists-attack-atheist-article-for-pointing-out-that-scientistss-work-gives-them-a-sense-of-meaning/#comment-87291 George Faulkner Fri, 07 Jan 2011 02:57:27 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=14849#comment-87291 I think Chris is correct here and I'm probably as much of an atheist/naturalist as anyone. The real enemy is not religion but some of its historical baggage: "faith" (as Sam Harris brilliantly argued), oppressive behavior justified by faith, closed-mindedness, authoritarianism, egotism, otherworldly escapism, etc. Religion may have started in a phase of human evolution with much of this supernatural baggage, but it is and remains a relatively unique social institution with other benefits. Borrowing from the late expert on mythology, Joseph Campbell and others, I think religion performs 4 important functions and can continue to do so in a naturalistic framework: 1. articulating and constantly updating a comprehensive, provisional ontology or view of what is real and how do we know that (which is beyond what experimental science itself can do and which is what many scientists do when not writing for peer-reviewed journals). 2. promoting an ethical creed based on that philosophy, including a moral education for children (which cannot be left to public schools or even most parents who lack the resources and discipline). 3. offering a path to personal fulfillment, enlightenment, peace (or whatever we want to call it), and a collective vision for society (utopian goals), which even helps inform public policy 4. practices and rituals to connect people as a community and to promote individual peak or mystical experiences or sense of wonder, which often are life changing. One other practical reason for not targeting religion as such, is that, as the ministers, like Michael Dowd and John Shelby Spong are demonstrating, many better-informed people within religious traditions are becoming much more receptive to a naturalistic view and pushing their traditions to move ahead with them. Criticizing religious movements or institutions of all kinds is more likely to turn off these individuals and create even more of a reaction against those "cold-hearted" scientists. Taking the critique against religion to its logical extreme, one might expect anti-religionists to e against any seasonal celebrations, like New Year's Eve/Day, Thanksgiving, the coming of Spring, coming of age rituals, marriage, etc. all because they had origins in supernaturalism and don't encourage purely rational, Spock-like behavior. It's all in how you define religion" and the anti-religion atheists are defining it too narrowly, in fact using a definition that is itself unscientific, as many sociologists would claim. I think Chris is correct here and I’m probably as much of an atheist/naturalist as anyone. The real enemy is not religion but some of its historical baggage: “faith” (as Sam Harris brilliantly argued), oppressive behavior justified by faith, closed-mindedness, authoritarianism, egotism, otherworldly escapism, etc. Religion may have started in a phase of human evolution with much of this supernatural baggage, but it is and remains a relatively unique social institution with other benefits. Borrowing from the late expert on mythology, Joseph Campbell and others, I think religion performs 4 important functions and can continue to do so in a naturalistic framework:
1. articulating and constantly updating a comprehensive, provisional ontology or view of what is real and how do we know that (which is beyond what experimental science itself can do and which is what many scientists do when not writing for peer-reviewed journals).
2. promoting an ethical creed based on that philosophy, including a moral education for children (which cannot be left to public schools or even most parents who lack the resources and discipline).
3. offering a path to personal fulfillment, enlightenment, peace (or whatever we want to call it), and a collective vision for society (utopian goals), which even helps inform public policy
4. practices and rituals to connect people as a community and to promote individual peak or mystical experiences or sense of wonder, which often are life changing.

One other practical reason for not targeting religion as such, is that, as the ministers, like Michael Dowd and John Shelby Spong are demonstrating, many better-informed people within religious traditions are becoming much more receptive to a naturalistic view and pushing their traditions to move ahead with them. Criticizing religious movements or institutions of all kinds is more likely to turn off these individuals and create even more of a reaction against those “cold-hearted” scientists. Taking the critique against religion to its logical extreme, one might expect anti-religionists to e against any seasonal celebrations, like New Year’s Eve/Day, Thanksgiving, the coming of Spring, coming of age rituals, marriage, etc. all because they had origins in supernaturalism and don’t encourage purely rational, Spock-like behavior.

It’s all in how you define religion” and the anti-religion atheists are defining it too narrowly, in fact using a definition that is itself unscientific, as many sociologists would claim.

]]> By: The Semantics Of Spirituality – Camels With Hammers http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/01/06/worthy-of-the-onion-atheists-attack-atheist-article-for-pointing-out-that-scientistss-work-gives-them-a-sense-of-meaning/#comment-87290 The Semantics Of Spirituality – Camels With Hammers Fri, 07 Jan 2011 01:44:58 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/?p=14849#comment-87290 [...] the spirituality of scientists has sparked some interesting debate in the atheist blogosphere. His new post on the subject explicitly interprets his aims and themes in the piece as essentially saying what I [...] [...] the spirituality of scientists has sparked some interesting debate in the atheist blogosphere. His new post on the subject explicitly interprets his aims and themes in the piece as essentially saying what I [...]

]]>