Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
From behind the WSJ paywall, via Gwynnie at Maggie’s Farm.
In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.
Respect the paywall…tease only…
Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology…The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
It offers food for thought, not only about the origins of the universe, but about the nature of atheism. How can “atheism,” as we have classically known it as more a lack of belief than a presence of it, be “shaken”?
And then there is the other matter: What does it take to make it so?
Related: (update 12-29-14) How’s this for an attention-grabber? severian points out, true atheism actually is not even possible.
Not so sure I can go so far as the disbelieve the disbelievers, although there is a certain delicious irony in entertaining the idea. I have met those who’ve made up their minds there is no god, and insist on the ‘g’ being lowercase if anybody writes about this belief, as I just did. But — by that time, it is a belief. We’re back to that troubling differentiation between the presence of a belief, and the absence of one, and strident atheism most certainly is more presence than absence. It is a catechism of beliefs, sequences of events that provide alternative explanations, whether they can be supported by evidence or not. And how does the militant atheist respond to challenges against these alternative explanations? They simply blot them out, just like any militant religious-person.
By that time, the doubt has become a doctrine. It is a religion, just like any other, simply lacking the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent humanoid being. But, religious in all other aspects.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Until such time as Logic can prove a Negative, “Atheism ” is socially accepted crazy, and very much an “Anti-Church”. The sane unbelievers are agnostic, and not given to preaching. What would be the point?
- Robert Mitchell Jr. | 12/28/2014 @ 21:54Second that. Even when I was one, “atheists” drove me nuts with this proving-a-negative thing. Let’s see… you don’t believe in God because it’s illogical to do so, but it’s logical to state as a fact that He does not exist.
Shove off, neckbeard — you’re too short for this ride.
- Severian | 12/29/2014 @ 10:05But — by that time, it is a belief.
Yep. And that’s why I say it’s logically impossible, because logic says you can’t prove the nonexistence of something.
I’m sure a lot of people have hair-split their way out of this to their own satisfaction, but I don’t buy it. It’s turtles all the way down.
It fails as a scientific hypothesis — while the existence of even one god is sufficient to falsify it, no amount of non-existing gods can confirm it. I’m guessing this is the argument of first resort for many “atheists” — the proposition “there is no God” is falsifiable, and therefore “scientific.” Which is, at best, half-assed Popperism, which means it’s untestable, which again means — logically speaking — you’re stuck with agnosticism. Barring some kind of bench test (and even if you ignore all the problems with Popperism), you still have to hold yourself open to the possibility that a god exists, in the same way people had to hold themselves open to the possibility that a black swan exists (to use Popper’s famous example).
It fails rhetorically. Sure, you can say “I assert that no god exists, and all the available evidence backs me on this.” In which case, I’ll hit you with Popper — they said that about black swans, too, and whaddayaknow. Again, logically, agnosticism.
The only way out is to assert a belief — a heartfelt conviction — that there is no god. Which is fine, but then you’ve got to abandon logic…. which I thought was the whole point of the exercise in the first place.
This is why for many years I was agnostic. One can easily maintain the stance that, since Jesus’s miracles are neither scientifically provable nor logically necessary, Christianity is a myth, and that the God described in the Bible is likely not the Creator… but that’s disbelief in Christianity, not atheism.
- Severian | 12/30/2014 @ 08:16[…] — it’s the least I can do that isn’t a straight-up SNUL – but Morgan had an update on something that I find perennially bothersome, […]
- On Atheism – UPDATED | Rotten Chestnuts | 01/01/2015 @ 10:25