Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - Mclean's

Hack&Lube · 05-13-2010, 12:00 AM

Regarding the above article about "new atheism" or "modernizing the argument for God"; the logical loopholes and philosophical fallacies some people go into to deal with this metaphysical issue and how Dawkins has somehow become the nexus for both sides of the movement as a point of discussion from which to heap piles of profundities onto makes my head shake and my eyes roll.

Premise 2 says that if you decide that the universe has an explanation, the explanation HAS to be god. The Christian God of course. Pater noster, qui es in caelis. There is no other substitute. That is the poorly disguised arrogance and egotism shared by almost all religions - that every religion believes itself to be correct. This is what sparked my skepticism in the first place.

Why do intelligent design advocates always have the spectre of extant earthly religions behind them somehow? For someone to be a truely interested in the concept of intelligent design - or arguing that position - shouldn't they be open to all possibilities and not just something that is very ego-centric to their own lives and culture? Maybe the universe as we know it was created by some dimensionally trascendental alien intelligence, 100 septillion expansion/crunch cycles ago and we are but some side-effect, mold growing in a petri dish long tossed to the dump, that nobody really cares about? Or maybe the Vikings had it right, that we all live on Midgard and in the modern world, the gods are all just forgotten and atheism is perfectly fine because they've had their Ragnarok? That's just as plausible.

I have no problem with religion. The idea that the universe could have a purpose and that there is a god is a warm and welcoming feeling to me - and that is precisely why religion hangs on, because the human instinct likes this feeling of purpose and importance and immortality. We are all ego-centric beings with a very narrow and dim view of time and space restricted to the frame of reference of our own short lives and our perception of our own short history as written down by others. We are cognizant of our feebleness and our mortality and want to conquer that. I might even be a theist, but don't tell me something silly like just because there is an explanation for the universe, a specific religion must be correct. Most earthly religions are a zero sum game. They all believe one will win and the others will lose. If that is really your goal, then please, start from there and not from some logical loophole about the explanation of the universe that states it is true because it says so.

05-13-2010, 12:00 AM	#161
Hack&Lube Atomic Nerd Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Calgary Exp:	Regarding the above article about "new atheism" or "modernizing the argument for God"; the logical loopholes and philosophical fallacies some people go into to deal with this metaphysical issue and how Dawkins has somehow become the nexus for both sides of the movement as a point of discussion from which to heap piles of profundities onto makes my head shake and my eyes roll. Premise 2 says that if you decide that the universe has an explanation, the explanation HAS to be god. The Christian God of course. Pater noster, qui es in caelis. There is no other substitute. That is the poorly disguised arrogance and egotism shared by almost all religions - that every religion believes itself to be correct. This is what sparked my skepticism in the first place. Why do intelligent design advocates always have the spectre of extant earthly religions behind them somehow? For someone to be a truely interested in the concept of intelligent design - or arguing that position - shouldn't they be open to all possibilities and not just something that is very ego-centric to their own lives and culture? Maybe the universe as we know it was created by some dimensionally trascendental alien intelligence, 100 septillion expansion/crunch cycles ago and we are but some side-effect, mold growing in a petri dish long tossed to the dump, that nobody really cares about? Or maybe the Vikings had it right, that we all live on Midgard and in the modern world, the gods are all just forgotten and atheism is perfectly fine because they've had their Ragnarok? That's just as plausible. I have no problem with religion. The idea that the universe could have a purpose and that there is a god is a warm and welcoming feeling to me - and that is precisely why religion hangs on, because the human instinct likes this feeling of purpose and importance and immortality. We are all ego-centric beings with a very narrow and dim view of time and space restricted to the frame of reference of our own short lives and our perception of our own short history as written down by others. We are cognizant of our feebleness and our mortality and want to conquer that. I might even be a theist, but don't tell me something silly like just because there is an explanation for the universe, a specific religion must be correct. Most earthly religions are a zero sum game. They all believe one will win and the others will lose. If that is really your goal, then please, start from there and not from some logical loophole about the explanation of the universe that states it is true because it says so. Last edited by Hack&Lube; 05-13-2010 at 01:07 AM.