?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

the new agnosticism

Ron Rosenbaum's article in Slate recently is a perfectly good example of why agnostics are insufferable. They clearly don't even know what it is they are arguing about.

Consider this statement: Indeed agnostics see atheism as "a theism"—as much a faith-based creed as the most orthodox of the religious variety.

Yeah, Ron, that is dumb. I'll just be blunt about it. Criticizing a position on the basis of your own misunderstanding isn't very bright. And the agnostic's "radical skepticism"? Have you ever stopped to ask yourself if it's really warranted? If someone asked you whether Obama was really born in this country or not, are you going to say "I don't know" despite the evidence to the contrary? If so, you are just as dogmatic as you pretend we are... It goes the same for god. I can only conclude he has an odd definition of god, or he hasn't looked at the evidence at all... and that's being charitable.

Faith-based atheism? Yes, alas. Atheists display a credulous and childlike faith, worship a certainty as yet unsupported by evidence—the certainty that they can or will be able to explain how and why the universe came into existence.

Huh? Science has done a lot to get us closer, but it is still far from certain as to just what some details are. But it really is okay for an atheist to say "I don't know". It is not a dichotomous position to insist that we know something or we don't... we can know some things, and not know others. See the difference? Classic case of lazy thinking for my women's studies class.

Most seem never to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing.

When has science ever said it can? At least about the Big Bang, no one pretends that mass created itself, rather the Big Bang theory claims that matter was all condensed into a single point. Knowing what came before may well be impossible. But Ron here believes the creationist, quite credulously I might add, when he pretends that cosmologists say we came from "nothing".

And then this cherished bit: none of which strikes me as persuasive. Um, Ron, you've already proved you don't know what you are talking about. What strikes you as "persuasive" is beside the point. Your ignorance is getting in the way of your understanding. What the ignorant find convincing is not in the slightest bit interesting or useful in terms of determining the truth. And the things he lists are just scientific speculation. If he can't tell the difference between informed speculation (that needs to be investigated) and well-supported facts, then he really is hopeless.

I just don't accept turning science into a new religion until it can show it has all the answers, which it hasn't, and probably never will.

More inanity. Believing something that is supported by the evidence and denying evidence to continue your belief (or your lack of it) is not the same thing at all. And Ron here, I'm afraid, now falls into the latter category. Nor do atheists believe anything like what he claims, that science will have "all the answers". Science only believes that it can find better answers.

After that, I started skipping around on Ron. I mean, really. What other ignorant claims could be possibly attribute to atheists and science that were completely false? So, let's jump down to his "manifesto".

Too much of the rhetoric and sociality is tribal: Us and Them."

Oh, um, Ron... you're doing it too. What did you just say about theists and atheists being true believers? But not you? Us, them, get it?

I'm bored now.

Profile

science wins
inafoxhole
inafoxhole

Latest Month

June 2011
S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Paulina Bozek