Fashionable Atheism?

Interesting post by Schizmatic at Gene Expression. The post is titled “Decoupling Atheism from Intellectual Progress." A couple of quotes from the post.

"I submit that unbelief has very little to do with scientific/intellectual progress and a great deal to do with fashion. The traditional arguments against a good God’s existence did not suddenly become stronger with the Enlightenment; such arguments did, though, become more fashionable. “Reason” did not suddenly come into existence in the late eighteenth century (Will Durant to the contrary), and any medieval student whose undergraduate education began with the Posterior Analytics would take a great deal of offense if he were told such."

and

"Why, though, am I bringing all of this up? To make a bold new argument for the truth of the Christian faith? No.2 Rather, my point is that I often see it confidently asserted that a decline in religious faith is a necessary component of religious progress and that the march of this progress will eventually lead to a godless world. I think that, in light of the fact that unbelief is usually more a product of fashion than anything else, we ought not to look forward to a world in which the “God problem” seen in different parts of the world suddenly resolves itself. Indeed, the religious revival underway in a certain monotheistic religion and the fact that folks with a scientific and engineering background are often drawn to the most fundamentalist interpretation of this religion would both seem to indicate that we are in for a religious world for a long time to come."

Posted by on 03/01 at 08:22 AM

  1. Dp you remember when you were a little kid, and your mother would say:

    “Well, I suppose if all of your friends wanted to jump off a cliff then you would want to jump off a cliff too?!?!”

    Apparently there are a lot of Momma’s who were more correct then they imagined ...

    Posted by  on  03/01  at  11:00 AM

  2. Napoleon: You have written this huge book on the system of the world without once mentioning the author of the universe.

    Laplace: I had no need of that hypothesis.

    Posted by John T. Kennedy  on  03/01  at  04:04 PM

  3. Despite being a hard core Fatalist Laplace was almost cast into the pit over that remark.

    Machiavelli had a similar incident, but I won’t repeat his blasphemy.

    The fact is that Laplace wasn’t being very honest. He was indeed assuming a hypothesis (a premise/axiom) for which he had no need. He was erroneously and unnecessarily assuming that Matter makes consciousness.

    And if you are willing to make that unnecessary hypothesis you can do away with the other one. It’s kind of like calling the flip of a coin. Obviously if you are convinced that “Tails” will come up, there is no need to assume that “Heads” will come up.

    Posted by  on  03/01  at  04:36 PM

  4. How would either hypothesis change his book?

    Posted by John T. Kennedy  on  03/01  at  04:51 PM

  5. but who will save the Happy Tree Friends from their evil creators?

    “there is no hope in your hypothesis”

    a small creature.

    Posted by a small creature  on  03/01  at  06:36 PM

  6. "but who will save the Happy Tree Friends from their evil creators?"

    God’s peace! I would not lose so great an honour as one man (or girl) more, methinks, would share from me for the best hope I have. 

    Posted by John T. Kennedy  on  03/01  at  07:58 PM

  7. John Kennedy: How would either hypothesis change his book?

    I guess that depends on the specific differences between TLOP and “God”?

    Posted by  on  03/02  at  08:55 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: Sadism - But Not in the Movies

Previous entry: For the Bush = Hitler Fools

<< Back to main