Search This Blog

Monday, February 25, 2008

religion is the default position, and atheism is perhaps more in need of explanation

From House of Eratosthenes (read the whole thing).


Why do people take the words “increase in minimum wage” literally, when with just a little tiny bit of thinking they could see what really happens is that jobs are outlawed unless the jobs meet a specific criteria. It’s easy to explain how nice folks could fall for this once or twice. How does it continue to happen for the better part of a century?

How come a young available lady is so attracted to bad boys and rebels, and once she manages to snag one of ‘em, works so hard to get him to be just like everybody else, eventually hittin’-the-road if he doesn’t shape up?

Why do people want stoicism and cool-headedness in their presidents, and pulse-pounding excitement and charisma from the people who are looking to become the next president?


So yeah, atheism is more in need of an explanation. Atheism says the reason fertile soil causes plants to grow in the ground is…process of elimination. If the plants didn’t grow in the ground, they would not be here, so if they’re here, of course they grow in the ground and we can use them to feed us. And if we couldn’t then we would not be here.

Just like the sculptor who explains that he simply starts with a block of marble and carves away everything that doesn’t look like a horse. Niiiiiice and simple…with a “you idiot” tacked on to the end, and the sculptor is explained-away.

But with the sculptor and with the deity, common sense says things aren’t quite so simple. I think the egghead’s second-thought is the right one. We need to study our atheists. I’d be particularly interested in the following conundrum: If rational, cool-headed thinking nods approvingly toward secularism, what has that to do with the last three or four years? How come atheism waited until the twenty-first century to really bask in the limelight? Wouldn’t it be more fitting if it came to popularity half a century ago, when we were launching satellites and smashing atoms? This is the age of fifty gazillion wonderful new inventions, all of which are dedicated to finding new ways to play personal music collections and carry dogs around in purses.

And this is the era in which the atheist’s view of the cosmos, is most popularly thought to be the correct one. If I were an atheist, that would be sufficient to make me seriously question my atheism. I’m glad I’m not one.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Samuel Skinner
Wow... arguement of ignorance at it's finest. First of, atheism is only about god- everything else falls under the domain of science. Technically atheism falls under the domain of science, but scientists don't want to touch the hot potatoe.

Second, just because someone doesn't have an explanation for something, doesn't make the previous explanation right. Previous theories not based on evidence have a poor track record (humors, geocentrisim, creationism, etc).

Moneyrunner said...

Previous theories not based on evidence have a poor track record

Most "previous theories" about the natural world were based on observation and theories were developed to explain them. That’s how "science" works then and now. Newer theories replaced older theories. You seem to be suffering from the phenomenon that is common in all ages: assuming that we have reached the pinnacle of understanding and our current “theories” are the right ones.

I invite you to link to my post on Science and read the related links.

Anonymous said...

Samuel Skinner
I was refering to Aristoltles and Galens theories. People didn't find tests that could invalidate them and perform the tests- they took the theory to be true! Although Aristotles stuff is harder to disprove, Galileo can up with a simple contridiction that showed it was false. Meanwhile Galen was off the market- anatomists and doctors simply ignored the differances between his theory and reality.

Or, in short they lacked a key component for theories- a way to show theywe false and people who carried out the attempts to falsify it.

Do I think we are at the end of science? No. Do I think we know what ww are talking about? Yes. For example... we know all the basics (stars are made of Hydrogen and Helium- the building blocks of matter is atoms (although it isn't the bottom), etc).

Moneyrunner said...

I’m sorry. This is a pointless discussion. You seem to lack an understanding of metaphysics and the philosophical questions that the article discusses.

Regards.