Posts like this are the reason I come back here several times a day. An excellent distillation of several trends/lines of thought into one coherent statement. Thank you for that and I hope you don't mind that this will be emailed around quite a bit, with proper attribution of course.

Thanks for considering me to be an exceptional person - and on my birthday no less! (Though I must confess that among atheists I know, I am much more the rule than the exception.)

Stephen Macklin:

Though I must confess that among atheists I know, I am much more the rule than the exception.

Note the operative words...!

Dafydd

Perhaps I'm too cynical, but don't stories like these (and with the Johns Hopkins reference for implied credibility) just fuel the thought processes of those that don't want to confront Iran over their nuclear designs in a "gee, we better let them do whatever they want or they'll starve in the dark" kind of way?

ShoreMick:

Not really. They do however, point to yet another reason why many Iranians may be tiring of the mullahs.

Linked here is Powerline's article eloquently proving that Watt did NOT say what was claimed about him, as Daffyd points out above -- in fact, he says the opposite.

I post this because Daffyd's statement is the first time I've ever seen anyone contradict that. I've heard that quote and similar ones attributed to Watt many times, and I just assumed there was some basis to the claims. There is NONE. Watt did NOT advocate environmental carelessness.

Thank you, Daffyd.

By the way, I found this link through Wikipedia's entry on Watt.

-Billy

An excellent post marred only by the momentary reference to someone who manages to show less profundity with a three-hour radio show than our host does with a single semi-colon. (You may take it as a gratuitous buttering up of our host or as a gratuitous insult of a man who is only earning his daily bread on the radio. The former is kinder to me.)

I have often held that leftist, existential, and athiestic non- beliefs logically lead to death worship. Camus said the only real choice was whether or not to commit suicide. Scratch a lefty and you get pro- abortion, pro- assisted suicide, and pro- gay marriage. That's no way to build a future.

We've known for some time that atheism is both a symptom of, and the cause of a lack of belief in the future; when one doesn't believe in the future, one lives for today, and to hell with tomorrow.

I don't think so, Dafydd. I tend to think about the future a lot, namely, how to keep religious maniacs from making sure we don't have a future.

The sort of existential ennui you mention comes about because societies dump religion and replaces it with nothing else, leading to a Last Man-esque apathy and nihilism. Their lack of aspiration leaves them open for the Church of Marx to snap them up.

Having spent so much time under one sort of "divine" rule or another, they've forgotten how to aspire. Look at the EU obsession with rules for everything. Not only do they not want to reach out for anything more than basic survival, they don't want anyone else to, either.

You state that religions look to the future, while atheists don't. Pretty much the only thing the various religions see in the future is an Apocalypse in one form or another (where God comes to make their side victorious). The obsessive desire to rule and the out-and-out hatred of the world (because that's what it is) makes the religious want to see it all blow up in an orgy of destroying the wicked (read: all non-adherents). You project the death-obsession/death-desire of religion on all atheists, sir.

Scientists, on the other hand, tend to be atheist, and figure this world is all you get, and thus look for ways to improve humanity's lot. Their opponents tend to be the religious, who want to repress one thing or another for the sake of their god. Witness the HPV vaccine flap. Here we have a cancer precursor, and the vaccine to prevent it. What happens? Here come the "troublesome priests" (well, those who follow them) trying to hold it back because it "might make women more sexually active". I wish I could say it doesn't get more absurd than that, but it does.

Atheism isn't really a monolith. It's more that it requires one to actually have proof, or at least good evidence, of a thing. Saying that "faith" (unquestioning acceptance of an authority's pronouncements) is required is the road that leads to where the middle east is now.

I find it interesting that you are stating that Iran's collapse is due to socialism, which is true, but ignores an important point, maybe because the rest of the picture looks too much like a distorted mirror. Iran's religious belief in its dominant destiny is what's making it kill itself now. You make that point later on, yet still manage to shy away from the fact that the dream of Islamic dominance is the prime motivator here.

The key to success and a good future isn't religion, it's human aspiration.

PS: Lest you think I'm being negative, I love it when a post can inspire me to write this much in response. Very nice.

MegaTroopX:

You state that religions look to the future, while atheists don't.

No, I'm talking about societies: some but not all religious societies believe in a future; no atheist society does.

I have explicitly said over and over that individual results will vary; what matters to a society is societal beliefs. (Bear in mind that I myself am an agnostic, not a member of any religion.)

Scientists, on the other hand, tend to be atheist, and figure this world is all you get, and thus look for ways to improve humanity's lot.

Everybody wants to "improve humanity's lot." The devil lies in the details of what sort of improvement they have in mind.

Atheist scientists are typically liberals, and they nearly always believe in a number of societal-suicidal leitmotifs, such as abortion on demand, "right to die" legislation, delayed marriage and childbearing, same-sex marriage, ZPG, huge increases in welfare, and often a violent opposition to national-defense programs, from the NSA al-Qaeda communications intercept program to the SDI. Each of these tends towards society's destruction, not its advancement in any material way.

This does not mean that every atheist scientist is such a liberal; but if you bet that way, you'll win a lot more than you lose.

Finally, I have to call you on something that truly bothers me: your religiously bigotted description of the reponse to the HPV (human papillomavirus) vaccine is simply and provably false. I hope this is merely through your own misunderstanding, and not a deliberate attempt to mislead us:

[Atheist scientists'] opponents tend to be the religious, who want to repress one thing or another for the sake of their god. Witness the HPV vaccine flap. Here we have a cancer precursor, and the vaccine to prevent it. What happens? Here come the "troublesome priests" (well, those who follow them) trying to hold it back because it "might make women more sexually active". I wish I could say it doesn't get more absurd than that, but it does.

In fact, the major conservative religious groups have not tried to "hold back" the HPV vaccine, which is extremely effective at preventing some (but not all) forms of cervical cancer that is caused by sexually-transmitted disease.

Here is a column in the Washington Post by a spokeswoman for the Family Research Council, one of the most well-respected of the conservative, religious, and pro-family organizations:

Development of a vaccine for HPV is a tremendous medical achievement and a boon to public health. It holds the potential to protect the health of millions and preserve the lives of thousands of American women each year. After extensive study, we and other pro-family groups have concluded that the clear benefits of developing an HPV vaccine outweigh any potential costs. The groups welcoming it include leading conservative pro-family organizations such as the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America and the Medical Institute for Sexual Health....

Our second concern is the argument we hear from some groups that the HPV vaccine should be made mandatory. Pro-family groups are united in believing that parents should decide what is best for their children. We oppose any effort by states to make Gardasil mandatory (for example, making it a requirement for school attendance). If use of the vaccine becomes part of the recommended standard of care, and if the federal Vaccines for Children program pays for vaccination of those children whose families cannot afford it, then vaccination should become widespread without school mandates.

Mandating vaccination may be justified when the disease in question is easily transmitted through casual contact or blood. But in this case the strains of HPV that cause cervical cancer are transmitted only through sexual contact. The paternalistic view that just because something is good for you the government should force you to do it is not one that most American families would welcome, especially when transmission of the virus can be prevented through behavioral change alone.

MegaTroopX, as a libertarian, I 100% support this view: there are many cases where government has decided that a particular drug is "good" for children in school and has mandated its use, even without parental consent... even without parental knowledge. The widespread use (abuse, I believe) of Ritalin is one very obvious example.

There is a wide, whopping difference between saying "I oppose making this vaccine mandatory to all girls" and saying "I oppose this vaccine," and by thunder, you ought to know that.

Such an egregious error, especially one driven by clear animosity towards religion, undercuts everything else you have said about the effects of religion.

By the way, the entire point of this post is to note that certain types of religion -- such as that practiced by the mullahs of Iran, but also Mithraism and the Aztec and Mayan religions -- are every bit as destructive as the great atheist state religions of Marxism and Naziism.

It's not a paean to every possible religion; it's a paean to one specific type of religion: ethical monotheism. This is a point we have made many times in this blog.

Dafydd

Dafydd,

I believe your term "futurism" is much more profound than Dennis Prager's "ethical monotheism".

I would no more renounce my Christianity than I would spit in my mother's face. Still, when my priest sermonizes about the secondary importance of this world as opposed to the eternal kingdom of Heaven, with my four and a half year old daughter sitting next to me in the pew, I want to stand up and spit in his face.

God made this world for us and told us that it is very good. Nobody has given me the key to Heaven and it may very well be that I will not be able to lift my eyes from shame when I stand for Judgment. My guaranteed immortality is in my child and in every other child for whom I have helped to preserve, if not improve, the world.

(As for Dennis Prager's "ethical monotheism" it is a contradiction in terms or at best mysticism -- human beings divining the will of God to adopt non-ordained values. It is certainly neither a Mosaic nor Christian concept. Both the Father and the Son are "do as I say, not as your philosophy says you should" kind of Guys.)

(Bear in mind that I myself am an agnostic, not a member of any religion.)

Where does "ethical monotheism" come in, in this case? I'm not trying to snark, I'm being serious.

"Morality comes from God...you know, if he's there."

I 100% support this view: there are many cases where government has decided that a particular drug is "good" for children in school and has mandated its use, even without parental consent... even without parental knowledge. The widespread use (abuse, I believe) of Ritalin is one very obvious example.

There is a wide, whopping difference between saying "I oppose making this vaccine mandatory to all girls" and saying "I oppose this vaccine," and by thunder, you ought to know that.

I can see your viewpoint, but I just worry that we'll see the same FUD as with GM foods (better they starve, then that they "sin" against nature), just from the right this time. Some of the folks whom this would affect don't get to make their own choices.

The real acid test for humanity will start when a cure/vaccine for AIDS is found, and crank up to 11 when the sorts of things that fundamentally change us (cybernetics, genetics, and the like) get going. Will we see faith-based banning, or not?

I believe as you do that the future is anthropogenic, but how does one reconcile that with religions that place god as the only answer (with the attendant assertion that man is fundamentally wrong)?

MegaTroopX:

The real acid test for humanity will start when a cure/vaccine for AIDS is found, and crank up to 11 when the sorts of things that fundamentally change us (cybernetics, genetics, and the like) get going. Will we see faith-based banning, or not?

Help me out here: you haven't demonstrated any "faith-based banning" yet, except from lefties whose faith is in global warming and safe-sex. So why are you so certain that right-wing FBB is just around the corner?

I believe as you do that the future is anthropogenic, but how does one reconcile that with religions that place god as the only answer (with the attendant assertion that man is fundamentally wrong)?

I'm sure such sects exist within the Judeo-Christian community; but they're so rare it's hard to find one. Even Christian Scientists accept that the state has the right to force them to allow their children to get necessary medical care.

But we're not talking about FBB; the point here is whether parents have the right to say "I don't want my child given Ritalin as a way to shut him up when he asks the teacher embarassing questions... embarassing because teacher doesn't know the answer."

Where does "ethical monotheism" come in, in this case? I'm not trying to snark, I'm being serious.

"Morality comes from God...you know, if he's there."

Occasional enlightened individuals, such as myself and presumably yourself, can behave in an ethical way without a belief in God.

But observation teaches me that the great majority of people cannot: if the society as an entity loses faith in a higher, sentient being Who has the power to punish transgressions -- and to inspire us to reach beyond our grasp -- then the result is generally dreadful.

When the society invests its faith in such a higher power whose primary concern is not that we treat each other with justice and decency, but rather that we prance about praising and worshipping him -- God as an egomaniacal Hollywood director from the 1930s -- the result is equally horrific.

Only when the society as a unit (not necessarily every individual) believes in a single, solitary God Who is above all -- and Who above all wants us to behave like civilized human beings, can I feel really safe.

I am an agnostic: but I would much rather live surrounded by religious Jews and Christians than by those of my own irreligious tribe!

Dafydd

I am an agnostic: but I would much rather live surrounded by religious Jews and Christians than by those of my own irreligious tribe!

That actually sounds quite similar to Bill Whittle's concept of tribes. Basically, you're stating that people who are irreligious tend towards going "pink", which is what we don't need right now. I can see where you might be coming from with that. Goodness knows the data seems to support it.

Dafydd-

(Sorry I'm so late to this party, but I'm in Mexico celebrating the holidays with my wife's wonderful family.)

Thus does it appear that the social belief in ethical monotheism is essential for a society to be capitalist, individualist, and to provide liberty.

You mean like in Japan? The only attribute you refer to that they might not practice to the same degree we do is individualism. But they seem to be doing quite well, thank you.

This is true even if some individual agnostics or atheists are perfectly capable of supporting capitalism, individualism, or liberty themselves (though that's not the betting line): such folks are exceptional... but society needs belief to enforce due consideration of tomorrow and tomorrow's tomorrow: you cannot build a self-sustaining culture out of the exceptions.

(Sorry for not reproducing your emphasis, but this internet place is about to close.)

Ok, so you, MegaTroopX, and I can be trusted to act morally without deep (any?) religious convictions. But the unwashed masses -- shudder.

Sounds like the old "opiate of the masses".

Not that I necessarily disagree. Religion can be a great comfort for people who require answers to the unanswerable. Those folks tend to not be from the top decile of the gene pool. It's probably better to allow them the comfort of their religion than to force them to actually think about difficult concepts.

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

URL:
Remember me unto the end of days? AyeNay!

Comments: (Sssselect text and bite a button to apply HTML tagssssss...)