The joys of life without God

James R

Just this guy, you know?
Staff member
Here's an interesting interview with Michael Shermer, talking about atheism, evolution and the theory of "intelligent design", why religion should not be enshrined in American law, and much else besides.

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/08/23/shermer/

Here are a few excepts:

-----------------------

Why do people fear [the theory of evolution]?

They've been sold a bill of goods by people who like the warfare model of science and religion, particularly fundamentalists and militant atheists. Both sides want to force a choice and debunk the other side. But it need not be so. It's an incorrect interpretation promoted by extremists. The tendency is for liberals to embrace science and conservatives to mistrust it. Conservatives like technology but tend to be leery about science because it threatens their religions. They fear the Darwinian worldview is the liberal worldview, which says that if there is no God, there is no absolute right and wrong. And without an Archimedean point outside of ourselves that says this is right or wrong, then anything goes, there's no basis for morality. Therefore America will go to hell in a moral handbasket.

...

Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, recently told Salon that he believes in God, the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus. "If you believe in God," Collins said, "and if God is more than nature, then there's no reason that God could not stage an invasion into the natural world, which -- to our limited perspective -- would appear to be a miracle."

What does he mean by miracle? If God is intervening into our world, he must be doing so in some measurable way. That's what we do with science. We measure. OK, Francis, where's your data? There was just a big study done on prayer and healing. If praying to God is supposed to heal people, this was the best, most rigorous study ever done, conducted by a world-class scientist who believed he would find a positive result of praying. Here's what he found: zip, nada, nothing.

So, OK, Francis, what else have you got? The virgin birth? I mean, come on. The resurrection? Now we're talking about mythic events, we're not talking about science. What he's doing is rehashing old theological arguments that have been hashed out by evangelicals for a long time. The bit [from C.S. Lewis] that Jesus can't have been a liar or a lunatic and so therefore he's the Lord? That's not science, that's creating straw men you can knock down to leave the one standing you already believe in. It's an example of the hindsight bias we're all susceptible to. We've already made a decision and then we go back and justify it. Scientists like Collins are just particularly good at it.

...

What's your best answer for why there is no God?

It's not why there is no God, it's why there's not compelling evidence to believe in God. That's a better way to put it. And from my perspective, it's just not there for me. With training in science, I have high standards of evidence. If you said God is real, and you sent your evidence to the journals Science or Nature for publication, you'd be laughed out of the room; you wouldn't get past the first reviewer.

On the other side, the best evidence that there probably isn't a God is that belief in God is so deeply culturally embedded. When you study world religions, it's obvious that, throughout time, all of these different people are making up their own stories about God. If you lived 1,000 years ago, hardly anybody would be a Christian. If you were born in India, you'd likely be a Hindu. What does that tell you? From a Christian perspective, it means we need to get more missionaries over there to tell them the truth! From an anthropological perspective, it's another case. Christians today might say, I don't believe in Zeus, that was a silly superstition. Yet for many people that was a real god.

So it turns out there are 10,000 gods and yet only one right one. That means we're all atheists on 9,999 gods. The only difference between me and the believers is I'm an atheist on one more god.

...

Earlier this summer, George Gilder, the supply-side economist and guiding light to the techno-libertarian crowd, wrote an essay in National Review. He's a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, the foundation, as you know, that promotes intelligent design. In the essay, "Evolution and Me," he argues that physics and chemistry will never yield insight into the origins of life or consciousness. He says complex life results from a preceding intelligence. He's pretty hard on you Darwinists. He writes, "As an all-purpose tool of reductionism that said whatever survives is, in some way, normative, Darwinism could inspire almost any modern movement, from the eugenic furies of Nazism to the feminist crusades of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood."

That's completely absurd. He's listing all the liberal issues and wants us to see them as fascism. That's the typical right-wing response. What a political or ideological or racist movement does with a scientific theory is quite independent of the scientists. It's hardly fair to blame Gutenberg for the printing press that allowed "Mein Kampf" to be distributed. Science is just a tool, a way of understanding the natural world. We've got to get past this idea that science is a thing. It isn't a thing like religion is a thing or a political party is a thing. It's true that scientists have clubs. They have banners and meetings and they drink beer together. But science is just a method, a way of answering questions. It's a verb not a noun.

...

Intelligent design [ID] boosters say that if life only develops by random chance, as Darwinists say, then we're living meaningless lives.

Right, that's the moral meme. But they're confusing human meaning with natural meaning. There is no natural meaning in the universe. Nobody, Christian or otherwise, would look at a star and go, What's the meaning of that? It doesn't mean anything. It's a bunch of atoms. Believers and non-believers alike are comfortable saying human life has meaning because we make it so. That goes for Rick Warren and Dr. Phil. They say, hey, look, man, you got to go out there and do it yourself. You got to volunteer and help the poor. We give our life meaning by being helpful and sociable.

Well, that's Darwinian. We evolved as a social primate species in which we had to cooperate to get along. It's not random, there are parameters defined by our own human nature. If these guys want to say, well, that's how God did it, OK, that's fine. But let's keep studying it scientifically to understand why that would have come about through natural forces.

In the end, you don't need a top-down entity to give life meaning. If anything, if nobody is out there, it is much more important to find meaning ourselves. Instead of this world being a mere staging for the next world of eternity -- meaning it doesn't really matter what we do now -- it's better to realize there is no eternity, that this is it. In that case, we better be careful what we do, make our choices consciously, treat people kindly and be moral because this life is what really counts.

Stephen Meyer, one of the vice presidents of the Discovery Institute, says, "Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea but instead an evidence-based scientific theory." You write in "Why Darwin Matters" that the "veneer of science in ID theory is there purposefully to cover up the religious agenda." How do you know that?

Because I asked them and they told me. I know these guys. I have debated Meyer at conferences and gone out to beers with William Dembski, another major I.D. theorist. They're all evangelical born-again Christians. They all believe in Christ as their savior. They believed it before they got into all this stuff. I've asked them that if the main tenets of intelligent design turned out to be false, would they then give up their belief in Christ? No, they say. And that's because they believe in Christ for reasons that have nothing to do with their theory.

So what's the real agenda of I.D.?

They want the Judeo-Christian worldview accepted into American public life as policy. But the First Amendment says you're not supposed to do that. America is based on a diversity of beliefs and was founded on the principle of religious freedom. The conservatives want to blend public life with private life. But religion is private. It's nobody's business. Politicians have to announce they believe in God, and God bless America. But religion as public policy leads to a reduction of liberty and freedom for those who don't believe. It makes it harder for us to express our own beliefs without fear of condemnation.

Let's say that we passed legislation that requires the teaching of one dominant religion in public schools, which right now is Judeo-Christian. Hooray! Everybody's happy. Now let's say that Islam is the dominant religion 500 years from now. It most likely will be Europe. You still want that law on the books? Girls in public schools will have to wear burqas and, in fact, there will be no education for them after sixth grade. You still want the dominant religion legalized in America? No way!

--------------------

Comments?
 
Why do people fear [the theory of evolution]?

They've been sold a bill of goods by people who like the warfare model of science and religion, particularly fundamentalists and militant atheists. Both sides want to force a choice and debunk the other side. But it need not be so. It's an incorrect interpretation promoted by extremists. The tendency is for liberals to embrace science and conservatives to mistrust it. Conservatives like technology but tend to be leery about science because it threatens their religions. They fear the Darwinian worldview is the liberal worldview, which says that if there is no God, there is no absolute right and wrong. And without an Archimedean point outside of ourselves that says this is right or wrong, then anything goes, there's no basis for morality. Therefore America will go to hell in a moral handbasket.

Talk about a tangental response to a direct question

- its vaguely reminiscent to the question "why is there an increase of terrorist activities? Well first you have to look at religion"

- when it is appropriate to talk about economic development one refers to religion - when it is appropriate to talk about religion/science one refers to economic development :confused:

...

Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, recently told Salon that he believes in God, the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus. "If you believe in God," Collins said, "and if God is more than nature, then there's no reason that God could not stage an invasion into the natural world, which -- to our limited perspective -- would appear to be a miracle."

What does he mean by miracle? If God is intervening into our world, he must be doing so in some measurable way. That's what we do with science. We measure. OK, Francis, where's your data? There was just a big study done on prayer and healing. If praying to God is supposed to heal people, this was the best, most rigorous study ever done, conducted by a world-class scientist who believed he would find a positive result of praying. Here's what he found: zip, nada, nothing.

Did he also realise that god is a conscious entity with free will as well?
In otherwords is god duty bound by some inextricable law to deliverthe goods to anybody who asks?
If god is in fact our servant, is he god?

So, OK, Francis, what else have you got? The virgin birth? I mean, come on. The resurrection? Now we're talking about mythic events, we're not talking about science. What he's doing is rehashing old theological arguments that have been hashed out by evangelicals for a long time. The bit [from C.S. Lewis] that Jesus can't have been a liar or a lunatic and so therefore he's the Lord? That's not science, that's creating straw men you can knock down to leave the one standing you already believe in. It's an example of the hindsight bias we're all susceptible to. We've already made a decision and then we go back and justify it. Scientists like Collins are just particularly good at it.

...

It is one thing to say "I have never seen something" and another to say "Something cannot exist becase I have never seen it"

What's your best answer for why there is no God?

It's not why there is no God, it's why there's not compelling evidence to believe in God. That's a better way to put it. And from my perspective, it's just not there for me. With training in science, I have high standards of evidence. If you said God is real, and you sent your evidence to the journals Science or Nature for publication, you'd be laughed out of the room; you wouldn't get past the first reviewer.

Again - lack of epistemology - Has Shermer actually applied the relevant methods of training to perceive god, or is he assuming that his scientific foundation is sufficient to determine the grounds of what is knowable and unknowable?

On the other side, the best evidence that there probably isn't a God is that belief in God is so deeply culturally embedded.

I hear this all the time but what I never hear is the general principles a person applies to determine that religion causes society is an abstraction of society causes religion


When you study world religions, it's obvious that, throughout time, all of these different people are making up their own stories about God.

Obvious to Shermer, perhaps not others ....




If you lived 1,000 years ago, hardly anybody would be a Christian. If you were born in India, you'd likely be a Hindu. What does that tell you?

It tells me he has no knowledge of what India was like 1000 years ago for a start -

From a Christian perspective, it means we need to get more missionaries over there to tell them the truth! From an anthropological perspective, it's another case. Christians today might say, I don't believe in Zeus, that was a silly superstition. Yet for many people that was a real god.

So it turns out there are 10,000 gods and yet only one right one. That means we're all atheists on 9,999 gods. The only difference between me and the believers is I'm an atheist on one more god.

So the logic is that if there are many processes, call them a, b and c, or perhaps even a1, a2, a3 etc since they are all contain similar elements, and if they all claim that they are beneficial and truthful, then there is something obviously wrong those claims - like for instance if there are several brands of headache tablets, and they all have similar ingredients (and perhaps even identical ones) and they all claim to help against headaches, there is something obviously flawed with their claims? :rolleyes:
...



...

Intelligent design [ID] boosters say that if life only develops by random chance, as Darwinists say, then we're living meaningless lives.

Right, that's the moral meme. But they're confusing human meaning with natural meaning. There is no natural meaning in the universe.
merely order


Nobody, Christian or otherwise, would look at a star and go, What's the meaning of that? It doesn't mean anything. It's a bunch of atoms.

It means for a start that it owes the atmosphere that it exists in to a superior intelligence


Believers and non-believers alike are comfortable saying human life has meaning because we make it so. That goes for Rick Warren and Dr. Phil. They say, hey, look, man, you got to go out there and do it yourself. You got to volunteer and help the poor. We give our life meaning by being helpful and sociable.

Well, that's Darwinian. We evolved as a social primate species in which we had to cooperate to get along.

The rascal is caught - first the universe is meaningless and now he is giving a meaning to it

It's not random, there are parameters defined by our own human nature. If these guys want to say, well, that's how God did it, OK, that's fine. But let's keep studying it scientifically to understand why that would have come about through natural forces.

Doesn't explain why he insists on taking god out of the picture though

In the end, you don't need a top-down entity to give life meaning.
If there is an intelligence that is ontologically superior to ours, such as the order of the universe tends to suggest, it could be beneficial - especially in the absence of evidence of how we developed from a low-down entity ...

If anything, if nobody is out there, it is much more important to find meaning ourselves.

Therefore knowledge of god and knowledge of the self are concomitant factors


Instead of this world being a mere staging for the next world of eternity -- meaning it doesn't really matter what we do now -- it's better to realize there is no eternity, that this is it.

This is a fool's happiness - never mind that you can get kicked out of here at any moment, just try and be happy



In that case, we better be careful what we do, make our choices consciously, treat people kindly and be moral because this life is what really counts.

The problem with such fanciful thoughts of universal peace is that there is no basis to centralise such operations from, after all the universe is meaningless right?

Stephen Meyer, one of the vice presidents of the Discovery Institute, says, "Contrary to media reports, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea but instead an evidence-based scientific theory." You write in "Why Darwin Matters" that the "veneer of science in ID theory is there purposefully to cover up the religious agenda." How do you know that?

Because I asked them and they told me. I know these guys. I have debated Meyer at conferences and gone out to beers with William Dembski, another major I.D. theorist. They're all evangelical born-again Christians. They all believe in Christ as their savior. They believed it before they got into all this stuff. I've asked them that if the main tenets of intelligent design turned out to be false, would they then give up their belief in Christ? No, they say. And that's because they believe in Christ for reasons that have nothing to do with their theory.

And shermer is the personification of neutral and unbiased perspective?


Let's say that we passed legislation that requires the teaching of one dominant religion in public schools, which right now is Judeo-Christian. Hooray! Everybody's happy. Now let's say that Islam is the dominant religion 500 years from now. It most likely will be Europe. You still want that law on the books? Girls in public schools will have to wear burqas and, in fact, there will be no education for them after sixth grade. You still want the dominant religion legalized in America? No way!

--------------------

In other words the ability to bear an influence on society is the untouchable property of atheistic science?
 
Last edited:
lightgigantic said:
It is one thing to say "I have never seen something" and another to say "Something cannot exist becase I have never seen it"

Light, do you believe in the Loch Ness Monster?


lightgigantic said:
In other words the ability to bear an influence on society is the untouchable property of atheistic science?

I think he means that science and religion should be seperate when it comes to education, which I'm sure we all agree on. When it comes to religion, shouldn't schools teach children about the all the major world religions without giving weight to one in particular? Otherwise it's like teaching kids that conservatism is right and liberalism is wrong.
 
wsionynw said:
Light, do you believe in the Loch Ness Monster?

Actually this would have been a better opportunity to apply the hackneyed FSM. :rolleyes:




I think he means that science and religion should be seperate when it comes to education, which I'm sure we all agree on. When it comes to religion, shouldn't schools teach children about the all the major world religions without giving weight to one in particular? Otherwise it's like teaching kids that conservatism is right and liberalism is wrong.

This isn't practical - its just like saying american schools are biased because they insist on teaching english as the major language - why don't they also give equal importance to russian, gujurati, norweigian and shabo.

In otherwords wouldn't the proposal to teach a myriad of languages be an indirect means to undermine the existing language? (and also cause a decline in the effective use of language)
Isn't this indicative of an agenda?

Wouldn't such a mode of religious education render the actual performance of religious activities extinct? Wouldn't it be just another way of suggesting the popular atheistic doctrine that god is a subjective phenomena of no importance?
 
lightgigantic said:
Actually this would have been a better opportunity to apply the hackneyed FSM. :rolleyes:

Aaah, but you didn't answer the question! Many people have claimed to have seen the Loch Ness Monster, there are books about it, films, tv shows, etc. It must exist if so many people apparently believe in it, but strangely no one person can provide any evidence that it exists other than some grainy photos. :rolleyes:


lightgigantic said:
This isn't practical - its just like saying american schools are biased because they insist on teaching english as the major language - why don't they also give equal importance to russian, gujurati, norweigian and shabo.

In otherwords wouldn't the proposal to teach a myriad of languages be an indirect means to undermine the existing language? (and also cause a decline in the effective use of language)
Isn't this indicative of an agenda?

Wouldn't such a mode of religious education render the actual performance of religious activities extinct? Wouldn't it be just another way of suggesting the popular atheistic doctrine that god is a subjective phenomena of no importance?

I don't think so, kids learn their language from their parents, and many children learn more than one language (I was spoken to in Welsh and English as a child). No child thinks one language is right and all others are wrong, and lets not forget that children can learn other languages at school if they wish. I was taught basic German, French and Spanish at school.
On the subject of religion, we had Religious Education classes that did teach us about various world religions, we also learned about Greek mythology.
It's only a problem if your country is run by religious fanatics.
 
wsionynw said:
Aaah, but you didn't answer the question! Many people have claimed to have seen the Loch Ness Monster, there are books about it, films, tv shows, etc. It must exist if so many people apparently believe in it, but strangely no one person can provide any evidence that it exists other than some grainy photos. :rolleyes:

Actually regarding the loch ness monster I would be an agnostic




I don't think so, kids learn their language from their parents, and many children learn more than one language (I was spoken to in Welsh and English as a child). No child thinks one language is right and all others are wrong, and lets not forget that children can learn other languages at school if they wish. I was taught basic German, French and Spanish at school.
On the subject of religion, we had Religious Education classes that did teach us about various world religions, we also learned about Greek mythology.
It's only a problem if your country is run by religious fanatics.

Yes you only studied languages that were deemed practical or useful (why didn't you learn shabo?)- and children do think that one language is right - at the least they would probably revolt at the notion of being taught mathematics in shabo - in otherwords one may have a rough framework of various languages or religions, but a vast majority of people are seen to operate out of one language or religion for the sake of social sanity - If you remove that central vehicle of daily operation you either have plans to replace it with another one (ie scientific atheism is thenew social dynamic) or invite a whole lot of malfunctioning
- in India there is one (in)famous religious practioner famous for cultivating a national mood of solidarity in the nation during the tail end of the british rule - he advocated the unity of religion (which can actually be advocated in a successful manner, but not by the foolishness he exhibited) by whimsically adopting different ritualistic prcatices of different faiths (He crossed the line when he decided to eat cow flesh in a hindu temple) - anyway, the result of his liberal notions is more damage done to the religious fabric of India than nearly 1000 years of foreign rule.
 
wsionynw said:
Aaah, but you didn't answer the question! Many people have claimed to have seen the Loch Ness Monster, there are books about it, films, tv shows, etc. It must exist if so many people apparently believe in it, but strangely no one person can provide any evidence that it exists other than some grainy photos. :rolleyes:

Do you think belief in God only comes about because other people claim a belief in God?

You say no one can provide evidence of the monster "other than some grainy photos". Out of curiousity, what would you regard as 'evidence' of the monsters existence? ;)

Jan.
 
Anyone who doesn't believe in a god is pretty conceited. And probably loves himself too much to love anything besides. A little like Starlin.
 
lightgigantic said:
Again - lack of epistemology - Has Shermer actually applied the relevant methods of training to perceive god, or is he assuming that his scientific foundation is sufficient to determine the grounds of what is knowable and unknowable?
This is complete nonsense and your favorite cop-out light. We're just not looking at it the right way. Bullshit. There is only one way of knowing anything in the objective world. By observing it or it's effects and establishing a correlation. Surely an intelligent person such as yourself sees this? You certainly can't be proposing that you can generate objective knowledge by pure self-reflection, can you?

It tells me he has no knowledge of what India was like 1000 years ago for a start -
Oh? He said "If you lived 1,000 years ago, hardly anybody would be a Christian. If you were born in India, you'd likely be a Hindu. What does that tell you?" It tells me that you like using lame, pointless strawman-type responses. What was the dominant religion in India 1000yrs ago?



Nobody, Christian or otherwise, would look at a star and go, What's the meaning of that? It doesn't mean anything. It's a bunch of atoms.


It means for a start that it owes the atmosphere that it exists in to a superior intelligence
Does this mean you have no idea what a star is, where they are, or anything about astronomy?

The rascal is caught - first the universe is meaningless and now he is giving a meaning to it
No, he says we must give meaning to it. Stop lying.

If there is an intelligence that is ontologically superior to ours, such as the order of the universe tends to suggest, it could be beneficial - especially in the absence of evidence of how we developed from a low-down entity ...
More lies. There is factual evidence by the ton, of how we developed from a "low-down entity". There is zero to suggest otherwise.

This is a fool's happiness - never mind that you can get kicked out of here at any moment, just try and be happy
Poor theist. Desperately dependent on on the existence of the unseen for happiness. Shame.

The problem with such fanciful thoughts of universal peace is that there is no basis to centralise such operations from, after all the universe is meaningless right?
Nonsense. The central operations point is the selfaware and responsible human being who recognises this. Your philosophy is one of blind, ignorant obediance to some fanciful "god" thing.

And shermer is the personification of neutral and unbiased perspective?
Just like you?

In other words the ability to bear an influence on society is the untouchable property of atheistic science?
We can only hope. That way at least there is no fanatical bias to dominate a people based on baseless claims of some fantasy being and the interpretation of its desires by the likes of you. I'd much rather live in a fair and just society that actually understands the real needs of people such that we can maximize prosperity for everyone.
 
Last edited:
Muslim said:
Anyone who doesn't believe in a god is pretty conceited. And probably loves himself too much to love anything besides. A little like Starlin.
Isn't Starlin a female porn star from the 70's?
 
Muslim said:
Anyone who doesn't believe in a god is pretty conceited. And probably loves himself too much to love anything besides. A little like Starlin.

It isn't a rules violation, but I would hardly call it a factual statement.

Being "conceited" implies an exaggerated sense of self-importance. On the contrary, nearly every atheist I know, including myself, is easily humbled by the universe around them, supportive of the accomplishments of their friends, appreciative of their parents and family, and feel the need to give to humanity. Most atheists I've encountered love humanity more than themselves and demonstrated it by making self-sacrifices for charitable organizations that range from environmental to even local churches.

I personally donate on a regular basis both my time and my money to the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army as well as the Shriners. I also support several faith-based organizations on an irregular basis because of their mission not their ideology. This is true of nearly every atheist I know. Sadly, I can say the same for every theist.

So, it would seem, your "factual" statement is nothing more but your weak and uninformed opinion. And I'm unsure what a "starlin" is.
 
Muslim said:
Anyone who doesn't believe in a god is pretty conceited. And probably loves himself too much to love anything besides. A little like Starlin.

Anyone that believes in a God is deluded. ;)
 
SkinWalker said:
It isn't a rules violation, but I would hardly call it a factual statement.

Being "conceited" implies an exaggerated sense of self-importance. On the contrary, nearly every atheist I know, including myself, is easily humbled by the universe around them, supportive of the accomplishments of their friends, appreciative of their parents and family, and feel the need to give to humanity. Most atheists I've encountered love humanity more than themselves and demonstrated it by making self-sacrifices for charitable organizations that range from environmental to even local churches.

I personally donate on a regular basis both my time and my money to the American Red Cross and the Salvation Army as well as the Shriners. I also support several faith-based organizations on an irregular basis because of their mission not their ideology. This is true of nearly every atheist I know. Sadly, I can say the same for every theist.

So, it would seem, your "factual" statement is nothing more but your weak and uninformed opinion. And I'm unsure what a "starlin" is.

You must be from the shallow end of the gene pool.
 
wsionynw said:
Anyone that believes in a God is deluded. ;)

Waiting for you to say something intelligent is like putting a candle in the window for Jimmy Hoffa.
 
Muslim said:
You must be from the shallow end of the gene pool.

Now there's a reasoned and logical response. You'll not be sending me pictures of your dick with "SkinWalker" written on it now will you?
 
Muslim said:
Waiting for you to say something intelligent is like putting a candle in the window for Jimmy Hoffa.

I've just shit myself laughing! With gags like that, you should be on stage!! :p
 
Back
Top