The faith of atheists

THEOLOGIAN John Haught believes a source of illusion is that many of the “new atheists” are plainly ignorant about religion in general and Christianity in particular.

Asked what he would say to atheists who demand evidence or proof of the existence of a transcendent reality, Haught said:

“The hidden assumption behind such a statement is often that faith is belief without evidence. Therefore, since there’s no scientific evidence for the divine, we should not believe in God.

“But that statement itself—that evidence is necessary—holds a further hidden premise that all evidence worth examining has to be scientific evidence. And beneath that assumption, there’s the deeper worldview—it’s a kind of dogma—that science is the only reliable way to truth. But that itself is a faith statement.

“It’s a deep faith commitment because there’s no way you can set up a series of scientific experiments to prove that science is the only reliable guide to truth. It’s a creed.”.

The traditions of religion and philosophy have always maintained that the most important dimensions of reality are going to be least accessible to scientific control. To believe otherwise is an illusion.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “The faith of atheists

  1. How about THAT!! ……..”The hidden assumption behind such a statement is often that faith is belief without evidence. Therefore, since there’s no scientific evidence for the divine, we should not believe in God.”
    …..A MIRACLE!!!………a strawman built out of bullshit! That’s gotta be as stupendous as building a real tits-and-bum woman out of a bone!

    Except that:
    1……..”belief without evidence” does NOT translate into “scientific evidence”.
    2…… There’s NO evidence on either level. At most there’s ‘gossip’.

    Self-condemnation:-
    “The traditions of religion and philosophy have always maintained that the most important dimensions of reality are going to be least accessible to scientific control. To believe otherwise is an illusion.”
    Who cares what “The traditions of religion and philosophy have always maintained”?? The ‘reality ‘ is that all the spruikers of ‘religion and philosophy depend on science every day of their lives: NOT on religion and philosophy. Self-serving twaddle is self-serving twaddle.

    Let’s see the colour of their money.

    Or, to quote that other whore:- ‘Well, he WOULD say that, wouldn’t he?’

    Like

  2. I am a believer in science, but science 0F COURSE doesn’t have all the answers, by a long shot.

    Remember too how a lot of scientific discoveries have been made. A hypothesis is formed, then tested, then seen to be correct, proved. What is a hypothesis other than a guess? An inspiration? A whisper in the ear from God?

    Think who God might tell these erstwhile secrets to. Some-one of deep faith who doesn’t understand what God’s talking about, or someone who has used his God-given talents (genes, environment, etc) to the best of his ability?

    True, scientific knowledge can be used for evil, but evil is seldom (or ever) such a scientist’s intention.

    For instance:
    Dynamite, as were all of Nobel’s explosive inventions, was meant for industrial purposes such as rock blasting and mine excavation. While he certainly wasn’t naïve enough not to be able to imagine their dismembering potential, he believed that it was precisely this capability that might prohibit their violent use. “My dynamite will sooner lead to peace than a thousand world conventions,” he wrote. “As soon as men will find that in one instant whole armies can be utterly destroyed, they surely will abide by golden peace.”

    Sure, we can totally see that.

    In the annals of regret, nobody holds a candle to Alfred Nobel, and not just because any flame near him would’ve ignited a huge freaking explosion. Nobel’s regret is celebrated annually like Christmas, and bestowed upon worthy recipients like a laurel wreath.

    In 1888, after a couple of decades of armies using dynamite in various ways to blow people into chunks, Alfred’s older brother Ludvig died of a heart attack. A French newspaper, having received a jumbled report, printed an obituary of Alfred instead, and not one of those nice, cheerful obituaries.

    It featured the headline “The Merchant of Death is Dead,” and wrote that “his fortune was amassed finding new ways to mutilate and kill.” So distraught by this evidence of how he would be remembered, and probably noticing the lack of the glow that his predicted “golden peace” would have given off, Alfred Nobel bequeathed 94 percent of his fortune to establish the prizes that bear his name, honoring those who “have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.”

    Scientific discoveries in themselves are, I believe usually good, but humankind sure can muck things up.

    Like

    • False premise, Dreamweaver:-

      “Remember too how a lot of scientific discoveries have been made. A hypothesis is formed, then tested, then seen to be correct, proved. What is a hypothesis other than a guess? An inspiration? A whisper in the ear from God?”

      Hypothesis:- A proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations
      (Shorter Oxford)

      …….and whether ‘science has all the answers’ or not depends upon how many and what questions are being asked.
      Personally, I think the wonderment of science lies in the discovery of the questions and how to ask them, because after that the answers become self-evident.

      Perhaps science should ask “Does god exist” ??
      That’d be good…except there are no ‘facts or observations’ upon which to base a hypothesis. 😉

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s