Replies

One of the things we empirical naturalists tend to avoid is lengthy discussion over definitions or labels. I've posted this Weinberg quote several times, and I apologize for the repetition, but it really does accurately describe the naturalism of most scientists I know.

Most scientists I know don't care enough about religion even to call themselves atheists.

I call myself an atheist because I do not practice a religion, don't pray (even in dire straits), and my mental pitcure of the universe does not include a deity. I don't do any of these things because in my experience religious practice is a waste of time, I see no evidence that prayer by me or anyone else works, and because a deity has no explanatory or predictive power. Atheist is a short and reasonably accurate label. If a supernatural being appearted tomorrow and said 'Hi, I'm God', having discounted trickery and hallucinations I'd certainly change my view, though I'd be more inclined to study said being than worship him. You can call this agnostic or atheist or anything you want; I don't see anything fruitful in a discussion about the particular mode in which people don't believe in a deity.

Christianity has entertained itelf for two millenia by dividing itself into hundreds of feuding sects, often based on the most idiotic minutiae of doctrine; but Christians shouldn't assume that the non-religious share the same fascination with hair-splitting about the ineffable.

I'd avoid discussion of religion altogether if religious people stayed out of my space; if they stopped trying to force their supernatural ideas into science; and if they stopped denigrating those who don't happen to share their view of the Universe (e.g. by asking if 'atheists can be intellectually fulfilled', by suggesting that atheists are inherently amoral, etc.). My parents were, and one of my brothers' wives is religious; I don't denigrate their beliefs, and I respect their intellect. I don't go asking if their Christianity is attended by some intellectual defect. Why are so many religious people unable to muster up the same level of tolerance?

Thank you so much for your thorough reply!

The label "atheist" much like other labels is a neon flashing bulls-eye on various threads around here.

Seems to me that the ones who do not see "Does God exist?" as a proposition - the ones who don't know and don't care - would be much better off ignoring posts where the word "atheism" is used.

If a supernatural being appearted tomorrow and said 'Hi, I'm God', having discounted trickery and hallucinations I'd certainly change my view, though I'd be more inclined to study said being than worship him.

On personal knowledge, I aver that everyone will appear before Him one "day". The better choice though is to listen for Him in the here and now - but, of course, not every one can or will. The "sense" for contact is hearing - spiritual hearing - not vision, touch, smell, logic, etc.

Why are so many religious people unable to muster up the same level of tolerance?

Christians have pretty much the same complaint. It seems the Koran gets more respect than the Bible, Muslims are allowed to pray when Christians are not, etc.

IMHO, the intensity for the deeply religious or irreligious (regardless of flavor) is that reality for us is framed by our understanding and thus all affronts are of the highest order.

Even the scientific materialists aka empirical naturalists aka methodological naturalists may prioritize that ideology above all else in their sense of reality. For such as these, I would not be surprised if affronts to the ideology were taken viscerally as well.