Not So 'Bright'

COMMENTARY: The Wall Street Journal ^ | October 6, 2003 | DINESH D'SOUZA

[OESY]

"We have always had atheists among us," the philosopher Edmund Burke wrote in his "Reflections on the Revolution in France," "but now they have grown turbulent and seditious." It seems that in our own day some prominent atheists are agitating for greater political and social influence. In this connection, leading atheist thinkers have been writing articles declaring that they should no longer be called "atheists." Rather, they want to be called "brights."

[RinaseaofDs]

Actually, that's fact, not conjecture or religious dogma, but that's not the point you are arguing is it?

When an atheist wants "In God We Trust" taken off of the currency, is that what the atheist is looking for - an acknowledgement by the state that the law came from somewhere other than the Ten Commandments?

No. Read some history and you'll find that people came to the US to practice their religions as they saw fit. Do you know how Maryland got its name?

The first amendment was written to prevent a Church of the US, not to keep politicians from saying, "With God's help, I was elected your senator."

You fail to address the central point of my post, which is that atheism is a religion. It's its own belief system. It's adherents believe there is no God. It's not that they are not sure if there is a God, they would be agnostic.

Any effort by atheists to expunge God from history, from politics, from the practice of Government, and any effort for that matter to exclude expressions of Judaism, or Hiduism, or any other manifestation of a belief in a supreme beign is the promotion of atheism.

I'm just asking guys like you to be honest. If you want God wiped from the US, its because of proselytizing your beliefs, and not some altruistic defense of my freedoms.

Maybe intellectual dishonesty is a tenant of your belief system?

[Blood of Tyrants]

When an atheist goes to court and asks for the ten commandments to be removed from a court house in order to promote religious freedom, its disingenuous.

A true atheist would never take something so trivial to court because to them the ten commendments have no more meaning than some obscure African fertility ritual or writings about myghical Greek gods or rabbits who hide colored eggs.

[ClearCase_guy]

As for the "if I cannot perceive it, it cannot exist" quote.... it's a misinterpetation of the atheist position. The real position is: "if I cannot perceive it WHY should I recognize it exists?"

Think of black holes. You cannot perceive them, so why should you recognize that they exist? Well, scientists say they do. Scientists say they are important, and scientists have data which provides some level of verification.

Why should you recognize that God exists? Well, religious people say He does. Religious people say He is important, and religious people have data (testimonials) that provide some level of verification.

Some people think scientists have credibility -- in other words, they have faith in scientists. Some people think religious people have credibility -- in other words, they have faith. Some people have faith in both science and God.

[laredo44]

The notion of God isn't subject to empirical verification by it's very nature.

Says who?

[Jason Kauppinen]

"A true atheist would never take something so trivial to court because to them the ten commendments have no more meaning than some obscure African fertility ritual or writings about myghical Greek gods or rabbits who hide colored eggs"

I don't think all atheists would trivialize the commandments like that. Some would say that they agree with the conclusions of most of the commandments but disagree with Cristians as to who wrote them.

[Jason Kauppinen]

Anyone who can't prove that the authors of the bible were divinely inspired.

[Jason Kauppinen]

Testimonials aren't of the same quality as empirical data which can be independantly verified.

[Conservative Me]

I don't want God wiped from the US. I don't want an athiestic society. I don't care if you believe in God, or Allah, or Ra or whoever. I don't care if you are Hindu, Christian, Shaman, Pagan, etc. On that same token, those of other faiths deserve the same respect that you expect.

Do you see the difference? It is religous freedom, not Christian freedom.

Atheism by definition is not a religion. It is the lack of religion. We do not have a supreme being, and contrary to popular belief, we do not worship ourselves or money.

God need not be expunged from history or politics. But it should not be forced down the throats of everyone who lives in this country.

I am not offended by "In God We Trust" being on our currency. Do I believe it belongs there? No. I am not fighting for its removal. I am not refusing to use money. I am not altering money so that I do not see it. I don't care, just as I was not offended by the existance of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (although I find it funny that many do not know how "under God" ended up in the Pledge, as it was not there originally, and the Pledge's author did not want it added).

I wonder if so many would be up in arms about the removal of the Ten Commandments monument (which, IMO is not a historical monument at all) if the monument was from a faith other than Christianity.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Terrible and misguided -- and in many places, just flat-out wrong -- representation of even the very basics of Kantian thought. Embarrassing even to read.

I don't know from my own knowledge whether it misrepresents Kant. I think the article does make a single point well, about limits of knowledge. However, I find that point to be rather pedestrian. See discussion in Not Such a Bright Idea: Atheists Try a New Name

[jimt]

The real position is: "if I cannot perceive it WHY should I recognize it exists?"

I've always considered that position agnostic, rather than atheist. Isn't atheism a positive belief that God does not exist?

I've always considered that position (God positively doesn't exist) to be silly, as you can't prove a negative.

[Jason Kauppinen]

"I've always considered that position (God positively doesn't exist) to be silly, as you can't prove a negative."

I agree.

[Fraulein]

part of the problem is that many of these "brights" have simply not really read Kant seriously

Although I understand your point, and although I am certainly no fan of Daniel Dennett myself, I HIGHLY doubt that Dennett has not read Kant seriously. You might want to familiarize yourself with some of his work.

Some of the best work on Kant hasn't been translated: Ernst Cassierer's Kant's Leben und Werke.

That work HAS been translated. I even own a copy of the book.

[ClearCase_guy]

But you gloss over all kinds of things. Think of Fatima: thousands of people witnessed the miracle. An atheist will say: "Mass hysteria." Think of miraculous medical cures (there are thousands on record). An atheist will say: "The mind has amazing powers, which we do not fully understand."

I could go on and on. For those whose only faith is science, then only scientifically verified data is credible. For those who have religious faith, there are other credible sources. The religious people can see both sides (for example: all Chrisitians recognize chemistry as a an uncontroversial science). But some scientists are close-minded and cannot see the other side: this not does not diminish the fact that there is evidence of supernatural occurences.

Your faith blinds you.

[Clemenza]

What many modern academic philosphers fail to do, and this bozo sounds like one of these, is take the philosophical questions about the existence of God (or whatever name one wishes to put forth for the divine) which have troubled thinkers for over two thousand years of recorded philosophy, with the seriousness they deserve.

Thank Nietsche for this sorry state of affairs.

[Jonx6]

ping

[Fraulein]

This may be called the Fallacy of the Enlightenment, and it was first pointed out by the philosopher Immanuel Kant. The Fallacy of the Enlightenment is the glib assumption that there is only one limit to what human beings can know, and that limit is reality itself.

Kant was NOT the first philosopher, modern or otherwise, to point out this so-called 'fallacy.'

[Jason Kauppinen]

"But you gloss over all kinds of things. Think of Fatima: thousands of people witnessed the miracle. An atheist will say: "Mass hysteria." Think of miraculous medical cures (there are thousands on record). An atheist will say: "The mind has amazing powers, which we do not fully understand.""

No, they would say: 'Hmmm. Well if something like that actually happened it should be able to be reproduced and studied'.

The difference you're glossing over is that scientific data is the result of an observation of events and can be repeated. No faith is required because one can see for oneself if they do not believe the results of the data or trust in the method that was used to collect it.

Miracles cannot, by their very nature, be reproduced by man, and therefore cannot be confirmed scientifically.

This is where faith must enter the picture.

[Ditto]

I just do not believe that there is a God(s) behind it.

Does that leap of faith make you "Brighter" than someone who does believe there is a Creator?

[jcb8199]

"The mind has amazing powers, which we do not fully understand."
But wait, I thought they knew so much they could even refute the existence of GOD, or a "Higher Being"? They can't even explain how the human body works, but they know how the UNIVERSE works? Hmmmm...

Kind of like "We don't know how it works, but we know it wasn't God."

[Fraulein]

another way of saying "if I cannot perceive it, it cannot exist"

What motivated many rational justifications for the existence of god was, in part, for philosophers to be able to distinguish God from unicorns and fairies and all other sorts of fictions that one could likewise claim to exist, even if one couldn't see them. A distinction would have to be made, which invoked reason and not mere belief.