[extropy-chat] Edge: Thank Goodness! By Daniel C. Dennett

[Samantha Atkins]

On Nov 3, 2006, at 4:03 PM, Russell Wallace wrote:

> On 11/3/06, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky <sentience at pobox.com> wrote:
> As for Dennett suggesting that people are doing something wrong by
> praying instead of helping - that they are thereby committing a moral
> sin, in need of forgiveness - why, yes, you're right, that is somewhat
> like a theologian who *peacefully argues with you*, for what he
> conceives to be your own benefit, that you are committing a mortal sin
> by denying the existence of God.
>
> Yes, that's what I was referring to. The equivalent of the religious  
> fundamentalists who kill infidels for not believing in God would be  
> those who did the same thing in the name of the atheist ideology of  
> communism.

Did you actually read the piece?  It is beyond me how you go from the  
gentle thoughtful ruminations on actual good that just saved this  
man's life as compared to the claimed good of religious acts like  
prayer to the evils of communism.   There in nothing whatever of force  
in Dennett's remarks yet you act as if there is.  This I find very  
puzzling and of some concern.


>
> As for who's being more irrational, whatever your opinion of  
> religion, it worked. Look at the results once religion is gone: the  
> prime examples of evolution in action are precisely those who  
> believe in evolution. If I believed in God I'd say He had a wicked  
> sense of humor.
>

What do you mean "it worked"?  What worked exactly?  I am really at a  
loss as to what you meant by this paragraph.


> As for who's doing harm by ill-considered words, consider _why_ so  
> many people are rejecting evolutionary biology (in a way that they  
> don't reject, say, physics or chemistry). It's because they've been  
> taught they _have_ to reject it or give up everything they hold dear  
> and find themselves in an empty universe with empty lives.
>

Really?  I know an awful lot of atheists who are very delighted with  
life and this universe and consider life extremely full.



> What fanatical religious preachers taught them this, you may wonder?  
> Why, some of the names are quite familiar. Gould, Dawkins, Dennett.
>

This is beyond the pale.

> Now if people want to preach atheism, that's their right; and if  
> they want to preach nihilism, well I suppose even that's their right.

Preach?  There is no rational reason for believing in God that I am  
aware of.  Why is it "preaching" to say so?  Theism has done a great  
deal of harm.  Superstitious and irrational thinking does even more.  
How is it preaching to say this is so?   Again, what is your beef?  I  
don't see anything you seem to be saying in the actual article.  Are  
you claiming that those who say what they honestly thing about  
religion and theism should be despised or censored for saying it?   If  
so then I would suggest you look up the meaning of "projection".


> It's when they do so _with their scientist hats on_, when they abuse  
> their reputation as scientists to advance those personal  
> philosophies, that the rest of us in the scientific community should  
> speak up and disown them.

Not one of these people says that science proves there is no god.  So  
how are they doing anything wrong as scientists?   Yes, you want to  
disown them.  Is that enough or do they need a good flogging to  
satisfy your anger?

- samantha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061105/d552e15e/attachment.html>