[ExI] Fundamentalism and a Scientific Outlook

[Samantha Atkins]

On May 3, 2007, at 9:14 PM, Russell Wallace wrote:

>
> Open inquiry is a freedom. It's up to us what use we make of it. If  
> we use it to destroy the basis of continued life, well then it will  
> cease to exist when we do. But we have free will; we can choose  
> otherwise.
>

Yes!

> Well, that is too bad.
>
> Perhaps, but I haven't given up on the survival of our values and  
> the civilization that supports them, however slim the odds may be.
>

It is a delicate matter to come to a good working understanding of  
what aspect of what is in that civilization are the true  
underpinnings of what we value and wish to keep and what is not so  
important.  I know many fundamentalist who are basically good hearted  
and in many ways noble people.  But they have in their head that the  
dogma they have adhered to is a critical element of all that is good  
in their lives and the world.   To question it is in their mind to  
give up on everything or threaten everything they value.  It is a  
very limiting position to be in.

> But what
> I am concerned about *here* is a search for truth.  On this list,  
> it is
> necessary to say what is true, and to separate it from what is false.
>
> And the truth is that a) you cannot either prove or disprove the  
> existence of God

It is not difficult to prove that God as commonly conceived is  
contradictory enough to be impossible.  It is not difficult to prove  
that the Bible is full of contradictions and thus cannot be  
inherent.  It is up to those who assert something as improbable as  
God to give good evidence in any case.  They have not done so.

> and b) the real motive driving fanatical atheism derives from  
> precisely the same evolutionary psychology as the motive driving  
> fanatical religion. A dispassionate quest for the truth would  
> eschew both.

Psychologizing motives is a waste of time.  Calling atheism that is  
honest and upfront "fanatical" is unjustifiable.    I don't believe  
dispassion is a universal virtue.   Caring for the truth more than  
your belief is important.  But that is a very passionate endeavor.


> So on this occasion I was able to tell him Dawkins is full of shit,  
> and try to communicate the real grandeur of evolution as we now  
> understand it. But there is only one of me, and I can't explain  
> this to every Christian in the world. I can't personally undo the  
> work of every saboteur.
>

Calling Dawkins a saboteur is completely irresponsible.    If you  
disagree with his argument (as I largely do) then show where it is  
flawed.  But don't  put down such a man just because you find one of  
his opinions inconvenient or even embarrassing.   Do we have so  
little cohesion among ourselves compared to believers?   Are we so  
ill at ease with our minority status that we vilify our own?

- samantha