1. Comment #81292 by phasmagigas on October 24, 2007 at 2:41 pm

ok a quick one and work in progress:

To suggest that when i say 'i dont accept there is a god' is a religion, then the definition of religion must be substantially broadened or changed entirely, I feel my words will have been give way to much significance.

'I dont accept there is a god' does not involve an exterior authority, dogma or ritual which if im not mistaken are common in the established religions.

If one has no dogma to adhere to then the accustaion of fundamentalism has no basis. 'i dont accept there is a god' is a personal stance not affiliated to any established dogma. If fundamentalism suggests that my stance cannot be changed then the accusation has no basis again, there are many events that i could witness that would make me change my mind, i have yet to see any of them.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

2. Comment #81295 by Goldy on October 24, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Define religion first and see if athiesm fits.

Other Comments by Goldy

3. Comment #81307 by Jolly Bloger on October 24, 2007 at 3:01 pm

I think it is helpful to acknowledge that atheism can potentially be a religion if it is taken dogmatically as a philosophical certainty, or is coupled with other faith claims, and that rational atheists (i.e. us) would be just as critical of this position as any theistic religion. It is unreason and dogmatic faith that we attack, not specifically a belief in a particular god.

p.s. admins: an accidental click flagged the first comment as offensive. Please ignore this!

Other Comments by Jolly Bloger

4. Comment #81349 by Vaal on October 24, 2007 at 3:56 pm

Atheism is NOT a religion. Please look at the description of Religion in a dictionary...

"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe"

This is the opposite of an Atheist. Religion is to an Atheist as stamp collecting is to NOT stamp collecting.

This is not even an argument and is a fallacious and ill conceived attack on Atheism by religious apologists, in order to deflect the rational arguments against Theism. This is a common tactic of apologists in debates and newspaper articles.

No Atheist is fundamentalist. Just the opposite, they just require evidence. In fact, you could really describe the most ardent Atheist as an Agnostic. If confronted with evidence of a supernatural entity that created the Universe, then any rational Atheist would become a Theist. However, there is zero evidence of any such thing, so the default position is non belief. Faith is intellectual laziness, at its best, and self deception at its worst.

What is the meme for faith? It is a source of incredulity that intelligent people who have been inculcated by religion, mostly as children, cling onto their faith, even in the face of overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence. They also, with absolute conviction, insist that theirs is the true faith, yet if they had been bought up as believers in Ra, Zeus, Cave Bear theism, they would all insist the same, yet seem unable to see the hypocrisy in their world view.

They are blind to the fact that any religion other than the one they were bought up with is the "true religion".

It is almost worth a study in psychology to understand how the brain accepts this conditioning so readily, and how it is so difficult to break down. This is not a concept adhered to just in Religion, as the brainwashing of the German people in the doctrine of Nazism convinced them of their superiority over fellow human beings, and eventually led them to a war that was a disaster for humanity, leading to over 50 million deaths.

The concept that human beings in the 21st Century, with knowledge available to them that people who lived 2 millenium ago would regard as magic or witchcraft, can actually believe that the Earth is 6000 years old is, to say the least, utterly ludicrous.

To break the meme is difficult, as the Theists regard it as a personal attack on everything they stand for, and have a blind spot to any evidence that contradicts their world view, almost to the point of lunacy.

How do you confront this ignorance and solipsism? Only with education, vigorous debate, rational well constructed arguments, and hard evidence.

I wonder how Galileo considered the retrograde intellects of the bigoted self interested clerics who, despite overwhelming evidence, would not accept the Earth being displaced as the centre of the Universe (what breathtaking arrogance), and placing him under house arrest for the rest of his life, on pain of being burnt at the stake as a "heretic".

Galileo proved right, the truth will out in the end. Ignorance should be confronted at all times, and non reason should not take precedence to rationality, or we are on a spiraling descent to darkness. This cannot happen, the enlightenment was too hard fought for, to be discarded by the ignorant.

Other Comments by Vaal

5. Comment #81405 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 24, 2007 at 5:06 pm

This is known as the 'Scott Atran' fallacy, and needs to be dealt with in the following manner:

"Of course fundie atheists are just as bad as the fundies on the other side. Remember when South Park charicatured Richard Dawkins, these _hordes_ of guys in lab coats descended on the South Park studios brandishing signs with slogans like 'Behead those who insult Richard Dawkins!'

Oh, you don't remember that? Then start talking sense."

[the above sounds best in a sarcastic voice]

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

6. Comment #81414 by dloubet on October 24, 2007 at 5:17 pm

Atheism is a religion just like bald is a hair color, or not playing baseball is a sport, or not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Those are the sound-bite responses, for sure.

Other Comments by dloubet

7. Comment #81429 by maton100 on October 24, 2007 at 5:55 pm

You're fundamentally conflating the two, moron.

Other Comments by maton100

8. Comment #81441 by phasmagigas on October 24, 2007 at 6:09 pm

'so you are saying my nonsense is as bad as your nonsense'

Other Comments by phasmagigas

9. Comment #81443 by TAG on October 24, 2007 at 6:14 pm

My (imperfect) litmus test for religion is that a candidate must have two elements. 1. A belief in some kind of supernatural phenomenon, and 2. some ritualistic behavior.

If atheism is a religion, so is baseball!

Other Comments by TAG

10. Comment #81474 by Nug on October 24, 2007 at 7:39 pm

(Atheism is its own religion):
This statement allows the faithful to believe that they are arguing against only another set of beliefs, just as if they were debating against Judaism or Islam. By accepting this statement it is easy for believers to disregard or negatively filter any information that comes out of an atheist's mouth whether true or false.
Because of the harm this statement can deal, I think that this must be the first debate point that should be addressed at all debates, even though it is not truly worthy of doing so.

The first thing that should be pointed out is that it is unjust to lump all non-believers into the category of atheist. Usually the pro-religion debater is knowledgeable enough to not do this in a direct statement but his or her supporting listeners are not knowledgeable enough or willing to decipher the difference in the debaters' arguments. Also, to a believer there is a difference between being a non-believer and being godless (Uncaring and indifferent to all meaning). Atheist debaters should make clear that this definition of godless is different than being "without a god". In essence I am trying to say that we should dumb it down a little bit and try to lessen the negative connotation that the word atheist carries by explaining what atheism truly is.

To directly attack the statement claiming atheism as a religion the debater should state what a religion is. Religion is a structured set of beliefs that are permanent, and the truth of these beliefs is held to be self-evident. So, religion can either be accepted or declined. What people miss is that religion is pretty much a yes or no question; religion doesn't really allow picking and choosing and not much room if any for personal beliefs within their own religion.

Atheism is a world view that adopts productive qualities that can help further the human race by trying to understand that which is not yet understood and help explain what is understood (from as large as the universe to as small as the atom). It uses tools such as science, reason, logic, skepticism, etc… "But science is a religion too". Yes, science is very well structured but it is not however permanent in its beliefs. Mistakes are allowed to be corrected, and beliefs and ideas are allowed to be criticized and even proven to be wrong. Science adapts and dare I say it, it evolves. It evolves in the fact that it has become more efficient throughout history, while religion has remained set in stone. Science is proactive while religion remains frozen in time with only the names of its believers changing. Science fills holes with facts and others with theories, while religion fills holes with mystery and the acceptance of not understanding. Science does not have all the answers and it might not ever, and that is why it is neither a religion nor a substitute for one.

Other Comments by Nug

11. Comment #81483 by BeyondBelief on October 24, 2007 at 8:13 pm

Those who retreat to this are usually down to their last feeble defense.

While this is not exactly an argument to be used, my perception is that this canard is deployed to attempt to implicate the atheist in what the theist (by this point) is coming to realize is pretty superstitious behavior. "OK, Mr. Atheist, you're right... my religion has inconsistencies, my holy book is flawed, but you're just as bad as me, making a 'leap of faith'. You can't prove anything any more than I can!! So we're equally on shaky ground. Back off."

It's as if the religious person is saying to us, "Let he who has never sinned throw the first stone." In fact, this is a bad assertion to let them get away with. We HAVEN'T committed the same sin.

If my perception is correct, the believer feels backed into a corner. So the question is, how can you your arguments let them out of the corner gracefully, allowing them to either save face OR see a comfortable alternative to their current position, but without accepting the premise?


Other Comments by BeyondBelief

12. Comment #81544 by Theocrapcy on October 24, 2007 at 10:26 pm

Define atheism first and see if religion fits.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

13. Comment #81688 by dinamo02 on October 25, 2007 at 3:27 am

It requires faith to believe in god and some will argue that faith is also required not to believe in god, therefore atheism is also a religion.

I would refute this in the following manner (I think it's from one of Dawkins' debates):
Faith (belief without evidence) is required to believe in something positive. NOT to believe in something for which there is no evidence does not require faith. Does it require faith NOT to believe in the tooth fairy, leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, vampires, zombies or the flying spaghetti monster? Is the NON belief in alchemy a religion?

Other Comments by dinamo02

14. Comment #81703 by Rhys on October 25, 2007 at 3:59 am

I don't want to waste my time refuting this claim, instead I will just list a few details about myself.

Name: NOT Nathan Woodlingtonson
Age: NOT Between 192 and 238
Hobbies: NOT feeding ducks and NOT swimming
Hair Colour: Bald
Favorite Band: NOT Grinspoon
Religion: ATHEIST!

You can tell as much as you can about my other personality traits as you can with my religion. Therefore Atheism is not a religion.

Other Comments by Rhys

15. Comment #81706 by epeeist on October 25, 2007 at 4:14 am

I have posted this before, but I think it bears reiteration.

Atheism is a scientific hypothesis, testable and falsifiable.

The basic proposition is

~(Exists g) G(g)

in other words the class of all gods is empty, call this t. Now find a prediction from this (e.g. there was no biblical flood) and call this p, i.e.

t => p

If ever we produce a prediction from t that is falsified then we have

t => p
~p
Therefore ~t



Other Comments by epeeist

16. Comment #81800 by m76 on October 25, 2007 at 7:49 am

Personally, I have no problem being proclaimed a 'fundamentalist'. No-one could reasonably argue that to be a RELIGIOUS fundamentalist would render me anything other than a dangerous, crazy person. Whereas, to adhere to the 'fundamentals' of the Enlightenment necessarily makes me utterly benign, because these are the fundamentals of debate, reason, dialogue, discussion, evidence and so on. My point is this: religious fundamentalism wouldn't be a problem if religion wasn't fundamentally crazy in the first place.

Other Comments by m76

17. Comment #81804 by irate_atheist on October 25, 2007 at 8:01 am

6. Comment #81414 by dloubet

Atheism is a religion just like bald is a hair color, or not playing baseball is a sport, or not collecting stamps is a hobby.

But I have consistently put a lot of effort into not collecting stamps over the years. How could you stoop so low?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

18. Comment #81809 by BMMcArdle on October 25, 2007 at 8:18 am

Atheism is as much a religion as yes is no, black is white, good is bad, left is right, etcetera.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

19. Comment #81867 by sidfaiwu on October 25, 2007 at 10:12 am

" Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists"

Again, define for me what a religion is and we can go from there. My guess is that any definition that is wide enough to encompass both atheism and, say, Buddhism would be too wide and include things which all would agree are not religions. But let's find out. How do you define religion?

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

20. Comment #82015 by jacen110091 on October 25, 2007 at 2:33 pm

I found this to be a very interesting topic & I tried to answer it here but found that I was getting too vague & imprecise with my thoughts, so I decided to try my hand at writing a somewhat more organized blog-entry "Examining the Idea of the Fundamentalist Atheist" -

http://therosefoundation.blog.com/2224962/

Other Comments by jacen110091

21. Comment #82021 by teapotbishop on October 25, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Atheism has no ritual , guilt or malice . It can't be a religion . Such a comment could only have been made from outside the comfort of atheism ! Did anyone else feel the subliminal finger-pointing in the statement ? lol

Other Comments by teapotbishop

22. Comment #82065 by Mewtwo_X on October 25, 2007 at 3:58 pm

"Your definition of religion is incorrect, although you are right that some Atheists can act as poorly as Fundamentalists."

Other Comments by Mewtwo_X

23. Comment #82157 by EastCoastAtheist on October 25, 2007 at 7:03 pm

To be an Atheist, all you have to do is reject the God theory.

Rejecting a theory, because there is evidence against it and a complete lack of evidence for it, is hardly a religion. It sounds like common sense to me.

The rejection of the theory that the world is flat isn't a religion. The rejection of the theory that the Sun revolves around Earth isn't a religion. If the rejection of a single theory made you religious, we would all belong to a huge number of religions.

There isn't much wiggle room for a moderate-to-fundamentalist spectrum with Atheism. Either you reject the God theory or you don't.

It will probably help if you have the other person define "religion". They'll back themselves right into a corner.

(Note: With many of these Debate Points, forcing the other person to define terms is very helpful. I've had a good laugh listening to believers try to define things like soul, spirit, etc. It's a good place to start.)

Other Comments by EastCoastAtheist

24. Comment #82195 by Nug on October 25, 2007 at 8:46 pm

In response to #81414:

While I completly agree with what is stated I do not feel that it is the correct aproach. Throwing a few zingers may win the debate and make supporters that were already supporters laugh, but it fails to enlighten the debate with a knowlegable response. Laughing off a hurtful debate point with a one liner will not open the minds of current believers.

There are however many times one liners are usful but not against such a broad and significant statement.

Other Comments by Nug

25. Comment #82324 by dr gordon burton on October 26, 2007 at 4:05 am

Atheism is not a religion because it is not based on faith. Religion is based on faith. Faith by definition is belief with no evidence. Atheism is the understanding that there is no supernatural being because there is no evidence.
To be a fundamentalist can mean different things to different people (see wikipedia). An atheist could be called fundamentalist in that an atheist believes in the fundamental facts based on evidence not the same as a religious fundamentalist where there are no fundamental facts only what is written in a text by other people and religious dogma.

Other Comments by dr gordon burton

26. Comment #82489 by m76 on October 26, 2007 at 12:48 pm

When debating a believer, I find it's extremely useful to demonstrate to them that they're not making the argument they think they're making. They claim to have a problem with atheism, and they channel their energies into undermining 'unbelief'. But of course, everyone's an atheist. The Pope's an atheist. The Taliban are all of them atheists. The non-believer should point out that the believer reserves the right to be an atheist when it comes to every other God but theirs and that, therefore, it would be hypocritical for the believer to reject atheism. This Straw Man dispensed with, the non-believer can go on and demonstrate that what believers are REALLY rejecting is CONSISTENT atheism, and what they are REALLY calling for is belief in AT LEAST ONE GOD. They would then have to demonstrate why it is defensible to accept one extraordinary and fantastical claim, while at the same time being 'rational' and incredulous about all the others.



I think we non-believers should proudly claim to stand shoulder-to-atheistic-shoulder with believers when it comes to all but one God. We should make believers feel uncomfortable about this undeniable common ground, and insist they accept it. Then we should request they explain why their atheism turns a blind eye to their own God.



I think Sam Harris is right. If we self-apply the name 'atheist', we imply that this makes us different from believers, and this hands them a Straw Man with which they can divert the discussion. I think the argument is much more effective if we force believers to concede they're JUST LIKE US when it comes to every faith but theirs. This neutralizes their atheist attack, and they're forced to speak specifically about their particular favoured fantasy. And this will inevitably see them wading deep into the embarrassingly wishy-washy and achingly self-aware obscurantism of McGrath and his ilk.

Other Comments by m76

27. Comment #82494 by Diacanu on October 26, 2007 at 1:06 pm

Y'know, arguments like this (all of them, really) just show that religion is on the ropes intellectually.

This is a particularly sniffle-voiced one, one that almost makes me feel merciful in the pathetic desperation level it takes to get that petty.

But, we can have no mercy when religion is on the ropes.
That's when we have to hurl the punches even faster to finish it.

If you find yourself having pangs of guilt debating a religionist, remind yourself, they wouldn't have the slightest pang on conscience in humiliating you, and laughing you off the stage (if they could) and having done that, go right back into exploiting/being gleefully exploited.

Screw 'em.

Other Comments by Diacanu

28. Comment #82782 by stackoturtles on October 27, 2007 at 2:52 pm

In this day and age, unfortunately people pay attention to sound bites, so atheists need a simple statement that everyone can understand. That is why I favor as a first pass the easy comparisons. "If atheism is just another form of faith, then not carrying a rabbit's foot is just another superstition."
GB

Other Comments by stackoturtles

29. Comment #83064 by jbblack on October 28, 2007 at 7:26 pm

Atheism is not a complete belief system, so we are not a religion. It only describes one single opinion that we hold in common, that we do not believe a deity is likely or external. Otherwise, you will find that we run a full gamut of ideas and opinions, from the far left to the far right. As such, it is no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby, to paraphrase Scott Adams.

To be Fundamentalist, one must have a core system of beliefs that one can be Fundamentalist about. We do not share a core group of beliefs or traditions, and have no desire to create and enforce one. Granted, we can be incredibly headstrong at times. But that isn't Fundamentalism; that's not believing everything you hear.

Other Comments by jbblack

30. Comment #83352 by Chris Hagan on October 29, 2007 at 6:55 pm

What would a non-fundamentalist atheist be?

Atheism merely rejects a specific belief system constructed by people with no scientific understanding of our environment. Their relative lack of verifiable knowledge influenced their societies into creating dogmatic rules of living and dying and killing and lying. This was an error.

I reject their god(s) and dogma fundamentally. Yes, I am an atheist but the "fundamental" tag is superfluous, almost tautologous, since when an atheist rejects the notion of the existence of god(s) and dogma, he or she is rejecting it in its entirety.

Fundamental has been distastefully used by people opposed to reason to vilify and traduce their perceived enemies. It is underhand, disingenuous and demeaning to their cause. And let us continue to remind those who choose to attempt to insult us, that we're completely open to any evidence. Just one piece of evidence will be cracking start.

Other Comments by Chris Hagan

31. Comment #83366 by lpetrich on October 29, 2007 at 8:04 pm

I find it strange when religious believers use "religion" as a dirty word.

Especially believers who believe that their religion is the One True Religion and that it is very important to them to believe in it.

Other Comments by lpetrich

32. Comment #84144 by farmerbob on November 1, 2007 at 9:34 am

You obviously can't be a fundamentalist Atheist and this can not be a religion. For the non playing of baseball/stamp collecting reasons already stated.

I do think it would be possible to be a fundamentalist anti-religion activist (blowing up churches etc.) in the same way that you might get a fundamentalist animal rights activist.

This could be a positive supposition or belief, whereas atheism is really a benign lack of beleif in theism.

However, even the anti-religion could not be a "Religion" unless the animal rights movement was too!? Then where do you stop?

Other Comments by farmerbob

33. Comment #84201 by Blue Lithium on November 1, 2007 at 12:11 pm

If atheism is a religion, abstinence is a sex position.

Other Comments by Blue Lithium

34. Comment #84202 by Blue Lithium on November 1, 2007 at 12:12 pm

@ lpetric(# 83366): "It's not a religion, it's a personal relationship with the divine." That's why.

Other Comments by Blue Lithium

35. Comment #84209 by phil rimmer on November 1, 2007 at 12:26 pm

No one was ever born religious...

Other Comments by phil rimmer

36. Comment #84390 by anonquick on November 2, 2007 at 12:59 am

The Gist: Reasonably admit that that can sometimes be the case. Then use it against them.

Core tenet: the problem is ideology.
Core tenet: Ideology is man made.
Core tenet: Religions are man-made ideologies.

The basic idea is then to push how immoral it is to kill people over ideas, whether secular or religious.

Then to use biblical quotes etc to point out how religion puts thoughts before people 'In the beginning there was the word').

Burning a bible can get you killed.

Other Comments by anonquick

37. Comment #84393 by Russell Blackford on November 2, 2007 at 1:24 am

Fundamentalism is all about viewing a holy text as "literally" (a word that needs a lot of glossing) and inerrantly true - which is irrational when we know what happens. Religious fundamentalists end up making, and stubbornly clinging to, truth claims that fly in the face of what has been discovered through rational inquiry. No atheist who matters in the current debates is a fundamentalist, even by analogy.

Nor is any such person advocating a religion - basically a comprehensive and dogmatic system of belief that includes supernatural elements (gods, demons, ancestor spirits, supernatural principles such as karma, etc., etc.).

Some supposedly secular systems, such as Nazism and certain forms of communism, may well have been closely analogous to religion, or even to fundamentalist religion, but that is a different story. So sure, this kind of criticism by analogy can be made about various "secular religions", with their dogmas and irrationalities, but no such system is espoused by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or any of the other prominent critics of religion on the contemporary scene. Nor is such a thing espoused by me or by any of my friends, or by anyone whom I respect.

It's not a criticism that need trouble me in any way; I'm sure most contemporary atheists can say the same.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

38. Comment #84406 by ADH on November 2, 2007 at 2:33 am

"Religious fundamentalists end up making, and stubbornly clinging to, truth claims that fly in the face of what has been discovered through rational inquiry. No atheist who matters in the current debates is a fundamentalist, even by analogy."

I'm very sorry to have to say this, but that is precisely what not a few atheists have been doing lately. When the Big Bang was first posited as the most likely explanation for the beginning of the universe, the idea and the evidence were stubbornly resisted NOT by theologians, but by atheists (Hoyle being the most prominent example of such) because such an event pointed to the fact that matter and energy were not after all "eternal", and that they had a beginning which had to be external to themselves. The steady state model was, in fact, a dogma which few dared to challenge. Insistence upon this "dogma", in the face of evidence to the contrary, was precisely the attitude that you are attributing to religious fundamentalists.

Richard Lowentin has expresseed thus his a priori rather than a posteriori commitment to a materialistic origin of life: "we must not let a divine foot in the door". Is it "rational" to have made this commitment prior to one's assessment of the evidence?

Obviously if your definition of religion is "belief in a supernatural Being, external to the material world and responsible for its existence" then atheism is not a religion. But by that definition, neither is Zen Buddhism. But i your definition of religion is "a belief system with its attendant rituals and its priesthood responsible for mediating its "truths" to the masses, then atheism is a religion. It has its prophets, its priests, its "sacred" texts whose truths are taken for granted by its adherents, its rituals, its conferences, its boot camps, and much else besides. There is even a converts corner on RD's website for goodness sake, with its stories of Damascus road type epiphanies induced by private readings of "Breaking the Spell" (One spell to another!).

Other Comments by ADH

39. Comment #84753 by Occam's Laser on November 3, 2007 at 12:38 pm

(After being told by a fundamentalist that atheism is a religion:)

Yes, I agree 100% that atheism is a religion. Can you help me get the United States government, particularly the Internal Revenue Service, to also agree 100% that atheism is a religion, and therefore eligible for religious property and income tax exemptions? Are you sure it would be OK with your (presumably) legitimate religious administration to share their property and income tax exemptions with the atheists?

Other Comments by Occam's Laser

40. Comment #84755 by steve99 on November 3, 2007 at 12:51 pm

The steady state model was, in fact, a dogma which few dared to challenge.

This is just so wrong. There was heated debate between supporters of the Big Bang and those of Steady State. But to claim that the steady state model was dogma is nonsense - it is to re-write history. The Steady State was a recent model, devised pretty much in parallel with the Big Bang in order to explain the red shifts of galaxies found by Hubble.

There was no 'dogma'. As soon as the red shift evidence was in, ideas changed and came into competition, and the Big Bang won out because of evidence.

You just can't get away with trying to claim that science works as badly as religion. The 'you are just as bad as us' approach of theists is a sham.

Other Comments by steve99

41. Comment #84766 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 3, 2007 at 1:33 pm

You just can't get away with trying to claim that science works as badly as religion. The 'you are just as bad as us' approach of theists is a sham.

Still progress though:-) Used to be they could burn us at the stake, now all they can do is grind their teeth in impotent rage and claim "science is just as bad as religion".

It's obvious nonsense which Steve has dismissed with the brevity it deserves:-)

I'd like to see religion make a prediction as accurate as Newtons theory of gravity, Einsteins general relativity or Feinmanns quantum physics. Then you might actually be on to something.

Gotta love the progress:-)

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

42. Comment #84771 by ADH on November 3, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Steve I think you will find that the iniverse was assumed to be infinite in extent and time from the time of Aristotle until the 19th century, when the model began to be called into question. The name "steady state model" may not have been given to this paradigm until the mid-20th century (1948 to be precise), but this is a question of semantics. You will also find that many cosmologists remained committed to the Steady State model because of the implications with regard to the need for a Creator. Hawking made this telling statement: "Many people do not like the idea that time had a beginning because it smacks of divine intervention". That is why I used the term DOGMA. Scientists remained and remain committed to the Steady State model in the face of the evidence not because they are following the evidence wherever it leads, but the evidence is pointing them in a direction in which they don't want to go. It is ironic that the Vatican establishment clung tenaciously to the Aristotelean model for ideolgogical reasons, and several centuries later there have been equally powerful ideological reasons for which a large part of the scientific establishment have been clinging to some variation on the steady state theme. That smacks of dogmatism if anything does.

Other Comments by ADH

43. Comment #84772 by Vardu on November 3, 2007 at 1:57 pm

Religion is about what people believe. Atheism is about what people don't believe.

Can you have a religion based on unbelief?

The Psalmist wrote, "Only a fool believes in his heart that there is no God". The atheist, and for a good number of reasons, believes it in his mind.

Other Comments by Vardu

44. Comment #84774 by ADH on November 3, 2007 at 2:09 pm

"The atheist, and for a good number of reasons, BELIEVES IT in his mind."

You've just contradicted yourself. Christians could likewise say faith is about what we don't believe: we don't believe that matter and energy are eternal. We don't believe that the universe is devoid of a purpose which transcends it. I guess that makes us "amaterialists".

Other Comments by ADH

45. Comment #84776 by ADH on November 3, 2007 at 2:27 pm

"You just can't get away with trying to claim that science works as badly as religion. The 'you are just as bad as us' approach of theists is a sham."

I think that science works very well! When did I say that it doesn't. Science is beautiful! Where it does not work is when it comes to determining the reason for our existence and for that of the universe. That is why Dawkins arrived at the conclusion that there is no meaning and purpose ("DNA neither knows nor cares ..." "There is no meaning, no purpose, just blind pitiless indefference.") Of course that is what we see when we observe nature (red in tooth and claw), because meaning and purpose are not visible or determinable using the tools that scientists emply when they do science. If you insist that everything must be established using such tools or not establishes at all, then that is the conclusion you are going to arrive at.

Other Comments by ADH

46. Comment #84777 by steve99 on November 3, 2007 at 2:27 pm

The name "steady state model" may not have been given to this paradigm until the mid-20th century (1948 to be precise), but this is a question of semantics.

No, it is a matter of being precise about what you mean. The issue that was disrupted in the 20th century was not about the universe being infinite and unchanging. Both the Steady State and Big Bang ideas represented a changing universe - it was simply that with the Steady State that change was continuous and maintained. The issue was about the universe being static.

It is ironic that the Vatican establishment clung tenaciously to the Aristotelean model for ideolgogical reasons, and several centuries later there have been equally powerful ideological reasons for which a large part of the scientific establishment have been clinging to some variation on the steady state theme. That smacks of dogmatism if anything does.

Oh come off it. Talk about 'reaching'. There was no 'scientific establishment' clinging to a variation of steady state. The scientific establishment simply did not have a consensus.

As I said before, the 'scientists are as bad as the religious' approach just doesn't work. Science can change very quickly indeed when evidence shows otherwise. Just because one or two people don't change their minds is no reason to use absurd terms like 'dogmatism'.

Dogmatism is when views are 'written in stone' and are held by the authorities. This was never the case in this area. As soon as Hubble's measurements were known, ideas changed.

You are confusing dogma with the personal stubborness of individuals like Fred Hoyle.

Other Comments by steve99

47. Comment #84778 by steve99 on November 3, 2007 at 2:31 pm

When did I say that it doesn't.

When you claimed it involved dogma.

Of course that is what we see when we observe nature (red in tooth and claw), because meaning and purpose are not visible or determinable using the tools that scientists emply when they do science. If you insist that everything must be established using such tools or not establishes at all, then that is the conclusion you are going to arrive at.

There are plenty of tools for finding meaning: philosophy and art for example. But if you looking for meaning as some objective part of the universe, what others tools are they but science? There is no intrisic meaning in DNA, in evolution, in the stars and galaxies. Meaning is in our minds, but no less significant because of that.

Other Comments by steve99

48. Comment #84785 by Bonzai on November 3, 2007 at 3:02 pm

ADH wrote:

Scientists remained and remain committed to the Steady State model in the face of the evidence not because they are following the evidence wherever it leads, but the evidence is pointing them in a direction in which they don't want to go. It is ironic that the Vatican establishment clung tenaciously to the Aristotelean model for ideolgogical reasons, and several centuries later there have been equally powerful ideological reasons for which a large part of the scientific establishment have been clinging to some variation on the steady state theme. That smacks of dogmatism if anything does.

Unlike in philosophy or religion, strongly held opinions by scientists are still opinions and they don't become science without the support of evidence.

Scientists are humans, not surprisingly ideological commitments and philosophical preferences may play a role in motivating individual scientists to think along certain directions instead of others. But whatever motivate the scientists, the resulting theories have to pass the empirical test to become science.

It is not that scientists are always objective and impartial, they are probably just as fallible and susceptible to delusions and self deceptions as other humans, but scientists are kept honest by the rigor of the scientific method. This is exactly the strength of science as a system of acquiring knowledge and precisely what sets it apart from arm-chair philosophizing and religion. In these other alleged "alternative" ways of "knowing", there is nothing to prevent the practitioners from smuggling in their personal agendas, willfully or subconsciously.

Your effort to present a moral equivalence of science and religious dogmatism is pretty lame. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of science typical of religious people who know a splatter of scientific facts and terminologies without getting the spirit of science. You are only projecting your own religious mindset onto science.

Other Comments by Bonzai

49. Comment #84795 by Russell Blackford on November 3, 2007 at 4:24 pm

A word to the wise, people. Threads like this have a quite specific purpose. Please, do not allow them to turn into trainwrecks as has happened with a lot of other threads lately.

Meanwhile, my more detailed thoughts about fundamentalism, for whatever use people may put them to:

http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2007/10/fundamentalism.html

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

50. Comment #84804 by steve99 on November 3, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Please, do not allow them to turn into trainwrecks as has happened with a lot of other threads lately.

The only way to stop that would be thread moderation, with posts not relevant to the subject being removed. That way religious nonsense that needs to be countered would not appear.

Other Comments by steve99