1. Belief in Belief

Comment #117577 by BigginHillbilly on January 29, 2008 at 6:24 am

Hi GoneGolfing - what I mean is that, faced with the eventual running down of the cosmos as entropy increases and life becomes impossible, the only purely rational option is to conclude that all action is ultimately futile. I don't personally believe this, but then I don't consider reason to be the sine qua non of my existence. Forgive the reference to suicide - perhaps a bit too melodramatic. The point I was making is that what makes life worthwhile to me generally has nothing whatsoever to do with my faculty of reason, and that this alone (assuming I am a regular human specimen)legislates against the tiresome call to reason that many non-believers seem to think is the string in their bow. Ultimately, no one cares enough about reason alone for such arguments to have as much of an impact as some would like.

2. 'Irrational Atheist' trounces God-deniers

Comment #117543 by BigginHillbilly on January 29, 2008 at 4:42 am

It's interesting that an American author should equate atheism with other 'parasitic' phonomena 'like socialism'. Smacks somewhat of McCarthyism.

3. Belief in Belief

Comment #117537 by BigginHillbilly on January 29, 2008 at 4:32 am

I'm with Upgrade01a on this one - the arguments get very tiresome after a while, because, just like certain economists, these arguments make the assumption that human beings are autonomous, rational, self-interested agents of their fate and miss the point of religion in their attempts to address it. From a logical point of view, of course religion is a load of garbage! But I think there is a marked difference between the social structures and traditions that religions generate and their initial impulse, an impulse that I think is a deeply innate part of us and is in many ways beyond the scope of our reason. I feel that all of us have a deep need to foster a sense of connection with the rest of the cosmos, and a deep sense of the uncanniness and mystery of human existence, or, for that matter the existence of anything at all. Any purely rational take on existence would surely do nothing but justify suicide; we live with a sense of faith in ourselves, our loved ones, our lives that supports us and encloses us. Any rational take on humanity must surely conclude that we are largely creatures that exist in a state of unreason, and no explanation, ultimately, will remove that sense of mystery and resonance that subsumes the limitations of our minds. Any attempt to persuade needs to focus on this; rational argument is a square peg that blunts itself on the round hole of our humanity.

4. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #107242 by BigginHillbilly on January 4, 2008 at 10:04 am

P.S: In a similar vein, can anyone tell me what on earth John Hartung is going on about on that link of his? Why all this flummery about meaning and purpose and perpetuity? At this precise moment, liver and bacon with onions is filling my mind with all the incipient meaning I'm gonna need for the next couple of hours at least...I received 'The Portable Atheist' for Xmas, and it's packed with goodies, among them a very clear and direct exposition of non-belief by Penn Gilette that I think hits the nail on the head. So, we may not last forever as a species - so what? We're here now, and that I think is what matters - love matters, friends and family matter - are we so greedy that that isn't enough for us? I think what irks me so much about this article is its lack of humility;there is an arrogance to Harris's opinion that I feel can have dangerous consequences, and has had dangerous and damaging consequences in the past, despite the best intentions of the individuals(s) concerned.

5. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #107234 by BigginHillbilly on January 4, 2008 at 9:54 am

Not so bad, Mark Smith, Walk :

I think genetic technology is full of amazing possibilites for fighting disease and so on; I certainly don't think the human genome sacrosanct or anything. What I find alarming is the naivety of scientists who imagine that the future is gonna be one where choices are made after decisions are carefully weighed and options noted, etc etc. Technology is always abused at some point by individuals or in-groups who are responding to the very drives and instincts selected for us by evolution, and are seeking short-term advantage at the expense of others, whether other individuals, or other, competing, out-groups. Harris seems to be saying we can put all of this aside and make species-wide decisions about the future of the human race that are dispassionate and intended for the benefit of all in perpetuity. I just feel that this point of view is naive to the poit of absurdity and is a variant of the 'Star Trek' mentality that says that as we become more technologically advanced, we become more moral and more rational. I think that this is insane! A happy new year to one and all!

6. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106866 by BigginHillbilly on January 3, 2008 at 3:45 pm

This article is the most alarming pile of bullshit I think I've ever come across on this site. Exactly how are we supposed to take charge of our genetic destiny, Sam, when we can't even agree on climate change targets or curb human population levels enough to stop the wholesale denuding of the planet. The very nature evolution has selected for in us is the very nature that he is assuming is able to think and act objectively on behal of the entire species. Who decides what 'optimisation' means, who decides who is 'optimised', when, and how? This article smacks of the most absurd grandiosity and the kind of 'perfection of mankind' ideology that made such a mess of the 20th century. Human nature is not, I think, as amenable to rational decision as Harris likes to think - like many techno-utopians, he needs to pick up a history book or two.

7. Religion is not incompatible with Science: 'Non-Overlapping Magisteria'

Comment #84786 by BigginHillbilly on November 3, 2007 at 3:18 pm

I think the topic of this thread misses the point, because it implies that an atheist worldview is necessarily that of a scientist and that they are one and the same thing, rather than another example of overlapping magisteria themselves. If the idea of a non-divinely inspired universe is to be convincing, it must appeal to the cavernous irrationality lurking within every human, our sense of wonderment, and intimations of belonging to the totality of things, and the immensities of time and space within which this totality has unfurled. Build up the wall with science by all means, but get the poets, painters, sculptors, novelists and especially the musicians to pitch in too. The problem with this thread's premise is that within human experience the impulses that give rise to science and religion are most definitely overlapping.