1. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #179783 by ericross on May 13, 2008 at 6:03 pm

I would refer people to this article on the Time Magazine web site. It is an excerpt from Walter Isaacson's recent biography on Einstein.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298,00.html

I think it is fair to call Einstein a pantheist (even if he himself seems to have denied it), but that does not really settle the question. Pantheism seems to be a fuzzy concept that is often used as a catch-all for positions that are vague and difficult to classify. The real question is, did Einstein believe in a god that is more than a metaphor for the natural? My answer is a tentative yes, but Einstein was maddeningly unclear. Certainly, though, he was no theist.

For the record, I regard the question as not much more than a curiosity. I don't hang my hat on what Einstein did or didn't believe, and nor should anyone else.

2. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #179773 by ericross on May 13, 2008 at 5:48 pm

I usually find Davis Brooks worth reading, but I was not particularly impressed with this op-ed. He starts out by presenting the atheist position as far more sweeping and rigid than it really is, and throws in the loaded term "militant" to further discredit the idea. He then nevertheless seems to concede that atheists have a point, and belief in the Bible has become untenable. He then tries to smuggle god back in by redefining the word as some kind of mysterious force, and further tries to give this idea some modicum of credibility by saying it's kinda sorta like Buddhism. Finally, he declares himself incompetent to form a opinion.

Despite his cop-out at the end, I suspect David Brooks is yet another religious moderate who attempts to harmonize science and religion. The result is predictable -- a confused, self-contradictory, incoherent, rambling mess.

3. Richard Dawkins discusses Einstein's new letters

Comment #179735 by ericross on May 13, 2008 at 3:30 pm

I'm not convinced that Einstein was an atheist. It seems more likely that he was a deist -- by saying that he did not believe in a personal god, he was implying that he did believe in some sort of a god. I also read in Time (in an article based on the recently published biography of Einstein) that he repeatedly denied being an atheist.

Anyone care to try to convince me?

4. Hebrew University researcher: Moses was tripping at Mount Sinai

Comment #139478 by ericross on March 6, 2008 at 12:31 am

I think that most of the commentors on this article are being too nice. This is a good example of what I talked about in my most recent blog post -- the "unctuous and stupefying nonsense" (to quote Sam Harris) that moderates are apt to produce when attempting to harmonize science and religion.

I am dumber for having read this article.

5. That's not MY God or Religion you're criticising

Comment #83986 by ericross on November 1, 2007 at 12:47 am

This claim is deployed as a smokescreen when the believer's religion or God has been exposed as silly, pernicious, or both. It is designed to give the believer license to dismiss the atheist's argument with one grand wave of the hand. It also intends to deflect attention from the fact that either (a) the believer's religion/God has, in fact, been fairly, if unflatteringly, represented; (b) the believer's religion/God is slightly different, but not a whole lot less silly and/or pernicious; or (c) the believer's religion/God is so vague as to have little or no concrete content.

If you identify as a Christian/Jew/Muslim, you are not free to define your own God. Your God has already been defined by the Bible or Koran, and this is the God to which the atheist refers. If you insist on redefining God, then at least be intellectually honest enough to stop calling yourself a Christian/Jew/Muslim; stop attending church/synagogue/mosque; and admit that no scripture, and probably very few people, support your position.

6. Most religious people are moderate, and don't hurt anybody

Comment #83664 by ericross on October 30, 2007 at 8:28 pm

I covered this issue in my blog post entitled "an Honest Conversation":

http://proudatheist.blogspot.com/2007/10/honest-conversation.html

First, I disagree with the premise that most religious people are moderate. In the US, polls consistently show that about half of all Christians believe the Bible to be inerrant, which meets my definition of fundamentalism.

Nevertheless, the other half of American Christians, who could reasonably be described as moderate, are a big part of the problem. Moderates shelter fundamentalists from any serious intellectual challenge and give them relatively free reign. This is not surprising, as moderate believers have already acquiesced to the foundational pillars of fundamentalism -- there is a singular God, the Bible is His word, and faith in God is a virtue. Once those ideas are accepted, the only additional element that fundamentalism requires is the belief that the Bible means what it says. Moderate Christianity is an intellectually bankrupt position that cannot survive contact with the first few pages of the Bible. This gives rise to deep (though probably subconscious) insecurities; thus moderates don't want to talk about their beliefs, lest their insecurities be exposed. Moreover, moderates hold a weak hand with which to challenge any religious claim to which they do not subscribe, as those who live in glass houses ought not throw stones. Their way out is to discourage skeptical inquiry, promulgate the idea that it is uncivil to challenge religious beliefs, and console themselves with wishful thinking about fundamentalism being rare and impotent.

7. 'Jane Doe' Testifies as Trial of Polygamist Leader Begins

Comment #70200 by ericross on September 14, 2007 at 10:13 am

I highly recommend Jon Krakauer's excellent book Under the Banner of Heaven. In tracing the history of Mormonism, it provides a fascinating case study into how religions start, and how they can spiral out of control, spawning violence and abuse. Most pertinent to this article, the book describes how these fundamentalist Mormons sects came to be, and what it's like inside of one (and it's much worse than I realized).

http://proudatheist.blogspot.com

8. Not So Fast, Christian Soldiers

Comment #65341 by ericross on August 23, 2007 at 5:25 pm

The type of behavior described in this article is alarming and obviously counterproductive, but not very surprising. As soon as a society dignifies the idea that there is a God and the Bible is his word, it should expect this kind of thing. Beliefs have consequences.

9. The Bible's literary sins

Comment #63188 by ericross on August 13, 2007 at 12:54 pm

I completely agree with this article. I started reading the Bible about 2 months ago, and it has become a painful chore. The discordant mishmash of "books" alternate between appalling and dull, and are sometimes both. While most everyone agrees that the Bible had human authors, it was supposedly "inspired" by God, so he is ultimately responsible. I am not impressed.

From a Christian perspective, however, both the length of the Bible and its poor literary quality are enormously helpful -- most casual believers don't read it (or, at least, not much of it). If they did, many would become atheists.

BTW, I have started a blog at http://proudatheist.blogspot.com. There is only one entry so far, but I would appreciate any comments my fellow atheists have.

10. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46615 by ericross on May 31, 2007 at 8:11 pm

I couldn't believe that McGrath actually argued something like, "I'm not sure God could have made a world without earthquakes." If the Christian God existed then of course he could have -- that's what omnipotence means. I was even more surprised, however, that Dawkins let him get away with that ridiculous rationalization.

Incidentally, McGrath's reasons for allegedly being an atheist years ago boil down to "I wanted to be a part of the in-crowd", while his reasons for being a Christian now boil down to "I find it appealing".

11. I Don't Believe in Atheists

Comment #44896 by ericross on May 25, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Hedges informs us that "God is better understood as verb rather than a noun". Hmmm, God is a verb, as in "to God". I'll be in New York this weekend, and I think I'll go Godding. Anyone care to join me?

What a bunch of ridiculous nonsense.

12. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31410 by ericross on April 12, 2007 at 1:44 pm

I read this in the print version of Time a few days ago, and it got my attention because it makes a strong case that Einstein was a deist, not a pantheist/atheist as Richard Dawkins claimed in TGD.

I don't think it matters much what Einstein or any other single person believed. Einstein was brilliant of course, but he was wrong about many things, and his reasons for being a deist (if in fact he was) appear to be weak and ill-defined. Besides, a deist God is irrelevant and might as well not exist.

13. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #20121 by ericross on January 31, 2007 at 1:59 pm

I'm honestly not a huge fan of this format. Andrew can simply ignore Sam's arguments when it suits him, and has done so repeatedly. For example, he never said exactly what he means by God. Even those arguments that Andrew does respond to, he is free to misconstrue or oversimplify. This in turn forces Sam to explain why Andrew's response was inadequate, which Andrew then proceeds to ignore. I am thus very frustrated with Andrew, though not overly surprised.

That said, I do appreciate that Sam is doing what he can to get the message out.