It's incredibly rediculous to debate over whether or not God exists when we cannot even come to a consensus as to what our concept of God should be.

Whenever one speaks of God, he should probably define what he means. Only then can any decent criticism of God be given - with, of course, respect to that particular account.

"Ridiculous."

No, I don't think that's the problem. Dawkins and his ilk have said they don't oppose "Einsteinian Theism" (which by their description matches nothing of what Einstein believed) on the grounds that it's not really theism at all. Their claim is that religion is intrinsically bad and should be abolished... somehow. They seem to think that being condescending pricks will do the job, 'cuz that's all they really do.

Especially in light of Sam's post, I didn't intend this to have anything to do with belief in a god or lack thereof. If someone wants to not believe in a god because that's how her convictions stand, that's perfectly reasonable. However, right now antitheism is being repackaged and is trying to inundate the media. (No, I don't believe in that "liberal media" bullshit, the media simply gives people what they want to pay to hear because that's how money is made.) Nothing they say is new, which is why I'm so curious as to how and why it's such a big movement now. I mean, the same strategy was employed in France in the 1790s, and boy did that turn out swimmingly. The big difference, however, is that in the 1790s most everyone was well-read in theology. The new atheists rant about how far-fetched Zeus is, then insist that all theism is the exact same thing with different names.

God says to shutup OAO

Damn straight.

What makes you say that? From what I've seen everything I've seen Dawkins and others talk about has been right in line with what Einstein apparently believed.

No

Einstein's actual writings on religious experience were very explicit.

“The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naïve.”

Albert Einstein in a letter to Beatrice Frohlich, December 17, 1952; Einstein Archive 59-797; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 217.

“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.”

Albert Einstein, 1947; from Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel, New York: New American Library, 1972, p. 95.

This is EXACTLY what they mean by "Einsteinian god." And the New Atheist movement doesn't oppose this kind of view, and in fact kind of espouses it in some ways.

Almost, but not quite. Spinoza was more or less a pantheist, and that is what Einstein was going for. Einstein states above that God is not "personal", but every other source on him I've read implies that he believed in some kind of teleological direction of the universe. That's what pantheism is. Atheism in all of its forms rejects this outright, lest its members really be pantheists.

I've always interpreted it as meaning that the universe is a fundamentally lawful place ("God does not roll dice," etc.) and that any teleological direction like you've mentioned could and would have to arise naturally from those laws in place, not that there was a concious motivator behind everything, which is perfectly compatible with an atheistic viewpoint.

first, i'd like to say that i agree with everything sspadowsky said. ;o

second, is that book full of big words, emu? i've been meaning to pick it up, but i don't like reading a million big words at once. :X

The political scientist Eric Voegelin basically says that for reality to have a knowable "order of being" that can be studied, there must be a transcendent source of being.
I think what he meant by that was that for reality to be a 'fundamentally lawful place', and thereby a place where a scientist can potentially know things about the fundamental order of the universe, there has to be something eternal to the universe. Otherwise, you basically have the universe being ordered by the roll of the cosmic dice. If the natural order of the universe was only immanent, and had no transcendent origin, there might not be any reason to assume that they are actually eternal and hence constitute a knowable order to the universe. If reality is limited to the immanent, sensible, temporal universe, then even something like the law of gravity may have been the result of the conditions of early cosmic history. If gravity was just something that happened when the big bang had caused certain conditions, then is there any neccesary reason to suppose that such a supposed 'natural law' could not be fundamentally changed again by cosmic-historical circumstances? Couldn't the same be said about other 'natural laws'?
Without a transcendent source for the existing universe, what happens is you have what Voegelin called "the decapitation of being", where reality and the teleology you mention comes from immanent history, and is subject to fundamental change through the process of immanent history.

Well, I didn't want this to devolve into an argument for or against a god's existence, but since it's pertinent I just thought I'd augment by alluding to Dawkins' appearance on The Colbert Report. Dawkins said "but who created GOD??", then Colbert said "God is outside of time!" then Dawkins went on a rant about how that's a non-answer.

The thing is, it's not. Theology in the Neo-Platonism era delved deeply into that question, and if he wants to rebuff it he's certainly not going to do so in two breaths or less. However, having publicly stated that theology is a non-subject, Dawkins castrates himself of the potential for any meaningful discourse on that subject.

Here's what I was getting at with my statement: I see Dawkins and his cohorts much in the same way I see Pat Robertson: a loudmouthed fringe douchebag who claims to represent the majority of his group, but doesn't even come close.

Live and let live, baby.

Yeah kinda but I think it's pretty accessable over all.

I wouldn't put Dawkins on the same level as Pat Robertson, but I do kind of agree wtih you on that part. Robertson has an unabashed political agenda, and I think Dawkins at least has good intentions for what he does. I don't like the evangelistic stance he's been taking lately but on some level I guess I can see it as necessary to accomplish any kind of goal of bringing atheists together as a recognized minority, which desperately needs to happen when we're getting reports that atheists are far and away the last trusted minority group in America, beating out Jews, Muslims and even homosexuals. Most families would let their Christian children marry Jewish or Muslim or what-have-you faiths before they would let them marry an atheist. I wanted to link to the actual article but the site's being a cuntjob right now. In the event that it comes back up, here it is:

http://www.ur.umn.edu/FMPro?-db=rele...&ID=2816&-Find

I am worried that this evangelistic stance may end up turning a lot of atheists into the quasi-religious bigots that a good portion of theists make us out to be. But you could argue that that kind of coherence is what atheists need to make any kind of social progress for themselves. The Christian mainstream in particular have a difficult time thinking of a group of people without some kind of "stereotype of ideas" that they all share -- for themselves it's the Bible, for Muslims it's the Koran, soforth. It's arguable that any minority group you can present has at least some kind of coherent culture that pulls them all together as a group, but atheists don't have that. The only thing any atheist has in common with any other atheist is that they don't believe in God. Any of their other beliefs can be as radical as anybody else's.

I think what I'm getting at is that yeah, Dawkins and the rest of them are loudmouthed, but MAYBE something good could come of it if they can get atheists to become a recognized minority group.

I see where you're coming from, Emu. I do think Atheists get a bum rap, and I would like to see more recognition and respect. Still, I'm wary of any kind of herd mentality, even if I agree with the philosophy, and I don't think that damning the other groups is the way to go about getting respect.

Why is it so bad that America trusts athetists less than Muslims and Jews and homosexuals?

And how in God's name do they come up with an accurate survey to find out such random information that I imagine is different from person to person.


Maybe families want their religious traditions or some form of a religious tradition to be an important part of their children's lives. I'm sure having a die hard atheist as one half of a marriage(where the other person is religious) could be stressful around religious holidays if they are anything like Dawkins.

I personally am an anti-theist.

Dawkins et al. may be pricks, but who cares.

Well, speaking solely for myself, Ant

Like I said, I am a secular person. It just so happens that I fell madly in love with a fairly devout Christian, and she feels the same way about me. Neither of us want our relationship to have to end based on those religious differences, or have them even be a source of problems. So what did we do? We talked it over. We discussed, and continue to discuss from time to time, ways to negotiate through our differences.

For example, I have no problem accompanying her to church from time to time, despite the fact that I will likely never believe in what they talk about. I have no problem engaging in religious holidays, as I have done that my whole life since before I lost faith. If we ever end up getting married and starting a family, she may raise the children as christians, as this is really her primary concern. Neither of us will force our beliefs on the other. So you see, it can work out. You just have to want it to and not be afraid to work it out.

So you capitulated. Good man!

Yeah, I'm sure it looks that way, but it honestly doesn't feels like it. What she wants is signs that I accept her for who she is, and I give those to her. All I ask for in return is that she not bug me with any "convert or burn!!!" stuff. So it's not that I threw in the towell; I just have fewer demands.

It is a movement in the sense that some Atheists now want their lack of belief recognized and catered to. I don't know if politicized Atheism is new, but the thought that anything hinting of a religious belief is an offense to their sensibilities is definetly being brought to the forefront.

Isn't it about time?? We've had to bow to the christians for the last 2000 years. It's OUR turn.

Ok, granted, I'm biased because my sister is a religious freak, and I have to listen to her say "God really blessed me that time!" and "If I hadn't stalled RIGHT THEN, I'd be DEAD! God took care of me!" and "I'll pray for you." I still want to shove broken glass up her ass.