Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
"Atheists seem to suffer from a lack of imagination."
That line is from this post in a discussion over at BoingBoing about a new book by the Vatican Astronomer, Brother Guy Consolmagno. Full context: the author previously described himself as an "agnostic", and in defense of that position says this:
I would turn that question around and ask if an atheist is sure that there is no 3rd planet orbiting around the star in Orion's left shoulder. We can't see it or demonstrate in any way that it exists, therefore by atheist standards, it must not exist?
Or perhaps we can use atheistic reasoning to suggest that Star Trek Warp Drives, teleporters, holodecks and other "Treknology" are all completely impossible, because physics can't currently produce those effects and therefore, they do not exist.
Atheists seem to suffer from a lack of imagination.
So yes, I would call myself agnostic in the idea that there may be an enormous cloud of superintelligent jello in the oort cloud. I'm not going to rush out and buy a giant spoon, nor am I going to be smug about it and assume that the universe holds no more surprises. Ever since the dawn of man, it's really been one surprise after another. I don't see it slowing down. If anything, it's speeding up. We're getting surprised all the time.
It's a mindset that I run into all the time, and is tied into the (in my opinion, mistaken) notion that atheists also 'have faith'. [Um, no, we just don't have belief in God.]
Thoughts? How do you respond to this?
Jim Downey
Bookmark/Search this post with:
[Snip quote of religionist
[Snip quote of religionist drivel]
Thoughts? How do you respond to this?
Aww... do I have to? I'd rather poke a sharp stick in my eye. It wouldn't hurt as much.
- No More Mr. Nice Guy!
Compared to the variety of gods and saints the deists follow....
Face it, when they can have gods and saints for everything from spiders to vomit, from "Worst Case Scenarios" to chocolate, the deists do show a startling amount of imagination.
(I did like the "eating people is wrong" T-shirts at GodChecker. If we were supposed to eat people, animals wouldn't taste delicious.) (Yes, I recently had supper with some vegetarians. I don't care what they say, portobello mushrooms are NOT as good as lamb chops.)
I had missed that...
Huh, I hadn't gotten into the GodShop, so missed the shirts. FAVNVS is good, but I might just have to get one of those "Eating People is Wrong" ones in black...
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
A question for all
What do you think of non-materialist atheists? I mean someone like Sam Harris who is an atheist but recognizes that there might be a spiritual dimension to the universe and humans? Or someone like Jim [Downey] who's open to some things being 'outside nature'? (If I remember correctly, Jim.) This site has exposed me to a whole spectrum of atheism, but I find that most subscribe to a materialist philosophy.
If someone doesnt believe in a god of any kind, but subscribes to some sort of intelligence, some silicon-chip-in-the-sky or something, or that the Universe is intelligent, is that someone still atheist?
Outside nature?
Well, I'd say that perhaps my dog has an 'outside nature', as much as he wants to be out in the yard whenever the weather is even halfway decent...
I'm not quite sure what I said to indicate that I think that there are things "outside nature" in the sense you mean. I am very much open to the idea that we do not understand even all that we know about the universe (Dark Matter/Energy, anyone?), let alone know all that there is to know. But I think that is simply a limitation on our knowledge and understanding at this point - almost by definition, anything which can influence physical reality is 'natural'.
PZ has an interesting take on this, part of a larger post of his this morning:
In this sense I am materialist - but I am open to the possibility of a 'spiritual dimension', provided that adequate documentation/evidence for that exists. In fact, my novel is largely exactly this: an exploration of psychic abilities within a framework which opens up a deeper explanation of the universe (and accounts for things such as "Fermi's Paradox").
Does that clarify?
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Yes it does clarify a bit
Thanks. 'Independently confirmable evidence' would be the clincher for the materialist atheist. So even if Buddhists technically dont have god belief, they arent in the same mold of atheism as PZ. And Jim Downey would be somewhere in between, I suppose.
"God"
This is where it becomes interesting. If you were to ascribe the act of universal creation to this silicon-chip-in-the-sky, or to the "intelligent universe" (it created itself, I suppose), then no, I wouldn't say you would be an atheist. You would be a theist of some sort, because god-belief would be present within you.
However, if you just believed that this SCITS was a natural, non-human intelligence, or that the universe somehow "woke up" after a few billion years, then god-belief would still be absent.
The act of believing in an external, non-human intelligence itself is not theism - until you start to call that non-human intelligence "god".
At least, that's my take on it. :)
Interesting take indeed
Thanks. What about someone like Fred Hoyle? He calls himself an atheist, but he ascribes some sort of creator or designer or something to life, the universe, and everything--if Im not mistaken, he coined the term 'intelligent design'--even if he doesnt recognize this 'intelligence' as god.
We lack imagination because
We lack imagination because we prefer to base our worldview on reality rather than fantasy? If the believer wants to maintain his or her delusion and can do so without harming anyone, so be it. But criticizing us for not being equally crazy makes little sense.
This crap again?
Regarding this stinktacular turdbomb:
"I would turn that question around and ask if an atheist is sure that there is no 3rd planet orbiting around the star in Orion's left shoulder. We can't see it or demonstrate in any way that it exists, therefore by atheist standards, it must not exist?"
No, that's not how it works. How it works is like this: If you assert that there IS a 3rd planet orbiting around the star in Orion's left shoulder, the skeptic says, "Oh? How do you know that?" Then (continuing the analogy) the 3rd planet asserter says, "well, I have in my posession this really old book that says it's so, and I have faith that it's there, and I have faith in my really old book and the revealed truth it contains, and besides, you can't prove the 3rd planet isn't there, can you?"
See how that works? The theists are total freakin' morons as usual. They are apparently so dumb it defies description. That's how it works.
I used to think theists weren't stupid, and argue as much. But, after many years, the theists finally won that argument and convinced me... that they are stupid.
I can certainly imagine
I can certainly imagine where Guy can put his new book.
This agnostic...
...is also an atheist, as far as I can tell. And seems to be yet another person who mistakenly believes that the term "atheist" necessarily implies disbelief in god, rather than simply lack of belief in god.
That comment about a third
That comment about a third planet orbiting the star in Orion's left shoulder is one of the stupidest arguments that I have ever seen. It is the Christians (especially Southern Baptists) who believe that if it isn't in the Bible, it isn't anywhere. And the only planet mentioned in the Bible is the one we are standing on. Consolmagno shouldn't try to demonize athiests by projecting his intolerance (or maybe ignorance) onto them.
Inference?
So the inference is that science will someday invent warp drives, teleporters and God?
Ciao!
ridiculous.
i'm constantly amazed at the bad arguments that come out of so-called "intelligent" people.
how is a god unlike a planet? well, uh. i'm pretty sure we live on a planet. in fact, i'm pretty sure we have copious amounts of evidence of the existence of more than a few planets.
so likening an argument about the location and occurrence of an "thing" we already know to be possible to exist... to an argument about whether or not there has ever been one of something else in existence, ever? is intellectually pathetic.
there's a difference between belief and certainty
I believe it unlikely that a God or gods exist. I'm not 100% certain about this belief, but certain enough to not worry about it or spend more time researching the idea. That, I feel, makes me an atheist, not an agnostic -- nor an arrogant tool who thinks he comprehends the motivations and imaginations of people who choose to label themselves with a word when he clearly hasn't made the effort to fully grok the semantics of that word.
A definition problem
IMO it's really a issue with the definition of atheism. The classic Chrisitan context of the word is one that doens't believe the Chrisitan god exists. That is the definition I think most people use.
I prefer the non-contextual "having no god beliefs" definition myself.
The Definition of Atheism
You nailed it. Most people don't understand that atheism simply means the absense of god belief. Christians think of atheism as a type of religion that is counter to theirs. A few months back, Brent gave a great explanation of atheism that I saved:
The crucial part is that atheism makes no claims at all. For some reason, this is very hard for religious people to understand. And even when we try to explain that atheism is simply a lack of god belief, they still don't understand. UTI used to be frequented by a guy named "the Colonel" who was a hardcore xian and we tried explaining atheism over and over and over. He never got it and finally left UTI in anger. The Colonel came here to have theological debates about the existance of god and no one would play with him. Atheists discuss the rationality of belief and he was stuck on making us prove god doesn't exist.
Would it be wrong...
Would it be wrong for me to say I missed the Colonel, just a bit? Yeah, sure, he had an agenda and could be a pain, but he was a nearly perfect example of just how hemmed-in a believer can be by their indoctrination. Because in spite of all the lack of logic, quote-mining, et cetera, I think he actually and honestly believed what he was saying. It was highly educational to watch his mind at work...if ultimately frustrating.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Treknology
Regarding this:
Gene Roddenberry, the creator of Star Trek, was actually an atheist (according to Wikipedia he was a secular humanist.)
Personally, I don't know any atheists who would say something is technologically impossible just because we can't do it today. Science continues to advance technology at a tremendous pace.
too easy
As others have said, an atheist has no difficulty inventing these and many other fabulous stories. But "imagination" is not the quality that makes you believe that such fabulous stories are true.
Let's try to extract a core principle from this...
...which is, "If it is possible to imagine a thing, and some ancient nomads did imagine it, you have to base your life and your politics on it."
I can imagine lots of stuff, but start having difficulty with self-contradictory stuff.
Teapot a better analogy
We have evidence that planets exist and so it makes sense to be agnostic on whether or not there is a 3rd planet in the place suggested. It’s actually not that extraordinary a claim, since we know of stars that have more than two planets. However, we have no other experience or evidence of God that would make Consolmagno’s analogy valid. The better analogy is Russell's teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars. For some reason Consolmagno ignored this much more apt analogy.
An imaginative atheist
The author of that piece seems to have confused "imagining something is true" and "believing that something is true". They are not the same at all. For example, I completely agree with his assertion that since I have no proof of there being a planet around one star in Orion, I don't believe in it. That doesn't prevent me from imagining it, though. And it certainly doesn't mean that I've closed my mind to the possibility either. All it means is that at this point in time, there is no evidence for there being a planet there.
The author also seems to be implying that if an atheist doesn't believe in something due to lack of evidence (not just god), that he will NEVER believe in it. This isn't true. Show any atheist (or anybody, really) the evidence, and you'll have a believer. But until said evidence is given, we will default to non-belief. But we can still have fun with the idea ;)
Imagination does not mean delusion
My response to this nonsense:
is that is not what this atheist is saying.
I would merely contend there is no reason to believe this "3rd planet" exists without evidence. I can't understand why that is so hard for religionists to comprehend!