Ed Kroc: Another Atheist BigotSorry, I was on the internet too much today. I found this kookery over at Paul Zachary’s “free thought” blog, and I felt it needed to be called out for the small-minded bigotry it is:
There are three kinds of religious scientists (and mathematicians): cowards, liars and idiots. The cowards need to be reassured and rescued, the liars need to be challenged and contested, and the idiots need to be exposed. It is because of this that I have become an engaged atheist, outspoken and loud, a “new” atheist if that’s what you want to call it. As long as the cowards, liars and idiots are protected by our silence and general disinterest in anything not directly related to our research, they will continue to compromise the credibility of our fields. You can be a brilliant scientist and still believe in god, but you can’t do it sincerely. That’s a problem. Sooner or later will be a clash, whether it’s in the form of muddling research, deceiving students or misrepresenting reality in a public statement or lecture. If you’re going to devote your life to the pursuit of truth, then you better have enough guts to stomach the implications, all of them.
Right, because conflicts of interest *ONLY* arise when scientists are religious. Bigoted kookery! And only the super-rational atheist scientists are metaphysically sincere! Bigoted kookery! Of course, Ed Kroc the bigot forgot all about the fourth kind of religious scientist: the ones who contribute more knowledge to science to science than Dawkins, Myers, Harris and Coyne combined. Who cares though, because, via revelation from Ed Kroc, we can be certain Francis Collins will be out there muddling research, deceiving students or misrepresenting reality, sooner or later. After all, only *THEIST* scientists do that!
Do Reconverts Exist?I’m not asking, “Has anybody ever stopped believing in God, then started again?” I’m sure those people exist. I’m thinking more along the lines of professionals and academics. Does anybody know of any prominent, vocal or outgoing believers who became prominent, vocal or outgoing atheists, then reconverted? I’m asking because I have this hypothesis that once a deconvert has blasphemed and insulted enough, potential cognitive dissonance outweighs commitment to reason. For example, John W. Loftus. Are we really to believe that somebody like Loftus is true enough to searching that he might reconvert, even after all that crap he’s talked about God and faith? Or, might all that crap-talking have permanently eroded any such chance?
If you are a deconvert, what would it take to reconvert?
A Quest For Second BestOver the past six months, the arguments I've read and wrote have led me to what I believe to be a logically-valid, undeniable argument for DCT's superiority over any other moral theory. As such, I state confidently today that all contemplation of "the best moral theory" is actually a quest for second best.
The Atheist Afterlife: p17-36Today's post covers pages 17-36 of The Atheist Afterlife, by David Staume.
The Atheist Afterlife: p1-17Today’s post covers the Introduction and Chapter 1 of The Atheist Afterlife, by David Staume. In a nutshell, the book aims to demonstrate the plausibility of, well.. an atheist afterlife (as if you needed my review to tell you that, right?).
As stated, my initial reactions about the book are largely positive. Overall, I’d say the author takes the road less traveled, and tends towards conservatively stated beliefs and secure premises. I guess when one is used to online (a)theist discussions, those virtues tend to stand out more. As an example of some statements I appreciated or agreed with,
Questioning Fyfe’s Desirism III: My Stated Position On DesirismI thought I should take a quick break from discussing the method to clarify my position on desirism. I'm not angry or irritated or anything like that, neither is this any sort of a "point fingers" post. I just want to clarify where I'm at concerning desirism [which is pretty much right where I've always been]. Else, we might have more misunderstanding, when I'd really rather just get a good discussion going.
In general, I'll argue that it's counterproductive to think in black-and-white terms of being "for" or "against" a given theory. In any given field, theories are more like "dynamic knowledge" than neatly-packaged, easily-reducible entities, and people often have mixed attitudes about them. It is both possible and common for an individual to support one or more of a theory's tenets, while maintaining reservations concerning others. Other times people feel they may have something valid to contribute. That's exactly the case with my attitude towards Alonzo Fyfe's desirism. Recently at CSA, Alonzo Fyfe wrote,
Questioning Fyfe’s Desirism, IIIn the thread that followed the Introduction, we discussed,
I'd say more than enough has transpired to warrant a second post, and I'd like to discuss:
The Atheist Afterlife: Why I’m An IdiotSo, I don't check the email associated with this blog nearly as often as I check other emails, which means I'm about a month-and-a-half late in paying David the gratuity of posting the preface he'd taken the time to write and include back when he sent the book. Better late than never I suppose, but at least now you know where this post's title came from. Sorry David, and thanks for not being one of those people who expresses offense at such things. Sometimes TWIM's email just doesn't get checked for 6 weeks!
Anyways, without further adieu, David Staume's preface, open for comments and considerations:
The Atheist Afterlife: IntroductionA few weeks back, I discovered a most pleasant surprise in the mailbox: a copy of philosopher David Staume's The Atheist Afterlife. If nothing else, it ought to catch one's attention for the title alone.
Like many other things, I first heard of Staume's book on Common Sense Atheism, which in my opinion is probably the best all-around atheist blog out. David also comments at CSA and on one occasion, I responded favorably to a comment of his that hit on some of the ideas in TAA, which led to him offering me a copy of the book. Much obliged, David!
News, AnnouncementsIn case anybody actually missed them, I apologize for the absence of posts, but the month-long break felt great! I don't know about you, but I prefer feeling refreshed and full of new ideas to write about (as opposed to feeling burnt out and writing about the same old things).
I imagine the new addition to our family – a cute, sweet and healthy baby girl – has certainly contributed her share to my enhanced interest in all things human. So far, many of the clichés I'd heard about parenthood have proven true, while others, not as much so. Either way, I definitely foresee some posts and arguments referencing the parent-child relationship in TWIM's immediate future. I've always felt the parent-child relationship has significant import to (a)theist debate, and it's not an angle you hear argued often.