Are atheists rationalizing the world they see?

[QED]

Rationalize: To find false reasons for irrational or unworthy behavior.

I see a world in which all life is fleeting. Both on the level of the individual as well as entire species. All evolution is interested in is making sure that an organism lives long enough to pass on its genes to the next generation before important bits start dropping-off. Even this process falters eventually and inevitable extinction ensues. That road-kill litters the pavement is obvious. But is this all just the morbid invention of atheists?

[QED]

That's one of the biggest problems, we might stand on the shoulders of giants, but giants can only work with what they have on hand at the time. There are far too many supposed experts who pontificate as if their word is the final word on a subject. Tomorrow, we may find out something that completely changes everything we thought to be true.

I think you're are making a common mistake here. Yes there are frequent revolutions in Science, but they rarely overthrow previous works in their original frame of reference. This is an important distinction as it show that knowledge can be absolute within well-defined frameworks. If this were not the case then all our best efforts to codify the world could be no better than guesses and none of the technology you now enjoy would be possible.

You accuse "supposed experts" of pontificating as if their word is the final word on a subject -- well I can't recall anyone actually having the nerve to state as much as fact. I, for one, am content to make allowances for the character of others if they help provide me with the benefits of things like medicine and technology.

I think ego is a major problem, whether one's talking about science or religion. People want to be looked up to, feel like they are an authority and their word is law when most of the time, it just doesn't work out that way. The giants of the past, no matter how spectacular their work, were no more than men and men make mistakes. Idolizing someone just for being right for a while is a bit ridiculous.

I certainly have no time for the self-proclaimed prophets and visionaries who's sum output amounts to something close to zero on account of incoherence. But there is this thing called Genius in the world and I firmly believe we should celebrate it.

[Bro Dave]

Ignore if you will, the never ending epidemic of ego's who elbow their way in front of each other, distaining others in their fields for fear they their own importance will somehow be diluted. The cattle show that the Nobel Prize has become is not a bad example.

I remember several years back, when they finally got the tunable laser working, and discovered that some 10 years prior, a young unrecognized scientist had written extensive papers discribing this recent "discovery", but was ignored by all the larger egos around him. But who could expect ones so lofty, so exquisitely knowledgable, to dain to read the offerings of some lesser mind?

A famous President is quoted as saying, "It's amazing how much can be accomplished, when you stop worring about who will get the credit".

Bro Dave

[Cephus]

I think you're are making a common mistake here. Yes there are frequent revolutions in Science, but they rarely overthrow previous works in their original frame of reference. This is an important distinction as it show that knowledge can be absolute within well-defined frameworks. If this were not the case then all our best efforts to codify the world could be no better than guesses and none of the technology you now enjoy would be possible.

Science can only deal with what it knows today. Therefore, it is never a complete and final way to view anything, as we learn more, science changes. That's the whole point, people who are looking for something that they can believe and accept forever and ever without change look at science, find that there are things that science doesn't know or changes it's mind on, then they look at religion, which rarely if ever changes, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and they pick religion because they want stability, not reality.

There are plenty of things that science says that turns out to be wrong. Einstein proposed a particular model for black holes that turned out to be completely false. He was a genius, no denying it, but just because you're a genius doesn't make you perfect. He was simply going off of the data and models that he had at that time. As better data came to light, his ideas were revised, or even thrown out completely.

You accuse "supposed experts" of pontificating as if their word is the final word on a subject -- well I can't recall anyone actually having the nerve to state as much as fact. I, for one, am content to make allowances for the character of others if they help provide me with the benefits of things like medicine and technology.

There are far too many people who want to have the authoratative last word on a subject. If you look at the whole ID movement, that's really what it's about. Science can't explain absolutely everything today to their satisfaction, therefore... God did it. The fact that science is continually growing and improving doesn't matter to them, they want it all, now, forever and ever.

I certainly have no time for the self-proclaimed prophets and visionaries who's sum output amounts to something close to zero on account of incoherence. But there is this thing called Genius in the world and I firmly believe we should celebrate it.

I have no problem with celebrating genius, so long as you recognize that genius does not mean perfect. Stephen Hawking is a genius. Einstein was a genius. Neither were perfect, neither claimed to be perfect and for anyone to look to them as the final, authoratative, inerrant expert on anything is just setting themselves up to fail.

[QED]

In an attempt to restart this debate I've dug out a quote from Richard Dawkins book "The Blind Watchmaker":

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

The universe certainly does seem like this to me. I appreciate it might leave some people feeling rather uncomfortable but why should we expect to feel so comfortable? Right now the wind is howling around my house in a fairly terrifying fashion and the rain is lashing through the darkness. I don't think I'd survive the night if I wandered out in my T-shirt shorts and sandals. I don't think I'm "making anything up" or rationalizing the situation when I agree with Dawkins that the universe is ultimately indifferent to its constituent parts.

[Cephus]

The universe certainly does seem like this to me. I appreciate it might leave some people feeling rather uncomfortable but why should we expect to feel so comfortable? Right now the wind is howling around my house in a fairly terrifying fashion and the rain is lashing through the darkness. I don't think I'd survive the night if I wandered out in my T-shirt shorts and sandals. I don't think I'm "making anything up" or rationalizing the situation when I agree with Dawkins that the universe is ultimately indifferent to its constituent parts.

Dawkins had it dead on. To anthropomorphize the universe a little for a moment, the universe doesn't give a damn what you think, feel or believe. It doesn't care what makes you comfortable, it doesn't care what makes you happy and it doesn't really care if you live or die. You are totally irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.

And that scares the crap out of some people. They want to feel important. They want to feel like they matter. So they invent gods, gods that make them feel special and favored and important, gods who make them feel that there's more to life than the uncaring universe around them. Gods who are going to give them something after they die because they are ultimately terrified of death.

That's all gods are, a way for humans to make themselves feel better about the world around them.

[Bro Dave]

... I agree with Dawkins that the universe is ultimately indifferent to its constituent parts.

The "watch" is indifferent, the Watchmaker cares deeply!

Bro Dave

[Cephus]

... I agree with Dawkins that the universe is ultimately indifferent to its constituent parts.

The "watch" is indifferent, the Watchmaker cares deeply!

You've yet to demonstrate that the Watchmaker exists. Please do so. And while you're at it, let's bring up the extension to the argument that goes as follows:

If all watches have a Watchmaker, then all Watchmakers have a father.

So then, after you demonstrate that your Watchmaker exists, please go further and show us who his father was. We'll wait.

[QED]

If all watches have a Watchmaker, then all Watchmakers have a father.

Maybe not a father in every case, but a history definitely. Why is this not seen as a significant problem for the ideas many people have of there being a God? If the definition of rationalizing is pretending that ones desires are caused by impartial reasoning, then how can a person who is unable to accept such obvious nonsense be rationalizing the situation?

[Cephus]

If all watches have a Watchmaker, then all Watchmakers have a father.

Maybe not a father in every case, but a history definitely. Why is this not seen as a significant problem for the ideas many people have of there being a God? If the definition of rationalizing is pretending that ones desires are caused by impartial reasoning, then how can a person who is unable to accept such obvious nonsense be rationalizing the situation?

Because people who believe in a god or gods are not rational. Then they come up with these silly little arguments without stopping to think through the consequences or ramifications of their claims and when you call them on it, they slink back into the woodwork, only to return later to make the same claim over and over again.

Religious belief isn't about being rational, it's about superstition.