What the secular humanists (so-called atheists) don't understand is that they are every bit as fundamentalists in their ideology as any of the religious fundamentalists that they so revile.
Their "free thinking" only goes so far as their dogmatism allows. Case in point is when a "free thinker" breaks free from the accepted dogmatism and actually does some free thinking, and writes something critical of evolution, for example. Careers have been ruined over such transgressions from the secular humanism fundamentalism.
Something else to think about. If you asked a "free thinker" to name 50 of the founders of modern science he could probably do that. However, what he won't recognize is that of those 50 probably at least 45 of those would be Bible-believing theists of some kind who would abhor the notion of disregarding God's role in creation.
If you asked him to name any "free thinkers'" contributions to science he'd probably name Darwin at the top of the list, for example. However, the big difference there is that Darwin's contribution, as were others of his persuasion, was an attempt to try to explain science without God ... something that they have failed at miserably, forever running in circles chasing their own tales.
18 comments
First, theists could be free thinkers, as well. None of the scientists could ever achieve something by only accepting the dogmas of his time.
"What the secular humanists (so-called atheists) don't understand is that they are every bit as fundamentalists in their ideology as any of the religious fundamentalists that they so revile. "
Because it's not trueimage
Isaac Newton, often cited as Exhibit A for how creationists can be scientists, was an Arian (rejected the divinity of Jesus, viewing him instead as how Pharaoh Akhenaten viewed himself, namely as the sole prophet who is ultimately subservient to the Divine) who believed that he himself was the recipient of extrabiblical revelation. Were he alive today, Answers in Genesis would instantly declare him to be a heretic.
As for Darwin, he was never an atheist. So much for him trying to disprove your deity.
The most telling part of that whole Ham-Nye debate was at the end. They were each asked what would make them change their minds. The scientist said "evidence". That, Dave, is what a free thinker does, uses the evidence of science to inform his decisions,
The creationist said "nothing" in response to the same question. For someone to assert that nothing would make him change his mind means that person suffers from some delusion such that even evidence, even observable truths can be denied. Religion does that: it makes a person blind to truth. And the truth is that scientists of the past are not here to question, so we have no way of knowing whether they felt their work was in conflict with "god", and whether any of them paid any attention to such inanities as "god's creation" .
The usual lack of comprehension about the "naturalization" of science. The early proto-scientists were usually bible believing theists. It was when they started examining reality closely that began to modify. They generally planned to confirm in fact everything represented in the bible. What they found did not in any way support the bible's positions on the age or geophysical history of the Earth, just for starters. Naturalism is not a result of bias, but study, observation and experimentation. Creationists dispute every bit of this, which makes them look so very stupid to scientifically educated people.
Darwin's contribution, as were others of his persuasion, was an attempt to try to explain science without God
Evolution doesn't deny God. It just denies Genesis and various other creation myths.
"running in circles chasing their own tales"
When you don't have a tail, you have to get a tale to chase instead.
The only think Dogmatic about Atheists is the definition: No God. Not a believer in God(s).
After that they could be anything, nurturer, uncaring, giver, taker, ambitious, lazy, talented or skilless.
Half the scientists you jerks claim are Christians are not remotely Christian by your actual criteria, as Nemo pointed out about Newton who is constantly claimed as one of yours when he was nothing like todays fundamentalists.
However, what he won't recognize is that of those 50 probably at least 45 of those would be Bible-believing theists of some kind who would abhor the notion of disregarding God's role in creation.
I really doubt that many “free thinker” wouldn’t be aware that most people from the past, including scientists, were believers in one religion or other.
The thing is, we tend to remember such people for the things they were right about, not about those they were wrong about. Case in point (as Nemo mentioned), Isaac Newton. He is remembered for his contributions and discoveries about mathematics, gravity and light, not for his attempts at alchemy and biblical prophecy. (I recently read a quote about him, forgot by whom, calling him “not the first of the scientists, but the last of the magicians”.)
All right, prove that reference to God is necessary in science. Put together a radio kit, and show what role God plays in the construction, electricity, transistors, sound waves, etc.
Idiotic. If someone came up with a theory that better explained the state of nature than evolution currently does, us "free-thinkers" would abandon evolution in a second. That is because we don't "believe" in evolution, in the same way we don't "believe" in algebra. Belief is not required.
"What the secular humanists (so-called atheists) don't understand is that they are every bit as fundamentalists in their ideology as any of the religious fundamentalists that they so revile."
What the fundie Christains (so-called 'Christians') don't understand is that if Atheism is a 'religion', where's our tax exemption?
You want to freely think that yours isn't a religion, but is 'A personal relationship with Jesus', fine.
Don't come running to us for help however, when the IRS come to take what's owing them: your own God , never mind the properties, assets etc of all right-wing Fundamental ist Christains.
But then, as you lot owe a rather sizeable chunk of -the nearly $17 quadrillion owed in back taxes by Christianity since 1776 - they already do .
You figure out that one: via financial science, Dave. The IRS's accountants already have.
There is little or no ideology to atheism. It's just a lack of belief in gods, goddesses and other deities. It's not particularly fundamentalist either, most would, if presented with scientific evidence of gods, change their minds.
Writing something critical of evolution is done all the time, I'd say, but it only makes the theory stronger; being challenged time and time again. Writing something whiny about evolution, with the amount of facts and the maturity of the argument that "evolutionists are poopyheads!" might indeed ruin your career.
During most of the last millennia, being a "Bible-believing theist" was the only allowed position to hold, so much of the professed religiosity was a sincere as when I say "Lord God", when I'm surprised, angry or very happy. It was just something you did. A lot of the scientists in those days probably doubted God's role in creation.
Darwin was a moderate Christian. His contribution was an attempt to explain the world with science, regardless of gods. If gods had fit the explanation, they would have been included.
Chasing their tales?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
