logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2024-05-06 14:04:17 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Everyone into the pool! Now online... the VirusWiki.

  Church of Virus BBS
  Mailing List
  Virus 2003
  "Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism		 « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: "Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism  (Read 3196 times)
metahuman
Anarch
***

Gender: Male
Posts: 212
Reputation: 3.63
Rate metahuman




MetaVirian
View Profile WWW E-Mail
"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« on: 2003-10-12 20:25:16 »		 Reply with quote
While I am definitely not a supporter of the Brights, I am quite enraged that the editors of WSJ's Opinion Journal have the audacity to publish an article that bashes atheism, atheists everywhere, and especially some incredible folks like Daniel Dennett.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004153

Thankfully, there are other atheists who do read Opinion Journal and have responded quite intelligently to the editorial.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/responses.html?article_id=110004153

Judging from the responses of theists and skeptics of the Brights, my previous admonition, that the Brights movement has the potential to become destructive to atheism, general public acceptance of science education, and non-demeaning social acceptance of atheists, is being proven to be "quite accurate."

I suppose if the Brights movement continues, atheists who do not support them will have to explain to theists and other non-theists that the Brights are not representative of atheism.

Certainly, the Brights do not represent me or my views.
Report to moderator   Logged
hkhenson@rogers...
Adept
***

Gender: Male
Posts: 130
Reputation: 7.91
Rate hkhenson@rogers...



back after a long time
hkhenson2
View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re: virus: "Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #1 on: 2003-10-13 11:40:43 »		 Reply with quote
At 06:25 PM 12/10/03 -0600, metahuman wrote:

>While I am definitely not a supporter of the Brights, I am quite enraged
>that the editors of WSJ's Opinion Journal have the audacity to publish an
>article that bashes atheism, atheists everywhere, and especially some
>incredible folks like Daniel Dennett.
>
>http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004153
>
>Thankfully, there are other atheists who do read Opinion Journal and have
>responded quite intelligently to the editorial.

Thanks for pointing this out.  Don't know if they will use it, but . . .

In his opinion piece Mr. D'Souza makes an ad hominem attack (implying
atheists are "seditious") on the respected cognitive scientist Dr. (not
Mr.) Dennett.  That is unworthy of both academia and the Times.

In the US those who self identify as atheists (900,000) is close to the
number of Muslims (1,100,000).  If you include agnostics (990,000) and
those claiming no religion the US "non churched" swells to nearly 30
million.  (Source:  The American Religious Identification Survey
2001)  That's a lot of people to be "dising."

Further, Mr. D'Souza supporting theism with an argument Kant made in the
1700s before human senses were extended by everything from cyclotrons to
MRI seems inconsistent with his previous praise for materialist Western
culture.  (As reported last week, we can now see brain activity such as the
pain from social rejection.)  However, a bit of a web search turns up
reason$ Mr. D'Souza might be "suggestible" in a theist direction.

I don't self-identify as a "bright" but I can see their point in trying to
get away from derogatory labels the way other groups have done.  My
interest in memetics and evolutionary psychology (try sex drugs cults in
Google) has led me to a profound appreciation of religions and their
functions.  Alas, for me the ability to appreciate a tree seems to
preclude being one.

Keith Henson

PS  Religion Explained by Pascal Boyer (another cognitive scientist) is
well worth reading.

---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Report to moderator   Logged
Kalkor
Magister
***

Gender: Male
Posts: 109
Reputation: 6.94
Rate Kalkor



Kneading the swollen donkey...
kalkorius kalkorius
View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus: "Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #2 on: 2003-10-13 12:49:52 »		 Reply with quote
[Keith]
I don't self-identify as a "bright" but I can see their point in trying to
get away from derogatory labels the way other groups have done.  My
interest in memetics and evolutionary psychology (try sex drugs cults in
Google) has led me to a profound appreciation of religions and their
functions.  Alas, for me the ability to appreciate a tree seems to
preclude being one.

[Kalkor]
Yeah, it certainly does suck that we're stuck with a label that begins with
the 'a-' prefix, which tends to imply a negative rather than a positive. It
also seems that a lot of people out there don't really understand what
'atheist' means. I had a conversation with someone in the #virus channel a
while back about this; I can't remember who it was, but they were talking
about someone and saying "they are both an atheist and a theist: they DON'T
believe in X religion, but they do believe in Y religion. So therefore they
are both an atheist and a theist."

This is not possible, if I understand correctly. Atheism is the absence of
theism, plain and simple. As Keith points out, this gives us an advantage of
perspective. It's up to each and every one of us to USE that advantage to
our own benefits and to the benefit of that which we feel is 'important' in
life.

Kalkor

---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Report to moderator   Logged
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #3 on: 2003-10-13 13:36:55 »		 Reply with quote
[Keith] I don't self-identify as a "bright" but I can see their point in trying to
get away from derogatory labels the way other groups have done.

[Lucifer] Just out of curiosity, what are the reasons that the brights here do not self-identify with the brights?
Report to moderator   Logged
simul
Adept
****

Gender: Male
Posts: 614
Reputation: 7.87
Rate simul



I am a lama.
simultaneous zoneediterik
View Profile WWW
Re: virus: "Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #4 on: 2003-10-13 13:40:29 »		 Reply with quote
Everyone has a belief system of some sort - it is the basis of all knowledge.  It is not possible to "know" something in the sense of absolute and unchangable fact.  You can, however choose to believe in things that have been verified by either your own senses or by others or by some induction therof. 

Believing in yourself, your community and in mankind's abilities to survive and overcome obstacles  - however - is a way of believing that leads to power.

-----Original Message-----
From: "Kalkor" <kalkor@kalkor.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 09:49:52
To:<virus@lucifer.com>
Subject: RE: virus: "Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks  atheism

[Keith]
I don't self-identify as a "bright" but I can see their point in trying to
get away from derogatory labels the way other groups have done.  My
interest in memetics and evolutionary psychology (try sex drugs cults in
Google) has led me to a profound appreciation of religions and their
functions.  Alas, for me the ability to appreciate a tree seems to
preclude being one.

[Kalkor]
Yeah, it certainly does suck that we're stuck with a label that begins with
the 'a-' prefix, which tends to imply a negative rather than a positive. It
also seems that a lot of people out there don't really understand what
'atheist' means. I had a conversation with someone in the #virus channel a
while back about this; I can't remember who it was, but they were talking
about someone and saying "they are both an atheist and a theist: they DON'T
believe in X religion, but they do believe in Y religion. So therefore they
are both an atheist and a theist."

This is not possible, if I understand correctly. Atheism is the absence of
theism, plain and simple. As Keith points out, this gives us an advantage of
perspective. It's up to each and every one of us to USE that advantage to
our own benefits and to the benefit of that which we feel is 'important' in
life.

Kalkor

---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Report to moderator   Logged
First, read Bruce Sterling's "Distraction", and then read http://electionmethods.org.
hkhenson@rogers...
Adept
***

Gender: Male
Posts: 130
Reputation: 7.91
Rate hkhenson@rogers...



back after a long time
hkhenson2
View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re: virus: Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #5 on: 2003-10-13 14:16:15 »		 Reply with quote
At 11:36 AM 13/10/03 -0600, you wrote:

>[Keith] I don't self-identify as a "bright" but I can see their point in
>trying to
>get away from derogatory labels the way other groups have done.
>
>[Lucifer] Just out of curiosity, what are the reasons that the brights
>here do not self-identify with the brights?

To pretentious for me.  That may change in time or perhaps we will come up
with something else.

Extropians and transhumanists are some of a number of competing terms.

Keith

---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Report to moderator   Logged
Kharin
Archon
***

Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.42
Rate Kharin



In heaven all the interesting people are missing.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #6 on: 2003-10-13 14:14:53 »		 Reply with quote

Quote:
"Just out of curiosity, what are the reasons that the brights here do not self-identify with the brights?"

At the risk of being facetious, I find the term a little too twee. In that sense it strikes me as being an atheist response to 'Jesus wants me for a sunbeam.' Daniel Dennett wants me for a bright... shudder.

More seriously, the problem the brights have is that the term doesn't mean anything as yet. It does not presently have the associations that they wish to endow it; and until it does people will not readily self identity with it. Hopefully this problem will lessen over time; in the meantime one certainly has to observe that the barrage of vilification directed towards the brights from the religious right is at least a sign of being taken reasonably seriously. 
Report to moderator   Logged
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.82
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
RE: virus: Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #7 on: 2003-10-13 16:52:33 »		 Reply with quote

> [Original Message]
> From: David Lucifer <david@lucifer.com>
> To: <virus@lucifer.com>
> Date: 10/13/2003 10:36:55 AM
> Subject: virus: Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks
atheism
>
>
> [Keith] I don't self-identify as a "bright" but I can see their point in
trying to
> get away from derogatory labels the way other groups have done.
>
> [Lucifer] Just out of curiosity, what are the reasons that the brights
here do not self-identify with the brights?

[Jake] I suppose I would be considered a bright.  But I would imagine that
some brights would not self-identify as such, because to be a bright as I
understand it is not just to hold a particular position about God thingies
(agnostic/atheist), but to adopt a strategy to deal with the issue in
relation to the rest of one's life and other issues important.  Yes I am an
atheist, but my way simply isn't the same crusade that Madelyn Murry O'Hare
signed up for.

I also think in light of my understanding and acceptance of memetics, that
the cognitive stickiness of supernatural mythology means to me that a
certain amount of social adherence to religion will follow as naturally as
global warming follows from surplus greenhouse gas emissions.  In other
words, I don't really ever start off from the assumption that theists
believe as they do due to some deficit of mental activity.  I think many
openly self-identified atheists will often implicitly assume this, and some
perhaps even explicitly.  For this reason, I frequently refrain from
publicly "joining forces" with these kinds of atheists.

-Jake

>
> ----
> This message was posted by David Lucifer to the Virus 2003 board on
Church of Virus BBS.
>
<http://virus.lucifer.com/bbs/index.php?board=54;action=display;threadid=295
08>
> ---
> To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to
<http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>


--- Jake Sapiens
--- every1hz@earthlink.net
--- EarthLink: The #1 provider of the Real Internet.



---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Report to moderator   Logged
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme

(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
RE: virus: "Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #8 on: 2003-10-13 15:15:34 »		 Reply with quote
Erik Aronesty
> Sent: 13 October 2003 1940

>
> Everyone has a belief system of some sort - it is the basis of all
> knowledge.  It is not possible to "know" something in the sense of
> absolute and unchangable fact.  You can, however choose to believe in
> things that have been verified by either your own senses or by others
or
> by some induction therof.
[Blunderov]
Can I not state with complete certainty that 'there is existence'? Is it
possible to falsify this statement?
Best Regards


---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
Report to moderator   Logged
Kharin
Archon
***

Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.42
Rate Kharin



In heaven all the interesting people are missing.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #9 on: 2003-10-13 15:36:20 »		 Reply with quote
A couple of points on the WSJ article. Its central thesis is that reality as demarcated by the evidence of our five senses demarcates a boundary to knowledge and is in fact limited. Similarly, our understanding of such matters if mediated through our own consciousness and experience and is therefore unreliable. To that extent, it follows the argument in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/dnr.htm), where Hume argued that reason was not a meaningful foundation for religious belief. However, Kant argued that the intuition of that which is noumenal rather than phenomenal is not dependent on reason, especially since there is nothing to say that there is nothing beyond what is inacessible to reason.


Quote:
"In his "Critique of Pure Reason," Kant showed that this premise is false. In fact, he argued, there is a much greater limit to what human beings can know. The only way that we apprehend reality is through our five senses. But why should we believe, Kant asked, that our five-mode instrument for apprehending reality is sufficient for capturing all of reality? What makes us think that there is no reality that goes beyond, one that simply cannot be apprehended by our five senses?

Kant persuasively noted that there is no reason whatsoever for us to believe that we can know everything that exists. Indeed what we do know, Kant said, we know only through the refracted filter of our experience. Kant argued that we cannot even be sure that our experience of a thing is the same as the thing-in-itself. After all, we see in pretty much the same way that a camera does, and yet who would argue that a picture of a boat is the same thing as a boat?

Kant isn't arguing against the validity of perception or science or reason. He is simply showing their significant limits."

The problem with this is that it assumes the absence of philosopher after Kant; even saying "If Mr. Dennett and the rest of the so-called brights have produced refutations of Kant that have eluded the philosophical community, they should share them with the rest of us." As it happens, Nietzsche did indeed produce a refutation of Kant;  given that our perceptions are constrained limited, in the event of there being some form of noumenal order beyond the merely phenomenal, then it hardly follows that such an order would be remotely intelligible; since the constrained perceptions that mediate our perception of reality would find it completely alien.

Report to moderator   Logged
Ant
Neophyte
**

Gender: Male
Posts: 12
Reputation: 0.00





View Profile WWW
Re: virus: "Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #10 on: 2003-10-13 15:38:32 »		 Reply with quote
[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]
Report to moderator   Logged
Ant
Neophyte
**

Gender: Male
Posts: 12
Reputation: 0.00





View Profile WWW
Re: virus: Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #11 on: 2003-10-13 15:39:52 »		 Reply with quote
[[ author reputation (0.00) beneath threshold (3)... display message ]]
Report to moderator   Logged
Kharin
Archon
***

Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.42
Rate Kharin



In heaven all the interesting people are missing.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #12 on: 2003-10-13 15:45:00 »		 Reply with quote

Quote:
"Can I not state with complete certainty that 'there is existence'? Is it
possible to falsify this statement?"

Only if one wished to invalidate one's own falsification. It is somewhat difficult to make observations on topics of this kind if one does not exist.


Quote:
"So we're reasonables..."

Hmmm. I like it.
Report to moderator   Logged
Mermaid
Archon
****

Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.43
Rate Mermaid



Bite me!

View Profile
Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #13 on: 2003-10-13 16:10:29 »		 Reply with quote
a suggestion: after everyone is done having their say, i think there has to be a group consensus...and a response to dinesh d'souza's article should be sent to opinionjournal.com...this would be a great opportunity to make cov visible...circulating cov stamped articles(opinion of cov as a group with the writing credit to the authors who put together the articles)/opinion pieces on the net and to other publications..usually as a response to nonsensical and malicious rants (not to mention illogical) is a good start

if we can make this the topic of tuesday's chat...wednesday should be a reasonable finish date to put together the cov position on d'souza's rant and the brights...

i propose this for a virian project. would anyone like to 'sponser'(i dont know what this means...if anyone does...do explain) it?
Report to moderator   Logged
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:"Brights" more destructive than good / WSJ attacks atheism
« Reply #14 on: 2003-10-13 16:41:55 »		 Reply with quote
[Mermaid] if we can make this the topic of tuesday's chat...wednesday should be a reasonable finish date to put together the cov position on d'souza's rant and the brights...

[Lucifer] That's a good idea. Unfortunately I will miss the chat this Tuesday while travelling to LA on biz. I look forward to reading the logs.
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.
Please support the CoV. 		Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed