I rarely take the opportunity to bitterly rant about something that’s actually important, but it’s key to call out both extremes on an issue. So, just as North Carolina needs to stop letting coastal developers decide what science is, atheists need to stop trying to wrap themselves in the mantle of science. It’s just as bad as any fundamentalist screaming about creationism, and here’s why:
It betrays a misunderstanding of both atheism and science.
Let’s start with atheism. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any sort of god or mythical figure. That makes you an atheist. It doesn’t make you scientific. It doesn’t make you rational or a skeptic. It doesn’t even make you smarter than the people who do believe in some sort of god.
Why? Because science is built on hard facts and observable experiments and religion is built entirely on faith, the simplest definition of which is “belief in the absence of proof“. There is no experiment you can conduct to show somebody their god does not exist because that’s not how the rules of belief systems work. Of course there’s no proof: there’s not supposed to be any. If you choose not to believe based on the total lack of evidence, OK then.
So what is atheism? Atheism is a philosophy. At root atheism is a belief that moral and ethical codes are not dictated by an unseen outside force by rather by human beings. You can optimistically believe it’s built into our DNA to be decent or cynically believe it’s a malleable lump of clay pushed around by a society. The point is, it isn’t engraved on any tablets. Building and maintaining it is up to us.
What about all those asinine clods who insist on “teaching the controversy”? To that question I say, “trust in the scientific method”. Any reasonably intelligent person will notice, very quickly, that creationism fails for the exact same reason you can’t disprove the existence of God with a scientific experiment: you’re trying to prove something exists for which there is no proof. Creationism, even in its “‘intelligent’ design” guise, is not science, has never been science, and unless some seriously wacky stuff happens, will never be science.
Of course, this is rarely about actual science. This is, for many, about screaming how much smarter you are than other people. And to those people all I can say is shame on you. Science has enough problems without you using it as both club on those you don’t like and shield against moral reproach. If you don’t have the conviction to stand by your beliefs on their own merits, you’re just like the fundamentalists you’re whining about.
So get out of science and stay out. Protecting you from people you don’t like is not its job.
image courtesy tonynetone on Flickr
![[avatar]](http://p.uproxxcdn.com/photo/569/thumb)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/Screenshot-from-2013-05-28-083956-150x150.png)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/10-reasons-why-time-travel-is-no-good-according-to-glove-and-boots-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/feels-scroll-150x150.gif)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/Screenshot-from-2013-05-03-084021-150x150.png)
Excellent post. I agree with you 100%.
While I agree with the central thesis of your post, you made a few mistakes. First, the comparison of atheists and fundamentalists is an equivocation. They are not comparable. Fundies are delusional.
Second, atheism is not a philosophy. It is simply a lack of belief in god(s). You’re conflating atheism and humanism. These usually go hand in hand, but not always.
Finally, the reason why *some* atheists conflate science and atheism is because they arrived at atheism via reasoned skepticism. No, you cannot prove god exists and obviously you cannot prove a negative, but there is ZERO evidence for a deity let alone the supernatural.
Again, I generally agree with you and I still
I was just about to post something similar. Spot on. Most people who aren’t an Atheist usually call it a religion, too. Thankfully this article didn’t go there and make me facepalm myself to a bloody nose.
Aren’t you conflating atheism and nihilism? Besides, fundamentalists are delusional, but I think atheists are just as capable of letting their anger dictate their discourse when they are pushed too far.
@Churchwhickey There is nothing inherently nihilistic about atheism. Atheism does not accept the premise of theism. That’s it. Any and all other claims and philosophies may be influenced from it, but that is not what atheism is.
Atheists can let anger get the best of them *just like everyone else*. That has nothing to do with fundamentalism, delusion or anything,. That comment is a non sequitur.
I still
I don’t know what the hell is up with the comments. I just wanted to say I still love you Gamma Squad.
“Atheism is simply a lack of belief in any sort of god or mythical figure.” Wrong, if the mythical figure was described as a god, then yes. That’s the ‘theist’ part. But not ALL mythical figures are covered under atheism. “It doesn’t make you scientific. It doesn’t make you rational or a skeptic.” Wrong again, it does make you a skeptic, ABOUT THERE BEING A GOD. “It doesn’t even make you smarter than the people who do believe in some sort of god.” It might not MAKE you smarter, but it is an indicator that you MAY be smarter; over 90% of the members of the NAS are Atheist/Agnostic. BUT, it also doesn’t say anything about morals, skepticism, and it’s NOT a philosophy, though there are atheistic philosophies, humanism, existentialism, moral relativism, etc; Atheism is a single response to one question. Is there a god? YES, you’re a theist. NO, you are an Atheist. That’s it. What really irks me is how Dan wants to conflate Atheism with science, but most scientists KNOW that science can’t prove/disprove god/s. Though there are many scientist that wear their Atheism proudly, and even promote it in many a forum, it’s a reaction to the theist that CLAIM the high ground and want to push a religious agenda onto the scientific process. SO, keep your batshit crazy religion out of science and I won’t have to remind you that I’m an atheist and there is no place in science for imaginary friends.
“SO, keep your batshit crazy religion out of science and I won’t have to remind you that I’m an atheist and there is no place in science for imaginary friends.”
Yep, I do believe that may make Mr. Seitz’s point. Good work.
@Things Just Got Stupider Your comprehension skills seem to be lacking, let me help. IF the religious didn’t tout their religion into the scientific process, then Atheists would probably keep silent about their Atheism. BUT, more importantly,
I noticed that you forgot to include the sentence just before what you quoted, “Though there are many scientist that wear their Atheism proudly, and even promote it in many a forum, it’s a reaction to the theist that CLAIM the high ground and want to push a religious agenda onto the scientific process.” Nothing like proving a point with a quote mine. Oh, the irony.
Dead on Mr. Seitz
Atheism is usually a code word for those who believe the 1st Amendment allows them to use State power to ensure they never hear about religion. It’s a sadly mistaken interpretation, but there are still millions out there who believe that the 1st Amendment guarantees freedom FROM religion and expects the State to enforce that “freedom”.
Personally. I range between atheism and Weak Deism. I sure as hell don’t expect that I can bend the powers of the State to enforce and protect whatever beliefs I might have at the moment.
Your entire premise is ridiculous. Most atheist activists are against the State professing religion (i.e. “In God We Trust), enforcing religion (i.e. Same Sex marriage bans), teaching religion (i.e. creationism), etc. Establishment clause, man.
I encourage you to do a little research. Read the treaty of Tripoli as an example. Written men who contributed to constitution, it specifically says the US not founded on any religion and the US free to form treaties with Muslim countries…. ironic considering that last 22 years of bombing spent bombing the crap out of muslims, but there you are.
Here is an important quote from Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptist Association:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”
I think this means very clearly that religion and government should never intersect.
Without providing examples of “atheists … trying to wrap themselves in the mantle of science”, we 1) can’t be sure exactly what you mean, and 2) can’t be sure you aren’t building some sort of strawman.
At times you sound like you’re saying atheists shouldn’t be doing science, but that can’t be right. I think you’re saying that there are people who assert that science shows theism to be false. If so, quote one.
If you do a quick look at the majority of people who have won the Nobel Prize in one of the sciences, they have on thing in common – atheism. Going back to Madam Curie and moving forward, winner after winner have been atheists. Watson and Crick, Linus Pauling, Feynman, and so on. Einstein has been cited frequently as a believer, but doing more than superficial research, and it is obvious he is a deist. This trend toward atheism in science is growing over time partly because you can now be honest about being an atheist without ending your career.
If you look at scientists in general, the majority are atheists and in some countries the percentage of believers who are also scientists is in the single digits (UK for example).
This correlation with science and atheism is no accident. The closer one comes to deep science, the harder it becomes to accept religion. Atheism is not required by science, and atheists are not required to be scientists, but the connection is there between an empirical understanding of the world and atheism.
I agree that science and religion do NOT overlap. However, empiricism is the basis of science, and to assert the existence of something even as a hypothesis requires some evidence or a rational basis. Belief without proof or religious faith is the antithesis of this approach. The essence of science is proving an assertion with evidence whether experimental, observational or by mathematical proof. Nothing in religion has this level of certainty or verification.
Get atheism out of “your” science? What an absurd demand to make given the number of atheists active in the sciences….
Good one.
The correlation between atheism and science as described in your post is compelling, and yet totally circumstantial. Apply the scientific method to your thesis and see where it takes you. You’re making the same logical error that you claim the believers make by assuming things. Prove them.
Egas Moniz got a Nobel Prize for inventing the lobotomy, which is now considered one of the least effective and cruellest medical procedures ever devised outside of say… Dr. Mengele.
People who keep out of science are theists. Telling atheists to stay out of science is like telling them to believe in nonsense. It won’t happen since atheists are strongly scientific whether you like it or not.
Keep your theism out of science. All it does is retard and repress it. Don’t you live in Amuricah, where people in positions of power actually believe (in the absence of proof!) that creationism should be taught in schools? The rich get richer and the dumb get dumber…
I just can’t agree. It’s too important right now at this moment in history. The Christian Right in the US is gaining too much ground on extremely important issues. Evolution, women’s reproductive rights and climate change, all being pushed back by wilfully ignorant people and their religions are the foundation. For fuck’s sake…this is going on in Texas right now… [videocafe.crooksandliars.com] . The Atheist/Scientific relationship is the only thing standing in the way of this bullshit. I worry it’s still not enough. It might as well be the god damn 1950′s in America right now.
Holy shit. You fucking jackasses. Believe what you believe and leave other people the hell alone. I understand this is the internet and I will probably be ridiculed for this, but what the fuck business is it of yours whether or not I choose to not follow a god? Or even if I choose to follow one? Absolutely none. Arguing about religion or the lack thereof is like trying to describe color to a blind person. Just a goddamn waste of time.
(From my post originally at Democratic Underground)
What an incoherent blog post
Paragraph one merely states a contention but does not examine on what you bases that contention, or even what that contention is in full.
Then there is the italicised conclusion following that which does not actually follow from the paragraph, it is just a statement of the your belief.
Paragraph 2 presents the your definition of “Atheism”. but then it is combined with the umbrage at the existence of smug gits who wear their supposed rationality as a badge. There are similar fools in any movement who pretend that their beliefs, or lack of them, make them superior to all others; one example fundamentalist Christians
Paragraph 3 does not follow from paragraph 2 and also ignores the often stated positions of many theists that there is proof of the objective reality of their chosen flavour of God. Using the scientific evidence and methods to dismantle that sort of nonsense is one way of showing their ignorance and foolishness. Railing against such use is to delegitimise the use of evidence and method in any area of which the author does not approve.
Paragraph 4 presents a false statement, that “Atheism” is a philosophy. It is not, it is the lack of belief in any deity or deities. Many atheists follow humanist ethics and philosophies, many do not. Atheism makes no philosophical claims, only that there is no deity. The false association of atheism with philosophy is brought about by the need for atheists to argue for rational ethics and philosophies in the face of claims such as “You can’t be good without God”.
Paragraph 5 is unconnected again, being just a rant about creationists and how you do not scientific evidence and method to disprove their contentions. I suggest that reading the blog Panda’s Thumb might be enlightening.
Paragraph 6, unconnected again, just a declaration that you should not use scientific method or evidence to either undermine false beliefs or to guard against being affected by false belief.
The final statement just underlines the your mindless rant. The idea is not “Protecting you from people you don’t like…” but from ideas that are harmful either of themselves or by their extension by abusive preachers and false prophets. The author might as well be saying that you should not use scientific method and argument to argue against hospital hygene.
Oh, Great Lords of Irony, thank you for this post! It’s my new favorite.
Sorry, but you are wrong. Atheism is science, and science is Atheism. In science, things are proven, such as, nothing can go faster than light. A god, typically defined as a being that can do anything at all, would be able to go faster than light. Science is against god from the get go, it’s about formulating laws that explain things in every instance, if there were a god, there’d be no point as god could always circumvent scientific laws. So you can reject science, but to accept science is to accept athiem.
I would like very much for you apply the scientific method to your theory that “atheism is science” and see what you come up with.
Where to start?
Atheism is not a philosophy, merely the disbelief in a god or gods. Atheists can and do possess any philosophy ranging from Objectivism, through Secular Humanism, to Marxism. Some philosophies premised on theism are incompatible with Atheism, but there are Social Conservatives who are Atheists. Just as there are Religious believers who are selective fans of Ayn Rand.
Science is the rational, systematic analysis of the universe, which proceeds through positing and experimentally testing hypotheses. Science is naturally linked to religion because its history is in lifting the veil of the unknown. In antiquity, that which was unknown was cursorily explained as ‘the will of the gods’ or through superstition. Necessarily then, the progress of science has been at the expense of that which is attributed to gods. Before scientific theories about the nature of disease, a plague looks like God’s wrath. Before a scientific theory of Evolution, our existence looks like evidence for the creation myth. Before a Big Bang theory, the Bible’s account of the foundation of the universe looks superficially plausible. Until Copernicus and Galileo, the religious dogma that the sun orbits the earth is not questioned.
Atheism is therefore linked to science because science has continuously falsified the premises of religion and pushes the supernatural into smaller and smaller gaps. There has never been a scientific discovery that has favoured or proven an exclusively supernatural explanation of a phenomenon. Science never does anything but detract from religion. If god exists, he is hiding! It even pushes rational theists from belief in an interventionist god towards deism, a belief which is functionally very similar to atheism.
Why are most scientists atheists? Because they apply the same rational approach they do to their work to their personal beliefs. The idea of an interventionist god is just another hypothesis behind which you can pile evidence for and against and be convinced of. The central premise of science is that if a hypothesis can’t be proven it cannot stand. If you’re rigorously applying the scientific method to your belief and not rigging the evidence, since gods cannot be proven, the scientific position – the default position – is disbelief. That’s not to say that some scientists don’t possess religious belief; many do through a kind of cognitive dissonance which either rigs the evidence or applies a different standard for evidence on matters of faith.
Why are some atheists strident about their belief? Because they believe that religion in general, or specific religions have a net negative effect upon the world. Some believe that religious believers are undermining science because it reaches conclusions about the universe which conflict with their dogma.
But that IS a philosophical standpoint – it’s not innate in Atheism. Not all atheists share that belief. Atheism is a diverse movement. Why does it appear that some atheists are engaged in a battle to demonstrate how much smarter they are than everybody else? Because you can’t rebut the many assertions made about the universe by religion without engaging in a fairly detailed intellectual debate. People of unwavering faith don’t have to engage in such a debate; it’s quite possible to project calm ignorance as a stonewall to reason.
I remember once talking all night about atheism with two friends, one of whom was an atheist like myself and the other who was a believer. It was a free-ranging discussion about the rights and wrongs of religion, the logical inconsistencies of belief and so on. The believer sat very quiet and reflective throughout, and at the end of it all said: “I get a lot what you’re talking about, but I’m just a Catholic, and I always will be one.” All of the rational reasoning in the world won’t affect somebody whose faith is a fortress against reason. And that is how theists can look so calm while some atheists appear strident; to them doubt is a weakness and reason an irrelevance.
This. awesome. Especially the part about why some Atheists are so strident in their beliefs. I have two very different groups of atheist friends. Those who are simply atheists because, like you say, they have come to the “Default position of disbelief” and those who have come to that position but who also fight hard against “religion” and it’s constant encroachment on science and policy. It’s an interesting split to say the least.
All of you who equated atheism with science are absolutely wrong. I agree with you that there is no evidence whatsoever of an existence of God, however, NO EVIDENCE OF GOD is radically different than EVIDENCE OF NO GOD. For most of human history we had no evidence of germs, DNA, and even the Higgs particle (which was recently discovered) however that did not mean they did not exist.
Now I’m not saying God exists or not because to me that is not the point. But to say definitively that God does not exist without EVIDENCE OF NO GOD is just as wrong as people who say he does and is ultimately unscientific.
So those who say atheist= science I say your logic=FAIL
Religious, not religious. Whatever. Seriously, it’s whatever works for you. I don’t need to believe in a God to make sense of the world I live in. Some people prefer to, and that’s ok. We all have access to the same information, from which we all may draw our own conclusions.
A small community of people who all share the same ideals, morals, and belief system sounds pretty good to me. Everybody wants to feel like they belong to something greater than themselves. It’s nice to have people to lean on when times are rough. Having a community of people that will come to your aid when you need a helping hand is very empowering. Aren’t pot luck dinners fucking awesome? Yet when religion is measured on a more massive scale, when it clashes with other thoughts and belief systems, does it foment hostility and conflict, resulting in devastating casualties on all sides. Here, religion is more of a hindrance.
I’m an atheist and I hate condescending preachy atheists. If you need a little Jesus you go and have yourself a little Jesus. Or Mohammed, or Buddha or whatever the fuck you need to make sense of this existence. My religion is no religion, and for me it’s a wonderful place to be.
+1
I think you are giving a lot of “atheists” too much credit. Yes, many people who call themselves atheists sat and down and thought it out and came to the conclusion based on their experiences that there was no god to believe in. Like many religious people who found belief in God on their own through their experiences.
However, most people are a/theist because that is the circumstances they are in. Most people are their particular faith because that is how they grew up. A lot of the atheists I know (yes, anecdotal, I know), are that way because people, especially 20 and 30 somethings are more spread out from their families now and society has become a lot more secular, so religion isn’t a huge part of their lives. They become situational atheists.
I do agree with you, Dan, that being a a/theist does not automatically make you smarter/more moral than a person on the other side of the coin. It is simply your particular view on the existence of a deity.
I’m curious what prompted this post, Dan. Was there a news item I missed? Not trying to be a smartass, just genuinely curious as to what pushed your button.
+1
+1
It seems like some people missed the point of Dan’s article it is that biases should be kept seperate from research – why he mentioned the previous article involving the insane way to continue to get a revenue stream in North Carolina. I am curious what particularly set you off on this, since I went back and checked and nothing really involved any type of belief or attack regarding religion/science, (was it Adam Sandler? It had to be Adam Sandler.) Dan never makes the argument that Atheism is bad, just that when you are doing Science related activities (let’s say the God-particle) that in doing that experiment any bias should be tried to be eliminated – never mentioning that it’s not a terrible thing you are an Atheist or that other scientists are Atheists (that is not why they were great scientists you can look at that as reasoning behind them or it is just an indicator of their attitudes/maybe even platitude) Anyway either way got people talking so I enjoyed that bit, the hate and apparent disregard for the tone of the article? Yeah, I could do without that. Pastafarianists unite!
Religion = Stupid. If you disagree with me, that’s only because you are stupid. Your arguments only make sense because you are too stupid to understand otherwise. If you are religious, you are too stupid to debate with.
huh?
This is why I choose Zeus… makes things so much easier.
“religion is built entirely on faith, the simplest definition of which is “belief in the absence of proof“.
This is not an accurate or complete definition of religion, as every religion has a Gnostic undercurrent that relies on and demands a concrete mystical _experience_ in place of or alongside “faith.” Read Henri Corbin, Alan Watts and Aldous Huxley for a modern, rationalist exploration of the experience of religion versus theological speculation and philosophy. ( see also, the great physicist David Bohm and the respected palaeontologist Teilhard de Chardin )
I mystical experience which, presumably, one must have faith in as a manifestation of the truthfulness of their religious belief, rather than, say, a hallucination, dream or coincidence informed by suggestibility and viewed through the lens of wishful thinking.
If one has faith, and one must have a mystical experience to confirm or validate that faith, one almost inevitably will.
On Spiritual Reality & Imagination
For all our esotericists, the interior world designates the spiritual reality of the supersensible universe which, while a spiritual reality, is that which encircles and envelopes the reality of the external world… ‘To leave’ that which we commonly call the exterior world is an experience not at all ‘subjective’ but as ‘objective’ as possible, but it is difficult to transmit this to a spirit wanting to be modern. – En Islam Iranien v. 1, 82
The Active Imagination guides, anticipates, molds sensory perception; that is why it transmutes sensory data into symbols. The Burning Bush is only a brushwood fire if it is merely perceived by the sensory organs. In order that Moses may perceive the Burning Bush and hear the Voice calling him ‘from the right side of the valley’ – in short, in order that there may be a theophany – an organ of trans-sensory perception is needed. – Creative Imagination in the Sufism of Ibn ‘Arabi, 80
…The seriousness of the role of the Imagination is stressed by our [Iranian] philosophers when they state that it can be ‘the Tree of Blessedness’ or on the contrary ‘the Accursed Tree’ of which the Qur’an speaks… The imaginary can be innocuous, the imaginal never can. – Spiritual Body & Celestial Earth, vii-x. – Henri Corbin
It may befall a soul to ‘die’ as a soul can die, by falling below itself, below its condition of a human soul: by actualizing in itself its bestial and demonic virtuality. This is its hell, the hell that it carries in itself – just as its bliss is its elevation above itself, flowering of its angelic virtuality. Personal survival cannot then be thought of as purely and simply prolonging the status of the human condition, the ‘acquired dispositions.’ The latter doubtless concern what we call the ‘personality.’ But…the essential person in its posthumous becoming and in its immortality perhaps immeasurably transcends the ‘personality’ of so-and-so son of so-and-so. – Avicenna & the Visionary Recital, 116
It is not in the power of a human being to destroy his celestial Idea; but it is in his power to betray it, to separate himself from it, to have, at the entrance to the Chinvat Bridge, nothing face to face with him but the abominable and demonic caricature of his ‘I’ delivered over to himself without a heavenly sponsor. – Spiritual Body & Celestial Earth, 42 – Henri Corbin
When your phenomenology and epistemology are based on the personal and subjective imagination as a subset of the imaginal (ie the objective imagination of transpersonal psychology) – then you root the spiritual (and its experience) in the imagination and not in post Enlightenment sterile abstractions or articles of faith.
On the Feast
The Gospel Parable of the Feast (Matt. 22:2-10, Lk. 14:16-24) means precisely what it says… It would be ridiculous to engage in polemics against men or women who refuse to come to the Feast; their refusal inspires only sadness and compassion. – The Man of Light in Iranian Sufism, 145 – Henri Corbin
@John Swire:
“The Image in question is not one that results from some previous external perception; it is an Image that precedes all perception, an a priori expressing the deepest being of the person… Each of us carries within himself an Image of his own world, his Imago mundi, and projects it into a more or less coherent universe, which becomes the stage on which his destiny is played out.” – Henry Corbin
For the thinkers that are closest to Corbin’s heart, there is no point to a philosophy that is not also a spirituality, which does not lead to a mystical vision. For Suhrawardi: “There is no true philosophy which does not reach completion in a metaphysic of ecstasy, nor mystical experience which does not demand a serious philosophical preparation.” – “The World Turned Inside Out: Henry Corbin and Islamic Mysticism”
Qadi Sa’id develops a concept of time which is allied to the ontology of the mundus imaginalis and of the subtle body. Each being has a quantum (miqdar)
of its own time, a personal time, which behaves like a piece of wax when it is compressed or else stretched. The quantum is constant, but there is a time which is compact and dense, which is the time of the sensible world; a subtle time, which is the time of the ‘imaginal world’; and a supra-subtle time, which is the time of the world of pure Intelligences. The dimensions of contemporaneity increase in relation to the ‘subtlety’ of the mode of existence: the quantum of time which is given to a spiritual individual can thus encompass the immensity of being, and hold both past and future in the present.
- Henry Corbin, “Cyclical Time and the Ismaili Gnosis”
there are hallucinations, my friend, and then there are “True Hallucinations” which are not imaginary, but rather imaginal. Transpersonal psychology, study it and come back to respond. “The imaginary can be innocuous, the imaginal never can. – Spiritual Body & Celestial Earth, vii-x.” – Henri Corbin
“But what we must begin to destroy, to the extent that we are able to do so, even at the cost of a struggle resumed every day, is what may be called the “agnostic reflex” in Western man, because he has consented to the divorce between thought and being. How many recent theories tacitly originate in this reflex, thanks to which we hope to escape the other reality before which certain experiences and certain evidence place us-and to escape it, in the case where we secretly submit to its attraction, by giving it all sorts of ingenious explanations, except one: the one that would permit it truly to mean for us, by its existence, what it is! For it to mean that to us, we must, at all events, have available a cosmology of such a kind that the most astounding information of modern science regarding the physical universe remains inferior to it. For, insofar as it is a matter of that sort of information, we remain bound to what is “on this side of the mountain of Qaf What distinguishes the traditional cosmology of the theosophers in Islam, for example, is that its structurewhere the worlds and interworlds “beyond the mountain of Qaf that is, beyond the physical universes, are arranged in levels intelligible only for an existence in which the act of being is in accordance with its presence in those worlds, for reciprocally, it is in accordance with this act of being that these worlds are present to it.5 What dimension, then, must this act of being have in order to be, or to become in the course of its future rebirths, the place of those worlds that are outside the place of our natural space? And, first of all, what are those worlds? ” – H. Corbin
h ttp:/ /hermetic.com/bey/mundus_imaginalis.ht m
wut
God is beyond both existence _and_ non-existence, kids. Study some apophatic theology. The fundamental atheist question “does God exist?” is kindergarten level theology.
“Consider the idea of a God who is essentially sadness and longing, yearning to reveal himself, to know himself through a being who knows him, thereby depending on that being who is still himself – yet who in this sense …creates… Him. Here we have a vision which has never been professed outside of a few errant knights of mysticism. To profess this essential bipolarity of the divine essence is not to confuse creator and created, creature and creation. It is to experience the irrevocable solidarity between the Fravarti and its Soul, in the battle they undertake for each other`s sake.” – Henry Corbin
I think you’re:
A) A computer
B) An asshole
C) Someone who is attempting to reference the thoughts of a book you read once without comprehending that we might be a tad more agreeable to your diatribes if you weaved in a touch of introspection and humor, HEAVY ON HUMOR, and.. you know, if you need me to tell you this you shouldn’t be here.
The Gospel Parable of the Feast (Matt. 22:2-10, Lk. 14:16-24) means precisely what it says… It would be ridiculous to engage in polemics against men or women who refuse to come to the Feast; their refusal inspires only sadness and compassion. – The Man of Light in Iranian Sufism, 145
What is being served at the feast?
Potato salad and mustard. Your thoughts?
All of you who equated atheism with science are absolutely wrong. I agree with you that there is no evidence whatsoever of an existence of God, however, NO EVIDENCE OF GOD is radically different than EVIDENCE OF NO GOD. For most of human history we had no evidence of germs, DNA, and even the Higgs particle (which was recently discovered) however that did not mean they did not exist.
Now I’m not saying God exists or not because to me that is not the point. But to say definitively that God does not exist without EVIDENCE OF NO GOD is just as wrong as people who say he does and is ultimately unscientific.
So those who say atheist= science I say your logic=FAIL
jesus is random fire