Subject:
|
American intelligentsia and the American electorate (WAS Re: slight)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Aug 2002 08:58:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2067 times
|
| |
|
|
> I disbelieve in creators (more generally, as your guy is not by any means
> the only possible creator) because of Occam's Razor. But that's not so much
> an active dislike as it is merely a healthy skepticism. I'm a teeny bit
> shaded toward agnostic (from strict atheist) in this area, because I'm
> perfectly willing to accept that there may well be an irrelevant creator out
> there as the causative force that got the universe started. I'm willing to
> admit that possibility without any need for evidence or proof.
>
> But as soon as you posit any relevance, that is, any effect on reality other
> than the initial push that got the system started, you have to have some
> proof, some falsifyability, or it HAS no relevance. And that's lacking, as I
> just don't take things on faith. I try to be entirely rational, that is,
> entirely human. Don't succeed, but I do try.
>
> That you choose to deny your humanity in part is certainly your choice, but
> it's not one I choose. That might be a little prideful, yes.
>
> I admit it, I'm proud of being more rational (and thus more human and thus
> more successful) than the average joe sixpack. I've never made any secret of
> that, have I?
I admit it, I was not impressed with the implied link between rationality,
"success", religion and creationism. However, over the weekend I read an
item by Richard Dawkins from "Free Inquiry" (see: www.secularhumanism.org).
This is the part which is relevant:
==+==
In 1998 Larson and Witham sampled American scientists [for the journal
Nature] and found that 40% were religious believers. But then they went on
to poll the cream of American scientists, those who have been honoured by
election to the elite National Academy of Sciences (equivalent of the UK
Royal Society). Among this select group, belief in a personal god dropped to
a shattering 7%. About 20% call themselves agnostic, and the rest are
atheists. I have not seen corresponding figures for elite scholars in other
fields such as history or philosophy, but it would be surprising if they
were very different.
==+==
He draws this conclusion:
==+==
We have reached a truly remarkable situation, then: a grotesque mismatch
between the American intelligentsia and the American electorate. A
philosophical opinion about the nature of the universe, which is held by the
great majority of America's top scientists and probably by the elite
intelligentsia generally, is so abhorrent to the electorate that no
candidate for popular election dare affirm it in public. If I am right, this
means that high office in the greatest country in the world is barred to the
very people best qualified to hold it.
==+==
This conclusion refers to his opening hook paragraph:
==+==
In 1987, a reporter asked George Bush Sr whether he recognised the equal
citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists. Bush's reply has
become infamous: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as
citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." To see how outrageous
this is, try substituting "Jews" for "atheists". Yet Bush knew that it posed
no threat to his election. Quite the contrary, it is universally accepted
that an admission of atheism would, be instant political suicide for any
presidential candidate.
==+==
These words appear to confirm my view that US politics is dominated by the
"Christian-conservative-right". My concern is that Christians who are
intolerant of atheists are probably intolerant of a great deal more. Dawkins
gives this example [which may offend]:
==+==
To own up to being an atheist in America today is tantamount to introducing
yourself as Adolf Beelzebub. The latest issue of Freethought Today reprints
hate mail received by its editor after she won a court case upholding the
constitutional separation of church and state. Some typical examples follow:
"Their are way more of us Christians than you losers. Their is NO separation
of church and state and you heathens will lose ...I hope you get a painful
disease like rectal cancer and die a slow painful death." "Hey dude this
freedom from religion thing sux ..." "So you f*gs and d*kes take it easy and
watch where you go cuz whenever you least expect it god will get you." "If
you don't like this country and what it was founded on & for, get the f**k
out of it and go straight to hell... PS F**k you, you communist wh*re." "We
will not go quietly away. If in the future that requires violence just
remember you brought it on. My rifle is loaded."
==+==
So does Dawkins have it right? Does intolerance mean that religious freedoms
are being curtailed by the unsophisticated Christians masses?
Scott A
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) And you in turn would be mistaken to think I had done so. I've studied the whole bible (and read a fair bit elsewhence) not just that one particular OT book. It's just that Job sums up your god quite nicely for me. Most of the rest is smoke or (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
