http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-wallace/the-real-problem-with-at...

So apparently, the problem with Atheism is the fact that Atheists are optimistic...

And it has to do with Dawkin's slogan: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

And the author of this Huffington Post article is saying that Christians focus on those people that can't enjoy life because of drugs, an abusive household, being homeless, or whatever other struggles they have

And that instead of telling them to just cheer up, they actually go out and try to help them.

I guess by saying Don't Worry, God Loves You. He Wouldn't Put You Through This If He Knew You Couldn't Handle It.

Now, this annoys the hell out of me.

There is such hypocrisy in this article.

All I hear from Christians on FaceBook is Be Happy! Life Is Beautiful! God Is Great!

But yet, Atheists say the same thing, to Enjoy Life, and they get criticized by Christians for saying the exact same thing they are saying.

Are You Kidding Me!!!

Views: 133

Comment by kris feenstra on October 16, 2012 at 6:13pm

I see your point. This stuck out for me in the article:

Yet science as a philosophy is incomplete. It wears blinders and refuses to acknowledge whole classes of questions that are important to people everywhere, questions of good and evil, and of human weakness, and of meaning.

This isn't true, but it seems many feel alienated from a scientific approach by the lack of feel-good, ooey-gooey kind of philosophizing from popular culture. When the question of evil is some vague, cloudy topic on which any person can weigh in with an opinion, many people readily jump into the fray. When someone publishes a paper stating that a genetic variant accounts for a certain type of violent aggression in some people, it's much harder for many people to comment and get involved with the issue.

That's totally understandable, but it still has to be made clear: science often does answer (or address) such philosophical questions, even if we don't always feel good about what it reveals.

Comment by Ed on October 16, 2012 at 10:05pm

Mr. Wallace made some rather dubious statements, especially considering his background in physics and astronomy.

This sanguinity is likely drawn from science, which is without question the most optimistic enterprise ever concocted by human beings."

Science is concocted? Really? I believe it's foundations are a little more firm than concocted.

Sure I feel bad for the down and out druggie but my life's mission is not defined by the unfortunate twists of fate for those around me. Life is and can be a glass half full. Come to speak of it my wine glass is almost empty. Refill!!!!

Comment by SteveInCO on October 16, 2012 at 11:52pm

On the other hand, Kris, it isn't the purpose of science to make people feel happy, it is to figure out how the world works and what it actually is.

Castigating science as incomplete because it isn't a philosophy that makes people feel happy is like complaining that your car won't toast the bread properly.

Comment by kris feenstra on October 17, 2012 at 12:01am

I wasn't implying that science should do such a thing. I've just noticed that people cling to a 'science is great and all, but there are some questions it can never answer' kind of mentality. I think that mentality is almost entirely incorrect. I can simply understand why some people may not want science to answer certain questions. Personally, I am not one of those people.

Comment by Unseen on October 17, 2012 at 12:51pm

Yet science as a philosophy is incomplete. It wears blinders and refuses to acknowledge whole classes of questions that are important to people everywhere, questions of good and evil, and of human weakness, and of meaning. And it seems that New Atheism, in its wholesale dependence upon science as a philosophy, imports science's blinders -- bound as they are to its optimism -- into its overall worldview. And this is where the problem lies.

Atheism does not depend entirely on science. For example, the existential atheists don't base their atheism on a scientific analysis but rather on the dishonesty of the religious worldview, based as it is on false hopes and fanciful inventions. 

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

  

Blog Posts

People

Posted by ɐuɐz ǝllǝıuɐp on July 28, 2014 at 10:27pm 4 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service