[personal profile] tj_rowe
Trigger: NS article Beyond Belief: In Place of God

Arg!!! If Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians weren't bad enough, now we have Fundamentalist Evangelical Atheists.

Neither side understands the other, and neither is content to leave the other be. And they're all so fucking obtuse about it!


...


In other news, Scotland was great. Cold but great, and England won (The Masters Cross-Country International at Callander Park, Falkirk. 8km.) overall (landslide), so that's all right. And my Dad came second in the Vet-45 category, right after another England guy. Tenth in the whole race.

I have some (bad-quality) footage which I'm going to try to put on YouTube.


...


Bugger it, I've got to continue ranting about the FEAs. I hate them I hate them I hate them! How can a person be so arrogant and ignorant while being so smart?

And don't even get me started on the Da Vinci Code fanthings. You know how many of them I have to drag away from my Christian friends and give a quite word on how they're making the side look bad, per week? Well, the number is about five, but they're all the same people. Who keep coming back.

Re-reading the article (mag version), I am pleased to say that the writer (articlist?), and some of the quotees seems to be just as disgusted with them as I am. These two just about sum it up, I think, and the last paragraph could be said just as easily about 'the other side', as it were:

For all the evangelical fervour, some attendees suggested that a little more humanity might be in order. "This is Alice in Wonderland, it's just a neo-Christian cult," Scott Atran on the CNRS in Paris told New Scientist. "The arguments being put forward here are extraordinarily blind and simplistic. The Soviets taught kids in schools about science - religiously - and it didn't work out too well. I just don't think scientists, when they step out of science, have any better insight than the ordinary schmuck on the street. It makes be embarrassed to be an atheist."

Krauss was similarly critical. "The presumption here was that any effort to respect the existence of faith is a bad thing," he told New Scientist.

"Philosophically I'm in complete agreement, but it's not a scientific statement, and I've seen how offensive it is when scientists say 'I can tell you what you have to think'. They make people more afraid of science. It's inappropriate, and it's certainly not effective."


End Rant, I think. I'm going to see what you lot have written while I was away, and then I'm going to prepare for my Nottingham interview.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

Tamar Joshua Rowe

August 2011

S M T W T F S
  12 3 456
7 8 9 10 111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 4th, 2025 11:01 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios