On Monday, March 21, I attended a Food for Thought Lecture presented by the Center for Inquiry (CFI), “the largest and most significant atheist organization in North America” (“Discovering Atheism” 434). According to the mission statement on their website, “Center for Inquiry-Austin is a secular community dedicated to fostering science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values in our communities and society.” The lecture I attended, “The Future of Humanity,” was given by University of Texas Astrophysicist Dr. Craig Wheeler.
I decided to attend the CFI meeting for several reasons. First and foremost, CFI is an atheist community, and atheism can be construed as the exact opposite of my own religion, Christianity. As The Oxford Companion to Philosophy entry on atheism notes, “…[atheist] arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God,
…show more content…
This movement is generally called New Atheism, and Erika Blair has identified five main “pillars” of the movement, two of which I will focus on here: “(1) faith and belief in human evolution and the finality of the genius of Charles Darwin …. (4) self-realization through knowledge/humanism/morality” (Blair 9). Stephen LeDrew studies “active atheists,” such as those who join groups like CFI, and he asserts that a scientific worldview (“Reply” 466) and morality (“Discovering Atheism” 447) are key aspects of New Atheist belief. I found these pillars and aspects evident at the CFI meeting. In our conversations, my friend Lance has also made comments that reflect some of these
Last, “what position should the informed atheist take concerning the rationality of religious beliefs?” After giving a response to theist’s argument against atheist, both are to believe that the other is believing a false belief. There are many types of atheist with different thoughts on religious beliefs. There are three different types of atheism discussed in Rowe’s theory. Unfriendly atheism, there is no such thing as a god(s). Indifferent atheism, has no concern in believing that a theist god(s) exists. And friendly atheism is certain that there is a reason theist to have faith in god. Defending his argument about friendly atheism,
The essay “God, Science, and Imagination” by Wendell Berry discusses fundamentalists, specifically ones of science and religion, and their need to humiliate their opponents through evangelism and conversion. He also criticizes Professor Steven Weinberg’s essay and his opinion on God and religion. Weinberg is in fact a fundamentalist of science who questions the existence of God. But, Berry argues that “If in fact the fundamentalist scientists were as smart as they think they are, and if the religious fundamentalists were as secure in their belief as they claim to be, then they would leave one another in peace… these camps keep pestering each other because they need each other” (25).The same could be said for the contestants in James Fallows’
In William L. Rowe 's paper "The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism" he sets out to accomplish two main goals. The first goal is directed toward theists, while the second attempts to reach the very wellspring of an atheist 's heart. Foremost, Rowe sets out to show that there is "an argument for atheism based on the existence of evil that may rationally justify someone in being an atheist" (335). After he has effectively addressed this first issue he moves on to try and convince the atheist that in light of all the evidence that theists are rationally justified (just as much as the atheist) and therefore that atheists should subscribe to what Rowe calls "friendly atheism."
Religious individuals are viewed as illogical and even delusional, while those who claim to be atheists are seen as more intelligent. Sam Harris, a prominent atheist, made a statement reminiscent of Thomas Jefferson’s view on Christianity in a recent podcast. “It would be possible for you and I to invent a religion, right now, that was better than any existing religion.” His ‘religion’, he continued on to explain, would simply be a collection of benevolent rules to enforce moral behavior. To Harris, while the the majority of religious beliefs are outrageous, the moral framework they provide is beneficial to society. Another prominent atheist, Richard Dawkins, took a stance much closer to Thomas Paine’s in a speech titled Militant Atheism. Faith and reason, Dawkins argues, are incompatible and completely destructive to each other. “Not only is science corrosive to religion, but religion is corrosive to science. It teaches people to be satisfied with trivial, supernatural, non-explanations, and blinds then to the wonderful, real explanations that we have within our grasps,” (Dawkins). Whether Dawkins chooses to recognise it or not, the modern Catholic Church is still using logic to find its own wonderful, real
Having completed the unit of philosophy of religion, you are now ready to respond to an article written by an actual atheist. This article, titled “On Being an Atheist,” was written by H. J. McCloskey in 1968 for the journal Question. McCloskey is an Australian philosopher who wrote a number of atheistic works in the 1960s and 70s including the book God and Evil (Nijhoff, 1974). In this article, McCloskey is both critical of the classical arguments for God’s existence and offers the problem of evil as a reason why one should not believe in God.
To begin with, I have now spent almost all of my 2017 Fall Semester writing about my practicum experiences that I have acquired from my appointed agency, Center for Addiction and Recovery Studies (CARS) and have established my integrative assignment around the dads parenting classes. The parenting classes that are offered at CARS are constructed around the evidenced-based curriculum, Nurturing Skills for Families – which was part of the intervention phase and discussed in the preceding sections, and also recognized as, The New Connections Parenting/Drug Psychoeducational Program. Now that I have established my integrative seminar assignment, I will be explaining how I approached the intervention phase and how I evaluated the agencies parenting classes, specifically, the dads. However, before I start to explain the ending
Though, their writings are not fairly described as anti-theistic yet both would personally welcome the demise of religion. Frame has tried to highlight some elements of the arguments against God’s existence offered by Adams and Lane with expectations to identify specifically Australian forms of unbelief. Frame writes that when atheism was mentioned in Australia often identified with Adams and considered him as apostle of atheism. He was motivated to write opinion pieces in favor of atheism because ‘ humanity’s denial of death’ was the source of its ‘ingenious ability to muffle morality with euphemism’. Adams thinks that Australia has lost fervor for faith so that ticking the box of religion in the census form doesn’t denote the depth of religious
Critical Thinking Assignment Jeffrey Henry Liberty University Online I. Secular humanism is defined as the humanism viewed as a system of values and beliefs that are opposed to the values and beliefs of traditional religions. I will discuss the worldview of secular humanism by answering the following questions: The question of origin: They believe and support the “Darwinian evolutionism from nonliving matter to living cells to humankind (Caner & Hindson: pg. 445).”
Being an atheist for the past three years in a Southern Baptist household in one of the most ideologically conservative states in the country has been incredibly difficult. My views are a complete 180 degree turn from the way that I was raised and the people that surround me. Possibly the largest issue that has arisen for me is the issue of church-state separation. Living in the state of the nationally infamous Ten Commandments monument, it has been hard to feel like an insider that is welcome. This is why it was refreshing to hear a like-minded individual, Dr. Charles Kimball, on many of the same issues that I struggle with in his book When Religion Become Lethal: The Explosive mix of Religion and Politics in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. It was also relatable in that Dr. Kimball and I both grew up Baptist and lived in Tulsa, Oklahoma. For many of the issues facing church-state separation, his ideas clicked and
Richard Feldman revealed his religion choice of atheist. Feldman lectures a course called, “Rationality, Relativism, and Religion” and centers his research from findings in this class. He establishes that a good amount of the class are religion majors. Throughout the course, the students displayed two attitudes toward disagreement. These attitudes are intolerance and relativism. He feels we should have an open mind when coming about discussing disagreements. There is no room for religious bigotry simply because it is not useful. Having an open mind when engaging in these discussion allows for full analytical overview.
In this section of my integrative seminar assignment, I will be reflecting on the information and experiences that I have acquired throughout my assigned practicum – Center for Addiction and Recovery Studies (CARS). As stated above in my preceding sections, I decided to focus on the centers evidenced-based parenting curriculum – New Connections Parenting/Drug Psychoeducational Program, with a specific interest for the dad’s classes. Moreover, and as a Community and Administrative Practice (CAP) student, I approached this assignment with the mind-set of evaluating the program and to see what improvements and/or modifications the center can do to better accommodate dads with an open Child Protective Services (CPS) case within the Dallas, Texas
Currently I am taking the World Region course on-line and learning the courses from Professor John Boyer via on-line video lectures almost on a daily basis; however, I haven’t never met him in person so I was enthusiastic as soon as I saw his email invite about his live lecture on Thursday, October 13th, 2016, at MCB 100, from 6:00-7:30 PM. I immediately added it to my calendar and contacted my good friend, Jing, about attending this great event with me. Jing and I came to MCB 100 at 6:45PM, fifteen minutes before the lecture started so that we could sit in the front row. As we settled down to our seats, we heard loud cheers from the lecture hall as Professor Boyer walked in. The whole atmosphere felt like we were in the rock concert.
“I believe in evolution, scientific inquiry, and global warming; I believe in free speech, whether politically correct or politically incorrect, and I am suspicious of using government to impose anybody's religious beliefs -including my own- on nonbelievers. We think of faith as a source of comfort and understanding but find our expressions of faith sowing division; we believe ourselves to be a tolerant people even as
First up is the Atheist approach to religion. When most people hear the word atheist,
People in our society today who have the atheist point of view on religion, which is the belief that there is no god, are going against the so-called norms of society, and therefor are seen as deviant. Deviance is just an idea. Society determines what is deviant by the ideas they hold of what should be the norm. Atheism is seen as a negative deviance, or below the norm. They have a status that is placed on them in society. It doesn’t necessarily mean that they believe in evil, although that is how it is sometimes viewed from people in society who have a specific religion or faith. Atheism, which is not a new idea, has been evolving in our society, and is the reason for problems leading to debate and court cases, and for