“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source…”
– Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2
The definition of a fanatical atheist is a very narrow one. If you’re a professional atheist and you believe that the denigration and ridicule of the religious will “bring them to their senses,” you are fanatical. The pointless and caustic approach of such fanatics in the mainstream media has already backfired. Once moderate Christians feel their faith threatened so they wittingly or unwittingly give money to right-wing extremists who promise to protect their way of life. Christians tithe, atheists don’t, and this adds up… the most conservative estimate at 83 billion dollars a year.
Some humble thoughts on why religious donations can be dangerous:
“Moderate” and all-inclusive churches may actually give money to political parties you fiercely oppose. Since you know which party is identified with Christianity, you know this money may keep these people in power to “protect” your faith. This is why transparency in how the collections are spent is so critically important. When you don’t know where your tithing goes, you will never know if it is being abused, and if there is no transparency, you can rest assured it probably is. It would be nice, for a change, to see how much goes to overhead, and how much goes to charity. If a church has a website, that should be posted on the website. If a church spends 5 cents of my dollar on feeding the poor, the rest on three or four people employed by the church, I may as well give that dollar to a homeless shelter or the next homeless person I see.
Why do so many people claim the right to God’s checkbook, anyway? See someone in need ? Give to God directly by giving your your tithing to him. See how that affects him, and how it makes you feel.
Some humble thoughts on fanatical atheists and scientific conformity:
We first need to define what a fanatical atheist is. It is a narrow definition:
- If you make money from advocating and promulgating atheism through books, radio and television, you are a professional atheist.
- If you are a professional atheist and believe that the denigration and offensive stereotyping of the religious will bring indoctrinated people to their senses, you are a fanatical atheist, and a bigot asshole to boot.
There is a very strong, tactically palsied movement by fanatical atheists today to crush religion, particularly Christianity. The way this movement is led, unfortunately, is as a militant movement that demeans and ridicules people of faith. The common wisdom is that once an idea is sufficiently mocked and ridiculed, then that is the moment the idea dies. For the proponents of this common wisdom, please do tell! how has this worked out for you? It’s only been tried for thousands of years, but maybe you just need a few more days.
How does this work out in real life when you attempt to convince billions of people, and tens of millions of fellow citizens, that their religion is a joke? that they are a joke? that they’re stupid and worthless? How has it worked out, when we know mankind has always been hardwired to worship in one way or another, if not God, or gods, then mere men (witness North Korea) or fanatical atheist leaders themselves? Do people pray to the latter? of course not. But they do follow everything they say on blind faith they so often belittle. Celebrity worship is a very real worship. Just as faith in religion can govern every aspect of someone’s life, celebrity worship can do the same. This is why advertisers pay big money for celebrity endorsements: people wear what their celebrity heroes wear, they will emulate them the way the religious try to emulate Mohammad or Jesus.[pullquote]I’m embarrassed to be on the same page as Richard Dawkins. In fact, I’m embarrassed to be in the same book. It is a horrible feeling to know you’re now associated, however distantly, to a mindset that doesn’t just dislike religion but people.[/pullquote]Don’t believe me? Here’s proof: how many times have you seen someone over the water cooler parroting something he heard on Bill Maher’s show? Usually it’s some tired ass “new rules” bullshit he’s just been indoctrinated with so thoroughly it’s been running through his head all day, because if this is wit to him, it is also wisdom. Now compare this with people who come to the same water cooler quoting their ministers. But who gives money every week, and will never flinch from war over his faith? Why in the world did fanatical atheists come to the conclusion it was a good idea to provoke a sleeping giant that vastly outnumbers them, and has an inexhaustible political and military war chest? It doesn’t matter if most of the time the “new rules” are something I wholeheartedly agree with, albeit they are virtually always bland, unoriginal and I only catch them briefly when channel surfing.
I’m embarrassed to be on the same page as Richard Dawkins
Lacking faith in religion doesn’t make me smarter or better than someone who believes in it, especially if I lack character as well. Why toot my horn? So fucking what? I don’t believe in religion (that doesn’t mean I don’t believe in a creator or universal consciousness behind the matrix of this universe). So not being religious, is that supposed to make me better than you? I’m embarrassed to be on the same page as Richard Dawkins. In fact, I’m embarrassed to be in the same book. It is a horrible feeling to know you’re now associated, however distantly, to a mindset that doesn’t just dislike religion but people. If you ever studied history, even just a little bit, you quickly realize that the only thing misanthropes have contributed to humanity is suffering and conflict.
Check out the video from The Creation Museum below, and you will see what I mean about beating up on little children. Not only does founder Ken Ham believe “we cannot depend on our reasoning ability alone” to convince skeptics of claims that dinosaurs lived alongside biblical characters, e.g. Noah, he claims that the final nail in the coffin of evolution is the Bible.That is the final proof you need, he said, somehow unaware that a vast majority of skeptics don’t even believe in the Bible.
Truth is, you can’t depend on reasoning ability when you have absolutely none. If Ham must convince skeptics of anything at all it would start with the medical profession, and it would be that he is sane. Unfortunately, the Bible can’t help him there. Regardless, if this is your opponent in a serious debate, it is beyond an unfair fight. If one uses this man to represent the vast majority of Christians, that person is reduced to bigotry and delusion, and any claim to a moral and intellectual high ground becomes very solid evidence of an extremest mentality he criticized the creationist for.
What matters is one’s personal belief is capable of evolution and correction, and never intrudes upon the rights of others. Besides, I don’t know any Christian that takes creationism seriously, but most I do know believe their faith is under attack by the mainstream media. As a result, they turn away from the one medium that could inform them, and they simply watch religious or right-wing shows which are now perceived as “fair and balanced.” Both sides are now polarized, intolerant, and deeply engaged in indoctrination and propaganda. As we’ll see later, there will be a new generation of creationists to deal with in the future in profoundly greater numbers. In hundreds of schools vouchers are now being used to teach creationism alongside evolution. They were provoked into this reaction. Fanatical atheists truly believed that the people they insulted and continuously ridiculed would continue watching their channels. They truly believed they would not appeal to conservative “news” shows where they could escape the constant mockery of their faith and identity, and that they would not be politically indoctrinated. As a result, how could they ever get the idea that they would watch, let alone trust the mainstream media when they pointed out the absurdity of the claims that President Obama was a Muslim, and a Kenyan?
A war on religion is just that– a war– and it offers only conflict as a resolution, a conflict neither side could ever hope to win without enmity or unspeakable horror.
As an agnostic I have a disbelief in an anthropomorphic God that created the universe yet has the worst of human weaknesses: jealousy, anger, and hate. Still, if we use the scientific method in a laboratory setting, we can easily prove intelligence can take a pile of wood (matter) and make a chair, but if you leave that same pile of wood in the lab chance won’t make it build itself. The former is proven fact and self-evident, the other is a cock-eyed hypothesis and would take billions of years to prove if true. Because of this, it has failed. This isn’t a cop-out. Both sides believe matter has always existed. So maybe, just maybe there is something other than chance behind the order and harmony of the universe. Is this logic absurd? Is this a delusion? You tell me. This intelligence, or consciousness, call it what you will, is the non-religious and unknown “God” that Albert Einstein believed in.
Though one of his most famous quotes is “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind,” he still believed religion was childish superstition. Regarding his visit to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, February 3, 1923:
“Where dull-witted clansmen of our tribe were praying aloud, their faces turned to the wall, their bodies swaying to and fro. A pathetic sight of men with a past but without a future.”
However, he had quite a few words to say about the same atheists who use him to support them:
“In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views.”
The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214
“What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.”
“The fanatical atheists,” he wrote in a letter, “are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who — in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’ — cannot hear the music of the spheres….”
“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source…”
“I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”
– Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2
Weirder still, a science open-minded enough to accept the existence of a multiverse, of an infinity of universes and an infinite number of people exactly like us living in parallel worlds, a belief they exist in the eleven dimensions of string theory; this is accepted as plausible but the idea that the order, harmony and the incredible complexity of the universe could be attributed to something other than chance is heresy and ignorance. This intolerance and irrationality is so disturbing on its face because it has become clear that their rational argument has been reduced to an emotional one.
The great minds that gave us quantum mechanics and string theory, that helped us understand the subatomic world aren’t fools, but there is an unsettling atheist conformity no better than the conformity scientists exhibited when the Popes controlled their lives. Recently, at two TEDx talks this year, an anonymous panel of scientists banned two speeches by speakers who believed in a universal consciousness that affected all matter: Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hanhock.
The treatment of Sheldrake is inexplicable, because what he spoke of was basically the same as Einstein’s concept of “God.” Sheldrake spoke of a cosmic consciousness and “morphic resonance” which expanded on Einstein’s concept of the harmony in universe and the belief it wasn’t the product of chance. Sheldrake’s book, “The Science Delusion” wasn’t an attack on science so much as a tongue-in-cheek take on Richard Dawkin’s “The God Delusion.” It was an appeal to end an irrational scientific conformity and to question 10 very questionable dogmas. He said that the attempt to prove all matter has no consciousness has now come to include the idea that we have no consciousness, that as Richard Dawkins put it, “we’re lumbering robots” with programmed brains.
“Give us one miracle,” he quotes a friend regarding mainstream science and the Big Bang, “and we’ll figure out the rest.” One miracle, of course, is one too many in regards to religion and it should be one too many for science as well.
What happened to Hanhock isn’t surprising. He was discussing his road to a universal consciousness through hallucinogenic drugs. He was completely inoffensive. What was extremely offensive was to have a science nanny there. Here’s the most offensive part:
“All talks on the TEDx Talks channel represent the opinion of the speaker, not of TED or TEDx, but we feel a responsibility not to provide a platform for talks which appear to have crossed the line into pseudoscience.”
This same panel would have literally banned Einstein, because he basically held the same belief as Sheldrake!
If Sheldrake was talking about and advocating eugenics, I could understand. That’s an actual pseudoscience that brought on genocide, forced sterilization in America, the Holocaust, and it’s extremely dangerous to provide it a legitimate platform. Sheldrake wasn’t advocating a pseudoscience because a hypothesis is not a pseudoscience. If you can’t tell the difference you have no right to call yourself a scientist, or literate. It was completely unwarranted and repugnant censorship, they were now self-styled, anonymous Popes of science. Judge for yourself. Do you need to be protected from this?
If I may be so bold as to answer: what you truly need to be protected from is a scientific community that is intolerant of opposing views in matters that are theoretical and unknown. This is the kind of mentality that burned people at the stake, that burns books and glorifies their own hypothesis as fact, even when it changes every day. That’s not an evolution of a factual theory. It’s called being wrong and not accepting you may have to start over from scratch.
“I’m not an atheist. I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.”
Einstein and Religion by Max Jammer, Princeton University Press
This is a secret panel of scientists at TED, of course, and they actually said they banned the talks because they dealt with “pseudoscience.” What was infuriating was that Sheldrake was using scientific facts to make his point, just as the other speakers did. Worse, they appealed to the logical fallacy that belief in God equates with belief in organized religion. A man can exist all his life in the wilderness, pertain to no religion, and still believe the order in the universe did not come by chance. Under the fanatical atheist’s rationale, this man would believe in an anthropomorphic God and religion. And worse, this belief deeply offends him, as the religious fanatic is offended by those of other faiths or atheists. It’s idiotic. It has to stop.
As we see in Einstein’s case he didn’t take religion seriously, that was the furthest from the truth, but he saw the structure and complexity of the universe and attributed it to an unfathomable intelligence or “infinitely superior spirit”:
“I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation… My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance — but for us, not for God.”
Albert Einstein,The Human Side
“If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?”
– Albert Einstein, Out Of My Later Years
A non-religious belief in an “infinitely superior spirit” does not make you an idiot. Intolerance of better minds than yours holding this belief does. String theory posits that at the very tiniest subatomic levels mass exists because of vibrating strings, all in unique oscillations, in what has been described as the “music of the cosmos.” These vibrations are somehow responsible for assembling the quarks, electrons, atoms which create matter.
What has yet to be answered is what makes those strings vibrate, and it is inexplicably presumed to be played by itself. Why? Where’s the evidence supporting this belief? Has it it been disproven that intelligence can create and think? Because that is exactly what has to happen before anyone could call the matter closed.
If someone were to ask if night is day, the instinctive answer is “Of course not.” The answer, however, is wrong. It may be day where you are asked and it is your perceived reality, but it is night on the other side of the world. The logical fallacy is to assume yours is an absolute and common state of reality. It is two dimensional thinking in a three dimensional world. The scientific community is presently locked into two dimensional thinking that is either ignorant of the other side of the world, the key to the true equation, or in denial of it. Conversely, the religious community is locked into this thinking. For both, this shuts off access to the full and accurate picture.
Regardless of what happens, conformists will have to contend with other brilliant minds that can think for themselves; who work quietly in the background, who can start with a hypothesis that was never debunked in the first place. Perhaps they’ll start with the assumption that this intelligence exists, but what is it? How does it vibrate the strings and how long has it been doing it? If this is an infinite intelligence, considering the multiple universes and the knowledge gained within them, the infinity of them, is it the sum of an exponentially growing base of knowledge, and thus an intelligence or consciousness that continuously multiplies itself by infinity?
Atheists can and should follow their own path to understanding the cosmos. However, those scientists who believe we didn’t come about by chance should be left alone. History has proven they have been right before in unlocking great mysteries in science, and will be right again in unlocking more.
Moreover, if this intelligence exists and we finally accept it, how in the world could anyone in his right mind pretend to understand it, or predict it? It is the ultimate conceit to say we know the story of the universe already, when we don’t yet know how it began. At first we were saying it started with an incredibly concentrated mass that exploded into the Big Bang. This belief is already being challenged by another theory that posits it all came about from other universes crashing into ours.
We are reading a book that has no beginning. That is the state of our understanding of the cosmos. The characters seem to come from nowhere and they make no sense, because they were introduced in the beginning and right now we have no context.
So that means we don’t know what created the Big Bang, at least not yet. That’s why some string theorists are eager to prove there is a multiverse, because it’s believed ours was caused by other universes knocking into ours at least four times, each time creating a a Big Bang. Alas, that still doesn’t answer much. We then have to ask what created the multiverse? If we can’t answer that, knowing how the Big Bang came about is pointless. If we assume it was always there, we will have to prove it. It’s like saying the tree came from the ground, and was always there, or it came from an exploding seed. You still have to answer how that seed came to be, and how the DNA was created, how the amino acids it consists of came into being, how the atoms in the amino acids came to be, how the atoms came to be, how the protons and neutrons came to be, how the electrons and then quarks, leptons, gluons– and the vibrating strings came to be, then what causes the vibrations, and who knows how many questions we have left from there since we’ve gone into the territory of 11 dimensions and an infinity of universes?
At bottom, until we get to the foundation beyond which there are no more important questions in terms of the multiverse and beyond, we can never build any feasible structure on which to base our understanding of the universe. We can’t just say “it started with the Big Bang and it doesn’t matter what came before it as we’ve been doing for almost a century, and we can’t say “it started with the multiverse” and leave it at that. Somewhere there must be a foundation on which to stake this claim. We are deluding ourselves, pathologically self-infatuated with our convictions that we understand the deepest mysteries of the universe and its origins, and as a result crippling our capacity for deductive reasoning and our true potential.
There is a video clip that’s popular on YouTube made by a theoretical physicist I like and admire. It’s called “The Universe in a Nutshell.” It is an interesting clip, but the title is quite a conceit: we are absolutely no where near understanding the universe well enough to explain it in a nutshell. If you look at it objectively, it should be titled “The Universe in a Nutshell: Most of this Video is Informative but Only Educated Conjecture.”
Here’s a humbling, simple example of how ignorant we are right now in terms of quantum physics: we can’t even prove how long a piece of string really is! By the time we start to measure it at the subatomic level, our understanding of physics falls apart, and a particle starts popping up in many places at the same time. At that point, lasers are being used to try to gauge an accurate measurement, but as we measure deeper and deeper we have to increase the energy of that laser, this to the point of infinity. Before getting to this point, it is assumed, enough energy would be created to create a black hole, and earth would cease to exist.
Beating Up On Little Children
Every time I see a fanatical atheist like Richard Dawkins take on a creationist, I have the same reaction as I would seeing an adult beating up on little children. You already know who won and it’s not impressive, in fact it’s pretty fucking sick for a couple of good reasons.
You can’t make people intelligent by winning a debate or make people watching the debate intelligent. Intelligence is the key to rationality and deductive reasoning. Without it everything you said that was informative and true goes in one ear and out the other, and it doesn’t change the minds that need to be changed: the majority. People are born intelligent or they are not, and all you did was humiliate, infuriate and polarize potentially lethal religious extremists. It is a recreation for weaker minds, and for those who really get off on it: depraved ones.
Dawkins is like a Facebook bully who gets millions of friends to tell you that you’re stupid and worthless, and then cites cherry-picked empirical evidence collected to “prove” it. I could see the post on his wall now:
“On February 7 of 2008, you wrote an essay on why you like unicorns that got an F, and deservedly so. Why I Like Horsies With Horns aptly demonstrates your Christian penchant for mythology, fairy tales, and utter lack of scientific understanding in hippology, aeronautics and basic physics; all of which disqualifies you for life” and “On October 10, 2009, your goldfish died after you forgot to feed it, which is compelling evidence that your bloodthirsty, Christian barbarianism is already manifesting itself through animal cruelty that will inevitably lead to your participation in genocide.” Finally, he would post in all caps: “PLEASE UNFRIEND COURTNEY DAWKINS!”
The truth is you’re not worthless and stupid unless you want to be, you are either misinformed or indoctrinated, and to some extent every single one of us shares this condition. We are misinformed, particularly when we lie to ourselves, and we are indoctrinated inasmuch as our environment influences our ability to think for ourselves.
Socrates put it best:
“The only true wisdom is to know that you know nothing.”
In the video below, we see an example of the uncommon bravery it takes to beat the shit out of little children:
Now there is an urgency to address this matter of scientific intolerance and conformity.
We must never, ever let anyone believe that belief in God, or simply being non-atheist, will prevent any great advancement in physics. It is an absolute falsehood that ignores the contributions of Sir Isaac Newton, Einstein, and countless great minds before and since. It was not an obstacle then, it will not be in the future. This is why the danger and inherent censure of scientific conformity can never be tolerated.
The Anonymous Board at TEDx
Back to the rabid atheists who are playing Popes of science. By rabid, I’m talking about the “panel of scientists” at TED too chicken shit to reveal themselves. I mean, a secret panel? Seriously? It’s a true disappointment because 99.9% of the speakers there are incredible and thought-provoking.
What happened to Sheldrake was a classic example of the Asch Experiment if full effect, where it was demonstrated that people are so willing to conform they will believe an obvious lie, and this happened with people who should have known better. There were a few lies in question here: the first, that a hypothesis is a pseudoscience. These words are as connected as “apple” and “car.” A hypothesis is a theory, and if a theory is a pseudoscience then that means the Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Relativity are both pseudosciences. The second lie is that the quest to quantify a universal consciousness is pseudoscience. It would be, if it was proven that intelligence can’t engage in creation or thought. The third lie, and by far the most offensive, is that you need to be protected from this hypothesis.
It was also a classic example of social identity theory played out, where we see how little it takes for people to form into groups and discriminate. To quote the linked article:
“Social identity theory states that our identities are formed through the groups to which we belong. As a result we are motivated to improve the image and status of our own group in comparison with others.”
So it’s clear the image of the group in question, the anonymous board at TEDx, seems to be quite seriously threatened; so much so they gambled that censorship of a speaker would work, and that their image would not be tarnished when we have this curious little “series of tubes” we call the internet. Their image, one I highly respected for its tolerance, is dog shit now.
If you look at the brief comparison of indoctrination and propaganda versus eduction, and if you see the treatment of the Sheldrake video above, ask yourself if the items highlighted in red pertain to the treatment of the speaker:
Indoctrination & Propaganda
|1a. One-sided: Different or opposing views are either ignored, misrepresented, under-represented, or denigrated. [Sheldrake’s talk was misrepresented as pseudoscience rather than a theory.]||1b. Many sided: Issues examined from many points of view; opposition fairly represented.|
|2a. Uses generalizations, “allness” statements, and lack of specific references and data. [eg., science panel belief that those who question that the universe was created by chance means belief in religion]
||2b. Uses qualifiers: Statements supported with specific references and data.|
|3a. Card Stacking: Data carefully selected – even distorted – to present only the best or worse possible case. Language used to conceal.
||3b. Balanced: Presents samples from a wide range of available data on the subject. Language used to reveal.|
|4a.Misleading use of statistics.||4b. Statistical references qualified with respect to size, duration, criteria, controls, source and subsidizer.|
|5a. Herding: Ignores distinctions and subtle differences. Attempts to bring together superficially similar elements together. Reasons by analogy. [e.g., all religions hobble science because the Catholics did so for hundreds of years]
||5b. Discrimination: Points out differences and subtle distinctions. Use analogies carefully, pointing out differences and non-applicability.|
|6a. False Dilemma (either/or): Only two solutions to the problem or two ways of viewing the issue – the “right way” (writer or speaker’s way) and the “wrong way” (any other way). [e.g., the anonymous TEDx science panel’s belief that they are right, and therefore all other approaches or theories wrong.]||6b. Alternatives: There are many ways of solving a problem or viewing an issue.|
|7a. Appeals to Authority: Statements by selected authority figures used to clinch an argument. “Only the expert knows” approach. [e.g., the anonymous TEDx science “experts” panel]||7b. Appeals to reason: Statements by authority figures and concerned parties used to stimulate thought and discussion. “Experts seldom agree”.|
|8a. Appeals to consensus or bandwagon approach: “Everybody’s doing it so it must be right”. [e.g., the anonymous TEDx science panel]
||8b. Appeals to fact: Facts selected from broad data base. Logical, ethical, aesthetic and psycho-spiritual aspects considered.|
|9a.Appeals to emotions and emotional responses: Uses words and pictures with strong emotional connotations.||9b. Appeals to people’s capacity for thoughtful, reasoned responses: Uses emotionally neutral words and illustrations.|
|10a. Labeling: Uses labels and derogatory language to describe proponents of opposing viewpoint. [Sheldrake’s contrary hypothesis derided as pseudoscience]
||10b. Avoids labels and derogatory language: Addresses the argument, not the people supporting a particular viewpoint.|
|11a. Promotes attitudes of attack and/or defense with the aim of selling a position or product.||11b. Promotes attitudes of openness and inquiry. Aim is to discover.|
|12a. Ignores assumptions and built-in biases.||12b. Explores assumptions and built-in biases.|
|13a. Language promotes lack of awareness and unconsciousness.||13b. Language usage promotes greater awareness and consciousness.|
|14a. Can lead to tunnel vision and bigotry. [men of faith, or merely outside the consensus, are ignorant and unqualified for serious peer review or to study the cosmos]
||14b. Can lead to breadth of vision and understanding.|
|15a. Referenced studies conceal conflict-of-interest funding sources.||15b. Referenced studies reveal conflict-of-interest funding sources.|
|16a. Statistics always presented to show maximum damage from problem and minimum damage from solution.||16b. Statistics presented to show many aspects of problem, not always from a non-max/min approach.|
Copyright © 1988- 2009 Leading Edge International Research Group
A Closed Community of Scientists Has a History of Being Very Deadly
When you have a closed community of scientists no good can come of it. Nazi Germany is a sobering example. One of Hitler’s most trusted science advisers was a Nobel Prize winner. At the time, Germany had an incredible pool of scientific genius. Einstein came from Germany, but left because it became a closed community intolerant of non-conformists; that is, those who were not in the Nazi Party and hungry to persecute and kill Jews like Einstein. They bought into the pseudoscience that was accepted as fact back then: eugenics. This belief would launch the globe into World War II and the Holocaust before at was reappraised, and quietly discarded. The dogma of a master race and social Darwinism also existed in the United States and many western countries. It was responsible for decades of forced sterilizations in America, but in Nazi Germany they took it to a whole new level.
Since some of the greatest minds in the world back then accepted eugenics as fact, those who questioned eugenics were ostracized and the scientific journals wouldn’t touch them. They were falsely labled “Catholics” and dabblers in pseudoscience because they engaged in the taboo practice that’s also known as the scientific method and critical thinking.
There were false dogmas then, and there are now. A closed and intolerant community of scientists will ensure these false dogmas hobble or prevent the advance of humanity, and it will always lead to the persecution of great or better minds. It is already happening.
Otherwise Smart Men With a Very Poor Understanding of Cause and Effect
This is why Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins are dicks, no better than “God hates fags” Rev. Fred Phelps or any snake-handling fanatical Pentecostal preacher. As it is now we have a volunteer army that is fighting a religious/geo-political war in the middle east. That’s exactly what fighting a jihad means. How could we possibly survive another religious war amongst ourselves? Unfortunately, this isn’t hyperbole and in this nightmare scenario it won’t be a war over nothing: should it happen, it will be a civil war ostensibly fought over freedom of religion; replacing one oppressive indoctrination with another. So how bad is the ideological war now?
When you hear of states seriously considering secession, particularly Texas, surprise! It’s run by extremely fundamentalist Christians. Texas schools still teach creationism. The evidence could not be more obvious: the explosion of public and private schools teaching creationism is a reaction to a fanatical atheist movement that has launched an unwinnable and self-destructive ideological war against them. The counter-offensive now appeals to voucher schools where both creationism and evolution are taught.
As you can see, this aforementioned caustic and condescending approach has already backfired. Once moderate Christians feel their faith threatened, so they give money to right-wing extremists who promise to protect “the Christian way of life” or simply freedom of religion. Sometimes they have no idea they are doing it, because the money they tithe or give to televangelists is spent at the discretion of religious leaders. The vast majority of atheists and agnostics minding their own business who leave their neighbors alone to find their own path in life can thank Bill Maher and Dawkins for their role in putting the very people they fear and hate, unstable creationist doofii, quickly into power.
Now I ask the fanatical atheist this: who will you get tithing from each week? Do any of you collect 10% of everyone’s wages on a regular basis in gatherings as ubiquitous as churches? who will fund your war chest? Atheists don’t tithe, most detest war and it’s why atheists hate religion. We are already in a religious war against a jihad, so why instigate this unfathomably moronic and destructive one among ourselves? Ideological conflicts have a long history of bursting into deadly ones. Read a fucking history book.
So why quote Einstein on God and religion? For one thing, it demonstrates that belief in a universe as the product of an unknown, unfathomable intelligence does not equate to belief of religion. That said, it is a logical fallacy and injustice to attribute the irrationality, hatred, and superstitions of weaker minds to those who are not religious, but believe the following: intelligence can manipulate matter and engage in creation, which is self-evident, as opposed to the unproven theoretical: that matter can engage in creation randomly and did, and it is the only answer.
Assuming we do finally understand how the universe was created, this one and the infinity of others in the multiverse, we then have to ask what created the multiverse? As for parallel universes, there may now be proof they exist:
Whatever the case may be, if you want to read about Albert Einstein’s true stand on religion and science, don’t take my word for it. Read it in his own words. Take a look at The World As I See It.
As an interesting aside, after the Women’s Patriot Corporation went batshit crazy in the attempt to convince the FBI and media he was a dangerous alien and should not be allowed to enter America because he was an anarchist, a pacifist, and communist; Einstein wrote the following.
Never yet have I experienced from the fair sex such energetic rejection of all advances; or, if I have, never from so many at once.
But are they not quite right, these watchful citizenesses? Why should one open one’s doors to a person who devours hard-boiled capitalists with as much appetite and gusto as the Cretan Minotaur in days gone by devoured luscious Greek maidens, and on top of that is low-down enough to reject every sort of war, except the unavoidable war with one’s own wife? Therefore give heed to your clever and patriotic women-folk and remember that the Capitol of mighty Rome was once saved by the cackling of its faithful geese.
So this is the kind of mind that would have banned Einstein then, and now through an anonymous board.
As for the Tea Party, it can be argued the backlash against fanatical atheists is what prompted moderate Christians to elect those who were perceived as “defenders” of their faith, but there was a group behind the extremism that always made a great show of its Christianity while notorious for burning its symbol. It was a group that had been, and are experts in electing extremists that could be easily manipulated by monied interests simply by mind-fucking them with their own hate. It was a very bad seed in a soil rich with religious intolerance and it was bound to grow, and grow well.
FBI file on Einstein. Letter from Women Patriots Corporation who wanted to keep Einstein from entering America. Click to download PDF.