Disclaimer
Please note that my opinions are my own, and the opinions of the anyone or any institution quoted are theirs. The opinions expressed herein do not reflect the opinion of North Carolina State University, its board of directors, the College of Management or any other college, Student Media Authority, or WKNC Raleigh.
According to an article in today's Wall Street, new atheism á la Dawkins, et al., fails to hold water when compared to the "purer" forms of Epicurian atheism.
Such questions -- toward which the mind naturally wanders, though it is susceptible to ambush by the crude scientism of which Mr. Hitchens occasionally avails himself -- include: Where did the universe come from, and is it governed by purpose?
Instead of announcing their faithful disbelief in a higher order as a way of obtaining reason, they fitfully attack institutions, touting hyperboles about what religion actually teaches, and falling back to their beloved when the arguments get too philosophical.
In making his case that reason must regard faith as an enemy to be wiped out, Mr. Hitchens declares Socrates's teaching that knowledge consists in knowing one's ignorance to be "the definition of an educated person." And yet Mr. Hitchens shows no awareness that his atheism, far from resulting from skeptical inquiry, is the rigidly dogmatic premise from which his inquiries proceed, and that it colors all his observations and determines his conclusions.
I can say it not better than Mr. Berkowitz (George Mason University). You owe it to yourself to ponder his
article and form your own opinion.
Thanks to the indexed blog for the inspiration.
Walking through campus the other day, I spotted the following message chalked all over our brickyard:
A) SCIENCE > RELIGION
B) RELIGION > SCIENCE
C) BOTH
D) NEITHER
This was followed by some pitch-line to attend a lecture or debate of some sort.
The real scary part about it is how quickly I came up with a retort. I've been so deep in theory for the past few weeks my mind started to work in notation, and before you know it, I had imagined the following answer:
D) NEITHER
Because SCIENCE ∈ ℝ and RELIGION ∈ ℂ and are therefore not directly comparable. Also, note that ℝ ⊆ ℂ. As such, ℝ ⋚ ℂ ⇔ any number z in ℂ has form α + βi where β = 0.
Simply stated, the two cannot be compared as they are in different sets. However, SCIENCE is contained in the subspace of RELIGION and the two are comparable iff the imaginary part is removed. Therefore, SCIENCE is a rational RELIGION that ignores the complex case presented by our own imagination.
After all, one has to imagine how imaginary numbers operate, it isn't intuitive. Ergo cognito et sum. My belief is based on faith. I visualize God and man in much the same way scientists imagine the real-complex plane. That is, a unit circle that is incomplete in the absence of i but that makes magical things happen when i is utilized.
Have some faith. Use your imagination, and realize you'll never fully understand with reason alone.
Why is it that narcissistic secular hedonist feel the need to mock the Holy Bible? I ask this not out of frustration, but out of sheer sadness.
Are they really that ignorant? Do they mock the works of Plato, Aristotle, and (what we know of) Socrates? Or is it just contemporary transcendental contemplation they make their target?
There is something to be gained from the contemplation of that beyond ourselves. Some of the aforementioned ignoramuses may, in fact, find themselves terribly clever and witty. It's a shame the greatest gift of intelligence should go to such a waste.
"I should've been a philosopher..."
