Opinion of internet atheists

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I've turned anti-atheist over the past several months.  at least anti-"New Atheism".  case in point is a Dawkins quote, saying that theology shouldn't be taught in universities because science has put a man on the moon and theology has accomplished nothing.

Dawkins is not the atheist pope, Tweed.

So? I'm sure you've criticized prominent Christians before. Dawkins is no different.

That's not what i'm getting at nor he for that matter. Disliking people who are atheist because of Dawkins is a bit like disliking Christians in general because of the Pope or Fred Phelps.

if you read my post I said I was anti-"New Atheism", which is an idea rather than institution or collection of people.   Dawkins and his The God Delusion form an indelible part of the New Atheist canon.  as Chris Hedges said: "we have nothing to fear from those who do or do not believe in God."  it's what they do with it.  and tossing theology out of universities because it has never put a man on the moon is not a cool thing to do with your atheism, in my opinion.  and, to be sure, Dawkins is not the lone atheist to hold such an opinion.

This post spells out my thoughts exactly.  Religion, in my opinion, is suppose to be a serious arm of philosophical thought.  If someone rejects religion entirely simply because it's religion and only considers a scientific understanding of the universe, then that, in my opinion, demonstrates a very closed mind - at least, if you won't even respect different points of view that can at times be very compatible with scientific fact.  New Atheists haven't added anything new to the discussion; they've merely made religion more of an identity than an oasis of intellectual thought, which isn't very different from what the fundies have been doing.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Obviously I don't agree with memphis or John Dibble on the religion issue, but John is clearly better at conveying his ideas respectfully and maturely than memphis is.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

Mikado, I don't think rationalism seeks to crush or negate the importance of human emotions. I think the need for rational thought is perfectly compatible with acknowledging that the human mind is much more complex than what science can describe of it. And I consider myself a hardcore rationalist.

That's just it, though.  The very desire to know or understand the Universe is a fool's errand, especially if you reject the metaphysical and the philosophical to myopically focus on the physical Universe around you.  It's not just the human mind, talking about stars as hydrogen slowly fusing into helium producing a nuclear fusion reaction that generates massive amount of energy may be true for one value of truth, but sealing that as the only definition and ridiculing others for solar worship or the view that the sun is Helios pulled by a chariot is narrowminded in the extreme.    The Rationalist viewpoint tries to freeze out all approaches to truth that don't revolve around the Scientific method as not legitimate avenues to truth: in the same vein as Christianity, it is the ultimate in small-mindedness to say that one approach is right and the others are empirically wrong and prima facie absurdities. 

I have no problem with science itself, I have no qualm with it as one approach to knowledge, my problem is the outright rejection of the irrational and, in fact, turning irrationality into a derogatory term.  Many of the most valuable parts of human experience and the universe in general are inherently irrational, chaotic, unorderly, and downright messy.  Rationalism deprecates old wisdom and proclaims the value of new "knowledge," and attempts to see further and further into the tiniest particles, the most distant corners of the Universe, the creases of the human brain, and the most deep depths of the Earth's core, but loses the knowledge of the human spirit, the soul, in the process, and ridicules what it can't understand, abuses the "irrational."

Irrationality is freedom.  Freedom from the formalized structure of the scientific method, freedom from the hypocrisy of scientists who proclaim that they are working to better mankind while they perfect weapons with which to better kill vast swathes of mankind, freedom from the arrogant idea that the old gods of yore, whether they be named Zeus or Thor or Jesus, will be replaced by a new pantheon of Newton, Tesla, and Einstein.

Again, I think you completely misunderstand rationalism if you think it is all about promoting science as the Absolute Truth and ridiculing any forms of metaphysical thought. I don't think at all that most rationalists would agree with you characterization. Reducing all of us to Auguste Comte is like reducing all Christians to Jerry Falwell, and your vision is equally simplistic as those internet kids who bash all religion because of a few fundies.

I can only speak for myself, of course, but here is how I see things. Metaphysical thought is a form of truth, and one that is extremely fertile and enriching to human beings. If someone believes in God, then God does exist for this person. Science has nothing to say about it, not because it is less true, but because it is simply not relevant/competent. Metaphysics is, etymologically, what goes beyond the realm of nature, what is beyond scientific and rational understanding. The two fields should remain separate not intervene in one another. Religion cannot tell us anything about the material/physical structure of the universe - science cannot tell us anything about the existence and nature of deity.

There is one major difference between material/rational truth and metaphysical truth: the latter is inherently subjective and personal, the latter is universal. One's spiritual beliefs are true, but only to the person who holds them. Rationality, like it or not, is humanity's common language. It is the tool through which we can interact, and find the common ground to act as a collective. It is what we can all agree on, without relinquishing our individual metaphysical thought. The distinction isn't between truth and falsehood, but rather between objective and subjective truth. "Objective" is not an adjective that gives superior value to truth: it simply means "a truth that does not depend from the observer", a truth that is the same to all.

A major issue arises, however, when people attempt to impose their own metaphysical thought to others: there comes organized, institutional religion - religion as a tool of social control - which is, IMO, a perversion of spirituality. There is nothing wrong against people confronting and debating their respective metaphysical beliefs - to the contrary, this is a formidable experience for human intellect. However, as soon as one assumes that what is true to him must be true to all, terrible things start happening. Secularism, thus, simply means preventing this from happening, and preserving the liberty of all to find their own beliefs without being forced into some through socialization.

In my humble opinion, you're both right.  I've long been a believer in what Stephen Jay Gould coined "non-overlapping magisteria."  Theists can and should believe things which derive from a methodology that isn't ideal to mainstream scientists.  The problem lies in areas where one methodology clashes with the one that gives us empirical truth -- such as, for example, evolution.  Both philosophy and science provide us limited interpretations of "reality" (because understanding reality in its entirety is, like The Mikado said, a "fool's errand").  And both methods have been used as a weapon by those who want to control.  That, of course, is not a good reason to completely reject either method of understanding life.

Science and religion are funny to me.  They can, at times, be very different.  But from some angles, they're more similar than we think.