The Egotistical Atheist
In my reply to Morgaine from the other day, I said that “There are, without question, those atheists who have simply traded god for science without losing religion in the process.” Francois Tremblay is a perfect example. When I suggested during my discussion of the Cosmological Argument that the Big Bang theory is insufficient to satisfactorily explain the origin of the universe and that we have more to learn, his reaction demonstrated this quite clearly, while also calling into question his level of reading comprehension. Here is his reply in its entirety…
1. You don’t seem to understand Big Bang theory very well. The singularity did not “sit around”. I would recommend you read more on the topic before passing judgment on it.
2. Your basic argument seems to be that no solution satisfies your feelings. The question arises : WHAT solution would satisfy you ? What would it take for you to be satisfied ? If you answer this question honestly, you’ll understand why you’re wrong.
Evangelical Atheist, you’re acting like a Christian. This is very dissapointing [sic]. Have you examined your position at all ? Please make a new entry and tell us what it would take to convince you of the validity of Big Bang theory (which, I remind you, while still not complete, is backed up by all the empirical evidence we have). Do you deny that structures of matter as we know them come from an expansion of spacetime from a primitive state ? Yes or no ? Why ? What would convince you ?
There are feelings and there are facts. If I can’t face the facts regarding something because I don’t feel good about it, then I just shut up and wait for a later time. I don’t reify my feelings into material facts. The universe doesn’t give a shit about your satisfaction.
Well here’s my feeling : I feel very dissapointed [sic] at Evangelical Atheist’s post. I thought he was a rational person. To reify feelings above scientific fact is not the kind of thinking I want to sanction. Now, here’s the problem - the origin of this dissatisfaction is Christian thought, which says that there has to be an “ultimate answer” to everything. So in challenging him to tell us what it would take to change his mind, I’m trying to get him to see the Christian premises underlying his dissatisfaction. I’m looking forward to seeing his answer.
The fact that he has completely misunderstood my position will be obvious to anyone who cares to reread my original post, so I will let that stand on its own. I would like to talk about how easily his feathers were ruffled by the thought that our current knowledge is neither perfect nor complete. Whenever I see this kind of shoot-from-the-hip reaction by an atheist to a slightly unorthodox or forward-thinking position that might indicate the need for a modification to our current understanding of the universe, it saddens me.
Francois, I have accepted current scientific evidence, pointed out where I think the model offers an incomplete picture and indicated that I feel we have a lot more to learn before we can thoroughly understand the origin of the universe. You, on the other hand, have encountered my questions and reacted like a pedantic doctrinaire, barraging me with the sound and fury of an ad hominem attack and a blustery challenge based on an incorrect interpretation of my words because I had the temerity to question whether the view you currently hold is complete and sufficient. Which one of us is acting like a scientist, and which one is “acting like a Christian?” A free thinker should cling tightly to the scientific method with all his might, because it is the best tool we have for uncovering truth. However, an atheist who clings to a theory more tightly than to the search for new knowledge and better answers is nothing but another stumbling block for the rest of us to overcome on the march toward a future free of religion.
~I AM~
November 19th, 2005 at at 6:19 pm
I dunno. A lot of Objectivists seem that way to me. They don’t seem very keen on skepticism of any stripe.
Just don’t go Raving Atheist on us now, okay, I Am?
November 19th, 2005 at at 8:04 pm
Arguments about religion.
It boils down to this.
Reason is cumulative. We begin to reason when we are young. And each line of reason is built on the previous lines of reason. After a few years the relationships between lines of reason can get pretty intricate.
We can’t know everything, so part of the reasoning process is to fill the gaps in information with best guesses and assumptions.
Religion offers us a set of ready-made assumptions – even some full lines of reason. Many of us depend on these instead of figuring things out for ourselves.
A religious argument is usually an argument about trusted rules of thumb and assumptions that someone has reasoned with their whole life. So, in arguing about religious precepts, what you’re really doing is asking them to start over, scrapping all those lines of reason you say are flawed. That demand runs deep and covers a lot of ground.
And the chances of success? Slim to none.
A statement of logic is virtually irrelevant to someone who has based forty or fifty years of reason on assumptions endorsed implicitly trusted sources.
So the strategy of using logic to argue against religion is flawed. In matters of religion logic falls on purposefully deaf ears. It’s a matter of reflex – of self-protection.
And inevitably the religious zealot remains a religious zealot. It’s probably best to forget about trying to convert him with logic. For him, it’s too late. The better plan is to head off the damage he can do.
The real damage is done by parents and teachers who perpetuate the problem by indoctrinating the kids before they know any better – before they learn how to defend themselves. Surely it’s a cardinal sin to mislead your own progeny.
But, maybe I shouldn’t care. After all, they’re not my kids. On the other hand some assumptions are valid. And I think that it’s safe to assume that what goes around does indeed come around.
Steve
November 20th, 2005 at at 12:21 am
“In my reply to Morgaine from the other day, I said that “There are, without question, those atheists who have simply traded god for science without losing religion in the process.” Francois Tremblay is a perfect example.”
Wow. Thanks for the insult, buddy. Talk about not getting it. There was a point to my comment and questions and, even after reading what I meant, you still didn’t get it, preferring to ad hom me without provocation.
And no, I am not a religious person in regards to sciecnce, and I have not “traded god for science”. For one thing, I was never tainted by theism, and I never intend to be. If I’m going to make an ad hom and compare myself to you, I’d say religion stayed with you, EA, not me, because YOU STILL THINK AND BELIEVE LIKE A CHRISTIAN.
I don’t want anything more to do with you.
November 20th, 2005 at at 12:32 am
Last comment I’ll ever make on this blog… new entry on your ad homs and refusal to answer :
http://goosetheantithesis.blogspot.com/2005/11/fuck-em-if-they-dont-get-it.html
November 20th, 2005 at at 12:50 am
To My Regular Readers:
You can thank me later.
November 20th, 2005 at at 1:06 am
Well, that was mature.
Seriously, what was the issue here? He seemed to take that as extremely personal.
November 20th, 2005 at at 1:08 am
Oh-my-
Well, I guess god doesn’t work there, but can he REALLY BE GONE? Are we truly finally free of him for good?
Franc, I know you can’t be gone - your ego is too big to just allow you to walk away without seeing what people say about you now. Every comment you’ve left here has either been obnoxious and antagonistic, or more often, both. Now I’ll add idiotic to the list. You are little more than a provacatuer who has nothing to actually say. Clearly you are enamored of your own thoughts. Well, at least someone is, I guess.
Good riddance.
November 20th, 2005 at at 1:14 am
TJ (can I call you TJ?) - I think it’s that whole can-dish-it-out-but-can’t-take-it phenomenon.
That, and I AM has readers.
November 20th, 2005 at at 1:35 am
The simple fact of the matter is that the Big Bang happened. This is not an opinion, or a good guess. The fact is that every piece of evidence known points to the Big Bang as an actual event that did occur at some point about 13.7 billion years ago. Now, you want to know what caused the universe to come into its present state of existence as we see it today? Well, the Big Bang is the event immediately preceding the known universe’s existence, and by a simple logical deduction, the Big Bang is indeed the precise cause you’re looking for. The evidence and scientific principles will mean the same thing, regardless of how “unsatisfying” it leaves you feeling. Deal with reality, its all you’ll ever know.
November 20th, 2005 at at 1:57 am
Addict_no_more:
No.
Just kidding.
Seriously, he accuses I Am of “thinking like a Christian” and then “can’t believe” that I Am would accuse him of having his own little religion. At least now he’ll have plenty of time to polish the windows on his glass house…
Also, is it odd that when I Am first spoke of “those atheists who have simply traded god for science without losing religion in the process”, the first person that came to my mind was Tremblay?
Greves:
What I read I Am as saying is that he accepts the Big Bang, but he doesn’t think it offers a complete account of why we exist. I dunno if I agree with that, but I can at least see where he’s coming from. But there’s a big difference between “I don’t think we have all the answers” and “I don’t think we have all the answers, so I’m gonna make up my own”. The latter is the kind of mistake people like Morgaine make, IMO.
November 20th, 2005 at at 2:01 am
The Big Bang is not proven. Yes, it seems the most likely scenario, and it is mostly accepted as fact. However, I AM never said he didn’t believe it… he’s just questioning what happened before it. I find it odd that atheists are having such a hard time swallowing the notion that maybe there is more to the story than the Big Bang.
I highly recommend Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to any of you who just can’t tolerate the thought of someone questioning something that is widely accepted as fact, but not exactly proven 100% concrete. Kuhn focuses on how paradigms can become boxes out of which science cannot escape. People become so afraid of risking their careers on breaking status quo, they don’t. Or (possibly) worse, they can’t even see beyond the status quo.
November 20th, 2005 at at 2:05 am
Tanooki Joe:
Thank you. That’s a pretty good representation of what I said. I think the Big Bang is a real event in the history of the universe. It is probably involved in the origin of the universe. However, I then want to know what caused it and if anything preceded it. If wanting to know stuff makes me a bad atheist, I’m guilty.
November 20th, 2005 at at 2:07 am
addict_no_more:
You slipped that comment in while I was writing mine. That is also a good representation of my argument. It’s nice to know that some of my readers can read. Thank you.
November 20th, 2005 at at 9:56 am
If I may throw in some random comments here.
Tanooki (Comment 1)
I was a Libertarian for a while — I may even count as an Objectivist. Some do hold onto that idea like a religion. I abandoned it because some of its core logic is flawed (like the fact that it only pretends to handle the “is/ought” problem). However, there is no inherent contradiction between Objectivism and skepticism. Objectivism says that there is a right answer. Skepticism comes in two forms: (1) We do not know what the right answer is, and (2) The right answer is “no” (such as, “no god”, “no intrinsic values”, “no alien abductions”). These are not incompatible.
On the Big Bang
As I understand it, the Big Bang is now held to be highly suspect. If we trace the universe back, it works until we get to about 1 plank’s length in size (10^-33 centimeters) but we can’t seem to get beyond this. So, it seems, there is still much to learn. Like, “How do you get a universe that is 10^-33 centimeters in diameter?”
If you count the “big bang” as everything going back to that 10^-33 cm universe then, fine, it happened. But, what is it, exactly, that happened?
November 20th, 2005 at at 3:40 pm
Alonzo Fyfe:
Thanks for the response. I was relating more my experience with Objectivists than with what the philosophy has to say.
November 21st, 2005 at at 12:20 am
Chiming in late, but I agree that the differences in philosophy are pretty minor. What it really amounts to is Franc is a pain in the ass, and ~I Am~ got sick of dealing with him. Franc’s constant negativity can get to anyone eventually.
As to the question of whether we will ever have a definitive theory of everything, we really have only just begun to scratch the surface of exploration into high energy particle physics. As scientists try and probe the universe at smaller and smaller scales they need higher and higher energy beams – the current accelerator technology means that the only way to achieve this is to make even bigger accelerators. Before long we’ll need a completely new approach to producing the beams of particles required for next generation high energy physics research. All of that is going to take serious money and public support. As long as the general public is content to have answers dished out by theologians rather than experimentation we will continue to live in the dark.
November 21st, 2005 at at 2:46 am
Complete agreement is highly improbable in an existence of multiple beings with their own subjective perceptions.
This is what fuels the scientific method and reason, and it is, in this regard, a beautiful thing - if everyone agreed, nobody would question, and nothing else could be learned.
That being said, even Aristotle knew he knew nothing. Elitists make me want to punch them in the throat. I really do appreciate Franc, but I readily acknowledge that he comes off quite arrogantly.
It’s almost a shame.
November 21st, 2005 at at 7:10 am
If we cannot tolerate disagreement within our tiny atheist community, we have little hope for stimulating change on a larger scale. Disagreement is good, and dissent must be encouraged. However, personal attacks are rarely productive.
November 21st, 2005 at at 11:26 am
“Acting like a Christian!” (gasp) The shock, the horror! …as if there could be no worse insult from Tremblay. That is a very amusing retort. Actually, I don’t know what’s worse - the constant negativity or arrogance - but either way it just becomes intolerable at some point.
November 21st, 2005 at at 1:27 pm
May I chime in?
Francois, You are correct in pointing out that the thought “There has to be an ‘ultimate answer’ to everything” is a christian thought (process), but it is not only christians who think that way. Most religions bask in that type of thought. I believe, though, that it was that very thought that helped to give rise to religion, not the other way around as you seem to be implying. The ‘ultimate answer’ thought is human, and to deride someone for having such a thought, is, well….
Science thrives on wanting answers, and while most scientists know that the answers we have today are not ‘ultimate’, it would be nice if we knew we had them.
November 21st, 2005 at at 7:58 pm
I believe Francois to be blunt and direct; maybe even bordering on arrogance, but he is indeed one of the smarter commentors I’ve read here. That is not taking anything away from many highly intelligent people I’ve had the pleasure of meeting here and elsewhere. How many of you guys have had the displeasure of explaining a complex theory or idea to someone (I’m thinking theist mainly) who either just doesn’t get it or is willfully ignorant of what you are trying to say?
I’ve explained the same ideas to dozens if not hundreds of people and been frustrated many, many times. Arrogance, impatience, resentment, and frustration are hard to handle all of the time. I bet everyone here has blown up on more than one occassion (and more easily so on the internet).
I can see how I Am (and some others) would be offended by Francois, but big deal. I have a hard enough time trying to remain calm with Christians let alone worrying about dancing around tempermental non-believers. No wonder there is not yet a concrete, unified atheist community.
November 21st, 2005 at at 8:31 pm
It seems to me this issue is due to a bit of miscommunication/misunderstanding on both sides. I believe that if this all happened in a face-to-face setting, without the filter of typed messages, that this all would have happened quite differently.
I consider I AM a good friend of mine (I hope he feels the same), and most people here know that Im also a close friend and partner-in-crime with Franc. I was hoping that this disagreement could have happened a bit more amicably, but oh well. In reality it wasnt that bad. I AM and Franc are of course free to feel however they want about this, and it seems to me like they are (relatively) respectfully disagreeing.
I AM, I hope you understand that Im not directing this at you. But to a few of the readers and commenters here: I think you shouldnt be so mean to Franc by doing immature things like criticizing his lower blog readership. If you read some of his essays and thought about it for a minute, you would understand WHY his readership is lower than some, and I think that people who try to insult his writing with an ad populum argument are saying alot more about themselves than about Franc.
Its fine to disagree with Franc and say so. Most of the comments here are fine, but a select few of them went too far IMO. Franc is rough around the edges, and over the net he can rub some people the wrong way, but his work ethic in this field is excellent, his essays are profound, and his passion for –and understanding of– atheism and human rights is something that I think all of us can get inspired and learn alot from. I know I have. At the end of the day, we ARE all on the same side. A small portion of the commenters here seem to have forgotten that.
So lets downplay the weaknesses and pump up the strengths! All of us are good at different things, and we can all contribute in our own unique way to the cause of atheism and freethought. We gotta keep that spirit in mind. We gotta remember what this is all about: freeing humanity from the chains of God and religion. Both I AM and Franc contribute greatly to this effort in their own ways, so lets support both of them! I, for one, will continue to support both of them, just like I always have.
Come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together try to love one another right now.
November 21st, 2005 at at 8:34 pm
Dammit, it cut off the rest of my post. I tried to put a bunch of hearts on the end of it to help “spread the love” but I guess the less-than sign was interpreted as html code instead.
But more importantly, I had a P.S. for Chad.
P.S.: Chad, think of it like this, “hate the sin and not the sinner.”
November 21st, 2005 at at 8:45 pm
Aaron, I like you and respect you. I think you’re one of the most intelligent atheists out here, and I’ve read your blog. I have, admittedly, not read much of Franc’s writing. That is in part because nearly every comment I’ve ever seen from him here has been borderline - if not outright - rude, and I get to most of the blogs I read via this site. If I don’t like what someone says, I’m less inclined to click their link.
Obviously, this is only my opinion - and you are right, it is the internet. It can be hard to pinpoint intended tone in online communication. Having said that, I still feel like Franc crosses the line frequently - and it sometimes comes across as though he’s trying to do exactly what happened here - drive traffic to his site by being antagonistic. Since you know him, I’ll take your word for it that this isn’t his intent.
I will also admit I should not have mentioned his seemingly low readership (plenty of people lurk, so who knows, really how many people are reading?). It was a low blow, and I’m better than that. He just mangaged to push my buttons one time too many, I suppose. That’s no excuse, just an explanation.
November 21st, 2005 at at 8:57 pm
Aaron, man, I’m not a hater. I’m smilin’ on your brother, but hatin’ on that great sin - pride.
November 21st, 2005 at at 9:02 pm
Some of the smartest people are rude and one-sided at times. It isn’t a good thing, but it happens. The challenge for other really smart people who observe these less-than-ideal character traits is to learn to tolerate them and step aside when necessary. Sometimes, rudeness is a result of having a crappy day. Other times, it is the inflammation of a pet peeve. Online, we rarely if ever know why someone writes what they write, and we (especially the really smart people) like to think that our writings and the writings of our online friends (and enemies) are governed more by reason than emotion. Personally, I cannot think of a time when I wrote anything with a point to it without some strong emotional stimulus. Logic and emotion work together. And, sometimes, they work against one another.
November 21st, 2005 at at 9:22 pm
Well said.
Brains + style + eloquence = artist / Uberkuh
November 21st, 2005 at at 10:30 pm
Are you dividing the concept of an artist by the concept of an UberKuh. I will have you know…
Thanks.
November 21st, 2005 at at 10:59 pm
I knew you would say that. Allow me to clarify:
Brains + style + eloquence = artist
which is equal to or less than
Uberkuh(picky/painintheass)
November 21st, 2005 at at 11:02 pm
Thanx addict no more. Honestly, the only thing that upset me was the readership comment. There is a reason that I am involved with Franc on multiple projects (two blogs and a radio show), and that is because I consider his knowledge in atheism and rational individualism to be astounding. I think that one of the main reasons Goosing the Antithesis (of which I am also a writer) isnt as popular is because of its intellectual caliber. Its not for the layman. Its a heavy read. And its supposed to be that way.
But thanx for the explanation and sorry if I got too defensive about it.
November 21st, 2005 at at 11:11 pm
Aaron —
For the readership of Goose the Antithesis, I would suggest having a more open comment policy. I rarely go to GTA because I know if I find an interesting topic, I won’t be able to comment on it, and that’s discouraging.
November 21st, 2005 at at 11:49 pm
I agree with Tanooki (he of large testical fame) Joe. The comments should be open to anyone. I never understood why people wouldn’t want open commenting even if there will be stupid and mean comments.
November 22nd, 2005 at at 12:16 am
That has been my policy with Kill The Afterlife since day one. But Goosing the Antithesis is Franc’s blog and he feels differently. There have been occasions where I have defended the comments posting rights on Goosing the Antithesis for some rather frustrating Christians who ruthlessley hammered down on my own comments posting on their Christian blogs. Does that make me a martyr?
Anyway, I do agree about comments posting priveleges even though they are private blogs. Anything to promote communication and interaction whether between or within worldviews is a good thing.
November 22nd, 2005 at at 1:31 am
Tanooki (he of large testical fame) Joe
Curse you, Uberkuh. Curse you to heck!
November 22nd, 2005 at at 10:11 am
Aaron,
So, what you are saying is that the same people that read this blog don’t read yours because yours has too much “intellectual caliber” for them? That’s an interesting way of looking at it.
Perhaps it is this attitude about your (in as much as you speak for yourself and Francois) own ideas that is responsible for the “arrogance” comments, maybe?
November 22nd, 2005 at at 11:23 am
Okay, so I just did a little reading of Francois’ “ouvre,” and it seems that I AM’s statement about “atheists who have simply traded god for science without losing religion in the process” is more true than he may have even known. The only change I would make would be to change the phrase “traded god for science” to “traded god for Ayn Rand.”
I know that Francoise is no longer reading this, but I would love to know what philosophers aside from Rand and Aristotle that he appreciates. I would also love to know in what areas he disagrees with Rand (if any).
Here’s his personal site that gives particular insight into is Randroid tendencies. Of special interest is his articles (and course) on objectivism as well as his endorsement of libertarianism and absolute laissez-faire economies. I think his page explains a lot about his reactions.
If you are not familiar with the whole Randroid phenomenon, this is an easy read.
November 22nd, 2005 at at 12:09 pm
Wes, what I was doing was using that argument in response to an earlier argument ad populum that was thrown around.
And no I dont think that the heavy reading style of our team blog Goosing is solely the reason for its lower readership. However I have had multiple people tell me that its a hard read. If you read a good dozen or so of the entries on that blog I think you would agree with me.
And by the way, my blog own blog, Kill The Afterlife, gets plenty of readers and commenters for my goals. Im actually a writer for 4 different blogs so Im not worried about readership one bit. And I wasnt the one that brought it up in the first place.
November 22nd, 2005 at at 6:13 pm
Franc doesnt consider himself an objectivist, although he subscribes to many of the objectivist tenets. Hes a rational individualist and a libertarian. Objectivist groups have excommunicated members for subscribing to libertarianism in the past btw.
And lazziez-faire economics kicks ass plain and simple. There were many hardcore lazziez-faire capitalists long before Rand was ever born.
November 22nd, 2005 at at 7:50 pm
Aaron,
You’ll have to excuse my confusion over Francois’ objectivism. I mean, his website does feature links to “What is Objectivism?,” “Objective Thinking,” “Franc’s Objectivist Movie Reviews,” and an online course called “Introduction to Objectivism.”
In “What is Objectivism?,” he offers links to a video lecture from the Ayn Rand Institute and links to the Bible, I mean, Atlas Shrugged. He also writes, “The most rigorous philosophical system is Objectivism. It is the only such system based on explicit and valid axioms and deductions, which makes it the most reliable guide to a healthy relationship with reality.”
In “Objective Thinking,” he links a “book” he’s written on objectivism.
In “Franc’s Objectivist Movie Reviews,” he claims that there “is currently no active Objectivist movie review site, and so I think this can be a helpful guide, especially for Objectivists.”
In “Introduction to Objectivism,” Franc writes, “I am a columnist for Suite 101 (Atheism). I have been studying Objectivism for approximately five years. I have written an introductory site on the subject (at http://www.whatisobjectivism.com) and written articles on various outlets. I am always available to answer your questions on this course or Objectivism in general.”
So, I’m sorry if I falsely accused your friend of being an Objectivist. I was confused by all the duck-like waddling and quacking.
On the issue of Libertarianism (which I would love to discuss in a more appropriate setting), The Objectivist Center writes, “Libertarianism is the political position that all human relationships should be voluntary, i.e. not subject to the initiation of force by another person. Inasmuch as this is also part of the Objectivist politics, Objectivism is a libertarian philosophy. Not all libertarian thinking is compatible with Objectivism, and some libertarians promote philosophical ideas that would destroy liberty if put into practice, such as skepticism, ethical subjectivism, and anarchism. But the libertarian movement in general is a positive force for political change, one to which Objectivists have valuable moral and epistemological knowledge to contribute and one from which Objectivists can learn about the politics, economics, and history of freedom.” (emphasis mine).
It seems that many objectivists are a lot more tolerant of the position than you describe.
Sorry, Aaron, I have to bail on this conversation as well. I’m spending time I don’t have on it. Enjoy the last word.
November 22nd, 2005 at at 10:59 pm
Snap.
November 23rd, 2005 at at 7:03 pm
Uberkuh, what are you talking about “snap”? Surely you must give me more credi than that. Wes simply doesnt have all the history and context regarding these issues that I do.
Okay. Franc used to be an objectivist. Within the past year he has ceased to be. The work you are pointing out is work he has done before he “unlabelled” himself as an objectivist. However, he is still sympathetic to objectivism in general and you will see him support it and reference it frequently. Objectivism is extremely valuable in rational individualism, atheism, and yes libertarianism. And keep in mind that in most respects, you will not find many differences between rational individualists, objectivists, and libertarians. In a way, the differences are somewhat nit-picking and are obscure to an outsider.
Regarding libertarianism and objectivism, you seem to be unaware of the schism within objectivist groups. One group is the group that is sympathetic to David Kelley who was sympathetic to libertarianism, and this is where you found the info from the objectivist center.
The other kind of objectivists are those who are sympathetic to Dr. Peikoff. Peikoff expelled Kelley from his objectivist group and ARI for his libertarian olive-branch extending. And Peikoff is the intellectual heir to Ayn Rand.
I hope that explains everything. If you have any more questions let me know.
And Uberkuh, you shouldnt throw away your ticket until the horse crosses the finish line
November 24th, 2005 at at 11:58 am
I hate the name that was coined for the biggest event we ‘know’ of. It makes it sound trivial and sarcastic.
October 24th, 2007 at at 8:10 pm
[…] Read the rest of this great post here […]