REASON42

For apparent legal reasons, the article:  ’How to spot a hidden religious agenda’ I linked to in this post has been pulled by New Scientist.  This is very odd. 

They wrote this on the link to the article:

New Scientist has received a legal complaint about the contents of this story. At the advice of our lawyer it has temporarily been removed while we investigate. Apologies for any inconvenience.

So, who has complained and why? I shall try to find out….

(It was also published in the magazine, where I first spotted it).

The article is down-loadable at Wiki-leaks, here.

Somebody asked me in a forum somewhere:

If there is no scientific proof for the non-existence of God, then surely atheism is a belief?

My answer:

There is absence of belief on the existence of aliens but we don’t ask for evidence for the non-existence of aliens, do we?  I’ve never known anyone to seriously ask for non evidence of aliens – that would just be nuts, right?!  There is absence of belief on the existence of God and we don’t ask for evidence, because there can’t be any evidence, for the non-existence of God.  It is logically impossible – can’t prove a negative.

The meaning of theism is defined as ‘the belief in god or gods’.

The ‘a’, which is the prefix, means ‘without’ in the same way the ‘a’ is used when describing “without morals” for ‘amoral’.  So atheism literally means without belief in theism.  In other words, it is the absence of belief  in theism.

Atheism is not a faith position or a belief system. Atheism, in its basic meaning, is not a belief – it is the lack of belief.  Further, there are only atheists because there are theists. Without theists, the term atheism would be unnecessary.

Atheism, as with theism, are descriptive terms.  In other words, they specify the presence or the absence of belief with regards to God, gods or the super-natural.

For someone who has never been introduced to the concept of God/gods/theism, they are by default without belief, ergo default atheists only from the theists’ point of view (the atheist, though he/she doesn’t know it, is indifferent, or without opinion on the matter). It is only when presented with theism does their status on the position need to be declared.  Further, atheism is an adjective, but is often used as a pejorative.  Some theists say that atheism takes more faith than theism, but here they have misunderstood what atheism actually means in its proper sense and hence this is a pejorative use of the word by them.

Over at New Scientist by Amanda Gefter:

As a book reviews editor at New Scientist, I often come across so-called science books which after a few pages reveal themselves to be harbouring ulterior motives. I have learned to recognise clues that the author is pushing a religious agenda. As creationists in the US continue to lose court battles over attempts to have intelligent design taught as science in federally funded schools, their strategy has been forced to… well, evolve. That means ensuring that references to pseudoscientific concepts like ID are more heavily veiled. So I thought I’d share a few tips for spotting what may be religion in science’s clothing.

Red flag number one: the term “scientific materialism”. “Materialism” is most often used in contrast to something else – something non-material, or supernatural. Proponents of ID frequently lament the scientific claim that humans are the product of purely material forces. At the same time, they never define how non-material forces might work. I have yet to find a definition that characterises non-materialism by what it is, rather than by what it is not.

Full article here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126975.800-how-to-spot-a-hidden-religious-agenda.html