I just read Max Planck’s quote about god, and I think he was a firm believer and strongly opposed militant atheism:
"... it is no wonder, that the movement of atheists, which declares religion to be just a deliberate illusion, ... eagerly makes use of progressive scientific knowledge and in a presumed unity with it, expands in an ever faster pace its disintegrating action on all nations of the earth and on all social levels. I do not need to explain in any more detail that after its victory not only all of the precious treasures of our culture would vanish, but--which is even worse--also any prospects at a better future."
What are your thoughts about it?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
"Militant" is a somewhat loaded word that could imply infringement on the freedom of others. If you are wronged, you should not respond in kind, because two wrongs do not make a right.
Militant Atheism is a contradiction in terms, the flipside to "Peaceful Religion" or "God of Peace" Both equally impossible precepts concerning Abrahamic gods.
Religion, like oracles, casting the bones and whistling the wind, will disappear into the vanishingly small gaps left to it soon enough leaving a legacy of beautiful buildings and a history of countless, needless wars.
Max was profoundly religious and he also believed wholeheartedly in science. He believed science was impossible without faith and that god was the joint target of both religion and science. He was the son of academics and a lifelong academic himself. It is no wonder that he opposed any sort of atheism much less militant atheism.
But to put his remark in some perspective, and maybe to explain his use of the word "militant", it might help to understand he lived in a politically violent age, that saw a lot of dangerous activity reported in newspapers daily world wide. Anarchists, wobblies (Industrial Workers of the World), communists and socialists, the Irish Sein Fein, suffragettes etc were all fighting their street battles around the globe and all of it reported in sensational newsheets. All of these groups were seen as anti-establishment and militant. And for him the atheists, denying any god, were probably the worst and probably counted as members of them all.
No wonder Max worried for the future of humanity, coddled nicely in his university campuses.
Ironically, it was not atheism that caused him the greatest grief, or came close to fulfilling his apocalyptic vision, but the catholic-backed Nazis, who purged the scientific community of Jewish scientists in the 30s and who executed one of his sons for his part in a failed assassination attempt on Hitler.
Atheism as we know, is no where as destructive as he might have feared. But, as has always been the case, for science to achieve the very quest for truth that Max was so ardent for, god is not only un-necessary but also a liability.
I'd be interested in knowing just what 'precious treasures' he had in mind that athiests would ultimately destroy.
Edited for clarity.
My thoughts are that Max Planck's opinions on morality and god, carry no additional weight just because he is Max Planck. Or in other words, Max Planck was no more an expert on god than you or I am.
What's militant atheism, who's doing it and why is it a bad idea?
Militant atheism - an athiest who has an AK-47 and his pockets full of magazines and fragmentation grenades.
They tend to win a lot of debates.
;)
I really dislike these terms 'new atheism' or 'militant atheism' and so on...
Atheism is the only term required and it is simply a word for a person who does not believe in a deity.
So really, his point is bollocks.
Atheism is essentially someone stating, I don't believe what you say regarding your god and there is no compelling evidence to supoort it either.
If humans can create everything we associate with religion I am confident we can create substitutes for religion.
I think humans already have created substitutes for theism but many of those substitutes could still be classified as religion.
Well since no one answered, quelle surprise, can someone tell when it started to be considered militant to point out people believed something they can demonstrate no objective evidence for, that has core beliefs and doctrine that are deeply pernicious and immoral? I mean as opposed to burning those who disagree with those beliefs at the stake, after they've been tortured into recanting their heresy, and then of course, loudly telling them the burning isn't temporary, but will continue even after they die, FOREVER.
Militant atheism indeed, what a fucking joke.
Telling someone you don't share their beliefs because they're little more than hokum superstition isn't militant.
Perhaps it became militant when more and more Western theists decided we were right and deconverted, Sheldon?
"Perhaps it became militant when more and more Western theists decided we were right and deconverted, Sheldon?"
I do get the sense that the developed western democracies slowly marching towards reason, whilst relying less and less on superstition for it's morality and laws has unsettled them, and terrifies the Muslim world because they can''t grasp why that heathen godless west is doing so much better than them.
The apologists that use this non-argument remind of the other theistic craze suddenly in vogue, namely trying to reverse the burden of proof. When I hear them say these things, like "they don't have enough faith to disbelieve in a deity", it sounds like a small child responding to everything with "no you are".
Consequently when I hear a religious apologist make claims like militant atheists, it sounds shrill and slightly hysterical to me.
A bit like
Atheist: Sorry but I don't believe a deity exists as theists can't demonstrate any objective evidence for the claim.
Theist: "YOU MILITANT ATHEISTS ARE ALL GOING TO BURNNN IN HELLL, FORREVERRR"
I read somewhere that even scientists don’t link Richard Dawkins because of his atheism and so on, they think he is too close minded for no reason whatsoever. Thanks for clearing my doubt.
Abhi_Lamsar "I read somewhere..."
I read somewhere all scientists everywhere love Professor Richard Dawkins, and think he's bang on the money about religious superstition, and only theists keep attacking him because they can't demonstrate any objective evidence for their hokum beliefs.
Oh look, Hitchen's razor, sort of....
Grinseed did a good job putting Max P's comments in perspective. Of course, 'militant religionists' is equally valid and equally meaningless.
Max P wrote: " after its victory", so he seemed to understand that it would prevail, but atheism is less a movement than simply the result of decreasing religious superstition and declining religion in general.
Professor Richard Dawkins is one of the most clear and open minded of writers and a highly successful academic. He helped highlight a number of problems with British schools...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15226421
In one case an entire class of 16 year olds favoured creationism over evolution. His remarks like "alien rubbish" are always amongst very specific criticisms such as the way in which evolution is taught (or not taught). It is not entirely unreasonable to describe as "alien rubbish" a situation where evolutionary science is not taught well and an entire class of students is convinced that Allah created the Earth. Thank goodness he (and many other "militant atheists") are speaking out because UK politicians and clerics are not. It is very important that some academics of his stature do speak out strongly.
Atheism is also increasing as oppression of non-believers declines. Even in the USA, a Gallup poll of 2015 showed 58% would vote for an atheist POTUS. That is still a scandalously low figure showing great prejudice, but a steady improvement on the past.
What the fuck is MILITANT ATHEISM? Every time someone protest or voices their opinion conservaturds, religious fucks call those people "militant."
Take the Black Panthers. In their entire history, only one black panther ever murdered anyone Eldridge Cleaver. The powers that were called the Black Panthers "militant radicals"! The FBI assassinated hundreds of them. One of the most famous was Fred Hampton. He was a uniter, not a divider. He convinced white coal miners in West Virginia to side with the Black Panther cause against the oppression of all people. For that J. Edgar Hoover had him murdered!
Every time I read the word militant I am skeptical.
Atheist scientists on the whole are quite popular, Dawkins, Harris, Krauss, Carroll and so on... why? Because they simply follow the evidence and can see everything has a naturalistic explanation with no imaginary cosmic wizard required.
I find the term ‘militant atheism’ fascinating. Typically, when we hear ‘militant xtian’ or ‘militant Muslim’, or ‘militant’ anything else, we visualize violence. What does the most militant atheist do? Debate with passion? Blog? Engage the ACLU or FFRF to file a suit?
1.) All theists I talk to express that they didn't actually know Newton also focused on alchemy.
2) Ironically, alchemy is synonymous with religion/science-in-antiquity, which predated modern-science.
3.) Instead Newton is largely known for his work in modern science, something separate from alchemy/mythology.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
He also believed in astrology. His science is celebrated precisely because it has withstood vigorous scientific scrutiny. His religion can go in the bin marked to hokum superstition with his beliefs about alchemy and astrology.
The simple fact is even a genius is still an evolved fallible primate. Hence the need for an objective method like science to determine what is objectively valid and what's not. Religious beliefs and claims belong in the second category with alchemy and astrology.
Alchemy wasn't that ridiculous at the time. It was known that substances could be combined in ratios to produce new substances; so why not try to find a set of cheap substances to produce gold (an expensive substance)? Of course now we have some convincing arguments about why you won't be able to do this with household items.
My son's studying chemistry and gives thanks for alchemy- without it, chemistry wouldn’t be around.
"Is militant atheism wrong?" YES. While militant atheists are atheists they should actually call their "belief system" what it is "anti-theism" The militant atheists have taken on the burden of proof./ They make the assertion that religion is bad or foolish and that there is no God. This is not the Atheist perspective. Atheism is simply disbelief in God or Gods. It says nothing about Churches being bad places, people being delusional, or brainwashed. Atheism is the rejection of religious claims and nothing more.
I do not think it is wrong for anti-theists to call themselves atheist. They are after all atheists. The problem is that the simple minds of the Christians only think in black and white logic. "Either you are with us or against us." Fine distinctions are lost on Christians. That means it is up to us - the non-believers - to set them straight. Atheists just don't believe religious claims. Anti-theists think the same claims are vicious, wrong, manipulative, evil and should be stopped. I am proud to be an Anti-theist.
Militant
adjective
1.favouring confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause.
Hmmm...
Just had to get on the one point. Anti-Theism and Atheism are not mutually inclusive. So not all Atheists are Anti-Theists. Though I happen to hold both positions.
I don't you think mean mutually exclusive, but I agree. Anti-theism I'd say was placing yourself in opposition to theism, atheism is simply the lack of belief in a deity. They are of course not mutually exclusive, which means you can hold both positions but neither are they mutually necessary, so you can be an atheist but not necessarily in opposition to theism per se. I oppose many ideas and claims that theism promotes as I think they are immoral, and I think theism does not promote morality but often retards critical thinking which is an essential component in human morality.
Oops. I wanted to nip that misconception in the bud quickly so I forgot how to English.
As a separate note, I'd place a lot more on ones integrity of character as opposed to morality, given how fluid, subjective and ever changing it is. Not to mention how moralists are the vectors from which atrocities flow.
Where the hell are these militant atheists? Militant implies armed struggle. So, Dawkins is toting an AK-47? Razor sharp wit maybe. I guess ignorant people might find a razor wit threatening.
@ Chimp
I was thinking I couldn’t see Dawkin's with an AK-47, but then I remembered some of the looks I've seen on his face when faced with absolute stupidity and bingo!
Pages