Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Jerry Coyne Betrays An Emotional Need For Purpose In The Universe, HIS PURPOSE, Even As He Denies There Is Purpose In The Universe

I was sent a link to the barely coherent - when not the sputtering nutcase - blogger, Jerry Coyne, another internet entity I don't much bother with anymore.  Since he is a hate-blogger, someone I don't link to.   The post he did about a rather stupid little movie about a 90-year-old woman who got converted to atheism from Judaism, though it doesn't sound like her Judaism was ever very deep to start with.  Nothing especially deep was said.  I watched the movie which is, I guess, supposed to be charming and heart warming but leads me to wonder if it isn't exploiting an old woman.   I have to wonder what Jerry Coyne and the rest of the religion bashers would say if the internet had converted her to Christianity or Islam on the basis of her mystification at the workings of Google's automatic search engine.  Oh, yeah, and stumbling across the late Christopher Hitchens.  I suppose it could have been worse if watching Hitchens had converted her to being a drooling fan of cluster bombs.   I do have to wonder why it's seen as some kind of great thing when someone who is Jewish stops being Jewish if they become an atheist instead of, say, a member of the United Church of Christ or a Catholic or another religious group with far more in common with Judaism than atheism has.

You can see for yourself.   This is what Coyne posted at his site.


Coyne was kind of pissed off with the project as presented by the New Yorker,
The documentary is by the Canadian filmmaker Sol Friedman, and the short New Yorker essay about the film is by Joshua Rothman, himself an atheist. Sadly, Rothman’s take on the movie undercuts its message, but what else do you expect from the faith-coddling New Yorker?:
. . . the title also contains, at least for me, a hint of sadness. Religious faith is a consolation; if you trade it in for bacon, have you made a good trade? I’m an atheist, and I think I would give up bacon in exchange for the conviction that the universe has a purpose. Razie, of course, hasn’t traded belief for bacon; she has traded it for the freedom to follow her own conscience, to do and think as she sees fit. These, the film seems to say, are the signs by which we communicate, to others and ourselves, our ideas about the fundamental questions of existence. Look how small they are!

Coyne wouldn't be Coyne if he wasn't pissed off, it's his perpetual emotional state.   You have to wonder why when one of the things that pisses him off like nothing else is the belief that the universe has purpose.

I wouldn’t give up bacon, or nonbelief, for some phony conviction; the fact is that there’s not a scintilla of evidence that the Universe has a purpose. “Purpose,” of course, implies a Planning Mind, and what Rothman expresses is what many believers would like athiests to feel: a profound sense of loss at not having a god.

Well, if there is no purpose then what is there to get pissed off about if people believe that there is a purpose?  I think Coyne overestimates the amount that religious people worry about what guys like him feel because it makes him feel more important than he is, certainly more important than he could possibly be if the universe has no purpose.  If that's the case, none of us, not to mention our beliefs or emotional states could possibly matter.

Of course, Coyne's entire shtick betrays a contradiction in the atheist dogma that the universe has no purpose, if it doesn't then it matters not a bit that anyone believes anything they do.  If the universe has no purpose, any purpose at all that atheists feel about anything is a delusion and his emotional volition connected with anything is an enraged childish insistence that everyone agree with him. Coyne's career as a blogger betrays his own emotional inability to carry through on his claim that the universe has no purpose.  If he really believed that, he wouldn't bother.

Note:  You can google Coyne's blog post if you want to, it shouldn't be hard to find.  There's nothing mysterious about it.

4 comments:

  1. I'm not convinced the universe has a purpose, either. I believe there is a purpose to existence, or at least we can see one if we choose to look. I call that purpose the "basiliea tou theou," but rather like Sartre's humanist ethic, I understand that "sight" on my part is one that changes how I see humanity.

    Which is not to say, in some empirical sense, that it changes humanity; or the universe, for that matter. The idea that religion is some kind of security blanket which consoles me in the encounter with nothingness is a 19th century chimera, anyway. It's a Romantic fantasy (and I don't mean "fantasy" in the literary sense). I can readily discard it, and still believe.

    And I know many a Jew who is no more convicted in their religion than many a Christian. If this woman wants to be an atheist, I don't see what that has to do with me. As Kierkegaard said: if you don't believe in God, no proof will convince you. If you do believe in God, no proof is necessary.

    And true faith is not so utilitarian as to simply provide one with some abstract sense of "purpose" in the universe. If it provides me with a sense that the arc of the universe bends toward justice, what is the harm to you (hypothetical third-person plural "you") in that?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The universe exists. it simply is what it is. There is no "purpose" to it other than what you wish to believe. But for you to take the scribblings of a bunch of nomads from 2000 years ago and base your belief system on that, that is your choice. My choice is to believe in science. The beauty of science is it doesn't care if you believe it or not. It doesn't have to. It can be proven. Religion, all of them, are beliefs. they cannot be proven. If it makes you feel good to constantly write your screeds about awful atheists, please continue. The minute you get God to appear for a news cast, call me. until then. you enjoy your delusions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The claim that the universe has no purpose isn't a scientific one, it is pure ideology. Science has no power to ascribe purpose to things, it merely describes physical interactions, it can't discover any kind of ultimate reason things are as it finds them, it merely describes how it finds them. That is if science is what it's claimed to be and not an ideological tool.

      I make no apologies for criticizing atheism, I think it has been a disaster for the left to be associated with it. I've gone into considerable detail as to why I say that.

      I may get around to writing more about this later this week.

      Delete
    2. Modern philosophy understands that science is a "belief." You use the term loosely and disparagingly, and understand it as James' hypothetical young boy, "believing things you know ain't so." James struggled to point out the flaw in that reasoning; modern philosophy has greatly expanded that understanding.

      Oddly, you claim you "believe" in science. Science, however, is not a belief, is it? You claim it is true, whether I like it or not. It is valid, insofar as it makes analytical statements (Hume), but those are fairly obvious statements which do nothing to further understanding. Perhaps you should consider the root of science, which comes to us from Greek and simply means "knowledge."

      The Greeks understood the value of techne, knowledge about how to build columns and support roofs, for example; but they distinguished that from sophia, or wisdom. They found wisdom to be the greater pursuit, the more valuable one.

      Your argument, ultimately, is a reductionist one: "I know what I know and what I alone know is worth knowing." Fine, stick with that if it makes you feel good. Science can be proven, but when science can prove love, justice, beauty, call me. Until then, enjoy your pitifully limited weltanschaaung.

      Delete