Hate Mail - Post Literacy Is The Problem Not Post Modernism

All I did was take what Steve Weinberg claimed to its logical conclusion. If you don't like that conclusion, your problem is with your shared ideology, not what I said it forced as a conclusion. 

What I noted in that post reposed yesterday was a logical conclusion based in what the celebrity atheist, nuclear physicist, Steven Weinberg said.  He said, in response to other atheists gathered at Sean Carroll's summit of celebrity atheist thinkers, things such as, "I think in the end we have to live with not having a moral philosophy that really works in a decisive way." and  "there  is no way of deciding moral issues on the basis of - well there is no way of deciding moral postulates which should govern our actions.  And in fact we don't have moral postulates that govern our actions when we behave morally. "

I took Steve Weinberg - often cited by atheists as an authority on the matter of morality - at his word,  I even noted that his assertion was an inescapable conclusion from the shared ideology of those in the discussion, materialist atheism.  If what he said is held to be true there is no moral absolute that - as his profession has made possible - even the conscious act of bringing about the extinction of life on Earth cannot be held under their ideological framing to be an act which is absolutely morally forbidden.

That fact is one which atheists have tried to squirm around ever since their ideological stand was first articulated, especially in its modern, scientific form.  Other celebrity scientist-atheists have stated the same thing.  Ernst Haeckel denied the immorality of even the, then, quite technologically possible intentional extermination of other racial groups by those he held were their superiors, it was part of his glorying in the "final triumph of materialist monism" which he held was the result of Darwin's theory of natural selection which he took for the final refutation of religious morality.  Richard Dawkins was even more explicit in his famous, or infamous declaration that;  In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.

The citation of prominent atheists inside and outside of science who asserted that kind of thing can go on and on.  I'd certainly go next to Frederich Nietzsche who was the most honest about the logical conclusions of atheist materialism in philosophy and how that ideology must lead to the destruction of all morality, replaced by the very human manifestation of physical force in stronger people taking advantage of their superior ability to apply force and force weaker people to serve their purpose or to destroy them respecting no moral prohibition on their ability to do so.  That is the real, ground floor level holding of Darwinism as applied to the human species and human societies in which we live.

And from Nietzsche I'd go to his admirers among atheist political thinkers who agreed with him, even such figures as Emma Goldman* whose antipathy for religion led her to champion a man whose philosophical conclusions supported strong-man dictatorship and the oppression of weaker people not her rather badly thought out anarchism.  As I said in the first sentence of my piece, atheist materialism is the universal acid that eats up all of morality, it also eats up all other intellectual distinctions, when applied to the idea of human thought, it even eats up all of science and even its own ideological status as a truth.  Materialism is the only ideology that must be false if it is to be true, it cannot even maintain the most basic, definitional status of logical cohesion if taken to its logical conclusion.

You might not like it that amorality is the logical result of believing in atheist materialism but that conclusion has been reached BY ATHEIST MATERIALISTS OF HIGH INTELLECTUAL STATURE over and over again.  All I did was explicitly state an extreme but logically inescapable conclusion that would have to be drawn BY TAKING THEM AT THEIR WORD AND SERIOUSLY.


You can check what I said if you don't like the basis for what I concluded, you can check my transcript against what Weinberg said.  You can even argue that he was wrong, though I defy you to point to any argument Rebecca Goldstein or any of the others made at Carroll's atheist weekend jamboree that definitively refutes Weinberg's logic given atheist materialism taken as THE given, as they all did.  But you'd have to do what the block-headed rearrangers of their prejudices at Duncan's didn't do, read what I wrote and follow up on the links.


* I don't think there is a figure held to be of the left who has fallen farther in my esteem than Emma Goldman in the past decade.  That is due to having the ability to have easy access online to full texts written by her.  What can seem so lucid and so persuasive in excerpted sentences tumbles into an angry, irrational and even dishonest muddle in so much of what she wrote. YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE BOTHER OF READING THOSE THINGS IN CONTEXT TO SEE WHAT SHE WAS REALLY SAYING AND IF WHAT SHE SAID HELD TOGETHER.  That idea would seem to have come to seem odd to a lot of people who have been to college in the last half-century.

I think her life and career, her waste of her brilliance and passion is an excellent warning of the futility of anarchism as a political theory.   I think her taking that path into wasting her life - as even she came to suspect she had done - was through her materialist-atheist ideology which, in turn, was an emotional choice made because she hated religion so much.  You can try to discern what her hatred of religion was based in, including her obvious disdain for anything she held to not be intellectually reputable and the status as a thinker that she so obviously craved but the results are undeniable that she wasted her life advocating an irrational ideology refuted by logic and observation of reality, based on moral stands which that ideology would have to conclude were delusions.  As the futile attempts of the few atheists in the discussion linked to show, they couldn't really refute Weinberg from the basis of their ideological framing.  You can't achieve morality through materialism, you have to exit materialism to even make assertions of its reality.  As can be seen at Sean Carroll's convention of big atheist thinkers, they didn't really like what their ideology leads to. Only a sociopath or a psychopath would.  I think that's really why Nietzsche went nuts.  But, as we see in this election season, sociopaths and psychopaths can have a really good chance of achieving political power even in a democracy.  Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot. etc. are even better examples of where this can lead in real life.