never believe anything about evidence, and i would say yeah but what about what you just said fern evidence of not believing anything without evidence. which was literally what he was saying. but yes, i think dogmatic atheism, the movement of atheism it is in them bears meant to contemporary thought. and i think i m pretty much alone in thinking that. it s not a very popular effervescent movement. their whole society is consecrated to upholding atheism. of course the first thing they do and they gathered together an ecumenical devotion is felt factions and start hurling atheism atheism m when they stop hurling they discover the they re sexually impressed by the men. and they spend endless amounts of time denouncing sexual harassment in the atheist
i m a secular jew, you write. my religious education did not take. i can barely remember a word of hebrew, i cannot pray. i ve spent more years than i care to remember in studying mathematics and writing about the sciences. yet, as you wrote in the preface of this book, the book that follows is in some sense a defense of religious thought and sentiment. biblical verses are the least of it, a defense is needed because none has been forthcoming. the discussion has been ceded to men who regard religious belief with frivolous contempt. the books have poured from every press and differing widely in style, they are identical in message because scientific theories are true religious beliefs, must be false. from your book the devil s delusion, atheism and scientific pretensions. and that is the thesis, that is the foundational point of your
. mark: dr. berlinski. i want to pick up where we left off. you get into these debates with atheists. you defend not in your view, the necessarily is a god or right religion and so forth, but that you don t know. and what you seem to be saying is the scientists don t know what they don t know, and yet they insist, not all, i m talking about certain specific ones, the atheists, and yet they insist there is no god and religion is bad and so forth and so on. how do you struggle with this? or do you struggle with this? look, the struggle begins by making a born distinction. can i say i believe there is no god. it s one kind of commitment.
defending sexual harassment in the atheist movement. it s a joy to watch. mark: the atheist movement is a movement on the left. yeah. mark: i don t know conservatives, some are, but most aren t, atheists, why is that? to the fact that marx offers a substitute for religion, you would not expect the dogmatic or orthodox communist to say the scientific system society is what marx has given us as a tool of analysis, but it all is contingent upon the whims of the deity. it seems irrelevant postullate, there are plenty of rotten guys on the conservative side. nazis.
the fiction of certain kinds of constitutional protections and at the same time upholding the values of the academy. which are frankly anti-religious. there s no question about that. what s the title of christopher hitchen s book? religion poisons everything. and i look at this and look at the declaration of independence, natural rights, god given, unalienable rights. how can the notion of darwinism, atheism, really progressivism, which i want to get into with you in a moment, they really don t work with constitutionalism, do they? we told these truths to be self-evident, that all men are endowed by their creator. oh, wait a second. that has nothing to do it, is flatly inconsistent darwinian