Why the arrogance, disdain, intellectual elitism?

They’re not all that way to be sure, but a sizable portion of the most vociferous naturalistic atheist evolutionists (VNAE’s), come across to me as being arrogant, condescending, and elitist. Now I don’t know about all of the other readers here, but I see very little use in science for these characteristics. Granted, the VNAE’s don’t use overtly arrogant and elitists propaganda in their peer reviewed research, but why do they feel the pressure toward self-elevation, disdain, and intellectual elitism?

Why indeed. I can’t really speculate about any one individual, but it seems to me to be a way for social elevation among the VNAE’s (show me the money? show me the power? show me the fame?). It also seems to be a form of fellowship and social bonding of the VNAE religion. The more elitist, condescending, and arrogant the VNAE, the greater the status among the followers. Just consider the VNAE god (you know who I’m talking about don’t you–odd how that works).

Advertisements

16 Responses

  1. This subject, once again, reminds me of my college days, especially in grad school. I can remember professors, who seemed to be more honest with post-grads, bragging how they had torn down an undergrad, intellectually. I, of course, never said a word, which I regret to this day. Had to have that worthless degree!

    My band director, in high school, used to sing us a song when we got “too big for our britches,” it was entitled, “I Love Me!” I wonder why this post brings this song to mind?;-)

  2. […] Here’s why To Mr Cretard: […]

  3. The reason you have to “tear down” an argument, as you put it, is to see if it stands up to scrutiny, to find out if it is indeed truth, if it is a logical explanation for what happens. Science is a quest for facts…something you don’t seem to hold to a great esteem.

    Also, I hate it when people say atheism is a religion. It is not. By definition it is the absence/rejection of theism. Maybe you’ll be able to better understand if I put it this way: Atheism is to Religion as Bald is to Hair Color.

  4. DICK Dawkins Jr., on the pingback, caught me on a bad day. He’s a tricky little guy, getting us to hit his blog this way. So I think I’m going to return the favor!

  5. I would say that the “arrogance, disdain, and intellectual elitism” comes from people who don’t understand why anyone would prefer theological consistency over the vast preponderance of empirical data, and use the former to guide their interpretation of the latter.

    Speaking strictly for myself, I find “biblical creationism” much more respectable than “scientific creationism.” In the former, one rejects the preponderance of empirical data in favor of theological consistency (or one version of theological consistency, I should say). If someone decides to reject scientific methods and results, the more power to him (or her)!

    Whereas with “scientific creationism,” empirical methods and results are selectively interpreted, distorted, and in some cases falsified in order to accommodate an a priori world-view. That’s intellectual dishonest of the highest caliber, and as far as I’m concerned, scientific creationism deserves all the mockery it gets.

  6. […] This is the title of a blog whose author pingbacked a post on my co-author’s site, “Intelligent Design and More.” Here’s a quote from this pingback: To Mr […]

  7. Also, I hate it when people say atheism is a religion. It is not. By definition it is the absence/rejection of theism. Maybe you’ll be able to better understand if I put it this way: Atheism is to Religion as Bald is to Hair Color.

    That only works if one could define religion as necessarily theistic. But trying to define religion — or science, or philosophy, or art! — is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.

    On the other hand, some descriptions are more illuminating than others. If by “religion” one means something like “a picture of reality and one’s place in it, where that picture is embedded in the shared practices of a community that persists over time,” then certainly atheism counts as a “religion.”

    Or if one doesn’t like that as a definition of religion, then consider that as a definition of “world-view” or of “comprehensive doctrine,” and then add that world-views can come in a variety of flavors, some religious, some not. And some of those religious world-views can involve gods or God, and some not, and some of those theistic world-views can emphasize a transcendent and personal God, and some not, etc.

  8. The reason you have to “tear down” an argument, as you put it, is to see if it stands up to scrutiny, to find out if it is indeed truth, if it is a logical explanation for what happens. Science is a quest for facts…something you don’t seem to hold to a great esteem.

    So what you’re saying is that civility, in human discourse, isn’t as important as making your point. Wow, we’ve come a long way, Baby! “Science is a quest for facts…” Yes, true science is a quest for facts, but religious, pseudo, or “junk,” science is merely a quest to make men gods.

    Also, I hate it when people say atheism is a religion. It is not.

    Philosophically speaking, your argument does hold water: a-theism, or non-theism, or lack of-theism, is, in itself, a belief system and therefore, religious in nature. You believe that there is no God, but you can’t empirically prove it, no more than I, as a believer, can empirically prove God’s existence. BTW, I am tired of hearing this atheistic intellectualizing, projecting and denial!!! You’re no better off than those who believe in God, in fact, you’re worse off, because what you believe benefits no one but yourself, or so you, in great error and judgment, think!

  9. DB, figured I’d toss this out there:
    Religion: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
    Religion: an institution to express belief in a divine power
    Religion: a set of attitudes, beliefs, and practices pertaining to supernatural power
    Religion: A sincerely held set of beliefs, values and attitudes; beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature and worship of a Supreme Being, supernatural force or god(s)

    Notice a pattern? Quit trying to redefine words to suit your pseudophilosophical arguments. It is simply a semantics game which, frankly, isn’t in the least bit compelling. It is called “equivocation,” perhaps you’ve heard of it?

  10. Carl wrote:

    Whereas with “scientific creationism,” empirical methods and results are selectively interpreted, distorted, and in some cases falsified in order to accommodate an a priori world-view. That’s intellectual dishonest of the highest caliber, and as far as I’m concerned, scientific creationism deserves all the mockery it gets.

    I think you’re great Carl, but do you really want to go here? Let us count the frauds of human evolution. I’d rather not, hopefully you are already aware of them. This goes to the core of humanity and what science is supposed to do. If done right, it merely reduces bias, and does not eliminate it. Unfortunately, it is rarely done right. There’s a lot of research on that too (but then you have to ask yourself if this metaresearch is not also biased). For the record, I was not at all thinking of you when I wrote about the VNAEs.

    Michelle wrote:

    Also, I hate it when people say atheism is a religion. It is not. By definition it is the absence/rejection of theism. Maybe you’ll be able to better understand if I put it this way: Atheism is to Religion as Bald is to Hair Color.

    I think it could be theoretically possible for atheism to not be a religion, but I don’t think that’s what it most often amounts to. Your syllogism (if I applied this correctly) is also abysmally non-applicable.

    DB–you’re correct in my opinion.

    Jared, you forgot one:

    set of beliefs that a certain community or the whole population acts upon1

    I thought you were a scientific minded feller unlike us cretards? Scientific minded fellers don’t ignore facts do they?

    1 http://www.onelook.com/?w=religion&ls=a

  11. Yea, and look at the star on it, that means it was suggested by a user. Neat how that works.
    Read the disclaimer:

    What are “Definitions from users”?
    You can add meanings to the “Quick definitions” section of any word. Just click on the link that says “Add a new definition” and a box will pop up asking you for the meaning and an optional usage example.

    Most submissions appear immediately on the site, but some are reviewed first. You can edit a definition you’ve submitted (or any other user-added definition) by clicking on it.

    All definitions added by users appear under the heading “Definitions from users” so that readers can easily distinguish between these and the more thoroughly vetted definitions above them. We’re still experimenting with the design of this feature, so your feedback is appreciated!”

  12. Jared, you forgot one:

    set of beliefs that a certain community or the whole population acts upon1

    I thought you were a scientific minded feller unlike us cretards? Scientific minded fellers don’t ignore facts do they?

    1 http://www.onelook.com/?w=religion&ls=a

    Jared, I’m appalled! This must be a real blow to that fragile ego of yours! You come off like gang busters with your childish insults, and then when you get clubbed you cry, “FOUL!” As I wrote on your site, IF YOU CAN’T TAKE ABUSE, THEN DON’T DEAL IT OUT! Why are you still wasting your time on IDiots and CREtards anyway? Don’t you have anything better to do? BTW, don’t bother commenting on my site, it will never be seen.

  13. Is it just me, or is there some tension in the air on this site? Is there a full moon or what? Some folk got my dander up today, and I’m feelin’ a might testy! I’m talkin’ this way ’cause, to some, I’m an inbred b’liever ‘n God, and that, of course, makes me a moron! Well then, I might as well act as one!

    Oh Lord, it’s hard to be humble,
    When you’re perfect in ev-er-y wayyyyy!!!

    Everybody sing!!!!! Even you atheists and agnostics!

    Shrink, you can delete this one, and I wouldn’t blame ya;-)

  14. Jared, I guess Encarta suffers the same flaw? Just go read some other dictionaries as well. I’m done.

  15. I think you’re great Carl, but do you really want to go here? Let us count the frauds of human evolution. I’d rather not, hopefully you are already aware of them.

    I enjoy talking with you, too, Country Shrink. I think you’re basically a thoughtful and decent person. But that doesn’t mean I won’t go to the mat on this particular point!

    I’m not sure how I should interpret the point being made here. Am I supposed to suppose that because there have been frauds (such as Piltdown Man) and mistakes (Nebraska Man), I shouldn’t take seriously much better confirmed and much better discoveries such as “Lucy,” ER 1470, or WT 15000 (the “Nariokotome boy”)?

    Allow me to reiterate what I said above: if someone chooses to reject the vast preponderance of scientific evidence in favor of theological considerations, I have no problem with that. That’s part of your right as a rational and autonomous being. What I do have a problem with is taking theological considerations and dressing them up in the guise of science.

  16. […] have been conversations, on other sites (including, Intelligent, Design and More), which have dealt with the subject of atheism being a religion. The atheists taking part in these […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: