A reader of this blog, Corey, sent the following email:
You wrote on your blog site:
In February, 2014, I was a devout orthodox (fundamentalist) Christian. By June, 2014, I was no longer Christian.
Let me get this straight! You were a “devout” believer and within 5 months you weren’t even a Christian at all? Can you appreciate why that might sound like a knee jerk reaction to some of us reading this for the first time?
I came to realize that all fundamentalist religions are based on superstitions;
Superstitions? You mean like the search for Darwin’s warm little pond? Did they ever find his pond?
superstitions that cause sane, decent people to hate and commit violence all in the name of their “inerrant” holy books.
Of course, if people commit violence for reasons other than religion, then this pandemic of violence will continue all the same even if we got rid of religion altogether. In fact, if violence is how we disqualify institutions as unfit for our time, then let’s examine the trail of blood left behind by the story of natural evolution in the food chain. Even the naturalists cannot hide forever the spilt blood and violence of the fittest feeding on the carcuses of the weaker members of species that could not run fast enough or had not the strength to fend off the predator that was bent on terminating the life of their evening meal. Oh, killing in cold blood back then, with the full animal nature engaged, were such simpler times. But, today, scientists bitch about the wars that are committed in the name of religion, but the scientists funded the effort throughout the centuries by lending their expertise in creating better weapons. And they don’t always have the best interests of even their fellow man in mind. We need only consider the war efforts scientists were involved in, such as this one.
“Spurred by troubling questions from Danish Nobel laureate Niels Bohr and Manhattan Project physicist Leo Szilard about slaughtering civilians and precipitating a potentially catastrophic arms race between the United States and Soviet Union, many scientists pondered the ethical implications of what they were doing far more deeply than Oppenheimer, who had earlier dismissed Nobel Prize winner Enrico Fermi’s suggestion that they poison the German food supply with radioactive fission products on the grounds that “we should not attempt a plan unless we can poison food sufficient to kill a half a million men.” Oppenheimer certainly understood the frightening world they were ushering in, having had to resist Teller’s effort to bypass the relatively puny atomic bombs and proceed directly with production of super bombs. At the May 31, 1945 meeting of Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s Interim Committee, Oppenheimer acknowledged that within three years it might be possible to produce bombs with an explosive force equivalent to between 10 million and 100 million tons of TNT—thousands of times more powerful than the bombs that would destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
At that meeting, he advocated sharing information with the Soviets prior to dropping
the bomb but also acquiesced in the decision to target civilians. In June, Oppenheimer’s memo on behalf of the Scientists Panel to the Interim Committee disputed colleagues who decried using the bomb against Japan or preferred a demonstration, instead urging “military use” and hoping for consequences sufficiently horrible to put an end to war. His subsequent refusal to expedite Szilard’s petition to Truman, signed by 155 Manhattan Project scientists opposing the bomb’s use, ensured that it would arrive too late to matter.
Oppenheimer’s initial jubilation over the destruction of Hiroshima quickly turned to despair as the significance of what he and the scientists had achieved hit home. The mood at Los Alamos darkened perceptibly following news of Nagasaki and reports of massive destruction.
Oppenheimer and others at least comforted themselves with the belief that the bomb had brought a rapid end to the war and avoided a costly invasion of the Japanese homeland. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa’s definitive study of the end of the Pacific War, Racing the Enemy, should dispel that myth once and for all.” Source: https://www.armscontrol.org/print/1851
I now follow Reason and Science. I want to share these truths with anyone interested in listening.
When you say, “reason”, do you mean logic? I ask, because logic is based in fundamentally unproven statements called axioms, which are at best assumed to be true. In other words, the use of logic requires a leap of faith to get from the axiom layer of reasoning from unproven assumptions to secondary deductions built atop those unproven axiomic assumptions.