From an evolutionary standpoint, theism is even more recent than opposable thumbs. Atheism has been around since sentient life has been around. And it's still around now, god bless-em. Theists should not hold, say, Richard Dawkins responsible for his lack of belief any more than we would Rin Tin Tin, Flipper, Sea Biscuit or any of the other atheists.
@Natey, I see your point. You're right. I watched Stoll's TED lecture (recommended by Padraig above.) Stoll still objects to computers in classrooms, and his general tone is that something that replaces non-virtual, face-to-face interaction is bad (the "failure"). But I think you're right that in this article he does make descriptive predictions that were just wrong.
@Wesley. Ha! That's awesome. Even more awesome than you having turned the internet into something lucrative is the fact that you haven't conveniently forgotten your negative prediction. I myself remember complaining in '95 that the internet had become boring, that after a couple years it seemed two-dimensional, and that I was excited for developers to "take it to the next level." Of course I couldn't imagine what that would be - Megavideo, Facebook, Youtube, Google Earth etc. What struck me most about that conversation was that the people I was with just stared at me and said, "Really? I think it's fine just the way it is."
@poppajay - It's Panglossian. When a government or industry gets their hands on the fruits of scientific labor and destroys the population of Nagasaki we don't call that science. We call it politics or social meddling. But when a government or industry gets their hands on the fruits of scientific labor and destroys the poliovirus, the whole social/political mechanism conceptually dissolves and we happily credit science.
So from the perspective of the scientistic individual, your critique will sound off-topic. You may expect as much success as the anti-cleric who points out the multitude of unfortunate consequences of religion - whose advocates have this Panglossian asymmetry rehearsed to near perfection.
@Epona - "If this kid chose to pick a very loud and nasty argument with a kid wearing his bible camp shirt to school, should the christian kid be forced to have his picture retaken?"
Well, if the bible camp t-shirt said something like "Atheists are Going To Hell" then maybe so. But wearing a t-shirt that said "Valley Bible Camp" is no more trolling than wearing a t-shirt that says "American Humanist Association".
My favorite atheist t-shirt reads: "Blasphemy Is A Victimless Crime" - although it's just as bratty as "God is Dead" at least it's witty. And unlike "God is Dead" the wearer probably isn't advertising an embarrassing misunderstanding of the phrase.
Most people I know who were brought up non-religiously have a very rational and open-minded attitude toward religion. The ones who were brought up religiously turn into Shannon.
;)
So from the perspective of the scientistic individual, your critique will sound off-topic. You may expect as much success as the anti-cleric who points out the multitude of unfortunate consequences of religion - whose advocates have this Panglossian asymmetry rehearsed to near perfection.
Would J.T. Walsh belong on the list?
Well, if the bible camp t-shirt said something like "Atheists are Going To Hell" then maybe so. But wearing a t-shirt that said "Valley Bible Camp" is no more trolling than wearing a t-shirt that says "American Humanist Association".
My favorite atheist t-shirt reads: "Blasphemy Is A Victimless Crime" - although it's just as bratty as "God is Dead" at least it's witty. And unlike "God is Dead" the wearer probably isn't advertising an embarrassing misunderstanding of the phrase.