![]() ![]() ![]() Bad Religion still plays and records, and the author is an evolutionary biologist with a doctorate in zoology from Cornell University. Since atheism shares the same evidence, science based standards as naturalism, wouldn't it be more reasonable and fitting to identify as a naturalist? I'm sure there are some discrepancies between the two but I have a terrible satellite internet connection at work, so no googling. In 1980, at age 15, Graffin co-founded the seminal punk band and also became fascinated with the writings and ideas of evolution. In geology and other sciences, defining or identifying something by the lack of certain characteristics generally tends to be weak or non-supportive. ![]() ![]() Defining yourself as against something says very little about what you are for. It would be like calling me an a-instrumentalist for Bad Religion rather than the band’s singer. But I have problems with the word “atheism.” It defines what someone is not rather than what someone is. Today I was reflecting on a book I read quite a while ago, Anarchy Evolution by Greg Graffin (I'm sure there are some Bad Religion/Greg Graffin fans out there.) Rather than identifying as an atheist, Graffin identifies as a naturalist where he/they base their belief system on the natural laws governing the universe, which consists of only mass, energy and space-time.Īs I’ve said, I’ve never believed in God, which technically makes me an atheist (since the prefix “a” means “not” or “without”). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |