The definition Mr. Dennett uses works for many, maybe all, 'modern' religions, but what about the early ones? The ones that are closest to our beginnings?
The Greek did not seek the approval of their gods. They made sacrifices to avert divine wrath, but that is not the same thing. The Sumerians spoke endless prayers to their dieties' vanity: praising beauty or manhood, glorifying prowess in battle. Neither of these societies spoke of glorious afterlives for adherents. You died, and you went to a place that was worse than here, if you did not cease to exist.
Many Meso-American cultures also included gods whose approval was not sought. The Aztecs and Mayans sought to avert their gods wrath: the Mayans believed that Hurricane created the world, and repeatedly sought to exterminate mankind. How do you win *HIS* approval without dying out?
I think Professor Dennett's definition works well for monotheistic faiths, but many, if not most, of the religions that have existed is humanity's history have had many gods. These polytheistic religions are not so accurately portrayed by the statement. And how does it relate to ancestor worship? Do dead relatives count as supernatural agents, even though they were once natural agents?
Dennett's comment is easily understandable, but I am not sure how useful it is as a measuring stick for all faiths.
I will have other comments on this later, but I want to take issue with this statement right away, because it betrays a deep misunderstanding of a core Christian belief:
The religion, of whichever sect, has a set of rules that must be obeyed in order to win this reward. Fran, and millions of others, are Catholic. They believe that only Catholics, true believers, will achieve this goal. Protestants, of whatever sect, believe similarly.
This has to be one of the biggest misconceptions about the Christian faith. There is no set of rules that must be obeyed to win salvation. Christians believe there is one way, and one way only, to attain salvation: By accepting Jesus Christ. You are saved by the grace of God alone. It is a gift. You cannot earn your way to heaven through good behavior. Good behavior is the product of salvation, not the other way around.
As for the "who's right" meme, I am reminded of a joke my minister told me. When a Presbyterian minister was asked by a parishioner if Presbyterianism was the only road to heaven, he replied, "No, but it's the only way a gentleman would choose." Most of us recognize the trappings of our denominations for what they are -- comfortable traditions that facilitate worship, not the way to get to heaven.
Sarah: Sorry about editing your comment, but at this point, my response would be well down the page. Salvation comes through accepting Jesus Christ - granted. But check the picture.
But one claims that by faith some will reap an eternal reward, while others will suffer for eternity. The other claims that by hard work, we'll eventually understand. Perhaps not everything, but more and more, continuously.
Many hundreds of nits I could pick with your excellent essay. You've done a fine job of summing up the dilemna of the leap of faith. I just want to note, though, from the standpoint of a Christian, that the two ideas expounded above are not, by any means whatsoever, mutually exclusive.
-- Yet Fran's religion says that his wife and his daughters, and everyone Fran knows who is not a "true Christian" will burn for eternity in Hell, at worst, or simply cease to exist at best. --
Whose religion says that? Not mine. You should have sought confirmation from the source -- me -- before making such a statement.
You should really stick to talking about firearms, Kevin. Your knowledge of Christianity is, shall we say, a bit off.
Interesting essay. I'm not convinced that religion (of the Christian variety, anyway) and science are, in the final analysis, incompatible. My short story involves being raised Catholic, taking an atheistic bent as a biochemistry major in college and then coming back to the Church with a renewed understanding and appreciation for the strengths and failings of both science and religion. As such, I tend to disagree with the thrust of this statement:
Science acknowledges ignorance, but at least offers the possibility of eventual understanding. What it doesn't offer, is comfort. Faith offers that.
I would suggest that science most certainly does offer comfort. What better comfort for those fleeing religion than an institution that suggests: 1) all reality is understandable and 2) there is no ‘ultimate being’ looking over your shoulder and keeping track of your sins? From ‘knowing’ you via this blog, I would think that it is point 1 that gives you comfort. However, there are plenty of people who use atheism (or Atheism) as an excuse to dump the once-common morals adhered to by Jeudo-Christian religions.
In the end, I think that one might come away from reading this post and think that you are of the opinion that an atheist is someone, by definition, more thinking/contemplative than are those of a religious persuasion. I was glad to see that you agree that those who ascribe to either (or both) religion or (and) science rely on ‘experts’ to explain things to them. In my experience, the average atheist has no better grip on true science that does the average religious person. And by ‘true science’ I mean the raw, primary, published data. Who actually reads Immunology, the Journal of Biological Chemistry or even Science and Nature? Do you? I would think not (hell, I’m a scientist and I don’t read all of those on a regular basis), and so we are all, to some extent, relying on the interpretation of the ‘experts’. I have a reasonable amount of faith that, through the workings of science on a very large scale, we can eventually learn most things. Whether or not we will ever truly understand them, well, that depends on what we mean by ‘understand’. One of my favorite lines from The Dark Tower series by Stephen King was when the uber-bad guy was doing his uber-bag-guy-monologue thing and made the statement (paraphrased), "The efforts of science lead to much data and information, but very little understanding." I think there is something to that...
The only other quibble I have with the piece is when you write, “…science rejects the concept of "supernatural" for "we don't understand yet.”
I know what you’re getting at, but I do not think that science does, or at least can rightly, ‘reject the supernatural’. The simple reason is that science cannot really say anything at all about unobservable phenomena. You, as an atheist, might very well choose to believe that there is no God, but you have not proven He/She/It does not exist (as proving a negative is, to say the least, very difficult).
On the other hand, there are people in this world who claim to have observed miracles. Did they? I don’t know, as I have never observed the sun darting around in the sky, the Red Sea parting or anything of the sort. However, again, science has absolutely nothing to say on the topic of miracles (this time because they are, but definition, not repeatable). My point here is that science (and its adherents) can “reject the supernatural” all they like, but they should at the very least recognize that such a stance amounts to an article of Faith.
Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to write this long piece and for the thought you have obviously put into it. The one thing that has always irritated me so much about atheists (or maybe they were Atheists) was the overwhelming stench of arrogance. The, I figured it all out on my own, so I'm smarter than you. thing. Thanks for not being that guy =). Keep up the good work. There’s nothing like the free exchange of (even insulting =)) ideas to keep us all on the right track.
Eric Sivula: The Greek did not seek the approval of their gods. They made sacrifices to avert divine wrath, but that is not the same thing.
For the purposes of this essay, it is. Avoiding disapproval is not unequal to seeking approval.
For a farmer, the prayer "Please make it rain" is semantically equivalent to "Please don't make it hail." Both mean "preserve my crops," and both are asked of supernatural beings supposedly in control of these things.
I define religion as the relationship between humans and God/the gods/the divine/ Flying Spaghetti Monster/whatever. In essence, atheism even with its lack of belief in a god or gods is still a religion because it defines the lack of a relationship between man and a divine nature.
I also see the aim of religion as making us better people. It's hard for us to be naturally good without some outside force that gives us rules or laws, and let's face it, saying God disapproves of you killing or stealing and with punish you with eternal pain for doing such can be a pretty good disincentive to do these things. An atheist can make good laws or morals, but too often I've seen atheists slip into this thinking "there is no God, hence no Devil, hence no good and evil", which can be destructive and detrimental towards the individual and others.
Religion can also comfort us and help us make sense of the world we live in. In times of stress, it's a good thing to believe there's someone out there who's watching out for you when you're alone and in dire straights.
If belief in a deity helps get you through a tough day, fine. I'm a hardcore theist, though I'm not too fond of these Abrahamic religions. I believe in the short-duration personal savior. Doesn't matter what it is, but if the belief in it helps you out, then it's worth following. It could be a good book, the rock that fails to crush your head in, that dog down the street which is so ugly it's kinda cute. You can have on SDPS, or thousands, for as long as a millisecond to the rest of your life. Who cares what god or thing you believe in, provided IT WORKS. And when it doesn't work anymore....CAST IT AWAY. You don't keep an old TV when it's not working and the picture sucks; why not do the same with your religion?
I am an atheist because I have been exposed to science, and science has pointed out weaknesses in religion. I cannot believe that there are supernatural agents, much less ones I must seek approval from.
That describes me quite well.
For me, to answer the question "How did ..." with "God did it ..." or "Why does ..." with "It's God's will ..." is to respond with an explanation that explains nothing. It is no more more satisfying to my hungry mind than a vacuum sandwich.
Do not pretend to know the teachings of the Catholic Church, because you do not. Francis is correct, under the doctrine of "invincible ignorance." Catechism, Section 847 and surrounding provisions. It is some Protestants, particularly the fundamentalists, who have a narrower view of salvation.
The best cinematic commentary on organized religion is a little-known, seldom seen film with Omar Sherif and Michael Caine called the Last Valley, set during the Thirty Years' War.
Trackback message
Title: The Question Unasked
Excerpt: Kevin Baker examines the concept of religion (more generally, faith) as a social meme. He casts the essay as an enunciation of his personal position which, of course, influences the character of his query (what you ask and how you ask a question grea...
Blog name: The Warrior Class Blog
Evolution via natural selection doesn't have to be incompatible with Christian religion, Kevin. If God is all-powerful, who's to say he can't create humanity thru evolution?
Now you could argue why he would want to do that all day, of course.
Any so called superior being that would either desire worship, or accept it, would not be worthy of it.
Hmmm. It seems that if there were a superior being, then by definition we would be inferior, and most likely incapable of assessing its worthiness. At least that makes sense while I have yet to finish my first cup of joe this morning. :)
Scott peck compares several types of people in “The people of the lie” ranking them spiritually.
Sociopaths “Who kill without remorse” lowest level
Religious zealots . These are people who believe they have all answers.
Atheist and agnostic. On a true spiritual path as they do not have the answers but are seeking the truth.
I have always distanced myself from the first two and I am more comfortable with the third type. I find myself more agnostic as scientific thought precludes me from ignoring that which I cannot disprove. I always have had a problem with trying to wrap this finite mind around an infinite universe. That has always given me pause. Stimulating read as usual.
I just don't think that there is a reconciliation between the "truth" we're hardwired for and the "truth" we've discovered.
Truth is what it's all about. It's good that you put "truth" in quotes, because there is no knowing how the "truth" you've discovered relates to the truth. To quote my favorite non-fiction author
As the Ultimate of everything God is simply unknowable., beyond man's limited relative knowledge. [...] Also, the more enlightened the explanations [about God] are, the further away they are from any insights about God in the world progressing [as it does] which is merciless in human value terms. [...]
It is revealing that no man, not even the greatest philosopher, has ever had a single thought other than in terms of matter. This is particularly evident from the most astounding, truly "transcendental" fact that all languages everywhere have the same classes of words -- nouns, verbs adjectives or adverbs. [...] But absolutely never has anybody used or inventd word classes that would go beyond expressing the relations of matter in space and time. This is probably the most "supernatural" fact about human thinking.
It is to say, that the way we humans think, the means of our "knowledge" is pathetic when compared to any possible Universal Truth. To think otherwise is .. well, what is it? Science is interesting and usefull for our existence, but let's not get carried away. Science is limited precisely because we are. We can't even think about more than one thing at a time. How lame is that?
I enjoy Fran's writing, too. As to the atheist/agnostic divide, I cannot say "there is no Creator" - you cannot prove a negative. But I find that answer only raises the question of "where'd the Creator come from?" and that only pushes the question of origin back one layer. Occam's razor leads me, then, to discount the extra added layer. So if you want to be precise, I'm agnostic - I don't know (have faith) that there is no Creator, but I don't believe there is one.
Kevin, the is a large difference between seeking the approval of a supernatural agent, and attempting to keep such a force off your back. "Please make it rain" means you want personally think this aspect of many older resomething the supernatural agent. "Don't make it hail" means you are offering a payment to avoid action being taken. You are trying to get the supernatural agent to remain unengaged.
Even in the eyes of their worshippers, many gods from early religions were cruel, spiteful, and capricious. In many of these religions, the god or gods that had made the universe did not want worship. Tiamat, Cronos, et al. did not want the worship of humans, most did not want humans to exist at all. The lesser gods that appeared after these Creators demanded worship from humans. The Greeks were not asking for divine action to prevent natural events, they were asking to *not* be the target of supernatural destruction.
By your definition, a shop owner who pays thugs to not destroy his shop is seeking their approval.
I'm sure you're aware of the old joke about the people who believed that the world was carried on the back of a (presumably very large) turtle.
When a woman was questioned about just exactly what the turtle was standing on, she leaned over, and whispered into her questioner's ear, "Some of us believe that it's turtles ALL THE WAY DOWN...".
The problem with believing in a particular god is that you then have to attempt to define where/what created that god. On the other hand, believing in the big-bang theory of the universe leads you to the same problem. I'm happy to admit that I don't know the answer(s), but I sure as heck don't believe the people who claim that they do...and that's it's going to cost me time and money to learn it from them.
I personally define myself as an agnostic, rather than an atheist, since I cannot DIS-prove the existence of something. Were the finger of a god/God come down and touch me personally, I'd probably go seek psychiatric help, rather than assume that there is a god that cares about this particular carbon-based life-form.
To paraphrase RAH again (sorry, I don't have the quote in front of me), he said something like, "I'm not sure who or what's turning the crank that keeps the Universe spinning, but I am glad that they haven't stopped cranking."
I have taken in recent years to calling myself an agnostic rather than an atheist simply because I don't know whether the Divine is real. I don't for a moment believe in any forms of the supernatural, but I cannot state for a fact that it's all rubbish. But I can state this:
Mr. Porretto is acting like a child.
I have great respect for his writing generally. However, Mr. Porretto has suggested to Mr. Baker that he not post further on Mr. Porretto's blog when the topic is religion, but then has come to Mr. Baker's blog to post on this same topic. His posts herein are rude & dismissive, saying essentially "Stick to guns, boy - you know nothing about religion".
I have no personal knowledge of the Divine. But I certainly know hypocrisy, arrogance, and an attempt to control the terms of debate when I see them. Mr. Porretto is using a pretense of offense to avoid dialogue. Certainly he has the right to choose which topics he will or won't discuss. But to cut off debate on his blog while posting here is intellectually dishonest, as is his pretense at anger. Really, sir, this is beneath you. These are the tactics of a spoiled six-year-old. Simply put, Mr. Porretto, if you cannot discuss the topic calmly & rationally, then either
1. Avoid the topic in the future,
2. Turn off comments as soon as you post, or
3. Have the decency to admit that you don't want a dialogue, but an obedient echo chamber.
Were the finger of a god/God come down and touch me personally, I'd probably go seek psychiatric help, rather than assume that there is a god that cares about this particular carbon-based life-form.
And there's the fundamental problem. Not even God could prove himself to you. How would he do it? You could claim he's a super powerful space alien, or a mad scientist with you merely being a brain in a vat for him to play with, or that you are insane. That's why the leap of faith is required.
Another excellently written and insightful piece; even though I disagree with you.
"The definition of religion is "a social system that postulates supernatural agents whose approval is to be sought." Sought why?"
You said it yourself, we are "prewired for it". Human beings are, by nature, social beings.
For our own self-worth and self-realization, we have the innate need to be accepted, appreciated and approved of.
Seeking the approval of a "supernatural agent" who sets very high standards is preferable (at least in my mind) to seeking the approval of whatever social group one runs with.
Seeking approval is why kids who are, on their own recognizance, widely recognized as "good kids", can get tangled up in some pretty heinous behavior.
Seeking approval is why people don't "blow the whistle" on abusive authority figures.
Seeking approval is what gets people mixed up in drugs and alcohol.
Even people who insist that they "don't care" what other people think about them actually do. What they care about, however, is that people see them as "independent" or "strong"...disapproval of SOME people leads to approval by others. All of those "I don't care about what people think about me" people are simply liars. They just don't care about what YOU think about them.
What religion does is provide an entity who is beyond/above "peer pressure" that one is taught to seek approval from. When all the kids are throwing rocks at windows, the truly religious one says "God wouldn't like that and I won't do it". Not only does the one kid refrain from doing it, but in many cases, the lack of approval of one member of the group is enough to change the bahavior of the entire group. Another trait of human nature is to respond to strong leadership.
Religion gives people something to satisfy the natural urge to feel accepted and appreciated when in the face of unanimous (or nearly unanimous) opposition.
Granted, any true "cause" can do that for people. But it seems to be more psychologically binding when an intelligent entity can be attributed with the approval. Seeking the "approval" of a simple "cause" often does not provide the necessary impetus for action.
When religion runs into problems is when "fundamentalists" intepret their "supernatural agent" as offering approval for acts such as torturing people to "convert" them or simply murdering "heretics" or "infidels". Fundamentalists tend to have a malignant relationship with their religion rather than the healthy, symbiotic one. This is no less true of enviro-fundamentalists, animal rights fundamentalists, muslim fundamentalists or any number of other basic religious belief systems.
You mention that Science pursues truth whereas religions attempt to impart it. I disagree. One of the major complaints I have with modern scientific techniques is the assumption of a hypothesis before any study is begun. Why does science require a researcher to have a preconcieved notion, which could tend to influence the outcome, before any evidence is studied?
I would submit that science is as much a religion as anything else. The fact that scientists perform a "study", reach a conclusion and declare it "truth" and then, one year, two years or more down the line, it is disproven by another scientist belies the statement that science is the be-all and end-all of truth.
Scientists simply replace the acceptance and approval of a higher being with the acceptance and approval of their peers and society as a whole.
Evolution is a prime example of this. There are huge holes and gaping inconsistencies in the underlying theories of evolution. This does not stop the scientific community from declaring their theories "truth". Why is it so difficult for evolutionists to admit that the science is far from "proven" and that it is all still theoretical...therefore, could possibly be inaccurate? Scientists seek the spread of their memes no less vigorously than religious people.
Just for the record: I personally believe that most of the theories embraced by evolutionists are highly probable. I further believe that evolution is NOT in conflict with Christianity in any major way...only in the details of the particular mechanics involved in the creation...a minor point to say the least. But the fact that the theories are "probable" does not make them absolute truth. I am probably going to live to be at least 65...but I could get hit by a bus tomorrow: probabilities are not fact or "truth".
You say that "Science acknowledges ignorance", but in many cases it does not. Commonly accepted scientific principles are disproven on an almost daily basis. Remember when eggs were bad for you and Cholesteral caused heart disease? Scientists regularly advance their theories as fact and refuse to acknowledge their basic ignorance. The fact that they reached their level of ignorance through scientific study does not reduce said level of ignorance...except in their own minds.
You consider yourself an athiest. That infers a solid belief (that there is no God or "supreme being") and is, in itself, a religious belief system. The higher power to which you defer for acceptance is society as a whole (or yourself, which is commonly referred to as narcissism).
I am one of those people of faith who admits to not truly knowing the truth. I attend church regularly and consider myself to be a saved Christian. That does not, however, infer that I "know it all". Doubt does not equate to lack of faith. Doubt equates to humanity and imperfection (a notable inherent quality of humanity).
For that reason, I refuse to attempt to sway you to my beliefs. I will explain what I believe, I will explain why I believe that you should come to believe it as well...but I will never presume to "insist" that you come to believe it...heck, I could be wrong. It is the people who "know" that they are right and everyone else is wrong that are the militants for their cause and try to force the heretics into line. Michael Newdow comes to mind. It is not enough that he doesn't believe in God, it is "offensive" to him that anyone else does.
If I knew for a fact that everything I've been taught to believe in my Christian upbringing was true and perfect, then I would be ardently attempting to "save your soul" or else I wouldn't be living up to my responsibilities now would I?
The bottom line is that I simply don't know. I do know what I've been taught, I do know what I've interpreted to bible to mean for me and I do know without a doubt that Science cannot and will never be able to answer all questions undeniably and demonstrably. That's just the nature of life.
Should I live my life seeking the approval of other imperfect humans? Should I live my life seeking only the approval of my own self-gratification? Or should I live my life seeking the approval and acceptance of one greater than me; the perfect one; the creator? That's a no-brainer for me...doubts or no doubts.
To be perfectly honest, I sincerely hope that you are right. If you are, then when we die, we are simply gone and neither of us will care what happened to the other. All my religious pontificating meant nothing and hurt no-one. If, on the other hand, the religion I was raised to believe is right...well...I wish the Hell that I was raised to believe in on no-one.
"If you live like there's no hell, you'd better be right"--unkown (seen on a bumper sticker)
Mathematics. Says all kinds of things about things that are unobservable.
I sorta don't understand your point, rand. Lots of things say things about things that are unobservable. You are still left with no way of knowing how what your thing says about things relates to the truth. The things mathematics has to say about unobservable things are what?
Mr. Baker, the Greeks kept some form of that religion well into the Common Era. Call it 1200 years. The Sumerians and Babylonians kept theirs for something around 2000.
I would not call 12 centuries historically short. Islam is barely that old yet, and all Protestant sects younger still. The faith of the Sumerians and Babylonians lasted as long as Christianity has, and for much of that history was the dominant faith of some of the most powerful societies on Earth. A significant reason those faiths were supplanted by more modern ones is that neither the Greeks nor the Sumerians sought to spread their faith. Proselytizing was not very important to either culture.
While I generally agree with you, I must point out two things. First, I have never heard anyone refer to the "Fact of Evolution". Rather, it is the "Theory of Evolution". I hardly think that would indicate someone who sees our current understanding of evolution as "Truth". Second, you wrote:
I further believe that evolution is NOT in conflict with Christianity in any major way...only in the details of the particular mechanics involved in the creation...
Actually, the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the event (or act, if you like) of Creation. The theory of evolution presupposes the existence of some entity that can produce offspring and an environment that can kill (some of) those offspring. While the theory can be extended to include the genesis of life, it did not originally nor must it.
Excellent response. Note that a few comments above I make reference to being, by definition, an agnostic (I don't know a supreme being doesn't exist). But I'm an atheist by dint of the fact that I don't believe.
I sincerely hope I'm right, too, because I can't make myself act as though I'm trying to win the approval of a creator I'm unable to believe exists. This won't change my behavior for the worse, though.
Mr. Baker, the Greeks kept some form of that religion well into the Common Era. Call it 1200 years. The Sumerians and Babylonians kept theirs for something around 2000.
I would not call 12 centuries historically short.
Good point. I apologize for not being more precise. These religions were, however, rapidly displaced when superior memes came along, were they not?
The theory of evolution presupposes the existence of some entity that can produce offspring and an environment that can kill (some of) those offspring. While the theory can be extended to include the genesis of life, it did not originally nor must it.
True, but logic draws me to that conclusion. Wilson said, "There is no reconciliation between the theory of evolution by natural selection and traditional religious view of the origin of the human mind," and I think he's right. I'd like to believe that "We are not this crude matter. Luminous beings are we."
Was it Carl Sagan who said, when asked if there was alien intelligent life, "Either there is other intelligent life out there or there is not. Both possibilities are equally scary."?
I am atheist.
My chances are roughly 50/50 at worst.
There is one aspect that the writer (and perhaps Dannett as well) has missed. It has to do with the concept of "sin" and the alleviation of conscience.
Very briefly -
I take responsibility for everything that I do; good and bad.
If I were religious, I would be able to take the pain from the consequences of wrong-doing by "sharing"the wrong-doing with my god. That, for me, is nothing more than a cop-out. It smacks of a hypocrisy that a person can wrong others for six days a week and be given salvation on the seventh. That is a crutch and a crock.
I was being sloppy. In the set of 'observable' are things that can be measured by proxy. I study proteins. Although we have imaging techniques that allow us to 'see' them, that's quite right. At some point things get small enough that any attempt to see them is useless...and yet I do think science can make a statement about them. Of course, to do so we need 'assays'...and it really an article of faith that an assay is measuring the thing I think it is. With enough controls pretty much everyone will agree with me (or enough to get my data published, anyway), but it's rather hard to 'prove'. I'm going to quit that line of thought here because the next stop is loony town (e.g., how can I prove something is ‘observable’? Can I really trust my senses, blah, blah, blah. Gave that up after college, along with binge drinking =)).
I suppose you could suggest that math is different…but then not all math is necessarily science (or at least not ‘experimental science’). IMHO, some higher, arcane, math is more akin to philosophy…but then I never went beyond Calc III.
I don't agree with Wilson. I understand the Book of Genesis to be referring to the creation of Man and Woman in the spiritual sense. I know, I know. The story speaks of physical creation and all that, and I may very well be bastardizing the whole gimish for the sake of reconciling the irreconcilable. If that's the case, then so be it. I can function as a scientist while practicing my religion as I believe it should be practiced. If that makes me a 'Protestant denomination of one' within the Catholic Church, well then so be it. No human nor human institution is infallible (related Papal issues aside for the moment). In the final analysis we all choose our articles of faith whether they be absolute belief in the power of human observation and reasoning or the absolute opposite. Who is right may or may not be important depending on the Ultimate Truth regarding an Afterlife.
Either way, if you can build a set of ethical/moral principles from non-religious-based starting points, cool. I’d love to hear/read them. Of course, you do have to admit (and here I’m making an assumption about you personally, so please forgive me if I’m wrong) being raised in a society steeped in the/a Jeudo-Christian worldview will have a significant influence on the outcome of your thinking. I would go so far as to say that any set of acceptable ‘rationally-derived’ ethical/moral principles would end up looking a lot like the 10 Commandants, etc.
The paradoxes of quantum mechanics give rise to the fact that reality is not quite as it seems to be. (They call it quantum strangeness) It is these observations that make some believe that they are staring into the face of God when they study it, others believe we just lack understanding. There’s that 50/50 again.
I sincerely hope I'm right, too, because I can't make myself act as though I'm trying to win the approval of a creator I'm unable to believe exists. This won't change my behavior for the worse, though.
Kevin, your take on Christianity is puzzling. I can only assume you have read little of the Bible and no commentary whatsoever. You cannot win the approval of God. All you have to do to attain salvation is acknowledge Him. Like Abraham, you choose God, and God chooses you.
I find it beyond comprehension that, given the choice, you would trade universal love, purpose, and eternal life, for what? Your ego? Pride really is the greatest of all sins.
If you do nothing else, at least try to understand as fully as possible what it is you are rejecting before you reject it. C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity is an excellent place to start. Gerald Schroeder's The Science of God is also a must.
(I get the feeling that my comments are going into the abyss... !)
Sarah, look above at your first comment. I inserted a response there a few minutes ago.
To paraphrase, you wrote: "By accepting Jesus Christ. You are saved by the grace of God alone. It is a gift. You cannot earn your way to heaven through good behavior."
But I don't believe - and therefore cannot "accept."
It doesn't have anything to do with ego, so far as I can tell. It has to do with belief.
As I said, we've had this conversation before, I think.
If I were religious, I would be able to take the pain from the consequences of wrong-doing by "sharing"the wrong-doing with my god. That, for me, is nothing more than a cop-out. It smacks of a hypocrisy that a person can wrong others for six days a week and be given salvation on the seventh. That is a crutch and a crock.
The only problem is that no sin is any worse than any other to God. The idea is that God is perfect, and any imperfection is just as bad as any other in comparison. Everyone deserves to get flushed down the eternal toilet in the end. God just made us a deal that if we repent, then we can be forgiven, and then you get eternal life. Now even though you can be forgiven, it does not mean that you will not be assessed for your good and bad works either. You still owe for all the bad things you did. The worse you were, the more you pay. Says so iin the Bible, if I'm not mistaken.
If there is no God, then there is NO SIN. Good and bad don't exist, you can simply make them up. Murdering a million people isn't wrong, why would it be. Who's forgiveness would you ask? The dead certainly don't care. The living? Well, what do they know that you don't?
If there is no God, then we are JUST LIKE THE ANIMALS. Everyone here thinks anything that goes on in the animal kingdom is purely AMORAL. How are we any different? They can kill and rape and do anything they like and none of it is morally good nor bad. It just is. And if that's the case, then we just are. Whoopty-do.
And now this comment shall join Sarah's down the memory hole. Nothing to look at, just keep walking.
Actually Kevin, neither the Greek pantheon nor the Sumerian one was 'rapidly displaced' by later, arguably superior, memes. Christianity was not the dominant religion in the Levant when it became the official religion of the Empire in the early 4th century. And even then it took decades to become dominant - even as the official Church with all the legal benefits and finacial boons that contained.
The Sumerian faith survived the fall of the people of Sumer by nearly 800 years. As each new wave of invaders came, they took upon the Sumerian faith whole cloth, only occasionally changing the names of gods to fit in existing tribal "supernatural agents". Until the appearance of the fairly xenophobic Assyrians, the meme of Sumerian faith prospered quite well. Only with the appearance of a group who stripped temples bare rather than make use of them did the Sumerian religion become extinct.
Yes, we have had this discussion before. I said then that I don't think you have to believe (as in know). I think it is enough to want God to exist and be open to the possibility. It says in the Bible that Faith is the substance of things hoped for.
I was once where you are now. Couldn't bring myself to believe in a being that would require me to grovel. But you realize at some point that there is no groveling involved. You acknowledge God's superiority (for any being that is capable of creating a universe is superior), and you express gratitude for what you have. Supplication to God -- if He is fact -- is no different than supplicating oneself to the laws of the universe. Choose a version of God that works for you. I chose a version of God that is consistent with both the Bible and what I know from science.
I don't know there is a God any more than you do. I hope, and I live my life as though my version of God is. I think that's good enough. If it's not, well, I'm roasting on the spit right next to you.
"Supplication to God -- if He is fact -- is no different than supplicating oneself to the laws of the universe."
No? (You're an excellent vector for your meme, BTW ;)) The laws of the universe don't require me to tithe 10% of my income as some sects do, or fast on certain days as some others do, or so on and so forth. Each of these behaviors is considered "supplication to God" by those sects.
Perhaps Christianity, stripped to its bare roots, doesn't require these things at all, but they are, as you pointed out, "comfortable traditions that facilitate worship." The laws of the universe need no worship.
There is another difference. Supplication to God means accepting your place. I'd like us to understand the laws of the universe so that humanity can exploit the loopholes.
The laws of the universe don't require me to tithe 10% of my income as some sects do, or fast on certain days as some others do, or so on and so forth. Each of these behaviors is considered "supplication to God" by those sects.
Are you certain of that? And why would you even care? Do you think God can't tell the difference between a man who is pious in his heart and eats meat on Friday and a man who outwardly obeys the "rules" but deep down doesn't really care?
Perhaps Christianity, stripped to its bare roots, doesn't require these things at all, but they are, as you pointed out, "comfortable traditions that facilitate worship." The laws of the universe need no worship.
No, but they do require adherence. You have absolutely no choice about that. That which isn't forbidden is mandatory. On the other hand, you can choose not to love and obey God.
I think there is some misunderstanding as to what "worship" actually means. What it doesn't mean is to prostrate and grovel. What it does mean is to acknowledge God's perfection.
There is another difference. Supplication to God means accepting your place. I'd like us to understand the laws of the universe so that humanity can exploit the loopholes.
I don't see that the two are at odds. You create dichotomies where they don't necessarily exist.
"You create dichotomies where they don't necessarily exist."
That's one of the problems with language - the ability to use words where meaning isn't exactly shared.
"Supplication to God -- if He is fact -- is no different than supplicating oneself to the laws of the universe.
--
"You acknowledge God's superiority (for any being that is capable of creating a universe is superior), and you express gratitude for what you have."
I have no choice but to behave in accordance with the laws of nature, but I have choice when it comes to whether or not I express gratitude to a supreme being for what I have. Yet, there is no difference between "supplication" to these two forces?
There is another difference. Supplication to God means accepting your place. I'd like us to understand the laws of the universe so that humanity can exploit the loopholes.
To what end?
I have no choice but to behave in accordance with the laws of nature, but I have choice when it comes to whether or not I express gratitude to a supreme being for what I have. Yet, there is no difference between "supplication" to these two forces?
Actually, if there is no God, then you do not have free will and you have no choice wether or not you follow God. Initial conditions determined everything for you. And in that case, it doesn't matter anyway.
If there is a God, then you have free will, and you have chosen poorly.
You cannot win the approval of God. All you have to do to attain salvation is acknowledge Him.
I agree with Kevin -- it's not about ego, it's about belief. I won't try to fool myself. I cannot acknowledge what I cannot believe.
Without God, all we've got is Mama Nature, and she is one cold bitch.
Your God is one cold bastard, too. I've read the Old Testament described as "God before he got religion". A supreme being who created the common housefly cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and that's but the tip of the iceberg.
Oops. That previous "anonymous" post was mine. Sorry 'bout that ...
Ben:
Actually, if there is no God, then you do not have free will and you have no choice wether or not you follow God. Initial conditions determined everything for you. And in that case, it doesn't matter anyway.
If there is a God, then you have free will, and you have chosen poorly.
I asked you in another thread whether or not you believed this and you didn't answer it.
Tell me why the existence of a deity determines whether or not I have free will.
To spread human genes throughout the universe, of course! ;)
"Actually, if there is no God, then you do not have free will and you have no choice wether or not you follow God. Initial conditions determined everything for you. And in that case, it doesn't matter anyway."
Ben, we've been through this before, in detail. There is no reason that "free will" is dependent on the existance of a supreme being.
That's one of the problems with language - the ability to use words where meaning isn't exactly shared.
Well, I think it's more fundamental than that. If God created the universe, then He created the laws of nature. This doesn't negate them. In fact, I think that ultimately there is no limit to what humankind can do with an ever-increasing understanding of the laws of nature. God created us in His image, so maybe He meant for us to be creators, as well. You see? No dichotomy.
I have no choice but to behave in accordance with the laws of nature, but I have choice when it comes to whether or not I express gratitude to a supreme being for what I have. Yet, there is no difference between "supplication" to these two forces?
Sorry, I wasn't very clear about what I meant. I was speaking in terms of the emotional component. I don't grovel and scrape before the laws of physics, I just accept that they are and that the more I understand of them the more it facilitates my existence. That's also exactly how I view my relationship with God.
I agree with Kevin -- it's not about ego, it's about belief. I won't try to fool myself. I cannot acknowledge what I cannot believe.
That's certainly your choice. But the ego comment was in regard to Kevin stating that he hopes he's right. I still don't understand what that means, but it sounded like he'd rather be right and face annihilation than be wrong and have to accept a supreme being. Now, with respect to belief, if you accept what modern science tells us, then you have to accept that there is a creative force behind the universe. The only important question is whether that force is conscious or unconscious. Unless you have a compelling reason for rejecting big bang theory, you're stuck with a supernatural entity of some kind.
Your God is one cold bastard, too. I've read the Old Testament described as "God before he got religion".
Two things. a) So what? Christians are primarily concerned with the New Testament, which is the new covenant between God and humankind. If God ever was a "cold bastard" in the days of the OT, then what does it matter now? We have a new arrangement with God. 2) Here is where a superficial knowledge of something can be very dangerous. Have you read the Bible all the way through? Both testaments? The people to whom the OT was principally addressed were very primitive, and struggling out of paganism. As a strict parent might seem wrathful and frightening to a person in childhood (which represents a fairly primitive stage in an individual's life), so, too, might God have seemed to the people of the OT. But if you look carefully at what God says and does in the OT compared to the NT, the difference isn't all that great. This is a pretty good primer on OT vs. NT.
A supreme being who created the common housefly cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and that's but the tip of the iceberg.
To spread human genes throughout the universe, of course!
So instead of prostrating yourself to the spaghetti monster, you're just a worker bee being sacrificed for the good of the hive? That's swell.
There is no reason that "free will" is dependent on the existance of a supreme being.
But you claim to have free will. You tell me how that's possible given the laws of physics. A bunch of particles whizzing around, obeying deterministic, causal laws somehow creates free will? If that's the case, you ought to be able to make a machine with free will out of a desktop PC.
On the other hand, the most strange and obvious thing is that we are self aware. At least I am, I'm not sure about everyone else :). Isn't it sort of strange that beings aware of themselves can develope out of primordial goo, and for no reason? See, that's where I'm stuck. If that is the case, then life is a colossal joke, and the really shitty thing is that nobody even gets a laugh out of it.
A bunch of particles whizzing around, obeying deterministic, causal laws somehow creates free will?
And before some jerk comes and says something about quantum physics, don't forget that quantum physics is simply a framework that ALLOWS US TO COPE WITH SYSTEMS THAT ARE SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED BY OUR MEASUREMENTS. If we had "perfect" instruments that could see what's going on without affecting the system, then we wouldn't need the quantum baloney.
Sorta funny that when your instruments are made out of the same bunk as the rest of the stuff you're trying to study, you have limits in your resolution. :P
and finally, ARgh, what I meant to blather about there is "uncertainty". The quantum baloney is probably an accurate description of what's going on at that fine level. But all that says is that things inevitably are made of "quanta" or discrete bits. And that won't give you free will either. Now I'm off to strangle a manatee in the nude again!
Now, with respect to belief, if you accept what modern science tells us, then you have to accept that there is a creative force behind the universe. ... Unless you have a compelling reason for rejecting big bang theory, you're stuck with a supernatural entity of some kind.
No, I don't, and no I'm not. I don't have to accept notions of supernatural entities to explain something that I don't have an explanation for. Those are your beliefs, not mine.
If God ever was a "cold bastard" in the days of the OT, then what does it matter now?
It's the same "God", ain't it? He had the manners of a spoiled brat, and he is gonna forgive us?
Have you read the Bible all the way through? Both testaments?
I've read most of the OT and all of the NT. But, that was about 40 years ago.
"A supreme being who created the common housefly cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and that's but the tip of the iceberg."
DJ, should that not be "A Supreme Being who created the mosquito cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, ..."?
The mosquito has forced far worse effects onto the human race than the housefly ever did. Sickle cell anemia exists because of little bloodsucking parasites like the mosquito. In what genetic diseases did the housefly play a role?
See? Human beings derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with their memes, er, religions! :)
Sarah: "I still don't understand what that means, but it sounded like he'd rather be right and face annihilation than be wrong and have to accept a supreme being."
No, I'd rather be right because I do not believe. If I'm wrong, I'm going to hell. I cannot choose to believe. It's not in me.
Ben: "So instead of prostrating yourself to the spaghetti monster, you're just a worker bee being sacrificed for the good of the hive? That's swell."
Nope. I'm a human being interested in what's out there. We're a curious species, in all meanings of the word. But I'm as interested in ensuring our survival as the next zygote.
"You tell me how that's possible given the laws of physics.
--
"And before some jerk comes and says something about quantum physics, don't forget that quantum physics is simply a framework that ALLOWS US TO COPE WITH SYSTEMS THAT ARE SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED BY OUR MEASUREMENTS."
Really? So you believe in the clockwork universe (unless, of course, there's a supernatural being out there who can violate the laws of physics at will?) I don't. I think randomness is an inherent part of our existence. What little I've studied of Chaos Theory is fascinating - bounded random behavior. Fractals. Mandelbrot sets.
Not God, chance. So I have no problem with free will, bounded by the laws of physics. We're not automatons, we're complex chaotic systems.
"Isn't it sort of strange that beings aware of themselves can develope out of primordial goo, and for no reason? See, that's where I'm stuck."
Hmm... Nope. I'm here. The evidence seems to indicate that that's how I got here. No alternate theory seems to match the available evidence, and it makes logical sense. Until contrary evidence comes up, it's a theory I can accept.
"If that is the case, then life is a colossal joke, and the really shitty thing is that nobody even gets a laugh out of it."
Why is it a joke? It just is. And I laugh quite a lot. Life is generally, for me anyway - and I'd assume for the overwhelming majority of people able to read this blog - quite good.
It's those people suffering in the third-world shitholes who might have a problem understanding why they're where they are and questioning whether or not a supreme being is responsible for it. But it's there that religion seems to do the most good in uniting and organizing them.
DJ, should that not be "A Supreme Being who created the mosquito cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, ..."?
That's a better way to state it. I'm pleased that you understand what I wrote.
The mosquito has forced far worse effects onto the human race than the housefly ever did. Sickle cell anemia exists because of little bloodsucking parasites like the mosquito. In what genetic diseases did the housefly play a role?
Beats me. I'm no disease specialist, I'm a retired engineer.
But, I was raised on a dairy farm. For those who've never been on one, it's an environment in which houseflies prosper quite well. For me, the common housefly served as a good illustration.
And, for what it's worth, it made me an expert on both cowshit and bullshit.
"No, I'd rather be right because I do not believe. If I'm wrong, I'm going to hell. I cannot choose to believe. It's not in me." -- Kevin
I find it interesting that you cannot believe in a supernatural agent, but can, and apparently DO, believe that if something appears chaotic in the brief, imperfect glimpse of the event our sciences and senses give of it, then it is.
I find it intriguing because when I look at the de facto example of chaos theory - butterfly flaps its wing at X, and tornado/hurricane/breeze occurs at Y - I do not see it as particularly chaotic. A group of atoms and molecules here are moved, which in turn effect another group, and those move another, larger group, and eventually a significant atmospheric event occurs. I always suspected that with sufficiently precise tools, the outcome could be easily predicted, and that it only seems chaotic to us because we cannot see the location of every atom and molecule in the atmosphere the instant that butterfly's wingbeats begin.
Of course, I also believe that the instant that butterfly flaps its wings, a new reality springs into existence where that butterfly did not flap its wings....
By the by, Mr. Baker, how do persons of a philosophical bent like your own believe that humanity developed the characteristic where some people are willing to die for an intangible goal. Where is the evolutionary advantage to such a willingness to sacrifice one's own genetic heritage to allow others to spread their own?
The ancient Greeks were often fighting to protect the lives of their family members, both in the phalanx with them, and at the farm back home. His genetic line will live on, even if he does not.
But what of the Union soldier marching into battle in Virginia in 1864 with the Battle Hymn of the Republic on his lips? If one takes him at his word, that man is prepared, even expecting, to die in the attempt to free another human being, whom he does not, and will likely never, know. What is the benefit to him, or to his family in this action? Most of these men were unmarried, and childless. And more than one family saw all of their hopes for genetic continuation expire on a battlefield.
How does a philosophy which explains human behavior through evolution explain such people?
Is that action explained completely in your mind by the extension of familial ties to the concept of the nation? I ask because that explanation alone seems lacking to me.
"I always suspected that with sufficiently precise tools, the outcome could be easily predicted, and that it only seems chaotic to us because we cannot see the location of every atom and molecule in the atmosphere the instant that butterfly's wingbeats begin."
Well, I think Heisenberg was a pretty smart fella, and his theory is that we can't have sufficiently precise enough tools to make that prediction. Chaos Theory adds to this by pointing out that in systems where there is (and this is a technical term, believe it or not) "sensitive dependence on initial conditions," arbitrarily tiny differences will result in unpredictable results. You'll get result A or result B, (but never result Z) but you won't be able to predict which - which to me indicates true randomness, but bounded randomness.
"By the by, Mr. Baker, how do persons of a philosophical bent like your own believe that humanity developed the characteristic where some people are willing to die for an intangible goal. Where is the evolutionary advantage to such a willingness to sacrifice one's own genetic heritage to allow others to spread their own?"
That's the meme theory, Eric. Memes can cause people to behave in ways contrary to their own genetic advantage, but such behavior is advantageous to the meme AND it's advantageous to the species - so that ability is an evolutionary positive trait. The people doing the volutary dying were generally the young males, but their genes were carried on by their own offspring, or were already duplicated in siblings. Individuals who would not willingly sacrifice themselves were shunned by the society - which carried the meme - and could not reproduce.
Heinlein again:
"Once, Roman matrons demanded their sons come back with their shields or on them. Eventually this custom declined. So did Rome."
Well, I think Heisenberg was a pretty smart fella, and his theory is that we can't have sufficiently precise enough tools to make that prediction. Chaos Theory adds to this by pointing out that in systems where there is (and this is a technical term, believe it or not) "sensitive dependence on initial conditions," arbitrarily tiny differences will result in unpredictable results. You'll get result A or result B, (but never result Z) but you won't be able to predict which - which to me indicates true randomness, but bounded randomness.
No, it is still only apparent randomness. Notice how I italicized apparent to stress how smart I am. Anyway, just because you, meaning we actually, cannot measure something with great enough precision does not make the process in question random. Now, the tools of chaos theory and P&S and so forth are usefull since there are so many things that we cannot measure with sufficient precision, and we can use those tools to learn something about the gross behavior in spite of our measurement problem. But this is not an indication that the system is really random, only apparently so.
With all due respect to Heisenberg, because the state of a particular particle cannot be measured with perfect precision, does that mean that the particle does not have an absolute position and momentum at a given instant? Well, some people think so, others not, but either way the cat is dead.
Kevin, it sounds like your explanation is based on the premise the human willingness to sacrifice for an extrafamilial cause appeared after the emergence of human societies. I say this since your argument refers to transmission of the concept through memes, which as far as I know require sentiece and societies to exist within.
If that is the case, then how does such an evolution based philosophy explain the survival of such a meme against the older concept of exploitation of others? How, as well, does such a philosophy explain the emergence of extrafamilial associations?
While animals do display both the willingness to exploit the actions of other, a male lion pushing a female off a kill for example, and the xenophobia which hinders extrafamilial associations from forming, troops of chimpanzees engaging in warfare with one another, as far as I know, no species on Earth aside from man displays even the most rudimentary levels of self deprivation for nonherd members. A chimpanzee troop will accept an individual, but if another troop appears in their territory, an altercation is almost certain to occur.
PS - The computer I am posting on has been having *issues* and I may have sent several copies of this comment. if I have, sorry, please delete as many as you need to.
Ben, when you can't tell the difference, is there one?
When I can't tell the difference? No. When you can't tell the difference? Yes.
Joking aside, I find this to be a strange remark. Suppose you like Folgers. Suppose I put one grain of Starbucks French Roast into your morning grind of about 2500 grains of your Folgers. Further, suppose I put one granule of Hodgdon's H4350 into the mix. Now, when you brew this stuff in the morning, will there be a difference between this pot of coffee and the one made from pure Folgers the previous day? Yes. Will you be able to tell the difference? No. Well, maybe, but this was a dumb example. In any event, the truth is not compelled by your ability, or lack there of, to perceive it.
Like, that was the sort of question I'd ask an undergraduate or a leftist to tie them into a nit. I'm not that dumb. I don't quite get why you tossed that one out there.
Anyway, I just watched Capricorn One, with OJ, great movie. Go rent it, you'll be glad you did.
I went beyond Calc III, it can get very philosophical, and you don't need advanced math to see and understand that. Logic classes can be found in many universities being taught by both the math department, and the philosophy department.
But without diverging into Brain-in-a-Vat philosophy (Descartes, if I recall right), math still has lots of things to say about stuff that is unobservable. Multi-D geometry, Null concepts, non-Euclidean space.
I doubt we will ever see a hypercube or other 4+ D solid, but there's plenty of math to talk about it, and lot's to be, and has been said, about it.
Ben-
Sorry you had a problem understanding my point. Tom got it.
Here's one unobservable thing math has quite alot to talk about. Philosophy. Which is what just about all of the conversations in this comment section can be boiled down to.
As to your comment:
"Isn't it sort of strange that beings aware of themselves can develope out of primordial goo, and for no reason? "
No it's not strange at all, since it obviously happened. I'll tell you what's strange... Believing some supernatural being had a reason to create us. But if he/she/it had a reason, then it must have been a joke. But the crappy thing is that some people have figured out the joke, but others haven't.
No it's not strange at all, since it obviously happened.
heh. prove that.
Your point about math is just not that strong. 3+3=6 could refer to summation of sets of ardvarks, or it could be a summation of the unobservable glafromocks. What does this have to say about glafromocks? Well, only that IF you had some, maybe you could add them. But there's no such thing, and so there's not really any point beyond the math itself.
OK, now is the time for Aaron Hospel to re-emerge from the blogospherial goo. If you don't get that, google his name and read his archives from God of the Machine.
"No, it is still only apparent randomness. Notice how I italicized apparent to stress how smart I am. Anyway, just because you, meaning we actually, cannot measure something with great enough precision does not make the process in question random. Now, the tools of chaos theory and P&S and so forth are usefull since there are so many things that we cannot measure with sufficient precision, and we can use those tools to learn something about the gross behavior in spite of our measurement problem. But this is not an indication that the system is really random, only apparently so."
So... what you're telling me is that you're one of the experts we mere lay people are dependent on to instruct us in the truth? ;)
I still don't get it. With God there is randomness, but without God there is not? But God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent - it says so right there on the label. If God is omniscient, then He knows everything that did, is, and will happen. From a logical standpoint, then, nothing can be random.
It seems to me that lack of an omniscient supreme being is required for the possibility of randomness.
It also seems to me that Chaos and Quantum theory point to real, random effects, albeit tightly bound ones.
"If that is the case, then how does such an evolution based philosophy explain the survival of such a meme against the older concept of exploitation of others? How, as well, does such a philosophy explain the emergence of extrafamilial associations?"
I think the answer to that question is in that Publisher's Weekly review of The Meme Machine:
"Few or no children free up the meme-carrier to devote more energy to horizontal transmission to non-relatives (monks and nuns the world over figured that out long ago), something the gene is incapable of. With adoption, memes can even co-opt vertical transmission between generations. Blackmore posits that, in modern culture, meme replication has almost completely overwhelmed the glacially slow gene replication."
Memes that influence cultures to spread outside a familial, tribal, or national culture have been evolutionarily successful for both the meme and for its carriers.
Consider, for example, that currently we are spending blood and treasure trying to spread Western liberal democracy to the Middle East. While that's far from the only reason we're there, it is one powerful reason for the support our actions have been receiving from Red America.
No, I'd rather be right because I do not believe. If I'm wrong, I'm going to hell. I cannot choose to believe. It's not in me.
OK, I understand now. I wish you would read C.S. Lewis. He is perhaps Christianity's greatest intellect. He wrote a very short book called The Great Divorce that describes the (mainstream) Christian idea of hell. It isn't lakes of fire and pitchforks, it's a cold, lonely, lightless existence -- and one that you can get out of as soon as you choose to accept God. Most Christians will admit that they really don't know what happens in the afterlife. But we're certain that hell is isolation, to be cut off from God. Kevin, I refuse to accept the kind of God that creates an independent thinking, feeling being only to destroy it when it displeases him. It just cannot be true, and so I choose a God that loves each of his children and wants them all to be with him in the afterlife. If God turns out to be Allah, well, we're all in big trouble. But I'd rather be destroyed or in hell than accept an Allah-like being, so I understand what you mean. In the meantime, why not hope for the best?
DJ,
You are refusing to accept the inescapable conclusion of a broadly-accepted theory, because it contradicts your own prejudices and makes you uncomfortable. How does this differentiate you from a creationist who refuses to accept modern science because he thinks it contradicts his belief in God?
Grrrrr! Haloscan is acting peculiar. Sorry if this ends up as a duplicate...
Just caught this...
Sarah: Sorry about editing your comment, but at this point, my response would be well down the page. Salvation comes through accepting Jesus Christ - granted. But check the picture.
I don't understand the point of the picture. Would you explain it to me?
"Kevin, I refuse to accept the kind of God that creates an independent thinking, feeling being only to destroy it when it displeases him."
We've had this discussion before too. Let me requote Stephen Roberts:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
No, I don't.
There is a world of difference between rejecting all notions of God and choosing a palatable one. Nature -- time, space, matter, everything in the universe -- has a beginning point, therefore, logically, there must be some kind of SUPERNATURAL creative force behind it all. It is inescapable. I keep repeating this, because there is some strange impediment (a severe prejudice) that prevents you from seeing this. If you trust modern science, then the question is no longer whether there is any such a thing as the supernatural. The ONLY relevant question is whether the force is conscious or unconscious.
"I don't understand the point of the picture. Would you explain it to me?"
So far as I have been able to tell, all of the Abrahamic faiths say that belief - faith - is a prerequisite for salvation. You said it yourself in that post:
"Christians believe there is one way, and one way only, to attain salvation: By accepting Jesus Christ."
"Accepting Jesus Christ" means believing. Now I am often told that acting as though I believe is the better choice, because if I'm wrong, when I die I'll go to Hell, but If I'm right I'll merely cease to exist. Let me look through the comments...
Well, there's Sailorcurt's bumper sticker, "If you live like there's no hell, you'd better be right."
That's not what I was looking for, exactly, but there's actually a term for going through the motions as a hedge against possible damnation. Do a Google search on the phrase "acts without faith."
The point is, if I don't believe then nothing I do will redeem me. I could become a male version of Mother Teresa, but it wouldn't get me past the pearly gates.
Perhaps, then, if you're correct I'll go off to some cold, dark place apart from God until such time as my soul can believe - but if being rejected by God after death, and being sent off to that cold place wasn't enough to convince me, what would be?
You are refusing to accept the inescapable conclusion of a broadly-accepted theory, because it contradicts your own prejudices and makes you uncomfortable. How does this differentiate you from a creationist who refuses to accept modern science because he thinks it contradicts his belief in God?
I don't believe the "the inescapable conclusion of a broadly-accepted theory" is inescapable. You apparently do. I simply refuse to accept a conclusion on the lines of "Beats me. Musta been God." I require evidence, and there ain't any.
You're going too far ahead. Let's go one step at a time.
Big bang theory says that our universe came from some place else. That means there is something other than nature. Our universe was created -- that's your evidence. That's proof that there is some creative force. It isn't nature, because nature didn't create itself. So, the question becomes, is the creative force conscious or unconscious? You don't have to understand it completely to know that it is there. But there are only two choices -- conscious or unconscious.
The problem here is that you're refusing to accept the obvious. The only thing that can keep you from getting what science says and the obvious conclusion is an extreme prejudice. It's a bigotry against the idea of God. The definition of bigotry is to be presented with incontrovertible evidence and still deny the obvious. I understand how some people can have an extreme reaction to some concepts of God, because they're odious. But you can't let that get in the way of understanding a simple truth.
Kevin,
Re acts w/o faith, why a person does something is really important. If you help someone in need to get the approval of the people around you, that's not a good act. That's an act with a payoff. If instead you do it because you have developed a belief system where you think that is the right thing to do, and you do it for no other reason than it's right and you tell no one else about it, that's a significantly different act. If you help someone with the hope of impressing God and earning a ticket to salvation, it's not a good act, it's an act with a payoff. Once you come to accept that there is, hopefully, a God of love, you accept that love for your fellow human beings is the way to be and you act consistently in that regard. That's why good works is the result of salvation, not the other way around.
If you need any evidence that doing acts to get into heaven doesn't produce good results, you need look no further than Islam. Muslims are required to do works to get into heaven, and it doesn't inspire good behavior in the mean. Christians, who believe that good works won't get you into heaven and should be done for their own sake, have ended up doing more good for the world than any other group.
Perhaps, then, if you're correct I'll go off to some cold, dark place apart from God until such time as my soul can believe - but if being rejected by God after death, and being sent off to that cold place wasn't enough to convince me, what would be?
Realize that it is you who will have sent yourself to this cold, dark place, not God. If you don't acknowledge that the door exists, how can you walk through it?
One further thought before I go out and enjoy the rest of my Saturday...
Ben: "So instead of prostrating yourself to the spaghetti monster, you're just a worker bee being sacrificed for the good of the hive? That's swell."
Nope. I'm a human being interested in what's out there. We're a curious species, in all meanings of the word. But I'm as interested in ensuring our survival as the next zygote.
Curious then that the people who believe this are not the ones actually doing it. If I'm not mistaken, you, yourself, have not reproduced. Secular types are not reproducing at a rate that can even sustain the population, let alone grow it. If we are to survive as a species, shouldn't Mama Nature have provided us with the instinct to perpetuate without the need to believe in something that doesn't exist? Seems she cocked up big time with humans.
Big bang theory says that our universe came from some place else. That means there is something other than nature. Our universe was created -- that's your evidence.
No, that's you saying so.
I have read that some cosmologists believe that space and time did not exist before the big bang, i.e. that there was no "before" it happened. If so (and I don't claim by any stretch to be an expert on the matter, just an interested lay reader who's well versed in Newtonian physics), then space and time came into existence at the moment of the bang. What does it mean to "come from some place else" before space and time began?
It seems to me that you've simply postulated what supports your point of view. That's not evidence that your point of view is correct. It is certainly not "irrefutable".
My opinion of your point of view is that you cannot imagine that there could not have been a creator of the big bang. I can. So, why should reality be what jibes with your imagination but not what jibes with mine?
The problem here is that you're refusing to accept the obvious.
No, I'm refusing to accept what there is no evidence for. That's not a problem, that's rational thinking.
The definition of bigotry is to be presented with incontrovertible evidence and still deny the obvious.
No, the definition of bigotry is
The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.
and the definition of bigot is
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
By those definitions, I am not a bigot, nor do I practice bigotry. I am not partial, I simply refuse to not think. I am quite tolerant of others, so long as they do not try to harm me. We are not discussing tolerance of others, we are discussing agreement with evidence.
I do not deny the obvious when I am presented with incontrovertible evidence thereof. I'm an engineer -- evidence is my yardstick for everything. Regarding the question of (to word it quite broadly) "Does God exist?", I have not been presented with incontrovertible evidence either way, but if I ever am, I'll admit it.
Sarah: "Curious then that the people who believe this are not the ones actually doing it. If I'm not mistaken, you, yourself, have not reproduced. Secular types are not reproducing at a rate that can even sustain the population, let alone grow it. If we are to survive as a species, shouldn't Mama Nature have provided us with the instinct to perpetuate without the need to believe in something that doesn't exist? Seems she cocked up big time with humans."
Oooh! That looks like the inspiration for another über-post! ;)
Funny thing is that even when God himself shows up and gives direct evidence as recorded in history, people reject it, even if they witness it firsthand. How many times in the Bible did he directly affect people and not even a generation later, they went back to worshipping something or anything else. Human Nature is no different now and never will change. He could come out of the clouds, talk to everyone on earth at the same time, flatten everything and people will still require more "proof". There is no such thing as proof at the level we are discussing and people will never accept it as such even if presented first hand. Take the life of Jesus for example. He performs miracles in front of many people and returns from the dead with numerous witnesses yet people try to find the "trick". You either believe what many witnessed and wrote or you don't. God's works are way beyond our comprehension. The greatest minds of all time may have had some insight much farther than we have ever seen and helped to expand our overall knowledge but it still hasn't shown any contradictions in God vs science. More likely, it is just revealing more of his works.
1. OK... so there is supposedly no morality without God, but the only thing necessary to attaining heaven is accepting the existence of God. (Or, depending on your doctrinaire flavor, Jesus Christ as the son of God as well.) If a lazy, immoral atheist can cop out of being a good person by saying there's nobody enforcing right or wrong, what's the difference between that and a lazy, immoral Christian copping out of being a good person because he/she is Saved? The "no true Christian" argument (which bears suspicious resemblance to the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy) certainly allows for a hell of a lot of people who've accepted God doing very bad things en masse. You can argue that they didn't "really" accept God, but that's a LOT of people. And you've already acknowledged there are atheists who are good people. The evidence alone suggests a minority of people who make the effort to be moral whether they "believe" in God or not.
2. So apparently we have a choice of positions of believing natural laws have always existed with no explanation as to origin, versus belief in an extremely complex and infinitely intelligent deity who has always existed with no explanation who brought natural law into existence. Where is there an invocation of logic as opposed to faith or a simple "I don't know"?
3. Science is a tool self-limited by the fact that it concerns itself purely with natural law. It is incapable of addressing morality or any other metaphysical matter by the very terms of its existence. Why then is it inherently in conflict with religion unless religion purports to codify natural law? And why could the Greeks, who had gods who behaved immorally by their own standards as well as our own, invent philosophies of ethics without recourse to divine mandate if such is necessary to create an enduring system of morality?
"Without God, all we've got is Mama Nature, and she is one cold bitch."
Not true. We have aeons' worth of human experience, of trial-and-error customs, morals and mores which have created the social constructs on which we base our lives today.
The essential difference between us is that you ascribe the creation of those constructs to God, and I don't. Religion has done a great job of codifying and strengthening those constructs, but mostly, it's all been built on what has been proven to be most efficacious before.
While not perfect, Hammurabi's Code (which predated the Ten Commandments by centuries) wasn't a bad attempt -- and no one has yet ascribed the genesis of that code to God, because it quite plainly wasn't.
People lived good lives, even moral lives, long before Jaweh or Christ (as concepts) came into being. Had they not, we would not be here today.
and:
"Nature -- time, space, matter, everything in the universe -- has a beginning point, therefore, logically, there must be some kind of SUPERNATURAL creative force behind it all."
Also not necessarily true. Because we humans live finite lives, we have a problem comprehehnding infinity. Who says this this universe we live in is the first which ever existed? All we can do, given our limited intelligence and science, is to assume that the Big Bang was the Beginning -- whereas in fact it may only have been the most recent.
Ancient peoples worshipped the Sun because without the Sun's warmth and light, nothing would grow, and the Sun was therefore seen as the giver of life (which, strictly speaking, it is). We now know, of course, that there is no Sun God, and that the Sun is a collection of burning gases with a finite lifespan.
Likewise, when it comes to the beginning of time, we (generically speaking) now worship God because he was the Great Initiator.
Same premise, same incomplete foundational knowledge.
Garvin: "Funny thing is that even when God himself shows up and gives direct evidence as recorded in history, people reject it, even if they witness it firsthand. How many times in the Bible did he directly affect people and not even a generation later, they went back to worshipping something or anything else. Human Nature is no different now and never will change. He could come out of the clouds, talk to everyone on earth at the same time, flatten everything and people will still require more 'proof'."
Kinda leads one to wonder why He would make us that way, doesn't it? ;)
Kevin,
I would answer with this simple statement - He wants a relationship, not a drone. What good is worship if it isn't a choice? That was his whole purpose for creation human beings. He knows that some won't choose Him but the offer endures.
Garvin
I have read that some cosmologists believe that space and time did not exist before the big bang, i.e. that there was no "before" it happened. If so (and I don't claim by any stretch to be an expert on the matter, just an interested lay reader who's well versed in Newtonian physics), then space and time came into existence at the moment of the bang. What does it mean to "come from some place else" before space and time began?
Most cosmologists believe that space-time was created at the big bang. Some have postulated that there is a superspace-time that exists beyond our universe, but most physicists reject that as having no scientific merit since it involves unobservable quantities. There is a minority in physics that rejects big bang theory altogether. When I said "some place else" I was playing fast and loose with the terminology. You are correct that there is no "place" in a material sense beyond the universe, but I thought you would have understood my play on the language.
My opinion of your point of view is that you cannot imagine that there could not have been a creator of the big bang. I can. So, why should reality be what jibes with your imagination but not what jibes with mine?
No, DJ, it's not my opinion. It is BY DEFINITION. Nothing is its own cause. Something else had to have caused the big bang to happen. Something that is, by definition, beyond nature.
You assume that I believe the supernatural conclusion of big bang theory because I believe in God. But the opposite is true. When I first began to study physics I was an agnostic objectivist. Didn't believe in God, didn't care. It was the evidence of science that caused me to convert. I converted to theism my junior year in physics, just after I finished an internship with one of the leading cosmological physics groups in the world. I converted to Christianity just last year, during my fourth year as a graduate student.
You are a bigot. You are partial to your belief that there is no God to the exclusion of any contrary ideas. You don't even seem curious about the possibilities implied by modern science, which indicates an unforgivable lack of imagination. There's no point discussing this with you anymore.
Kim,
Hammurabi's code did come well before the Ten Commandments, but there's a reason nobody refers to it as the basis for anything anymore. I won't claim that the morality in the Bible is exclusive to the Bible, I claim that Judeo-Christian faith has done the best job of spreading and perpetuating that morality. No other system in existence has accomplished that. By whatever law of human behavior, society at large needs an absolute reference frame -- in this case, an infinite God -- for a moral foundation. Look at any society that believes man is the measure of all things -- the former Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Cambodia, France -- all devoid of any kind of morality. Modern China is a perfect example of a Godless society, and the Chinese have no morality whatsoever. Society without belief in God has never been moral. Kevin believes that it's a matter of time -- we haven't had morality without belief in God because humanism has only been around for the last couple of hundred years. But that idea is fundamentally flawed, because humanism is the product of Christianity. It's as though Christians have scaled this incredibly high mountain, and then humanists climb on their backs and claim, "look how far we've come!" It's so disingenuous.
"Nature -- time, space, matter, everything in the universe -- has a beginning point, therefore, logically, there must be some kind of SUPERNATURAL creative force behind it all."
Also not necessarily true. Because we humans live finite lives, we have a problem comprehehnding infinity. Who says this this universe we live in is the first which ever existed? All we can do, given our limited intelligence and science, is to assume that the Big Bang was the Beginning -- whereas in fact it may only have been the most recent.
Of course there could have been other big bangs, other universes, but then they all were also finite creations caused by something outside of their nature. Your postulation changes nothing.
This is so incredibly simple, I'm astonished at the resistance this idea is receiving here. The definition of nature is the material universe. According to physics, it had a beginning point. It is therefore finite. The universe is not infinite in time. It was therefore created -- by something which we don't understand. Nothing is its own cause, so this something is necessarily outside of the material world, i.e. outside of nature, i.e. SUPER-natural. I'm not stating that this something is necessarily God. It could be an unconcious creative force. But if you accept big bang theory, you MUST accept the existence of the supernatural.
This whole discussion reminds me of the book, Lords of the Earth. It's about the Yali people from the jungles of Indonesia who were completely isolated from the rest of the world until they were approached by western missionaries. The Yali cannibals, who were incredibly savage and backwards, believed in only what they could see, and so crowned themselves the lords of the earth. They were totally unaware of the rest of the world, and so it didn't exist to them.
We have modern science that tells us that something supernatural exists even though we can't directly observe it. The evidence of this is existence itself. And yet because you all can't directly observe this something, it doesn't exist to you. Do any of you see how incredibly narrow-sighted this view is?
Kevin, it seems like you and Kim are basically saying that the basic capacity for good in mankind is derived from empathy. The attempt for just laws, the willingness to sacrifice one's own life for a cause or for people tied to you by non-familial ties, the tolerance for ideas not your own - all of these require empathy. Indeed the most frightening groups of humans on Earth have been those with no empathy for others - Nazis, Communists, Fundamentalist Muslims, etc.
It seems that you both believe that empathy has a completely natural origin. Fair enough.
But what was it? It could not have begun as a meme, because societies cannot form without empathy. Am I to believe that empathy began as a fortuitous mental mutation that appeared in a group of humans somewhere? Because, gentlemen, I, personally, find the idea of a random mutation forming the unifying characteristic of human societies to be as far fetched as you two find the idea of supernatural agents creating mankind in its current form.
Or is it that you believe that empathy came as a package deal with sentience? And if that is the case, what, in your opinions, was the catalyst for sentience and empathy?
Eric, this requires an essay unto itself. Excellent question!
You are correct that there is no "place" in a material sense beyond the universe, but I thought you would have understood my play on the language.
I also don't think there is any "place" or any "time" in a literal sense before the universe. I did understand what you stated. I simply have a very great difficulty grasping the notion of causality before space and time existed.
You assume that I believe the supernatural conclusion of big bang theory because I believe in God. But the opposite is true. When I first began to study physics I was an agnostic objectivist. Didn't believe in God, didn't care. It was the evidence of science that caused me to convert. I converted to theism my junior year in physics, just after I finished an internship with one of the leading cosmological physics groups in the world. I converted to Christianity just last year, during my fourth year as a graduate student.
I did make that assumption. My apologies for jumping to a conclusion. Knowing something of your history makes your opinions a bit more clear.
I understand why you might believe in a "creator", given what you say you believe about the "creation" of the universe. I don't share that belief, but I understand why you have it.
How did you come to believe in the correctness of the teachings of Christianity about the creator you believe in? Do you also claim to have evidence to that effect, or are those teachings, to you at least, self-evident?
We have modern science that tells us that something supernatural exists even though we can't directly observe it. The evidence of this is existence itself. And yet because you all can't directly observe this something, it doesn't exist to you. Do any of you see how incredibly narrow-sighted this view is?
No, that's not quite accurate. I don't have a clue as to why or how the universe came into existence. I wasn't there and science has no data about it. What I know about the subject does not lead me to believe that there must be, or have been, an intelligent creator of the universe. I simply refuse to reach a conclusion on something about which I have no data, and so I do not default to the common notion that it "musta been God".
I am evidence oriented. So far, I know of no evidence whatever for an intelligent creator of the universe, much less any evidence of any characteristics of any type of creator of the universe. Absent such evidence, I refuse to believe anything about any such creator.
You are a bigot. You are partial to your belief that there is no God to the exclusion of any contrary ideas. You don't even seem curious about the possibilities implied by modern science, which indicates an unforgivable lack of imagination. There's no point discussing this with you anymore.
You're ranting Sarah.
I don't exlude any ideas. I simply require evidence that they are correct to treat them as such.
I am a scientist at heart and an engineer by training and practice. I am extremely curious by nature and about nature, especially so about this subject. I always have been, but why is another story for another time. That's why I comment here.
I also have a quite vivid imagination, with 24 patents to prove it, for which I don't need your, or anyone else's, approval or forgiveness.
There's lots of point in discussing it with me, but I don't think you can understand my point of view any more than I can accept yours. It is quite apparent that we have different standards by which we decide to believe something.
I hope I didn't come across as ticked off or rude. You and I diverge on the point of the nature of existence so fundamentally that it really is fruitless to continue.
I hope I didn't come across as ticked off or rude. You and I diverge on the point of the nature of existence so fundamentally that it really is fruitless to continue.
No, but I think you're exasperated, for lack of a better description.
Our point of divergence is, I think, on why we believe what we believe. That's a whole 'nuther topic.
I have very little patience with people who can think, but will not. I have a great deal of patience with people who do think, even if I don't agree with them, provided they don't resort to spitting and venom.
Like I said a long time ago, Sarah is a "not stupid!" (Another Heinlein reference.)
One thing I'm grateful for; the overwhelming majority of the people who comment here are "not stupids." It's like this is Lake Wobegone, where everyone is above average! :)
You will, Sarah, or you'll grow old while you're still young. Keep in mind that I was contemplating these issues while your daddy was in diapers. You ran headlong into these issues while in graduate school. I did it when I was nine years old.
If you (collective "you") are putting this much effort into a treatise on your beliefs, it suggests that you are not sure of them. That's not a dig at all - just friendly advice to pay attention to where you are in discovering your faith. Whether it be in yourself, in Atheism, in Christianity or some other function, faith is the fuel of the soul, and you must be honest with yourself when finding it. Don't be afraid to say "I just don't know yet." The faith part is "But someday, I will know."
"Nothing is its own cause. Something else had to have caused the big bang to happen. Something that is, by definition, beyond nature."
Great, so then what "caused" God? In the logical construct you've created, something must have. And something must have caused that thing, and so on. And we're back to "turtles all the way down".
Ah, but you might say that God is not part of "nature", but then we're back to the "no True Scotsman" fallacy.
You have determined that in your philosophy, intention and/or agency is required. Others have a different philosophy, which may allow for intention and/or agency but does not require either. Absent evidence, at least for those with such a philosophy, intention and agency are an unnecessary complication to the theory, and are thus properly excised with (Brother William of) Ockham's Razor.
"If you (collective "you") are putting this much effort into a treatise on your beliefs, it suggests that you are not sure of them. That's not a dig at all - just friendly advice to pay attention to where you are in discovering your faith."
Well, Jim, in my case (as author of the piece) it was written in response to someone else's weekly explorations of his faith, and his reaction to comments I made. Does this, then, suggest that he is not sure of his faith? Are you then suggesting that one needs to be mute in order to be sure?
I'm pretty comfortable in my beliefs and lack thereof. But thanks for the advice.
I believe that it's impossible to know things about a God for sure. The whole concept of belief in itself is wrapped around that which cannot be proven or disproven.
Not to revive a (more or less) exhausted topic, but I found this story irresistable: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/us/17mausoleum.html?hp&ex=1145332800&en=eb9f7ac5c1d65f03&ei=5094&partner=homepage
The money quote is the caption to the picture:
Ed and Hilda Peck at their mausoleum in Daytona Beach, Fla. Mr. Peck says he decided he did not want to spend eternity underground.
He won't spend eternity anywhere. He'll be dead.
His body won't spend eternity in a mausoleam, either. King Tut's body didn't, and this planet won't last for eternity.
Is this really what the guy thought, or is this just a reporter's blather? Either way, it simply amazes me what people think.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2006/03/why-i-am-atheist.html (115 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
The definition Mr. Dennett uses works for many, maybe all, 'modern' religions, but what about the early ones? The ones that are closest to our beginnings?
The Greek did not seek the approval of their gods. They made sacrifices to avert divine wrath, but that is not the same thing. The Sumerians spoke endless prayers to their dieties' vanity: praising beauty or manhood, glorifying prowess in battle. Neither of these societies spoke of glorious afterlives for adherents. You died, and you went to a place that was worse than here, if you did not cease to exist.
Many Meso-American cultures also included gods whose approval was not sought. The Aztecs and Mayans sought to avert their gods wrath: the Mayans believed that Hurricane created the world, and repeatedly sought to exterminate mankind. How do you win *HIS* approval without dying out?
I think Professor Dennett's definition works well for monotheistic faiths, but many, if not most, of the religions that have existed is humanity's history have had many gods. These polytheistic religions are not so accurately portrayed by the statement. And how does it relate to ancestor worship? Do dead relatives count as supernatural agents, even though they were once natural agents?
Dennett's comment is easily understandable, but I am not sure how useful it is as a measuring stick for all faiths.
I will have other comments on this later, but I want to take issue with this statement right away, because it betrays a deep misunderstanding of a core Christian belief:
The religion, of whichever sect, has a set of rules that must be obeyed in order to win this reward. Fran, and millions of others, are Catholic. They believe that only Catholics, true believers, will achieve this goal. Protestants, of whatever sect, believe similarly.
This has to be one of the biggest misconceptions about the Christian faith. There is no set of rules that must be obeyed to win salvation. Christians believe there is one way, and one way only, to attain salvation: By accepting Jesus Christ. You are saved by the grace of God alone. It is a gift. You cannot earn your way to heaven through good behavior. Good behavior is the product of salvation, not the other way around.
As for the "who's right" meme, I am reminded of a joke my minister told me. When a Presbyterian minister was asked by a parishioner if Presbyterianism was the only road to heaven, he replied, "No, but it's the only way a gentleman would choose." Most of us recognize the trappings of our denominations for what they are -- comfortable traditions that facilitate worship, not the way to get to heaven.
Sarah: Sorry about editing your comment, but at this point, my response would be well down the page. Salvation comes through accepting Jesus Christ - granted. But check the picture.
We've discussed this previously, I believe.
Edited by Siteowner...
But one claims that by faith some will reap an eternal reward, while others will suffer for eternity. The other claims that by hard work, we'll eventually understand. Perhaps not everything, but more and more, continuously.
Many hundreds of nits I could pick with your excellent essay. You've done a fine job of summing up the dilemna of the leap of faith. I just want to note, though, from the standpoint of a Christian, that the two ideas expounded above are not, by any means whatsoever, mutually exclusive.
I have my own religious issues, but one of my personal core principles on religion is simple:
Any so called superior being that would either desire worship, or accept it, would not be worthy of it.
-- Yet Fran's religion says that his wife and his daughters, and everyone Fran knows who is not a "true Christian" will burn for eternity in Hell, at worst, or simply cease to exist at best. --
Whose religion says that? Not mine. You should have sought confirmation from the source -- me -- before making such a statement.
You should really stick to talking about firearms, Kevin. Your knowledge of Christianity is, shall we say, a bit off.
Interesting essay. I'm not convinced that religion (of the Christian variety, anyway) and science are, in the final analysis, incompatible. My short story involves being raised Catholic, taking an atheistic bent as a biochemistry major in college and then coming back to the Church with a renewed understanding and appreciation for the strengths and failings of both science and religion. As such, I tend to disagree with the thrust of this statement:
Science acknowledges ignorance, but at least offers the possibility of eventual understanding. What it doesn't offer, is comfort. Faith offers that.
I would suggest that science most certainly does offer comfort. What better comfort for those fleeing religion than an institution that suggests: 1) all reality is understandable and 2) there is no ‘ultimate being’ looking over your shoulder and keeping track of your sins? From ‘knowing’ you via this blog, I would think that it is point 1 that gives you comfort. However, there are plenty of people who use atheism (or Atheism) as an excuse to dump the once-common morals adhered to by Jeudo-Christian religions.
In the end, I think that one might come away from reading this post and think that you are of the opinion that an atheist is someone, by definition, more thinking/contemplative than are those of a religious persuasion. I was glad to see that you agree that those who ascribe to either (or both) religion or (and) science rely on ‘experts’ to explain things to them. In my experience, the average atheist has no better grip on true science that does the average religious person. And by ‘true science’ I mean the raw, primary, published data. Who actually reads Immunology, the Journal of Biological Chemistry or even Science and Nature? Do you? I would think not (hell, I’m a scientist and I don’t read all of those on a regular basis), and so we are all, to some extent, relying on the interpretation of the ‘experts’. I have a reasonable amount of faith that, through the workings of science on a very large scale, we can eventually learn most things. Whether or not we will ever truly understand them, well, that depends on what we mean by ‘understand’. One of my favorite lines from The Dark Tower series by Stephen King was when the uber-bad guy was doing his uber-bag-guy-monologue thing and made the statement (paraphrased), "The efforts of science lead to much data and information, but very little understanding." I think there is something to that...
The only other quibble I have with the piece is when you write, “…science rejects the concept of "supernatural" for "we don't understand yet.”
I know what you’re getting at, but I do not think that science does, or at least can rightly, ‘reject the supernatural’. The simple reason is that science cannot really say anything at all about unobservable phenomena. You, as an atheist, might very well choose to believe that there is no God, but you have not proven He/She/It does not exist (as proving a negative is, to say the least, very difficult).
On the other hand, there are people in this world who claim to have observed miracles. Did they? I don’t know, as I have never observed the sun darting around in the sky, the Red Sea parting or anything of the sort. However, again, science has absolutely nothing to say on the topic of miracles (this time because they are, but definition, not repeatable). My point here is that science (and its adherents) can “reject the supernatural” all they like, but they should at the very least recognize that such a stance amounts to an article of Faith.
Anyway, I appreciate you taking the time to write this long piece and for the thought you have obviously put into it. The one thing that has always irritated me so much about atheists (or maybe they were Atheists) was the overwhelming stench of arrogance. The, I figured it all out on my own, so I'm smarter than you. thing. Thanks for not being that guy =). Keep up the good work. There’s nothing like the free exchange of (even insulting =)) ideas to keep us all on the right track.
Fran:
Again, sorry if I offended, but to repeat myself, I don't think you're really a Catholic. You're a Protestant in a sect with a population of one.
Thanks to the rest of you for commenting. I expect, if history is any guide, that this will be a busy place for the next week or so.
Eric Sivula: The Greek did not seek the approval of their gods. They made sacrifices to avert divine wrath, but that is not the same thing.
For the purposes of this essay, it is. Avoiding disapproval is not unequal to seeking approval.
For a farmer, the prayer "Please make it rain" is semantically equivalent to "Please don't make it hail." Both mean "preserve my crops," and both are asked of supernatural beings supposedly in control of these things.
I define religion as the relationship between humans and God/the gods/the divine/ Flying Spaghetti Monster/whatever. In essence, atheism even with its lack of belief in a god or gods is still a religion because it defines the lack of a relationship between man and a divine nature.
I also see the aim of religion as making us better people. It's hard for us to be naturally good without some outside force that gives us rules or laws, and let's face it, saying God disapproves of you killing or stealing and with punish you with eternal pain for doing such can be a pretty good disincentive to do these things. An atheist can make good laws or morals, but too often I've seen atheists slip into this thinking "there is no God, hence no Devil, hence no good and evil", which can be destructive and detrimental towards the individual and others.
Religion can also comfort us and help us make sense of the world we live in. In times of stress, it's a good thing to believe there's someone out there who's watching out for you when you're alone and in dire straights.
If belief in a deity helps get you through a tough day, fine. I'm a hardcore theist, though I'm not too fond of these Abrahamic religions. I believe in the short-duration personal savior. Doesn't matter what it is, but if the belief in it helps you out, then it's worth following. It could be a good book, the rock that fails to crush your head in, that dog down the street which is so ugly it's kinda cute. You can have on SDPS, or thousands, for as long as a millisecond to the rest of your life. Who cares what god or thing you believe in, provided IT WORKS. And when it doesn't work anymore....CAST IT AWAY. You don't keep an old TV when it's not working and the picture sucks; why not do the same with your religion?
I am an atheist because I have been exposed to science, and science has pointed out weaknesses in religion. I cannot believe that there are supernatural agents, much less ones I must seek approval from.
That describes me quite well.
For me, to answer the question "How did ..." with "God did it ..." or "Why does ..." with "It's God's will ..." is to respond with an explanation that explains nothing. It is no more more satisfying to my hungry mind than a vacuum sandwich.
Do not pretend to know the teachings of the Catholic Church, because you do not. Francis is correct, under the doctrine of "invincible ignorance." Catechism, Section 847 and surrounding provisions. It is some Protestants, particularly the fundamentalists, who have a narrower view of salvation.
The best cinematic commentary on organized religion is a little-known, seldom seen film with Omar Sherif and Michael Caine called the Last Valley, set during the Thirty Years' War.
I've heard of that, Aaron. I think I'll end up buying it, as it's ount on DVD.
Trackback message
Title: The Question Unasked
Excerpt: Kevin Baker examines the concept of religion (more generally, faith) as a social meme. He casts the essay as an enunciation of his personal position which, of course, influences the character of his query (what you ask and how you ask a question grea...
Blog name: The Warrior Class Blog
Evolution via natural selection doesn't have to be incompatible with Christian religion, Kevin. If God is all-powerful, who's to say he can't create humanity thru evolution?
Now you could argue why he would want to do that all day, of course.
Any so called superior being that would either desire worship, or accept it, would not be worthy of it.
Hmmm. It seems that if there were a superior being, then by definition we would be inferior, and most likely incapable of assessing its worthiness. At least that makes sense while I have yet to finish my first cup of joe this morning. :)
Any so called superior being that would either desire worship, or accept it, would not be worthy of it.
Never had a dog, huh?
Scott peck compares several types of people in “The people of the lie” ranking them spiritually.
Sociopaths “Who kill without remorse” lowest level
Religious zealots . These are people who believe they have all answers.
Atheist and agnostic. On a true spiritual path as they do not have the answers but are seeking the truth.
I have always distanced myself from the first two and I am more comfortable with the third type. I find myself more agnostic as scientific thought precludes me from ignoring that which I cannot disprove. I always have had a problem with trying to wrap this finite mind around an infinite universe. That has always given me pause. Stimulating read as usual.
I enjoyed Frans read.
I just don't think that there is a reconciliation between the "truth" we're hardwired for and the "truth" we've discovered.
Truth is what it's all about. It's good that you put "truth" in quotes, because there is no knowing how the "truth" you've discovered relates to the truth. To quote my favorite non-fiction author
As the Ultimate of everything God is simply unknowable., beyond man's limited relative knowledge. [...] Also, the more enlightened the explanations [about God] are, the further away they are from any insights about God in the world progressing [as it does] which is merciless in human value terms. [...]
It is revealing that no man, not even the greatest philosopher, has ever had a single thought other than in terms of matter. This is particularly evident from the most astounding, truly "transcendental" fact that all languages everywhere have the same classes of words -- nouns, verbs adjectives or adverbs. [...] But absolutely never has anybody used or inventd word classes that would go beyond expressing the relations of matter in space and time. This is probably the most "supernatural" fact about human thinking.
It is to say, that the way we humans think, the means of our "knowledge" is pathetic when compared to any possible Universal Truth. To think otherwise is .. well, what is it? Science is interesting and usefull for our existence, but let's not get carried away. Science is limited precisely because we are. We can't even think about more than one thing at a time. How lame is that?
I enjoy Fran's writing, too. As to the atheist/agnostic divide, I cannot say "there is no Creator" - you cannot prove a negative. But I find that answer only raises the question of "where'd the Creator come from?" and that only pushes the question of origin back one layer. Occam's razor leads me, then, to discount the extra added layer. So if you want to be precise, I'm agnostic - I don't know (have faith) that there is no Creator, but I don't believe there is one.
Kevin, the is a large difference between seeking the approval of a supernatural agent, and attempting to keep such a force off your back. "Please make it rain" means you want personally think this aspect of many older resomething the supernatural agent. "Don't make it hail" means you are offering a payment to avoid action being taken. You are trying to get the supernatural agent to remain unengaged.
Even in the eyes of their worshippers, many gods from early religions were cruel, spiteful, and capricious. In many of these religions, the god or gods that had made the universe did not want worship. Tiamat, Cronos, et al. did not want the worship of humans, most did not want humans to exist at all. The lesser gods that appeared after these Creators demanded worship from humans. The Greeks were not asking for divine action to prevent natural events, they were asking to *not* be the target of supernatural destruction.
By your definition, a shop owner who pays thugs to not destroy his shop is seeking their approval.
Kevin, a WEEK? This could become a blog of its own. (it already has, sort of. I could name some).
Eric:
The religions you describe are among the malignant ones. You'll note that, historically, they didn't last very long.
So, as I said for the purposes of this essay...
Tom:
This post will scroll off the page in about a week. Commentary will fall off about then, I think.
Kevin:
I'm sure you're aware of the old joke about the people who believed that the world was carried on the back of a (presumably very large) turtle.
When a woman was questioned about just exactly what the turtle was standing on, she leaned over, and whispered into her questioner's ear, "Some of us believe that it's turtles ALL THE WAY DOWN...".
The problem with believing in a particular god is that you then have to attempt to define where/what created that god. On the other hand, believing in the big-bang theory of the universe leads you to the same problem. I'm happy to admit that I don't know the answer(s), but I sure as heck don't believe the people who claim that they do...and that's it's going to cost me time and money to learn it from them.
I personally define myself as an agnostic, rather than an atheist, since I cannot DIS-prove the existence of something. Were the finger of a god/God come down and touch me personally, I'd probably go seek psychiatric help, rather than assume that there is a god that cares about this particular carbon-based life-form.
To paraphrase RAH again (sorry, I don't have the quote in front of me), he said something like, "I'm not sure who or what's turning the crank that keeps the Universe spinning, but I am glad that they haven't stopped cranking."
Egad, a topic we can mostly agree on! I'm now forced to reconsider my position on religion, now that I realize you share it. :)
In fact, I blogged on this very topic in late 2003, but mine's a paltry 1,110 words...
Piker! ;)
I have taken in recent years to calling myself an agnostic rather than an atheist simply because I don't know whether the Divine is real. I don't for a moment believe in any forms of the supernatural, but I cannot state for a fact that it's all rubbish. But I can state this:
Mr. Porretto is acting like a child.
I have great respect for his writing generally. However, Mr. Porretto has suggested to Mr. Baker that he not post further on Mr. Porretto's blog when the topic is religion, but then has come to Mr. Baker's blog to post on this same topic. His posts herein are rude & dismissive, saying essentially "Stick to guns, boy - you know nothing about religion".
I have no personal knowledge of the Divine. But I certainly know hypocrisy, arrogance, and an attempt to control the terms of debate when I see them. Mr. Porretto is using a pretense of offense to avoid dialogue. Certainly he has the right to choose which topics he will or won't discuss. But to cut off debate on his blog while posting here is intellectually dishonest, as is his pretense at anger. Really, sir, this is beneath you. These are the tactics of a spoiled six-year-old. Simply put, Mr. Porretto, if you cannot discuss the topic calmly & rationally, then either
1. Avoid the topic in the future,
2. Turn off comments as soon as you post, or
3. Have the decency to admit that you don't want a dialogue, but an obedient echo chamber.
Were the finger of a god/God come down and touch me personally, I'd probably go seek psychiatric help, rather than assume that there is a god that cares about this particular carbon-based life-form.
And there's the fundamental problem. Not even God could prove himself to you. How would he do it? You could claim he's a super powerful space alien, or a mad scientist with you merely being a brain in a vat for him to play with, or that you are insane. That's why the leap of faith is required.
Tom-
"The simple reason is that science cannot really say anything at all about unobservable phenomena."
Mathematics. Says all kinds of things about things that are unobservable.
Another excellently written and insightful piece; even though I disagree with you.
"The definition of religion is "a social system that postulates supernatural agents whose approval is to be sought." Sought why?"
You said it yourself, we are "prewired for it". Human beings are, by nature, social beings.
For our own self-worth and self-realization, we have the innate need to be accepted, appreciated and approved of.
Seeking the approval of a "supernatural agent" who sets very high standards is preferable (at least in my mind) to seeking the approval of whatever social group one runs with.
Seeking approval is why kids who are, on their own recognizance, widely recognized as "good kids", can get tangled up in some pretty heinous behavior.
Seeking approval is why people don't "blow the whistle" on abusive authority figures.
Seeking approval is what gets people mixed up in drugs and alcohol.
Even people who insist that they "don't care" what other people think about them actually do. What they care about, however, is that people see them as "independent" or "strong"...disapproval of SOME people leads to approval by others. All of those "I don't care about what people think about me" people are simply liars. They just don't care about what YOU think about them.
What religion does is provide an entity who is beyond/above "peer pressure" that one is taught to seek approval from. When all the kids are throwing rocks at windows, the truly religious one says "God wouldn't like that and I won't do it". Not only does the one kid refrain from doing it, but in many cases, the lack of approval of one member of the group is enough to change the bahavior of the entire group. Another trait of human nature is to respond to strong leadership.
Religion gives people something to satisfy the natural urge to feel accepted and appreciated when in the face of unanimous (or nearly unanimous) opposition.
Granted, any true "cause" can do that for people. But it seems to be more psychologically binding when an intelligent entity can be attributed with the approval. Seeking the "approval" of a simple "cause" often does not provide the necessary impetus for action.
When religion runs into problems is when "fundamentalists" intepret their "supernatural agent" as offering approval for acts such as torturing people to "convert" them or simply murdering "heretics" or "infidels". Fundamentalists tend to have a malignant relationship with their religion rather than the healthy, symbiotic one. This is no less true of enviro-fundamentalists, animal rights fundamentalists, muslim fundamentalists or any number of other basic religious belief systems.
You mention that Science pursues truth whereas religions attempt to impart it. I disagree. One of the major complaints I have with modern scientific techniques is the assumption of a hypothesis before any study is begun. Why does science require a researcher to have a preconcieved notion, which could tend to influence the outcome, before any evidence is studied?
I would submit that science is as much a religion as anything else. The fact that scientists perform a "study", reach a conclusion and declare it "truth" and then, one year, two years or more down the line, it is disproven by another scientist belies the statement that science is the be-all and end-all of truth.
Scientists simply replace the acceptance and approval of a higher being with the acceptance and approval of their peers and society as a whole.
Evolution is a prime example of this. There are huge holes and gaping inconsistencies in the underlying theories of evolution. This does not stop the scientific community from declaring their theories "truth". Why is it so difficult for evolutionists to admit that the science is far from "proven" and that it is all still theoretical...therefore, could possibly be inaccurate? Scientists seek the spread of their memes no less vigorously than religious people.
Just for the record: I personally believe that most of the theories embraced by evolutionists are highly probable. I further believe that evolution is NOT in conflict with Christianity in any major way...only in the details of the particular mechanics involved in the creation...a minor point to say the least. But the fact that the theories are "probable" does not make them absolute truth. I am probably going to live to be at least 65...but I could get hit by a bus tomorrow: probabilities are not fact or "truth".
You say that "Science acknowledges ignorance", but in many cases it does not. Commonly accepted scientific principles are disproven on an almost daily basis. Remember when eggs were bad for you and Cholesteral caused heart disease? Scientists regularly advance their theories as fact and refuse to acknowledge their basic ignorance. The fact that they reached their level of ignorance through scientific study does not reduce said level of ignorance...except in their own minds.
You consider yourself an athiest. That infers a solid belief (that there is no God or "supreme being") and is, in itself, a religious belief system. The higher power to which you defer for acceptance is society as a whole (or yourself, which is commonly referred to as narcissism).
I am one of those people of faith who admits to not truly knowing the truth. I attend church regularly and consider myself to be a saved Christian. That does not, however, infer that I "know it all". Doubt does not equate to lack of faith. Doubt equates to humanity and imperfection (a notable inherent quality of humanity).
For that reason, I refuse to attempt to sway you to my beliefs. I will explain what I believe, I will explain why I believe that you should come to believe it as well...but I will never presume to "insist" that you come to believe it...heck, I could be wrong. It is the people who "know" that they are right and everyone else is wrong that are the militants for their cause and try to force the heretics into line. Michael Newdow comes to mind. It is not enough that he doesn't believe in God, it is "offensive" to him that anyone else does.
If I knew for a fact that everything I've been taught to believe in my Christian upbringing was true and perfect, then I would be ardently attempting to "save your soul" or else I wouldn't be living up to my responsibilities now would I?
The bottom line is that I simply don't know. I do know what I've been taught, I do know what I've interpreted to bible to mean for me and I do know without a doubt that Science cannot and will never be able to answer all questions undeniably and demonstrably. That's just the nature of life.
Should I live my life seeking the approval of other imperfect humans? Should I live my life seeking only the approval of my own self-gratification? Or should I live my life seeking the approval and acceptance of one greater than me; the perfect one; the creator? That's a no-brainer for me...doubts or no doubts.
To be perfectly honest, I sincerely hope that you are right. If you are, then when we die, we are simply gone and neither of us will care what happened to the other. All my religious pontificating meant nothing and hurt no-one. If, on the other hand, the religion I was raised to believe is right...well...I wish the Hell that I was raised to believe in on no-one.
"If you live like there's no hell, you'd better be right"--unkown (seen on a bumper sticker)
Occam's razor leads me, then, to discount the extra added layer.
Kevin, it's one extra added layer on an already infinite number layers. Occam's razor doesn't really apply.
Mathematics. Says all kinds of things about things that are unobservable.
I sorta don't understand your point, rand. Lots of things say things about things that are unobservable. You are still left with no way of knowing how what your thing says about things relates to the truth. The things mathematics has to say about unobservable things are what?
Mr. Baker, the Greeks kept some form of that religion well into the Common Era. Call it 1200 years. The Sumerians and Babylonians kept theirs for something around 2000.
I would not call 12 centuries historically short. Islam is barely that old yet, and all Protestant sects younger still. The faith of the Sumerians and Babylonians lasted as long as Christianity has, and for much of that history was the dominant faith of some of the most powerful societies on Earth. A significant reason those faiths were supplanted by more modern ones is that neither the Greeks nor the Sumerians sought to spread their faith. Proselytizing was not very important to either culture.
Sailorcurt,
While I generally agree with you, I must point out two things. First, I have never heard anyone refer to the "Fact of Evolution". Rather, it is the "Theory of Evolution". I hardly think that would indicate someone who sees our current understanding of evolution as "Truth". Second, you wrote:
I further believe that evolution is NOT in conflict with Christianity in any major way...only in the details of the particular mechanics involved in the creation...
Actually, the theory of evolution has absolutely nothing to say about the event (or act, if you like) of Creation. The theory of evolution presupposes the existence of some entity that can produce offspring and an environment that can kill (some of) those offspring. While the theory can be extended to include the genesis of life, it did not originally nor must it.
Sailorcurt:
Excellent response. Note that a few comments above I make reference to being, by definition, an agnostic (I don't know a supreme being doesn't exist). But I'm an atheist by dint of the fact that I don't believe.
I sincerely hope I'm right, too, because I can't make myself act as though I'm trying to win the approval of a creator I'm unable to believe exists. This won't change my behavior for the worse, though.
Eric:
Mr. Baker, the Greeks kept some form of that religion well into the Common Era. Call it 1200 years. The Sumerians and Babylonians kept theirs for something around 2000.
I would not call 12 centuries historically short.
Good point. I apologize for not being more precise. These religions were, however, rapidly displaced when superior memes came along, were they not?
Tom:
The theory of evolution presupposes the existence of some entity that can produce offspring and an environment that can kill (some of) those offspring. While the theory can be extended to include the genesis of life, it did not originally nor must it.
True, but logic draws me to that conclusion. Wilson said, "There is no reconciliation between the theory of evolution by natural selection and traditional religious view of the origin of the human mind," and I think he's right. I'd like to believe that "We are not this crude matter. Luminous beings are we."
But I don't.
Was it Carl Sagan who said, when asked if there was alien intelligent life, "Either there is other intelligent life out there or there is not. Both possibilities are equally scary."?
I am atheist.
My chances are roughly 50/50 at worst.
There is one aspect that the writer (and perhaps Dannett as well) has missed. It has to do with the concept of "sin" and the alleviation of conscience.
Very briefly -
I take responsibility for everything that I do; good and bad.
If I were religious, I would be able to take the pain from the consequences of wrong-doing by "sharing"the wrong-doing with my god. That, for me, is nothing more than a cop-out. It smacks of a hypocrisy that a person can wrong others for six days a week and be given salvation on the seventh. That is a crutch and a crock.
Rand,
I was being sloppy. In the set of 'observable' are things that can be measured by proxy. I study proteins. Although we have imaging techniques that allow us to 'see' them, that's quite right. At some point things get small enough that any attempt to see them is useless...and yet I do think science can make a statement about them. Of course, to do so we need 'assays'...and it really an article of faith that an assay is measuring the thing I think it is. With enough controls pretty much everyone will agree with me (or enough to get my data published, anyway), but it's rather hard to 'prove'. I'm going to quit that line of thought here because the next stop is loony town (e.g., how can I prove something is ‘observable’? Can I really trust my senses, blah, blah, blah. Gave that up after college, along with binge drinking =)).
I suppose you could suggest that math is different…but then not all math is necessarily science (or at least not ‘experimental science’). IMHO, some higher, arcane, math is more akin to philosophy…but then I never went beyond Calc III.
Kevin,
I don't agree with Wilson. I understand the Book of Genesis to be referring to the creation of Man and Woman in the spiritual sense. I know, I know. The story speaks of physical creation and all that, and I may very well be bastardizing the whole gimish for the sake of reconciling the irreconcilable. If that's the case, then so be it. I can function as a scientist while practicing my religion as I believe it should be practiced. If that makes me a 'Protestant denomination of one' within the Catholic Church, well then so be it. No human nor human institution is infallible (related Papal issues aside for the moment). In the final analysis we all choose our articles of faith whether they be absolute belief in the power of human observation and reasoning or the absolute opposite. Who is right may or may not be important depending on the Ultimate Truth regarding an Afterlife.
Either way, if you can build a set of ethical/moral principles from non-religious-based starting points, cool. I’d love to hear/read them. Of course, you do have to admit (and here I’m making an assumption about you personally, so please forgive me if I’m wrong) being raised in a society steeped in the/a Jeudo-Christian worldview will have a significant influence on the outcome of your thinking. I would go so far as to say that any set of acceptable ‘rationally-derived’ ethical/moral principles would end up looking a lot like the 10 Commandants, etc.
Anyway, thanks for the forum for this discussion.
The paradoxes of quantum mechanics give rise to the fact that reality is not quite as it seems to be. (They call it quantum strangeness) It is these observations that make some believe that they are staring into the face of God when they study it, others believe we just lack understanding. There’s that 50/50 again.
I sincerely hope I'm right, too, because I can't make myself act as though I'm trying to win the approval of a creator I'm unable to believe exists. This won't change my behavior for the worse, though.
Kevin, your take on Christianity is puzzling. I can only assume you have read little of the Bible and no commentary whatsoever. You cannot win the approval of God. All you have to do to attain salvation is acknowledge Him. Like Abraham, you choose God, and God chooses you.
I find it beyond comprehension that, given the choice, you would trade universal love, purpose, and eternal life, for what? Your ego? Pride really is the greatest of all sins.
If you do nothing else, at least try to understand as fully as possible what it is you are rejecting before you reject it. C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity is an excellent place to start. Gerald Schroeder's The Science of God is also a must.
(I get the feeling that my comments are going into the abyss... !)
Sarah, look above at your first comment. I inserted a response there a few minutes ago.
To paraphrase, you wrote: "By accepting Jesus Christ. You are saved by the grace of God alone. It is a gift. You cannot earn your way to heaven through good behavior."
But I don't believe - and therefore cannot "accept."
It doesn't have anything to do with ego, so far as I can tell. It has to do with belief.
As I said, we've had this conversation before, I think.
If I were religious, I would be able to take the pain from the consequences of wrong-doing by "sharing"the wrong-doing with my god. That, for me, is nothing more than a cop-out. It smacks of a hypocrisy that a person can wrong others for six days a week and be given salvation on the seventh. That is a crutch and a crock.
The only problem is that no sin is any worse than any other to God. The idea is that God is perfect, and any imperfection is just as bad as any other in comparison. Everyone deserves to get flushed down the eternal toilet in the end. God just made us a deal that if we repent, then we can be forgiven, and then you get eternal life. Now even though you can be forgiven, it does not mean that you will not be assessed for your good and bad works either. You still owe for all the bad things you did. The worse you were, the more you pay. Says so iin the Bible, if I'm not mistaken.
If there is no God, then there is NO SIN. Good and bad don't exist, you can simply make them up. Murdering a million people isn't wrong, why would it be. Who's forgiveness would you ask? The dead certainly don't care. The living? Well, what do they know that you don't?
If there is no God, then we are JUST LIKE THE ANIMALS. Everyone here thinks anything that goes on in the animal kingdom is purely AMORAL. How are we any different? They can kill and rape and do anything they like and none of it is morally good nor bad. It just is. And if that's the case, then we just are. Whoopty-do.
And now this comment shall join Sarah's down the memory hole. Nothing to look at, just keep walking.
Actually Kevin, neither the Greek pantheon nor the Sumerian one was 'rapidly displaced' by later, arguably superior, memes. Christianity was not the dominant religion in the Levant when it became the official religion of the Empire in the early 4th century. And even then it took decades to become dominant - even as the official Church with all the legal benefits and finacial boons that contained.
The Sumerian faith survived the fall of the people of Sumer by nearly 800 years. As each new wave of invaders came, they took upon the Sumerian faith whole cloth, only occasionally changing the names of gods to fit in existing tribal "supernatural agents". Until the appearance of the fairly xenophobic Assyrians, the meme of Sumerian faith prospered quite well. Only with the appearance of a group who stripped temples bare rather than make use of them did the Sumerian religion become extinct.
But I don't believe - and therefore cannot "accept."
That is the problem. I know how you feel. It is a tremendous obstacle to overcome from where you are at.
Kevin,
Yes, we have had this discussion before. I said then that I don't think you have to believe (as in know). I think it is enough to want God to exist and be open to the possibility. It says in the Bible that Faith is the substance of things hoped for.
I was once where you are now. Couldn't bring myself to believe in a being that would require me to grovel. But you realize at some point that there is no groveling involved. You acknowledge God's superiority (for any being that is capable of creating a universe is superior), and you express gratitude for what you have. Supplication to God -- if He is fact -- is no different than supplicating oneself to the laws of the universe. Choose a version of God that works for you. I chose a version of God that is consistent with both the Bible and what I know from science.
I don't know there is a God any more than you do. I hope, and I live my life as though my version of God is. I think that's good enough. If it's not, well, I'm roasting on the spit right next to you.
"Supplication to God -- if He is fact -- is no different than supplicating oneself to the laws of the universe."
No? (You're an excellent vector for your meme, BTW ;)) The laws of the universe don't require me to tithe 10% of my income as some sects do, or fast on certain days as some others do, or so on and so forth. Each of these behaviors is considered "supplication to God" by those sects.
Perhaps Christianity, stripped to its bare roots, doesn't require these things at all, but they are, as you pointed out, "comfortable traditions that facilitate worship." The laws of the universe need no worship.
There is another difference. Supplication to God means accepting your place. I'd like us to understand the laws of the universe so that humanity can exploit the loopholes.
Inter-religion argument: My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend.
Intra-religion argument: See Monty Python's Life of Brian, for the schism between the Sandal Sect and the Gourd Sect.
Atheism: You boys play nicely among yourselves now, and leave me out of it.
The laws of the universe don't require me to tithe 10% of my income as some sects do, or fast on certain days as some others do, or so on and so forth. Each of these behaviors is considered "supplication to God" by those sects.
Are you certain of that? And why would you even care? Do you think God can't tell the difference between a man who is pious in his heart and eats meat on Friday and a man who outwardly obeys the "rules" but deep down doesn't really care?
Perhaps Christianity, stripped to its bare roots, doesn't require these things at all, but they are, as you pointed out, "comfortable traditions that facilitate worship." The laws of the universe need no worship.
No, but they do require adherence. You have absolutely no choice about that. That which isn't forbidden is mandatory. On the other hand, you can choose not to love and obey God.
I think there is some misunderstanding as to what "worship" actually means. What it doesn't mean is to prostrate and grovel. What it does mean is to acknowledge God's perfection.
There is another difference. Supplication to God means accepting your place. I'd like us to understand the laws of the universe so that humanity can exploit the loopholes.
I don't see that the two are at odds. You create dichotomies where they don't necessarily exist.
Ben,
For what it's worth, I think your comments are spot-on. Without God, all we've got is Mama Nature, and she is one cold bitch.
"You create dichotomies where they don't necessarily exist."
That's one of the problems with language - the ability to use words where meaning isn't exactly shared.
"Supplication to God -- if He is fact -- is no different than supplicating oneself to the laws of the universe.
--
"You acknowledge God's superiority (for any being that is capable of creating a universe is superior), and you express gratitude for what you have."
I have no choice but to behave in accordance with the laws of nature, but I have choice when it comes to whether or not I express gratitude to a supreme being for what I have. Yet, there is no difference between "supplication" to these two forces?
I must've missed something?
There is another difference. Supplication to God means accepting your place. I'd like us to understand the laws of the universe so that humanity can exploit the loopholes.
To what end?
I have no choice but to behave in accordance with the laws of nature, but I have choice when it comes to whether or not I express gratitude to a supreme being for what I have. Yet, there is no difference between "supplication" to these two forces?
Actually, if there is no God, then you do not have free will and you have no choice wether or not you follow God. Initial conditions determined everything for you. And in that case, it doesn't matter anyway.
If there is a God, then you have free will, and you have chosen poorly.
Sarah:
You cannot win the approval of God. All you have to do to attain salvation is acknowledge Him.
I agree with Kevin -- it's not about ego, it's about belief. I won't try to fool myself. I cannot acknowledge what I cannot believe.
Without God, all we've got is Mama Nature, and she is one cold bitch.
Your God is one cold bastard, too. I've read the Old Testament described as "God before he got religion". A supreme being who created the common housefly cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and that's but the tip of the iceberg.
Sarah:
Oops. That previous "anonymous" post was mine. Sorry 'bout that ...
Ben:
Actually, if there is no God, then you do not have free will and you have no choice wether or not you follow God. Initial conditions determined everything for you. And in that case, it doesn't matter anyway.
If there is a God, then you have free will, and you have chosen poorly.
I asked you in another thread whether or not you believed this and you didn't answer it.
Tell me why the existence of a deity determines whether or not I have free will.
"To what end?"
To spread human genes throughout the universe, of course! ;)
"Actually, if there is no God, then you do not have free will and you have no choice wether or not you follow God. Initial conditions determined everything for you. And in that case, it doesn't matter anyway."
Ben, we've been through this before, in detail. There is no reason that "free will" is dependent on the existance of a supreme being.
That's your particular article of faith.
That's one of the problems with language - the ability to use words where meaning isn't exactly shared.
Well, I think it's more fundamental than that. If God created the universe, then He created the laws of nature. This doesn't negate them. In fact, I think that ultimately there is no limit to what humankind can do with an ever-increasing understanding of the laws of nature. God created us in His image, so maybe He meant for us to be creators, as well. You see? No dichotomy.
I have no choice but to behave in accordance with the laws of nature, but I have choice when it comes to whether or not I express gratitude to a supreme being for what I have. Yet, there is no difference between "supplication" to these two forces?
Sorry, I wasn't very clear about what I meant. I was speaking in terms of the emotional component. I don't grovel and scrape before the laws of physics, I just accept that they are and that the more I understand of them the more it facilitates my existence. That's also exactly how I view my relationship with God.
I agree with Kevin -- it's not about ego, it's about belief. I won't try to fool myself. I cannot acknowledge what I cannot believe.
That's certainly your choice. But the ego comment was in regard to Kevin stating that he hopes he's right. I still don't understand what that means, but it sounded like he'd rather be right and face annihilation than be wrong and have to accept a supreme being. Now, with respect to belief, if you accept what modern science tells us, then you have to accept that there is a creative force behind the universe. The only important question is whether that force is conscious or unconscious. Unless you have a compelling reason for rejecting big bang theory, you're stuck with a supernatural entity of some kind.
Your God is one cold bastard, too. I've read the Old Testament described as "God before he got religion".
Two things. a) So what? Christians are primarily concerned with the New Testament, which is the new covenant between God and humankind. If God ever was a "cold bastard" in the days of the OT, then what does it matter now? We have a new arrangement with God. 2) Here is where a superficial knowledge of something can be very dangerous. Have you read the Bible all the way through? Both testaments? The people to whom the OT was principally addressed were very primitive, and struggling out of paganism. As a strict parent might seem wrathful and frightening to a person in childhood (which represents a fairly primitive stage in an individual's life), so, too, might God have seemed to the people of the OT. But if you look carefully at what God says and does in the OT compared to the NT, the difference isn't all that great. This is a pretty good primer on OT vs. NT.
A supreme being who created the common housefly cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and that's but the tip of the iceberg.
No clue what this means.
To spread human genes throughout the universe, of course!
So instead of prostrating yourself to the spaghetti monster, you're just a worker bee being sacrificed for the good of the hive? That's swell.
There is no reason that "free will" is dependent on the existance of a supreme being.
But you claim to have free will. You tell me how that's possible given the laws of physics. A bunch of particles whizzing around, obeying deterministic, causal laws somehow creates free will? If that's the case, you ought to be able to make a machine with free will out of a desktop PC.
On the other hand, the most strange and obvious thing is that we are self aware. At least I am, I'm not sure about everyone else :). Isn't it sort of strange that beings aware of themselves can develope out of primordial goo, and for no reason? See, that's where I'm stuck. If that is the case, then life is a colossal joke, and the really shitty thing is that nobody even gets a laugh out of it.
A bunch of particles whizzing around, obeying deterministic, causal laws somehow creates free will?
And before some jerk comes and says something about quantum physics, don't forget that quantum physics is simply a framework that ALLOWS US TO COPE WITH SYSTEMS THAT ARE SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED BY OUR MEASUREMENTS. If we had "perfect" instruments that could see what's going on without affecting the system, then we wouldn't need the quantum baloney.
Sorta funny that when your instruments are made out of the same bunk as the rest of the stuff you're trying to study, you have limits in your resolution. :P
and finally, ARgh, what I meant to blather about there is "uncertainty". The quantum baloney is probably an accurate description of what's going on at that fine level. But all that says is that things inevitably are made of "quanta" or discrete bits. And that won't give you free will either. Now I'm off to strangle a manatee in the nude again!
Sarah:
Now, with respect to belief, if you accept what modern science tells us, then you have to accept that there is a creative force behind the universe. ... Unless you have a compelling reason for rejecting big bang theory, you're stuck with a supernatural entity of some kind.
No, I don't, and no I'm not. I don't have to accept notions of supernatural entities to explain something that I don't have an explanation for. Those are your beliefs, not mine.
If God ever was a "cold bastard" in the days of the OT, then what does it matter now?
It's the same "God", ain't it? He had the manners of a spoiled brat, and he is gonna forgive us?
Have you read the Bible all the way through? Both testaments?
I've read most of the OT and all of the NT. But, that was about 40 years ago.
"A supreme being who created the common housefly cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and that's but the tip of the iceberg."
No clue what this means.
I'm not surprised. I'll leave it at that.
DJ, should that not be "A Supreme Being who created the mosquito cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, ..."?
The mosquito has forced far worse effects onto the human race than the housefly ever did. Sickle cell anemia exists because of little bloodsucking parasites like the mosquito. In what genetic diseases did the housefly play a role?
See? Human beings derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with their memes, er, religions! :)
Sarah: "I still don't understand what that means, but it sounded like he'd rather be right and face annihilation than be wrong and have to accept a supreme being."
No, I'd rather be right because I do not believe. If I'm wrong, I'm going to hell. I cannot choose to believe. It's not in me.
Ben: "So instead of prostrating yourself to the spaghetti monster, you're just a worker bee being sacrificed for the good of the hive? That's swell."
Nope. I'm a human being interested in what's out there. We're a curious species, in all meanings of the word. But I'm as interested in ensuring our survival as the next zygote.
"You tell me how that's possible given the laws of physics.
--
"And before some jerk comes and says something about quantum physics, don't forget that quantum physics is simply a framework that ALLOWS US TO COPE WITH SYSTEMS THAT ARE SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED BY OUR MEASUREMENTS."
Really? So you believe in the clockwork universe (unless, of course, there's a supernatural being out there who can violate the laws of physics at will?) I don't. I think randomness is an inherent part of our existence. What little I've studied of Chaos Theory is fascinating - bounded random behavior. Fractals. Mandelbrot sets.
Not God, chance. So I have no problem with free will, bounded by the laws of physics. We're not automatons, we're complex chaotic systems.
"Isn't it sort of strange that beings aware of themselves can develope out of primordial goo, and for no reason? See, that's where I'm stuck."
Hmm... Nope. I'm here. The evidence seems to indicate that that's how I got here. No alternate theory seems to match the available evidence, and it makes logical sense. Until contrary evidence comes up, it's a theory I can accept.
"If that is the case, then life is a colossal joke, and the really shitty thing is that nobody even gets a laugh out of it."
Why is it a joke? It just is. And I laugh quite a lot. Life is generally, for me anyway - and I'd assume for the overwhelming majority of people able to read this blog - quite good.
It's those people suffering in the third-world shitholes who might have a problem understanding why they're where they are and questioning whether or not a supreme being is responsible for it. But it's there that religion seems to do the most good in uniting and organizing them.
All mathematics aside, actual randomness and apparent randomness are two different things.
Really? How do you tell? Chaos theory apparently can't.
Eric:
DJ, should that not be "A Supreme Being who created the mosquito cannot be both omnipotent and omnibenevolent, ..."?
That's a better way to state it. I'm pleased that you understand what I wrote.
The mosquito has forced far worse effects onto the human race than the housefly ever did. Sickle cell anemia exists because of little bloodsucking parasites like the mosquito. In what genetic diseases did the housefly play a role?
Beats me. I'm no disease specialist, I'm a retired engineer.
But, I was raised on a dairy farm. For those who've never been on one, it's an environment in which houseflies prosper quite well. For me, the common housefly served as a good illustration.
And, for what it's worth, it made me an expert on both cowshit and bullshit.
"No, I'd rather be right because I do not believe. If I'm wrong, I'm going to hell. I cannot choose to believe. It's not in me." -- Kevin
I find it interesting that you cannot believe in a supernatural agent, but can, and apparently DO, believe that if something appears chaotic in the brief, imperfect glimpse of the event our sciences and senses give of it, then it is.
I find it intriguing because when I look at the de facto example of chaos theory - butterfly flaps its wing at X, and tornado/hurricane/breeze occurs at Y - I do not see it as particularly chaotic. A group of atoms and molecules here are moved, which in turn effect another group, and those move another, larger group, and eventually a significant atmospheric event occurs. I always suspected that with sufficiently precise tools, the outcome could be easily predicted, and that it only seems chaotic to us because we cannot see the location of every atom and molecule in the atmosphere the instant that butterfly's wingbeats begin.
Of course, I also believe that the instant that butterfly flaps its wings, a new reality springs into existence where that butterfly did not flap its wings....
By the by, Mr. Baker, how do persons of a philosophical bent like your own believe that humanity developed the characteristic where some people are willing to die for an intangible goal. Where is the evolutionary advantage to such a willingness to sacrifice one's own genetic heritage to allow others to spread their own?
The ancient Greeks were often fighting to protect the lives of their family members, both in the phalanx with them, and at the farm back home. His genetic line will live on, even if he does not.
But what of the Union soldier marching into battle in Virginia in 1864 with the Battle Hymn of the Republic on his lips? If one takes him at his word, that man is prepared, even expecting, to die in the attempt to free another human being, whom he does not, and will likely never, know. What is the benefit to him, or to his family in this action? Most of these men were unmarried, and childless. And more than one family saw all of their hopes for genetic continuation expire on a battlefield.
How does a philosophy which explains human behavior through evolution explain such people?
Is that action explained completely in your mind by the extension of familial ties to the concept of the nation? I ask because that explanation alone seems lacking to me.
"I always suspected that with sufficiently precise tools, the outcome could be easily predicted, and that it only seems chaotic to us because we cannot see the location of every atom and molecule in the atmosphere the instant that butterfly's wingbeats begin."
Well, I think Heisenberg was a pretty smart fella, and his theory is that we can't have sufficiently precise enough tools to make that prediction. Chaos Theory adds to this by pointing out that in systems where there is (and this is a technical term, believe it or not) "sensitive dependence on initial conditions," arbitrarily tiny differences will result in unpredictable results. You'll get result A or result B, (but never result Z) but you won't be able to predict which - which to me indicates true randomness, but bounded randomness.
"By the by, Mr. Baker, how do persons of a philosophical bent like your own believe that humanity developed the characteristic where some people are willing to die for an intangible goal. Where is the evolutionary advantage to such a willingness to sacrifice one's own genetic heritage to allow others to spread their own?"
That's the meme theory, Eric. Memes can cause people to behave in ways contrary to their own genetic advantage, but such behavior is advantageous to the meme AND it's advantageous to the species - so that ability is an evolutionary positive trait. The people doing the volutary dying were generally the young males, but their genes were carried on by their own offspring, or were already duplicated in siblings. Individuals who would not willingly sacrifice themselves were shunned by the society - which carried the meme - and could not reproduce.
Heinlein again:
"Once, Roman matrons demanded their sons come back with their shields or on them. Eventually this custom declined. So did Rome."
We're wired for it.
And you can call me Kevin.
Well, I think Heisenberg was a pretty smart fella, and his theory is that we can't have sufficiently precise enough tools to make that prediction. Chaos Theory adds to this by pointing out that in systems where there is (and this is a technical term, believe it or not) "sensitive dependence on initial conditions," arbitrarily tiny differences will result in unpredictable results. You'll get result A or result B, (but never result Z) but you won't be able to predict which - which to me indicates true randomness, but bounded randomness.
No, it is still only apparent randomness. Notice how I italicized apparent to stress how smart I am. Anyway, just because you, meaning we actually, cannot measure something with great enough precision does not make the process in question random. Now, the tools of chaos theory and P&S and so forth are usefull since there are so many things that we cannot measure with sufficient precision, and we can use those tools to learn something about the gross behavior in spite of our measurement problem. But this is not an indication that the system is really random, only apparently so.
With all due respect to Heisenberg, because the state of a particular particle cannot be measured with perfect precision, does that mean that the particle does not have an absolute position and momentum at a given instant? Well, some people think so, others not, but either way the cat is dead.
Ben, when you can't tell the difference, is there one?
Kevin, it sounds like your explanation is based on the premise the human willingness to sacrifice for an extrafamilial cause appeared after the emergence of human societies. I say this since your argument refers to transmission of the concept through memes, which as far as I know require sentiece and societies to exist within.
If that is the case, then how does such an evolution based philosophy explain the survival of such a meme against the older concept of exploitation of others? How, as well, does such a philosophy explain the emergence of extrafamilial associations?
While animals do display both the willingness to exploit the actions of other, a male lion pushing a female off a kill for example, and the xenophobia which hinders extrafamilial associations from forming, troops of chimpanzees engaging in warfare with one another, as far as I know, no species on Earth aside from man displays even the most rudimentary levels of self deprivation for nonherd members. A chimpanzee troop will accept an individual, but if another troop appears in their territory, an altercation is almost certain to occur.
PS - The computer I am posting on has been having *issues* and I may have sent several copies of this comment. if I have, sorry, please delete as many as you need to.
Ben, when you can't tell the difference, is there one?
When I can't tell the difference? No. When you can't tell the difference? Yes.
Joking aside, I find this to be a strange remark. Suppose you like Folgers. Suppose I put one grain of Starbucks French Roast into your morning grind of about 2500 grains of your Folgers. Further, suppose I put one granule of Hodgdon's H4350 into the mix. Now, when you brew this stuff in the morning, will there be a difference between this pot of coffee and the one made from pure Folgers the previous day? Yes. Will you be able to tell the difference? No. Well, maybe, but this was a dumb example. In any event, the truth is not compelled by your ability, or lack there of, to perceive it.
Like, that was the sort of question I'd ask an undergraduate or a leftist to tie them into a nit. I'm not that dumb. I don't quite get why you tossed that one out there.
Anyway, I just watched Capricorn One, with OJ, great movie. Go rent it, you'll be glad you did.
Tom-
I went beyond Calc III, it can get very philosophical, and you don't need advanced math to see and understand that. Logic classes can be found in many universities being taught by both the math department, and the philosophy department.
But without diverging into Brain-in-a-Vat philosophy (Descartes, if I recall right), math still has lots of things to say about stuff that is unobservable. Multi-D geometry, Null concepts, non-Euclidean space.
I doubt we will ever see a hypercube or other 4+ D solid, but there's plenty of math to talk about it, and lot's to be, and has been said, about it.
Ben-
Sorry you had a problem understanding my point. Tom got it.
Here's one unobservable thing math has quite alot to talk about. Philosophy. Which is what just about all of the conversations in this comment section can be boiled down to.
As to your comment:
"Isn't it sort of strange that beings aware of themselves can develope out of primordial goo, and for no reason? "
No it's not strange at all, since it obviously happened. I'll tell you what's strange... Believing some supernatural being had a reason to create us. But if he/she/it had a reason, then it must have been a joke. But the crappy thing is that some people have figured out the joke, but others haven't.
Rand.
No it's not strange at all, since it obviously happened.
heh. prove that.
Your point about math is just not that strong. 3+3=6 could refer to summation of sets of ardvarks, or it could be a summation of the unobservable glafromocks. What does this have to say about glafromocks? Well, only that IF you had some, maybe you could add them. But there's no such thing, and so there's not really any point beyond the math itself.
OK, now is the time for Aaron Hospel to re-emerge from the blogospherial goo. If you don't get that, google his name and read his archives from God of the Machine.
Ben:
"No, it is still only apparent randomness. Notice how I italicized apparent to stress how smart I am. Anyway, just because you, meaning we actually, cannot measure something with great enough precision does not make the process in question random. Now, the tools of chaos theory and P&S and so forth are usefull since there are so many things that we cannot measure with sufficient precision, and we can use those tools to learn something about the gross behavior in spite of our measurement problem. But this is not an indication that the system is really random, only apparently so."
So... what you're telling me is that you're one of the experts we mere lay people are dependent on to instruct us in the truth? ;)
I still don't get it. With God there is randomness, but without God there is not? But God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent - it says so right there on the label. If God is omniscient, then He knows everything that did, is, and will happen. From a logical standpoint, then, nothing can be random.
It seems to me that lack of an omniscient supreme being is required for the possibility of randomness.
It also seems to me that Chaos and Quantum theory point to real, random effects, albeit tightly bound ones.
Eric:
"If that is the case, then how does such an evolution based philosophy explain the survival of such a meme against the older concept of exploitation of others? How, as well, does such a philosophy explain the emergence of extrafamilial associations?"
I think the answer to that question is in that Publisher's Weekly review of The Meme Machine:
"Few or no children free up the meme-carrier to devote more energy to horizontal transmission to non-relatives (monks and nuns the world over figured that out long ago), something the gene is incapable of. With adoption, memes can even co-opt vertical transmission between generations. Blackmore posits that, in modern culture, meme replication has almost completely overwhelmed the glacially slow gene replication."
Memes that influence cultures to spread outside a familial, tribal, or national culture have been evolutionarily successful for both the meme and for its carriers.
Consider, for example, that currently we are spending blood and treasure trying to spread Western liberal democracy to the Middle East. While that's far from the only reason we're there, it is one powerful reason for the support our actions have been receiving from Red America.
Kevin,
No, I'd rather be right because I do not believe. If I'm wrong, I'm going to hell. I cannot choose to believe. It's not in me.
OK, I understand now. I wish you would read C.S. Lewis. He is perhaps Christianity's greatest intellect. He wrote a very short book called The Great Divorce that describes the (mainstream) Christian idea of hell. It isn't lakes of fire and pitchforks, it's a cold, lonely, lightless existence -- and one that you can get out of as soon as you choose to accept God. Most Christians will admit that they really don't know what happens in the afterlife. But we're certain that hell is isolation, to be cut off from God. Kevin, I refuse to accept the kind of God that creates an independent thinking, feeling being only to destroy it when it displeases him. It just cannot be true, and so I choose a God that loves each of his children and wants them all to be with him in the afterlife. If God turns out to be Allah, well, we're all in big trouble. But I'd rather be destroyed or in hell than accept an Allah-like being, so I understand what you mean. In the meantime, why not hope for the best?
DJ,
You are refusing to accept the inescapable conclusion of a broadly-accepted theory, because it contradicts your own prejudices and makes you uncomfortable. How does this differentiate you from a creationist who refuses to accept modern science because he thinks it contradicts his belief in God?
Grrrrr! Haloscan is acting peculiar. Sorry if this ends up as a duplicate...
Just caught this...
Sarah: Sorry about editing your comment, but at this point, my response would be well down the page. Salvation comes through accepting Jesus Christ - granted. But check the picture.
I don't understand the point of the picture. Would you explain it to me?
Sarah:
"Kevin, I refuse to accept the kind of God that creates an independent thinking, feeling being only to destroy it when it displeases him."
We've had this discussion before too. Let me requote Stephen Roberts:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
No, I don't.
There is a world of difference between rejecting all notions of God and choosing a palatable one. Nature -- time, space, matter, everything in the universe -- has a beginning point, therefore, logically, there must be some kind of SUPERNATURAL creative force behind it all. It is inescapable. I keep repeating this, because there is some strange impediment (a severe prejudice) that prevents you from seeing this. If you trust modern science, then the question is no longer whether there is any such a thing as the supernatural. The ONLY relevant question is whether the force is conscious or unconscious.
Sarah:
"I don't understand the point of the picture. Would you explain it to me?"
So far as I have been able to tell, all of the Abrahamic faiths say that belief - faith - is a prerequisite for salvation. You said it yourself in that post:
"Christians believe there is one way, and one way only, to attain salvation: By accepting Jesus Christ."
"Accepting Jesus Christ" means believing. Now I am often told that acting as though I believe is the better choice, because if I'm wrong, when I die I'll go to Hell, but If I'm right I'll merely cease to exist. Let me look through the comments...
Well, there's Sailorcurt's bumper sticker, "If you live like there's no hell, you'd better be right."
That's not what I was looking for, exactly, but there's actually a term for going through the motions as a hedge against possible damnation. Do a Google search on the phrase "acts without faith."
The point is, if I don't believe then nothing I do will redeem me. I could become a male version of Mother Teresa, but it wouldn't get me past the pearly gates.
Perhaps, then, if you're correct I'll go off to some cold, dark place apart from God until such time as my soul can believe - but if being rejected by God after death, and being sent off to that cold place wasn't enough to convince me, what would be?
Sarah:
You are refusing to accept the inescapable conclusion of a broadly-accepted theory, because it contradicts your own prejudices and makes you uncomfortable. How does this differentiate you from a creationist who refuses to accept modern science because he thinks it contradicts his belief in God?
I don't believe the "the inescapable conclusion of a broadly-accepted theory" is inescapable. You apparently do. I simply refuse to accept a conclusion on the lines of "Beats me. Musta been God." I require evidence, and there ain't any.
DJ,
You're going too far ahead. Let's go one step at a time.
Big bang theory says that our universe came from some place else. That means there is something other than nature. Our universe was created -- that's your evidence. That's proof that there is some creative force. It isn't nature, because nature didn't create itself. So, the question becomes, is the creative force conscious or unconscious? You don't have to understand it completely to know that it is there. But there are only two choices -- conscious or unconscious.
The problem here is that you're refusing to accept the obvious. The only thing that can keep you from getting what science says and the obvious conclusion is an extreme prejudice. It's a bigotry against the idea of God. The definition of bigotry is to be presented with incontrovertible evidence and still deny the obvious. I understand how some people can have an extreme reaction to some concepts of God, because they're odious. But you can't let that get in the way of understanding a simple truth.
Kevin,
Re acts w/o faith, why a person does something is really important. If you help someone in need to get the approval of the people around you, that's not a good act. That's an act with a payoff. If instead you do it because you have developed a belief system where you think that is the right thing to do, and you do it for no other reason than it's right and you tell no one else about it, that's a significantly different act. If you help someone with the hope of impressing God and earning a ticket to salvation, it's not a good act, it's an act with a payoff. Once you come to accept that there is, hopefully, a God of love, you accept that love for your fellow human beings is the way to be and you act consistently in that regard. That's why good works is the result of salvation, not the other way around.
If you need any evidence that doing acts to get into heaven doesn't produce good results, you need look no further than Islam. Muslims are required to do works to get into heaven, and it doesn't inspire good behavior in the mean. Christians, who believe that good works won't get you into heaven and should be done for their own sake, have ended up doing more good for the world than any other group.
Perhaps, then, if you're correct I'll go off to some cold, dark place apart from God until such time as my soul can believe - but if being rejected by God after death, and being sent off to that cold place wasn't enough to convince me, what would be?
Realize that it is you who will have sent yourself to this cold, dark place, not God. If you don't acknowledge that the door exists, how can you walk through it?
One further thought before I go out and enjoy the rest of my Saturday...
Ben: "So instead of prostrating yourself to the spaghetti monster, you're just a worker bee being sacrificed for the good of the hive? That's swell."
Nope. I'm a human being interested in what's out there. We're a curious species, in all meanings of the word. But I'm as interested in ensuring our survival as the next zygote.
Curious then that the people who believe this are not the ones actually doing it. If I'm not mistaken, you, yourself, have not reproduced. Secular types are not reproducing at a rate that can even sustain the population, let alone grow it. If we are to survive as a species, shouldn't Mama Nature have provided us with the instinct to perpetuate without the need to believe in something that doesn't exist? Seems she cocked up big time with humans.
Sarah:
Big bang theory says that our universe came from some place else. That means there is something other than nature. Our universe was created -- that's your evidence.
No, that's you saying so.
I have read that some cosmologists believe that space and time did not exist before the big bang, i.e. that there was no "before" it happened. If so (and I don't claim by any stretch to be an expert on the matter, just an interested lay reader who's well versed in Newtonian physics), then space and time came into existence at the moment of the bang. What does it mean to "come from some place else" before space and time began?
It seems to me that you've simply postulated what supports your point of view. That's not evidence that your point of view is correct. It is certainly not "irrefutable".
My opinion of your point of view is that you cannot imagine that there could not have been a creator of the big bang. I can. So, why should reality be what jibes with your imagination but not what jibes with mine?
The problem here is that you're refusing to accept the obvious.
No, I'm refusing to accept what there is no evidence for. That's not a problem, that's rational thinking.
The definition of bigotry is to be presented with incontrovertible evidence and still deny the obvious.
No, the definition of bigotry is
The attitude, state of mind, or behavior characteristic of a bigot; intolerance.
and the definition of bigot is
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
By those definitions, I am not a bigot, nor do I practice bigotry. I am not partial, I simply refuse to not think. I am quite tolerant of others, so long as they do not try to harm me. We are not discussing tolerance of others, we are discussing agreement with evidence.
I do not deny the obvious when I am presented with incontrovertible evidence thereof. I'm an engineer -- evidence is my yardstick for everything. Regarding the question of (to word it quite broadly) "Does God exist?", I have not been presented with incontrovertible evidence either way, but if I ever am, I'll admit it.
I ain't holding my breath while I wait for it.
Sarah: "Curious then that the people who believe this are not the ones actually doing it. If I'm not mistaken, you, yourself, have not reproduced. Secular types are not reproducing at a rate that can even sustain the population, let alone grow it. If we are to survive as a species, shouldn't Mama Nature have provided us with the instinct to perpetuate without the need to believe in something that doesn't exist? Seems she cocked up big time with humans."
Oooh! That looks like the inspiration for another über-post! ;)
Funny thing is that even when God himself shows up and gives direct evidence as recorded in history, people reject it, even if they witness it firsthand. How many times in the Bible did he directly affect people and not even a generation later, they went back to worshipping something or anything else. Human Nature is no different now and never will change. He could come out of the clouds, talk to everyone on earth at the same time, flatten everything and people will still require more "proof". There is no such thing as proof at the level we are discussing and people will never accept it as such even if presented first hand. Take the life of Jesus for example. He performs miracles in front of many people and returns from the dead with numerous witnesses yet people try to find the "trick". You either believe what many witnessed and wrote or you don't. God's works are way beyond our comprehension. The greatest minds of all time may have had some insight much farther than we have ever seen and helped to expand our overall knowledge but it still hasn't shown any contradictions in God vs science. More likely, it is just revealing more of his works.
1. OK... so there is supposedly no morality without God, but the only thing necessary to attaining heaven is accepting the existence of God. (Or, depending on your doctrinaire flavor, Jesus Christ as the son of God as well.) If a lazy, immoral atheist can cop out of being a good person by saying there's nobody enforcing right or wrong, what's the difference between that and a lazy, immoral Christian copping out of being a good person because he/she is Saved? The "no true Christian" argument (which bears suspicious resemblance to the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy) certainly allows for a hell of a lot of people who've accepted God doing very bad things en masse. You can argue that they didn't "really" accept God, but that's a LOT of people. And you've already acknowledged there are atheists who are good people. The evidence alone suggests a minority of people who make the effort to be moral whether they "believe" in God or not.
2. So apparently we have a choice of positions of believing natural laws have always existed with no explanation as to origin, versus belief in an extremely complex and infinitely intelligent deity who has always existed with no explanation who brought natural law into existence. Where is there an invocation of logic as opposed to faith or a simple "I don't know"?
3. Science is a tool self-limited by the fact that it concerns itself purely with natural law. It is incapable of addressing morality or any other metaphysical matter by the very terms of its existence. Why then is it inherently in conflict with religion unless religion purports to codify natural law? And why could the Greeks, who had gods who behaved immorally by their own standards as well as our own, invent philosophies of ethics without recourse to divine mandate if such is necessary to create an enduring system of morality?
Kevin:
Oooh! That looks like the inspiration for another über-post!
I'll leave it to you to look up the appropriate Heinlein quote.
Sarah:
"Without God, all we've got is Mama Nature, and she is one cold bitch."
Not true. We have aeons' worth of human experience, of trial-and-error customs, morals and mores which have created the social constructs on which we base our lives today.
The essential difference between us is that you ascribe the creation of those constructs to God, and I don't. Religion has done a great job of codifying and strengthening those constructs, but mostly, it's all been built on what has been proven to be most efficacious before.
While not perfect, Hammurabi's Code (which predated the Ten Commandments by centuries) wasn't a bad attempt -- and no one has yet ascribed the genesis of that code to God, because it quite plainly wasn't.
People lived good lives, even moral lives, long before Jaweh or Christ (as concepts) came into being. Had they not, we would not be here today.
and:
"Nature -- time, space, matter, everything in the universe -- has a beginning point, therefore, logically, there must be some kind of SUPERNATURAL creative force behind it all."
Also not necessarily true. Because we humans live finite lives, we have a problem comprehehnding infinity. Who says this this universe we live in is the first which ever existed? All we can do, given our limited intelligence and science, is to assume that the Big Bang was the Beginning -- whereas in fact it may only have been the most recent.
Ancient peoples worshipped the Sun because without the Sun's warmth and light, nothing would grow, and the Sun was therefore seen as the giver of life (which, strictly speaking, it is). We now know, of course, that there is no Sun God, and that the Sun is a collection of burning gases with a finite lifespan.
Likewise, when it comes to the beginning of time, we (generically speaking) now worship God because he was the Great Initiator.
Same premise, same incomplete foundational knowledge.
Garvin: "Funny thing is that even when God himself shows up and gives direct evidence as recorded in history, people reject it, even if they witness it firsthand. How many times in the Bible did he directly affect people and not even a generation later, they went back to worshipping something or anything else. Human Nature is no different now and never will change. He could come out of the clouds, talk to everyone on earth at the same time, flatten everything and people will still require more 'proof'."
Kinda leads one to wonder why He would make us that way, doesn't it? ;)
DJ: "I'll leave it to you to look up the appropriate Heinlein quote."
Already have it. Thanks for abstaining!
Kevin,
I would answer with this simple statement - He wants a relationship, not a drone. What good is worship if it isn't a choice? That was his whole purpose for creation human beings. He knows that some won't choose Him but the offer endures.
Garvin
Then why comment on the lack of human credulity?
Did I miss something?
DJ,
I have read that some cosmologists believe that space and time did not exist before the big bang, i.e. that there was no "before" it happened. If so (and I don't claim by any stretch to be an expert on the matter, just an interested lay reader who's well versed in Newtonian physics), then space and time came into existence at the moment of the bang. What does it mean to "come from some place else" before space and time began?
Most cosmologists believe that space-time was created at the big bang. Some have postulated that there is a superspace-time that exists beyond our universe, but most physicists reject that as having no scientific merit since it involves unobservable quantities. There is a minority in physics that rejects big bang theory altogether. When I said "some place else" I was playing fast and loose with the terminology. You are correct that there is no "place" in a material sense beyond the universe, but I thought you would have understood my play on the language.
My opinion of your point of view is that you cannot imagine that there could not have been a creator of the big bang. I can. So, why should reality be what jibes with your imagination but not what jibes with mine?
No, DJ, it's not my opinion. It is BY DEFINITION. Nothing is its own cause. Something else had to have caused the big bang to happen. Something that is, by definition, beyond nature.
You assume that I believe the supernatural conclusion of big bang theory because I believe in God. But the opposite is true. When I first began to study physics I was an agnostic objectivist. Didn't believe in God, didn't care. It was the evidence of science that caused me to convert. I converted to theism my junior year in physics, just after I finished an internship with one of the leading cosmological physics groups in the world. I converted to Christianity just last year, during my fourth year as a graduate student.
You are a bigot. You are partial to your belief that there is no God to the exclusion of any contrary ideas. You don't even seem curious about the possibilities implied by modern science, which indicates an unforgivable lack of imagination. There's no point discussing this with you anymore.
Kim,
Hammurabi's code did come well before the Ten Commandments, but there's a reason nobody refers to it as the basis for anything anymore. I won't claim that the morality in the Bible is exclusive to the Bible, I claim that Judeo-Christian faith has done the best job of spreading and perpetuating that morality. No other system in existence has accomplished that. By whatever law of human behavior, society at large needs an absolute reference frame -- in this case, an infinite God -- for a moral foundation. Look at any society that believes man is the measure of all things -- the former Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Cuba, Cambodia, France -- all devoid of any kind of morality. Modern China is a perfect example of a Godless society, and the Chinese have no morality whatsoever. Society without belief in God has never been moral. Kevin believes that it's a matter of time -- we haven't had morality without belief in God because humanism has only been around for the last couple of hundred years. But that idea is fundamentally flawed, because humanism is the product of Christianity. It's as though Christians have scaled this incredibly high mountain, and then humanists climb on their backs and claim, "look how far we've come!" It's so disingenuous.
"Nature -- time, space, matter, everything in the universe -- has a beginning point, therefore, logically, there must be some kind of SUPERNATURAL creative force behind it all."
Also not necessarily true. Because we humans live finite lives, we have a problem comprehehnding infinity. Who says this this universe we live in is the first which ever existed? All we can do, given our limited intelligence and science, is to assume that the Big Bang was the Beginning -- whereas in fact it may only have been the most recent.
Of course there could have been other big bangs, other universes, but then they all were also finite creations caused by something outside of their nature. Your postulation changes nothing.
This is so incredibly simple, I'm astonished at the resistance this idea is receiving here. The definition of nature is the material universe. According to physics, it had a beginning point. It is therefore finite. The universe is not infinite in time. It was therefore created -- by something which we don't understand. Nothing is its own cause, so this something is necessarily outside of the material world, i.e. outside of nature, i.e. SUPER-natural. I'm not stating that this something is necessarily God. It could be an unconcious creative force. But if you accept big bang theory, you MUST accept the existence of the supernatural.
This whole discussion reminds me of the book, Lords of the Earth. It's about the Yali people from the jungles of Indonesia who were completely isolated from the rest of the world until they were approached by western missionaries. The Yali cannibals, who were incredibly savage and backwards, believed in only what they could see, and so crowned themselves the lords of the earth. They were totally unaware of the rest of the world, and so it didn't exist to them.
We have modern science that tells us that something supernatural exists even though we can't directly observe it. The evidence of this is existence itself. And yet because you all can't directly observe this something, it doesn't exist to you. Do any of you see how incredibly narrow-sighted this view is?
Kevin, it seems like you and Kim are basically saying that the basic capacity for good in mankind is derived from empathy. The attempt for just laws, the willingness to sacrifice one's own life for a cause or for people tied to you by non-familial ties, the tolerance for ideas not your own - all of these require empathy. Indeed the most frightening groups of humans on Earth have been those with no empathy for others - Nazis, Communists, Fundamentalist Muslims, etc.
It seems that you both believe that empathy has a completely natural origin. Fair enough.
But what was it? It could not have begun as a meme, because societies cannot form without empathy. Am I to believe that empathy began as a fortuitous mental mutation that appeared in a group of humans somewhere? Because, gentlemen, I, personally, find the idea of a random mutation forming the unifying characteristic of human societies to be as far fetched as you two find the idea of supernatural agents creating mankind in its current form.
Or is it that you believe that empathy came as a package deal with sentience? And if that is the case, what, in your opinions, was the catalyst for sentience and empathy?
Eric, this requires an essay unto itself. Excellent question!
Edited by Siteowner...
I said far enough in the previous comment, and I meant fair enough.
Sorry for the confusion.
Fixed. No problem.
Edited by Siteowner...
Sarah:
You are correct that there is no "place" in a material sense beyond the universe, but I thought you would have understood my play on the language.
I also don't think there is any "place" or any "time" in a literal sense before the universe. I did understand what you stated. I simply have a very great difficulty grasping the notion of causality before space and time existed.
You assume that I believe the supernatural conclusion of big bang theory because I believe in God. But the opposite is true. When I first began to study physics I was an agnostic objectivist. Didn't believe in God, didn't care. It was the evidence of science that caused me to convert. I converted to theism my junior year in physics, just after I finished an internship with one of the leading cosmological physics groups in the world. I converted to Christianity just last year, during my fourth year as a graduate student.
I did make that assumption. My apologies for jumping to a conclusion. Knowing something of your history makes your opinions a bit more clear.
I understand why you might believe in a "creator", given what you say you believe about the "creation" of the universe. I don't share that belief, but I understand why you have it.
How did you come to believe in the correctness of the teachings of Christianity about the creator you believe in? Do you also claim to have evidence to that effect, or are those teachings, to you at least, self-evident?
We have modern science that tells us that something supernatural exists even though we can't directly observe it. The evidence of this is existence itself. And yet because you all can't directly observe this something, it doesn't exist to you. Do any of you see how incredibly narrow-sighted this view is?
No, that's not quite accurate. I don't have a clue as to why or how the universe came into existence. I wasn't there and science has no data about it. What I know about the subject does not lead me to believe that there must be, or have been, an intelligent creator of the universe. I simply refuse to reach a conclusion on something about which I have no data, and so I do not default to the common notion that it "musta been God".
I am evidence oriented. So far, I know of no evidence whatever for an intelligent creator of the universe, much less any evidence of any characteristics of any type of creator of the universe. Absent such evidence, I refuse to believe anything about any such creator.
You are a bigot. You are partial to your belief that there is no God to the exclusion of any contrary ideas. You don't even seem curious about the possibilities implied by modern science, which indicates an unforgivable lack of imagination. There's no point discussing this with you anymore.
You're ranting Sarah.
I don't exlude any ideas. I simply require evidence that they are correct to treat them as such.
I am a scientist at heart and an engineer by training and practice. I am extremely curious by nature and about nature, especially so about this subject. I always have been, but why is another story for another time. That's why I comment here.
I also have a quite vivid imagination, with 24 patents to prove it, for which I don't need your, or anyone else's, approval or forgiveness.
There's lots of point in discussing it with me, but I don't think you can understand my point of view any more than I can accept yours. It is quite apparent that we have different standards by which we decide to believe something.
Have a nice day.
DJ,
I hope I didn't come across as ticked off or rude. You and I diverge on the point of the nature of existence so fundamentally that it really is fruitless to continue.
Sarah:
I hope I didn't come across as ticked off or rude. You and I diverge on the point of the nature of existence so fundamentally that it really is fruitless to continue.
No, but I think you're exasperated, for lack of a better description.
Our point of divergence is, I think, on why we believe what we believe. That's a whole 'nuther topic.
I have very little patience with people who can think, but will not. I have a great deal of patience with people who do think, even if I don't agree with them, provided they don't resort to spitting and venom.
You're a thinker. I wish you well.
Thanks, DJ. Likewise.
Like I said a long time ago, Sarah is a "not stupid!" (Another Heinlein reference.)
One thing I'm grateful for; the overwhelming majority of the people who comment here are "not stupids." It's like this is Lake Wobegone, where everyone is above average! :)
This makes life much more interesting.
Thanks for the kudos, Kevin. Now if I could only develop a little more patience with people I'd be just about perfect! ;)
You will, Sarah, or you'll grow old while you're still young. Keep in mind that I was contemplating these issues while your daddy was in diapers. You ran headlong into these issues while in graduate school. I did it when I was nine years old.
If you (collective "you") are putting this much effort into a treatise on your beliefs, it suggests that you are not sure of them. That's not a dig at all - just friendly advice to pay attention to where you are in discovering your faith. Whether it be in yourself, in Atheism, in Christianity or some other function, faith is the fuel of the soul, and you must be honest with yourself when finding it. Don't be afraid to say "I just don't know yet." The faith part is "But someday, I will know."
"Nothing is its own cause. Something else had to have caused the big bang to happen. Something that is, by definition, beyond nature."
Great, so then what "caused" God? In the logical construct you've created, something must have. And something must have caused that thing, and so on. And we're back to "turtles all the way down".
Ah, but you might say that God is not part of "nature", but then we're back to the "no True Scotsman" fallacy.
You have determined that in your philosophy, intention and/or agency is required. Others have a different philosophy, which may allow for intention and/or agency but does not require either. Absent evidence, at least for those with such a philosophy, intention and agency are an unnecessary complication to the theory, and are thus properly excised with (Brother William of) Ockham's Razor.
Jim:
"If you (collective "you") are putting this much effort into a treatise on your beliefs, it suggests that you are not sure of them. That's not a dig at all - just friendly advice to pay attention to where you are in discovering your faith."
Well, Jim, in my case (as author of the piece) it was written in response to someone else's weekly explorations of his faith, and his reaction to comments I made. Does this, then, suggest that he is not sure of his faith? Are you then suggesting that one needs to be mute in order to be sure?
I'm pretty comfortable in my beliefs and lack thereof. But thanks for the advice.
Hehehe... I thought we were having this discussion because we all came from a society that believed that a good idea could withstand scrutiny.
Doesn't the fact that we are willing to argue the point indicate that we have faith in the validity of our varied viewpoints?
If we had doubts wouldn't it be easier to say nothing, and thus not put our beliefs under scrutiny?
I believe that it's impossible to know things about a God for sure. The whole concept of belief in itself is wrapped around that which cannot be proven or disproven.
This is why I consider myself Agnostic.
Not to revive a (more or less) exhausted topic, but I found this story irresistable: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/us/17mausoleum.html?hp&ex=1145332800&en=eb9f7ac5c1d65f03&ei=5094&partner=homepage
The money quote is the caption to the picture:
Ed and Hilda Peck at their mausoleum in Daytona Beach, Fla. Mr. Peck says he decided he did not want to spend eternity underground.
He won't spend eternity anywhere. He'll be dead.
His body won't spend eternity in a mausoleam, either. King Tut's body didn't, and this planet won't last for eternity.
Is this really what the guy thought, or is this just a reporter's blather? Either way, it simply amazes me what people think.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>