I ask this question in all sincerity, because I do actually want to understand each differing view point.
This post is not the place to attack or be derogatory towards any other belief system. I welcome all legitimate questions, but any attacks (at least in this post) will be censored.
—–
We can all agree that not everybody’s beliefs are compatible with everybody else’s beliefs.
For example, a young earth creationist who believes that the earth is between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago can not possibly be correct if scientology (which believes that the earth was populated by zenu some 75 million years ago. And both of these are incompatible with other creation myths, such as the mayan belief that the world is “wiped clean” every 25,000 years or so and starts over anew.
So they can not ALL be correct; in some (not all, but some) cases for one belief to be correct, some number of other beliefs must by definition be incorrect.
—–
Even among various groups that believe in the “same god” there are some massive divisions (sunnis and shi’ites, catholics vs protestants, etc…). Even among groups that have the same set of core beliefs (mohamed was a divine prophet and was given the word of allah which became the koran, jesus was the son of god and a virgin roughly 2000 years ago and died to save humanity from sin, etc) there are intense, even violent conflicts over who’s interpretation of the core belief is the correct one.
So even if one believe in the “correct” god, it’s quite possible to believe in the “wrong” way.
—–
A number of these belief systems have at their core a “holy book” (torah, bible, koran, book of mormon, dianetics, egyptian book of the dead, etc). In many cases these books disagree with each other (as stated above the creation myth varies from religion to religion). These books can not ALL be the works of one single “god” (unless of course “god” is playing a practical joke on humanity).
A second point to make with the “scriptures” is that these seemingly contradict each themselves. Since I am most familiar with the “christian god” and the bible, I will use this as my example, but from my various readings there are similar inconsistencies in many of the other major “holy books”. In the old testament “god” is a very “hands-on” type of deity. At various times “he” causes plagues, floods, and turns entire cities into salt. “He” tells one leader of his “chosen people” to encircle a town for a number of days and then to proceed into this town to kill every “man and woman, infant and suckling”. In the new testament jesus, who is god, tells his followers to “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself”. Most christians will tell you that when jesus came to cleanse man from our sins that a new set of rules applied which superseded the old rules.
The third point about the holy books that I would like to point out is that even if one assumes that the original text was written by, or inspired by “god”, many of these texts have been translated and retranslated countless times over the centuries.A simple example is that when comparing the scrolls from Nag Hammadi, which are among the oldest surviving copies of the old testament, to a current copy of the bible, scholars are finding many passages which differ, and in some cases the meaning of many passages has been completely changed.
So with the number of “holy books” throughout history that contradict each other, other copies of themselves and even other passages in their own pages, to be certain that you have the “correct” book, and the “correct” translation is no easy feat.
—–
When you put all of these together, this to me becomes very reminiscent of the Drake Equation, which is used to determine the likelihood of life in the universe.
R∗ is the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
fp is the fraction of those stars that have planets
ne is the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
fℓ is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
fi is the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
fc is the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L is the length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
The “belief” equivalent would be something along the lines of:
Chance of a person’s belief being the “correct one” = (1 ÷ (number of potential gods * number of potential holy books * number of potential translation of that holy book * number of potential interpretations of that translation)) * likelihood that god exists vs does not exist
—–
So my question to all true believers is this:
How certain are you that your version of the “truth” (truth of god, religion, the world, the universe, etc) is the correct one, and more importantly, how do you know what that “truth” is?
Update 3/28/2008:
For those just coming to the discussion, I suggest reading the first reply (my own answer to this question), and a reply that is in all bold around the 200 post mark (a good summary of the discussion up through that point) to get a brief intro to what we have discussed here so far. For those interested in an even more in depth idea, check out the many posts between “mootpoints” (just search for moot) and myself since January, as we’ve run the gambit of anything and everything you can imagine on the idea of god, religion, morality, science, history, spiritualism, etc…
And welcome to the discussion.
Rodibidably 
I will post my own personal reply first to start things off (part of this is taken from my reply to a post on another blog):
I’m guessing that most people who reply here will be a christian, but I could be wrong. But for the sake of argument, let’s picture a typical United States fundamentalist christian, one of the 80 million (give or take) that does not believe in evolution, and does believe that the earth is, roughly, 6500 years old.
They are absolutely convinced that buddist, hindus, muslims, scientologist, catholics, etc are all wrong. No “maybes”. Just wrong.
They are also convinced that THEY are 100% correct.
They believe that man walked with dinosaurs, that noah floated around the globe for 40 days with millions of animals sharing the boat, and some woman roughly 2000 years ago never had sex, but gave birth to a deity.
They “know” these things as strongly as you or I “know” that tomorrow morning the sun WILL rise in the east and tomorrow evening it will set in the west. There is no doubt in their minds that they are wrong, just as there is no doubt in my mind (and I assume yours) that the sun will in fact be in the sky tomorrow throughout the day (and yes, I know it could be cloudy where ever you are at, but just because a cloud stops you from seeing the sun, does not mean that it is not there).
In reality though there is a ridiculously small chance that the sun will not in fact rise tomorrow.
There is the chance that tonight while I sleep a meteor could crash into the earth stopping its rotation on its axis. If this happened, the “other” side of the earth would be in constant day time, and “this” side would be in constant night.
There is a chance that scientists have miscalculated the amount of nuclear fuel in the sun, and it could finish expending the last of its energy some time tonight. Once this happens, the nuclear reaction in its core will stop, it will cease to make any more light, and 8 minutes later the earth will get the last bit of sunlight ever.
I’m sure if I wanted to spend more time, I could come up with a few other “examples” to show that the sun might not rise tomorrow, but you get the idea (I hope).
Admittedly, the chances of these scenarios happening are infinitesimally small, but they do exist. There is no possible reason to expect them, to plan for them (at least not for another 5 billions years for the “running out of fuel” one), or to even take them seriously, even though they COULD happen.
From the perspective of an atheist (or at least in my perspective and that of many other atheists I know, I won’t presume to speak for all atheists), the possibility that god exists, is so remote as to be completely irrelevant in daily life, and can therefore be treated as if it is a 0% chance.
So in short, my answer to this question would be that my certainty is 99.999% (or more) and how I know is based on empirical data (or lack there of). I look around the world and the universe, and I am in awe of all that is there, but I see no evidence of a “god” or “designer”. I see the end results of 14 billion years of natural processes which while not all fully understood (yet) can all be explained by natural means.
Maybe the question is not “how do I determine what is truth” but how do I know the one who is truth . . .
Jason,
However you choose to rephrase the question, the end result is the same; HOW does a believer KNOW that their beliefs are in fact “true”?
In general a “true believer” of any almost faith is 100% certain that their version of “god” of “faith” or “religion” is correct, and that all other versions are false. What I am interested in, is HOW does somebody “know” this with such certainty.
And your answer to this question would be???
Let me start off by saying I vehemently do not buy into the assertion that a “blind leap” of faith is required to believe in God. I strongly disagree with the idea that we have to suspend our reason and rational in order to know God exists.
However God doesn’t provide evidence so incontrovertible that people can’t ignore it. If God wants willing followers he must walk a fine line in providing evidence. If God were to reveal himself as to remove the potential for all doubt we would be compelled beyond our control to believe. I think it says a lot for God that he doesn’t force anyone to believe.
That being said I also believe that I don’t understand God. This is an important one for me. I admit that many times I’m as skeptical and confused about God and the bible as anyone. But, at the end of the day, I still believe. I think that belief and doubt can co-exist in the life of a Christian.
Let me talk about this philosophically for a moment.
Belief is something that we all experience. We all have a process for developing the truth of something. The concept of “belief” should be no different when applied to a murder trial than it is when applied to God.
The process for determining truth in a court room is imperfect but it provides a good model for understanding belief.
A court system requires that a prosecutor or defense attorney present a case that convinces 12 people of different culture, gender and ethnicity to agree. A tall task my any standard yet it’s accomplished on a daily basis. We know that the burden of proof lies upon the one making the assertion (in court, the plaintiff) And the standard they must reach is “reasonable doubt”.
Somehow this burden of proof is met often with little or no “hard” evidence but with “circumstantial” evidence. In other words, a prosecutor doesn’t have to produce a bloody knife or eye-witness but simply has to prove motive and opportunity.
Now I believe there is “hard” evidence for God. Not that this proves anything but I have a hard time imagining that a person without preconception would walk through a beautiful forest and say, “Wow I’m so amazed that there is no God.” I, as our hypothetical juror, see creation and conclude it was designed. Or I see archaeological evidence supporting claims of scripture and conclude that it is likely a true account. I might see God where others assumed coincidence. So I think there is a wealth of “hard” evidence more than enough to assume that God exists.
However it even goes beyond that. When we argue we prove that we believe in some larger moral standard upon which we agree. While there are differences they are fairly insubstantial, even for different countries and races. No country admires a man who runs away in battle or who double crosses those who are kind to him. Where does a universal moral standard come from? (By the way, I stole a lot of the above thought from C.S. Lewis)
There’s other “circumstantial” evidence as well but the real question is do we actually examine these evidences without prejudice (from either side). Isn’t it more true that we’ve decided that then we bring our biases to bear on the facts?
While I understand there are a lot of good reasons to not believe in God, at the end of the day there are more good reason to believe than to not.
moot,
First of all, if you’re going to use a court trial as a parallel to belief in god, you should be willing to admit the possibility that sometimes guilty people go free and innocent people are convicted.
Which when this logic is passed on to belief in god, means that there is some likelihood that “your jury” made the wrong call and you could choose to believe in the “wrong god”. Or you could believe in god when none exists.
The more pressing issue you raise though is that by your description, you make it seem that ANY “god” could be the correct one, as long as there is some god. Since “he” does not make it obvious, how do you know that “your god” is correct, and not allah, or krishna, or zeus, etc…?
How is it that you came to believe in the one that you do (christian god I am guessing) above all of the other possible “gods”? As I read your post, you make the case that “a god” must exist, but you don’t seem to touch on the subject of why “your god” is the “right” one.
While I disagree with your conclusions you draw from the “evidence”, I actually do understand the desire to believe in something “bigger”, some meaning for everything, something “higher” than this life.
But I am less interested in how people come to their conclusions; I am much more interested in how people seemingly “know” that their conclusions are the “correct ones”.
How does a person have such certainty in their belief that “their god” is the “correct god”?
you write:
‘But I am less interested in how people come to their conclusions; I am much more interested in how people seemingly “know” that their conclusions are the “correct ones”.’
but without evidence, you do the same thing as the other side. you’re both the same to me. the difference is that they sound ignorant and self righteous, and you sound … well i guess there’s no difference.
Well one difference is that I acknowledge that my views could be wrong, and I am open to changing my views based on new evidence… This is one of the principals of the scientific method, upon which “skepticism” is founded…
If somebody believes that an all power deity spoke to them, or wrote a specific book with rules, they are MUCH less willing to change their opinions as new evidence comes to light.
—
I am also curious what conclusions you believe I have come to without evidence.
Rod-
You bring up an interesting question (Although much of the rest of your post was merely opinion and conjecture that was unsubstantiated at best, and fallacious at worst). But its hard to take this question seriously when you are comparing Ron Hubbard’s science fiction to some of the world’s leading religions.
But besides that, to answer your question:
How certain are you that your version of the “truth” (truth of god, religion, the world, the universe, etc) is the correct one, and more importantly, how do you know what that “truth” is?
Let me begin by stating something that may not be as obvious as it should be (seeings as we are now wallowing in the rotten fruit of postmodernism) — Your belief does not create truth, it merely acknowledges and leans upon it. Therefore, there are no “versions” of truth, only belief or disbelief of it.
That being the case, the certainty our belief does not lie in our intellectual prowess or rhetorical defense of that truth, rather it resides in the object of truth itself. If that which we believe is really “true”, then no amount of debate can change that fact. Our response may change in relation to that truth, but the truth itself does not cease being true.
Because of this, I can say with all that is ‘certain’ in the world that I have found that “truth”. But unlike any other philosophical system of thought or religion, my truth is not a “what”, but a “who”. That is why when Jesus Christ said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” he effectively put an end to all searches for the truth, for he himself was Truth incarnate.
As I mentioned above, my certainty lies not in the fact that Christ has given us more proof of this truth than any other worldview (although he has), but that he is fact “the Truth” himself. That is why it is so easy for me to say that those who do not ‘know’ Christ, do not ‘know’ the truth either – for they are one and the same.
I am wondering why no one has mentioned that knowing Jesus is so real, so wonderful, so unimaginably awesome that it just doesn’t matter what others say.
I searched for years. Through many of the same other religions you mention.
Then I was found. My life changed dramatically and powerfully over night (no joke). Where I was 4 years I was addicted to opiates, I was no longer. I once smoked 2 -3 packs a day, no longer. The pint of Beam I drank every day, disappeared too. My obscene mouth was cleansed. And on and on. Without effort, without intervention by any human. God spoke to me and I knew it was GOD. It was almost 2 weeks before anyone could define my experience for me as I didn’t speak “Christian”. That was 37 years ago.
The major difference between knowing Jesus and other religions is one is religion – and the other is relationship. Jesus talks to me. I talk to Him. He anticipates my needs before I can ask. I have seen tons of actual physical miracles.
I’m no philosopher.
But I know Jesus. And I love Him with all my heart.
PS I am a degreed professional, a wife, a mom, and an ordained minister who ministers out of the box.
Hank,
You consider scientology to be science fiction, but a large number of people believe in it as strongly as you believe in your faith. I attempted to give due respect to all faiths.
Also, you claim that my post was mostly opinion and false, yet give no example of where I was wrong. I mentioned a few of the main beleifs of some various world religions throughout history (creation myths mostly) to show that they are in some cases incompatible with each other.
Your other comments are that you believe BECAUSE it is true, but you never state HOW you know this to be. Your start with the assumption that jesus is god, and you choose to believe this on faith.
You claim that I say belief creates true, which is not at all what I said. What I said is that not all beliefs can be true, since some of them directly oppose others. What I asked is how is it that you believe you “know” what the “truth” is. You never actually answered this.
ala,
Unlike all of the others who have so far posted, you actually do attempt to answer the question that was asked. You believe because your life has changed since you began to believe.
My question for you is:
You say that jesus is the “true” god, and you know this because of how your life has changed since “god spoke to you”, yet many followers of allah or scientology or later day saints or (insert religion of your choice here) have had similar experiences. They feel that their life changed when they “found god”. Is their experience somehow less than yours, since according to your beliefs, the “god” they found is not the “true god”?
Rodibidably,
I work as a youth minister at a protestant non-denominational church in Tempe, AZ. From where I stand everyone could get into a debate about what religion is the right, true, and viably correct but this will be a waste of time. Every religion has its scholars and can prove that it is correct, but when it comes down to it begins and ends with faith.
However, I will answer some of your other inquiries, but understand that I will answer from my own personal convictions and from verses in the Bible. In doing so, I will begin with your second inquiry about “scriptures”.
I know that there are many books that have been called “Holy” and “Divinely” written, however Christianity boasts the incomprehensible claim of salvation by grace through the sacrifice of God himself. To my knowledge, no other religion boasts this. Every other religion (including Judaism) is a salvation of works.
In saying this I must point out that what people see in the Old Testament is only a God of vengeance; “A mean kid with a magnifying glass” to loosely quote from the movie Bruce Almighty. Where people don’t start is from Genesis chapter 3 and then 7 where the first sin and the flood is accounted for. Here we see a God interacting with man (the only species on earth with active thought) and they do the one thing God instructs them not to do. From this anyone can look around the world and see that humans are not acting graciously towards one another. By the time that it reached Noah’s lifetime, this sin had consumed everyone. In God’s eyes his design was broken. So here comes Noah, the Ark, and the Flood. Follow that pattern through history and God continually chooses individuals to be his chosen people and follow his original design. But additionally he was not fearful of wiping out sinful tribes to make way for his chosen tribe. Ultimately what happens, even that tribe forgets God, and then is exiled. This God presented 10 commandments to a tribe, later called the Jews, and they failed to follow the rules. They became self-centered, greedy, and murderous (not too much different than today).
So if faith was not a factor in believing that the biblical account was somewhat accurate in the Old Testament, then faith has to be a factor in the New Testament. The New Testament begins with God coming down to earth in the form of a man (John 1:1-14). He was called Jesus, he lived a life dedicated to God, taught others, then died sinless as a wrongly convicted law breaker, and then rose again on the third day to later ascend to heaven.
But let’s say someone accepts that there is a God, who holds everything together (this is something that scientist can’t explain). Let’s say that there is a true religion, why would you accept laws as the way to live your life? Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Taoism, etc. all have rules to live by.
Following Christ is not about rules, but about conviction. If you believe that God, a divine being, cared enough about this creation to come live as one of us, die as one of us, and to share eternity with those that follow him; then be set free. Jesus gave two guidelines that can be summed up in one statement about holy living, it’s not about you (Matthew 22:36-40). This can only become reality when you believe in something greater than your-self is watching over you and you want to share that with others.
Maybe this was not the answer that you were looking for but even the writers in the Bible point out that, “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6)
May God my Father bless you in your search.
Great question, and thoughtful discussion. Here’s my contribution: There is a One-ness to the entire Universe. Humans struggle to grasp the significance of that Unity, and in so doing each attempts to clarify her/his belief system through vocabulary, ritual, music, prayer, scripture, conversation.
None of these trditions is “right” nor is any the whole and sole truth. All of them, however, speak to that Truth. We do the best we can, and we benefit most, I believe, when we can welcome the wisdom and insight of “the other”, whoever that may be.
It would probably be useful if humans could adopt a “sit-lightly” attitude to all of our traditions; after all, if horses had gods, they would look a lot like horses.
Humility, in nearly every religious tradition, is the basis for wisdom.
No religion is the absolute truth or untruth.
There are scriptures and holy texts that are made to guide our morality. And no matter how complicated or simple they are they lead to the same thing: Lead a life of good. Be good to your fellow human being, etc.
I remember reading about a man who had sought after a Buddhist wanting to convert but the Buddhist told him “No, stay with your religion now. They are all the same. They all teach us to be better human beings.”
Religion is people united and organized under the same belief. If they disagree with the current teachings they span out or seek another teacher or create a new ideal. But for the most part, the intentions are always to be better human beings.
When it comes to knowing religion it comes down to a matter of upbringing, culture or later on preference.
This funny video comes to mind:
All in all, religion is a matter faith. You believe without questioning. Or you question, but you find the answers within yourself.
——————————————
I also explored the teachings of Sai Baba. It was of universal religion. They taught that all religions are right and none wrong. There is one God. He has many names and people have different ways of worshipping him. — I remember in one service I attended, Indian mantra’s were chanted and then a song about Jesus was sung next.
Brad,
You state that the debate over WHICH faith is “correct” is a waste of time. While I whole heartedly wish I could agree with you, the violence that is rampant throughout history suggests otherwise.
How many countless african people were enslaved by white colonialist in the history of the United States. As George Carlin points out, one of the ultimate hypocrisies of all time is that the US is a country founded by slave owners who wanted to be free.
How many countless people were killed during the inquisition and the crusades by order of the catholic church?
How many people have died in Israel and Palestine over the last 60 some odd years?
How many people died in the attacks of 9/11 and other terrorist attacks in the last 20 years?
The subject of religion and faith is not only an important subject to talk about, it may be THE MOST important subject to discuss, since the consequences for not discussing it and finding some common ground could, and almost certainly will, lead to millions more deaths in the “name of god”.
You quote the bible as part of a rationalization that your faith is the “true” faith. But when a scientologist quotes dianetics or a muslim quotes the Koran are you “sold” on it’s words? I could quote a few lines from the script to star wars; that does not mean that anybody should live their life by those words (granted some people actually study the “religion of jedi”).
Your main claim seems to be that since christianity (or at least your version of it, since there are many) offers salvation by grave and other religion force you to live by rules (or works), Christianity is somehow “better”. So by this logic, when christians say that to be homosexual is a sin they are mistaken. As I understand your point, “even gay people” are saved by the “sacrifice of God himself”.
The same would be true of child molesters, murders, members of the current executive branch of the US government, and people of any and all religion. If you don’t have to do anything to be saved, then everybody is saved, including atheists, Hitler, Stalin, and mother Theresa.
The easiest way I can ask about your next point is in the form of a question.
As a rational human being, would you allow a known pedophile to be alone with your son or daughter?
As a rational diety, why would “god” allow humans, who are “self-centered, greedy, and murderous” a choice to not eat from the tree, when he knew (at least according to the christian faith, god is all knowing) that they would fail the test?
Yes, yes, I know your answer already; “he” gave us free will. But if I know in advance that somebody is going to commit murder, and I do nothing to stop them, I am as guilty of that crime as they are. If “god” knows that people were going to rape, enslave, and kill each other then either “his” morals do not match our own, or “he” is sadistic.
You finish off your comments by going back to the idea that christianity is “correct” because it is not based on rules, and that science can’t explain some things, so “god must exist”. This is the “god of the gaps” logic, which means that as science explains more and more, “god’s place” in the universe becomes smaller and smaller. I’m not sure most “christians” would accept this version of a shrinking god.
I do greatly appreciate your feedback (and the feedback of all who have posted), I just think that you have not really understood my question, or have chosen to ignored it and answer other related questions. While I feel that ALL questions about faith and religion are good (I’m a fan of avoiding global genocide) I have not really gotten an answer to my question yet.
srcghs,
I must say, from somebody whose avatar is a picture of a nun that is not the response I would have expected.
I do actually like your ideas, and at one point in my life I actually believed something very similar.
While I personally consider myself an atheist, your outlook on faith, god, and religion is one that I can completely respect, even without agreeing. I wish more people had your outlook on faith, I believe the world would be a better and much safer place to raise children, knowing that others would not be willing to die in the “name of god”.
myke,
I appreciate your view as well, however I have one problem with your idea that “scripture” is made to “guide our morality”.
In the bible, torah, koran, and many other “holy books”, there are teachings that are against everything we as a society believe is moral and “right”. Numerous passages in the bible “teach” people how to treat their slaves, and how to act as a good slave. If morality was the primary focus one would think there would be a simple statement along the lines of “though shall not kill” that would state something like “hey dumbasses, don’t enslave people, it’s the worst thing humanity can possible do to one another”. Perhaps throw the words “though shall not” to make it a tad holier, but the basic point should be made, “slavery = bad”.
The rest of your points are similar in nature to those of srcghs, and while I don’t share your beliefs, I do respect them greatly. I wish there were many more people like the two of you, and less who were willing to lay down their life in defense of “their faith”.
P.S. Kudos on the video link 🙂
Questions like these will no longer exist because Islam is growing at such an exponential rate that your children and their children and so on…will one day all be Moslem.
Can you believe them Moslems say this is God’s way of showing the truth?
How many of us would agree to that!?!
evangelist,
I’m not sure how muslims trying to convert people to islam is any different than evangelical christians trying to convert people to christianity. And, at least so far, muslims have not started killing untold tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands, millions?) for not converting to the “true” faith.
Hey man,
Thanks for the invite to post.
First thing, before responding to your excellent and honest question, is that the documents found at Nag Hammadi were not Jewish documents, but Gnostic writings (here is an index of what was found). I believe you are thinking of the Dead Sea Scrolls. In that case, you would be correct in writing that these are among the earliest texts of the OT that we have access to (it’s also worth noting that the text type used at the Dead Sea validates the later dating texts of the OT…Jewish scribes, unlike their later Christian counterparts, were extremely careful in copying their Scriptures).
Now to your question. You asked, “How certain are you that your version of the “truth” (truth of god, religion, the world, the universe, etc) is the correct one, and more importantly, how do you know what that “truth” is?”
I would say that I am extremely certain that the Christian Scriptures (the Hebrew Scriptures plus the New Testament) are true in what they claim as truth.
The italicized statement is what is very important. Some Christians over step the bounds of what Scripture claims as truth and use to on subjects to which Scripture is not seeking to make claims upon. For instance, the creation narrative is written in the same form as other ancient Near Eastern creation narratives. Its purpose is to present a monotheistic creation narrative that focuses on the God of Israel. It is not written to refute Darwin nor to give us the age of the earth. When Christians read the creation narrative in those ways, they actually seek to apply Scripture in areas to which it should not be applied.
That is an important distinction to make when we talk about truth and how truth is conveyed through Scripture.
I put my faith in Scripture not because I was taught it and accepted it by blind faith. Rather, I was an agnostic for 20 years of my life before I came to believe in Scripture and believe in Scripture today because of the truth that is revealed to us through its words. There is enough verifiable truth in Scripture for me to believe in the supernatural aspect of Scripture, for which there is no corresponding way to validate.
To be honest, it all came down to the Resurrection of Christ for me. I cannot understand how Christianity ever grew to become what it became unless the Resurrection of Christ was true. Because I believe in the Resurrected Christ, I believe in Scripture.
The best book I can recommend on the subject is The Resurrection of the Son of God by N.T. Wright, who is the current Bishop of Durham. This is the book that brought the famous novelist Anne Rice back to her faith.
aboulet,
You are correct; I did switch the Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls in my post. Just goes to show I should read over my posts one last time before hitting “post”.
My point about the mistranslations over time still stands, but I most certainly thank you for your correction.
As for your take on creation, I have heard this view many times, and I think it is the only intellectually honest way to look at this subject. Even the last pope said that Genesis does not exclude evolution by “Darwinian means”, and one would assume he has spent a good amount of time studying the bible.
My only issue with this view of the bible (or this type of view of any “holy book”) is that it leaves it up to the reader to “know” which parts are to be taken as fact, and which parts are to be taken as allegory. If the bible is the “word of god” then I, and I assume others, would expect a bit more consistency. In some cases “god” states what he means, “though shall not kill” is fairly self explanatory, while other times “he” says things which are not be scientifically possible, the globe being covered in water in 40 days.
How is somebody to know which to take as a story, and which to take as fact?
I do have one last question for you if you don’t mind. You state that you “cannot understand how Christianity ever grew to become what it became unless the Resurrection of Christ was true”. Perhaps I am misreading your statement, but I take this to mean that because christianity is a large religion with a lot of followers, you think it must be based on something valid. Islam and Hinduism both have well over 1 billion followers each, so your logic would tend to lead towards them ALSO being “true” despite many major incompatibilities (such as the Koran stating that jesus did NOT die on the cross).
Rodibidably,
Good question. Because it is all the way at the top, I’m going to quote it here and try to give my answer.
I am quite certain that my faith is true. The main points of Christianity are absolutely sure, and on some of the secondary questions about Scripture, I do admit I am less certain (baptizing babies vs. believing adults, for instance).
Now the real question is how I know I’m right and everyone else is wrong. And that is a fair question.
Let me start at the beginning here. And I think the content of the world-view truth claim that one holds to will affect this question. So since I hold to a Christian world-view, let me address it from within my perspective.
If God created the world (and by the way, I admit with aboulet above that the creation account allows a more literary interpretation. I just still think Scripture ultimately claims that God made the world), then he is infinitely above it. Such a God would not have to interact with his creatures, he could merely function as the Divine watchmaker, if you will. And if we grant such a global God exists (again the question of evolution or direct creation doesn’t matter here), it seems to me that we are dependent on him to reveal truth about himself to us.
The Bible claims to be such a revelation from God. It claims to be the final word on truth, at least when it comes to God.
We are left as individuals to follow our minds and consciences as we may. As you indicate there are competing truth claims. So we can compare them. If you do compare them, you find many things which sets Christianity apart. The Book of Mormon, for instance, makes great assertions about people who lived in the Western Hemisphere for which there is no archaeological attestation. The Bible, again and again, has stood the test of archaeological and historical scrutiny. The Bible may have some apparent contradictions, but overall it is remarkably harmonious in its message. There are answers, and part of the answer is in understanding the storyline of the Bible. Some of the texts you mention, like the Buddhist and hindu texts, do not really claim to be the word of God. Rather they seem to be a collection of religious poetry. They don’t present as unified of a philosophical framework as the Bible.
The Bible’s message harmonizes with the universal tendency to believe in God, a remarkable worldwide tradition of an ancient flood story, it harmonizes with the incredible complexity of nature which seems to demand an intelligent Designer. An absolute truths, a moral standard, is a universal given, and that jives with Scripture. The improbable rise of Christianity, too supports the Bible’s claims to exclusivity.
But ultimately it is Jesus Christ and his message of grace which is so radically different than other messages. And his resurrection vindicates His message. The miracles recorded in Scripture were given to convince the people then and there of the truth of his story. And they are recorded for our benefit. And if you read the saints, or read about how the gospel is being spread in the far corners of the world even today, miracles continually affirm the message of the Gospel.
Christianity will stand up to intellectual scrutiny. And while some may not explain our beliefs well, it does not depend on a bunch of ignoramuses for its continued existence. The story of Christianity best explains and answers the many questions of life. And the invitation is open to all to come and believe, and be given a wonderful abundant life of joy.
Thanks for the invite to post. I hope this helps.
Bob Hayton
I just saw your reply to aboulet. Let me respond to your last question to him, since I make a similar claim above.
Islam’s first 100 years are a story of conquest. Mohammed and his followers conquered, and eventually they conquered most of the known world. Christianity’s first 200 years were a story of constant persecution. Rome did all it could to stamp out Christianity in a succession of 10 different global “crusades” if you will, against Christians. They were hounded, tortured, killed, and Scriptures were destroyed. That is not the best background from which to see growth.
Hinduism is largely an ethnic religion, yet Christianity has ever been a multi-ethnic phenomenon. India is largely Hindu, and its population alone is 1 billion. Christianity is worldwide in multiple cultures and languages. And I’m not even counting Catholicism.
Sure, you can’t count noses and thereby determine truth. But at the very start of Christianity the chief witnesses of the resurrection had ample opportunities to drop the myth and thereby escape death or suffering. They didn’t. Such a beginning does testify to the veracity of the story that propelled thousands to lay down their lives.
By the way Jesus said his church would not be advanced by the sword. The Catholic crusades were wrong. Generally, Christians have been the ones being killed, not those killing others. There’s a difference. We believe strongly enough that we are ready to die for our faith, but we won’t be taking others with us.
fundy,
Your comments are actually a bit hard to follow. While I admire your honesty, there are a few things that I don’t seem to be following.
You are certain of your faith, and that your beliefs are the “correct” ones. But you claim that some aspects of your “holy scripture” are open for interpretation. I mentioned a few comments on this in my previous reply to “aboulet” in the comment directly above yours that seemingly apply to your comments as well. Essentially it boils down to the fact that it leaves it up to the reader to “know” which parts are to be taken as fact, and which parts are to be taken as allegory. If “god” is going to write a book, or “inspire” the writers of a book to put down the “truth”, I would expect profound statements that could not be misinterpreted (such as many people in United States history using the bible to justify slavery, while others use different passages to condemn slavery).
You state that “we are dependent on him to reveal truth about himself to us”, and yet he chooses to have contradictions in “his revelation”. Even a believer such as you can see that a book that is supposed to be the work of an infallible diety, has “some apparent contradictions”. You state that “overall it is remarkably harmonious in its message”, but if it truly is the “word of god”, should it be 100% consistent? Did god make mistakes, or were those mistakes made during the various translations and retranslations? Either way (god messed up or the transcribers messed up), how is somebody to know what the “truth” is if you can not be sure of the original text or which contradictory statement to believe?
You make a valid point that some of the boos I mentioned do not claim to be the actual word of god, but some of them do (book of mormon, torah, koran, etc) so your argument against the others (buddhist and hindu texts) don’t really hold across the board.
While you and I can agree that the book of mormon states obvious historical errors as being fact, I can agree with a muslim that the bible’s account of jesus’s resurrection is an obvious historical error (the muslim will believe that jesus never died on the cross because the koran tells him so, and I will believe that jesus did not come back to life after 3 days because it violates everything we know about human physiology.
While I don’t see eye to eye with you on many aspects up to now, I can at least understand your point of view (at least mostly); however, your next paragraph (“The Bible’s message…”) really sticks out at me as a host of logical and historical fallacies.
“universal tendency to believe in God” / “remarkable worldwide tradition of an ancient flood story” – There are also a worldwide tradition of dragons, vampires, bigfoot, and aliens. I am actually fairly amazed at how consistent various cultures around the world are in their views on dragons, the undead, yeti, and alien visitations. There are obviously some discrepancies which can be ascribed to cultural differences, but all of the basic concepts are quite universal across the world. To say that “god” is true because a lot of people believe would lead one to say that Dracula is real because cultures all over the planet have some type of vampire myth (weird coincidence is that right now I am watching a show from the History Channel about vampire folklore around the world, which helps set up a good rebuttal to this point).
“nature which seems to demand an intelligent Designer” – While I could spend a long time on this subject, I’d prefer to concede to somebody much smarter and more knowledgeable on the subject than myself, check out “The Blind Watchmaker” by Richard Dawkins for a very good series of rebuttals for the ID concept.
“a moral standard, is a universal given” – As I have pointed out a few times, “scripture” allows for slavery. How many people do you know in your life that would follow a moral standard that accepts slavery as part of society?
“improbable rise of Christianity” – How improbably was it’s rise actually? Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, Hindu, Buddhism, and many other religions have all “risen” throughout history. One of your earlier points is that “god” is universal, so how is the rise of any specific religion “special” if we are predisposed to believe?
You are seemingly a moderate thoughtful believer, and I appreciate your reply greatly. The more posts I am getting the “better” people are answering my question, and I enjoy reading the perspective of others. I think that open and honest discussions between those who disagree are much more valuable than those that see eye to eye on these issues. By opening up a dialog, hopefully people can better find common ground with each other.
fundy,
I agree that Christianity did not have an “easy start”, but many religions have faced persecution and survived. Having fanatical believers may mean that your “religion” has something that “connects” with those followers, but it says nothing for the “truthfulness” of those beliefs. Not to offend, but the followers of charles manson were willing to kill for Charlie, and the branch davidians were willing to die in support of their belief that david koresh was the second coming of jesus. Fanaticism, may say something about the beliefs, but it most certainly does not speak towards the “validity” of those beliefs.
I really wish I could believe your last line, “we are ready to die for our faith, but we won’t be taking others with us”, was true of all believers. I am sure that you are moderate enough that you would not kill “in the name of god”, but even today, christians bomb abortion clinics killing those inside in many cases.
Again, you ask some great questions.
You wrote: My only issue with this view of the bible (or this type of view of any “holy book”) is that it leaves it up to the reader to “know” which parts are to be taken as fact, and which parts are to be taken as allegory. If the bible is the “word of god” then I, and I assume others, would expect a bit more consistency. In some cases “god” states what he means, “though shall not kill” is fairly self explanatory, while other times “he” says things which are not be scientifically possible, the globe being covered in water in 40 days.
How is somebody to know which to take as a story, and which to take as fact?
I would argue (and I mean argue in the logical sense, not in the normal “Christians-yelling-at-people” sense) that the reader does not so much “know” how parts of Scripture are to be read, but “learns” how to read each part as they become more familiar with the text through careful study. For instance, reading the creation accounts in Hebrew and then reading other ancient Near Eastern accounts in Akkadian, Ugaritic, and other Northwest Semitic languages, one can understand that the genre of the Biblical creation account mirrors other culture’s more poetic creation account. By comparing the Hebrew in the creation account with other documents within its context, one comes to a better understanding of how to read the creation account.
It’s definitely not second nature and it does take some hard work and study. But that should be expected for studying any ancient text.
As for the Flood narrative, there are theories within scholarly circles of a ‘regional flood’ which some follow. Another view is that it is, in fact, a mere story told for theological reasons. Scholars have come to this conclusion, again, based on reading other texts in the ancient Near East and seeing that the flood narrative is not unique to the Hebrew Scriptures. The point would be that the Noahic flood account is written for the purpose of conveying historical truth (which some believe), but theological truth (that God will preserve humankind and animals because of his grace). This is why I made the key distinction in my first comment that “the Christian Scriptures (the Hebrew Scriptures plus the New Testament) are true in what they claim as truth. Much too often the problem does not lie with Scripture, but with our (mis)understanding of Scripture based on reading it as a 21st century, post-enlightenment, individualistic Westerner and not based on its original context.
You said: “I do have one last question for you if you don’t mind. You state that you “cannot understand how Christianity ever grew to become what it became unless the Resurrection of Christ was true”. Perhaps I am misreading your statement, but I take this to mean that because christianity is a large religion with a lot of followers, you think it must be based on something valid. Islam and Hinduism both have well over 1 billion followers each, so your logic would tend to lead towards them ALSO being “true” despite many major incompatibilities (such as the Koran stating that jesus did NOT die on the cross).
I’m glad you pointed this out because I see how my wording would lead you to interpret my comment this way. I was not arguing that because Christianity is large then it must be true (I think it was Stephen Colbert who asked Richard Dawkins, “Over 80% of Americans believe there is a God; so do you believe there is a God or do you not believe in Democracy?!?”).
My argument was that there is, in my mind, no other explanation for why a large group of Jews started worshipping a man. This would violate the first two commandments in Judaism as well as be a violation of the Shema, which is a Jewish prayer said every morning and evening. I understand that people can believe crazy things and there are some nut jobs out there. But, you would be hard pressed to make the argument that thousands of strict Jews (Paul was among the strictest sect) would knowingly violate their greatest commandments all because they “think” some revolutionary was raised from the dead. The only thing that makes sense of this, in my mind, is that they knew he rose from the dead as Israel’s Messiah because many of them witnessed his resurrected body and his ascension.
I pointed you to the Wright book because he says it so much better than I could ever hope to explain it.
Rodibidably,
I agree my comments were somewhat disjointed. Sorry about that. But your question is quite broad. On one hand you want to have me tell you why I’m certain that my view is correct. On the other hand, you have all these points where you are disputing with the Christian view, and so I have to defend myself on those points.
Perhaps the best way to proceed it to just try to give an answer to your various points here in the last two posts. To make the conversation easier to follow, let me number my points.
1) Interpretation is inescapable. But just as with other documents, when the Bible uses poetry we should interpret and understand it poetically. Now the creation account in Genesis has certain poetical structures to it (days 1 and 4, 2 and 5, and 3 and 6 are connected). It says creation was in 6 days, but the idea of “day” can be interpreted as long periods of time. Gen. 1:2 indicates that the assertion that God created in vs. 1 is separated by a possible gap in time from the ordering and structuring of creation in the rest of chapter one. All of this is to say that Scripture doesn’t necessitate a young-earth view. Also, historically, Christians didn’t interpret Gen. 1 in such a scientific way until the last hundred years or so. But however one understand Gen. 1, it is clear that Scripture claims God is the creator of the world and of man. And there are other places which confirm the idea that Adam was the first man. How one views Gen. 1 is not necessarily connected to the main tenets of the Christian faith.
But just because in certain places various interpretations are possible, does not mean Scripture is unknowable. The central tenets of Christianity are quite clear and easy to interpret. There are plenty of “profound statements” in Scripture which set the basic story in quite an unmistakably clear way.
2) About contradictions, here is what I meant. Overall, there really aren’t any big contradictions. And at some smaller levels, there are answers to the contradiction. It really doesn’t contradict itself. People miss the remarkable unity of Scripture (which was written over a period of 1600 years on 2 or 3 continents, by 40 different men — all orchestrated by God who inspired these men) by focusing on a few details they think contradict when in fact they don’t.
3) On copies and texts, the Bible is remarkably accurate. There is only 1% of the text over which there is still some disagreement as to which words were original. And these are most often minor instances, none of which affect the overall doctrinal message of the book. The attestation we have for the NT in particular is unparalleled in ancient literature. We have portions of the NT that are dated to the 200s, and even an entire NT copy from the 300s. We have thousands of manuscripts in many languages, and the idea that somehow the Bible was corrupted and changed is just false. We have the proof that it wasn’t. The manuscript evidence for the Bible is amazing when compared to other old books, some of which we have only a dozen or fewer copies, but no one suggests those books were tampered with and altered. Just because we may be uncertain of a few words here and there, in no way means we are completely uncertain of the original text. In those places we are unsure of we have 2 or 3 options from which to choose. And again the overall message, and main points of Christianity are in no way affected by this.
4) Re: resurrection, I agree it must be received by faith. But we have eyewitnesses. People claim miracles can’t happen, but again there were eyewitnesses. We can’t explain everything in our world even now by means of rationalism and science. If God exists, and if the supernatural exists, how hard is it to believe that miracles could happen.
5) Let me try to explain myself on this paragraph where I kind of go through a litany of various arguments supporting scripture.
universal tendency to believe in God — sure if there is a universal belief in bigfoot that doesn’t make it true. But then again, such a universal belief would add credence and support such a belief. If in 10 years from now an undisputable yeti/bigfoot is discovered, then the universal testimoney would corroborate that. (Not saying it will happen, by the way).
worldwide flood story — let me explain. There are hundreds and thousands of cultures with a flood story. Why? One explanation could be they all stem from a real flood that happened before our ancient history begins. It doesn’t have to prove my point, but it adds credence to the Bible’s story of a flood. Sure, they aren’t all the same, and the details don’t match, but the mere fact of cultures from both hemispheres and six continents having flood myths seems like an interesting evidence which may support the Bible’s claims.
Oh and on the above two points, these are not my only evidence. I see these and other things, coupled with other things and my case gets stronger. I hope you know what I’m trying to say here.
intelligent design — you’ve got Dawkins, and I’ve got the ID guys. Really it is interesting that there is such a global propensity of symmetry and other similar design constructs used across species. And DNA is so complex even at the level of a single-celled organism, it’s just amazing that so much detail and specificity is required. In fact there have been mathemeticians who have tried to figure out the probability for life emerging from the primordial soup. Also, today 99.9% of all mutations are damaging to the organism. Anyway, let’s not get into a discussion of the likelihood of evolution, etc.
moral standards — atheists have to ask where universal morality comes from. Is there any universally true point from which we can say definitively that some action is wrong? If so, why can this be? Isn’t morality just a social construct and anything can go as long as we humans allow it? So why should we condemn the Nazis again?
slavery — this seems to be a big point with you. Slavery in Bible days and times was different than the chattel slavery practiced in the 16-1800s. Some of the slavery was voluntary. And some of it was a fact of life, that the Bible gave advice as to how to live with it.
6) Christianity’s rise, on this I’ll answer your 2nd reply to me and the end of your first post. I agree that the fact Christianity arose, and that it has many followers doesn’t prove it is correct. But it is perhaps more improbable than other religions, in that a peasant who died sparked a global movement. And the movement was persecuted by one of the world’s great empires, and yet it went on to become a major world religion.
One of the points about this I was trying to highlight is this: if the story of Christianity (that Jesus rose again) is a fabrication, then the steady persecution should have ended it. Who would die for a known fabrication? Yet history tells us the disciples and early followers of Jesus, did indeed die for their faith, and that faith did claim that Christ rose again. This point doesn’t seal the deal, but it is consequential.
Finally, you seem to be saying that believing Christians and believers in Islam or other religions are all basically equally capable of killing and hurting others. We have to be honest here. One would be hard pressed to come up with much proof of Christians killing others in the name of Christ in the last 200 years, other than an occasional wacko like an abortion bomber (by the way this is totally repudiated by Christian leaders and always has been). Yet for other religions, Islam particularly, there are thousands of examples of extremists killing others. Part of that is the content of the religion. Mohammed spread his religion by the sword, and the Quran talks about it a lot. Christianity explicitly is not to be spread by the sword, Jesus said. This is not to say that the fanaticists are true in their Muslim interpretations. And it is not to say that Roman Catholicism did not politicize the faith with ill consequences (think crusades).
That ends my answers. I want you to know there are others who defend the faith better than I. There are answers to atheistic arguments available. And Christians aren’t averse to people legitimately questioning their faith. I do hope you come to an understanding and acceptance of the Christian faith. I have enjoyed the exchange and hope that I have represented my faith fairly and accurately.
Blessings to you,
Bob Hayton
By the way, I don’t really disagree with anything aboulet is saying, and I’d guess he and I come from different spheres within Christianity.
I am neither ‘for’ nor ‘against’ any religion. I consider myself a Buddhist and I am open to the views of other religions, especially on the topic of God.
For Christian and Islam, believe in God / Allah is the foundation for their beliefs. That is to say, if there is no God / Allah, there will be no Christian and Islam. So, if I express my view that ‘God doesn’t exist’ and ‘whether there exist a God / Allah is not important’ then they will refer me to the Bible and Koran to prove to me that God is actual fact, exist.
It is fine for me that Christian & Islam believes in God / Allah and their belief in those written in Bible & Koran. I am not even disputing whether is there any truth in what written in the holy books.
So, my point is that, it is our universal rights to have faith in whatever beliefs or religions. It is also our rights to preach to each other on what we believe to others in good faith, and not with the intention of ‘converting’ he / she into whatever that we believe at. Whether he / she chooses to convert is his / hers rights.
I have high regards to those works of Christian missionaries that helping out the unfortunates. In fact, such noble works should be encouraged and emulate by others, as these are for the good of mankind. For me, such actions are in fact, good for the respective Karma that what Buddhist believe.
Important point here is that, have faith on what you believe at. It does not matter, ultimately, he / she decides to convert(after you preach), so long as you have faith on what you believe.
But, I still believe that Law of Karma is applicable to you and me, no matter what are yours religions.
aboulet,
I believe that your basic idea for understanding the bible is that it must be taken in context, context not only of when it was written and by whom, but in the point which it is trying to make at each juncture. And I wholeheartedly agree with this. While I may seemingly “bash” the bible, even I can see some tremendous passages and some very good underlying themes.
My problem with the bible, and any “holy book”, stems from accepting it as the “word of god”. Perhaps I am wrong, but I would assume that a book that was written by, or inspired by an all powerful diety would never be ambiguous. It would lay down certain ground rules for civilization (such as slavery = bad). I would expect, and perhaps this is a flaw in my own personal view, that if “god” was going to lay out specific rules and also use allegory to make a point, that “he” would make it obvious which ones to take as “true word” and which to take as a good moral. Obviously we have as a society have had trouble reconciling the two, and this has caused much suffering throughout history.
DISCLAIMER: Now this next point I am going to make is going to potentially cause some anger (not in you necessarily, but in some people), so please take it as a very specific comparison on one very narrow aspect, I am not saying that these two people have anything else in common.
First of all, I commend you on the Colbert quote. I am an avid member of the Colbert Nation, and I am happy to see that you “get” his humor. There are a large number of people who don’t seem to “get” him, and are actually offended by his shtick or take it seriously. But now to the controversial part; you claim that one of the reasons you believe in jesus is that he was able to get a large group of jewish people to follow him despite their convictions in their previous faith. Not to say that they are comparable historical figures in any sense other than their ability to inspire others to follow them, but adolf hitler was able to get millions of people to follow his ideals and do many horrific acts in the name of their Führer. I would say that being charismatic is not really a good indicator of being “right”.
Why do I have a feeling that right now about 10,000 screaming christians are cursing my name for that last paragraph?
I will check out your book recommendation this weekend, thanks.
fundy,
I am sorry if I come across as “attacking” in my responses. I am in all honesty just trying to better understand your point of view, and questioning you (and obviously your answers) helps me to better understand you.
I totally agree with your assertion that the bible makes plenty of “profound statement” which if followed would help to make the world a much more caring and peaceful world. But where we differ is that I think that the bible can say many good things without being the “word of god”. I think that the writers of the bible had some very good ideas (also a few not so good ones, but I’ve already been beating that horse to death the last 24 hours), but I don’t think that it means those ideas came from “god”.
The one thing that I find that most (not all, but at least in the United States) “true believers” spout is that if you do not follow their rules, their book, their “god” that you are “wrong” and will be damned for all eternity. I think that if people were willing to admit that their belief may not be the “best” belief for everybody and were willing to “live and let live” instead of trying to convert everybody else to their way of thinking then we could have a more harmonious world.
Your point #3 where you state that only 1% of the text differs between the oldest copies and the newest is one where we may have to agree to disagree. There is a very good book I have at home “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why” by Bart D Ehrman, that goes into a very detailed analysis of the some of the various current copies of the bible along with some of the oldest known copies that still exist. He goes into great detail showing in many cases actually when, and in some cases who made the mistranslation or misinterpretation and how the bible has changed throughout the years to what we know now.
Point #4 that you make is one that to me takes the biggest leap of faith, as you acknowledge. Your premise is that IF “god” exists, then miracles are possible. My premise would be that he does not exist, but EVEN IF god exists, then why would “he” create the rules of physics as they are, just to break them when it suits “him”? Eyewitnesses are a very shaky ground to stand on for a claim such as something outside the laws of nature. If eyewitnesses can be wrong on things as simple as the identity of a criminal in a court case, then when something seemingly supernatural happens, the odds of their being infallible in their testimony would be even shakier.
The rest of your points are mostly ones that you and others have already mentioned on earlier posts, so I won’t rehash my view on them yet again, but I do believe that in the end it comes down to differing interpretations of the same raw facts. You look at a human and see design; I look at a human and see the work of millions of years of gradual evolution. This debate is not going away any time soon, but I do believe that the overwhelming majority of the scientific evidence is on my side.
Your assertion that, at least in recent history, christians have not been responsible for as much violence as other groups, such as muslims is a valid point. However I would argue that the ones currently in “power” are less likely to strike out in violence than those that feel themselves to be persecuted. For quite a while, christianity has been the prevailing “faith”, and thus has less of a “reason” to act out violently, while muslims, rightly or wrongly, feel themselves to be taken advantage of, and have unfortunately in many cases resorted to acts of terrorism. And as you mentioned Christianity, and despite what many fundamentalist protestants will claim catholicism is a form of Christianity, has had it’s eras of violence, so in this regards, nobody’s “hands are clean”.
Atheist morality is the last point I want to touch on, since I think you are the first to bring it up in this post. While it is a bit of a copout to quote somebody else on this as my only point, I feel that Richard Dawkins very eloquently summarized my feelings on this:
“Religious people do not derive their morality from religion. I disagree (with the interviewer) on this point. Almost all of us do agree on moral grounds where religion had no effect. For example we all hate slavery, we want emancipation of women – they are all our moral grounds. These moral grounds started building only a few centuries ago and long after all major religions were established. We derive our morality from the environment we live in, Talk shows, Novels, Newspaper editorials and of course by the guidance of parents. Religion might only have a minor role to play in it. An atheist derives his morality from the same source as a religious people do.”
Again, I would like to thank you for your input. I hope I have not offended you (or anybody else), but I do like the fact that even though we disagree, we can find some common ground, and have an open discussion on something so “controversial”.
a true malaysian,
I very much respect your views on faith. A few of the other posters have said similar ideas (most notably coming to mind was srcghs).
I have been very much in a read and question mode with my responses to this post, and yet with your post I really am not finding anything to question. My only disagreement really is that you seem to be much more accepting of people preaching to people with the intent to convert them. While we both agree that christian missionaries do much good work, I would find their act to be somehow more “selfless” if they did all of the good works without the preaching about “god”. I find this to be a bit of “string attached” thing (i.e. I’ll help you build a school and dill a well, but then you have to listen to me tell you about my god). This is not to take away from the good works that missionaries have done across the world and obviously my personal biases are involved in my view but I somehow find it slightly lessened by the attempt to convert those they are helping.
Other than this one point though, I do like your outlook on faith as I understand it, even without being a believer in karma myself.
Good discussion! Very gracious in interaction. If I may, I’d like to share my point of view.
In essence, what you’re really asking is, “what is truth and how can I know it?”
This question is the crux of the matter and Christianity answers in a unique way. Have you noticed that every other religion is based on sayings and teachings- in so far as even when the founder is removed from the equation, the religion still stands? But not so with Christianity.
When Jesus is taken out of the equation, Christianity falls. Completely. Without Christ, you have a moral dictate rather than a relational foundation. This is the Gospel in a nutshell. The Gospel of Christianity is good news not so far as it is giving us a new law, but in so far as it announces that under this new law the poor in spirit are blessed, the meek will inherit the earth, those who hunger for righteousness will be satisfied, etc…
This is what sets Christianity apart from other religions. The Gospel is news not advice or command. Every other religion will tell you what you need to do to gain salvation. The Gospel of Jesus says, “This is what I have done.”
Every other religion has some form of the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have someone do unto you.) But only Christ has demonstrated this Golden Rule BEFORE he commands us to do it as well. He gave his life to save people.
You want proof of which religion is really, really true? Look unto Jesus the Author and Finisher of our faith. It is not faith that saves. It is Jesus who saves us through faith. If you’re resting in how much faith you have or how certain your faith is, you are inevitably trusting in your ability to save yourself.
This is why I am a Christian. The Gospel of Jesus is Good News- that Jesus fulfilled the law in every respect for us! Christianity is not relegated to merely doing (like every other religion- do this or that and gain salvation) but it is by faith, believing in Jesus because he has gained and provided salvation for us.
Every other religion is “Go and do to gain it.” or “Do good because good will come back to you.” or some variation of that theme.
Christianity is, “Go and do because I have done it!”
Christianity is true because Jesus is who he says he is.
cruv,
You claim that christianity is not based on the sayings and teachings of jesus? I’m not sure exactly how you come to that conclusion.
The one point you “sort of” make that I agree with is that if you take jesus away, christianity falls on it’s face. Where we differ, is you see this as “proof” that this is the “true” faith, I see this as a consequence of jesus being one of the few “founders” of a religion to claim to actually be “god”. Among some of the larder main religions I have mentioned in various replies here, abraham, joseph smith, l ron hubbard, buddha, and mohammed who all “founded” their religions never claimed to BE “god”, they all claimed to have been given knowledge by god. In this respect jesus was different because he actually claimed to be “god”, so of course if you take him out of the picture there is no possible way for christianity to survive.
You also claim that the gospel is not advice or commands on how to live your life. While it’s been a while since I went to church, I certainly seem to recall that we HAD to go to church, we HAD to follow the ten commandments, we HAD to confess our sins (I was “raised catholic” for a large part of my childhood before I began studying other religious philosophies). I see no difference in the idea of following the word of jesus than I see in the idea of following the words of buddha or mohammed. Your next point that every “other” religion has a version of the golden rule really perplexes me, since in both the catholic school and presbyterian school I went to espoused this on a regular basis. That you claim the christian church does not gives rules, this one among them, is hard to understand, at least based on my experiences.
I do appreciate your reply, despite not really grasping all of the points you are trying to make. I can “sort of” see what you are saying in some cases, but I’m frankly at a loss for much of it as well.
From what I understand, and I’m probably not correct, your points are that
jesus is the foundation of his religion while the other religions are just based on “god’s word” being given through a person.
You state that christianity does not give rules to live by, and that we should live our lives as jesus lived his because he showed by example.
And finally that because jesus is god, you believe that jesus is god.
Please let me know if I have completely misunderstood your post, because I feel that I must have missed something here.
Thanks for the reply. I am sure that I was not as clear as I could have been. So, let me try to clarify.
Christianity does have commands. NO question about it. “Do not steal.” “Do not lie.” “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
The issue is, what motivates us to do them? To gain salvation? Or to do them in thanksgiving because salvation has already been attained for us?
In John 6:28ff, “Then they said to him, ‘What must we do, to be doing the works of God?’ 29 Jesus answered them, ‘This is the work of God, that you believe in him (that is Jesus) whom he has sent.'”
The core of Christianity is believing in Jesus as Savior. Nothing more. Nothing less. And then our doing of good works flows out of what Jesus has already done. We do good works, not to gain salvation but because we already POSSESS salvation by faith in Jesus, the Son of God.
Later in John 14:6, “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
There is no life in doing commands (the law) (Romans 5:20). But there is life in Jesus through faith. As Ephesians explains, “for by grace are you saved, through faith, not of works lest any one should boast.” Salvation is of the Lord and salvation is only through Jesus who saves us by our faith.
This is the issue. It comes down to what you believe about Jesus. Is Jesus the Savior of the world or is He not? Is he who he says he is or is he not? Jesus is more than a great prophet (although he is a great prophet), but he is also the Great High Priest, the Bread of Life, The Living Water, The Door of Salvation, the Chief Cornerstone.
Without Jesus, you heap unto yourselves condemnation (Romans 5:20). It is only looking unto Jesus through faith that we are saved to eternal life.
And please, I say all this with all due respect. You can get hung up on what every religion teaches, but it all comes down to what you believe about Jesus himself.
Ask yourself, does it matter what I believe about Buddha himself even if I follow his directives? Does it matter what I believe about Joseph Smith even though I follow what he wrote? Does it matter what I think about Hubbard even though I follow what he wrote?
It is a matter of life and death when it comes to what you believe about Jesus. If you deny Jesus, you have rejected Christianity. But if you believe in Jesus (not just believe him but believe IN him) you have eternal life.
If there was one book I would have you read, I would have you read the book of John in the Bible. Compare the book of John with any other book in other religious writings. I can not persuade you. I can only point you to what Jesus (and what others have) said about himself.
Keep searching! Keep looking for the answer! I will only suggest that the answer is Jesus Himself.
Thanks for the interaction. I must bow out of this discussion…
Excellent Question!! Think about losing weight and maintaining the weight loss. Put 100 overweight people in a room and you can get up to 100 different opinions on how to do it. Now put a person in the room (with before pictures) that weighed 300lbs and now weighs 160lbs and maintaining, now his opinion everyone wants to hear – what did you do to accomplish this? All real testimonies I have encounted the people say it involves a life change.
I am NOT religeous person, I attend church but do not follow a religon, I listen to men (preachers), but do idolize them, I read and follow the Bible and other historical manuscripts. I have read excerpts of of the Koran and the Torah is basically a part of todays Bible.
Simply put, I follow Christ!! He is the one who changed my life! When I was younger I spent a lot of time drinking (hard liquor), doing drugs (lsd,ludes, pcp, minwhites…), cursing, berating people, had bitterness, hatred… thought I was on top of the world and having a great time and could not see the effect (toll) it was taking on my life as well as those around me. At some point in time the walls began to crumble and tumble down. A freind told me about a person who could change my life – just like he was changed. Why not give it a try.
It has been almost 30 years since I asked Christ to forgive me. I no longer need drugs to feel good or to alchol to drown my sorrows, don’t need to curse and rant to get my point across, I love people and enjoy life. People aroud me actually respect my thoughts and opinions. I grow in Grace and Love every day. Those who remember me from 30yrs ago would tell you my life has permanently changed… a life changing event that only Christ could perform.
On the antagonistic side, If all of this is false (and it’s not), then what have I lost? I would not change my life now for anything!!
Thank-you for your original post – it is an excellent question.
cruv,
Thank you for your clarification, I think I have a better understanding this time around. I’m sorry you must bow out of the discussion now, but I will still make a few comments for others who are following this post.
Motivation I think is a hard thing to clarify. As an atheist I am not motivated by “god” or “faith”, I am motivated by my own feelings of what is “right” and “wrong”. The general philosophy I live my life by is to not do harm to others, and when possible, do my best to help others. I don’t do this because “god” or some “holy book” said so, or because I am trying to emulate jesus or buddha or some other historical figure. I do them because I have based my morality on societal norms. My environment tells me that certain things are “wrong”, and from this I have taken what seems reasonable and good and built upon that.
The Richard Dawkins quote I mentioned above in a reply to fundy does a good job of explaining how somebody inside of a society derives their morality. The main point that is relevant here is the following line:
“We derive our morality from the environment we live in, Talk shows, Novels, Newspaper editorials and of course by the guidance of parents.”
The idea of “due unto others as you would have them do unto you” is a good summary of my philosophy. I would not want somebody else to steal from me, so why would it be ok for me to steal from somebody else?
While religion may teach these same ideals as well, I don’t see a need for religion to live a moral life.
If the only reason one does good is to avoid an eternity in hell, I would have a hard time thinking of them as a moral person. If somebody does good works because they feel “god” wants them to, I see that in much the same light.
However if somebody does good because they believe that helping others is the best way to a fair, just, and kind society, and they have no selfish motives (and I know that it is impossible to tell another person’s motives, each person would have to judge them self).
Your point about doing good works “flowing” out of a belief in jesus is a tricky one from my view. I think that each person that fits this criteria (of being “saved”) would have to look in the mirror to decide why they are truly doing good. Are they doing it because they think they should as part of being Christian, or because they think jesus wants them to, or because they are selflessly thinking of the betterment of society?
The biggest point where I think we diverge is when you state “Without Jesus, you heap unto yourselves condemnation”. This way of thinking means you believe a child born into a land that has no understanding of a specific religion is automatically condemned to an eternity of damnation. I find it hard to believe that if the Christian version of “god” is loving and kind, he” would be vindictive enough to “punish” a child for something over which he had no control. The biggest flaw I find in many major religions is this “us vs. them” mentality. If you’re not part of the in group, then you are automatically an outsider and you will ‘burn in hell”. This divides us and is one of the causes of many wars, bigotry, and violence in the world.
moondance,
Thank you for your view. I had never thought of the weight loss analogy before, but it seemingly fits pretty well. The one difference is that there are “faiths” and “beliefs” which are genuinely harmful. Not to say that all aspects of religion are harmful, or all aspects of any specific religion are harmful, but there are certainly many instances of religion used to justify horrific acts (a few of my replies have already gone into detail on this, so I won’t rehash it again right now).
Use the weight loss analogy, I would say that take your 100 people that want to lose weight. Now add in 20 people that all have opposing views on how they lost weight.
One person’s solution is that you eat extremely healthy, but take a minute amount of poison daily, which will cause you to lose weight rapidly.
Another says to exercise daily, eat right, don’t smoke, but you must spend 1 hour a day picking fist fights with gay and lesbian people.
Yet another says to spend your time with others losing weight under this method, and cut off communication with your old friends and family. You must pay exorbitant amounts of money to belong to this group, but they will ensure you lose all the weight in a flash.
Each of the 20 people has their own way to help lose weight, and maybe some or even all of them actually work, but there is some small sinister detail in them that causes harm to the person using that system or to others around them.
Or you could listen to the person who is happy in their current body, even if they are overweight that says “be happy as you are, and live your life”.
While your story seems to have had a good conclusion, I’m not sure that it helps to understand HOW you know. Your life changed, which is great, but is it because you changed it, or because some divine being actually took steps to make your life different for you. I would argue that if you look back, you will find many changes that you made in your own life (quit hanging around people who you previously used drugs with, stop going to bars/liquor stores, etc) and no evidence of divine intervention.
Your final thought is one I have thought about before as well:
“On the antagonistic side, If all of this is false (and it’s not), then what have I lost?”
My response would be that if I live a good life, but do not honestly believe in “god” then what would pretending to believe accomplish?
While we’re sitting here chasing our tails…I was wondering, Rodibidably, what do you want the truth to be?
I would suggest that “truth” depends on how one views human knowledge. As a Christian, I hold that human knowledge is revelational, given to us by God Himself (Colossians 2:3). Truth begins there.
For the unbeliever (particularly the atheist), this is a delimna. He ultimately sees the human brain as a great cosmological accident, a bunch of stardust that got together and started firing off electrical impulses, which they call “knowledge, logic, and reason”. Let him then explain how the “logic” of one accidental brain should have any connection at all to the “logic” of another. Both are different brains with different neurons, and thus should have different laws of logic, which means that the laws of logic are not laws, but merely opinions, and random accidental opinions at that.
Therefore, I would hold that God is the precondition for all intelligible experience, therefore He must exist. Without Him, we are merely stardust accidentally tossed together in random, undesigned world, with no basis for believing that our accidental human brains can know or understand anything.
servant,
What do I want the truth to be? I don’t think my preference is really important. I guess I would say that I want mankind to be able to better understand others and the world around us. I want an end to religious differences that cause pain, suffering, war, and bigotry. I want for people to be accepting of each other, and not attempt to enforce their own beliefs on others.
In short, I want the impossible.
Rodibidably,
What you have described above (cause pain, suffering, war, and bigotry) sounds like sin to me. What would you offer as a solution?
Do you really believe that “better understand others and the world around us” will cause us to “be accepting of each other”? Apparently not, since you acknowledge that it is impossible.
In short, your desires are plausible, but universalism is not the answer.
Ah, but I think your preference is important! 🙂
puritan,
I don’t think you truly understand the typical atheist’s beliefs, since you are using a straw man argument in your post. We do not see the “human brain as a great cosmological accident”. We see it as the end result of millions of years of evolution, which followed billions of years of formation of the universe, galaxies, solar systems, stars, and planets.
The laws of logic are not only inside the head of each individual, they are learned from one another in a society, this is people can expect others to have a connection to one another.
From your second post, my question would be, is it a sin to own a slave? Can you show me where the bible states this? During a large portion of American history many “christians” used the bible to condone slavery. While you may not agree with their interpretation, you must at least acknowledge that no clear condemnation of the practice exists in the bible.
For those who do not rely on a specific book written thousands of years ago, morality is societal norm of accepted behavior. For those who follow a specific book, how do you make choices on issues that your book does not cover?
You ask if I really believe that better understanding will help us to accept each other. I really do believe this with every fiber of my being. I believe that in my lifetime and foreseeable future this will not happen. I believe that religion and dogmatism have too strong a hold on people currently, and until that hold is released to some degree, people will continue in an “us vs. them” mentality, which will hinder our progress towards a better society.
servant,
My personal choice for myself is atheism but my preference would be for all people to believe in whatever they choose, as long as it does not have a negative effect on themselves and on society around them. This ideal would also require for everybody to be accepting of everybody else’s beliefs, which we are dfar from that point today.
“We do not see the “human brain as a great cosmological accident”. We see it as the end result of millions of years of evolution, which followed billions of years of formation of the universe, galaxies, solar systems, stars, and planets.”
I fail to see the difference. In any case, why will you merely assume that your human brain has any connection with reality.
With regards to slavery, that would take quite a lot of explaining, but is not really a relevant subject as this point. However, since you mentioned it, on what basis does an atheist oppose slavery?
puritan,
Why would the human mind, which is created in reality, not have a connection with that reality?
As for why we oppose slavery, I quoted Richard Dawkins earlier:
“Religious people do not derive their morality from religion. Almost all of us do agree on moral grounds where religion had no effect. For example we all hate slavery, we want emancipation of women – they are all our moral grounds. These moral grounds started building only a few centuries ago and long after all major religions were established. We derive our morality from the environment we live in, Talk shows, Novels, Newspaper editorials and of course by the guidance of parents. Religion might only have a minor role to play in it. An atheist derives his morality from the same source as a religious people do.”
“Why would the human mind, which is created in reality, not have a connection with that reality?”
I’m not denying that it does. I’m only pointing out that, given the atheist view of the human brain, it’s a pretty big assumption. If knowledge isn’t revelational from God, then it is abstract.
As for Dawkin’s view of morality, I have to say that I’m not at all impressed. It is basically an admission that no moral standard really exists. Instead, it is derived from “environment we live in”, which is odd considering your view of religion and the alleged harm that it causes. Was slavery “immoral” 300 years ago? Why or why not? Is not “war” the product of our current environment? Yet you oppose it.
Good discussion, but I need to run. Will check up on this soon.
PL
puritan,
The problem you have with reconciling the atheist view of the brain and reality has to do with your misunderstanding of the atheist position. For an informed atheist there is no contradiction.
I fail to see how Dawkins view of morality differs from your own. 2000 years ago jesus himself viewed slavery as acceptable because it was part of the prevailing culture of the time. Even 150 years ago christians believed that the bible gave them the “right” to own slaves.
It was not until relatively recently, historically speaking, that people “learned” that slavery was immoral. We look at it now and wander how our forefathers could condone such a thing, but if the bible is the “word of god”, and the ultimate authority on morality, why did it not state in no uncertain terms “slavery is bad”.
Based on our current understanding slavery has always been one of the most horrible things than one man can do to another.
Yes, war is a product of our environment, and I oppose all violence, suffering, and hatred. And yet there is no contradiction in this, since I believe that our environment is flawed. You can be the product of a flawed system, and want still to fix that system.
I agree, those are wonderful things to hope for. 🙂
One quick rejoinder. I understand we won’t see eye-to-eye.
Bart Ehrman’s book MisQuoting Jesus, is quite loose with the evidence. He bends it to make his case. There are myriads of scholars who don’t even uphold inerrancy of the Bible yet from a purely academic standpoint would dispute Ehrman’s claims. There is no evidence of a widespread altering of Scripture.
The facts are that in 93% of the text all major text types agree. In the other 7% based on the science of textual criticism and the multitude of textual witnesses we have, of various ages and in various languages/locales, we can shore up 6% and be fairly confident that the evidence settles the matter. There is a final 1% about which some disagreement remains, but again we have the options to chose from in almost every case, and no major doctrine is affected.
Ehrman uses 1 John 5:7 as an example and nothing could be crazier than that point. If he thinks that the fact that this verse made its way into the text by means of a copyist error in the Latin, and that this changed the theology of the NT (since that verse is very Trinitarian in wording), he’s crazy. There is no proof the verse existed prior to the 8th century. The Trinitarian controversy was in the 5th century. We have the records of that controversy and we can read the pro and con arguments and no one mentions this verse at all. The Church clarified its position on the Trinity without the help of this accidental corruption of the text. In the advent of the modern era, post-Renaissance, people studied Greek again and found that this verse is not in the Greek (only in 4 copies out of thousands). And so Martin Luther kept it out of his Bible, and Erasmus at first excluded it from his Greek Text (only including it because of a rash claim he had made, and if you check his notes and footnotes, he did not believe it was original).
So if Ehrman points to this example, it proves he is using the evidence to stack his case. It just doesn’t prove his point.
Check the evidence yourself, check neutral, non-Christian scholars on this point — unbiased scholars not those writing popular books discrediting Christianity.
Anyways, I won’t respond on the other points as it looks like you have your hands full with other commenters, and like you I don’t want this debate to drone on forever!
Bob Hayton
fundy,
I will look into the critical reviews of Ehrem’s work. I know that when I read his book, I found I was skeptical of a few of his claims, but in the few claims that I spent the time to research myself I found evidence that his points were correct, even if his conclusions were debatable.
Even with Dawkins and Harris, who I think make great cases against theism, have points that I do not agree with, so I see no reason why a critical look at Ehrem’s work would be any different. But with Dawkins and Harris, where I has issue with some aspects, the main point they make I still believe is valid. I’ll have to look into the scholarship of Ehrem’s work to see how much of it is invalididated, and if it affects the overall point of his book.
Hello Rodibidably,
Thank you for reading this post and leaving me a comment. There was no real question within this comment, so I can only assume that you wish to find out how as a gay man I can consider myself a Christian and thereby how do I define my faith?
The majority of Christians don’t understand the enormity of the situation you (yes…you as a Bible Thumping, Black – N – White deciding, and Judgment wielding Christians) place gay men and lesbian women in. The world and God was never meant to be Black & White and God never meant us to see things in that manner. I believe he wants us to loving, caring and compassionate people who endure because of one another, not despite one another.
I know all of the verses that are used to denounce homosexuality. I’ve read them probably more times than all of you put together. The hypocrisy of most Christians is the ability to pick and choose what verses you feel God deals with us using a heavy hand and which ones you feel he softly brushes aside. The many verses used by Bible slinging Christians to demonize homosexuals can be debated, but for the sake of argument, lets not right now. Let us agree, merely for the sake of argument that they are right (and I don’t believe that personally); who placed all Christians as the GAY POLICE? Who gave you the job to chase after, beat physically and verbally all gay people? Who told all Christians to take it amongst yourselves to identify and burn at the stake the gay people of America, because if I’m right, God and Jesus both told us not to JUDGE our brothers and sisters! Am I to believe that it is OK for a Christian to cast judgments on all FAGS, because a book gives you that right! Again we go back to that Black & White part of my statement where you can’t use the Bible as a ridged instrument or a club when it suits your purpose and then use it as a scalpel other times when it also suits your purposes.
In the Black & White Christian world we use “God’s Word” as the instrument of Hate. We teach our children that one it is OK to hate, as long as you justify your hatred based on verses within the Bible. So, how does a mother explain to her daughter that it is OK to hate FAGS because the Bible says so, but when a man uses some of the same chapters and just different verses to denounce women who according to the Bible should be benevolent to their husbands, fathers and all men? What makes Men the sacred vessel of all God’s knowledge? How does this woman explain the differences of hate to her daughter who just learned that if it is written in the Bible it must be true and therefore the Word of God could never be misconstrued, misunderstood or misinterpreted. But the Black & White interpretations of the Bible cannot be adhered too now and not then. So if we hate FAGS, we must also hate Women!
I’m on a role, so lets finish this one out with a bang…the Black & White interpretations from the Christian Right must also redirect all of our efforts on Slavery and thereby Black Men, Women and Children should be considered a commodity and not human beings based on verses in the Bible that identify slavery as a given and accepted practice. Even Jesus accepted Slavery in the pages of our Bible and according to this holy book it is a generally accepted occurrence to own another human being. That would indicated that Hitler was justified in his condemnation of Jewish people and the South should ride again because Confederate Families were justified in their loathing, hatred and often times abusive relationships with the Black People they owned. Slaves were not people, they were not human beings, they were merely property and the owner could do as he so pleased (rape, kill, maim, abuse or anything else), they were his property and no laws governed their existence unless it addressed them simply as a commodity. If my words don’t make your blood boil, then please keep moving to the right…the far right, because you feel those hallow words give meaning to your hatred.
Back to how your hate and loathing cause harm to the children of our great nation. Because of all that I typed above, Christianity thinks their loathing and hatred for homosexuality is justified and somehow God gave you the Christians the right and ability to act upon those intense feelings. The verbal abuse and physical abuse demanded justification that our children bare witness too long before they ever know if they are heterosexual or homosexual laments as they mature and age. When they finally enter into puberty and their hormones are in over-load normally, most become so over-rot with fear when they initially receive their first inclinations that they may be different from all other people. Then when they understand why they are different (I did not say choose), the shock and enormity hits them like a ton of Bibles crushing them because that is exactly what happens. The lessons taught by our parents that loathing and hatred of all FAGS is OK because the Bible says it’s so. Good Job Mom and Dad! You are the exact reason your child pulled completely away from you, couldn’t talk with you anymore and was scared to death to utter another syllable, because they are fearful of what else within them deems you hatred too. This one reason can be attributed to more than 50% of all teen suicides because beautiful little boy learned he was gay, but how can that be when Mom and Dad will hate me; so instead of learning how to deal with the injustices of Christian society, they kill themselves and Wow, we’ve done a good job because there is one less Fag in the world! Yea!!
Is that what God really intended for us to do? Where in the Bible does it direct every Christian to denounce homosexuality and throw away all gays and lesbians? When did Jesus give a badge to all Christian’s and swear them in as the FAG Cops with the purpose to harass, torment, deprive and eliminate all homosexuals? Believe it or not…that is exactly what is being done on a daily basis. Every Matthew Sheppard and Harvey Milk is slain by people claiming the Bible justified their actions. Every teenager in a High School that shouts Fag, Queer, Gay, Homo, Lesi or any other derogatory comment learns to do so from their parents and Mom and Dad justified their hate with a book…the Bible!
Honestly, is there what God meant when he gave us a book to guide our lives on earth?
I’ve written this many times now and it needs to be understood; I believe in God. I believe that he sent us his only son to teach us what we could not achieve on our own with the Old Testament. I believe I am made just as he says, in his likeness, just like you and everybody else. What we need to do first is to determine what role the Bible plays in our faith. I’m not questioning Faith. I’m not questioning God, but since God is not talking, whose to know that my beliefs are not right! The Bible was guided by God, we can all agree with this premise. But even the men who were tasks with interpreting the Bible explained of the extremely arduous job they were given and how at times they could not properly interpret the Word of God. So what were they to do? They did as anyone would do and they used their own values, their own beliefs and the laws governing them at the time to dictate how they would interpret the Word of God. There is no cover-up here. There is not explosion of faith by this recognition and it was not a mistake for them to do so. They were men…fallible sinners just like you and me who did the best they could and were divinely inspired to complete their works.
The Old Testament stands the test of time during its first inception, but there was great deliberation on what was meant, what was taught and how it should be delivered even back then. So if during the time of its origins, the religious leaders of the time could not agree on the book they were given, how do we accept that it is carved in stone by God and should be followed to the letter even to this day. If that were true, then millions of people will burn in Hell because they ate shrimp last night. Millions more will already be on their way to Hell before that group because they ate pork (the other white meat) and yet; if we can look beyond these statement in the very book that is cast in stone, why can’t we look past in the same chapter of that book when it is said that “man should not lie with man as with woman; it is an abomination”. Same chapter and we are led to believe that God was joking when he said we could not eat shrimp or pork, but we must absolutely believe when it refers to homosexuality? That is the absolute definition of HYPOCRITE and defiles the Black & White designs of Christianity.
That book I was referencing was once again given to the hands of men to determine its destination. Three centuries after Jesus was crucified by the very religious leaders he tried to teach us were not good leaders, Constantine, the Emperor of Rome gathered three hundred religious leaders with a purpose to define and organize one religion, one faith and that was the foundations of Christianity. The Bible was one of the first tasks they argued vehemently over. There were many books in circulation by different religious groups that were all decided on which books were to be considered scripture and which ones did they want burned out of existence. It was thanks to these 300 religious leaders who decided on what doctrine was and dissension, intolerance was persecuted as bigotry.
A great ruler brought three hundred men together and told them they would combine all of their religious beliefs into one and the only thing that was not negotiable was their acceptance. Jesus was not born on the 25th of December that was replacing the Pagan Celebration of the Winter Solstice. Again I look to you to help me decide…do I believe in a book that was decided upon by men forced to do so and the foundation of which has too many different origins for us to even know about. So Constantine and three hundred religious leaders (men exactly like the ones who pushed a King into crucifying a man that never once threatened them – he only showed another way) redirected the Old Testament; deciding what was valid and what was not. There were chapters that were edited and there were chapters removed. How are we to know what the “Word of God” really was and what were the words of three hundred?
The Council of Nicea was just getting warmed up and the Old Testament was easy, but what took far more planning and agreement was picking and choosing from the hundreds of books, chapters and verses that were being used by hundreds of religious organizations as their definitive reference book for their religion. So the New Testament was organized by three hundred men with differing beliefs, but more important, we cannot track back from anything more than these three hundred religious leaders what was actually written by the Apostles and what was given as the words from the Apostles. Do we really know and can we ever really know? How can we tell, the text that was given as authoritative documentation was never submitted by the men themselves, this was over three decades later; so all we can do is believe a religious leader in a council that was stripping away anything they did not like or did not want to reference the religion they were creating as an amalgam of all of the other faiths of the time. Not to mention that the New Testament was again written by fallible men with their own beliefs and their own interpretations of what they saw in the presence of Jesus.
At this point I believe I have given enough thought on the matter as to the authentication of the book we use as the “Word of God” to have great questions in our minds as to is it actually what it is referenced as? There is so much more that can be defined and shown and we haven’t even gotten to the interpretation from the language it was given to us in or our current views of those people who interpreted this great book.
I personally believe that this is a book that contains some of what God wanted to teach us. It is supposed to be used as a guide and was never meant to be our sword, but merely our shield. Just as any really good book, we should read it and understand it. I mean really understand it. Not listen to our religious leaders tell us what it means. Listen to these men and women who most have devoted their lives to a greater cause, but take from them, add to their lessons what we read and interpret for ourselves and know that when you have questions, you always have God…right there…right then. Ask for your guidance and listen with your heart. Not once did Jesus use the Word of God as a sword to beat his followers in to submission. Not once did Jesus use the Old Testament to chastise or judge any one who he encountered. Jesus only ever showed each and every person the Love and Respect they deserved no matter their station in life. Everybody was treated the same and everybody was Honored for the person they were. Not once did Jesus denounce homosexuality – so what makes anyone else think they can do so in his absence.
My faith tells me to ask “What Would Jesus Do”, and follow my heart just as he would have done. Remember that Jesus did say that the followers would be the last to leave on judgment day. Are you a follower?
May we all live with Love, Honor and Respect for ourselves, but most importantly for all of those around us…even the ones you think are undeserving like the Fags!
Your Humble Servant – Todd M. Dobson
Pingback: VOX POPULI NEWS and OPINION - A Question for True Believers
todd,
I’m guessing you did not read my actual question or my own response to my question, since based on your answer you seem to believe that I am a homophobic christian conservative.
I have stated many times in various replies here that I am an atheist. I would no more question the link between your sexuality and faith than I would question the link between somebody’s height and their preference between dogs and cats (btw, dogs much better, but that is for another post).
While I understand that somebody’s sexuality is a major factor in their worldview, I do not think that is necessarily drives a person’s faith. One of my best friends is a lesbian, and while we don’t actually discuss faith much, from what we have discussed, she considers herself a lapsed christian. She has belief in a “god”, but in a much more generic sense than any “religion” that I know of. I don’t believe that her sexuality has been the deciding factor in her belief, but perhaps it was a factor in her pulling away from her upbringing.
Your assumption of my viewpoint seems to have guided your response in a completely random direction. While the points you make are quite valid, they are not really relevant to this specific discussion.
I am MUCH more interested in your faith than your sexuality. I don’t believe that sexuality is a choice, and therefore I don’t feel that anybody has to “defend” them self as a gay man or a lesbian. I have a bit of a thing for slightly nerdy/sexy women and British/Australian accents. If Lisa Loeb spoke cockney I would have to consider changing my shorts any time her songs came on the radio 😉 . You have a thing for people of the same sex, that’s no different or weird than my thing for Nicole Kidman or Liz Phair.
Having read your reply, while it is not exactly on topic, I think you do a VERY good job of ripping apart the “typical” right wing, conservative, christian arguments against homosexuality. Obviously this is a topic you feel strongly about, and it is one that I plan to get into at some later date, so I will certainly be coming back to your points at that time.
You actually make a few of the same points I make on the validity of the bible, all be it for different reasons. But having not really responded to the original intent of my post, I would like to hear your thoughts on my question of how do you know your beliefs are “correct” and how certain are you of that belief.
I look forward to your response.
rodibidably, i will answer your question but first i want to ask you a question… i am an evangelical pentecostal christian… now this is my question to you… what are the top ten reasons for my “religion” not to be true? once you answer my question i will answers those questions you asked, how i know my “religion” is true, and nothing more
forgot to put the and and answer before the how i know my religion question
pablo,
Wow a top ten list, I feel so “David Lettermanesque”.
First let me state off the top, I fully admit that I may be wrong in my beliefs. I have looked at much of the evidence (anybody who says they have looked at ALL of the evidence is fooling them self or lying, there is too much for one person to have thoroughly studied it all), and come to the conclusion that there is no “designer”, there is no “invisible hand guiding”, there is in short, no “god”.
Even Richard Dawkins who is one of the most famous atheists in the world says that he is “only” 95% sure there is no god. He leaves open a 5% chance that “god” exists in some form and is controlling the destiny of the world and all those in it.
With that said, if there is a chance that I am wrong, then there is a chance that any given belief system is correct. It could be catholicism, judaism, buddhism, islam, hinduism, scientology, mormonism, or any of a variety of other religions. Or it could be that no religion has yet “gotten it right”.
In the text of the original post, I state:
“We can all agree that not everybody’s beliefs are compatible with everybody else’s beliefs.”
There are many differing religions that conflict with each other. Even within one “religion” there are vast differences (sunnis vs shi’ites is one I mentioned). There are many differing “holy books” across those religions, and many differing translations of those books. If you go into typical catholic church, a typical mormon temple(?) and a typical pentacostal church(?) and grab a bible from each, you would be able to find many serious differences between the text of each of the three. While the main story line is going to be the same there are entire sections that were stripped out by martin luther from the old catholic bible when the protestant reformation took place.
Even within a single translation, there are many possible interpretations of the same passages. As I have mentioned a few times already during the civil war both the North and South used biblical passages to justify their own beliefs towards slavery. Many atrocities have been committed in the name of “god” based on differing readings of the bible and Koran (as well as other “holy books”, don’t think I am only picking on those two, I just happen to know them a bit better than I know hinduism, buddhism, etc).
So this means for any specific theistic “faith” to be the correct faith, that a few things must be true:
1) “God” must exist
2) They must have picked the “correct” god
3) They must have picked the “correct” version of that god
4) They must have picked the “correct” “holy book” to go along with that god
5) They must have picked the “correct” translation of that holy book
6) They must have picked the “correct” interpretation of that translation
I know this is not a full top 10, but really I think that these 6 suffice, and make the point which I wish to convey. Sam Harris, and Richard Dawkins, as well as others, do a much more eloquent and thorough evaluation of the case against “god”.
However, we are off topic at this point. My entire point of this post is not “who’s right” and “who’s wrong”. The point of this topic is “how do you know that you are right”. While I am most likely not going to agree with your views, I do like to try to understand differing viewpoints when I can.
I hope that this satisfies your “requirement”, and I look forward to your response.
Can I throw the Wesleyan Quadrilateral into the discussion:
Scripture – the Bible (Old and New Testaments)
Tradition – the two millennia history of the Christian Church
Reason – rational thinking and sensible interpretation
Experience – a Christian’s personal and communal journey in Christ
On another blog where I had attempted to ask a few members to come and debate here I was unable to find anybody willing to. However, I did get s few responses back and forth there, which I think may add at least a small something to this discussion.
—–
From blogReader:
Rodibidably…..first you identify your self….what is your religion…..and what is your real purpose…to debate on one true God or whatever.or to find out which is which.
Please also confirm you have studied comparative religions….and give me some proof of it.
I guarantee the blog owner Dr. Hsu will not stoop so low to response to your invitation. Why should he?
He put out a message sincerely …as according to his beliefs and feelings..for us to debate for or against….not for us to expose him…this or that.
He has been very open minded and democratic …to his visitors.
But me….as a commentator…. will take up your challenge….but first I am trying to find out….are you a worthy opponent.
No one will believe you are inviting all of us to your blog for differences in opinions ..so that you will learn. It’s more like advertising your blog……get more visitors to talk in your blog…more than anything else.
And if you want to debate….do it here.
I wait your reply.
—
My reply:
Identify myself, ok that is easy enough.
I consider myself to be an atheist, however I enjoy studying different religions. I am very interested in the similarities and differences between different faiths.
I’m not sure how you would want me to give you proof that I have studied multiple religions. Online I could claim that I had a vision of jesus tell me to go out and commit some act or say something. That does not mean it is true. I was raised in a somewhat religious atmosphere but came to believe long ago that I could not reconcile the faiths that I knew of at the time with morality and scientific discoveries. The further I delved into studying I saw more and more, that the religions I was exposed to were essentially “god of the gaps” philosophies.
I’m not sure why you believe that it would be “stooping so low” for somebody to reply to a simple question, but if that it your opinion, so be it. The primary reason I choose to have the discussion on one blog instead of multiple blogs, is so that those who are participating in the discussion can see all the responses, and hopefully come to better understand multiple view points on the same issue.
I find it quite funny that you are trying to determine if I am a “worthy opponent”. You take a very adversarial position from the beginning, when I am inviting people to share their differences openly. I am of the opinion that people can differ in their views openly and honestly without it causing conflict. From your response it seems that you do not share this belief.
—
From blogOwner:
blogReader, I will not answer that question because no one has the answer. That is the simple truth.
I thank you for your brave stand and comment.
🙂
But I went tothe link , I think his (Rodibidably’s) intention is sincere in wanting a debate on this question.
—
From blogReader:
Rodibidably….Firstly my nick is *****.not ***.
My advise to you is choose a religion and have full faith in it.
Put all your heart and soul with passion to that one religion you choose…….as the world is full of spirits….good and evil ones…..and one need to have a strong mind to avoid taken over by the ‘naughty’ spirit.
Whether you are are weak or strong human being….believing strongly to one religion does strengthen your mind and soul…..but not to the extend to be a fanatic…and believe other humans are stupid fools to believe in other faiths. Those who talk and behave like that..are infact the lost souls…or feeling so guilty in life…afraid to go to hell when they die….as they are programmed to be that way.
Read what “A True Malaysian” wrote and understand.
You have a confused and weak mind.
On the matter of debate on religion..you are not ready yet…..period!
And try to respect others …as you want others to respect you…starting by calling me *****.and not show your childish character from the first word…….insulting me.
—
My reply:
blogOwner,
Nobody has the answer to WHY they believe in their given religion? Really, that sounds liek you are saying faith is like a blind man throwing darts, whichever one you hit is as good as any other one…
You are correct that I want a sincere debate, and I felt that you, or some of your readers might be able to give a unique perspective. I do appreciate your taking the time to read my post. I hope you will reconsider and share your thoughts, but I respect your decision decline.
blogReader,
Sorry about shortening your nic. I tend to do that at times, and did not mean to offend.
You advise me to “choose a religion and have full faith in it”. This would assume that all religions are equal. Since there are many instances where various religions come in conflict with each other over very basic teachings I fail to see how randomly picking one can be of any value. If all religions are equally valid, then no religion would also be equally valid, so why should somebody “choose a religion”. I tend to not believe in things which can not be verified (santa claus, easter bunny, bigfoot, vampires, alien visitation, etc), and yet you seem to be saying that I should blindly accept a religion, any religion as “truth” despite the possibility that whatever I choose has a very real chance of doing more harm than good (branch davidians, manson family, jim jones’ group, etc).
I fail to see how I did not show you respect or insulted you in my post. I suppose that some can see a light when none was ever there.
—
From blogReader:
No one who understands religions…will identify himself/herself…. an atheist….a word coined by the US government…to identify how god fearing their are…..which we know is not true also. just because others believe in many gods and not one god are wrong.
And you have infact hinted you like ‘the way of life” doctrines…thus either Hindhusim or Buddhism should suits you fine. They are free and easy ..teaches you to do good and not do bad and control your monkey mind….that easy.
So choose one….THEN…make sure you study and read the good books on that religion….and depend only on people to give you explainations on what you know understand .
On Hindhusim…..’Bhagavad-Gita As It Is”….is the book to give you best foundation.
And on Buddhism…get to know how Sihatta Guatama…Sakya prince… became the Buddha and then read “The Words of Buddha” or sayings of the Buddha…not easy to understand…get a reputable knowledgable monk to teach and explain to you..but books written by the late Chief Reverend of Malaysia….Dr.Dhammananda is the best for you to understand ….as he writes well and easy to understand.
But should you change your mind..and even want to seek the truths trough the Bahai Faith…Islam..or Christianity……then seek it with full interest.
And when you have found the religion to give medicine to your “monkey” mind…don’t shout to the whole world…how great your religion is….when you have not study comparative religions….for if you do….then you will never brag about how great your religion or faith is. Any god never ask anyone to advertise for him/her. It is the cunning humans doing that for selfish reasons to control people..for profitable business..and those shouting are the weak deciples……ALWAYS!!
You are what we call….the lost sheep in the Bible.
But first….you need to have manners…..as the way you write…shows an intelligent young man…with a troubled mind.
See how much I care for you?
Rodibidably…The way you write….you are insulting all humans believing in a faith or a religions. They are all bloody fools and you are the smartest.
I recall you putting out the same old shit long long ago.
Yes…..some highly intelligent and very wise well educated and knowledgable humans …do not believe in any religion at all…..especially the scientists and few special strong minded people. They depended on truths …..from their sixth sense and commonsense.
But you don’t fit in this group at all….although you tend to project you are one of them.
This will be my last message to you.
Get real!!!
—
My reply:
How can you claim that nobody who understands religion will identify themselves as an atheist? And why is that, because you personally can not understand how somebody could deny the existence of god? Can you deny the existence of bigfoot, or ghosts or vampires or alien abductions? How is denying any of those different than denying another form of the supernatural, “god”?
You also claim that the word atheist was coined by the US govement? Really, that is interesting…
“In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός “god”) meant “godless”. The word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring definitions of “severing relations with the gods” or “denying the gods, ungodly” instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or “impious”. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as “atheistic”. As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), “atheism”. Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.[8]
In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587.[10] The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of “one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God”,[11] predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571.[12]”
You MAY want to actually do some research before you make claims like that in the future. Not to offend, but when you make claims that are so obviously historically wrong it makes many of the other things you say seem less authoritative.
I have studied christianity (catholicism, and presbyterianism), judaism, islam, buddhism, and VERY briefly some of the tenants of hinduism. While I found I agree with some aspects of all of these faiths, I found that I could not personally accept the claims of the supernatural that come along with religion.
Your assumption that somebody must “choose a religion” seems odd to me. If you truly believe that your version of “god” is correct, then telling somebody to worship a “different” god would seem sacrilegious. If you believe that any “god” is as valid as any other “god”, then you should be willing to acknowledge that no god is also just as valid. Yet you seem to insist that one MUST believe in some “god”, even if it is the “wrong” one.
Again you accuse me of being rude and not having manners, but I fail to see what I have said that is so offense to you. Is having your beliefs questioned out of curiosity offensive to you? If so, you may want to look at your own convictions, and to at those asking the questions.
Please tell me how exactly I have offended you. I have asked you some very basic questions, and tried to correct you when you have made false statements about me and my beliefs, and almost everything you have said has been false about me or my beliefs.
I am trying to understand WHY you believe that people “need” to have a “god” in their life, and you keep saying over and over that there is no such thing as an atheist who has studied religion. This is an obviously false statement as there have been many scholarly books on the subject of faith and religion by noted atheists (Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and of course Richard Dawkins).
For a “christian” you seem to resort to name calling and insults rather quickly in what I had hoped would be an open friendly discussion on faith and beliefs. I am sorry that you were not able to add anything substantive to the debate.
—–
Since this post may get deleted from that blog, I wanted to save it here for posterity and to show yet another view on the topic at hand.
Thanks for your reply, Rodibidably. If you read again my earlier comment, I have exactly the same view about Christian missionaries works with no string attached.
My view is that there must be some truths in all religions or else there will be no follower of the respective religions. But, which of these religions have more ‘truth’ than the other is dependent on ‘how open’ or ‘how receptive’ of ourselves to the view of others. That make thing more complex here, agree? There will be no end to your question here. Important thing here is that we must have faith on what we believe.
To me, the word ‘GOD’ has resulted in many disagreements among followers of religions, in particular Christianity and Islam, even though they believe at the same GOD. Their holy books have common references of prophets, and yet, both religions were in loggerhead for as long as history can remember.
So, hypothetically, wouldn’t it be wonderful if there is no God at all?
Buddhism, on the other hand, believe in no creator God. This is what I found, in simple term, about Buddha’s teachings :-
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” – Buddha
So, whether is there any truth about the teaching of Buddha, one need to find it ourselves, Buddha did not impose anything on us. This is why I consider myself as a Buddhist.
a true malaysian,
Perhaps I did not understand you fully. It seems we are in closer agreement than I had thought 🙂 .
I also really enjoy the quote from Buddha, thanks.
I wish more people felt the way you do, and were willing to be more accepting of others.
Robididably,
You invited me to make a comment here. I have not had time to review all 60+ comments you have collected, so my reply will be untarnished by responses to them.
I am a Numenist, a deliberately created religion in response to the horrors of World War II; the founders were soldiers and their families and friends. We’ve spent 62 years refining and evolving our beliefs, so we are a new religion. It is far from a fully developed religion and it allows a great deal of autonomy to its Celebrants.
That said, I will answer your question according to our religious dogma:
“How certain are you that your version of the “truth” (truth of god, religion, the world, the universe, etc) is the correct one, and more importantly, how do you know what that “truth” is?”
We are individuated corporeal beings with limited sensory input and a very vivid imagination. Truth for us is subjective and relative. Whatever “Truth” there may be may only be vouchsafed to us in small doses. Consider it like the metaphor of the blind people examining an elephant – they all have the truth, but not all of the truth.
This is how we view truth: in pieces, layered according to our level of understanding.
As we gain knowledge, maturity, wisdom, more of the Truth comes to us. What we think we know is therefore subject to revision according to new knowledge and new levels of understanding. We discuss new additions to our body of knowledge, our “Truth”, pondering how it fits, and if it doesn’t if we should or must change to allow the new information to fit, or if the information needs to be tabled until we learn more. We rarely discard information because it may simply be that we don’t yet know enough or understand enough. We don’t incorporate or use the information if we can’t find where it belongs.
Our religion is structured to help us in our explorations, to provide us with forums of learning and sharing, to bring us together to celebrate what we have learned, and what we think we know. Whereever two or more of us gather, we are a church.
I believe all religions are designed to help their adherents to seek and find as much of the Truth as they can bear – whatever that Truth may be. I also believe that what we perceive as “truth” can and must change to accommodate what we learn as we continue to grow and seek.
Robididably,
I can understand you more after reading your feedback to cruv’s opinion. I must point out here that, to the best of my knowledge and believe, Buddha’s teachings were not transient from GOD. This is why in actual fact, Buddhism is not a ‘religion’. You may refer to this youtube video clip http://youtube.com/watch?v=P2NLQGrbf5U for a better understanding on this.
Also, you can go Jewel Heart http://www.jewelheart.org/ for more detailed understanding of Buddhism.
In essence, Buddhism is not a religion, you can find your answer about ‘truth’ from Buddha’s teachings.
Cheers
How certain are you that your version of the “truth” (truth of god, religion, the world, the universe, etc) is the correct one, and more importantly, how do you know what that “truth” is?
Hello Rodibidably,
I actually read your full post this time and have attempted to answer the question, so lets see if I like this answer enough that I will post it to both your site and my own.
As a man that is continuing to ask the very same question you are asking many people, I can honestly answer that I have believed in God from my earliest days. I was never pushed into religion by my parents because both sides of my family come from deeply devout ancestors that were integral to their religious organizations. From a very early age I took myself to the church of the road and was in search of the reason my devotion to a entity that made no sense to me or others. I have read the Christian holy book, the “Bible” while listening to countless religious leaders insight their congregation to one frenzied point or another, but in each and every case, I never found a Christian Religious Organization that spoke to me or explained the Bible in a way that I knew in my heart and in my soul was correct.
It is such an issue that for years I thought I lost my religion and my faith in God, but deep within my soul I never gave up on God, just on modern day religious organizations that taught their followers that the Bible means X or it absolutely tells us that Y is not to be believed. When Christian leaders stand on a pulpit and strongly demand Z, I started questioning their motives, but then I saw their motives as if a light from heaven shown true guidance on the motivation behind teaching anything but love, honor and respect to their congregations….money. While in almost every country religious organizations are kept from public scrutiny by not demanding they open their financial books for all who wish to see what they do and how they do it. Regardless of the political freedoms religious organizations have, organized religion is the greatest money maker in the world. Religious leaders have also taken marketing 101 classes and through centuries of scientifically proven results, fear does the best job at increasing the number of followers and in sighting those followers to give more money than anything.
Because of these and many other reasons, I’ve yet to find a Christian organization that I go too to confirm or define my beliefs. I too have been asking this very question and because, I am researching all other religious beliefs in hopes that I can find just one religious organization or structure that teach Love, Honor & Respect to everyone from everyone, always.
You might think with everything I’ve written, how can I say I believe in God? Well, he created me in his image and I know that with every ounce of my being. While I question many things in my life, my faith in God is not one of them. Faith is believing in that which does not make sense.
It answers your question and yet it does not. I have faith in God and that is not under question. Everything else may be, but not that!
Your Humble Servant – Todd M. Dobson
Your question stabs at the nerve ending of all who choose to believe.
I don’t have a true belief as such other then the belief that all who believe are mislead.
I have, however, studied belief systems for over 30 years and the above statement has been my conclusion thus far.
I find all beliefs need a giant leap of faith and it’s the faith that is the belief.
When asked to proove their faith (belief), many rest soley on a shacky footing. Better to say it is so,so it is without question.
I do however believe that the universe and all that is in it is like a planted seed and as such will not grow to maturity without care.
Hopefully someone with a little simple insight may answer your question.
Enjoyed all the comments……LRF
All of you can talk religions…till kingdom come!’It’s the never ending battle between the Christian and the Muslims…who is God..bla bla bla.
I have battled many fanatics from both sides…because each side is trying to prove they are really worshiping …the one true GOD.
Robididably….have pasted my messages … put out at Dr.Hsu Forum blog into his blog. Due to respect to the good hearted Doctor..I refrained to response to him…..and there he goes with his sickening personality….trying to prove he is the smart ones…believing in no god….like the great scientists…..and discoveries of earth’s formations….and humans existences.
He is not qualified to join that group…as he can blare out this or that…with no experiences as a father or live long enough to have the wisdoms.
He is trying to brag with no substances or quality in life..except to prove all of us wrong. He will never admit this and saying he is out to learn. Don’t be fooled by that.
He is just a book maniac .trying to show off how much he knows about religions. Since he knows so much of Buddhism…..which I am one..and he said I am a Christian…….clearly shows how much he knows about other people…and calling me a ‘monster’ purposely….then apologize…is showing he is childish no manners or respect to others. Howe can a person talk religions…with no respect to the elders..who eat more salt than he eat rice.?
This guy loves to battle in religion….and he knows next to nothing…..but by text book standard only.
If he really understands Buddhism….he should not be the first to irritate or calling for a battle on religions….but defend the rights against fanatics from Christian and Muslim writers…yes…to keep practizing… the way of life to the many doors of TRUTHS.
I am going to end here by advising all of you….be faithful to all your beliefs…and the truths of it all..is the the label…you are attached to……but the heart brain and eyes you have….from your own faiths….the outcome of you being a noble human being or a hypocrite….that’s the bottom line……plus poor souls…..afraid to go to hell…that is another group not worth talking about.
Holy Cow! I was gone for the weekend and this discussion really took off. I can’t address the last three hundred posts but I can answer the one that you raised in response to my last post.
My point was not to throw reams of evidence at you but to open up the possibility that God (any God)exists. Once we’ve established that then we move on to which God. But for me to jump to a specific God would be to skip a specific step.
As to my illustration of a jury – the fact that jurist’s can come to different conclusion with the same evidence fits very well into general concept of a Christian God. People often see what they want to see. You would argue that I see God where there is only chance or science. I would argue that you see nothing where there is God. Inevitably we both bring our own biases to the conclusions. The real question is how to we take an objective look at the facts – is it possible to examine this issue without bias?
To mootpoints:
The only way an objective view can be made is if you are totally disconected from any affiliation to religions. Religion is so ingrained in cultures that this would be nearly impossible. When one is born into a religion then the programming starts at birth.
Very few question this, if at all, until adulthood.
To break the shackles of programming and look at the evidence objectivly takes time and deep thought.
Born again christians have life changing experiences and this they believe to be devine.
I, personally have a very full, happy life with no God as such. Seems that most people need to believe in something.
It’s just a shame that different religions with their different gods have cost thousands of lives.
Sorry I have not replied recently, I’ve been swamped with work, and away at a conference… I will try my best to reply to all of the comments ASAP (some time between tonight and Monday night).
starsight,
I can’t say that I know much about your religion, but from the quick searches I have done (don’t you just love google), it seems fairly benign. However it seems a tad odd to me to create a religion seemingly out of nothing.
Based on the sites I have come across, and granted these may not be the best examples of your beliefs, I would be lead to believe that this “religion” is a hoax perpetrated by a very small number (1-8) young guys (ages 12-20). This may be just a reflection of the sites I stumbled across, but for now, we’ll take the position that this is a real religion, and that thee sites at least somewhat accurately describe the “beliefs”.
From what I gather, there was no divine inspiration, it was just a group of people decided to create a new religion. There are many aspects which seem to be “borrowed” from other world religions, and many aspects which seem impossible to actually “know” although the websites I have come across do claim to have this knowledge. The one that sticks out the most in my mind is the after death beliefs. From the sites I have found, your beliefs claim to have an understanding of what happens after death, in a spiritual sense. This seems like it would be a difficult thing to “know” without some sort of evidence.
With that said, I do like a number of the concepts you mentioned about trying to learn and understand, I just hope that you try to use rational scientific methods to learn, and not a “spiritual journey” type of “learning”, since inevitably that seemingly leads towards concepts which are incompatible with the laws of the universe, since the typical human’s understanding of the physical laws of the universe are severely lacking.
a true malaysian,
I have a very good friend that is Buddhist, and from my understanding, there are essentially two “types” of Buddhism, there is the philosophical teachings and the spiritual teachings. Philosophically, I agree with much of Buddhism (and to a much greater degree Taoism, since I have studied Tao much more, and follow many of its practices in my own life). However, spiritually I have a hard time with their beliefs in reincarnation (it is a fact that there are more living beings on the planet today than there were early in the earth’s history, so where do the additional “souls” or “spirits” come from. Why is it that the Dalai Lama has been reincarnated into a living child each time one has died; why not into an animal, or plant, or on another planet outside our own solar system?
While I am far from an expert on Buddhism, I have found that some of the spiritual aspects of it are on par with some of the “magic” of other religion, such as the flood, 72 virgins, and dropping souls into volcanoes. This does not take away from the great works that many Buddhist have done, and does not diminish the philosophy of Buddhism, but it does show that like many other religions, Buddhism has it’s (at least in my view) nonsensical superstitions.
todd dobson,
To steal (and slightly butcher) a quote a horrible line, from an even more horrible movie, spoken by an even more horrible human being:
You had me until “he created me in his image”.
Many years ago I felt the same as you (at least the first 4 paragraphs of your post), that I believed that there was a “god” but that all of the “religions” I had studied were corrupt and just plain wrong in many respects. I felt then, and still feel now, that there is a massive disconnect between the “churches” to be these grand buildings, and for the priests, pastors, clergy, etc to spend the kind of money they did, and live the lives they did, while others around the world, and in our own country were homeless and starving to death daily. If you want to do the most good for humanity, then serve those most in need. This is one of the foundations of the teachings of most “faiths”, and yet it is almost completely ignored by those in power of these religions.
I believe essentially the same about religious leaders that I do of politicians, that there are some genuinely good people trying to do their best to make the world a better place, but that there are far more that are out for their own self interests, and that the institution itself has become corrupt. Even the best intentions eventually will fall to this onslaught of bureaucracy eventually.
I respect your final answer, although I don’t agree with you. I do question however how it is that you “know”. Your response is obviously heart felt and thought out, and you do a good job of explaining your point, but as I read it, it boils down to ‘religion is flawed, but I believe despite that’; and you don’t really say HOW you know that your faith in god and your understanding of god is the truth.
lrf,
I agree that this question stabs at the nerve endings of all true believers. While the point of this post was to get an understanding of why people have their own specific beliefs, by its very nature, the post calls into question the beliefs themselves. Religion and faith are touchy subjects, but based on the impact that they have on the world, and the potential for massive amount of violence in the name of various “gods”, and “beliefs” it is a subject that should be brought up at every possible opportunity.
As an atheist, I believe that which can be shown scientifically, and anything else is either wrong, or does not yet enough evidence to support it. I fully admit that there are many things that science can not yet answer. However, the difference between science and religion, is that religion generally just places “god” in the gaps of human knowledge (and in some extreme cases such as creationism/ID places god in direct contrast to human knowledge) while science instead states that it does not know something, but we are constantly striving to learn.
I do believe that a number of the replies so far have been very insightful, even if I have not agreed with all of them. My ideal goal is not for everybody to agree with each other, but for everybody to agree that some truths (germ theory, evolution, gravity, quantum mechanics, etc) are universal, and anything beyond that may help you live your life in a better way, but nobody should expect another person to conform to their own beliefs.
If somebody wants to live their life believing that zenu dropped them off in a volcano 75 million years ago and that we evolved from clams, or that some guy 2000 years ago was born of a virgin, and that belief somehow helps them to live a life that helps the world around them, then so be it. But they should NEVER attempt to push those beliefs on another person.
monsterball,
I’m a tad surprised to see you post here, but I do welcome all view points into the discussion. I am a bit disheartened to see that you continue to spew bile at those who ask questions and do not conform to your own world view, but I can’t say that I am surprised.
Yes, I did post our “conversation” from the other blog, as I thought that it was relevant, but since you did not want to be part of the discussion I refrained from using any names to protect your privacy. Since you have now joined in the discussion and mentioned this, I assume you no longer want to be anonymous on my own blog.
Again, you are claiming things with no basis in fact. According to you (this particular time, I won’t bother going over your past accusations again), I am trying to prove I am smart. So does this mean that anybody who asks a question and begins a discussion is trying to prove their superiority to you? How did you first get into your faith, were you born into parents of your own faith and you followed blindly, or did you begin to search, trying to find what you believed in? This would be a form of questioning, much in the same way that my post here is a question, where I am looking for input from others with differing opinions from my own.
The quote which is currently at the top of my blog is from Albert Einstein, and I think it is a very appropriate one for the attitude which you are displaying with your obvious distain for questions.
“He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, science for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable an ignoreable war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.”
You claim I am not qualified to join the ranks of scientists, who question the world around them and try to better understand it. I think that what I am doing in my own small way is exactly that. I am trying to get a better understanding of a subject (in this case faith) by asking those who have faith about their own personal faith. It would make as little sense to ask an atheist about faith, and it would be to ask a fish about flying. I am asking those who have faith, since as an atheist myself, I do not have any faith or belief in the supernatural aspects of religion.
Your next “comment”, and I use that word liberally in your case, since much of your posts consists of semi-coherent ranting, basically states that somebody must be a father, and have reached a certain age before they can have wisdom. Albert Einstein (and I am not really comparing myself to him, just using him as an example of brilliance in youth to counter your point about age being required) was 26 years old when he published 4 of his papers, including one on special relativity, and the one that coined perhaps the most well known, and influential equation of all time (E=MC^2).
While I am not exactly certain what your next “point” is trying to say, I am curious exactly where and how have I “tried to brag” or tried to “prove all of you wrong”. If somebody answers a question, and you don’t understand them completely, I would thing that you should ask a follow up question to get further insight.
I never claimed to know much of Buddhism, I have learned some of the absolute basics from reading various books, and from a good friend of mine who is a Buddhist, but I would never claim to know much about it beyond the basics. I have personally spent much more time over my life studying various versions of christianity, judaism, and islam, since I was raised by “christians”, and all three are built on the same foundation.
Some of your final points are actually valid (to all the other readers: I know I was shocked too), I do enjoy debates on religions, since I believe that religion, or more specifically faith, is one of the most important subjects of our time, since it has so much potential for massive destruction. I believe that by understanding others better, we can hopefully come to accept each other and cease fighting over petty differences, but to understand each other, we must be willing to question our own “beliefs”, and the “beliefs” of others.
Your final thoughts though are half idiotic and half almost intelligible. You are telling people to be blindly faithful to their own beliefs, which I think is one of the worst things that we as a civilization can do. We MUST learn to question everything, even that which we hold most dear, or else we will continue to have violence in the “name of god” because of our differences in “holy books”. The REASON that christians and muslims are attacking each other, and other religions, is because they blindly believe that their “god” tells them to. By you telling people to blindly follow their faiths, you are inviting this kind of blindly ignorant violence which you claimed in the previous paragraph to be against.
moot,
Obviously we interpret the evidence differently on the “proof of god”, and I won’t argue that point at this time (that is for another more specific post I think). While I don’t agree with your conclusions, I do respect those that look at the awe and wonder of the universe and question. Your questions seem to lead you to the path of a “creator”, while mine lead me to the path of evolution (the universe evolving from the big bang, and then eventually life evolving from the building blocks). While much could be said on the points for and against both of these views, it is far too time-consuming and too big of a sidetrack I think for this current discussion. For now I think we can just agree that looking at mankind, the world and the universe we are both struck by the awesomeness (really, that’s a great word that just doesn’t get used enough, because it sounds kind of childish I think, but it really is a great descriptor) of what we see.
But on topic, you state that from all of the available evidence that it is possible for multiple (seemingly rational) people to come to vastly differing conclusions. Your conclusions have lead you to believe in “god”, while mine have lead me to a more scientific view of the world. But I am curious how it is that you “concluded” that the belief that you ended with was the “correct” belief. How is it that you do not believe in zeus or allah or zenu or buddah, but you do believe in jesus; and how certain are you that you came to the “correct” conclusion?
lrf,
This essentially echoes many of my own sentiments. I think it is much harder for somebody to break away from a belief system than it is to accept one anew. When one is born into a family that does things a certain way, you tend not to question it, you tend to just follow along.
I was raised by “catholic” parents. Some years after their divorce my father became a “born again christian”, and his belief in his faith was unshakable. He was the very essence of the stereotypical right-wing, conservative christian, who denied evolution, believed the earth and the universe were roughly 6500 years old, homosexuality was a sin, abortion was murder, spoke in tongues at services, etc… When his youngest son (my half-brother) was born, he and his wife believed for a number of years that this son (it took a long time before they could get pregnant, and it was his 7th child, as if that had some significance) was the second coming of jesus himself. Some years later when this son was maybe 3 or 4 years old they caught him in a flat out lie that even in their delusion they could not ignore or explain away, so they “decided” that he was not in fact “god”, but that he was a prophet (a new john the baptist type I suppose).
Long before this half-brother was born, I had already begun to question my parents and their “faith”, and had by the time I was in 2nd or 3rd grade already come to believe that they were wrong. At that time I became agnostic in a sense; I believed that there must be something bigger, but I was certain that humanity was not capable of understanding, and that “god” or whatever this something was, had created the universe (by means of the big bang) and then essentially stepped back and let nature take its course.
By the time I was mostly on my own (15 years old) I had become a “closet atheist”. I no longer believed that a supernatural being had any impact in the universe, but I was so unsure of myself that I rarely would discuss religion, “faith”, or “god”. The little that I would say then was along the lines of my former agnostic beliefs, as not to offend others, or get into a discussion defending my own beliefs, which I did not even understand at the time.
Eventually through much study, I became more acutely aware of the fallacies of many of the worlds major religions, and I became much more outspoken on my own atheism. Throughout this time I had spent much time reading “holy books” and studying religion and “faith”, but I had not yet studied atheism as I wrongly felt at that time there was nothing to study about non-belief.
Much later on I found others who shared my convictions, and through some of these friends was turned on to Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and others. Finally having read books and papers that not only describe the religions of the world, but describe the alternative, I became even hungrier for more knowledge.
I have done much studying, and while I am not now, nor will I ever be, on the level of a Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, etc I have finally come to a firm understanding of my own set of “beliefs”, and my own ideals for mankind; which leads to where I am now at this point in my life, trying now, not to understand the religions themselves any more, but to understand the motivations and faith of those that follow them.
Pingback: As good a way as any other to choose a religion? « Rodibidably
Rodibidably,
I am not a Buddhism expert either, that was why I put the link to a Buddhist center just in case you would like to know more about Buddhism.
Your points on reincarnation of Dalai Lama and additional “souls” or “spirits” are more appropriate to be referred to Buddhism scholars as I have the same ‘doubts’ unanswered.
Your open question to all believers here which attracts so many responses is actually in line with what Gautama Buddha’s teachings, ie basically, don’t accept his teachings without thinking. Unlike Christianity and Islam, ‘God’ element is always there which somehow restrict thinking and open discussion. Do you agree with me on this?
a true malaysian,
I think you and I agree on the point of this question pretty much.
I may reject the supernatural aspects of all religions out of hand without evidence for them (including reincarnation), but I do think that most religions have good aspects and good philosophies at their core.
I even follow the basic philosophies of Taoism, without believing in the Qi, Jing, and Shen “supernatural” aspects.
From your posts, it seems you follow Buddhism in much the same way, so I do think we agree on quite a bit.
(I’m leaving these comments here as well as in the comment section on my own blog. I didn’t know where it would be best to post them. Also I haven’t read through all of the above posts, so sorry if my response is a little outdated.)
Well, let me re-hash the discussion up to this point. if I understand the definition of atheism correctly it means one knows that there is no God. It can’t quite mean that we’re pretty sure there is no God, we already have a word for that – Agnostic.
So – my point is – the standard of definition one must meet to become an atheist is too high. One must know there is no God. That’s a standard that can’t be reached. No one can know something doesn’t exist. (i.e. – you can’t prove a negative.)
So what I’m saying is that, using the definition of the word athiest, no one really can be one. At best one can be a “strong” agnostic.
Now this is where we diverged before. The point is made that we can be reasonably sure fairies don’t come to life in our refrigerator when we close the door. We can be be reasonably sure that doesn’t happen but we can’t know.
That’s true. But fairies in my fridge isn’t a position I’m required to think about and come to an intellectual conclusion. The subject of the existence of God evidently is in that we’ve invented a word to describe non-belief.
So my point is ultimately that we can, at best, be agnostics.
So far I’m simply re-hashing my earlier posts.
Now we have the issue of, from the atheist’s perspective, that the chance God exists is so small that it is irrelevant.
I said earlier that the evidence can sometimes lead us to different conclusions. What is the evidence that has lead you to the conclusion you’ve reached?
My question is (and I’m more or less thinking as I go) why do you think the possibility that God exists is so small? What definition of God are you using and what criteria is the concept of God not living up to?
I have to say I really appreciate this discussion. It seems that arguments about God or atheism tends to be more more angry and vitriolic than it needs to be. I think humans can discuss polarizing issues and even disagree in a respectful manner. I really appreciate the tone of this dialogue. Thanks.
The search for the Universal Truth can never be found
in the material World.
To succeed in this journey, one must search inwards
for one’s true-self, also known as the true heart.
The first step is to discover the false-self. You
will see the False more clearly once you understand
your reactions, feelings and thoughts to surrounding
situations.
Man and his relationships with others are important as, if he observes his behaviour, he will begin to understand himself.
Relationships when viewed properly, is a true mirror.
The mind, the false-self, the ego can never realise
the Universal Truth.
The limited can never expound the Unlimited.
The mind and its highest thought and idea can never describe nor imagine the Nature’s Truth
A thought or idea is based on what is known.
The known cannot describe nor know the Unknown.
TRUTH can only be realised by taking the inward journey of calmness meditation and moral cultivation.
TRUTH is realised through understanding; and through
understanding only will there be Freedom.
The heart must be filled with true Love
Without true Love there will not be true realisation.
TRUTH is not the word truth, they are words which
are only forms of expression. Discover the essence or meaning of the words.
When Morality is sincerely practised, good habits
are cultivated; Wisdom grows and the original soul
strengthens.
The mind and heart of the cultivator becomes purer.
In this state the power of understanding grows and helps one to understand one-self and one’s
surroundings.
Once one understands, there is Freedom.
There is Freedom as the mind no longer struggles
to understand.
The mind is at peace.
There is calmness followed by stillness,
And TRUTH is experienced.
The way of Nature, Natural Law, or Dao can never be fully described.
Cultivate yourself sincerely in moral values to become
a perfect pureness. Knowing and memorising the holy scriptures or texts is never enough. Practise and practise the virtues or moral values until they are
your nature . When Morality is your nature, Love that is Universal and pure you become. Self-less you become. You become the Great Dao, and the Great Dao is you. Some term it as finding the True-self, Home,
Enlightenment, Heaven, and so on and so on. Thus one’s
body, mind and soul balance as a Pure Light and
merge with the Pure Great Universe.
Before this can happen,one must go together with the
practise of calmness meditation. Calmness meditation
is an integral part of moral cultivation and moral
cultivation is an integral part of calmness meditation. They are inseparable, same as Dao and De.
Life is short. Use it well. Whether one is truly cultivated or not, only the challenges of life and time will tell. The true and final judgement is not during your life time but when it ends.
Sow the good seeds and the good merits you receive.
Believe it or not lies in your action is your reaction.
Believe what is right to believe but not to be deluded.
moot,
Would you consider yourself agnostic about the existence of zeus, zenu, thor, ra, vishnu or any of the countless other “gods” that have belonged to “other religions” throughout human history? How about the flying spaghetti monster, unicorns, vampires, santa, or the easter bunny?
Or would you concider yourself an atheist with regards to these?
By your logic, atheism being intellectually dishonest, you must either be lying to yourself if you claim to not believe in any claim no matter how fantastical, or you do actually believe in any and every claim ever brought forth, including ones like aliens, the flying spaghetti monster, santa, etc which contradict many of the basic tenants of your religion (based on a quick scan of other posts on your site I am guessing you’re christian, so I have a good understanding of the basics of your faith).
If you believe in jesus then you should NOT believe in santa. However you claim that to not believe in something you must know everything. If you know everything, then by your definition you are god, in which case, seriously what the fuck is up with allowing priests to rape little boys, not having hitler die as a child, the spanish inquisition, witch burning, the crusades, racism, slavery, 9/11, etc all in YOUR name? (ok, that may be a bit over the top, but it does sort of drive the point home)
However, with that said, you never really touched on the overall gist of my original criticism of your blog post, which can be boiled down to “even the most hard core, staunch, scientifically minded atheist would be willing, if irrefutable evidence were given to acknowledge that something supernatural exists (such as god); HOWEVER the burden of proof is on the believers; Occam’s razor states ‘All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best’, meaning that when given a choice between a natural explanation and a supernatural one, pick the natural explanation”.
People of faith generally have blind faith and see that blind faith in the light of contrary evidence as a trait to be cherished. For most of the “faithful” there is no evidence that could persuade them that they are wrong. For most scientists if shown the correct evidence they would be obligated to change their position, however there is no evidence which is unquestionably evidence of “god” (despite what the discovery institute might try to claim).
Your next point that you try to make in your original thread, that God’s existence (or lack thereof) affects our choices” is easily the quickest to dismiss. In my view, even the most cursory thought into this proves that an even seemingly religious “choice” is in no way based on the “truth” of that religion.
As I previously posted, which you seem to have overlooked:
Why exactly must the existence of a “god” affect our choices?
Even something as seemingly religious as why people go to church (or synagogue, temple, buddist shrine, pray towards mecca a number of times a day, etc) really has absolutely nothing to do with whether god exists or not. They go because they believe “he” exists. They do not go because “he” actually does exist. If “his” existence dictated whether people will go to church or not, then EITHER everybody in the world would go (i.e. god exists) or NOBODY would go (i.e. atheists are correct).
If something that is SEEMINGLY 100% religious in nature has nothing to do with the actual existence of (or lack thereof) god, then why would ANY other choice we make be based on this.
Your choices may be based on YOUR PERSONAL belief in “god” or “allah” or “l ron hubbard” or whatever it may be, but the TRUTH of that belief is completely irrelevant.
As well, by your logic, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Dahmer, etc all committed horrendous acts of violence against their fellow man BECAUSE of “God’s existence (or lack thereof)”. So either god exists, and caused the holocaust, or he does not and you can throw your belief system out the window.
As for you question of what evidence am I basing my conclusions on. I base my conclusions, on the constant scientific discovery through history. Originally “god” was used to explain the rising and setting of the sun and moon. Then later he created them on the 3rd day (quite impressive, in that it claims the earth existed 48 hours before the sun, pretty cool huh). Later the catholic church claimed that “god” did not really do these things in 6 days, roughly 6500 years ago, this story is just an allegory (although try to tell the 80 million evangelicals in the US that the universe is 14 billions years old, they’ll refuse to listen to any reasoned evidence).
There are many other examples of how “god” has diminished as our knowledge has increased. This is the very definition of the “god of the gaps”, which attempts to place “god” into the holes in our current understanding of the world instead of trying to learn the science behind those holes. Again, I refer you to Occam’s Razor that the simplest solution is the best unless there is evidence to support some other position.
humbleforest,
As with the writings of many eastern philosophies, your comments can be taken in a spiritual or non-spiritual way.
If you take these as ways to improve your own outlook on things, then I’d say that I agree, at least conceptually as far as I understand your comments.
If you take these in a spiritual sense where there is a “god” of some sort (be it the typical abrahamic god or a more “benign” concept of karma then I would have to respectfully disagree.
As somebody who follows many aspects of Taoism myself, I agree with much of what you said in theory, but I want to stress that I disagree with the implied spiritual aspects of this just as strongly as I disagree with the supernatural aspects of Christianity, scientology, islam, or any other religion.
All Religions have a common aim and concept of good
virtues and high morality for all human beings to learn and share with indiscriminate love among one another as a One Big Family in a One Harmonious and
Peaceful Community.
The Religious teachings is a pure teaching to remind
all humans to self-realise and cultivate one’s bad habits inorder to live happily and peacefully on this Earth, without spoiling her environment, the Space and destroying mankind.
There is no true progress spiritually if one has no
Love, Compassion and Morality for fellow men.
There is no true harmony if harmony is only achieved
with like-minded people.
True harmony is achieved when man accepts all.
The Love of GOD cannot be experienced if one’s heart
is closed and has no love for others. Serve GOD by
serving others. Expect no results. Expectations
reflect greed and ego.
GOD does not expect one to too attach or too rely on HIM.
HE loves to see everyone to have a mutual help and
respect without any differences whatsoever.
When one is right it does not mean the other is wrong.
When one is wrong it does not mean the other is right.
Each situation must be looked carefully and fairly on
its own facts.
However it is best not to judge others if you don’t
have to.
Do not be too preoccupied in judging others until one
is able to see one’s own faults and willing to correct
them. This a real Gentleman.
Speak the language of Love, not filty or vulgar language.i.e. Morality
Speak no evil.
Hear no evil.
See no evil.
Think no evil.
Act no evil,
In to-day’s society many are unable to differentiate
evil and good, shame and shameless.
humbleforest,
“All Religions have a common aim and concept of good
virtues and high morality”
Would this include Jim Jones group? I think you’re being too kind/naive.
“The Love of GOD cannot be experienced if one’s heart
is closed and has no love for others”
I have love for others (friends, family, etc), but I do not believe in any “god”. I can find no reason why one would waste time and energy believing in a supernatural entity that has no relevance to ones daily life?
“Speak no evil. Hear no evil. See no evil. Think no evil. Act no evil”
Two small points; who’s concept of evil, and those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
For the sake of clarity I’d like to include a couple of definitions to make sure we’re on the same page.
Columbia Encyclopedia – Atheism, denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved.
So, in light of that definition I would be an agnostic about those other claims just like I would be about things like aliens or the Loch Ness monster. However, for the sake of honesty, because I am a Christian and have the added source of the scriptures with which to form my opinion, I do not believe in other gods. I don’t expect others to take the bible into account if they don’t already believe in God. So, I am an atheist in regards to other gods but only because I can use the bible to form my beliefs. Like you stated, “If you believe in Jesus, then you should NOT believe in Santa.” That’s an over-simplified but otherwise fair summation of my position.
Where we diverged in thought was when you said, “…you claim that to not believe in something you must know everything.” I said essentially to be an atheist you are positively claiming to know God doesn’t exist, which is a burden of proof one cannot meet. Again you can’t prove a negative.
However it does remain incumbent on me (if I want you to believe) to prove that He does exist, Occam’s Razor or no. By the way have you ever heard of Pascal’s Wager? It’s certainly not proof but it is an interesting intellectual exercise.
You also said that, “People of faith generally have blind faith and see that blind faith in light of contrary evidence as a trait to be cherished.” I don’t hold that position at all. I don’t think faith has anything to do with making a blind leap of assumption in the face of evidence to the contrary. I stated as much in an earlier comment.
I did make an ill-advised point about “God affecting our choices” and therefore requiring our thought. I humbly retract that statement.
It’s certainly not your job to defend a lack of belief as I stated earlier, the burden of proof is on my side of the fence. However I didn’t quite follow your explanation for not believing. You said that “god was used to explain the setting of the sun and moon” and the Catholic church claiming it was an allegory and how 80 million evangelicals dismiss that claim. I’m not sure I saw a reason there. I don’t dismiss your position because of atheists who might have done bad things because of their atheistic beliefs.
You’re probably right about the “God of the Gaps”. Even as a Christian I get frustrated by other Christians inserting God into situations that they don’t have any other explanation for.
I think that to answer your original questions – I as a Christian that believes in the bible can use the bible as additional evidence to support my conclusions regarding other supernatural phenomena, gods or “the flying spaghetti monster.”
What I’m curious about is the reason you’re an atheist. What specifically is it that proves to you that there is no God? (I realize that you don’t have to answer that. Again the burden of proof is on me I was just wondering if you could humor me.) You claim to positively deny God rather than be indifferent and I’m curious as to why?
I tried to answer you post let me know if I missed something again. I’d really like to think about the claims you bring up.
Thanks.
moot,
I do know of Pascual’s wager, however it is a bit of a joke IMO… If “god” is real, and the ONLY reason that you claim to believe is “just in case” then I would think that “god” would know your true thoughts and think you a liar for claiming to believe just to get out of hell on the off chance “he” exists. On the other hand, if I am wrong, and “god” does exist, and “he” is humanish (as the bible claims) then I would suspect that he would prefer an honest atheist to a lying one.
As for the difference between an atheist and an agnostic, agnostics don’t put a probability on the existance of god, they just say “I don’t know”; while atheists claim that “yes there is a chance god exists since a negative can not be proven, but that chance is so small as to be insignificant in any aspect of my life”. Even Richard Dawkins, who is about as “hard core” as atheists get claims that he is “only” 95% certain of the non-existence of all “gods”.
You can be an atheists with regards to every religion in history except the one you believe because the bible tells you those are false.
I am an atheist in regards to ONE more religion than you are (specifically, your religion).
As for non-religious, supernatural issues, such as bigfoot, unicorns, aliens, etc, you claim to be agnostic towards them. I claim to be atheistic towards them until good scientific evidence comes to light that shows the likelihood of them being real is high enough to make an impact in my life.
While it is true that I can not “prove” that aliens are not visiting this planet, mutilating cattle, abducting rednecks and probing them, I can state with certainty that this is not happening. I can state this just as certainly as I can state that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.
As I mentioned previously: In reality though there is a ridiculously small chance that the sun will not in fact rise tomorrow.
There is the chance that tonight while I sleep a meteor could crash into the earth stopping it’s rotation on it’s axis. If this happened, the “other” side of the earth would be in constant day time, and “this” side would be in constant night.
There is a chance that scientists have miscalculated the amount of nuclear fuel in the sun, and it could finish expending the last of it’s energy some time tonight. Once this happens, the nuclear reaction in it’s core will stop, it will cease to make any more light, and 8 minutes later the earth will get the last bit of sunlight ever.
Admittedly, the chances of these scenarios happening are infinitesimally small, but they do exist. There is no possible reason to expect them, to plan for them (at least not for another 5 billions years for the “running out of fuel” one), or to even take them seriously, even though they COULD happen.
To me, the odds of this happening are roughly the same as the odds of aliens landing on the white house lawn and taking credit for Roswell, and all the other cases of sightings and abductions over the last 60-70 years. This is also the same likelihood that bigfoot will wander into my backyard tonight or that when I die I will be standing in front of a “pearly gate waiting for saint peter to tell me where I’m headed”.
My mentioning of the “shrinking” of god was used to show that “god” as most people see “him” is really a perfect “god of the gaps” in that “he” is used to fill in the gaps in human knowledge. Before we understood the earth rotating around then sun, it was “god” who lifted the sun up each day. Then we learned a bit about cosmology and then “god” created then sun. Then we learned how stars were created and that our sun is just an ordinary star, and “god” created the universe. Now we understand the beginning of the universe (at least to a degree) and people are relegating “god” to having set up the laws of the universe and setting the big bang in motion.
The more we learn about the world and the universe around us, the smaller “god’s” role becomes. In my opinion it is only a matter of time before the role of “god” shrinks to the point where “he” is no longer needed (it won’t be in my lifetime or my children’s lifetime, but for the sake of humanity, I hope it happens before religious zealots kill us all.
I deny the existence of any god for many reasons, but the first one in my own life was seeing the corruption of religion.
You can read a bit about my coming to my beliefs above in a reply to lrf if you’re interested (not that it goes intro great detail, but it does highlight a few of the points in my “de-conversion”).
I look around at christian churches, and I see the catholic church spending millions upon millions to keep kids quite who were sexually abused. Or look at Ted Haggard sleeping with male prostitutes and doing meth. Yes these could be isolated examples, but they are not, they are only the tip of the iceberg.
If “christ” was really “god” and people are doing this kind of shit in “his” name, “he” must wonder how badly he fucked up getting “his message” across. If people want to believe in something bigger than themselves and do good works in the name of that, more power to them (personally I think it’s an unnecessary step, but in some cases the ends may actually justify the means). However if those same people then attempt to justify their bigotry, hatred, violence, genocide, slavery, murder, and wars because that “something higher” told them to, I think we have a massive problem.
Whether “god” exists or not, a ton of really bad shit has happened, and continues to happen in “his name”, and we MUST find a way to stop it before it destroys civilization. We are at a point in history where one person can theoretically start a war that ends all human life on this planet.
“God” is an unnecessary delusion that we are all too happy to accept because it takes away our own responsibility for our thoughts and our actions.
I’m pretty sure we’ll never convince each other, but I do hope that you are at least coming to understand a bit the view of somebody who completely disagrees with such a fundamental aspect of your own beliefs. I spent many years trying to understand religion and faith, and now and trying to understand the people who have faith (although I admit, it’s very hard to come to any understanding with some of the people).
I may not agree with you, but I can at least, to a degree, see your point of view, which is hopefully one small step towards more people understanding each other.
I really appreciate your comments. I think the real point of contention was when I used “intellectual dishonesty” as a description. I don’t know if you remember an earlier post – but I retracted that wording. It’s not fair to say that something is intellectually dishonest when it an issues of definitions.
That Richard Dawkins is 95% sure no gods exist is fascinating. Like you said he seems to “hard core”.
But that goes to my point about definitions. Essentially isn’t Dawkins a “strong agnostic” and not an atheist in the strictest sense of the word? If that’s not true then what am I missing?
I’m totally with you about the terrible and ridiculous things that have been done in the name of the Christian God. I think you and I completely agree that horrible things have happened and continue to happen in the name of religion. However that brings up a really good question for me. I believe those things are awful because of what I believe about God (despite the fact that other people use the bible to justify the bad things they do.) So, upon what basis do you say things like the the holocaust were bad? What moral standard would you appeal to? Just curious
There’s a couple of other questions I had but I don’t want to lose the central question of this post.
Thanks again for the conversation. I’m really enjoying it and it’s really helpful to actually talk to someone. Sometimes Christians get together and try to talk about atheism as if we know anything about it.
By the way I’ll be watching the video on atheism.
moot,
The primary difference between your idea of “strong agnosticism” and “atheism” is that even though an atheist admits the chance that “god” exists is there, that chance is small enough to be irrelevant, so it is treated as zero.
As for where I get my moral standards, I’ll refer again to a quote by Dawkins I have previously mentioned:
“Religious people do not derive their morality from religion. I disagree (with the interviewer) on this point. Almost all of us do agree on moral grounds where religion had no effect. For example we all hate slavery, we want emancipation of women – they are all our moral grounds. These moral grounds started building only a few centuries ago and long after all major religions were established. We derive our morality from the environment we live in, Talk shows, Novels, Newspaper editorials and of course by the guidance of parents. Religion might only have a minor role to play in it. An atheist derives his morality from the same source as a religious people do.”
I think we understand each other better now than when this discussion began, so hopefully this post is helping a bit. I think our last real stumbling block seems to be the semantics of language.
An infant takes sometime to realise his senses and emotions for he is not attuned to this material world yet.
A man is not yet truly cultivated until he masters his
senses and emotions.
In within a person is a pure light whose shine is covered by sins, selfishness, greed and conceit.This
pure light can only shine brightly when karma or retribution is repaid ; the self diminishes and good deeds become you, motivated by unselfish Love.
Meditation in itself does not strengthen the pure light. Meditation performed correctly brings calmness and helps the body.
In moral cultivation, one’s senses may be sharpened and expanded. One’s consciousness grows. One may be said to have ” extra sensory perception. ” One should not cultivate with the objective of attaining these qualities but rather they are merely incidental effects of cultivation. Do not be too attached to them or one will stray from the true path of De or called Morality.
In this life as a human being all one needs is to live
the right way, do the right things.
All knowledge is yours upon reaching HOME. Live in the human realm fully when human. The mysteries of the Universe that don’t help in cultivation should be left aside for the moment for your time is limited.
The Supreme Almighty has sent many messengers. Their
messages are sufficient to guide one to return HOME.
Those who are skeptical and ignorant are left to seek
for their ownselves. They are given a choice to choose.
The mind of man is unstable and limited.
The limited cannot understand the Unlimited. So let it be.
Rodibidably,
It was definitely an issue of language. I will take the blame for being a stickler on the definitions bit. But I think we have a working idea on that front.
I disagree with Dawkins premise. Even if you don’t believe the bible is true we’d have to admit that even if moral standards exist outside scripture, the bible is the primary source from which we’ve access those moral standards. So rather than a minor role, religion (specifically Judeo-Christianity) played a major role in at least coalescing most western moral thought.
Interestingly even much of our vernacular comes from the Bible. Case in Point – You mentioned, “our last real stumblingblock…” the concept of stumblingblock is a biblical one or at least one popularized by the bible.
I don’t believe that our morality comes from religion. I believe what was reflected in the Declaration of Independence that “we are endowed by our Creator certain unalienable rights” While the rights they spoke of were not a full reflection of morality I do believe that morality to some degree is instilled in us by God. Unfortunately people have used many means (including religion) to suppress or even alter those moral standards. It is an interesting phenomenon that many unique cultures have similar moral standards. No country or culture respects a man who runs from battle or who treats his family with disrespect. While those things are not in themselves proof of a supernatural moral standard I think that it is an indication of one as opposed to an indication that there is no supernatural moral standard.
I’ve been giving a lot of thought to this discussion and learning what terms like “ontological” mean. I think I’m working up some stuff that helps me better articulate what I believe in a respectful way. If nothing else ever came out of the discussion, that would be benefit enough.
I still have to address your question of how I would judge my religious system true over other religious systems. I’m working on that. Thanks for being patient with me.
moot,
One other point to bring up to differentiate atheists from agnostics. True agnostics say in essence “we can’t know, so we should not form an opinion” while true atheists says “while it is true nobody can ever prove a negative, we can make certain judgments based on the evidence”.
From the earliest times messengers from the Almighty have walked among, teaching, guiding, sacrificing
for men with the hpoe that will walk the path of the
Almighty.
Man has often strayed or forgotten the moral teachings
and sometimes choose to disbelieve.
But always then and now with HIS compassion and
Universal Love, the Truth is revealed again and again to those who seek sincerely and faithfully.
The Almighty Loves all but HIS Love is turned away
by those impure hearts and sceptics.
Correction.
Sorry to miss out the word men
…………walked among men, teaching….
………..with the hope that men will walk….
moot,
Yes we get much language from the bible. We also get MUCH language from Shakespeare, does this mean he is divine? Just because something historical is often quoted does not mean it is true or “the word of god”.
As well, if you are going to state that the source of our morality is the bible, how would you explain a “moral” person from some part of Africa or India who has never been exposed to the bible? If the bible is the source of morality, then should anybody who has never been exposed to it be running around raping women, killing men, and enslaving children?
We get our morality from society. And while some of that can be traced back to the bible, I’m certain that it can be traced back even further to the sources the bible come from (and by this I mean the oral traditions passed down for generations that were eventually written into the torah not “god” writing the bible or inspiring men to write it).
You do make a very good point when you state “No country or culture respects a man who runs from battle”, and I wish you would read Richard Dawkin’s book The Selfish Gene (don’t worry, it’s not a religion bashing book at all, it is a look at the gene as the means of selection and replication). In this book he does a very good job of explaining how supposed acts of altruism (which fighting in a battle or giving your life up for another would be, since there is no direct benefit to yourself) are actually designed to help spread your own genes by virtue of your relatives being more likely reproduce based on your actions.
Dawkins does a much more thorough job of explaining this than I can in a brief post, but the bottom line is that all acts of morality and altruism are easily explained by means of natural selection.
The last point i would like to make in reply to your most recent comments is about your statement “It is an interesting phenomenon that many unique cultures have similar moral standards”. Would you ever consider killing your wife, mother, sister, or daughter because “she allowed herself to be raped”? Would you sacrifice an animal to appease the gods? Would you have multiple wives that you routinely abuse, including sex with minors who you make your “wives”? Would you shun modern medicine because “god does not condone it” and allow your children to die? Would you enslave people based on the color of their skin? Would you fly a passenger plane into a building killing thousands of innocent people?
Many billions of people throughout history have done all of these things in the name of being moral to their “god”.
Modern man seems to apply his selfishness, egoism, greed, power and fame to anything he handles.
One man cannot trust another although they live together. They live with suspicious, doubts and
fantasies.
Even in this world today, it is difficult to see what is in a man’s mind. He pretends to be cultured,
civilised, educated, noble and religious.
A man of true moral-cultivated, without pretence
fears not. He sees all in brotherhood.
________________________________________________
Life is beautiful and peaceful if one knows how,
Life is dirty, gloomy and ugly if one knows not.
_____________________________________________
The weak earthlings of this planet Earth are…
* There are people who are power greedy.
* There are people who are position crazy.
* There are people who are wealth hungry.
* There are pretenders who are holding the majority.
* There are perverters who are fact-twisting.
* There are instigators who are causing segregation.
* There are puppets on a string.
These people are possessive and pathetic and who
practise partiality and prejudices.
————————————————-
Discard away superstitious belief that hinders one’s
moral cultivation as oneself is the greatest enemy.
Mr. Rodibidably.
Please cool down and do not be too hasty to give judgement.
Kindly go through the article a few times and
comtemplate for a while.
Please do not attach to the word ” GOD ” and get frustrated. GOD is not like what you see HIM as an ugly person, enemy or a devil.
If GOD is a good person with respect, honest and without speaking dirty or firty language, don’t you
love HIM ?
What is wrong if HE teaches humans to love one another not to discriminate, not to involve in immoral acitivities, not to be greedy, proud, cheat, pretend, corrupt and many sinful acts ?
Is HE not right to guide us in this moral path ?
Always loathe the sin and not the sinner.
One cannot guarantee oneself that one is so perfect
that one does not commit any sin. If one can correct one’s faults without any excuses ,and not to repeat them then one has walked the moral path.
What is important is the present moment of cultivation. What is in the past or to be in the future is to be put aside for a while. Now is the time to uplift and upgrade one’s attitude through
right action. Lead a moral example through action,not
through too much words.
Sorry, Humbleforest is just sharing with you.
Any hurting remarks made, kindly forgive Humbleforest.
humbleforest,
Excuse me? When was I not calm exactly? When did I say something judgmental?
I have asked questions of people in response to their comments in hopes to understand their views better. I have commented on historical atrocities done in the name of “god” to make various points about morality and blind faith.
I don’t view “god” as a devil, I view “him” more like I view santa claus, or any other superstitious fairy tail; I view them as a now unnecessary construct of our evolution.
As for “him” teaching us morality, you mean the morality of killing a woman for allowing herself to be raped as in islam? Or do you mean teaching us how to act if we are slaves or how to treat our slaves as in judaism and christianity? Or perhaps you mean allowing children to die because “he” forgot to mention that medicines are good like the jehovah’s witnesses? How about hatred of others who “dare” to beleive in the “wrong god” as taught in many of the world’s religions throughout history, should we follow this morality and kill all non-believers in “our god”? Exactly which of these VILE DISGUSTING moralities that “he” taught us, should we listen to?
Religion has unleashed some of the most inhumane, unmoral aspects of humanity ever. For every good teaching of religion there are equal numbers of, if not more, examples of absolutely horrendous acts that have been justified as being done “in god’s name”.
THIS is what I object to; people trying to justify their own bigotries, their own racist tendencies, their own hatred, their own violent actions, their own “evil” actions, because some “book” or some “holy person” told them it was “god’s will”.
Slavery was not “god’s will”, it was man’s will. 19 people flying 4 planes into 3 buildings and a field in PA was not “god’s will”, it was the insane ranting will of a few pissed off people in the middle east. Jehovah’s witnesses allowing their children to die instead of giving them proper medical treatment is not “god’s will” it is their own fucking ignorance.
—–
Edit: Ok, I’ll admit, now I lost my calm
You have a lot of irons in the fire when it comes to this discussion. I don’t want you to feel attacked on multiple fronts .
I wasn’t trying to prove the bible is divine because of it’s impact on culture. I was just making the point that it has contributed largely to shaping, if not generating, most western moral boundaries.
I also didn’t make the claim that the Bible should be the basis of our morality. To be clear, I believe that it should because I believe it’s a fair representation of God’s standards, but I certainly don’t intend to expect to hold a non-believer to that standard.
We agree that religion (whether intentionally or unintentionally) can be twisted and used compel people to commit atrocities. However the same holds true for atheism. Hitler formed his beliefs on Nietzsche’s teaching, Stalin certainly represented atheism as a philosophy. Those two alone are responsible for the deaths of over 20 million people.
You said that religion has released some of the most inhumane, immoral acts ever. Both camps have their hands dirty on this issue. I think there’s more to this particular topic but suffice it to say, atheism is certainly not superior on that front.
I’m still working on your original question of how I know my religion is true. Don’t mistake my tardiness for not having an answer I just want to make sure I give a careful and articulate answer.
moot,
The Hitler being an atheist thing has been refuted many times over the years. He was raised a catholic and one of the first things he did was to get one of the many supposed “spear of destiny” from a museum in Austria. If he did not believe in “god”, and did not believe that jesus specifically was “god” then why waste any time and effort on getting this “artifact”. I know they are just mindless movies, but the idea in the Indiana Jones movies that the Nazi’s were obsessed with the occult is based on reality. There are many papers written on Hitler’s religiosity which can show in great detail how he not only believed in “god”, he felt that he was “chosen by god” to lead Germany at that time (and some have even shown examples of how he may have felt that he was in fact the “second coming”.
(I already know this next paragraph is gonna piss some people off, but here goes anyways)
As for the death’s of millions, I’ll see your “stalin” and raise you “mother theresa”. She singlehandedly has caused the suffering and death of more people than any single person in history. By going to the poorest nation on the planet that was already suffering from famine and “teaching” them that any form of birth control was “evil”, she did more to help cause the spread of diseases (like hepatitis and hiv/aids) and the overpopulation (and then as one would expect in a nation already with a massive shortage of food and an even greater population, death by starvation) of people than ANY SINGLE PERSON IN HISTORY.
Yes, Stalin was a evil despicable bastard, but so was “mother theresa” (feel free to change “evil despicable bastard” to “cold heartless bitch” if you prefer due to the difference in gender.
(those wishing to rant about me “daring” to defile the memory of mother theresa, please try to spend more than 15 seconds finding actual data to disprove my point, don’t just state “she helped poor people”, there would not have been as much suffering if not for her misguided attempts to “help” them)
We both agree that religion has been twisted to cause horrendous acts of violence. We can also agree that people have committed horrible acts under the guise of atheistic doctrines as well. The primary difference is that religion teaches people not to question the “mind of god”, where atheism teaches rational scientific skepticism.
I do believe that atheism is “superior on that front” in that any atheistic regime that causes atrocities will be brought down from within (stalin’s regime for instance) much faster than a religious regime (the catholic church as an example) since one that one overpowering leader dies or shows some sort of weakness, the people will openly question the direction they are headed, where in a religious organization there is no ability to ever question “god”.
I apologize if some of my recent posts are coming off as a bit “ranting”, but something about humbleforest making me answer the same question yet again seems to have put me in a “mood” today, I promise, I’ll be a tad more understanding tomorrow.
No problem. Bizarrely enough I more or less agree with you about Mother Theresa. Let me explain.
I believe abortion is wrong. I believe that based on the concept that human life is valuable. However if I also believe that babies, because of their innocence, if they die they go to heaven. While an abortionist is morally wrong (the ends do not justify the means) in a twisted sense he is doing Christians a favor by sending millions of people straight to heaven.
Please don’t make to much of this. I just say that in order to give you an idea that while I think abortion is morally wrong, it serves a purpose. I understand there’s a moral conflict to be worked out there.
moot,
Personally I support a woman’s right to choose. But I think that if possible, adoption is a better alternative than abortion, since there are many people who are unable to have children, but due to the legal process, or the finances, can not currently adopt a child.
I personally feel that abortion should be the LAST resort, but I think it does need to be available as an option for people.
My bigger point with “mother theresa” is her stance against condoms or other ways to avoid pregnancy to start off with. If more people had safe sex then the spread of diseases and the number of unwanted pregnancies would plummet, as would the need for abortions.
I think I understood your point. She had a very strict interpretation of some biblical ideas (An incorrect interpretation I believe) because of her Catholicism. When you combine that with her zeal to help and thus impose her ideas on others, you end up with this huge negative side effect.
A note on Hitler. I never said he or the Nazi Party weren’t religious. If I remember correctly they wore belts with a leather tab that said, “Gott mit uns” which you can probably guess means “God with us”.
I did say Hitler’s ideas were directly taken from Nietzsche who was an atheist.
There probably could be a discussion on the inevitable results of the ideas were talking about.
Most huaman beings possess the rational mind, that is being able to more than merely to sense things and surroundings with their senses. They are able to perceive the things and surroundings which are sensed
by their basic sense organs.
Some are even able to conceptualise what they have
perceived. But not so common are those who may possess intuition, that is, the ability to
” foresee ” what has yet to happen and to ” apprehend ” without the reasoning of the mind.
All these depends on one’s consciousness.
The highest form of consciousness may be termed as Cosmic Consciousnes; where all knowledge and awareness is obtained.
Even among humans,the level of consciousness differs
from one individual to another. However most possess only the ability to perceive and conceptualise.
What is Reality ?
To answer this, it depends on one’s consciousness, that is, the ability of each to perceive and understand.
In this material realm of humans this is your “reality”. It is often taught that your World is an illusion, but until you progress and become matured, it is your “reality”, for this is only most of you can understand and perceive.
More importantly, how you conduct yourself in this World affects your future and true-self. So isn’t
this illusion to be taken seriously at your present
state ?
Even at this human realm in this same “reality”
not all “see” and “understand” the same.
So when the Deities speak of other “REALITIES” with their higher consciousness, humans struggle to understand, for their (humans’) limited mind try
to grasp what is beyond their mental capabilities,
using the limited human language. That is the reason why one should try to grasp the ” essence or gist ”
and not the material form or the superficial surface of the text or article.
What cannot be fathomed, intangible and not useful are to be set aside.
Learn practise and perfect what you can at this very moment. “Now” is urgent as one has a limited time to
self-cultivate.
Do not be distracted by the mysteries or supernatural of the other worlds.
Practise De or Moral values in one’s daily life. Have a indiscriminate Love and Compassion for all, and always be calm. In time the pure light will shine brightly and your Consciousness shall expand.
Believe it or not depends on the degree of one’s
sincere cultivation.
The Dynamic equilibrium of the Universe is sustained by what may be termed as Cosmic Consciousness. Some
term it as the Great Dao or simply as GOD.
The human body like a little Universe itself is in constant flux. Countless cells are degenerating and
regenerating all the time. But the general form and
composition remains the same. The energy that sustains this little Universe is the consciousness.
The human consciousness may be classified into two
broad categories.
* The first is the ” human soul “, which is the
disembodied self. This soul is a discarnate state
of the personal self or consciousness.
* The second part is the ” human mind “, which is the embodied self of the personal self or consciousness.
The human mind is the incarnate state of the
personal self or consciousness, or simply the
material manifestation of the consciousness.
As the consciousness consists of not only the
” physical aspect “, it survives the death of the
physical body.
Consciousness may exist in both ” energy ” or
” matter “, or in the subtle, or gross form.
Thereby, Morality is used to cultivate the mind,
body and soul. They are practised to harmonise or
in balance and become the pure true light where
it will reach the Great Dao or merge with the
Cosmic Consciousness.
Mr. Rodibidably,
If you don’t mind, Humbleforest needs to share some
of the pointers with you…..
Please be advised that you may help those who really
need help, then only comment what is necessary and
make a direct to the point. Be simple and precise.
Sometimes you may learn from them as well. Do not have an inferiority complex.
Be polite and prudent but not be arrogant and hasty in answering.
As you have already know, the Morality of our World
has declined tremendously. Many people are confused and deluded to differentiate what is right and wrong,
or shame and shameless.
It is because many religious teachings have created
misconceptions and fear in the minds of the people.
It may due to the people’s ignorance or the egoistic
or selfish and unqualified religious cliques or leaders who preach on segregation and discrimination.
These religious ” cliques or leaders ” may manipulate
or attach to words to frighten their innocent followers for their personal interests in the name
of the Almighty. They may abuse or misuse their power.
Whether you can answer you answer. If it is beyond
your means to answer, it is better not to, as you
won’t make a mockery of yourself. This is a humble
way of not to be ashamed of.
By the way, Humbleforest feels sorry to interfere
in your intelligence of affairs with some of the pointers. Kindly accept my apology.
humbleforest,
“the Morality of our World has declined tremendously”
Really, I thought that not having slavery and apartheid now when it had been rampant throughout human history up until very recently was a good step towards better morality.
The majority of people who think that morality is declining are those who attempt to grab their morality from their own selective interpretation of their “scripture”. Those who are generally prudish when it comes to human sexuality and use the bible or other “holy books” to justify their own prejudices.
Those who objectively look at how we treat our fellow man now vs throughout history see that we are more “civilized” and “understanding” of others today than we have ever been in the past.
Rodibidably,
I thought I’d give you a brief update on what I’m thinking in regards to your original “open question”. Your question was essentially – “how do we know what we believe is true?”
The questions that need to be examined are two-fold.
First – What makes a certain belief system unique or distinct?
For example, there’s not a lot of point in simply examine the existence of God to prove my belief system in that all religious world views share a belief in God.
Second – Are the unique claims of that belief system valid?
This is sort of working backward. Up till this point we’ve been dealing with the basic point at which we diverge – the existence of God. While definitively answering that question would make or break any religion, it doesn’t really address you original question.
So what I’d like to do is start my argument by asking the question, are the unique claims of Christianity valid?
Does that sound fair?
moot,
That does sound like a valid starting point. You as a christian believe that jesus, was the son of god (and if you believe in the trinity as well, he also is god). You don’t believe, as islam claims, that he “faked” his death on the cross, and that he was “just a prophet” while mohamed was given allah’s true intentions which became the koran. Part of your belief system must involve some number of “reasons” why not only your views on jesus are correct, but why muslims are incorrect (we could use scientology, judaism, hinduism, or any other religion as the example as well).
This would, at least in part, answer the “how do you know what that “truth” is” part of my original question.
You hit the nail right on the head concerning Christ being unique to Christianity. I suppose it should have been obvious in that we call it Christ-ianity but…
Can I ask what you believe about Jesus as an historical figure? I’m not trying to get you to make my argument it’s just that our discussion to this point has been about a more abstract concept of God. You essentially know my views concerning Christ, if not how I’ve come to conclude they’re true. I would really like to hear what you as an atheist believes about Jesus.
moot,
As a historical figure I am fairly well convinced that he was at least in part based on one actual person, however (and this is a fairly BIG however) if you look at many of the “details” of his life (virgin birth, rising from dead, walking on water, etc) there are “historical accounts” of many deities from other religions that were popular in the world at that time that exhibited the same “miracles”.
From much of my research on this time in history, and especially in that part of the world in that specific community there were many different people who were claiming to be the “messiah” or “divine”. There are accounts of at least 3 other historical figures from the same time that had believers who followed them and had faith that they were “god” or “divine”, etc…
My personal guess (and this is only a guess) is that jesus was one of a number of people trying to “lead his people” and perhaps he was claiming to be the messiah (although there is a good chance that he himself never actually claimed divinity during his lifetime). He was probably a very charismatic leader, but most likely after his death the story of his “life” was exaggerated to include many current myths of the time.
I do wish there were more unbiased accounts of that time period to allow the historical record to be more accurate, but the catholic church did do a very good job of eliminating most records that disagreed with their point of view.
Mr. Rodibidably,
Humbleforest would like to point out that you have
misinterpreted the word Morality.
It seems that you are a person full of knowledge and
words and a simple word like Morality has been
misconstrued.
What is Morality ???
Morality is the key to open our heart and mind to
differentiate what is right and wrong, good and evil
or bad, illusion and reality.
Only with moral key one is able to open one’s heart,
that is the ability to self-realise and correct
one’s sinful acts.
* With Morality or moral value, one knows how to show a respect and gratitude to others. Not only to others
but to one’s parents, relatives, brothers and sisters
friends and elderly people.
* With Morality or moral value, it teaches one to be honest and sincere in our speech and action.
* With Morality or moral value, whatever one does
one should be fair to all. There must not be
partiality in one’s heart.
* With Morality or moral value, one should have
full responsibility in oneself, one’s family,
one’s profession and one’s loved ones without
pretence or any excuses.
* With Morality or moral value, one must not
commit adultery or any sexual misconduct.
One should understand what is lust and
married life. They are two different issues.
True and sincere love will make a couple lasts
until death.
* With Morality or moral value, one should be of
low profile, polite and have a courtesy for others.
A person of humbleness fears no fall.
Pride goes before the fall.
* With Morality or moral value, one should not
commit any crime, immoral activities and other
dishonest means.
* With Morality or moral value, one should help
those in dire needs. Help with right
understanding and happiness of one’s heart
without expecting anything in return.
* With Morality or moral value, one should
restraint from greediness. What is enough is
enough. Do not succumb to glamorous temptations.
* With Morality or moral value, one should avoid
committing evil deeds like, smoking or selling illegal drugs, forcing or luring women or their partners into prostitution, encouraging prostitution, pornographies screening, selling and
distributing them,
committing sex on underaged children and even
animals, abuse of children and exploiting and
trading them, even adults are being
exploited and used as human trade, murder
for someone’s payment, carry out kidnapping
and ransom, smuggling illegal firearms and
many other things, legal officers abusing
and misusing their power on the innocent
public, invading other territories claiming
as to protect other’s territories, bombing
the innocents, hospitals and worshipping
places, claiming that it is a mistake,
pushing the blame on others, manipulating
the stock market, imposing heavy taxes
every now and then on unnecessary
spending, exploiting the land, sea and
even the space. The cause of this has been
seen by the effect of global warming,
melting of the icebergs, and many natural
disasters. This is the natural Law of
Retribution. What one sows,
sow shall one receive.
Mr. Rodibidably,
Are you guiding many bloggers in your blog with the
idea of your word ” Morality ” in the right direction ?
Does Humbleforest’s word of ” Morality ” of the above-said hurt you or give you and your bloggers a
misconstrued meaning ?
Do you need people to move in the moral path or
to get out of the moral path ?
Always study the whole passage calmly and cautiouly
otherwise you may be the one who will misguide your bloggers. Look out for the essence, and do not
attach too strongly to the word or the
phrase.
For example, the paradox of this phrase,
” Crime does not pay, sooner or later you have to
pay your crime. ”
Humbleforest hope you may understand what
Humbleforest means. No hard emotion to be
resting in your mind and heart.
Thank you.
humbleforest,
Dictionary.com defines Morality to be:
1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct
2. moral quality or character
3. virtue in sexual matters; chastity
4. a doctrine or system of morals
5. moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance
6. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct
7. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality
8. Virtuous conduct
9. A rule or lesson in moral conduct
Up until very recently in human history, slavery was in “conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct”.
Slave owners were considered to have good “moral quality or character”.
The bible, which according to a large portion of the people on this planet is the ‘true word of god’ gave “rule(s) or lesson(s) in moral conduct” related to how to treat slaves.
Where is your condemnation of slavery? A couple of hundred years from now there may be yet another topic that we NOW view as acceptable, but in the future will be viewed as barbaric. If you live your life by a static written set of guidelines then your moral standards can not change with the times, but if you get your morality from society (which in my view we all truly do, even if we claim it’s from a “holy book”, then as society changes, so does our morality with it.
My point on morality is that if people get their morality unquestioningly from a book (ANY book) written hundreds or thousands of years ago, then there are many aspects which will be ignored and there are many aspects which will no longer agree with the morality of current times.
The Universal Truth on Morality never changes. It
is human’s attitude that changes. The Morality is like a pure water, when it comes in contact and mixes with dirty water it becomes dirty.
So when moral teachings contact with those impure thoughts the true meaning of it will be misconstrued or misinterpreted. Some use Morality to misinterprete or twisted its meaning for their personal gain or pride.
So you are been caught in its web.
Mr. Rodibidably,
You have complicated yourself with the
true meaning of morality
You do not know whether the word “slavery” with morality interpreted by you or someone else is correct. You just jump to the conclusion to
brush aside that morality is not something to do
good in the present or future.
So in this case are you encouraging
more people to do bad or evil things ?
What you are mentioning may be that of another
issue of good and evil, which they co-exist. That is part of the translation of Dao.
If you go deeper into its essence, which few people
are unable to understand and accept, is actually there is no good or evil in the Great Dao. But in this planet Earth there is good and evil. The
law of dualism exists on this Earth same as the binary code which keeps on multipling in this computer age.
Therefore moral teaching guides one to walk the
middle path, be fair, moderate, unbias and not to
be out of track or be too extreme.
If one does not build one’s true character
or attitude properly through moral values then the
next generation will follow suit taking moral
as immoral to become a culture.
For example, kissing in public for a couple
may be a moral to one culture and immoral to another. This situation should be taken into consideration to see whether it is done too extreme.
Another case, for example if one were to
follow the time of uncivilised age,
where people did not know how to make and wear
clothes, were totally naked. If this culture were to continue until today, what do you think ?
Moral or immoral ???
Please do not misguide others with too many
reasons and excuses. It may make a mockery of
yourself.
Self-realise with moral values and do not
feel ashame to admit one’s mistake.
Please do not let the word, ” Morality”
disturbs your mind and dim your inner light,
Sorry, for technical error.
Correction in the middle of 3rd paragraph.
” If one does not build one’s true character or attitude properly through moral values then the
next generation will follow suit taking into
consideration of ” immoral ” to be moral as a
culture.
Sorry for the mistake made.
humble,
You state: “Universal Truth on Morality never changes”.
Are you actually serious? Up until very recently in the United States women were not allowed basic rights, such as voting, owning land, etc… Even today in some muslim countries a woman is killed for allowing herself to be raped.
Read that again before you comment.
Even today in some muslim countries a woman is killed for allowing herself to be raped.
By my standards of morality, this is absolutely insane. By the standards of most Western countries, this is insane. But by the laws, customs, and “morality” of such countries as Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Iran, Syria, etc this is accepted as being justifiable and “moral”.
If any “holy book” is going to claim to be the authority on morality, it ought to state fairly unambiguously that “slavery is bad” and that “all men, women, and children should be treated equally (regardless of race, etc”. Does the bible make any claims like this? Does the Koran? Does your “holy book”?
None of the ancient “holy books” state this, because at the time they were written certain things were accepted in their society.
You stated: “So in this case are you encouraging more people to do bad or evil things”.
When did I encourage anybody to do anything other than to question their own beliefs? Is questioning “bad or evil” in your view? How do you think that we have managed to accomplish so much as a society; we questioned things, and that lead us to discoveries. Just as children learn by questioning their parents about the world, we as society learn by questioning the status quo.
To not question is to be complacent. It is to allow the superstitions of the past to run our lives today.
While I welcome all views, you have yet to make one comment that even resembles a well thought out commentary on anything relevant. You are obviously happy in quoting something blindly (a book, person, website, etc) without seemingly comprehending the meaning of the words you are copying. It seems almost as if a young child without a real grasp of the discussion keeps trying to make a point which is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
You have yet to respond intelligently to even one point that has been made, you have just continues to parrot these ideas which either you don’t understand, or have misinterpreted to try to force into the conversation despite their irrelevance.
I welcome all input, but I would hope that you at least TRY to respond intelligently to some of the messages directed at you across the various comments. If you are unable or unwilling to do this, so be it, but I can not keep wasting my time talking AT a person who has very little hope of ever “getting it”.
Mr. Rodibidably,
You do not know about your past or to be in the
future, so do Humbleforest.
We are talking and discussing on the present
moment on Morality which can help us in our
character building to be a better humble human
being.
We are inculcating moral values in our ownself
so that we can lead or comment on others.
Whatever is good to us in ridding our bad
habits through moral values should be used
and encourage others at this present moment.
Those that are in the past and future that
do not help in our moral cultivation should
be set aside.
Whether you want to accept the right way of
morality is up to you. You can reason
whatever you want.
You can say morality is incorrect, that depends
on the degree of your cultivation. Please check whether your “enemy” called Egoism,
Arrogance, Self-centered still stays
in your heart. Get rid of it before it is too late.
Sorry, Mr Rodibidably,
You feel very upset about the word Morality,
because you are so engrossed in it.
From your article mentioned, it is human who
manipulates and twists its true meaning, that I
have already mentioned in my article
which you have overlooked.
Please don’t be too upset about it.
You can’t change their custom or culture
overnight. Even the super-powers of World leaders
cannot change them.
If you want to know the answer of who miscontrue
its true meaning, then you have to dig deeply into
its root. Whatever out of your reach to help, just
leave for a moment. Help those who really need help,
then only you are not wasting your time.
Remember have patience to read the text clearly.
Humbleforest once again wish to apologise for
the sharp and hurting remarks made on you.
Kindly accept my apology.
humble,
Seriously, do you even read my comments to you? I mean the ENTIRE comment, not just one or two sentences. Either you are just too dense to comprehend the concepts being discussed here, or you choose not to read the entire content of each comment, but either way I have yet to see anything valid you have added to the discussion.
Half of your “comments” are completely off topic, and the other half are nonsensical.
You have yet to make even one comment related to the original purpose of this post:
“How certain are you that your version of the “truth” (truth of god, religion, the world, the universe, etc) is the correct one, and more importantly, how do you know what that “truth” is?”
You have yet to respond intelligently to any of the comments directed at you, or defend any of your “comments” that I have brought into question.
As for your “input” on the side discussions of morality, you have yet to make an intelligent, rational post on the source of morality that was more than just a parrot of some other source that you seemingly do not even comprehend yourself.
What EXACTLY is the point you’re trying to make? What is it that you think you’re adding to the discussion?
I am diametrically opposed to the position that hank, moot, ala, other “christians”, and people of other religions take; but even with that opposition I can respect the points they make, since they do make actual points that make sense. While in my view they are wrong in their conclusions, they actually do have (mostly) intelligent points to make.
Your inane ramblings come across as those of somebody who really fails to understand not only the discussion going on at the time, but even basics of the language (metaphorically speaking) that the discussion is going on in.
I personally would not have guessed that in a forum with myself, people who believe in a 6500 year old universe, and somebody who (seemingly) follows eastern philosophy that the one quoting Tao would come off as the least intelligent participant.
First of all, I would like to thank you for putting in so much time and effort into developing this masterpiece.
To avoid being stereotyped, please read
In my search for God journey, I was told that most religious writings describe very obvious interactions between man and the supernatural via angels, so I had to search for the writings themselves to be able to solve the mystery.
I had to study the Abraham’s Triangle, Judaism,Christianity and Islam.Differences and similarities was the theme of my study, I used different sources to represent different thoughts,beliefs and points of view regarding mismatched concepts or ideologies and I found out that each side is totally rejecting the other fundamentally based on a man made religious text, the reason is due to political issues related to the religious state at any era.
The Quran claims that the essentials of the message it brings to humanity are the same as those perceived and transmitted by earlier messengers over the course of human history, including the “revelations” on which the major religions were based. Unfortunately, these essentials have to a large degree been lost or distorted under layers of later constructions and elaborations.
This is the essence of what God has to say to us, according to the Quran. This is what he has said to human beings through all the prophets and seers who have perceived his message, enshrined now in the many religions that have held the allegiance of countless millions over the centuries, in spite of this message being largely concealed under the later additions and interpretations of men.
It’s clearly natural to find in these religious writings contradicting opinions due to human interference with God through traditions and false attributed sayings.
Fortunately, God is uninterested in the titles and divisions that people choose for them such as Muslims, Jews, Christians and Sabiens.
For this reason, God confirms in two verses that those who believe in God alone as the only God, believe in the Day of Judgment as the divine day of absolute justice and maintain peace and perform righteous deeds as a proof of their belief in the last day, they are the allies of God whether they are the followers of the Quran or the Old and New Testament (2:62, 5:69).
These two verses confirm the other two verses: “The religion before God is Islam” and “Whoever desires a religion other than Islam, never will be accepted of him” (3:19 &85).
These verses imply that he who believes in God, the last day and performs righteous deeds in this world will be considered a Muslim in the sight of God on the Last Day regardless of the title he/she had in this world. It is up to God alone- not to us – on the Day of Judgment – not now- to judge the faith. Any one that claims this right to him/her is claiming divinity upon himself.
Two elements that makes the Quran a unique religious text, the message and the structure, the balance of word repetitions in relation to their meanings and the mathematical structure based on the number 19 (Over it are Nineteen 74:30 ), is a proof that the choice of words is uniquely chosen and distributed throughout the verses, which are defined from the book as signs (Ayat).
You can find God through signs that are considered as evidences and proofs only by yourself for the true existence of God.Finally, I would like to invite anyone interested in understanding more about my sect to visit the following link:
Peace 😀
Stefan Rosty
stefan,
Thank you for your praise. I think this thread has taken on a life of it’s own due to the number of honest intelligent, yet differing opinions.
I do have a few questions, to clarify your beliefs based on your statement “These verses imply that he who believes in God, the last day and performs righteous deeds in this world will be considered a Muslim in the sight of God on the Last Day regardless of the title he/she had in this world”:
1) What of children who die before they are old enough to have a “belief” of god, how are they treated on the “Last Day”?
2) What of those who “claim” to be christian, or jewish or muslim but live their lives doing only for themselves. They may live their life “by the rules”, but their motives are fully and knowingly selfish, how are they treated on the “Last Day?
3) What of those who are brought up in a hindu, buddhist, etc culture their entire lives and have no knowledge of “god” or “allah”, how are they treated on the “Last Day?
4) What of those who are brought up in a hindu, buddhist, etc culture their entire lives and activly rejct the concept of one single “god” in favor of their own belief system, how are they treated on the “Last Day?
5) And finally, what of those who are by choice Atheist or Agnostic and actively reject the concept of any “god”, how are they treated on the “Last Day?
I know these points MAY seem trivial, but I think your answer will shed a bit of light (for me) on your belief system.
God is definitely on the good side of all aspects of life and the individual is responsible for his actions and his perception of God but in the end he will be judged by the limits given in the Quran ( Which are few in comparison with the Torah and the Sunni Shariah laws).
Children will be judged as children, each case will have a fair judgment considering every single detail affecting their personality and decisions in their lives, to sum up, you will be punished in the afterlife a punishment equivalent to the harm you caused based on your age and historical/religious background.
Concerning those who “claim” to be Christian, or Jewish or Muslim but live their lives doing only for themselves. They may live their life “by the rules”, but their motives are fully and knowingly selfish are selfish people who will be punished because they have accepted using force on others based on their false dogmatic beliefs, therefore they are not living by the rules and they are setting partners with God.
Atheists have different fundamental beliefs and they have different backgrounds, In most cases they will reject living within the limits or “by the rules” of God and unfortunately they will be punished for exceeding their limits like any other.
Buddhist, Hindus, Jews, Christian and Muslims are to search for the truth, but in most cases they will submit to the laws they have inherited from their fathers and their fathers are blindly following their forefathers without questioning or reasoning with them, so they will be punished for every action that causes harm they cause under God’s name.
To be more clear, the truth will be revealed on the “Last Day” and the messengers of God will stand as witnesses for their nation and the text is the criterion, my job is to let you know the text and your job is to search for it even if your people are claiming that they know it and they deeply believe in it and they are misguided.
So a good Buddhist with rightly weighted balanced will not be punished and even harmless atheists will be rewarded for their positive outcome but i guess their spiritual outcome will be less in life and the afterlife.
Harmful atheists, apostates and extremist killers will be punished badly, false prophets and people who wrote the book with their own hands and claimed that its from God will suffer in the “Last Day” for what they have caused.
Peace
Stefan,
Perhaps I am reading too much into your comments, but it seems that you say that any believer (no matter their faith) can live a good life, but that all atheists are by definition sinners.
I find it quite interesting that you group together “atheists, apostates and extremist killers”.
I am an atheist myself. I live my life by the general principal of “do unto others, as you would have them do unto you”. My view is that not only should people do nothing to harm others, but that they should, when possible try to make a positive difference in the lives of others. As an atheist, with no belief of an afterlife, I feel that we must do all we can while we are alive to make a lasting impression upon others and upon the world, because (in the view of any atheist) this is the ONLY life we get, and we get no “second chances”.
Does my “rejecting” god automatically make me a “sinner”? (not that I claim to NOT be a sinner 😉 , but I am curious if my atheism is an automatic sin which much be punished by god)
And back to the original question of this post, HOW is it that you “know” that the Quran is correct and that your belief in god is the “truth”?
I find it quite interesting that you group together “atheists, apostates and extremist killers”.
“harmful atheists, apostates or extremist” I meant harmful as disobeying the orders and exceeding the limits in murder, rape, prostitution etc..because they reject the existence of God and his laws because it could be an obstacle in their lifestyle or financial income.
Rejecting God doesn’t make an atheist/apostate a sinner, its a choice and I think that you have a load of reasonable answers to answer when you will be asked why did you lose your religion ? with Michael Stipe.
If you listen to different point of views you will not find a single belief system free from man made errors, the misconception about God makes the rejection an ideal solution for the clash of religious ideologies and after all its a positive action as long as you are a peaceful person.
stefan,
“I meant harmful as disobeying the orders and exceeding the limits in murder, rape, prostitution etc”
What I don’t get is why you grouped atheists with extremist killers? This seems odd to me that you would group these two types of people. To me this seems like grouping rapists and people who are left handed (i.e. there is absolutely no correlation between the two groups).
“they reject the existence of God and his laws because it could be an obstacle in their lifestyle or financial income”
So as an atheist, I’m more likely to break the law and be poor? If you look at the population as a whole and compare it to the prison system population the statistics show that atheists are SIGNIFICANTLY less likely to be in prison than they are representative of the overall population.
As well, a letter published in Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal god or afterlife was at an all-time low among the members of the U.S. National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of whom believed in a personal god as compared with more than 85% of the general U.S. population.[93] In the same year Frank Sulloway of MIT and Michael Shermer of California State University conducted a study which found in their polling sample of “credentialed” U.S. adults (12% had Ph.Ds and 62% were college graduates) 64% believed in God, and there was a correlation indicating that religious conviction diminished with education level. Such an inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been found by 39 studies carried out between 1927 and 2002, according to an article in Mensa Magazine.
Since at least in US society education is equated with financial security I would find your comment about financial income to be a bit confusing. I personally know of no studies that have looked at income and atheism, but there have been dozens that show a direct correlation between education and atheism, and many that have shown links between education and financial security.
I am not trying to “attack” you, I promise, but comments like these seem to be far to common with no real evidence behind them (not just from you, but in general).
HOW is it that you “know” that the Quran is correct and that your belief in god is the “truth”?
I tried asking myself many questions
Who wrote it ?
1-Mohamed alone
2-Mohamed and the Ten wise Jews
3-Some people before or after Mohamed
if Mohamed wrote it I’ll thank him and I’ll live in his delusion,I don’t believe that it is possible to synchronize the commands and stories in a rhymed sound fitting into a mathematical structure, plus the explanation of human behavior and different mentalities made me feel for the first time that the author has an ideal vision of human beings and earth.
Basically, its the code or theory of 19 that I used as a proof that the text is not man made.
“This is nothing but the words of a human.” 74:25
http://www.openburhan.net/ob.php?sid=74&vid=25
Over it are Nineteen. 74:30
http://www.openburhan.net/ob.php?sid=74&vid=30
And We have made the guardians of the Fire to be Angels; and We did not make their number except as a test for those who have rejected, so that those who were given the Scripture would understand, and those who have faith would be increased in faith, and so that those who have been given the Scripture and the believers do not have doubt, and so that those who have a sickness in their hearts and the rejecters would Say: “What did God mean with an example such as this?” It is such that God misguides whom He wishes, and He guides whom He wishes. And none know your Lord’s soldiers except Him. And it is but a reminder for mankind. 74:31
http://www.openburhan.net/ob.php?sid=74&vid=31
No, by the moon, And by the night when it withdraws, And by the morning when it brightens, It is one of the great ones. 74:32-35
http://www.openburhan.net/ob.php?sid=74&vid=35
What is that “it”in “it is but a reminder for mankind”
and “It is one of the great ones”
What will happen so that those who were given the Scripture would understand and those who have faith would be increased in faith, and so that those who have been given the Scripture and the believers do not have doubt, and so that those who have a sickness in their hearts and the rejectors would Say: “What did God mean with an example such as this?”
“What did God mean with an example such as this?”
The answer is the code 19 that was discovered in 1974 (1406 Islamic calendar) based on chapter 74 ” The Hidden”. The other thing is that 19 * 74 = 1406
So I think that its a kind of perfection
What I don’t get is why you grouped atheists with extremist killers?
“they reject the existence of God and his laws because it could be an obstacle in their lifestyle or financial income”
Again its only the few minority of dangerous “harmful atheists” today and in the previous centuries and in the future too when atheist will attack the believers because of their beliefs, thats why I grouped “harmful atheists” and “extremist” only when they kill others because of their beliefs anytime because they share the misconception of God’s laws either by forcing addition or erasing, the grouping is for the shared harm they can cause for misunderstanding and as for you and all the peaceful atheists, its wrong to group you with killers and I didn’t mean that.
Peace and see you tomorrow
Thanks for listening
I think we have to start with questioning the authenticity of the sources from which we get information about Christ. While we do have a handful of extra-biblical references to verify the historicity of Christ, they don’t help do much else.
Fortunately, authenticating a manuscript is not so much a religious issue as it is an academic one. We can apply the same techniques to the gospels that we would to Aesop or Homer.
The first thing we have to ask is – do we have the same documents after centuries of translation or have they been corrupted through the centuries.
That question seems insurmountable. How could errors not creep in when copies were hand-written? However I think the difficult dissolves when we clear up a couple of misconceptions.
I think a good example of the misconception is the telephone game. People assume that, like the game, the Gospels were transmitted orally and linearly. In other words, the gospels were told from one person then to another then another, until one person finally decided to write it down, start a televised program and rake in the big bucks. In the “Telephone game” model of the Gospels the message would be completely corrupted but the third or fourth person.
However the gospels were written and we’re transferred geometrically (one letter became fifty copies. Not one letter became one copy.)
I’m certainly not an expert concerning textual criticism but I do now a couple of the basics and I know that it’s applied to all ancient texts not just religious documents. (A lot of my confirmation comes form Wikipedia, which isn’t saying much but I hope it will suffice for the current discussion.)
While there are a variety of methods they all essentially need to answer the question of how many different copies and how early those copies date.
If the copies are few and the earliest copy was hundreds, if not thousands, of years after the original then the authentication becomes more difficult. The more copies and the more they date close to the original the job becomes easier.
Thucydides’ History survives in eight copies. There are 10 copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars, eight copies of Herodotus’ History, and seven copies of Plato, all dated over a millennium from the original. Homer’s Iliad has the most impressive manuscript evidence for any secular work with 647 existing copies.
So, at best, most ancient documents that have only a few manuscripts and have a time gap of 800-2000 years. However scholars feel confident that they can reconstruct the originals with pretty significant accuracy. To a large degree our knowledge of ancient history depends on these documents.
Here’s what’s really amazing. The New Testament has almost 25,000 copies! And in some cases partial documents date back to about 117-138 A.D.
That’ doesn’t include reconstructions of quotes from other ancient documents like catechism and quotes from religious leaders. Bruce Metzger says that the “patristic quotes alone are enough to practically reconstruct the New Testament.”
Now in all fairness, Daniel Wallace says there are about 300,000 individual variations within the text of the New Testament. While that sounds like a lot, it’s a little misleading. Most of the differences are relatively minor, things like spelling. Wallace still concludes that the texts are in agreement 98% percent of the time.
I couldn’t find too much serious contention to most of the stuff I’m writing. Objections to Scripture are generally more about content than historical accuracy.
Overall, it seems that if we reject the Gospels we have to reject pretty much every other ancient document as well because the Gospels have that much more information in their favor.
I realize that this doesn’t deal with the issue of the content being accurate but we can be fairly certain that what was written down then is what we have now.
I’ll try to deal with the second half of dealing the scriptures soon. Sorry if this is overkill. It’s late so excuse the copious amounts of spelling and grammar errors. Let me know how this sounds or if there’s any traction with what I’m saying.
Mr.Rodibidably,
Since you have admitted that you are an atheist, Humbleforest hope that you should be the 4th
type of Atheist. Please do not feel insulted.
There is a message submitted by one of your
past bloggers.
In it there is a 4th type of Atheist who had gained his enlightenment in receiving his Universal wisdom
of ” spiritual knowledge ” which supersedes human
knowledge of comprehension.
He also needed a basic condition to fulfill his
attainment of this Cosmic Consciousness.
That is what he called in his term the ” Sila ”
and the ” Dharma, what is equivalent to the word
“Morality” and its Natural Way.
After attaining his “spiritual” knowledge he
revealed to those who had the affinity with him
and also those who were willing to listen and sincerely cultivate.
He did not reveal to the stubborn ones as they
were curious in asking only without seriously in
cultivating.
Humbleforest apologies not to answer your questions
in your comments because most of the answers are
already in my sixteen messages. It may help you to
be a 4th type of Atheist.
Please use your patience and wisdom to get your answers. If you feel that my messages are nonsense
it’s alright. You have the freedom to comment and
criticise or take them as garbages.
It is a blessing to meet an atheist like you
and hope that you may attain the enlightenment
like the 4th type of Atheist.
Inorder to attain this spiritual knowlege you
need to fulfill the conditions of self purification,
that is to have moral values.
Do not be like a frog in a well.
Stefan,
Your description of the code or theory of 19 sounds a LOT like the “bible code” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_code).
I know that “bible code” has been debunked by running the same “algorithms” that “bible scholars” have run against the bible, and scientists running them against other long books such as Moby Dick and coming up with similar types of “predictions” from obvious works of fiction. (http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/torah.html)
With regards to the “code of 19” I would need to spend some time finding more detailed information before I can really speak intelligently on that subject. From my brief scanning so far (I love Google) the only thing I would say is that on one site they state the code of 19 is an “intricate mathematical code, far beyond the ability of human intelligence”. If it is that far beyond our understanding I find it hard to believe we could have “found” or “cracked” the code; I also think that this website has underestimated human ingenuity.
It does seem to be that there are a number of coincidences related to the number 19, although if you take any large enough group of information you can make all kinds of fantastical mathematical calculations around a wide variety of number. that said, I would like to see a good independent scientific study on this before I comment further on this particular phenomena.
You clarified your remarks on atheist, but I still have one last issue with your comments: “few minority of dangerous “harmful atheists” today and in the previous centuries and in the future too when atheist will attack the believers because of their beliefs”.
If you look at human history, religious fervor and faith have caused much more violence and killing than atheism. As a muslim, you should be able to look at the crusades as a simple example, or look at the attacks of 9/11, or look at the violence in Palestine (from both sides). I still think that your “linking” atheists with killers was misguided, whether intentionally or not. I think if you had said “harmful people” I’d have had no issue, but that you specifically mentioned atheist, shows that at least in some small part you look at the best of atheists are starting off below the worst of religious people by default.
moot,
Since the finding and studying of the Dead Sea Scrolls there has been shown many examples of differences between those scrolls and various current translations.
Bart D Ehrman’s book “Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why” goes into a very detailed analysis of the some of the various current copies of the bible along with some of the oldest known copies that still exist. He goes into great detail showing in many cases actually when, and in some cases who made the mistranslation or misinterpretation and how the bible has changed throughout the years to what we know now.
Even if one assumes that only 2% of the text has changes over time (and from my understanding the percentage is much higher than that) then you would still need to do a VERY detailed study of EXACTLY what that 2% is, since if the original is supposedly the “word of god” then ANY change, no matter how minor can alter the original intent.
However if one assumes the view that Ehrman takes that “there are between 200,000 and 400,000 errors, some deliberate, some accidental, in the New Testament. That is more errors than there are words”, then you have a massive dilemma on the validity of anything in the bible.
While the truth is likely somewhere in between the two extremes, it is enough to make one pause and question some of their assumptions.
Regarding the “extra-biblical references” you refer to, I hope you do not mean Josephus’s account. These have been shown to likely have been a later addition by the catholic church and almost certainly not part of the original text of his writings. “Its authenticity has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it was a forgery.”
Pingback: Christopher Hitchens and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach Debate « Rodibidably
Jeff —
I’m answering your question at your request on my site.
First, I have to admit only reading your post here (I’ve not taken the time to review much more of your site … although I am intrigued, so likely will) and I have read none of the extensive replies (man, that’s a lot of comments!).
Second, I am going to directly answer the question that you ask (“How certain are you that your version of the “truth” (truth of god, religion, the world, the universe, etc) is the correct one, and more importantly, how do you know what that “truth” is?”) and try to avoid the temptation to answer what *I think* you may be *really* asking … if that makes sense?
Enough caveats … here goes:
I am certain enough of my “version” of truth to entrust my eternal future to it. I’m not hedging my bets, I’m not spinning the wheel and saying “what the heck …,” I’m not simply living my life the best I can. I’m putting my trust completely, wholly and unreservedly in the perfect, propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ (God in the flesh) which was offered for my sins to satisfy a holy, righteous God who demands perfection from His creation (which He has every right to demand). Since I’m doing nothing (and I do mean nothing) more than resting in Jesus for “redemption” and “eternal reward” I’m likely in the most danger, should I be wrong. I say that to underscore the active, thoughtful and fully committed choice I’m making on this matter. I’m giving up on everything in favor of His work on my behalf.
I know this is the truth because God Himself revealed it all humanity — first through the Jewish people and the Old Testament prophets, second and most fully and completely through Jesus Christ, the fulfillment of every promise offered in the Old Testament.
I also find Jesus Christ to be a superior savior to all other pretenders since He is the only one that died for me. All others require me to die for them. Jesus Christ did all of the work while all others require me to do things that NO ONE (and I mean NO ONE) can perfectly fulfill.
I suppose you can (and many folks do) deconstruct that to the point of questioning whether or not I’m even “really” here or not. But the truth remains that God has revealed His mind in His Scriptures (much in the same way that I, in good faith believe you requested me to post my thoughts here).
The only question is whether or not I (and you) will accept them as truth and act accordingly.
mjtilly,
Thank you for the reply, always good to an another voice to the discussion.
Yes, this post has been hands down the most commented on my blog, at least partially because I have tried to invite people to post who I think will have a perspective different then my own.
The longest comments tend to be from me trying to better understand different replies because, one I can tend to blather on a tad at time, and two I have tried to ensure that I phrase my question in such a way that they are not easily misunderstood. If you do want to spend the time (and it would take a LOT of time) to check out all the replies, I do suggest you start with the beginning for a few reasons. First of all, I give my own answer to this question as the first reply here, and second because as I had to answer a few questions repeatedly, near the end I may have perhaps lost my temper with one of the commenters and not been quite as nice as I could have been.
I really appreciate your answering my question, and not trying to “interpret” a hidden meaning behind it (at least not yet). I make no secret of the fact that I am an atheist, but my purpose for this question is not to argue (although I do love a good debate) but to try to come to some type of understanding with people who have a drastically different view point than my own.
The one question that I have from reading your reply is that you seem to take the bible at its word, but why is it that you believe so strongly that the bible (and not the koran, dianetics, book of mormon, or some other book) is the “word of god”? I can look at a science book from the 1500’s and compare it to a science book written by Carl Sagan or Steven Hawkins and say with certainty that in those cases one in clearly superior based on its ability to describe more accurately the universe. But in my study of the bible, torah, and koran, I really never found any compelling reason to take one as more or less “true” than any other.
Your final point on the whole concept of existence being subjective is one that I have ongoing, partially as a joke, with a colleague (in our discussions we take the premise that all of reality is all in her head, so when we have the discussion is she just arguing with herself, since I’m nothing more than a figment of her imagination), but it’s actually one I tend not to think about too much as I’m not sure I am capable of answering it satisfactorily, and I’ve just accepted the fact that whether I actually exist or not, I perceive things in a certain way, and that is just how it is.
I used to ponder over many different theoretical possibilities for “existence” and finally came to the conclusion that I didn’t really care if this is just a dream or construct or real, it would not change how I perceived or reacted to things, so until some evidence comes along to push in a certain direction, I’ll just go with the assumption that it’s real.
Answering your question about why I believe the Bible is the Word of God vs. other so-called “holy texts”:
To my knowledge, the Bible is the only text that claims to be written by the one true God.
The only other books that rival that claim are either from a god that I do not recognize (the koran is from allah who says that Jesus Christ is a good prophet, therefore, cannot be my God and the book of mormon is from a god who creates other gods on distant planets .. also not my God) or only half of the story(the Jewish Scriptures, which I recognize as the “Old Testament”).
I don’t claim exhaustive knowledge of holy texts, but of those I’m aware of, they usually don’t claim to be the “word of God,” only the somber words of a holy man/prophet/etc.
mjtilley,
If the bible claims to be written by “god” then be definition then the torah would as well (since it is the first “half” of the bible.
The koran claims to be allah’s direct words written down through the hand of mohamed.
The book of mormon is supposedly a direct translation of two golden tablet written by god, given to joseph smith and directly translated.
Your comment as to why you don’t believe the koran takes as an assumption that you DO believe that jesus is more than just a prophet, that he is in fact god.
That is the type of leap of faith I have never been able to make no matter how much I studied various religions, actually I’d say even MORE so because I studied various religions.
In your comments you state that you view jesus as superior to other gods, but you don’t really say how you KNOW that he is in fact the “true” god.
Allah is not the God of the Old and New Testament. So I suppose one has to honestly say that in that scenario (koran vs. the Bible), it is a choice of one god over the other. Not a real answer of “why.”
The book of mormon claims to be the same god as the Bible and claims to be the “rest of the story” in much the same way that the New Testament “finishes” the Old Testament. However, it’s “new” revelations actually undermine Bible, making at least one of them obsolete if not patently false. Therefore, to take either of them seriously is to essentially deny the other. In that way, I believe it to be spiritually and intellectualy inconsistent to believe the book of mormon and the Bible. Therefore, I reject the book of mormon since belief in it supposes belief in the Bible as well … essentially, I end up chasing my tail; no thank you.
I suppose a similar argument could be had over the Jewish Scriptures, however, I believe that Jesus Christ is the “key” that makes the Jewish Scriptures and the New Testament a unified book. I don’t think either nullifies the other (although, I recognize my Jewish friends would disagree strongly); in fact, they both strengthen each other, building on each other without undermining any of the essential doctrines of the other. So I don’t chose Judaism and the Jewish Scriptures, not because it’s wrong (in fact, I find it very right), but merely incomplete (albeit in a very significant way).
So thinking through things in that way, I think the one thing I’d have to explain is why I’d choose the Bible over the Koran.
My reasons include:
* The Bible has a longer, richer heritage over the relatively newer Koran.
* The Koran has left no positive cultural, spiritual, philosophical marks on history in stark contrast to the Bible. Admittedly there have been negative contributions (all perverse interpretations of the Bible). But we owe the Bible an enormous debt for things like: human rights, women’s rights, democratic government, property rights, liberty, governmental assistance for poor and elderly, consent to be governed,and others
* Both books claim the respective deity to be holy, perfect, righteous, etc in a very absolute sense and that mankind is sinful in an absolute sense. Only the Bible offers a rational way for the diety to maintain his character AND offer attainable redemption for humanity. The Koran (like most religious texts) puts unattainable demands on man to live by an impossible standard, yet strongly suggests that some men will somehow find redemption by abiding by that standard. The only acceptable alternative to the Bible for my mind would be a religion that says that the holy god damns all humanity to an eternity of damnation without any hope of redemption … but I’ve yet to find a religion (atheism included) with a serious following that holds to that.
I should also mention — although it likely isn’t terribly convincing, since I’m speaking of subjective experience — I am convinced that Jesus is God because He has saved me and provided me the spiritual benefits that offers.
Finally, since I believe the Bible at face value (a leap of some faith, to be sure …), I believe that Jesus is God because He claims it, His followers claim it and the Bible claims it. He is the true God because the Bible says so. And I believe that the Bible is to be believed because God was given it to us.
mjtilley,
A few random notes, not necessarily questions:
“Allah is not the God of the Old and New Testament”
Um, actually yes he is, ask any islamic scholar. Islam claims to be directly descended from both of the other earlier abrahamic religions.
“book of mormon claims to be the same god as the Bible and claims to be the “rest of the story” … it’s “new” revelations actually undermine Bible, making at least one of them obsolete if not patently false”
As a christian, you eat pork and other foods not blessed by a rabbi. You do this because the new testament makes certain claims of the old testament “obsolete if not patently false”.
“The Bible has a longer, richer heritage over the relatively newer Koran.”
Couldn’t one say that: The torah has a longer, richer heritage over the relatively newer bible.
“The Koran has left no positive cultural, spiritual, philosophical marks on history in stark contrast to the Bible”
Such as the positive cultural, spiritual, philosophical mark that the bible has left regarding killing those who refuse to convert, or invading lands that other are living in peacefully to “retake the holy land”, or did you mean slavery, racism, sexism, and genocide?
“we owe the Bible an enormous debt for things like: … women’s rights”
On this one I don’t even know where to begin, other than to say ‘Are You Serious’?
“The Koran (like most religious texts) puts unattainable demands on man to live by an impossible standard, yet strongly suggests that some men will somehow find redemption by abiding by that standard”
You mean like the demands of the old testament. The demands that existed before god changed his mind and allowed his son/himself to die in place of our own sins. Well as long as those sins don’t involve having a consensual loving relationship with the “wrong” person, or trying to advance science and help humanity in the “wrong” way (stem cells), or any of a list of other things that christians today from upon.
“but I’ve yet to find a religion (atheism included) with a serious following that holds to that (that being ‘holy god damns all humanity to an eternity of damnation’)”
I found that kind of funny. How exactly would atheism make any claims about damnation or god other than not existing?
You have some well thought out comments, however it seems that some of your reasons contradict others or are only applied under circumstances where they lead to your end conclusion. If you applied all of your criteria evenly, I’m not sure exactly where you would end up, but I’m fairly certain that it would not be any of the three abrahamic religions, since all of them would be excluded, even christianity.
After reading your response I’m restating something I already said. I don’t want to sound redundant, It just seems that in reading your response you may have skimmed over one of the main points I made.
I did say that general consensus seems to be that there are about 300,000 errors in the scripture. (You said 200,000 to 400,000, so I’m splitting the difference) Ehrman’s quote is a little misleading. There are about 25,000 different texts, even if you grant the 400,000 word error that’s about 16 errors per text. 16 is a much more manageable number.
Now when you consider that all 25,000 sources don’t have the same mistakes you can compare and contrast to get a very reasonable idea of what was originally written.
Interestingly Ehrman himself unintentionally provides a good example of the point I’m making. If you happen to have a copy of “Misquoting Jesus” turn to page 13. On that page right near the top, you can read the line about the “Left Behind” series. I quote, “Timothy LeHaye and Philip Jenkins series Left Behind”
You can probably tell it’s LaHaye not LeHaye and Jerry Jenkins no Phillip Jenkins.” Now we both still know exactly what Ehrman means despite the mistakes. I know, I know, Ehrman doesn’t claim his work is inspired but he doesn’t intend to be a textual critic – so there blatant errors are a little ironic.
reading past page 13, for what may seem to some
And no, I don’t mean Josephus’s Testimonium. If you remember there are two quotes one that is disputed and one that isn’t. Even though it’s likely that the Testimonium is a much later insertion it still represents an expansion on a preexisting reference to Christ. But that’s all beside the point.
To sum up – given that there are no more than a maximum of 400,000 variants in the texts, that the variants represent, to a large degree, thing that don’t change it’s meaning and the fact that we can compare and contrast to eliminate most of the mistakes, it’s very likely that we have a text that is nearly identical to the original.
Oops (case in point) I meant to write “there are no more than a maximum of an average of 16 variants per text.”
moot,
The biggest difference is that if you’re reading the bible as if it is the inerrant word of god and it is the unquestioning guidebook for how to live one’s life, then ANY mistake, no matter how small, has the possibility to induce people towards genocide, war, slavery, bigotry, sexism, homophobia, etc…
Nobody is going to see a typo in a copy of Moby Dick, or Hamlet, or Misquoting Jesus and interpret it to mean that they should enslave a population based on the color of their skin, or invade a country to “reclaim the holy land”, or stone somebody to death for falling in love with the wrong person.
With the bible (and not to pick on the bible, the same is true of any book that claims to be the word of god, including the koran, the book of mormon, etc) these kinds of misinterpretations and atrocious acts of violence have happened, and continue to happen to this day.
Personally in my mind the errors are insignificant in relation to the whole concept of living your life based on a book written by people (and yes, as an atheist, I believe it was written by people, not god) some 1300-3000 years ago (different parts written at different times), but the errors should, I would hope, at least give a slight bit of pause to those who do believe that the original had a supernatural author.
Finally, I would like to give one small example of a minor error in translation causing a massive difference in meaning (and yes, I know it’s a childish example, but it’s simple, and it does seem to work).
Kill for a slice of beth’s pie.
Kill beth for a slice of pie.
Kill pie eaters and slice up beth.
Now imagine if I claimed this was written by god, but you had no way to know which was the original and which was the mistranslation. In this example it’s simple enough, but when you start talking about subjects that people may already be predisposed to have strong feelings towards (like race, gender, sexuality, etc) very bad things can happen, and history shows have happened.
Rod … the benefit of atheism is that it makes so much sense to human reasoning and the very nature of spiritual (as oppose to strictly ration) religion (by any name) makes it open to debate. Add to that the fact that the Bible itself (and I would assume other religious text do something similar) indicate that it (while not irrational) will be called “foolish” (I Corinthians 1) by most.
Further, I have a difficult time arguing something where we don’t agree on the basic premise of the discussion. Its actually hard to even come to an “agree to disagree” outcome.
It would be like me trying to prove that my wife is the love of my life all the while your still insisting I prove that I actually exist on this planet and not the mind of a robotic creature.
That’s not to say that your arguments don’t hold water … only that I don’t have the ability to answer every objection even that one might throw up.
I say that to say I’m likely going to be of minimal assistance to the discussion going forward … but will attempt to answer some of the objections — both for my own benefit and in the spirit of good, hearty discussion. Here goes:
On the “women’s rights” comment: God (the One True God of the Bible) is the original feminist:
* He created woman to actually complete man (woman is a fully-functioning creature on her own … its man that can’t live without a woman, God created us that way)
* He created the male-female relationship to be one in which the man is expected to reflect Jesus Christ and the woman is reflect the church. While that certainly involves what some in this ultra-modern culture would see as a “pecking order” of authority, it is very feministic in that God quite literally expects men to give up their very lives for the woman, if need be and to find all of their satisfaction in the woman’s happiness.
* Some of the New Testament references to various roles for men and women in worship and the life of the church actually suggest the scandalous (for the day) practices of allowing women to learn, to participate in the life of the church, to publically pray and to publically participate in worship.
* The woman is actually very revered in the Bible as a special creature to be honored, loved, protected and cared for … any anti-woman abuse, bigotry, etc. (esp when Scripture is used to support this behavior) is the worst sort of perversion.
On God being related to allah: I’m sure that islamic scholars would say that. But until they recognize the entire Trinitarian Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Ghost), they can call allah what they want to call him, but he is not my God which means he is not the God of the Bible … how’s that for an “are to/am not” argument?!
On the New Testament making the Old Testament “obsolete”: Jesus Christ came to fulfill “the Law” (Jewish Scripture), not to destroy it (His words). So anything that is “done away with” between the two parts of the Bible has everything to do with finding its fulfuillment in Christ, not because the two are disconnected, discontiguous religious texts that some zealots somewhere fused together. Now, I have to admit that my argument is likely similar to the one used by Mormons. However, I’d argue that our differences (Mormons vs. Christians) are not simply over dietary laws, but actually over the very nature and character of God. In that way, I and a Jew will be very similar, if not identical. Our chief difference would be: they’re still looking for the “one” promised that would fulfill all of the Old Testament prophecies while I believe that He has come and His name is Jesus Christ.
On cultural heritage comments: Two things:
1) I think its probably clear that I would quickly agree to the fact that the Jewish Scriptures are an older text with a longer heritage … but I would with the same breath say that it is a significant (actually larger by volume!) part of the Bible.
2) I grant you that all religion has a spotted record of pain and suffering. However, I would argue that is less of a religion problem and more of a human problem. The Bible actually explains this as a nature of sin that is in-born in all men. Religion, unfortunately, just “churches” up our sin at times, making us feel superior when we abuse women, enslave people for their race, or attack others.
On the demands of the Bible: Three things:
1) Yes, I mean exactly like the demands of the Bible. But those demands were met by Jesus Christ. I can and will never meet those demands. I will find grace in the eyes of God only because His son Jesus Christ has gone before me with His own blood offered as payment in my place.
2) However, that plan (called “the Gospel” or “the Redemptive Plan”) was not God’s “plan B” … it was God’s pre-ordained plan from before time began. So it is a mis-characterization to claim that God “changed His mind”
3) The things you reference (homosexuality, the murder of the unborn) are certainly things that cause us, as humans, to fall short of the demands of the Bible. While that’s bad, that’s not irreparable: Jesus Christ was the propitiation for all of those things. Any Christian who claims that any sin makes one unworthy of redemption has completely missed the point of redemption.
On atheism believing God would damn people: Your comment was exactly my point. Your faith in the non-existance of God is a safe faith: it doesn’t put you at risk. No one wants to beleive that “the end” (whatever that looks like) involves them on the end of a pointy stick roasting over an open flame. Most religions contrive ways for people to do good enough to merit the blessings of the divinity. Atheism is similar except the divinity in question is me and you … and we’re not going to give us a bad end; just lights out.
On my evenly applying my logic: Heavens knows that my logic is likely faulty in spots. However, I hope my bigger point shines through: while “faith” is certainly at the root of my reliance on Jesus Christ, it’s not mindless, blind or stupid faith. Can I use the term “reasonable” faith? I like that.
It’s kind of like when I chose my wife as my life’s mate. I’d like to think there was some logic in the choice: she’s attractive, we’re compatible, etc. But I certainly didn’t do a global casting call … heck, I barely did a county-wide casting call. There was a lot of instinct (call it faith, maybe?) in the decision.
mjtilley,
Atheism does make sense rationally, but if you read Daniel Dennett’s book, “Breaking The Spell”, he makes a very god case for religion / faith as a product of evolution, therefore it is fairly well ingrained in our being, which helps to explain the overwhelming majority of people in the world being religious in some fashion.
While we may not be predetermined to be christian, we are predisposed towards religiosity and faith in some type of higher power (abrahamic god, hindu gods, l ron hubbard, whatever it may be).
Personally I think that being religious is easier, since it takes away so much personal responsibility. As an atheist, if I hate gay people, it is because I’m homophobic. As a christian, if you hate gay people, it’s because god does. As well I believe that when I die, that’s it, end of story, game over. You believe that when you die you’ll go sit on a cloud, strumming a harp, playing bingo with saint peter or whatever heaven is for you. My beliefs lead me to want to do as much as I can now while I’m alive because that’s all the time I have. Yours allow room for something after this, so you’ll still see your friends, family, etc later on. I wish that I could have some way to spend eternity with my wife, but alas, I’ll have 50-70 years if I am exceedingly lucky.
I think we do agree on more than you may believe. I too could never prove scientifically, or on a purely rational basis the love I feel for my wife, but I know it’s true.
Your contributions are more meaningful than you seem to think. The love for one’s spouse argument is one that nobody has yet brought up, but it’s one of the stronger to use as an example of an unseen, unprovable, unexplainable force.
As for the bible and sexism, I’ll only post a few examples to make the point, but there are many more if you’d like to get into this particular topic further:
1 Corinthians 11:3 *
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God.
1 Corinthians 11:8 – 9*
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
1 Corinthians 14:34 – 35*
34. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Ephesians 5:22 – 25*
22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.
Colossians 3:18 *
18. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
Romans 7:2
2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to [her] husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of [her] husband.
1 Peter 3:1 -3
1. Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2 While they behold your chaste conversation [coupled] with fear.
3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward [adorning] of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
1 Timothy 2:9 – 15*
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Leviticus 12:2 *
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
Leviticus 12:5
5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days.
That last two, in my view, show to a very good degree how the authors of the bible viewed women. A woman who gives birth to a baby boy is “unclean” for 7 days, yet if she gives birth to a girl that mother in unclean for 14-66 days.
Rodibidably,
I am sorry that is has taken me so long to get here. I have read your post but not the responses. I am not sure if I will read them all or not.
Your question is
Your questions really seem to be asking how can we know that the Bible is trustworthy and is really the word of God. As such, this is the way that I will answer them.
First let me say that I am under no illusion that my interpretation of God’s word is perfect. I am a flawed being and my interpretations can also be flawed. My confidence does not lie with me. It lies with Him…the Creator of the Universe. He is not flawed.
Along the same lines, I do not rely on my truth. I rely on God’s revealed truth…the Bible. I believe that the Bible, as God’s word, is infallible. Now, let me be clear…that does not mean that the translations we have today are infallible. The original versions, as given by God, are perfect. The modern translations were translated by fallible men and we see some textual variances today (I am not an expert on these…I just know that they exist). This does not mean that our translations today are useless. We have enough manuscript evidence to recreate the original with a high degree of certainty (again, I am not an expert in this area so I rely on people who are).
Okay, so how do I know that the Bible is the true word of God. The simplest answer is that it says that it is. I know that sounds circular and to a point it is. The thing we must do then is examine the claims of the Bible. Does it do what it says it does? Are there contradictions or errors? Are there people and place in it that did not exist? Etc. I have done a great deal of personal study and listened to others who have do tons more study of the Bible and have found it to be true in every instance. I have found no reason to disbelieve any part of it. So, as such, I believe the claims it makes and seek to know the One it reveals to us more each day.
I apologize if some of these points have been brought up before. As I said, I did not take time to read all 148 comments. Does my response answer your questions? If not, I will try again.
Pingback: Jesus Camp « Rodibidably
tom,
Better late than never, although I had almost given up on you.
I commend you for being the first to state unequivocally that you are “under no illusion that [your] interpretation of God’s word is perfect”. As I have mentioned previously, even if you assume the original bible was the actual “word of god”, with multiple “versions” floating around and multiple ways to interpret those versions, it’s hard to believe that any person can be so stubborn in their beliefs to have no doubt that perhaps a flaw (if not in “god”) could perhaps be in their view of “god” or “god’s word”.
According to some people, the bible claims among other things that the earth and the universe were created 6500 years ago over the course of 6 days, that roughly 4000 years ago a global flood killed all life on the planet except that which could swim, and that which was one a single boat, and that a woman who had never had sex gave birth to a man who could walk on water. These would be among the points where somebody looking at the claims objectively would question the validity of the text. Where die the water come from for the flood, and where did it go afterwards? How many animals were on the ark and for how long did they survive drifting about? If the universe is so young (6500 years), why is there so much evidence for the age of it being closer to 2million times older than the bible claims?
Perhaps you believe, as many do, that these stories are allegory and not meant to be taken literally. If that is so, then how is one to know which stories are meant to be taken at face value and which are just to teach a lesson?
I appreciate your answer, and while I may not agree, it does seem that you have at least taken some time in your coming to your beliefs, which I admire. I am much more interested in those who have reasons, and have thought about their faith than those who accept it blindly because “that is how they were raised”.
I think there’s plenty of evidence to make an informed decision about the accuracy of the bible. There’s is more evidence that it is nearly exactly what was written then there is evidence that there is not.
While we have agreed that in the manuscripts there may be (at a very high estimate) up to 16 errors per text we can dismiss many of them as spelling or grammar errors. You allege that even minor errors can produce drastic problems.
If, for example, there were a verse that said – “to be saved you must kill pie eaters and slice up beth.” That concept is in contradiction to the rest of the New Testament.
That is all part and parcel of taking the 25,000 texts and comparing and contrasting them and determining which is most accurate.
Again, there’s more than enough evidence to make a well-informed decision about the accuracy of the New Testament.
“accuracy of the New Testament”
I know it’s an easy target, but:
So what year was it exactly when the flood happened, and covered the entire planet with water?
Where did that water come from?
Where is all that water now?
The bible states that all mountains were covered, until they were about twenty feet below water.
The radius of the Earth is approx. 6370km
The height of Everest above sea-level is approx. 8.8 km
Therefore, the volume of the Earth is approx. 1,082,696,932,000km³, or 1,080 billion cubic kilometers.
The volume of the earth to the height of Everest is 1,087,190,293,000km³
Subtracting the first volume from the second gives approx. 4,493,361,000, or four thousand, five hundred million cubic kilometers of water!
Also, this rain is supposed to have fallen within about 40 days. That means that there would have been about 220 metres of rainfall every day over the entire planet (8800/40 = 220)! A few centimetres in a day is considered to be extremely heavy rain.
How many animals were on the ark, what did they eat, and how long were they on the ark?
The volume required for even two of every species of beetle (there are over three hundred and fifty thousand species of beetle alone) would fill more than the Titanic, an aircraft carrier, or any other type of ship ever built by man.
Feel free to check out this site for a few more issues with the story of the flood, if you’d like:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
Or, as I said in a reply to somebody else, perhaps you believe, as many do, that these stories are allegory and not meant to be taken literally. If that is so, then how is one to know which stories are meant to be taken at face value and which are just to teach a lesson?
After rereading my post I realized I didn’t clarify.
The bible, to some degree, can be used to interpret itself. If there’s a singular passage that stands in stark contrast to other scripture it should be interpreted in light of those scriptures.
Secondly – History have shown that those who claim to be Christians and twist the scripture have done terrible things. Their actions weren’t a result of truly attempting to understand and obey the bible but of injected their own bias and prejudice into the scripture.
I agree that misinterpreting the bible has been the cause of the majority (if not potentially all) of the violence based in “jesus’s name”, but ANY book that claims to be written by god lends into self to this type of problem, since by it’s very nature, a “holy scripture” should not be challenged or questioned.
Rodibidably,
I believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. But let me explain what I mean by literal. I think that we need to read the text exactly like the author intended it to be read. For something that was written to be a historical narrative then we need to read it as such. For something that was written as a parable then we should read it as a parable….etc.
Genesis was written as a historical narrative. I read it as a historical narrative. As such I believe all the events detailed there happened just as they were written.
You list several example of things taught in the Bible:
I believe all of these things. I believe the earth is 6000-10000 years old. I believe that the was a global flood about 4400 years ago. I believe that Noah and his family and the animals on the Ark were the only survivors of the flood. I believe in the virgin birth and the many miracle that Jesus did during his lifetime. I believe that He will return one day.
Context is everything. You must understand what the author was trying to say and what the readers would understand him to be saying. You have to understand the literary type of the writing. In some cases you need to know about the culture or the events that were occurring around the time the author was writing. Taking all these into account are necessary in your interpretation of the Scriptures.
Thank you. Yes, I have invested a great deal of time and energy in coming to an understanding of my faith. I will do my best to answer any questions anyone has of me…as long as they are sincere questions.
Rodibidably said How many animals were on the ark, what did they eat, and how long were they on the ark?
We are not told how many total animals were on the Ark. We are told there were at least two pairs of every kind (and seven pairs of some). From the time the Ark door was closed until they exited the Ark was just over 1 year. During the time it took Noah to build the Ark I am sure he was gathering provisions for the time they would be on the Ark…as for what these were, we are not told.
The Bible does not say “two of every species”. It says “two of every kind”. There is a big difference. Here is a link that will help explain it: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0908.asp
A person,s confidence needs to be in God not in our own ability to interpret the Scriptures. My stubbornness is in the fact that I trust God. He is infallible….i am not. Anything God reveals to us in His word explicitly and directly we can stubbornly hold to and believe. Everything else is open to interpretation which can be flawed since we are flawed.
You seem to have jumped to a different argument.
Because you believe that the Old Testament’s claims are unbelievable does not mean that New Testament is textually inaccurate.
Disregarding the Bible’s claims does not mean we can disregard it’s accuracy.
By the way I appreciate your dedication. You’re obviously debating this vigorously on quite a few fronts with people of vastly different backgrounds. I’m glad you’re still willing to debate.
tom,
I’ve checked out answersingenesis before, and while it looks very scientific sounding, the number of fallacies in it are astounding.
I also understand that to attempt to change the mind of a true believer is a fruitless task, I would just encourage you to look at some of the latest data on the subject from non-secular sources, if for no other reason than to understand what “the other side” truly believes.
moot,
I kind of knew all along that eventually the validity of the bible would become an issue, and I tried to avoid bringing it directly into question for a while, however the phrase “no reason to disbelieve any part of it” sort of made me want to examine a bit more thoroughly tom’s actual beliefs with relation to the bible, to have a better understanding of his point of view.
I have tried to avoid any personal attacks (and other than a few comments towards humbleforest I think I have succeeded). I have tried to avoid disparaging any body’s beliefs, or faith (which I think I have accomplished). And I have tried to not call into question the actual beliefs, and only question for further clarity (which admittedly I have gone awfully close to the line, and perhaps crossed it a few times, but I did try my best).
With that said, there are some things of religion in general, and of many specific religions which I have studied that conflict with known facts about the universe around us, that are hard to ignore, and hard to let go by with no comment to point people in the right direction.
I hope that nobody (yourself and tom included) is offended by what I have said, however when people make claims that refute basic scientific knowledge and understanding then I believe somebody must at the very LEAST make some noise to allow others who come across this blog know that there are other ways of looking at the world that take a more scientific approach.
I understand that nothing I say is likely to change the mind of a true believer, but perhaps something I say could cause somebody on the fence to look for more information, or could cause somebody who’s “angry” at us “heathen science types” (I was called that once by somebody, and I was actually very flattered by the comment to tell the truth) to stop for a moment to try and find out what it is we actually believe.
Your last post sounds a little like a closing statement. I hope that you’re not yet done with this discussion although I entirely understand if you are.
I’m not offended in the least by anything you’ve said. The ideas we’ve been debating aren’t originally to me so I can’t imagine why I’d be offended if someone doesn’t agree with what I think.
My line of reasoning right no is to strictly deal textual accuracy of the New Testament. That’s the foundation I think I can build on in regard to answering your original question.
moot,
Nope, not a closing statement, just an attempt to make sure that I keep myself at an even keel.
I believe that one of the reasons I am a tad bitter the last couple of days was due to re-watching Jesus Camp as part of finding it in it’s entirety online. While I’m happy the movie was made, and while I think the MOVIE is a great one and obviously I believe strong that the subject matter should be discussed openly, actually watching it again, and seeing the parents and “spiritual leaders” indoctrinating young impressionable children kind of makes me a bit sick.
While I believe that faith and religion are a personal choice which should be allowed (although I would put an even stronger separation of church and state, and I would add a caveat that any religion found to be harmful to its members of the public at large should be subject to prosecution) I think that with regards to pushing young children into it is, as Dawkins says, “It’s time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation”.
I still want to continue this conversation, as I have learned a good bit from the comments of others, and I hope others have learned that not all atheists worship the devil, want to abort all babies, think religion should be banned, and want nothing more than to deny believers their right to believe. Only some of us fall into those categories.
I am however smart enough to understand that no matter how much evidence I show that the earth is 4-5 billion years old, and the universe is 14.7 billions years old, and that it would be impossible for a flood to have covered the planet in the recent past (and yes, 4000-5000 years ago is very recent), that a true believer can explain it ll away as “well that is how god chose to do it”.
The debate over the age of the universe and the planet, and even evolution is one that neither side can “win”, since whichever side is “wrong” (and while I’m sure it’s not MY side, I admit the possibly DOES exist that god created the word to look like evolution happened, and that billions of years have passed, I just think that particular hypothesis is not a scientific one, it’s a theological one) they will never admit it, because they feel the evidence supports their claims, and that the other side is misguided or blind to the facts.
Some arguments, though at time fun, are unlikely to lead to a resolution, or even a meeting of the mind, so they are better left to people much smarter than myself. While there are times I’m perfectly willing to get into the evolution debate or the flood debate or the 6500 vs 14.7 billion year debate, I don’t want this particular blog post to turn into that, because those debates often turn ugly, and I am hoping to keep this particular post civil.
I respect people’s right to follow the bible or koran or book of mormon or dianetics or whatever their holy book of choice may be, but sufficed to say, in my view (which is the view of the overwhelming majority of scientists much smarter than myself who study these things, many “facts” in these books are not reconcilable with the evidence around us.
Personally I respect somebody more for saying “I know the evidence doesn’t support this, but god said blah, blah, blah” than I do for misrepresenting the evidence to support their claim.
Now, back to the original discussion, were there any points which I overlooked in my fervor to question the bible’s validity?
You and I are on the same side when it comes to the some of the issues. Movies like Jesus Camp make me as mad as the make you. Maybe more so because people like that not only do incalculable damage to children and families but also cause further harm the cause of Christianity. When I want to explain or share my beliefs I have first distance myself from the loony fringe. Much as you and others may try to remain objective it’s nearly impossible when you have such inflammatory behavior coming from our side. I ask that you make a large distinction between people like myself and those represented in that documentary.
As far as textual criticism goes… My most recent point was the fantastic claims of scripture don’t means that the texts themselves have been corrupted. Those are two separate arguments.
If the texts are not corrupted then we can examine them on their own merits.
My point was to take look at what the Gospels say about Christ to see if there’s any potential validity to the unique claim of Christianity.
moot,
Both sides have their lunatics, we just try to keep ours away from camera crews. 😉
As for the textual discrepancies vs factual claims, let’s focus on that for a moment. You are right, that they are two very separate issues, and should be treated as such.
You mentioned that if a mistranslation occurred that changed the meaning of a passage, it should be caught by comparing it to other parts of the bible, in to avoid “a singular passage that stands in stark contrast to other scripture”.
A stated at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html:
“Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark–is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the “clean” ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem–a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ’s last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ’s father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father.”
Not bad for the first (real) paragraph in the first website returned when searching for “bible contradictions”.
I won’t waste the space here with copying too much more of the direct contradictions, you can check out that page if you’d like.
If you scroll down just a bit you’ll see many examples with the passage quoted directly side by side that contradict each other.
Another good page that does much the same thing, on the same website is:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html
So then either every one of the “16” per copy we’re talking about ended up causing these discrepancies, or the authors were human and contradicted themselves, or “god” changed his mind during the making of the bible, or …
Let’s start off at least with the order of creation (and leave out for the time being the order according to scientists, while we just look at the order in 2 conflicting accounts from genesis.
Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition:
Day 1: Sky, Earth, light
Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!)
Day 3: Plants
Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids)
Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.)
Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time)
Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did)
Note that there are “days,” “evenings,” and “mornings” before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as “Elohim,” which is a plural, thus the literal translation, “the Gods.” In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that “it was good.”
The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes:
Earth and heavens (misty)
Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth)
Plants
Animals
Eve, the first woman (from Adam’s rib)
How orderly were things created?
#1: Step-by-step. The only discrepancy is that there is no Sun or Moon or stars on the first three “days.”
#2: God fixes things up as he goes. The first man is lonely, and is not satisfied with animals. God finally creates a woman for him. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)
How satisfied with creation was he?
#1: God says “it was good” after each of his labors, and rests on the seventh day, evidently very satisfied.
#2: God has to fix up his creation as he goes, and he would certainly not be very satisfied with the disobedience of that primordial couple. (funny thing that an omniscient god would forget things)
There’s a couple of things that I would say to the contradictions point.
-First, very little of what you pointed out changed how I interpret and respond to real life events. That’s doesn’t mean it’s not open to scrutiny it’s just that the examples you cited won’t cause someone to run off and kill people as a mistake of translation or interpretation. (That’s not to say you couldn’t produce more drastic examples to that point.)
-Second, sometimes we frame a contradiction in either/or terms. That’s not always the case. While this wouldn’t explain every alleged contradiction away there is often a third (and more valid) way of explaining a seeming contradiction. For example, chapter 2 of Genesis deals with elements of creation directly relating to Adam. In a manner of speaking chapter one is the forest, chapter two are the trees.
Finally, I don’t mind talking about Genesis but I would tend to avoid it, not because it’s indefensible but because it lends itself so readily to the evolution/creation debate. A debate I admittedly am fairly ignorant on. I have reserved the right to decide exactly what I think about it as some point in the future.
-Thirdly, and you won’t like this much. Let’s say I have accepted as truth a certain proposition. If inherent to that proposition that a secondary proposition for which there is less evidence is also true, then I also accept as truth that second proposition.
As a believer I’m not blindly wiping away all contradictions I’m just assuming there is a valid explanation within my belief system. This will seem frustrating to you but I would need empirical evidence that a secondary proposition is true (i.e. there is no possible valid explanation or reason for bible contradictions) before I would discard my primary proposition.
I think you as an atheist would agree with that. Some faith healer can claim to have seem a miracle. This event may indeed look like a miracle. You may not be able to prove empirically it’s not, in fact, a miracle but your primary supposition (there is no God) would lead you to conclude that this miracle had a material cause.
I lost myself in that last argument a little so let me know if it totally doesn’t make sense.
I also think there’s a more philosophical argument to be had on the nature of truth and what it means to know something. I think that we may have two different standards for truth which will make the debate difficult. However I don’t want to diverge until we’ve seen this line of reasoning a bit further.
moot,
I understand the examples I used are not life and death examples, but they are among the most obvious glaring examples, and thus the easiest to debate, from both sides of the discussion. A very subtle contradiction may have a more profound impact on the meaning, but by virtue of being subtle, it’s easier to “explain away” and not as easy to come to a conclusion from the different sides. Something glaring and obvious, while not always “life and death” is easier to debate, since the two sides have more to work with.
As for Gen 2 explaining them in relation to adam, that is one idea, but Gen 2 clearly states that adam was created before plants and animals, while Gen 1 clearly states the exact opposite. Gen 2 does not say god created adam, then adam noticed the plants and animals, it says god created them in that order. This is not a case of point of view; this is a case of what order did things happen. Either A came before or after B, but Gen 1 and Gen 2 differ over this order. For a book written by an all powerful all knowing deity, a simple thing like what happened first should be fairly simple to get correct, and non –contradictory, in 2 successive chapters.
I do agree that I’d like to avoid the creation/evolution debate as much as possible, but again, I used this example to show internal inconsistencies, not to compare the bible to what science says. I do plan at a later date to do a while treatment on the origins of the universe and on evolutions vs. creationism, but this is not the place for that debate (yet).
To comment on your third point, let’s say that I accepted some scientific fact, perhaps that the earth goes around the sun. And let’s say for the sake of argument that only one book ever written had this information and that there was no possible way to prove or disprove this assertion. Now let’s say that in chapter one of this book it states that the earth moves clockwise around the sun, and chapter 2 states that it moves counter clockwise around the sun. Now it is true that either one of these statements could be correct, and not change the fact that the earth does go around the sun. However, if the only source of information on this phenomena can’t keep its facts straight internally, that would have to call into question the entire premise of the book, that the earth goes around the sun. This is not to say that it proves the earth does NOT go around the sun, it just means that this particular book does not do a good job of making that case.
Now obviously this was a simplistic example used to make a point, but replace “earth going around sun” with “god created universe”, and replace “clockwise” with plants then animals then man” and finally replace “counterclockwise” with “man then plants animals” and we have come to the exact contradiction that Gen 1 and 2 show us.
This in no way proves the bible is wrong, and it does not prove that god did not create the universe or the earth or man. What it does show is that the bible is possibly not the best source of information, or an infallible source of information, on this subject. It’s absolutely possible that god created the universe, the earth, plants, animals, and man. It’s even possible he did it in just under a week roughly 6500 years ago. It’s just that if the bible can’t be relied on to the story accurately 100% of the time, that perhaps it’s time to find other sources of information to help us understand what happened (i.e. science).
I think the point of your “faith healer” argument is essentially the idea that it’s impossible to PROVE a negative. Science can never disprove the existence of god, but it can show that god is not the only plausible explanation, and in every case we’ve come across so far as a species, he is not even a necessary explanation. This doesn’t prove “he” does not exist, it just proves “he” does not have to exist for the world around us to exist.
I appreciate your response. I think you’re right that contradictions should cause us to question the bible.
This is not to say I disbelieve in the scriptures. My belief in God is not solely predicated on the scripture being free from contradiction. Thus I can factor God into the problem of contradictions and assume then that there are valid explanations that do not lead to the conclusion God does not exist. I realize this is not a fair argument to prove the validity of scripture or to convince anyone of the existence of God it’s simply the thought I apply to my own understanding of biblical contradiction. Sorry if that’s frustrating.
I completely agree with your second point about science. I do think that science has offered alternative explanations for the existence of the universe. However, without turning this into a creation/evolution debate I don’t think science offers us a more plausible alternative.
Concerning the existence of the universe, I think as Aristotle and Einstein thought – that there is a middle ground between between excess and deficiency in this debate of creation. Einstein said specifically – “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” I think, at times, both theism and atheism make things more simple than they can possibly be.
I think we may be at a bit of an impasse concerning the validity of scripture. However, and I may be asking too much, concerning the validity of the New Testament, would you agree that what we currently posses is remarkably similar to what was originally written? I promise I’ll move on from this line of reasoning if need be.
moot,
I agree that what we have is “similar” to the original writings, however from what I have read of studies that did comparisons between the oldest known copies of the books of the old testament and the current old testament, there are many glaring differences.
I can’t think of the exact passage right now off hand, but there is a passage in the old testament (isiah I think, but I could be wrong) talking about the coming of the messiah. In it it refers to the messiah being born of a young woman (according to the oldest known copies in existence). However by the time the new testament was written this had already been mistranslated from young woman to virgin. Many scholars point to this as being the “reason” that mary, jesus’s mother, is referred to as a virgin, so that jesus’s birth would fulfill prophecy.
I also agree with the Einstein/Aristotle concept of taking the middle ground when it is a rational alternative. In the case of creation, I would submit that the closest to a “middle ground” would be that both sides are correct, that god created the universe and that the big bang occurred and life evolved (this is the stance the catholic church took under Pope John Paul II).
Since science can not now, and perhaps may never be able to tell us about the state of anything before the Big Bang, it is a reasonable stance to take that “god” set up the laws of the universe and created the singularity which became everything through the big bang. As part of this “setting up the laws”, “he” created the mechanism by which evolution through natural selection happens, and 14.7 billions years later (give or take) we are here to argue the point.
I personally see no reason to invoke god into this matter myself since i do not see “god’ as a necessary explanation for anything, but I do agree that it’s a reasonable middle ground between pure science and theology.
I know this next bit is going into an entirely new direction, but I believe it is relevant to the discussion of the validity and contradicting nature of the bible. There is also the fact of the bible (new testament) being a relatively small collection of books from a much large pool at the time. The gospel of mary, the gospel of judas, the gospel of philip, etc all show that at the time the bible was collected into a cohesive book, there were alternative sources of information. The fact that some of these were used and others ignored shows that man (and you may say that Constantine was guided by god) had a hand at least in compiling the books. This means that man choose which ones were “written by god” and which were not. We will both agree that anything man does is potentially in error, so unless god not only “wrote” each of these books himself, but then collected only the correct ones himself (or by inspiring Constantine) then the question remains of how can we be sure that the ones collected were the ones “he” wrote himself.
I know I got a bit off topic there, but I do think it’s another point which should be made when talking about the infallibility of the bible.
Rodibidably,
i haven’t been able to the questions that you asked as i have been very busy… but here is my response to all of the questions you asked. everything with the parenthesis are you questions with my answers.
(So this means for any specific theistic “faith” to be the correct faith, that a few things must be true:
(1) “God” must exist
My answer to that: I know that “God” exists because the Bible says that He exists
2) They must have picked the “correct” god
My answer to that: I have picked the “correct” god because the Bible says I have
3) They must have picked the “correct” version of that god
My answer to that: Same question as number two only in different terms so I give the same answer.
4) They must have picked the “correct” “holy book” to go along with that god
My answer to that: I have picked the correct book “the Bible” because God Himself gave us the Bible because He says through His Word that He has given us the Bible
5) They must have picked the “correct” translation of that holy book
My answer to that: There are many different versions of the Bible but the best correct translation is the KJV
6) They must have picked the “correct” interpretation of that translation
I don’t understand this question.
However, we are off topic at this point. My entire point of this post is not “who’s right” and “who’s wrong”. The point of this topic is “how do you know that you are right”.
2 answer to that question.
1. I know I am right because the Bible says that God, Jesus Christ is the Only way.
2. and Because of my personal experience with God, Jesus Christ.)
now I have an additional question to you… you will probably ask me now… “how do you know that the Bible is true? since the answer for all of my questions is the Bible… how do you know is true?” My answer to you is this ask me an additional 10 questions about how i know the Bible is true and I will prove to you that the Bible is the right Book and the rightful evidence for my answers.
pablo,
In short, you know that god exists, your god is the correct one, and that your version of that god is the correct version because the bible tells you.
And you know the bible is correct because god created it.
A is true because B says so
B is true because A told me so
For just a moment, replace bible with koran and god with allah and tell me why they are wrong.
Or replace bible with book of mormon.
Or replace bible with diantics and god with l ron hubbard.
In each case the book is claimed to be infallible by the authors, and the author’s claims are backed up because the book says so. In each case YOU as a christian think they are wrong.
Moving on, you know that your version of the bible is the correct version because, well you don’t actually say, you just seemingly know it.
As for the “interpretation” point, what I mean is that many people can read the same passage and come away with drastically different ideas on what it says. For example, many people claim that genesis is a literal account of history, and that the earth is 6500 years ago. Many other people (christians included) say that the account in genesis is an allegory, a story meant to make a point, not to tell the actual historical record. Whichever side of this debate you are on, you must think the other side is wrong. So for you know “KNOW” that your belief system is right, you must “KNOW” that you’re interpretation of the bible is right.
Now I do not want to get into the whole evolution/creation debate at this time, so whichever side of that argument you are on is really irrelevant to this post for now, but you must have your reasons that you “KNOW” your side is the correct side.
I’m not sure exactly what it is you want from me with the “10 question” at this point. I think one would suffice. Explain the contradictions in the bible. If you need examples of some of the contradictions, scroll up and check out the recent back and forth between myself and “mootpoint” on this subject, or check out the following links:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html
These are just the first two links on the first website returned when searching for “bible contradictions”, so they are by no means a definitive list of all the issues, they are just two people’s summary of some that they happened to find interesting enough to write about.
One quick contradiction I can suggest would be to recite the order that things were created according to Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 (hint, they don’t match), and explain the difference, since the book you’re reading is supposed to be “infallible”.
Rod …
I’m back. Will attempt to answer some of what you skillfully threw back at me. Here goes:
On the notion that evolution created relgion: If there is no god, what’s wrong with that? And why are so many atheists so hellbent on proving that all of the people who believe in a god (who are simply acting in accordance with natural forces) are the crazy ones? I mean, really … what’s the harm? Or is there some notion that belief in a higher power is the root cause of evil in the world?
Further, IF faith is a trait preserved by the evolutionary cycle, wouldn’t a faithless person be in danger of being “naturally selected” out of existance? I don’t know … just thinking aloud on that one. Even if “times have changed” so that faithlessness is to be desired, wouldn’t one need to be wary given that mother nature chose to give most humans that trait?
On relgion taking away personal responsibility: I’d actually agree … in most cases it does. Most relgions (at least all of those I reject … yes, I see the ironic fortune there … but it’s true!) do give people cause to think they are somehow superior to other people. However, belief in Jesus Christ (and this is regardless of whether it is true or not … by the way) actually should produce a humility that recognizes that I am not only no better than anyone else, I’m likely much, much worse. Ultimately, my salvation/redemption comes not from how closely I follow the rules, but by how perfect my Savior (Jesus) met the demands of a holy and righteous God. Instead of going around hating people who aren’t like me (a sinful tendency found in us all) and definitely instead of killing people who fit my warped mold of whoever I percieve God to be telling me to kill (inside or outside of my chose religious text), that kind of unmerited grace from God should drive me to live out the redemption … essentially practice what’s been given to me.
I disagree with your framing of the implications of hate for atheists versus me, as a (extremely literal) Bible-believing Christian. If I hate anyone (homosexuals included …), I am actually in direct disobedience to the words of Jesus Christ and, according to the writings of John, my hate is the spiritual equivilent (meaning it is worthy of the same punishment) as if I’d killed the target of my hate. Christ loved me when I was an enemy of God, working spitefully against Him. The least I can do is not hate someone … no matter how grevous I think their sin is.
On my contributions to the conversation: Thank you … glad I’m offering at least one or two plausible ideas. I also appreciate you challenging my thinking like this.
On the references about sexism in the Bible: I’ll rebutt most, if not all … but almost didn’t do this for fear that we’ll be getting in to an interpretation game. And we may yet. But one thing I take away is that if you come to the Bible looking for a fight or problems (or frankly an excuse for bad behavior), you’re going to find it. It’s just that kind of book. But if one takes it seriously, reads and interprets every passage in light of the bigger picture and other passages, I believe you’ll find it to be the basis of everything that most people would label as moral, upright living.
1 Corinthians 11:3 — that passage actually points out the inherit equal value of men and women. The woman’s relationship to the man is actually equated in this passage with Christ’s relationship to the Father. The trinitarian doctrine explains that all three persons of the Godhead are one God, and all three persons are equal in power, glory and honor. Therefore, this passage isn’t pointing to a lower level woman, but a woman who (compare this to Philippians chapter 2) willingly submits to the function for which she was created. She knows that she is equal to a man in every respect, but instead of trying to “be” the man, is exactly the feminine creature, fulfilling all of those roles God gave to women with dignity and grace.
1 Corinthians 11:8 – 9 — Again, a passage that shows the equality of woman to men. This is saying that neither sex has superiority because of their inter-dependance. Man cannot live without a woman (or at least not in the way God intended). However, woman would not have any existance on the planet if not for men (Eve was created from Adam’s side).
1 Corinthians 14:34 – 35 — This passage specifically goes to roles in the church. A few verses away from this, there are also instructions that people ought not be talking over one another in the church too. Just because one person is told to do a certain set of tasks to fulfill her obligation while the other is told to do another set — that does not make either superior, only different. Actually, even if you believe in evolution, you have to admit there are things women are suited to do while men are suited to do others. Can both do all? Sure … examples abound. But we’re not talking about what’s possible, but what’s best. Further, is a woman somehow superior to a man becuase she can give birth or a man superior because he can pee standing up? Of course not … these are simply differences. Each sex deserves equal respect and this passage does not teach anything differently.
Ephesians 5:22 – 25 — Admittedly this passage does indicate leadership role for a man. But I’ll tell you this … whoever wins the presidential election this fall, while certainly the leader of the USA will NOT be superior to any one person (and most assuredly not superior to the entire nation). Leadership means just that … leadership. Someone’s got to drive this thing.
Also, if you keep reading that passage, you’ll notice that it DEMANDS that a husband be so in love with his wife that he’d give his own life for her quality of life. That he is to care for her above his own selfish need. Good luck doing that if you’re the male chauvinist jerk that you’d have to be to believe that this passage says men are somehow superior.
Colossians 3:18 — Ditto what the Ephesians passage
Romans 7:2 — This particular thing cuts both ways, to men and women. Basically its a rule that one shouldn’t divorce. Remarriage is only allowed if the spouse is dead. See I Corinthians 7 for more on this.
1 Peter 3:1 -3 — This says a lot of what the Ephesians and Colossians passages say. But then, adds to it the idea of what a dignified woman should look and act like. Since when is it putting a woman down to say that what’s on the inside is way more important than what she looks like?
1 Timothy 2:9 – 15 — What you’ve overlooked here is a key concept that was practically unheard of in the ancient world … “let the women learn.”
Shoot, that was hardly even allowed in this country until the last century and is unheard of in most asian and african cultures.
The part you focus on when reading it (that she must be silent and not usurp over men) has everything to to with the roles in the church as outlined above.
Leviticus 12:2, Leviticus 12:5 — This was actually more of a protection for the woman that any sort of suggestion that women were inferior. In ancient cultures, male children were prized. But if a woman had one of those terrible girls (sarcasm!), she wasn’t much of a wife. So it would be tempting to get right back to the baby-making business quickly after having a baby girl. After a boy … not as much need.
Therefore, this longer requirement for calling her unclean was a way to keep that lecherious dude off of her for a few days to let her body heal somewhat at least.
Dude, God loves women … He made half of us that way and compares the highest achievement of His creation and Redemptive Plan (the church) to a woman (Ephesians 5). God’s got nothing against women. It’s a small, evil man who uses the Bible as an excuse to abuse women.
Further, it’s no abuse for men and women to fulfill the natural, God-given roles in society and the family. It’s actually abuse to all of us to try to do otherwise.
Here’s some more of my thinking on this specific subject:
http://www.archive.org/download/SeptLessonUpdate/WS_10005.WMA
http://www.archive.org/download/ICorinthians11Pt2/WS_10001.WMA
Rod … one clarification on the Leviticus interpretation.
I did a little more digging on that and found that most scholars actually point to the circumscion rite as the cause for the variance in “impure” days.
First, as any woman can attest, childbirth is a huge drain of physical resources. So a 60+ day sabbatical is actually probably a little short (what’s that, 8/10 weeks?) by today’s standards.
Second, if God required the same time of separation for males, women would not be able to participate in the rite of circumscion for their boys on the 8th day. So if they’re declared “pure” at day 7, they can be part of the ceremony.
mjtiley,
It is not religion or faith that we object to, it is the people who use religion (ether intentionally or unintentionally) as a way to push forward their own agenda, hatred, bigotry, and actions under the cloak of region.
If 19 atheists crash 4 planes into buildings an kill thousands of people, nobody is going to excuse their actions because they believed that god told them to do that. When 19 muslims do that many people around the world felt they were justified because they were following their interpretation of the Koran.
If a group run by atheists was systematically raping little boys and then hiding the fact by moving the pedophiles to other parts of the country when allegations surfaced, it would not be excused by some as a sickness that god can help them overcome. When the catholic church does this, they write a few checks and the priests get little if any legal action taken against them.
And I understand that you may think the catholic church has corrupted “god’s word” and you may think that muslims are deluded to follow mohammed, but from the atheists view point, all religions, and all religious people are starting off at the same point. Your version of Christianity may be better or worse than those, but no sect is blameless, just ask Ted Haggard if you need another example.
As for your point of the faithless being selected out by evolutionary factors, I can make a few basic points, but obviously, I’m not an expert on this, so I’d need more time to come up with a complete explanation for why this is not applicable. Natural selection is based off of genetic mutations allowing the individual to have a better chance to survive in their environment. Humans have mostly conquered our environment through science, medicine, engineering, etc, and as such the evolutionary pressures on the typical person in a “western” country are negligible. If this was not the case then children with hereditary diseases would be significantly more likely to die than they currently are. While there are still some evolutionary pressures on people in the “western world” they are minor compared to our ancestors. According to Daniel Dennett, religion may have helped us deal with evolutionary pressures by giving us a sense of community and enabling us to work towards common goals which aided in the survival of the group. Dennett’s book explains this in much greater detail and much more eloquently than I can give it justice in this reply, but the short version is that we needed it during our evolution, but much like the ability to throw a spear or hunt wild game, it’s not really a necessary part of our daily life any more.
The other point to make on this topic is that in evolutionary terms, we can outgrow the need for certain things. Sometimes those things disappear (we have much less hair than our ancient ancestors, etc), and sometimes those things hang around ,but are no longer used or used but no longer necessary for survival (appendix, tonsils, gall bladder, etc). Faith could very well be another of those things that “stuck around” but it no longer needed for survival.
While I’m not saying either one of these examples is THE answer, they are both plausible explanations, and I’d guess is that THE answer is somewhere along those lines.
I’d say that christianty does a pretty good job of taking away personal responsibility as well. When somebody blows up an abortion clinic, it is not because they are evil, it’s because jesus does not want babies to die. When somebody protests funerals of soldiers who died in Iraq saying that they died because the US is too “gay friendly” it’s not because they are a homophobic jackass, it’s because “god hates fags”. While you personally may not do these things, you MUST admit that there have been horrendous, despicable acts done in the name of jesus and your god over the centuries.
You claim the bible is “the basis of everything that most people would label as moral, upright living”. Can you show me the passage that states in no uncertain terms that slavery is immoral? Can you show me the passage that says all people deserve the same rights no mater their race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion (or lack there of)?
For any passage that you can come up with says “slavery is bad, don’t do it”, I’ll quote you 5 that gives rules for slaves and slave owners to abide by (hen really the ONLY rule should be “DON’T HAVE SLAVES, IT”S REALLY BAD”. For any passage that you come up with that says that ALL people should be respected and treated equally, I’ll give 5 examples of where god condemns, kills, or has somebody killed for being the “wrong” type of person.
I’m not saying the bible (or religion) does not have anything positive to say. There are some great passages, some great rules, some great stories; but if an all powerful being is going to write up a book with rules for us to live by, you’d think that “slavery = bad” might be fairly high up on the list on no-no’s, perhaps before “don’t work on Sundays” (I think we can both agree that not owning a slave is a tad bit higher on the moral scale than going to church once a week).
I believe that all religions have some good things to offer, but I that any time you have an institution where blind faith is prized above all that you have the potential for horrible acts of evil. It could be that jesus is god. It could be that the earth was created 6500 years ago. It could be that l ron hubbard was right for all I know. But any time you have an organization where horrible acts can be done under the cloak of “god’s will” there should be massive amounts of skepticism and questioning.
I completely concur that slavery is evil and wrong. That’s important to note for general purposes, but also as context for this question:
Why do you (from an atheistic perspective) believe slavery to be immoral/wrong/evil?
Is it merely an evolutionary glitch? Or do you (as the only divinity in the universe … and I mean “you” in the universal sense, not Rod individually) just believe it to be so? Why — beyond self-preservation (I mean … dang, who wants to be a slave?) would you ever go so far as to label slavery wrong?
I also believe that child molestation is evil and wrong. So then, compare the slavery issue with the situation of a child molester (who, for the sake of argument was born with this desire by some evolutionary glitch). For this situation, let’s say he’s an atheist … or at least one who doesn’t answer to some higher moral power outside of himself. Then, in his view of the world, he finds it ok (preferrable even) to have sexual relationships with little kids.
If my own moral compass is my authority, who am I then, to say that he’s wrong? Particularly if the only reason I find it wrong is because I don’t like it or find it personally reprehensible? Am I not just be a molester-phobe?
Ultimately, I believe you’ll have a reasonable rationalization for this — I don’t see this as some sort of huge “gotcha.” My bigger point is to question what your moral authority is as an atheist.
Why are some things ok or even good (lollipops, homosexuality, monogamous relationships, abortion, public education, kindness to strangers for some examples) in your view, while others (fundamentalist religionists, abortion protesters, George Bush, child molesters, slavery, oppression of women, kicking dogs, cursing strangers for some examples) are positively evil and wrong?
Is it just an evolutionary thing? If so, would you argue that it’s concievable that we all will be having sex with children (or some other currently “despicable” behavior) in a couple thousand years, thinking it’s morally ok?
Or is a democratic rule thing? What if the mob goes awry (1940s German kind of went off the deep end like that)?
mjtilley,
I’ve quoted this passage from Richard Dawkins a couple of times already, but here goes again:
“Religious people do not derive their morality from religion. I disagree (with the interviewer) on this point. Almost all of us do agree on moral grounds where religion had no effect. For example we all hate slavery, we want emancipation of women – they are all our moral grounds. These moral grounds started building only a few centuries ago and long after all major religions were established. We derive our morality from the environment we live in, Talk shows, Novels, Newspaper editorials and of course by the guidance of parents. Religion might only have a minor role to play in it. An atheist derives his morality from the same source as a religious people do.”
So you’re saying that morals are not absolute?
Could you really concieve of a world where children are raped and black people are enslaved as being an objectively moral world — as long as the talk shows, novels, newsapapers and parental guidance supported it?
I’m sorry, but even if I were to concede that god is just a social construct, I can’t buy that. Slavery was just as wrong in 1800 B.C as it is in 1800, 2008 and 2800. No legislation or social mores made it good at at one time and immoral at another.
I point to 1940s Germany and 1960s in the southern US as examples where this version of morality failed us miserably. It takes men and women of courage and absolute morality to stand against such tyranny of environmentally-influenced moralism.
And then I ask again … where, oh, where will those people get their morality? I sure hope its not from their environment!
I appreciate your saying that God is a reasonable “first cause” stance. I did have a question – You said that you see no need to invoke God in the “first cause” scenario. What is your response to a the fact that the universe exists when it is more likely that nothing would exist?
The issue of the canonization of scripture is an important one. I think it’s a perfectly valid line of reasoning to take against Christianity, so here’s my brief (and slightly ignorant defense.)
With all apologies to Dan Brown and his hypothesis – It’s well documented that Constantine nor the Council of Nicea had anything to do with determining the content of the bible. It’s a myth that has been passed along the internet without evidence or repudiation. You can actually read the articles from the council and there is no reference to scripture content (or, for that matter, a close vote on Jesus’ divinity.)
I can give you web links for the information below if you like. I just didn’t want to clutter the post up.
It’s also pretty well documented that as early as 115 AD there was a clear concept of which gospels were valid and which were hoaxes. Given that you potentially had people that had met Christ and certainly had potentially met the authors of the gospels it would make it easier to invalidate the hoaxes.
By the time of Irenaeus(about 180), a bishop in modern France, the idea of four Gospels was axiomatic.
About the same time the Apostolos (the collection of Paul’s epistles) were also distinguished as scripture.
Origen (185-254) mentions the four Gospels, the Acts, the thirteen epistles of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation as being universally acknowledged.
I could bore you with other details but some of the gospels that are controversial today were simply disregarded in their day.
It’s a little amusing that the passage of time is used to question the validity of the books accepted while at the same time used to legitimize the books that were rejected.
By the way responding to some of the above arguments must be a bit like shooting fish in a barrel. I’m a little surprised at the circular reasoning that is being employed in people’s defense of their faith. Even as a believer that sort of flawed logic, if it represented the best we could do, would push me toward skepticism.
mjtilley,
“concieve of a world where children are raped”
Do you mean by catholic priests, or by other people?
“black people are enslaved as being an objectively moral world”
Yes, look at the United states are recently as 200 years ago, it was considered perfectly moral and justified based on various interpretations of the bible.
If slavery was so immoral and always has been, then WHY did the bible never condemn it? Why instead did it give rules on how to treat slaves and how to act if you are a slave. Nowhere in the bible does it come out and say plainly “don’t own slaves, it’s really wrong”.
I agree slavery is horrible, but it was perfectly accepted in society up until very recently. And the bible did absolutely nothing to stop this practice, it was stopped by society changing gradually over many many years.
If we got our morality from the bible, and the bible alone we would be stoning sinners, we would be massacring people who don’t agree with our religious views, we would still be owning slaves, and we would be going to hell for eating shellfish, or working on the wrong day of the week.
I for one am GLAD we get our morality from society and not from a book written by people hundred or thousands of years ago.
moot,
Who says that it’s more likely that nothing would exists? Steven Hawkins and others have put forth many realistic scenarios that the universe is finite in space, but could have no beginning or end. This space is not enough to do their theory justice, but I suggest reading the Universe In A Nutshell and a the undated versions of A Brief History Of Time for more details.
Others say that this universe is part of a multiverse and that not all of the universe in this multiverse can sustain life. We happen to be able to ask the questions about the beginning of time because we happen to live in one of the universe that can support intelligent life.
Or the truth could be something vastly different than any of our current theories. In my view the important thing is that we don’t stop looking, don’t stop asking questions, and don’t stop wondering and just accept that “god” is the reason. Perhaps “god” did create us all, but if we just accept that as fact with no evidence, we may miss out on some other explanation.
I realize that The Di Vinci Code is fiction, and no, I’m not basing my comments on Dan Brown’s work, to matter how fun a read the book was. However, there are documents from the catholic church’s archives showing that there was a directed campaign to squash out all dissenting opinions and writings on jesus’s life and ministry before, during and after Constantine’s reign. I have a few books at home that go into great detail on the subject, but unfortunately I don’t have access to them right now, so I’ll have to skim through them again this weekend to come up with a few good examples for you.
I don’t think the passage of time is what gives something validity or takes away validity, but I can make a few brief points on the subject.
Time can add validity (of a kind) in that if something is shown to be some a specific period, it is much less likely to romanticize the period (think king author stories written well after the events supposedly “happened” showing a purely romanticized version of the story) and more likely to show a historically accurate account.
Time can remove validly (of a kind) in that if you live your life in accordance to the best medical practices of 150 years ago, you’re likely to die at a significantly younger age than somebody who lives their life in accordance to the most recent medical discoveries of today. It does not take away anything as a historical record from the older sources, but newer information can clear up misconceptions and falsehoods that were in the original volumes.
This is not to say that time is the only factor to be used in determining the validity of something, but it can give you a framework with which to help build an opinion.
As for the “fish in a barrel” comment, at times it’s kind of fun showing people such obvious flaws in logic, but other times it’s very disheartening to realize that some people no matter what evidence is placed before them will never consider an alternative to the beliefs they already hold. I can’t say exactly what it would take to prove to me that jesus is god, (which of course would also have to show that god exists) and that god is essentially the god of the bible, but I fully admit that the possibility exists that I could be swayed with the correct verifiable evidence. Many true believers could never be swayed by any amount of evidence, and to me, that’s sad that they are unwilling to budge from preconceived notions.
Looking back at a few of my longer posts in here, I can be really long winded on some of my comments/questions/replies. I really need to try to spend more time to make my points more concisely, but it’s hard when you’re just typing as the thoughts come to you. Perhaps I should write up what I want to get across and then wait and edit it afterwards, but generally I am trying to make my point and move on to the next one, or get back to work that actually pays my mortgage. (If anybody here wants to volunteer to pay my mortgage I’ll try my best to shorten my replies for everybody’s benefit.)
On slavery … we both ought to be careful of our definitions. What may have been called slavery or servitude by the Bible, you and I may call a job. That said, the Bible is very clear (and the Mosaic law is no exception … in fact, is the rule) that we ought to treat all humans with dignity, regardless of socio-economic or demographic status. While the Bible doesn’t prohibit me from holding down a job and being a servant for another human being (my family is thankful for that …), it does prohibit that other person from being abusive to me.
On the Bible not stopping slavery … Assuming we’re talking about slavery as you and I think of slavery, I’d argue that the Bible is what it is … never changing. It’s people who choose to ignore or apply what it tells us. People have also killed one another for centuries … and one could say the Bible’s doing nothing to stop that.
As for the “warped” morality of the Bible … Yes, one would be stoning people and killing other religion and treating their fully-owned slaves well, IF you believed that the only Bible was the first couple books of the Bible. But if you apply the New Testament and see Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the demands of the Old Testament, you understand that many of those laws served their purpose (like before people understood the concept of being “free” in Christ, among other things)and were no longer needed. I believe it was the prophet Jeremiah that prophesied that under the new covenant, God would “circumsize” our hearts … meaning change us on the inside without the need for draconian external regulations (which isn’t to pooh-pooh law and order .. but is to say that moral men will be moral).
I continue to NOT be happy about the idea of getting morality from society (regardless of the truth of the matter). That only works as long as you don’t live under some dictatorship (think Cuba) or in a country (think USA circa 2002 or Germany circa 1940) where there’s some odd fever sweeping the nation. I don’t like the idea of other flawed human beings dictating (esp. doing so in an accidental way … simply by default of the way they live) what is supposed to be the moral center of right and wrong.
That said, I think you’re right in that most claims of right and wrong are really based on this versus the revealed truth from God. God’s Word is most often used to “fact check” what we already believe … it’s the rare bird that literally gets his marching orders from Scripture, regardless of what he personally thinks. Hence religious texts of all sorts being used as backdrops for the most heinous of acts and (very unfortunately) being praised by duped followers.
I think that the question of the validity of the scriptures and that of first cause are similar in a way. We’ve come our respective beliefs by weighing the evidence and determining that what our conclusions are likely if not empirically verifiable. It’s fascinating that two people can look at the same evidence and come to opposing conclusions.
However I’ve maintained for quite a while that belief and unbelief aren’t so much a matter of evidence but an interpretation of the evidence.
Your most recent response to my post is a great segue into a more philosophical point I wanted to discuss.
It seems that there are two types of knowledge or truth. There is empirical, unassailable and readily verifiable facts and there is the type of knowledge that we derive from those facts. You could maintain that both the facts and the conclusion from the facts are “truth”
Maybe a good example is faithfulness in marriage. I know my wife is faithful, not because I’ve have empirical knowledge of every moment of her day but because of a conclusion I draw based on the verifiable knowledge I do posses.
However I would maintain that an atheist uses the second type of knowledge to establish his own beliefs, all the while demanding the first type of knowledge from the believer.
I realize that this leads to the concept of the null hypothesis and the burden of proof but I think it’s fair to point out that we’re both dealing in the second type of truth. In essence an atheist exacts a higher standard of knowledge from the believer than for himself.
I think then that the debate is often derailed before it even really starts because the atheist is asking for the first type of knowledge concerning God and the believer is offering the second.
I’m still giving a lot of thought to the null hypothesis, Occam’s Razor and the burden of proof but I think this concept of two types of truth is crucial to this conversation. I think making this distinction will give this dialogue more clarity.
mjtilley,
Please do me one favor, read the entire reply before beginnings to write your response. Most of my comments are merely meant as drastic overstated examples, and not meant as actual points for you to counter. I already know your answers to all of the “examples” in the beginning half of this post, so there is really no reason to go through them here, I’m only using them to make a point to the absurd extreme.
So you’re saying that in the old testament we were ordered to stone people, and then the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing god changed his mind about 2000 years. For an omniscient being that seems rather shortsighted to not set up the “correct” rules form the beginning, doesn’t it?
If you don’t believe you get your morality from society, then by all means don’t eat shellfish (personally I love lobster), don’t ever say “god damn” (even if you stub your toe late at night), don’t ever want anything that another person has (how a person can stop this is beyond me), and for gods sake, don’t mow the lawn on a Sunday.
Also feel free that if two angels come to your house and an angry mob wants to take them away, instead offer up your daughters to be raped by the crowd. Meanwhile I’ll be sneaking out the back door behind the angels and my daughters.
Oh, and who could forget, that when you leave Sodom, or was it Gomorrah, and your wife turns into a pilar of salt, don’t fall asleep because your daughters might rape you to continue the human race.
All lovely examples of morality from the bible.
Ok, NOW you can start writing your reply as you read the rest, thanks for holding off till now 🙂
Or let’s for just a second both take a drastic leap of faith. I’ll agree to assume that god exists. You agree to assume that it’s not “your” god, but it’s the hindu gods. I hope for your sake you’ve never eaten a steak or a hamburger, because you just ate a sacred animal. Geez, that’s not gonna look good in vishnu’s eyes.
Perhaps god exists, but there is a chance that “god” in not the god that YOU believe, there is a chance that an entirely different god is the “real” god, and you are worshiping the wrong one, and following the rules layed out in a false book. In that instance, which is better, following a book blindly because you believe that “god” wrote it, or following the norms of society, which is what we all do anyways.
By your logic, any society that does not believe in “your” god should be an evil immoral hedonistic place. Are children being raped and people enslaved in India on any more regular a basis than in the US? Are people in China running around killing each other randomly because they have never read the bible? No, they follow their accepted norms of society which are fairly universal (some countries are a bit behind others from my point of view, but we’re mostly universal).
moot,
Actually, even the staunchest atheist, including Richard Dawkins admits the possibility of a god (Dawkins himself puts his assuredness in his atheism at 95%, leaving 5% for god).
Where your argument I think is flawed is that we don’t believe that god does not exists because we know everything and we have not seen him. We believe that based on the evidence there is no need to use “god” to explain things, and with no direct evidence FOR god the default position should be that there is no god.
If I tell you that the light in your refrigerator is turned on when you open the door by an invisible elf who can not be seen, measured or detected by any means known to man, you’d rightly throw me out of your house and call me bat-shit-insane. You would put no stock in my claims, even though you could not “prove” it to be false.
To atheists, god is just another elf in the refrigerator that has no evidence to support it.
Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Proof
1) The story of Lot you give is an example of how NOT to live. When telling the Truth, sometimes it is necessary to give negative examples.
2) I don’t need to play what if games since I am convinced that the God of the Bible is the one true and living God. I am, as I pointed out from your original question, so convinced of that that I am resting completely in the finished work of my savior, Jesus Christ … not in anything I did/will do or even think/feel/believe.
3) God did not change His mind about anything. He does, however, offer mercy to whom He will show mercy. Fact is, we all deserve eternal torture in hell. The fact that you and I actually can, with cool and calm heads have this discussion questioning His very existance without fear of being swallowed into the pit of hell right now is a huge testament to that fact. The problem with some of the assumptions you’ve made about the Law of God is that you assume humans beings are basically good and deserve a fair handshake from the Ruler of the Universe. We don’t. We screwed that up. It is God’s grace that offers us the opportunity to only have a taste of hell now … and not be consumed with it.
4) I don’t want you to take from anything I’ve said that I feel somehow morally superior to anyone — least of all you. The fact is, I know me … I know how I think, what I want to do (heck .. what I do!). And I know that I do not have moral high ground. All I have is the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit (not something I earned on my own … and definitely not done by me) that provides me with the faith to take God — the most important person in the universe — at His Word and to be able to trust wholly in The Truth found in God’s Word. I need to reiterate, this isn’t about me being better than anyone. The bad news though is that I can’t convince anyone of this truth … I’m not smart enough. This kind of faith can only be granted by God Himself. Call that a cop out — and to some extent it is … but this is what is talked about in I Corinthians 1 and 2.
rod,
you said
“In short, you know that god exists, your god is the correct one, and that your version of that god is the correct version because the bible tells you.
And you know the bible is correct because god created it.
A is true because B says so
B is true because A told me so”
You are right and i’m wrong. I apologize for the misunderstanding. that statement that I wrote contradicts itself. i wrote that without revising it at the end… what i meant to say was this… I know and I have proved that, without a shadow of a doubt, the Bible is true and infallible– therefore because of this then everything that is written in the Bible is correct. Well, on top of that, the Bible says that God gave us His word therefore since, in my point of view, the Bible is correct in what it says- then what it says about God giving us His word is correct and therefore it makes it the “right” book.
i will give you my answer for the rest later.
mjtilley,
1) Lot and his family were saved from sodom and gomorrah by god because they were the only ones worth of living. Interesting that the VERY FIRST THING they did after being saves was the wife disobeyed god and was killed and the daughters raped their drunken passed out father. I’d hate to think what the OTHER people who were not “good enough” to be saved must have done to pissed off god.
2) It was intended as a thought experiment, but if you’re unwilling/unable to even participate in that, I’m not sure what to say.; it’s not like I’m asking you to sacrifice your son to prove your faith in me, I mean god.
Can you admit that even if you’re convinced of something with all your heart, with everything you know and every fiber of your being that there is even a small chance that you, as a fallible human being could perhaps, even potentially be mistaken?
If you’re unable to do this, then I’m not sure there is any response I could ever make that would have any point.
3) “The fact that you and I actually can, with cool and calm heads have this discussion questioning His very existance without fear of being swallowed into the pit of hell right now is a huge testament to that fact”
OR PERHAPS, it’s a testament to the fact that either we don’t deserve to go to hell, or even that god doesn’t exist in the way that you think. Nah, you’re right, it must prove that he exists and we’re scum, of course, how could I have thought anything else. Praise Jesus!
“We screwed that up”
No, according to your believes adam and eve fucked up, not you and me. Holding the great great great great (I don’t know how many greats, but let’s just say it’s a lot) grandchildren should not be held responsible for the actions of people dead long before they were born.
I’m not certain you live in the US, but I’m guessing you might. Should YOU PERSONALLY pay slave reparations because somebody in your family who died 100 years before you were born owned a slave? No that would be unfair and just plain idiotic to punish the innocent for the actions of their ancestors.
4) I understand that you believe with every fiber of your being that you are correct. But so did the 19 hijackers who flew planes into buildings on 9/11. Just because you believe something strongly does NOT BY ITSELF mean that it is true. There are roughly 6.7 billion people on the earth, and roughly 2 billion of them call themselves some type of christian. The majority of those are catholic (somewhere around 1.2-1.3 billion i believe). As a christian you beleive that the other 4.7 billion people in the world are deluded, misguided, and wrong. And perhaps you think the catholics are too (I’m not going to assume you do, but I know many christians do).
Just keep in mind that the “other” 4.7 – 6 BILLION PEOPLE on the earth believe that they are right, and that you are the one who is deluded, misguided, and wrong.
one more thing- i dont seemingly know that the Bible is correct… I have proved it to be correct. I will never believe something that contradicts itself
pablo,
It is not a question of “right and wrong”, it ‘s a question of coming to an understanding of each others view, and perhaps acceptance.
Yes what you wrote was circular reasoning, and thus not a reasonable argument. But that does not mean by itself you are “wrong”, it means this particular point has no meaning for or against your argument.
What gets me most of all in this reply however is “I know and I have proved that, without a shadow of a doubt, the Bible is true and infallible”
Where is this proof that goes beyond a shadow of a doubt. Where is the evidence? How did you “prove” this when in all of human history nobody had been able to prove the existence or non-existence of god before you?
pablo,
Proof is a VERY hard thing to come by. We can’t yet PROVE that gravity exists, although we have a hell of a lot of evidence that nothing has ever “fallen upwards” yet. When you say something is “proven” this is a VERY DRASTIC statement, and generally should be backed up by quite a bit of evidence.
that is why i told you to ask me ten questions that would prove the Bible right… so that I can prove to you that it is right.
one more quick thing though. i know you dont want to discuss this at the moment and I dont want to either. to me it seems that the interpretation point is irrelevant right now because once someone has proved that he has the right “religion” as you call it- then they can get into the interpretation of it; but, im going to throw this your way real quick. I believe in the literal account in Genesis as an account of history not as an allegory because if you read in Genesis 1:26-31 it says
“26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
29And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.
30And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.
31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.” KJV
If you notice, it says that God created man on the sixth day. Well, many Christians tend to say that creation really took 7000 years 1000 years for each “day”. They base their argument on this verse of the Bible:
2 Peter 3:8
“8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.” KJV
So, some Christians say that each day of creation took exactly 1000 years. Well, if you notice closely the verse says that one day is with the Lord AS a thousand years and a thousand years AS one day. In other words one day is with the Lord LIKE a thousand years and a thousand years LIKE one day. It doesnt say that- one day is with the Lord IS a thousand years and a thousand years IS one day.
It is just like sometimes we feel that one day is going so slow that we feel like hours have passed by when in reality only one hour has passed. and when a year has passed by we feel like only yesterday passed when in reality only 365 days just passed.
This thinking contradicts itself because the Bible says in Genesis 5:5
that-
“5 And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.”
Therefore if God created the earth in 7000 years then that means that from day 6 to day 7 there was a span of 1000 years and that means that Adam must have died before he even reached Day 7. that contradicts itself. how can God could have created Adam in day 6 without him reaching “Day” 7? No that is illogical… God created the earth in 7 literal days. Therefore the Genesis account is literal and not allegorical.
Im sorry i wished i had more time to give you the proofs for the “contradictions”. I will have to do it later.
I’m afraid I must not have made myself clear. I essentially said the same thing you did.
We come to the conclusions we’ve come to because we’ve assessed the facts and have determined that God does or doesn’t exist.
Neither of us believe what we do because we have empirical proof supporting our opinion or against the opposite conclusion. We have weighed the evidence and determined that what we believe is the most likely conclusion.
Therefore I’m saying that evidence you accept to support your beliefs is secondary to the facts. (It is a conclusion reasoned from, not specifically implied by, the facts. You are asking us (fairly I suppose) to provide primary facts to support beliefs that are also derived secondary to the facts.
You’re asking us to take a naturalistic approach to a supernatural topic.
Now listen, I’m not saying that’s bad or wrong. I’m still working through the philosophy that places the burden of proof on the Christian, I’m just saying this to help frame the debate.
Christians, to support their beliefs, have historically have offered facts from which to derive a rational conclusion. However atheists (again fairly) want cold hard proof not facts that in their minds may or may not lead one to believe in God.
In other words when we debate we’re often speaking two different languages. It’s what makes the debate difficult but not at all impossible.
pablo,
There are not 10 questions that you could ever answer that would “prove” the bible to be true, just as there are no 10 questions you could ask me to respond to that would “prove” god to be false. You’ve already stated that you beleive the earth is (roughly) 6500 years old which contradicts EVERYTHING that science tells us about this (and don’t quote answersingenesis.com, EVERYTHING they say has been refuted more times than I care to count).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To “prove” the bible to be correct you would need extraordinary evidence, and if such evidence existed, it would have hit the scientific community, the media, etc. The pope would be prank calling up Richard Dawkins and calling him a fool, and science would be disbanded since it would be proven to be false at it’s very nature.
All reasonable historical scholars, even the religious ones concede that the bible’s creation story conflicts with scientific evidence. For you to claim that you can “prove” that the bible’s version is correct is deluded and/or irrational. The ONLY way the bible can be an actual historical account is if god created the universe to LOOK AS IF it was created 14.7 billion years ago and LOOK AS IF the earth formed 5 billion years ago and for life to LOOK AS IF evolution happened. This is not a hypothesis that can ever be tested, and thus can not be proven or disproven by any rational scientific means.
It is possible that the bible is correct, but the scientific evidence is NOT THERE, and to claim otherwise is either a lie or a delusion.
I’m not going to run down the rabbit hole and turn this into a evolution/creation debate, so for now we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’ll gladly debate you on evolution vs creationism at a later date on a separate post, but I’m trying to avoid that in here because that generally turns personal and offends one or both sides, and I hope to keep this thread friendly.
moot,
Science by it’s very definition can not study any phenomena that takes place outside of the natural world. I go into this a bit further on another post (don’t worry, nothing at all religious or anti-religious on this other post, it’s just a definition of science.
We as a society learn though studying and question things by scientific means. Is it possible that things exist which can not be seen, felt, touched, heard, or measured by any possible means, yes. But by their very nature they can not be studied scientifically.
I personally take a skeptical but scientific approach to things in my life. I don’t beleive vampires are roaming around sucking out our blood because there is no scientific evidence for this. I don’t beleive that a fat guy in a red suit flies around the entire world in one night and puts presents under trees because there is no scientific evidence for this (and PLENTY of evidence against it). I don’t beleive l ron hubbard was sane and I don’t beleive that zenu dropped aliens into our volcanoes and they were later reborn out of clam shells because the scientific evidence does not support it (plus it’s a tad bit bat-shit-insane). And I don’t believe that an old man in a beard created the universe 6500 years ago and flooded it 4400 years ago and impregnated a virgin 2000 years ago and then disappeared for the rest of recorded history (so far) because the scientific evidence does not support this. I also don’t beleive little gray aliens are mutilating our cattle, and anally probing the dumbest rednecks in the country while the government helps to cover it up, because again, the evidence does not support this.
Again, all of these are extraordinary claims, and they require extraordinary evidence.
I’m going to go out on a limb here for a second, but I think these are fair claims of most people.
You look at a sunset, or at pictures from the Hubble telescope or (if you have kids) into your children’s eyes and are in awe in the wonder of god.
I look at those things and am in awe of the wonder of nature and evolution and science.
In both cases these things are awe inspiring, but where you see the supernatural, I see nature at it’s finest.
You are correct is stating that science cannot study phenomena outside the natural realm. That’s the very reason that both you and I make some assumptions as to what is beyond what cannot, by definition, be quantified by science.
I see the supernatural because the sunset came from some place. Nature itself teaches us that nothing exists without a cause. You can’t have an infinite series of causes therefore. Nature cannot be the result of an infinite series of causes. As soon as you explain one you bring up the problem of another. Multi-universes don’t solve this problem, if anything they exacerbating by requiring an infinite amount of causes.
I see God not as the answer to the as of yet unexplained bits of the universe but as the final and irreducible complexity that exists to explain what science, by your own definition, will never be able to explain.
moot,
Then you get into the “who designed the designer” realm.
If you use god as the ultimate source of who caused things to happen, I ask who caused god (to which you reply, he has always been).
If I say god was not the cause of the universe, you ask what was the cause (to which I reply I don’t know yet).
You assume god has always been and was not created.
I assume that god does not exist, and I don’ claim to know what happened before the big bang (although some recent work by Steven Hawking claims that perhaps the universe is finite in space, but has no beginning and no end. I don’t claim to fully understand this theory well enough to defend it, but what little I do understand of it seems to be a reasonable hypothesis.
By fitting god into the holes which we don’t yet understand, you are creating a “god of the gaps” scenario.
Before we understood the earth rotating around then sun, it was “god” who lifted the sun up each day. Then we learned a bit about cosmology and then “god” created then sun which any pious individual could tell you without ANY doubt rotated around the earth which was of course the center of the universe. Then we learned how stars were created and that our sun is just an ordinary star, and “god” created the universe. Now we understand the beginning of the universe (at least to a degree) and people are relegating “god” to having set up the laws of the universe and setting the big bang in motion (or if you prefer, creating things 6500 years ago to LOOK AS IF the big bang happened 14.7 billion years ago).
There are many things which we do not yet understand, but there is nothing we observe which can not be explained by any possible scientific means. If there was then I would say THAT is a place where one might assume “god” was a reasonable solution. But as long as science can explain things, I propose that we leave god out of the equation, since by definition, anything supernatural, god included, can not be studied by scientific methods.
I refer you to Occam’s Razor, that the simplest solution is generally the best unless there is evidence to support some other position.
Which is simpler, that an all powerful, all knowing supernatural deity created the universe 6500 years ago, but made sure to create light already in travel from distant stars (if a star i more than 6500 light years from us we’d not be able to see it since light moves at a fixed speed). He also made sure to create the earth in such a manner that it appears to have undergone continental drift and seems to be 4-5 billion years old. He also was kind enough to create a fossil record in such a manner that it would seem as if each species evolved from a common ancestor over the course of millions upon millions of years.
Or is it simpler that what evidence we see, is an actual record of what happened, and not planted to fool us into a false understanding of the universe?
I understand the “God of the Gaps” dilemma. While belief in God can be the end all answer it doesn’t have to stunt the desire explore the natural world and learn more about it.
Here me out about this next part before you respond – It terms of pure simplicity – God creating the earth is certainly more simple than a complex and extensive process of evolution. To say that God said, “Boom” and it was there is simple. That doesn’t mean that’s what happened. I think you’d argue that that explanation is actually too simplistic.
The evolution evidence is not where we want to be arguing. The problem is that belief or atheism doesn’t hinge on this theory. If evolution were true it doesn’t presuppose God is not. If God is true it doesn’t presuppose evolution is not.
However, evolution as a theory is not always as pat as you’d like it to sound in some of your responses. And it’s not universally agreed upon among reputable scientist (and I’m not talking about the Answers in Genesis crowd.)
-As to the fossil record Stephen J. Gould wrote in his book, Natural History – He strongly supports the theory mind you –
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology — we fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.”
In fact Nature magazine published in an article called “Primate Origins; plugging the gaps” that we have about 3% of the the fossil record filled in and that even the 3% represents fragments of fossils.
These aren’t rabid creationist or intelligent designers. These are people who continue (well not in Gould’s case as he died) believe in a promote evolution.
And the earth being aged seems a little self-explanatory. Obviously the earth had to have been created with an assumption of age. (I’m not defending the young earth theory) but if God created a redwood then we cut it down and counted the rings we’d assume the tree was 50 years old. This goes for the stars too.
I’m not trying to argue the point about the age of the earth but that particular line of reasoning doesn’t seem to be very strong evidence to denounce other ideas.
Evolution itself can be a “god of the gaps” in that if a person always assumes it’s true they can discard evidence that might seem to conflict with it.
Anyway…
moot,
You make some very good points, there are many things we don’t yet understand and know. Hell, we can’t even PROVE gravity yet, but that doesn’t mean it’s in danger of being overturned any time soon.
Personally I think the simpler solution is that things are as they appear. The alternative from a young earth view is that “god” created things in such a way to fool science into a mistaken view. Of course this does not disprove “god” or a young earth, but it’s certainly not the simpler explanation.
Creating the universe, earth, fossil record, DNA, etc “boom” and it’s there would be a very simple explanation. Creating all those things “boom” in such a manner that it APPEARS as if things are not as they truly are (i.e. faking the big bang, faking evolution, etc) is not a simple solution. It assume that god intentionally is deceiving mankind for his own amusement or some other unfathomable reason.
With that being the alternative to things having happened as they appear to have happened I’d say the simpler (and more logical) explanation is things are as they appear. If things appeared to be 6500 years old, I’d be much more inclined to believe they were 6500 years old.
You are also right that evolution being right does not disprove god. Former Pope John Paul II said that the bible is not incompatible with evolution or the big bang or a 14.7 billion year old universe. Not I understand that most evangelicals believe the catholic church has corrupted god’s intended word, but I’d have to say that while he was alive, he probably knew the bible as well as anybody else around. You may disagree with his position, although it does support the point you make, evolution is NOT incompatible with god existing.
However, evolution (as it is believed by Steven J Gould, and others) IS incompatible with a 6500 year old earth, since one of the primary tenets of it is that evolution happens gradually over million upon millions of years.
There is absolutely no evidence to say that god did not set up the laws of the universe, set the bing bang in motion, setup DNA (either directly, or by creating the ground rules) and let things happen. There is however substantial evidence that the earth is not 6500 years old. The only way to reconcile the 6500 year old earth with god, using this evidence is the assumption that god created things to purposely deceive mankind. Again, I can’t disprove this hypothesis, but it is certainly not simplest solution (and yes, I know I’ve said the same thing few times already, I’m just trying to make the point).
As for evolution not being universally accepted, you’re correct. However, this is overrated in it’s numbers. One of my favorite examples of just ho overrated is the list that was gathered by the discovery institute. This list contains just over 100 PhDs (103 is the last count I believe) who disagree with current evolutionary theory. To “combat” this, a group of evolutionary biologists created a similar list comprising only PhDs who’s first name is Steve. At last count I believe the number of Steve’s was just about 822. Based on the estimate that roughly 1% of the general population of the US are named Steve (or some other variation, Stephanie, Steven, etc) this would correspond to roughly 82,200 scientists is they expanded this to included any scientist.
103 vs an estimated 82,200. That is roughly 1/10th of 1& of scientists do not support evolution based on an admittedly non-scientific, but nonetheless relatively accurate overall percentage (even the discovery institute admits this).
Check out this list for more information:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp
As for the gaps in the fossil record, this is true. There are a massive number gaps, but every time we find a new fossil this creates two new gaps (the versions just before and just after this new fossil). The overall theory is still validated by the fossil record we do have, even if we would like to have a more compete one.
I am curious exactly why you say “Obviously the earth had to have been created with an assumption of age”.
How is this obvious, why “must” the earth have been created to look as if it is 4-5 billion years old? Why “must” the universe have been created to appear 14.7 billion years old. I understand that he would not create all plant and animal life as infants, because then there would have been a much harder time for those plants and animals to survive, but why the appearance of such drastic ages (surely he could make the earth appear to be 100 years years old to give life a good starting point, why would he need it to appear 4-5 BILLION years old?
Yes, I know, “we can’t hope to understand the mind of god”, but if we were not meant to question, “he” should not have given us such an inquisitive nature. 🙂
As for your final point of evolution being a god of the gaps, scientists DO NOT discard evidence that conflicts with evolutionary theory, but they do at times have to revise the theory to take new observations into account. The overall gist of the theory does not change, even when some aspects of it may have to be reanalyzed.
I’d urge everybody reading here to check out this post:
http://johnshoreland.com/2008/02/28/theres-no-arguing-it-we-cant-know-if-theres-a-god-or-not/
This is from the blog of a christian, and it’s essentially on the very topic we have been debating here, but I think his view point is a very rational one (in fact, it’s essentially the same view that a number of people here have already stated) and he is very eloquent in his wording of the blog post, and his responses to a number of posters.
At your request I’ll leave an abbreviated comment and expand on it later when I take the hour or so needed to read – then another few hours to digest – the above comments.
I believe the Bible by faith, that it is inerrant as God spoke it through his Holy Spirit but marred by man’s translations. The creation accounts come across as a literal Adam and Eve to me but a metaphor for the creation of nature. As noted, could God have used natural selection as a means of creation after speaking the original matter into existence? i.e. Specifically how did God turn the beginning matter into the matter we see today?
-Sam
sam,
Welcome to the discussion. As you can tell, a number of my replies to people are quite lengthy, so if you’re planning to read through it all, best of luck.
I will say that we’ve had almost exclusively well thought out rational posts from all involved. Obviously that have been a few exceptions, but in most cases, even those who I don’t agree with, have done a very good job explaining their position rationally, and with a bare minimum of personal attacks.
There have been a few “types” who have posted, and I’ll try to briefly summarize a few of the major positions for you here, if you’d prefer not to spend your entire weekend reading 200+ lengthy replies.
By and large all of the comm enters have been very knowledgeable on the subjects they have brought up ,and made some excellent points.
Looking back at my own replies, I think I may have been too confrontational at times, but I have tried my best to ask questions to understand better, and not to attack (although as I re-read some of them I can see how a few of my replies do perhaps come across as attacking).
We have covered the gambit from creation, to contradictions within the bible, to slavery, to where we get our morality from, to reality itself. While we have mostly avoided the evolution/creation debate, it has creeped in at times (and I am as guilty as anybody, if not more so).
On the controversial side, after giving a massive disclaimer I compared jesus to hitler (only in their charisma and ability to get others ot follow them blindly), and called mother theresa the biggest murderer in all of human history (for her stance against birth control in a country already starving to death and overpopulated).
The vast majority of those who have posted have been christians of varying denominations, and similar but in cases differing interpretations of the bible (literal vs allegory, etc).
We’ve discussed war, bigotry, sexism, genocide, taboos against sexuality, sin, slavery, rape, and pedophilia. We’ve also discussed love, peace, understanding, and acceptance.
We’ve discussed science, defined science, and talked in depth about what science is and is not, what science can do and what it can not do, and what scientific skepticism is and why one might have that as a view point.
We’ve had an odd “Letterman top 10”, a series of posts from another blog, a bastardized quote of Jerry Maguire, tons of actual quotes of books, speeches, scripture (torah, bible, koran, and I assume some buddhist text), wikipedia, other websites, and each other. We’ve had christians, muslims, buddhist, also learned of a religion called Numenism (or Numen), which apparently was created in the aftermath of WW2 (we might have had other religions, but those are the ones that stand out in my mind right now); and we’ve even had another atheist come to my defense a bit (although the tone has been almost all civil, so perhaps “defense” is too strong a word).
I’ve given a brief history of my road to atheism, my goals for humanity, and my hope for this blog post.
mootpoints has been one of the most prolific posters, and has made some great points, and added a ton of valuable insight to the discussion (if you’re looknig for a good summary of the major points made, check out the back and forth between him and myself, those will cover almost all the points made through the comments). While moot and I disagree on the existence of god (or lack there of), we seem to have a very similar view on things. Obviously the whole “god” thing causes a few differences (some gigantic, many much smaller), but I believe deep down, we’re actually pretty close in most of our views.
We have not yet had a sceintologist or mormon that I know of, but we have ridiculed a few of their beliefs a bit (all to make various points, I assure you). And not just to make a point (although we did make a point, but it was also just for “shits and giggles” we bashed the people in the movie “Jesus Camp”, because well, they are bat-shit-insane.
All in all I’d say we’ve covered a wide range of topics, all the while trying to stay close to the original question posed in the beginning, but taking a few turns along the way to better understand each other. And I’d also say that I have learned a good deal, and I hope others have to.
Hopefully we are not yet at the end of our journey, because each time a new person has come along, I think we have re-invigorated the discussion, and added many new points to discuss and ponder.
I’m on a different computer for the moment. I did read Mr. Shore’s eloquent thesis on the rationality of either position in that we can’t know for sure. While I ultimately agree with that point I’m surprised you do as well.
The reason being – the decision doesn’t start out on equal footing. By your own previously stated position, the Christian has the burden of proof thus making non-belief more rational, not equally rational.
Not that I should be undoing whatever progress Mr. Shore made. Just a quick thought.
By the way I discovered I own a book written by Mr. Shore. Oddly enough, give the other books he’s written, it’s the book on punctuation.
moot,
I said “I think his view point is a very rational one and he is very eloquent”, I did not say I agree with him.
As I have said to you a number of times already, I respect your opinion, I think you’re doing a very good job “defending” your side, and you’ve made some great points. I don’t think you’re wrong on a few issues, but I can respect a well thought out debate even if I don’t agree with the point. I was on a debate team in high school, and I had to debate “for” a number of positions I did not actually believe in (such as debating on behalf of the death penalty). I gave very detailed, rational reasons why the death penalty is a good idea, even though I personally disagreed with a number of the points I was making. I even once had to debate the existance of god (with me being on the pro god side) and although I could not help myself to leaving one wide open avenue for the other side to exploit, I did actually give a fairly convincing argument for the existence of god.
Richard Dawkins puts the possibility of god at 5%, personally I think he is being a bit generous (or he is trying to be less confrontational) but I think he’s at least in the ballpark. I certainly don’t put the likelihood at 50/50, but any time a christian (or any other religious person) is willing to concede the fact that “god is not obvious”, I think that is a good step forward.
Lots of comments to wade through, which I will, later, but first here’s my attempt at answering the question.
“How certain are you that your version of the “truth” (truth of god, religion, the world, the universe, etc) is the correct one, and more importantly, how do you know what that “truth” is?”
And you said, in your invite, that I seemed certain about my faith. Which, in a way, I guess I am. And, although I’m not sure I’m the type of person you aimed the question at, I’ll take a stab at it.
The short answer is that I’m not certain about any of it and I really don’t understand how anyone can be.
I’m not really religious, and as far as I can see, neither the existence or nature of god can be proven or disproven and in the end I’m not sure it matters.
I’m certain that I don’t know if my view of the world is accurate and that it’s important for me personally that I keep questioning, keep refining and testing my understanding of the world around me in an attempt to see it as accurately as possible.
As to how I know what ‘truth’ is? Again, I’m afraid the answer is that I don’t. What I do know is that, as I said, I believe it’s important to keep asking yourself that question as honestly as you can. Because if you stop . . . your reality becomes that much more limited and stagnates into a dull reflection of, well, reality and bacause of that flawed understanding of the world your actions will quite frequently not produce the results you intend.
uncertainhope,
If you scroll up a bit and look for a reply from me that mostly bold, you’ll see a fairly good summary of what has been discussed so far (or at least the major points that stuck out in my mind). There have been some great points mode from some very different perspectives, so if you’ve got a bunch of time and want to read all the replies I’d recommend it, but i know that there is a TON there, so I decided to summarize it for those just joining the discussion.
Based on your post on your blog:
“If certainty were truly possible,
It wouldn’t be called faith.”
I felt that you’d be a very good addition to this discussion, and I was not wrong.
I truly appreciate those who can understand that their view may be mistaken, and that others who don’t agree with them have a very valid position. As an atheist myself, my view is that there is no “god”, no heaven, no hell. I beleive this because in my view the scientific evidence (as put forth by the “scientific community) shows that there is no “need” for a god to explain things. That said, I fully appreciate that if god exists, that “he” could have created things to look as if the big bang was a natural phenomena and as if evolution was a natural random process that took place of millions upon millions of years.
There is a legitimate chance that I am completely wrong, and that some religion out there “has it right”. While I put this likelihood quite low, as somebody who tries to live a rational scientific life, I must admit that it does have some percentage chance of being correct.
You are coming from a “believers” point of view, but you seem to be saying essentially the same thing. In your view “god’ does exist, but you seem to readily admit that you could be wrong. There is a legitimate chance that either god does not exist, or if he does that he is not the “god” that you personally believe in.
In my mind, this is one of the biggest steps that the “two sides” (atheists and deists) need to make. We must admit the possibility that the “other” side may be correct. There is far too much rhetoric from both sides claiming the other side to be blind, ignorant, liars, or worse. These sort of attacks do no good to anybody and serve to do nothing but divide us further.
My hope is that by first admitting the possibility that we are wrong, we can hopefully try to come to an understand of WHY the “other” side believes what they do, we can find some common ground and begin to get past our differences.
By the way, I really like the line:
“I believe it’s important to keep asking yourself that question as honestly as you can. Because if you stop . . . your reality becomes that much more limited and stagnates into a dull reflection of, well, reality and bacause of that flawed understanding of the world your actions will quite frequently not produce the results you intend.”
Thank you for your input, and I hope as you check out some of the other replies, you feel free to leave your comments, we’re always interested in unique points of view.
I’m getting a bit philosophical here but I wonder if there isn’t something larger at play than a atheism/theism debate.
I wonder if it’s not about atheism vs. theism at all.
We’ve both previously acknowledged a couple of key factors
-Despite the fundamental reasons for having the beliefs we do, we probably have more beliefs in common than not.
-We’ve both admitted that our respective sides have some absolute nuts.
Maybe what you have is not so much a conflict between atheism and theism but of rationality vs. irrationality.
I’m as outraged as you are by the abuses perpetuated by those that claim Christianity as a world-view. (Interestingly my world view explains and even expects that sort of behavior, even from within itself.)
I’m sure you’re outraged by the abuses of those like Stalin or the extreme conclusions of Nietzsche.
We’d both be quick to point out that those of have abused others did so not as a natural result of our beliefs but in fact contrary to our beliefs.
We’d both be quick to dismiss those as either as isolated aberrations or perversions of an otherwise hopeful and helpful world-view.
I’m wondering if most of the frustrations arise when a rational person from one side tries to take on an irrational person from the other. The only result a discussion like that results in is a strengthening of our previously held beliefs.
I wonder if our task isn’t about convincing people that our way of viewing things is superior to their but convincing people to even be rational.
None of that is to say I don’t want to continue the discussion, just some thoughts.
moot,
I agree that it’s primarily the irrational people that cause the greatest harm on both sides, although I think that it’s easier to become irrational if you’re able/willing to completely “submit your life to god”.
I’m sure that at least 1 of the 19 hijackers from 9/11 was a reasonable guy, had fun hanging out with his friends, loved his family, and if raised under different circumstances would have been a rational, reasonable, and possible cool person. However because those 19 felt that they were doing “god’s work” all sense of morality, of right and wrong, or rational thing was thrown out the window.
While there have been some horrendous acts committed by both sides, Stalin and others on the “atheist” side did not commit their acts because “the lack of god told me to” they did it because, frankly, they were paranoid, megalomaniac assholes. Once that particular person was no longer in power, society turned back to a more rational (if still communist) one and stalin’s successors even destroyed many of the statues, renamed “his” city, and tried (in vain) to remove as much of the historical record related to him as possible.
In a religious dominated society this does not happen, because “god” never dies or is taken out of power. Religion by it’s nature is more prone to continue on generation after generation (scientology, latter day saints, islam, christianity, etc as a few examples) despite a specific leader passing on.
I’m sure we can both agree, that lord zenu did NOT drop alien life forms into our volcanoes and catch the souls trying to escape with football field sized flying “soul catchers”, only for those souls to be reborn out of clam shells and 75 million years later, here we are. Frankly, this idea is absolutely insane, and if l ron hubbard had said he “thought” this happened, it would have ended the day he dies. Instead he was “told” this happened, and it became a religion.
None of this disproves “god” or any specific religion, but it does show that when dealing with religious beliefs, even false ones, there is a greater propensity for flaws to be passed on for generation after generation.
In my ideal world all of the extremists on both sides would come to a more moderate view. People who want to believe in god would be free to do so, but NOBODY would attempt to force their beliefs on another person, or justify their actions because it was “god’s will”.
Yes, bad shit would still happen. We’d still get the occasional pedophile, murderer, racist, sexist, etc, but those people would never be able to justify flying planes into buildings, or rape of a child, or buying meth from a male hooker, or just be bat-shit-insane on “god”, they would be forced to take responsibility for their actions (or be sent to a hospital where they could get serious mental help) and nobody would praise their actions as being “holy”.
In my mind, the best way to get there, is to have the already existing moderates (which I believe is the majority of people in the world) to ostracize the extremists on both sides, “forcing” the extremists to come to the center or no longer be part of society.
I have no doubt of the truth of Jesus Christ. I don’t say that to project an air of super faith, but with a clear conscience, and pure motives. There is no denying what Christ has done in my life. He has changed my desires, my motives, my priorities and forgiven me of my sins. This is mercy.
I am also sure of the exclusivity and absolute truth of Jesus Christ as the only way of salvation. The question regarding one god writing all the books: It is NOT one God. There IS only one God, and He does not take different forms, inhabit different religions, etc. What’s funny is that no scholar of any world religion, other than Universalism and Bahai, says that this is the case. Muslims do not believe that Allah is Jehovah any more than the opposite.
Those that try to say all religions are true are speaking from a lack of understanding of general knowledge. It is more correct to deny an absolute truth to say that none of the ways are true, than to say they all are. It is impossible for every belief system to be equal and true. And if you practice a religion and believe this, you are wasting your time. Why bother, if you don’t truly believe what you are living?
The only faith that claims sacrifice for the human race is that of the true God, Jesus Christ who simultaneously exhists as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All other “gods” spent their time on earth for their own gain and recognition. They are also still dead.the resurrection of Christ had more eye witnesses than so many events we study without question. His disciples all willingly died horrible deaths before renouncing what they knew to be true. These are the same men who denied Him when He was on the cross. Did they die for a lie just to save face? Please! The world denies Christ because they are running from themselves. People know if one truth exhists, they are no longer their own God, and since Adam and Eve humans have not been ok with that. I have no hatred or contempt for those of other religions. I pray to see teir fervor go unwasted. To see them worshipping the one and only God, Jesus Christ. Who, by the way died for your sins and mine. All you need do is aske for His forgiveness to begin a relationship with Him. Email me if you are ready to let go of your hurt, sorrow, shame and sin, and finally kneel at the feet of the One who made you!
For the glory of Christ Alone,
ilovejesusverymuch.
There have been Christians to misrepresent the true faith in Christ, this is because they are human beings.
Rodibidably,
Oh dear, you seem to have misunderstood one little point, and I guess I can understand why. You seem to be assuming I believe in God, and possibly that I’m Christian. But I’m not religious, really. I’m not a practising or non-practising member of any religion and I don’t believe it’s probable that God (or gods) exists.
If I believe in anything, it’s uncertainty and in being honest enough to admit that you don’t know, not for sure.
If I had to define myself as anything it would be as agnostic, in the original sense of the word as TH Huxley coined it and not in the much weaker sense the word tends to be used now.
He saw it as an on-going method of applying reason to the world around him and following its logical conclusions as far as you could, and not pretending that conclusions that were not certain were unquestionably true.
Unfortunately I’m away from home this weekend, so my time online is limited, but I’ll probably drop by again.
ilovejesus,
You believe that jesus is god because of changes in your own life after you “accepted” him. Many people feel the same due to islam or judaism or even scientology. How is your subjective experience different than their own. Keep in mind, that they believe JUST as strongly as you do, that their god has touched their lives (people don’t fly planes into buildings if they are “unsure” of their faith).
I do have a question about the exclusivity of jesus. If jesus is the only way to salvation, does this mean that every person in history who did not know about jesus is automatically not saved, and thus going to hell? Many people are never “exposed” to the bible in their lifetimes, not because they are “evil”, but because they happen to live in the “wrong” country, it seems kind of harsh to send them to hell for being born in the wrong place, seems ALMOST racist in fact.
As for those who follow a “universal” spiritualism, I’m curious why you say they don’t “truly believe”. I know a few people who follow a universal spiritualism type of faith, and they believe in their faith as strong as I believe in no faith, or as strongly as you believe in your “god”.
While some of the specifics of religions are absolutely incompatible with others, the concept of a “god” that you must “submit” to is fairly universal. Most people who believe in a “universal” spiritualism do not believe the literal truth of each individual scripture, they believe that these “holy books” were written more as an allegory to make a point about the human condition. It seems you don’t really understand the actual beliefs of those you are knocking.
The only accounts of “eyewitnesses” to the resurrection of jesus are in the bible, there are NO EXTERNAL sources (unless of course you put stock in the book of mormon, then there are two “sources”).
“The world denies Christ because they are running from themselves.” Wow, I’m not even sure where to begin on this, this is SO OBVIOUSLY a logical fallacy it’s almost pointless to respond. For “the world to deny christ” assumes that EVERYBODY inherently “knows” that jesus is the “one true god”. If this is the case then muslims who kill themselves in the name of allah are doing it for what reason exactly? The ONLY thing that can make somebody so willing to lay down their own life in this manner is if they truly believe that they are doing “god’s work”. Nobody is going to blow themselves up or fly a plane into a building to make a point denying what they “know” to be true, that’s just illogical and against all of human nature.
I thank you for your candor, but I think you allow your own fervor to cloud logic and rationality.
uncertainhope,
Based on your comments I understood that you believe in the concept of “god” but you are agnostic as to WHICH “god” is the “true god”, or even if there is only one “true god”. I don’t believe that I assumed you were a christian, just that you are a believer.
From this latest reply, apparently you are more agnostic as to the existance of god in the first place, not just your interpretation of “god” than I had originally understood.
I suppose that on some level any rational person is agnostic in a sense, but I personally feel that if the likelihood for something is low enough then one can assume non-existence until evidence shows a reason to change that default position.
I’m curious – can you give me a brief working of an atheist defense of a morality? I know I’m working on some assumptions but I can’t presuppose who morality works in the atheist world-view. This is an honest question not a back-handed attack. I’m not trying to establish the God-should-exist-because-we’re-moral line of reasoning. I’m just curious.
Pingback: Truth, Evidence, Experience, and Faith. « On Living
Hi Rodibidably. Thanks for posting on my blog. I’ve read your article and some (not all) of the comments. I’ve posted my reply at http://onliving.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/truth-evidence-experience-and-faith/
It asks the question “How do we know something is true?”
Do all Evangelical, Catholic, and Fundamental paths lead to heaven? Are we all just one big, happy, agreeing to disagree family who will one day reside agreeably in heaven? Is there precedent set in Scripture where one loves God, follows Jesus, reads God’s Word and does not go to heaven?
The life of a cynic is hard. The life of a skeptic is even harder. Life, from above, is easy, peaceful, and full of daily joy. What harm is there in living a nice Catholic, God fearing life, full of charity and morality, dying, and finding out there is no god?
Yet, won’t it be nice to find out that there is a God and all of His promises are true! You see I’ve already read the back of the book and there really is a God! How do I know. I AM told me! audibly!
So take heart. Stop living as if God doesn’t exist! Life, lived for God, is so much more rewarding. I’ve tried it both ways!
moot,
I thought we had gone through the morality thing already, but that may have been with a few of the other people who have commented, but essentially I agree wit Richard Dawkins when he states:
“Religious people do not derive their morality from religion. I disagree (with the interviewer) on this point. Almost all of us do agree on moral grounds where religion had no effect. For example we all hate slavery, we want emancipation of women – they are all our moral grounds. These moral grounds started building only a few centuries ago and long after all major religions were established. We derive our morality from the environment we live in, Talk shows, Novels, Newspaper editorials and of course by the guidance of parents. Religion might only have a minor role to play in it. An atheist derives his morality from the same source as a religious people do.”
In my view this helps explain the changing nature of morality (women have more rights now than they did 100 years ago, slavery is now considered to be one of the greatest evils in all of society while it was accepted as recently as 150-200 years ago, etc).
kaysandee,
Why do you limit the possible “true” paths to only versions of christianity? Why not mormonism, islam, scientology, hindu, buddhism, etc?
I am very cynical about humanity based on seeing all of the horrendous acts we have committed against each other (crusades, inquisition, 9/11, the holocaust, raping little boys and hiding the priests, genocide, etc). If you can look at those events and have no cynicism at all, you are perhaps being naive or possibly had a tad too much sacramental wine.
If somebody HONESTLY does not believe in god, and “fakes” it by going through the motions, don’t you think that IF god does exist, “he’d know” it was all an act.
I was raised catholic, and my father later became a “born again” christian. Based on my understanding of cristianity, “god knows” our thoughts, so “faking it” would not “fool him”.
You paint being a christian as if it’s a wonderful reality where nothing bad ever happens, and you all play together in harmony singing songs and picking flowers. The reality is that you live in the same world as the rest of us, and are as guilty of as many atrocities as any group in history. Sugar coating your view on life does not remove the past or present actions taken by christians in the “name of god”, it just makes you look disingenuous.
As for what harm is there, I think there are a few alter boys who might have something to say about that. Or perhaps some of the many muslims, jews, women, people of color and/or any other religion than your own who might have something to say about the harm caused by christianity.
I’ve read “the book” as well, and I found god to be (as Richard Dawkins puts it):
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
And with quote that I’ll end my little rant…
tallandrew,
Wow, this is a long reply, but I’ll give it a try.
The accounts of Josephus have shown to have been a later addition by the catholic church, and are at BEST highly unreliable and suspect, and at worst, complete and utterly false.
I’m not disputing a man named jesus lived roughly 2000 years ago, but I would suggest not using josephus as your “proof”, since even the catholic church no longer stands by the validity of his writings with regards to jesus.
I’m also not disputing that he, or his followers, claimed he did miracles. However if you look closer at the evidence, many of the miracles attributed to jesus were also attributed to other people around the same time as him, and before his time (for example the virgin birth, walking on water, raising the dead, etc).
Very little of his supposed life is actually unique to jesus, and there are quite a few reasons to look skeptically at these claims regarding his life.
You state that the 500 who saw jesus after his death either either telling the truth, or they were lying. But you leave no room for other options.
In muslim traditions jesus was not the one on the cross, there was a substitute who resembled jesus. Since even the bible states that none of the apostles went to see him on the cross, it would be quite easy to use a substitute of him on the cross in order to fake his resurrection (although I admit that’s one VERY DEDICATED follower to allow themselves to die in his place).
Other traditions say that jesus was on the cross but that he did not die, he faked his death and was taken down before he had time to die (this is in part because of the biblical tradition stating he died quick and suddenly after being given some liquid on a cloth (perhaps something which enabled his breathing to slow down to simulate death).
In either of these cases, the apostles could see a “resurrected” jesus, and not be lying, but be mistaken as to previous events (and the second would even leave room for “doubting thomas” to put his finger in the holes in jesus’s hand.
Now I don’t claim to know if any of these is the truth, but there are certainly other plausible suggestions that can avoid your idea that they must be telling the truth, or they must be lying.
As for the validity of the “scripture”, mootpoint and I have gone through this a good deal; both his sources (and he is a christian) and mine show that there are roughly 200,000-400,000 errors in the various translations of the bible.
Moot, claims this leads to only 16 differences per version (since by his figures there are 25,000 versions), but what he does not take into account is the math would say there are 16 UNIQUE things in each and every version, not 16 differences between any two versions.
There is no way to really tell the original text any more, unless we get lucky and unearth some more scrolls hidden in a mountain cave somewhere in the middle east again (which I’m thinking is unlikely at this point, after the amount of searching after the Nag Hammadi scrolls and the dead sea scrolls were uncovered).
I think we’d have to disagree as to what the evidence shows. I believe that the evidence shows that a charismatic man lived 2000 years ago, and that his followers were very devout. I see no reason to infer that this means he was “god” or that what he said was true.
Not to compare the two too closely, but hitler was a very charismatic (insane and obviously not a nice guy, but VERY charismatic) leader, and still has many followers today. Does that mean that Hitler was correct. Or how about something slightly less inflammatory, like Mohammed, or l ron hubbard, or joseph smith, or any other “prophet” of any other religion that you personally don’t believe in?
Does christianity play out well today. Hmmm, let’s see. Christianity not only did nothing to stop slavery, the new testament (and old) gives rules for how slaves should act, and how their masters should treat their slaves. I’m not quite sure that “plays out as true”, what about you?
Or we could go into some of the many fallacies of the old testament, although I’ve been trying to avoid an evolution/creationism debate.
Or we could go into many other facets of cristianty that come up short in the light of science and progress (such as views towards women).
Many people claim that scientology “saved” them. Many people claim the same of latter day saints, or islam, or hindu, or buddhism. Does this mean that all of those religions are true? Of course not, any subjective experience by people is just anecdotal evidence, it’s not science at all.
Any religion, christianity included is a leap of faith that goes well beyond reason and science. To believe in jesus as god, you must suspend belief in all that we know of science, morality, justice, and more.
This does not mean that christianity or any other religion is wrong, it just means that it’s a leap of faith to believe in any god, much less a specific god, and to claim that it’s even remotely scientific or logical is not true.
So there is still not objective standard outside of social norms?
Dawkin’s opinion isn’t the only one nor is it even the majority one among athiest.
Sartre said that when all is said and done – “…the bare valueless fact of existence.”
Kai Nelson – “We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, need not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me. . . . Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.”
And further if morality is the product of taste of social evolution, how can I say that Hitler or Stalin were wrong? One could argue that they changed the social norms in their respective cultures – what made them immoral?
The issue of morality isn’t simply one of having one but the thing that compels us to do what is right and avoid what is wrong.
If I walk by an alley in which a woman is being raped
-First, why would I think that man is wrong for doing what he is doing?
-Second, despite the inclination for self-preservation, what makes me decide to intervene?
I guess it seems that it’s still difficult to establish subjective moral boundaries. Unless there’s an absolute to which we can appeal it makes it incredibly difficult to convince some one do what is right when it conflicts with what benefits them.
moot,
I agree, that Dawkins’ view is not the only view, and not even necessarily the prevailing view, but you asked me for a “brief working of an atheist defense of a morality”.
I would assume you’d want the view that I myself believe in, just like I would not expect you to give a christian view that you don’t personally agree with. Of the books, movies, papers, websites, etc I have consumed that discuss morality, I happen to agree most closely with Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins views. Since there is not simple quick quote from Dennett that I know of I went with a quote from Dawkins that essentially sums up where I believe we get morality from. Dennett’s book, Breaking The Spell: Religion As a Natural Phenomena, goes into much greater detail than that simple quote from Dawkins, however it’s a book and as such a bit longer of a quote (although it does more accurately and fully describe the concept).
Sarte and Nelson seem to have a more pessimistic view than I do I suppose (which is kind of funny, since I consider myself to be quite pessimistic).
Hitler and Stalin were wrong based on the social norms of the time they lived in. If Hitler had followed the social norms of his time, the US would never have gotten involved in WW2. If Stalin had followed the social norms then after his death the people of the USSR would not have attempted to erase the historical record of him and his actions (renaming cities, tearing down statues, destroying papers, etc). There were immoral because society said they were immoral.
Would you consider George Washington to be immoral? What about ANY white man living today in the US who OWNED another man based only on the color of their skin? If we had “universal” morals, or if we got our morals from ANY book written before the mid 1700’s then we would HAVE to consider Washington to be a complete bastard.
I do what is “right” because I want to make the world a better place for myself, my wife, my friends, and (when I have them) my children. One of the ways to do this is to be kind to others in society to make society a better place for the people I care about to live in.
You should think somebody who is raping somebody else is wrong because society says that this is not something that “good” people do.
You would intervene for a number of reasons. A small number of those reasons include empathy for others in pain (which is an evolutionary byproduct) and a sense of fairness (which has been shown in chimpanzees and other great apes in a number of studies; btw I really like NOVA they have some cool stuff).
If morals are absolute, then PLEASE explain why George Washington was not a complete bastard why anybody who owns a slave today would be (of course even if you can this won’t prove morals are absolute, but I’m curious of your opinion).
It’s funny that you bring up Washington. I’ve long been bothered by the churches complete adoration of the founding fathers. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard the concept that “this country was founded on God.” or something like that.
This country was founded on the outrage promoted by the taxation it was subjugated to without proper representation. It had to do with money not morality.
I do think morality in it’s purest form is absolute.
I do think that Washington, Jefferson and other were wrong and not just on the slave issue. If we’re being strictly biblical then the Founding Fathers were wrong for more than just slavery. Roman’s 13 forbids rebelling against the governing authorities.
However the Christian world-view would explain and expect that sort of behavior from humans. Christianity teaches that all people have an internal moral conflict. Specifically that we have a strong desire to be moral but that desire is assailed and overcoming by the desire to be selfish and self-serving.
That world view explains why Washington was a complete moral failure in regards to slavery but honorable in regards to moral ideals like bravery or strong leadership.
In fact Christianity allows me to take people like Washington and learn from the respectable parts and denounce (and reject, if you’re political at all) the immoral parts.
I still think your definition of morality is weak. You said that you want to make life better. Better for who and better in what way? I’m having a hard time applying your reasoning to someone breaking into my house to steal. They may be trying to make their life better but that doesn’t make it right.
There are a million of the same types of examples, but I’m just curious how your moral system deals with the conflict of what is good for one is bad for another.
Isn’t that essentially the same problem with Hitler? Wasn’t he essentially trying to make the world a better place?
I’m rereading my post above – I really need to edit myself before I hit “submit”. Sorry for all the grammar and spelling errors. I hope it’s still legible and doesn’t take away from my ultimate points.
moot,
Personally I admire what Washington, Jefferson, and the rest did (fighting against what they say as an unfair and corrupt government), but as for the myth of the “founding fathers”, my favorite quote on them is a George Carlin one from long ago:
“this country was founded on a very basic double standard. This country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free”
Jesus himself rebelled against the authority, it’s sort of the reason they killed him… Wouldn’t it seem a TAD bit hypocritical of “god/jesus” to tell us not to do the very thing “he” did himself?
And back ot the founding fathers for a moment. Yes they owned slaves, and by today’s standards they are immoral horrible people. However by the standards of their day, they did what was expected and normal and natural. This is not to say it was “right” to own slaves, but you can not place the morals of today on the people of the past. How recently in our history did we stop sending children out to work at ridiculously young ages? How recently in history did we treat young girls as property (i.e. giving a dowry as part of an engagement/marriage is essentially treating the bride as if she is the property of the father and becoming property of the husband)? We look at these things now and should be horrified, but at the time, this was the accepted norm of society.
If society was not the basis for our morals they would be unchanging, and if we got our morals from a 2000 year old book, we would STILL have slaves, we would STILL treat women as property, we would STILL send young children out to do dangerous work, and we would STILL be stuck in the dark ages killing heretics for proclaiming science to be true.
Does our society today “accept” somebody breaking into another person’s house to steal something? No it does not, obviously, thus it is immoral to do so based on the “morals” that society has given us.
My personal moral code would be something along the lines of:
“Do not do anything that directly or indirectly harms another person unless it is in defense of self or others”
I think that this would essentially cover all “moral” grounds that SHOULD be covered by society. Obviously there would still be a need for laws for specific things that are not “cut and dry”, but I think that 90% or more of morality is covered by this one sentence.
I’m sure you can come up with some examples that this would not cover, and since I really have only spent a very short amount of time (45 seconds, give or take) thinking of the wording of this sentence, I’m sure it’s not “bullet proof”, but it does take care of the primary issues I can think of off hand (slavery, sexism, racism, murder, theft, genocide, rape, pedophilia, assault) and it specifically leaves people free to do things that the government and religious fundamentalist have no right to tell them any differently about (love the person you love regardless of race, religion, or sex). I also have on problem with somebody doing drugs/alcohol/gambling, as long as they are informed of the consequences, there are ways to help them if they abuse it (obviously having a WAR on drugs isn’t doing shit to stop people, so why waste the time and money on it), and they do not harm others with their usage (obviously I am against the crime related to drugs, but that is at least partially due to the illegality of drugs).
Hitler was obviously not following the moral standards of the day (if he was, then the rest of the world would not have fought so hard to stop him). And he certainly did not follow my personal guideline that I have as my own morality.
“Do not do anything that directly or indirectly harms another person unless it is in defense of self or others”
Hehe, grammar and spelling are not my strong suits either, but I type rather quickly and just as it comes to mind. This also explains why at times I repeat myself in the same post at times (having reread some of the earlier posts when I made my “summary” I noticed I repeat a lot).
Rodibi…,
You have gathered responses for more than a month and I can hardly enter into the discussion here. It is simply too sophisticated and complicated for me. I am neither a philosopher nor a theologian. But I am a down-to-earth practical man. So after all my college education where I earned a Master degree and a research degree, where my faith was chllenged to the core, I tried to see whether the faith in the God of the Bible actually worked in practical life or not.
So instead of accepting a job with a reasonable salary, I decided to be on my own trusting the God of Moses to provide me with ‘manna’ every day (Manna means ‘what!’). So in 1979 with our three children my wife and I went to an unknown part of the world where there lived a food-gathering jungle-tribe. No salary, no sponsor, no other regular source of income was there for us. Almost for every meal we simply trusted God and I want to tell you for the glory of God that we never ever went hungry or were left out uncared-for.
Sure, I did have a small group of people who promised me nothing other than their prayer-support. They did indeed pray for us. The also did send us financial help as and when they felt like doing it. There was not a way any one could moniter our financilal needs. By 1985 two more children were born to us there. And we were well taken care of by our God in whom alone we put our trust.
By 1986 I had sufficient faith to pray for a sustained miracle by which I would buy a piece of land and to build a concrete building for the purpose of educating THEIR children. And I want to tell you that unknown to any man any where in the entire world a sixty day miracle gave us a piece of land and a concrete building of 700sft. area.
The building has an inscription on it saying, “This building stands wintnessing the fact that God of Elijah lives”. For more than six months I spent on an average eight to ten hours in my prayer-closet praying, planning and inter-acting with God.
Read a lot more of my prayer experiences in my blog-site and tell me whether I need to be doubtful about a God who cared for me. Please go to http://www.mathewpaul.org and read experiences in prayer and a small book on prayer. Tell me who could possibly doubt that God answers prayers done according to His Will and for His glory in the Biblical way? This I did for a whole life-time.
All the very best. Would appreciate comments if you will.
Thank you and Bye.
Rodibi…,
I should have added in the above post that I did not have a magazine where I reported the progress of my work every now and then nor did I send out a prayer-letter at intervals. There was no supervsion on my work nor was I a well-known figure either. These facts are very important for the matter under discussion.
Thanks.
empyrean,
I think that anybody and everybody can enter the discussion. Every person has a unique view and can make contributions to the discussion.
The first thing that strikes me is the contradiction between your claim “I am a down-to-earth practical man” and “instead of accepting a job with a reasonable salary, I decided to be on my own trusting the God of Moses to provide me”. To me that does not seem at ALL to be the practice option. I’m not sure how YOU attempt to reconcile the two, but this is not a logical combination.
I am curious how you would explain the faith of people who follow a different religion, or a different “god” than yours. There are many billions of people in the world who do NOT follow the god of the bible, but find that their own god or gods have meaning in their life, and that their prayers are answered, and they can see “god” in their life. How would you explain this, if your god is the true god, and theirs is false?
Their lives have been changed just as yours has. To me this would show that potentially ALL religions are on equal footing (either all correct in some form, or all false) since all religions and all faiths can have the same affects of the lives of those who follow and believe in them.
As for the effectiveness of prayer, I already know you will say “god can not be tested” however I must make the point that there have been MANY MANY studies of the effectiveness of prayer, and EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC study has shown absolutely no difference between the “effectiveness” of prayer and the placebo affect.
Another point I’d like to make, is that your personal experience may have been life changing for you, but it is still nothing more than anecdotal evidence, and is not a reasonable basis for anybody (other than yourself) to believe. You say that “we were well taken care of by our God in whom alone we put our trust”, but then you had just said that people “also did send us financial help”. I also assume that you worked hard for everything that came to you in your life. I would guess that you worked as hard or harder than the vast majority of people (mostly due to putting yourself in a situation where you were forced to).
Finally, I’d like to answer your question “Tell me who could possibly doubt that God answers prayers done according to His Will and for His glory in the Biblical way?”.
The easy answer to this is every atheist on the planet as well as everybody who believe in any god other than your definition of “god”.
The long answer is to tell you to check out http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/ and ask you for your response to the points made about specific biblical passages quoted, many of the points made about the god of the bible, and the overall question of the site.
Rodi, Is Dawkins your own version of Messiah. With your description of God, I hope Dawkins can bring you to a place of peace. Is your life one rant after another? God allows things to happen, He doesn’t necessarily cause them to happen. A trip through the Psalms with David might clear that up for you. Man causes bad things to happen. God has to undo the knots. This is not drippy, syrupy stuff. Truth is light. Light exposes darkness. Only the humble and lowly can really see and understand God’s truth. The haughty and arrogant can’t. Why? Because it is hidden from them. Some are already to the point that their hearts are hardened and they cannot see. The eyes of their understanding have been darkened. That seems to be Dawkins and Hitchens plot. This is all foretold in the Scriptures. I hope and pray that you are not in that place.
kaysandee,
I find it interesting that you attack my quoting Dawkins while leaving all of my questions and comments directed at/to you alone. Is it perhaps that you have no intellectually honest response?
Let’s see if I can summarize your “points” you are making in this latest reply:
1) Rodibidably likes to rant on and on
2) Rodibidably worships Dawkins
3) Dawkins, Hitchens, and others like them can not “see” the truth and live darkened lives with dark hearts
4) Read the bible (just not the parts that embarrass christians, such as the sexism, racism, genocide, and other forms of violence and hatred)
5) Rodibidably, Dawkins, Hitchens and others who “deny” god are arrogant and haughty (now there is a word you don’t see too often)
Not one actual relevant point.
Not one actual response to any of the points made to you.
Not one actual reply to any of the questions posed to you.
It sure must be nice to be so certain of yourself that you don’t need to “bother yourself” with pesky things like facts or logical arguments…
This is a post from my now defunct “other blog”. I’ve tried to go totally martial arts over at Striking Thoughts. Anyhow, thanks for the comments and invite. Here’s what I believe:
First I suppose I’m a type of metaphysical naturalist. I believe science is the best way to look at the world. However, I do not believe it’s the ONLY way to look at the world.
My old post:
I have been meaning to comment on what I liked about John Paul II so here goes:
“Science can purify religion from error and superstition; religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes. Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.”
In John Paul’s world, religion and science were compatible. In addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 1996 he observed the following:
“…we find ourselves in the presence of an ontological difference, an ontological leap, one could say. However, does not the posing of such ontological discontinuity run counter to that physical continuity which seems to be the main thread of research into evolution in the field of physics and chemistry? Consideration of the method used in the various branches of knowledge makes it possible to reconcile two points of view which would seem irreconcilable. The sciences of observation describe and measure the multiple manifestations of life with increasing precision and correlate them with the time line. The moment of transition to the spiritual cannot be the object of this kind of observation, which nevertheless can discover at the experimental level a series of very valuable signs indicating what is specific to the human being. But the experience of metaphysical knowledge, of self-awareness and self-reflection, of moral conscience, freedom, or again of aesthetic and religious experience, falls within the competence of philosophical analysis and reflection, while theology brings out its ultimate meaning according to the Creator’s plans.”
So, according to John Paul II science and religion compliment one another. Yet, in the end, he defers to Christian theology as the ultimate answer. Now here’s where I stand on the issue of science and religion. First, quoting John Paul II again: “Each can draw the other into a wider world, a world in which both can flourish.”
Another article that captures this sentiment can be found in the December 13, 2004 issue of Newsweek, p. 51:
But faith and reason need not be constantly at war; they are, John Paul II once wrote, “like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth”
In fact, what he is suggesting comes straight from the original notion of a liberal arts education which leads to my first digression:
“In the history of education, the seven liberal arts comprise two groups of studies, the trivium and the quadrivium. Grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic (or logic) make up the trivium. The quadrivium consists of the studies of arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music. These liberal arts made up the core curriculum of the medieval universities. Colloquially, however, the term ‘liberal arts’ has come to mean studies intended to provide general knowledge and intellectual skills, rather than occupational or professional skills. The scope of the liberal arts has changed with society… Today, the liberal arts are sometimes promoted as “liberal” in the later Enlightenment sense, as liberating of the mind, removing prejudices and unjustified assumptions. In spite of the term’s original medieval meaning, this is treated by some today as the central meaning of the term.”
Now both the classical and colloquial concept of a liberal arts education are ideas that I wholeheartedly support. Where I get annoyed is when the politically conservative fanatics demonize all proponents of the liberal arts as being “politically liberal” or, for that matter, it bothers me just as much when the radically liberal try to make liberal arts “politically liberal”. Both camps are trying to turn “liberal arts” into something it was never meant to be or should be!
Back to the original topic: Where I disagree with the late pope is when he places theology over science. I take the position that science and religion (and the liberal arts) are pieces of a much larger picture. Now I’m a self-admitted “cheerleader for science” however I disagree with those who think it is the only way to look at the world (whether it is the “best” way is a separate question and we’ll save the philosophical naturalism discussion for another day). In fact, I think a much more balanced world view should consider all of the disciplines that typically fall under what is described as a liberal arts education. So, in that sense I guess I’m a bigger cheerleader for the liberal arts than I am for science.
Paralleling what John Paul II said is something that the late Bertrand Russell once said:
“The value of philosophy is . . . to be sought largely in its very uncertainty. The man who has no tincture of philosophy goes through life imprisoned in the prejudices derived from common sense, from the habitual beliefs of his age or his nation, and from convictions which have grown up in his mind without the co-operation or consent of his deliberate reason. To such a man the world tends to become definite, finite, obvious; common objects rouse no questions, and unfamiliar possibilities are contemptuously rejected. As soon as we begin to philosophize, on the contrary, we find . . . that even the most everyday things lead to problems to which only very incomplete answers can be given. Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom. Thus, while diminishing our feeling of certainty as to what things are, it greatly increases our knowledge as to what they may be; it removes the somewhat arrogant dogmatism of those who have never traveled into the region of liberating doubt, and it keeps alive our sense of wonder by showing familiar things in an unfamiliar aspect.” Bertrand Russell: The Problems of Philosophy, p. 157
Paraphrasing yet another Russellian idea: Philosophy allows us to consider things that science is not yet ready to test. This is a notion that I readily agree with and one that you can apply to a true liberal arts education. In fact, it is one of the transforming lessons that I have taken from a liberal arts education. My personal opinion is this: There are many ways to look at the world and usually people get into trouble when they dogmatically lock into one method (e.g., science, religion, philosophy, etc.) and consider it as “the Gospel truth.”
Do I think science and religion are compatible? Yes and no. Yes in the sense that they are parts of much larger picture (eg. Eastern philosophy). No if you make them out to be the only way to look at the world.
Bob Patterson
http://strikingthoughts.wordpress.com/
bpatterson,
Wow, a post almost long enough to be one of my own. 🙂
First of all I’d like to thank you for coming over to post. I enjoyed the discussion on your blog of “disproving a negative”, and I am glad that you took the time to check out this post as well.
I’m curious what other way you would suggest we try to understand the world if science is not the only way.
Spirituality is a very subjective way to look at things, and certainly not universal.
Faith or Belief in a “higher power” has obviously had some problems historically, since most faiths are incompatible with each other, and by their very nature do not allow questioning of the beliefs to allow a common ground between opposing views.
Or is there some other way that I am not thinking of off hand?
I do agree the former Pope did much to help bridge the gap between faith/religion and science, however he still held onto a number of religious superstitions (the virgin mary, sainthood, etc), outdated ideologies (such as opposition to birth control, opposition to stem cell research, etc), and he did not do enough to uncover and stop the corruption that was rampant withing the church during his reign (US priests raping young boys scandal, etc).
Overall I think he was trying to do his best, but I think the catholic church still has a long way to go.
From the quotes you give though, it’s easy to see the respect he had for science, but I fail to see the contribution of religion.
I do agree that science and religion do not need to be as odds with each other, but I think the way to avoid this conflict is for religion to not try to replace, alter, or judge science in any way. The goal of science is to explain the world around us. The goal of religion SHOULD be to give a sense of community and comfort to those in need. As long as religion never claims to go beyond it’s scope, it can easily live in harmony with all scientific discoveries.
It seems we do agree on these points about religion not trying to replace science, but I personally fail to see the contribution of religion today. In my view it is a left over evolutionary remnant, much like the appendix, tonsils, etc…
You say that the seven liberal arts (grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic (or logic), arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, and music) can teach us things that science along can not.
Grammar is important to allow people to communicate effectively, but I don’t see how grammar is going to teach us about the world around us. Grammar is more of a tool to allow communication than a learning device on it’s own.
Rhetoric is essentially the same type of tool as grammar, in that it allows for ease of communication, but by itself it does not tell us anything about the world around us.
Logic, I would argue at it’s most basic is yet another tool, this one used especially by science to help determine the validity of information. Logic also can be a science in and of itself.
Arithmetic and all mathematics are the most basic language of the universe and everything in it. In this sense they are a science in and of them self. In fact most scientific ideas today are “proven” mathematically before the actual evidence is found to support them (including Hawkins’ and Penrose’s theories on singularities).
Geometry is another branch of mathematics, which is used as a tool in scientific fields, not exclusive of science.
Astronomy has given way to astrophysics, since with everything we now know of the universe, to study the sky without the use of physics is almost useless.
And finally we come to music, I dare say there are many people less adept musically who have a greater love of the art form more than myself. I consume a vast amount of music (in fact my wife not long ago had to “cut me off” form the iTunes store) and I love to listen to a very eclectic mix of musical genres. However I believe that music is more of a way of transferring information, in such a way that merely words along can not do. Music is a window into the mind of the artist and when done right can touch people deeper than almost anything else, sans love. Music conveys information already known by the artist to the listeners, it does not teach us anything “new”, it reinforces what we already know, and transfers knowledge from the artists to the listening public.
Philosophy is something I honestly do not have as much to say about, because I have always lived my life asking more of the “how” types of questions, than the “why”. I don’t know that we can understand “why” the universe exists, but we can understand “how” (and we now do know a great deal of this and are learning more).
I have my own personal philosophy which essentially boils down to “Do not do anything that directly or indirectly harms another person unless it is in defense of self or others”, but beyond that I have never really has too much of an opinion on philosophy. I tend to believe, as many do, that society makes the morals for people, not a single group of philosophers (at least in current times).
I can see a place for philosophy, but I’m not sure religion is needed any more (but perhaps that’s just my atheism showing).
I have to take issue with a couple of your conclusions. Let me quote –
“If society was not the basis for our morals they would be unchanging,”
I’m not arguing that social agenda has nothing to do with morality. Society often creates more strict social constraints than biblical morality requires. In fact, Christ’s rebellion wasn’t against the Roman governing authorities but against the strict, prevailing and incorrect interpretation of scripture by the religious authorities.
And who’s to say that society ever really listens to the bible? Most examples of biblical morality that have been pushed on society are no more than a heavy dose of opinion wrapped in a few out-of-context bible verses. It’s hardly about appealing to scriptural absolutes but hijacking scripture.
“…and if we got our morals from a 2000 year old book, we would STILL have slaves, we would STILL treat women as property, we would STILL send young children out to do dangerous work, and we would STILL be stuck in the dark ages killing heretics for proclaiming science to be true.”
Look, I could give you plenty of verses that speak clearly and emphatically against those specific issues you brought up. So the point you’re making simply isn’t true.
Finally your moral code (quickly derived or not) is a solid one but it’s certainly not unique. That concept was written thousands of year ago! Just one example is “love your neighbor as yourself” as well as similar edicts from other religions.
Listen, if morality is a societal norm, how do you explain your personal moral code being a constant (if often ignored one) for thousands of years?
moot,
Christ’s was accused and convicted of “rebelling against the governing authorities”. Whether those authorities were the romans themselves or the jewish pharasies that were allowed to “govern” all aspects of religious life in Israel at the time is irrelevant, he went against governing authorities, which you already stated is against god’s own laws (Roman’s 13 as you so kindly pointed out). So the message we can learn from jesus in this instance is “do as I say, not as I do”.
You criticize Washington and the other founding fathers for the EXACT SAME ACTION that “god/jesus” was killed for (and as I recall from my childhood, it was sort of important for christianity that he be convicted and die).
Biblical morality has lead to the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, children dying due to lack of medical attention because their parents believed that god does not want them to use modern medicine, and much more.
This is not to say that ALL of the bible is bad, but if one lives their life STRICTLY by the bible (or some person’s interpretation of the bible) people will be stoned for eating shellfish, women will be treated as property, slavery will come back into fashion, and those who disagree with religious doctrine will be executed as heretics.
I’d rather not live in that world.
I understand that YOU have a more liberal view, but there are MANY passages in the bible that condone horrendous actions, and if you are to take the bible as your only source of morality, those horrendous acts become acceptable.
I also understand that the bible also has many great, wonderful, and kind things that it says. But so does the Koran; do you want to live your life by a strict interpretation of the Koran because 1.5 billion people think it’s the “word of god”?
I understand that you can give verses that contradict slavery, sexism and killing of heretics. But I can also give biblical verses that support those things. THAT is exactly my point (well, one of my points at least), the bible is not consistent, and is not a good basis for morality because of those inconsistencies.
I understand that my personal moral code is not at all unique, but it was not originated in Isreal 2000 years ago either. The basic concept actually predated the bible by a good amount of time and was a major part of eastern philosophies long before jesus’ time.
I explain my moral code being consistent with such an old philosophy by the fact that while some things evolve, once they get to a certain point, they are only refined, and no more MAJOR revisions are needed (I could give many evolutionary examples, but the risk of turning this into a evolution/creationism debate is too great, but it’s fun to mention morals evolving nonetheless).
BTW, as a final note sort of related to this, most christians do not believe in MY moral code, even though I think “jesus would”. There is no reason that jesus would condemn contraception, but the overwhelming majority of christians do, because of some perverse prudishness brought on by the puritanical history of our country oppose all forms of birth control, even as a means to stop the spread of deadly diseases. People are going to have sex, it’s a fact of life. No “virginity pledge” or abstinence education is going to stop that; in fact almost all studies show that people who make virginity pledges are much more likely to engage in unprotected oral and anal sex than those who do not, and those who have abstinence only sex ed are more likely to get pregnant and diseases such as HIV than those who are taught about condoms and other forms of birth control. I know that is a bit off topic, but it seemed to flow in fairly smoothly, and makes another point, that even those CLAIMING to get their morality from the bible, are actually getting their morality from the Puritans (who are the same people who burned innocent women for being witches).
Rodibi…,
Why do you say that it is not a logical combination at all when I said I wanted to test out my faith in practical life? In order to do that I decided to subsist on prayers rather than on a regular salary. I don’t understand what is the inconsistancy there.
You ask me how do I explain the experiences of other people whho follow other religions and they too have religious experiences.
Yes, to me that is no problem at all. Because there is a deep hunger in human heart for the supernatural or the spirit world as God created man with a human spirit within. And every one looks for some thing and whatever catches their eye first, they get hooked on to it. I see all the religions of the world as an evidence for God. But I see them as duplicates. Because duplicates are there, that is the clearest evidence that true must be there. All religions talk about some stanard for morality. All say that good will be followed by good and vice versa. These are general truths found in all religions in common.
The only book in the entire world which talks about the possibility of entering into a filial relationship with God of creation is the New Testament. All others talk about various other relationship with God and their concepts of God also vary from one another. All other faiths are men seeking after God. The Bible talks about a God who seeks after man and made a way possible for any man to have a filial relationship with Him.
Your observation about the scientific study about prayer as producing no effect can not be accepted in the light of my prayer experiences. Science tests chemicals in a test-tube. They can not test a space craft in a test-tube. They need a totally different enviornment where it functions. I have tested out prayer in my physical enviornment and I found that prayer wrought marvellous results which otherwise I would never have found in my life. Truly prayer was experimented on and found working effectively.
Again, to test some chemicals, there are certain conditions to be fulfilled. Every chemical will not react in the same set of enviornments. Like wise, prayer needs certain conditions to be fulfilled, and I bet, whoever is willing to fulfill those conditions will surely ever get results. I challenge you to fulfill the Biblical conditions and pray in accordance with the Bible truths, if it does not produce result in your life,I will agree with you that prayer is not effective.
As you observed clearly, since I put myself to hard conditions, I did have to do hard work as well. I was never ever lazy. But prayer was the hardest thing which I did every day. Every thing else simply followed without any human effort at all. My usual prayer time was from 4 pm and some times I went on till 2 am in the morning at a streatch till I knew that the needs for the following day was adequately met. I knew when to stop praying and start thanking. It simply comes by practice. What can some one who never saw an automobile know about shifting gears?!! So only those who pray can understand what I am talking about.
Whoever doubts, doubts because they have never experienced it. They have not experienced because they have never tried it. They have never tried it because they are not willing to fulfill conditions laid out there. They are simply unwilling and unbelieving. I challenge any one to fulfill biblical conditions and see results in life for themselves. After all, when you go to a banker to get his services, you have to accept his terms and conditions for service. Same thing with the services of an Air-liner. Could you possibly dictate conditions to them to get their services? How could one blame the Air-liner, if one is unwilling to accept their terms of services? How could one blame God, if one is not willing to work with His terms and conditions?
It is great talking to you. May be you could ask me more and I shall try to answer… But as for me I have proved a whole life-time that prayer simply worked for me and God to me is as real as life itself.
Bye for now.
I too am an atheist. However, I see the language of religion as one of many ways to look at the world. You can come at a it from a purely “English major” perspective, hard sciences, social sciences, art, and so on. Bracketing out the supernatural, you can still look at the world through the language of religious metaphors. There are professors on the far left of things that do this. One such person is here:
http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/
If science reaches a limit on a thing then you get very speculative (and non-scientific) in which case most of the other “isms” can also be brought into play.
Again, I prefer naturalism but I personally have taken value from religion and the other disciplines. Yes, I know we skeptics like to beat up on a religion (and in some cases rightfully so). But you can also apply skepticism to such things a politics and find just as much harm–if not more. Oddly, most of the “big gun” skeptics keep focusing on religion…
~BCP
empyrean,
While going to an unknown part of the world to live with a food gathering jungle tribe with no salary and a growing family may be admirable, it is not practicle.
Practicle can be defined as:
1. Of, relating to, governed by, or acquired through practice or action, rather than theory, speculation, or ideals
2. Manifested in or involving practice
3. Actually engaged in a specified occupation or a certain kind of work
4. Capable of being used or put into effect
5. Intended to serve a purpose without elaboration
6. Concerned with the production or operation of something useful
7. Level-headed, efficient, and unspeculative
Going to in a third world country (I would guess at least in part to “spread the gospel”) is living your life based on ideals and speculative at best.
It may have been a great experience for you and your family, and it may have worked out in the end, but it certainly does NOT meet the definition of practicle.
THIS is the inconsistency.
As for other religions being a way to god. You as a christian believe that jesus was the son of god (and based on the trinity is god at the same time) and that he “died for your sins”.
Islam teaches that he was not divine, but just a prophet, much like abraham. Islam also teaches that he did not in fact die on the cross. This is wholly incompatible with your beliefs.
Either jesus is god and died for you, or he is not god and did not die for you. Both accounts can not be true. Thus both forms of faith can not be equally valid (although they can be both equally invalid if for instance hinduism is the “true” for of belief).
One of the things that all of the abrahamic religions teach is that to deny god is a sin, and by the very nature of your beliefs, either all muslims are denying the “true” god or all christians are denying the “true” god (or potentially both groups are).
If somebody denies god (which is a sin based on your faith) and prays to a false god (which sort of breaks one of the 10 commandments) then god should not be answering their prayers, since they’re not following his rules for prayer (they are putting false gods before the “true” god).
Therefore the ability for prayers to allah, vishnu, l ron hubbard, the virgin mary, joseph smith, etc should NEVER be answered if your faith is “true”.
However, just as your personal experience (i.e. anecdotal evidence) shows you that god listens to your prayers, many muslims, hindus, buddhist, scientologist, mormons, etc pray to their “gods” and feel just as strongly that their prayers are in fact answered unequivocally.
THIS is yet another inconsistency. (Wow, even for me this is a long reply to what was a simple comment by you.)
You state that because there are multiple religions in the world, this proves the existence of god (at least that is how I am reading your comments, please correct me if I misunderstood you). There are multiple killers, rapists, bigots, racists, pedophiles, etc in the world as well, does this mean that those are valid ways to interact with others in the world around us?
Just because something is popular, does not mean it is true. There are vampire myths in virtually every culture of the world. There are reported alien visitations world wide (and supposed accounts throughout history). There are myths of dragons in every corner of the world. None of these universal myths is true solely BECAUSE the myth is universal.
Your next point is about the uniqueness of the bible. Every “holy book” has something about it that is unique from other “holy scriptures”, so by your logic, they must all be true. However we know that they are vastly incompatible with each other, so they can not ALL be true. Dilemma, dilemma…
This next point made me laugh quite a bit actually:
“Science tests chemicals in a test-tube. They can not test a space craft in a test-tube”
So are you claiming that chemistry is the ONLY science? Are you claiming that science had nothing to do with the creation of the space shuttle?
Science is a means of learning about the universe and the world around us, as well as learning about ourselves. Your definition of science is a 16th or 17th century vision of chemistry it is not at all compatible with science in the 21rst century.
Whenever religion claims to have an impact on the world around us, that impact should be able to be measured objectively.
If you claim that praying for rain will bring rain, we can do a study of multiple areas where some pray for rain and some do not, and determine what percentage of the prayed for areas rained and what aread of the non prayed for areas rain. By looking at the difference between these two numbers, we can see if there is any effectiveness to praying for rain.
ANY TIME that prayers are “answered” with definitive results, we should be able to measure those results. So far EVERY STUDY that has been conducted under scientific methods have shown that prayers has no affect at all.
As for prayer NOT working, I’d suggest looking at ANYBODY who has EVERY had a limb amputated in the history of mankind. I’d venture that given the majority of the world’s population is religious, and has been religious for as long as recorded history, that some percentage of them MUST have prayed to get their limb back.
And NEVER, NOT EVEN ONCE IN THE ENTIRE RECORDED HISTORY OF MANKIND has an amputated limb ever regrown back on a human.
Again, I’d direct you to check out the website for more specific information:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
“Whoever doubts, doubts because they have never experienced it. They have not experienced because they have never tried it. They have never tried it because they are not willing to fulfill conditions laid out there. They are simply unwilling and unbelieving.”
This is simply a false assumption. There are numerous examples of “former” christians, muslims, jews, etc becoming disenfranchised with their faith and becoming atheists. There are examples of priests, nuns, etc doing this. You are stating that EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM was unwilling, even those who gave their lives to their chosen religion.
I do appreciate your response very much, and i hope you continue to be part of this discussion, because while w may not agree with each other, I do beleive your perspective is an interesting one to hear more about.
bpatterson,
Wuhoo, another atheist, all be it a spiritual atheist, but still an atheist.
While I agree that science has it’s limits, those limits are being stretched every day, and I don’t see a reason to use a “god of the gaps” to explain things. I think that we can leave some questions unanswered until we have a better understanding. My main issue with using religion to plug those holes is that once religion takes a foothold, it’s much harder to remove the supernatural (god) because some believers are unwilling ot accept new facts that conflict with their dogma.
I do agree that politics and other realms should be “attacked” from a scientific and skeptical perspective as well, but I think the focus is on religion for two reasons.
1) It’s a much easier target since many of the basic foundations conflict with well know, and essentially “proven” science.
2) Religion is tougher to get to release a hold over it’s followers, and thus will take more time than something like politics will take to clean up. And many of the primary issues that politics has with science are based on the religious views of the politicians.
I don’t have much time today, alas, so I’ll be as brief as I can.
empyrean, your analogy of the terms and conditions offered by God is interesting, so I’ll continue with that frame of reference to point out one problem with it:
Imagine a bank who claimed to be the only true bank, and the only way to save or borrow money, despite the fact that there were similar institutions all over the world, all claiming to be the one true bank and all offering similar claims and benefits – none of which were measurable in any objective terms? How would you tell them apart.
I’d also like to say that I have a passing familiarity with the study on the effects of prayer that Rodibidably mentioned and, if it’s the one I’m thinking of, it wasn’t conducted in the manner you seem to think. Social sciences tend not to conduct experiments that require test tubes and their methodologies are usually quite rigourous.
As to what you say about doubt . . .
I find that sort of certainty worrying because, as far as I can see, admitting to the *possibility* that would could be wrong in your beliefs or your interpretation of your chosen holy book (you are only human after all) doesn’t necessarily demonstrate a weakness of faith and seems quite healthy and natural, but the reverse . . .
To me, not to admit to the merest possibility that you might be wrong, that *your* interpretation of reality (or scripture, for that matter) might not be flawed in some way, well, it seems arrogant and prideful and may contain quite a bit of fear as well. And, correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t fear, pride and arrogance emotions that most religions have some pretty pointed warnings about?
But, the biggest problem I have with that sort of iron-clad, unyielding certainty is that in our history and indeed in our present, we can see where it leads: to people seeing those different from them (in race, in belief, in sexual orientation, whatever) as somehow lesser beings, less worthy and that in turn leads to children being torn from their parents and denied their cultural heritage, to single mothers being locked away in workhouses, to whole communities being slaughtered, to kids strapping bombs to their chests and walking out into a busy street, to women being gang-raped and beaten for just being in the car with a man who is not their husband while her rapists go unpunished and she is sent to jail and sentenced to death, it leads to people being burnt at the stake as heretics, it leads to people being lynched for being in the wrong place at the wrong time and the wrong colour, it leads to terror, torture and pain.
Couple of things –
-I conceded the point that “love your neighbor” and other examples of ancient moral codes aren’t unique to Christian scripture. However one way to interpret that phenomena biblically is the fact that we’re created beings, endowed with a basic set of moral guidelines by our creator. It’s no surprise that the best of humanity keeps coming to the same conclusions about the way things should be.
The examples you cited, the inquisition, the crusades, etc. are great examples of what happens when peoples personal bias are infused with scripture. Those things are not a reflection of the the intent of scripture at all. The fact that people have misused scripture in no way disproves scripture.
-You say that Christ was convicted of rebelling against the governing authorities and he was. However on this point there’s a couple of important doctrinal points to consider. The authorities that he defied were a self-appointed group of opportunities. He defied them not by declaring war but by living by God’s moral code. He never struck anyone, he never killed anyone, he rebelled socially not physically. In fact when we was questioned about paying taxes to Rome he told his followers to “…render unto Caesar…” (By the way, Christ was convicted of sedition or treason but if you recall, it’s also kind of important to Christianity that those charges be false and thus he’d be innocent.)
The bible, nor the example of Christ, gives me the right to destroy property or take lives to protest unjust taxation.
To, hopefully, put this issue to rest, I’m not saying that I dislike the founding fathers or that I disrespect what they did. I’m simply saying that even the American Revolution gets co-opted by religious revisionists and turned into some kind of holy war for the freedom of religions – that simply was not the case. That’s the point I’m making. You asked me to defend Washington’s slave-owning and I’m telling you I don’t think it was right – then or now.
You said you could give me verses that promote slavery and sexism. I’d be interested in seeing those.
Also I think trying to defend your ancient morality by being completely evolved is a problem on two fronts. First, it goes against your overall point that we get our morality from society. Second, I’m not sure you can compare philosophy and biology. They’re apples and oranges. Not that I agree with you about evolution but even if species evolved to a perfect form it certainly doesn’t follow that morality does as well, this again contradicts your overall point about morality being a social construct.
Finally, as to Puritanical morality. Again, because someone creates a moral standard outside the scriptures and blames the bible doesn’t mean the bible is wrong.
I’m not trying to defended every twisted application of Scripture. I’m saying that because someone mangles the bible to devastating effect, doesn’t mean the bible is wrong.
uncertainhope,
I like the bank analogy, it’s a good fit for this discussion. The one caveat I would add is that each bank is mutually exclusive of the others in it’s practices, so it is not possible to use follow the protocols of banks at the same time.
I also wholeheartedly agree with the issues of essentially “good doubt”. While many (most) religions say that blind faith is a virtue, it has been shown that one of the reasons for this fondness of blind faith is so that the religion does not subject itself to scrutiny.
If one is never allowed to question the status quo, then almost all of what we take for granted today that science has given us, would never had been discovered, invented, created, etc.
I could not agree more with your final paragraph, as it makes many of the same points I have tried to make as well. Thank you very much for your response, and I hope you continue to check in and leave your thoughts as you feel.
moot,
If morality was ingrained in us then 150 years ago people would have felt the same about slavery as we do today. This is OBVIOUSLY not the case, or else there would have been no need for the civil war.
If morality was ingrained in us then 100 years ago women would have had the right to vote and been treated as equals to men. This is OBVIOUSLY not the case, or there would have been no need for the women’s suffrage movement.
If morality was ingrained in us then 100 years ago children would not have been forced to go work in dangerous conditions risking their lives. This is OBVIOUSLY not the case, or there would have been no need worker’s rights.
I could continue on, but these examples should give a basic idea of the point.
People are inherently biased based on their upbringing, their family, their experiences, etc. you can work to mitigate the biases, but you can never exclude them, we are after all, “only human”.
You admit rightly so that “scripture” can be misused, and this is exactly one of the points I have tried to make. If the bible, or any holy book can be interpreted in multiple wholly incompatible ways then all believers should take a step back and wonder if perhaps they might have misinterpreted some facet of the scripture themselves.
Even if one assumes that the bible is the word of god (which I don’t concede, but for the sake of this particular point):
Perhaps jesus does NOT bean to say that all gay people are sinners.
Perhaps god does not want us to put the 10 commandments in courthouses.
Perhaps the creation of the universe, the earth, and mankind did not take just under 1 week.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the understanding that christians have of their “holy book” is just as flawed as those who used it’s words to starts holy wars, to enslave others, and to commit acts of genocide.
Actually the jewish “leaders” of the time were NOT self appointed, they were appointed by Rome as a way to appease the people that Rome had conquered. Since the romans were the rulers of isreal and THEY appointed the jewish leadership, then jesus defying them was the same as defying Rome directly (at least in Rome’s eyes, which is why Pilate agreed to have jesus killed).
However he defied them the fact is that he still defied them; the bible makes no distinction between types of “rebelling against the governing authorities”, it states that it is wrong, period.
I am glad that you agree that Washington owning slaves was wrong, but do you beleive that this made him personally an immoral person?
Do you think that Washington, Jefferson, etc are “burning in hell” for their actions (slavery and the war) or do you think that they should be judged by the moral standard of their day, in which slavery was perfectly acceptable?
Here are a couple of links that go into a brief description of some of the biblical passages about slavery and sexism. These are not indicative of EVERY passage from the bible on the subject, these are just the passages that this website felt were most useful in making their point. BTW, I do highly recommend checking out more of this site as well, a number of the points I have tried briefly to make are made in greater detail here.
http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god13.htm – Slavery
http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god15.htm – Sexism
On my personal morality, I think perhaps my wording was poor. Essentially the point that I was trying to make is that even though a concept can be found over and over again throughout history, does not mean that it is a universal concept.
We have found racism over and over again, do you beleive that racism is a universal part of humanity?
We have found good and bad things throughout history and rediscovered them again many times. Just because an idea is good previously does not mean it was always accepted at every step between the past and today.
For your final point, I’ve already touched on it a bit here, but check out the post just above yours from uncertainhope where he goes into this a bit and uses a very good analogy to make his point.a
In pointing out that if morality were ingrained you wouldn’t have slavery/suffrage/child labor you’re presupposing that people can’t violate they’re own sense of right and wrong. I can easily concede that social immorality can all but extinguish an embedded moral code.
Secondly – because the bible is misused doesn’t speak to it’s difficulty but rather the depravity of those who misuse it to that degree.
I’ll certainly be the first in line to admit that my
understandings of scripture may be flawed but they are not dishonest. Much of the basis for things like the Crusades, the Inquisition or practically anything else an intentional misrepresentation of scripture to serve their own purposes.
I maintain that an honest individual reading the story of Jesus will not declare holy war on Muslims, blow up abortion clinics or burn witches at the stake.
This is a total side-bar that’s lost it’s relevance in this discussion but the Pharisees were not appointed by Rome. Herod the king was but he didn’t condemn Christ. Pilate never agreed to have Christ killed. In fact he found him innocent and said so on three occasions. What he did do was turn Christ over to the Jews knowing they would kill him.
Yes, I think Washington was immoral. By belief system tells me that everyone is immoral and in need of salvation, Founding Father’s receive no special exemptions.
In one regards to your point about racism being a universal and therefore part of the human code. Moral failure is a part of the human code.
You haven’t always kept your own personal moral code and there will be times you break it in the future. It’s not that your code is flawed it’s that (sorry for the insult here) but you are flawed. Humans are often mean-spirited when we should be patient, unforgiving when we should be letting things go, hateful when we should be loving.
Anyway, I’ll be checking out those links. Thanks.
Sorry again for the mistakes – I promise I’ll start proof-reading these things.
One last thing – and this is more in support of your position than mine. You talked about slavery things like that being condoned in the bible.
Interestingly polygamy seems to be perfectly acceptable in the old testament and there really isn’t anything condemning it in the new testament. Polygamy certainly not on par with slavery but I would think most modern Christians would find it fairly repulsive but there it is, condoned and unrefuted in the bible.
moot,
My point is not totally that we would not have had slavery in the past is we had universal morality. Another related idea, made from the same data, is that if we had a universal morality, and in the past slavery had been universally accepted, then it should be universally accepted now, unless our sense of morality has changed. Since we KNOW that it was perfectly acceptable to be a slave owner in the past, and we KNOW that it is considered horrific now to be a slave owner, we can conclude that the moral standards have changed over time.
As for the bible being misinterpreted, even if one assume that the original text (which we no longer have) was the “word of god”, it is obviously easy to misinterpret (open up a history book and turn the page to any random war, genocide, etc and odds are it was motivated by religion).
Since the book can be used (even if wrongly used) to justify such horrific actions, we must step back and question the validity of our interpretations, if only to stop the next horrible acts done is “god’s name”.
Before Roman rule, most of jewish society was run by the religious leaders (the Pharasies). After Rome took over, in an attempt to placate the people they had conquered they allowed the previous ruling class to continue to have some autonomy under their supervision.
Herod specifically may not have condemned jesus, but his governor did (Pilate). If you check with historical accounts the romans allowed people to carry out sentences (to a point) under their own law, but some methods of execution were ONLY ALLOWED to be carried out for “crimes” that were to be punished by the Romans themselves. Crusifiction was one of these, and COULD NOT BE carried out by the jews without the accused being “convicted” by Roman authority.
“Pontius Pilate was the governor of the Roman Iudaea province from 26 until 36. In modern times he is best known as the man who presided over the trial of Jesus and ordered his crucifixion.”
You may want to re-read the Gospel of Matthew, in it Pilate washes his hands of Jesus and reluctantly sends him to his death. It may have been reluctant on his part, but HE AND HE ALONE sent jesus to his death by crusifiction.
As for Washington, let’s rephrase the question I guess since you consider ALL people to be immoral.
Would you consider Washington to be MORE immoral than let’s say Jimmy Carter (to keep it presidential and a bit less political since nobody really HATES Carter liek some people do Clinton and Bush)?
Assuming you say yes, would that difference be due to his owning slaves (which was an accepted practice at the time, and was NOT considered by any of his contemporaries to be immoral or wrong)?
As for your final comment in your first (of these 3), you are correct, I don’t always live up to my own moral code, but I must say that since I got married and “grew up” I think I’ve done a damn good job of it actually. I may have inadvertently hurt others, but I can say with all honesty, I have not intentionally caused harm to others in a LONG time.
I don’t really have a reply to your final comment, since you pretty much made another point “for me”, but you’re correct, I had not really covered polygamy, because I have done more study on the whole slavery, sexism, racism, genocide issues, and those are IMO much easier to contrast and much more “universally” condemned in society today.
The points raised against me are of no concern to me, just to you. This is not a competition but a conversation. You are right in saying that I have no need to concern myself with pesky little things like facts(facts by whose authority–according to whose agenda?) I rather concern myself with FAITH. The benefits are in the “NOW”. The proof is in the believing and I don’t have to wait until I die to receive the rewards. The hourly peace is in the inner knowing, the oneing, the breathing in of HIS SPIRIT! Utter, sheer, beyond joy!
kaysandee,
Really, logical thought out questions of your position are of no concern to you? So once you’ve made up your mind on a subject you are unwilling to waiver or question the foundation of that opinion you formed?
I never said it was a competition. I never made it into a competition. What I did was ask was for clarification on aspects of your position, and offered alternative explanations, which you summarily ignored.
In your first post you made very specific claims which you did not support further. You then never answered my criticism of those claims, you only attacked those who’s ideas you do not agree with.
As for your comment:
“facts by whose authority–according to whose agenda”
My reply to this would be, facts based on the consensus of scientific opinion and based on the historical record. While you may be happy to live a live of blind faith, I see blind faith as a tool too often used to justify horrendous acts of violence, bigotry, and intolerance (the inquisition, the crusades, slavery, sexism, 9/11, etc).
That “God hates amputees” site is fascinating. It’s of particular interest to me. My brother was born with only one fully developed limb, an arm. He is missing parts of both legs and most of the other arm.
However we prayed for him and they all grew back! Just kidding. My brother really does have only one arm but we’ve never prayed they’d grow back. (Unless prosthetics count.)
The site does presuppose a number of things that leads to it’s question. It presupposes that all Christians are constantly praying for divine medical intervention. It also says that what we call miracles can be chalked up to coincidence. A Christian would simply argue that what you might call coincidence we Christians chalk up to the miraculous.
Let me restate what I’m getting about your position to see if I’m understanding it properly. If morality is simply a evolving social dictate…
-…slavery/sexism/child labor could all be morally acceptable at some time in the near future.
-…the countries and cultures were those things continue to exist are morally acceptable.
As to your response –
– I agree what is morally acceptable has changed over time. But moral absolutes have not changed over time. It’s just that society, despite itself, occasionally gets it right.
– I also agree we need to constantly step back and examine the validity of our interpretations. Especially if we happen to be considering starting up another Crusade or some other form of genocide.
– I would say that Washington was not more immoral than Carter.
-My purpose in pointing out that you haven’t lived up to your own moral code was to show that we are all flawed.
Let me sum up what exactly I’m arguing for here.
-I maintain that there are moral absolutes.
-Human failure to live up to those absolutes is not evidence that those absolutes do not exist. (You have an personal absolute that you admit to on occasion failing to abide by)
-I also believe that subjective social morals exist
-The fact that social morals have changed through the years, and may continue to change, does not disprove the existence of moral absolutes.
-The fact that good moral laws (your personal code included) have remained unchanged for thousands of years and across hundreds of countries and cultures is evidence of universal moral absolutes. Social morality is an inadequate explanation of this phenomena.
Yeah, I think that’s it.
Rodibi…,
You said, “…it may have worked out in the end, but certaintly does NOT meet the definition of particle”.
Excellent observation indeed. But what matters to me is that my faith worked for me perfectly well. I do not need any thing more now as a retired man. As long as you see that my faith worked for me, I am satisfied.
You seem to contend that Islam has some thing different to tell about Jesus.
Please tell me, would you rather believe several eye-witness accounts of an incident, or believe a report about that incident by some one who came hundreds of years later and who did not have the faintest idea of what happened then? Ofcourse, the choice is yours. You can choose to believe any thing. I would rather prefer an eye-witness report than a report which was made hundreds of years later by some one who knew nothing about it other than hearsay!
Then you said. “Therfore the ability of prayers to allah.vishnu…etc should NEVER be answered if your faith is “true”.
Why not? Each god, each faith has its respective power. They will be answered and they must be answered. But they all deal with eartly life only. What faith has clearly told you about what is your fate when you die? Is there any ASSURANCE any where?
You did not answer my question about any other book which offers a filial relation to God. The New Testament is unique in that.
I am only glad that I made you to give long answers!
You said myth is universal. Myths only tell us that there is more to life than the physical. That there is a spiritual world which is a real world is the issue here. To me the spiritual world IS real.
You said, “each holy book has some thing that is unique”. Absolutely true. You went on to say. “so by your logic, they must all be true”. Not necessarily. Uniqueness of the Bible is found in the Person of Christ. No other book has s person of that standing anywhere. A RISEN SAVIOR.
You said, “This next pont made me laugh quite a bit actually”.
I am so glad! LAUGHTER IS A GOOD MEDICINE! LOL!!
But come to the point now. I AM indeed surprised that an itelligent man like you would take a sentence out of context and try to understand it! Did you not read the following sentence where I said that a space craft can not possibly tested in a TEST-TUBE but they need a different ENVIORNMENT for testing!! I hope you got the point now. I think you are being over-loaded with answers from all sides that it is rather difficult for you to keep pace with it. Is that true? Otherwise, why would you make drastic comment with out reading the whole paragraph? I wonder whether I should converse with you at all.
All I said was that prayers need a different enviornment to function and therefore it can not be tested in a test-tube! What’s wrong with it?
You said, ‘ANY TIME that prayers are “answered” with definite results, we shouold be able to measure those results”.
Please send to me those who measure results of prayers and let them, if possible, prove to me that prayers did not produce any results in my life!!
You said that never an amputated limb grew on any man. How true an observation. I do not know whether such a thing ever happened any where either.
My answer is, why was that limb got amputated at all in the first place?
At last you said that there are numerous examples of believers becoming atheists because their faith did not work for them.
Who would doubt your statement. I know people who give up their faith myself. It is a true fact of life. I PITY THEM.
BUT COULD YOU POSSIBILY TELL ME THAT PRAYER DID NOT WORK FOR ME? Please give me an yes/no answer here.
(Oh, yes, in the beginning itself you agreed that it may have worked for me. That is JUST sufficinet for me. Somewhere someone agreed that my faith worked for me! Do I need a better compliment than that?)
Thank you very much indeed.
moot,
I agree, that site is great. While they obviously have an agenda and they don’t pull any punches, I think the authors of the site have done a GREAT job of finding evidence from the bible and other sources to make their points.
Actually I don’t think that it presupposed that christians are praying for divine medical intervention, it only presupposes prayer.
I know that after my father left the catholic church and became born again, he would pray for such mundane things as finding his car keys. When he found the keys it was “because god helped him”, not because he kept looking.
He also prayed that he and his second wife would have a child. When they did finally get pregnant it was a “miracle”. Perhaps if they had not had sex during this time, and not seen fertility specialists during this time it may have been miraculous, but they did everything they could medically to conceive, there was no logical reason for any rational person to see two people who were having unprotected sex and become pregnant as any other than the expected outcome.
If a rational christian wants to say that praying can cause definitive, verifiable, miracles they should be willing to accept the results of numerous scientific evidence that disputes this, or they should be willing to be part of further testing if they beleive the testing methods were flawed in some way. Instead they fall back on the tired cliche “god’s will can not be tested”, which is a cop out.
While I beleive that it is POSSIBLE for those things to be acceptable in the future, I doubt that we would “regress” in our morality. I think it’s more likely that some other accepted aspect of society today will be looked at as heinous in the future (perhaps there will be no more hatred of homosexuality or something, who knows).
I think that in a culture where sexism is rampant (i.e. much of the middle east) while it is acceptable by THEIR standards, that since the majority of the rest of the world does not view these things as moral, it is up to us to pull those countries that are “behind” us into a more universal (I mean universal as in accepted world wide, not inherent in humans from god) moral code.
If moral absolutes are constant over time, and in the future they determine that something that we do now (and consider to be benign) is immoral, does that mean that we should have also viewed it as immoral?
“I also agree we need to constantly step back and examine the validity of our interpretations. Especially if we happen to be considering starting up another Crusade or some other form of genocide.”
I think we can apply this to ALL aspects of life, not just the more obvious ones such as genocide and wars, but otherwise, I certainly applaud you for this statement.
Personally I’m a fan of Carter (post presidency at least, he was kind of blah as president) but that’s neither here nor there.
If you believe that slavery was immoral in Washington’s time, then why would Washington not be MORE immoral than Carter, since Carter never owned slaves?
I also agree, we are ALL flawed; at our most base levels, we are designed for replication of our genes, and instinctively our natural reaction is to do what’s best for the survival of our gene pool.
I do agree that morals standards shifting throughout history does not disprove moral absolutes, but there is also NO EVIDENCE for moral absolutes. I can’t DISPROVE vampires either, but that doesn’t mean that vampires exist.
Extraordinary claims (the existence of god, the infallibility of the bible, moral absolutes, etc) require extraordinary evidence to support them.
I can’t really speak to the issue of prayer. I’m much too ignorant to make absolute claims about the way it works. I’m not conceding the point to be sure, I’m just not sure I agree with the points the site argues against.
Back to ethics.
-You admitted that it may be possible for culture to “regress” (the quotation marks were not lost on me) but doesn’t the concept of regression again imply an absolute ideal? How else do we know which way is progress or regression?
-You said there is also a universal standard toward which we can pull the countries that lag “behind”. (Again with the quotation marks.) I’m sure you’ll correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t you then saying that it’s morality by majority? Essentially whatever the most people believe is the correct belief? Are you willing to adopt that as your official stance?
-As to the discussion of degrees of morality in regard to Carter and Washington. This is more of an in-house discussion among believers but let me pull back the curtains for a second. Christians basically believe that everyone is immoral in regard to an absolute standard of right and wrong. In other words there are two categories – “good” for people that have never so much as jay-walked and “bad” for everyone else. So in this absolute sense you, me, Carter and Washington are all in same boat. Not because we’re all guilty of the same crimes but because we’re all guilty of crime.
Now there certainly is a more subjective sense that one sin is worse than another. In this more nuanced list someone like Dahmer scores much higher than say, Martha Stewart. In an absolute sense both are guilty of lawbreaking and are thus immoral, in a subjective sense I’d much rather have Martha Stewart making me dinner.
So in that absolute sense Washington and Carter fall into the same category, immoral. In that more nuanced sense…I don’t know. Washington was a great president who kept slaves. Carter was a terrible president who didn’t. Who did more damage and what scale do we rate this on? Again this discussion certainly lends itself to the concept of absolutes.
In sum, moral absolutes exist…
– the continued existence of essentially unchanged moral codes (again, yours included) for thousands of years and across hundreds of cultures, speak to this fact. Social ethics don’t account for this.
– Even your appeals to progress vs. regression speak to a definite moral absolute. Social ethics don’t account for a absolute toward which we strive.
– The ethical basis upon which to appeal to other countries and cultures and make them comply (a premise you supported in your previous post) speak to that fact. Social ethics don’t allow for us imposing our morals on other social groups.
All in all I think there is quite a good bit of evidence for moral absolutes.
empyrean,
“Please tell me, would you rather believe several eye-witness accounts of an incident, or believe a report about that incident by some one who came hundreds of years later and who did not have the faintest idea of what happened then”
DO you mean like the “several eye-witnesses” to the creation of the universe, and the flood, or the people who wrote about them thousands of years after the fact?
As for prayer to “any” god working, I have a few points (I know, you’re shocked).
If your version of god is correct, then mohammed was mistaken, correct? If mohammed was wrong, then allah is not god, correct? If allah is NOT god, then praying to him should accomplish nothing, it should be the same as praying to the easter bunny, or santa.
If jesus is god, then vishnu is not a god, correct? If praying to somebody or something that is NOT a god works, then praying to YOUR god and having it work is NOT proof that your god is true.
Pick either (or both) points, one shows that prayer working does not prove god exists, the other shows that prayer does not work just because somebody is certain that it does.
Actually I did answer that, my answer was:
“Your next point is about the uniqueness of the bible. Every “holy book” has something about it that is unique from other “holy scriptures”, so by your logic, they must all be true. However we know that they are vastly incompatible with each other, so they can not ALL be true.”
The bibles uniqueness is, according to you, it’s “filial relationship with God”. But other holy books are unique in other perspectives, uniqueness does not prove validity.
Also uncertainhope’s response to your previous post made some very good points, which concern this subject as well.
Regarding myths, do you take the myth of psychic power at face value? Or does the myth of vampires teach us about the “truth” of spirituality?
Most myths are stories passed down through generations and mangled (like a child’s game of telephone), they only teach us about the superstitions and ignorance of our ancestors.
I apologize if I replied to quickly to the test tube comment, but the part that stuck me funniest on the test tube analogy was using space craft as the thing that science can not test inside a test tube. It stuck me as quite an odd choice.
However the eventual point you made still has some serious flaws.
“I have tested out prayer in my physical environment and I found that prayer wrought marvelous results which otherwise I would never have found in my life. Truly prayer was experimented on and found working effectively.”
This is called anecdotal evidence, this is NOT a scientific test. A scientific test would involve writing up specific goals of the prayer before hand to check the results afterwards, it would involve a control group that did not use prayer and a comparison between the control group and the group using prayer, and it would involve being a blinded study, so those doing the comparisons would not know which group was praying/not praying.
If I were to pray to Richard Dawkins (and NO, this in no way means I “worship” Dawkins, it’s to make a point that he is OBVIOUSLY not a god) that I will find my keys when i lose them, if i find them, this does NOT mean that Dawkins “helped” me find them, it means I kept looking for them.
Now if I were to to STOP looking, and sit down on my couch and pray, and the keys suddenly dropped from the ceiling into my lap, this MIGHT show something, but even that drastic an event would not ALONE be proof that Dawkins was god.
Nobody can prove a negative 100% (i.e. that god does not exist), and nobody can do scientific analysis on anecdotal evidence AFTER the fact. “Proving” that god did not help you is not possible, but so is proving that god did help you. The simpler solution is that you most likely worked your ass off in a rough environment, and managed a good life for yourself and your family.
If you want to PROVE that prayer did it, I would suggest joining a scientific study where people can objectively examine the evidence and reach an unbiased conclusion.
“why was that limb got amputated at all in the first place”
I suppose your response is that it’s part of “god’s plan” for a child to have a leg blown off by a land mine.
As I said before, Nobody can PROVE a negative, and nobody can disprove anecdotal evidence AFTER the fact, but if you were to join a scientific study you could “prove” to the world that prayer does work, assuming the results of this study were the exact opposite of every other scientific study done on prayer.
I do agree, that for YOU, faith worked. You put yourself in a harsh environment and you seemingly thrived in it.
Faith in god perhaps was a big reason that you were able to do so well. But faith working for you, does not prove that “your” god is the “true” god.
Just as if a hindu family was put in the same situation, and had the same results, this would not prove that vishnu and ghanesh are true “gods”.
moot,
I meant regression in terms of our current moral standard.
Right now we have values that a typical christian might think of as being lesser than we had 50 years ago (acceptance of homosexuality, etc). While I may personally disagree with this being a regression, if the majority of society went back to a more homophobic view point, then in the future, this period would be considered a regression by those people (while their view point would be the “regression” in my opinion).
Progress and regression is based on whatever the society says it is.
What I am saying is that SINCE we get our morality from society, that essentially, yes “majority rules”. While I may personally not agree with every specific value that society believes in, I am convinced that we get the basics of our moral code from society. Each individual person has a different interaction with society, so each specific person’s morality may differ in some areas, but the underlying core is based on the group we live in.
If in 1000 years the majority of people of the earth “decided” that slavery is ok again, then according to their morality, it would be acceptable; while according to our morality it would be a regression.
You make some solid points on the Washington/Cater question (although I disagree with Carter being horrible, I think he was just ineffective and most bland than horrible, I would personally put our current president on the horrible scale, i.e. the worst president in US history).
The point that we disagree on though is your viewing Washington negatively due to the whole “slave owning thing”.
While I abhor slavery, I feel that you can’t judge the people of past on the morality of today.
When Washington was alive, according to the morality of his day, black people were less than human, they were beasts of burden. In his mind/hearts/soul/what-have-you he was not doing anything immoral, and according to his contemporaries he was doing nothing wrong.
As a christian, part of your believes is to follow the 10 commandments. Is somebody who’s never heard of these commandments and does not obey some of the more innocuous ones (lord’s name in vain, honor parents, keep holy the sabbath, etc) and otherwise lives a PERFECTLY SIN FREE LIFE (this is only hypothetical mind you), guilty of sin in your view? Keep in mind that according to the moral code of their culture they have NEVER committed any immoral act.
I am also glad that you did go into the idea of “levels” of sin, since that would have been my next point.
As for your final points:
– “essentially unchanged moral codes” – Like slavery, sexism, bigotry, racism, etc…
– The “progress vs. regression” I was speaking of were with regards to the CURRENT standards of the time, not a timeless moral code.
– The ethical code complying I was referring to was the moral code of the majority of the world at THIS time (i.e. sexism is bad) being used by those few who don’t currently accept the overall morality the rest of the world does. This speaks ONLY to current time, again not a timeless code.
Typical and extreme conclusions Rodi. I love the way you put words in people’s mouths and even attribute thoughts and attitudes based on your own interpretations. It seems that you have ‘assumed’ and ‘mis-assumed’ most of what I have said – or not said. IMHO you are not truly seeking others’ opinions – just a platform for blabber – excuse me, super-experienced-scientific-psychoblabber. It appears the brainiacs have it and the poor clinging vine faithful are fools. Quite frankly, I would serve God even if there were no eternal heaven offered because of His goodness to me here. Maybe your vitriolic thoughts of the God of the Bible stem from fear – and maybe you scoff at those lowly who claim true joy because you really don’t have a very joyful existence. Tell me, in your great, scientific formulaic knowledge, was there ever a time when the earth was void?
kaysandee,
You STILL have yet to respond to even one question or comment to you. You made your initial statement, which I replied to questioning a few of the comments you made, and asking for further clarification.
Yes I did quote Richard Dawkins, which apparently you did not seem to understand, but I also quote many various people in my blog, this does not mean that I believe they are divine, it just means that they put into words a point which I think is valid to the discussion at that time. I have quoted the bible as well, and as I’ve stated many times, I don’t believe in god, but I quoted it to make various points.
As for assuming or mis-assuming what you’ve said, please feel free to correct me where I did not grasp your “point”.
In your first post, you mentioned a number of variations of christianty, and questioned if they were all equally valid. I asked you why you ONLY included christian denomination,s and did not include islam, scientology, hindu, buddhism or any other religions but forms of your own.
You have yet to respond to that question.
In this first post you claimed that being a cynic or being skeptical is a hard life. As somebody who takes things on blind faith I hardly think you are qualified to make this assumption. I feel that skepticism is a very important part of life. Are you skeptical of the teachings of mohammed? How about l ron hubbard? How is that skepticism different than my skepticism of christianity?
You also have yet to respond to my comments on this subject previously about being cynical of actions committed by humanity. Are you not cynical about the crusades, the inquisition, 9/11, the holocaust, raping little boys and hiding the priests, genocide, etc?
You also claimed a religious life is “easy, peaceful, and full of daily joy”. Not according to mother theresa who doubted her faith often, and as a christian, you are likely to think of her a saintly figure and a good example of the faithful. Perhaps YOUR life is good, but your experiences are not indicative of all religious people like you seem to want to claim.
You have yet to replied to my previous comments that “Sugar coating your view on life does not remove the past or present actions taken by christians in the “name of god”, it just makes you look disingenuous”.
As to your question “What harm is there in living a nice Catholic, God fearing life, full of charity and morality, dying, and finding out there is no god?”:
I replied: “If somebody HONESTLY does not believe in god, and “fakes” it by going through the motions, don’t you think that IF god does exist, “he’d know” it was all an act.”
You have yet to reply to this. Are we sensing a trend yet?
You final comments from the first post were more clearly opinion based on your personal experiences, and as such I did not respond directly to them. If you find that in your own personal life that having blind faith in a supernatural belief helps you, so be it. If you find that hopping on your left leg in a circle 3 times heps, great, go on and do it. This neither proves that it works for others, nor proves that your are putting your belief in anything real, but if it works for you, then I’m glad you found something to give your life meaning and purpose.
I did make a few other points on your overall outlook, which, you guessed it, you failed to give ANY response to.
And on to your second post…
You start out asking sarcastically if I think Dawkins is the messiah, which is of course a Very christian attitude. I’m sure you know what this means, so think to yourself: WWJD
Since your first statement was so utterly devoid of any intelligence I did not expect much from the rest of your post, and of course yo did not disappoint.
You then attributed the quote of Dawkins to me personally (and while I agree with it, wasn’t the entire point of you mentioning I think Dawkins is god because I quoted him?
Ah, and then you go right back to asking if Dawkins can “bring me to a place of peace”, which I think assumes I believe Dawkins to be divine again, which is of course ludacris for an atheist.
“God allows things to happen, He doesn’t necessarily cause them to happen.” You mean like the biblical flood? Or allowing a child to be raped; if a person did that you’d consider them to be a vile despicable human being, but when “god” allows bad things to happen to innocent children, it’s part of a plan. Or if you put stock in what some nut-job like Pat Robertson then god caused the destruction of hurricane Katrina.
Then you tell me to read the bible; I’ve read it twice actually, and like you professed in your first post, I have also read the end and I found it to be a sick twisted piece of fiction that idealizes bigotry, sexism, and many other horrendous acts.
I’ve already broken down all of your “points” in my previous reply to this particular post of yours, so I won’t go through them all again other than to mention once again two small points.
You have YET to respond to even one point made towards your comments.
You have YET to respond to one question I asked of you.
So we move on to your third post where you admit no interest in looking at facts, but only in looking at your own personal faith. Of course I questioned your lack of interest in facts, but you remained consistent.
You have yet to respond to my questions.
You asked “facts by whose authority–according to whose agenda?” to which I replied.
You have yet to respond to that reply (oh the trend is continuing, at least you’re consistent).
You somehow got the impression I claimed this is a competition, although how you came to this conclusion I don’t know, and of course you don’t specify. I made the point that I never claimed it was a competition, but of course (can you guess?)…
You have yet to respond.
You next comment is a logical fallacy, not that you’d seem to understand what this means. But essentially you stated you have faith, and you know this faith is true, because you believe it to be so. This is such an odd statement, and such a fallacious statement, I’m not even sure how to respond honestly.
And then you end again with your description of being a believer as one of unimaginable joy. Since I had already responded to this type of comment before, I did not bother to yet again, but of course…
You have yet to respond to my previous comments on this “point”.
In my response to this overall post, I made number of points and asked a few questions about the overall gist of your post, and (do I even need to say it any more?).
You have yet to respond to any of these questions or comments.
You then claim in your newest post that I am the one being extreme, when I have responded to every comment you’ve made no matter how ignorant they have been, and you have repeatedly shown your disdain for a reasonable discourse.
If you would like to see an intelligent back and forth from two sides who don’t agree but are civil and respond to each point and question the other side makes, check out the posts back and forth between myself and mootpoint. While moot and I do not see eye to eye on a number of things, I respect the points he (actually I guess I’m assuming he, I’m not sure now if moot has given gender) has made, I have learned much from moot’s replies about his position and beliefs, and I think he has come to understand a good deal more about my side as well. We have discussed many topics over the course of a month or more of back and forth, and while each back and forth has questioned or commented on the others’ positions, we have managed to remain civil due to both abiding by general rules of debate and discussion. I’d say that moot is somebody that you could learn a GREAT deal from, and as a bonus, moot’s a believer too, so perhaps you’ll actually be willing to listen and respond to actual points he makes to you.
Please tell me where I have put words in your mouth. I have not needed to, you’ve done a much better job of showing your ignorance than I could ever HOPE to.
I am seeking opinions of rational intelligent people who are willing to listen to other ideas and defend their position using rational reasonable discourse. The majority of posts on here have been of that type, but there have been a few outliers like yourself where no amount of discussion could ever get you to see another point of view.
I never claimed the faithful are fools, in fact some of the most intelligent posts have been from believers.
As for me not having joy, that’s irrelevant, but since you brought it up… I have a loving wife who I care for very much. I found a career that I am very good at and that I enjoy a great deal… I have a great dog (a tad small for my tastes, but she’s a great dog), who’s an absolute joy to play with. My wife’s family is wonderful and I love my nephews more than I thought possible. And most importantly, in the next few years I expect my wife and I will have our first child.
I’d say I have a VERY joyful life, and I would not trade it for anything.
Just because YOU have a need for “god” in your life, does not mean that others are not perfectly happy without that type of superstition.
As for your final sarcastic comment/question, “in your great, scientific formulaic knowledge, was there ever a time when the earth was void”, even though YOU refuse to acknowledge questions and comments from others, I will answer you.
Whether one believes in a 14.7 billion year old universe, or the myth of a 6,500 year old creation, one should believe that there was a time the planet was void. For a young earth creationist, that void lasted for a few days, for somebody woh looks at the science, that void lasted for millions upon millions of years. So in a word, yes, and so do you…
Rodibi…,
When you said that Islam had a different view about Jesus, I said I would rather believe eye-witness reports than one said hundreds of years later as hearsay report.
Sorry, your comment to my statement is unwarranted!
I am not shocked to see that prayers to other gods do have its effect on believers.
I told you clearly that all religions have a function and it is like food to a starving person. Spiritually hungry people are looking for some thing to satisfy them and each one has found some satisfaction in each thing. They can not believe elsewhere sumptous food is freely available! Hence they stick on to their faith.
Vishnu is their god, allah is some one else’s god. As I said in my previus post, each functions differently, each offers different things to devotees and each has its respective power. All these religions only show that there is a God who has given a hunger in man’s hearts for Him. How else could you explain religions of the world?
But No RELIGIOUS BOOK EVER GIVES ANY ASSURANCE TO BELIEVERS ABOUT THEIR LIFE AFTER DEATH. WHILE THE NT CLEARLY DOES.
I am repeating my challenge to you. Show me any other book than the NT which gives any ASSURANCE about life after death to believers!! I had asked you in the previous post. I am repeating my qn. here as well.
You said, “prayer working does not prove God exists”.
What you say is right. Prayer working does not prove that God exists. But it is evidence which can not be simply ignored.
I repeat my qn. about filial relationship with God.
Show me one book which teaches you to enter into a filial relationship the creator God. This is the second question which you did not answer.
You said, “This is called anecdotal evidence”. What did you say? Why is it anecdotal? Did you read about my experience in prayer where I sustained a miracle for sixty days continually when I bought a piece of land and constructed a concrete building as direct, tangible, undeniable answer to prayer? Still you call it anecdotal?
I spent over six months for this project spending eight to ten hours in my prayer-closet, planning, praying, inter-acting with God. I FIXED MY TARGET BEFORE I started and that was a piece of land and 700sft. of concrete building, building to be finished in thirty days. It happened exactly as I planned and prayed! Please read my post ‘God who fed Elijah by ravens is alive and active even today’. If you call it anecdotal, sorry, I have no further talk with you.
You said, “Just as if a hindu family was put in the same situation, and had the same results, this would not prove that vishnu and ghanesh are true “gods”.
I say, NO BODY can produce similar results as I have produced trusting in the God of the Bible. Show me one person who has done a similar thing for a whole lifetime trusting in any other god or trusting in any other system of belief other than the God of the Bible. This is my third challenge to you in this post.(I have given my story in the link in my first post. Please reply me only after reading it.)
Please give me ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answers to my three questions which I repeat for you.
Qn.1. Is there one book which clearly talks about what is going to be the future of the one who believes in it and gives an assurance about heaven, other than the NT?
Qn.2. Is there one book other than the NT which can guide you to enter into a filial relationship with God your creator?
Qn.3. Can you produce ONE MAN who produced a lifetime results in prayer trusting in some god, some philosophy other than the God of the Bible, as I have done for a lifetime trusting in the God of the Bible?
TO ME GOD IS REAL. If He was not, I would not have been probably alive today, as I subsisted my whole life simply by prayer. I GIVE HIM ALL GLORY. Amen.
Any body out there to challenge it?
I do have what I think is an honest question.
How does the atheist explain belief in God?
If you contend that we’re continuing to evolve biologically and philosophically then wouldn’t religion be a byproduct of evolution? And if it’s a deviation contrary to social progress, then how does is it accounted for in naturalistic terms? It seems like atheism must somewhere exaplain, expect and even allow for belief, right?
Anyway…back to responding.
-I’m willing to accept your explanation of regression and progression as referring to current societal norms. However it still seems to belie a sense of absolutism. How could we say something is progress even in terms of social norms, when there is no ideal? Reverting to slavery, sexism and racism is no better or worse than not. And thus there is no particular reason to work toward one versus the other.
-So, essentially majority rules… then that brings up a question for me. Given that the majority of people live in Africa and Asia shouldn’t we be looking to them for our morality? I think the majority rules concept brings up a number of problems but I’d be really curious as to your answer to the one I present above.
-On the Washington/Carter issue. I did a tiny bit of research which I probably should have done a few posts back and discovered that historical consensus is that Washington changed his views on slavery later in life. In fact the majority public opinion at that time was by no means in favor of slavery. Vermont abolished slavery in 1777.
Hypothetically I still think that had he not changed his position we could hold slavery against him. There were plenty of tools to develop a belief that opposed slavery. Again many people in Washington’s time in fact did develop an aversion to slavery.
However this is more of an example of the absolute vs. social morality debate we’ve been having. I’d fully expect you not to hold Washington accountable because of your beliefs.
-The Ten Commandments. No modern Christian follows the Ten Commandments nor should they. I certainly don’t. I’d love to explain but it’s a sidebar from the issue that we’re currently discussing. If you’re interested let me know I’ll try to give a brief summary of what I mean.
-However your hypothetical is still an issue. What if some native of Toga, Toga who’s never been exposed to God or a bible-thumping society, still manages to live a good life?
The Bible actually addresses this issue. If you’ll bear with me while I quote a bible verse for you.
“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they should that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them.” – Romans 2:14, 15
I think that’s pretty self-explanatory. I realize it’s the Bible but I just wanted to show you how my world-view handles that dilemma.
-“Essentially unchanged moral codes” I know you know what I’m talking about. We’ve already agreed that humans have an incredible propensity for being morally flawed and you’ve stated that failure to live up to moral standards does not disprove absolutes.
My point is that moral ideals have remained unchanged through thousands of years and hundreds of cultures. Societal ethics doesn’t (and can’t) account for that.
Rodibidably,
I would almost like to respond to some of the other posts for you. Even as a believer, I have problems with their answers. I’m pretty sure they’re not doing their belief system any favors with their chosen manner of defense. Judging by their responses I’m not at all sure they’re even interested in a discussion. Good luck all the same in developing your responses.
Pingback: An Open Question for All Atheists. « Moot The Point
empyrean,
Your point you tried to make is that the bible is more valid because it is an eye-witness account. I replied by pointing out that the SAME BOOK also talks about other events which NO HUMAN WITNESSED, even according to the book itself.
If you’re going to use something being an eye-witness account as a plus for your “holy book” over others, then you must be willing to admit that the points where your book fails to live up to your own standards are at least a bit dubious.
I do want to clarify your view on prayer to “other” gods, because perhaps I don’t get it fully.
If a muslim prays to allah, and that prayer has an effect on the person, in YOUR view, does this mean that allah answered their prayer?
Same question if a Hindu person prays to Vishnu?
How about if I pray to a toaster, and from my belief in the toaster has a tangible effect on my life in my view. Does this mean that a TOASTER is god?
Or are you saying that “your” gos listens to all prayers, no matter which “god” you pray to and is equally likely to answer prayers for a hindu person as a scientologist or a muslim or a christian or a toaster worshiper.
I know this may sound a bit like I am making light, but I am actually curious what your belief is, and this example (absurd though it may be) will help me get a better understanding.
As for how I explain the religions of the world, there are a number of theories, but there are two that I personally think seem very likely.
First off is the theory which Daniel Dennett puts forth in his excellent book, Breaking The Spell: Religion As a Natural Phenomena. In his book he puts forth the idea that religion is a by product of evolution. In an evolutionary sense, religion type of experiences helped create a stronger group bond, which enabled early man to work together more effectively, and thus increased our chances for survival. His book goes into much further detail than I could ever give it justice here, and I highly recommend checking it out and seeing what he has to say on the subject.
Another theory that I believe is ALSO correct, which works in conjunction with Dennett’s, is that while the religious experience if a by product of evolution, “god” or “gods” are remnant of early man’s attempts to explain the world around them. Thousands of years ago early man gave sacrifices to appease the gods so that it would rain, or so that their harvest would go well or their hunt would be fruitful. Eventually as we realized as a species that “god” did not intervene on such trivial matters,and that there were certain laws of the universe that allowed the sun to rise in the morning and set in the evening, god’s role diminished slightly over time, until we got to the point where we are now, with our current views on “god”.
The Koran gives VERY CLEAR assurances as to what happens after death, the whole 72 virgins for maryters thing, you know… To say the bible is the only book or religion that does is patently false.
Does this satisfy your “challenge”?
I’d like to repeat my point about the difference between anecdotal evidence versus scientifically controlled studies.
Anecdotal evidence is a person’s individual experience looked at after the fact and that person making a causal relationship between multiple events. For example, if I pray that I find my keys, and keep looking for them and find them, I could say that “god” helped me find my keys. This does not mean that he did, it just means that two events happened in some order. How likely is it that I’d NEVER find my keys, or how likely is it that I’d pray to find my keys AFTER I had already found them. The logical assumption when a person loses their keys is that eventually they will find them.
A Scientifically controlled study takes multiple groups of people in controlled situations, and eliminated all differences possible between those two groups, except the specific thing bing tested. In the keys analogy, let’s say you have two groups of 10 people each, and one group prays before looking for their keys and the other group does not. Somebody can time the two groups to see ho long on average does the “prayer group” take vs the non praying group, and see if there is any statistically significant difference between them.
There have been MANY scientific studies on the effectiveness of prayer, and EVERY SINGLE ONE has shown no effect at all.
While I have no doubt at all that you believe with every fiber of your being that god helped you in your life, this is anecdotal evidence, there is no scientific way to check AFTER the fact and confirm that things would have been different without prayer.
I’m all for people praying if they feel it helps them, however I think that prayer alone is not going to accomplish anything. I’m sure you worked your ass off to get things done. If you had prayed and sat around drinking margaritas, your prayers would most certainly NOT have been answered.
As for your question on the filial relationship with god, I have answered this, just not in the way you wanted/expected/etc…
As I stated previously, every holy book has something unique about it. These uniquenesses do not validate these mutually exclusive beliefs. In your opinion, one of the unique characteristics of the bible, is the “filial relationship” with god. This might have more meaning to somebody if they had NO understanding of any religion at all and said, I’ll choose the one with the “filial relationship” to god, and you showed them the bible. But unless that is the SPECIFIC thing that you’re looking for in your religion, it’s jut another unique thing about one specific religion, which is not inherently better than the unique nature of any other religion.
AS I stated above, this is EXACTLY THE DEFINITION of anecdotal.
I’m NOT arguing that it’s not true.
I’m NOT arguing that prayer did not “work” for you.
I’m NOT even arguing that your god is false.
I’m just saying that showing the after affects of your life with no previous controlled testing, is not proof of something.
For more information on Anecdotal evidence, check out the wikipedia page on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
Once again, to clarify, saying that something is anecdotal is NOT saying something negative (or positive), it is ONLY saying that this piece of information is not scientific evidence and can not be used to prove or disprove anything.
I hate to harp on this point, but you seem to be taking this as an attack, and it’s not. I am only stating that as thrilling as your life seems to have been, it’s not a valid basis for a scientific finding.
I have read your post, and while I personally do not know of anybody who has done the same thing as you, there any countless examples of people living their lives by their faith and relying on their god to help them (see the quakers, shakers, buddhist monks, the dahli lhama, mother theresa, etc).
While their situations may not be exact correlatives to your own, even your own does not prove anything other than you worked very hard to accomplish a great deal.
I also have no doubt at all that “TO YOU, GOD IS REAL”, just as I have no doubt that all 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were convinced 100% that what they were doing was “god’s will”.
Conviction can be a very powerful force for great works and horrendous acts alike.
I hope I have answered your questions to your satisfaction, and I look forward to your response.
moot,
Your first question is a very good one, and actually good timing, since I the previous person asked the same thing, so I can just copy from there:
As for how I explain the religions of the world, there are a number of theories, but there are two that I personally think seem very likely.
First off is the theory which Daniel Dennett puts forth in his excellent book, Breaking The Spell: Religion As a Natural Phenomena. In his book he puts forth the idea that religion is a by product of evolution. In an evolutionary sense, religion type of experiences helped create a stronger group bond, which enabled early man to work together more effectively, and thus increased our chances for survival. His book goes into much further detail than I could ever give it justice here, and I highly recommend checking it out and seeing what he has to say on the subject.
Another theory that I believe is ALSO correct, which works in conjunction with Dennett’s, is that while the religious experience if a by product of evolution, “god” or “gods” are remnant of early man’s attempts to explain the world around them. Thousands of years ago early man gave sacrifices to appease the gods so that it would rain, or so that their harvest would go well or their hunt would be fruitful. Eventually as we realized as a species that “god” did not intervene on such trivial matters,and that there were certain laws of the universe that allowed the sun to rise in the morning and set in the evening, god’s role diminished slightly over time, until we got to the point where we are now, with our current views on “god”.
Actually by Dennett’s theory (and he is not the only one with this idea, his is just one of the better books, and more recent books, on this theory, so it’s the one I would recommend people to check out for a better understanding) religious experience was a very valuable tool in our evolution, and we may not have completely “outgrown” it 100% yet. However even if one assumes we’ve outgrown the need for it completely, it could still be considered a left over similar to an appendix, or tonsils, etc, where it’s not always harmful (unless it bursts which I suppose the religious equivalent would be causing irrational decision making based on blind faith).
You are 100% correct, atheism does EXPECT, and even allow for belief (see Dennett’s book for more).
I personally have absolutely no problem with somebody going to church, and praying, etc…
Where I have a problem is when religious people try to enforce their own beliefs on other people (president bush creating a ban on stem cell research which could save countless lives or states not allowing gay marriage are two simple examples), or when people use their faith as justification for their actions (look no further than 9/11 for a GREAT example of that).
If you want to pray to allah 6 times a day, or wear a cross around your neck and pretend to “eat god” on Sunday’s, or not eat a cow because it’s sacred, go for it.
If you want to bomb an abortion clinic or protest a soldier’s funeral screaming “god hates fags”, then I have a MAJOR problem with your religion and your faith.
The ideals are created by society. Think of women’s fashion as an example. Stylish women in the 1700’s showed very little skin, wore big puffy dresses. In Marylin Monroe’s day, a woman who was a bit curvy was considered to be a knockout. Today’s “idealized” women makes Marylin Monroe look overweight, and wears less clothes on her body than a woman from the 1700’s worse on her hands. None of these styles is inherently better than another, but they are changing through time. Perhaps in the future women who are a tad bigger (like Monroe) will be the ideal again, and from today’s standards that would be considered a regression.
Morality is very much like this in a typical atheist’s view (or at least my view, which I feel is fairly typical of a large portion of atheists).
Your next point is quite a good one, and I’m not sure I have a GREAT answer, but I do have AN answer, which I hope does your question/comment justice.
From the view of the US, China is “behind” on moral issues. From the view of China, the US is not “behind”, but we have “gone too far”. From a world view perspective, there is a middle ground which would be the “ideal morality”. Perhaps we need to get over our sexual issues and become more accepting of homosexuality, and China needs to grant more rights to the individual, etc…
By reaching this “happy medium” the world would come to a global consensus.
I’m not sure if this is exactly the answer you were looking for, but it’s at least my attempt at a “quick and dirty” explanation off the top of my head (and I don’t even go to a Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, or Hitchens book or quote for that one).
On the Washington thing, I knew that Jefferson freed his slaves on his death (which is only appropriate since he was screwing at least one of them), but I did not know the same was true of Washington. Perhaps I should have gone with a different person as an example, but he’s the first “moral slave owner” that comes to mind for me typically.
“No modern Christian follows the Ten Commandments nor should they”.
If only this were true. Mike Huccabee, who was a legitimate candidate for president of the US wants to change the constitution to reflect the 10 commandments. At least once every 3 years or so somebody in the US tries to sue to get the 10 commandments displayed in a public building (courthouse, state government building, etc). I know that MANY people feel that jesus overrides the 10 commandments and that by following jesus’s example the 10 commandments are no longer needed, but unfortunately, there are a LARGE number of people in this country who still believe the 10 commandments are the ultimate rules to live our lives by (the founder of Chick-fil-A has all of his stores closed on Sundays in honor of the sabbath).
Perhaps this was not the greatest example to a seemingly rational christian like yourself, I guess I should have saved it for kaysandee, but I thank you very much for answering.
As I read that verse it says essentially if I am wrong and the god of the bible is true, that I as an atheist, as long as I live a good life and live by the “rules” that even I will go to heaven. The problem is that a LARGE GROUP of christians (estimated at 80 million in the US) believe that unless you believe and follow every word of the bible (according to their own interpretation of it mind you) that you’ll burn in hell for all eternity.
I still think you’re wrong on the whole “god existing thing” 😉 but I must say, I like “your god” much better than theirs.
As for the “essentially unchanged moral codes”, I personally don’t think that morality is unchanged, but for the sake of argument, let’s say that something like “don’t kill other humans” is a universal unchanging moral code, even that could be explained evolutionarily.
Those people who did kill others, were more likely to receive retaliation, and thus less likely to breed and pass on their genes to the next generation. Those who lived in harmony with other people were more likely to cooperate, and thus more likely to reproduce. Give that process a few million years, and the “aggression” or “desire to kill” would have dwindles through less numbers of those people having offspring who carry this trait.
Perhaps this could explain an unchanging moral code, if it does truly exist, without the need for the supernatural aspects of religion.
From your second post, I’d love to hear a rational christian’s view on some of the more extreme religious types (like kaysandee), so if you’re up for it, I’d really welcome your views/comments on anybody else who has joined out discussion.
Also, I o plan on checking our your new post on your blog and responding, but I need a break for a bit (these last two replies have been long), so it’ll be later tonight, or tomorrow morning…
I managed to read about four chapters of Hitchen’s “god is not Great” I thought it was very compelling. And, with the exception of the basic premise, I agree with almost everything. I’m perfectly willing to concede that most theists are ridiculous at best and homicidal at worst, but then that sums up humanity fairly well too.
-Dennet’s proposition is an interesting one. I’m fascinated that he argues that religion would create stronger group bond. He’s obviously never been to a church board meeting.
Let me refine my question slightly. Is it possible to explain belief in philosophical terms rather than evolutionary ones? I know I’m asking you to bend over backward here but I’m just interested in exploring these lines of reasoning.
Using idealized feminine beauty as an example of a changing social ideal is good but but I think it plays to my point a little better. Using the your analogy of women’s changing standards of beauty, beautiful women still come in the same basic package. The trends are slight variations on an absolute. (showing some skin, slightly plumb, skinny, blonde, etc.) But the truth remains that they’re all still reflective of an absolute. In other words, Mona Lisa and Marilyn Monroe have more in common than they don’t.
The same is truth with most moral standards. There are slight variations that social customs bring to bear on them but the ideals come in the same basic package. (Be nice to people, don’t kill people, treat your family well, be brave, etc.)
I would like to explore the concept of which majority defines our standards a little more. In your response were still left to essentially pick and choose what we like regardless of the majority view. Take homosexuality for example. The majority of the global community doesn’t like it but that hasn’t stopped people from saying that protecting homosexual rights is an ideal. China has huge human rights problems, but why doesn’t that illustrate the moral ideal (despite our aversion to it) if it reflects the majority opinion? Finding the “happy medium” doesn’t seem compatible with your views on letting the majority dictate morality.
Despite Washington’s stance on slavery – I still understand your point. The issue is, “can I consider someone immoral by today’s standards who was moral by the historical standards of their day?”. My ultimate point is still the same. History or not we all have the tools with which to make good moral judgments about the common practices of the day.
Generally if we consider someone evil today they were evil by the standards of their day as well. However the opposite is not always true. There were men who were judged evil by the standards of their day that have proved themselves to be moral by absolute standards and thus are regarded as heroes today. I hesitate to give the example because I’m sure we could find flaws, but Lincoln was widely hated by many of his fellow Americans.)
-The Ten Commandments thing. Mike Huckabee, despite what he says, doesn’t keep the ten commandments and really doesn’t want anyone else to either. Those that sue the government for the right to display them in courthouses don’t follow them either, nor would they want to be held to the commandments exacting standards.
It’s not that I’m for adultery, covetousness or worshiping other Gods. It has to do with little commandment number four. The one about the Sabbath.
Even a cursory examination of the subject tells us that the Sabbath was strictly defined as sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. For that 24 hour period Hebrew people were not supposed to do a wide variety of activities. Things like preparing or cooking food are out, that includes warming something up. Carrying an object outside of your house is out. (Better store the golf clubs outside, except that traveling more than two miles is out.) Requiring someone else to work is out, so don’t go out to eat. Lighting a fire is out, so, by definition, starting a care with an internal combustion engine is out. Changing the thermostat is also prohibited. This list could go on ad nauseum but I think it’s safe to say not a single “ten commandments” touting person would be willing to adhere to even part of that list.
I’ve long maintained that it’s not scripture keeping but scripture ignorance that has resulted in the vast majority of ridiculousness that masquerades as “faith”. It’s not right to judge the scriptures themselves on people are seem hardly willing to take even a few moments to learn about what they so vehemently claim to believe.
-As to the Romans passage. I think that believing in God would be an important part of following a code of conduct, even an internal one. We’re in the process of arguing if you can come to a moral standard outside of absolutes and this outside of God, so the jury’s still out on this one.
I’m going out on a limb here but I find it difficult to believe that God would hold someone to a standard of which they were innocently ignorant. I can’t imagine there’s lots of people out there who, despite their lack of exposure to Scripture, haven’t violated their own standards of ethics, but I could be wrong. In other words – I still think we could use some good missionaries.
-Let’s examine your genetic explanation of morality. You assumed people that kill were “more likely to receive retaliation”. Why would that be true? It would if people have an innate sense of justice. Where would that sense of justice (or right and wrong) have come from?
In any regard, I would think it more likely that those with an inclination to kill have passed on their genes. We have plenty homicidal instincts left in the human race as evidence of that.
This genetic line of reasoning brings up another totally unrelated question. Wouldn’t homosexuality, if it were indeed genetic, have removed itself from the gene pool eons ago? And if early homosexuals simply suppressed the desire be homosexual, what compelled them to do so? And how does homosexuality fit in with evolution and its instinct to propagate the species? We’re not talking about male animals that act out with other male animals. We’re talking about humans that claim to be only sexually attracted by the same gender. How, in the world did that particular genetic strain manage to escape the relentless onslaught of evolution? And what good is it today in a naturalistic world-view?
Anyway…
I will respond to a couple of he points from the other posts. But I don’t imagine we’ll be seeing too much more of some of them. Some world-views have no patience for people who aren’t easily dominated.
Hi Empyrean,
You leveled a challenge at the end of your post. It sounds like an open invitation so I thought I’d take you up on it.
Question One –
Yes, there are quite a number of religious books that give assurance to their follower concerning the afterlife. I could give you quotes from the Koran, The Doctrine and Covenants, the Baha’i faith to name a few.
Your challenge leads me to believe that you are either unaware of the many volumes of religious work and their content or I am misunderstanding your challenge. Regardless, the New Testament is by no means unique on this front.
Question Two –
I’m not sure about other religions and their “filial” descriptions of God and man. Even if the New Testament is unique in this (and I’m not sure it is) that fact in itself in no way proves the existence of God or even a firm basis on which to believe Christianity is the right religion.
Question Three –
I’m sure you’ve accomplished great things. But the concepts of a “lifetime of results” is pretty subjective. Then to go on to say that no other man accomplished as much outside Christianity starts to sound a little arrogant.
Gandhi accomplished quite little bit in his lifetime. There are lot of examples of non-Christian that have great accomplishments as there are examples of Christian who hardly did anything.
Ultimately your conclusion reveals a sort of relativistic approach to Christianity. You say “To me God is real.” I’m glad for that fact but that doesn’t prove He’s real to the rest of the world.
moot,
I’m glad you have begun to read Hitchen’s book and are enjoying it.
He also has another EXCELLENT book on mother theresa which I am going ot start reading shortly (after I finish the book I’m into now) that is supposed to be eye-opening as to her motives and actions that the general public are ignorant of (including conversations with other nuns from her group she worked directly with that were horrified by her actions).
As for Dennett’s idea, if you think about it, it’s actually really makes sense. If you tell me to help another person, I may or may not do it depending on the amount of effort involved, etc. If you tell me that “god” wants me to do something, and I believe you, I’m almost certainly going ot do it, even if the direct harm to myself outweighs any potential benefit.
Religion in philosophical terms, hmm. I concider myself more of a scientific mind set than a philosofical one, but I’m up for giving it a try.
However, I’d like to start this off with a brief potential “history” of how the current religions formed (some of these ideas are borrowed from others like ennett, and some are my own “best guesses” at how it may have played itself out).
I am of course starting with the assumption that religion began in an evoutionary manner in order to help promote the group dynamic (ala Daniel Dennett).
I am also going with the idea that the supernatural aspects of religion began as man tried to understand the world around them (the other main point i made in my previous post on the origins of faith/religion).
When you combine the two ideas, then “god” has needs (worship me) and desires (follow these rules) and those early religions involved a give and take (sacrifice a goat for me, and I’ll let it rain for you) then you have all of the essential ingredients for today’s religions in a much more primitive form.
Throughout countless centuries/milliniums these were refined further and further until they became a kind of second nature.
As this happened, those in charge of the religious aspects of life were being pushed out of the way slowly, and as people will often to, they fought to retain control. First the most educated of these early “priests” would write down specific rules, and since at the time most people were illiterate the only way for them to follow the rules set forth by “god” was to listen to the priests of the time.
As these priests gain more and more control, they centralized this power, creating a heigerarchy, pushing the common people lower and lower on the scale.
To prevent “revolt” from this lower class the religions came up wit hthe general idea that is easily explained as “the meak shall inherit the earth”, or to put another way “your treasure is not here on earth, but in heaven”.
This enabled the priests to control the masses since the general public “knew” that by towing the line, they would be rewarded when they die. Some eastern religions turned this idea into reincarnation into a crappy being for evil people, or reincarnating into a ruling class person if you lived a good life. Whether Eastern or Western ideas, the concept is “your life may suck now, but if you’re good, you’ll be rewarded when you die.
A few hundred or thousand more years of revision and refining, and we have the religions we know today.
As for thge absolut female beauty, what would you say it is? Tall and thin, short and plumper? Show no skin, or show a great deal? Exotic beaty or “girl next door”?
There is no ideal of feminine beauty across different times, it ebbs and flows with societal standards, just as morality ebbs and flows.
As I mentioned previously, the idea of SOME basic moral concepts COULD in fact be evolutionary, but the way those concepts are viewed changes with time.
I did not mean to imprly we pick and choose our morality like a buffet, but if you look at china vs the US as an example, perhaps I can better explain myself this time.
In the US, we look at China as being “backwards” or “behind” on a number of moral issues.
In China, they do not look at the US as “behind”, but as having “gone too far”.
In this sense, there is a “moral medium” between the two countries at some point. Because we’re intensly vain ,and we think we’re always right, the US tries to dictate to other countries to follow “our ideals” and we rarely sucumb to the views of other countries (see Iraq and the US/UN debate as an example).
The opposite is not completely true of China though, the Chinese do not want ot force us to come “down” to their level morally, they just want us to not attempt to enforce our morals on them.
So in this example, you have one side attempting ot pull the other towards it, while the other side does not pull back, but only tries not to be pulled. Give this enough time, and eventually China is likely to budge (well that or finally get pissed off and hit back economically).
So this fits with the idea the in each society the majority DOES dictate their own morality, but here we ALSO have one society trying ot enforce their morality on another society.
I think we understand eachother on the Washington thing, but perhaps another way to approach the idea I was trying to convey would be morality as medical treatment.
Today, we look at the idea of using leaches on somebody, or drilling a hole in somebody’s head as barbaric (for the morality idea, insert sexism, or slavery here).
A few hundred years ago, before medical standards were as strong (or moral standards were as strong) this was common practice.
In this way we can see a clear migration of medical standards (morality) over time.
This also would explain the difference in morality in one time, but across societies (i.e. not many MRI or CAT scan machines in Africa).
While I admit this is not a perfect analogy, perhaps it gives a different angle than the Washington one.
Although, perhaps the Washington one was good enough, since you seem to have understood what I was trying to say.
*** I’m heading out of the office now, I’ll finish responding to the rest of your post from homer later on this evening…
kaysandee,
Hi you seem like a nice person but your tone down-shifted dramatically when you were challenged to define and defend your beliefs.
I’ve often been baffled at self-described believers who find themselves both confused and outraged at non-belief. You labeled Rodibidly a cynic and a skeptic and then seemed offended by his cynicism and skepticism.
Arguments concerning rationality and logic are not won through condescension or utopian descriptions of catholic bliss.
It’s undermining to your claim of “the breathing in of his Spirit” when your “hourly peace” and “sheer joy” can’t handle a few lobs from an atheist whose willing to have a conversation with you.
moot,
Ok, part two of my reply to your last long post, that I did not complete while I was at work…
You state that if we consider somebody evil today, that we would always have considered them to be evil. I (and I assume you as well) would consider somebody who was willing to sacrifice their own child to be an evil bastard. In many cultures throughout history children are sacrificed to appease the gods, and in the three abrahamic religions, the founder of the religion was willing, and ABOUT to according to the “holy books” and this is actually looked at as being a virtue (blind faith).
If a scientologist, buddhist, hindu, etc (or most likely, even a christian) today told you that “god” told them to sacrifice their child, and they were planning to do it tonight, you’d ALMOST CERTAINLY call the police. However the founder of the jewish faith (and therefor christianity and islam) did this, and is looked upon as being a great man.
Mike Huckabee may or may not “truly” want to change the constitution. The fact remains that claiming he did as part of his campaign was an effort to get to the republican “base” who WOULD like to see the separation of church and state broken away,and feel that inserting the 10 commandments into our political life is a good thing.
I agree with that you that typical christian in the US has very little understanding of what the old testament actually says, and what the rules of the old testament are, but they do CLAIM to want the US to follow the 10 commandments, whether they understand what that entails or not.
I’d reckon than every human who has lived past young childhood has “had another god before the jewish/christian god”, taken the lord’s name in vain, dishonored at least one of their parents, lied, and coveted people and possessions. The vast majority have also stolen something at least once. And you make some great points on the whole sabbath thing. So that’s 8 out of 10 for the overwhelming majority of humanity. The last 2, killing and adultery, are a bit more rare, although the rate of adultery is ridiculously high in many countries, including the US. But we have the murder thing, we generally prefer to lets our government do that for us (execution), or if we REALLY disagree with somebody (bombing abortion clinics), or agree with Pat Robertson’s suggestion that we assassinate a leader of another country (my, how “christian” of him).
While I agree with a number of these ideas, some of them are ludacris (TRY to stop yourself form coveting something, or don’t do anything for 24 hours a week).
The problem is not really with the rules themselves per say (although I do have issues with a few of them) the bigger issue is that those who CLAIM to support them as the best example of morality, REALLY want OTHERS to follow them under circumstances that THEY deem fit, and want the freedom to break them when they feel it’s necessary.
You are VERY RIGHT about the ignorance of scripture being a massive issue with “bible believing christians”. I am an atheist, and I probably know the bible better than 90% of people in the US (and possibly the world) who consider themselves to be a “christian”. The TYPICAL christian knows what they hear in their church on Sundays, knows the 10 commandments (or at least a BRIEF IDEA of what they are), the golden rule, and the story of jesus’s birth, and crusifiction.
VERY FEW of them have read much of the old testament, and really don’t have the slightest clue what it says or means.
And of those who have read it, a LARGE percentage of them read it as part of a bible study group, where their priest/pastor/leader told them how to interpret it to meet their own preconceived belief system.
For the Romans’ passage, you think that believing in god would be an “important part of following a code of conduct”.
Would you say that it is necessary, or just helpful? Can an atheist go to heaven even if they KNOWINGLY and PURPOSELY DENY god’s existance?
What about if that atheist does their best to follow the moral guideline I set for myself (or one similar to it)?
And if that atheist who lives a life that you might consider “moral” (other than the whole denying god’s existance thing), but actively tries to “de-convert” others by showing them the irrationality of their belief system?
If you say that a person can live a moral life, and get into heaven despite “denying god”, then what advantage is there to believing in random superstition which scientifically seems unreasonable or unlikely?
The idea of missionaries is one I’m not fond of myself (I know, you’re shocked, huh).
First, the positives; I VERY MUCH admire the desire to help those less fortunate; I believe that many missionaries have good intentions; I believe that many missionaries do very good work and help many people live better, healthier, and more educated lives.
However the problem that I have with missionaries is primarily two fold.
First of all, you have people like mother theresa, which I’ve gone into a bit previously, so I won’t rehash this again right now other than a few words (unless you’d like me to elaborate further). As Christopher Hitchens has put bluntly “MT was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction.”
For a quick glance of this stance check out http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/
For a more in depth look at a critical view of her life and work, check out his book “The Missionary Position”.
The second primary problem I have with missionary work is that to go to another country with the intent of converting them to your own religion, one must be living under the assumption that the religious beliefs of those people is “lacking” in some sense, and that your own religion is in some way “better”. To me this is a very egotistical outlook, and condescending towards those who are being “preached” to.
Ok, next point… There are two reasonable explanation that a “killer” would be likely to receive retaliation.
First off there have been studies on apes and chimps that how that they have a “sense of fairness”. When one ape feels they have been “wronged” they are likely to retaliate, and even if they see another “wronged” they are likely to retaliate in defense of that other person. Now from my understanding of the Christian position, humans are somebody “better” than other great apes because they were created in god’s image and imbued with special rights. If this is so, then an ape should not have a sense of fairness and morality if god gave humans our own morality. While this is not a direct “point”, it should at least be something to think about for any true believer who feels that humanity is “special in god’s eye”.
Another idea would be that due to self preservation instincts of the witnesses they are likely to “take out” a rogue person who’s likely to kill them. If I witness somebody randomly kill another person, I’m not just going to sit around and wait to see what he does next, and I’m pretty certain you would not either.
This “retaliation” is not done because of a sense of “fairness” or “morality” it is done from self preservation. Perhaps over millions of years this subtly shifts and turns into “fairness”.
Obviously I’m not an expert on this subject, but these are rough ideas that I feel are reasonable explanations based on my understanding of evolution, morality, early human life, etc…
I do agree that there is still a good deal of aggression in humanity, but I think we can both agree, it’s relatively minor when compared to the overall population of the world. I do not commit murder, not because I worry I would get in trouble, but because I don’t feel I have the right to decide who should live and who should die. I would argue that the VAST majority of people feel this same way, and those that don’t are aberrations, who make the news BECAUSE they are not the norm.
Ahh, homosexuality and evolution. This is actualyl something I am very interested in, but I honestly have done VERY little research into the subject (it’s just one I have not yet gotten to).
However, I can point out a few simple facts that I do know of. We have currently documented homosexual behavior in roughly 500 species of animals (including every species of primates, dogs, cats, dolphins, elephants, etc…)
I want to do this subject justice, but I honestly think that I could not give it the justice it deserves. Instead I would recommend checking out the following link (you’ll have to scroll down a bit to get to the homosexuality portion):
http://evolution-101.blogspot.com/2006/07/why-did-homosexuality-evolve.html
Also, TalkOrigins (which is a very good website) has a few small resources on this subject:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA010.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB403.html
http://www.google.com/custom?q=homosexual&sa=Search&sitesearch=www.talkorigins.org
moot,
I’d like to thank you for your responses to empyrean and kaysandeee. While I’m not convinced they will listen to you, I do think there is more of a likelihood they will, since you are a “fellow christian”, and thus they should not dismiss you out of hand like many christians seem to do with people of other faiths and even more so atheists.
I think that it is mcuh easier in their minds to dismiss me since I have “not been touched by the holy spirit” than it is for them to dismiss you who are obviously a christian.
I think that you and I have shown a debate between two people with very different views on a subject can be civil, reasonable, rational, and most importantly, allow the two sides to better understand each other.
I know that in my life, most of the “christians” who I have discussed faith with have been much less rational than you have been, and in many cases the discussions have turned into rants about my soul, and going to hell, etc. While that type of “back and forth” is kind of humorous it really has no benefit for anybody involved.
The discussion with you has been enlightening. You’ve pushed me to reexamine a few aspects I had not though of in a while, and even to think about a few issues that I had never specifically considered in the past.
It’s very nice to see that despite our disagreements on some things, we share many of the same goals, ideals, and views on the extremists on both sides of the discussion.
It’s also quite interesting to see that you and I make many of the same “points” to the speech of extremists.
Oh Rodi, I love you – because God made you! You are so transparent. Sorry to disappoint you with my ignorance, ignorance, more ignorance, and failure to play by your rules. But I am so glad you went to such great lengths to draw me out into your scientific world of debate and share your expert pointage with me – although I am a bit sorry for your wife and your dog since you spend so much time at the keyboard.(might be a little difficult to become a “creator” of new life) I am glad to know though that you know right from wrong, bad from good, black from white, etc. Too bad you are your own authority. So since you believe that the world was void, I guess the next step was that “something” came from “nothing”. Correct?
moot,
what ever gave you the impression that I can’t handle a few lobs from an atheist? I just happen to believe that there are NO real atheists! In order to be an atheist you have to believe there is a God in order to say God isn’t real. If you are truly an atheist then you don’t spend so much of your time trying to rescue people away from ‘nothing’. How can ‘nothing’ be so sick and vicious? Thanks for your concern and your admonition. Received with humility. You seem like a nice person too.
kaysandee,
I forget, exactly WHICH verse in the bible does it say that sarcasm and condescension are virtues? Was it the gospel of john or luke, I get those two confused some times you know….
I’m curious exactly how I am transparent to you.
Is it my desire for a dialog? geez, should have seen that coming…
Or is it my expecting people involved in a debate to follow general rules of civility and reasonableness? How dare I…
Or perhaps it’s that you expected me to question your beliefs? OMG, an atheist not agreeing with a christian about the existance of god, how utterly shocking…
Or could it be my posing question to you that you don’t like? Would you prefer me to just resort to insults, like you have, so that you can claim the high road?
I would expect that ANY RATIONAL person who is a christian and posts on the blog of an atheist about religion, ESPECIALLY IF THERE ARE ALREADY 200+ POSTS SO THAT YOU CAN EASILY SEE WHAT IS GOING ON FOR OVER A MONTH, would expect that perhaps the atheist might call into question a few of their statements.
I never claimed to be an expert on ANY of the subjects that have been brought up in this post. Yes, I have read a number of books on the subjects we’ve discussed, as well as articles, websites, movies, tv shows, documentaries, “holy scriptures”, etc that go into a number of these subjects, but I am far from an expert. In fact you’ve already had derogatory remarks when I have quoted “experts”, so I doubt you’re care HOW qualified somebody is, unless of course they agreed with your views unwaveringly.
I do admit, you’ve given me a few laughs, included the quotes “failure to play by your rules” and “scientific world of debate”.
Do you understand what a debate is?
Just in case you don’t (since that is the appearance you’re giving, I’ll help clear it up for you a tad.
Debate (North American English) or debating (British English) is a formal method of interactive and position representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, since it includes persuasion which appeals to the emotional responses of an audience, and rules enabling people to discuss and decide on differences, within a framework defining how they will interact.
Informal debate is a common occurrence, but the quality and depth of a debate improves with knowledge and skill of its participants as debaters.
Perhaps that will help you understand what is going on here, so that you can participate on a similar level to the other participants involved.
As for the “failure to play by your rules”, which rules are those exactly?
I expect people to remain civil, and I had hope that people would actually answer the question which I posed in the original post here (a surprisingly large number of people completely ignored the actual question, and just went into their own random issues).
I expect that when somebody makes a statement, that they back that statement up with some type of evidence or support.
I expect that when somebody is asked a question, they answer it.
And I expect that when somebody makes a statement ,and that statement is called into question, that the person defend their position in some way, or acknowledge their mistakes.
These are not necessarily “my rules” they are rules that ANYBODY involved in a debate would expect of all participants. If you somehow managed to pull your head out of your ass for long enough to make a rational point, I believe that you would expect me to respond to it.
I’m curious why you feel sorry for my wife and dog, without knowing any of the details of our schedules, but it’s much more likely that you are once again attempting to make a snide remark at my expense. Wow, you got me with that one I suppose. Seriously, if I did not know any better, I’d almost think you were a friend of mine trying to do a bad parody of a believer to get under my skin.
It seems that you are being critical without actually reading what I have written (not that I am at ALL surprised by this), but when you state that “Too bad you are your own authority” you OBVIOUSLY have missed that I have posted the same quote AT LEAST 5 times, and referred to it at least another 7 or more times. Since obviously you missed it the first DOZEN OR MORE times, I’ll post it again (but you may want to be careful, it’s a quote from Richard Dawkins).
“Religious people do not derive their morality from religion. I disagree (with the interviewer) on this point. Almost all of us do agree on moral grounds where religion had no effect. For example we all hate slavery, we want emancipation of women – they are all our moral grounds. These moral grounds started building only a few centuries ago and long after all major religions were established. We derive our morality from the environment we live in, Talk shows, Novels, Newspaper editorials and of course by the guidance of parents. Religion might only have a minor role to play in it. An atheist derives his morality from the same source as a religious people do.”
I’m not sure if that could be much clearer, but just in case, here it is in one line, since I don’t want to strain your mental capacity.
I get my morality from society, just like EVERYONE else.
And to your final comment, the something from nothing claim. This is what’s known as a “straw man argument”. What this means is that when somebody tries to purposely (or out of ignorance) make a generalization about a group or a person that has a different viewpoint, they sometimes make a statement that they CLAIM the other side believes or has said, and then they attempt to invalidate that statement instead of the ACTUAL beliefs of the group of person they are debating.
If you would like to question the ACTUAL things which I believe, I’m more than willing to do this, however if you want to put up a straw man argument, I’m going to have to decline to join your little fantasy land where you think you can make an actual intelligent point. Perhaps you should leave the pseudo-scientific babble to the “discovery institute” or the “answers in genesis” crowd, they may be raving lunatics just like you, but at least they attempt to SOUND intelligent.
kaysandee,
In your response to moot, you state:
“If you are truly an atheist then you don’t spend so much of your time trying to rescue people away from ‘nothing’. How can ‘nothing’ be so sick and vicious?”
I don’t know, let’s ask the 3000 plus people who died on 9/11…
Or the countless children raped by priests who were shepherded around the US in order to avoid investigations by the authorities…
It’s not “god” or religion or faith that we atheists protest. It’s the horrendous acts done under the cloak of religion and faith. It’s using god and belief to justify horrible acts. It’s the blind faith that makes one ignorant, bigoted, and able to commit horrible acts of violence.
I have ABSOLUTELY no problem with somebody who wants to believe in god, and that feels that their belief makes their life better.
I have a problem when people try to shove their beliefs on others or when people use their beliefs to justify their own prejudices and their own actions.
But of course, I could not expect you to actual make a lucid point or have even the most basic understanding of anybody or anything that does not fully support your own narrow views.
As for your comment:
“In order to be an atheist you have to believe there is a God in order to say God isn’t real.”
This is such a complete and utter load of bunk, I’m not even sure that you can claim you actually believe it, and it’s certainly not worth a complete response to explain your total lack of understanding of even the most basic logic.
1. Relativity vs. absolutism
Obviously the general concept is whether or not moral standards change and if they do upon what basis.
2. Two Options with Relativism
In a relativistic system you essentially have two basis upon which the changing morality derives it’s standard. You either have the social ethic (“morality by majority”) or you can have a individual ethic.
3. The Social Ethic is Essentially Might Makes Right.
Probably my ultimate problem with social relativism is that while “morality by majority” sounds like it’s reasonable and inclusive, it quickly turns into “morality by authority”.
In your dynamic the person or people with the most power, whether that power be political or social, is the one who determines what the majority believes.
Take a microcosm of this as an illustration of it’s truth. Hitler created a moral standard that created a racist mentality in the majority. To enforce that standard he created a culture of fear to ensure that this standard was kept. The West, largely out of the ball-game ’till “invited” by the Japanese, said that social ethic wasn’t proper and sought to enforce it upon the Germans through military power.
Or look at a social illustration of this issue. It seems fairly obvious that our entertainment industry often deeply influences the social ethic. And often by the movies producers, actors and directors own admission, that is exactly what they are intending to do.
So thus social morality is often reduced to a few people who have the money, power or rhetoric to create new standards within a society.
I don’t see how you can escape from what is basically a “might makes right” conclusion in your world-view.
4. If not a Social Ethic then an Individual Ethic
The other option for a relativistic world-view is that, while the social ethic make exists, it’s not the final standard to which we appeal.
In other words I decide for myself what is right, as do you. And thus you can’t be “right” and I can’t be “wrong”. Because what may be right for you is wrong for me and vice versa.
I want to respond to your last two posts but I wanted to solidify exactly what what we’re arguing here.
Let me know what you think.
-Yes I’ve read some of Hitchen’s book. But don’t get too excited, we’ve already established that it’s possible to develop similar conclusions from dramatically different premises.
Hitchen’s essentially says bad things have happened because of religious beliefs, therefore religion is bad. I say he’s missing a vital point in that formula. Here’s my take. Bad things happen because people misappropriate religion, therefore people are bad.
-I still think Dennett’s theory is inadequate. He’s assuming that someone would spontaneously formulate a heretofore not thought of concept, namely God. Despite the fact that conceiving of something that (even the atheist admits) is inconceivable. Then the same someone would be able to convince a group that this previously inconceivable deity exists. And that some vague threats from the deity channeled through the spokesperson would convince this group to do something contrary to their instincts. It’s a big leap.
It seems, if non-belief is indeed the null hypothesis, then the evolutionist/atheist still has a bit of an uphill climb to even to explain the existence of the concept of God. Try to imagine and explain something that has never before been thought of and has no connection to anything in the natural world it’s tough to do.
By the way, I think Dawkins in “The Selfish Gene” argues against the concept of group selection. (This would also apply to the argument about “fairness” and retaliation I address later) He says it’s the gene that is the unit natural selection, not society.
-The information about Mother Theresa from “Slate” was interesting. Exposing her as a fraud doesn’t affect my world-view much. She wasn’t particularly high my list of reasons I believe in God anyway.
-As to female beauty as an example of social ethics. My point is essentially a female, despite slight changes in preference, is still pretty attractive to most males. In this analogy the feminine body is the moral absolute and the the variations (height, weight, etc.) are the social variable on that same absolute.
-The China morality thing. You said “…each side does dictate it’s own morality…” Are you OK with Chinese morality then?
-As for the Abraham/child sacrifice issue. On the surface it is a difficult passage and a reprehensible act, but…
…can you imagine a scenario that people would find it moral and even laudable that a man would kill his own child? I can. I think I could argue that, even given our world’s current ethical standards, I could create a plausible scenario in which a man would be considered a hero for the act of killing his son. And I think my scenario would further give evidence to the existence of moral absolutes. If you’re interested I’ll lay it out for you, otherwise we’ll go on to other things.
-I pretty much agree with your assessment of the ten commandments issue.
-Back to the Roman’s passage. No, I don’t believe a person can go do heaven if they purposefully deny God’s existence. Sorry. Besides, if you don’t believe in God you certainly wouldn’t want to spend eternity with him. God is nice enough to make heaven optional.
-Yes, missionaries can be a little heavy-handed. My point was that, even if a person can get to heaven without knowing the bible, they would be an exception not the rule and it’s still a good idea to tell them about God.
-Your point about missionaries being egotistical. If teaching someone something is arrogant then we can’t ever really teach anyone anything. Egoism would be more in the manner something was preached, not necessarily in the effort to preach itself.
-OK, now to the apes’ sense of fairness. First of all, drawing conclusions about animal morality simply from external behavior reduces morality to conduct. True morality entails non-behavioral elements, too, like intent and motive. You have to make assumptions about intent and motive to ascribe morality to apes.
-Now on to homosexuality! (Wow, I never thought I’d write that last sentence.) I also know an infinitesimally small amount about genetics but ignorance has never stopped me from talking about something before.
First of all, engaging in homosexual behavior is not at all the same as not engaging in heterosexual behavior. I would argue that homosexuality is not a trait found in species, more specifically, what looks like homosexual behavior is found in many specifies who then go on to mate also with the females of that species.
The article from “Evolution 101” was interesting but it seems that when he could have made a variety of conclusions he went with one and ignored the others entirely.
-He said that homosexuality is not unique to humans. But strict homosexuality (homosexuality with complete disregard to the opposite sex) is.
-Secondly, he said that homosexuality fosters better socialization in those animals. That’s a large assumption to make. He’s never observed these animals outside of the homosexual behavior to see if they react negatively without homosexuality.
-Thirdly he says that the evidence strongly suggests some kind of genetic component and uses the existence of homosexuality as proof. Circular reasoning just doesn’t do it for me like it used to.
Anyway, I’m having fun. These are great posts.
One last thing. I totally forgot to explain what I was doing with my first post, the one with the numbers and points. I just wanted to re-clarify the discussion. We’ve taken a lot of side arguments and, while I completely enjoy the sidebars, I want to make sure we maintain a clear sense of what were debating.
moot,
I do believe that morality changes with the culture.
I think that our culture tells us what is morally acceptable; and that morality also has an affect on our culture as well. It’s a two way street, which is why morality change slowly over time as our culture changes.
For an example of this let’s look at the typical life of a male and female throughout historical times (this is only meant to be a VERY brief idea, obviously not fully in depth for this example):
From the archaeological record, millions of years ago, males and females essentially shared all tasks, there were not yet any defined roles. Everybody was involved in the hunt, and everybody was involved in raising the children.
Over time, gender specific roles began to emerge. Since the males were larger they continues to do the hunting, the women were left to care of the children.
As recently as 100 years ago is was general practice that young males of less well off families were working to help support the family as a general practice. The young girls were forced to work in the home, helping the older women raise even younger children, do household chores, etc.
Now in today’s society we are expected ot treat boys and girls equally, and we are expected to “let kids be kids” and not send them off to work at ridiculously young ages.
Morality has change over history in two respects.
Originally all sexes were treated as equals, then separated, and now we strive to treat the sexes equally again.
And throughout most of history it was morally acceptable to send children out to work at ages as young as 7 or 8, where now if you have a child working under age 14 or so it may be illegal (depending on the state) or at least frowned upon by the current morality.
The culture has changed throughout time to where children are no longer required to work, and the morality change with it to where children working is not considered immoral. While it’s hard to say which pushed which it’s easy to see the connection between the two.
Are you trying to argue that these examples of social ethics (hitler and entertainment) do not have an affect on our morality? I think it’s obvious that entertainment has affected our morality (we are much more accepting of homosexuality now than we were just 20 years ago, in part due to TV and movies).
I am not arguing that this is the BEST way to determine our morality, I am saying it IS HOW WE GET our morality. Those are two different questions.
As for the individual ethics, I think everybody has their own personal interpretation of the social morality based off of their own personal experiences. This explains how I can feel that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable while somebody who lives next door might find it repulsive.
While my morality may be different than theirs, the overall societal morality dictates which of us can state our views in public without being looked at as a homophobic, bigoted ass (can you guess which side I think society is on).
moot,
Ok, and on to post #2…
I think the point that Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and others make is that not religion is inherently bad. The point they are attempting to make is that religion is unnecessary, and so easily corrupted that as a society we’d be better off without the current religions/religious beliefs that we have in place.
In fact in Breaking The Spell, Dennett states that the spell he hopes to break “is not religious belief itself, but the conviction that religion is off-limits to scientific inquiry”.
I don’t think any reasonable atheist would say that you don’t have a right to pray, or that you can’t believe in a higher power.
What we do say is that is you are going to make claims about the natural world based on your faith, you need to have extraordinary evidence, since by it’s very nature religion and faith and about extraordinary claims.
We also say that while you may believe your religion is great, and wonderful, and “joyful” that you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT as a believer, to try to enforce any portion of your beliefs on other people.
And finally (well not the only other thing really, but the last point I want to bring up) that nobody should have the right to use their religion or faith as an excuse for their behavior.
Dennett’s theory is not that “god” popped up out of nothing, but perhaps I am just not doing his work justice.
Wikipedia’s take on this is quite similar to a few of the ideas Dennett puts forth in his book:
Some scholars have suggested that religion is genetically “hardwired” into the human condition. One controversial hypothesis, the God gene hypothesis, states that some human beings bear a gene which gives them a predisposition to episodes interpreted as religious revelation. One gene claimed to be of this nature is VMAT2.
The byproduct theory argues that religion is not an evolved adaptation but that the diverse range of beliefs, behavior, and experience collectively referred to as religion emerge as byproducts of other adaptations that evolved to solve other (mundane) adaptive problems. These include: the ability to infer the presence of organisms that might do harm (agent detection), the ability to come up with causal narratives for natural events (causal reasoning), and the ability to recognize that other people have minds of their own with their own beliefs, desires and intentions (theory of mind). These three adaptations (among others) allow human beings to imagine purposeful agents behind many observations that could not readily be explained otherwise, e.g. thunder, lightning, movement of planets, complexity of life, and etc.
While Dennett never claims his ideas are the EXACT mechanism by which religion came into being, he puts these forth as hypothesis which need further study and refining.
A good review and overview of his book can be found here:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/nov2006/spel-n06.shtml
Check out that review, and I think you may get a better understanding of Dennett’s point (it’s not that religion all of a sudden just “popped up”, it was a very subtle and gradual evolution).
You’re correct about Dawkins arguing again the idea of “group selection”, but Dawkins goes further to show that what APPEARS as group selection from a distance, when looked at closer is in fact still selection at the gene level.
It’s just that it’s much more convenient to think of it in terms of group selection, even if that’s not the ACTUAL true term for selection.
For example, my genes will typically be expected to replicate through me, but if I can give my life to save my sibling/parent/offspring/close relatives, the odds of my own genes passing on may be just as high as if I lived myself (Dawkins goes into the actual math in much more detail than I have room for here).
This would APPEAR to be an altruism act and a group selection model, but when looked at closer Dawkins argues that it is in fact gene selection.
I know you personally are not as big a fan of mother theresa as many christians, but I used her as an example of the TYPE of missionary that I think does much more harm than good.
I’m beginning to think the female beauty analogy is not as good of one as I had first hoped it would be, I’ll try to see if I can come up with better one I guess, but I do think you followed the point I was trying to make.
However, I do have one question for you on this, in your view of morality, where it is static and absolute because it is given to us by god, then how do you explain the “social variable on that same absolute”? This seems to conflict with the idea of fixed morality from god.
My moral code says that many things that are acceptable in China are wrong. My own moral code also says that many things accepted in the US are wrong.
Actually, I’m trying ot think of a case where a father slaughtering his own child would NOT be reprehensible.
My first thoughts are things like “Hitler or Dahmer or Manson’s father” ridding the world of the evil that will be accomplished by there children. My argument against this would be that as a child, those people had not YET committed the heinous acts which they would later become famous for, and it would be better to teach them (or barring all else, lock them away for life) than to murder them in cold blood.
Next my thoughts would run towards some scenario where killing one innocent child will somehow save the lives of many others. While in this scenario this may be “the lesser of two evils”, it’s a despicable acts based off an even more despicable situation.
I’m not sure that I can come up with a GOOD scenario where the killing of a child is not a horrible act, but I’d like to hear your ideas if you have some.
Keep in mind, I’m talking about the killing of a child (somewhere between the ages of newborn and let’s say 12 years old), not a grown adult son (i.e. Dahmer after he became a cannibal).
So your view is that Romans states that if somebody is not swayed by the LACK OF EVIDENCE, but uses their free will which you believe god gave us to live a “moral” life in accordance with “god’s standards”, they will “burn for eternity in hell”?
Perhaps I’m not as big a fan of your god as I had thought.
Personally I don’t believe in the idea of heaven and hell (obviously), but I’m often curious about the rules for entrance according to those those who do believe.
And if it turns out I’m wrong, I guess I’ll have to deal with the consequences, but I would expect that IF god really does love the world and those in as most christians profess to believe, he’d prefer an honest skeptic over a believer that only acted “good” out of a sense of fear.
On the missionary idea of teaching, I think you’re overstating my opinion.
In my view some topics are cut and dry (2+2 ALWAYS equals 4) while some are subjective (Bob Dylan is the greatest songwriter of all time).
If there are two perfectly equal ways to add up 2 + 2 I should not try to enforce my own way of adding on somebody who adds the “other” way.
Since religion by it’s very nature is something which can not be tested scientifically, it is a purely subjective topic (along the lines of art, music, etc).
I can teach somebody to appreciate art, but I can not tell somebody that they “must like Da Vinci more than Monet” because the two artists are very different, but one is not superior to the other.
I can teach somebody the concepts by which they can form their own opinions, and I can teach somebody how to learn, but by trying to enforce my own subject beliefs, I would be crossing the line.
I plan to teach my children about ALL the world’s major religions (and many of the minor ones). I hope by teaching them the similarities and differences between them, they will come to appreciate them, but not blindly follow them. If they choose to believe in one of these religions, I may feel a sense of disappointment that I failed to teach them critical thinking properly, but I will no enforce my own beliefs (or lack of beliefs) on even my own children, much less people from another country.
Ok, onto the apes. I figured this one would not go over as smoothly as some of the things i had brought up, because this touches very closely to evolution/creationism, but I think the studies are absolutely fascinating.
You are correct, that in the study of apes that there must be some assumptions made as to the intent of certain actions, and since the apes can not speak for themselves fully, we have to infer a few things. But the same is true of young children before they learn to speak (and even many older children and adults with disabilities), this does not mean that we don’t attribute feelings, a sense of morality, and motive to their actions.
On your homosexual points (I hope you get a kick out of that phrase), I’d got a few things, but not too much (alas, as I said, it’s not really something I’ve studied in depth enough yet).
“-He said that homosexuality is not unique to humans. But strict homosexuality (homosexuality with complete disregard to the opposite sex) is.”
Actually there have been a number of examples of animals that exhibited ONLY homosexual tendencies, and NEVER engaged in heterosexual relations.
“Secondly, he said that homosexuality fosters better socialization in those animals. That’s a large assumption to make. He’s never observed these animals outside of the homosexual behavior to see if they react negatively without homosexuality.”
Some (not all, but some) of the studies done have been on animals in captivity where ALL aspects of their lives have been observed.
“Thirdly he says that the evidence strongly suggests some kind of genetic component and uses the existence of homosexuality as proof.”
I agree that the way you described it would be circular logic, but actually what he said was slightly different.
“In humans, the evidence strongly suggests some kind of genetic component in the development of homosexuality, although the specific genes have not yet been discovered.”
Here he is stating that some studies have shown evidence for a genetic component controlling homosexuality, but he does not state that proof of this is homosexuality itself.
Hi Rodi, I am just learning so much about you. I’m so sorry that I have been sarcastic. You are right. I am also a rule-breaker, always have been. But, it really is not my intent to offend you or your readers. But since you have stated that so many of my comments are “a load of bunk” and since you have publically stated that my head pretty much stays in my ass, I am now really going to shove my faith down your throat. You see I am more concerned about your soul than your opinion of me and my lack of lucidity. I am now beginning intensive PRAYER for you to my ‘ole, mean’ GOD. So begin looking for little inner and outer indications and inclinations. Secure your defenses, for you may have no idea the power of prayer.
I think the only comment that I have made that you didn’t have a derrogatory remark about is “I love you”! I am sure that is another aberration on my part and a breaking of the “rules of intelligent debate” design),but I love you both! As you throw up stronger walls around yourself, be sure you include your wife. She might come on over before you do!
One more thing; you give me a laugh or two yourself. Do you REALLY think that EVERYONE gets their morality from society? & Do you REALLY think that 911 and pedophile priests are GOD’S fault?
kaysandee,
I’m glad that you claim you are learning, but based on your comments thus far, I doubt that it is true.
The ONLY reason I have mentioned your sarcasm is that according to the tenets of your professed faith, sarcasm, insults, and false accusations (which you have been quite fond of in your few posts so far) are not exactly a “godly” way to interact with people (even us “sinners”).
Personally I’m a fan of sarcasm as a literary device (and as a tool to ridicule others), but if you are to profess your holiness and your godly joy you should be “above such tactics”.
You are correct, I have ridiculed quite a lot of what you have written, because frankly it deserved it. This is actually the most reasonable post you’ve written so far (granted I have not finished reading it fully yet, I tend to write my responses as I read).
As for you “now really going to shove [your] faith down [my] throat”, go for it, I enjoy seeing all sides, especially those which are so far removed from my own. The one thing I would ask of you (and all posters here) is that if you are going to make claims about the natural world, that you be prepared to back those claims up with some type of real evidence.
Oh wow, prayer! As I have stated before, there have been numerous scientific studied on the effectiveness of prayer, and not one study that was done using scientific means has shown ANY validity to prayer, or any inclination that prayer has ANY effect other than what is common to a placebo. While you may find that praying helps you live your life, there is no scientific evidence that praying to your “god” is any more (or less) effective than if I were to pray to my toaster.
You seem to have the idea that I disagree with religion (or you) based on my ignorance of the subject, however this is not the case. If you scroll up a bit (or check out the link below) you’ll see a VERY BRIEF description of my “road to atheism”.
I was raised to be a “good god fearing catholic” (hell, I was an alter boy, but luckily the priests at my parish didn’t try to rape me); then some time after my father converted to an “evangelical, fundamentalist, born-again christian” I went on my own quest to study religion (of course based on my background, I started with christianity). I spent time at catholic, presbyterian, and jewish schools. I read (and re-read) the bible, I read the koran, the torah, and other “holy books” (even diantetics). I studied books about these holy books (at first it was primarily “pro” religion books, much later it became books from people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, and Dennett). I had discussions with the archbishop based in Atlanta (was nice having him directly live across the street from my grandparents when I began to question religion), as well as many others.
It took me many years to fully shed my believe in “something bigger” or a “higher power” despite seeing plainly before me that the evidence was just not there. And even after I “lost my faith” and stopped believing it took me a long time before I was willing to articulate what I felt.
I did much searching to get to where I am now, and honestly, I’m MUCH happier now than I ever was then. Instead of looking for meaning from some book, or from some concept of the supernatural, I look for meaning in my friends and family (and my dog). You’d be amazed how much more peaceful it is to know that this is the only chance you get, and that you need to make the best of it.
I did not comment on your “i love you” comment, because it seemed (and still seems) like meaningless drivel from one such as yourself. Keep in mind that not only am I an “evil, heathen” atheist, but my best friend is a homosexual woman, I support unlimited stem cell research, I am pro-choice, I support complete sexual education (including condoms), and I believe that mother theresa is the one person responsible for more death and suffering than any other person in all of history (for a brief description of why scroll up and find some of the comments/links I’ve left regarding her, or check out Hitchens’ book, “Missionary Position”). And yes, this includes hitler, stalin, pol pot, etc.
I’m not sure you should be wasting your prayers on me, perhaps you could put them to better use, like finding lost car keys (always one of my favorites that my father used to pray for).
You still have yet to answer any of the questions I have asked of you or respond to any of the other comments about your positions, not that I expected anything else, but I felt I’d mention it, since it was such a nice running theme through my last response to you.
As for your two final questions. First of all, I’d like to mention that they are completely unrelated to each other, but I’ll attempt to answer them anyways.
“Do [I] REALLY think that EVERYONE gets their morality from society?”
In a word, YES.
Scroll up and read for a more in depth answer if you’d like.
“Do [I] REALLY think that 911 and pedophile priests are GOD’S fault?”
Again, in a word, NO.
But this time, I will elaborate slightly.
I don’t blame “god” for the actions of men, any more than I would blame the easter bunny if a car ran over my dog (unless of course it was driven by a person in an easter bunny costume, but that’s a slight tangent). Since as an atheist, I do not believe in god, it would be unreasonable to expect me to hold a figment of YOUR imagination responsible for the actions of people.
I do however blame the blind faith that people hold IN god for their actions. Whether you believe in “their god” (allah), or not, there is absolutely NO DOUBT that the 19 hijackers believed in allah strongly enough to kill themselves and over 3000 other people to do what they believed was “god’s will”.
As for the priests and pedophilia thing, I blame the US catholic church as an institution. Due to the many lawsuits, a number of “confidential” documents have come to light showing a systematic attempt by those in charge of the “church” in the US to cover up the crimes committed by these priests and “hide them away” (those are the words of the church officials, not me). They did this at least in part (again, according to their own documentation) to keep the scandal from ruining recruitment of new priests to the church. While the acts committed by the pedophiles was horrendous enough on it’s own (I don’t think ANYBODY would disagree with that) the actions of those who helped to cover up is equally horrible in my opinion.
Perhaps you have a different view on the 9/11 hijackers or the pedophiles in the catholic church, and that’s your right, but it is OBVIOUS that blind faith affected the actions of those involved in both instances, and countless lives were ruined as a result.
This is a response to comment 281 (https://potomac9499.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/an-open-question-to-all-believers/#comment-281). I haven’t got time to answer all of your points, but I’ll takle a couple of them.
You say that Josephus ‘has been shown to be’ unreliable. What you have written shows that you haven’t really understood my comments about the nature of proof. Josephus hasn’t ‘been shown’ to be anything. There may have been some research that you found compelling, and that you have decided to beleive. IT hasn’t been proven. It may be likely, or unlikely, but it hasn’t been proven. Please understand that the atheist position is just as much of a faith position as the Christian views or any other. You simply have chosen to beleive in the athiest worldview, but it hasn’t been proven.
A couple of points about what you say the Bible doesor doesn’t say. It DOES SAY that one of the apostles witnessed Jesus’ death and some of his other followers too. John 19:25-27 say that Mary (Jesus’ mother), Mary Magedelene, and ‘the disciple who Jesus loved’ (later identified as the apostle John) were there.
You also make comments about slavery and women – that these would still be going on if it were up to Christians. Once again you have chosen to believe something that is misguided. The Bible clearly speaks out against slave traders (see 1 Tim 1:10). Slavery is mentioned in other places in letters from particular individuals to a community of people (Eph 6, Col 3 and 4). The context of the letters is the context of Christian behaviour – masters are to treat their slaves fairly, slaves are to work hard and respect their masters. The purpose wasn’t to create a revolution, but to encourage Christian behaviour. Please remember that a community that allowed slaves and masters, men and women to worship together as equals was very progressive and unheard of anywhere else at the time. Gal 3:28 says “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” – all people are equal in Gods eyes.
It is also worth noting that the people who did actually abolish slavery were Christians – William Wilberforce and other members of the Clapham Sect of evangelical Christians. This group of Christians certainly seemed to demonstrate that Christianity ‘plays out as true’.
You also raise questions about Jesus’ death, claiming that there may have been other explanations and that he didn’t die. Remember that the Romans were experts at executing people. They knew when someone was dead or not. Believing that Jesus didn’t actually die is just another questionable aspect of your faith position, something you have chosen to beleive.
You finish with a comment that Christianity goes “well beyond reason or science”. You cannot pit science against religion as they are not things that can be compared. Science can tell you how something might have happened but that is all. It cannot give meaning or purpose to life. It asks ‘how’ not ‘why’. It can say how the universe might have been created, but it cannot say why or by whom. It certainly cannot and will not ‘disprove’ God. Those are questions that science simply isn’t equipped to answer. Christianity ultimately is not interested in how things work or the particular molecular makeup of a bee, but in things like people, relationships, purpose, hope. Science isn’t interested in why humans need each other, in why we feel lonely, happy, sad, guilty, fulfilled, why we need to be loved, valued etc, and why each of us is important. These things are beyond the realm of science, but they are the things that God is interested in. Jesus helps us answer these questions.
Having just read your previous comment to kaysandee, in which you outline your ‘road to atheism’, I’m not sure if this blog entry really is “an open question to all beleivers”. It seems you have made up your mind and are not open at all. Is this right? If so, what is the purpose of this discussion?
I might also add that you didn’t ‘lose your faith’, but you chose to beleive something else – what Hitchens/Dawkins etc were saying instead.
tallandrew,
Even the catholic church now questions the authenticity of the references to jesus by Josephus. As it was the catholic church who spent centuries propping these accounts up, I would say that their skepticism is quite a nail in the coffin of that line of inquiry.
While you are correct that is has not been proven 100% that the accounts are forgeries, there is more than enough evidence against the being legitimate to ignore them as a historical account.
If you’re going to live your life ONLY by 100% proof, then you need to be worried when you walk out of your house, for gravity is not yet 100% proven,who knows, you might fly up into the sky.
Of if you go out late at night, keep an extra watchful eye out (and a clove of garlic handy) for vampires have not been proven to not be real.
We can make educated guesses based on the available evidence, in in the case of the Josephus accounts, the evidence points to them being a later forgery by somebody in the early catholic church.
You state the atheist position is as much a position of faith as a religious view, this is false.
The typical skeptical atheists view is that we require evidence for our beliefs. We take a skeptical approach in cases where the evidence is not there (such as psychic powers or bigfoot or god), or where the evidence points towards something being false (like Josephus’s account of jesus).
The phrase extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence is more than a good catchphrase, it’s also a good philosophy.
Again, you go back to proof, this time stating that atheism is not proven. You are of course correct, but the existance of a supernatural deity has not been proven either. As I have gone over a number of times here previously science has shown that god is not necessary to explain the workings of the universe, or the earth, or evolution. If here is a simpler explanation which fits all of the available evidence, why would any rational person need to insert something supernatural?
You are correct that the bible states people saw him on the cross, I never said it does not claim this. The koran says he was not the person on the cross, it was a substitute.
Here we have an example of two old books with competing claims. for one to be correct, the other MUST be false. You believe the account from one of these books, which I contend that there is not enough unbiased evidence to support the claims of either account.
I am not advocating that the koran’s account is the true account of what happened, I was just showing that in the example you gave there were more alternatives than the two options you gave.
As I said on that post:
“Now I don’t claim to know if any of these is the truth, but there are certainly other plausible suggestions that can avoid your idea that they must be telling the truth, or they must be lying.”
Perhaps I am a bit more militant when it comes to the issue of slavery, but I would expect that any person (or deity) who opposed the institution of slavery is not going to gives rules on how to treat slaves or how to act when you are a slave (“masters are to treat their slaves fairly, slaves are to work hard and respect their masters”), but that they would condemn slavery in no uncertain terms (perhaps a sentence something along the lines of “Hey jackasses, it’s wrong to OWN other humans, stop it now! It’s one of the WORST THINGS that humanity is capable of doing!”), although since it would be coming from “god” perhaps use the words “thou shall” to make it more godly.
As for christians opposing slavery, that’s of course true. However there were just as many who supported it. In fact many of the people who fought and died for their “right” to own slaves, quoted scripture as their justification for the practice of slavery, and were considered to be “good god fearing men”.
If I were to write a book on atheism (or really any subject), I’m going to try my damnedest to make sure nothing I write could be misinterpreted as saying slavery is acceptable. Perhaps I’d fail, but I would sure as hell try my best. Now let’s ask ourselves why an infallible, all knowing deity was not capable of doing this.
I never claimed I believed that jesus lived through the crusifiction. As a response to your either/or proposition I simply stated that there are many accounts that contradict the biblical account that could easily lead to other scenarios that your either/or proposition failed to account for.
I personally have no opinion on whether jesus dies on the cross, or there was a substitute who died in his place, or if jesus lived through it. None of these options would affect my life in any way since which ever one is true neither confirms or falsifies the existance of god.
Your comment, “You cannot pit science against religion as they are not things that can be compared” is an interesting one.
In some respects I do agree. If somebody wants to believe that a supernatural deity watches over them and cares for them there is nothing science can or should say towards that end.
However, when religion tries to make claims with regards to the natural word (like a 6500 year old earth, or god causing Katrina because of US acceptance of homosexuality) then it is religion which has stepped over the bounds, and all rational minded people should call those people out who makes these claims.
If as a christian you want to accept the big bang happened 14.7 billion years ago, and the earth formed some 4-5 billions years ago and life evolved to the point where we are today (with the additional caveat that god was the one who put the energy into the big bang to start it off) then I have absolutely no problem with you believing that.
If you want to put “god” into a science class however, I do have a problem.
Or if you want to argue against evolution using a 6500 year old earth creationist myth, then I think that you are trying to step into the realm of science with fantasy, and this should not be allowed.
You can teach these things in a religion class, or a theology class, but not in a science class.
As for the purpose of this blog post, I’ve stated it before, but I’ll go through it again.
I did not post this question so that I could come to follow th faith of anybody who posts here.
I did not post this as an attempt to “find” god in my life, or for my life, etc…
I did post this so that people of different faiths (and no faiths) could see that as strongly as you believe your faith and your religion to be the absolute truth, that there are others who are JUST AS CONVINCED that their faith and their religions are the absolute truth.
I did post this so that people could read and hopefully gain a better understanding of the opinions and beliefs of those who they might not see eye to eye with.
I did post this so that people could hopefully find some common ground with which to begin an open dialog on religion, since religion is such a major part of our society.
As for your final comment that I did not lose my faith, bu that I put my faith in something else.
Faith is the belief in a position despite the lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary.
My road to atheism was following the evidence and coming to the most reasonable conclusion.
When people try to claim things like the earth is 65000 years old, or whatever, they are stepping outside the realm of what religion can teach us, and indeed outside of what the Bible is for. You said people should ‘call’ people who say things like that, or similar things about God making judgements on this or that. I call them on it.
However, I disagree that the only part that God could have taken in evolution is kick starting the whole thing. In this statement, you are reducing God to ‘things that science cannot tell us’. As I said, you canot pit science against God, for if we start with the belief that God is the Creator, then he also created science too, right? In my worldview, science sits within God’s realm. As such, it cannot disprove him, or even show that there is no need for him. It simply shows how God might might have done it.
I also don’t like your definition of faith. – “Faith is the belief in a position despite the lack of evidence or evidence to the contrary.”
I disagree with this definition. With this definition faith is always bound to fail. Faith is belief in something, anything, with or without evidence. Some things are easier to beleive than others, but all things must ultimately be beleived. There should be no ‘despite’ in the definition. Therefore, you do have faith something.
tallandrew,
I’m glad that we agree that the creationists who make claims such as the 6500 year old earth are stepping past the bounds of religion. There is just too much evidence for the age of the universe and the earth to intelligently argue against these established “facts”.
In my opinion there is no need for god to explain things. however I can “agree to disagree” and let people who want to claim that “god set up the laws and rules of the universe and set the big bang in motion”. To me god is not necessary, but this idea of god “setting the table” can not be disproven by current science (and based on our current understanding of the physics, we may never be able to say what happened before the big bang), and if somebody wants to have that as their belief I think it is their right.
As for the definition of faith, that was essentially a paraphrase of the definition that Websters, Dictionary.com, and WikiPedia all give. For example, Websters states “firm belief in something for which there is no proof”.
There is no proof of bigfoot, and those who say they believe in bigfoot are doing so based on faith, not science.
In that sentence you can replace bigfoot with santa claus, the flying spaghetti monster, vampries, elves, leprechauns, or god and it is equally valid.
I see faith and belief as two DIFFERENT things. Faith implies belief, but faith is “belief that is not based on proof” (that’s from dictionary.com, not from me).
Ok. So using your definition of faith, what I have been talking about is belief not faith. I have a belief, you have a beleif, and we have both chosen what to beleive for different reasons.
What I’ve been trying to get away from is the thought that scientific athiesm comes from ‘fact’ that doesn’t need to be beleived because it is true, and religious belief comes from ‘faith’ which does need to be believed because there is little to suggest it is true. They are all beliefs – using your defintion – and we all choose to believe something.
tallandrew,
I’m willing to accept that the terms faith and belief were causing a bit of a disconnect, and I think we can get around that.
You say I “believe” in atheism (even though by definition atheism is a lack of belief in a deity).
And you say that you believe in god.
And you make the point that I can never prove god does not exist.
Though you have not said so yet, I assume you’re getting to the point that atheism and belief in god (any god) are equal propositions, and that I essentially am as much of a “believer” as you are.
If I am wrong that this is the point you’re trying to make, please let me know.
The difference I still see though is the evidence.
In a situation where the evidence is not there one way or the other, you are taking a leap of faith in saying “god exists”.
I see your position as being analogous to those who believe in alien abductions without any evidence to prove their beliefs.
It is not up to the person who does not believe in alien abductions to “prove” that they have never happened, it’s up to the proponent of the idea to prove it has.
By “choosing” not to believe in god, I am not taking a drastic leap of faith, but you are when you actively believe in something that has no evidence.
I fully admit the possibility that god does exist. I even admit that “god” may be the one you describe and believe in. But there is no evidence to support this position.
I’m sure you will site the bible, your personal experiences, the beliefs of so many, or some other idea as evidence, but all religions have those same “evidences”, and you don’t believe in them. So why is your book true, but not the torah, koran, hindu texts, etc? How are your experiences so much more compelling than the experiences of muslins, or hindus, or buddhists?
tallandrew,
Something I had previously posted on mootpoint’s blog I think might give a good understanding of my position.
As an atheist, I agree that we can not scientifically 100% DISPROVE the existance of god, just like we can not disprove 100% the existance of the tooth fairy, or santa, or the flying spaghetti monster, or tiny invisible elves living in refrigerators.
But when looking at the world around us, and the universe at large, we see that EVERYTHING can be explained solely by science, and there is no NEED for god.
Since by definition anything that could create the universe must be more complex than the universe the existance of this divine, supernatural, ultimately complex deity would be an extraordinary claim.
Atheists by and large are skeptical of all claims, and even more so with extraordinary claims. The saying “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” comes to mind here.
Since there is no need for a divinity to explain what we can see in the universe, and the claim of a deity is an extraordinary one, and there is no scientifically verifiable evidence of a deity, the skeptical, rational approach is to assume that there is no “god” until evidence comes to light to change that view.
While this does not “prove” atheism is correct, or that deism is “false”, it is how I and many other atheists look at the subject. It is also, in my view, the simplest explanation (and as I have mentioned before Occam’s Razor is an idea that I try to follow, since it generally leads down the right path).
The Catholic Church does not teach that the earth is only 6500 years old. You get that from your fundamentalist friends, of which I was one (fundamentalist) for a number of years. The Catholic Church does not teach against the evolutionary processes. The earth is billions of years old. That is why there are TWO creation accounts in the Bible. (I thought you had read it – thoroughly) (you see? I can’t help myself. That old sin nature keep rearing its ugly head) The Catholic Church is not the voice spouting that Katrina was God’s punishment for homosexualism nor was 911 God’s punishment – though, since you’re into evidence, can you prove otherwise? I do know this (as a personal and proven fact) that it was not ‘NOTHING’, or a ‘NON-DEITY’, or Dawkins, that people in the midst of Katrina and 911 and Rita and the Sunami’s aftermath were calling out to for rescue! Nor was it their friends – they were in desperation too! Who will you call out to if tradgedy strikes your family?
I’m so happy (I know you think it’s drivel) to know that you were baptised Catholic! I’m still praying!
kaysandee,
I don’t believe that I ever claimed the catholic church claims the world is 6500 years old.
I also don’t believe I said anything about a 6500 year old world in any of my responses to you.
When I have been referring to the 6500 year old earth idea it has been either to those who mentioned a young earth creationist idea, or as examples of how religion and science can conflict with each other.
If you can point out an example where I have claimed the catholic church agrees with the 6500 year old earth idea or where I have mentioned the 6500 year old earth idea in any response to you, I’ll gladly retract that statement, but I don’t believe I have done either.
If you can’t point to an example where I did either of those things, then I’m curious why you would even bring it up at all.
Well that completely negates the first 5 lines of your post, let’s move on to the rest.
Katrina, ahh yes. From my quick scan of the comments here it seems I have mentioned Katrina twice.
Or if you put stock in what some nut-job like Pat Robertson then god caused the destruction of hurricane Katrina.
and
when religion tries to make claims with regards to the natural word (like a 6500 year old earth, or god causing Katrina because of US acceptance of homosexuality) then it is religion which has stepped over the bounds
In neither case did I claim the catholic church supports this idea, in fact in the first one I specifically mentioned Pat Robertson, not Pope Benedict.
As for your asking me to prove that god did not cause Katrina to punish the US for acceptance of homosexuality, you must be joking right? Can you prove that aliens are not abducting you nightly and erasing your memory of the events? Obviously this is a fallacious argument with no merit at all.
Any time a person brings up an extraordinary claim which defies well established science, reason, logic, etc it is on that person to prove their claims, it is not up to the rest of the world to prove a negative (which can never be done 100%).
Just as I can never 100% disprove god, you can never 100% disprove the alien abductions (or disprove atheism being true for that matter).
You are correct that some people called out to the christian god in the wake of Katrina. Others called out to allah or vishnu, or whatever other gods they believed in. Others called out to the government. Others called out to friends and family members.
I can call out for my toaster to save me from a car accident, that doesn’t mean my toaster is divine. Or I could call out for a leprechaun, that does not mean that they exist. I’m not exactly sure what point you are trying to make by saying people called out to god.
As for who I would call out to if tragedy stuck myself and my family; if I was somehow unable to help myself I would call out to my friends and family that were unaffected by the tragedy.
As for being baptized catholic, if I am wrong and your version of god does exist, I’m sure that a lifetime of denying “his” existence would more than overwhelm having a couple of hypocritical child abusers (my parents) allowing a priest to splash water on my head when I was too young to understand what was going on.
I’d like to quickly go over the “points” you tried to make in this post, in order to attempt to understand what the point of this particular post was.
1) You stated the catholic church does not believe in a 6500 year old earth. I never claimed it did, so this is irrelevant.
2) You stated the catholic church did not spout off about Katrina being god’s wrath. Again, I never claimed it did, so again, this is irrelevant.
3) You asked me to disprove a negative, after I have stated on many occasions in comments to this post that it is impossible to do so, so once again, this is irrelevant.
4) You stated that people affected by disasters cry out for god. This neither proves nor disproves the truth of god’s existance, so once again, it’s irrelevant to the discussion.
5) You asked who I will cry out to if disaster strikes me and my family. As an atheist, it should be clear I would not cry out for a deity, but for some reason you need that articulated…
6) And finally you are happy that a child was splashed with water against his will. Once again, I’m unsure of the relevancy of the comment, but not at all surprised by it, considering the source.
So it boils down to one simple question where the answer was already plainly obvious to anybody who understand the definition of atheist, and 5 irrelevant non-sequiturs.
At least you don’t disappoint…
I’ve been out and man, does this column grow! If got a quick couple of things I’d like to stick my nose into…
-It’s merely a small point of contention but a biblical definition of the concept of faith is action based on belief. Belief then is the idea that we think most closely fits reality. Faith is acting in accordance with our understanding of reality.
For example it is a minor act of faith for me to turn the key in my car in hopes that the engine will start. I believe the car will start based on my perception of reality therefore I act in faith and turn the key. However it’s still an act of (slight) faith because there is a chance it will not start.
We normally assume the less evidence (basis for belief) you have the more faith you must have. Contrarily, faith actually decreases in proportion to LACK of belief.
If I turn the key on a car with no engine I’m not acting in accordance with belief. I’m acting CONTRARY to belief. Therefore if I turn the key I’m not acting in faith I’m simply delusional.
Rodibidably, your actions are acts of faith based on your beliefs. You are behaving as if what you believe is true even though you acknowledge that there is a slight chance that it’s not true. The more you acted like an atheist despite the evidence against atheism the more delusional we’d consider you’d to be. (And I’m sure the converse is true on your part.)
Also, atheism is indeed a belief as much as theism is a belief. Sometimes the word “belief” is so closely associated with religion that we allow it to be used exclusively for that purpose. Your use of the word “non-belief” is used in that exclusively religious sense. Stated positively, your belief is that there is no God. It may sound like semantics but it’s quite an important distinction.
And now for something completely different –
Technically, isn’t atheism and evolution ultimately responsible for 9/11 and pedophile priests? If the world and specifically religion can be explained in naturalistic terms, then religion is a byproduct of naturalism/evolution. If that’s true you must trace the roots of the Crusades and witch hunts to naturalistic/evolved causes. Thus it’s all atheism’s fault.
I’ll be getting to my other responses in a later post, I just lost an hour somewhere and I might go look for it under my pillow.
moot,
I am going by the standard dictionary definition of faith, which states (among other things):
“firm belief in something for which there is no proof”
“belief that is not based on proof”
When you turn the key in your car there is evidence to support the idea that your car will turn on (unless of course your car has some major issues which makes it more likely that it may not start or you ran out of gas). While there may be a slight chance that your car will not start, there is enough evidence to support the idea that it will start that it can be considered a virtual certainty (again, assuming you’re not driving a lemon and you have gas in the tank).
Faith would be something along the lines of if you had never seen a car before and believed with no prior evidence that this car could drive 200 mph.
The idea of turning the key in a car with no engine is not contrary to belief, it is contrary to logic. If you have faith it will start, by definition you also BELIEVE it will start; and as you said, you’re also delusional.
Would you say that your lack of belief in santa claus (or the tooth fairy, thor, evil lord zenu, etc) is an act of faith, or would you say that you don’t believe in them because the evidence does not support belief in them?
All of the same reasons that you (and kaysandee, tallandrew, and the rest of the people posting on here) do not believe that l ron hubbard’s ideas are correct or that zeus sends lightning bolts from his finger tips are the SAME reasons that I do not believe in the christian god.
There is a lack of evidence to support the claims of the bible, and in some cases there is evidence that directly opposed the biblical accounts.
There is no “faith” in NOT believing in god, just as it does not take “faith” to NOT believe in alien abductions.
You are correct that I am acting like what I believe is true, because the evidence points towards a certain direction, and I follow the science.
If the evidence pointed towards god, then I would drop my atheism and believe in god.
While I can acknowledge the possibility of god existing, I can also acknowledge the possibility that Sylvia Brown really does have psychic powers (despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary).
You are correct, that if I was a staunch atheist despite evidence supporting “god”, I would be considered delusional, just as I feel that anybody who supports the idea of a 6500 year old earth is delusional (or just ignorant of the facts and too lazy to do any real research into the evidence). Even the catholic church, which in traditionally not the quickest to accept scientific findings (ask Galileo) admits the universe is 14.7 billion years old and that life evolved over millions of years.
I do agree that atheism is a “belief” (in a sense), but it is a belief based on the available evidence, while any belief in god is faith based on no evidence.
I know it’s an issue of semantics, but atheists believe their position is true, while theists have “faith” that their beliefs are true.
The different may seem subtle, but it’s VERY different.
Maybe I wasn’t clear.
I said that I was giving a biblical definition of faith, not a Webster definition. Faith is a concept popularized and monopolized by religion think it’s fair to have faith defined by religion as well.
So when I claim to have faith in something I mean that I am willing to behave as if that thing is true because of, not in spite of, the evidence.
Christians have lazily allowed the concept of faith to be become synonymous with a lack of evidence but believing anyway. By that definition (one with which I do not agree) faith equals delusion.
…Thus my whole car illustration still works.
Theism is a belief in the same sense that atheism is a belief. We both suppose that the evidence supports our conclusions, not that it is contrary to our conclusions.
Faith is action based on belief, not contrary to belief. Belief is based on logic. Thus faith is based on logic not contrary too logic.
If my car has always started I have a great deal of faith that it will start this time. If my car has no engine then I have very little faith that it will start.
My faith decreases as my belief decreases. My belief decreases as the evidence decreases.
So you’re right these are subtle but important distinctions. So I totally disagree with almost all of your statements and conclusions in the last post.
moot,
I can understand (not agree, but understand) the position that evolution caused 9/11, but I fail to see how atheism could possibly be to blame.
The 9/11 Hijackers were OBVIOUSLY true believers in god. There is no possible connection to them or their causes and atheism.
As for the pedophile priests, I actually don’t blame religion for the action of the priests at all. I blame the church for HIDING the priests once they knew what was going on, in an attempt to not harm the church.
Again, evolution and atheism are NOT the same thing. While all atheists believe in evolution (I’m assuming all, I can’t imagine an atheist NOT believing in evolution), evolution does not require atheism (see the Pope John Paul II stance on evolution).
Atheism is not responsible for the actions of those who believe in god, just as the catholic church can not be held responsible if a hindu blows up a bus load of buddhist monks.
Please let me know if I’m not being clear on this point, or if you don’t agree with the point, because it’s QUITE important.
Realistically atheism is not responsible for the actions committed by atheist either; since an atheist is not going to commit an act in the “name of atheism” or because “atheism said to do it”, or because it’s “atheism’s will”.
This is one of the biggest differences between atheism and theism. While both sides are capable of horrific acts, atheists do not commit these acts in the “name of atheism”, while believers are often claiming to commit their horrific acts because they are “god’s will”.
As for “blaming” evolution, which this may be “more valid” than blaming atheism, I still believe it’s a fallacy.
As a christian, you believe that “god” created us, and created our moral code. Would YOU PERSONALLY blame god for the actions committed by a homicidal maniac?
Evolution has set up the environment and the template for humans today, it does not force the actions of those humans.
To blame evolution for the actions of an individual person, would be equivalent to blaming the big bang for raining on the day you’re trying to do yard work.
moot,
If you don’t want to use faith in the dictionary sense, then what word would you define to mean the same thing as the Websters version of faith?
Whatever that word is, replace it with faith in that previous post, and it means the same thing as I meant.
My point is that we essentially follow the same progression of logic from which we draw our conclusions. There is no difference.
-We establish what we think are the facts.
-We draw some conclusions from the those facts.
-We live our lives based on those conclusions.
I do not concede the point that it requires a delusional acceptance of some idea contrary to evidence to believe in God. Call it what you will, the point is that it’s still wrong.
As for the “atheism is responsible” point I’m being a little facetious.
Here goes my “atheism caused 9/11” argument.
-No god is responsible for the existence of life.
-Thus no god is responsible for people.
-Thus no god is responsible for people’s behavior. (This behavior would include every reprehensible act perpetrated by man.)
-Atheism is belief in no god.
-Therefore atheism is responsible for every reprehensible act of man.
-Atheism is responsible for 9.11
I’m messing around with language a little bit here, but it’s still fun. Remember this is all a diversion from the responses I want to make to your older posts.
It’s still seems to be a bit of a logical dilemma albeit a more academic than practical one.
By the way – your selections as to the definitions of faith are by no means a clear consensus as to what the word means.
Here’s the first result from a Google search.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
I can buy into that.
moot,
The flaw in your logic is not that “no god is responsible” but that “god is not responsible”. This is a very important difference.
By your wording I could say:
-No leprechaun is responsible for the existence of life.
-Thus no leprechaun is responsible for people.
-Thus no leprechaun is responsible for people’s behavior. (This behavior would include every reprehensible act perpetrated by man.)
-Aleprechaunism is belief in no god.
-Therefore aleprechaunism is responsible for every reprehensible act of man.
-Aleprechaunism is responsible for 9.11
In your wording, you are treating “no god” as if it is a being, not the lack of a being.
Saying “no god” did something is the same as saying “nothing did something”.
moot,
The typical accepted definition of faith by the general public is a belief NOT founded on evidence.
This is also included in the definitions based on Websters and other dictionaries.
However, as I said “If you don’t want to use faith in the dictionary sense, then what word would you define to mean the same thing as the Websters version of faith?
Whatever that word is, replace it with faith in that previous post, and it means the same thing as I meant.”
I stand by by claim that you have chosen to beleive in athiesm, and that you have ignored the evidence for God, because you don’t seem to consider it evidence. I am not going to hypothesise on why you might have done this.
I want to add a couple more points – You said: “But when looking at the world around us, and the universe at large, we see that EVERYTHING can be explained solely by science, and there is no NEED for god.”
There are two points I want to make about this comment. Firstly, it is clearly not true. There are many things that cannot be explained solely by science. I don’t know if you are married. Explain, using only the rules of science, why you love your husband or wife? Explain, using only the rules of science, how you derive meaning from your life, friends, family, dog (as you said you did earlier). Science CANNOT answer these things. Only the rules of sicence, now, don’t be tempted to step outside of them! 😉
The second comment is that you clearly didn’t understand what I said about how science fits in to the God/science thing. Perhaps I didn’t explain it clearly. You said that science has shown that there is no need for God. This can only be true if we regard God as ‘those things that we can’t explain in any other way’. God is bigger than that. This is not the Biblical idea of God and it is not mine. If God created the universe, then he CREATED SCIENCE TOO! Science is therefore unable to prove or disprove him as it operates within his creation. (sorry for the capitals, haven’t worked out how to put italics in this plaintext comment box)
Finally, you stated above that, just like when people claim to have been abducted by aliens etc, that the burden of proof lies with them to convince others. This is not the case with God. Why should he ‘proove’ himself to you? If Christianity is true, the implications are all on you, not on him. You should start by assuming it is true and work out from there. Trust me – the world will still make sense (in fact, more so) this side of the line of faith!
This discussion first came to my attention when you posed on my blog, on an entry calls “Is objective evidence for God possible?” (http://onliving.wordpress.com/2008/02/22/is-objective-evidence-for-god-possible/). In that entry I posted a story of a conversation I had with a former colleague, someone I knew very well, and liked and respected. After years of discussions just like this one, I asked him if he wanted Christianity to be true. He said he didn’t.
If you don’t want it to be true, you will not be able to see that it is, and no amount of ‘evidence’ will convince you.
Moot,
Thank you for taking me up. You rightly pointed out that the first two issues I raised in my post are not relevant to the question at all. I do agree with you and I am now taking them back.ok. I am sure Rodibi. also is noticing this comment here.
As for my third point, you said it was purely subjective and it only proved to me that God was real and not to any one else. Rodibi. calls it anecdotal evidence. ok.
Moot, please do not compare me with the world figures who have achieved a lot in their lives. Remember that I am a nobody in the world. I am an unknown person and what happened to me happened unknown to any man any where in the entire world, especially I am talking about the sixty-day sustained miracle that I saw in my life. Please read the paragraph in http://www.mathewpaul.org/God-Who-Fed-Elijah-By-Ravens
and tell me whether I should ever dodubt that God answers prayer today or not. Am I being arrogant in saying this? If so, please forgive me. But this is a true fact of my life. When you know that my active life was over in 1991 when I became a chronic neuro-patient, the value of what I am saying is increased much more. All my needs are still well taken care of unknown to any one any where. Please read some amazing experiences in my blog there.
My point is simply this. I am not a freak and if such a thing could happen to me it could happen to any one any where who is willing to fulfill the conditions laid down by God in His Word.
Rodibi., your original question how do I know that my version of the faith is the right one, is simply answered by the fact that I have proved it with my life for a whole lifetime. Do I need any thing more or any thing else?
You say that many who believe in other gods also say that they have answers to prayer. ok. My contention is: could you or any one else produce ONE person who could show similar results as I have seen at the sixty-day miracle of a concrete building.
tallandrew,
Ok, let’s go through your evidence for the existence of god. I’m happy to answer, to the best of my ability, any “proofs” you have for the existance of god.
As for proving my love for my wife, I would like ot direct you to the following articles that do a good job of explaining an atheist’s love…
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismatheistsmorals/a/AtheismLove.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmeaninglesshopeless/a/AtheistsLove.htm
The other point I would like to mention is that proving one’s love for somebody else is analogous to proving to you that I think something, or that I believe something.
While I may know what I think and what I believe there is not external evidence to support those claims.
HOWEVER, with the advances in brain scans, there may be a time not too far off where we have mapped enough of the brain and it’s reactions to stimuli that we will be able to use it as a “love detector” in much the same way that scientist are currently exploring brain scans as a much improved “lie detector”.
So the technology may not be there yet, but it’s coming.
As for deriving meaning from my life, friends, family, dog, I’m not sure how one would prove this other than as a reflection of their actions. All (or the vast majority) of the actions in my life are done to make the lives of my friends, family, dog, and myself better.
I have stated many times that if a believer wants to use as the “source” of the laws of the universe and the energy of the big bang before it “banged” then I have no problem with that definition at all (at least not until science has something to say on the subject).
While I personally view it as a “god of the gaps”, using a supernatural god to explain things which science an not yet explain, much of what we understand about the universe tells us that it may never be possible to understand anything “before” the big bang.
I also agree that science can not disprove god, but we can not disprove alien abductions, psychic powers, flying unicorns, etc either. I doubt that you put any stock into any of those other ideas.
Inserting a supernatural being is an extraordinary claim, and as such requires extraordinary evidence to support that claim.
I fail to understand how one extraordinary claim (god) requires less proof than another extraordinary claim (aliens, scientology, psychic power, etc).
If something defies the known laws of science then it is an extraordinary claim.
I don’t claim that “god” must prove himself to me, I say that those who believe in god are given the task of proving god if they want to bring their ideas of god into the public sector (teaching creationism in school, creating laws based on the bible, etc).
Why should I start with the assumption of something outside the known laws of science as you state?
Should I start with the assumption that leprechauns exist as well? Or the Loch Ness Monster?
I’ve never really thought before about whether I want christianity (or some other version of god) to be true.
I guess I would have to say that it really would not matter to me either way. It would change a number of ideas that I currently have.
If “god” (the concept of god, not a specific god like the chrstian one) exists, and it could somehow be proven so, I actually don’t think much (if anything) would change about my life.
If it was then proven that this “god” is the christian god as described in the bible, I’d have a number of “issues” with the “morality” of that god (but I think that is for another post, it would take far too long to go into here).
But long story short, I’m not personally “invested” in the existance of lack of existance of god, but I do feel the evidence does not support the conclusion that god does exist.
I hope you realize that I don’t take that “atheism equals 9.11” argument seriously. Although it might throw some lesser non-believer for quite a loop. I might try it out on a few unsuspecting freshman atheists see if I can’t convert a few while they’re still young. (I hope the fact that I’m joking is coming through here.)
Now to finally respond.
I stand by the claim that morality is an absolute because of the evidence.
-Moral ideals have been the same of thousands of years and across hundreds of countries. (How many times have I typed that sentence?) Social moral evolution simply cannot account for that.
Social morality which is more accurately described as “morality by majority” is essentially relativism. Relativism taken to its limit becomes tyranny which is essentially subjectivism in the hand of an individual or small group. Even if relativism doesn’t degenerate into tyranny, subjectivism has enough problems of it’s own.
You said “that you have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT as a believer, to try to enforce any portion of your beliefs on other people.” So you do believe in subjectivism or individual relativism. And how do you apply that concept so someone who is intending to harm you or your family? Why should your beliefs matter more than theirs? That, of course, is essentially the problem with relativism.
In your world-view, if you happen to be born under an oppressive dictatorship there’s nothing you can do about it. If you happen to be born into a society that your particular gender, religion or preference is considered, by the majority to be less than equal there is nothing you can do about.
Unless there is a higher moral ideal by which to appeal we’re stuck at the mercy of the majority or, more accurately, the most powerful.
-Dennett’s theory is self-defeating. His argument that evolution produces an instinct in humans that leads them to adopt a false belief in God causes his entire thesis to be self-refuting. Dennett maintains that evolution can lead people to embrace false beliefs while those that hold those beliefs do so thinking they are true. If so, how can Dennett be certain that evolution is a rational?
Let me give you the hypothetical scenario in which a father would be praised for killing his son. I do this not because it has ever actually happened but as an example of how killing one’s son is not inherently immoral.
Maybe the father is a bridge operator for a railroad. The father bring his boy to work and the boy in runs off to play. A boat comes and the bridge must be raised. After a few moment the bridge must be lowered, a passenger train is coming through. Just before the bridge must be lowered the father realizes that his son wandered into the gear mechanism of the bridge works. To lower the bridge means his son dies but the passengers on the train live. To leave the bridge raised means the son lives but the passengers on the train die. The father has to choose.
It’s not a perfect scenario and one I hope never occurs but it does illustrate how a father in a morally upright way could kill his son.
As to Abraham’s story most scholars agree, based on biblical genealogy that Isaac was 37.
One last note – I don’t see why you think atheism and naturalism can’t co-exist with moral absolutes. Nature gives us plenty of examples of absolutes (math, gravity, etc.) In fact isn’t evolution all about absolutes? Then why can’t atheism can peacefully co-exist with moral absolutes? Not that I want to bolster your beliefs, I’m just trying to look at everything.
empyrean,
I am glad that you listen to moot’s comments on your “questions”.
However, I can’t help but wonder if you’d have accepted those exact same responses if I (or any other atheist) had said them. I had already pointed out a few times that one specific thing being unique to a specific book does not prove that book in divine (in fact, I think I had mentioned it three times already), but as soon as a christian points out the SAME THING, you finally accept it.
As for the third point, and your comment to moot, I’d like to point out ONCE AGAIN (6th time I believe?) that when I say you’re using anecdotal evidence, that is not a NEGATIVE thing, it’s just a fact that your comments are not scientifically valid, they are not truly evidence, and they are certainly not proof. I’d suggest you look up the definition of anecdotal, since this point seems to have offended you so many times.
But I am also glad that you finally accept the point, even though moot had to be the one to get through to you…
Perhaps I am misjudging you, but it certainly SEEMS that you’re unwilling to accept ANYTHING you’re told, unless it comes from a christian source. That’s not a good sign if we are to ever hope to come to an understanding with those who don’t already agree with us.
I believe that the reason moot compared you to a world figure was in an attempt to answer your own question. You asked Can you produce ONE MAN who produced a lifetime results in prayer trusting in some god, some philosophy other than the God of the Bible, as I have done for a lifetime trusting in the God of the Bible?
The answer he gave was a PERFECT example of a person who dis not only as much as you’ve done, but most people would say he did even more. And he did it without belief in jesus, the bible, or “your god”. He answered your question perfectly and exactly as you instructed.
Your question was phrased in such a way to say that NOBODY could do what you did without jesus and the bible. Moot gave you an example of a person who even you must admit did as much, if not more than you, so you changed your idea to exclude moot’s example because he is a famous person.
I find it quite disingenuous that when your question is answered exactly as you requested, you then try to blow it off and change the point you were trying to make and the “rules” of your question.
You claim that you are ONLY able to do what you have done due to god, jesus and the bible.
Ghandi does not believe in “your god”, does not believe jesus is the son of god (or god), and does not believe the bible is the infallible word of god. Ghandi did not pray to “your god”, and yet he accomplished at least as much in his life as you did.
If your claim, that you could ONLY have accomplished this with the help of “your god”, is true, then explain Ghandi…
I am happy for you, that you have accomplished so much in your life, but your “reasons” for believing may be great for you, but they are meaningless as evidence or proof.
I believe that your life is probably better due to your faith in god, but this does not prove that god is true, it only proves that your faith is strong.
As for the “sixty-day miracle of a concrete building”, did PEOPLE build this, or did it build itself.
If it built itself with no effort from people, then I’d agree it was a miracle.
If people built it, and they just happened to do it fast, this mean those people worked their asses off, it does not mean god was involved.
moot,
I assumed you were at least partially joking, but I wanted to make certain that I gave a firm explanation why it is a fallacious argument, just in case somebody else (atheist or christian) tried to take it seriously.
I fear we’re never going to agree on the idea of an absolute morality, but I can at least understand the logic behind your view (maybe not agree, but understand at least).
We are looking at the same evidence from history and coming to two different conclusions. It seems that neither of us will change the other’s mind, but I hope that you at least have a better understanding of the reasons for my views on morality.
You believe that morality has remained essentially unchanged for thousands of years, while I believe that out views on slavery, children, women’s rights, workers’ rights, etc are all “proof” that morality is changing over time.
You are correct that social morality can be taken to extremes, just as interpretations of the bible can be taken to extremes.
I believe that our morality, and out society says that people should not harm others.
If somebody attempts to harm myself or my family, I am going ot take steps to keep my family safe. If that means hurting (or as a last resort killing) the offender, then I would have to do that.
I may be wrong on your personal views, but I assume that you don’t believe god imbued animals with morality the same way he did humans. Most people who belief in an abrahmic god believe that humans are in some way “special”.
If you look at the animal kingdom, if one animal attacks another, the one being attacked with attempt to save themselves (either through fighting or running away).
Another way to answer your question about what I would do if somebody attacked me or my family, is that I would do the same thing that ANY animal would do.
According to your own statements, you feel that George Washington should no have stood up to the British and fought in the Revolutionary War, so I’m confused about the point you’re making about if I was born into a totalitarian regime.
If you live your life according to your own ideals which you’ve previously mentioned, wouldn’t you be bound to “accept your fate”, as it were?
According to my ideals, I would most likely do whatever the morality of that society told me to do.
While the totalitarian regime may TELL people to do one thing, it’s ultimately the will of the people which is in control of the morality of those people.
The regime is then capable of living outside the morality of the society over which is has control, and in some cases, the people will rise up against that regime and change it to match their morality and ideals (for examples, see EVERY POPULOUS LEAD REVOLUTION in history).
Evolution is rational because the evidence supports it. We can see gradual changes over time in the fossil records. We can compare DNA between closely related species and see the types and number of differences that one would expect given the time since heir separation.
Belief in something that has evidence to back it up is a rational approach, and one that can lead to certainty in one’s convictions.
As for your example of a morally acceptable situation where a father might be “justified” in killing his son, wouldn’t that fall perfectly under the example I gave?
Next my thoughts would run towards some scenario where killing one innocent child will somehow save the lives of many others. While in this scenario this may be “the lesser of two evils”, it’s a despicable act based off an even more despicable situation.
While the act of killing his son may be moral, or justified, I doubt people would PRAISE him for doing it, they would be infinitely more likely to console him for HAVING to do it.
Which of these two phrases do you think he is more likely to hear:
“Dude, great job killing your son, you the man.”
Or…
“I’m so sorry this happened, I can’t imagine how you must feel.”
NOBODY but a sick twisted person would PRAISE the father for being forced into a situation where he had to take his own son’s life to save the lives of others.
Whether Issac was 37 or 3 or 7 is not the point (although it does make it slightly less gruesome if he was a grown man), but I must say that my understanding was that Issac was a relatively young person. The fact that a father would be PRAISED by billions of people for be willing to kill his own son is sick.
I think most people would agree that Jeffrey Dahmer and Charles Mason were two of the sickest individuals in the last 30 or so years. If it were possible for the father of one of those two to go back in time and KILL their child BEFORE the child had ever committed any of their heinous action, would you PRAISE their father for doing that, or would you feel that it was a horrible situation to put the father in?
I don’t believe that moral absolutes cannot exist within an atheistic framework. I’ve already given examples (the idea that murder is bad) of how some moral absolutes could have evolved through evolutionary means.
I just believe that the evidence shows that we do NOT have strict moral absolutes on many things, such as slavery, women’s rights, etc…
Depending on what those absolutes were (i.e. opposing slavery, not endorsing it) the world would probably be a better place if we DID have moral absolutes.
Rodibi.,
Thank you for your response.
I said, “Can you produce ONE MAN who produced a lifetime results in prayer trusting in some god…”
Did I say that no one could achieve any thing in life without god and prayer? There are ever so many great men who achieved great things noticed by the world without prayer to any god. But I am unknown person, living in an unknown place, meeting my needs unnoticed by people any where!
I wanted to see someone who produced RESULTS IN PRAYER
as I have done, trusting and praying to SOME OTHER GOD. I learned from Christian biographies that prayer indeed brought marvellous results.And I tried it for myself and it worked marvellously for me as well.
Then you said, “your ‘reasons’ for believing may be great for you, but they are meaningless as evidence or proof.”
Remember your original qn. was how do YOU know that the version of faith that YOU hold is true. Thank you for accepting that my reasons for believing is great for me. Indeed they are great for me. I may not convince any one else. Doesn’t matter. But I am doubly convinced.
You said, “it only proves that your faith is strong”.
Thank you for accepting that my faith is strong. But I want to tell you that I got the stamina to believe simply because I read the Bible for hours together every day. I would NOT have got faith like that reading ANY other book.
My ‘faith’ produced marvellous results because it was IN the God of the Bible that I trusted. If I had put my faith in ‘Humpty-Dumpty’ or ‘Toaster god’ I would NEVER have received results like this.
You said,”As for the “sixty-day miracle of a concrete building”, did PEOPLE build this, or did it build itself.If it built itself with no effort from people, then I’d agree it was a miracle”.
I did not say that it built itself. It took more than a dozen people to construct it for thirty days to complete the work. The construction was not the miraculous element in the building. But the source. Where did I get money to buy blocks, sand, cement and steel for the construction? I say God provided it UNKNOWN TO ANY MAN ANYWHERE with NO EFFORT OF MINE OTHER THAN PRAYER.
You said, “If people built it, and they just happened to do it fast, this mean those people worked their asses off, it does not mean god was involved”.
If God was not involved, tell me where did the money come from? How was I able to do it non-stop for thirty days with no money with me? How did I pay the bills? My answer is: as God was providing my needs and the needs of my family for the last thirty two years day by day, He provided the needs for that construction in thirty days in answer to prayer. I say, if money had came in like that every day in my life, I would have become a millionaire in a very short while. But even today I am trusting God to meet my needs day by day. The needs are met gloriously unknown to any man anywhere. I know even in affluent nations of the world many live on Welfare schemes! But I subsit not on any welfare scheme, but on prayer. THIS IS JUST SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT MY VERSION OF FAITH IS TRUE. If you think it not, that is your take.
I think I have a satisfactory answer for myself to your original question. If I did not convince you, I can’t help it. But I am doubly convinced that a man of your calibre could produce far greater results if you had chosen to follow my ways of doing things. All that you are doing now is simply from your own human resources. Imagine if you were linked yourself to the Almighty!
empyrean
“Can you produce ONE MAN who produced a lifetime results in prayer trusting in some god”
Ghandi prayed to a god, just not to YOUR personal god.
When he started his life off he was not already famous, he became famous because of what he accomplished in his life.
“I wanted to see someone who produced RESULTS IN PRAYER as I have done, trusting and praying to SOME OTHER GOD.”
Again, Ghandi.
The reason I keep going on about your results being great for you, but not being proof, is because when you put forth questions like “Can you produce ONE MAN who produced a lifetime results in prayer trusting in some god”, your tone comes across as pushing the burden of proof on me to definitively show that your god is not the “truth”.
Perhaps you don’t mean to come across as I am perceiving you to, but I keep harping on your comments not being “proof” because of your tone.
If you had simply said, “I prayed, and wonderful things happened, and thus I believe” I would not have brought up that this does not prove god. I would have simply mentioned that others pray to other god, and they also feel that this prayer works for them.
However when you continually ask for specifics of prayer to other gods to counter your own experiences, I feel the need to point out that subjective anecdotal evidence is not proof.
I do believe that you seem to have accomplished a great deal in your life. And you do seem to honestly credit “god” with your successes. If that works for you, then that’s great, I just want you to understand that others may not see it from the same point of view that you do.
“My ‘faith’ produced marvelous results because it was IN the God of the Bible that I trusted. If I had put my faith in ‘Humpty-Dumpty’ or ‘Toaster god’ I would NEVER have received results like this.”
Again, Ghandi…
“Where did I get money to buy blocks, sand, cement and steel for the construction? I say God provided it UNKNOWN TO ANY MAN ANYWHERE with NO EFFORT OF MINE OTHER THAN PRAYER.”
Did the money fall from the sky? Did your bank account suddenly have money that was not their previously and it had no record of coming from a person?
Or, did the money come ion the form of donations from people you knew, or people who heard of what you were doing?
You state that only god could have gotten you this money, so are you saying that people who did not know where to send the money just happened to send it to the right place at random? I think it’s MUCH more likely that your church back home, or your friends and family back home helped solicit donations for you (although I’m not certain of this, I’m assuming the money did not just “fall from the sky”).
I am very glad to have you join the discussion, I think you’ve added a good deal, I am just asking you to look at things from a slightly different perspective for a moment to understand that your world view in not the ONLY world view.
Your right we probably have pretty much exhausted the morals debate to the extent of our abilities to articulate and defend our positions.
I’ll just clarify a few things before I move on.
-I don’t believe that Washington and others were wrong for opposing a totalitarian regime. If there are absolutes I would expect them to realize that the system of oppression they were under was wrong. I believe that our rebellion isn’t one of blood and war but one of ideas and passions. We don’t change society by forcing conformity through threats of violence but by changing minds.
A moral framework must function even when taken to it’s extremes. My ultimate point is that, given a number of statements in your posts you don’t even really believe what you say you do.
-What would you do if the majority imposed some moral rule (slavery) on you that you felt was reprehensible?
You say you believe in a social ethic but only because society hasn’t, in a meaningful way, threatened your ideals.
There are a couple of other things I’d address but I don’t want to take away from the point we’re making here. I think it’s crucial to the basis upon which your morality even exists.
moot,
“My ultimate point is that, given a number of statements in your posts you don’t even really believe what you say you do.”
Perhaps I have stepped over myself in the back and forth, but I’m curious what examples you have where I’ve contradicted my own stated beliefs.
“I don’t believe that Washington and others were wrong for opposing a totalitarian regime.”
“If we’re being strictly biblical then the Founding Fathers were wrong for more than just slavery. Roman’s 13 forbids rebelling against the governing authorities.”
Which is it? Were the justified in opposing the regime, or should they have done the biblical way and not rebelled?
“We don’t change society by forcing conformity through threats of violence but by changing minds.”
Did we put an end to slavery through force or through “changing minds”? While a non-violent approach is always the better option, it is not always an EFFECTIVE option. Imagine if the US had tried to “talk” to Hitler instead of bombing the crap out of Germany, do you think it would have gone as well?
“What would you do if the majority imposed some moral rule (slavery) on you that you felt was reprehensible?”
I doubt that society’s morals would change that drastically in my lifetime, but for the sake of argument, let’s assume they did. Based on everything in my life up until the point when the moral ideal changed the concept of slavery was considered a heinous act. If suddenly 51% of more of the US population “changed their minds” and said that slavery is ok, I would still oppose it based on my experiences, and the morality that I was brought up with. I would campaign against slavery and try to show the historical evidence that it is one of the most cruel concepts humanity has ever engaged in. Hopefully I would be able to change the minds of people and eventually if successful then eventually 51% or more of the population would agree with me, and slavery would “become immoral again”.
“society hasn’t, in a meaningful way, threatened your ideals”
Actually there are MANY things that society condones that I personally oppose.
A few examples:
Executions (government sponsored murder)
Hate speech (KKK, Pat Robertson, etc)
Torture (it must be acceptable, the president said so, right)
Homophobia (laws against gay marriage)
Bigotry, Racism, and Sexism (I think I’ve covered these in depth in previous comments)
We both agree that science cannot prove of disprove God. However, you keep coming back to the ‘god of the gaps’ thing – I’m not sure you have understood my position. I disagree with a God of the gaps approach too. You seem to disagree with it because you think science will ultimately explain everything one day. However, Science can only prove or disprove a god if that god you are thinking of is a ‘god of the gaps’. God is bigger than that. I do not believe in a god of the gaps. He is not in the gaps, or simply in the bit that we can’t explain before the big bang. He is both inside and outside the whole thing. This is why science is incapable of proving, describing or explaining him.
If you are looking for God to be proven by science or even pseudo-scientific evidence, you are looking in the wrong place.
Just one more question, you said that the existence of God is an extraordinary claim and therefore requires extraordinary evidence. What sort of evidence do you require as extraordinary? You have already said that “science can not disprove god” – your words. What sort of unscientific evidence are you looking for? Please try and be more specific than that it simply has to be extraordinary. I guess, the question is, what would convince you that God exists?
I don’t want to get into a debate about creationism in schools etc, as I’ve already stated that I do not believe in creationism… but surely the ‘public’ should decide what gets taught in the ‘public sector’. Atheists are in a huge minority in America and in the world. The vast majority of people in America or the world believe in a god or higher power of some sort? Why should the ‘public sector’ not teach things that the majority of the ‘public’ think?
tallandrew,
We both fully agree that science can never DISPROVE god, but if there evidence were sufficient, it could prove god (at least to a reasonable certainty), just like we have proven gravity, evolution, etc).
As for what would convince me, I’m not actually sure of a specific thing or set of things. My first inclination is if something happened that obviously broke the laws of physics as we know them, and was unexplainable by any means OTHER than supernatural.
If somebody today was able to accomplish what the bible claims jesus accomplished (walks on water, raises the dead, turns a few loaves of bread and fish into a whole bunch, turns water into wine, etc UNDER SCIENTIFICALLY CONTROLLED CIRCUMSTANCES) while being subjected to very close skeptical scrutiny (at least one of each of the following watching to ensure no trickery: a magician, physicist, chemist, medical doctor, etc…) then I would consider that to be pretty strong evidence as long as all the scientist involved in studying their work were well established as being VERY GOOD in their fields.
It’s hard to pin down EXACTLY what it would take to believe, but the main idea would be that something which breaks the laws of what we know to be possible, and it must be reproducible under tightly controlled studies/experiments.
As for the public deciding what is taught. If the “public” at large “decided” that the earth is flat, should that be taught in US schools? Or something that is more likely, should celebrity gossip be taught in schools (that’s something that a HUGE sector of the US follows closely). I have no problem with creationism being taught in a RELIGION CLASS, but it’s not science, and should not be taught in a science class.
I’m obviously fairly convinced atheism is correct, but I plan to teach my children about all of the major religions of the world (and some minor ones) so that THEY can make an informed choice themselves as to what to beleive. But I won’t teach them that one way or another is SCIENTIFIC TRUTH if the evidence does not support it.
These are quotes from your posts. I use them as evidence that you’re not consistent to your own position.
“However by the standards of their day, they did what was expected and normal and natural. This is not to say it was “right” to own slaves,”
Either it was right at their time because society said it was right or it is never right.
“Personally I support a woman’s right to choose.”
Princeton Survey Research Associate survey found that 57 percent of women believe abortion is wrong.
An LA Times poll found the exact same number of people felt like abortion was murder.
Gallup/CNN/USA Today found in 2005 that 62 percent of people thought that abortion should be illegal in all but a few circumstances.
Forgetting the emotionally driven subject that this normally is, your statement goes against the majority opinion in this nation. You should think that abortion is immoral.
“From a world view perspective, there is a middle ground which would be the “ideal morality”. Perhaps we need to get over our sexual issues and become more accepting of homosexuality, and China needs to grant more rights to the individual, etc… By reaching this “happy medium” the world would come to a global consensus.”
Your personal ethics are showing through here also. Why is it China’s human rights that need to change? Why shouldn’t we become more like China in the human rights department?
You balk at actually allowing the global majority to dictate morality because it violates your personal standards of right and wrong.
“My moral code says that many things that are acceptable in China are wrong. My own moral code also says that many things accepted in the US are wrong.”
Your essentially saying that my moral code sometimes disagrees with the majority opinion in China and the US. That’s as much as saying I believe in social ethics until it disagrees with what I really believe.
“According to my ideals, I would most likely do whatever the morality of that society told me to do.”
Again stating that your moral ideals and society’s ideals aren’t always the same.
If society just dictates most of your moral standards but no all of them, upon what do you base the rest of your morality.
And if you think it’s OK to have an individual ethic, upon what basis can you say someone else’s ethic is wrong?
Finally,
The argument about slavery and 51% thinking it’s OK.
Again you’re saying that your morality can be used to try to persuade the majority that they’re wrong.
If you truly believe in social ethics, as soon as the majority disagrees with you, you become immoral. You don’t have a basis by which to persuade people that they’re wrong.
moot,
I never claimed that EVERY person gets the EXACT SAME morality from society, just that our morality is BASED ON society.
In much the same way that taste in music differs from person to person (even people who lived in the same house, had the same general lives, etc), our individual morality is based on our own experiences. Somebody who grows up in the rural south is more likely to enjoy country music than somebody who grew up in Harlem. Somebody who grows up with parents who listen to Jazz and Blues is more likely to enjoy those than somebody who grew up in the middle of nowhere West Virginia.
What I said is that we get our morality from society, and specifically our experiences in that society. While the overall themes are consistent for people, our experiences are different, and thus our interpretations of those themes can be different.
If I lived in a family of KKK members, I would be much more likely to find any non-white people to be “less” than white people. People who grow up in a evangelical, christian, right wing, creationist, family, are more likely to believe homosexuality is wrong and that the earth is 6500 years old.
We may all come from the same “society” but our individual experiences COMPLETELY affect our views.
So it is individual relativism then?
moot,
We ALL get our morals from our interactions with society around us. However, since each of our brains are slightly different, and each of our experiences are slightly different our interpretations of those moral ideals vary.
So if somebody is raised by a KKK family THEY will believer that racism is ok, but society at large will not.
… but you’re still trying to use scientific principles to ‘prove’ something that exists outside and beyond science.
As for what the public schools teach – agreed. Religion class – fine, but not in a science class.
thanks for the debate!
tallandrew,
Yes, I agree I am saying that the only way to PROVE to me that god exists (any god, not just the christian god) would be if that god “wanted to be proven” and gave us mortal humans a scientific basis for believing.
Anything short of scientific evidence to support the claim is FAITH. And as a skeptical person, I find faith to not be the ideal way to live my life, I prefer evidence.
Let me wrap up the discussion about morality and ethics. I can see that it’s run it’s course. I think there’s better evidence for absolutes than there is for social ethics.
I’ve been remiss in describe morality itself as absolute, it’s not. Morality is a conclusion generally predicated on an absolute truths. In other words it is most often a reasonable conclusion drawn from some objective truth. (i.e Human life is valuable, Therefore to take human life is wrong.) So to call into question morality is to call into question the objective truth upon which that morality is based. In denying absolutes you’re not simply denying a moral rule but an objective reality.
moot,
I don’t disagree that human life is valuable, I’m just curious as to your view of other “beings which god created” and their “rights”.
Objectively is all life valuable, or just human life?
As I recall “god” told adam he would have dominion over the animals, he did not mention raising them for the express purpose of slaughtering them for food.
Also, what is the “objective reality” regarding women’s rights? Or stem cell research? Or (insert some random thing which is not talked about in the bible, and we have not yet thought of, such as human cloning)?
I think those are great questions. Why doesn’t the bible specifically address stem cell research, how are we suppose to react to the potential for cloning?
We have to look at this question from a broader perspective. Are we given objective truths from which we can derive conclusions about these and other important issues?
You can approach morality one of two ways. You can start with the individual moral law and work your way back to the objective truth or you can start with the truth and work your way toward it’s application. The second is probably the more valid method because it allows us to question and examine the moral rules we have in place.
As to your individual questions. There are relatively few objective realities that we use to develop morality.
-The inherent value of human life applies to every issue you brought up. In fact the more I think about it the more I wonder if that’s the single objective truth by which all morality is developed. (I’m thinking as I go here but I’m hard pressed to find a moral rule that doesn’t trace itself back ultimately to this concept, maybe you can help me.)
Yes all life is valuable but we all make some distinction between human life, animal life and plant life.
Women’s rights have the same basis as men’s rights or black rights or white rights. We are humans and the framers of the constitution stated it well even if they didn’t apply it well.
Stem cell research, cloning, or any other modern pursuits are fine unless we start infringing on other moral laws in order to pursue them. Is it OK to take a life to save a life?
By the way, are you a vegetarian? I was just wondering because of the slaughtering animals bit.
moot,
My point about stem cell research and cloning was more just to make the point that new technologies arise and bring up new potential “moral issues” that were never previously considered.
I’m personally 100% in favor of stem cell research and it’s because I feel that a blastocyst is NOT a person, it’s a collections of cells. But whether you’re for it or against it has NOTHING to do with the bible, or “absolute” morality, it has to do with a warped definition of what a person it, passed down from the “church” and it’s lack of understanding of science over the centuries.
Cloning I am a bit less sure of at this point, I don’t really see a difference between a clone, and a child born through In Vitro Fertilization. However I’d say that we’re better off waiting before we clone people in order to bring them full term, until the science is a bit more developed than it is now.
“hard pressed to find a moral rule that doesn’t trace itself back”
I think that something like a prohibition against drugs would be considered a moral issue (which became law) but is not based on the “inherent value of human life”.
One could argue that drugs are bad for a person’s body, but if THAT is truly the reason for banning drugs, then alcohol and cigarettes should be banned as well, since they are even worse.
“Women’s rights have the same basis as men’s rights or black rights or white rights.”
I COMPLETELY agree with this view, it’s unfortunate that historically it’s only VERY recently when this has been the accepted way. The reason I bring this one up now and again is that in my mind, it shows a distinct changing of morality over time, and shows a serious flaw with considering the bible to be an infallible work.
“Is it OK to take a life to save a life?”
As you stated in your hypothetical of a father killing their child to save many others, it seems you DO think it’s ok. I personally think that taking a life is NEVER ok, but occasionally justified (self defense or defense of others).
“By the way, are you a vegetarian? I was just wondering because of the slaughtering animals bit.”
No, but not due to lack of trying by my wife to convert me. I personally LOVE a good steak, but my wife is a vegi and she subtly tries to convince me that it’s healthier, etc…
I do however think that if one takes a literal view of the bible, then one SHOULD be a vegi, based on genesis.
There a couple of things.
The more I think about it the more I wonder if the single absolute is not the value of human life. There’s got to be something that breaks the pattern.
The drugs thing. Yeah I’d say that it’s a self-respect issue. And I don’t drink or smoke for that reason.
The stem cell thing. You’re right there do seem to be scenarios that allow for the taking of life to save a life.
I know next to nothing about the stem cell controversy. I am not in favor of abortion at all. So if a life must be terminated to allow for this research I’m definitely not in support of it.
I think abortion is a compelling topic that, although usually emotionally charged is a good sounding board for how we formulate and apply our morality.
Even a literal view of the bible you’d be able to eat meat. (Acts 10:13-15) However I’ve met a number of Christians that believe vegetarianism is scripturally mandated.
I phrased something poorly – I meant to indicate that human life is the single moral principle upon which every other morality is based. It’s a concept I’m exploring.
moot,
A “self-respect issue” would be different than “inherent value of human life”.
I don’t believe that people have the right to tell another person what they can and can not do to themselves (unless that person is mentally ill and unable to take core of themselves). This is (one reason) why I support legalization of drugs (another reason would be that regulating drugs would lead to “safer” drugs, and less crime associated with drug usage).
I don’t believe that some 16 year old kid in his basement smoking a joint with his friends violates your idea of “inherent value of human life”. That same 16 year old getting piss drunk would certainly be a “self-respect issue”, but drinking and smoking pot are not any more harmful than MANY other things which are legal and acceptable by society (cigarettes for example are much more dangerous than drugs and alcohol combined).
Let’s be clear here though on stem cell research. NOBODY involved with stem cell research supports abortions as a means to gather stem cells. The stem cells which are used in research are HOURS old and created in a laboratory. These cells are still dividing and have not begun to take any shape at all, and do not equate with ANY NON-RELIGIOUS based definition of a human life.
But, for one moment let’s say that to do this research a 4 year old child had to be killed. And by killing this four year old child would save hundreds of thousands (if no millions upon millions) of lives.
Based on your earlier example where a father would be “praised” for killing his child if meant saving a few dozen (hundred?) lives, it would seem you would support this idea. Well with stem cell research we don’t have to kill anybody, we just need to allow cells to divide for a few hours to a few days, and then use those cells in research.
“I am not in favor of abortion at all.”
How about in the case of rape or incest, or where the mothers life is in jeopardy? If you say yes to ANY of these scenarios, it’s not about the child BEING aborted, it’s about your religious convictions being the basis for WHEN a child CAN BE aborted.
Personally I am in favor of a woman’s right to choose, I think when it’s feasible that adoption is a MUCH better alternative (I was adopted myself, and ideally I want to have one child with my wife and adopt one child). But I do believe that it should be a LAST resort, and that there should be much better education and free access to birth control and contraception to negate the NEED for abortions. Even the most ARDENT pro-life supporter of planned parenthood would agree that in an IDEAL society there would be no abortions, but the fact remains that we don’t live in an ideal society, and we MUST have ways to help those in need.
As with many topics, the bible seems to contradict itself based on ones interpretation of various passages. I’ve already beaten this into a ground earlier, so I won’t go into depth here, but it’s just another example to add to the list.
Let me deal with one specific issue in your post before I respond to the others.
If the Christian has defined abortion as murder then we can’t start making exceptions in certain cases. If a baby is the product of rape it doesn’t make that baby less of a human being. And thus doesn’t make the killing of that child somehow acceptable.
How can we argue that a child that is a product of rape is a lesser person? Do they not have the intrinsic worth that any human being has? Would you advocate a different set of rights for the adults that exist as a result of rape or incest? Maybe we should give them second-rate citizen status. Maybe we should not allow them to vote or own property. It’s absolutely ridiculous, not to mention abhorrent, to say that a child is somehow not worthy of life because of how they came into the world.
Rape is a terrible thing. Incest is a inconceivable wrong. A mother dying during child birth is overwhelmingly tragic. In the case of rape and incest I completely advocate harsher penalties for those that commit such a heinous crimes but I can’t imagine punishing the child who had no part in that crime. It’s completely unimaginable.
A friend of mine is the product of rape. My sister-in-law is the product of rape. I cannot conceive of a scenario in which the world would be a better place without these people in them.
moot,
I commend you on consistency on this issue, and I assume then you also oppose the death penalty under ALL circumstances.
I have not given the level of thought to the death penalty that I have to the particular facet of abortion I addressed above. I do oppose capital punishment but not on the same basis I oppose abortion.
Are you opposed to the death penalty? If so how do you make that distinction between the death penalty and abortion? And in what circumstances do you support abortion?
Back to the original reply –
I’ll readily admit that I don’t know anything about stem cell research and that, as far as I know, I ‘m not opposed to it.
That being said, I don’t know that I would agree to kill someone for research that may potentially save millions of lives. I think the Nazi’s did a lot of that in concentrations camps in World War II. But I can’t say that was morally right or equate that with the scenario Abraham found himself in. And by the way I didn’t say that taking a life was right in the train scenario, I was just saying that there may be a situation in which a man could kill his son and still be considered moral.
I’m glad to hear that you’re a proponent (and product) of abortion. I’m hugely in favor of adoption. It gave me a brother.
WHOOPS!!! I’m so sorry I meant adoption not abortion on the second to last sentence. No Freudian slip there, I promise.
moot,
I oppose the death penalty 100%.
There have been too many instances of people wrongly convicted and later acquitted while on death row (or in some cases after they have been executed). Once you take their life, there is no going back and saying “oops, we got the wrong guy”.
As well ALL of the evidence says that the death penalty does NOT WORK as a deterrent. The US has one of the highest ratios of people in prisons compared to population, and we’re one of the FEW countries that has the death penalty.
A third issue the the death penalty, and much more minor than the first two but still something to look at, is that we spend a ridiculous amount of money on death row inmates, ABOVE AND BEYOND the general population, because of the mandatory appeals process. This money could go towards many other “better” uses.
“distinction between the death penalty and abortion”
Well one is state sponsored murder of a living human being. And one (if done early in the pregnancy) is removal of cells that have not formed a person with a spinal cord, brain function, or internal organs (i.e. not a person).
As for what circumstances, I believe it’s a woman’s right to choose (although I do believe that the fathers should have more of a say than they do now, specifically in blocking abortions if they are willing to take sole responsibility for the child if approved by a court), but I think there needs to be strict guidelines on the timing (I oppose late term abortions unless the mother’s life is in danger).
I also believe that with better access to contraceptives and birth control that we can GREATLY reduce the number of unwanted/unexpected pregnancies, and we should ALWAYS try to talk to the mother about adoption as a first option, and abortion as a last alternative.
Your words:
“Let me give you the hypothetical scenario in which a father would be praised for killing his son”
You said that it was a situation where the father would be “praised”. I agreed from the start there are situations where it could be JUSTIFIED, but we disagree on it EVER being praise worthy.
I can’t disagree with you on the capital punishment issue.
Let me preface the rest of the post with this. I’m not intending this to turn into the pro-life/pro-choice debate. I do think it’s relevant to the larger discussion but I certainly don’t want it to degenerate into something other than what it started out as. That being said, I’d love to hear your take on what I’ve written below.
I think the abortion issue is psychologically difficult but it’s morally simple. You’re right you must define the unborn. However this is a very scientifically driven debate. We can display beyond and shadow of doubt the biological process that are going on in the baby and when those processes begin. How to extrapolate that a determine life is much more difficult.
So the question is what’s the unborn? It’s interesting that the motto is “the right to choose” but the that motto is unfinished. It requires a subject, “the right to choose what?”
Biologically you can come up with a wide variety of different criteria to define life. I’ll give you a few facts.
-At conception the babies DNA and chromosomes are in place and intact. All the genetic information is in place for every physical characteristic of that person.
-Two and half weeks after conception the babies heart begins to beat, often with a different blood type then the mother.
-By the end of the third week the child’s spinal cord and organ development are well underway.
-Brain waves are detectable by the end of the sixth week.
-By week twelve it’s organs are fully functional and it’s skeletal system is intact. It has the ability to experience pain.
-By week twenty a baby demonstratively recognizes it’s mothers voice.
Amazingly it’s federally legal to abort a baby at twenty-two weeks!
Even pro-abortion advocates admit that life exists earlier. They just distinguish between life and independently sustainable life.
If this is thought through logically I don’t see how that definition can be consistent.
You essentially have two positions in favor of abortion.
-development
-dependence
Human children are constantly developing through adolescence. Is a 8 year old less valuable than a 20 year old because they’re less physically developed? It doesn’t make sense to me.
There are millions of dependent people in the United States. A friend of mine has two special needs daughters, severely retarded, blind and completely incapable of sustaining life outside someone’s care. I can’t imagine their intense level of dependence (taking care of them is inarguably more work than being pregnant) being justification for killing them.
By your own definition you qualified life as a spinal cord, brain function and organs. I’m not sure how these become the definition of life but even so mothers are allowed to have abortions well after all those indicators are in place.
Given that there is debate on the issue and no particular general consensus wouldn’t we want to err on the side of life anyway? You essentially used that argument for capital punishment. What if the guy is innocent? What if the zygote/fetus/tissue is alive?
moot,
You are correct that there should be a cutoff period where after (x) amount of time the woman should carry to full term. I’m not knowledgeable enough on the subject to exactly what that time should be, but off hand, I’d say the earlier the better (except in cases where the mother’s life is in serious danger).
I would suggest we should leave the timing up to the medical community, not a group of right wing politicians or judges.
Also as I stated, if we increase the use of birth control and condoms (and education), then the number of unwanted pregnancies should be reduced significantly.
So let’s get back to the line of reasoning we were on before we diverged to the morality issue.
We’re answering the question of why I believe
-We both agree on the historicity of Jesus.
-We both agree that the current copy of the Gospels are similar to what was originally written
-From there the point is to examine it’s claims
The essential difference in our conclusion is that I factor in Christ and the Gospels into my conclusions.
You said that you believed we have something similar to what was written are you willing to allow the Gospels to factor into some of your conclusions about God?
moot,
“-We both agree on the historicity of Jesus.”
We agree that he most likely lived. We STRONGLY disagree as to the actions which are attributed to him (virgin birth, miracles, death and resurection, etc).
“-We both agree that the current copy of the Gospels are similar to what was originally written”
Not quite, as I mentioned before:
You claim this (the 200,000 – 400,000 discrepancies) leads to only 16 differences per version (since by your figures there are 25,000 versions), but what you do not take into account is the math would say there are 16 UNIQUE things in each and every version, not 16 differences between any two versions.
16 unique things in each version still leads to an INCREDIBLE number of differences between any two versions.
As for why I don’t believe the gospels are the “inerrant word of god”, lets start with the contradictions littered throughout, then go into the out and out scientific falsities, and eventually finish off with the fact that if a divine creator were to write a book, one might expect the most profound writings imaginable in every sense of the word (the best authorship, the most accurate depiction of science and mathematics, and most importantly the most definitive moral rules every conceived).
Now by reading my previous posts, you can see multiple arguments that the bible does not meet ANY one of these criteria, much less all of them.
I know that I know very little. I feel or believe in a higher power. I try to live my life with honesty and without hurting others. So that is all I know. what is right or wrong? Clearly this differs for everyone. I am still trying to figure out what I do and don’t believe. Thanks for inviting me to your forum here.
veronica,
“I try to live my life with honesty and without hurting others.”
I commend this sentiment, I just wish it was more common for believers to follow this simple guideline.
Rod, in contemplating a response to your invitation, nothing captured my sense of things better than this sermon I heard a few years ago (http://kenyananalyst.wordpress.com/2006/04/06/radical-christianity/).
Sorry, gotta prepare for an exam and I did not read any of the comments up there..
Even in Arabic, I find it hard to talk in such things..
As a child I used to wonder if mama is faking all about Heaven and Hell; I did not bother to pray the 5 until I turned 16, it was much later on that I knew that Shiite were Muslims, and I thought they were the same as (Shyoiya) the Arabic word for Communism!! Though I was born a Muslima, I had to embrace Islam on my own..
My interest in religions (including my own Islam too) is still new… and this is what I think:
All the religions are the same message RE-sent again and again by God, Yahweh, Allah or whatever is the name (by the way, Allah is Arabic for The God and not “Islam’s god” even Christian Arabs would say Allah, and this is the name used in Arabic versions of Bible)..
The main objective is that people must worship the one and only God.. The Creator.. monotheism ..
Every time, the message was modified to suit the people receiving it… the means of persuading also varied: Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) was sent with miracles: singular abilities to persuade a nation that excelled in magic craft.. That was his “evidence” for them (I use the word “evidence”, but I have an Arabic word on my mind with slightly different meaning) Humanity was still quite simple at the time…
Then Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) used to cure people, which is definitely more meaningful than simply splitting the Nile or turning ropes into snakes!! By the time Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) was sent, humanity reached maturity and they needed no more unreasonable events to persuade them that their existing was for a purpose.. A Challenging book is all what they need; that Qura’an
I think that Judaism and Christianity, both of them, were the truth at some point; but not any more… they were steps for humanity to ascend; Islam is the last and final version of this message..
Now, you say how do I know for sure? Actually, you made me more sure now when you mentioned that a “typical American person” would believe in Lady Mary’s virginity and that Prophet Noah made The Ark!! We sure differ when it comes to Prophet Jesus (Peace be upon him) being crossed…
I know this is irrelevant, but 2 years ago I performed Hajj and made a list of prayers; a very materialistic one… many were answered, some in the process of becoming true… For me, this is enough to feel God’s presence… and especially when I am alone at night, I feel that even stronger…
Lately, I had this strange idea: could it be that Buddha was actually one of the messengers sent by God.. and then somehow his followers made the same mistake Christians made and worshiped him instead of his sender!!
I don’t know if I’m making any sense ‘cause I rarely do… Whatever!!
Can you please check this:
http://www.answers.com/topic/abbas-al-akkad-1
This man shaped much of my mind.. Although not exactly a religious person himself, he is who made religion reasonable for me.. Some of his books must have been translated into English, I hope..
There is also a Saudi thinker Hamzah Shihata.. he has a very interesting idea about ethics and religion.. but I doubt he was ever translated.. Even here in Saudi Arabia, very few are aware of his contribution to our thought.. no wonder the man chose Egypt to spend whatever was left of his life..
You better find someone much more well-informed about Islam if you seek a Muslim answer for such a question…
How certain are you that your version of the “truth” (truth of god, religion, the world, the universe, etc) is the correct one, and more importantly, how do you know what that “truth” is?
First, never end a sentence with a preposition. “…how do you know what is that ‘truth’?” Sounds funny -but’s it’s correct grammar (truthfully).
I’m only certain that I have a relationship w/God. The older I get the more I become aware of cultural biases, etc. that make me think that nobody has a corner on the truth. I only know truth because of my relationship with God. He has certainly proven His existence to me, and I believe that he encountered humanity in human form in the person of Y’Shua (we call him Jesus). I believe He continues to be involved in the course of humanity, but don’t ask me to be more specific – that’s where we all get off base.
jesse,
That’s an interesting post, but it assumes that christianity is true and is “under attack” from outside forces. It lays out those “attacks” and how christians should “handle” them ,but it does not go into the core of this post, which is HOW does a person “know” that their faith or religion (be it christianity, islam, scientology, wican, or whatever) is the “truth”.
aisha,
“All the religions are the same message RE-sent again and again by God, Yahweh, Allah or whatever is the name..”
Would this include non-abrahamic religions such as hinduism, buddhism, or the religions of the ancient people of Rome, Greece, Egypt, and Scandinavia?
Would it also include newer religions which reject the koran, such as later day saints (mormonism) or scientology?
“The main objective is that people must worship the one and only God.. The Creator.. monotheism ..”
Mormonism would fall into this category, but still deny everything that Islam is built upon, including the prophet mohamed. As this was a later religion than Islam, it is understood that practitioners of this religion are actively denying the “truth” of Islam, as you perceive it.
“Every time, the message was modified to suit the people receiving it…”
So an all powerful, all knowing god can’t manage to get his entire message correct on the first try? He has to keep trying multiple times until he finally “gets it right”?
I would think that assuming “god” did create mankind, “he” should know from the beginning how to get “his message” correct the first time.
“they were steps for humanity to ascend; Islam is the last and final version of this message..”
How can you be certain that this latest incarnation of the “truth” is not going to be replaced by yet another prophet in the future? Or perhaps this new prophet has already come and given his message (Joseph Smith perhaps, l ron hubbard, or somebody less “famous”)?
“Actually, you made me more sure now when you mentioned that a “typical American person” would believe in Lady Mary’s virginity and that Prophet Noah made The Ark!!”
I mentioned this as a point to show the ignorance of the typical American fundamentalist christian, not as a positive point.
Religion teaches that blind faith is a virtue, and that faith should never be questioned. The entire point of this post is that EVERYTHING should be questioned, ESPECIALLY faith that is not based on scientific evidence.
“I know this is irrelevant, but 2 years ago I performed Hajj and made a list of prayers; a very materialistic one… many were answered, some in the process of becoming true… For me, this is enough to feel God’s presence”
So those prayers that were answered, is there ANY POSSIBILITY that those things would have happened on their own (i.e. you worked hard for something, or it was inevitable).
And for the prayers that were not answered, I assume that you feel it’s “god’s will” (or “allah’s will” in your case). So a positive result “proves” to you that your version of “god” exists. and a negative result “proves” to you that your version of “god” exists.
“could it be that Buddha was actually one of the messengers sent by God.. and then somehow his followers made the same mistake Christians made and worshiped him instead of his sender!!”
Actually I think this shows more about your ignorance of buddhism than it shows of the actual beliefs of buddhists. Buddhists do not worship buddah as a “god”, they follow the teachings of buddah in order to reach a higher plane of existance.
I do want to understand more about your views, since the discussion has mostly been christians thus far, and I think your perspective is a good one to add to the discussion.
b4dguy,
“First, never end a sentence with a preposition”
Really, a grammar lesson? If you’re going to nitpick my grammar (or grammar in general online) you’re going to spend quite a bit of time missing the forest while looking at blades of grass (not even the trees in this analogy).
“nobody has a corner on the truth. I only know truth because of my relationship with God.”
Do I REALLY need to point out the contraction for you here?
“He has certainly proven His existence to me”
How exactly?
“I believe He continues to be involved in the course of humanity, but don’t ask me to be more specific”
So you have a belief that god (or jesus) is involved in the affairs of humanity today, but you don’t know how, or you’re unwilling to share the information if you do know?
“Actually I think this shows more about your ignorance of buddhism than it shows of the actual beliefs of buddhists.”
they do!! well, that’s why i think you should find someone else if you really wish to hear what Muslims think.. I am certain of my faith, but i do not know why!! guess in the end i am still a typical simple Muslima too even though i’d like to think my self something else..
“I do want to understand more about your views”
I will say no more if you’ll keep considering what i say as ISLAMIC!! I am not the right person for this, you know..
aisha,
I am friends with a few buddhists (of varying degrees), and I have read a bit on buddha and buddhism. There is NOTHING that tells people to treat buddah as “god”, but he is more looked up to as a “prophet” type of person, who had a deep understanding of the universe.
If you know of some “buddhist” who worship buddah as god, they are not actually buddhists, they are believing in something that buddah would have condemned.
“i think you should find someone else if you really wish to hear what Muslims think”
I do not take you as speaking for all muslims, but if enough muslims with slightly different views on their own faith post, then an overall idea of the faith of muslims can come eventually. Just as no one christian speaks for all christians, with enough unique interpretations of the christian faith an understanding of christianity can come through.
Every time I pop out for a few days I see that there’s a ton of interaction going on.
Speaking of textual criticism.
I understand your point completely. You’d expect a perfect book from a perfect God. While that seems reasonable I think there’s more factors to consider that make a “perfect book from a perfect God” hypothesis slightly simplistic.
First of all let me try to correct a couple of things I may not have been clear about.
-The 25,000 manuscripts is not “my” number.
-The 16 errors per manuscript does not imply 16 unique errors, it can contain a single misspelling found in a variety of manuscripts. So, one error, if repeated, becomes 30 errors. In other words even 400,000 “errors” can represent a much smaller number of mistakes.
-The type of mistake is largely inconsequential. They represent mostly spelling errors and things like that.
-The majority of the errors are ones pointed out by the scribes themselves as they proofread, then corrected the manuscripts.
http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Correctors.html
Even with all that being said, one could still make the point that there’s still a potential for relatively major errors, however few to mess with the intent of scripture.
-That would be true if the manuscripts couldn’t be compared to themselves. If one manuscript said Jesus was a plumber and 4365 said that Jesus was a carpenter, we can safely assume that he was in fact a carpenter.
This still doesn’t deal with the ultimate point of “can’t we expect a perfect book from a perfect God?”
No thinking Christian can deny there are errors in the manuscripts. But we also don’t deny that God used people to communicate these truths. Christians have long maintained that humans do make mistakes. I have no problem reconciling an obvious human error with a good message.
The real question probably isn’t the one we’re dealing with. I’ve got an inkling that even if I could prove beyond any doubt that the bible was textually perfect that you’d believe in God. So the fact that it isn’t perfect is not the reason you don’t believe.
In your post you’ve set up your expectations for divine scripture and then dismissed the bible because it didn’t meet them.
There are hundreds of books pointing out biblical errors as there are hundreds of books explaining them.
There are answers but answers are difficult to find if we come to the question with answers in hand.
I would be interested a brief list of scientific errors you said exist. Just out of curiosity.
moot,
“The 16 errors per manuscript does not imply 16 unique errors, it can contain a single misspelling found in a variety of manuscripts. So, one error, if repeated, becomes 30 errors.”
Actually it’s 400,000 unique differences between variations of the bible, which averages out to 16 unique variations in EACH of the 25,000 versions.
Some versions may share differences, but the number of UNIQUE differences is still 400,000. While 30 copies may have the SAME error (in your example) that means that 24,970 do not, and that’s STILL just 1 unique error (and 399,999 to go).
“The type of mistake is largely inconsequential. They represent mostly spelling errors and things like that.”
You’re correct here, but we are not talking about an “ordinary book” we are talking about the “infallible word of god” which people are willing to die (or kill) over these words.
If it was Moby Dick or Hamlet it would not be a problem, but people have committed (and still are committing) horrific actions because they read these books and interpret “god’s will” from these flawed variations.
As we’ve gone over a few times there are numerous contradictions within the bible itself which bring about criticism of even the original version actually having been “divinely inspired”, much less the versions we have now 400,000 errors later.
“No thinking Christian can deny there are errors in the manuscripts.”
I agree, no thinking person can deny this, but there are 80 million people in the US alone that DO DENY this, and that’s a huge problem.
“I’ve got an inkling that even if I could prove beyond any doubt that the bible was textually perfect that you’d believe in God.”
Even if the bible was perfectly consistent within itself and had no scientific flaws at all, it would still not prove the divinity of the author. However the errors that are there do, at least in my opinion, prove that the author(s) WAS NOT (were not) an infallible deity, but were bronze age men attempting to understand the world around them, and create a moral code for themselves and their descendants to live by.
“In your post you’ve set up your expectations for divine scripture and then dismissed the bible because it didn’t meet them.”
Yes, this is true. I believe that if an infallible being was going to write a book to give their “rules” for us mere morals to live by, they would have written a much more accurate book, and they would NEVER for any reason have contradicted them self.
“I would be interested a brief list of scientific errors you said exist.”
The SIMPLEST 100% PROVEN FACTUAL ERROR in the bible is the approximation of Pi to 3.
In 1 Kings 7:23 the bible states:
And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
If you do the math this has Pi equal 3 exactly.
If this “holy book” was written by god, one would have to assume that “he” would know that Pi is 3.1415… and not exactly 3.
Now you can do a google search and find answersingensis.com, and other sites, trying to explain this away as essentially a rounding error, but if this book is written by an INFALLIBLE deity, how can there be a “rounding error”?
Or to get into the inconsistencies issue we can go back to the discussion we had earlier about genesis 1 and genesis 2 not having the same order of creation. If an infallible being can’t keep the story straight two chapters in a row (the first two chapters of the book mind you) then I fail to see how anybody can honestly take any of it seriously.
Rod,
Really, a grammar lesson?
Not a nitpick. A pet peeve.
“nobody has a corner on the truth. I only know truth because of my relationship with God.”
Do I REALLY need to point out the contraction for you here?
Yes.
“He has certainly proven His existence to me”
How exactly?
It’s hard to point out a few specific things, it’s been 30 years of relationship. The more I learn the less I know.
“I believe He continues to be involved in the course of humanity, but don’t ask me to be more specific”
So you have a belief that god (or jesus) is involved in the affairs of humanity today, but you don’t know how, or you’re unwilling to share the information if you do know?
I’d say the interaction is very subjective, and I don’t begin to understand His criteria. Christian sects argue about it all the time – whether there is free will or not, predestination, etc. I say it’s beyond human understanding. So I can’t give you an absolute – this is God intervening in the course of history – or not.
b4dguy,
“Not a nitpick. A pet peeve.”
Unless this is your first time online, you should be used to people not using perfect grammar 100% of the time. Most people don’t even bother to try, and those who do are still generally posting quickly at times and don’t have time to run every comment they type past a proof reader.
“nobody has a corner on the truth. I only know truth because of my relationship with God.”
“nobody has a corner on the truth”
“I only know truth”
“nobody has … truth”
“I … know truth”
Seriously, you don’t see that on your own without it being pointed out to you?
In two consecutive sentences you said essentially:
Nobody knows the truth. I know the truth.
“certainly proven”
“hard to point out”
Again, two sentences in a row seem to not quite fit together, but at least they are grammatically correct I suppose.
“involved in the course of humanity”
Ok, I can understand your comments on this, but I’m still curious about what you mean here, perhaps a few examples of what “he” does, and does not do would help.
For each of these examples, you can give a yes or no, or go into further detail if you like.
– god caused Katrina because “he” is upset that our society condones homosexuality
– god killed Heath Ledger because he played a gay character in a movie
– if a person loses their keys and prays, god will “help” them find their keys
– if a person with cancer prays, god will cure their cancer
– if a person who had a limb amputated prays, god will grow their limb back
(feel free to insert any other scenarios where you believe god would or would not intervene)
Interesting how you change “has a corner on” to “knows”. I see them as two different things, so no I had no idea what you meant. And I didn’t say “I know the truth”, I said, “I know truth.” Again, two different things.
– god caused Katrina because “he” is upset that our society condones homosexuality
no. that’s stupid. maybe it happened to shed light on the plight of the poor? But I did see God part the clouds twice – once for an outdoor festival, and once just for me.
– god killed Heath Ledger because he played a gay character in a movie
no. that’s also stupid. why kill someone that “played a gay character” instead of killing real gay people?
– if a person loses their keys and prays, god will “help” them find their keys
Possibly, that’s more His style.
– if a person with cancer prays, god will cure their cancer
No guarantee. I’ve known people that have been cured. I’ve known people (my brother for one) that died.
– if a person who had a limb amputated prays, god will grow their limb back
Wouldn’t that be something, but probably not. Not His style.
The “big” stuff you mentioned – no, I don’t think God intervenes in that way. The curing type stuff – more likely; I’d say that God tends to prove himself in small ways rather than big ways – more on an individual or case by case basis. I don’t think I could point to any headline and say – “God did that”. But then there’s all the miracles of science and nature – not too bad a portfolio.
Let me try to answer your original two questions again – I’ll be a little more specific this time.
How certain are you that your version of the “truth” (truth of god, religion, the world, the universe, etc) is the correct one?
I know God. God is truth. I only have a very small understanding as to His nature. The most complete picture I have of His nature is based on when he became like me. I don’t begin to claim to understand Him completely. Religion – they’re all wrong. The world – what about the world? I don’t understand what you’re asking. How it got here? God created it (same for the universe). How did he do it? I don’t claim any particular story or myth or account, nor do I care which is right. The only thing that matters to me is that God created. The universe? Massively impressive. How did he come up with all this? How clever a design that all forms of life are so closely linked at a genetic/DNA level. Very impressive.
and more importantly, how do you know what that “truth” is?
What is my basis for my knowledge of God? My basis is three things: my own experience with Him, others’ experience with Him, historical records of His life while on Earth. I’d even say that this is in rank order of importance – at least for me.
b4dguy,
Perhaps it’s a question of language, but I tend to see “has a corner on” and “knows” as being equivalent in that situation.
If I were to say that a company has a corner on the market, it would mean that they have a good idea of the market, have inroads in the market, etc. In this case talking about knowledge of truth, I would say that it means (essentially) “knows”.
As for “I know truth”, let’s imagine you have two children, and you ask them who broke a lamp. If one of them replied “I know truth”, you (and I do mean specifically you, being a stickler for grammar and all) might say “no son, it’s “I know THE truth”.
Again, this may be a question of language semantics, but I see those as equivalent.
Regarding Katrina, you said that perhaps “he” caused it to “shed light on the plight of the poor”.
I know you’re only speculating, but seriously, is the best way to raise awareness of the poor in America to kill countless numbers of them, and make the lives of those who survived EVEN WORSE? That’s like drawing attention to a gun shot victim by stabbing them in the chest.
“But I did see God part the clouds twice”
And you’re POSITIVE that it was not nature, perhaps the wind blowing the clouds over another area, or some other natural explanation? There is no room in your mind for this being a NON-supernatural cause? I guess I’m a bit more skeptical, becasue I feel that Occam’s Razor is the way to go in a situation like this. Basically it states:
“All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.”
In these particular situations which do you HONESTLY feel is the more likely explanation, that “god” in his infinite wisdom chose to change the laws of the universe to “part the clouds”; or that wind and natural processes moved the clouds just as they would in ANY POSSIBLE SCENARIO in time?
“instead of killing real gay people?”
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE tell me this is a bad joke.
I’m going to HOPE that the whole “killing real gay people” is just a bad joke, since it is quite out of character with the majority of what you’ve said in your posts, including the rest of this one.
Regarding the lost keys, here is an experiment for you to try at home. Have your (wife, girlfriend, mother, kids, whatever) hide your keys from you 20 times. 10 of those time (at random), pray before you begin to look, and the other 10 begin looking right away. Keep an accurate account of the amount of time each search takes, and see if you find ANY significant difference (if anything, I’m guessing the praying will be longer, since you’re taking the time to pray).
“No guarantee. I’ve known people that have been cured. I’ve known people (my brother for one) that died.”
So if god saves them, you would credit the prayer, but when god allows them to die you credit “god’s plan”, I would assume? So in essence, there is NO POSSIBLE result of prayer that would show you that it’s ineffective.
You may want to do a bit of research into the subject if you are interested in learning a bit more. In EVERY SINGLE scientifically controlled study on the efficacy of prayer it has been shown to AT THE BEST be as good as a placebo, and NEVER shown to be better than a placebo.
When your brother died of cancer, I assume you prayed for him to get better. Did he also undergo chemo, radiation or some other form of treatment? If you (and he) felt that god would heal him, then why waste the time/money on the medical treatment, since prayer “should have worked” according to your view?
And as for the amputees one, that was sort of a leading question, since it’s NEVER HAPPENED in human history.
For a VERY IN DEPTH look at this particular issue, check out the site:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
It’s very well constructed, and while the overriding view is that of an atheist, the dialog is not quite as confrontational or “in your face” as some atheist sites tend to be (I count myself as one of the “in your face” atheists, although in this particular blog post, I’m TRYING to be less so).
“But then there’s all the miracles of science and nature”
You mean like stem cell research and evolution?
I do REALLY like your answer this second time around for the original question of this blog post. Obviously I don’t see eye to eye with you on some of the details, but you seemingly have the same sense of awe and wonder of the universe that I have myself, which I respect.
I also greatly respect those who are willing to say “I don’t know” which you did say on the creation issue. I believe that as a species there is much we don’t yet understand, and tying to force our lack of understanding (and in some cases subvert what we do understand) into a book written by ignorant bronze age man is certainly not a helpful way to come to a better understanding.
I know it seems that I’m a bit confrontational, questioning everybody’s beliefs and answers, but in all honestly, my actual goal with this post is to have everybody question those own preconceived notions, and hopefully better understand the views of those who they don’t agree with. I do believe that a number of people have “gotten this” and the fact that you are willing to say “I don’t know” to some aspects of your own belief system is in my opinion a HUGE PLUS in your favor.
I really want to thank you for your input, and I hope you’re willing to keep answering questions, and giving your input on the topic.
Oh. You’re an atheist. Why didn’t you say so? I think you’ll find that we are very much in agreement on the majority of religious foibles in the world today.
Much to comment. I’ll try to keep it short.
“corner on truth” – what I meant by this is, I don’t believe any particular belief system is absolutely correct. I believe that God is Truth. We humans just don’t begin to have a grasp of all that He comprises. I do know that God has a particular flair (more than 17 pieces) in that he confounds the wise but lifts up the foolish (which sucks for you and me, since we like to tackle the nature of God from an intellectual viewpoint).
“I know the truth” and “I know truth” are very different in my book. God is truth. I know God. Therefore I know truth. I don’t claim to know more than a fraction of THE truth about God, only that I know God. I’ve got four kids, btw, and if one of them broke the lamp the chances of me figuring out who did it is slim. One time my son took the blame just to get beyond the whole lecture thing. Come to think of it, I still don’t know who really did…
I didn’t actually say that God caused Katrina. I said, “maybe it happened”. Countless more people died in the Tsunami. What’s the explanation for that? I don’t believe God “caused” either, btw. I think they just happened because of natural circumstances.
In both instances of the clouds parting it was pretty clear that something supernatural was at work. I would agree with Occam’s Razor, but would ask why you think that God intervening is not, or can’t be the simplest explanation?
“instead of killing gay people?” Again, My question is why is someone saying that God killed someone for playing a gay man rather than killing someone for being gay? Why kill an actor and not the real deal? Not a bad joke – a question? If someone did say that about Heath Ledger, they’re pretty stupid.
Regarding the lost key experiment. God is not one to respond well to being put to the test. It’s against His nature. More likely it would take longer to find the keys while praying for help finding them – that’s more his style. This leads into your discussion of the efficacy of prayer. I do not understand what you mean by researching the subject? The subject of prayer? or the efficacy of prayer? I talk to God. Most people call that prayer. Are you married? Do you talk to your wife, or simply read books/study about the ways to effectively communicate with your wife?
Asking God for something? Asking for a desired result? Again, reducing prayer requests or petitions to an empirical study. Whoa – I can believe that would never yield the desired result. Why do you think the praying mode would be longer? Can’t one talk and look at the same time?
I did not pray for my brother to get well, in fact. I prayed that he would ‘get right’ with His maker. He died 3 months after the diagnosis – there was no chemo or treatment, as his diagnosis was he was terminal. I believe my brother tried anything and everything he could to halt the inevitable outcome.
The amputee thing is an issue? With whom? I’ll check out the site when I get a chance. Is there also a site for cutting off the tails of lizards and mating them so that they’ll eventually evolve into lizards without tails?
Why is creation an issue? It’s not a question for me. I don’t know how God did it, and I don’t really care. I rest in the fact that He created. I am continually in awe of the complexity of all of creation. Understanding how it was done – whether it took a literal six days (which He could have done) or whether it took millions of years…who cares? Occam’s Razor comes to mind here – whether it was simpler for there to be a creator that thought all this up, or whether it is the product of random chance? Believing this universe was NOT created – that takes a huge amount of faith.
Science is awesome – but it’s limited. Science is simply trying to figure out all this stuff works. There’s nothing threating in doing this; to me it simply proves the wildness of the imagination, and the sheer intellect of figuring it all out.
I’d encourage you to not be so hung up on proofs. Elijah had an interesting encounter with God (recorded in 1 Kings 19):
“The LORD said, ‘Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by.’ [damn even the Bible hangs prepositions…]
Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.
So, may I ask you a question or two?
Why are you an atheist?
What are you seeking?
Are you willing to consider that God is real, but that we as humans really suck at explaining Him?
Remember: There are only 10 kinds of people in the world.
b4dguy,
sorry for the delay, responding, for some reason WordPress marked this reply as spam…
I have mentioned a number of times that I am an atheist, starting in the first reply (which was my own answer to this question):
I look around the world and the universe, and I am in awe of all that is there, but I see no evidence of a “god” or “designer”.
But that’s really neither here nor there.
It does seem the issue of “truth” was actually just an issue of language semantics, and with your further explanation I can see how you did not intend for it to come across as contradictory.
I used Katrina as the example, not the tsunami, because Pat Robertson was ALL OVER TV after Katrina claiming that it was god’s judgment on the people of New Orleans for their heathen lifestyle and for American acceptance of homosexuality.
I agree with you that it was 100% caused by natural processes, and I believe that attributing it to an “act of god” is either a sign of a massive delusion or ignorance.
“God intervening is not, or can’t be the simplest explanation”
In the case of splitting apart the clouds there are two possibilities.
1) Due to natural processes (wind, evaporation, etc) the clouds would have parted at that EXACT SAME TIME regardless of you being at that location or not
2) The clouds would NOT have parted if not for you being there, and because you happened to be there, god either changed what we know of the laws of nature, or in some way acted in a supernatural capacity to clear the skies because “he” felt that of all the things in the world he could fix (war, poverty, famine, crime, hatred, no rain for a picnic) that the BEST POSSIBLE use of “his” power was to make sure you stayed dry.
By definition, ANYTHING supernatural is NOT the simplest explanation, because by virtue of it being BEYOND THE NATURAL REALM it is already more complex than any possible natural process.
I believe it was Fred Phelps, or another member of his “congregation” that released the statement shortly after (and I mean SHORTLY, like a day or two) Heath Ledger’s death, that it was retribution for his role in Brokeback Mountain.
For the prayer test, I mean studying the efficacy of prayer. There have been MANY studies done on this subject, and NOT A SINGLE ONE that was performed with strict scientific guidelines has shown any effectiveness in praying vs not praying.
You say that you believe it would take longer, so if does you’d say “no biggie, don’t disprove prayer”, but if you did find the keys faster, you’d likely say “see, prayer works”. This is an unfalsifiable position, and if no outcome can DISPROVE god in your opinion, than no outcome should be able to PROVE god either, correct?
I talk with my wife, but my wife is a being in a natural environment that I am able to communicate with.
Many people CLAIM to communicate with aliens or other gods than the christian one, do you believe their accounts of talking with lord zenu (scientology) or being abducted by “grays” (the current UFO fad) or communicating with Thor (Norse) or Vishnu (Hindu)?
Well in your brother’s case with a terminal diagnosis I can understand not doing the treatment, but let’s try a simple scenario.
Let’s assume that you were diagnosed with a treatable form of cancer and told that by getting the most aggressive form of therapy possible that you had a 75% chance of a full recovery. Without the treatment you would have a 10% chance of spontaneous remission.
Would you take the therapy (and thus not trust 100% in god alone to save you), or would you only pray (and trust that god alone would make you better), or would you take the therapy AND pray, thus “hedging your bets”?
And as most religious people would do afterwards, if you did the third option and recovered, you’d give praise to god for saving you.
And again, as most religious people would do, if you did NOT recover and the cancer got worse, you would not “blame god”, you would say it’s “part of his plan”.
This is similar to how professional athletes “thank god” after a win, but you never hear the people in the other locker room saying “god really fucked us over on this one”.
This is again and unfalsifiable position in that no matter the outcome, there is no possible negative result in the mind of the true believer.
Yes the amputee thing is an issue. Many christians claim that god will answer ANY prayer, and they uses cases of spontaneous remissions of cancers as their “proof” that god has acted to answer their prayers.
Yet something that we KNOW scientifically can not happen spontaneously (such as a limb growing back) has NEVER occurred, no matter how much prayer.
The rational explanation is either that god does not answer EVERY prayer, or that god does not answer ANY prayers.
The typical christian explanation is that it would be “too obvious” and “god does not work in that way”, which goes against the whole idea that god answers prayers.
Creation is an issue because there is a large segment of the US population trying to push their RELIGIOUS VIEWS into science class on the issue of creation. Christian have MADE it and issue.
“Believing this universe was NOT created – that takes a huge amount of faith.”
Actually, believing in a supernatural explanation despite no evidence to support this idea is where faith comes in.
Science currently tells us what happened AFTER the big bang, it does not tell us what caused the big bang, or where the energy/mass came from that formed the singularity that was the big bang. Science can not YET answer those questions, and attempting to insert a supernatural explanation is a “god of the gaps”, it’s not a true search for knowledge and understanding.
You are correct that science is limited, in fact I give a decent “quick and dirty” view of what science is and is not in another post.
However just because with our current understanding and out current technology science is unable to unravel something, does not mean we should give up and say “god did it”, we should continue to strive to understand all we are capable of by scientific means.
Without proof of something, would you suggest we take everything on faith? How about the existence of bigfoot, or alien abductions? How about other gods than the christian one?
“Why are you an atheist?”
A relatively brief description of how I became an atheist can be found in a previous comment here:
“What are you seeking?”
My ideal goal is not for everybody to agree with each other, but for everybody to agree that some truths (germ theory, evolution, gravity, quantum mechanics, etc) are universal, and anything beyond that may help you live your life in a better way, but nobody should expect another person to conform to their own beliefs.
If somebody wants to live their life believing that zenu dropped them off in a volcano 75 million years ago and that we evolved from clams, or that some guy 2000 years ago was born of a virgin, and that belief somehow helps them to live a life that helps the world around them, then so be it. But they should NEVER attempt to push those beliefs on another person.
“Are you willing to consider that God is real, but that we as humans really suck at explaining Him?”
Yes, I’m perfectly willing to accept that some idea of “god” may be true, but I don’t believe that the evidence supports that position, and I think in the cases o many specific religions the evidence actually STRONGLY contradicts their claims.
“Remember: There are only 10 kinds of people in the world.”
The old binary joke?
If you wanted to know about me, does it not make sense that you would come to me and ask me about myself, as opposed to you asking other people what they know about me? So, why not go to the source to get the “truth” first hand? This is what i suggest you do, then you can make your own judgment:
(i)Get a Bible ( i can send you one if you like ). I suggest you go for any of these versions: New King James version (NKJV) or New American Standard Bible (NASB) Or New International Version (NIV)
(ii) Pray this way “Lord Jesus Christ, i do not know whether you are real or fake. I do not know what to believe, but i really want to find out what is the truth. I am going to read the Bible. Show me the truth” or such wording, you get the point.
(iii)Read the new testament, beginning with the Book Of John. Then Matthew, Luke, Mark, Acts, etc, till the end, if possible. it should taker you just a few days. I suggest you (initially) do not make reference to anyone or any other book trying to explain these texts.
(iv) By like a juror. Hear first hand Christ’s arguments about himself that is being presented to you in these texts, and initially ignore any things/ideas/opinions you might have heard from other sources/people/preachers. Once you are done with your reading, you can decide to listen to other arguments.
This is the challenge: if you still do not get to know the “truth”, then you can freely say this Christ thing is all fake. Take my challenge.
Apollo: http://www.kenya.fm
kenya,
I’ve read the bible twice actually, so I don’t feel the need to read it again. I also found that I agreed with Richard Dawkins’s assessment in that:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
That said, this post is not about ME LOOKING for god. I did that once upon a time and found that “god” is nothing more than a construct of our irrationality, ignorance, fear, and hatred, and an attempt to justify the worst aspects of ourselves.
you also make the assumption that I would want to know about the christian god, as opposed to the countless others throughout human history. How completely close minded and arrogant of you to make such assumptions.
Just because you are weak willed enough to fall for the superstitions of ignorant bronze age man does not mean that others are as well, and does not give you the right to attempt to pull others into your narrow minded ignorance.
I have done every one of your steps, and MUCH more when I was searching for “something more” and found it all to be a complete crock of shit perpetrated by hatred, hostility, and bigotry.
Perhaps if YOU were to take a critical look at your own life, and your own reasons for your beliefs you might catch a glimmer of understanding outside your own constricted views, but based on your COMPLETE LACK OF ANYTHING EVEN RESEMBLING a coherent or logical answer to the question being asked, I doubt you’d have the cognitive ability to grasp even the most basic of concepts that are not already ingrained in your head.
Yes, I am being harsh with you, and unlike others I was harsh with, i am making no “first attempt” to be civil because you obviously took no regard for the post itself, you read what you wanted to read, ignored the rest (either intentionally or due to your ignorance), and saw an opportunity to “spread the word”. This is COMPLETELY not about trying to convert people, LEAST OF ALL me. This about people understanding and ACCEPTING OTHERS WHO HOLD DIFFERENT VIEWS. Your comments show a complete bigotry towards others and a belief that you are somehow better than those who do not agree with your world view, and this is EXACTLY THE NARROW MINDED TYPE OF SHIT that I hope one day will cease, and be seen as the primitive pile of crap that it is.
Rod,
I have vacillated between ignoring you, completely, or ripping into your fallacious arguments with all the passion that I feel for this subject.
In the end, I think this short (HA!) diatribe will suffice:
*Just because a person chooses to believe in God and Jesus does not automatically make them gullible, ignorant, or uneducated.
Really.
That condescending label is getting old.
We could go on and on here, for many days, weeks, even years — expounding on the possible “truths,” and beliefs of each and every religious system in our world. What good would it do? Such pseudo-intellectual rambling is better suited for Freshman Philosophy 101.
Let’s face it; if you have no intention of changing your mind or, for that matter, even opening your mind to the possibility of something you cannot conceive, we are all wasting our time. Narcissism in its truest form rarely deigns to admit defeat.
If you were sincerely seeking Truth, I would tell you this:
I am a Christian because I do not believe that Jesus was a liar nor a lunatic. I believe He was & is, LORD.
I do not believe that the Jews “murdered” Him — as so many angry atheists love to point out, I’m assuming to portray us all as anti-Semitic.
No one TOOK His life; the Son of God lay it down as the ultimate sacrifice for the sins of mankind. He freely gave His life so that we might have life, eternal. I realize that this is not a concept readily grasped by non-Christians, but for anyone who has studied ancient civilizations and the Jewish religion, in particular, it is a symbolically amazing picture of the ultimate sin offering.
I am not bound by a bunch of laws and teachings and commands — a common fallacy among most atheists. Indeed, my salvation makes me FREE from the bondage of such things. My morality does not determine my theology; my theology determines my morality.
I WANT to live a life that is holy and pleasing to God because I love Him and I know that He loves me and (just as a child wishes to please their parent) I want to do what is good and right. Whether or not I actually DO those things has absolutely no bearing on my actual SALVATION.
My salvation is given through GRACE by my FAITH that God is who He says He is and that He is true to His word. My salvation is based on my belief that God DOES love the world so much that He gave His Son as a sacrificial Lamb — the atonement for all who believe on Him.
Just because I believe in Creation does not mean that I believe in a young planet. There is no historical nor Biblical evidence to support this theory and I’m really tired of atheists using it as a “trump card,” when most Christians don’t even think this way to begin with. The Bible is not clear on the length of time that passes in the Old Testament, but it IS clear that, to God, a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. I fully believe the earth is as old as the scientists say it is. Honestly, though, it’s completely irrelevant how old it is; for me, it changes nothing in my beliefs.
There is SIGNIFICANT historical, archaeological, and scientific evidence to support MUCH of what is written in the Bible. My degree is in History and my husband is a scientist who has studied theories of creation and evolution, extensively.
For one to discount the possibility of an intelligent Creator is to assert one’s belief in the infinite existence of matter.
REALLY?
That’s a pretty big stretch of the imagination, and one that requires a LOT more faith than believing in an intelligent design!
We could argue, point for point, all day long, the supposed inconsistencies and “missteps” that you perceive in the scriptures, but what would be the point? I can’t possibly give you answers to every one and you wouldn’t believe them if I did.
Basically, it all comes down to having the humility to accept that I DON’T know everything nor do I HAVE to know everything to hold to my beliefs — and to respect God, as GOD, not as some dissectable oddity of amusement for philosophers and scientists.
In other words, get over yourself already.
Just admit that maybe, just maybe, there are some things that go beyond all human, rational logic.
Forgive me if I sound a bit defensive. I realize that we Christians are considered “hypocritical” if we show any NORMAL, HUMAN emotions, whatsoever. Indeed, my non-pious rebuttal has probably incited some scathing replies already.
But, this is MY God you are talking about and MY beliefs you are mocking, and I would be a hypocrite and a traitor to the very things I profess if I did not take offense to what you are saying.
In all honestly, I feel nothing but sadness and pity for someone who remains so obstinate.
You see, it’s not “up to us” to CONVINCE YOU.
You have the same information available to you that we do.
You have the same choice available to you that we do.
If you choose NOT to believe our truth, you are not somehow absolving yourself of all responsibility in the matter. It will not then become “my fault” for not swaying you with witty dialogue or compelling scientific evidence.
You see, whether you CHOOSE to believe Truth or not, Truth is Truth.
And whether you CHOOSE to believe so or not, you WILL stand before God one day and account for the choice you made. If you are so firmly convinced in your argument, then you should have nothing to fear, and therefore, nothing to ask of us.
I could invoke Pascal’s Wager here as a solution to any agnostic apprehension, but then I’m sure I would incur even greater criticism for suggesting such a “passionless” basis for belief. So, whatever; it’s a double-edged sword that you atheists swing. I can’t win either way.
HOWEVER, should you REALLY be questioning me about my faith — and if you show actual vulnerability in daring to step outside the comforts of YOUR logical reality — I would gladly share with you why I believe what I do:
I have found immeasurable freedom in Christ!
His grace is sufficient to cover all the areas where I fall short… and I am very grateful for this. I have been exposed to many different religions growing up. In my family alone, there are Muslims, Buddhists, Christian Scientists, atheists, agnostics, and Christians. I have been given the invaluable opportunity to learn about and compare these religions throughout my life and I have no doubt that I have made the right choice. I think it’s a decision that every person has to make for themselves. I can’t give you MY faith or explain MY conviction. I can only direct you to sources that might help you find your own:
I would suggest that you investigate the following:
“If There’s a God, Why Are There Atheists?,” by R.C. Sproul;
“Creation or Chaos: Modern Science and The Existence of God,” (also) by R. C. Sproul;
“I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist,” by Norman L. Geisler;
The Archaeological Study Bible (excellent source of archaeological and historical evidence and background);
and (a bit lighter fare, but still excellent): “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Bible,” by Robert J. Hutchinson.
I sincerely wish you peace and wisdom on your journey towards the truth. I honestly hope that you find It.
Kelly,
“Just because a person chooses to believe in God and Jesus does not automatically make them gullible, ignorant, or uneducated”
I NEVER claimed that ALL believers are gullible, ignorant, or uneducated.
I DID respond to a FEW SPECIFIC ignorant comments as such, but as the back and forth with moot (who is a christian) and others proves, I by NO MEANS believe that is true of all believers.
Perhaps if you took the time to read other comments, ot just the most recent one which happened to be a response to a SPECIFIC person who showed their own ignorance and arrogance.
“have no intention of changing your mind or, for that matter, even opening your mind to the possibility of something you cannot conceive”
SERIOUSLY, did you read ANYTHING other than the one post directly above your own?
“If you were sincerely seeking Truth”
I NEVER SAID I WANT TO BE CONVERTED! READ MORE THAN JUST ONE REPLY AND PERHAPS YOU’LL GRASP THE POINT OF THIS POST!!!
—–
I’ll respond to the rest of your post later, but I would HOPE that you would go back and correct some of your false assumptions, and “straw man” arguments before that happens.
Let me try to characterize the big picture. I’ve tried to frame the major arguments against religion based on many of the posts here.
1. Religions is bad because it leads to violence.
2. Theism is a result of faith despite evidence.
3. he natural sciences have disproved God.
Given that those are representative of the major arguments against religion then let me address each of them.
1. Religion is bad because it leads to violence.
It was possible to make this point until atheism was given a national experiment. You look at most war and genocide throughout history and you’d find religion as it’s major culprit. This was true because, up until the 19th century, atheism had never had the power religion did.
In the early 1900’s the Russian revolution was the focus of what would be a national experiment in atheism. Interestingly, because the Russian people refused to accept it, (morality by majority, hmm) Lenin wrote that the “protracted use of brutality” was the necessary means of achieving this goal. By some estimates Stalin himself is responsible for 40 million deaths. This was atheism as the national religion.
While we can both point to each other’s nutcases as an example of the norm (which we know it is not). The problem isn’t religion or atheism it is extremism.
2. Theism is the result of faith despite evidence.
This is a particularly frustrating objection for me. Dawkins argued that faith is a “process of non-thinking” and ” blind trust…in the teeth of evidence.” These definitions are straw men set up to ridicule the ideas in question. There is no attempt to discover what Christians even mean when they talk about faith. And the misrepresentations of the Christian concept of faith have found themselves even in these posts.
Suffice it to say that Dawkins’ definitions is precisely wrong from a Christian perspective (which of course is the one in question).
I’ve already dealt with this concept more definitively previously so I won’t would waste more space with it here.
3. The Natural Sciences Have Disproved God.
The point has to be made that the scientific method is by definition, incapable of rendering a judgment concerning the supernatural. If a question of theism will be answered it will have to be answered by other means. Even Stephan Jay Gould (one of yours, as it were) said, “Science simply cannot…adjudicate the issue of God’s possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply comment on it as scientists.”
Sir Peter Medawar, winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine made an excellent point about the limitations of science. He pointed out that science is unable to answer “childlike elementary questions,” like “What are we here for?” or “What is the point of living?”
The very existence of questions like these and the self-admitted inability of the natural sciences to address them is itself a compelling point in favor of a belief system other than atheism to address these issues.
While we may not be able to come to a firm agreement about God’s existence or lack thereof I’m not sure the objections up to this point are compelling reasons not to believe.
Uh, Rod?
You need to get a grip, dude.
I didn’t read the post above my own at all. I didn’t even see it until after you mentioned it.
Interesting that you are so fixated on that and it’s not even a reality.
I read your initial post and about 6 or 7 comments & replies following the initial post.
I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to sit here for 5 hours and read each and every comment you receive.
I was responding to your original post and a few of the earlier responses. Oh, and also to a comment you left on a friend’s blog. That’s it.
Relax, already.
SUMMER (not Kelly)
moot,
The difference is the acts of Stalin were not BECAUSE of his atheism or in the name of atheism.
In fact there have been studies that have shown that in Communist Russia that Communism became the de-facto religion of the USSR.
Whether you want to believe that Stalin was the “god” of his version of his communist country/religion or you want to believe that it was a strictly atheistic society, the fact remains that the acts he committed were out of his deep seeded paranoia of those around him, and of losing his own power, they were not done in the name of, or in defense of, or becasue of atheism, humanism, evolution, etc…
On the contrary when actions such as the inquisition and crusades or 9/11 are committed, they are committed becasue the people doing them believe that they are following “god’s will” and doing “god’s work”.
As for the evidence of god, if you look at it objectively there is no evidence that can ONLY be explained by a deity, or even evidence that would follow Occam’s Razor where a deity would be the simplest answer.
In EVERY CASE the simplest explanation is a natural one, not a supernatural one.
“The Natural Sciences Have Disproved God”
Oh, let’s be careful here. I have stated MANY time that “god” can NOT be disproven scientifically because any evidence that could potentially be used to dismiss the concept of god can be used by a believer as an example of “god working mysteriously”.
What natural sciences have shown is that god is not NECESSARY to explain the universe, the earth, physics, etc…
Those are two very different things, although many people try to confuse the two (including many atheists).
If you check my post on here about “Defining Science”, I state specifically what science is, and what it is not, and what science can and can not study.
My personal PRIMARY reason for being an atheist is that I feel the “default” position on EVERY subject should be skepticism, and the more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence needs to be to confirm, or validate the idea.
kelly,
“I read your initial post and about 6 or 7 comments & replies following the initial post.”
Let’s see how my responses were and why you might think I was calling people “gullible, ignorant, or uneducated”.
The first post, was my own answer to the question I posed. So I don’t see how this could be construed as insulting or talking down to anybody.
The first reply other than me was:
“Maybe the question is not “how do I determine what is truth” but how do I know the one who is truth . . .”
In my reply to them I asked:
“However you choose to rephrase the question, the end result is the same; HOW does a believer KNOW that their beliefs are in fact “true”?
In general a “true believer” of any almost faith is 100% certain that their version of “god” of “faith” or “religion” is correct, and that all other versions are false. What I am interested in, is HOW does somebody “know” this with such certainty.
And your answer to this question would be???”
This certainly does not seem to be calling anybody ignorant. In fact essentially I am asking them to answer the question asked instead of trying to rephrase the question.
The second REAL post was from mootpoint. Moot gave a very detailed reply, and since this time he and I have gone back and forth for close to 3 months. I’d think that if I ever called him ignorant, he would have left the discussion by now, but feel free to ask him if I have in ANY WAY insulted him during our debate.
But for the sake of full discloser, let’s look at the actual reply. In it I stated:
“While I disagree with your conclusions you draw from the “evidence”, I actually do understand the desire to believe in something “bigger”, some meaning for everything, something “higher” than this life.”
Wow, this is CERTAINLY intolerant of me and would qualify as a “pseudo-intellectual rambling”. Oh wait, no it would not, its actually me understanding a believer’s view point, even if I do disagree with it.
What a cad I am…
The third commenter, Hank made some false claims (“Although much of the rest of your post was merely opinion and conjecture that was unsubstantiated at best, and fallacious at worst”) with no evidence to back up those claims, and showed an arrogance by dismissing out of hand some religions because they do not follow his own beliefs (“hard to take this question seriously when you are comparing Ron Hubbard’s science fiction to some of the world’s leading religions”).
To his false claim, my response was simple.
“Also, you claim that my post was mostly opinion and false, yet give no example of where I was wrong. I mentioned a few of the main beliefs of some various world religions throughout history (creation myths mostly) to show that they are in some cases incompatible with each other.”
To his dismissal of some religions because they are not his own, I responded:
“You consider scientology to be science fiction, but a large number of people believe in it as strongly as you believe in your faith. I attempted to give due respect to all faiths.”
Forgive me if I am still failing to see my own intolerance.
I questioned his “answer” to the original question, again, I don’t see this as being a criticism of the commenter, but asking for clarification on a very generic “point” he attempted to make.
“Your other comments are that you believe BECAUSE it is true, but you never state HOW you know this to be. Your start with the assumption that jesus is god, and you choose to believe this on faith.”
And on to the fourth commenter.
My comment was if ANYTHING, quite supportive of this person.
“Unlike all of the others who have so far posted, you actually do attempt to answer the question that was asked. You believe because your life has changed since you began to believe.”
It’s true I questioned her further:
“You say that jesus is the “true” god, and you know this because of how your life has changed since “god spoke to you”, yet many followers of allah or scientology or later day saints or (insert religion of your choice here) have had similar experiences. They feel that their life changed when they “found god”. Is their experience somehow less than yours, since according to your beliefs, the “god” they found is not the “true god”?”
but the ENTIRE POINT of this post is to ask people to question their own beliefs and preconceptions…
The remainder of the first “6 or 7” commenters back and forth went very similarly including the following comments from me:
“While I personally consider myself an atheist, your outlook on faith, god, and religion is one that I can completely respect, even without agreeing. I wish more people had your outlook on faith, I believe the world would be a better and much safer place to raise children, knowing that others would not be willing to die in the “name of god”.”
and
“The rest of your points are similar in nature to those of srcghs, and while I don’t share your beliefs, I do respect them greatly. I wish there were many more people like the two of you, and less who were willing to lay down their life in defense of “their faith”.”
PLEASE explain where you get the view of me as narcissistic, “pseudo-intellectual rambling”, condescending, etc…
Oh, my goodness; Ok, let’s both take a deep breath and step back from this for a moment.
I fear that you have completely misread my comments and I have apparently misinterpreted yours.
I do not feel my comments were in any way fallacious as they were based on what I was inferring from your original post.
I said that I read and responded to the first few posts, but in truth, I was responding only to you and where I thought you were “going” with all this. I will admit that perhaps my perception of you was colored by some rather heated comments that you left on my friend’s blog… Maybe I took them as being more vitriolic than you intended?
I will follow your example and explain each of my points in order:
1) As for the inference that you think we are all gullible and uneducated, I will concede that my comment may be rash. I was pretty ticked off by what you wrote on the other blog and when I came here and read your initial comments, I thought: “Here we go again; another atheist who thinks we’re all a bunch of dupes without brains to think for ourselves!”
Now, if this is NOT how you view Christians, I applaud you. But surely you have noticed that the majority of your fellow atheists are not as tolerant as you. I have been through these kinds of debates MANY times and it always seems to be an assumption that anyone who clings to religion is doing so out of a)guilt, b)emotion, and/or c)lack of information. You may be the ONLY atheist I have ever encountered who did NOT approach his opponent as such. So, forgive me for misjudging you, but surely you can’t blame me for doing so! BTW, this is also where the narcissistic viewpoint comes in because, let’s face it, most of the atheists I have encountered were just that.
2)“We could go on and on here, for many days, weeks, even years — expounding on the possible “truths,” and beliefs of each and every religious system in our world. What good would it do? Such pseudo-intellectual rambling is better suited for Freshman Philosophy 101.”
I absolutely was NOT implying that YOU are a “pseudo-intellectual;” I was stating that we could argue this back and forth for the rest of our lives and it all begins to sound very much like a Freshman Philosophy class ruminating about whether or not a falling tree makes a sound if no one is there to hear it… in other words, who cares? What’s the point? If you are dead set against changing your view-point, then what is the point of this debate? In my view, it’s a waste of time. I fail to see the reason for your query if there is no real interest in seeking Truth. Am I wrong for interpreting it that way?
3)I believe that the “3 L’s” argument is a resounding blow to those who challenge the deity of Christ. As far as philosophical arguments go, it’s pretty lethal. You can’t have it both ways: You can’t say that Jesus was a good guy with good intentions and a great personality without conceding one of the 3. Either you believe He was a liar and made everything up — which is not consistent with how he lived the rest of His life and would fail all objective evaluations.
Or you think He was a lunatic, but since His behavior was anything BUT lunacy, you would be grasping at straws. The only other option is admit that He is Lord.
4)I will whole-heartedly agree that Mel Gibson did maximum damage with his asinine anti-Semitic comments during his drunken rant; what I won’t submit to, however, is the idea that Christians in general are anti-Semitic. There seems to be this bizarre and highly erroneous misconception among atheists that Christians see the Jews as responsible for “killing” the Christ. Nothing could be further from the truth! The power of His actions lay in the fact that He gave up His life willingly. He was guilty of no crime and He had done nothing wrong. He could have fought and argued; heck, He could have called down legions of angels to protect every hair on His head! He CHOSE to make Himself a sacrificial lamb for the sins of mankind. No one else could take this position. Your comments on my friend’s blog made me leap to the conclusion that you were of this school of thought. If I am mistaken, then please accept my apologies.
If I may address another angle that you responded to me in my friend’s blog:
>>You wonder how I could accept a movie that even Christians are considering “historically inaccurate”?
You fail to point out a single historical inaccuracy. Perhaps I am being obtuse, but I don’t mean to be. I saw the movie and I did not pick up on any gross inconsistencies. I truly hope that you (and those websites) are not nit-picking and arguing semantics. The main point of the movie is valid and events unfold pretty much as told in the scriptures, so I’m confused by your assertion…?
5)“You claim that christianity is not based on the sayings and teachings of jesus? I’m not sure exactly how you come to that conclusion.” — you This is why I stated what I did about being bound by rules or commandments. Our Christianity is NOT based on the teachings of Christ, although they certainly provide the guidelines for how we live our life! We do not follow Jesus’ instructions on how to live in order to achieve salvation. That is what makes Christianity so “FREEING” compared to other religions. There is NOTHING we can “do” to achieve salvation. Our salvation is based purely on grace through faith; nothing more, nothing less.
6)Creationism/young planet theory:
Again, I obligingly admit that I probably jumped to conclusions here as well, but your opening comments made me believe that you were yet another uninformed atheist who thought that all Christians uphold the “young planet” theory. Nope. Not even close.
7)You state SEVERAL times here, and in your responses to myself and my friend that the Bible is full of inaccuracies and historical missteps. I would beg to differ. Indeed, if you bothered to read even one of those books by Sproul or to study the archaeological Bible, you would find that the Bible may very well be the BEST historically-supported document in history. Even my atheist history professors conceded this point!
8)I threw in the “infinite matter” proposal simply as a bone to your scientific posturing. Even the most staunch-atheist scientists don’t have an answer to this one!
9)I really believe that people who constantly argue for “proof” or “scientific evidence” for what we believe are not interested in hearing the truth at all. This is ego-stroking in its worst form. You could live to be a thousand years old and never come to understand the how’s and why’s of my relgious beliefs; that does NOTHING to change the actual TRUTH or validity of my beliefs.
I’m sure this is a concept that makes most atheists squirm and again, I invoke Pascal’s Wager.
You may never KNOW, but you can still place your bets on the winning horse. (shocking analogy, I know)
And let’s be clear; I do NOT believe based on something as trite as Pascal’s Wager, but I applaud Pascal for being humble enough to admit that there is a possibility that man cannot KNOW it all and MAY be wrong about everything in the end. How do you want it to end?
10) Finally, I cannot express in any terms that I believe would satisfy you, HOW and WHY I believe. I could base it on historical research, or scientific theories, or even on personal morality, but none of those would suffice.
I just KNOW. And I’m sad for you that you don’t.
It’s not something you can give to anyone else or prove to them in logical debate. If you begin to (earnestly) seek it, He will reveal it.
That may sound a bit theatrical or indulgent, but again, you can’t know what I mean until you experience it for yourself.
I have seen God show up in my life in undeniable ways.
The evidence is there.
If you TRULY want to know HOW and WHY we believe, then I implore you to examine the books that I referenced. If you do and you are still not convinced then there is nothing that can be said.
But if you refuse to read and hear the most valid arguments for this way of thinking — while claiming that you want answers — you are only fooling yourself, and wasting our time.
Does that make sense?
Summer
kelly,
“I fear that you have completely misread my comments”
Exactly which part did I misread? The part where you made fallacious statements with no basis in reality, the part where you outright LIED or the part where you made drastic assumptions based on NOTHING IN THIS POST OR THE CORRESPONDING DISCUSSION IN THE COMMENTS.
Which part was it EXACTLY where I misread you?
“ripping into your fallacious arguments”
Before ripping any of them, please attempt to point out what they are, since you have YET to point out anything false in what I have actually said. Every “point” you have made was based on your speculation of my intent, or based on
“Just because a person chooses to believe in God and Jesus does not automatically make them gullible, ignorant, or uneducated.”
PLEASE show me where I said that all believers are “gullible, ignorant, or uneducated”. Even ONE PLACE WHERE I MENTIONED THIS. JUST ONE!
Oh but you can’t, because it’s a straw man argument based on your disliking some comments I made about Mel Gibson on another blog, where I called HIM SPECIFICALLY (not all christian, just him) a anti-semitic jackass.
I also gave evidence OF this. but perhaps I need to explain to you what evidence is…?
You see for the statements you are attributing to me (such as all christians being anti-semitic) there is no evidence, because it NEVER HAPPENED.
For me stating that Mel Gibson is anti-semitic, there IS evidence, because it happened, and was caught on tape, and admitted to by him in the press.
“I was responding to your original post and a few of the earlier responses.”
No this is utterly false. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY that if you actually read the first posts you could have thought that I feel all christians are “bad” or ignorant.
However the IGNORANCE that you are spewing is quite telling.
Yes I am using the word IGNORANCE, because you were either willingly ignorant or unable to comprehend of the theme, purpose, and tone of this post, or you were just trying to start a fight. But in EITHER CASE, it was ignorant of you.
Now, if you’d like to actually have a discussion based on what I have actually said, I’m perfectly willing to, however I am not going to waste my time refuting your lies, accusations, and false interpretations of my position, my views, or my post.
Let me pose a hypothetical for you.
Just for the sake of argument – How are we not sure that Stalin wasn’t taking atheism to it’s logical conclusion? USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea these are all examples of countries that have tried establishing themselves on principles of atheism. People are migrating from these countries like mad? I would think that if atheism were given a national stage like it has in these parts of the world then it should prove that the natural result of atheism is a more utopian society.
Can you argue that every time atheism is given a national stage that it happens to be because of some other factor that the nation becomes a human rights mess?
However, my ultimate point is exactly the one you made for me. Regardless of the belief system, whether it be atheism or theism, the problem is extremism. You said that Stalin’s genocide was a result of Stalin. I would argue that same things is true of violence perpetuated in the name of religion.
So, to point out religious extremists as if they’re the norm doesn’t mean religion is bad or wrong. It simply means extremism is wrong.
In a more nuanced note, it could be argued that most religious extremists (and this is certainly true of Christianity) perpetuate violence in spite of their religions telling them not to. Atheism however lacks the ability to morally reign in someone like Stalin because it can’t provide a basis upon which to appeal to Stalin’s sense of fairness, mercy or justice that isn’t subjective and thus easily dismissed.
…but that just rehashes the old morality argument.
No, Rod; this discussion is OVER.
And if your other readers are wise, they will no longer engage you, either.
I believe I addressed every single accusation that you just made to me in the last post I wrote. I even apologized where I felt that I was honestly in error.
Obviously, you were SO angry by my original post that you did not even bother to read my last reply in full. You were too busy planning what you were going to say next!
If you HAD read my last reply, you would have seen that I acknowledged my mistake in lumping you in with other atheists. You would have also noted that I addressed every single point I made in my first post and explained how & why I answered what I did.
You have now, however, proven your true self by your hate-filled tirade.
You ARE an angry atheist and you have also proven another theory of mine:
No matter how hard a so-called atheist (because I don’t TRULY believe in atheism) tries to convince others that they are OBJECTIVELY seeking an answer, there is no objectivity there, whatsoever. There is ALWAYS an underlying objective.
The intensity of your angry response does not correspond with the errors and/or accusations in my first post (and CERTAINLY NOT my last reply).
Your level of anger combined with your own admission: “Since I am most familiar with the “christian god” and the bible, I will use this as my example,” confirms my first suspicion: that you are nothing more than an angry agnostic seeking to hurt Christians because, you, yourself, were hurt by someone in the Church or someone connected (in your mind) with Christianity.
You are not fighting fair and you know it. You have an axe to grind and you are falsely portraying yourself as an innocent “seeker of truth.” I know that you will never admit it here, but I think if I could look into your past, I would see some tremendous pain or multiple offenses against you by someone who was called a Christian. I am very sorry for that, but get over it already. We have all been hurt by someone or another in our lives. We don’t make it our life’s work to go around seeking vengeance. Healthy people don’t define their lives by their pain; they move on.
If you had BOTHERED to go back and read my last reply to you instead of going off on a tangent of your own (based solely on my first post), you might have seen that I was willingly withdrawing my incorrect assertions about you. Now, I wonder if I should withdraw those withdrawals as you have just proven me right!
As it stands now, you have made a complete fool of yourself because if any of your readers read MY last post followed by your reply, they are probably scratching their heads.
My last post should not have elicited that kind of response.
So, rather than continue this pointless argument, I will end my part of it here with one final scripture reference — something I should have heeded, instinctively, to begin with. No matter how hard your heart is, no matter how angry you are, it is not MY job to change your mind. At some point, YOU commit the unpardonable sin of rejecting what has been offered to you. For me to continue to try and convince you otherwise is not advisable:
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. Matthew 7:6
@Rodibidably
(i)That i am weak:
-true, i am weak. Christ is for the weak. That is why i believe in Christ. Those who are strong (physically, intellectually, financial, etc) do not need Christ. They may need some other system of belief that makes them feel good about themselves.
(ii) That i think i am better than others
-Where did that come out in my reply? But, i am not. Based on (i), i can not think i am better than others. But having found “myself” in Christ, i do suggest to others who may feel a need ( truth, meaning in life, etc) to try Christ. Did my post come out that i was pushing Christ at you? No. I simply suggested you read about him (without the baggage of what others have said about him).
-Now if you have read those texts (not as an academic or philosophical exercise, but as i suggested) and still believe he is fake, then there is not much one can do.
(iii)That i am narrow-minded
-in the sense that i have I settled my mind on Christ, yes. In the sense that i do not know about other belief systems, No. I know there are other systems of belief and thought, and i know a little of what they teach. Is that a bad thing? Why? There are 100s of languages in the world. Am i narrow-minded to just learn and speak a few of these( one inherited from my parents- hence i had no choice in knowing it, while the others i learned by my own choice )?
(iv) Some think that “if only everyone was enlightened, the world would be better”. Is that really true? The 1940 Germans were very enlightened, yet they stood by as millions of people were killed. The west is a very enlightened society, yet they see no “evil” in spending billions of dollars in frivolous stuff (such as on pets, etc), yet in the world the less “enlightened” a child dies for lack of a drink of water.
(v) That the God of the old testament did not care for life
-he claims he gives life. If true, should he not have the power to take it away at will and in whatever manner he chooses? Is that bad.
Consider this: We will all die ( women, children, included ). Just a matter of when and how. Children died by the sword ( at the hand of a cruel God ), but now they die by virus/bacteria ( at the hand of bugs ) and clinical procedures ( in abortion clinics at the hard of very learned and enlightened doctors and the children’s mothers-who have no time for them ) and as a result of bad foreign policies (at the hand of enlightened people in the WB, IMF, and Washington)
-How is it that God has no choice to take a life, but a teenage girl has choice to take one?
-How is it that we have no problem when science takes lives (all our inventions- chemicals, machines, etc) yet curse God when he does?
The bottom line:
Everyone of us is evil. No one wants to be evil. Therefore we invent ways (religion,etc) to take away our evil ways. Help comes from above. Some believe it, others reject it. For me, i have believed on the help of Christ. I was weak, but now i am strong. By becoming subject to Christ’s demands, i am freed from the clutches and slavery of “sin”.
What would you have? That everyone believed one thing (that one thing could be: one god, many gods, atheism, science, any god but the jewish God or nothing at all). Why would you want every one to believe the same way? How different is that from a radical Muslim who wants to conquer the whole world? or radical Christianity that wants to force Christianity on everyone?
Has Christianity been misused? true. Have others tried to force it on others? True. is it right? No. Should we therefore dump Christianity? Not necessarily.
moot,
Actually these countries are built on the foundation of COMMUNISM, not atheism.
As I mentioned, there are many studies that have shown that while communists societies do not acknowledge the existence of god, that in these societies communism in effect becomes the “state religion”.
Atheism is by it’s very nature NOT a belief system.
Atheism is not something that people commit acts in the name of. To commit an act in the name of atheism is equivalent to you as a christian committing an act in the “name of not believing in zeus”. This is obviously an absurd statement, but to claim that any act committed by Stalin BECAUSE of his atheism is just as absurd.
Another parallel would be a KKK member commits an act. Did they commit the action because they are white, or because they are a racist idiot?
Unlike religion or hatred or (insert belief system here), atheism is not a belief, it is a LACK of belief. I know the difference can be subtle to see (many christians try to paint atheism as a “religion”), but there is a significant difference.
These communist societies fail, not because of a disbelief in god, but because of human nature. By our nature, humans want to be rewarded for hard work and we want “slackers” to not be rewards. This idea of “fairness” can be seen in other primate species as well including some of the studies I mentioned earlier in chimps. Communism does not encourage hard work or reward it, and thus it goes against one of the more fundamental ideas of human nature.
This is one reason that capitalism works relatively well, because those who work hardest are GENERALLY rewarded, and those who “slack off” are generally “punished” for their lack of work.
I think you are trying to say that communism is the ideal atheistic society, when in fact an atheist who believes in ANY TYPE of “survival of the fittest” (and I mean this is only the most GENERAL sense) would argue that a capitalistic society would be a much more ideal society than a communist one.
“Regardless of the belief system, whether it be atheism or theism, the problem is extremism”
Yes, but here is where atheism and theism depart. When an atheist such as Stalin or Pol Pot (sp?) commits horrible actions, they are not capable of, and do not attempt to, “excuse” or “justify” their actions based on their atheism, or based on the LACK of a god. Often times when a believer commits these horrific acts (9/11, bombing abortion clinics, crusades, inquisition, allowing their children to die due to lack of medical attention, etc) they claim they are doing “god’s will”, and MANY OTHERS excuse their actions because of this belief.
The problem is not “god” of “belief” itself, the problem is using this belief to attempt to justify the actions or as an excuse or reason for the actions.
Even in Stalin’s own communist Russia what he did was considered barbaric AT THE TIME he did these things. NOBODY was attempting to justify what he did, they were just scared of speaking out for fear of being the next one he killed.
(I really hate ending with that, because I generally try to end my longer posts with something a bit more “profound”, but I can’t really think of anything quickly that sums up what I’m to say that is not already above here in the same comment, oh well)
kelly,
You are correct, I did not finish reading either your first or third post (and now this fourth one as well) completely.
After a certain number of FALSE accusations, I dismissed each one of those posts, and responded to the parts I had already read. In ALL OF THOSE POSTS, you made numerous false statements (either due to ignorance, or maliciousness) and I felt no need to continue to read such rubbish.
From what I have actually read, you have STILL not backed up your claims on when I supposedly “insulted all believers” or called all believers “gullible, ignorant, or uneducated”. If you are going to MAKE THINGS UP, I am not going to waste my time responding.
I made it through as much of each of those two posts as I could before dismissing them because of these false accusations.
If you would like to start again, and either BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS OF ME WITH EVIDENCE, or not make false claims to begin with, I’d be happy to discuss your views, but if you continue to post false statements, I will continue to read until there are enough lies, distortions, and falsehoods to render the entire comment pointless by my own discretion.
—–
BTW, I notice you have not yet “argued” against my comments in the other post on your friends blog, where I gave EVIDENCE for my comments about Mel Gibson’s character and the historical inaccuracies of his film. Perhaps this is because you have no response when confronted with the truth other than making things up as you have done here on multiple posts.
kenya,
“That i am weak”
I said you are “weak willed enough to fall for the superstitions of ignorant bronze age man”, not weak. Those are two different things, if you’re going to quote me, try to quote me in context, and not just one word out of a phrase or sentence.
“That i think i am better than others”
Yes, by attempting to “convert” others who do not share your personal beliefs, you are showing that you feel your beliefs are somehow inherently “better” than those of other people.
“That i am narrow-minded”
Yes in that you are unwilling (or unable) to comprehend the purpose of this post and attempt to hijack it for your own purposes.
“Some think that “if only everyone was enlightened, the world would be better”. Is that really true”
No rational person today (and no rational person in the 1940’s) thinks that Hitler or his followers were enlightened. Also, if you’re going to use Hitler as an example against me, you should know that there is a RIDICULOUS amount of evidence showing that he believed in god, and specifically that jesus was divine.
“That the God of the old testament did not care for life”
Oh you mean like Sodom and Gomorrah, or “the flood”, yup, “he” certainly was a caring god…
Wow, are you using children dying by wars caused by the US government to help make a point for you?
A war started by a man who claims he was appointed by god to lead the US during this time?
HOLY CRAP! If I wanted to make a point AGAINST YOU, I’m not sure I could do better than pointing out George W Bush, and here you’re doing it FOR ME.
“Therefore we invent ways (religion,etc) to take away our evil ways”
So you’re saying that religion is “made up”?
I have stated MANY TIMES I don’t care if somebody believes in the christian god, allah, zeus, lord zenu, or the flying spaghetti monster, but they have ABSOLUTLY NO RIGHT to attempt to convert others, or justify their actions based on their beliefs.
But since you have OBVIOUSLY not read more than it took you to realize that this was going to be an attempt for you to be a “missionary” you did not come across this.
“Has Christianity been misused? true. Have others tried to force it on others? True. is it right? No. Should we therefore dump Christianity? Not necessarily.”
I have NEVER, EVEN ONCE said that religion should be dumped. I have said MANY TIMES, the two MAIN problems I have with religion is that believers use it to justify their own actions and hatreds, and that NOBODY SHOULD EVER have the right to attempt to “convert” another person.
Why bother if you’re not even going to read my responses?
Probably i misread you in the other issues ( Let me hide in this: English is my second language. I am not an intellectual. I never did philosophy or theology, etc. i am just an ordinary guy), in which case, my apologies. So, i will try to quote you:
“So you’re saying that religion is “made up”?”
-yes, by man. Even popular/mainstream christianity is man made.
“Yes in that you are unwilling (or unable) to comprehend the purpose of this post and attempt to hijack it for your own purposes”
– I am not hijacking it. I am offering one aspect of looking at the issue. I am no expert in the other systems of thoughts. let those who are speak for them.
“No rational person today (and no rational person in the 1940’s) thinks that Hitler or his followers were enlightened.”
-surely, we all seem to agree science and other forms of learning enlightens.
-which people were more knowledgeable( =enlightenednish) that the Europeans/Germans in the 40s?
“Wow, are you using children dying by wars caused by the US government to help make a point for you?”
– no, that was not the intention
– what i mean is that there are many ways by which death comes, whether man made or not
-In any case, Stalin/Lenin/Mao certainly did not believe in god, but how many deaths did they cause? Do your research, you might be suprised to find that the number of deaths caused by such people were probably more than those caused by those who cited the god-motivation
“I have said MANY TIMES, the two MAIN problems I have with religion is that believers use it to justify their own actions and hatreds,… ”
-i agree with you. Neither do i support these. I can only talk for Christ,and what i know is that anyone who hates another CANNOT be a follower of Christ. he may say he is a Christian, BUT not a follower of Christ. You yourself read the teachings of Christ, and there is no hate of other people in them. There is hate of evil, but not hate of the person who may be causing/involved in the evil act.
-Hitler may have said he was a follower of god/Christ, but certainly his actions were all driven by hate. he could not have been a follower of the jewish God or a Christ follower.
-George Bush says he is a Christian. Some of his action do not support the teachings of Christ, so i really doubt his Faith. In any cause, i do not believe one can be a true Christ follower and a political leader at the same time. 99% Impossible.
-Justification of actions: if the actions are against people and show lack of care, love and concern for the subject, then of course most likely that action is not even Christ like.
AND
“and that NOBODY SHOULD EVER have the right to attempt to “convert” another person.”
– i disagree with you. Why not?
-if everyone was stuck in coal mine, and someone went shouting “i found a way out. i saw the light” Shoudl this person be shut up?
-is it wrong for health workers to go around telling teens and other young people “Hey, we know it is hard to keep away from sex. Use a condom, it may save you from STDs”?
– is it wrong for medical people in the west to ( for instance ) try to convince the Maasai of kenya to drop some of the cultural lifestyles (e.g. the so called FGM) that they love but are causing harm to some of th e women affected?
-Is it wrong for Ford to try to convince me to buy Ford as opposed to Toyota?
-If i met you, and you said to me “Kenya.fm, I am seeking the truth. There are many versions of what is true out there”, and i tell you “Hey, Matt. I read this book that explains that Truth is actually a person. I tried it. It worked for me. Try it out”. What can be possibly wrong with that?
On the other hand, if i put a gun to your head and said “I am sent by god. This is the truth. You must believe it.” Then that is outright madness.
I think you’re right about the problem with communism being human nature. But again, that proves my point. Your problem with people justifying their actions because of religion are simply misappropriating that religion, it’s not a logical extension of belief it is a brand of the same extremism that created Stalin and Pol Pot and Hitler. These men where in the unfortunate position of having bad ideas and great power.
I can dismiss every act of genocide justified by religion as a misuse of religion not a logical extension of it. You’ve well illustrated that the capacity for evil seems to lie in the individual not inherently in their belief systems.
In response – Wouldn’t atheism more accurately be “belief in no God” as opposed to “no belief in God”? I bring this issue up because you said that atheism was “by nature not a belief system.” You’re probably going to think I’m quibbling about definitions again but I think there’s an important distinction.
Now here is where you might object say I’m an atheist in regard to flying spaghetti monsters but consider this. I believe that there is no spaghetti monster. But the fact remains that it’s still a belief. I’m not agnostic in regard to this issue I’m definitively atheistic. Similarly I’m atheistic about fairies and Thor and Vishnu, I operate with the belief that they do not exist not that I have no belief in them.
So you simply add one additional God to the pantheon of gods that I’m an atheist about, and operate on the belief that he also does not exist.
I could be wrong here but it seems like that would make atheism a belief system.
Here’s a random thought –
In regard to the question of why is there something rather than nothing Occam’s Razor would allow belief in God to be a valid answer.
kelly,
“Why bother if you’re not even going to read my responses?”
Why should I bother to read if your posts are going to be full of lies and false accusations?
As I stated:
“After a certain number of FALSE accusations, I dismissed each one of those posts, and responded to the parts I had already read. In ALL OF THOSE POSTS, you made numerous false statements (either due to ignorance, or maliciousness) and I felt no need to continue to read such rubbish.”
You can make ANY accusation you want about me, my beliefs, my intentions, etc… BUT YOU MUST GIVE EVIDENCE.
If you make false accusations or outright lie, then I’m going to stop reading.
If you back up your accusations, then I will attempt to clarify, explain, or refute that evidence, but I won’t waste my time with unsubstantiated blather.
I’m PERFECTLY willing to defend what I say; I’m UNWILLING to fight against a straw man argument where somebody makes baseless claims.
If you would like to call out something I have said, or make a point about the purpose, tone, content, or themes of this post, then I’ll respond, but please do keep your statements factual.
No, you’re not.
You are skirting the issue entirely by refusing to read my post.
You continue to focus on something that has already been resolved.
By obstinately refusing to acknowledge my POINT-BY-POINT explanations of my original accusations, you are able avoid the issue entirely.
It has not escaped my attention that YOU have not answered any of my valid points, either. Not one.
As for my friend’s blog, I made it quite clear that I was answering you HERE, which (duh) you would know if you read my response.
I don’t know how I can make it any clearer.
The very thing you are asking me to do, I have already done.
I seriously think this whole attack on my first post is just a red herring for you to avoid the valid points I made.
You seem to be pretty adept at doing this with anyone who makes a valid point: focusing on semantics rather than the actual POINT of what they are saying.
It’s rather transparent, you know.
SON OF A BITCH! I had a reply written for Kenya before I left work, and the power went out before I hit submit.
*sigh* I guess I’ll write it up again, but damn, I hate it when that crap happens…
I’ll apologize in advance if this next attempt at a reply to Kenya’s latest post is not as “good” as the original, but I always feel my first draft it better than my second.
kenya,
*take two*
I’m willing to accept that our, well let’s call them “issues”, were based off of the language barrier, and a simple misunderstanding on the purpose of this post.
To clear that up quickly and simply, I COMPLETELY disagree with the concept of missionaries, and attempts to convert others to one’s own personal beliefs.
While I have no issue with somebody worshiping jesus, allah, l ron hubbard, or a toaster, I think it is completely wrong for a person to attempt to convert another.
I have TWO primary issues with organized religions, faith, and belief in god.
First of all is the fact that religious people historically have used their faith, or their belief to justify their own hatreds and actions. I believe in personal responsibility, and by claiming that something is “god’s will”, many religious people are attempting to justify, excuse, or give a reason for their own actions.
The second issue I have with faith and religion is one which I have already mentioned, attempting to convert others to one’s own faith. This shows an arrogance of the one attempting to do the conversion, in that they are essentially saying that whatever your own personal beliefs are, they are not “good enough”, and that their own beliefs are somehow intrinsically “better”.
Now the other thing I think is important to “get out of the way” is the purpose of this post.
I wrote this post as a way for people to explain their own beliefs in words, which most people generally do not do in their own lives.
By doing this, and by reading the explanation of others, I feel that it’s possible for people to come to a better understanding of each other.
When a Christian sees that a Muslim or a Hindu has essentially the same reasons, and essentially the same certainty of their own faith, it is my belief that there is a chance for people to realize that putting such blind faith in their own religion is potentially a dangerous situation.
I have gone into greater detail on these points in previous comments if you care to read above, but this should give you a GENERAL idea of the discussion going on here.
The other thing to check out if you’re interested is a post above (roughly around the 200 post mark) that is in bold; it gives a relatively good summary of the discussion up through that point.
With that out of the way, I think perhaps we can have a much better understanding from which to begin a discussion.
“So you’re saying that religion is “made up”?”
-yes, by man. Even popular/mainstream christianity is man made.
I’m glad we can completely agree on at least one point 100%. 🙂
I am not hijacking it. I am offering one aspect of looking at the issue.
You are giving your view of this issue NOW, but your original post was an attempt at converting people, and that is what upset me. As I mentioned above, I do not agree with the idea of “missionaries”, or attempting to convert others,and your first post, whether intentionally or not, fell into this category.
surely, we all seem to agree science and other forms of learning enlightens
Yes, but to only a point. Not all knowledge is “good” for humanity, and some forms of knowledge are “better” than others.
In my original version of this reply I went into great detail on this subject, but this time, I’d just like to give a brief summary of the concept.
If you consider the building of a nuclear bomb vs the “curing” of the bubonic plague, it’s obvious that the nuclear bomb is the more technologically advanced concept and took the most knowledge to construct. However I would argue that the use of soap to cure the plague was the “better” advancement for human society.
which people were more knowledgeable( =enlightenednish) that the Europeans/Germans in the 40s
This depends on many factors.
In the creation of tanks, jets, and other instruments of war, Germany was obviously the more advanced society.
However, I would say, and I doubt many would disagree, that England was much more advanced in regards to human rights and morality.
Now which of these societies was the overall “more advanced” is debatable, I would personally lean towards the British, and I think should be left to historians and philosophers.
what i mean is that there are many ways by which death comes, whether man made or not
Yes, and death is a natural phenomena, and the fear of death is one of the reasons for the proliferation of religion.
In any case, Stalin/Lenin/Mao certainly did not believe in god, but how many deaths did they cause? Do your research, you might be surprised to find that the number of deaths caused by such people were probably more than those caused by those who cited the god-motivation
Lenin was actually fairly benign, but I’ll grant you Stalin was a sick bastard. However if you start at the top and search for Stalin you’ll find a great number of comments by me regarding him. To be clear, I am not in ANY possible way defending him or his actions in any of my comments, what I point out is that his actions were not a result of his atheism. If after reading those comments you still want more information I’d be happy to go into it further, but since I spent quite a bit of time earlier today writing up a bunch about it, I’m just not in the mood to rewrite it again quite yet.
I agree with you. Neither do i support these. I can only talk for Christ,and what i know is that anyone who hates another CANNOT be a follower of Christ. he may say he is a Christian, BUT not a follower of Christ. You yourself read the teachings of Christ, and there is no hate of other people in them. There is hate of evil, but not hate of the person who may be causing/involved in the evil act.
I don’t claim that the underlying message of any specific faith is to spew hatred or commit horrific actions, but the fact remains that horrific atrocities have been committed throughout history in the “name of god” or because it was “god’s will” for countless centuries.
Regarding Hitler and Bush, whether they follow the actual teaching of any specific god is irrelevant. What is relevant is that THEY believe they do, and they both have (had) millions of followers who also believe that they were doing the “will of god”.
if everyone was stuck in coal mine, and someone went shouting “i found a way out. i saw the light” Should this person be shut up?
No, but that’s not how the situation is. A much more apt scenario might be along the lines of:
Suppose 10 groups of people are “trapped” in a cave. There are 9 lights leading the way out. Each of 9 (out of the 10) group believe that THEIR way is the ONLY way “out”, and are willing to die or kill to prove their point. The 10th person is content living in the cave since their loved ones are there with them, and they have absolutely no problem with life in the cave.
Now you as a missionary, or as somebody attempting to convert either the group that is content or one of the groups looking at a different way are doing this becasue you believe your way is the “only way”.
is it wrong for health workers to go around telling teens and other young people “Hey, we know it is hard to keep away from sex. Use a condom, it may save you from STDs”?
No, this is a proven scientific fact. Religion (ALL RELIGIONS) are unproven, and speculative at best. You yourself ALREADY stated that ALL RELIGIONS are MAN MADE.
Faith ,by it’s very definition is belief without evidence.
is it wrong for medical people in the west to ( for instance ) try to convince the Maasai of kenya to drop some of the cultural lifestyles (e.g. the so called FGM) that they love but are causing harm to some of th e women affected?
Again no, becasue it is based on scientifically proven evidence. They type of evidence which is not available for any of the religions in the world.
Is it wrong for Ford to try to convince me to buy Ford as opposed to Toyota?
People don’t kill each other over Ford vs Toyota, so this is not an apt correlation.
If i met you, and you said to me “Kenya.fm, I am seeking the truth.
This is MUCH different than assuming that others need to be “saved” or “converted”. If I ASK for information about your faith, then you are answering my specific question. If I don’t ask the question, I feel that nobody has the right to attempt to force their faith on me.
I hope this clears up some of the differences we have, and gives you a better understanding of my position.
moot,
We can go back and forth on the idea of both atheists and theists committing horrific acts.
Obviously terrible actions have been committed BY atheists, but they are not committed in the “name of atheism” or “because of atheism” or because it is “atheism’s will”.
Theism can not say the same thing.
Whether “god’s” intent was for sexism or not, many muslims, and christians practice sexism because of their understanding of their own faith. (there is also the whole slavery thing that I think we’ve beaten into the ground, or 9/11, abortion clinic bombings, crusades, etc)
“I can dismiss every act of genocide justified by religion as a misuse of religion not a logical extension of it”
I agree, but you can not get around the fact that religion is used as an excuse for these actions. Atheism is not misused in this same way, since atheism is the lack of belief, not blind faith, as theism is.
“Wouldn’t atheism more accurately be “belief in no God” as opposed to “no belief in God”?”
Oh, I have a picture, I’m going to try to link in here in a minute, that I think does a decent job of “answering” this point.
*GRRR, it won’t show in the comment, so you’ll have to check the link I guess…
Atheism Is Not A Religion
“In regard to the question of why is there something rather than nothing Occam’s Razor would allow belief in God to be a valid answer.”
No, because “god” operates outside the laws of nature, and anything outside the laws of the natural universe is AUTOMATICALLY more complex than ANYTHING that resides withing the boundaries of the laws of physics and the natural universe.
kelly,
I have already given my reasons for not continuing to read your posts past the point of a certain number of lies and factual errors.
If you’d like to repost your “points” without those inaccuracies I’m willing to read them and respond to each in kind.
If you’d like to “prove” your points, then it should be simple, make a post with every point you’d like to make,and include ONLY true statements, and if you’re going to make any comments about me, or my intentions, back them up with EVIDENCE.
If you’re unwilling to do this, then I see no point in continuing the debate with you.
“As for my friend’s blog, I made it quite clear that I was answering you HERE, which (duh) you would know if you read my response.”
I made DIFFERENT points (specific to Mel Gibson, and his film) on that blog which I never brought up here. If that is what originally upset you, and if you feel I was inaccurate in my assessment in any way, I would expect you to make your points there.
If you made them here and I did not read them, then feel free to repost those points as well, but the same “rules” apply, in that I won’t respond to outright falsehoods or lies.
“You seem to be pretty adept at doing this with anyone who makes a valid point: focusing on semantics rather than the actual POINT of what they are saying.”
ACTUALLY, if you read through the comments and replies here, you will notice that there are only 3 posts I did not respond to point by point, and all three of them have been by you.
Either this means you’re special, or the first person to outright lie in your comments. Take it either way you want, but the way for you to respond is simple, just tell the truth,and back up any claims you make about me with evidence.
The belief that there was nothing. Then one day nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating everything. Then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. Hey, if that’s not reasonable then nothing is.
Things that make you go hmm (or can I refer to you as mootpoints?),
“The belief that there was nothing. Then one day nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating everything. Then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whatsoever into self replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs. Hey, if that’s not reasonable then nothing is.”
This is actually not at all what atheists believe.
If you want to attempt to bash the current scientific view of the big bang, then perhaps you should check with a scientific journal, or ask a working astrophysicist (I recommend Neil deGrasse Tyson, he is in my opinion, one of the most knowledgeable around today, but he also has a GREAT GIFT for being to explain in simple terms, some of the most complex concepts of science, and as an added bonus, he or a student working under him are always willing to respond to questions in a timely manner), or grab one of the updated copies of The Universe In A Nutshell by Steven Hawkins. Taking one of these routes should give you a better understanding of what scientist believe about the beginning of the universe, including the questions which still remain unanswered.
Also, you bring up 4 VERY separate points in your one “comment”, including the creation of the universe; the creation of stars, galaxies, planets, etc; the original creation(s) of life; and evolution.
Each of these four topics is enough to fill a library full of information on all of the latest theories, and evidence for these theories, much less debate intelligently in this meager forum.
Once you’ve updated yourself on the most recent scientific theories on this subject, then I’ll welcome a debate on the topic, but you can’t honestly expect me to respond to a straw man argument that is not based on the current scientific understanding of the subject, can you?
You’ve repeatedly made the point that your problem with religion is twofold; proselytizing and people using religion to justify evil.
You’ve admitted that evil is a result of evil people not specifically religion. You specifically said your problem with religion is people using it to justify their actions. Even that sentence (quoted from you) places that blame on the person not the religion. Isn’t this a little like saying the Baseball Bat Factory is racist because their produce was used in a hate crime? I’m not sure why you could continue to hold the misuse of religion against religion.
I guess I understand the point about trying to convert people but isn’t that’s a universal issue? – Everyone is trying to convince everyone else that they’re right. Where do you draw the line when it comes to converting people? Does it just apply to religion? Does it apply to atheism? Dawkinsm, Hitchens and Harris write books because they want people to believe what they believe. Is that somehow different in principle than what Christians do?
– I notice you’re still defining faith as belief despite evidence. I can’t let this one go because it’s a misrepresentation of Christianity.
Defining faith that way a classic example of the dreaded “straw man” argument. It’s set up to ridicule the ideas in question and without attempt to discover what Christians even mean when they talk about faith. It would be like saying that skepticism by definition means ignoring the evidence. It’s a faulty definition that does a disservice to the discussion.
moot,
I don’t hold it against RELIGION (as a concept), I hold it against those who USE religion is this way, and in some cases specific religions themselves (Jim Jones’ cult and scientology to name two “religions” that were in every way harmful with little to no potential for good, and in both cased built upon a foundation of deception and lies).
Unfortunately becasue of the nature of religion, where one is taught that blind obedience and blind faith are virtues, the two (religion and those who abuse are) are entwined.
Believers are taught (by man) not to question the will of god.
Believers are also taught (again, by man) what the will of god is.
THIS is where the problem lies.
Personal believe in a god is PERFECTLY fine as far as I am concerned.
However, history has shown that when this belief becomes organized that the abuse of this belief is so easily corrupted and misused, that one must consider the potential for harm above all else.
“Everyone is trying to convince everyone else that they’re right.”
I believe that there is no god. I also don’t care if you believe in god. WHERE I draw personally the line on my attempts to show people the errors of their way is when people try to make claims about the natural world based on their beliefs in the supernatural. If somebody is going to claim the earth is 6500 years old, I am going to show them the evidence disputing their claims. If somebody wants to claim that god setup the laws of the universe, set the big bang in motion and sat back and watched for the next 14.7 billion years, that is their right. I don’t believe we need to use god to explain the beginning, but as there is no evidence to support either idea (yet) I can’t (and should not) argue against their beliefs.
“Where do you draw the line when it comes to converting people? Does it just apply to religion?”
I would draw it at any dogmatic belief that is not based on scientific understanding and evidence.
“Does it apply to atheism? Dawkinsm, Hitchens and Harris write books because they want people to believe what they believe. Is that somehow different in principle than what Christians do?”
Yes it does apply to atheism.
Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and (you forgot) Dennett all wrote books to spread their understanding of the issues at hand, true. The difference is they do not attempt to push their beliefs into religions classes (while evangelical christians try to push creationism into science classes).
They also do not go around the world on “missions” to third world countries and AS A CONDITION OF THEIR HELP IN THESE COUNTRIES, preach from their books to these poor starving people.
If a chrisitan wants to write a book about god, and have it published, go for it.
If they want to come knock on my door unsolicited, then I have an issue with it.
If they want to go on TV to “hawk” their book and sit down to O’Riely(sp?) or some other Fox News “personality” then go for it.
If they want to have it taught as science in schools, I have a problem.
For another take on this issue check out the following video. The first half is essentially a rant against LDS and their attempts to preach, but the second half is a humorous take at ‘atheist door to door preaching’.
“notice you’re still defining faith as belief despite evidence. I can’t let this one go because it’s a misrepresentation of Christianity.”
I’m defining faith as the dictionary defines faith (i.e. “belief that is not based on proof”).
If you want to use another word than faith, then so be it, but there is NO scientific evidence for god, or for the claim that jesus was divine. To believe EITHER of these claims, is an act of faith.
—–
“You’ve repeatedly made the point that your problem with religion is twofold; proselytizing and people using religion to justify evil.”
BTW, these are my two PRIMARY problems, there are some other issues I have with specific religions, but these two seem to be universal among all religions.
Rod,
Is it appropriate to call you, “Rod?” You may call me “bad” or “badguy” or my real name is Jeff.
I’m sorry I didn’t realize you were an atheist sooner – I hadn’t actually read any of the other 300+ responses to your post.
“I look around the world and the universe, and I am in awe of all that is there, but I see no evidence of a ‘god’ or ‘designer.’”
I’m afraid we’re going to diverge on this point alone. I look around the world and DO see evidence of God – particularly in the design. I have no problem with diverging on this point; it is after all the key point of divergence for humankind.
“By definition, ANYTHING supernatural is NOT the simplest explanation, because by virtue of it being BEYOND THE NATURAL REALM it is already more complex than any possible natural process.”
I’m afraid I have to disagree with this assertion – you make the assumption that supernatural is beyond the natural realm and therefore more complex. I would suggest that there are many natural forces that appear to be far more complex than supernatural solutions – we are simply limited by what we believe to be true, or natural. I also think that God can intervened within the boundaries of “natural” so we wouldn’t even believe it was out of the ordinary or supernatural.
You also claim that “war, poverty, famine, crime, hatred” are things that God can fix. I disagree with this assertion as well. In fact, I would say it is a false assumption about God and His nature, and actually speaks more to the way that God specifically does NOT intervene in the course of human history. It’s also, I would think, a key hangup for most practitioners of atheism.
I say this because war, poverty, famine, crime, and hatred (to name a few) are all consequences of humankind turning its back on God (the definition of Sin). If we all were obedient to just the ‘golden rule’ then these things would not exist. Why hasn’t this happened already? Why does all of this exist in the world?
Simply put, if there is no God, then why is there war, poverty, famine, crime, and hatred? Why haven’t we conquered all of these ills, and why don’t we all get along?
I think you and I both agree that Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps (I’m not familiar with him) are idiots for making such claims.
“For the prayer test, I mean studying the efficacy of prayer. There have been MANY studies done on this subject, and NOT A SINGLE ONE that was performed with strict scientific guidelines has shown any effectiveness in praying vs not praying.”
This should not surprise you at all. God is not in the party-trick business. In fact, we are not to put God to the test, so it would not even be appropriate to conduct such a test.
Let me make myself clear – I do not believe there is any way to prove that God exists. You’ll not receive any argument from me on ‘this or that’ test not providing evidence that there is a God. To me, it’s silly to try and prove His existence, and not really worth wasting anyone’s time.
“Many people CLAIM to communicate with aliens or other gods than the christian one, do you believe their accounts of talking with lord zenu (scientology) or being abducted by “grays” (the current UFO fad) or communicating with Thor (Norse) or Vishnu (Hindu)?”
Who’s to say to whom they are talking? What is their motivation for speaking to some supernatural entity in the first place? As an atheist, to you believe they are all crazy? Demented? Hallucinating?
The whole cancer thing is daunting. I would absolutely accept whatever forms of treatment were available to me. I am always very careful in my petitions to God, because He is often quite literal in His response. For one thing, I do not view death as a negative for the one who has a relationship with God. If I die, I get to be with Him for eternity, which is by far the better alternative to living in this broken and fallen world. If it were just up to me, I may not seek the treatment, but because of my wife and children – who would prefer me to be around, I would do whatever I could to prolong my feeble existience on this plane. I would certainly converse with God, but I would be very careful of what, if anything, I request. “Your will be done” usually covers it for me.
Answered prayer is a poor litmus test for the existence of God, in my opinion, because God sometimes answers the way we want, and sometimes he does not answer according to our requests. Why does God answer some and not answer others? That is a completely different discussion; one that we can’t have, since you don’t choose to believe in God.
I’m curious, do you believe that spontaneous remission of cancers is natural? Even though there is no apparent natural explanation? Do you assume that there must be a natural explanation – even though we can’t come up with one, rather than entertain the idea that there might be a supernatural explanation? Isn’t the definition of supernatural something beyond our natural understanding?
“Yes the amputee thing is an issue.”
God has healed withered limbs, and brought to life dead limbs, but to my knowledge he has never re-grown a limb (although he did grow back an ear once). This issue reminds me of the time that Jesus was preaching to a crowd. In one day he fed thousands with one bag lunch and walked on water. Later, while talking to much of the same crowd, he was proclaiming that he was the Messiah – and the crowd said, “Show us a sign so that we may believe…” If people that were eyewitnesses to supernatural events back then, I don’t see how anyone would buy a limb being regrown today. Face it, if this did happen, we would write it off to photoshop, or otherwise think it was a hoax.
“The rational explanation is either that god does not answer EVERY prayer, or that god does not answer ANY prayers.”
I agree with this summation.
The typical christian explanation is that it would be “too obvious” and “god does not work in that way”, which goes against the whole idea that god answers prayers.”
How does this go against the whole idea? You seem to be making the assumption that people believe that God answers ALL prayers in the affirmative, regardless of motive, circumstance, or consequence. This is simply not true. Any mention of God answering prayer (at least in the NT) is always a result of some condition(s) – basically an IF, THEN (and in some cases ELSE) statement. I personally do not believe that if we satisfy the IF condition that we are automatically entitled to the ELSE (answered request), but I suppose that an argument could be made that God is not a liar and that if you truly have satisfied the IF condition, then you get the ELSE automatically. In most cases the “IF” condition is along the lines of being in God’s will, having the mind of God, or otherwise acting selflessly. It is indeed difficult to make a personal appeal while at the same time being completely selfless in motive.
“Creation is an issue because there is a large segment of the US population trying to push their RELIGIOUS VIEWS into science class on the issue of creation. Christian have MADE it and issue.”
The religious view is not that God created, but that God created in a particular way that was recorded in religious writings. How God created is not an issue for me, although I do have a healthy curiosity – and I look forward to continued scientific discovery that explains it. That said, what’s wrong with teaching the theory of creation alongside the theory of evolution? Isn’t one guess as good as the next? Wouldn’t any objective scientific study be open-minded and open to all possible explanations? I don’t think teaching one theory and precluding another is sound teaching – regardless of the theory you believe.
“Science currently tells us what happened AFTER the big bang, it does not tell us what caused the big bang, or where the energy/mass came from that formed the singularity that was the big bang. Science can not YET answer those questions, and attempting to insert a supernatural explanation is a “god of the gaps”, it’s not a true search for knowledge and understanding.”
You seem to think that science and the existence of God are incompatible. Why? Why does science figuring out the how’s and why’s interfere with the possibility of divine origins? Why do you assume that finding an explanation equates to NOT being supernatural? Is it only supernatural if it defies explanation? Isn’t that limiting? Why can’t the supernatural be explained?
Science has not explained everything that has happened since the big bang (in addition to its cause); as far as I know Science has yet to explain how life began. Will science be able to explain the origin of life without developing a repeatable process? If not, would not the explanation for the existence of life not be classified as supernatural, regardless of the explanation?
“However just because with our current understanding and out current technology science is unable to unravel something, does not mean we should give up and say “god did it”, we should continue to strive to understand all we are capable of by scientific means.”
Who’s suggesting giving up? I’d only consider re-directing tax dollars to bigger issues (like taking care of Katrina victims) rather than funding scientific study. I wouldn’t give up for faith reasons, but what is the benefit of continued study for humankind? How will unlocking the origin of the universe affect us in a positive way? Will this knowledge finally allow us to cure poverty, cease war, feed the hungry, etc.? To what end this increased understanding?
“Without proof of something, would you suggest we take everything on faith? How about the existence of bigfoot, or alien abductions? How about other gods than the christian one?”
No, I would not suggest taking everything on faith – I would suggest being open-minded. You seem to place much faith in the existence of a ‘natural’ explanation (and ‘natural’ is defined, I think, by being explainable). Bigfoot? Sure. Alien abductions? Why not. Other gods than the Christian Gods. Absolutely. The Bible speaks of many of them. Do you believe in angels? Ghosts? Evil?
“Why are you an atheist?”
You told me ‘how’ – but you didn’t tell me why? It’s interesting that you discovered that there is a belief system associated with atheism. That would make it a religion too, I suppose. I think you are dead-on in what you discovered about the world’s religions, btw. All religion is not 100% correct, so therefore all religion is wrong (including atheism). Other than you concluded that your father was a nutjob, why did you become an atheist?
“What are you seeking?”
The problem with what you claim to be seeking is that these things are mutually exclusive. You can’t ask people to agree with your beliefs (that there are a few universal truths) and at the same time assert that no one should push their beliefs on others.
Also, you claim that people should seek to live their lives in a better way. Better for whom, themselves? Others? What possible motivation is there to live my life for anybody’s benefit other than my own? Isn’t that survival of the fittest? How then could that belief be compatible with your other stated desire that everyone should live a life that helps the world around them?
What basis do you, an atheist, have for any sense of “better way”, or “helping the world”? In other words, what is your basis for morality? Or, what is morality?
“Yes, I’m perfectly willing to accept that some idea of “god” may be true, but I don’t believe that the evidence supports that position, and I think in the cases of many specific religions the evidence actually STRONGLY contradicts their claims.”
If you’re willing to accept some idea of god – then you aren’t really an atheist. I wholeheartedly agree that all forms of religion are in error including, it would seem, atheism (at least your brand).
You have an interesting dilemma. You seem to be saying that you will accept some of idea of god if you can have some proof. Nobody can prove to you that any form of God exists. The only way you will come to believe in a god is if God proves himself to you. The evidence is there, but you don’t see the evidence.
I don’t think any amount of scientific study is going to even come up with an hypothesis for solving this conundrum.
Oh, yes – that was the old binary joke. There are two kinds of people in the world: those that know God and those that don’t.
Peace.
I had my stupid browser freeze… twice, both previous posts were so good I’d have you going to church this Sunday. So if you remain an atheist after reading this it will only be because my browser quit. Demons must be attacking my computer.
Look I don’t want to beat a dead horse but this point is crucial the discussion, so hear me out here.
If I allow you to define faith as “belief with no evidence” Then I’ve allowed you to dismiss the concept, and thus theism in general. And it’s not about the specific word it’s about the concept.
However I don’t want to use another word. I’m using the word properly. In fact I’m even using it properly as far as I can determine from most primary dictionary definitions of the word.
The Houghton-Mifflin, Heritage, the Free Online, Oxford English, Dictionary.com, Cambridge, and other all had as their first and primary definition of faith – “complete trust or confidence in something”
In fact you made this point for me when you called it “blind” faith. That modifier is precise and it makes an important distinction between faith as a natural result of logic and delusion that denies logic.
By continuing to allow you to characterize faith in that way (or by extension Christian as irrational and delusion) would do this discussion a disservice. Obviously we’ve come to differing conclusion but I believe what I do “because of” not “in spite of” the evidence.
I agree that our “mission” to third world countries should not be agenda driven. Christianity doesn’t teach that we should be conditional in our service to others. However I think it’s also fair to point out that Christians have done much to serve third world countries. I’m not sure that atheism organizes itself to than end. I could be wrong but I’ve never heard of a primarily atheist charity or relief organization. I realize that atheists don’t organize themselves that way and that there are plenty of secular charities but still…
As far as teaching creation in schools. I realize that teaching creationism is probably more about an agenda (God) than it is science but the issue of evolution being taught is often agenda driven too. Isn’t it fair to point out the weaknesses of evolution as well as it’s strengths?
Haeckel’s embryo drawings (you knew it would come up sooner or later, right?) are a great example of something being exaggerated to further a point. In that specific case it’s not about truth but about an agenda. And, fascinatingly enough, Haeckel’s stuff is still being used in textbooks!
Haeckel is one example of this type of disingenuous presentation of the “facts”. I’d rather have the truth even if it cast doubt on evolution.
bad,
Wow, a post as long (or longer) than many of my own… This won’t be quick, but hopefully I can cover everything you’re bringing up here.
Yeah, Rod is fine I guess, Rodibidably is not really related to my name in any way, but that’s a whole other story ow it came to be…
“I’m afraid we’re going to diverge on this point alone. I look around the world and DO see evidence of God – particularly in the design. I have no problem with diverging on this point; it is after all the key point of divergence for humankind.”
I’m glad that even though we don’t see eye to eye,m we can agree to disagree in a civil way, and respect each other’s opinion on the matter.
You’re correct that this is the key point of divergence for humankind, the issue of god (well two issues; IF god does exists; and then if that answer was “yes”, which god is the “real” god) is so ingrained in our lives and such a strongly help belief by so many it’s in my opinion the biggest single issue facing mankind, and it’s the issue most likely to end mankind (by personal guess for the end of humanity is a nuclear holocaust over religious differences).
Supernatural phenomena by definition exist outside the realm of the natural (hense SUPERnatural, or BEYOND what is natural).
These phenomena can not be studied by any scientific means because they do not exist in this natural realm and do not obey the natural laws of nature/science/physics.
THIS is why I say that ANYTHING AT ALL that is supernatural, and is thus outside the realm of scientific inquiry or evidence is by definition more complex than ANY natural phenomena which is governed by the laws of nature.
If you were to say that the clouds “parted” because the wind was blowing in some direction at a certain speed and the water vapor was evaporating at a certain rate then somebody can do the math and figure out the science behind this.
If you were to say that the wind, evaporation, and rain that had already fallen were NOT enough to “part” the clouds and they “parted” despite this, then that is beyond what is possible by the laws of nature.
The “invisible hand of god” is ALWAYS going to be a less likely explanation for “parting” the clouds than wind, evaporation, and rain having already fallen.
“I also think that God can intervened within the boundaries of “natural” so we wouldn’t even believe it was out of the ordinary or supernatural.”
If you follow certain scientific theories back far enough EVERYTHING is a reaction based on some previous action (the whole idea of a butterfly in the US flaps it’s wings and it rains in china). If god is to use the laws of nature to “part” the clouds either EVERYTHING including that butterfly flapping it’s wings was already predetermined ahead of time so that the clouds would part (in which case the natural explanation IS true, because it WAS due to wind, evaporation, and rain having already fallen) or somewhere along the line “god” stepped in and made a change which then caused some other change, etc, etc, and then eventually the wind, evaporation, and rain having already fallen “parted” the clouds.
So as a believer there are three options:
1) EVERYTHING is predetermined, and the wind, evaporation, and rain having fallen already “parted” the clouds
2) God stepped in in some SMALL way which caused a chain of event that lead to the wind, evaporation, and rain having fallen already “parting” the clouds
3) God stepped in at the last moment and against the natural laws of science/physics, “parted” the clouds in some supernatural method
“You also claim that “war, poverty, famine, crime, hatred” are things that God can fix. I disagree with this assertion as well.”
So god parts clouds so you don’t get wet on a picnic, but is helpless or unwilling to save a child from starvation?
“In fact, I would say it is a false assumption about God and His nature, and actually speaks more to the way that God specifically does NOT intervene in the course of human history. It’s also, I would think, a key hangup for most practitioners of atheism.”
The hangup is actually one based on the inconsistencies of believers. When a believer says “god does not intervene in the case of war, poverty, famine, etc” but then ALSO claims that god “kills fags” or “caused katrina” or “helped [their] team win a game” or helped them “find [their] keys”, or whatever it is, they are being inconsistent.
EITHER god can fix war, poverty, famine, etc and chooses not to…
OR god did not part the clouds, help somebody find their keys, help somebody hit a game winning home run, etc.
Believers can NOT have it both ways.
“If we all were obedient to just the ‘golden rule’ then these things would not exist.”
I agree, if we all lived by the golden rule (and on a non-sequitor, which btw is not original to christianity, there were many similar “rules” floating around india and china before jesus’s time).
“Why hasn’t this happened already? Why does all of this exist in the world?”
From the believer’s perspective, because god made us flawed I suppose. If he had created us perfectly, then mankind would not “sin against god”. Whether intentionally or accidentally, a believer must admit that “god’s creation” is flawed.
“Simply put, if there is no God, then why is there war, poverty, famine, crime, and hatred? Why haven’t we conquered all of these ills, and why don’t we all get along?”
Because somewhere along the line there was an evolutionary benefit for some percentage of the population to be “cheats”, and that the ultimate source of reproduction (the gene) is a selfish replicator which has the sole purpose of reproducing itself.
“I think you and I both agree that Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps (I’m not familiar with him) are idiots for making such claims.”
If you want to scream, laugh, and cry at all the same time, do a Google search on Phelps and his “parish”. It’s utterly heinous the vile crap that they spew.
“This should not surprise you at all. God is not in the party-trick business. In fact, we are not to put God to the test, so it would not even be appropriate to conduct such a test.”
Hense my comment in the previous post that the way believers have defined god, they have created an unfalsifiable position. This leads to a situation where ANY evidence at all will do nothing to change their own opinion on “god”.
“Let me make myself clear – I do not believe there is any way to prove that God exists.”
We agree again, you know this is becoming a bit of a habit. 😉
We’ll also probably agree that with the current way believers “define god” that there is no way to scientifically DISPROVE god either.
Where we diverge is that in my opinion, that without evidence for or against the existence of god, and with no “need” for god to explain things, I choose to go with the simplest explanation, which is that god does not exist.
“Who’s to say to whom they are talking?”
Well many people are absolutely convinced they have seen “little gray aliens” and been taken aboard their space crafts and had experiments run on them.
As for those who communicate with “other” gods than your own, according to the 10 commandments (and you’ll have to forgive me, I don’t recall with one of the top of my head, and I don’t want to look it up right this moment) “thou shall have no false gods before me”. If I pray to Vishnu, or Ra, or even Allah, according to christian faith, that is a FALSE GOD.
“What is their motivation for speaking to some supernatural entity in the first place?”
Daniel Dennett makes a VERY good case for religion as a natural phenomena, being a result of evolutionary pressures. Scroll to the top, and search for “Dennett” and you’ll see I’ve gone into a bit of detail in various comments on this subject.
However some people “make up” these types of experiences to feel special, or due to some attempt to find meaning, or many other reasons. This is a very specific question that doesn’t have an all encompassing answer that covers all people, but if you look at specific cases, you can generally find that persons specific motives.
“As an atheist, to you believe they are all crazy? Demented? Hallucinating?”
Some of them are, yes. Some of them are confused, and some of them want so much to believe what they are saying is true, that they convince themselves that it is true.
“The whole cancer thing…”
When you use phrases like “Your will be done”, you’re perpetuating the unfalsifiable position.
I know you’ve already stated that god can not be proven, but I believe in the concept “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. The existence of a supernatural deity is an extraordinary claim, and the default position should be one of skepticism, not blind belief.
“Why does God answer some and not answer others? That is a completely different discussion; one that we can’t have, since you don’t choose to believe in God.”
I don’t beleive in god, that’s true, but I’d like to hear YOUR explanation for why god sometimes “cures cancer” according to some claims, or “helps” people find their keys, or “helps” a team win a game, but NEVER EVEN ONCE IN HISTORY has grown a limb back on an amputee.
Or why god would do these things, but not solve world hunger (I’ve got to assume that’s a big thing being prayed for) or stops genocide, wars, bigotry, etc…
I know we don’t agree on this subject, but can you at least understand where I am coming from on this?
“I’m curious, do you believe that spontaneous remission of cancers is natural?”
Yes.
“Even though there is no apparent natural explanation?”
There are actually some explanations, including genetic factors we don’t totally understand yet.
“Do you assume that there must be a natural explanation – even though we can’t come up with one, rather than entertain the idea that there might be a supernatural explanation?”
Yes, even for the cases we don’t yet know, I don’t insert a “god of the gaps”, I think we have an obligation to search for the cause.
“Isn’t the definition of supernatural something beyond our natural understanding?”
No, supernatural is not something we don’t understand, supernatural is something that “breaks the laws” of what we do understand.
If a light appears in the sky, and we don’t know what it is, that does not mean it’s supernatural. Now if that light flies close enough to be studied scientifically and defies what we know of physics, then it could be classified as supernatural.
“Yes the amputee thing is an issue.”
“Face it, if this did happen, we would write it off to photoshop, or otherwise think it was a hoax.”
If a patient was admitted to a hospital (or a number of patients to a number of hospitals) or if it was conducted in a scientifically controlled study and patients who were prayed for spontaneously grew back limbs, we would be able to document the phenomena and draw up conclusions based on evidence.
For why I think believers claim god should answer prayers, I’ll refer you to the following page, which quotes both the old and new testament:
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm
The author of this site has done much more research into this particular subject than i could do justice to in my reply, so I’d recommend checking out at least that one page, if not more of the site.
“That said, what’s wrong with teaching the theory of creation alongside the theory of evolution?”
The Theory of evolution is a scientific theory with evidence supporting it.
The idea of creationism is not a scientific theory, it is religious dogma with no supporting scientific evidence.
For more on the definition of a scientific theory check out my post at:
“Isn’t one guess as good as the next?”
No, one is a scientific theory supported by evidence, the other is the literal interpretation of a book written by bronze age man who were ignorant of MUCH evidence which directly opposed the idea they came up with.
“Wouldn’t any objective scientific study be open-minded and open to all possible explanations?”
Yes, but Creationism is not objective, scientific, or scholarly. It is an attempt by a segment of christians to insert their own religious beleifs into science classes.
“I don’t think teaching one theory and precluding another is sound teaching – regardless of the theory you believe.”
The difference (again) is the idea of a scientific theory vs an idea without basis in evidence.
“You seem to think that science and the existence of God are incompatible.”
No, I think that god is a reasonable explanation for what set up the laws of the universe, and what started the big bang off.
But I don’t think god is a NECESSARY explanation, and I don’t think god is the simplest explanation.
Without the evidence to support the idea of god, I don’t think it’s the most rational explanation.
“Is it only supernatural if it defies explanation? Isn’t that limiting? Why can’t the supernatural be explained?”
As I’ve said before in this comment, supernatural is not that which is unknown, it is that which is known, and defies the natural.
“Science has not explained everything that has happened since the big bang (in addition to its cause); as far as I know Science has yet to explain how life began.”
Yes, but when you begin to insert a “god of the gaps” into the areas we don’t yet understand, you shut down scientific inquiry and progress in those areas (see the dark ages).
“Science has not explained everything that has happened since the big bang (in addition to its cause); as far as I know Science has yet to explain how life began.”
If we go with the idea that “god created life” and don’t continue to study it, we’ll never know.
If we start with the assumption that we can determine EXACTLY how, then we’ll be able to test and expand upon our current theories until we come to a scientific consensus.
“Who’s suggesting giving up? I’d only consider re-directing tax dollars to bigger issues (like taking care of Katrina victims) rather than funding scientific study.”
Bigger than scientific understanding of the universe, the world, and life itself?
REALLY, what could be bigger than having a better understanding of life, and thus a better understanding of ourselves, and out place in the universe.
If you’re going to cut finding, let’s try recouping the TRILLION PLUS dollars we have spend on an unjustifiable war in Iraq.
What would change humanity more in your view?
Making Iraq a stable democracy
OR
Finding proof that life evolved on not just our own planet but elsewhere in the universe as well?
If you pause to consider all that scientific understanding has brought to our lives, you’ll realize that the SINGLE GREATEST accomplishment of humanity, was science.
“what is the benefit of continued study for humankind?”
If we understand humanities origins, we can end fighting over misguided superstitions created by bronze age man’s ignorance of the world around them.
Imagine a world with no religious fighting and bickering (I’m not saying no religion, I’m saying all religions coexisting peacefully).
“How will unlocking the origin of the universe affect us in a positive way?”
Well we can start with power sources for when the oil runs out. Perhaps ways to prolong the environment for mankind’s continued survival. Or tons of other ways which we can not yet even conceive.
“Will this knowledge finally allow us to cure poverty, cease war, feed the hungry, etc.?”
Yes actually.
“‘natural’ is defined, I think, by being explainable”
no, natural is defined by fitting into the laws of physics and science. Even things we don’t yet understand can in many cases be natural phenomena.
But something that DIRECTLY violates the laws of nature is supernatural.
“Bigfoot? Sure. Alien abductions? Why not. Other gods than the Christian Gods. Absolutely.”
So you believe in these things? Or you accept that there is a chance they are true. These are two VERY DIFFERENT stances.
“Do you believe in angels? Ghosts? Evil?”
No, no, and it depends on what you mean by evil.
“discovered that there is a belief system associated with atheism”
Actually there is not a belief system. Atheism by it’s definition is a lack of belief in god.
I said that “I have finally come to a firm understanding of my own set of “beliefs”, and my own ideals for mankind”.
There are many things which I believe in personally, this does not mean that atheism is a belief system or that atheism is a religion.
I am sure there are many things you beleive in that are unrelated to your religion, such as (2 + 2 = 4) or that you love your family.
“why did you become an atheist?”
Because when I looked at the evidence (and lack of evidence) I came to the understanding that god was not necessary to explain things in the universe, and was not by definition of being supernatural, the “simplest” explanation.
“The problem with what you claim to be seeking is that these things are mutually exclusive. You can’t ask people to agree with your beliefs (that there are a few universal truths) and at the same time assert that no one should push their beliefs on others.”
Some beleifs are based on scientific evidence.
As an example, if I tell you that two planes crashed into the WTC towers, there is mountains of evidence to support this claim.
Now if you respond that this never happened, or that it was a conspiracy of the Bush administration (and as much as I despise Bush, even I can’t accept that premise) then the burden of proof is upon you to come up with evidence to support this position.
“In other words, what is your basis for morality? Or, what is morality?”
Scroll up and search for Morality, and you’ll see that moot and I have been through the morality debate already. There are MANY posts back and forth between us, and I think that they might shed much light on my views on the subject.
“If you’re willing to accept some idea of god – then you aren’t really an atheist.”
By the dictionary definition, I would be agnostic.
HOWEVER, in practice, “agnostics” claim that we are incapable of knowing the truth, and they do not hold a position on the topic.
And atheists in practice, claim that even though there is a chance we are wrong, that the evidence supports the position that god does not exist.
Or as I put it previously:
As for the difference between an atheist and an agnostic, agnostics don’t put a probability on the existence of god, they just say “I don’t know”; while atheists claim that “yes there is a chance god exists since a negative can not be proven, but that chance is so small as to be insignificant in any aspect of my life”. Even Richard Dawkins, who is about as “hard core” as atheists get claims that he is “only” 95% certain of the non-existence of all “gods”.
“You have an interesting dilemma. You seem to be saying that you will accept some of idea of god if you can have some proof.”
Yes, but it is not me who made god unfalsifiable, or unprovable, it is the description of god that believers give that have made “his” existence unprovable.
I can make a claim that is unprovable and unfalsifiable as well, but the burden of proof should be on me, not on those who don’t believe me.
“Nobody can prove to you that any form of God exists.”
I could be convinced by scientific evidence, it is the believers who make the case that god can not be studied scientifically. If you can come up with a test that can PROVE the existence of god to a scientific certainty, then I’d be willing to accept the results.
“The only way you will come to believe in a god is if God proves himself to you.”
Or if a scientifically controlled study can be devised and executed with positive results.
“The evidence is there, but you don’t see the evidence.”
Here is the original disagreement we had, but I think we can agree to disagree on this on again.
“I don’t think any amount of scientific study is going to even come up with an hypothesis for solving this conundrum.”
and since the burden of proof is on the believers, this is a problem.
moot,
“I had my stupid browser freeze… twice”
Ouch, I feel your pain.
“both previous posts were so good I’d have you going to church this Sunday”
Well I suppose that’s a shame then; of all Sunday’s for me to be “saved”, this would certainly be one of the top 2 in any given year…
“Demons must be attacking my computer.”
Mwuhaha! (I say that because once some time ago when I told somebody I knew that I was an atheist, their response was “so you worship satan?”)
“I don’t want to beat a dead horse but this point is crucial the discussion, so hear me out here.”
I completely understand. There are a few points we have gone back and forth over a number of times.
However, I do think there are some issues/points that we may end up just having to “agree to disagree” on.
“If I allow you to define faith as “belief with no evidence” Then I’ve allowed you to dismiss the concept, and thus theism in general. And it’s not about the specific word it’s about the concept.”
It’s not about dismissing theism, it’s about scientific evidence.
If you can show scientific evidence of god, that’s one thing, but EVERY PIECE of evidence that believers “try” to use to “prove” god is actually much easier to explain in natural terms, without the need for the supernatural.
Conceptually I do agree that there is some chance that god does exist, and I don’t deny anybody the right to believe. But I think that all believers should realize that their faith in god is a belief that is not founded in scientific evidence, it is founded in superstition, and ignorance (not that believers are ignorant, but the founders of the older religions were ignorant of the science of today).
“In fact you made this point for me when you called it “blind” faith.”
Yes, the first definition is the one you quoted, but in all three online dictionaries I checked and quoted earlier, the 2nd definition involved the concept of a lack of evidence.
“That modifier is precise and it makes an important distinction between faith as a natural result of logic and delusion that denies logic.”
I actually use Faith and Blind Faith a bit TOO liberally.
If I was to be a bit more careful, I would only use BLIND faith to describe things like young earth creationism, and use FAITH to describe belief systems that do not specifically violate the laws of nature (i.e. god set up the laws of the universe and the energy that became the big bang).
“characterize faith in that way (or by extension Christian as irrational and delusion)”
I’m not trying to say that all of christianity or all of religion of faith are irrational or delusional.
I do believe that Young Earth creationism is either delusional, ignorant, or irrational (or some combination of the three), but most of the old earth creationism ideas do not fit into these descriptions. While they may not be based on evidence, and I may think they are wrong, it is rational to believe in them (although perhaps not the MOST rational belief, but rational none-the-less).
“I believe what I do “because of” not “in spite of” the evidence.”
I know we’ve been through this before, and I know your answer already, but to make my point, I feel I must ask:
Show me the evidence for god that CAN NOT be explained by natural means.
ANY “evidence” that you have that can ALSO be explained by natural means, fails the “test” of Occam’s Razor.
“I agree that our “mission” to third world countries should not be agenda driven.”
WUHOO!
“Christianity doesn’t teach that we should be conditional in our service to others.”
Many “christians” would disagree with this statement.
“However I think it’s also fair to point out that Christians have done much to serve third world countries.”
I completely agree with this. But as I’ve mentioned with some of my comments on “mother theresa”, I also thing that christians have done IMMEASURABLE HARM (as I have mentioned before, according to many estimates, mother theresa is responsible for more deaths than ANY person in history, including hitler, stalin, pol pot, etc).
“I’m not sure that atheism organizes itself to than end. I could be wrong but I’ve never heard of a primarily atheist charity or relief organization. I realize that atheists don’t organize themselves that way and that there are plenty of secular charities but still…”
There are some “atheist” charities (even one called “Atheist Charity”, funny enough), but as atheism is not a belief system, it does not really lend itself to organized work as such. You don’t see organizations of people who don’t believe in santa, do you?
But there are many secular charities such as toys for tots, etc…
As an atheist myself, I actually give money and goods to the salvation army; because despite my atheism, I do believe that many religious organizations do good work.
I guess with all things being equal, if there were two totally equal and deserving charities with equal percentage of donations going towards those in need, I’d give my money/goods to the secular one, but I have no problem giving money to a religious organization if that money is going to help those in need, and not the religion itself.
I also try to give my time and money (and blood, despite my distaste of needles) to the Red Cross, which is another secular “charity” of a sort.
“As far as teaching creation in schools. I realize that teaching creationism is probably more about an agenda (God) than it is science”
WUHOO!
“but the issue of evolution being taught is often agenda driven too.”
Not quite, The teaching of evolution is the same as the teaching of chemistry or biology. It is THE scientific theory, backed up by evidence and supported by independent tests, that explains the diversity of life on the planet.
“Isn’t it fair to point out the weaknesses of evolution as well as it’s strengths?”
Yes, if the intent is to show that there are disagreements among scientist as to the exact methods of evolution, but not as an attempt to discredit evolution with has a scientific consensus.
If you’re trying to use the Haeckel’s embryo drawings to discredit Darwin, I’d like to stop you now:
“Some creationists have claimed that Darwin relied on Haeckel’s embryo drawings as proof of evolution to support their argument that Darwin’s theory is therefore illegitimate and possibly fraudulent. This claim ignores the fact that the Darwin published the “Origin of the Species” in 1859, and “The Descent of Man” in 1871, whereas Haeckel’s famous embryo drawings did not appear until 1874 (8 species).
If you’re trying to use Haeckel’s embryo drawings to discredit Haeckel, then I agree, there is good evidence of fraud, but the concept is actually valid (he just cheated in his attempt to “prove” it.
There has been much work in the 100+ years SINCE then which shows in great detail the evidence for evolution.
“Haeckel’s stuff is still being used in textbooks!”
Well not ALL of his “stuff” was fraudulent, but if the false drawings are being used still, the this is a travesty, and we both agree.
“I’d rather have the truth even if it cast doubt on evolution.”
I COMPLETELY AGREE, 100%!
And EVERY SINGLE GOOD scientist who’s ever lived would agree as well.
I forget the exact quote, and I’ll try to look it up later for you, but there was a quote I heard long ago from a scientists that went essentially along the lines of: “I’d rather find evidence that throws everything I’ve worked my entire life on out the window, than evidence the agrees with me, becasue the former gives me more new knowledge than the later”.
Well I’m not as well versed on naturalistic evidence as I’d like to be. However I think the concept of proving God through naturalistic means brings up some philosophically points about science.
I think the question is correctly articulated by John Lennox and he says, “Is there any scientific evidence for the involvement of intelligence in the origin of nature and it’s laws of operation?” I think that’s a fair question.
But it’s clear that science has limitations to what it can explain. Science can date the age of an ancient poem but it can’t tell us if it’s bad or a work of genius. Science can tell you that if you add arsenic to someone’s drink it may kill them but it can’t tell you if that’s right or wrong.
Bertrand Russell said, “Whatever knowledge is attainable. must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover man cannot know.”
But Russell’s very statement is not a statement of science, so if his statement is true we cannot know it. That contradicts the very assertion he makes.
Science cannot deal with philosophical questions of beauty or basic questions of existence. It is correct to say that science cannot deal with these questions, it is quite another to say that they don’t exist because science can’t deal with them.
This is more of an information post than one of making a point to debate.
It’s not just Haeckal’s ideas but his drawings that are continuing to be used. The fact that these drawings were dismissed as early as 1868 make this perpetuation incredible. It’s unconscionable that they’re still appearing. Here’s a list of a few books in which they’re still used.
Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (6th ed, McGraw Hill, 2002)*
Textbook III. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed, Sinauer, 1998)
Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th ed, Wadsworth, 1998)
Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life J.M.Lebel, 2004)
William D. Schraer and Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life (7th ed, Prentice Hall, 1999)
Michael Padilla et al., Focus on Life Science: California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)
Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998)
Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998)
I know that things like Haeckal’s drawings are not a linchpin in the evolutionary theory but you can see why some detractors of evolutionary concepts feel like evolution is often more agenda driven than truth-driven.
Maybe this is just a single exception but with something as controversial as evolution you’d think they’d want to be extremely cautious.
moot,
The reason that “god” should be able to be proven through naturalistic means (at least in my opinion) is that believers make claims of god that interact with the natural universe. Many chrisitians claim that their god “answers” prayers, caused the flood (some also claim other catastrophes), create the universe (whether it be 7 days or over the course of billions of years). In those instances when god “interacts” with the natural word, that interaction should be measurable by some means.
If god helps people find their lost keys, we should be able to take two large groups of people, hide their keys, and time how long it takes the ones who “pray” for help vs the time of those who don’t pray and find some difference.
If god cures cancer or other diseases we should be able to take two groups of people, and find a statistical difference between those who pray (and are prayed for) vs those who are not prayed for.
There are many places where believers claim god interacts with the natural world and in THOSE cases, we should be able to measure that by some method.
Now if the concept of god we’re talking about is the god who set up the laws of nature, set the energy in motion that caused the big bang, and then that “god” just sat back and watches what happens, then I agree, there is no way (currently) that we have of testing “him”.
“Is there any scientific evidence for the involvement of intelligence in the origin of nature and it’s laws of operation?”
I agree, this is a fair question, but I fear we may not have the same answer.
“it’s clear that science has limitations to what it can explain.”
True
“but it can’t tell us if it’s bad or a work of genius”
This is true as well. But “bad” by what standard exactly?
If you were to take a work of Shakespeare to a typical American high school and ask the students what they think, they’d almost universally say it’s lame or boring or crap or some such thing.
If you were to take the lyrics to a song by Snoop or Dre or Eminem to the past (obviously, this is a hypothetical) and ask George Washington and the other founding fathers for their opinion, they’d likely call it rubbish.
Is one of these opinions more valid than the other? Or does the taste of society (much like morality) change with the times?
“Science can tell you that if you add arsenic to someone’s drink it may kill them but it can’t tell you if that’s right or wrong.”
This is a question of morality, not a question of the way something works. Science is not concerned with morality, it is concerned with the hows, whats, whys, whens, and other questions to describe things.Science created the nuclear bomb, morality stops us from using it (well that and fear of retaliation).
“Whatever knowledge is attainable. must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover man cannot know.”
I like this quote, but I would add, that what science can not tell us in the present, we must not stop trying to learn, because we may learn more about it in the future.
“Russell’s very statement is not a statement of science, so if his statement is true we cannot know it.”
His statement is one of opinion, it is not one to be taken as “gospel truth”.
“Science cannot deal with philosophical questions of beauty”
Beauty is subjective. What I find attractive you may not, this does not mean that one of us is “wrong” and one is “right”.
“or basic questions of existence”
Science has a great deal to tell us about how we came into existence, but if you’re thinking of “why”, my opinion is chance, I don’t believe there is a “higher purpose” to our existence, and more than there is a higher purpose to the existence of a beetle or a blade of grass.
“It is correct to say that science cannot deal with these questions, it is quite another to say that they don’t exist because science can’t deal with them.”
Subjective things in a sense don’t exist as a tangible thing in the word. Beauty is a concept that can be understood, but not easily explained, and certainly not quantified.
“Haeckal’s ideas but his drawings that are continuing to be used. The fact that these drawings were dismissed as early as 1868 make this perpetuation incredible. It’s unconscionable that they’re still appearing.”
I’d COMPLETELY AGREE with you 100% on this point. While I am certain that evolution is a “fact” I do think that a healthy discussion of the still controversial issues is a VERY GOOD thing. But with that said, I don’t think that a disagreement in the methods of evolution is an excuse to insert religion or creationism into the scientific discussion.
“Maybe this is just a single exception but with something as controversial as evolution you’d think they’d want to be extremely cautious.”
I agree, but scientifically, evolution is no more controversial than gravity. We know gravity is true, we just don’t completely understand it yet. We KNOW evolution is true, we just don’t completely understand all of the mechanisms of it yet.
Things like love, joy, peace, fear, beauty and a sense of fairness do exist. You say that because they’re subjectively defined and therefore they do not exist in a tangible sense has the beginnings of sounding irrational. These things far from being something relegated to the fringe of life are the substance of life, they are often the things for which we live and work. These things exist and obviously illustrate the vast limitations of science.
If that’s true (science is limited)- which we’ve established that it is – then it’s not unreasonable at all to believe that God exists.
Dawkins said – “The Universe is nothing but a collection of atoms in motions, human beings are simply machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process, It is every living objects sole reason for living.”
If you remove the words – “nothing but” from that statement you have a statement of science. Adding those two words make it go beyond science and become an expression of naturalistic belief. It not longer becomes simply about science but goes beyond science to exclude every other possibility.
Science can study the universe but science did not put it there. And statements as to it’s existence are a result of naturalistic beliefs, not science.
The fact that the universe can largely be understood and the fact that we can understand it is for me a piece of the puzzle of God. I agree with Einstein (although we different on an ultimate conclusion) when he said “The most incomprehensible things about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” But comprehension makes perfect science from the theistic point of view. In fact we’d expect it no other way.
Eugene Wigner wrote “The enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious, and there is no rational explanation for it…it is an article of faith.”
Science itself cannot account for this. Because in order to even understand or do any science you have to belief that the universe is rationally intelligible.
If science cannot account for it’s own rationality then the question is – what can? The answer to that question doesn’t depend on science it depends our our beliefs, whether we are theists or naturalists.
So I think a major natural piece of evidence for God in the natural world is the very fact that it exists and that it rationally understood and that we have the capacity to rationally understand it.
moot,
“Things like love, joy, peace, fear, beauty and a sense of fairness do exist.”
Yes they do, they exist as concepts in our minds, they do not exist as tangible objects in the world.
If all life on the planet was suddenly killed, would love still exist on th planet?
How about joy, peace, fear, beauty, or a sense of fairness?
These concepts all exist in those who experience them, they do not exist on their own.
“has the beginnings of sounding irrational”
How is this idea irrational?
Or are you claiming I called these concepts irrational? To clarify, I am not saying these concepts are irrational in any way. I am saying that they are a construct of our minds.
“These things far from being something relegated to the fringe of life are the substance of life, they are often the things for which we live and work”
I agree, in a sense, that my life would be much less without love for, and the love of my wife. But this does not change the fact of that love being a concept in our minds, and not a tangible object.
“These things exist and obviously illustrate the vast limitations of science.”
Actually, with new FMRI scans and other brain scan technology, we’re coming VERY close to being able to map things like deception, love, etc in the brain. The limitations of science in this respect are breaking down, and perhaps in the future will be gone altogether.
“If that’s true (science is limited)- which we’ve established that it is”
Yes, science does have it’s limits, but we must never quit trying to push the boundaries of science.
“then it’s not unreasonable at all to believe that God exists.”
I agree, if the god you’re speaking of is the god who setup the laws nature and set the big bang in motion. I agree this is not an unreasonable belief, but I also must stress, it’s not a belief based on evidence, and I don’t think it should be the default position.
OH, quoting Dawkins, I’m impressed.
“The Universe is nothing but a collection of atoms in motions”
I agree.
“human beings are simply machines for propagating DNA”
I agree.
“and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process”
I agree.
“It is every living objects sole reason for living.”
I agree.
Wow, four for four… That Dawkins guy is smart.
“If you remove the words – “nothing but” from that statement you have a statement of science. Adding those two words make it go beyond science and become an expression of naturalistic belief. It not longer becomes simply about science but goes beyond science to exclude every other possibility.”
If it (meaning ANYTHING AT ALL) exists in the universe, in the sense that you and I exist, the sun, moon, and earth exist, solar systems, galaxies, nebula, etc exist, then yes, it (again meaning anything at all) is made out of atoms.
If it exists in the sense that love exists, then it is a concept in the minds of beings made out of atoms.
If it exists outside of the natural world, then by definition it is not “in” the universe, and Dawkins’ statement STILL holds true.
“Science can study the universe but science did not put it there”
By “put it there” do you mean the big bang did not create the matter in the universe, or do you mean that we don’t yet know what set the big bang in motion and where the energy of the big bang came from?
“And statements as to it’s existence are a result of naturalistic beliefs, not science.”
Scientists do not claim to yet know what caused th big bang, or where the energy of the big bang come from. However there are some very interesting and complex ideas that I don’t think I could do justice to in explaining, but that say that the universe may have ALWAYS existed in imaginary time. You’d have to read “The Universe In A Nutshell” by Steven Hawkins (or another book on the subject) for a better description of that theory, but if these ideas hold to be true, it would remove the question of “creation” altogether.
I don’t claim to know if these ideas will hold up, as for now they are still just mathematical models, but they do show some promise.
“The fact that the universe can largely be understood and the fact that we can understand it is for me a piece of the puzzle of God.”
I see our understanding of the universe as a consequence of questioning what we “think” we know, over the course of countless lifetimes.
“I agree with Einstein (although we different on an ultimate conclusion) when he said “The most incomprehensible things about the universe is that it is comprehensible.”
I’m actually not so sure I agree with him on this (but as he is MUCH smarter than me, I’m willing to admit I could just be simplifying the issue). I think that the fact that the universe and nature are based on constant laws (not all of these laws do we yet know, but there are very strict laws) means that with enough time and study, I think it’s inevitable for mankind, or any intelligent species to eventually understand those laws better and better. Perhaps we’ll never have a complete understanding, but I think learning more over time is inevitable.
“comprehension makes perfect science from the theistic point of view. In fact we’d expect it no other way.”
Did you mean SENSE or SCIENCE here?
Re: Eugene Wigner
Again, perhaps I am being too simplistic, but if the universe is based on specific laws, and specific mathematical concepts, then it seems obvious to me that mathematics would be the best way to understand the universe.
“in order to even understand or do any science you have to belief that the universe is rationally intelligible.”
Here is what I would bring in the Anthropomorphic Principal, which in effect for this situation would say that “because we are here to question things, the state of the universe must be one that supports the existance of life”. A universe that was random and not based on laws such as ours, would not be conducive for supporting life, and thus we could not be here to question why it is this way.
I know many people consider the Anthropomorphic Principal to be a bit of a cop out, but I do think it gives us a good point from which to pursue further inquiry.
“If science cannot account for it’s own rationality then the question is – what can?”
Science can account for it’s own rationality, in that if the laws of the universe were random or not based on strict principals then we would not be here to use science to understand the universe.
“So I think a major natural piece of evidence for God in the natural world is the very fact that it exists and that it rationally understood and that we have the capacity to rationally understand it.”
You make a good case, but I don’t think you make the only reasonable case. Again, we look at the same evidence, and see different answers.
But it is good that we can have this discussion, and I must admit, you’re doing a GREAT job of pushing me further and further to understand my own views.
HI
Thanks for your invitation to post.
My walk with Jesus is a relationship not a religion. There are dialogues and two-way communications going on everyday. Like all human relationships, it takes time to build and understand each other.
Especially on my side, it takes time for me to know Jesus better and appreciate Him and His works and the truth of His Word more and more.
jewel,
HOW is it that you “know” that jesus is in fact “god”, and not vishnu, allah, thor, ra, mars, lord zenu, etc…?
And how do you know your version of “truth” is correct, and not the LDS (Mormon) or catholics, prodestants, basptists, etc…?
And (I know this is a number of question, but I hope you’ll bear with me here) do you believe that your way (jesus) is the ONLY way to your idea of heaven (i.e. can a muslim, hindu, or atheist go to heaven)?
Great response. I do understand how a person can develop explanations for some of these things outside of theism. However I think there are still a few ideas to explore here.
Francis Crick said something very similar to Dawkins – “nothing but” statement I quoted earlier. “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will are no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and associated molecules.”
My question goes deeper than the existence of the experience of things like love or fairness but how we even recognize and evaluate those things.
Furthermore how would we even recognize rationality if that is one of those things that exist only as a collection of nerve cells? Thought becomes nothing more than electro-chemicals knocking about in our brains. If Crick or Dawkins is right we couldn’t know it. Because it becomes one of the intagibles that do not exist outside “concepts of the mind.”
But the problem is that the world would continue to be rational even if humans did not exist.
I hesitate to go on because I really want to explore the above idea. However…
Let me steal from John Lennox here.
Suppose a man saw a car for the first time and knew no science. The man might assume that there was a god (Henry Ford) inside the car making it work. However if he were to study engineering and take apart the engine, he would discover that there is no Mr. Ford inside. He wouldn’t need to introduce Mr. Ford as an explanation of the car working. His understanding of internal combustion would suffice.
However, if he then decided that his understanding of the principles of HOW the engine worked made it impossible (or even a 95% difficulty) to believe in the existence of a Mr. Ford. Mr. Ford isn’t unnecessary because the car is understood. Understanding the car can’t make any claims as to Mr. Ford’s existence much less dismissing it.
-I do mean that science is limited in that in cannot address origins. If I find a rock in my living room I can weigh it and work out it’s mineral compounds and such but I can’t speak as to why it’s in my living room. Science can’t address intent or purpose.
-I think we’ve got to get into the “complex theories” of the universe being eternal or multiple universes a little more but maybe in the future.
-I meant “sense” not “science” but I suppose both sort of fit.
-You’ll have to help me out with the difference between the anthropomorphic principle and the anthropic principle. I’m curious about this line of thought.
-I think the very existence of “strict principles” and “rational laws” are themselves fascinating and significant in further understanding origins.
If we believe that the concepts of math, the human mind and the laws of nature all derive themselves from the same source then it’s not surprising that the concepts of rules and mathematics would find themselves useful in the explanation of the architecture of the universe.
moot,
“You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will are no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and associated molecules.”
Do you disagree with this statement? Do you believe the “soul” transcends matter and all known laws of the universe? Or do you think the should exists as a tangible thing inside the human body, perhaps in the heart or mind?
“My question goes deeper than the existence of the experience of things like love or fairness but how we even recognize and evaluate those things.”
Perhaps I misunderstood you earlier, but it seemed that the point you were making is that if things such as love and joy are real, but can not be measured, then it shows that god could be real, but not measurable. Is this not the point you were making?
“Furthermore how would we even recognize rationality if that is one of those things that exist only as a collection of nerve cells?”
Those nerve impulses are highly advanced and specialized to enable us to perceive the world around us.
“Thought becomes nothing more than electro-chemicals knocking about in our brains.”
Yes, and…? What do you think thoughts are from a physical perspective?
“If Crick or Dawkins is right we couldn’t know it. Because it becomes one of the intangibles that do not exist outside “concepts of the mind.””
How would we not know it? Nerve impulses allow us to perceive the world around us. That perception allows us to understand more and more of the world, the universe, and ourselves. That understanding allows us to delve even further, with each new bit of knowledge building upon previous bits.
“But the problem is that the world would continue to be rational even if humans did not exist.”
Yes, the world would be rational even if we were not here to perceive it, I’m not sure how this is contradictory. We are part of this world, and because of this we can make statements about ourselves in relation to the world, but we are not the only thing that makes the world.
Perhaps it seems that you’re confusing the rationality of the world with concepts such as love, fear, joy, etc which only exist in our minds.
The world exists with or without us in it’s rational state.
Love, joy, hope, fear, beauty, etc only exists if there exists some form of intelligence to experience them.
“Suppose a man saw a car for the first time and knew no science. The man might assume that there was a god (Henry Ford) inside the car making it work.”
This would be the “god of the gaps” idea.
“However if he were to study engineering and take apart the engine, he would discover that there is no Mr. Ford inside. He wouldn’t need to introduce Mr. Ford as an explanation of the car working. His understanding of internal combustion would suffice.”
I agree with this so far (but I sense a divergence soon).
“However, if he then decided that his understanding of the principles of HOW the engine worked made it impossible (or even a 95% difficulty) to believe in the existence of a Mr. Ford. Mr. Ford isn’t unnecessary because the car is understood. Understanding the car can’t make any claims as to Mr. Ford’s existence much less dismissing it.”
In this scenario you’ve switched from “Mr. Ford” being inside the car to make it work (god of the gaps), to an entirely different idea of “Mr Ford” as the creator.
These are two VERY different arguments/points/”types of god”, and I want to make sure we are on the same page before we get into this to much further and confuse the issue.
In the example of a car, we can study it and understand what makes it work, but through that study, we can also see that it was created, there is no explanation for which a car could come to be without intervention.
If you’re trying to equate this to a designer of the universe, this is where it falls apart, because in that case, science shows us how the universe was created from the big bang onwards.
While I understand the analogy, it doesn’t really hold up.
“I do mean that science is limited in that in cannot address origins.”
Yet
“If I find a rock in my living room I can weigh it and work out it’s mineral compounds and such but I can’t speak as to why it’s in my living room.”
Let’s say you know the rock was not there this morning, and then it was there this afternoon. You can check to see if any people entered this room since the morning, and then deduce who may have put it there.
“Science can’t address intent or purpose.”
The intent of the person who put it there you can’t tell externally, but with FMRI scans and other brain scan technology, we are getting closer and closer to unlocking the mysteries of memory and thoughts.
“I think we’ve got to get into the “complex theories” of the universe being eternal or multiple universes a little more but maybe in the future.”
Some of these theories, while absolutely fascinating, do tend to go completely over my head, but i will do my best to explain them.
“I meant “sense” not “science” but I suppose both sort of fit.”
“comprehension makes perfect [sense] from the theistic point of view. In fact we’d expect it no other way.”
But just because your idea of god says things are the way we perceive them to be, does not mean your idea of god is correct.
In ancient times “angry” gods would cause darkness (eclipses) and then by sacrificing animals the darkness would go away (actually due to the fact that the sun, earth, and moon are all moving, so it would have regardless of the sacrifice). But those ancient people saw an angry god, did a sacrifice and god was pleased. To them it was obvious that the sacrifice worked, just as it’s obvious to you that god would allow us to comprehend these things.
“You’ll have to help me out with the difference between the anthropomorphic principle and the anthropic principle. I’m curious about this line of thought.”
Actually I think it’s two terms for the same thing (from my quick search online), but I was listening to a podcast about polymorphism at the time I was answering your question, and went with the term that sounded closer to that unintentionally.
“I think the very existence of “strict principles” and “rational laws” are themselves fascinating and significant in further understanding origins.”
I agree, if things had been slightly different then intelligent life could not have formed, and we’ve never be having this conversation.
“If we believe that the concepts of math, the human mind and the laws of nature all derive themselves from the same source then it’s not surprising that the concepts of rules and mathematics would find themselves useful in the explanation of the architecture of the universe.”
Yes, but here is where you’ll diverge and say the “source” is god, and I’ll say we don’t understand fully the foundations for thing,s and for now, we’re going with the idea of the Anthropic Principal (or anthropomorphic principle), until we are at a level where we can answer the question.
What I’m saying about the Frick statement is that it’s once again an example of a belief system based on science, but one that’s willing to go beyond the boundaries of science and make metaphysical claims or, in this case, to dismiss them. Science by it’s own definitions, limitations and most importantly academic restraints shouldn’t be able to make claims about theses sorts of issues.
Dawkins and Frick are completely entitled to their beliefs. But I think they they can’t can’t honestly say they aren’t part of their belief system. As such their statements are statements of faith.
Secondly, I’m saying the essence of being human is more difficult to explain than saying it’s the sum of “nerve cells” and “molecules”. Rationality is one of those things that is “intangible” yet exists.
My point in comparing these intangibles was to point out the limitations of science. This is a limitation I understand that we agree upon. But the statements by Frick and Dawkins seem to go beyond the limitations that we’ve already established exist.
-Thoughts and ideas are impressive example of something that exists beyond the mind. A Philisopher can articulate a truth about philosophy and it can hold true to our experience thousands of years later. We’re not talking about the way the natural world works but how we perceive emotions and why we value “intangibles” like peace or justice.
-The car analogy I think does hold up. It goes back to “why is there something rather than nothing?” Call it a Model T or a herd of gluons and quarks but it still defies explanation. Christianity claims that there is someone that stands in relation to “existence” like Mr. Ford stands in relationship to the car. We’re not saying that reason and evidence don’t mean anything but that there are questions that science can’t address. Or more specifically that science can dissect but not explain the existence of. And most importantly being able to understand and dissect in no way makes God irrelevant. Just as being able to explain the car doesn’t make Mr. Ford irrelevant.
-Laws and principles are incredibly useful but they can’t bring anything into existence. I can know that one dollar plus one dollar equals two dollars but that law can’t put money in my bank account. In a world of strict naturalism in which clever mathematical laws all by themselves create the universe and life sounds like a problem.
I’d really like to address the anthropic principle but I’d like to give it it’s own due.
moot,
With regards to the Frick statement, I think the point he is trying to make is the same one that I made.
Things such as joy, love, fear, sorrow, goals, memories, etc are all concepts within the mind.
Anything that is within the mind or is a construct of the mind is by it’s very nature “no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and associated molecules”.
You never answered my earlier questions when we started this line of thinking:
If all life on the planet was suddenly killed, would love still exist on the planet?
How about joy, peace, fear, beauty, or a sense of fairness?
If your answer to this question is no, then I don’t see how you can disagree with Frick’s quote, or with Dawkins’.
“one that’s willing to go beyond the boundaries of science and make metaphysical claims or, in this case, to dismiss them. Science by it’s own definitions, limitations and most importantly academic restraints shouldn’t be able to make claims about theses sorts of issues.”
They are not going beyond the natural to make metaphysical claims.
If my statement is correct that without life to experience them, then love, joy, fear, etc do not exist, then it would mean that these concepts exist only inside the minds of those who experience them.
If these concepts only exist inside the minds of those who experience then they are in fact “no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and associated molecules”.
“Science by it’s own definitions, limitations and most importantly academic restraints shouldn’t be able to make claims about theses sorts of issues.”
Science does most certainly have it’s limitations, and there are issues about which science can not speak (currently), but this is not one of those instances. While many people want to think of things like love, joy, fear, etc as being “special” or being some sort of “spiritual”, they are when it comes down to it, just constructs of the mind that is experiencing them.
“Dawkins and Frick are completely entitled to their beliefs.”
🙂
“But I think they they can’t can’t honestly say they aren’t part of their belief system.”
Everything is part of a belief system, even things seemingly obviously such as 1+1=2.
“As such their statements are statements of faith.”
Faith, that tricky, tricky word. I know you’re not going to like this answer, but once again, faith is belief in the absence of evidence, and these statements are based on all of the available evidence.
“Secondly, I’m saying the essence of being human is more difficult to explain than saying it’s the sum of “nerve cells” and “molecules”.”
What does it mean (to you) to be human, as opposed to being an animal? As a religious person, I assume you do claim some inherent difference.
“Rationality is one of those things that is “intangible” yet exists.”
Rationality in what sense? In our understanding of what is rational / irrational, or in the sense of 1+1=2 is rational whether somebody exists to “do the math” or not.
“My point in comparing these intangibles was to point out the limitations of science. This is a limitation I understand that we agree upon.”
We both certainly agree that science has it’s limitations.
“But the statements by Frick and Dawkins seem to go beyond the limitations that we’ve already established exist.”
But I think I’ve made a fair enough case that these statements do not go beyond these limitations.
“Thoughts and ideas are impressive example of something that exists beyond the mind.”
Refer to my question above which I think is a good starting point for this line of inquiry.
“A Philisopher can articulate a truth about philosophy and it can hold true to our experience thousands of years later.”
That is true, but there are many instances where they can be wrong as well (Aristotle believed the earth was the center of the universe).
“We’re not talking about the way the natural world works but how we perceive emotions and why we value “intangibles” like peace or justice.”
We’ve already gone through this a few times, and perhaps not agreed on the WHY, but we do agree that value judgments (i.e. morality) have changed over time. While some ideas have remained (i.e. don’t kill people) others are still being refined (women’s rights, etc).
The why there is something is a question science can not yet answer.
And as I have said, if you as a believer want to insert god into this spot, I don’t really have any issue with it.
HOWEVER, i don’t think inserting god into unknowns is a good idea, since it has not proven exactly effective in the past and has continually diminished the role of god in creation (god moves the sun and moon, to god created the earth in 6 days, to god created the energy of the big bang).
While we can’t yet disprove this latest incarnation of god being involved in creation, I don’t see a necessary to insert the supernatural just because we don’t yet understand something. If at some point in the future we learn how the energy of the big bang came to be (like from another universe’s singularity) or learn that Steven Hawking’s idea of an eternal universe in imaginary time is correct (in which case there is no “creation” because the universe has no beginning or end; and yes, I know, it’s a tough concept to wrap your head around, and I think it makes more sense when he says it then when I do), then where does that leave god’s role?
“Laws and principles are incredibly useful but they can’t bring anything into existence.”
Actually if you look at the ideas of the VERY early universe, or look at the ideas of Hawking Radiation, there are ways in which something is created (from nothing) which did not exist previously. We can go over this is great detail if you’d like, but I’ll need to run downstairs and grab my copy of “A Brief History Of Time” and “The Universe In A Nutshell” first, so I don’t totally butcher his ideas.
“I can know that one dollar plus one dollar equals two dollars but that law can’t put money in my bank account.”
True, but if you did not understand such a basic concept as addition, then you’d have a MUCH harder job of putting money in your bank.
“In a world of strict naturalism in which clever mathematical laws all by themselves create the universe and life sounds like a problem.”
It’s not the mathematical laws which create the universe and life, it’s the processes which are based on those laws.
“I’d really like to address the anthropic principle but I’d like to give it it’s own due.”
I’m actually going to be doing a series of other posts in the next week or so based on a number of “sub-topics” and concepts such as this.
It’s interesting that you’d evoke the anthropic principle. That’s certainly an idea that I’d agree with and if anything I think it supports my position
Mathematics and fundamental constants are pretty helpful in providing explanations about how things work.
Given the anthropic principle we can know that the universe is precise to a mind-boggling degree. This is an idea that is not often given it’s due. If what I’ve read is correct it’s likelihood is so precise that even each factor where precision is required is a “lucky shot” to the 100th or so power. Combine that with the millions of particular pieces that required such precision and you get something that is utterly beyond all comprehension.
Now we have some options in explaining the fine-tuning of the universe. You know my position but the theories that are offered are things like “multiple universes” and one of these infinite universes would ultimately have to support life.
Blind chance that requires an infinite amount of theoretical universes or a design that requires only one. Occam’s Razor anyone?
In fact Dawkins (Yes another Dawkins quote!) defines biology as “the study of complicated things which give the impression of having been designed for a purpose.” But of course he says that’s all it is…an impression of design not real design.
But if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, why not call it a duck? Why are scientists not prepared to draw the obvious inference – things looks designed because they are designed.
It seems that each step of the way when a piece of evidence points to design it’s dismissed, not because science can verifiably dismiss the concept of God (which we’ve already established) but because of a predetermined belief system that denies God. It’s like a reverse God of the gaps, and it’s a little circular in it’s denial.
“Here’s evidence for God.”
“Well that can’t be.”
“Why not?”
“God doesn’t exist”
Do you see the problem here? There’s more… but I’d like to discuss some of these things.
I wrote this previous post before I’d read your reply but I’ll address the one question I’d left unanswered.
I do believe those concepts exists outside human minds but this presupposes my belief in God. I believe he created those concepts. But that’s not really an answer that would convince you.
I’ll try to respond to the rest of the post soon.
moot,
With regards to the Anthropic Principal, if you buy into the idea of the multi-verse, then the Anthropic Principal basically says that in the vast number of potential universe which DO exist, that we happen to live in one of the ones which supports intelligent life. The fact that we are in one of the “rare” ones is due to the Anthropic Principal.
Even without the multi-verse idea if you assume that “this” universe began roughly 14.7 billion years ago from the big bang which was the result of an “exploding” singularity, the question becomes what formed that singularity. We know that our own universe produces singularities (black holes). Another idea that I’ve read a bit about, although it does not seem to have as much traction as the “standard” multi-verse ideas is that there is only one universe at a time, but the “death” of one is the “birth” of another. And with the Anthropic Principal as our “guide” we happen to love in one of the ones in that chain that supports life.
However, we’re really not yet to the point that we understand what idea is the “correct” one is, but I think it’s a good thing that we keep trying.
“Blind chance that requires an infinite amount of theoretical universes or a design that requires only one. Occam’s Razor anyone?”
Currently neither has the evidence to support it, but one requires a supernatural explanation, while the other requires concepts that while not proven, do at least seem to work out mathematically.
“the study of complicated things which give the impression of having been designed for a purpose.”
Yes, Dawkins does state this in the first chapter of The Blind Watchmaker, but he then spends the ENTIRE rest of the book making the case that this is in fact NOT the case.
“But if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, why not call it a duck?”
The rest of that book you grabbed the quote from explains it much better than I can in a few sentences.
“Why are scientists not prepared to draw the obvious inference – things looks designed because they are designed.”
I know you won’t agree with the conclusions, but I would suggest checking out The Blind Watchmaker from your local library, and see at least if Dawkins’ idea makes sense logically.
I could try in vain to summarize the book for you, but I’m not sure that I could do it justice, without the many examples, and evidence he gives for his many points.
“It seems that each step of the way when a piece of evidence points to design it’s dismissed”
I’m not sure I’d agree with this statement. Each bit of evidence scientists have com across that seemingly supports one position at first glance may in the end support another when looked at from a different perspective.
Whenever the creationist crowd comes up with something that is supposedly “irreducibly complex” if you wait a few news cycles the evolutionary biologist are able to show actual evidence that it’s not actually (the ye, the bacterial flagellum, etc).
“not because science can verifiably dismiss the concept of God (which we’ve already established)”
True
“but because of a predetermined belief system that denies God”
No, because the claim of god is an extraordinary one, and as such requires extraordinary evidence to support the position.
“It’s like a reverse God of the gaps, and it’s a little circular in it’s denial.”
Really, you’re going to use the “god of the gaps” idea AGAINST evolutionist, when it’s the PRIMARY tactic the creationists use as their “evidence”? *cough* bacterial flagellum *cough*
“Here’s evidence for God.”
“Well that can’t be.”
“Why not?”
“God doesn’t exist”
Actually, that’s not quite how it goes. I’d say it’s more like:
“Here’s evidence for God.”
“Well that can’t be.”
“Why not?”
“Because if you wait until evolutionary biologist have had time to examine it instead of trying to get around the pear review process and springing it on somebody in your “Gish Gallop” approach, you’d realize that the evidence actually points in a different direction.”
While this may not be an EXACT quote, it’s close enough…
“I do believe those concepts exists outside human minds”
Actually I said intelligent life, not necessarily human minds. Chimps can “feel” love, joy, fear, etc as well as humans.
But if you take the idea of ALL life on the planet being suddenly gone (or take a barren planet as the example, like Mars), would “love” still exist on this planet with nobody there to experience it?
Let me start off by saying I’m thoroughly enjoying this discussion. I think if nothing else these sorts of debate keep us from being intellectually lazy about what we believe. It’s too easy to insulate ourselves with like-minded people (or books) and dismiss without adequate reason the opposing sides. So this has been challenging and very helpful for me.
I’m still not sure that the multi-verse, eternal maginary time et. al aren’t major cop outs. Ones we are driven to when we presupposed (or pre-eliminate) answers. And not to mention ones that we have no evidence for. Even if we were to assume and infinite number multi-verses we’ve only expanded the argument. We now have an infinite amount of “first cause” problems. It makes the problem bigger rather than go away.
And if it’s an simply aversion to a supernatural explanation we can then just say that “God” is “a being that exists in a natural realm far above what we’re yet able to perceive or measure.” I’m OK with that. Problem solved, welcome to our side!
Ultimately with the multi-verse explanations that we’ve taken a simple option of the table and are scrambling to fill the void left by the most obvious, simplest and best explanation. In order to do that we have to come up with difficult complex and unprovable hypothesis.
You dismissed the comparison between design and creator by saying “it requires a supernatural explanation” but if that is where the anthropic principle points then it becomes natural evidence for a supernatural phenomenon.
I think you’ve bought into the idea that believing in the supernatural forces us to stop examining and explaining the natural world. This simply isn’t true. To quote C.S. Lewis – “Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a law giver. Men like Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Pasteur, etc were theists. Their belief, far from being a hindrance to their science was often the inspiration for it. Kepler wrote, “The chief aim of all investigations of the external world should be to discover the rational order which has been imposed on it by God, and which he reveal to us in mathematics.”
-The blind watchmaker. At least he makes the concession that the world looks designed. But my what what a complex wool nature has pulled over our eyes.
I quote Frick here – “Dawkins gives a nice argument to show how far the process of evolution can go in the time available to it. He points out that man, by selection, has produced an enormous variety of types of dog, such as Pekinese, bulldogs, and so on, in the space of only a few thousand years.”
Yes and these are example of changing involving intelligence in the process of selective breeding.
I don’t want to go into the ideas of mutation and the fossil record that are also presupposed without evidence but it is interesting that it requires a complex 300+ page explanation for something that is fairly simple if you haven’t developed a bias against the simple answer.
The claim of God is an extraordinary one but it’s one that’s difficult to prove when evidence is dismissed because it’s evidence for something that the examiner doesn’t want to believe. (I know, I know I’ve rung this particular bell enough already.)
As far as the God of the Gaps goes. It’s a frequent objection of yours that when the theist finds a gap in the present state of scientific knowledge he fills it with God. Let me strongly emphasize that the main thrust of the design argument is from what we know not what we don’t (i.e., the rational and mathematical intelligibility of the universe, it’s fine tuning, etc.)
When it comes to things like the origins of life, we have to investigate the “Gaps” charge more closely. Specifically we need to distinguish between gaps that are closed by science and gaps that are revealed by science. A closed gap might be something like Newton saying that occasionally God had to mess with planetary orbits to get it just right. That kind of explanation is closed by science because it falls within sciences explanatory powers to figure out.
The other type of gap is revealed by science but one that’s not particularly within it’s jurisdiction to settle. Thus the God of the Gaps charge is a little disingenuous. And, like I stated earlier, it doesn’t preclude us from continuing to figure out HOW God does it.
When we assume that it can’t be God and future science will probably figure it out aren’t you doing the same thing you accuse the creationist of doing? By that reasoning couldn’t I say, “it must be God and future science will probably find evidence that it is in fact supernatural.”?
As to the concepts of love, peace et. al existing outside the human mind. Again I believe they exist outside human intelligence because I think God created them. But my answer presupposes the very subject we’re debating so it’s not very satisfactory.
The issue really is “are we prepared to follow where evidence leads even if it goes against naturalistic explanations?” If there is a Creator then it’s no surprise that our attempts to understand the universe on naturalistic presupposition is very successful. Conversely there are areas that not only are inexplicable with naturalistic assumptions but become increasingly impervious to naturalist methodology. (i.e the explanations get more and more wild with less and less evidence.) Both issues are clearly explained and even point to the existence of intelligence beyond our own.
By the way, for the sake of disclosure, I’ve been all but stealing from the ideas of John Lennox. Incidentally Lennox has debated with Dawkins, the audio is on Dawkins’ own site. Good stuff.
moot,
I agree, this discussion is quite fun. It’s good once in a while, to force myself to evaluate some of my own presuppositions and beliefs and defend them.
I also really agree on the idea of forcing yourself to check out ideas that disagree with you. While I do read MORE books on science, atheism, etc, I do also like to check out books that are critical of ideas which I believe (such as some of the books against Dawkins, or evolution, etc or books that are pro pseudo-science or religion).
“I’m still not sure that the multi-verse, eternal maginary time et. al aren’t major cop outs.”
As I’m sure you already guessed I don’t quite agree with you here. I think that the best way to find out the truth is to make educated guesses and then attempt to prove or disprove them through research and evidence.
“Ones we are driven to when we presupposed (or pre-eliminate) answers.”
The imaginary time idea, from what I understand, was found as the solution to mathematical equations that were puzzling physicist. It was not something that was being “searched” for, it was more “stumbled upon” and then Hawkins and others took the next step to determine what those solutions meant.
And as for the idea of the multi-verse:
Laura Mersini-Houghton claims that the WMAP cold spot may provide testable empirical evidence for a parallel universe within the multiverse. According to Max Tegmark, the existence of other universes is a direct implication of cosmological observations.
While these ideas may not yet be proven, there is evidence to support the theories, they did not come as presupposed answers.
“And not to mention ones that we have no evidence for.”
Read above, there is actualyl evidence for both these ideas, while they have not yet met the standard of a scientific theory, they are still evidence based.
“Even if we were to assume and infinite number multi-verses we’ve only expanded the argument. We now have an infinite amount of “first cause” problems. It makes the problem bigger rather than go away.”
I’m not certain of the ideas behind the “creation(s)” of the multi-verse, but that is something I may check out a bit further after I finish the book I’m reading currently.
“And if it’s an simply aversion to a supernatural explanation we can then just say that “God” is “a being that exists in a natural realm far above what we’re yet able to perceive or measure.” I’m OK with that. Problem solved, welcome to our side!”
While this would be a convenient solution, the problem is that by the typical descriptions of god by believers invoke the supernatural.
If god is part of the natural world as you would suggest, then “he” can be measured, tested, interact, etc. And if god is part of the natural realm, then you as a believer are left with the question of what created the natural realm.
“Ultimately with the multi-verse explanations that we’ve taken a simple option of the table and are scrambling to fill the void left by the most obvious, simplest and best explanation. In order to do that we have to come up with difficult complex and unprovable hypothesis.”
I want to quote a few other things that seem to be relevant to this particular area of discussion, which I think do a better job of answering this question than I can myself (and since you’re quoting from the Dawkins site, I’ll grab a few quotes myself):
If one assumes the multi-verse is the correct “solution” then:
To postulate an infinity of unseen and unseeable universes just to explain the one we do see seems superficially contrary to Occam’s Razor.
Tegmark answers:”A common feature of all four multiverse levels is that the simplest and arguably most elegant theory involves parallel universes by default. To deny the existence of those universes, one needs to complicate the theory by adding experimentally unsupported processes and ad hoc postulates: finite space, wave function collapse and ontological asymmetry. Our judgment therefore comes down to which we find more wasteful and inelegant: many worlds or many words.” Thus, according to Tegmark, paradoxically the multiverse scenario is more parsimonious than that of a single universe.
David Lewis, however, draws a distinction between qualitative and quantitative excess. Postulating extra universes just like our own does not increase the number of kinds of things there are, and thus there is only qualitative invarience.
And if one assumes the single universe is the “solution” then:
It is sometimes argued that the observed universe is the unique possible universe, so that talk of “other” universes is ipso facto meaningless. Einstein raised this possibility when he wondered whether the universe could have been otherwise, or non-existent altogether. This possibility is also expressed in theories such as determinism and chaos theory. The hope is sometimes expressed that once a grand unified theory of everything is achieved, it will turn out to have a unique “solution” corresponding to the observed universe.
“You dismissed the comparison between design and creator by saying “it requires a supernatural explanation” but if that is where the anthropic principle points then it becomes natural evidence for a supernatural phenomenon.”
I agree, that IF a supernatural explanation had the evidence to support it, and was the simplest solution, then it should be the primary idea which we focus our research on, but currently, it is NOT the idea based on evidence, and it is not the simplest explanation available to explain things.
I am not dismissing it BECAUSE it is supernatural, but based on it being supernatural, it is not the simplest explanation, and it is not a direction that the natural sciences can study.
“I think you’ve bought into the idea that believing in the supernatural forces us to stop examining and explaining the natural world. This simply isn’t true.”
This is not true of ALL believers, but it is true of a GREAT many of them. 80 million people in the US believe that god literally created the universe 6500 years ago over the course of six, 24 hour, days. These fundamentalist christians also believe that to speak of any idea which contradicts this fictional account is heresy and should not be tolerated.
I like the C.S. Lewis quote, but I would say that just because man believed in idea A and that belief led them to fact B, it does not prove that idea A was correct.
“Men like Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Pasteur, etc were theists. Their belief, far from being a hindrance to their science was often the inspiration for it.”
It is not just the religious faith of THESE men that disrupted scientific progress, but the faith of others around them (i.e. the catholic church with Galileo).
Frick’s quote regarding Dawkins seems to agree with the idea of evolution, but it says nothing about the idea of creation.
Unless you believe that the earth and the universe were created “as-is” about 6500 years ago, then we both agree that evolution is a valid scientific concept. If this is true, then proving that life evolved really does not make a point either way, towards or against theism, since the rational sections of both communities believe that life evolved over millions upon millions of years.
We both know that life evolved over time.
We even both agree that the environment shapes that evolution.
While there are instances where it’s obvious that a intelligence was used to guide this evolution (dogs are a good example), I doubt you think that “god” or some designer specifically intervened to create between 5 and 8 million UNIQUE SPECIES of beetles.
While it’s true that essentially all atheists believe the evidence points towards evolution, it’s also true than many theists ALSO believe that life evolved. We both agree in this case, the difference really is in creation, not in evolution itself.
“it is interesting that it requires a complex 300+ page explanation for something that is fairly simple if you haven’t developed a bias against the simple answer.”
The 300+ page explanation is really two-fold.
Dawkins wants to make sure that all proponents of evolutionary theory are fully armed in their “defense” of this theory, including the latest evidence of the time, and answers to questions commonly put forth by creationists.
The second reason for such a lengthy book is that Dawkins wanted to be careful not to simplify the subject too much, and leave room for creationist criticism of any holes in his treatment of the subject.
Somebody could write a 300+ page book of something as mundane as eating breakfast, that doesn’t mean it NEEDED such a lengthy description, but if their claim about their eating habits are in some way controversial, they would be wise to make sure their book on this meal is as complete as possible.
“The claim of God is an extraordinary one but it’s one that’s difficult to prove when evidence is dismissed because it’s evidence for something that the examiner doesn’t want to believe.”
I know we’ve gone through this before, but I’m curious if you were to list the 5, or 7 or 10 or whatever number of “bullet-points” that you feel are the most compelling in support of “god”, what would these points be? (I assume the fact that anything at all exists is #1)
“As far as the God of the Gaps goes. It’s a frequent objection of yours that when the theist finds a gap in the present state of scientific knowledge he fills it with God.”
Yes, this is most certainly true of MANY theists (not all, but a WHOLE LARGE GROUP of them).
“Let me strongly emphasize that the main thrust of the design argument is from what we know not what we don’t (i.e., the rational and mathematical intelligibility of the universe, it’s fine tuning, etc.)”
The problem is that these things are also part of the scientific evidence, and don’t really “prove” god, but they improve our scientific understanding of the universe.
“When it comes to things like the origins of life, we have to investigate the “Gaps” charge more closely.”
you are correct, we don’t yet have a good enough understanding of the origins of life. We have a GREAT number of ideas, some backed by more evidence than others, but until we can create life in a lab from “scratch”, we won’t have our answer (and even then we might find a “second” way of creating life that was not the “original” way).
“A closed gap might be something like Newton saying that occasionally God had to mess with planetary orbits to get it just right. That kind of explanation is closed by science because it falls within sciences explanatory powers to figure out.”
Yes, this type of gap is obviously flawed based on Newton’s misunderstanding of gravity (as smart as he was, we’ve learned an unimaginable amount since his time).
“The other type of gap is revealed by science but one that’s not particularly within it’s jurisdiction to settle.”
I’m curious of something that you think is in the jurisdiction of science to settle. The creation of the universe, the origins of life, the method of the evolution of life, etc?
“When we assume that it can’t be God and future science will probably figure it out aren’t you doing the same thing you accuse the creationist of doing?”
We don’t assume that it CAN’T be god, but we do assume that natural processes are the method for anything we can observe, since anything beyond the natural universe, and the natural laws of the universe can not be studied.
“By that reasoning couldn’t I say, “it must be God and future science will probably find evidence that it is in fact supernatural.”?”
But the problem is, that science in EVERY case has always shown a natural explanation, there has never been a question answered that scientist aid at the end “well that’s interesting, it’s clear a supernatural deity MUST have stepped in and pop, there it was”. Once that happens even one time, then perhaps it’s acceptable to take that as a plausible explanation, but until then, it should be the ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT.
“As to the concepts of love, peace et. al existing outside the human mind. Again I believe they exist outside human intelligence because I think God created them.”
So if there is no life on the planet (let’s say Mars as an example) then how is love or joy manifested on this planet with no life there to experience the love or joy?
“The issue really is “are we prepared to follow where evidence leads even if it goes against naturalistic explanations?””
Yes, IF (and this is a HUGE if) the evidence lead to a scientific consensus that a supernatural explanation was the “correct” one, then I (and any reasonable scientist) would be willing to accept that.
But I’m unsure of exactly how we could scientifically “prove” a supernatural explanation as correct.
“I’ve been all but stealing from the ideas of John Lennox.”
I’ve borrowed many ideas from books by Steven Hawkins, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett, and quoted each of these people numerous times (as well as a few wikipedia quotes), so I understand the desire to refer to those who have spent their lives studying some of these issues.
As we get into the more cutting edge scientific ideas, I’m going less and less on my own understanding, and more on quotes and in a few cases, re-reading portions of Carl Sagan, Steven Hawkins, and Neil deGrasse Tyson’s books.
Rod.,
Honoring what you siad here at the beginning of this discusssion I am posting a link for you to read and I wish you will tell me if God is real or not at least in my life. This is my sincere request. It is true that I do not have answers to many questions. But how will you answer my question. I am waiting for an honest response from you.
You said,
“I ask this question in all sincerity, because I do actually want to understand each differing view point.
“This post is not the place to attack or be derogatory towards any other belief system. I welcome all legitimate questions,
“So my question to all true believers is this:
How certain are you that your version of the “truth” (truth of god, religion, the world, the universe, etc) is the correct one, and more importantly, how do you know what that “truth” is?
My response: Kindly read the following link and respond, please.
http://www.mathewpaul.org/god-who-fed-elijah-by-ravens-is-alive-and-active-in-the-world-today
Rod.,
I am sorry. The above link is not working. Here is the link. http://www.mathewpaul.org/3-11-2008/God-Who-Fed-Elijah Please respond. Thanks.
Rod.,
I beg your pardon. Please forgive me. Even that link is not working from your site. I don’t know what is happening. Kindly Read my stories in http://www.mathewpaul.org/exciting and respond. Thanks indeed.
thisword,
“I wish you will tell me if God is real or not at least in my life”
I have already answered your question multiple times previously when you posted under another name (empyrean) but if you must have it pointed out to you again:
Another point I’d like to make, is that your personal experience may have been life changing for you, but it is still nothing more than anecdotal evidence, and is not a reasonable basis for anybody (other than yourself) to believe.
and
I do agree, that for YOU, faith worked. You put yourself in a harsh environment and you seemingly thrived in it.
Faith in god perhaps was a big reason that you were able to do so well. But faith working for you, does not prove that “your” god is the “true” god.
Just as if a hindu family was put in the same situation, and had the same results, this would not prove that vishnu and ghanesh are true “gods”.
and
I also have no doubt at all that “TO YOU, GOD IS REAL”, just as I have no doubt that all 19 of the 9/11 hijackers were convinced 100% that what they were doing was “god’s will”.
Conviction can be a very powerful force for great works and horrendous acts alike.
Pingback: A Study in Intellectual Dishonesty « Rodibidably
At one time I was an atheist although being born into a christian family and so like you I understood many of the Christian Traditions and beliefs.
After having converstion on the Internet when it was a very new technology I was deeply troubled and so decided to go on a quest myself.
I read the bible voraciously and discovered that if it were true then eventually as the supposed time of the end approached there should be tangible evidences that people might see. These however, would be either subtle or explained away somehow as Jesus Christ did say that most people would be surprised.
He did say however that we should “keep on the watch”. This infers that some people would eventually get some foreknowledge.
I wrote about my quest and it’s profound discoveries in an article called “Armchair Archeology”.
It can be read hear:
http://ablebodiedman.blogspot.com/
I am now a Christian.
To answer your question:
I am 100% certain that my version of the truth is correct.
isaiah,
“I read the bible voraciously and discovered that if it were true”
That’s a BIG, GIGANTIC, HUMONGOUS, IMMEASURABLY LARGE if. I’ve read the bible as well, and was struck not by the eloquence (which exists in psalms but very rarely elsewhere in the book) or the uplifting nature (which again is quite rare), but by the untold historical inaccuracies, the tales of untold horrors, the rationalizations for bigotry, and the self contradictions within it’s own pages (hell, the first two chapters of the book can’t even agree on the ORDER of creation, much less the method).
“This infers that some people would eventually get some foreknowledge.”
So you think you know when the end times will happen, or you see signs that the end times are near?
According to the bible, jesus himself, speaking of the second coming, said “you do not know the day or the hour”.
People since the time of jesus have “seen” the end times as being in their own lifetimes.
In fact there is MUCH evidence (including a great deal of historical research done by christians) that show the book of revelations was written about the current Caesar (Nero) and was not ever intended as a prophesy, but was intended as a coded commentary on the current political system, and life under Roman rule.
But please, don’t let facts get in your way, your blog does such a great job of ignoring those, and replacing them with your own interpretations of this “book” written and rewritten countless times by ignorant bronze age men in an attempt at understanding the world around them, and justifying their own beliefs.
“I am 100% certain that my version of the truth is correct.”
You leave NO ROOM at all for doubt that perhaps the copy of the bible you have is not a perfectly faithful translation from the original works, even though ALL biblical scholars admit between 200,000 and 400,000 discrepancies between the various versions of the bible?
You leave NO ROOM for doubt that even though the same version of the bible can be read with varying conclusions (for instance the north and south during the civil war BOTH showed how the bible supported THEIR view on slavery)?
It must be nice to be so sure of one’s self. I wish I could live in that type of a delusion.
I see no evidence that you have read the article.
You have deluded yourself.
Actually if you are an atheist then you are the one living in a delusion.
isaiah,
My response was obviously to the comments in your post here, since each comment I made I specifically quoted your own post as the preface for my comments after.
I did however check out your blog as well, and noticed the most recent post on it was from 2005. From the bits I read (since your posts are exceedingly long, I did not read ALL of them), and your comments here, I got a fairly good sense of your beliefs.
I also would like to mention that you did not seem to try to answer any of the comments or questions in my reply to you, not that it’s surprising, but I just like to point it out when people do this so they are aware of the fact.
BTW, based on your video, you really don’t seem to have even a basic understanding of atheism. I would suggest reading up on the subject a bit more, to better prepare yourself to debate those who don’t see eye to eye with you; since it’s easier to make reasonable intelligent points if you have a good understanding of the position of those who you are debating.
Rod.,
Thank you for being very generous to me in your response.
You said, ” Another point I’d like to make, is that your personal experience may have been life changing for you, but it is still nothing more than anecdotal evidence, and is not a reasonable basis for anybody (other than yourself) to believe.” I agree.
Then you said,”I do agree, that for YOU, faith worked. You put yourself in a harsh environment and you seemingly thrived in it.
Faith in god perhaps was a big reason that you were able to do so well. But faith working for you, does not prove that “your” god is the “true” god.
Again I agree with you.
Then you went on to say,
“Just as if a hindu family was put in the same situation, and had the same results, this would not prove that vishnu and ghanesh are true “gods””.
Rod., you see this is the whole point of my third question. You said, “if” but my question is, “can”.
I will reword your question in the following way. ‘Can a Hindu family put in the same situation produce the same results? If your answer is “Yes”, I said, show me one family like that. OK. Now you got the point of my original question. I am so sorry that my original words did not give you that sense as you read it first. That is my mistake.
You are being very generous in comparaing me with 9/11 hijackers! But don’t you see any difference between us at all?
I am glad that you have accepted me back for discussion though I stand no where near you when it comes to putting across a pint. All I have with me is my life experiences which are real and indeed challenging.
thisword,
I’m glad we can agree on something…
“you see this is the whole point of my third question. You said, “if” but my question is, “can”.”
We’ve gone through this before, but I’ll try one more time…
GHANDI!!!!
Ghandi accomplished AT LEAST AS MUCH in his lifetime as you have, and he did not pray to the christian god.
I already know you’ll say “but he was famous, and you are not” but Ghandi was not famous BEFORE he started off; the actions he undertook MADE him famous.
I know you have some really weird reason that you don’t want to accept this as an answer to your question from your blog (and the same question from this blog much earlier under your other name) but it IS a perfect answer, despite you trying to move the goal post.
If you’d like a few other examples of atheists who accomplished as much in their lifetime as you have accomplished, check out the following YouTube clip, and pick ANY ONE OF the people listed (Einstein, Lincoln, Jefferson, etc…):
Or feel free to choose from any of the people listed on these pages:
http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists
Whichever list you choose, I’d sure you can find a few examples of people that even you must admit accomplished more in their lifetime than you have accomplished, and these people are atheists, so your idea of “but did they pray” is already thrown out of the window, since an atheist would not pray to ANY god, much less the christian one…
But I still stand my assertion that the best answer to your question was my original one, Ghandi…
“You are being very generous in comparaing me with 9/11 hijackers! But don’t you see any difference between us at all?”
Yes, as far as I know, you have not committed a mass murder in the name of your god… YET.
“I am glad that you have accepted me back for discussion”
I’m still confused as to your inability to accept answers to the questions you have posed on your blog, when they fit your original criteria EXACTLY.
You did the same thing here under your other name, and would not accept any answers I gave until a christian who was also posting gave you the EXACT SAME ANSWERS and you finally accepted them as valid.
Rod, to answer the original question is really rather easy!
I am as certain in my ‘belief’ as you are in yours and how do i know for sure (nothing is EVER 100% certain in human existance – yet!)…
EXACTLY the SAME way you do that you are right.
Granted there are some foolish people out there who are 100% certain they are right in ‘their’ Faith and belief system (choice of ‘the one’ God) and a number of them blow themselves up or do similarly ‘god-like’ acts to prove their faith (moreso to themselves than to anyone else). But for those of us who can ‘limit’ their self-delusions to being less than 100% sure.
We all do it just the same way, my Friend.
Look at how you came to YOUR beliefs and what REAL (not co-delusional) evidence you have used to convince yourself that what you ‘know’ (Choose to believe) is correct and you will have the answer you seek – we ALL do the same as you Rod – we just have different reasons for selecting the ‘evidence’ we did.
Highly personal reasons – filtered through our various societies and communities.
Asking why we chosse the way we choose is a little like asking whay is blue (red, green, pale puce) your favourite colour and how do you KNOW it is.
All life’s deep answers to the questions we can think to ask are to be found within ourselves – not from others.
“I want to KNOW what LOVE is” – think any scientist will ever satisfactorily devise an experiment to find the answer out for us??
love <B
Hey just wanted you to know I’m not giving up on this conversation or anything. I’m just out of town at the moment. I’ll be back soon.
love,
I enjoyed reading you answer, but I’m not sure it if was not a bit of a cop out.
“I am as certain in my ‘belief’ as you are in yours”
Totally a reasonable thing to say, especially if you read my answer and my “story” of my road to atheism (it was in a previous answer to somebody else here).
But where I have some trouble with your answer is when you state:
“EXACTLY the SAME way you do that you are right.”
From reading your website you are obviously a religious person. I have not yet come across a “back story” for you from your site yet, but the little I have glimpsed is that your experience was quite the opposite of mine.
While I was raised by clearly psychotic “christian” parents and became an atheist by studying various religions and science, you seem to have been raised in a secular environment and became a believer.
I did like the line in one of your posts:
“Showing people make illogical conclusions from biblical or scientific scripture is more of what i had in mind…”
This line makes me think that you’re exactly the type of person who can contribute to this discussion.
But when you say you came to your beliefs the same way I did, it seems a bit disingenuous.
I’m curious what it is that made you say “you know what, this god guy seems real to me”. Was it a book, something that happened in your life, a teacher you admired, etc?
My atheism came by way of wanting to find the “true” god, and realizing eventually I’d have a better chance of finding santa stuck in my chimney on christmas morning.
I understand that the overall theme may be very similar, but the journey is usually unique. From your comments her,e and what I’ve caught from your blog, you seem to have a very rational approach, I’m curious how that rationality lead you to belief in god.
““I want to KNOW what LOVE is” – think any scientist will ever satisfactorily devise an experiment to find the answer out for us??”
Yes, eventually we may, we’re already making GREAT strides with brain scans and FMRIs to map out thoughts, and emotions in the human mind, I can see a time when we can fully “map” love.
Rod.,
My last question to you is “Did Gandhi, or any other atheist who did great things, previal under the circumstances that I prevailed in and could they have?” Please give me an honest answer.
thisword,
In a word, YES.
Do you not believe that Ghandi’s life was at least as much of a struggle as your own life?
In South Africa, Gandhi faced discrimination directed at Indians. Initially, he was thrown off a train at Pietermaritzburg, after refusing to move from the first class to a third class coach while holding a valid first class ticket. Traveling further on by stagecoach, he was beaten by a driver for refusing to travel on the foot board to make room for a European passenger. He suffered other hardships on the journey as well, including being barred from many hotels. In another of many similar events, the magistrate of a Durban court ordered him to remove his turban, which Gandhi refused. These incidents have been acknowledged as a turning point in his life, serving as an awakening to contemporary social injustice and helping to explain his subsequent social activism. It was through witnessing firsthand the racism, prejudice and injustice against Indians in South Africa that Gandhi started to question his people’s status within the British Empire, and his own place in society.
…
In the summer of 1934, three unsuccessful attempts were made on his life.
How many times during your life have you been beaten for refusing to give up a seat you had a right to becasue you were the wrong skin color?
How many times have attempts been made on your life?
How many times have you taken on a world power and helped to grant independence to a country of close to 1 billion (they were not yet at 1 billion at his time even though they are well past 1 billion now)?
Rod.,
I did nothing that Gandhi did. I could never even dream of doing what he did.
But I am sure that Gandhi did NOT do what I did. I Simply went into a closed room and prayed to see results emerging from my prayer. There is no comparison between Gandhi and me.
If you can not see the difference between these two, I am sorry I am not here any more to talk to you.
I know that even a child could see the difference. But you do not want to accept it. That is it.
Good bye.
thisword,
Do you even read your own questions any more, or do you just look for new ways to change them right out of the box?
To help you out, your question was:
“Did Gandhi, or any other atheist who did great things, previal under the circumstances that I prevailed in and could they have?”
As I read this question, it’s saying (basically):
Name a person who did a lot in their lifetime, and had to struggle at least as hard as you did, but still accomplished a great deal.
PLEASE EXPLAIN, how Ghandi does not fit this description?
Your question did NOT ask for somebody who built a house, and by referencing atheist in your question, you yourself excluded prayer as being part of the question, since NO ATHEIST WOULD PRAY.
You prayed, true, but you ALSO busted your ass to get things done.
It’s simple, I know you want to claim it was a miracle, but YOU made the building, it did not just “appear” out of nothing.
People gave you donations to help, money did not just fall out of the sky.
I understand you think it was miraculous, but it was a LOT of hard work, some charity from people other than yourself, and perhaps some luck, but it most certainly was not supernatural.
As for prayer giving you effects you could seemingly see.
If you don’t believe that Ghandi was a religious man, I suggest renting the movie staring Ben Kingsly, or reading a book about Ghandi; his entire life was built around his faith, and he gave a lot of credit to his faith for what he accomplished.
You’re obviously missing the point if you don’t see how Ghandi is a valid answer.
But let’s try the other extreme for a moment.
I’m sure you’d agree, that even if you don’t agree with Bin Laden’s politics, ideas, methods, etc, that he is a VERY devout believer, true?
I’m also sure you’d agree that as a devout muslim, he prays towards Mecca, 5 times a day, right?
And assuming he is still alive, which seems to be the US government position, he seems to have accomplished something unthinkable, he has evaded the most highly trained, deadliest, military on the planet for the last 7 years, correct?
What do you think the odds are that he credits his being able to evade the US for the last 7 years to his praying to allah? I’d guess it’s a 100% certainty.
If you don’t like being compared to Ghandi, how about the comparison to Bin Laden?
They are both perfectly accurate comparisons, as far as faith leading to results, in the mind of the believers.
Rod.,
You said, “You prayed, true, but you ALSO busted your ass to get things done.”
Yes, I did pray. No I did not do any thing else to raise funds than praying.
You said, “It’s simple, I know you want to claim it was a miracle, but YOU made the building, it did not just “appear” out of nothing.”
Yes, I made the building. There was nothing miraculous about the construction itself in any way.
You said,”People gave you donations to help, money did not just fall out of the sky.”
Yes, indeed. Absolutlly so. People gave money. I did not know who was giving. I did not approach any man any where for financial needs. I kept the project completely sealed so that no one would donate knowing that a project was on. Simply because I wanted to prove that God indeed answered prayers done in His will.
You said, “I understand you think it was miraculous, but it was a LOT of hard work, some charity from people other than yourself, and perhaps some luck, but it most certainly was not supernatural.”
Funds coming for the project was simply and plainly supernatural. As I said my work as far as raising funds was zero other than prayer. Please tell me how the funds would come only during that month just sufficient for the construction. Tell me how it would stop when the construction was over. It was nothing but simple, direct, tangible, undeniable answer to prayer.
If it does not sound like answer to prayer to you please leave it at that. OK.
bye
thisword,
People gave you donations to help, money did not just fall out of the sky.
“Yes, indeed. Absolutlly so. People gave money. I did not know who was giving. I did not approach any man any where for financial needs. I kept the project completely sealed so that no one would donate knowing that a project was on. Simply because I wanted to prove that God indeed answered prayers done in His will.”
So you’re saying that you “tested” god, and god, in your opinion, “passed” your test.
So then would you be willing to accept the results of OTHER tests, since you’re willing to claim that your own test was successful?
If the answer to that is yes, then i would suggest checking out the scientific literature, since EVERY scientifically controlled, double blinded, test has shown NO DISCERNIBLE effect from prayer.
“Funds coming for the project was simply and plainly supernatural.”
Did you ever ASK the people who donated how they heard about your need?
Did they claim that they had a vision, or dream, or god or an angel spoke to them? Or did they hear from their pastor, or a friend who heard from somebody who knew where you were and what you were doing?
If they heard from a person, who in turn heard from a person, and so on until it gets back to somebody who KNEW where you were and what you were doing, then it’s NOT supernatural.
If they claim to have had a vision, or dream, or spoke to god or and angel, then perhaps it was supernatural, but there would need to be further study to determine the true nature of them learning of your need.
“Please tell me how the funds would come only during that month just sufficient for the construction.”
Somebody (a friend, family member, pastor, etc) knew where you were, and what you were doing, and got others to help donate money.
“Tell me how it would stop when the construction was over.”
I would guess that you were in contact with your friends, family, pastor, etc and they knew your general plans and time line, and told others.
“It was nothing but simple, direct, tangible, undeniable answer to prayer.”
It’s obviously not “undeniable”, since almost any rational person would question the detail much more than you have.
“If it does not sound like answer to prayer to you please leave it at that.”
It’s POSSIBLY it was the answer to prayers, but it’s ALSO at least as likely, that it was not a supernatural episode, but your interpretation of the events is skewed by your faith.
Rod.,
You said, “So you’re saying that you “tested” god, and god, in your opinion, “passed” your test”.
No. Never. After twenty years of life of trust when the Lord never ever failed me even once, I did not need to test Him any more. By then I had sufficient faith to trust Him for a miracle of that magnitude when a sustained miracle would be needed to buy a piece of land and construct a building. So I was simply TRUSTING Him and not testing Him.
Any one who wants to test God would only get negative results as the motive is not right. Try trusting instead of testing.
When I asked“Tell me how it would stop when the construction was over.” you said,”I would guess that you were in contact with your friends, family, pastor, etc and they knew your general plans and time line, and told others”.
Could you not believe me when I said that I kept it as a secret so that no man knew what was happening? This I did on purpose? Kindly take it from me that they never knew my general plans nor my time line. What I say is absolutely true. If you do not want to believe me where is the question of a discussion like this?
You said,”If they claim to have had a vision, or dream, or spoke to god or and angel, then perhaps it was supernatural, but there would need to be further study to determine the true nature of them learning of your need”.
Believe me I have no links or fellowship any charismatic or pentecostal who claim to see dreams and visions. But that does not mean God is not leading us. Please go to my link and read the second experience which is titled after the first under ‘Another Answer To Prayer Which Is Unbelievable’ in http://www.mathewpaul.org/exciting!
If you are really sincere about your search for reality, honestly tell me how that incident took place if God did not answer prayer. Down below there, there is a prayer experience of another brother as well. Story tells how he wanted to send Rs.50/- but actually he sent Rs.500/- instead, being moved in his heart. If God did not answer prayer what was it?
At last you said,”It’s POSSIBLY it was the answer to prayers, but it’s ALSO at least as likely, that it was not a supernatural episode, but your interpretation of the events is skewed by your faith”
Thank you for accepting the fact that it was a POSSIBILITY of prayer being answered. That is JUST SUFFICIENT FOR ME.
Not only my interpretation, EVEN YOUR interpretation is skewed by your UNBELIEEF!
May I HUMBLY request you to come to a neutral position and examine the evidence before you as I set out in my blog. PLEASE, PLEASE do not try to argue me out as I am simply unable to argue with you.
bye
thisword,
You stated:
“Simply because I wanted to prove that God indeed answered prayers done in His will.”
As well as:
“After twenty years of life of trust when the Lord never ever failed me even once, I did not need to test Him any more.”
An attempt to prove a position is a TEST!
This is the very definition of scientific testing, attempts to prove or falsify a position. Which is what YOU said that you did.
So either you made a mis-statement in your earlier reply, or this one, or you are confused about some aspect, or one of them is an intentional falsehood. I am not going to speculate as to which it is, but I hope you will take the time to figure it out for yourself.
Have you ever ASKED the people who sent you donations how they knew where to send the donation and when?
Try to do that, and then come back with the results, I’m going to guess you won’t find anybody who claims that “god” or an angel told them to send a check; in fact, I’d wager a good deal of money that EVERY ONE OF THEM was told of your situation by some living, breathing, non-divine, human being.
When you have taken the time to track down a few of the donors and ask them this simple question, I’m sure you’ll find no examples of supernatural, you’ll find word of mouth and generosity.
but until you have the DATA from which to make conclusions, it’s all just speculation.
Alright I’m back temporarily. This has been a hectic few weeks and it’s not lightening up anytime soon.
I’m trying to resurrection our discussion from a week or so ago. I may not have any success jumping in where we left off but I’ll try.
We were talking simultaneously about a variety of subjects. One – the fact that Dawkins and other hold naturalism has a belief system. Rather than simply letting science comment on science they were making large denials concerning anything outside the natural realm. We’d already established the limitations of science so some of their conclusions are unwarranted as a result of pure science. As a result of this naturalism has become sort of a “check is in the mail” system of faith in science. In other words, “we don’t have an answer yet but we will soon enough.” If that’s not faith…
Secondly, we were talking about “first cause” issues. Specifically multi-verses and imaginary time. I’m not expert on them but they’re ideas that presuppose facts not(yet)in existence.
Thirdly we discussed that problems with a lack of objective criticism for evolution. Or, when criticism is leveled, it dismissed without a knowing chuckle and a patronizing pat on the head.
We’re not talking about a theory that is empirically testable or one that even has a preponderance of evidence on it’s side. (This is not to say the evidence lies with a different theory but rather that evolution has some big holes.)
Obviously if evolution is defined broadly enough there’s little doubt it occurred, and no one really argues it’s existence. But we’re not talking about a variety of beetles or the length of beaks on finches.
There’s is a great deal more to the Design/Evolution debate than meets the carefully cultivated carachture of the creationist. (How’s that for unintentional alliteration?)
Whoops I hit “enter” accidentally before I really made any point. Or rather I made some incendiary comments and then posted them before I backed them up. However I don’t think the rest of this is going to make you more happy but I still think it’s a healthy discussion.
If evolution simply means – “evolution of a sort has been known to occur (i.e. finch beaks, and pepper moths) and that natural selection has an observable effect upon the distribution of characteristics within a population” then there’s nothing to dispute or argue. We can easily distinguish macro and micro evolution, and they should be distinguished, in fact they should have their own words calling both “evolution” makes it seem like the chasm between then is much smaller than it really is.
The distinguishing claim of evolution as it’s popularly understood is that not just limited observable changes occur in within a species but that we can extrapolate from that to a theory of how moths, trees and finches came into existence at all.
The problem then is that we should reasonably expect the evidence to support these assumptions clearly, even overwhelmingly. And it should be clearly demonstrated in experiments and fossil records.
Science cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection. The fossil record is so unhelpful that all the major steps in the process must be assumed to have occurred within it’s gaps.
Evolution is an extraordinary claim and, well you know the rest…
I have no problem with theory – but I do take issue with dogma disguised as rational science. Thus we have to separate science from philosophical naturalism. Like I’ve been saying all along – science must be aware of it’s limits.
When serious challenges are leveled at the feet of orthodox evolution a wink and a “cough” aren’t enough to dismiss it.
Irreducibly complex organisms, huge holes in the fossil record and a failure to demonstrate random mutation in the creation of complex life are serious and potentially lethal challenges.
The only way they are currently dismissed is through a dogmatic and, dare I say, occasionally rabid adherence to the religion that worships at the feet of naturalism. It’s fine to believe these things but it’s not OK to say they are more than a belief system.
Let me sum up by saying that none of this by itself means that one must assume that life is the result of intelligence. We just have to be open to the idea that maybe the theory is not as open and shut as we’d like people to believe.
There was a time when organized religion was the system of thought that could nudge it’s buddies and laugh at silly old Galileo but I think it’s demonstratable that to a similar degree philosophical naturalism disguised as evolution has taken it’s place and know is nudging and laughing at serious questions that are lodged against it’s beliefs. The challenges aren’t so ridiculous (nor have they been adequately answered) that naturalism can continue to get away with such a flippant dismissal without raising questions of it’s own validity.
Don’t take any of the above too seriously I’m just pointing out what seems to be a trend to dismiss legitimate criticism without having to really deal with it.
The thiests have certainly been good at that through the years so it’s probably good for us to have a dose of our own medicine.
Rod.,
You said,”So either you made a mis-statement in your earlier reply, or this one, or you are confused about some aspect, or one of them is an intentional falsehood. I am not going to speculate as to which it is, but I hope you will take the time to figure it out for yourself”.
Yes, indeed. I did make a mis-statement in the one in which I said, “I wanted to prove that God answers prayers”. Please forgive me.
But if had read the link I gave you, there is no confusion there. I am quoting the first para. from the link here for you to see what I meant. “With all my experiences in prayer, I somehow wanted to prove to the world…” I didn’t have any question as to whether God answered prayer or not. My attempt was to prove (to the world) that indeed, if one of His servants was to remain unknown to the world, God would still meet the needs of that person”
You said,
“Have you ever ASKED the people who sent you donations how they knew where to send the donation and when?”
I never ever have a chance to meet many of them. I do not know who many of them are.
You agian said, “Try to do that, and then come back with the results,”
I do not maintain an address list as I do not want to keep in touch with any of my donors. So it is simply impossible for me to contact many of them. Of course, I can contact my immediate family and friends but their contribution for the project was less than 10%, I would guess.
You said, ” I’m going to guess you won’t find anybody who claims that “god” or an angel told them to send a check; in fact, I’d wager a good deal of money that EVERY ONE OF THEM was told of your situation by some living, breathing, non-divine, human being”.
Rod., this your answer clearly tells me that you did not read the link I gave you. It clearly tells how God leads people to make donations without any human interference whatever! This just does not happen once or twice in life. This is the way I lived my whole life, now a retired man. Read many other stories in my blog whether you still can not believe God answers prayer.
You said, “When you have taken the time to track down a few of the donors and ask them this simple question, I’m sure you’ll find no examples of supernatural, you’ll find word of mouth and generosity “.
Never ever so. Can’t you still believe, Rod., you are really a skeptic! I request you to look at the evidence I gave you with out bias and come to your own conclusions.
I must thank you for inviting back to discussion. But I want to tell you that I told you all that I had to tell you. I have no more arguments. I have only experiences.
It is simply true that God answers prayers if we bring ourselves to His terms and conditions which are rather clearly laid out in the Bible.
Bye.
moot,
Woh, this may take some time, so hopefully I won’t miss any of your points. I’ll try to cover them post by post, so not as to confuse the two big ones, as they seem to be more general, then more specific.
“One – the fact that Dawkins and other hold naturalism has a belief system.”
If you mean a belief system based on scientific evidence, correct, if you mean faith, not quite…
“Rather than simply letting science comment on science they were making large denials concerning anything outside the natural realm.”
Actually what Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and others are saying is that without evidence to support a position, the default position should be to NOT believe something on faith.
Even Dawkins admits the possibility of a god, he NEVER claims it’s impossible, or a certain falsehood, he claims that the evidence points in another direction, so that should be the direction we research.
“We’d already established the limitations of science”
Yes
“so some of their conclusions are unwarranted as a result of pure science”
Not true.
If I tell you that a teapot in floating in space halfway between here and the sun, but this teapot is too small to be observed, you can accept this as fact (based on faith) or reject it, even though there is a CHANCE it is correct, because there is no evidence to support it.
The rational response to this, is rejection, not belief.
“As a result of this naturalism has become sort of a “check is in the mail” system of faith in science”
If I know that 1+1=2 and 2+2=4 but I have not yet been taught that 1+1+1+1=4, I can still infer this from the other available evidence.
Obviously in the subjects we’re talking about the inferences are not this simplistic or obvious, but they are still most certainly there, and do give us very good reasons for many of the assumptions we make.
“In other words, “we don’t have an answer yet but we will soon enough.” If that’s not faith”
We can claim that we WILL know something based on our past history of discoveries, or current tests underway or planned for the future (such as the large hadron collider coming online, and the experiments already planned, we know that based on those results, we will have certain answers we don’t yet have).
“Secondly, we were talking about “first cause” issues. Specifically multi-verses and imaginary time. I’m not expert on them but they’re ideas that presuppose facts not(yet)in existence.”
Actually the multi-verse ideas and the imaginary time ideas are currently purely mathematical. When Hawkins and others have done the math to understand certain things about the universe, the calculations have lead to results that show these things. The next step is to find real world tests that will further our knowledge on these subjects, to further refine our knowledge.
“Thirdly we discussed that problems with a lack of objective criticism for evolution.”
Objective criticism is PERFECTLY fine, you’ll find many objective criticisms between differing views on evolutions (gradual vs punctuated equilibrium, etc) that are helping to refine our understanding, and sending the research in new exciting directions.
“Or, when criticism is leveled, it dismissed without a knowing chuckle and a patronizing pat on the head.”
When a criticism that has been raised in the past and disproven is brought back up again and the evidence against it is summarily ignored, then yes, many scientist are going to be patronizing and dismissive of those who are being willfully ignorant or intentionally dishonest.
“We’re not talking about a theory that is empirically testable”
Actually there are many tests, and micro evolution has been proven beyond ALL doubt, and macro evolution has been all but proven at this point.
“or one that even has a preponderance of evidence on it’s side”
Actually there is much more evidence that you seem to be aware of, I’d suggest checking out the following links for a small glimpse of some of it:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution
“This is not to say the evidence lies with a different theory but rather that evolution has some big holes”
Every time a transitional fossil is found, by definition that creates two smaller gaps in the fossil record. Th3e fact that we now have countless gaps in the record is in fact a HUGE point in favor of evolution, since those gaps are getting more and more numerous and smaller and smaller.
“Obviously if evolution is defined broadly enough there’s little doubt it occurred, and no one really argues it’s existence”
Actually 3 republican presidential nominees, and roughly 80 million people in the US argue against it.
“But we’re not talking about a variety of beetles or the length of beaks on finches”
Again, check the links above, you’ll find a good example of the types of evidence we have found.
“There’s is a great deal more to the Design/Evolution debate than meets the carefully cultivated carachture of the creationist.”
Yes, there are still real honest debates about the NATURE of evolution, but the FACT of evolution is not in doubt by ANY rational scientist NOT biased by the writings of bronze age man.
“If evolution simply means – “evolution of a sort has been known to occur (i.e. finch beaks, and pepper moths) and that natural selection has an observable effect upon the distribution of characteristics within a population””
This is micro evolution, and this has been proven beyond all shadow of a doubt to anybody willing to look at the science, and not dismiss it out of hand because a book (or their pastor) tells them to.
“then there’s nothing to dispute or argue”
Regarding micro evolution, we agree, this is as much a fact as the sun “rising” in the morning.
“We can easily distinguish macro and micro evolution, and they should be distinguished”
True, and they are distinguished, but they are both also part of the same overall Theory Of Evolution. To separate them 100% would be like separating the study of Oxygen from the study of Hydrogen when talking about water.
“in fact they should have their own words”
They do, MICRO and MACRO
“calling both “evolution” makes it seem like the chasm between then is much smaller than it really is.”
But they ARE both evolution, only on different time scales.
“The distinguishing claim of evolution as it’s popularly understood is that not just limited observable changes occur in within a species but that we can extrapolate from that to a theory of how moths, trees and finches came into existence at all.”
Are you’re trying to confuse evolution with creation or are you speaking of the difference between evolution WITHIN a species and evolution OF a species?
If it is the former, let’s go over them separately, because evolution has NOTHING to do with the VERY beginning of life.
If it is the later, the primary difference between evolution WITHIN a species and OF a species is the time scale.
“The problem then is that we should reasonably expect the evidence to support these assumptions clearly, even overwhelmingly.”
I agree
“And it should be clearly demonstrated in experiments and fossil records.”
It is
“Science cannot observe complex biological structures being created by random mutations and selection”
It takes thousands upon thousands, if not millions upon millions of years for a new species to be created by evolution. Science can observe this, and now that we know what to watch for, if we don’t kill ourselves, in time we can watch the transformation for generations to come, but this won’t be in our lifetime, until we come up with a means of speeding up the process.
“The fossil record is so unhelpful that all the major steps in the process must be assumed to have occurred within it’s gaps.”
Excuse me? Do you actually expect to find EVERY SINGLE transition between species? The process of fossilization is not typical of what happens, the fact that the fossil record is as complete as it seems to be is already outstanding, but we’ll never fill EVERY gap, since tow fill one gaps, creates two smaller gaps on each side of that filler.
“Evolution is an extraordinary claim and, well you know the rest”
And it is backed up by overwhelming evidence.
“I have no problem with theory”
🙂
“but I do take issue with dogma disguised as rational science”
While it is true that some people are TOO dogmatic about their ideas of evolution, the consensus of scientific opinion backs it up, and now it’s the dissenting opinion that must show extraordinary evidence if their claims are to be taken seriously.
“Thus we have to separate science from philosophical naturalism”
I agree, the people that claim that evolution “disproves god” are NOT doing us any favors, since it most certainly does NOT disprove “god”. But it DOES disprove the 6500 year old earth creationism idea.
“Like I’ve been saying all along – science must be aware of it’s limits.”
We agree on this, I just think you’re trying to push the limit to a point that science CAN explain, and perhaps I want to give science more room then it should have. Perhaps in the middle is the real “line” that science can never cross, but I feel until we know what that line is, science should be given EVERY CHANCE to study everything, including the existence of the supernatural, including god.
“When serious challenges are leveled at the feet of orthodox evolution a wink and a “cough” aren’t enough to dismiss it.”
I agree, but I’d like to STRONGLY STRESS the words “serious challenges”. Movies like “Expelled” are NOT going to do “your side” any favors, with their blatant fabrications, quote mining, and misrepresentations of the evidence.
“Irreducibly complex organisms”
OHHH, I was wondering when you’d mention this.
Name ONE “Irreducibly complex organism” that has not been proven to actually be reducible.
EVERY SINGLE TIME a creationist has “come up with” one, science has shown it’s evolution (the eye and the bacterial flagellum are the two most striking examples).
There has never been an “Irreducibly complex organism” that has stood up the scientific scrutiny.
“huge holes in the fossil record”
There are holes, obviously; but those holes are getting more numerous and smaller constantly.
“a failure to demonstrate random mutation in the creation of complex life”
Cancer is a “random mutation in the creation of complex life”. There are a RIDICULOUS number of examples of random mutations, check out any freak show or medical book for numerous examples.
“serious and potentially lethal challenges”
There are serious challenges to various METHODS of evolution, but there are not any (currently) to the overall Theory of Evolution.
I’m doing this next sentence out of order, but for a reason…
“occasionally rabid adherence to the religion that worships at the feet of naturalism”
Atheism, Naturalism, Humanism, etc are NOT a religion. While there are some extremists who treat them with religious fervor; the idea of naturalism is one of using a scientific approach to learn about the natural world. When something is found to be wrong, it is thrown out and dismissed in favor of the new evidence, this is something with religions CAN NOT DO by their very nature of being divinely inspired.
“The only way they are currently dismissed is through a dogmatic and, dare I say, occasionally…”
Not quite true… As I mention before, SERIOUS criticism is looked at, discusses, debated, and tested. Criticism based on religious foundations are rarely if EVER based on scientific evidence, and rarely if ever “new”. In almost EVERY case it’s the same old tired arguments rehashed over and over, with no regard for the existing evidence which refuted the ideas previously.
“It’s fine to believe these things but it’s not OK to say they are more than a belief system”
These beliefs are based on evidence, and scientific study.
“Let me sum up by saying that none of this by itself means that one must assume that life is the result of intelligence”
🙂
“We just have to be open to the idea that maybe the theory is not as open and shut as we’d like people to believe.”
I acknowledge there are still open questions, and scientists studying the issue acknowledge this as well…
“There was a time when organized religion was the system of thought that could nudge it’s buddies and laugh at silly old Galileo”
Actually they did a bit more than “laugh”, including threatening to execute, and actually placing him under house arrest.
“I think it’s demonstratable that to a similar degree philosophical naturalism disguised as evolution has taken it’s place and know is nudging and laughing at serious questions that are lodged against it’s beliefs”
Really, you think dismissing unintelligent “arguments” based completely on religion, and not on science is “to a similar degree” as placing a person under house arrest and threatening to kill them in order to silence them?
“The challenges aren’t so ridiculous (nor have they been adequately answered)”
Some of them are ridiculous, but those that are legitimate HAVE been answered, it’s just that the answers have been ignored.
“that naturalism can continue to get away with such a flippant dismissal”
The only “flippant dismissal” are of things that have been proven false time and time again, such as irreducibly complexity of things like the eye and the bacterial flagellum.
“without raising questions of it’s own validity”
Science questions pre-established conventions ALL THE TIME, but if you’re going to try to break the status quo, you need SERIOUS evidence, which the creationist don’t have.
thisword,
It would be easy to ignore the earlier misstatement:
“Yes, indeed. I did make a mis-statement in the one in which I said, “I wanted to prove that God answers prayers””
If you did not later in THIS post, say essentially the same misstatement:
“With all my experiences in prayer, I somehow wanted to prove to the world”
and
“My attempt was to prove (to the world) that indeed, if one of His servants was to remain unknown to the world, God would still meet the needs of that person”
These are examples of you trying to TEST god.
You CAN NOT honestly tell me that I can not devise a test of prayer or god, while you maintain that you yourself tested god and prayer successfully.
This is either intentional hypocrisy or you honestly have deluded yourself into not seeing the problem with statements like these.
Either way, it’s not an honest view of the issue, and it makes it nearly impossible to have a rational discussion of the issue.
Either god can be tested, in which case you should accept the results of ALL scientific studies, all of which have proven prayer is ineffective, or you don’t accept tests of god, in which case your entire post/life story is NOT proof in any sense.
I have read that link you sent, what I am attempting to point out to you is the hypocritical nature of your experiences with the purpose of your “thisword” blog.
“Can’t you still believe, Rod., you are really a skeptic!”
Yes, if there was EVIDENCE, not anecdotes.
“I request you to look at the evidence I gave you with out bias and come to your own conclusions.”
I have, my conclusions just don’t come anywhere near matching your conclusions.
-Naturalistic philosophy is a belief system. It’s made possible by science but it is by definition drawing conclusions that fall beyond the limits of the scientific method. Therefore it is a belief rather than a fact. I’m not confusing methodological naturalism (science)with philosophical naturalism (conclusions).
My further beef with Dawkins and Dennet is that they do exactly that. They allow their philosophy to skew their interpretation of the science. That’s why they can get away with making statements like “nothing but matter exists.” These are statements of a philosophical nature not a purely methodological one. Thus, for either side, it requires an element of faith to go beyond the methodology to accept the philosophy.
-It’s not simply a matter of assuming we’ll have answers. It’s assuming the answers with the promise that the future will provide us a way to discover evidence for our current conclusions. Then passing them off as evidence we already possess. It’s one thing to anticipate getting an answer to work with theories, it’s another to anticipate the answer and form conclusions with the yet undiscovered answer and then pass them off as empirical fact. Thus we can’t assume the conclusions of the experiment that, by your own estimation, will take generations. To do so isn’t really science.
By that logic I can dismiss evolution all together and assume that at some point in the future we’ll have a better theory that fits the evidence we have. In fact, I think I’ll do that! Yay! I win.
-My purpose in distinguishing “micro” and “macro” evolution is to point out that by proving one you cannot say you’ve proved the other. The difference in these two concepts are enormous. It’s like saying “I’ve proven that I can jump over a creek that proves I can jump over the Grand Canyon.”
-With the fossil record we’re talking about simply finding a fossil and then sticking it in a gap. Without conclusive evidence that it even goes there. Then we’ve said – “look a transitional form!” In fact whose to say that it’s simply not a extinct species? Furthermore I found a wikipedia list of every transitional form and I counted 32! There should be hundrends of billions and we have 32? Even if they aren’t just extinct species the fact that we have 32 is a huge problem. Granted the 32 number could be wrong it’s not the result of a studied opinion but a quick Google search.
My other information comes from Gould himself. He said that the gaps in the fossil record were a “trade secret” and developed the idea of “punctuated equilibrium” in order to explain the problem.
Granted that was over 30 years ago and Gould doesn’t speak for everyone but he pointed out what he felt was like a “glaring defect” in the evidence that should reasonable be expected to exist. But Gould isn’t alone. Misia Landau, Geoffrey Clark or Henry Gee have all expressed similar concerns. (I didn’t include the quotes for the sake of space but I can if you’d like them.) These are people who people who believe evolution but say the fossil evidence in no way supports the current theories.
This goes further to my point about objective criticism. These voices are dismissed out of hand.
For the faithful such hand-waving is all that’s required to silence the dissent. In fact PBS “Unlocking the Mystery of Life has this quote, “Although it was quickly rejected by biologists on theoretical and empirical grounds (ref 6)” and undirected random mutation and selection has been shown to be able to generate irreducibly complex outputs. (ref. 7)”
Enough said, dust off our hands a move on. However if you actually follow the references. Reference 6 goes to Kenneth Miller’s website but doesn’t provide a rational argument for irreducible complexity. Reference 7 cites a paper in “Nature” that describes a computer simulation but contains no actual biology.
This is the heart of the problem. Ideas were dismissed based on other ideas that, when examined didn’t dismiss them at all.
The unconverted don’t want to hear that evolution doesn’t not stop the development irreducible complexity but rather why natural selection demands the development of irreducible complexity. These are two vastly different things.
-I will check out the links you posted.
-I’m not specifically trying to confuse creation and evolution. I realize that evolution doesn’t address first cause. I’m again making a reference to the enormous difference between micro and macro evolution these differences are ones that we can’t continue to throw additional millenia at in hopes that it resolves the dilemma.
-I’ve already briefly addressed the fossil evidence but I’d like to come back to it because I think it’s worth exploring further.
-If by overwhelming evidence you mean quantity that could fit a variety of conclusions then I guess evolution is supported by facts. If you mean quality that fits a very narrow and specific conclusion… we’re not there yet.
-With the irreducibly complexity. Let me stress again that proves that something “could” happen is not the same as proving it “should” or even “would” happen. There’s more to talk about here but I’ve addressed it enough for now.
-Demonstrating random mutations is again a far cry from demonstrating random mutation in the creation of complex life. The fact that mutations occur is a far cry from demonstrating that millions of tiny unguided mutations improve the design of a species.
The example of a circus freak is “apples and oranges” but I image if you were to ask any circus freak and you probably won’t get the idea that their mutation is something they want to pass on to their kids.
-Religion can be intensely self-critical. Not that were proud of this fact but we have 3000 different protestant denomination as a testament to this fact. So we can constantly refine our ideas about the way things are.
-I’m not talking about “unintelligent arguments based on religion” I’m talking about the evidence we have that strongly indicates design.
-And no, as far as I know evolutionists aren’t killing Christians…yet. Just kidding but Behe did tell grad students that if they had scientific qualms about general evolution it’s best to keep that to themselves if they want jobs.
Anyway, it’s good to be back in the loop. Unfortunately I’ll be out of town again soon but I’ll try to keep up with the discussion.
Rod.,
You said, “I have read that link you sent, what I am attempting to point out to you is the hypocritical nature of your experiences with the purpose of…”
Agin you said, “Either way, it’s not an honest view of the issue, and it makes it nearly impossible to have a rational discussion of the issue”.
Since after reading my link you found me to be hyprocirtical and dishonest, I find there is no point in me being here any more. Thank you very much for your evaluation of my life.
God bless.
moot,
Yes, philosophical naturalism CAN be a belief system, that takes science too far at times. However, at the heart of it is the search for truth, and unlike religious faith, when evidence is shown that counters the beliefs, those who choose philosophical naturalism are inclined to abandon their preconceptions in favor of the newest, best evidence; while those who get their beliefs from their faith are very likely to ignore, or attempt to “explain away” the newest research or evidence (you know, little things like the earth not being the center of the universe, the universe being 14.7 billion years old, etc).
“That’s why they can get away with making statements like “nothing but matter exists.””
What exactly has been SHOWN to exist, other than matter? God MAY exist, but “he” certainly has not been proven yet. The soul MAY exist, but there is no evidence for this.
When Dawkins, and Dennett state that everything that exists is matter, they are simply stating that based on the “latest and greatest” scientific evidence, nothing exists outside of the natural laws of the universe as we know them, and this means that everything that DOES exist, is based in matter.
“Thus, for either side, it requires an element of faith to go beyond the methodology to accept the philosophy.”
I know you’re going to disagree, but I have to say it.
Faith is a belief based despite the lack of evidence, Dawkins’ and Dennett’s statements MAY take the evidence too far, although I don’t agree that they do, but even if they do take it too far, it’s still based on scientific evidence, not a work of fiction written by bronze age men ignorant of the world around them.
“It’s not simply a matter of assuming we’ll have answers. It’s assuming the answers with the promise that the future will provide us a way to discover evidence for our current conclusions.”
We can in many cases say that we are fairly certain that in the future we’ll be able to answer some questions. A few examples come to mind:
1) We can be fairly certain that work on theoretical physics will get BIG boost when the Large Hadron Collider comes online and the planned experiments begin to give us data. Scientists already have many experiments planed, and working hypothesis on what the results of those experiments will be. Based on our best guesses on what will come, scientists have taken the next step to say “if A happens, then B would also likely be true”. So once the LHC is online, we will have a better understand, whether “A” happens or not, it just means the proponents of “A” may have to rethink a few things.
2) Before we sent the two Mars rovers up, we had a pretty good idea of what we would find. And for the most part, NASA found exactly what they expected, but they have also added in the things they did not expect into their theories, so they now have a much more complete picture of the history of the red planet.
3) NASA is working on the construction of a new space based telescope that will be better than Hubble. NASA scientists will use this telescope to pear further into space than Hubble was able, and with better clarity. Based on the data from Hubble, we have a pretty damn good idea of what we’ll find, so people are already working on new hypothesis based on the expected results, which may or may not have to be reworked after the telescope is launched.
These are just the simplest most recent examples that come to mind, but we can also project out much further than this, based on our current and projected rate of technological advancement.
“Then passing them off as evidence we already possess.”
Scientists don’t do this. Scientists say very plainly, that based on our best evidence to date, this is what we know, or this is what we think, they do NOT say “this is the easy it is, period”.
“It’s one thing to anticipate getting an answer to work with theories, it’s another to anticipate the answer and form conclusions with the yet undiscovered answer and then pass them off as empirical fact.”
I think it is VERY reasonable to project the answer, we do this ALL the time, with great results. If you never project the results, you’ll never make progress in a field.
Where I completely disagree is your assertion that scientists claim these assumptions as fact. Quite simply, this does not happen.
“Thus we can’t assume the conclusions of the experiment that, by your own estimation, will take generations. To do so isn’t really science.”
We CAN make assumptions, but they are JUST that, assumptions that will “get us by” until the real evidence comes to light. Once the real evidence comes to light, we then throw out those assumptions.
The real trick, is knowing what is a reasonable assumption based off out of current understanding, and what is not reasonable.
“By that logic I can dismiss evolution all together and assume that at some point in the future we’ll have a better theory that fits the evidence we have.”
Hehe, I was right, I kind of assumed where you were going to take this next, so I tried to answer this question before I read it…
The real trick, is knowing what is a reasonable assumption based off out of current understanding, and what is not reasonable.
Evolutionary Theory is based on mountains of scientific evidence. Creationism is based off a book written by ignorant man thousands of years ago.
To make a scientific assumption based on a book written by bronze age man, would be like assuming you could build a rocket to take you to the moon based off the writings of a religious leader from the times of Aristotle or Plato.
“My purpose in distinguishing “micro” and “macro” evolution is to point out that by proving one you cannot say you’ve proved the other.”
I agree
“The difference in these two concepts are enormous.”
I disagree, the difference is nothing but time
“It’s like saying “I’ve proven that I can jump over a creek that proves I can jump over the Grand Canyon.”
No, a more apt analogy would actually be more like: I have proven that by taking small steps, I can walk across this room, therefore, I can assume that by taking small steps, I can ALSO walk across this house, town, city, county, state, country, continent, etc…
“With the fossil record we’re talking about simply finding a fossil and then sticking it in a gap. Without conclusive evidence that it even goes there”
Do you expect that we would find a note or plaque that says “this goes 1/3rd of the way between A and C, and it’s called B?
We have highly trained specialists that through genetic testing, and other means can tell how closely related species are to each other, and based on the expect opinion of these professionals, we create the fossil record.
This is not to say there is no disagreement, and in fact this disagreement does a great deal to validate the conclusions reached, since everything is put through a vigorous peer review process.
“In fact whose to say that it’s simply not a extinct species?”
EVERY transitional fossil is ALSO a species in it’s own right.
It’s not that we have an ape, then a transition, then a chimp.
Each step in between the ancestor and the descendant is a species as well.
“Furthermore I found a wikipedia list of every transitional form and I counted 32! There should be hundrends of billions and we have 32? Even if they aren’t just extinct species the fact that we have 32 is a huge problem. Granted the 32 number could be wrong it’s not the result of a studied opinion but a quick Google search.”
That list you cite says VERY PLAINLY:
This is a very tentative list of vertebrate transitional fossils
In a related Wikipedia article it also states:
It is commonly claimed by critics of evolution that there are no transitional fossils. Such claims may be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature or may be an active tactic by creationists seeking to distort or ignore the evidence that exists. The claim has been called a “favourite lie” of creationists by Donald Prothero which is “manifestly untrue”.
A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features, although this is more to do with irreducible complexity than transitional fossils. It is plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been used for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings may still have all of these functions, while also being used for active flight.
Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be “caught in the act” as it were. Critics of evolution often cite this argument as being a convenient way to explain the lack of ‘snapshot’ fossils that show crucial steps between species. However, progressing research and discovery are managing to fill in gaps.
The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils. This theory, however, pertains only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between periods of morphological stability. To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution.
Or on your google search, if you had scrolled down a bit further, you’d have found these links:
http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Of the two, I think the talkorigins one is better, but the other one was in between the Wiki entry and the talkorigns one, so I included it as well.
“My other information comes from Gould himself. He said that the gaps in the fossil record were a “trade secret” and developed the idea of “punctuated equilibrium” in order to explain the problem.”
Gould did not develop punctuated equilibrium in order to “hide” the fossil record, but as more of an attempt ot explain the evidence as he sees it.
Gould did not in any possible sense mean that evolution was not correct, just that we did not have as complete a fossil record as he would like, or as some would expect.
“Granted that was over 30 years ago and Gould doesn’t speak for everyone but he pointed out what he felt was like a “glaring defect” in the evidence that should reasonable be expected to exist.”
It has been pointed out MANY times, including by Gould himself, the the expected result of an animal dying is decomposition of the animal, including the bones. The fossils which have survived as the exception, not the rule. The fact that the fossil record is as complete as it is, and getting more complete constantly, is a huge boon towards evolutionary theory.
If you’re trying to state that Gould did not believe in evolution 100% then you REALLY need to go back and re-read his works, because he believed in evolution as strongly as you believe that your parents existed or as I believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning.
“These are people who people who believe evolution but say the fossil evidence in no way supports the current theories.”
That is NOT AT ALL what they are saying. The point they are making is that the fossil record is incomplete, but that is expected; it’s as much of a “secret” as the fact that Bill Clinton got a blow job in the oval office.
Anybody can take a quote out of context to make a point, in fact I’ve seen great quote mining from the discovery institute that gives the impression that Dawkins does not believe in evolution. You are smart enough to realize that ANY quote from Dawkins that goes against evolution was obviously taken out of context, the quotes from Gould and others are taken out of context as well.
“This goes further to my point about objective criticism. These voices are dismissed out of hand.”
Gould’s idea of punctuated equilibrium is dismissed out of hand? Really, I was under the impression that his idea was one of the two leading ideas currently floating around about the nature and method of evolution.
“For the faithful such hand-waving is all that’s required to silence the dissent.”
What is dismissed is claims by creationists that misstate the facts, or completely ignore the facts. Legitimate criticism is not only “allowed” but encouraged.
It seems you’re starting to get into the realm of “Expelled”. If this is where you’re getting your information, I’ll find a few podcasts/blogs/sites that utterly destroy the credibility of the movie, including specific examples of misquotes, quotes taken out of context, distortions of the truth and outright lies, and more…
This movie really is purely propaganda, and bad propaganda at that.
I was planning to wait until after I have seen it myself, but I have been reading much about it from critics and proponents alike, and from what I’ve seen/read, it’s about as factual and accurate as Harry Potter.
“Unlocking the Mystery of Life”
Do you have a link for this, so I can check it out?
“undirected random mutation and selection has been shown to be able to generate irreducibly complex outputs”
This seems to be completely contradictory, so I’d like to understand the context this statement was made in.
Based just on this though, it seems to say that random mutations would create something that is irreducibly complex, but the whole idea of irreducible complexity is that it could not be a result of random mutations.
“I’m not specifically trying to confuse creation and evolution. I realize that evolution doesn’t address first cause.”
🙂
“I’m again making a reference to the enormous difference between micro and macro evolution these differences are ones that we can’t continue to throw additional millenia at in hopes that it resolves the dilemma.”
It’s not that we are “throwing additional millinea” at it, we’re projecting based on available evidence.
If I take 1 step and move 1 foot, and I take 2 steps and move 2 feet, it’s safe to say that if I take 1000 steps, I’ll move 1000 feet.
Micro vs Macro evolutions is the same thing, but with “pictures” (or fossils) of me at various steps along the 1000.
“If by overwhelming evidence you mean quantity that could fit a variety of conclusions then I guess evolution is supported by facts. If you mean quality that fits a very narrow and specific conclusion… we’re not there yet.”
It’s true that the evidence does not exclude all other possibilities, it’s just that of the possibilities that the evidence COULD support, evolution is the most reasonable, and best fits the evidence.
Technically the earth COULD have been created 6500 years ago, and the fossils are there to “fuck with us”, and light was created “in travel” so we can see things further than 6500 light years away. No evidence we have can say definitely this is NOT the case. But that does not make it a reasonable hypothesis.
“With the irreducibly complexity. Let me stress again that proves that something “could” happen is not the same as proving it “should” or even “would” happen.”
EVERY “irreducibly complex” thing that creationist have brought up has been blown out of the water by showing transitions. Not most, not some, but EVERY SINGLE ONE.
This is a theory with no evidence. I could just as easily say that I am 10 billion years old and I witnessed evolution, so therefor it must be true. You’d rightly call me a crackpot and dismiss me. Just as those who try to push forward this idea with no evidence are crackpots who’s ideas are based on nothing but religious convictions and faith.
“Demonstrating random mutations is again a far cry from demonstrating random mutation in the creation of complex life. The fact that mutations occur is a far cry from demonstrating that millions of tiny unguided mutations improve the design of a species”
This is true, and if the mutations alone were the ONLY evidence, there would be problems, but they are not…
The circus freak was just to give examples of mutations that we are CERTAIN happen, they are not necessarily “positive” mutations though.
“Religion can be intensely self-critical”
Which religion exactly is self-critical?
“we have 3000 different protestant denomination as a testament to this fact. So we can constantly refine our ideas about the way things are.”
Actually the 3,000 denominations shows an unwillingness to reform by the older denomination, and a willingness to “break away” from establishment by splinter groups when they don’t get their own way.
This is NOT “self-critical”, this is actually two examples in one of being UNABLE to deal with criticism.
“I’m not talking about “unintelligent arguments based on religion” I’m talking about the evidence we have that strongly indicates design.”
What “evidence” exactly? There is no scientific evidence that points towards creationism, there is only evidence that creationism proponents try to claim as their own, but which in fact supports evolution.
Things like “irreducibly complex organisms” which don’t actually exist, and when looked at further show CLEARLY evolutionary traits.
“Behe did tell grad students that if they had scientific qualms about general evolution it’s best to keep that to themselves if they want jobs.”
It’s also wise that if you believe in invisible flying unicorns to stay quite, unless of course you like padded walls and doctors asking you how you feel a lot.
thisword,
You ARE being hypocritical if you say that it’s ok for you to test god, or to try to “prove” prayer works, but to ALSO ignore all other scientific evidence on the subject.
Either god can be tested, and ALL tests should be examined, or god can not be tested, and everything in your post is anecdotal and can not and should not be considered as potential evidence for or against anything.
You MUST pick one of the two positions, to attempt to “have it both ways” is disingenuous.
Now I am not sure if this is due to ignorance of the rules of scientific research, or if it is due to self delusion, or if it is a blatant attempt to be dishonest.
My GUESS, and this is only my opinion based on my impression of your from your blogs and comments, is the self delusion option is the correct one, but I can not be sure.
“Since after reading my link you found me to be hyprocirtical and dishonest, I find there is no point in me being here any more.”
I’m sorry to hear that you’re giving up the “fight”, but I must admit, it’s tough from my perspective to have to make the same points time after time since you are so good at ignoring any opinion that does not match your own.
“Thank you very much for your evaluation of my life.”
I only gave a few possibilities, I never claimed one of those was the truth with regards to you.
Rod.,
Anecdotal. Yes.
Self delusion! Do you really mean to say that I lived out my whole life trusting in a belief which is not real?
Rod.,
I am sorry. I need a satisfactory answer from you.
Here is my life-sketch. Ater reading this, please tell me how I survived all these years if God did not anser my daily prayers.
I dare not leave you to the conclusions you reached by your arguments, simply because it lacks practical application in our daily living. Or you must prove it. Any theory if it is not practical is of little value, isn’t it?
My life of faith really began in 1975.
The first thing I did was to resign my job and was found without a regular source of income to sustain my family. For three and a half years I was all alone with a family of two children then, with no salary, no job as a preacher or a social worker-which would let one be in constant contact with people- and without any known source of income from any estate or any thing of that sort. In other words, if I went hungry no one in the entire world was responsible for me. In fact people could blame me for my situation as I could have easily earned a good salary with my educational background. But during those years I proved to my satisfaction that God was indeed very real in our lives.
Three and a half years later, my local worshipping group commended me to the service of the Lord following the pattern found in Acts 13:1-4. From 1975 till this day I live without a regular salary, no bank balance, no business income or income from any estate. Now we have five children and I want to testify to the fact that we never ever went hungry or we were found in need and were left with out any help. We never approached any man for any financial help. And we went to a remote jungle-tribe that our contact with the extended family and friends were practically nil.
By 1986 I had sufficient faith to believe in God to erect a concrete building without any contact with men for the finance of it. I started with little money in hand, completed a 700 sft. of concrete structure including the roof within a matter of thirty calendar days; ended with no debt, and informed no man any where even for prayer about this project as I wanted to prove a point. That building has a granite inscription which reads, “This building stands witnessing the fact that God of Elijah lives”. For over six months I spent eight to ten hours every day in my prayer- closet praying, planning and interacting with God for the same. The purpose of the building was to house the poor children to educate them.
When the building was completed within 30 days, I was amazed to the core. I could not believe it myself. I thought my life-purpose was indeed achieved as I proved once again without a speck of doubt that indeed God answers prayers today. In 1991 I became semi-paralyzed and for the last sixteen years I am unable to walk even one step without crutches. And I had to leave my station for health reasons.
Now I am almost confined to my bedroom. The enormous amount of money for my treatment and for the education of all my children now five in number (the eldest was only 16 then), all were well taken care of as direct, tangible, undeniable, unbelievable answer to prayer day by day. No individual, no organization, no church can ever claim that they kept us going all these years without us going bankrupt. Oh, yes, I have been getting money from people known and unknown to me, from family and from friends, from believers and unbelievers; indeed often I never knew where my next meal would come from, but it always came right in time. I just don’t know how our needs are taken care of. But we are well cared for.
In the light of my experiences, I wish you to prove to me that God never answered my prayers. Tell me how I survived all these years. Tell me how I educated my five children to earn a good living today. Tell me how I met my huge medi-bills every now and then. Tell me how I maintained an automobile all these years. (Mind you, I am almost confined to my room without any ministry for the last sixteen years and practically without much contact with the world out side. No, No. I would have published a dozen and a half articles in Christian magazines in the last 32 years. Yes, I did go out once or twice a year to teach but it is far too expensive as I could never travel alone. I worked as a volunteer for three years in a Bible College. But health prevented me from continuing. That was just about the touch I had with the world outside. I must also tell you that this email facility I have now only from Oct.07.) Most of all, tell me how that building came up in just 30 days. Would you be able to explain my life from your philosophy of life?
So here I stand. I say that the God of the Bible is true and is alive. I simply subsisted by trusting in Him.
thisword / empy,
I figured I’d answer both your posts at once, since the first one only needs a simple answer.
“Anecdotal. Yes.”
I think this is the first time you’ve not argued when I used this word, I’m shocked. I must also say that I’m glad that you finally have lost your aversion to this word.
“Do you really mean to say that I lived out my whole life trusting in a belief which is not real?”
Yes, as an atheist, I do believe that your trusting in “god” or your “belief” in god or your faith is “god” is trust/belief/faith/what ever you want to call it in something that is not real.
“But during those years I proved to my satisfaction that God was indeed very real in our lives.”
So you TESTED god, even though you claim that god can not be tested…
“I proved once again without a speck of doubt that indeed God answers prayers today”
Ditto the above comment…
“I have been getting money from people known and unknown to me, from family and from friends, from believers and unbelievers”
THIS is EXACTLY my answer of how you survived…
A number of very generous people donated resources to help you out. Whether you asked them to or not, they still donated.
“I wish you to prove to me that God never answered my prayers”
Nobody can PROVE a negative, so this is an impossible task.
Just as you can never DISPROVE the existance ra or thor or allah, I can not disprove your god, or your prayers. What I can say is that your experiences have a logical explanation that is 100% natural, and does not involve the existance of a deity.
Your faith, whether in something real or not, has helped you in your life, but it is NOT evidence of the vlidity of your beliefs.
Rod.,
You said, “your experiences have a logical explanation that is 100%natural…”
If it just natural, could you possibly live out a life like that?
You said, “Your faith,..has helped you. But it is NOT evidence of the validity of your beliefs”.
If it is not evidence of the validity of my beliefs, What is it?
Your comment about anecdotal: Chambers published thirty years ago defines, “a short narrative of an incident of private life”. Yes. indeed.
Oxford publsihed in 2001 defines, “not necessarily true because not backed by facts”. My stories are indeed backed by facts of life.
thisword,
“If it just natural, could you possibly live out a life like that?”
Yes, while I personally would not put myself in the position that you put yourself into, I do believe that MOST people are capable of much more than they would expect from themselves.
Mothers who lift cars due to adrenaline to save their children are one example of this phenomena.
“If it is not evidence of the validity of my beliefs, What is it?”
It is exactly what I’ve said all along, an anecdote.
Regarding Anecdotal “evidence”:
Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote, or hearsay. The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, as evidence that cannot be investigated using the scientific method. The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is a logical fallacy.
…
In all forms of anecdotal evidence, objective independent assessment may be in doubt. This is a consequence of the informal way the information is gathered, documented, presented, or any combination of the three. The term is often used to describe evidence for which there is an absence of documentation. This leaves verification dependent on the credibility of the party presenting the evidence.
Or check out this link for a bit more information about why anecdotes are NOT evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence#Anecdotal_evidence_and_faulty_logic
Rod.,
You said, “Mothers who lift cars due to adrenaline to save their children are one example of this phenomena”.
Do you really mean my life was due to adrenaline when people whom I never met,people whom I never sent an appeal to, would contibute towards a project that they never knew was taking place in a far corner of the world? I do not see any comparrison between mothers lifting cars due to adrenaline and my life at all. I spent a whole life, not in my strength at all, but in the strength of praying to God. Power never came from me. It was from God who responded to my prayers.
I can never convince you that it was God answering prayer because you do not want to believe. You can never convince me that it was anything other than God answering prayer because I know that there was nothing else which could bring such results for a whole life.
But your original question, ‘how do you know that the version of faith that you have is true’ is answered by my life. Not by my arguments. I know without a speck of doubt what I believe is true. Praise Be to His Holy Name. So I am leaving this discussion.
thisword,
“Do you really mean my life was due to adrenaline”
No, I never said your situation was due to adrenaline, I used that as an example of the point that MOST people are capable of much more than they would expect from themselves.
“people whom I never met,people whom I never sent an appeal to, would contibute towards a project that they never knew was taking place in a far corner of the world”
I have answered YOUR specific situation multiple times, but since you don’t seem to have comprehended this, I’ll try yet again:
A number of very generous people donated resources to help you out. Whether you asked them to or not, they still donated.
“I do not see any comparrison between mothers lifting cars due to adrenaline and my life at all”
You did more than you thought you were capable of (you lived with very little resources, constructed a building, etc)
And in my example, which has been documented happening many time, and in dead has had scientific studies done examining the phenomena, the mothers did more than they thought they were capable of (lifting the car due to adrenalin in order to save their child)
How are you not capable of seeing the parallel between these two? Perhaps this will make it easier:
you (i.e the mothers) did more than you (i.e the mothers) thought you (i.e. the mothers) were capable of
Does this make it a bit more clear for you?
“I spent a whole life, not in my strength at all, but in the strength of praying to God.”
I never claimed it was about PHYSICAL STRENGTH for you. You REALLY need to work on understanding the meaning of things better, because you seem way too easily confused by things which my 5 and 6 year old nephews would be able to comprehend with no difficulty at all.
“Power never came from me.”
Did you physically construct the building, or did an invisible old guy come down from the sky and hammer the nails in, etc…
If it was in fact you, then I’d say the actual physical effort (i.e. power) was your own.
“It was from God who responded to my prayers.”
This is YOUR interpretation, and this view probably helped you mentally to cope better, and in the end accomplish more than if you had not held this belief, but BELIEF in something, does not make it real. The 9/11 hijackers believed AT LEAST AS STRONGLY in their interpretation of allah and the koran as you believe in god and allah. Yet according to YOUR beliefs, they are not believing in something real, and according to their beliefs you are not believing in something real. This should be a simple enough example of how belief does NOT equal reality for even you to comprehend.
“I can never convince you that it was God answering prayer because you do not want to believe.”
No, you can never convince me, because there is no scientific evidence for the phenomena, and in fact all scientifically controlled studies on prayer have shown no effect.
“You can never convince me that it was anything other than God answering prayer because I know that there was nothing else which could bring such results for a whole life.”
No, you don’t “know” this, you BELIEVE this due to your faith. There is a BIG difference.
I KNOW 1+1=2.
I BELIEVE my wife loves me. I believe this strongly enough in fact that I’d be willing to bet my life on the “fact”, but there is still a chance I’m wrong.
“But your original question, ‘how do you know that the version of faith that you have is true’ is answered by my life. Not by my arguments.”
It certainly took you a while to get around to this, and I respect your answer, I just hope that you understand your beliefs are NOT proof for others, despite your intentions, and your life, while meaningful to you, is not evidence of god or prayer, it’s an anecdote.
I was wondering if you’d had a chance to listen to the Dawkins/Lennox debate from Dawkins site? You know if I’m encouraging you to listen to it that I think Lennox won. But I’m sure we’ll both hear what we want to hear to some degree.
Anyway, I think that its a good debate that deals with many of the questions we’ve discussed. If you did listen, let me know what you thought.
To pick up the discussion(maybe not where we left off, but close)I wanted to pose a couple of questions.
I was wondering if you could comment on the militant attitude toward belief that is evidenced by people like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. By your (and their own) estimates belief in God is essentially the equivalent of believing in “fairies”. I don’t believe in fairies but I’ve never been tempted to write a book or have a debate on the subject.
Secondly values idealized by the atheist, again outlined by yourself would be things like, human equality, good treatment of women, basic kindness, etc. Isn’t it true that Judeo-Christianity introduced or (at the very least popularized) these ideas?
We’ve talked about atheism not being the cause of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao. But it’s seems that it’s not quite honest to say that these things were not done in the name of atheism. They were done to promote communism which at heart is the idea that religion is a problem and, as such, needs to be eliminated. Communism is explicitly atheistic. So how can we say that their actions were separated from atheism when they were based on the tenets of communism which is essentially atheism, arguably taken to it’s logic conclusion?
Anyway, I’ve been terribly busy but I wanted to jump back into the fray.
And I’m back as well. Just a quick reply before dinner.
Dawkins et al, make me personally a bit uncomfortable because in them I see the same sort of iron-clad certainty and lack of flexibility that worries me in some religious people.
As for the ideas that you postulate were introduced or popularised by Christianity . . . I’m sorry, but most of them were around to a similar extent (varying between cultures and time periods) for long before Christianity came along.
And I may be wrong, but I thought that communism was less about doing away with religion in specific and more about toppling the elite of those societies (both political and religious) and restoring control to the ‘good workers’ and that the attacks on religion (and the other atrocities as well) were more about maintaining control and stamping out dissent in general (in much the same way that things like the Spanish Inquisition and witch burnings and trials, for example, were) than about attacking religion specifically. Of course, they just succeeded in replacing one elite with another, but that’s what usually happens, isn’t it?
And now I’ve got to go because my dinner’s ready.
Uncertain –
Like it or not, Dawkins and others are the spokesmen for the modern atheist. But they’re the face of atheism for the reasons I question in my previous post; because they are so militant about their ideas. This continues to beg the question – why do they hate “fairy tales” so much?
Couple of things about the Christianity introducing/popularizing moral ideas… where do you find them so clearly propagated outside of Judeo-Christianity? I hear this response but I guess I’m not sure where these ideas exist to this degree and in the detail they do within Judaism and, by extension, Christianity? The early success of Christ and Christianity was it’s difference from popular culture not it’s similarity.
And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic? Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a religion-free utopia? These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheists. I suppose one could argue that the problem is unchecked power but that power in the hands of atheists has proven itself far more deadly than in the hands of Christians. What’s more the atrocities that were committed in the name of Christ were done contrary to the teachings of Christ, the atrocities that were done in the name of communism were not done in defiance of its teachings.
A part of the reason that Dawkins and co are seen as the spoksmen for athiests and the like is simply that they are the loudest voices coming from that direction. I’m sure you don’t like some of the things that come out of the mouths of the loudest voices on the religious side of the fence, so to speak.
As to why they hate fairytales, I suspect it might have something to do with the harm they see religion and, as they see it, ‘sloppy thinking’ causing in the world and that they see religion as largely unnecessary.
For myself, I rather like fairy tales: they’re interesting, raise fascinating questions, and can tell us a lot about ourselves.
Also, they can result in interesting debates.
I’d grant you that Christianity is seen as popularising moral ideas in the West, but a part of that is due to the Greeks and Romans shading the societies they took over or who opposed them in an extremely negative light and because so much of what we know about the ancient world came from them. ‘Barbarians’ by Terry Jones looks at that and illusrates it quite well and his description of ‘Celtic’ culture, from what I remember seemed to illustrate a firm moral center quite well – particularly as regards the treatment of women (and how well have women been treated in Christian societies until recently?). But the thing is that the morals espoused by Christianity appear in various forms in just about every other religion out there (Taoism, Hinduism, Buddhism) simply because of a part of the function of religion is to stop us bumping into each other and serve as a moderating influence on us ,as well as explaining how the people of those times saw the world as working.
I’m not disputing that the philosophy of Stalin, Mao, etc was explicitly athiestic, but the problem is that you can’t have it both ways. I’d say that, just as the atrocities committed by religious people run contrary to the teaching of those religions just as I’d say that the atrocities committed in the name of communism run contrary to its ‘teachings’ and certainly to its ideals. I would definately argue the ‘more deadly’ part, however given that currently and throughout history religious people have had athiests vastly outnumbered and have done more damage in the name of their gods by simple weight of numbers – just look at the current mess in the Middle East, for example, or the persecution of the Jews throughout history, or the near genocide and attempted ‘civilisation’ – or ‘Christianisation’ – of native peoples throughout the world during Europe’s colonial period and continuing on when former colonies achieved independence, or . . .
For myself, I think such atrocities have more to do with certainty, fear, control, the on-going struggle for resources and simple human pride than any particular philosophy or religion. And they are atrocities, whether committed in the name of one God or no god.
In those cases, religion and philosophy are just the excuses we use to justify our actions.
I’d like to say this too, speaking generally and honestly not aimed at anyone in particular:
The thing to remember about athiests, agnostics, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, scientists of any faith or none, or members of any of the other many and varied belief systems out there, is that, for the most part, they hold their beliefs just as honestly as you do – whatever faith you claim.
They don’t find their beliefs at all foolish, irrational or believe that they have been deceived any more than you do. To pretend otherwise not only insults their beliefs, but also your own.
They are also just as likely to kill, steal, commit adultery, or go against whatever moral code they have in some other way, given the right circumstances as you are. And that’s simply because, they, like you, are *human*. To believe otherwise suggests a dangerous pride in your own moral superiority. And that pride and judgement are things that most religions have warnings about, with good reason.
Uncertain,
I have to say for the most part I agree with you. You’re premise seems to be that it’s human nature to be less than perfect. And you’re right to say that I’m above anyone because of my beliefs would belie the sort of awful moral superiority that Christianity needs to avoid.
But this sort of moral failure is a basic piece of the Christian world-view. When asked if man is basically good or basically bad the Christian theology would answer negatively. And this is certainly an unpopular (and unusual) position to take.
I do find it interesting that you seem to agree with what seems to be a uniquely judeo-christian position of man’s failure.
And yes, religion is more often then not used as a justification for human failure in areas like pride, avarice or the imposition of power. I didn’t hear you making this point but I’d like to respond anyway – Because a thing is misused does not mean that thing is wrong.
An a different note, I’m not sure how genocide would run contrary to the teachings of communism. Does the philosophy of communism even cover the issue. I say that because to compare the moral philosophy of communism and the moral teachings of Jesus seems a stretch to say the least.
For the sake of clarity – I am a Christian. I’m not sure I’ve been able to discern exactly where you’re coming from. Agnostic, maybe?
Either way, thanks for the discussion. I always enjoy the when opposing world-view come into conflict in a respectful and amicable way.
This begs the question of how do you even decide what’s moral or not.
Sorry the question on the bottom I meant to erase.
Sorry, I wasn’t actually directly comparing Christianity to Communism, but rather pointing out that neither condones the attrocities that have been perpetrated in its name.
Again, I’m not sure I’d agree that the position of man as a flawed creature is, as you put it, uniquely Judeo-Christian as it appears to be a part of most philosophies and religions.
I agree completely that just because a thing is misused doesn’t mean it’s wrong, but that’s true of any religion or philosophy. But the thing is, and this is as true of me as you, that just because you believe something doesn’t mean it’s true.
As for the position I’m coming from, I’d say that I consider myself agnostic in the original sense of the word. These days it seems to have been devalued to a sort of philosophical ‘meh’ attitude – don’t know, don’t care. When originally it was taken more as a philosophical method expressed positively as ‘follow reason as far as it will take you’ and negatively as ‘do not pretend that conclusions are certain when they are not’.
As far as I can see, neither the existence or precise nature of god can be proven or disproven, and people act contrary to their beliefs all the time so the only thing that matters is what we actually *do* here and now and whether we cause harm to others or the world around us or try to lessen that harm we see around us.
Don’t worry, the question on how I decide what’s moral or not is a fair enough one, and I’ll take a stab at answering. For me, it’s all bound up with the concept of harm. Ideally, my actions would harm no one, but that isn’t always possible so instead I try to minimise that harm that I am responsible for. When trying to decide where I stand on various issues I try to find a path of least harm for the greatest number. It isn’t always easy.
I go into more detail over on my own blog, which is part of how I think about, test and evaluate my own beliefs – it was a post on faith, in fact, that led to Rod’s invitation to join this debate in the first place.
Indeed, it’s a pleasure to debate like this, and interesting.
moot,
I’m glad to have you back in the conversation, it’s slacked a bit recently, due to a few trips out of town by myself, and a number of people seem to have faded away after a short time.
I see you’ve got three comments here, so I’ll try to address them all as best I can.
Yes, i have listened to the debate (well most of it at any rate), and I found it quite amusing.
From what I understand it was put on by a christian organization, which I think showed in the format, but I do think it was interesting to hear from Lennox.
My biggest problem with the debate really was it seemed, to me at least, that all of the questions were intended to keep Dawkins on the defensive, and he was not given a chance to respond to the comments of Lennox due to the format of the “debate”.
The moderator seemed to quote mine Dawkin’s book to find passages that could be taken out of context and used as a straw man by Lennox, which Lennox obligingly took advantage of at every instance.
I also find it amusing that Lennox frequently tries to distance himself and “his god” from the christians that used their faith to justify horrific acts, and yet his side is currently trying (doing a horrible job of it, but trying none-the-less) to paint Darwin as being the inspiration for the Holocaust by selectively misquoting from “The Descent Of Man”.
What I was hoping for, and did not find, was something new or different from Lennox, but he basically rehashes the same tired arguments that have been discredited and beaten down for decades. He comes across, to me, as a very intelligent man trying to defend a very tenuous position and reaching as far as possible to hold it all together as best he can.
One of the “typical” arguments that creationists use time and time again is that the universe must have been created BY something or someone, and they use god as that creator. When an astrophysicist says the big bang created the universe, they ALWAYS say, something like “but what caused the big bang”, and since we don’t have an answer (yet? or possibly ever?) they take that as a “win” for their side. Yet when the question is put back at them, “what created god?”, they try to backtalk around it “god has always been”, thus invalidating one of their own favorite ploys against science. The only difference in Lennox’s treatment of this, is he SOUNDS intelligent when he says it.
Luckily for Lennox, each time he tried and failed to make a point against Dawkins and was shot down by Dawkins, he had the audience on his side, and the moderator ready to step in and bail him out.
One thing I think you MAY have missed about Lennox is that from what I have read it seems he DOES believe in the big bang and evolution over the course of millions/billions of years, the key difference is that he believes that god directed it.
“I was wondering if you could comment on the militant attitude toward belief that is evidenced by people like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens.”
As Sam Harris has said, I believe I read it at the beginning of “The End Of Faith”, but it may have been in an interview (and I am paraphrasing here):
9/11 showed us that we can not afford to sit back and hope that religions come to an understand with each other any more, the consequences are global and potentially civilization ending; we need to do everything we can to stamp out the radical elements that wish to subjugate others based on the superstitions of our ancestors.
Basically it comes down to the fact that extremists NEED to be stopped for the sake of mankind, and one way to do that is to force the moderates to take a position that no longer supports those fundamentalists.
It is not faith or belief or god that we rally against, it is the actions that are caused and justified by that faith.
“By your (and their own) estimates belief in God is essentially the equivalent of believing in “fairies”. I don’t believe in fairies but I’ve never been tempted to write a book or have a debate on the subject.”
Nobody has ever flown a plane into a building because a fairy told them to.
Or if you’d prefer a christian example: nobody has ever enslaved a race of people for hundreds of years because of leprechauns, fairy’s, Santa, or Bigfoot.
“Isn’t it true that Judeo-Christianity introduced or (at the very least popularized) these ideas?”
Introduced: EMPHATICALLY NO.
Popularized in the Western world: PERHAPS. But I don’t see very good examples of equality in CURRENT fundamentalist christians (there is still much sexism in chistianity even in the 21rst century).
“We’ve talked about atheism not being the cause of Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao. But it’s seems that it’s not quite honest to say that these things were not done in the name of atheism. They were done to promote communism which at heart is the idea that religion is a problem and, as such, needs to be eliminated. Communism is explicitly atheistic. So how can we say that their actions were separated from atheism when they were based on the tenets of communism which is essentially atheism”
No, you’re using the same flaw in logic that most Christians use in holding others to separate standards than you hold your own faith. If you honestly believe that Atheism CAUSED the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao then you, even more than me, should want religion disbanded as well for fear of more atrocities like Mother Theresa, Hitler, the Catholic Church, etc…
However, if you want to see a difference between the two, then I’d like to show you (I hope) where the difference REALLY is.
Religion teaches that there is a specific way we SHOULD live, and those who live outside of this ideal are bad (sinners, infidels, etc). one of the tenets of many faiths is that the believers have it in their minds, that one of their life’s goals is to convert those who don’t believe, and in the cases when people are unwilling to be converted they are demonized.
This leads inevitably to a “us vs them” philosophy, which as we’ve seen by (well let’s count, hmm) ALMOST EVERY SINGLE war ever fought in history.
On the other side of the spectrum, you have atheism, which states that this is the ONLY life we get. If you believe that there is NOTHING after this life, you’re MUCH less likely to kill others, and thus risk your own life, because there are no 72 virgins on the “other side”, and there is no Saint Peter at the pearly gates for your everlasting life of bliss.
While the Communist regimes may have been founded on atheistic principals by Marx/Lenin; Stalin was NOT a bastard because of his atheism, in fact he is quoted many time as comparing communism to a religion. Not exactly the type of thing you’d expect from a true atheist (Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, Dennet, etc).
As I mentioned previously:
While there have been some horrendous acts committed by both sides, Stalin and others on the “atheist” side did not commit their acts because “the lack of god told me to” they did it because, frankly, they were paranoid, megalomaniac assholes. Once that particular person was no longer in power, society turned back to a more rational (if still communist) one and stalin’s successors even destroyed many of the statues, renamed “his” city, and tried (in vain) to remove as much of the historical record related to him as possible.
In a religious dominated society this does not happen, because “god” never dies or is taken out of power. Religion by it’s nature is more prone to continue on generation after generation (scientology, latter day saints, islam, christianity, etc as a few examples) despite a specific leader passing on.
I would also add that not just the religion carries on generation after countless generation, but the immoral practices continue on, and are much harder to eradicate in a religious atmosphere than in a secular one.
Also you previously stated on your own blog, and this one briefly, that you believe ALL of our actions are BECAUSE of god, which means (again, as I said before):
by your logic, Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Dahmer, etc all committed horrendous acts of violence against their fellow man BECAUSE of “God’s existence (or lack thereof)”. So either god exists, and caused the holocaust, or he does not and you can throw your belief system out the window.
I realize this sidesteps this direct issue a bit, but it’s still on topic I believe, and makes yet another point that i feel is VERY important when talking about this subject.
“arguably taken to it’s logic conclusion”
This point I would like to bring up separately, because I think this is certainly arguable. I do NOT beleive that communism is the logical conclusion of atheism, I beleive that a liberal democracy is.
“Couple of things about the Christianity introducing/popularizing moral ideas… where do you find them so clearly propagated outside of Judeo-Christianity?”
India and China, long before the time of Jesus. Both Buddha and Confucius were talking about MANY of the same moral and philosophical ideas 500 years before Jesus. In fact there has been much speculation that some time during jesus’ “lost years”, that he was introduced to Buddhism and built his following around his interpretation of Buddha’s teachings.
“The early success of Christ and Christianity was it’s difference from popular culture not it’s similarity.”
Early as in the first 250 years? or the time after that?
During the vast majority of the first 250 years, most christians believed that the armageddon was coming in their own lifetime (just as many christians believe today, my how they’ve grown over the last two millenia), and they considered themselves to be Jewish (all-be-it a reformed judism), not an entirely new religion.
While it would have been very easy for this to have been the time for this religion to fade away, there is nothing miraculous about it, and it certainly does not “prove” the truth of this religion, any more than the survival or Hinduism or Islam prove the validity of their beliefs.
“And who can deny that Stalin and Mao, not to mention Pol Pot and a host of others, all committed atrocities in the name of a Communist ideology that was explicitly atheistic?”
Actually many people. MOST scholars do not claim that Stalin or Pol pot or Mao committed their actions because of the system of government they were around, but because of their own ideologies. It is essentially universally accepted that Stalin was a paranoid psychotic (and possibly schizophrenic).
“Who can dispute that they did their bloody deeds by claiming to be establishing a “new man” and a religion-free utopia?”
Actually Stalin NEVER claimed to be creating a utopia, he was ALWAYS acknowledged that he was rooting out dissidents.
“These were mass murders performed with atheism as a central part of their ideological inspiration, they were not mass murders done by people who simply happened to be atheists.”
See my last two points
“I suppose one could argue that the problem is unchecked power but that power in the hands of atheists has proven itself far more deadly than in the hands of Christians.”
Actually, based on population sizes the religious have killed a VASTLY superior percentage of the world than atheists. And if you include EITHER (not both, but either) Hitler or Mother Theresa on the “believer” side, then religion has killed the greater total number as well.
“What’s more the atrocities that were committed in the name of Christ were done contrary to the teachings of Christ, the atrocities that were done in the name of communism were not done in defiance of its teachings.”
Just as the atrocities committed by Stalin were in direct contrast to the ideals of atheism and even to the ideals of communism.
As well, religion has proven over the centuries to be specifically susceptible to “misinterpretations” that lead to these kinds of genocides. This is an issue that should be looked at, but according to the VAST majority of believers it CAN NOT be looked at.
“When asked if man is basically good or basically bad the Christian theology would answer negatively. And this is certainly an unpopular (and unusual) position to take.”
Actually this is a VERY typical position taken by cults and espoused by cult leaders, including Charles Mason, Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc… It’s NOT at all uncommon, it’s just that cults tend to die off after their “messiah” or leader dies/goes to prison for life/etc…
“I do find it interesting that you seem to agree with what seems to be a uniquely judeo-christian position of man’s failure.”
This is also not unique among major world religions, in fact Buddhism and all other religions based around reincarnation are in part based on the fallibility of man, and the search for enlightenment, and better ones self. If you beleive that man is perfect, then why would you wish to be better?
I’d suggest you check MUCH deeper into the believers of Hinduism and Buddhism, because these statements show a lack of understanding of these religions if you truly think this makes Christianity unique in ANY respect.
“And yes, religion is more often then not used as a justification for human failure in areas like pride, avarice or the imposition of power. I didn’t hear you making this point but I’d like to respond anyway – Because a thing is misused does not mean that thing is wrong.”
This is true, misuse of something does not imply that it is wrong, but it is odd that EVERYTHING created by an infallible being is so inherently flawed. It seems that god has a worse track record than Yugo.
“An a different note, I’m not sure how genocide would run contrary to the teachings of communism.”
Perhaps because at it’s core, communism is supposed to be all the people working in harmony for the collective, killing off the collective means less workers, and less effectiveness/efficiency.
“moral teachings of Jesus”
We can go into the morality of the bible if you’d like, but I doubt you’ll like where we take it. God commanding people to kill EVERY man, woman, child, and beast in a city (i.e. genocide), or god condoning slavery, or god himself wiping out all life on the planet but the chosen few (genocide again, but on an even larger scale).
And if you are right, and Jesus is god, then ALL of the teachings of the old testament are also the teachings of jesus, since god “inspired” both books, even if one came later.
I think the fact that people are talking about Atheism in an open manner is very refreshing,timely and important. There are people out there who dismiss evolution and other scientific discoveries because it contradicts their beliefs. This indicates a problem. These subjects need to be out in the open so everyone can learn about them. If it undermines a belief structure then thats a problem you have to deal with. It doesnt go away by ignoring it. I think Harris, dawkins etc. are speaking out because history has shown that brainwashing and blind faith can lead to horrible things.
I havent found Harris to be militant but he is passionate, sharp and clear. I am sure that is hard to hear for a believer and, lets face it, admitting our core beliefs may be wrong is something no one does without a fight. He says this stuff is either wrong or its right. There is no gray area. Science, history, evidence says its not true. He also says that people’s spiritual experiences and “special feelings” are similarly reported across the spectrum of believers and non-believers. I suspect these “feelings” are a large part of people holding on to beliefs. Following on to this Hitchens asks why people who believe are absolutely the same as everyone else. No happier, no more successful yet they have the “Truth” and the promise of eternal life.
uncertainhope,
Welcome back, nice to see you rejoin the fray.
“Dawkins et al, make me personally a bit uncomfortable because in them I see the same sort of iron-clad certainty and lack of flexibility that worries me in some religious people.”
I agree that they give this impression from a distance, but if you look past the surface, all of them admit the possibility of being wrong, in fact Dawkins puts the likelihood of his being wrong at 5%.
I also think that MOST people are more comfortable with black and white, right and wrong, left and right, and that the media has played into this with their coverage of these people (and to an extent ALL atheists).
The primary difference that I see between a fundamentalist religious person and a fundamentalist atheist, is that there is NOTHING that could ever dissuade a believer, but for all TRULY reasonable atheists there MUST be some type of evidence which would change their mind, since by the very definition of their beliefs they MUST be open to the scientific evidence no matter where it leads them.
“As for the ideas that you postulate were introduced or popularised by Christianity . . . I’m sorry, but most of them were around to a similar extent (varying between cultures and time periods) for long before Christianity came along.”
I agree, in fact there are books out there that show that while christianty is potentially a unique blend of ideas, that NOTHING in christianty is actually unique to christianty, including EVERY SINGLE aspect of the life of it’s founder, jesus.
“And I may be wrong, but I thought that communism was less about doing away with religion in specific and more about toppling the elite of those societies (both political and religious) and restoring control to the ‘good workers’”
True
“and that the attacks on religion (and the other atrocities as well) were more about maintaining control and stamping out dissent in general”
I think when talking of Stalin specifically, it is also VERY important to mention his paranoia, which was well documented, and fairly universally accepted as one of the primary causes of his actions.
“Of course, they just succeeded in replacing one elite with another, but that’s what usually happens, isn’t it?”
As we have seen through four long term “experiments” in communism, the levels (or classes) become even MORE separated by long term life under the system.
The rest of your posts I pretty much agree with word for word, which is a nice thing, since this post has MOSTLY been me trying to “fight back” against various misinterpretations of the atheistic position or ignorance of their own faith and history of their own religion.
The one thing I would add is that the key difference between atheists and believers is that those on the “atheist” side do not commit their acts because “the lack of god told me to” they did it because, frankly, they were paranoid, megalomaniac assholes. The believers by and large commit their acts and justify them because they BELIEVE 100% that “their god” wants them to.
I’d also like to quote one thing you said, which is important enough that i think it bears repeating:
The thing to remember about athiests, agnostics, Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, scientists of any faith or none, or members of any of the other many and varied belief systems out there, is that, for the most part, they hold their beliefs just as honestly as you do – whatever faith you claim.
They don’t find their beliefs at all foolish, irrational or believe that they have been deceived any more than you do. To pretend otherwise not only insults their beliefs, but also your own.
They are also just as likely to kill, steal, commit adultery, or go against whatever moral code they have in some other way, given the right circumstances as you are. And that’s simply because, they, like you, are *human*. To believe otherwise suggests a dangerous pride in your own moral superiority. And that pride and judgment are things that most religions have warnings about, with good reason.
etot,
“I think the fact that people are talking about Atheism in an open manner is very refreshing,timely and important.”
I agree with this 100%. As I have mentioned many times, I believe that religion and specifically the differences between them (and atheists) is possibly the most important issue facing our world today. The potential for harm is quite literally the end of humanity and the world, and the direction we are going is not currently a promising one.
“There are people out there who dismiss evolution and other scientific discoveries because it contradicts their beliefs. This indicates a problem.”
Again, I agree. While many creationists try to use a new term to describe their ideas and cloud the with scientific sounding ideas, they are doing nothing but parroting a book written by ignorant bronze age mankind. This creates too many conflicts between science and faith which does not need to exist.
“These subjects need to be out in the open so everyone can learn about them. If it undermines a belief structure then thats a problem you have to deal with. It doesnt go away by ignoring it.”
I forget who exactly was who said it, but there was a Jewish rabbi/scholar on a podcast I heard who basically said, that if science can prove some aspect of the Torah incorrect; it might make him a “good” jew to blindly accept the Torah, but it would make him an ignorant person. He stated that his faith in god is strong enough to whether any evidence, since his faith is not built around a book, but around his experiences. To me, this is THE position that all intelligent believers SHOULD take.
“I think Harris, dawkins etc. are speaking out because history has shown that brainwashing and blind faith can lead to horrible things.”
I think your reasons are correct, but I think that at least secondarily, if not primarily, they did it to spark a conversion. I believe their reasons are similar to my own with regards to this post:
I did post this so that people of different faiths (and no faiths) could see that as strongly as you believe your faith and your religion to be the absolute truth, that there are others who are JUST AS CONVINCED that their faith and their religions are the absolute truth.
I did post this so that people could read and hopefully gain a better understanding of the opinions and beliefs of those who they might not see eye to eye with.
I did post this so that people could hopefully find some common ground with which to begin an open dialog on religion, since religion is such a major part of our society.
“I havent found Harris to be militant but he is passionate, sharp and clear. I am sure that is hard to hear for a believer and, lets face it, admitting our core beliefs may be wrong is something no one does without a fight. He says this stuff is either wrong or its right. There is no gray area. Science, history, evidence says its not true. He also says that people’s spiritual experiences and “special feelings” are similarly reported across the spectrum of believers and non-believers. I suspect these “feelings” are a large part of people holding on to beliefs. Following on to this Hitchens asks why people who believe are absolutely the same as everyone else. No happier, no more successful yet they have the “Truth” and the promise of eternal life.”
Harris is certainly the most “spiritual” of the group of outspoken atheists these days. While he can be the harshest in some ways against some aspects of organized religion, he certainly understands the spiritual aspects, and actually seems to embrace them, even in his personal life.
Rodibidably,
I think you mentioned somewhere, although I can’t find it at the moment, that you’d read a book that posited that Jesus may have studied Buddhism at some time in his life during his wonderings? Can you give a reference to that? It sounds interesting and, I have to say, a bit more likely than the possibility that the similarities between Jesus Christ and Quetzecoatl being due to the influence of a (very) early Christian missionary wondering around South America.
I’m not quite sure I agree with you when you say, “As we have seen through four long term “experiments” in communism, the levels (or classes) become even MORE separated by long term life under the system.” I’m not disputing that the classes became more seperated by life under that system, but the degree of difference between the two systems. Especially given the currently rapidly accelerating gap between the levels of wealth and social mobility of the very rich and the very poor in Western societies, especially when coupled with the numbers of people in the middle brackets being pushed down into the lower ones.
uncertainhope,
There are many books that go into the similarities between the teachings of Jesus and Buddha:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=jesus+buddha&x=0&y=0
etc…
However, I’m not at home, so I can’t look right now at my bookshelf for all of the specific ones I’ve read that talk about the possible link between Jesus and Buddhism. The one i can recall off the top of my head is:
In most the sources (books) I’ve read that talk about this as an actual link, they put it forth as a hypothesis based on the similarities of their teachings, not based on much historical evidence.
If I recall correctly either Holy Blood Holy Grail or The Messianic Legacy also brought this up. Granted both of these books are based on WILD speculation and fantasy, but they do actually have a lot of historical evidence mixed in with the trash that they fell for.
Essentially most of these stories are repeating, and attempting to delve further into the stories of Nicholas Notovitch, who journeyed to India/Tibet in the late 19th century and heard stories of the Tibetan scrolls about Saint Issa.
http://www.atmajyoti.org/sw_unknown_life.asp
http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Notovitch
There was also a History Channel (or it may have been Discovery Channel) program on this as well that went to Tibet to look for the scrolls, and found ancient folk-tales of Saint Issa throughout India (Sorry I can’t find a link for this, but you might have better luck).
I agree that the last 8 years have done a bang up job of removing the middle class (mostly), and the gap between the richest of the richest and the poorest is larger than ever before in history, but my point was not about the raw disparity but the lives of the separate classes.
In our 4 historical experiments with communism we have seen a ruling class and a peasant class (much like Medieval Europe with the surfs and the royals) with virtually NOTHING in between.
Even with the gap between the richest of the richest and the poorest people in poverty in the US today there still exists a large middle class (despite the Bush administration’s “efforts” to remove it). In fact the current estimates that I’ve seen place roughly 12% of the population in poverty (which is ridiculously high IMO) and roughly 5% in the top group (upper class).
This would leave 80%+ in the “middle class” in today’s US society compared with 90% or so in soviet countries in the lowest class. While the disparity between the poorest and the richest may be further, that is due more to the peaks possible in a capitalist society that are just not possible in a communist one (despite the amount of corruption). The gap may be technically larger inn the US than in communist societies, but the overwhelming majority of people are NOT in poverty as they are in most communist societies.
Here’s a chunk from Leviticus that I think illustrates the existence of unique morality a good 1000 years before Buddha. In other words, whatever Jesus did during the “Lost Years” he didn’t need to go to India to learn his stuff. If we’re speaking strictly in terms of what showed up earlier then perhaps Buddha picked up some of his talking points from Judaism.
” ‘Do not steal. ‘Do not lie. ‘Do not deceive one another. ” ‘Do not swear falsely by my name and so profane the name of your God. I am the LORD. ‘Do not defraud your neighbor or rob him. ‘Do not hold back the wages of a hired man overnight. ‘Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the LORD. ‘Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. ‘Do not go about spreading slander among your people. Do not do anything that endangers your neighbor’s life. I am the LORD. ‘Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt. ‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD. ”
Leviticus 19:11 – 18
And I know I’m cherry-picking so you can find plenty of verses that won’t go down quite as smoothly to the modern and “enlightened” mind, but I think it’s important to establish precedence.
Furthermore the existence of “Christian” ideas outside of an earlier than Christianity by no means negates Christianity. While I believe the bible is unique, I’ve never said the ideas in the bible are unique to the bible. If fact if we believe that morality is a supernaturally inspired experience we would expect to find morality outside of the influence of Scripture. No theist would argue that God can only work through one book. In fact, if you read some of the apostles Paul’s writing he quotes “pagan” poets and authors to make his “Christian” points.
So I would argue that you will certainly find morality outside of Christianity. This, as I’ve said before, is an evidence of the supernatural. To say that Hammurabi, then Buddha then Hume or whoever else have all come to essentially the same conclusions is beyond remarkable. Maybe we could even say it’s supernatural?
Rodibidably,
Thanks for the links, I’ll check them out. And your point about the degree of poverty in communist societies is well taken, but the poorest in our societies still get a shamingly raw deal compared with those better off and when you look at the richest among us . . . well, I tend to be quite a mild person, but it utterly disgusts and sickens me.
Anyway . . .
Mootpoints,
I’d say that there’s a very simple explanation for the common moral framework that can be found in most religions and philosophies that is about as far from the supernatural as you can get.
As I’ve said before, one of the main functions of religion is, along with government, to moderate human behaviour and guide us in such a way that we are able to interact with one another in a cooperative way with a minumum of conflict, as well as binding us together and reinforcing group identity and solidarity.
Form follows function and, because of that, certain things need to be a part of any moral framework for it to work. No need for any supernatural explanations there at all, I’m afraid.
The problem is that the above works at a basically tribal level (whether you identify your ‘tribe’ as Christian, American, Muslim, Australian, French, or even as a Mets or Yankees fan) and at the point we are now, with the degree of interconnectedness in the world and the global nature of the problems we face we need to find a way to move past that, retaining our ‘tribal’ identities while being able to act globally and fairly at the same time. We can’t say anymore that something that hurts one group doesn’t hurt us all. And to do that, I think we need to step back a little and give other groups (no matter how different and ‘other’ we find them) the same benefit of the doubt we would like to see them give us regarding sincerity of motive and work with them with a little more honesty and a lot less fear (and greed).
Of course then we come back to human nature that hasn’t really evolved much beyond a time when resources were scarce and to not have enough meant death for you and yours.
moot,
I don’t have my copy of “the good book” in front of me, can you remind me again where the passage is that EXPLICITLY forbids slavery? Or sexism? Or racism? Or homophobia? Or genocide? (Do I need to continue?)
My oh my, how I love the morals of the bible…
🙂
Cherry picking quotes makes for good sound bites (or I guess in this case word bites), but it does NOT give a complete picture.
I do agree with you that the bible has a NUMBER of very good ideas, and I’m sure that many involved with the early jewish faith had the best of intentions, but my problem with the Old Testament is not these passages, but the book as a whole being taken as the “word of god”.
We both agree that the bible has been used as an excuse MANY times throughout history for some of the worst atrocities ever perpetrated by mankind against one another. It is my opinion that this happens because it’s not a cut and dry book, it’s open to interpretation, and when you have something open to interpretation, then it is open to misinterpretation. when you combine that misinterpretation with the concept that the words are infallible, you have a situation where any idea, no matter how heinous can be justified as being “god’s will”.
As for the age of the Torah, admittedly it’s ancient, and not many writings remain that predate it, but I’m certain that if I looked, I could find more specific examples of “christian” values that predate the Torah from Egyptian culture or another source.
We know that the flood story in the Old Testament is a rewrite of the Gilgamesh flood myth, which predated it by 1000 years or more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh_flood_myth
http://www.noahs-ark-flood.com/parallels.htm
“Furthermore the existence of “Christian” ideas outside of an earlier than Christianity by no means negates Christianity.”
I agree, but it does kill the point that many try to make that jesus or moses or abraham brought these ideas to the world. in fact you’ve even beaten around the bush on this point, while not explicitly saying they never existed before hand:
“Isn’t it true that Judeo-Christianity introduced or (at the very least popularized) these ideas?
…
Couple of things about the Christianity introducing/popularizing moral ideas… where do you find them so clearly propagated outside of Judeo-Christianity?”
“If fact if we believe that morality is a supernaturally inspired experience we would expect to find morality outside of the influence of Scripture.”
And if we believe that morality evolved with society we would expect this as well.
“No theist would argue that God can only work through one book.”
Really, wasn’t that the ENTIRE point of the inquisition and the crusades? And isn’t that what many of the militant fundamentalist christians and muslims claim even today?
“In fact, if you read some of the apostles Paul’s writing he quotes “pagan” poets and authors to make his “Christian” points.”
I would commend anybody who tries to gather as many ideas as they can from multiple sources. I think there are many good ideals we can learn from christianity, islam, hinduism, buddhism, taoism, ancient Greece, Egypt, and countless other sources. The problem I see is that many believers try to stick to only one source for their views on the world, and when that source does not fit what society would consider acceptable, they attempt to change society to fit their own prejudices instead of looking at themselves, or their source to see if it should be called into question.
“So I would argue that you will certainly find morality outside of Christianity.”
We agree
“This, as I’ve said before, is an evidence of the supernatural.”
How is this evidence of supernatural? This is also what one would expect if morality evolved over time in humanity (Daniel Dennet’s idea).
“To say that Hammurabi, then Buddha then Hume or whoever else have all come to essentially the same conclusions is beyond remarkable.”
See above
“Maybe we could even say it’s supernatural?”
See above
uncertainhope,
I’m not saying that capitalism has it perfect, far from in it fact, but I do think that as a general rule, we tend to do better in a Democratic/Capitalistic society than any of the Communist countries have managed to do in the last 70 years.
We certainly still have a way to go, but I don’t think we’ll ever completely remove the idea of classes of society. I do we’ll do a better job of helping those who need it though, while continuing to reward those who work hard.
“or even as a Mets or Yankees fan”
Really there are still people in this day and age that would be willing to admit to such a thing?
To quote you: I tend to be quite a mild person, but it utterly disgusts and sickens me.
Erm, I think I’m missing something in that last comment. Are you talking about people who define their in-group and worldly focus so narrowly, limiting it to supporters of one sports team?
I fear there are indeed people like that, whether their focus is a sports team, a fashion label or a TV show.
I don’t understand them either.
I agree that we’ll probably never have a classless society and, to be honest, I’m not sure it would work if we did have one. The thing is that so far all the societies I’ve seen tend to be built around an ideal rather than starting from as honest a view of humanity as possible. (Come to think about it, I’m not sure that’s possible either)
uncertainhope,
Nope, just a Braves fan having a bit of fun bashing the Mets…
As for the ideal of a Utopian society, I don’t think we’ll ever get to that point; I believe that Dawkins is right in the Selfish Gene, in that the sole goal our of genes is to pass themselves on, and this works in a way that creates “cheats” in any societal structure. Even if we had an ideal society where everybody works for the common good, and helps out there fellow man, it only takes a handful of “cheats” to screw up the system for the rest.
What I do think is possible is a society much like our own, but with a more caring and helpful nature that saves those most in need, while discouraging “cheats” as much as possible. The probably is we can never eliminate “cheats” without the risk of not giving those who truly have needs the help they require. This is just an inherent flaw in ANY system, but it’s one that can be limited to a degree, and accepted as part of the cost of a civilized society.
Can I ask a believer here this question. I am not being facetious. I was raised Catholic and my girlfriend is Christian. I have been around and exposed to Christianity all my life so I know how it all works. But I dont quite see what the big deal about Jesus is. I see as its written he preached peace just as many did before him. His actions etc seem very humanistic and his teachings are obviously important.
I dont get the whole dying for our sins part. whats the big deal about this ? If he was the son of an omnipotent God then surely all the “insiders” knew how things were going to unfold. He wasnt really dying as he was going to rise again. Did God feel bad about him dying ? was this supposed to be a sacrifice for God ? If God feels bad about people dying then how can he bear to have responsibility for the World we live in. I assume that jesus also knew that he would rise again so basically we are talking about a few crappy days and a painful death. I would bet there have been thousands and thousands of “martyr” type deaths that were worse than that experience. And none of those people had the comfort of knowing that it would all be fine in a couple of days.
I guess my point about morality is that we always end up thinking that the same things are “moral”. If “form follows function” and we have a variety of functions, why do we inevitably end up with the same form?
We know and agree that moral facts exist. We disagree as to why or how they came into being.
But it seems equally obvious that moral facts are objective. In other words they are non-natural to the degree that they can’t be explained entirely in natural terms. If a solely naturalistic explanation were possible then morality would depend solely on the genetic or psychological makeup of a certain individual. We couldn’t possibly prosecute someone for rape until we were certain that it wasn’t a difference in their biology or psychology that caused the deviance in morality. By the way, when we do discover that someone is guilty because they were psychologically incapable of determining right and wrong we call them insane.
If morality is solely a product of naturalism then we can’t say they’re insane (or immoral) for being unable to discern right and wrong according to someone else’s standards.
So if the existence of objective morality isn’t readily explained in explicitly naturalistic terms (a point I’m sure will be contested) then what are we left with?
(A sidebar for Uncertain. Rodibidably and I have previously discussed this issue but one of the points I make in defense of morality being evidence of theism is that morality is universal. In a general sense it has essentially remained unchanged across thousands of years and hundreds of cultures. That is a phenomenal achievement. Despite the generation or the country humanity tends to idealize the same things. You may be able to explain this over the past few years as a result of living in a global culture but it’s certainly not a recent phenomenon. The fact that countless societies for millenia have idealized similar moral frameworks is amazing maybe even super-natural.)
Secondly, my point with cherry-picking Leviticus was to show that these ideas existed before Buddha and Buddhism. The point is that while these moral ideas may exist outside of Judeo-Christianity, Judaism was not by necessity a result of harvesting the good ideas of other cultures to write their own book. I do think that Judaism introduced in codified form many of the moral concepts we have today. But if I believe God predates Judaism it would be silly of me to say these ideas originated with Judaism. And if I believe God is universal it would be silly of me to say that these ideas are unique to Judaism or Judeo-Christianity.
As for the Gilgamesh epic, it’s merely one of hundreds of flood narratives from ancient culture. The Chinese, Native American’s and the Australian Aborigines, just to name a few, all have flood epics. If we believe that the flood was a world-wide event, we’d expect practically every culture to have some ancient collective history of it.
Maybe I should have said – “No theist should argue that God can and will only work through one book.” I may still hold that book as the primary source of collected information but certainly not the only place truth can be found to exist.
I’m not particularly interested in defending the actions of the Crusaders, Inquisitionists or Islamic Terrorists, just as I’m sure you’re not interested in defending Pol Pot or Stalin. Like I’ve said before the misuse of a truth is not the fault of the truth nor does it negate the truth.
I think its pretty obvious that harming others does not lead to good feelings. A society needs some degree of safety for people to participate in it. If that had not developed then we would not be here.
Someone may be psychotic for many reasons but that doesnt mean they bypass tolerance and law. Every criminal can have a “reason” for the crime. That can help us understand others in humanistic manner but it doesnt mean that they are free of responsibility. They are subject to the laws of the society.
The natural evolution of morality has gaps but it fits in the larger picture. And even if this aspect did not work, it does not imply that the Biblical God in Heaven was the designer.
Actually, I wasn’t speaking in biological terms, but rather anthropological ones and nor was I explaining a common moral framework in terms of living in a globalised culture.
I’ll try again: I don’t see a need to resort to the supernatural to explain the significant similarities between moral frameworks the world over because humans are social animals and as such we’ve evolved (or developed, if you prefer that word) social structures with rules that allow us to work together with a minimum of conflict with others of the same in-group whether that group is a family, a church, a tribe, or whatever.
Don’t steal (from your own group), don’t kill (again, members of your own group, other groups aren’t quite worthy of the same consideration), don’t covet somebody else’s mate, obey authority, look after your children, etc.
Look at any other social animal and you’ll see similar sorts of social structures (varying, of course, according to their biology and environment) and without the tendency to build churches and temples.
As I’ve said, no need for any supernatural explanations at all, in fact I’d say that such a ‘moral’ (to anthropomorphise just a bit) framework is inevitable in any social species.
Uncertain,
Not sure if you are responding to me or moot because I was saying something quite similar to you.
I did want to separately address the issue Rodibidly raised concerning the morality of the bible.
“I don’t have my copy of “the good book” in front of me, can you remind me again where the passage is that EXPLICITLY forbids slavery? Or sexism? Or racism? Or homophobia? Or genocide? (Do I need to continue?)
My oh my, how I love the morals of the bible…”
Slavery –
The real struggle with the biblical concept of slavery is trying to understand ancient ideas (and words) through a 19th century lens.
The vast majority of these “slaves” were voluntary and initiated by the slave and subject to strict requirements concerning their treatment.
-Leviticus 25.35-43
-Deuteronomy 15.12
Forced enslavement of Hebrews was a crime subject to capital punishment.
-Exodus 21.16
These arrangements were limited to six years after which the slave was to be set free unless they voluntarily chose to stay.
-Deuteronomy 15.12
-Exodus 21.5
-Deuteronomy 15.16
They or their relatives could purchase their freedom anytime within the six years.
If a slave ran away from his master it was mandated that he not be returned but be allowed to live where he liked.
-Deuteronomy 23.15
The Old Testament also mandated positive treatment of the slaves and leveled harsh punishments for misconduct on the part of the masters. If a master so much as knocked out a tooth the slave was to be set free.
We could go on but we’re talking about a word with much different implications than the modern American concept so closely tied with our recent history.
In fact it seem historically clear that the abolitionist movement that changed the culture of slavery was started by theists who got their ideas from…gasp…the bible!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6476645.stm
Sexism, Racism, Homophobia
“And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” -Genesis 1:27
I guess I’m not sure how much I need to go into here. The bible clearly talks about how to treat all people in general terms. And the general consensus is to treat them well. So I’m not sure how else to say that mistreating people on the basis of race, gender or sexuality is not a practice promoted by the scriptures.
This is certainly not to say that it has not happened or that the bible hasn’t been used as justification, but we’ve previously talked about misuse of truth.
Genocide –
I understand the philosophical objection here but if we’ve already accepted that God is the ultimate authority then we concede this power of ultimate judgment.
Somehow proper society finds genocide justifiable in terms of war and capital punishment. I realize that someone will argue with my defining war as genocide but your essentially talking about killing lots of people. As a society we evidently feel like we have found certain “good reasons” for mass killing. Even if we don’t like what our government has done or is doing, somehow we find it less objectionable than what God has done. While I understand (and frankly sometimes relate to) this objection I’m not entirely sure it’s consistent.
Now all of this being said, I’m sure we could get into a scriptural discussion of what different verses mean. This is a discussion I’m willing to have. However, the ultimate point is that it’s not quite as cut and dry as you try to make it seem. Throwing out some morally repugnant ideas then accusing the bible with them isn’t quite the end of the story.
I was responding to Moot.
etot,
“But I dont quite see what the big deal about Jesus is.”
I’m not a believer, but I have studied it enough to have a decent enough understanding.
As christians see things, jesus IS god, in the flesh, and by allowing himself to die for our sins, he was showing his love for us, despite our “not being deserving” of his love.
Since he is god and himself and the holy ghost (the whole trinity thing) all wrapped into one being, when jesus “died for us”, then that means god also died (in a sense) for us. This is supposed to parallel in a way how any parent (well, any GOOD parent) would willingly sacrifice themselves for their child.
“If he was the son of an omnipotent God then surely all the “insiders” knew how things were going to unfold.”
By his life and death, he fulfilled earlier prophetic scriptures. Those around him in his inner circle SHOULD have known that if he was the messiah, then certain events should happen for scripture to be fulfilled, but my guess is they did not know the exact timing or methods.
“Did God feel bad about him dying ?”
No
“was this supposed to be a sacrifice for God ?”
This was a sacrifice OF god, not TO god…
It’s more about god proving to us that he loves us.
“If God feels bad about people dying then how can he bear to have responsibility for the World we live in.”
Free will (Total cop-out IMO, but that’s their standard reply)
“I assume that jesus also knew that he would rise again so basically we are talking about a few crappy days and a painful death.”
You’d think so…
“I would bet there have been thousands and thousands of “martyr” type deaths that were worse than that experience. And none of those people had the comfort of knowing that it would all be fine in a couple of days.”
Hell just in christianity, saint peter (or was it paul?) was crucified upside down, john the baptist was beheaded, etc…
“I think its pretty obvious that harming others does not lead to good feelings. A society needs some degree of safety for people to participate in it. If that had not developed then we would not be here.”
I think a society COULD survive (and I use survive in the broadest sense here) with a true “every man for them self” philosophy, the problem is that the society would never progress. In order to maintain the competitive edge over one’s rivals, you could only spend time doing three things (reproduction, conflict, and eating). With such a limited ability to accomplish anything else, mankind (or any animal species) would remain stagnant until eventually it collapsed on itself.
“Someone may be psychotic for many reasons but that doesnt mean they bypass tolerance and law.”
I think it depends on your view of “psychotic”, somebody like a Jeffrey Dahmer or BTK who is driven to commit certain actions and really do seem to have been incapable of fighting off his obsessions, and NOT acting on them. With this type of a psychosis (which thankfully is relatively rare) I think certain people are just “hardwired” differently than the norm, and when added to a horrible childhood (which is almost universal among serial killers) pushes them “over the edge” to where they have no empathy for others, and their driving force is this obsession in their life.
“Every criminal can have a “reason” for the crime. That can help us understand others in humanistic manner but it doesnt mean that they are free of responsibility. They are subject to the laws of the society.”
I agree they are not absolved of guilt, but I do believe that some people who commit horrible acts are not capable of stopping themselves and should be in a hospital (obviously locked away) getting treatment, and not necessarily in a prison as a punishment. This is a VERY gray area though, and thankfully I’m not the one having to draw the line.
“The natural evolution of morality has gaps but it fits in the larger picture. And even if this aspect did not work, it does not imply that the Biblical God in Heaven was the designer.”
🙂
Again, limited time, but I do take special issue with parts of your penultimate paragraph there, Moot.
I’ll take it point by point . . .
“Somehow proper society finds genocide justifiable in terms of war and capital punishment.”
Proper society? You do realise that not all societies in the world practise capital punishment these days and some, in fact, find it abhorent? And, for that matter, can you explain to me why in a lot of Christian groups, in the US in particular, seem to support the death penalty. Because it strikes me that, if Christ really is the Son of God, then, considering he himself was a victim of the death penalty, I’d imagine he’d have a *very* negative view of it and those who condone it?
“I realize that someone will argue with my defining war as genocide but your essentially talking about killing lots of people.”
There can be commonalities between the two, but . . . I’d have to say that there’s a difference between fighting (and killing) to defend something than to obliterate it. Of course, sometimes what people do in defending their own is just as bad as the worst of aggressors.
“As a society we evidently feel like we have found certain “good reasons” for mass killing. Even if we don’t like what our government has done or is doing, somehow we find it less objectionable than what God has done.”
Um, not sure what you mean there? What God has done? Are you talking about things like earthquakes and tsumami? Acts of nature? Or something else?
And, again, I’m going to disagree with you because, from what I’ve seen, it tends to be the other way around in that people tend to find mass death easier to accept when it’s an act of nature and tend to get more outraged when it’s a result of some human activity. Look at the difference in world reactions to the Boxing Day Tsunami and 9/11 or the Lockerbie bombing.
“While I understand (and frankly sometimes relate to) this objection I’m not entirely sure it’s consistent.”
See above comment.
moot,
“I guess my point about morality is that we always end up thinking that the same things are “moral”.”
Do you think “honor killings’ are moral?
How about sacrificing children or animals to appease god?
I’d disagree with your idea that morality is standard across all differing cultures.
“If “form follows function” and we have a variety of functions, why do we inevitably end up with the same form?”
BUT, if you want to go on the assumption that certain aspects of morality have evolved to be the same in disperse groups, then:
How has flight evolved not one, not twice, not even three times, but at LEAST four times, completely separately from each other, and in each case, the mechanisms have been astonishingly similar.
Many things have evolved completely separate from each other and “mimicked” each other to great degrees.
“We know and agree that moral facts exist. We disagree as to why or how they came into being.”
Yup
“But it seems equally obvious that moral facts are objective.”
They are objective, but certain things are universally going to be better at helping a society survive for long periods and reproduce. A morality that allows indiscriminate killing is going to kill off a society rather quickly, so any society that survives longer than (x) generations is likely to have NOT had a morality that allowed this practice.
“In other words they are non-natural to the degree that they can’t be explained entirely in natural terms.”
See above comment
“If a solely naturalistic explanation were possible then morality would depend solely on the genetic or psychological makeup of a certain individual. We couldn’t possibly prosecute someone for rape until we were certain that it wasn’t a difference in their biology or psychology that caused the deviance in morality. By the way, when we do discover that someone is guilty because they were psychologically incapable of determining right and wrong we call them insane.”
You mean like having a pre-trial hearing to determine competency or a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. We have this. We may not have it down 100% yet, but we do our best to TRY to not convict people of crimes because they are incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong. If morality was universal then ALL killers would be sentenced to the same punishment (including soldiers, cops, and criminals for murder). The 10 commandments state “though shall not kill”, they don’t say “though shall not kill UNLESS you’re at war or a cop trying ot stop a criminal”. If killing being bad is a UNIVERSAL truth, then it should NEVER be allowed, as the bible states. But if killing is justified in some instances, like a naturalistic explanation of morality would allow, then what we have now would be a reasonable, logical conclusion for society to reach.
“If morality is solely a product of naturalism then we can’t say they’re insane (or immoral) for being unable to discern right and wrong according to someone else’s standards.”
See the last comment, and the one two before that.
As well, how with a naturalistic philosophy are we not able to say that based on the morality of the society that somebody is outside of that acceptable norm? In a universal world view then things become much more black and white, and there is no gray area for the criminally insane or mentally ill, but in a naturalistic philosophy, we have room for such things, and do our best to treat them appropriately.
“So if the existence of objective morality isn’t readily explained in explicitly naturalistic terms (a point I’m sure will be contested) then what are we left with?”
We are left with society as we see it today.
RE: “A sidebar for Uncertain”
You know I’m going to have issues with this whole section, so I won’t go into now, other than to say “I object your honor”.
“Secondly, my point with cherry-picking Leviticus was to show that these ideas existed before Buddha and Buddhism.”
Yes they did, but they did not exist before Egyptian society or Sumeria, and there are actually many GOOD examples of things (stories, etc) being “borrowed” from both of these cultures in the three abrahamic religions.
“The point is that while these moral ideas may exist outside of Judeo-Christianity, Judaism was not by necessity a result of harvesting the good ideas of other cultures to write their own book. I do think that Judaism introduced in codified form many of the moral concepts we have today.”
Name one thing that was UNIQUE to only judaism in it’s founding, and can not be found in other cultures of it’s time or earlier…
“But if I believe God predates Judaism it would be silly of me to say these ideas originated with Judaism. And if I believe God is universal it would be silly of me to say that these ideas are unique to Judaism or Judeo-Christianity.”
Err, ok, looks like I need to read ahead more; you just answered my last question as I expected you would…
“As for the Gilgamesh epic, it’s merely one of hundreds of flood narratives from ancient culture. The Chinese, Native American’s and the Australian Aborigines, just to name a few, all have flood epics. If we believe that the flood was a world-wide event, we’d expect practically every culture to have some ancient collective history of it.”
BUT, if we believe the story of the flood and that it actually wiped out all human life on the planet EXCEPT noah and his family, we would NOT expect to find accounts of the flood that PREDATE noah and judaism. We would also not expect to find references to it that are in parts of the world that had no contact with jewish society until hundreds or thousands of years later.
“Maybe I should have said – “No theist should argue that God can and will only work through one book.” I may still hold that book as the primary source of collected information but certainly not the only place truth can be found to exist.”
So then if god can work through multiple books, how are we to know which books to trust. If the bible is NOT the “only source” of his will, then how do we deal with the contradictions between holy books (or within holy books)?
“I’m not particularly interested in defending the actions of the Crusaders, Inquisitionists or Islamic Terrorists, just as I’m sure you’re not interested in defending Pol Pot or Stalin.”
I feel no need to “defend” the actions of a madman who’s philosophy had nothing in common with my own, just as I have no desire to defend the actions of priest who rape little boys.
HOWEVER, if one is to claim an infallibility in an institution or a book, then one MUST defend those actions in light of this infallibility.
Re: your points on “Slavery”
I think we can both agree that if you and I were to write up a list of the 10 worst things humanity has ever done, slavery is going to be on BOTH of our lists, correct? In fact, I’d venture to guess if we ranked them, we’d both put slavery in the top 3 worst things ever done.
If the bible is going to be “THE SOURCE” for morality, it should be EXPLICITLY clear as to what is allowed and what is not (such as many christians today love to claim that it EXPLICITLY forbids homosexuality).
Now I don’t care what your thoughts on homosexuality are, I would be willing to guess that if you were given a choice that your children could either be (1) enslaved for life or (2) gay, you’d choose (2). Back to our lists, if you were to rank things in order of how bad they are, perhaps you put homosexuality on your top 10 (I wouldn’t, but perhaps you would), but would you put it in the top 3 (with things like genocide and slavery) or would it be a bit closer to the end?
If a book is going to be written that has the universal moral standard for all time, WHY does it not clearly, explicitly, and unequivocally BAN ALL FORMS OF SLAVERY IN ALL INSTANCES. Not just ban the “chosen people” being slaves, and not putting rules on slavery, but BAN IT UNCONDITIONALLY?
My answer for this is simple, because AT THE TIME the bible was written, slavery was an accepted practice as part of the morality of the day. If my hypothesis is correct, it shows a flexible morality over time, which negates the idea of a universal moral code.
Re: “Sexism, Racism, Homophobia”
Do you REALLY need me to explain the misuses of christianty with regards to sexism, racism, and homophobia?
Re: “Genocide”
If murder is ALWAYS wrong (10 commandments, and it would tend to vote the “golden rule”, then even god is held to those standards, and should not ask others to break his own laws.
In the bible, god commands people to slaughter men, women, children, and animals, and leave nothing alive.
In the bible, god himself wipes out all life except that on the ark.
In the bible, god himself wipes out two cities (Sodom and Gomorrah).
ALL of these are acts of genocide, not just ACCEPTABLE to god, but ORDERED (or carried out) by god himself.
“Throwing out some morally repugnant ideas then accusing the bible with them isn’t quite the end of the story.”
If it’ll help, I can quote the bible if you’d prefer. I’ve done this previously in much earlier discussions on these very subjects, but I assume you know the bible well enough to know the passages I am refering to.
uncertainhope,
I am finding little to comment on with your posts, but this does not mean I am not reading yours, it really just means that in general I agree with your points more often than not.
The one thing I would add to your comments is that even if we’re 100% right, and morality evolved (or developed) as a means to allow the group to work together, this actually does not conflict with a theist view of the creation of the universe.
While I do not personally see the evidence FOR this hypothesis, I do respect the idea of:
God set the big bang in motion setting up the laws of the universe in such a way to allow the formation of intelligent life. This life was initially created (either by “god” or natural processes), and due to the initial laws of the universe, this life was able to evolve over time. Part of this evolution was the ability to work together as a functioning society, which incorporated some type of moral code to assist in this group dynamic.
This leaves the possibility of god as existing and being a part of the creation process, and does not conflict with anything known of the universe, and even can claim god’s omniscience, since he “knew” how things would work out, and “planned” it in his initial set-up[ of the universe and it’s laws.
IMO this is a WHOLLY reasonable position to take, even though I personally don’t see the NEED for god in the universe, I do believe this creates a PLACE for him, and does not conflict with any of our understanding of the universe, and does not need supernatural explanations for anything we see in the universe.
“You do realise that not all societies in the world practise capital punishment these days and some, in fact, find it abhorent?”
Sadly on this aspect of human rights, the US is SORELY lacking.
“And, for that matter, can you explain to me why in a lot of Christian groups, in the US in particular, seem to support the death penalty. Because it strikes me that, if Christ really is the Son of God, then, considering he himself was a victim of the death penalty, I’d imagine he’d have a *very* negative view of it and those who condone it?”
*clap, clap, clap*
“There can be commonalities between the two, but . . . I’d have to say that there’s a difference between fighting (and killing) to defend something than to obliterate it.”
What Hitler did = Genocide
What the allies did to stop Hitler Genocide (assuming you don’t count those two little bombs we dropped on Japan, but that is why I said Hitler, and not the Axis)
“Look at the difference in world reactions to the Boxing Day Tsunami and 9/11 or the Lockerbie bombing.”
Sad and our hearts went out…
vs the justification for two separate wars and tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) dead.
“The one thing I would add to your comments is that even if we’re 100% right, and morality evolved (or developed) as a means to allow the group to work together, this actually does not conflict with a theist view of the creation of the universe.
While I do not personally see the evidence FOR this hypothesis, I do respect the idea . . .”
Indeed. Like you, I see neither the evidence or need for that hypothesis to explain the universe, but I’m certainly willing to concede the possibility.
If God were absolutely removed from the picture it would probably not mean that everyone would automatically join the KKK or pillage their neighborhoods. Likewise, I have no doubt that you, Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins have contributed to charity or helped little old ladies cross streets.
We agree that humanity experiences a sense of morality distinct from belief in God. One could argue that this is a result of strictly naturalistic means such as social norms or evolutionary biology.
But the problem is not just an innate sense of morality but, conversely an innate sense of immortality. While we have lofty moral goals such as altruism and peace we more regularly observe in human nature exploitation, greed and rage. (And no doubt the list of human failures could be much longer.)
So, the fact that I have within me two distinct and clear voices presents an interesting dilemma: Which is a result of social norms and evolutionary biology? If the answer is both, then which is the “right” one to choose? Or what makes choosing the other “wrong”?
If the answer is, “only the good is a result of naturalism” then where did the other come from?
If atheism merely says “Obey your evolutionary instincts” then I have a problem because those instincts are conflicted.
Or how is it irrational or wrong for someone to say, “Forget social conventions, I’m doing what I want.”? I have no way to say that they’re wrong for doing so. In fact I have no explanation other than evolution for their dismissing social norms.
Theism explains the dual nature of our morality and clearly upholds one and discourages the other. While I may fall short on a regular basis – the ideal remains. I can get back up dust myself off and be a better person.
In a world without God the existence of those ideals living side by side with human failure seems pointless. Evolution has granted us conflicting instincts and often the much stronger one is precisely the one we should be ignoring. All in all it seems like a cruel joke.
moot,
I have one quick, SIMPLISTIC question for you…
If god is good
And god is perfect
And god created everything
Including mankind, in his own image
Then where (in your view) did evil come from, if not from god himself?
I know you’re going to say free will, but WHY would he have created the desire for evil in us (since everything about us was created by him in his own image), if he is inherently good?
You answered your own question. And I’m sure if you gave it a little thought you’d know what my answer would be to your second question. However at some point I think I can explain how evil fits into theism more clearly.
The issue still is where does evil fit into a the framework of methodological naturalism?
moot,
I KNOW the theists’ answer to my question, but I don’t buy it really…
If god is 100% good
And god created everything
Then this mean BY DEFINITION, god created evil
To me, this is a HUGE paradox, and it’s one I’ve NEVER been able to get any theist to explain other than saying either “free will” (which is not an answer, since god STILL created the will to do evil in your view) or “we can not understand the mind of god” (which IMO is a total cop out).
Please, if you have an answer OTHER than those two, I’d love to hear it, because it’s one thing that in my experience, no theist have ever been able to give a satisfactory explanation to that was not either a logical fallacy, or a cop-out…
As for your question:
“The issue still is where does evil fit into a the framework of methodological naturalism?”
In any society you’re going to have those that follow the rules and those that try to cheat the system for their own gain.
In an evolutionary sense if I can get away with less work and still have an equal chance to pass on my genes, it makes sense for me to do this.
HOWEVER, if society was mostly cheats, it would break down due to issues previously mentioned in past comments on this issue.
So there is a very delicate balance of the percentage of cheats acceptable in a society that don’t cause too many problems within the society. One of the ways of keeping this balance is to “punish” the cheats when they are caught.
So far, this is essentially a paraphrase of one of the points Dawkins makes in The Selfish Gene (I’d actually recommend reading it, since he does a far better job explaining it than I do).
Now cheats in this sense can mean those that don’t work as hard, thus saving their resources to go towards reproduction, or it could mean those that don’t follow the basic morals of the society (like don’t steal, cheat, lie, kill, etc). In other words, these are the “evil” of society in an evolutionary model.
Now in a REALISTIC version of this society, not all people are either 100% good or 100% cheat. In reality, everybody “cheats” to some extent (running the red light, adding an extra tax deduction, speeding, etc). So in this sense, you have your “evil” in an evolutionarily defined society, with an evolutionary set of societal morals.
I think this should answer your question, if you need more clarification, PLEASE let me know…
—–
One other small point I’d like to make that is indirectly related to this topic:
As a believer, you are of the opinion that when you die, if you lived your life in the “right way” than you’ll be sent to heaven to live out an eternally blissful existence for all time…
The same is true of the 9/11 hijackers, they believed 100% that what they were doing was right, moral, justified, and in fact, god’s will. For them, to die in the name of allah, doing his will was the ultimate expression of god’s will and they would be rewarded for that.
An atheist of course believes that this is th ONLY existence, and therefore would be HIGHLY unlikely to give their life for anything other than to directly save the life of a loved one (or something equally noble in their own opinion).
This doesn’t prove that either atheism or theism is correct obviously, but it does, at least in my opinion, make me personally wish that more people were atheist, and thus less likely to kill themselves and others because of future rewards.
I know that was off topic, but it is one point I think is important in the debate.
Moot,
“If atheism merely says . . .” Um, atheism isn’t really a moral system and doesn’t specifically say anything.
But anyway, as Rod said, behaviours that society defines as good and bad can both be explained purely in terms of naturalistic explanations.
It’s also worth pointing out that ‘evil’ is a purely human concept and that you can find many of the same ‘evils’ among social animals as you do among humans but that human ego and self-involvement makes it more than it necessarily is.
Let me tackle the issue of God and evil.
I told my daughter not to run out into the parking lot the other day. Despite the fact that she heard me tell her this very clearly she got carried away and ran out into the parking lot. Running into the parking lot is not inherently evil. But what she did was wrong because I had told her not to do it.
Now I knew that there was a chance she’d disobey me. But that knowledge doesn’t make me responsible for her disobedience. Nor by creating the rule did I create the wrong. I may have created the potential for her to do wrong. But that is a far different thing from creating the wrong itself.
In fact in the grand scheme of things I know for a fact that she will disobey a good many of the rules that I make for her. But that still doesn’t make me responsible for her disobedience. Nor does it make me want to stop making rules like, “Stay out of the road”, or “Don’t touch the stove”
In fact I wouldn’t be a very loving Dad if I didn’t make those rules. Did I create evil by defining what is good? I suppose in a tortured sense of the concept you could make that claim but it’s ludicrous to literally think so.
We are (only) living in this environment.We have to be concious of safety, for ourselves and those we love.
We didnt create the environment. Apparently “God” did.
I think if I got the God job I would create an environment of love and peace and not expect people to have to worship me and fear hell.
moot,
The difference between your example and your belief in god is this:
You believe that EVERYTHING in mankind was created by god (including our morality), you don’t believe that YOU created the will in your daughter to disobey you.
According to your beliefs, god created the will inside of us, to disobey his rules and go against the moral code which he created.
Your daughter (by your beliefs) was already born with the will to disobey, but that will (be it free will or predestined or both) was created BY god (again, in your belief system).
I don’t recall where I saw this analogy (it may have been on this post or another blog I don’t recall) but perhaps this will explain it:
Suppose you have a bag of 100% pure sugar, and I ask you to look in that bag and find salt, is it possible to find salt?
The obvious answer is no
Now, suppose you have a PERFECT, being, who is 100% good, and this PERFECT being created a world and created beings on this world in HIS image (again, he is PERFECT and 100% good); now, where does the salt (or evil) come from?
Either god INTENDED to create evil, in which case he is NOT 100% good
Or god unintentionally created evil, in which case he is not infallible
Or god does not exist…
Perhaps you can come up with a few other possibilities, but these 3 roughly cover all the available options.
etot,
“I think if I got the God job I would create an environment of love and peace and not expect people to have to worship me and fear hell.”
This is one of my points I’m trying to get across.
In my mind it boils down to (at least according to christian beliefs):
1) god is perfect
2) god is 100% good
3) god created everything, including mankind IN HIS IMAGE
4) evil exists, and we are inherently evil (the whole original sin thing)
5) therefor god created evil
conclusion) either #1 or #2 or #3 MUST be wrong!!!
Speaking of creating evil.he made some bitter choices
considering he could have done anything. What would you get out of creating a world where people have to worship you or risk burning in hell ? God FEELS ?? Angry when people disobey him and happy when people pray to him ?
If a BEING has the power to make a world from scratch why would his goal be to punish people. Makethem suffer with sickness and loss, cower before him and leave them with such weak proof of his existence.
Good Grief. Give me a break. People should not believe just to teach him a lesson.
etot,
I like Dawkin’s quote on this subject:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
I’d like to say this too about evil.
As I’ve said, it’s a human concept, and one that, to my mind is grossly overused these days. Identifying the actions of an individual or group as evil rather than, for example, disobedient, desperate, angry, starving or hurting, allows us to dehumanise and dismiss them easily without looking at *why* they might be behaving in the way they are. It inhibits our understanding of the world around us and the motives of those we find ourselves in contention with and so reduces our chances of dealing with whatever the situation might be successfully.
After all, as I think a certain actor known for playing the bad guy once pointed out, “Even the most evil b*stard believes they are righteous.”
uncertainhope,
“As I’ve said, it’s a human concept, and one that, to my mind is grossly overused these days.”
I agree, but in some cases it’s expedient to over classify things as “evil” when discussing morality and religion. For instance in my discussion of “god is perfect, god is good, god created evil, one of the first two is wrong” it’s easier to classify all “forbidden” things as evil instead of getting into semantics.
That said, I do agree that in “every day life” the word “evil” is used far too often and far too liberally.
Hitler = evil.
Some schmuck who holds up a liquor store and shots the cashier is most likely desperate, not evil.
“It inhibits our understanding of the world around us and the motives of those we find ourselves in contention with and so reduces our chances of dealing with whatever the situation might be successfully.”
This is a VERY good point. The best way to “combat” these types of actions, is to understand WHY they are happening.
“After all, as I think a certain actor known for playing the bad guy once pointed out, “Even the most evil b*stard believes they are righteous.””
Nice quote…
“I agree, but in some cases it’s expedient to over classify things as “evil” when discussing morality and religion. For instance in my discussion of “god is perfect, god is good, god created evil, one of the first two is wrong” it’s easier to classify all “forbidden” things as evil instead of getting into semantics.”
I dunno, I mean, apart from anything else, I rather like debating semantics – it’s another way, after all, of refining your understanding of the universe, and all too often the details that are glossed over are important ones.
For example, I can look at the statement “god is perfect, god is good, god created evil” and come up with an argument that, at the very least, blunts the contradiction contained within, if not negating it entirely. Okay: God created the universe and the world as well as setting the conditions for life to evolve along certain lines. God is good, and being good He wants that life to better itself and, for want of a better term, ‘evolve’ and function co-operatively, and devises various mechanisms to drive that ‘evolution’. ‘Evil’ would be one of those, after all, if we have something to struggle against it tends to serve as a powerful driving force both in terms of uniting us and in driving social and technical innovation and progress.
uncertainhope,
Creating a world in which we struggle towards perfection is one thing.
Creating a world in which adults rape children is TOTALLY different. This is not a “struggle”, this is as close to ACTUAL “evil” as most people can conceive.
The desire of a adult to rape a child is indefensible (there may be reasons in the person’s own past which leads towards this inclination, but this is not the same as being a defensible position) and IF the people who claim god gives us our morality are correct, then god ALSO gives us (us in the generic sense, meaning some percentage of the population) the desire to rape children. A PERFECT, 100% GOOD god, gives people the desire to rape children.
That line is VERY important:
A PERFECT, 100% GOOD god, gives people the desire to rape children.
It can’t be said enough times, that IF god gives us our morality, and he created everything (including us in his own image), and everything is known by him, he willingly and intentionally gave a certain percentage of the population the desire to rape children.
I don’t particularly care what word we use. It doesn’t have to be evil if that has to much baggage it can be “morally deficient”, it can be “bad”, it can be “not good” it doesn’t matter. But there remains a clear distinction between a man that runs into a burning building to save another life and a man that starts that fire.
But the concept we’re talking about is still the same. I don’t care if you qualify the people as evil or the actions as evil we’re still left with the same net result.
Now we can qualify certain actions. We can describe their motivations as desperate or misguided but they are still wrong. The American justice systems often tries to take such distinctions into account but, more often than not, despite the motive for the crime, there still remain some punishment for that crime. The punishment may be adjusted to compensate for the motivation but we still recognize that the crime is wrong and deserves some sort of punishment. On a scale of morality, despite the reason they are perpetrated, they still fall into the negative category.
So I don’t care what you want to call it there remain things that are objectively wrong/evil/bad/. I don’t care whether you blame people or society or religion or whether you lessen guilt because of the motives these moral crimes are still wrong/evil/bad.
There seem to be two normal responses from the atheist in response to the objective fact that evil exists.
One is simply to deny the problem by deny the fact that evil exists. I realize that the idea of evil/wrong/bad is dangerous for the skeptic because once you accept the idea you open yourself up to the idea of absolutes.
But then to deny the existence of morally negative behavior means that morality is arbitrary. There really is no middle ground. So for someone to cut a child into pieces, regardless of motive, is, like all behavior, morally neutral. Our society may condition us to be repulsed by this behavior but that repulsion would be an illusion constructed by our culture – the act remains morally neutral. We have no objective grounds for punishing or denouncing that behavior
The second response is to to deflect the attention to the problem of evil as it relate to theism. But because this is sidestepping the problem for the atheist it doesn’t really need any response.
Rodibidably,
I agree with you on that, I was just pointing out that it is possible to argue against that position, and as with most arguments on that point it falls down when you get into the details.
Mootpoints,
“Now we can qualify certain actions. We can describe their motivations as desperate or misguided but they are still wrong.”
Within the frame of reference of a given society.
“There seem to be two normal responses from the atheist in response to the objective fact that evil exists.”
But since evil is a subjective value judgement . . ?
Are athiests evil? Some would say so. What about agnostics, Wiccans, Muslims, Christians?
What about someone who, following what they believe to be lawful orders, kills or tortures? What about a doctor who administers an abortion? Or administers the death penalty?
As I’ve said, it’s a subjective moral concept dependent on the perspective of a given society.
“One is simply to deny the problem by deny the fact that evil exists. I realize that the idea of evil/wrong/bad is dangerous for the skeptic because once you accept the idea you open yourself up to the idea of absolutes.”
Huh? I’m sorry but I really don’t see where the idea of evil existing opens you up to the idea of absolutes.
And, for that matter, I don’t think I’ve said here that it doesn’t exist. What I have said is that it’s a human concept and an over-used one at that.
“But then to deny the existence of morally negative behavior means that morality is arbitrary.”
Again, who’s denying the existence of morally negative behaviour? I thought we were arguing *where* that morality came from?
“There really is no middle ground. So for someone to cut a child into pieces, regardless of motive, is, like all behavior, morally neutral.”
Only if you step entirely outside human society and the associated moral systems.
“Our society may condition us to be repulsed by this behavior but that repulsion would be an illusion constructed by our culture – the act remains morally neutral. We have no objective grounds for punishing or denouncing that behavior”
Okay, that last part I’ll agree with, at least in part, but the key words there are ‘no objective grounds’ as the grounds that we do have for punishing or denouncing that behaviour are entirely *subjective* and the creation of our respective societies. The part I’ll disagree with is ‘the act remains morally neutral’ because when you’re looking at behaviour from that degree of objectivity, you’re attempting to make no judgements whatsoever and determining that an act is morally neutral is just such a judgement – better to say that ‘the act remains’ because that and that alone would be what you’re focusing on.
mootpoints,
I have already explained how “good” and “evil” are explainable by a purely naturalistic world view:
In any society you’re going to have those that follow the rules and those that try to cheat the system for their own gain.
In an evolutionary sense if I can get away with less work and still have an equal chance to pass on my genes, it makes sense for me to do this.
HOWEVER, if society was mostly cheats, it would break down due to issues previously mentioned in past comments on this issue.
So there is a very delicate balance of the percentage of cheats acceptable in a society that don’t cause too many problems within the society. One of the ways of keeping this balance is to “punish” the cheats when they are caught.
So far, this is essentially a paraphrase of one of the points Dawkins makes in The Selfish Gene (I’d actually recommend reading it, since he does a far better job explaining it than I do).
Now cheats in this sense can mean those that don’t work as hard, thus saving their resources to go towards reproduction, or it could mean those that don’t follow the basic morals of the society (like don’t steal, cheat, lie, kill, etc). In other words, these are the “evil” of society in an evolutionary model.
Now in a REALISTIC version of this society, not all people are either 100% good or 100% cheat. In reality, everybody “cheats” to some extent (running the red light, adding an extra tax deduction, speeding, etc). So in this sense, you have your “evil” in an evolutionarily defined society, with an evolutionary set of societal morals.
I think this should answer your question, if you need more clarification, PLEASE let me know…
This answer is not “sidestepping the problem for the atheist”, if anything it is a DIRECT answer to your question.
—–
HOWEVER, I also posed a question for you as a believer, which you have not attempted to answer at all yet. This is not a sidestep, since i ALREADY answered your question, and am in fact reposing it to you as a theist, to understand the believers view on the subject:
Suppose you have a bag of 100% pure sugar, and I ask you to look in that bag and find salt, is it possible to find salt?
The obvious answer is no
Now, suppose you have a PERFECT, being, who is 100% good, and this PERFECT being created a world and created beings on this world in HIS image (again, he is PERFECT and 100% good); now, where does the salt (or evil) come from?
Either god INTENDED to create evil, in which case he is NOT 100% good
Or god unintentionally created evil, in which case he is not infallible
Or god does not exist…
Perhaps you can come up with a few other possibilities, but these 3 roughly cover all the available options.
I understand that for a believer it’s hard to explain the contradictions in your belief system, but that should tell you something about these beliefs.
—–
I understand that SOME skeptics may answer this debate in one of these two ways you described, but I did not; and I think if you’re going to paint this picture of skeptics, then you should at least acknowledge that in this instance neither one of these approaches was used.
Your post here seems to be a complete non-sequitor since it really has nothing to do with the comments from the “skeptical” side of this particular debate, since both uncertainhope and myself have NOT sidestepped this issue (or in fact ANY issue).
uncertainhope,
“I agree with you on that, I was just pointing out that it is possible to argue against that position, and as with most arguments on that point it falls down when you get into the details.”
I suppose anything CAN be argued, but it’s a question of whether it can be argued intelligently without the use of logical fallacies or intellectual dishonesty to obscure the issues being debated.
I’ve had debated with anti-choice people and creationists many times, and I’m sure I could spout off all of the same logical inconsistencies they use to support their position if I wanted to debate “their side”, that doesn’t mean my arguments are “valid”.
The perfect example of this is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, where Bobby Henderson uses the SAME arguments that creationists use, he just takes them to an even more absurd level to drive home the point. If one of those arguments is valid, then they must both be valid, and since Henderson does push his to the absurd, he makes certain that his can not be taken seriously, and by association, he taints the creationist’s arguments.
I took comments like “evil is a purely human concept” to mean that evil is something that we came up with rather than an issue particular to human experience. Add that to the fact that many atheists have in fact denied the objective existence of evil I assumed that this was what was going here. In fact I’ve heard (albeit secondhand) that Dawkins had said that for atheism to work “we must deny the existence of evil”
The problem with “The Selfish Gene” explanation is that it acknowledges this contradiction in morality. (Cheats and non-cheats) But it still doesn’t provide the basis for which their behavior can be condemned. In fact, if I understand the explanation, the “cheats” are exhibiting the most truly darwinian behavior. In other words, where’s the appeal for not “cheating”. If anything the cheats exemplify the way society should work.
My biggest problem with this explanation is the concept that “cheating” is somehow less admirable, valid or desirable and that still presupposes a moral system that has some objective sense of up and down. One in which “cheating” is bad and not “cheating” is good.
Let me explain what I mean. The concept in The Selfish Gene needs to explain why people do what they actually do. The way we actually behave is a mixture of altruism and selfishness. Dawkins, to answer the dilemma of these conflicting sentiments essentially says they are one and the same. That altruism is actually a manifestation of selfishness. So in Dawkins’ system there really is no “good” but rather only “evil” (or more specifically selfishness, which is neither evil nor good but just is.). In other words what looks like “good” is actually selfishness in disguise.
In this framework it is impossible to literally do an act of good for goodness sake. I think I can point to some scenarios that would contradict this idea. Or some scenarios wherein an act of “non-cheating” provides no Darwinian advantage whatsoever.
But back to the issue of methodological naturalism problem with evil. If a child-molester is the net result of evolution and social standards why is he less desirable than someone who donates blood, recycles and hugs bunnies? Either the child-molestation is not a less desirable human characteristic or evolution got in wrong somewhere along the line in producing this deviation. If that’s the case “deviants” once identified can be eliminated with impunity.
But Dawkins says we’re all just “dancing to our DNA”. So I guess his answer is that child molestation is part of the dance. Terrorism is part of the dance. Racism is part of the dance. The Crusades were part of the dance. The Inquisition was part of the dance.
The Holocaust was part of the dance. And if they’re part of the dance who are we to be outraged and the simple product of biology?
Back to the original challenge. The question should more accurately be “Can methodological naturalism explain the system of morality we currently have?” To say that it can explain a system of morality that does not necessarily reflect reality is not quite an answer.
To address the issue of evil being a subjective construct of society. People regularly step outside of the constraints of society to engage in antisocial behavior. If morality is a societal construct derived from evolution then why do some conform and other do not? How does methodological naturalism explain this distinction? How does methodological naturalism compel us toward and ideal while all the time struggling with regularly engaging in bad behaviors? How does methodological naturalism justify the punishment of those who do “evil”, if the evil is nothing other than choosing to not go along with society? Methodological naturalism needs to be able to explain and address the dual moral nature of humanity. There are other problems with morality as dictated by society (one about which Rodibidably and I have debated, and I’d be more than willing to reiterate if anyone is interested.) but I won’t go into them again just now.
To make a short story long – While societal morality or The Selfish Gene may explain a system of morality, I don’t see that it explains morality as we know it.
Anyway. I will address the issue of God and evil in further detail shortly.
Rod, (Can I call you “Rod” it’s so much easier to type!)
Evil is not something that is created in the sense that I might stub my toe on it in the dark or that I will be able to store it in a jar.
This is an imperfect and simplistic analogy but let me explain it this way.
Nothing exists. I create a match. I light the match and generate light. Did I “create” darkness? If I start a warm fire did I create cold? Darkness is the absence of light and cold is the absence of heat. Likewise evil is the absence of good.
I don’t have much time this morning, so this’ll be quick.
“I took comments like “evil is a purely human concept” to mean that evil is something that we came up with rather than an issue particular to human experience. Add that to the fact that many atheists have in fact denied the objective existence of evil I assumed that this was what was going here.”
Yes. Evil is something that we humans have come up with and apply to ourselves, but my point, that you don’t seem to be hearing, is that there’s absolutely nothing objective about it. By its nature nature evil is a subjective value judgement. As I said earlier, what people consider evil varies widely and whether something is considered evil and by what numbers varies dependent on societal perspective.
Do you see evil in nature? In the actions of wind and rain? In the actions of predator or prey?
“Back to the original challenge. The question should more accurately be “Can methodological naturalism explain the system of morality we currently have?””
I thought I’d already answered that, twice. As had Rodibidably.
Quoting from myself here for sake of speed:-
“I’d say that there’s a very simple explanation for the common moral framework that can be found in most religions and philosophies that is about as far from the supernatural as you can get.
As I’ve said before, one of the main functions of religion is, along with government, to moderate human behaviour and guide us in such a way that we are able to interact with one another in a cooperative way with a minumum of conflict, as well as binding us together and reinforcing group identity and solidarity.
Form follows function and, because of that, certain things need to be a part of any moral framework for it to work. No need for any supernatural explanations there at all, I’m afraid.”
___
“Actually, I wasn’t speaking in biological terms, but rather anthropological ones and nor was I explaining a common moral framework in terms of living in a globalised culture.
I’ll try again: I don’t see a need to resort to the supernatural to explain the significant similarities between moral frameworks the world over because humans are social animals and as such we’ve evolved (or developed, if you prefer that word) social structures with rules that allow us to work together with a minimum of conflict with others of the same in-group whether that group is a family, a church, a tribe, or whatever.
Don’t steal (from your own group), don’t kill (again, members of your own group, other groups aren’t quite worthy of the same consideration), don’t covet somebody else’s mate, obey authority, look after your children, etc.
Look at any other social animal and you’ll see similar sorts of social structures (varying, of course, according to their biology and environment) and without the tendency to build churches and temples.
As I’ve said, no need for any supernatural explanations at all, in fact I’d say that such a ‘moral’ (to anthropomorphise just a bit) framework is inevitable in any social species.”
___
“But anyway, as Rod said, behaviours that society defines as good and bad can both be explained purely in terms of naturalistic explanations.”
___
And by that I mean that given the right situation just about everyone will find themselves violating their own moral system – just look at the experiments in social conformity by, if I remember correctly, Solomon Asch or Stanley Milgram, or Philip Zimbardo’s prison experiment for that matter.
“But back to the issue of methodological naturalism problem with evil. If a child-molester is the net result of evolution and social standards why is he less desirable than someone who donates blood, recycles and hugs bunnies?”
Because one harms society and the other benefits it.
“Either the child-molestation is not a less desirable human characteristic or evolution got in wrong somewhere along the line in producing this deviation.”
Again, child-molestators harm society and as such are not desirable. Such outliers can be found within any population, of any social species, individuals who go against the social mores, and generally they are dealt with in some manner.
But, you do seem to misunderstand the mechanisms of evolution and natural selection, because by their very nature the results are not always optimal.
“If that’s the case “deviants” once identified can be eliminated with impunity.”
Hm, that sounds awfully familiar.
“To say that it can explain a system of morality that does not necessarily reflect reality is not quite an answer.”
Again, not quite what I said: society is real, our actions are real, our biological imperatives are real but the moral and philosophical concepts that drive and follow from them *are* all in our heads and therefore entirely subjective – that doesn’t make them anytheless important either in general terms or in attempting to understand the actions of others.
Sorry, for natural selection and evolution, the thought there’s incomplete.
Completing it quickly now as I’m rushed this morning:
But, you do seem to misunderstand the mechanisms of evolution and natural selection, because by their very nature the results are not always optimal. And while non-optimal adaptations tend not to flourish and may eventually die out, they may reoccur at a later point in time. It’s not an onward journey to perfection but rather an on-going series of adaptations to environmental circumstances.
moot,
“I took comments like “evil is a purely human concept” to mean that evil is something that we came up with rather than an issue particular to human experience.”
This is exactly true. Even though uncertainhope said this and not me, as an atheist, of COURSE I believe that there is no objective standards for morality or “evil”. They are both constructs of society, and have evolved over time. I’ve already gone into detail on how both morality and “evil” are explainable by a purely naturalistic philosophy. Is there some part of those explanations you did not understand?
“Add that to the fact that many atheists have in fact denied the objective existence of evil I assumed that this was what was going here.”
ALL atheists must object to ANY objective standards, since there is nothing by which to judge objectively. There is only the societal norms by which our morality is based.
“In fact I’ve heard (albeit secondhand) that Dawkins had said that for atheism to work “we must deny the existence of evil””
I doubt that’s the exact quote, since I don’t think Dawkins would use the word “deny”. I’d guess he said something more along the lines of what I said, but if you can find the exact quote you’re referring to, I’d be interested to see the context in which he made the statement.
“The problem with “The Selfish Gene” explanation is that it acknowledges this contradiction in morality. (Cheats and non-cheats)”
There is ABSOLUTELY no contradiction at all. Read above for why…
“But it still doesn’t provide the basis for which their behavior can be condemned. In fact, if I understand the explanation, the “cheats” are exhibiting the most truly darwinian behavior. In other words, where’s the appeal for not “cheating”. If anything the cheats exemplify the way society should work.””
You obviously have not read The Selfish Gene, or you did not understand a large portion of it. In fact Dawkins goes to great lengths to explain how a society full of cheats will not survive, and that for any group to thrive, you must have a certain percentage of cheats (this is a low percentage) or else it will cause the society to fail.
“My biggest problem with this explanation is the concept that “cheating” is somehow less admirable, valid or desirable and that still presupposes a moral system that has some objective sense of up and down. One in which “cheating” is bad and not “cheating” is good.”
“Cheating” helps only the individual, while “not cheating” helps the group as a whole, and thus enables the group t work more efficiently. This is a VERY simple concept to understand.
“The concept in The Selfish Gene needs to explain why people do what they actually do.”
Actually, The Selfish Gene was written to explain the methods of selection, not all of morality. While Dawkins does cover morality as part of this discussion on genes, it’s not the primary focus.
“Dawkins, to answer the dilemma of these conflicting sentiments essentially says they are one and the same. That altruism is actually a manifestation of selfishness.”
True.
“So in Dawkins’ system there really is no “good” but rather only “evil” (or more specifically selfishness, which is neither evil nor good but just is.). In other words what looks like “good” is actually selfishness in disguise.”
Not true. You seem to have only read a review of the book, and not the book itself; but let’s see if I can explain this concept for you.
If as Dawkins proposes the gene is the unit of selection, and the gene’s ONLY goal is to reproduce itself, you have the concept of the selfish gene. Altruism arises originally from the idea of kin selection. If I reproduce myself, I pass on 50% of MY genes. If my brother reproduces he passes on 50% of MY genes (perhaps more, but I can only expect 50%). So if I have a chance to save my brother (100% chance to save him) while only a 50% risk to myself, it makes sense from a gene level to save my brother.
Dawkins then goes on to explain the concept around saving one’s offspring, or cousins, or parents, etc. In each case, the idea of altruism is based on the desire for my OWN genes to be reproduced as efficiently as possible. Over time this morphed into group selection, where even if the person in my group is not as closely related (although most groups were essentially extended families) it still behooves me to act altruistically towards my own group.
This eventually morphed over time into the simplistic type of morality that discourages cheats, and encourages selflessness.
While this then evolved over more time to the moral code we have today.
This is a QUICK and dirty summary, if you need me to explain in more detail, I’d suggest reading The Selfish Gene yourself first. If you’d like to only check out the chapters dealing with this, I’d be happy ot skim through the book again, and recommend the correct chapters to you.
“In this framework it is impossible to literally do an act of good for goodness sake.”
See above
“I think I can point to some scenarios that would contradict this idea. Or some scenarios wherein an act of “non-cheating” provides no Darwinian advantage whatsoever.”
In MOST cases the “cheats” get the best possible end of the deal. The idea is that if the number of cheats rises to high, then the society will be unable to function effectively, and will dissolve. This is why our society/morality discourages “cheats”.
“But back to the issue of methodological naturalism problem with evil. If a child-molester is the net result of evolution and social standards why is he less desirable than someone who donates blood, recycles and hugs bunnies? Either the child-molestation is not a less desirable human characteristic or evolution got in wrong somewhere along the line in producing this deviation.”
See above
“If that’s the case “deviants” once identified can be eliminated with impunity.”
Are you TRYING to sound like Hitler here on purpose?
One other difference between atheists and believers, is that we attempt to be equal with our ideals. If killing is bad for any member of society, then it should not be acceptable for the government to do it either. Unlike the christian right, we TRY not to be hypocritical on issues such as this.
“But Dawkins says we’re all just “dancing to our DNA”. So I guess his answer is that child molestation is part of the dance. Terrorism is part of the dance. Racism is part of the dance. The Crusades were part of the dance. The Inquisition was part of the dance.”
It’s so easy to take a quote out of context isn’t it. You’re not QUITE on par with Ben Stein in this regards, but you’re trying aren’t you?
I think Dawkins and others have shown TIME AND TIME AGAIN while they disagree with terrorism, racism, the crusades, the inquisition, et al.
I also find it HIGHLY amusing that all of the examples you use are ones that are religious examples of intolerance.
“The Holocaust was part of the dance. And if they’re part of the dance who are we to be outraged and the simple product of biology?”
Do you HONESTLY need a reply to this. I think I’ve explained at least a dozen times while all of these are unacceptable based on a naturalistic philosophy. You seem to be trying to make a point, and ignoring the previous discussions, so that you can throw up your straw man to battle. It’s quite disappointing, but the further we delve into the morality discussion, the less rational you become in your arguments.
“The question should more accurately be “Can methodological naturalism explain the system of morality we currently have?””
Yes, and I’ve done this at LEAST 6 times or more already. Search above for my previous mentions of the evolution of morality, or my discussions on Daniel Dennett (in many cases, the same thing as the prior one). We’ve gone through this numerous times. Which part of my explanation do you not “get”?
“If morality is a societal construct derived from evolution then why do some conform and other do not? How does methodological naturalism explain this distinction? How does methodological naturalism compel us toward and ideal while all the time struggling with regularly engaging in bad behaviors? How does methodological naturalism justify the punishment of those who do “evil”, if the evil is nothing other than choosing to not go along with society?”
I’ve answered this a number of times already, but here we go again:
Because on an individual level, it “pays” to be a “cheat”, but on a societal level, you want fewer cheats, or else your society will not do very well over long periods.
“Methodological naturalism needs to be able to explain and address the dual moral nature of humanity.”
And it does, quite easily.
“There are other problems with morality as dictated by society…”
Which other problems are these, which I was unable to address?
“While societal morality or The Selfish Gene may explain a system of morality, I don’t see that it explains morality as we know it.”
There are a few reasons for this.
1) It seems you did not READ The Selfish Gene, you either skimmed it, or read other’s reviews of it (or perhaps read it but did not grasp the concepts).
2) That was not the intent of this book, that was a minor diversion in the book ,to help explain the actual intent of the book, which is gene selection.
3) It seems you’d be unwilling to accept ANY explanation which does not go along with your predisposed idea of god creating an objective moral code that at times allows rape and at times does not, that at times allows genocide and at times does not, that at times allows murder and at times does not, that at times allows slavery and at times does not, (should I keep going, or does this make my point?).
4)
—–
Your explanation of the match is HUMOROUS in it’s simplicity.
If you have nothing, then the default state of the “universe” is cold and black, correct?
In fact, the definition of dark is actually the absence of light. There is no “darkness”, there is just “lack of illumination” in the universe.
As well, the default “temp” of the universe would be absolute zero, with nothing to “warm” up potions of the universe (the big bang, stars, planets, etc).
But if one follows your analogy, then you are stating that the default state of the universe is “evil”.
(I’d REALLY like you to reply to that last point first, because this next step is being purposely taken to the absurd, and as such, will be easier to “debate” against)
So, let’s take this even one step further, if nothing existed before god created everything, and the default state of the universe was evil, then since god was the only thing that existed, I think you just said that god is in fact evil.
Let me start by acknowledging a couple of things.
-Contrary to all appearances I’m not ignoring either of your explanations concerning methodological naturalism and morality. My intention was to display how I think they are inadequate explanations for the system of morality we currently have. But the failure to communicate clearly has been mine. Sorry about that. I really enjoy the discussion so I don’t want either of you to think that I’m ignoring your responses.
-I have not read The Selfish Gene. I certainly won’t pretend I have. I was working only on your (Rod’s) explanation of the book. I haven’t even read the back cover. I’m sure that to a large degree the science is way beyond my capabilities to understand. My overall point was to say that it seems that his conclusions are inadequate to explain morality as we know it but I readily admit the shortcoming is on my end not Dawkins’ explanation.
-The light/heat analogy. I warned you it was simplistic. My point was not to create an analogy that could be extrapolated as you did but rather to show that evil isn’t a “created” thing. To make conclusions about the “default” state of the universe is to miss the point. Evil is what good is not.
-If I boil down this discussion of morality to it’s most basic element my overall point is to show that moral relativity is an untenable position regardless of how one gets there. Maybe I should spend more time dealing with the conclusion than the process whereby we reach the conclusion.
moot,
“My intention was to display how I think they are inadequate explanations for the system of morality we currently have.”
WHICH part of the explanations? Is there some part we did not clearly explain? Is there some question we did not answer? Is there some logical fallacy we made? Or is it just that our descriptions of the processes do not match up with your own predetermined ideas on the subject?
“I have not read The Selfish Gene.”
This becomes more obvious the more you attempt to derive conclusions from it which are not the focus of the book.
Dawkins delves into morality in The Selfish Gene only as an aside. The larger purpose of the book is to dispel the notions of group selection and individual selections. The goal of the book is to show that what SEEMS to be natural selection “choosing” individuals is actually in fact the genes being chosen, and what appears to be altruism towards a goal of group selection, is actual the genes being selected as well. as part of this discussion he does go into the ideas of “altruism” or “cheats” or “morality” in order to explain how this idea is not only possible with the gene selection idea, but it’s the only possible logical outcome of gene selection.
“I’m sure that to a large degree the science is way beyond my capabilities to understand.”
Actually, he does a VERY good job of making the book accessible to almost any level (much like Carl Sagan, Neal deGrasse Tyson, and Steven Hawkins are able to do with even more complex topics). I understand you may not agree with his conclusions, but it might at least give you better insight into the ideas if you read his book instead of my attempts as summarizing his complex ideas into small paragraphs.
“My overall point was to say that it seems that his conclusions are inadequate to explain morality as we know it”
Which part of the explanation do you find lacking, and in what way exactly?
“The light/heat analogy.”
The point you miss with the “good” vs ‘evil” idea is that if god created EVERYTHING, that includes the dark expanses of the universe and the bright spots. He created the cold vacuum of space and the warmth of the stars. He created “good” and he created the sick twisted desire of a certain percentage of adults to rape children (aka “evil”).
YOUR perfect, 100% good, infallible, all knowing god created evil. There is no way around this conclusion if you hold the position that god created everything.
To state the “good” is the “opposite” of evil is no true. There are MANY things which are neither “good” nor “evil”. If you want to insist that god created EVERYTHING, and god created mankind (in his own image), and gods created morality, then you must ALSO acknowledge that god ALSO created evil, and the desire in mankind to do evil.
Free will explains why “he let’s us commit” evil, but it does not explain WHY he created the desire to do evil.
Uncertain,
I appreciate the discussion and I thank you for being patient if I’ve come across as simply rehashing the same argument. It’s certainly not my intent. I’m just not very articulate.
-I will agree that evil seems has a subjective nature to it, but only in regards to how society interprets evil.
Let me explain. Let’s assume that in Victorian English society it was evil to show one’s ankles. By today’s standards, that seems puritanical. Obviously the definition of evil in that particular case was subjective.
However in another sense it could be said that the issue of “ankle showing” wasn’t subjective at all. We could say that showing one’s ankle is objectively not evil, nor has it ever been. This is merely a fact that ancient cultures previously knew and modern cultures have re-discovered. Victorian society and culture, for whatever reason, created a subjective reality that did not reflect the objective reality.
I think that society and culture being subjective can often work against the objective truth of a specific matter. You say that the nature of evil ends with a societal definition of it. I’m saying that there exists an objective truth that a subjective society is either revealing or obscuring.
So, as it pertains to society, morality is unarguably subjective. But as it pertains to reality morality is (arguably) objective. The problem is society and reality don’t always see eye to eye.
A case in point is an issue like slavery. There was a time when slavery was widely accepted. In a subjective society slavery was morally acceptable. However at some point in time, individuals, guided by and appealing to, an objective truth, literally transformed the subjective morality of society.
Without the objective truth that “all men are created equal” (or whatever they happened to have used) then you have nothing toward which to appeal in order to transform society.
By your standards wouldn’t men like William Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson be immoral because they rebelled against the morality of the day?
Or by what standard can you condemn the morality of another society?
-You brought up the issue of seeing evil in nature. Now the difference between the evil within a society and the evil within nature is the issue of maliciousness. We obviously don’t call a hurricane or a lion “evil” because they possesses no ability to intend and premeditate acts contrary to what they know to be good.
-As of yet we haven’t resorted to the supernatural.(I realize that it lurks right around the corner.) I’m just attempting to make a case that there exists an objective morality.
I said evil is not a created thing. If it is not a created thing then God did not create it.
I know your next question will be – If it’s not created, why do I believe it exists?
That takes us to the imperfect analogies I used.
If I say to do a thing is good (in a ultimate sense)- I have, definition said that not doing that thing is evil.
To say that 2+2=4 is to say that 2+2 does not equal the infinite amount of numbers that are not 4.
Evil is what good is not.
moot,
“Evil is what good is not.”
This is a false premise because there are many things which are neither “good” nor “evil”.
Is a burp OBJECTIVELY good? If not, then you must say that all burps are evil by your logic?
“Evil” is not the absence of “good”; evil is a standard that society has deemed unacceptable. Just as “good” is a standard that society has deemed to be so.
If “evil is what good is not”, then EVERY SINGLE THING (action, word, deed, etc) must by definition be EITHER “good” or “evil”.
So which is yellow (the color)?
Or “fire”? Fire is associated with the devil, but it also helps keep us warm and cook our food, so is it both good and evil?
Wow I mangled a word – The third sentence down should read…
“If I say to do a thing is good (in an ultimate sense) I have, be definition said that not doing that thing is evil.”
I pretty sure you know that the context of this morality conversation has always been human behavior.
moot,
Ok, then read 2 paragraphs above the one you “commented” on:
“Is a burp OBJECTIVELY good? If not, then you must say that all burps are evil by your logic?”
This is getting a little ridiculous but for the sake of argument….
If God had commanded us not to burp then to burp would become objectively evil.
moot,
But you’ve stated that EVIL is EVERYTHING that is not good.
So if burping is not objectively good, then it’s AUTOMATICALLY evil by your logic.
You did not allow for any gray area where something is neither good nor evil, you were VERY BLACK AND WHITE in your answer.
THIS is a MAJOR problem with religion, it attempts to be black and white when in fact MOST things are shades of gray.
For instance, to murder is bad. It’s EXPRESSLY forbidden in the bible.
How many people did “god” murder in the flood? Or at Sodom and Gomorrah? How many did he have killed in his name in the bible (I think it was job who was told to surround a city for some number of days then go in and kill EVERY man, woman, child, and beast within the town.
These are not even counting things that happened AFTER the bible was written, this are within the “good book” which is supposed to be our source of morality in your opinion.
So to kill is bad, one of THE big 10 (commandments), but it’s ok if god says so. Or as we’ve learned since then, if you THINK god said so (crusades, etc).
SERIOUSLY, do you not see this as an issue at all?
Another point on this same subject of murder. If somebody is going to kill my child, is it ok for me to break one of the ten commandments to save my child’s life? How about it somebody is holding a bus load of children hostage, can I kill them? How about if I THINK that somebody is a danger to others? Where does the line get drawn, by the bible (thou shall not kill) or society, which allows for “justifiable homincide”?
I think you’re having a different discussion than I am. My comments about the existence of evil were just that…to explain it’s existence. My definition of it’s existence doesn’t mean that we have to assign a moral value to every noun and verb.
I tried to go back and re-read all of my posts carefully and I don’t see where I said – “Evil is EVERYTHING that is not good.” Maybe I’m make a distinction that is too nuanced or simply not being clear enough. More likely we’re simply having to different discussions.
I am not making commentary on burps, the color yellow or fire, nor do I think that my comments can be extrapolated to those ends.
Now if we want to talk about gray areas vs. black and white that’s a fine discussion, one I’d love to have.
I do believe “gray” areas exist. If you read my post to Uncertain you’ll see how I allow for gray areas in system of absolutes.
Rod,
Seems like this is the best place to find you (the most active blog). I was wondering if you’re planning to blog/discuss the movie Expelled. I’ve been e-meeting many new atheists on blogs about this movie (maybe you know some of them?).
Anyway, I was just curious.
Oh, and most everything is gray – there is very little black and white (and that’s Biblical).
cheers
moot,
“My comments about the existence of evil were just that…to explain it’s existence.”
But you have not explained it’s existence. If evil is, as you claim, everything which is not good, such as darkness is “that which is not illuminated”, then you are in effect saying that the default position for ANY action is evil, unless it is explicitly condoned as a good action.
Your explanation leaves no room for the mundane which is neither inherently good not evil.
Something like going to the gym; this may be good for your body, but is it inherently “good” in “god’s eyes”, and if not, will somebody go to hell for working out? In my readings of the bible, I don’t recall anything about Gold’s Gym honoring god, so must we assume then that anything not mentioned in the bible is not good, or do we use our own judgment. If we are to use our own judgment, then the bible (and by extension god) is no longer the supreme judge of our morality, we as a society are.
“I tried to go back and re-read all of my posts carefully and I don’t see where I said – “Evil is EVERYTHING that is not good.””
Actually your exact words were:
Evil is what good is not.
This states plainly that if something is not good, then it is evil. So there are ONLY two types of things, good things, and evil things.
You also skipped over the entire concept of “murder”. If things are either “evil” or “good” and the bible CLEARLY defines killing as a no-no, then how can it EVER be justified, even if it is done by god “himself”?
Basically the bible claims “do as I say, not as I do, unless of course you THINK I want you to break my rules, then it’s ok”.
This is not quite the supreme example of morality one would expect from an omniscient, omnipotent, loving deity.
“Now if we want to talk about gray areas vs. black and white that’s a fine discussion, one I’d love to have.”
I’m VERY curious about your thoughts on when killing is acceptable, and WHERE the bible leads you to this conclusion, and how this does not contradict the 10 commandments.
b4dguy,
“Seems like this is the best place to find you (the most active blog).”
I check for comments on all the posts daily (or try to), but this is certainly the most active thread that has the most continual stream of comments, so I tend to post here much more often than other posts.
“I was wondering if you’re planning to blog/discuss the movie Expelled.”
I am CERTAINLY planning a post on this. I have a good bit of it written actually already, based on the reports from people like PZ Meyers, Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins, etc.
This part of my post is about the lies that Ben Stein and the producers of the movie have used to get this movie made (lying to people about the intent of the movie in order to get them to agree to be interviewed, lying about the events surrounding kicking PZ out of the theater for a pre-screening, lying about historical connections between events, lying about the facts surrounding many of the “expelled” “academics” that the movie is supposedly all about, etc).
However, I have not seen the movie myself yet; so I am waiting until I have had a chance to see it for myself before I finish my post. I’d like to have seen it myself, but I also don’t really want ot give money to Ben Stein and the group behind this movie, so I am hoping that I can find it online shortly.
I would HIGHLY recommend checking out http://www.expelledexposed.com/ for a good bit of information on the facts about this movie, but I do certainly plan to post my thoughts at some point as well…
I’ve been to the expelledexposed website – frankly, I was pretty unimpressed. Not at the site itself necessarily but the “responses” to some of the questions. Who are the people responding? members of the organization, defacto experts, or just random respondents? There didn’t seem to be good way to respond to the ‘experts’ claims/clarifications.
What I was left with was that the discussion of evolution vs. ID is apples and oranges – in that evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life (just the origin of species present on the earth today), and ID is attempting (science, pseudo-science, or simply religion disguised as science) is about a specific origin of life.
The whole argument seems kind of silly to me, and both sides seem to be emotionally charged, and (sometimes) a wee bit irrational.
You want any “spoilers”?
b4dguy,
“The whole argument seems kind of silly to me, and both sides seem to be emotionally charged, and (sometimes) a wee bit irrational.”
I do agree that both sides tend to rant on about their impressions of the Evolution/Creation debate. The reason that I personally get charged up about this issue is the idea that creationist want their religion taught in schools. Our schools in this country are ALREADY falling behind many other countries in the world, this would make the problem worse by orders of magnitude.
“I’ve been to the expelledexposed website – frankly, I was pretty unimpressed. Not at the site itself necessarily but the “responses” to some of the questions.”
As for the ExpelledExposed site, I think that their primary goal with this site is not to “defend” evolution, but to point out the problems with this specific movie and claims made in this movie.
Expelled never really gets into the claims of creationism or the evidence for it, they basically make the erroneous claim that all theories are equally valid and should be treated equally. The problem with this idea is that a scientific idea does not automatically qualify as a scientific Theory, it goes through a number of tests and verifications before it is treated as a Theory. (I’ve done a post on this idea of what is a Scientific Theory before: https://potomac9499.wordpress.com/2008/01/20/theory-scientific-vs-layman-definition/ )
The next problem that Expelled has is they make claims that these specific people were “expelled” from positions before of their belief in creationism. The actual facts vary case by case, but ExpelledExposed goes into the details for each of these people one by one to explain the actual facts. For instance Sternberg, who the movie claims “his life was nearly ruined”. He has an UNPAID position at NIH when in 2004 he violated policies at the small publication he was editor for and the Smithsonian. He has given his resignation 6 months prior to this happening, and continued to work at NIH though at least 2006.
Somehow in Ben Stein’s view, this (being allowed to continue to work after having resigned) constitutes harassment?
“Who are the people responding? members of the organization, defacto experts, or just random respondents?”
I know Eugenie Scott is one of the people involved with this website, but I do not know her exact involvement.
“There didn’t seem to be good way to respond to the ‘experts’ claims/clarifications.”
I THINK this site was set-up as a way to refute the claims of this specific movie, not as a place to learn all about evolution, etc. There are MANY other ways to contact Eugenie and others if you want to know more about their work in the field of evolutionary biology.
“in that evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life (just the origin of species present on the earth today)”
Correct. While we have many guesses on the original origins of life, we don’t yet claim to have an “answer”, just a number of possible ideas.
“and [creationism] is attempting (science, pseudo-science, or simply religion disguised as science) is about a specific origin of life.”
Sorry for editing your comment here, but I have an aversion to calling creationist by the name they are trying to call themselves, since what they profess is CERTAINLY not “intelligent”.
But to the point of your comment, creationist claim not only the method of the creation of life, but those that do support an old earth also claim that god “guided” evolution (or the creation of species) over the last 3.5 billion years as well, and specifically with humans (us being made in “his” image and all you know).
I do like that you mentioned “or simply religion disguised as science”, since the Dover court has rules that is EXACTLY what this new creationism is (although under a different name). In fact it’s so obvious what they have done, it would be as if Richard Dawkins reissued The Selfish Gene under another name (book name and a pseudonym for himself) but left EVERY WORD in tact, EXCEPT his own name, and the name of the book, but then claimed that this new book was NOT his own.
“You want any “spoilers”?”
I’d love to hear your thoughts. I know from the reviews I’ve read the movie is split between lies/mis-truths about the nature of these people who were “expelled” and saying that Darwin lead to the Nazi regime/Holocaust/Hitler.
We are still clearly jogging on two different paths. Or you are being intentionally obtuse. I’m not yet sure.
I’m speaking philosophically about the uncreated existence of evil. You insist on applying that concept to burping, the color yellow, fire and Gold’s Gym.
So I have answered the question. Repeatedly
Now I suppose for the sake of helping you understand this we could say that everything is good. Burping is good, not burping is good. But if God comes along and establishes an absolute, “thou salt not burp” then burping becomes wrong. If that’s how you’d like to understand what I’m saying that’s fine. However it really has nothing to do with the overall point I was making about the existence of evil but if it helps the discussion along…
In regards to murder. It’s a common error. The Hebrew words for “kill” and “murder” are distinct words with distinct meanings. One is regarded as justified and one isn’t. This distinction is one most modern court systems make as well.
moot,
What would YOU personally consider killing EVERY man, woman, child, and animal in a city, murder, or killing?
How about destroying a city and everybody in that city?
How about destroying EVERY land and air being on the planet except those able to fit on one boat?
Would those examples be “killing” or “murder”?
Keep in mind, in all 3 examples, infants too young to have committed ANY sin would have been part of the group that was “killed” or “murdered”…
I know where you’re going and I’ve been there myself lots of times.
Let expand the question. The fact of the matter is the scenario you set up is one that happens more than once. This sort of genocide is not an anomaly in the Old Testament. You have the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah and a slew of other situations.
In fact, if we think things through, aren’t Christians also saying that God will commit genocide when he takes all the “good” people to heaven and destroys all the “bad” people in hell? So, it’s not even unique to the Old Testament.
Lets push this envelop even further. If God is all-powerful isn’t he capable of stopping a tsunami? But yet hundreds of thousands of “innocent” people die in natural disasters every year. Isn’t that God indirectly committing genocide as well?
While we’re at it God has the power to prevent death from cancer, heart attack or even old age. So He is at least indirectly responsible for those deaths as well.
So you’re scenario is the tip of iceberg so to speak.
I fully acknowledge that not all good answers are going to be emotionally satisfying to a lot of people. That’s why this is a hard issue. Each of us believe that if we were God we would do something different.
The underlying question is really – Can God legitimately judge and destroy the world or any portion of it or its inhabitants that He sees fit to destroy? Is this inside of God’s prerogatives or outside of it?
God is not compelled by any law higher than himself. It is not evil for God to take life, because God is the Author of life. He can give it and He can take it away. That’s part of the prerogative of being God. All that He creates belongs to Him. This is His world. He needs no further justification.
Second, we realize that humans are mortal. And that means there comes a time when every life God created “casts of it’s mortal coil”. Your question is expansive enough that we should regard God as evil when someone dies of cancer, heart attack or old age. But we don’t have the same negative emotional response to those scenarios. The timing and the method of each person’s demise is somewhat incidental, from a moral perspective. It’s up to Him.
So I’m arguing first that it’s God’s prerogative to take life when He so chooses, and second that the means He uses to take that life is a matter of His prerogative as well. Whether it’s by disease, or mishap, or hailstones, or the angel of death, or the sword of a Jewish soldier, the means is up to Him. It’s His prerogative.
There’s a third thing. It pertains to the challenge, “If God were really good, how could He do such a thing? How could He destroy these innocent people? This is barbaric.” They take this record of God’s judgment as evidence that the God of the Bible isn’t really good at all, and therefore should not be believed in.
I approach it from a different direction. I think the preponderance of evidence from the same historical record–the Old Testament– is that God is good. He continually demonstrates not just his holiness, but also His patience and forbearance for those that consistently rebel against Him, though He has graciously cared for them.
This gives us good reason to trust Him. And if we have good reason to trust Him, then when we see things that seem to go against our sense of goodness and justice, it seems only fair to give the benefit of the doubt to God, who just might know something more than we know.
I realize that none of these may be satisfying emotionally for you but I think that they are valid approaches to a difficult question.
Back from holiday now, but again, I’m afraid that my response will be brief, this time because my brain is a bit addled with the cold.
So, taking points at random:
Ah, the joys of arguing from vastly differing frames of reference.
Mootpoints,
“-If I boil down this discussion of morality to it’s most basic element my overall point is to show that moral relativity is an untenable position regardless of how one gets there.”
Why? By its nature any moral judgement has to be relative simply because you have to have something to measure against.
It’s also worth pointing out that every society tends to believe their own morality is superior to the ones that have gone before and those other societies around at the time – and the same is true of societies today as well.
Anyway, what specific problems do you have with our explanations of the way we see morality having developed?
It also occurs to me that the main problem with invoking God in moral or philosophical arguments is that it’s the ultimate appeal to authority and just as flawed as any other argument based on that type and that it always seems to translate from:
“God says” to “*I* say, but God is with me” or “*My* morals are God’s morals”
It always seems arrogant to me and a deflection of personal responsibility.
“Victorian society and culture, for whatever reason, created a subjective reality that did not reflect the objective reality.”
Ooooh, interesting analogy. Flawed, but I’ll get to that later.
“I think that society and culture being subjective can often work against the objective truth of a specific matter. You say that the nature of evil ends with a societal definition of it.”
No, I’m saying that the nature of evil *is* a social definition. An important distinction. So, of course, are justice and honour.
“I’m saying that there exists an objective truth that a subjective society is either revealing or obscuring.”
And here we come to the flaw in your analogy, because religion is another one of those subjective parts of society that, as well as revealing truths obscures them just as handily.
Science is an objective method at attempting to look past all those obscuring ‘truths’.
“So, as it pertains to society, morality is unarguably subjective.”
Actually, I thought that was precisely what we *were* arguing?
“But as it pertains to reality morality is (arguably) objective. The problem is society and reality don’t always see eye to eye.”
Yes! And the same is true of religion!
“A case in point is an issue like slavery. There was a time when slavery was widely accepted. In a subjective society slavery was morally acceptable. However at some point in time, individuals, guided by and appealing to, an objective truth, literally transformed the subjective morality of society.”
Against others inspired by the same ‘objective truth’, as you put it, who had put that same abhorent system in place and who believed in it just as sincerely.
“Without the objective truth that “all men are created equal” (or whatever they happened to have used) then you have nothing toward which to appeal in order to transform society.”
I’m sorry, but that’s not an objective truth, but an ideal. And it’s not true, some are born with advantages over others (whether due to an accident of birth or genetics). Better to say that all people are created equally valid. In fact, from my own point of view all *life* is created equally valid.
“By your standards wouldn’t men like William Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson be immoral because they rebelled against the morality of the day?”
No. By my standards they, in many cases, *were* considered immoral (or at least dangerously misguided) because they rebelled against the morality of the day. Now they are considered heroes because they were forward thinkers and hindsight is always twenty-twenty.
“Or by what standard can you condemn the morality of another society?”
From the standard offered by my own – it is all I have and all you have. It just, and I apologise for this, seems prideful and arrogant to claim otherwise.
“-You brought up the issue of seeing evil in nature. Now the difference between the evil within a society and the evil within nature is the issue of maliciousness. We obviously don’t call a hurricane or a lion “evil” because they possesses no ability to intend and premeditate acts contrary to what they know to be good.”
The hurricane, I’ll grant you, but the lion . . . again we come up against that differing frame of reference bacause until someone actually can get inside the head of a lion we can’t know for certain whether or not it has some kind of morality. As I’ve said before, almost all the ‘evils’ man perpetrates can be seen to some extent in all social animals (and most of the virtues as well). This is not at all surprising because humanity after all is just another animal (clever and hyper dominant, but still just another animal) when you get down to it – to pretend otherwise is ego. And as we learn more about the animal kingdom the number of differences between us just keeps getting smaller and smaller.
“-As of yet we haven’t resorted to the supernatural.(I realize that it lurks right around the corner.) I’m just attempting to make a case that there exists an objective morality.”
Actually you have already done that when you said that the commonalities between moral structures could be considered supernatural.
I’d also like an answer to the question of what you meant earlier about ‘proper society’ and the death penalty and possibly address the contradiction inherent in the support a lot of Christian groups, in the US in particular seem to show for it?
Sorry, I told you my brain was addled by the cold virus I’m currently fighting off:
““But as it pertains to reality morality is (arguably) objective. The problem is society and reality don’t always see eye to eye.”
Yes! And the same is true of religion!”
Sorry, meant to say that as it pertains to reality morality can only ever be subjective. I was agreeing with the part about reality and society not always being as closely linked as we’d like to believe.
The thing is that we, locked up in our own subjective points of view (both personal and social), *can’t* know if there is some over-arching universal morality or not, not with any degree of certainty. We can believe there might be, but that doesn’t mean that there is one.
It’s also worth saying that I see more and greater harm being done in this world by people who believe absolutely that they know beyond a shadow of doubt what is right and what is wrong (and therefore that *they* are right) than by those who believe that the universe might just be a bit more complicated than all that and are willing to admit that they might be wrong.
Of course, that’s one of the reasons ‘moral relativity’ is frowned upon by absolutist philosophies and religions, it is underpinned by the honest acknowledgement that you might be wrong which is something they can never admit to without losing, in their frame of reference, moral or spiritual authority.
There were a number of things with which I’d take some issue but I’d like to explore one of your responses.
You said –
“As I’ve said before, almost all the ‘evils’ man perpetrates can be seen to some extent in all social animals (and most of the virtues as well). This is not at all surprising because humanity after all is just another animal (clever and hyper dominant, but still just another animal) when you get down to it – to pretend otherwise is ego. And as we learn more about the animal kingdom the number of differences between us just keeps getting smaller and smaller.”
You can take this concept further than you do. Francis Crick said that “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will are no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and associated molecules.”
This sort of reductionism is the only perspective one can really have in a purely naturalistic world-view.
So if that’s the case, we’re not really any different than animals and we are simply a collection of atoms and molecules then I’m not sure one can argue for a sophisticated sense of morality at all. I don’t see where you can find a distinction for human value, which is really the basis for almost all moral law.
Himmler said something that, from a naturalistic world view, seems to be as true as anything else. He said,
“Whether foreign populations live or die from hunger interest me only insofar as we might need them as slaves for our own civilization; in any other respect it doesn’t interest me at all. Whether ten thousand Russian females drop with exhaustion digging an anti-tank trench for us, interests me only insofar as the trench gets finished…”
I apologize for being so dramatic as to quote someone like Himmler, he’s the only quote of this nature I had handy. (Which begs the question, “Why did I have this handy?”)
But if there is not distinctive for the value of human life how can there be a rational against this sort of conclusion?
If someone reaches this conclusion like this precisely because “humanity after all is just another animal” how would you convince them they were wrong? Or, in your world-view are they wrong at all?
Also as far as the greater harm being done by believers… I’m not sure how to quantify “harm” but it’s certainly arguable that more harm has been done by atheist dictators.
I know, I know they didn’t commit genocide because of their atheism. Well then the “believers” that committed atrocities didn’t do so because of real belief either but because of some twisted misconceptions.
China under Mao Tse Tung, 26.3 million Chinese. According the Walker Report, 63.7 million over the whole period of time of the Communist revolution in China. Solzhenitsyn says the Soviet Union put to death 66.7 million people. Kampuchea destroyed one third of their entire population of eight million Cambodians.
So we’re talking…125 plus million people.
I’ve heard rough estimates for the Crusades and while I don’t agree that these were propagated by men attempting to honestly follow Scripture the estimate is about 1 Million deaths. High estimates of The Inquisition put the death toll at about 5000. If you had the high estimates for the 30 years war and the French wars of Religion your talking about another 15 million. Oh and the Salem Witch Trails account for about 5 men and 14 women. I’m sure I’m leaving out some significant factors but those are the major atrocities connected with Christianity for that last 1000 years or so. The death toll is about 17 million give or take. In less than 50 years Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot managed to massacre more than 100 million.
So roughly a a little more than a tenth of the people in span twenty times longer.
I realize that this is a little moot because atheists don’t believe that these atrocities were committed as a result of their atheism but I though it was interesting to note.
Please excuse me if I’m not entirely coherent this morning – no sleep last night and my cold is still cloggiong my brain.
So, last point first: I didn’t say anything about believers in my last post I said, “It’s also worth saying that I see more and greater harm being done in this world by people who believe absolutely that they know beyond a shadow of doubt what is right and what is wrong (and therefore that *they* are right) than by those who believe that the universe might just be a bit more complicated than all that and are willing to admit that they might be wrong.”
I was speaking about people who demonstrate that level of certainty and conviction whether or not they were followers of any religion or none and are unwilling to admit the possibility of error.
But, if you want to go down the road of who killed/maimed more throughout history again . . .
We’ll start with the systematic subjigation of women following on from ‘man is the head of women’ and similar lovely little titbits, and mention as an aside all the times that’s been used as an excuse for abuse and rape (both within a marriage and without), then there’s the systematic cover-ups of child abuse by Catholic clergy, the shocking treatment of unwed mothers in the Magdalen Houses, the tendency of *some* Christian aid agencies to tie aid to some religious requirement (the teaching of scripture or the promotion of ineffective abstinance-based programmes) and the suffering that results from that, the genocide in the former Yugoslav countries, sectarian conflicts the world over from Northern Ireland to Iraq, the whole current Middle Eastern situation, the sacrifices conducted by the Aztecs and Toltecs; the subjigation, near genocide and forced civilisation and Christianisation of native peeoples the world over following Europe’s colonial phase, witch burnings and drownings unasscociated with the Inquisition, the human rights abuses inherent in the religiously inspired justice systems of countries like Saudi Arabia, people denied modern medical treatment for religious grounds whether by people like scientologists or the family who sat and watched, praying, while their daughter who had never seen a doctor since she was three slipped into a diabetic coma and died, the persecution of minority faiths the world over and if you want to bring WW2 into it . . . there’s the internment and effective decitenization of Japanese Americans and the dropping of two atomic bombs (the ethics of that particular act are an entirely seperate argument and, to be honest, one I’m not really interested in going into right now – partly because I’m really not sure where I stand on it) by a nation that considers itself religious. I could go on, and I’d dig up numbers, but, as I said, not feeling too well right now.
But, anyway, again, I was speaking about that level of certainty and conviction whether religiously inspired or not.
And, now, onto your first point:-
“This sort of reductionism is the only perspective one can really have in a purely naturalistic world-view.”
Yep, fair enough.
“So if that’s the case, we’re not really any different than animals and we are simply a collection of atoms and molecules then I’m not sure one can argue for a sophisticated sense of morality at all.”
I thought I already had, by pointing out that human morals are a social construct, an important one, that allows us to function effectively as a society and that morality has evolved along with society.
“I don’t see where you can find a distinction for human value, which is really the basis for almost all moral law.”
Actually no, it’s not. I think you’ve got it partly right though. Value is important, it’s one of the reasons in Western societies there tend to be taboos against eating certain animals like dogs and horses that we tend to work with more as partners and were important to our liveliehood.
That assumption of human superiority is behind a lot of unnecessary cruelty to animals that often leads to human suffering as well. (Have you seen the way battery-reared chickens spend their lives?) It also leads to the view that humanity is somehow seperate from the environment instead of a part of it and somehow immune to any damage we do.
“Himmler said something that, from a naturalistic world view, seems to be as true as anything else. He said,
“Whether foreign populations live or die from hunger interest me only insofar as we might need them as slaves for our own civilization; in any other respect it doesn’t interest me at all. Whether ten thousand Russian females drop with exhaustion digging an anti-tank trench for us, interests me only insofar as the trench gets finished…”
I apologize for being so dramatic as to quote someone like Himmler, he’s the only quote of this nature I had handy. (Which begs the question, “Why did I have this handy?” 😉
But if there is not distinctive for the value of human life how can there be a rational against this sort of conclusion?”
Rather easily, actually.
“If someone reaches this conclusion like this precisely because “humanity after all is just another animal” how would you convince them they were wrong? Or, in your world-view are they wrong at all?”
Of course, I believe they are wrong. And there are rational arguments against that, the simplest being that if you treat people like that sooner or later they, or someone else who finds your actions abhorent will step in and, as we saw in WW2, the results will be significantly more death, pain and suffering on all sides, including the German side. As to safely ignoring the suffering of others, well, history teaches us that it almost always turns around and bites those that ignore it whether its an heriditary aristocracy or a rich country that ignores the desperate plight of its poor neighbour and then wonders why it is either over-run with refugees or under attack by terrorists who resent its wealth and angered by its inaction.
I’d also like to turn the question back on you: how would you argue against such a person without falling back on a morality that they would belive completely invalid?
At this point I feel as if I should restate my own beliefs on such things:
Given that I believe the existence or nature of god can be neither proven or disproven, the only thing that matters is what we *do* and whether we cause harm to others or help them when we can.
I also believe that one of humanity’s biggest failings now is the tendency to see things in black and white terms when the reality is imaginably more complex and the degree to which that percieved certainty inhibits their ability to understand others and the world around us.
Now, let me ask you this question, if I may: what is it about the possibility that humanity may not be somehow exceptional and that there may not be some kind of overarching universal morality to justify our assumption that we are the most valid life in the universe that bothers you so much?
moot,
“Each of us believe that if we were God we would do something different.”
Actually, my point is that christians like to claim that god’s morals are the same as their own (or more accurately that they derive their morals from god). If we derive our morals FROM god, then we should be willing to accept that what we see as being moral, god ALSO sees as moral.
For instance, if a person is homophobic and says that they are because the bible tells them to be, then they ALSO believe that god is homophobic.
I am NOT trying to say the bible DOES say to be homophobic, just that IF you believe the bible is the word of god, and IF you believe the bible says to be homophobic, then you ALSO must be of the opinion that god is homophobic. I do understand that not all christians are homophobic.
I think we can agree on this, if not, please let me know, because this is an important point.
“Can God legitimately judge and destroy the world or any portion of it or its inhabitants that He sees fit to destroy? Is this inside of God’s prerogatives or outside of it?”
This is ONE of the questions, yes, but not the ONLY question in this discussion.
The other question which I still don’t quite think we have come to an understanding on, is the very nature of “evil” and why it exists in the first place, but we can get back to this after we finish off this point.
“God is not compelled by any law higher than himself.”
Yes, BUT if god says a + b = c and LATER says a + b does NOT = c then we SHOULD be allowed to call “him” on this inconsistency. After all, he is infallible, and therefor should NEVER change his mind.
“It is not evil for God to take life, because God is the Author of life. He can give it and He can take it away. That’s part of the prerogative of being God. All that He creates belongs to Him. This is His world. He needs no further justification.”
So if a scientists creates life in a lab, is it ok for him to kill that life? Even Human life? How about for a mother or father to kill their children?
You’re going down a VERY slippery slope if you say the creator of life has the prerogative to kill it, since mankind “creates” life every single day. How can you then ALSO oppose abortion?
“Second, we realize that humans are mortal. And that means there comes a time when every life God created “casts of it’s mortal coil”. Your question is expansive enough that we should regard God as evil when someone dies of cancer, heart attack or old age. But we don’t have the same negative emotional response to those scenarios. The timing and the method of each person’s demise is somewhat incidental, from a moral perspective. It’s up to Him.”
If I HATE somebody, and I take steps to CAUSE their death, i am guilty of murder. If i hate somebody and they die of natural causes and i dance on their grave at their funeral, I may be a jack-ass, but I am not a criminal.
“They take this record of God’s judgment as evidence that the God of the Bible isn’t really good at all, and therefore should not be believed in.”
Actually, this is not the reason for the VAST MAJORITY of atheists, it’s just another “nail in the coffin”. Most atheists, do not believe because of the lack of evidence. This idea is just “icing on the cake” so to speak.
“He continually demonstrates not just his holiness, but also His patience and forbearance for those that consistently rebel against Him, though He has graciously cared for them.”
So let’s say I have 10 children. 9 of those kids rebel against me their whole lives, while the 10th does what I say. After some amount of time (let’s say when the oldest is 35, the youngest is 15) I kill the 9 “rebels”. As Bill Cosby said, and as you’re implying is ok, “I brought them into this world, so I can take them out”. Am I considered a good parent, one with great patience for waiting so long before killing my children? Or am I going to jail for the rest of my life, and considered a vile person?
Remember, in your view, we get our morals FROM god, and therefore we should hold ourselves to the SAME STANDARD we hold god (and vice-versa).
“This gives us good reason to trust Him.”
Not really…
“And if we have good reason to trust Him, then when we see things that seem to go against our sense of goodness and justice, it seems only fair to give the benefit of the doubt to God, who just might know something more than we know.”
I do agree, that IF god does exists, we are not capable of understanding him, but the problem is that christians CLAIM to understand him every time they say “don’t wear a condom”, “god hates fags”, “Katrina was god’s wrath”, “abortions are bad”, etc…
If we can’t understand the mind of god, that’s fine. But if that is the case, it needs to be universal, not just when it is a convenient escape clause for something you can’t explain rationally using the morals of the world.
“You’re going down a VERY slippery slope if you say the creator of life has the prerogative to kill it, since mankind “creates” life every single day. How can you then ALSO oppose abortion?”
It’s the same sort of tap-dance I’ve seen when *some* Christians use the “thou shalt not kill” / “thou shalt not murder” mistranslation to justify supporting the death penalty while still claiming to be pro-life.
uncertainhope (and moot, since many of these comments are directed at you, even though I’m “responding” to uncertainhope),
“It’s also worth pointing out that every society tends to believe their own morality is superior to the ones that have gone before and those other societies around at the time – and the same is true of societies today as well.”
An interesting story regarding this idea…
One of the podcasts I listen to (couldn’t tell you which one, since it’s been a while) was interviewing somebody whose job is to help companies “get started” in China. Obviously this guy has spent a LOT of time in China, and apparently he had a decent amount of down time, which he used to get to know many of the locals. So during his interview the host of the podcast asked him what the “typical person” in China thinks of Americans. He said that the older the person is, the “worse” they are likely to think of Americans. This is mostly due to the fact that “recently” the Chinese government has been less and less hostile towards the outside world and the US specifically. However, some of the older people that he had become friendly with said that their understanding of the US is that more than 75% of Americans have HIV/AIDS and roughly 50% of Americans are homeless.
Your comment about every society tends to believe their own morality is superior” makes me think of this; because one of the reasons for the Chinese view of us in this manner is they feel we are the “decadent West”.
“Anyway, what specific problems do you have with our explanations of the way we see morality having developed?”
This is a question I have as well, which Moot has not yet answered. He has only really said “there is no morality without god” and has not really said where the flaw is in the logic of an evolved morality based on society.
“Science is an objective method at attempting to look past all those obscuring ‘truths’.”
Ideally yes, although we must admit that scientists are human, and can allow their preconceptions to cloud their objectivity. There are those who will attempt to misuse science in a futile attempt to hold on to their beliefs.
“So, as it pertains to society, morality is unarguably subjective.”
I was shocked by this line too, since I understood moot to be saying that all morality is from god. However he “clarified” with his next line:
“But as it pertains to reality morality is (arguably) objective.”
And this is where I diverge with him. This is, in my opinion, a HUGE leap of faith with no real evidence other than a single book at its core, and a series of beliefs pulled from and around this book.
I also agree with you on the whole idea of slavery.
Let’s for a moment accept that morality DOES in fact come from god directly through the bible, which was divinely inspired. Let’s take this on faith and work with this as our basic assumption.
Now if you look at the historical records surrounding the founding of our country you will, no doubt, agree that it was founded, by and large, by believers in the christian god of the bible (Thomas Jefferson and a few others excluded). This is not to say the country was founded AS a religious country, just that the founders and those who created the society of the time were religious people.
In their time, these men were considered moral, upstanding citizens, and were highly respected as pillars of their communities. These men, by and large, were also slave owners.
Now, we (mostly moot and I) have gone over this issue a bit already, but here I want to take another angle at this same issue.
We can both agree that many people throughout America’s history have used the bible to “condone” or “justify” the idea of slavery. We don’t have to agree if that was god’s actual intent, just that people used the bible in this way.
Moot, please tell me if you disagree with any of this, as this is primarily directed at you…
So we have at this point agreed that for the sake of argument at least, that morality comes from god. And god wrote (or inspired to be written) the bible, which is the ultimate basis for our morality.
We have also agreed that the US was founded by (mostly) very religious men, who were considered to be very moral, upstanding, virtuous people.
We have also agreed that these same men (and many others) felt that slavery was acceptable, and in many cases used the bible as the basis for this belief.
NOW comes the important part of this little discussion.
Whether you agree that the bible DOES in fact condone slavery or not, you must accept that very rational, reasonable, and otherwise moral men have believed this throughout history.
So if we are to get our moral code from this book, and it’s possible for something as heinous as slavery top be considered an acceptable practice by reasonable men reading this book, wouldn’t it be prudent of us to at least consider that this book might have somewhere along the way been altered, either through negligence, or human fallibility?
What else that “we” (I’m using we here to mean the “christian community”) consider to be moral and right, based on our interpretation of the bible will in 200 years time be seen as barbaric. Perhaps the rampant homophobia throughout many of the christian faith? Perhaps the idea of the Rapture? Perhaps the subjugation of women? Perhaps the puritanical views on human sexuality? Who really knows…?
The point I am trying to make, is that if this book can be easily misunderstood by rational, reasonable, moral men in the past, isn’t is ALSO at least possible, that rational, reasonable, moral men today are also making mistakes in their reading of this book as the source of their morality?
I’m not say they DEFINITLY are, just that it’s POSSIBLE, and we must admit that possibility, and think critically about anything we gleam from this book.
“Without the objective truth that “all men are created equal” (or whatever they happened to have used) then you have nothing toward which to appeal in order to transform society.”
Even Richard Dawkins says that there is much for humanity to strive towards. Moot, once again, I am going to suggest that you read the Selfish Gene to understand this concept before you attempt to claim that it does not exist.
On the subject of “morality” or “evil” in “lesser” animals, where does the line get drawn exactly?
Is a human who is SEVERLY mentally handicapped considered to be 100% human in issues like this? Are they to be held to the same standards as you or me with regards to committing a crime for which they HONESTLY do not see the difference between right and wrong? Our courts say that in some cases, people are not responsible for their actions due to mental handicap. So if a person, at least potentially, can be “exempt” from the moral code of “the rest of us”, does this make them “less” than human with regards to morals? There are CERTAINLY instances where some person’s mental capacity is less in some regards than some specific animal in that same regards.
“It’s also worth saying that I see more and greater harm being done in this world by people who believe absolutely that they know beyond a shadow of doubt what is right and what is wrong (and therefore that *they* are right) than by those who believe that the universe might just be a bit more complicated than all that and are willing to admit that they might be wrong.”
This is true of both sides of the debate, or of ANY debate. The extremes on any side of an issue are almost ALWAYS the ones to cause the problems, not the moderates.
moot,
“You can take this concept further than you do. Francis Crick said that “You, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will are no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and associated molecules.””
This is true
“This sort of reductionism is the only perspective one can really have in a purely naturalistic world-view.”
Again true, but I’m failing to see the problem with this view.
“So if that’s the case, we’re not really any different than animals”
If you believe in science, and evolution then OF COURSE we are nothing more than animals.
“and we are simply a collection of atoms and molecules”
Again, this is obviously true, and just a restatement of Crick’s quote.
“then I’m not sure one can argue for a sophisticated sense of morality at all.”
Either you have not read, or not understood what we have said then. Morality, like mankind, and religion, all evolved over time. Again, I’ll direct you to Dennett’s book in this instance.
“I don’t see where you can find a distinction for human value, which is really the basis for almost all moral law.”
Human value is not the basis for moral laws, reproduction is. It’s just that it tends to be easier to reproduce if one is alive, rather than dead. 🙂
“Himmler…”
Really, you’re quoting Himmler? Apparently you’re falling in with the Ben Stein camp and linking evolution to the Nazi regime, even though ALL of the historical evidence shows that Hitler was a believer, not just in a concept of god, but that Jesus was divine.
Really, I can’t even respond to a quote from a homicidal madman as an actual “point” on any subject, it’s completely ludicrous.
“But if there is not distinctive for the value of human life how can there be a rational against this sort of conclusion?”
Quite easily as we have explained. Please read above and if there are specific points you disagree with, or don’t understand, I’d like to answer them, but this question almost makes me think you’re not giving ANY thought to previous posts right now.
“If someone reaches this conclusion like this precisely because “humanity after all is just another animal” how would you convince them they were wrong? Or, in your world-view are they wrong at all?”
This question has been answered numerous times already. How is it possible that you’ve forgotten or missed this point?
As to the “effects” of the non-religious vs the religious, let’s add Hitler to the religious side, so that’s an addition 25+ million EASILY.
Also, I would disagree with the other numbers you have, but for the sake of argument, we won’t argue that at this point.
Or, let’s not add him, but let’s add the BIGGEST MASS MURDER OF ALL TIME, “Mother” Theresa.
This woman went into a country that was overpopulated, and overrun with famine, and told them that they would go to hell if they used condoms. This made BOTH problems INFINITLY worse, and increased the spread of HIV/AIDS to unimaginable proportions. This is a woman who is DIRECTLY responsible for more suffering and more deaths than ANY PERSON IN HISTORY. I’ve read many accounts and many estimates of the toll of her “mission”, and most sources put the death toll in the range of 10 figures (that’s 100-250 MILLION people killed).
ALONE she is directly responsible for more deaths (as responsible as if she put a gun to their heads and pulled the trigger herself) BY FAR, than anybody, or any regime, or anything else in the history of mankind.
For a BRIEF primer of what I’m talking about, I’d suggest Christopher Hitchens’ “Missionary Position”.
Thanks for both of your thoughtful responses. I’m going to try to carefully formulate my answers. I’ll address the general ideas first and then respond to some specific quotes further down.
-The issue of “whose committed more atrocities?”
I realize that much blame can be laid at the feet of those who hold belief so tightly that it clouds their better judgment. I think both of you have made statements with which I agree concerning the issue. The issue isn’t so much what a person believes but personalities that can’t seem to handle moral complexity. I think that these people find themselves in all ranges of the belief spectrum, from atheist to jihadist.
That point aside, the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity weren’t the natural result of the Christian beliefs. Rodibidably has countered this by saying that then God must be a failure at communicating His ideas to His followers. I think that this conclusion in part underestimates the human capacity for confusion.
If we look at the Gospels the narrative there ends with the irony of Jesus being crucified for blasphemy. Rather than people accepting Him as the Son of God then condemn Him for heresy. At the end of Christ’s life He only had a handful of people who had understood His message. The Bible has never tried to hide the fact that many people would completely miss the point. Jesus said, “They may be ever seeing but never perceiving and ever hearing but never understanding.”
So, while I understand Rod’s point about God’s inability to clearly communicate, the bible makes no promises to be clearly understood by society at large. Or rather takes into account the human ability to twist truth to serve one’s own ends. I personally feel like the problem is not God being clear but humans (myself included) being boneheads.
So Rod, I hope this helps clarify the bit you wrote about how slavery was at one time accepted by moral men. I have to assume that the bible wasn’t the basis for the practice of slavery rather that opportunistic men found justification for slavery by mishandling the bible. I could make a case for some rather self-serving behaviors even using the bible but, like slavery, they’d be a reflection of my desires rather than a honest assessment of scriptures.
Many people, for power or greed, will misuse anything, including the Bible, for their own purposes. If American politics teaches us nothing else it shows us that anything can be twisted, distorted and taken out of context to serve a candidates own ends.
-The issue of social morality vs. absolute morality.
Like I wrote before I have always agreed that there was a social morality. It’s reflected in the individual cultures of various nations. So our point of divergence is whether or not there is a objective morality that is revealed or obscured by the subjective culture.
Now let me first address specifically the issue I’ve raised about evolution not adequately explaining the current culture of morality. I’ve made this accusation and I thought I explained what I meant by this but maybe not.
And let me preface this by saying, I’m on shaky ground and I realize it. Rod, I’ve been making good faith efforts trying to track down “The Selfish Gene” and have yet been unsuccessful. You can dismiss me out of hand because I’m out of my very small realm of expertise here. Keep that in mind as you read the following…
Dawkins’ explanations of altruism strike me as hollow. As if he’s trying to explain the existence of something using concepts that are too limited. It’s like trying to play a Beethoven’s 9th symphony with an accordion and a banjo. These instruments simply aren’t going to do justice to the work they attempt to re-create.
I believe trying to explain things like complex moral behaviors or abstract ideas using only naturalistic terms doesn’t do justice to the ideas they try to explain.
I believe the culture result of naturalistic reductionism, despite Dawkins’ explanations, would leave us with simple, basic rules of survival. They would leave us with a world of black and white rather than the world of complexity that we actually observe.
-As to the issue of evil and God, etc.
Both of you responded to my explanation of God’s right to terminate life somewhat similarly so I’ll respond to them together.
People who claim to be Christians are in the bad habit of assuming God is just like them. I’ve addressed this briefly above.
But in your responses I think you’re mixing a couple of ideas. You both seemed confused as to how God could be moral while exhibiting the same behavior that it would be immoral for me to exhibit.
We are essentially discussion an issue of authority. For example if someone commits a crime we have a justice system that finds it appropriate to severely limit their rights for a specific period of time. If I were to see someone committing a crime and somehow apprehend them it would be inappropriate for me to lock them up in my basement for a specific period of time. The government can do it. I can not.
So there is a basis upon which two entities subject to the same morality can exhibit different moral behavior and still both be moral. So Rod I’d disagree with the statement that we hold God to the same standard we hold ourselves.
We don’t even find that concept to be completely true in parent/child relationships. We understand that there are behaviors that are inappropriate for a child
engage in that is perfectly appropriate for an adult.
Finally, the difference between a scientist in a lab and God is that the scientist can never really create anything. It’s like the old church joke. A scientist challenges God saying, “Modern technology as made us as powerful as you we can create anything you can create.” So God grabs a handful of dirt and creates a cat and says, “Let’s see you do that.” The scientist says, “No problem” and bends over to grab a handful of dirt and God says, “Hold on, get your own dirt.”
Silly I know but it illustrates the point. This also goes to the point of parents procreating. They’re not really “creating” anything but a biological reaction.
As to the kill/murder distinction. It’s not a tap-dance, Uncertain. Or if it is it’s a tap-dance most humans and governments are able to do. However I’m not a big fan of the death penalty either so…
-Let me respond to specific quotes here.
Uncertain you wrote – “the only thing that matters is what we do and whether we cause harm to others or help them when we can.”
My question for you is – “Why is this the only thing that matters.” You’re making an objective, absolute statement. If there is no objective truth or absolutes then you’re statement can’t be true.
Rod you wrote – “The point I am trying to make, is that if this book can be easily misunderstood by rational, reasonable, moral men in the past, isn’t is ALSO at least possible, that rational, reasonable, moral men today are also making mistakes in their reading of this book as the source of their morality?
I’m not say they DEFINITELY are, just that it’s POSSIBLE, and we must admit that possibility, and think critically about anything we gleam from this book.”
I really couldn’t agree more. Much of the fodder for our discussion has been based on the behavior of people who weren’t careful with their interpretation of the book.
Rod you said – “Human value is not the basis for moral laws, reproduction is.”
What’s the basis for that statement? (I know, I know “The Selfish Gene”) But how does reproduction provide a basis for moral behaviors like property rights, burglary or slavery in that these behaviors aren’t related to reproduction?
I still maintain that the value of human life provides a better basis for a wider variety of moral concepts than reproduction does.
-Uncertain you asked, “what is it about the possibility that humanity may not be somehow exceptional and that there may not be some kind of overarching universal morality to justify our assumption that we are the most valid life in the universe that bothers you so much?”
I suppose it bothers me because I don’t believe it’s true. I think people believe something that’s false is a decent enough reason to be bothered by something a sentiment with which I’m sure you can sympathize.
Uncertain you asked – How would you argue against such a person without falling back on a morality that they would believe completely invalid?
I’m not sure how I’d argue with him if he only held his beliefs intellectually but for someone that is practicing these ideas it’s a bit more urgent. I believe the US did an adequate job in WW2 convincing Himmler he wasn’t free to practice his beliefs.
I tried to address all the holes in my previous responses but be sure to let me know if I missed something. I have to rush out so excuse whatever spelling or grammar errors. Thanks!
In reverse order, Moot:
“I believe the US did an adequate job in WW2 convincing Himmler he wasn’t free to practice his beliefs.”
Yes, because no other nations stood against the Germans in WW2 at all, did they? And if I remember history correctly the Americans were rather late to step in and did so only because Japan struck at Pearl Harbour.
I should, maybe, point out at this point that I’m British (or rather Scottish if you want to be completely accurate).
But, that aside, that was my point, that sooner or later the victims will either rise up against such an oppressor or someone else will intervene.
You still haven’t answered the question that you yourself put though.
“I suppose it bothers me because I don’t believe it’s true. I think people believe something that’s false is a decent enough reason to be bothered by something a sentiment with which I’m sure you can sympathize.”
Agreed, but that’s not really what I asked though so I’ll try again: what is it about the possibility that humanity may not be somehow exceptional and that there may not be some kind of overarching universal morality to justify our assumption that we are the most valid life in the universe that bothers you so much? I wasn’t asking whether or not you believe it, but what it is about the *possibility* that bothers you?
“But how does reproduction provide a basis for moral behaviors like property rights, burglary or slavery in that these behaviors aren’t related to reproduction?”
Because if you have more stuff (whether property, money, slaves, houses, whatever) you’re more likely to be able to provide for your offspring and you and yours are more likely to flourish to produce more of you.
And those are all behaviours you can find in the animal kingdom.
“I still maintain that the value of human life provides a better basis for a wider variety of moral concepts than reproduction does.”
Why?
And, as I asked before, why is it so important for you to believe that humanity is so very important?
Because, seriously have a good look at the animal kingdom and take in some of the moral complexity there. A lot of animals have extremely complex societies.
Examples:- there was a recent study that demonstrated that apes have a sense of fairness. Or better yet have a look at killer whale culture (there’s a wonderful David Attenborough docunmentary made by the BBC that I’d heartily recommend for the following example): orcas have a bit of a dual image – merciless hunter of seals on the other hand and playful Shamu on the other – turns out that it’s because there are at least two different cultures of orcas fish eaters and seal eaters and the two never associate. Well, in this documentary we see two orcas hunting seals on a beach by grounding themselves in the surf, grabbing a seal, dragging it back into the ocean and then eating it before going back to the beach. Now, eventually they caught their limit (or were simply full) and then had a game of seal catch, hitting the last seal back and forth between them with their tales (I remember thinking the seal had to be dead at this point, because they were *very* rough). Then they stopped and one of the whales grabbed the seal in its mouth and, beaching itself, and rather more gently tossed the seal back onto the shore . . . still alive. Worth pointing out that each time they beached themselves they ran the very real risk of being stranded and effectively killing themselves.
“Uncertain you wrote – “the only thing that matters is what we do and whether we cause harm to others or help them when we can.”
My question for you is – “Why is this the only thing that matters.” You’re making an objective, absolute statement. If there is no objective truth or absolutes then you’re statement can’t be true.”
Sorry, I should have said that it’s the only thing we can know with any degree of honest certainty that matters. Given the human tendency to prevert, subvert or otherwise go against their beliefs in any number of ways I tend to put more weight on outcomes rather than beliefs and motives.
“That point aside, the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity weren’t the natural result of the Christian beliefs.”
Actually, I’d say they were. Or rather, to be a bit more balanced I’d say that they are the inevitable consequence of a belief system (*any* belief system) that teaches that its followers are God’s chosen people and divinely exceptional and, by inference, those who aren’t followers or are different or other can be safely mistreated (either by God or its followers). Of course, it’s not just religion that has this effect, but the problem is that it adds ‘divine authority’ to humanity’s natural inclination to group the world into ‘us’ and ‘them’.
“We are essentially discussion an issue of authority.”
Yes! Also, responsibility. Which I’ll get to later.
“For example if someone commits a crime we have a justice system that finds it appropriate to severely limit their rights for a specific period of time. If I were to see someone committing a crime and somehow apprehend them it would be inappropriate for me to lock them up in my basement for a specific period of time. The government can do it. I can not.”
No, but what actions the government does are done in *your* name and so you bear a measure of responsibility for them and have an obligation to attempt to hold them to account in some way.
A part of the problem is that I see people using religion as a way of deferring responsibility for their actions and use that appeal to authority as a way of denying the possibility that they might be wrong, either in their belief or their interpretation of it.
I can easily admit the possibility I might be wrong in my worldview. Can you? Either in your belief in God or in your interpretation of scripture?
moot,
“Rodibidably has countered this by saying that then God must be a failure at communicating His ideas to His followers. I think that this conclusion in part underestimates the human capacity for confusion.”
Whether the failures are ours (humanity) or god’s, the fact remains that for SOME reason, very rational, reasonable, intelligent, moral men have used the bible to justify horrendous atrocities in the name of god.
Given this fact, my point is that ANY time people want to use the bible as their moral guide, they need to be VERY careful and skeptical of their interpretation (and that goes off the assumption that the bible IS, or at least was at some point in history, the inerrant word of god, and that’s a HUGE assumption to make in my opinion).
“the bible makes no promises to be clearly understood by society at large”
And yet here in the US there are at LEAST 80 million people who believe that they understand the bible 100% and it claims (among many other things) the world is 6500 years old, homosexuality is bad, and that anybody who rejects it is going to hell for eternity.
There is no ambiguity in their believes, no questioning of these interpretations, they believe these things as strongly as I or you beleive that tomorrow morning the sun will rise in the East and tonight it will set in the West.
“I have to assume that the bible wasn’t the basis for the practice of slavery rather that opportunistic men found justification for slavery by mishandling the bible.”
My point is not about slavery specifically, but that this book can be read to justify ANYTHING. And if we are to believe in it 100%, we MUST be very critical of our understanding of it.
If a reasonable, rational, intelligent, moral person can read something and use it to condone a barbaric practice, then I would want to be CERTAIN of MY OWN understanding of something i read in that boo before acting on it.
“Many people, for power or greed, will misuse anything, including the Bible, for their own purposes.”
Do you believe that George Washington had a preconceived notion that he should be allowed to own other human beings, and intentionally twisted the bible to suit his purposes?
“Dawkins’ explanations of altruism strike me as hollow… I believe the culture result of naturalistic reductionism, despite Dawkins’ explanations, would leave us with simple, basic rules of survival.”
I think you’re coming to this conclusion without REALLY understanding his explanation of the concepts.
Once again, I’ll try to give you a simplified version of the roots of altruism:
The gene (not the person) is the item being selected for or against in natural selection (this is the ENTIRE point of the book, so I’ll have to ask you to indulge this concept until after you’ve read the book).
The gene’s SOLE purpose is to reproduce itself. This can be done through sexual reproduction (in humans and many other animals).
As an animal, I know that if I have a FULL sibling, they have roughly the same number of genes in common with me as my own offspring will have. Therefor if I can have a 100% chance to save my brother, and only a 50% change of killing myself, it’s good for MY genes’ reproductive chances to risk my life.
Also as an animal, I know that if I am willing to risk my own life, that perhaps that person i saves may risk their life to save me in the future.
So far we have explained CLOSE KIN altruism.
Now we get to extended family. My cousin should have 25% of the same genes as me mathematically. So I’m LESS likely to pass on my own genes by saving them, but by showing altruism towards my close kin, they are likely to show it towards me (or others of my CLOSE KIN).
Now in early human society people lived in small groups that were MOSTLY closely related to each other (siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles, etc). So it behooves me as an individual to act altruistically towards my group (KIN) to pass on my own genes directly, and to encourage altruistic behavior in them.
The groups that were LESS altruistic has a lower chance of survival since they did not work together as cohesively, and thus were “selected” out of the breading population. The groups that worked as a unit, and were altruistic towards each other survived and reproduced in greater numbers. Therefor any genes that supported this idea of altruism were more likely to be passed on.
Now in ANY society you’re going to have those individuals who cheat the system, and as long as the percentage of cheats remains low, the society can continue to flourish.
As the groups grow larger, the likelihood of being related to those in my group diminishes, but the genes that support altruistic behavior have remained, and still have useful purposes as explained above.
This (in a VERY short fashion) shows the evolution of altruism towards non-related people and the concept of “cheats” in society being part of society, but NOT the dominate force (i.e. NOT survival of the fittest).
“So Rod I’d disagree with the statement that we hold God to the same standard we hold ourselves.”
The problem is that by saying that god condones something or opposes something based on our (human) interpretation of the bible, christians ARE saying that god is held to our standards, and us to his own.
MANY (not all, but a LARGE percentage) christians believe that god created the desire in people to be attracted to peopel of the same sex, and he STILL finds them to be an abomination. Therefor it is ok for them to be homophobic as well.
In this case they are putting their own morals on god. So what you’re saying is that it’s ok in some cases, but not ALL cases, only those where it’s convenient for you.
“Finally, the difference between a scientist in a lab and God is that the scientist can never really create anything.”
If a scientist can take inert (non-living) matter and create a LIVING being, he is the “creator” of that life in EVERY sense. By YOUR logic, it is ok for this scientist to “kill” this life. This could be artificial intelligence, or some type of cloned being, or even something as minor as a bacteria.
“If there is no objective truth or absolutes then you’re statement can’t be true.”
The morals of society have dictated what is acceptable, and what is important. He is going based on his own personal moral code, which is guided by the society in which he lives.
“I really couldn’t agree more. Much of the fodder for our discussion has been based on the behavior of people who weren’t careful with their interpretation of the book.”
WUHOO, we agree on something…
*wakes up from fainting spell*
““I don’t see where you can find a distinction for human value, which is really the basis for almost all moral law.”
Human value is not the basis for moral laws, reproduction is. It’s just that it tends to be easier to reproduce if one is alive, rather than dead.”
“But how does reproduction provide a basis for moral behaviors like property rights, burglary or slavery in that these behaviors aren’t related to reproduction?”
The things I own enable me to live a “better” life. My home enables me safety, shelter, etc. My car provides me with transportation. Etc, etc, etc…
By stealing these things from me, I am forced to expend more energy to replace them, and thus less energy on reproduction.
One of the most FUNDAMENTAL ideas in evolution is that everything has a cost and a benefit. The peacock’s tail is the easiest example. If it were any larger it would inhibit flight, which would lead to more dangerous situations, which would lead to less chance of reproduction.
“I still maintain that the value of human life provides a better basis for a wider variety of moral concepts than reproduction does.”
Hang on, but reproduction makes more human life and so values it accordingly which leads to the complex variety of moral and social concepts we see around us.
Or is it human exceptionalism you’re referring to?
Rod,
I think the first part of your response is sort of dealt with when you realize that I agreed with you so I’m going to set that one aside for now. Sorry for causing the fainting.
Also I’ve been honest in letting you know that I’ve not read the Selfish Gene and my responses are limited to my very tenuous and secondhand understanding of what he’s trying to say. I answered the question not because I felt I had a killer response but because I kept being called on the carpet for not answering it.
So I’ll try to digest the ideas once I get a chance to read the book and see if I can formulate better responses.
I’m not completely sure I followed your counter to the issue of God being held to the same standard we are. I think you’re saying that my virtue of trying to draw a conclusion from the bible about God, we make assumptions about God. In turn these assumptions, based on potentially faulty interpretations may be faulty themselves. In other words if we can’t trust our assumptions about the bible then we can’t say we really know anything about God? Or rather than the risk of imposing our opinions on Him is too great?
You might help me clarify what you’re getting at here.
Ultimately though I think it’s possible to explain how two different being can both be moral but exhibit different behaviors. One behavior is a reflection of authority one is a reflection of being under authority.
When I use the term “create” I do not mean in the sense that I gather materials and assembled something. We are being to liberal with the idea of creation. In our theology God created matter from nothing. In that sense He has the right to the complete authority over the created thing. There is not a natural parallel to the concept I’m discussing
I follow your explanation for reproduction being the moral common denominator I just think that human value provides a clearer and more universal explanation for the way we behave. But again I need to read the Selfish Gene so this line of debate will be a little one-sided until I do.
moot,
I wanted to comment on the same line as uncertainhope, but with a slightly different spin…
“I still maintain that the value of human life provides a better basis for a wider variety of moral concepts than reproduction does.”
Is all human life equally valuable?
You previously gave an example where YOU claimed that it would be not only acceptable for a father to kill his son, but he would be PRAISED for this action.
I disagreed with you on this point; I think your example was still a despicable action taken by the father, it was just the LESS despicable of two despicable options he was faced with. BUT for the sake of argument, let’s assume your view of this IS correct; you have stated that this father would be PRAISED for killing his son.
Keep in mind, YOU said: Let me give you the hypothetical scenario in which a father would be praised for killing his son.
So it is PRAISEWORTHY in YOUR opinion to take a human life under SOME circumstance (as opposed to my opinion where it is NEVER for ANY reason, anything more than the LAST RESORT, and even then, it may be “justified”, but it is never “acceptable”).
And yet, you’re also stating now, that the value of human life provides THE basis for our morality.
Is all human life equally valuable?
Is is EQUALLY wrong to put a convicted criminal to death as a 12 year old child?
What if AFTER the execution new evidence comes to light PROVING their innocence?
What is the 10 year old child is the next Hitler or Dahmer or Charles Manson?
Is all human life equally valuable?
If human life is the basis of our morality, is it acceptable to kill somebody who is breaking into your house with the intention of raping you or your spouse? Keep in mind, as horrible as rape is, the victim DOES actually live, and you’re KILLING somebody in your attempt to protect yourself. And you’ve stated human LIFE is the basis, not human happiness or some other concept, just the act of being alive.
Is all human life equally valuable?
moot,
“I think the first part of your response is sort of dealt with when you realize that I agreed with you so I’m going to set that one aside for now.”
I actually would like your feedback on the basic ideas of that post:
Whether the failures are ours (humanity) or god’s, the fact remains that for SOME reason, very rational, reasonable, intelligent, moral men have used the bible to justify horrendous atrocities in the name of god.
Given this fact, my point is that ANY time people want to use the bible as their moral guide, they need to be VERY careful and skeptical of their interpretation (and that goes off the assumption that the bible IS, or at least was at some point in history, the inerrant word of god, and that’s a HUGE assumption to make in my opinion).
My point is not about slavery specifically, but that this book can be read to justify ANYTHING. And if we are to believe in it 100%, we MUST be very critical of our understanding of it.
…
If a reasonable, rational, intelligent, moral person can read something and use it to condone a barbaric practice, then I would want to be CERTAIN of MY OWN understanding of something i read in that book before acting on it.
“I’m not completely sure I followed your counter to the issue of God being held to the same standard we are…”
Basically, my point is that christians (and not to pick on JUST christians, MANY other religions do this as well) use their holy book to say “god says this”, “god disapproves of this”, “god wants us to do this”, “god find this moral”, etc…
They are putting their OWN human (and as you’ve kindly pointed out, humans are fallible) interpretations onto something (someone?) that they ALSO claim is beyond our understanding.
They are trying to have it both ways. Either we can understand god, and hold him and ourselves to the SAME standards, OR ELSE we can not understand god, and should not claims to be able to understand god ever.
“I think you’re saying that my virtue of trying to draw a conclusion from the bible about God, we make assumptions about God.”
Yes
“In turn these assumptions, based on potentially faulty interpretations may be faulty themselves.”
Yes
“In other words if we can’t trust our assumptions about the bible then we can’t say we really know anything about God? Or rather than the risk of imposing our opinions on Him is too great?”
YES, YES, YES! (think Meg Ryan at a table in a diner)
“Ultimately though I think it’s possible to explain how two different being can both be moral but exhibit different behaviors. One behavior is a reflection of authority one is a reflection of being under authority.”
But the problem is believers try to pin their OWN ideas, preconceptions, morality on their god.
On one hand, if I say that in the Old Testament god said that anybody who eats shellfish is going to hell you might respond “well jesus changed the rules in the new testament”. But if I say my best friend is gay, you may respond “the bible says that is an abomination” and you may quote the OLD TESTAMENT.
Either jesus changed ALL the rules, and the old testament is a nice historical document, but NOT one we have to pay any REAL attention to, or jesus did not change things, and if you’ve ever enjoyed a lobster dinner you’ll be sitting two rows back of me in hell for all eternity.
TYPICALLY christians use what they want from the bible to justify their earlier conclusions, they do NOT use the bible to create their conclusions. Slavery is the ULTIMATE example of this.
“When I use the term “create” I do not mean in the sense that I gather materials and assembled something. We are being to liberal with the idea of creation. In our theology God created matter from nothing. In that sense He has the right to the complete authority over the created thing. There is not a natural parallel to the concept I’m discussing”
And again, we’re back to the idea of if god created EVERYTHING from nothing, then there was no “evil” before god created it.
Free will says that a pedophile can choose IF he is going to rape a child. But if god created everything, then god created the DESIRE for that person to rape a child (it may be due to his upbringing, perhaps he was abused as a child himself, but somewhere along the lines the first person in history ever had the DESIRE to breaks “god’s laws”, and that desire was put there by god, at least according to your belief system).
Also, let’s get into the idea of satan (since you may say that it’s satan that creates these desires, not god). Based on christian theology, satan was god’s top angel (lucifer) who then decided he could do a better job running nothing (since all this happened before the creation of everything) and rebelled against god. God cast him out of heaven, which seems a reasonable thing to do.
Who created lucifer?
Who created the desire in lucifer for him to overthrow god?
And if as you’ve stated earlier, evil the doing anything which is not what god had deemed as good, who created evil?
In all three cases, the answer, according to christian theology, is god.
“I follow your explanation for reproduction being the moral common denominator I just think that human value provides a clearer and more universal explanation for the way we behave.”
Read my previous comment just above this one, I go into that idea there already…
Uncertain,
My Dad was born a raised in Glasgow. I understand a large portion of my family still lives in Scotland but I haven’t had the honor of visiting. Someday…
My comment about the US dealing with Himmler wasn’t intended to be America-centric. Sorry if that’s how I came across. My goal was to give an example of how humans respond to someone who lives out his reductionist philosophy.
As far as formulating a intellectual response to someone like Himmler I don’t know that you can have a debate with someone who actually believes what he did. You have no common ground upon which to build an argument. I think that’s why conflicts like that result in the use of force while conflicts like ours can be discussed amicably. (This of course begs the question, what’s our common ground?)
The question of human exceptionalism of a lack of it bothering me – I don’t suppose that it’s specifically about humans being exceptional.
But the concept of absolute morality which I understand to be true would imply the humans are in many respects different from animals. So your question seems to imply that I’m working from a basis of human superiority and that’s the important issue for me. My original answer still stands. I think that reality is better explained by my world-view. Thus I fundamentally disagree with a reductionist perspective. It’s not about “having” to be better than the animals. But the reality is that we are different than animals. So if someone denies that, I obviously will disagree.
You gave a bunch of examples of apes having a sense of fairness or whales playing with seals, but this is still light-years away from what humans do, there’s simply no comparison.
I believe that human life provides a better explanation of morality than reproduction because I don’t see a connection to the concept of reproducing tied to many of our moral concepts. However, that being said, anytime I tie a moral rule to the value of human life it’s often (but not always)only one more step to take it to human reproduction.
I do have a question – If reproduction is such a basic need, why do we have so much in our culture in the way of controlling birth?
You still say that you have “honest certainty” that “doing no harm” is a good rule. Are you saying that this rule provides a more desirable outcome than other rules? Does this desirable outcome make your rule superior to other rules?
Can I admit I might be wrong? You bet. But you’ll find I’m not the usual dogmatic fundamentalist of whom Rod is so dismissive. I’ve had to back track a time or two with Rod. But that’s the nature of dealing with absolutes, it’s easier to point out my inconsistencies.
Moot,
“My comment about the US dealing with Himmler wasn’t intended to be America-centric. Sorry if that’s how I came across.”
Accepted.
“My goal was to give an example of how humans respond to someone who lives out his reductionist philosophy.”
But his philosophy was not explicitly reductionist and Rod already made the point that, in fact, Hitler was Christian, so . . .
But the thing is, the exact same point can be made of those who commit attrocities in the name of *any* belief system.
“As far as formulating a intellectual response to someone like Himmler I don’t know that you can have a debate with someone who actually believes what he did. You have no common ground upon which to build an argument. I think that’s why conflicts like that result in the use of force while conflicts like ours can be discussed amicably. (This of course begs the question, what’s our common ground?)”
Many possible answers to that: possible conversion of the other party (personally, I’m not really interested in that), understanding of the others point of view (yes, on my part), testing our own beliefs (again, yes, on my part), and that we all enjoy a good debate (again, yes). There are probably others, but I can’t be bothered to list them.
“The question of human exceptionalism of a lack of it bothering me – I don’t suppose that it’s specifically about humans being exceptional.
But the concept of absolute morality which I understand to be true would imply the humans are in many respects different from animals. So your question seems to imply that I’m working from a basis of human superiority and that’s the important issue for me. My original answer still stands. I think that reality is better explained by my world-view. Thus I fundamentally disagree with a reductionist perspective. It’s not about “having” to be better than the animals. But the reality is that we are different than animals. So if someone denies that, I obviously will disagree.”
How are we different from the other animals? Are we any more or less different from them as any other species is from any other? You find the same vast gap in capabilities and behaviour.
“You gave a bunch of examples of apes having a sense of fairness or whales playing with seals, but this is still light-years away from what humans do, there’s simply no comparison.”
See my above comment and my earlier ones about the lack of uniqueness of human behaviour.
The other thing of course is that another way of stating it is that as the top species on this planet all the others are inferior to us and therefore we may do as we wish.
“I believe that human life provides a better explanation of morality than reproduction because I don’t see a connection to the concept of reproducing tied to many of our moral concepts. However, that being said, anytime I tie a moral rule to the value of human life it’s often (but not always)only one more step to take it to human reproduction.”
Wait: you don’t see a connection, but you do?
“I do have a question – If reproduction is such a basic need, why do we have so much in our culture in the way of controlling birth?”
That’s an easy one, and again, we can see the same behaviour in other species. It’s a cost benefit thing. If you have limited resources (especially relative to your needs) it makes sense to limit reproduction to give your offspring a better start in life. For example a family on an average income will be better off and able to give a better start to life for their children if they have one or two children rather than if they have a higher number. You can see this in nature where, to use wolves this time as an example, only the alpha pair breed, ensuring the strongest pups are born and have enough resources to grow to healthy adulthood with the support of the other pack members whereas if they all bred the wolves would swiftly overpopulate their range (not that junior members of the pack won’t try to breed, but that’s one aspect where discipline comes into their society).
“You still say that you have “honest certainty” that “doing no harm” is a good rule. Are you saying that this rule provides a more desirable outcome than other rules? Does this desirable outcome make your rule superior to other rules?”
No, and yes.
The full thought follows: Harm
Yes, I believe it’s a good ‘rule’. Do I believe it’s superior? Nope. Do I think it produces a desirable outcome more often? Yes, or I wouldn’t believe it. Why do I believe it? Because it encourages me to look deeper at my actions and motivations and the consequences that flow from them and because it reflects the observation that very few issues in this world are as clearly defined as we would like.
Mostly what I’m saying is that I don’t give a damn what you believe. I don’t care if you consider yourself, Christian, Muslim, Wiccan, Jedi or even if you worship the flying spaghetti monster. All I care about is your actions and the effect they have on you, others and the world around you and that *you* accept responsibility for their consequences.
Or to put it in your frame of reference: my emphasis is on works rather than faith.
“Can I admit I might be wrong? You bet. But you’ll find I’m not the usual dogmatic fundamentalist of whom Rod is so dismissive. I’ve had to back track a time or two with Rod. But that’s the nature of dealing with absolutes, it’s easier to point out my inconsistencies.”
Which is one of the problems I have with absolute views of the world, they open themselves too easily to inconsistency.
“The other thing of course is that another way of stating it is that as the top species on this planet all the others are inferior to us and therefore we may do as we wish.”
Sorry, when I said that I should have made it clear that it was your position I was referring to there.
moot,
“But the reality is that we are different than animals. So if someone denies that, I obviously will disagree.”
Are we further removed from a chimpanzee than a chimp is from a slug, or bacteria, or a tree?
I’d say no, I’d say we have much more in common with a chimp than a chimp has in common with ANY of these other three.
“You gave a bunch of examples of apes having a sense of fairness or whales playing with seals, but this is still light-years away from what humans do, there’s simply no comparison.”
Actually the entire point is that basically everything (language, morality, altruism, a sense of fairness, etc…) we consider to be “unique” to humans we are seeing in other animal species.
Yes we may use these ideas in different ways in some cases, but the underlying concepts are NOT at all unique to only one animal on the planet (man) they are shares by many species.
“If reproduction is such a basic need, why do we have so much in our culture in the way of controlling birth?”
I’d like to expand on uncertain’s explanation here.
For EVERY animal on the planet there are pressures that prevent a society being 100% dedicated to reproduction.
In MOST species this pressure is either the search for food and other resources, or it is the cost of having too many offspring leads to a lower survivability rate for all members of the group (more mouths to feed, or higher likelihood of attracting predators).
Humans have essentially eliminated the predator aspect. Yes there are examples of people killed by bears, sharks, etc, but these are anomalies; in your normal everyday life, the odds of this happening are infinitesimal.
We also have reduced the “search” for resources to a LARGE degree (especially in the western world). When you are hungry, you don’t have to worry IF you’ll be able to find food, you go to a restaurant or grocery store.
Since we as a species (again, I am referring to the Western world here, not third world countries, their issues are MUCH different than our own) have essentially no impediments to reproduction. It may make my life HARDER if i have 10 kids, but it will almost certainly not KILL me (or my children) if I have 10 kids. For quick examples of this, think of the stereotypical inner city woman on welfare with a large number of kids running around the cramped apartment.
Now let’s consider what would happen if everybody in the country had 10 children.
There are currently 300+ million people in the US today. Of those, we’ll say that roughly 1/3 are in the “child bearing age range” (it’s actually higher than 1/3rd, but we’re going conservatively).
So we’ll say 60 million people, split into male and female gives us 30 million couples. Now we’ll say 1/2 of those people are either gay, infertile, or for whatever reason can’t, or choose to not have children.
If each of those 15 million couples remaining have 10 children each, our total population will rise by 50% in the next 15 years.
Then the next generation begins to couple up and have children. Splitting this into 50% choosing not to have children, you’ll lets’ with 35-40 million couples, meaning in 30 years, we will have added 500 MILLION people to the us population because we went wild and everybody decided to have as many children as they could.
Now do the same math for a country like China or India where the starting population is ALREADY 4 times greater than our own here. In 30 years, they are EACH adding 1½-2 BILLION people.
How long would our natural resources last with an extra 4 BILLION people on the planet in 30 years? And that’s only if 3 countries do this. If the entire planet does this, then in 30 years, we’ve added 10 BILLION new mouths to feed.
We value contraceptions because on an individual basis it makes each one of our own lives easier, and on a global scale, with no natural predators or other factors stopping us, if we reproduced today like other animals, we would overpopulate the planet and cause worldwide famine within 1 generation, and that would be bad.
“But you’ll find I’m not the usual dogmatic fundamentalist of whom Rod is so dismissive.”
I am EQUALLY dismissive of atheists who are dogmatically fundamentalist, and unwilling to at least CONSIDER the other perspective.
I do actually consider myself to be “fundamental” in my views on religion, faith, belief, etc. HOWEVER, I also strive to understand those who disagree with my views, as at the VERY least, it teaches me what the “other side” really thinks, and at the best it helps me find common ground with others who at first glance I may have nothing in common with.
Hey, just a quick drive-by. I’ve been busy but I came across this concept. It’s from a book called The Quest for God by Paul Johnson. He essentially combines our two ideas into one theory.
“I do not think the existence of the conscience in human beings, and their deep, basic convictions that certain things are always wrong, has come about by accident, or that these beliefs are just metaphysically or miraculously implanted in us by Almighty God, from outside as it were.
I think they (moral absolutes) are part of his divine scheme, and always have been, and that they are written into the laws of they universe as surely as the laws of thermodynamics or any other of the unalterable axioms of physics.
Since it has been right to call us humans or rational creatures, or even perhaps before that, it has been written into our genetics codes that we should make distinctions between good and evil, and that we should have moral preference for good. That indeed is why we tend to adhere to Natural Law, and have a conscience and will ourselves to follow it – even if that will often proves too weak to combat other instincts in our genes.
Our genetic coding and the necessity of absolute morality are closely connected and both form part of the divine scheme. I am not arguing that positive moral coding is confined to humans – it would be surprising if it were. Anyone who has been used to keeping horses or dogs, for instance, is aware of moral tendencies in these noble creatures…albeit it at a cruder level.
Ours is not a chaotic universe but a universe of laws, and they include moral laws. We ignore them individually at our own risk.”
So he seems to be saying that absolute morality is a genetic issue. I thought it was interesting. What do you guys think?
Philosophically and religiously, it’s interesting but, from the scientific and logical viewpoints it has a few major flaws.
First, most glaringly, and as with other attempts to combine a religious viewpoint with a scientific one, there’s no way to test it.
Secondly, as I’ve said before, looking at history we can see how morality varies directly with physical and social conditions. For example, in a time of plenty, waste, inefficiency and excess are considered no big deal, but in a time where resources are scarce . . . even the slightest waste becomes utterly immoral.
Is there really a way to test an evolved social morality? We’re really talking about what best explains the systems our cultures display rather than somthing that has the weight of emperical evidence behind it.
To your second point – I agree already that social morality changes with the cutlure and I’ve explained how this doesn’t negate a divine morality.
This is not to say I agree with Johnson. I just think that it’s interesting. He essentially uses the same line of reasoning others have to combine theology and evolution. He simply extends it into the realm of the “Selfish Gene”.
The think I don’t like about his theory is that it’s impossible to debate. We can’t either prove or disprove God as “first cause” and thus the topic becomes moot.
You dimiss the Johnson hypothesis as untestable, is there really a way to test an evolved social morality? We’re really talking about what best explains the systems our cultures display rather than somthing that has the weight of emperical evidence behind it.
To your second point – I agree already that social morality changes with the cutlure and I’ve explained how this doesn’t negate a divine morality that exists and is true depsite what the culture is doing.
This is not to say I agree with Johnson. I just think that it’s interesting. He essentially uses the same line of reasoning others have to combine theology and evolution. He simply extends it into the realm of the “Selfish Gene”.
The thing I don’t like about his theory is that it’s impossible to debate. We can’t either prove or disprove God as “first cause” in regards to morality or the big bang and thus the topic becomes moot. Diesm is a most unsatisfactory solution to the conflict but only because I really enjoy the argument.
You dimiss the Johnson hypothesis as untestable, is there really a way to test an evolved social morality? We’re really talking about what best explains the systems our cultures display rather than somthing that has the weight of emperical evidence behind it.
To your second point – I agree already that social morality changes with the cutlure and I’ve explained how this doesn’t negate a divine morality that exists and is true depsite what the culture is doing.
This is not to say I agree with Johnson. I just think that it’s interesting. He essentially uses the same line of reasoning others have to combine theology and evolution. He simply extends it into the realm of the “Selfish Gene”.
The thing I don’t like about his theory is that it’s impossible to debate. We can’t either prove or disprove God as “first cause” in regards to morality or the big bang and thus the topic becomes moot. Diesm is a most unsatisfactory solution to the conflict but only because I really enjoy the argument.
“You dimiss the Johnson hypothesis as untestable, is there really a way to test an evolved social morality?”
Yes, by observation, both direct and historical, of the development of various human and animal cultures around the world and by small scale experimentation using individual sub-cultures and their modifying effect on human or animal behaviour.
“We’re really talking about what best explains the systems our cultures display rather than somthing that has the weight of emperical evidence behind it.”
Actually, I thought we were talking about both or rather that they were the same thing.
“To your second point – I agree already that social morality changes with the cutlure and I’ve explained how this doesn’t negate a divine morality that exists and is true depsite what the culture is doing.
I’ll agree that it doesn’t negate the possibility of a divine morality, but the point remains that it’s an untestable hypothesis in exactly the same way that the existence or nature of ‘god’ is untestable and unprovable.
“The thing I don’t like about his theory is that it’s impossible to debate. We can’t either prove or disprove God as “first cause” in regards to morality or the big bang and thus the topic becomes moot. Diesm is a most unsatisfactory solution to the conflict but only because I really enjoy the argument.”
Indeed and, oddly enough, that’s a pretty good summation of why I consider myself agnostic.
moot,
While Paul Johnson’s idea may on the surface look to be a type of “middle ground” between our two views, he still goes on the assumption which is not based in any evidence that god exists and created morality, instead of using the evidence based practices of science to say “here are the facts, and these are the logical conclusions we can draw from those facts”. Johnson steps wildly outside of the realm of facts into the realm of superstition and religious faith.
On the surface it may seem centrist to you, but in reality he is saying the EXACT SAME thing you’re saying. Not something similar, or close, but the EXACT SAME.
Where is the evidence that morality comes from god?
Where is the society that “rejects” god, and because of this rejection live in a purely “survival of the fittest” type of lifestyle?
Where is the common ground across society on all issues of morality including slavery, sexism, racism, homophobia, etc? If god created morality, why did he give different groups different morality, why don’t we all believe the SAME things in regards to morality?
“it has been written into our genetics codes that we should make distinctions between good and evil, and that we should have moral preference for good”
We share 98% or so of our DNA with chimps, if this morality written into them as well? Didn’t you JUST make an argument against this very idea of morality in “lesser” animals?
“We’re really talking about what best explains the systems our cultures display rather than something that has the weight of empirical evidence behind it.”
So an explanation that ignores the evidence is what you think is best?
I HAVE to assume I am not following this line, because it SEEMS like you’re saying that we should come up with an explanation that we LIKE rather than one that fits the evidence.
“He simply extends it into the realm of the “Selfish Gene””
He goes far beyond The Selfish Gene. He claims that a divine being imbued this in our DNA, while The Selfish Gene goes to great pains to show the evolutionary advantages of the morality we see in ourselves, and the methods by which it would have likely evolved.
If you’re going to say that BOTH Dawkins and Johnson are correct, and that god put this in us through small random mutations over countless generations as a result of selective pressures ,etc, then WHY does god need to be involved at all? We ALREADY know that evolutions works in this way without a divinity guiding it, adding a divine presence may help Johnson or you keep your faith in an archaic book, but it does not follow Occam’s Razor or any rational basis of scientific discovery.
“We can’t either prove or disprove God as “first cause” and thus the topic becomes moot.”
I agree. He has defined hid god in such a way as to be unfalsifiable. But than again, so have you.
“is there really a way to test an evolved social morality”
Yes. We can test our theories of the evolution of morality against all of the available data and see if it falls in line with our expected results. Then as new evidence comes to light we can test the theory against those new discoveries. Just as we would do with ANY scientific theory (gravity, evolution, etc).
One of the things we would EXPECT from a evolved morality is that those animals which are closet related to us would show characteristics closely in line with our own characteristics. We have found this to be the case on many occasions in many controlled tests.
Another thing we might expect is that certain moral ideals would be fairly universal among societies of a certain size or larger (murder being allowed would tend to wipe out a civilization or at the ABSOLUTE LEAST keep the membership of that society at increasingly small numbers until the eventual destruction of the society). We’ve certainly found this to be the case.
I’m sure people much smarter than myself, who study these ideas more intensely, are capable of coming up with numerous tests which would be falsifiable that if proven correct would add even more validity to these theories of evolved morality.
Let me jump back to the discussion we were having before I derailed us with the Johnson quote. For the record I think that Rod is right. Johnson essentially takes my position, couches it in some naturalistic terms and presents it for consumption. I never particularly agreed with him but until Rod pointed out that Johnson and I were essentially saying the same thing I thought he had an interesting compromise.
Let me re-address the issue of human distinction. The fact that we are different from animals is an important point of discussion.
I guess I’m not sure upon what basis we’re drawing the comparisons and distinctions. There certainly are comparisons. Rod, you have pointed out that “We share 98% or so of our DNA with chimps”. Uncertain you have pointed out that orcas play with seals.
First of all the tendency to anthropomorphise animal behavior is great and it’s relatively easy to do.
I realize that we get wound up when we see a monkey open up a cocunut with a rock, “look he’s using tools. That’s indicative of highly developed and complex behavior.” As exciting as that may be it’s still a fair distance from building a back-hoe and using it to construct a Blockbuster Video from where apes rent DVD’s to each other.
Uncertain you mentioned that the distance between two other animals may be no greater than the distance between ourselves and our nearest animal relatives. Again this depends upon what we make our comparisons. If we’re talking about physiology or even some genetics I’ll give you that, if we’re talking about abstract thought, the development of technology or
Furthermore even the 98% (a contested percentage) shared DNA doesn’t mean much. We’re only 30% different than water. Studies show that our bodies are made of of 66% – 78% water. But despite have that similarity in physiology we’re still pretty different than your average pond or lake.
Shoot, that totally posted before I was even close to being finished. Stupid opposable thumbs hitting the “enter” button….
Furthermore, evidently the the 2% difference is significant enough that humans have take a drastically different course than apes. Evidently wrapped up in that two percent is the ability to do countless things apes cannot. We think abstractly, we are having this debate over the internet, we can type, we can look up research works that other humans have written, we have access to amazing documents and information in the world of physics, astronomy, biology and anthropology, we can verbalize our different abstract ideas in a complex manners. We can debate our particular positions regarding philosophy and the existence of God. We can drink four dollar cups of coffee while we do these things, coffee which was procured and produced through a complex system of trade and production to wind up with the final product which resides in my cup. While we have these internet debates we can listen to music that is beautifully played on complex instruments, recorded into reproduction equipment, mastered and distributed music companies and computer programs that allow us to replay them through our computer speakers. Evidently all these things and vastly more than could possibly listed, are explained by that difference of 2% between us and apes.
It seems beyond debate that humans are extremely distinct and to somehow minimize that flies in the face of the evidence that lies all around us. You may not like the implications of those distinctions but the vast differences themselves remain clear and undeniable.
“I guess I’m not sure upon what basis we’re drawing the comparisons and distinctions. There certainly are comparisons. Rod, you have pointed out that “We share 98% or so of our DNA with chimps”. Uncertain you have pointed out that orcas play with seals.”
Actually, it wasn’t the playing with seals part that struck me as important, or the fact that the orcas were risking their lives by beaching themselves to hunt for them, but rather the fact that the orca then risked its life by beaching itself to return the final seal, dazed and probably concussed at the very least, to the shore rather than allow it to drown.
“First of all the tendency to anthropomorphise animal behavior is great and it’s relatively easy to do.”
No argument there, but it leads to another important point that the tendency to imbue human actions with greater significance or import than they actually have is at least as strong, if not stronger.
“I realize that we get wound up when we see a monkey open up a cocunut with a rock, “look he’s using tools. That’s indicative of highly developed and complex behavior.” As exciting as that may be it’s still a fair distance from building a back-hoe and using it to construct a Blockbuster Video from where apes rent DVD’s to each other.”
Or there being documented cases of apes using crude spears . . .
Or of African Grey parrots being taught to speak english with a substantial volcabulary and able to use that language in a creative manner similar to a human child.
“Uncertain you mentioned that the distance between two other animals may be no greater than the distance between ourselves and our nearest animal relatives. Again this depends upon what we make our comparisons. If we’re talking about physiology or even some genetics I’ll give you that, if we’re talking about abstract thought, the development of technology or”
Well, on all counts there’s the comparison Rod suggested of a chimp and a slug.
The point, however, remains that there are far more and greater similarities between us and the other species on this planet than there are differences.
So, we’re clever, tool-using animals, there are other clever tool using animals out there as well, we’re just the cleverest and have developed more complex tools – I still don’t see any evidence for human exceptionalism other than simple human ego.
As for abstract thought – have you seen squirrels reasoning their way around a challenge course in search of nuts?
It’s also worth pointing out that most of the arguments against animals being just as valid as humans have been employed against various groups of humans in the past:- women, children, the handicapped, members of different races.
“Furthermore even the 98% (a contested percentage) shared DNA doesn’t mean much. We’re only 30% different than water. Studies show that our bodies are made of of 66% – 78% water. But despite have that similarity in physiology we’re still pretty different than your average pond or lake.”
Difference isn’t the point, not really, or what I’m arguing against, it’s human exceptionalism, the point that we’re so unique we’re somehow better or more valid than the other animals we share the Earth with.
I’d like to finish by paraphrasing Scott Adams, “So it’s the ability to reason that seperates humans from animals? You do realise that in the animal kingdom there is no equivalent to reality television?”
Sorry this is all broken up I probably should keep it all together.
Uncertain –
The response to the question of contraception seems to be a little lacking.
By your estimate the very people that should not be reproducing at a high rate because of their “circumstances” are precisely the ones who are. And the ones who could potentially support dozens of children are precisely the ones who are not. You would expect families in 3rd world countries to be slowing down their rate of reproduction but that’s not happening at all. Furthermore you’d think that couples who are successful and wealthy would have more children but these are often the ones who either don’t have children at all or only have one or two.
I don’t see how your answer fits reality.
Secondly your theory of morality still belies a sense of absolutes. Do you think that other people should “care about their “actions and the effects they have on the world around them and they take responsibility for their actions.” A lot of people don’t care about how their actions affect themselves, the people around them or take responsibility, is their behavior not as valid or in need of correction to be more in line with yours? I’m just not sure how you can be consist with relativism as your absolute.
How is that position more valid that someone else’s? Even if they come to an opposite conclusion?
Rod you answered the reproduction question by saying that sometimes to ensure reproduction we don’t reproduce. Right? I think I get what you’re saying but at what point to we say this is getting a little convoluted and complex? Your essentially saying our genes can roughly estimate world population calculations and make reproduction choices despite our not being consciously aware of it?
We continue to behave in ways that were told is not good for future generations regarding things like the environment but our genes haven’t picked up on things like fossil fuel depletion or global warming? Yet they manage to do some relatively complex math?
“It seems beyond debate that humans are extremely distinct”
True. But, not exceptionally distinct. And, as Rod said, not more distinct than a chimp is to a slug.
“and to somehow minimize that flies in the face of the evidence that lies all around us. You may not like the implications of those distinctions but the vast differences themselves remain clear and undeniable.”
As I’ve said, our similarities, to me, seem far greater than our differences.
What implications? That we’re significantly more clever and have better tools? Who’s denying that? But, as I’ve said, I see no evidence for human exceptionalism other than simple human ego.
A view that seems to be borne out by the way we are currently behaving like any other hyper-dominant animal and over-populating and over-consuming our environment in an extremely self-destructive manner.
In my world-view the differences of abstract thought and technology aren’t what make us “exceptional”. They are just evidence of that distinction. Therefore a severely retarded child, an old man or Hitler have the basic human value.
If value is reduced to the materials with which we are constructed the human body is worth about 4 dollars (or about 2 and a half Euros). If that is all we can appeal to in order to illustrate human value then we’re in trouble. So what is it, in your world-view, that makes humans have any value?
Now I’ll certainly grant you that humans as a race can be narcissistic. But the tendency to mis-use the power we have comes from the very fact that we have that power. We may be irresponsible with our “exceptionalism” but that ability to be irresponsibility rests on the premise that we are “exceptional”.
You said, “the tendency to imbue human actions with greater significance or import than they actually have is equally as strong, if not stronger.”
Regardless of what one believes about global warming or nuclear holocaust we are constantly reminded that humans literally have the ability to destroy the planet. That’s a pretty important ability that probably shouldn’t be underestimated.
“apes using crude spears….” “African Grey parrots…” This is still light-years away from things humans do. Worth noting, sure, but not particularly worth drawing comparisons. If I define human behavior broadly enough, sure there are no distinctions. I use a computer which is essentially a tool and apes use spears which are tools too. Look we both use tools! We’re practically the same.
Difference may not be the point but it sure illustrates the point well. I’m not sure why you’re bothered by the idea that humans are significant.
But if you’ll allow let me respond to one potential objection. If you’re afraid that humans thinking they’re superior to all other life will cause us all to randomly club seals and run over squirrels, I think I can put that fear to rest. My biblical world-view actually teaches me to be in awe of my significance in a universe of which I’m a tiny part. And in light of that to conduct myself with the utmost responsibility and stewardship of this planet, it’s life and it’s resources.
…By the way I’ll totally concede the reality TV point. In that respect we’re years behind the animals.
“By your estimate the very people that should not be reproducing at a high rate because of their “circumstances” are precisely the ones who are. And the ones who could potentially support dozens of children are precisely the ones who are not. You would expect families in 3rd world countries to be slowing down their rate of reproduction but that’s not happening at all. Furthermore you’d think that couples who are successful and wealthy would have more children but these are often the ones who either don’t have children at all or only have one or two.”
Because people in the third world or in poorer areas of the West have a significantly higher rate of child mortality they have more children to ensure at least some will survive to adulthood, richer people, with a significantly lower incidence of child mortality can ‘afford’ to invest more in fewer children. Simple as that.
“Secondly your theory of morality still belies a sense of absolutes. Do you think that other people should “care about their “actions and the effects they have on the world around them and they take responsibility for their actions.” A lot of people don’t care about how their actions affect themselves, the people around them or take responsibility, is their behavior not as valid or in need of correction to be more in line with yours? I’m just not sure how you can be consist with relativism as your absolute.”
As I’ve written before, it’s human nature to see the world in absolutes but the reality is immesurably more complex and I try to take that into account in my own worldview. The reality, of course is that the only person whose morals I can control is myself. As to the validity of other peoples morals . . . as I’ve said, I care more about the outcome of their actions than their morals – which I will admit I find interesting mainly as an aid to understanding them. What it boils down to is that I find a relativistic position more rational and more reflective of reality than an absolutist one.
As to how I judge others actions or beliefs? The same way you do. By the moral standards gained through my own culture and by reading and learning as much as possible about other cultures and beliefs.
For myself, I dislike the phrase “moral compass” but it seems appropriate.
As I’ve said before, if you’re really interested in looking at what I believe about various topics, have a look at my blog.
“We continue to behave in ways that were told is not good for future generations regarding things like the environment but our genes haven’t picked up on things like fossil fuel depletion or global warming? Yet they manage to do some relatively complex math?”
Yes, because of the difference between ‘evolutionary time’ and the vast acceleration in society and communications over the last five hundred years.
It’s one of the reasons why our threat perception is so out of balance. We evolved in small family groups where, if there was a threat, it was usually immediate and we could deal with it quickly and our awareness beyond our immediate group was severely limited. It’s a bit of an over-simplification, but look at the difference in worry at the moment over the threat of terrorism or child abduction and the danger of crossing the street.
“A view that seems to be borne out by the way we are currently behaving like any other hyper-dominant animal and over-populating and over-consuming our environment in an extremely self-destructive manner.”
Wait a second. How can our genes be totally worried about reproduction even to the point of not letting us reproduce if circumstances aren’t favorable but allow us to behave in the way you speak about above?
You can’t really have it both ways. Either our genes aren’t that interested in reproducing or they’re allowing us to destroying the planet. These ideas seem to be mutually exclusive.
Where’s your blog?
We are valid, simply because we exist, as is all other life.
“Regardless of what one believes about global warming or nuclear holocaust we are constantly reminded that humans literally have the ability to destroy the planet. That’s a pretty important ability that probably shouldn’t be underestimated.
Again, who’s underestimating it?
““apes using crude spears….” “African Grey parrots…” This is still light-years away from things humans do. Worth noting, sure, but not particularly worth drawing comparisons. If I define human behavior broadly enough, sure there are no distinctions. I use a computer which is essentially a tool and apes use spears which are tools too. Look we both use tools! We’re practically the same.”
Now you’re exageratting what I said to make it sound absurd.
Where is the evidence, the single unique action or behaviour that *only* we do, that conclusively demonstrates that we are more than animals?
As I’ve said, I’m not disputing that we’re not the cleverest, or have the best tools, just that we’re somehow superior or more valid because of it.
“Difference may not be the point but it sure illustrates the point well. I’m not sure why you’re bothered by the idea that humans are significant.
I’m not saying we’re not significant – our impact on the world around us tends to put the lie to that statement – just that the evidence suggests we have no greater value to the universe than any other life. And it bothers me both for that reason and for the direction the concept that the entire universe is here solely for our benefit is taking us.
“But if you’ll allow let me respond to one potential objection. If you’re afraid that humans thinking they’re superior to all other life will cause us all to randomly club seals and run over squirrels, I think I can put that fear to rest.”
No, I’m not, no more than I hope you are afraid all us godless moral-less types will rape and pillage our way across the world, but I am afraid it will cause us to destroy ourselves at some point in the future.
“My biblical world-view actually teaches me to be in awe of my significance in a universe of which I’m a tiny part. And in light of that to conduct myself with the utmost responsibility and stewardship of this planet, it’s life and it’s resources.
And it’s an admirable view, although one that seems to be in the minority, and even when held rarely acted on.
Sorry, I assumed that my alias was linked to my blog here’s a link: An Uncertain Hope
Last post before dinner.
“Wait a second. How can our genes be totally worried about reproduction even to the point of not letting us reproduce if circumstances aren’t favorable but allow us to behave in the way you speak about above?
You can’t really have it both ways. Either our genes aren’t that interested in reproducing or they’re allowing us to destroying the planet. These ideas seem to be mutually exclusive.”
There’s no contradiction there, really. Our genes predispose us to act according to *immediately* available resources and conditions and respond in a way which *should* favour our off-spring but it doesn’t always work like that. Effectively, we’re genetically predisposed to act and think locally. And, given the way our society is structured at the moment . . . can *you* see any evidence of scarcity in the supermarket? Hence, it’s easy to deny a problem exists.
And, if you are in a region that’s effected, typically you have more immediate problems to think about.
Again, this behaviour occurs in nature: deer over-grazing and over-populating their range, predators depleting their prey to the point where there’s none left, and in any cases where animals have done this and can’t move to another territory they simply die out.
Honestly, you really should read a good book about this stuff.
Sorry, didn’t mean that to sound quite so dismissive.
It’s been a long day!
Don’t worry about sounding dismissive. I can handle it, and you’re right, I do need to read a good book about this stuff.
But some of this goes back to a premise that Rod has brought up numerous times, I’m sure you’ve heard of Occam’s Razor – and it just seems that these explanations for behavior that is contradictory to the rules of reproduction get needlessly complex in order to explain actual behavior. The concepts of contraception and world population and providing for one’s family I can follow but seem needlessly convoluted if we haven’t philosophically bought into naturalism. But I’ll get to some of this later.
I response to my comment about apes having spears vs. humans have computers you said, “Now you’re exaggerating what I said to make it sound absurd.'”
But that’s precisely the dilemma! I’m not exaggerating at all. That’s the technology we’ve developed vs. the technology of an ape and it’s so far removed that there is no room for comparison but that’s precisely what you want to do.
What you’re calling exceptionalism I’m calling significance. And I’m also saying that human significance gives us value over and above the animals.
Case in point – If I were in a situation in which I had to make the choice between a human life and the life of an animal I’d always choose the human. We can have philosophical discussion detached from reality but if a pit-bull were attacking a toddler all but the most deranged human would kill the pit-bull in regard for the life of the human.
The natural result of your human value system – “We are valid, simply because, we exist, as is all other life.” give us no particular moral validation for choosing the baby over the pit-bull. I realize your response will be that our sense of reproduction and the “Selfish Gene” stuff would compel us to rescue the baby but we have no real moral grounds for doing so. In fact if a person were to choose to ignore conventional wisdom and rescue the dog and leave the baby to die we’d be horrified but we really have no moral grounds for that emotional response.
The natural response would be to behave in a way that belies human significance or exeptionalism.
“You asked for a single behavior that only we do that conclusively demonstrates we are more than animals.”
I’m not exactly what you mean by this question because on the surface it seems the answer to this question is literally limitless. The ability to appreciate art, philosophical thought, the ability to read or write, poetry, the ability to destroy the earth. I’m only assuming that I’m misunderstanding your question because the possible answers seem endless. So maybe you can clarify for me.
Furthermore, to date, we don’t seem to share the universe with any other intelligent life. That may change with time, but for now we’re working on the assumption that we are the single intelligent life in the entire universe.
Anyway, I have to run just some food for thought. As always I’m interested in your comments.
Getting back to the issues of animal behavior and reproduction it seems that evolution has a mind all it’s own.
You said, “Our genes predispose us to act according to *immediately* available resources and conditions and respond in a way which *should* favour our off-spring.” And that it doesn’t always work out like that and you gave deer populations and predators depleting their prey as a case in point.
That’s precisely what I’m talking about. If a particular species, guided by an evolved instinct, behave in a way that is detrimental to the survival of their species, that very behavior, by definition, is the product of evolution. Evolution is mindless, without the ability to anticipate or predict the future, extinction or not.
Now lets contrast that with what you’ve said about animals practicing contraception. You said that, in some cases animals (other than humans) give us examples of practicing contraception (you specifically mentioned wolves) in order to provide the best potential for offspring. Never mind the complex assumptions the wolf genes must be making you’re left with a dilemma.
The explanation you and Rod gave about reproduction seems to imply that evolution can see in the future and discern that it’s primary instinctual behavior would result in a negative end result. Thus, on occasion, evolution causes the animal to disregard the more primary and basic instinct to reproduce or to prey on other animals in order to ensure future reproduction. Somehow the instinct to reproduce makes some calculated guesses about the circumstances and decides not to reproduce at all.
But if evolution is truly mindless it can’t be making such distinctions. If evolution were able to take into account the future you’d wind up with the exact problem you’re trying to avoid – that there’s an intelligence. Call it evolution, design or God, but if evolution can make complex decisions about potential outcomes and encourage an animal to suppress an powerful basic instinct to reproduce or eat for the good of future off-spring then your stuck with some sense of intelligence behind it all.
But if evolution is mindless and can’t predict the future then it’s difficult to explain the actual behavior of animals acting in disregard for their species survival by either not reproducing (humans) or depleting their prey.
Furthermore if man is the most highly evolved animal what is screwed up in his genetics that allows him to ignore this secondary instinct that would cause us to suppress the primary instinct and is allowing us to be “behaving like any other hyper-dominant animal and over-populating and over-consuming our environment in an extremely self-destructive manner.”
Ultimately it seems very suspicious as if these mutually exclusive concepts are being applied selectively.
You brought up the idea of “evolutionary time” and I applaud you for your creativity but if this was a valid explanation for our messed-up threat perception then why don’t we see the same sort of problems in the animal world? They would be subject to the same evolutionary acceleration as we are. Or is this another area where humans are unique and vastly different from animals?
I’ll warn you now, I’m a bit scatterbrained this afternoon so my responses may not be that coherent.
I’m quite familiar with Occam’s Razor, btw.
“Case in point – If I were in a situation in which I had to make the choice between a human life and the life of an animal I’d always choose the human. We can have philosophical discussion detached from reality but if a pit-bull were attacking a toddler all but the most deranged human would kill the pit-bull in regard for the life of the human.
The natural result of your human value system – “We are valid, simply because, we exist, as is all other life.” give us no particular moral validation for choosing the baby over the pit-bull. I realize your response will be that our sense of reproduction and the “Selfish Gene” stuff would compel us to rescue the baby but we have no real moral grounds for doing so. In fact if a person were to choose to ignore conventional wisdom and rescue the dog and leave the baby to die we’d be horrified but we really have no moral grounds for that emotional response.
The natural response would be to behave in a way that belies human significance or exeptionalism.”
No, the natural response would be one that demonstrates human significance to *humans*. Nothing more or less.
You say we’d have no moral grounds for saving the human over the dog but, again, you’re missing the point in that as our morality is, as you’ve agreed (well, partially agreed at least) an evolved social construct, we *would* have that moral justification for both the act and the response if the act were inverted.
““You asked for a single behavior that only we do that conclusively demonstrates we are more than animals.”
I’m not exactly what you mean by this question because on the surface it seems the answer to this question is literally limitless. The ability to appreciate art, philosophical thought, the ability to read or write, poetry, the ability to destroy the earth. I’m only assuming that I’m misunderstanding your question because the possible answers seem endless. So maybe you can clarify for me.”
Most of those behaviours are either untestable (philosophical thought, appreciation of art or poetry – who’s to say wolves don’t appreciate the beauty of a good howl, for example) or can be seen to some extent in other animals (comprehension of written symbols). And, as for the ability to destroy the planet, we can’t, not yet. We can destroy ourselves and a majority of life on the planet, but not yet the planet itself.
Anyway, I’ll rephrase the question: can you give an example that demonstrates that we are more than a very clever animal? The cleverest one on the planet, by our measures, but still an animal.
“Furthermore, to date, we don’t seem to share the universe with any other intelligent life. That may change with time, but for now we’re working on the assumption that we are the single intelligent life in the entire universe. ”
That’s a *very* big assumption considering the size of the universe and the time scales involved and one that I wouldn’t be comfortable in making as it seems quite likely that complex life has evolved elsewhere at some point – whether we’d know it or not is another matter entirely, of course.
“Getting back to the issues of animal behavior and reproduction it seems that evolution has a mind all it’s own.
Actually, it doesn’t. But that’s kind of the point.
“You said, “Our genes predispose us to act according to *immediately* available resources and conditions and respond in a way which *should* favour our off-spring.” And that it doesn’t always work out like that and you gave deer populations and predators depleting their prey as a case in point.
That’s precisely what I’m talking about. If a particular species, guided by an evolved instinct, behave in a way that is detrimental to the survival of their species, that very behavior, by definition, is the product of evolution. Evolution is mindless, without the ability to anticipate or predict the future, extinction or not.”
Yes.
“Now lets contrast that with what you’ve said about animals practicing contraception. You said that, in some cases animals (other than humans) give us examples of practicing contraception (you specifically mentioned wolves) in order to provide the best potential for offspring. Never mind the complex assumptions the wolf genes must be making you’re left with a dilemma.”
Genes don’t make assumptions; they shape the form of an animal or organism and predispose it to certain behaviours. The example I gave is one of a *society* imposing a limiting structure over the desire to procreate and further ones own genes in order to better provide for the continuation of the family line.
“The explanation you and Rod gave about reproduction seems to imply that evolution can see in the future and discern that it’s primary instinctual behavior would result in a negative end result. Thus, on occasion, evolution causes the animal to disregard the more primary and basic instinct to reproduce or to prey on other animals in order to ensure future reproduction. Somehow the instinct to reproduce makes some calculated guesses about the circumstances and decides not to reproduce at all.
But if evolution is truly mindless it can’t be making such distinctions. If evolution were able to take into account the future you’d wind up with the exact problem you’re trying to avoid – that there’s an intelligence. Call it evolution, design or God, but if evolution can make complex decisions about potential outcomes and encourage an animal to suppress an powerful basic instinct to reproduce or eat for the good of future off-spring then your stuck with some sense of intelligence behind it all.
But if evolution is mindless and can’t predict the future then it’s difficult to explain the actual behavior of animals acting in disregard for their species survival by either not reproducing (humans) or depleting their prey.
Okay, that’s very complex and needlessly so, because it’s really simple, and bear in mind the time scales involved.
Evolution, whether genetic or social, works in more or less the same way (and I’m really over-simplifying it here): an organism (or society) changes or adapts in response to some pressure (whether environmental or otherwise), that adaptation will succeed or fail to some degree, and the more successful the adaptation the more likely it is that it will be passed on into future generations.
There’s no need for either the ability to see the future or some sort of guiding force behind it at all.
Well, other than the guiding force inherent behind any being choosing a mate.
Social evolution is, however, a bit less random, guided, as it is, by the minds that make up a society.
The point of the examples I gave was to illustrate the fact that organisms fail to adapt all the time and that we’re not immune to that either.
“Furthermore if man is the most highly evolved animal what is screwed up in his genetics that allows him to ignore this secondary instinct that would cause us to suppress the primary instinct and is allowing us to be “behaving like any other hyper-dominant animal and over-populating and over-consuming our environment in an extremely self-destructive manner.””
Actually, we’re not the most highly evolved animal, we’re one of the most complex certainly, but not the most highly evolved. That’d probably be something like the shark – a creature that’s been more or less the same, perfectly adapted for its environment for millions of years and has been around for much longer than we have. Or maybe a virus or insect?
“Ultimately it seems very suspicious as if these mutually exclusive concepts are being applied selectively.”
They aren’t, and I suspect that’s a part of what you’re misunderstanding here. An organism or behaviour that either fails to adapt, or in which the adaptation is sub-optimal, to changes in its environment will either die out or be out-competed by other animals.
It happens all the time and we’re no more immune from that possibility than any other animal.
“You brought up the idea of “evolutionary time” and I applaud you for your creativity but if this was a valid explanation for our messed-up threat perception then why don’t we see the same sort of problems in the animal world? They would be subject to the same evolutionary acceleration as we are. Or is this another area where humans are unique and vastly different from animals?”
Nope, and it’s not my concept. And I think you’ve misunderstood what I meant. Evolutionary time can be thought of as the number of generations it takes for evolutionary changes to become evident or, to use a slightly artificial example, the number of generations it takes to turn a wolf into a Yorkshire Terrier.
The more complex the animal, the longer any change takes.
It’s a similar concept to geological or astronomical time.
Animals are subject to the same evolutionary pressures as we are, but the point I was making is that our society can and has changed far more quickly and we are now effectively functioning in a world that is far more complex and interconnected than the one we have evolved to function in and our genetics, and our instincts, haven’t caught up yet – hence our screwed up threat perception.
Wonder where Rodibidably is?
I’m curious about Rodibidaly too. It’s a little unlike him to be out of it for so long.
Good answers let me digest them a bit before I respond.
Well, wherever he is I hope he’s just busy and nothing worse. He’ll have a lot to catch up on when he gets back.
In the meantime…
It seems that moral absolutes would even be a more natural position to have if one were a strict naturalist.
Naturalism by definition is the belief in absolutes. Not that you need my definition of naturalism but it is all about incontrovertible laws. Things like entropy and gravity are constants. Sure there is some variation of the rate of decay or the strength of gravity depending on a variety of factors but these things remain law. Why then could it not be that there are incontrovertible moral laws? Laws that find some variation depending on a variety of factors but laws nonetheless?
It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch from absolute physical laws to absolute moral laws. But I’m sure I’m missing the very thing you will clear up for me.
On to your last post…
I gave the example of the pit-bull and the toddler, you said that choosing to save the child reveals that humans simply have a sense of “human significance to humans, nothing more or less.”
If it’s true, and it is, that humans are important to humans, and we tend to think we’re better than every other animal, and that evolution is responsible for this mindset – Why then would you be surprised or wonder why it would “bother” me if humans weren’t “exceptional” if we’re essentially programmed to feel that way?
I think there are some interesting implications in the answer to this question.
-Let me clarify my position on morality. I think moral law is analogous to entropy or gravity. They are constant laws that are subject to a variety of criteria. So they are absolute in the sense that they exist and are irrevocable but less than absolute in how they are applied. In other words there are criteria that can be brought to bear that, in nuanced ways, make the universal rules adaptable.
For example, if I were to say that it was wrong to kill, period. Then I would be left without recourse in the event of defending my family or maybe in regard to not getting treatment for cancer if I were so diagnosed. This law, while absolute, is also nuanced. We may find various interpretations of it but we’ll always appeal to that law.
Society tends to be a barometer sometimes reflecting and sometimes influencing those nuances. But the absolute concepts behind the laws remain the same. The differences are the circumstances and application but not the sense that this law is valid.
I hope that doesn’t just completely muddle the waters. What I’m trying to say is essentially that I believe in absolute laws but the word absolute is probably misleading.
-Can I give you an example that demonstrates that we are more than a very clever animal?
I’m sure our criteria for that answer will differ. In fact, I think I’ve given you some valid answers that you dismissed by saying they’re untestable. But things like philosophy, appreciation of beauty or true abstract thought are testable. We know we do them and, by any measure we currently have, animals do not.
You sort of evade the issue with the untestable charge. How do we know that dogs aren’t secretly running the world letting us think we’re in charge? Maybe it’s all just a clever scheme to get us to pick up their poo as we take them for walks in the park.
That theory is untestable in the sense that the one criteria would be that we don’t know it’s going on. However I’m going to work on the assumption that it’s not true.
I realize I’m being a little ridiculous and I don’t mean any real disrespect I just want to point out that by dismissing the behaviors that (as far as we currently know) make us unique you sort of undermine the fact that we can know anything.
But I digress…
Even Christianity doesn’t completely object to the idea that were a really smart and significant animal, at least not in my view.
Labeling humans “clever animals” doesn’t really change that we are the most significant “animal” on the planet. Even Ian Tattersal, not particularly a friend of Christianity, says that, “…humans are truly distinguished from all other living organisms by our extraordinary cognitive capacities…” That is a pretty important distinction no matter what.
Furthermore I’d of course say that there is a metaphysical side to humans that distinguishes us from animals.
The evidence I would give for that is that humans, right or wrong, are the only creation that has such strong spiritual inclinations. I certainly can’t give you a picture of the soul or give you a voice recording of someone from the afterlife but the fact that humans are universally spiritual is a pretty interesting phenomena. There are a ton of implications from the very existence of spirituality.
-I’d readdress the reproduction and contraception arguments but I do need to read up on some of that and I probably just wind up rehashing old points.
Replying very quickly, so I may unintentionally miss bits out . . .
“Why then could it not be that there are incontrovertible moral laws? Laws that find some variation depending on a variety of factors but laws nonetheless?”
Because the bulk of evidence we have from cultural anthropology, as well as social and evolutionary psychology indicates that morality is an evolved social construct and, in effect, all in our heads.
That doesn’t make it anytheless important or valid, and I’ve already explained how such systems evolve over time.
The other ‘laws’ you mention are *physical* constants and as such are nowhere near the same thing. It’s like comparing apples and oranges. Actually, no, it’s more like comparing apples and honour.
Although, if you want to twist your brain a bit, check out Rupert Sheldrake’s theories of morphic resonance. A theory which, among other things postulates that physical laws and constants may, in fact, in a manner of speaking, evolved.
They’re a bit out there (quite a bit, actually) but interesting. And what’s relevant to this discussion is that he makes the point that in such an evolved system, from the perspective of those within the system, there is no way to tell whether physical constants are constants or things that have evolved over time.
“If it’s true, and it is, that humans are important to humans, and we tend to think we’re better than every other animal, and that evolution is responsible for this mindset – Why then would you be surprised or wonder why it would “bother” me if humans weren’t “exceptional” if we’re essentially programmed to feel that way?
I think there are some interesting implications in the answer to this question. “
Quick answer: It doesn’t surprise me at all actually, but I find it’s always interesting to see how people answer that question.
I think moral law is analogous to entropy or gravity. They are constant laws that are subject to a variety of criteria. So they are absolute in the sense that they exist and are irrevocable but less than absolute in how they are applied. In other words there are criteria that can be brought to bear that, in nuanced ways, make the universal rules adaptable.
Again, you’re comparing things that cannot be directly compared. One is a physical constant alterable only by the direct action of other physical constants, the other is a creation of society that tends to be altered dependent on the needs of that society.
“But things like philosophy, appreciation of beauty or true abstract thought are testable. We know we do them and, by any measure we currently have, animals do not.”
No, we don’t. As yet, we can’t actually get inside the mind of another species or otherwise directly ask them whether or not they appreciate beauty or have a version of philosopy or poetry. For example, we’ve barely scratched the surface in decoding whalesong – in fact the last I heard we’d only got as far as identifying that dolphins used signature whistles that seem analogous to names for themselves.
We know *we* do these things, but we don’t know whether or not other species do. The example I gave before about apes demonstrating a sense of fairness seems relevant here.
“That theory is untestable in the sense that the one criteria would be that we don’t know it’s going on. However I’m going to work on the assumption that it’s not true.”
Again, that’s a big assumption and a big part of the scientific mindset is to, whenever possible, avoid making assumptions. (Of course, being human a lot of scientists still do, but it’s something we try to avoid.)
You *assume* that they don’t exhibit such behaviours while agreeing we have no way to currently test them. I have no opinion on that particular subject, but on the other hand have provided examples of behaviours we *do* have evidence for them exhibiting.
“How do we know that dogs aren’t secretly running the world letting us think we’re in charge? Maybe it’s all just a clever scheme to get us to pick up their poo as we take them for walks in the park.”
Interestingly enough, it’s currently thought that the first animals to be domesticated were, in fact, cats, and that they more or less domesticated themselves in much the same way as cats today tend to show up and make themselves at home when they find a human who’s willing to feed them.
“Labeling humans “clever animals” doesn’t really change that we are the most significant “animal” on the planet. Even Ian Tattersal, not particularly a friend of Christianity, says that, “…humans are truly distinguished from all other living organisms by our extraordinary cognitive capacities…” That is a pretty important distinction no matter what.”
Important for us. But again, although phrasing it slightly differently, just because we think we’re important, special or favoured doesn’t mean that we are. We’re definately hyper-dominant, but that’s nowhere near the same thing.
“Furthermore I’d of course say that there is a metaphysical side to humans that distinguishes us from animals.
The evidence I would give for that is that humans, right or wrong, are the only creation that has such strong spiritual inclinations. I certainly can’t give you a picture of the soul or give you a voice recording of someone from the afterlife but the fact that humans are universally spiritual is a pretty interesting phenomena. There are a ton of implications from the very existence of spirituality.”
You just know I’m going to repeat what I said above rearding untestability and assumptions, don’t you?
But I won’t, instead I’ll simply ask what your grounds are for making the *assumption* that humans are the only spiritual animals?
I would also question the assertion that humans are universally spiritual. Predominantly, maybe, but not universally.
As for the implications of that spirituality . . .
I’ll get to that later.
Sorry for the absence, but I have been quite busy recently, and was out of town for a good portion of this week.
I am back in town now, and do hope to finish up at least two new posts this week that I have already begun writing.
I figured at least for now, I’d try to respond to the many comments by both moot and uncertain.
—–
moot,
“For the record I think that Rod is right.”
Ok, be honest, how much did it hurt to type that? 😉
“I never particularly agreed with him but until Rod pointed out that Johnson and I were essentially saying the same thing I thought he had an interesting compromise.”
As I said, he does a good job on the surface of SEEMING centrist on the issue, but at it’s very core, he is as much a believer in the creationist ideals as Pat Robertson or anybody else on that side of the discussion.
“Let me re-address the issue of human distinction. The fact that we are different from animals is an important point of discussion.”
I do agree we are different. In fact, we are as different from a chimp (our closest living “relative” evolutionarily), as a cat is from a lion, or a dog from a wolf.
Where I think you and uncertain are not seeing eye-to-eye is on the level of the differences.
Uncertain tries to make the point that all of the things we think of as uniquely human, we see in some form in other animals (empathy, love, language, tool usage, etc).
You try to make the point that even if we use tools and chimps use tools, those tools are so different as to not be comparable.
I think the best way to come to a common ground is to think about how much humanity has changed in the last 6000 year (since even a young earth creationist would agree we did exist 6000 years ago). At this time in history, we were in the late Stone Age and moving into the early Bronze Age in the near future. I do understand that SOME creationists claim that humans never had a “stone age”, that at the time of creation we already somehow knew how to create bronze tools, however that groups is such a small minority that I am not going to humor them, and I will go off the assumption that you accept the conventional wisdom that at some point in history, humanity lived in a way that is commonly known as the “Stone Age”.
If you look at the typical human “society” 6000 years ago the tools, language, and emotions they made/used/expressed are VERY similar in form and function to the tools used by “lesser” animals today.
Now I’m not saying that in another 6000 years chimps will be walking around with laptops wearing a suit and chatting on a cell phone (obviously there were no computers in Planet Of The Apes), but I do think this shows just how close humans are to other animals.
Yes, we have changes much in the last 6000 years socially, but physically and mentally we are still essentially the same as our ancestors of that time.
“First of all the tendency to anthropomorphise animal behavior is great and it’s relatively easy to do.”
And the tendency to anthropomorphize nature has lead to many of the historical ideas of “god” or “gods” throughout human history as well.
I think we all agree it can be taken too far, but the similarities DO exist.
“Furthermore even the 98% (a contested percentage) shared DNA doesn’t mean much.”
Contested by who exactly? We have DNA of humans and DNA of many animals, and when comparing the two, it’s a simple matter of 2nd grade math to find the percentage of similarity.
Are you disputing the findings of the Human Genome Project? Or the basic ideas of DNA? Or EVERY zoologist in the world? Or our ability to do 2nd grade math?
“We’re only 30% different than water”
Actually, you’re simplifying this idea a tad much, and I think we are discussing two very different subjects. We (uncertain and myself) are talking about DNA, while you’re talking about molecules.
“Evidently wrapped up in that two percent is the ability to do countless things apes cannot…”
Again, think back to humanity 6000 years ago, not today. We’re talking on a very broad scale, not the nitty gritty.
“You may not like the implications of those distinctions but the vast differences themselves remain clear and undeniable.”
Apparently a LARGE percentage of those “vast differences” can be overcome with just a 6000 year time frame.
“The response to the question of contraception seems to be a little lacking…”
No system is perfect, although if you look at the big picture things tend to follow certain guidelines. While evolution may direct certain actions or tendencies this does not mean that we are incapable of doing differently. Look at odd examples of things like a full grown gorilla raising a kitten as her own child. Evolutionarily this does not make sense, but we’ve seen this type of thing happen in zoos worldwide.
“Secondly your theory of morality still belies a sense of absolutes.”
You’ve previously tried to use this argument against me as well, and I’d just like to redirect you to my previous responses on how I can condemn the way dissidents are treated in China.
“Do you think that other people should “care about their “actions and the effects they have on the world around them and they take responsibility for their actions.””
Yes
“A lot of people don’t care about how their actions affect themselves, the people around them or take responsibility,”
And a large percentage of these people end up incarcerated.
“is their behavior not as valid or in need of correction to be more in line with yours?”
Their actions do not fall in line with the generally acceptable moral guidelines of modern society.
“I’m just not sure how you can be consist with relativism as your absolute.”
There is no “absolute” at all. You keep trying to push your own idea of absolutes onto others where it is not appropriate.
“How is that position more valid that someone else’s? Even if they come to an opposite conclusion?”
Because society at large generally agrees with the views that uncertain has mentioned, and in a naturalistic world, our morality comes from society.
“Rod you answered the reproduction question by saying that sometimes to ensure reproduction we don’t reproduce.”
Yes, this is one way to ensure reproduction long term at the small expense of raw numbers in the short term.
“Your essentially saying our genes can roughly estimate world population calculations and make reproduction choices despite our not being consciously aware of it”
No I’m not. I’m saying that our genes have predisposed us to do what is in the best interest of our genetic reproduction. We are then able to use our intellect to satisfy our evolutionary objectives.
“We continue to behave in ways that were told is not good for future generations regarding things like the environment but our genes haven’t picked up on things like fossil fuel depletion or global warming?”
You know what is in your best interest I assume, correct? Do you ever speed, even though it increases the risk of you crashing and dying? We don’t always do what is in our best interest, that’s obvious looking at human history.
“Yet they manage to do some relatively complex math?”
No, as I just mentioned, our genes predispose us to take certain actions based on available information at hand.
“Therefore a severely retarded child, an old man or Hitler have the basic human value…
If I were in a situation in which I had to make the choice between a human life and the life of an animal I’d always choose the human.”
So if given a choice between saving the life of a puppy (or kitten if you’re a cat person) and Charles Manson, which one would YOU personally save?
And if you choose the puppy (kitten), please explain how this does not offend god in light of your belief that god imbued us with a basic human value that animals do not have.
“If value is reduced to the materials with which we are constructed the human body is worth about 4 dollars (or about 2 and a half Euros). If that is all we can appeal to in order to illustrate human value then we’re in trouble. So what is it, in your world-view, that makes humans have any value?”
Actually both uncertain and I have stressed that not only are humans valuable, but so are animals. We are not trying to say there is no value to humanity, or life, in fact we’ve said EXACTLY the opposite, that evolutionarily, we value all life.
“Now I’ll certainly grant you that humans as a race can be narcissistic.”
I’d say that one of our greatest acts of narcissism is the fact that we as a species claim to understand so much more than we actually do understand, such as the creation of the universe, the “mind of god”, etc…
“But the tendency to mis-use the power we have comes from the very fact that we have that power.”
So you subscribe to the idea that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What a paradox it must be for somebody who believes in a good, and yet all powerful god.
“We may be irresponsible with our “exceptionalism” but that ability to be irresponsibility rests on the premise that we are “exceptional”.”
It actually relies on our BELIEF in our being exceptional, not in our actually being exceptional.
You as a believer, much more than I, should be eternally humble before your idea of your creator. For a believer to be narcissistic should go against the very idea of belief in a higher power.
“Regardless of what one believes about global warming or nuclear holocaust we are constantly reminded that humans literally have the ability to destroy the planet. That’s a pretty important ability that probably shouldn’t be underestimated.”
Actually, we have the ability to destroy human life on the planet. We do NOT have the power to destroy all life, much less the planet itself.
“Difference may not be the point but it sure illustrates the point well. I’m not sure why you’re bothered by the idea that humans are significant.”
I won’t speak for uncertain, but I for one am not bothered. I do believe we are the dominate species on the planet, but I think that this gives us the responsibility to do all we can to save the other species of the planet, and to be very careful when we may cause harm. It’s a lame thing to quote from comic books, but “with great power comes great responsibility”.
“If you’re afraid that humans thinking they’re superior to all other life will cause us all to randomly club seals and run over squirrels…”
I don’t think any rational person would see this as a reasonable fear. What I personally see as a problem is our history of wiping out species, not purposely, but accidentally as a result of remaining oblivious to the consequences of our actions.
“Wait a second. How can our genes be totally worried about reproduction even to the point of not letting us reproduce if circumstances aren’t favorable but allow us to behave in the way you speak about above?
You can’t really have it both ways. Either our genes aren’t that interested in reproducing or they’re allowing us to destroying the planet. These ideas seem to be mutually exclusive.”
Actually, I have already covered this idea earlier in this reply.
“I do need to read a good book about this stuff.”
I think the best reply to this is to quote you: “For the record I think that Rod is right.”
“The concepts of contraception and world population and providing for one’s family I can follow but seem needlessly convoluted if we haven’t philosophically bought into naturalism”
Actually, if you follow naturalism to it’s logical conclusions, and you accept that the gene is the unit of reproduction (not individual selection or group selection), then evolutions leading to doing what is best for the long term survival of those genes is the expected end result.
“And I’m also saying that human significance gives us value over and above the animals.”
So do you believe that humans are NOT animals?
“We can have philosophical discussion detached from reality but if a pit-bull were attacking a toddler all but the most deranged human would kill the pit-bull in regard for the life of the human.”
Yes, but once again, back to the dilemma of a puppy (kitten) vs. the life of Charles Manson.
“The natural result of your human value system – “We are valid, simply because, we exist, as is all other life.” give us no particular moral validation for choosing the baby over the pit-bull.”
Wow, you REALLY don’t understand evolution do you? Would a mother gorilla choose the life of a leopard over her own child? Of course not, and by your philosophy, god did not imbue the gorilla with any special morality, so how would you explain this idea? For the naturalist, it’s quite, easy; the gorilla would choose it’s own species over another because of evolutionary pressures.
“I realize your response will be that our sense of reproduction and the “Selfish Gene” stuff would compel us to rescue the baby but we have no real moral grounds for doing so.”
There is a moral ground for an atheist, it is just a moral idea created by the society in which we live. But in this case, morality does not NEED to enter the equation, since evolutionary pressures outside of morality would be more than enough to explain this particular situation.
“In fact if a person were to choose to ignore conventional wisdom and rescue the dog and leave the baby to die we’d be horrified but we really have no moral grounds for that emotional response.”
Again, you show your lack of understanding of evolution with statements like these.
If as I have mentioned that we get our morality from society, and this morality has evolved over time, then it is THIS morality which is where we have gotten our “moral grounds for that emotional response”.
“The ability to appreciate art”
Gorillas
“philosophical thought”
None that I know of off hand, but there is doubtless much research into animal behaviors which I do not know about.
“the ability to read or write”
Chimps
“poetry”
Again, no examples come to mind
“the ability to destroy the earth”
As I mentioned previously, we have the ability to wipe out MUCH of life on this planet, but certainly not ALL, and we are FAR from being able to destory the planet. We could speed up global warming to unimaginable proportions, and launch ever nuclear weapon we have, and the planet would not skip a beat (life would go on, and in time all traces of us would be wiped off the face of the earth by wind and water).
“Furthermore, to date, we don’t seem to share the universe with any other intelligent life. That may change with time, but for now we’re working on the assumption that we are the single intelligent life in the entire universe.”
Actually, have you heard of the SETI project? The ENTIRE purpose of this group is to find signals in space from other intelligence in the universe. I don’t think we are working on the assumption that we’re the only intelligent life at all. I think if there is an assumption it is that we are much less likely to “find them” than they are to “find us”.
To assume we are the ONLY planet in the universe with life is QUITE egocentric IMO. There are (by latest estimates) 70*10^21 (70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) stars in the known universe. To assume we are the ONLY one in which life developed is highly naive.
“The explanation you and Rod gave about reproduction seems to imply that evolution can see in the future and discern that it’s primary instinctual behavior would result in a negative end result.”
Actually that is not at ALL what I have said. To clear this up again, what I have said is that evolution directs us to do what is best for the survival of our genes. If there is enough food in an environment to feed 100 animals (or people) and we already have 80 animals, then if we (as a group) have more than 20 children, the chances of survival go down for the ENTIRE group, including our own genes. Due to this, it would be advantageous for my personal genes, as a member of that group, to only have children, if the odds were in favor of my offspring being one of the 20 possible “most fit” children. If I am not one of that sub-group, then as a benefit to my genes passing on (through others in this group with whom I also share genes) I should not have children. “Evolution” does not need to “need to know” the population, or the specific pressures, it only needs to have given me the general rules to follow in my DNA.
“Somehow the instinct to reproduce makes some calculated guesses about the circumstances and decides not to reproduce at all.”
No, the individual makes the decision, based on what evolution has imprinted in the genes.
Your next few paragraphs are continuing this same flawed understanding of evolution, so I won’t bother to respond to each statement, as they are all based on the same flawed interpretation of the subject.
As for the last paragraph in this comment, I’m unsure exactly what it is you were trying to say here, so I’d like further clarification before I try to respond.
“Naturalism by definition is the belief in absolutes.”
Actually naturalism is nothing more, and nothing less than the belief that events are explained by purely naturalistic means. There is nothing in the naturalistic world view which states what those natural means are, and nothing specifically about absolutes either.
“Not that you need my definition of naturalism but it is all about incontrovertible laws.”
Actually, naturalism says nothing about the laws of the universe, just that natural means explain everything. As one example, there are naturalists who do NOT believe in evolution as we understand it today.
“Things like entropy and gravity are constants. Sure there is some variation of the rate of decay or the strength of gravity depending on a variety of factors but these things remain law.”
Actually gravity is NOT a law, it is a theory in the same way that evolution is a theory. We understand much about both, but due to the subject matter, they will NEVER become laws, they will always remain theories forever, just backed up by more and more evidence as time passes.
“Why then could it not be that there are incontrovertible moral laws?”
Because the “source” of those laws in your view is a supernatural source, and evolution is quite well equipped to explain the similarities AND differences that we see in morality throughout different times, and civilizations (unlike religion).
“It doesn’t seem like much of a stretch from absolute physical laws to absolute moral laws.”
We can say with certainty that due to the laws of physics that matter will behave in certain ways under certain circumstances.
We can not say the same of morality in all cases. For there to be a “universal” morality as you insist, there MUST be a supernatural aspect, which naturalism rejects, and there must be a way to explain the differences in morality across different civilizations and different times, which your idea of an absolute morality are unable to explain.
“Why then would you be surprised or wonder why it would “bother” me if humans weren’t “exceptional” if we’re essentially programmed to feel that way?”
We are “programmed” to spread our genes, and this accounts for the laughable “pit-bull/toddler” example you gave, but would it also account for the “puppy/Charles Manson” example I gave?
Also, for myself, I’d say that it’s one thing to value human life over other animals, it’s another to assist in wiping out species due to human arrogance. I have no problem at all with saving the life of a toddler over a pit-bull, where I have a problem is drawing the absolute that ALL humans are more valuable than ALL animals, and that we have no responsibility to “watch out” for other animals as best we can.
“I think moral law is analogous to entropy or gravity. They are constant laws that are subject to a variety of criteria.”
Actually, once again, I’ll point out that gravity is NOT a law, and that there is in fact MUCH we do not understand about gravity even today.
“So they are absolute in the sense that they exist and are irrevocable but less than absolute in how they are applied.”
So if in your mind killing is one of those things which is ALWAYS morally wrong, how would you justify murder to save the life of another?
“In other words there are criteria that can be brought to bear that, in nuanced ways, make the universal rules adaptable.”
And here is one of my BIGGEST problems with religion. Each religion claims that IT, and IT alone, understands these criteria, and when certain moral ideas are able to be ignored (on issues such as slavery, women’s rights, homosexuality, death penalty, etc).
“I were to say that it was wrong to kill, period. Then I would be left without recourse in the event of defending my family…”
But we are not talking about YOU saying killing is wrong, we are talking about “god” saying it is wrong. If god exists, and “he” says “don’t do this”, then who are we as his mere creations to say it’s ok under SOME circumstances. Read the 10 commandments again, it’s “thou shall not kill”, not “thou shall not kill, unless …”
If we get our ABSOLUT morality from god, then it is by definition ABSOLUT, there is no way to EVER change it. This means eating shellfish is STILL an offense worthy of sending you to hell, just like it was in the Old Testament. Jesus is UNABLE to change an absolute if it existed.
“Society tends to be a barometer sometimes reflecting and sometimes influencing those nuances.”
Societal morality, what a novel concept.
“But the absolute concepts behind the laws remain the same. The differences are the circumstances and application but not the sense that this law is valid.”
Tell me, as a christian, how do you condemn slavery? It is acceptable in both the Old and New Testaments, so it’s obviously not part of god’s absolute moral laws. And yet MOST civilized people in the world today would readily agree that it’s one of the most barbaric practices in human history.
“I’m sure our criteria for that answer will differ. In fact, I think I’ve given you some valid answers that you dismissed by saying they’re untestable. But things like philosophy, appreciation of beauty or true abstract thought are testable. We know we do them and, by any measure we currently have, animals do not.”
Do you believe that we will at some point in the future create true artificial intelligence? If so, then at what point does this artificial intelligence counteract all of your “issues” you raise with the “other” animals?
Or what if at some point we discover other intelligent life in the universe? Would you then have to re-evaluate your preconceptions?
“You sort of evade the issue with the untestable charge.”
God as an abstract idea is inherently untestable, and in many of the specifics has been made untestable by believers. I can NEVER disprove god creating the energy which became the big bang, and setting up the laws of the universe, just as I can never disprove god “guiding” evolution, because by the criteria believers have given to these things, any evidence, whether supporting this idea or not, have been described as “part of god’s plan” by those who follow these belief systems.
Things such as evolution and gravity CAN be tested, and have been many times. And each time a test is performed there is the very real possibility that it could thoroughly disprove the theory, and scientists would need to rethink all of their previous ideas on the way things work.
“Even Christianity doesn’t completely object to the idea that were a really smart and significant animal, at least not in my view.”
Hell the catholic church came out recently and stated that intelligent life elsewhere in the universe should NOT bother christians (the church’s position is that being unwilling to accept life on other planets would be “limiting” god’s power, and that christians should never presume to limit god in any way).
“Labeling humans “clever animals” doesn’t really change that we are the most significant “animal” on the planet.”
I’m not sure how you define significance in this instance, but I think that we as a species tend to get quite carried away with this idea, and allow it to cloud our judgment in many instances.
“Furthermore I’d of course say that there is a metaphysical side to humans that distinguishes us from animals.”
This goes without saying that you would believe this, since it is, at it’s core, the very fact we’ve been debating here for a while now.
“The evidence I would give for that is that humans, right or wrong, are the only creation that has such strong spiritual inclinations.”
I’d argue against the word “creation”, but I do agree we’re PROBABLY the only animal that shows spirituality.
However, we also universally show arrogance, a tendency towards war, and the inclination towards mass genocide. Do these unique aspects of our species show you god’s grand design as well?
“the fact that humans are universally spiritual is a pretty interesting phenomena.”
“Universal” is a very strong word to use here. Essentially it means: in every instance, without exception. I’d say that based on recent data roughly 4% of the world human population are a vocal “exception” to this universal idea of which you speak. Do these 4% also help bolster your claims (if so, in what way is that possible)?
The problem with absolutes and universal ideas is that when exceptions show up they leave you nowhere to go in your belief system.
“There are a ton of implications from the very existence of spirituality.”
If spirituality is a product of evolution, as proposed by Dennett and many others, then the only implication is the need to overcome our instincts on behalf of our continued survival.
One last thing I would like to mention is that there is a VAST difference between saying humans are the most intelligent species on the planet, and making the claim that humans are somehow inherently “special” on a universal or spiritual level.
It is views like this that lead to the idea that anything we do to the planet is acceptable, as long as it benefits humanity.
—–
uncertainhope,
“The point, however, remains that there are far more and greater similarities between us and the other species on this planet than there are differences.”
Not to be critical, but if I was you, I’d focus on the changes in humanity over the last 6000 years, as I did above. The technological changes we’ve gone through in such a short time span (relatively speaking) have been such that the similarities can be easily overlooked by those who do not look at the big picture.
“It’s also worth pointing out that most of the arguments against animals being just as valid as humans have been employed against various groups of humans in the past:- women, children, the handicapped, members of different races.”
This is actually a VERY good point, and one that I had not really thought of too much previously, but I do agree that it does a tremendous job showing the potential impact of the idea of human superiority.
It’s just a shame that you did not attempt to bring it one step further (ala Ben Stein), and use it to compare those who believe in human superiority with the Nazis.
“no more than I hope you are afraid all us godless moral-less types will rape and pillage our way across the world”
Well I guess MY plans for tomorrow have been cancelled, damn.
Rodibidaly, good to have you back. While you were gone I convinced Uncertain of the error of his agnostic ways and now we’re starting a prayer ministry to declare holy war on god-less atheists like you. 🙂
We’ll not quite but we have been having a pretty good discussion. I’m not sure where to start responding to your post you really covered pretty much everything.
I can’t agree with your assessment of 6000 years ago at all. If you had seen the movie 10,000 BC you’d know that our ancestors all spoke with British accents and had perfect teeth.
I’m kidding of course but If I do understand what I’m reading correctly 10,000 BC was the Mesolithic Period and there were all sorts of things we don’t see in animals, like agriculture and pottery. There’s even evidence that they made beer according to Wikipedia.
However your points doesn’t essentially change even if we push the date back another 4,000 years. You’re saying that the similarities were a lot more evident thousands of year ago than they are now. So our relatively close relationship is just more obscure now.
I’m saying that if you define it broadly enough of course you’ll find similarities but that’s not a fair representation of the difference. A geneticist may say that chimps use tools and humans use tools so we’re essentially the same. That’s a little misleading. We have cars, cell phones and laptops, chimps have rocks and, according to Uncertain, rudimentary spears.
Whatever the history of the human race, currently we are significantly different.
I think the discussion needs to define “significance”. I’m simply using significance as my basis for morality. Uncertain seemed to take issue with that. But I still think intrinsic human worth is a good moral foundation.
We find that through history man has not always been very altruistic, these failures such as slavery and genocide seem to have stemmed from forgetting the intrinsic human value that reside within all man. And restoring the balance came when we once again recognized that value. It seems that the distance between human value and morality is shorter and straighter than between morality and human reproduction.
-As to the genetic difference my information comes from Francis Collins. He directed the Human Genome Project. If there’s an expert on genetics he’d be the guy. Let me quote.
“Using a computer, one can pick a certain stretch of human DNA and assess whether there is a similar sequence in some other species. If one picks the coding region of a human gene and uses that for a search, there will nearly always be a highly significant match to the genomes of other mammals. Many will show discernible matches to fish or simpler organisms such as fruit flies and roundworms. In some particularly striking examples, the similarity will extend all the way down to genes in yeast and bacteria.”
I think the excitement about point out the 98% similarity from chimps and humans seems exciting because we can anthropomorphise chimps because they seem to look more like us that yeast or roundworms. I’m just saying it doesn’t mean all that much. We have a lot in common with every piece of creation. Which I don’t find a huge shock if we all have the same creator and we’re all made from the same basic materials. But our value doesn’t come from how similar or dissimilar we are nor does it come from basic material of which we are composed. So pointing out these sorts of similarities doesn’t lessen the idea that we are significant, they simply are evidence of it.
However I think the danger in denying human significance leaves us more philosophically able to justify things that are wrong. Humans may be biologically wired to behavior certain ways but they’ve shown a certain tendency to frequently “cheat”. We are certainly creature who feel like we often require philosophical justification for our behaviors. So something that leaves us more philosophically capable of doing wrong seem inherently dangerous.
I realize the irony of my above paragraph. These are some of the objections you’ve leveled at religion. But we essentially have the same problem. Some religions may leave people in a the philosophical position that causes them to behave in destructive ways. All I’m saying is that philosophical naturalism has a similar problem. I completely realize you won’t agree with that, but there it is.
-I won’t rehash the reproduction/morality issues. Suffice it to say that from my position it seems like you have to employ some needlessly complex explanations to explain the way people really behave. I think a simpler explanation is the one I offer but I realize that this is something about which we don’t agree. By the way, an important piece of your argument is accepting the gene as the unit of selection instead of the group. I’m not sure (and I could be wrong) but I haven’t seen a consensus on that particular point within the scientific community.
-The hypothetical about Manson and the kitten. I still think you have to go with Manson. If you start undermining the value of human life, on any level, it becomes a slippery slope. I think we’d agree that once you choose a cat over an evil person then you get into the needless gray area of “how evil” vs. “how cute”. I’m not sure exactly how to explain this but even the idea of the death penalty, often practiced by theists and atheists alike, ironically comes from the idea of the value of human life.
-What I meant by naturalism and absolutes is this. We find rules, we mess around with those rules and we expect those rules to apply the same way in a variety of situations. We use mathematics is almost every scientific field. We expect 2 plus 2 to almost always equal four. That’s what makes it so useful. If 2 and 2 only made four in biology but not astronomy it would be much of a rule. In this way naturalism expects absolutes.
We don’t know why the speed of light is a constant but we base our conclusion using the law of the constant speed of light as an absolute. We discover the age of a specific fossil because we assume the rate of radioactive decay will be a constant rather than fluctuate over the course of history.
We don’t always know why these absolute laws are absolute but they are and that’s how we come up with ideas and theories.
Naturalism expects absolutes in regards to the rules that nature will apply to itself. By the way naturalism doesn’t “reject the supernatural” it just doesn’t make any claims about that which is out of it’s realm of expertise. Naturalist philosophy, a religion that you and Uncertain practice (I know you’ll hate that last sentence) is something that rejects the supernatural.
By the way, I thought I’d explained how there can be a universal morality and still find “relatively minor” differences in various cultures. Despite your saying so that is a really easy position to defend from the “absolutes standpoint”. But I’ve already done that in previous posts. I’ll do it again if you need me to, just let me know.
Finally, the more I think about the more I think the term absolutes is misleading. Maybe the term “moral truth” would better fit what I’m trying to describe. When I say absolute morality I mean that things like human life, stealing or slavery are always issue that are either right or wrong. Society can obscure the truth of these things but can’t change the truth of these things.
Now just because there is an “absolute” doesn’t mean that there aren’t nuances to how it’s applied. So, in my world-view, the fact that human life is supremely valuable is an absolute. How we apply that fact morally will change, to some degree, with culture but it will never stop being a huge consideration in morality.
Uncertain, I think I answered some of your objections here but I’ll check your post and try to respond more directly soon. By the way, I curious to hear your “implications of (human) spirituality” that you said you’d get to later.
Pingback: Logical Fallacies (and other Debate “Tactics” & Issues) « Rodibidably
Rod,
What patterns do you see emerging? Seeing that I’m the primary dissenting debater I’m assuming that you believe I’m guilty of these logical fallacies you’re posting about. If you don’t mind taking a moment could you point a few of them out to me?
Okay, this *will* be quick because I’m not feeling that well today.
“Suffice it to say that from my position it seems like you have to employ some needlessly complex explanations to explain the way people really behave. I think a simpler explanation is the one I offer but I realize that this is something about which we don’t agree. By the way, an important piece of your argument is accepting the gene as the unit of selection instead of the group. I’m not sure (and I could be wrong) but I haven’t seen a consensus on that particular point within the scientific community.”
And this is why you need to find a good book on this subject (I wish I could think of one off the top of my head, but I can’t, I’m afraid), because the concepts are, at their root *very* simple indeed.
As for gene vs group as the unit of selection:- yes and no, as evolutionary principles guide both.
Or, actually, to put it another way, *economic* principles guide the development of both.
“Naturalism expects absolutes in regards to the rules that nature will apply to itself. By the way naturalism doesn’t “reject the supernatural” it just doesn’t make any claims about that which is out of it’s realm of expertise. Naturalist philosophy, a religion that you and Uncertain practice (I know you’ll hate that last sentence) is something that rejects the supernatural.”
Actually, it doesn’t. What it does reject is that for which there is little or no evidence. I may have feelings about such things, but “It doesn’t matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove!” (Great film, that)
As to identifying the method or philosophy that Rod and I practice as a religion . . . I would say in any religion, for it to be qualified as such there must be an element of worship and that is clearly lacking.
Then again, I will allow that methods and philosophies can (and have) become religions over time.
Or rather, one of the things that matters is that I honestly acknowledge the degree to which I can know or demonstrate something to be true.
Society can obscure the truth of these things but can’t change the truth of these things.
And what makes you say that, other than *your* own moral construct? What evidence is there to seperate the two?
“Now just because there is an “absolute” doesn’t mean that there aren’t nuances to how it’s applied. So, in my world-view, the fact that human life is supremely valuable is an absolute. How we apply that fact morally will change, to some degree, with culture but it will never stop being a huge consideration in morality.”
But again, that doesn’t address our value to the universe as a whole, but only to ourselves as a species.
As to the spirituality question, you’ve yet to say why you assume that man is the only spiritual animal. Nor have you addressed the flaw in comparing physical constants to a socially created construct in your argument. Or Rod’s question of whether or not you believe we are an animal. I think there are other points as well that you’ve missed and I await your response with interest.
As to (human) spirituality:-
One of the things that the brain does very well is pattern-matching, in fact it does it so well we can even see patterns and order where there is none (astrology, clouds, magic eye pictures (kidding)), we also use narritives in our own minds to give meaning to our lives and to help us understand the world around us (read Karen Armstrong’s excellent ‘A History of Myth’ for more on this).
Now, add that to the fact that if you seriously try to imagine a universe without your mind in it in some shape or form, you really can’t, (It’s worse than that Zen koan about the sound of one hand clapping) then you’ve got a creature that tells itself stories to explain the world as well as it can (considering its own frame of reference) and takes a stab at explaining why when it dies it doesn’t really die.
Now, considering all that I’d postulate that the following behaviours would have to be present for any animal to have a sense of spirituality (however crude):
basic reasoning abilities
the ability to understand abstract concepts or symbols
an inner emotional life
(Including, but not limited to: fear, curiosity, and compassion)
a sense of self
Now, all of these behaviours have been demonstrated, to a greater or lesser extent in other species besides ourselves. Now I’m not saying that animals (all or any) do have a spiritual life, but based on the above and on the other human behaviours we’ve listed in the animal kingdom, it seems foolish to discount the possibility.
Let me try to deal first with the things about which I’ve not responded.
-Man being the only spiritual being.
Man seems to be the only being that experiences and attempts to find a framework to express spiritual concepts. Indeed, by any measure we now posses, we’re the only creatures that behave in ways that are a direct result of believing in a higher power.
Man is almost universally spiritual. I think Rod gave a figure of 4 percent of the worlds population being non-spiritual but I’d say the 96% still qualifies as “almost” universal. Essentially every culture has developed a framework of supernatural belief even if individual within that culture have rejected it.
While I suppose there are a variety of ways animals could express spiritual belief about which we’re currently unaware the regular trappings of spiritualism don’t seem to exist outside of the human species. Things like ceremonies that have no other purpose than to appeal to or appease gods, places or buildings constructed for the sole purpose of spiritual practice and any sort of recognizable spiritual traditions that are passed from one generation to the other. You said that religion entails worship of some sort, I don’t think that we see worship of any sort in the animal kingdom.
It seems a little ridiculous to argue this. I understand your point that we simply may not be able yet to detect spiritual behavior in animals but there’s currently no reason to expect or even search for that behavior. Even Rod agrees with me on this one with a qualified “we’re probably the only animal that experiences spirituality.”
The overall point is that this would be one of the ways humans are unique and distinct. I know Rod has provided a natural explanation for the evolution of religion so this isn’t a silver bullet or anything, it’s just an answer to your question of ways humans are substantially different from other forms of life.
It’s not foolish at all to discount the possibility of animal spirituality at all. There are a number of things about animals that we all discount the possibility of without being absolutely sure. It’s like the superhero who is invisible but only when nobody is looking. Maybe animals do many extraordinary things but only can do them when we’re not paying attention.
-The issue of comparing physical constants to socially created constants.
We’ll comparing morality to entropy was more for the sake of illustration. But I still remain unconvinced that it’s out of the boundaries of methodological naturalism to allow of the existence of moral laws just like it allows for the existence of physical laws.
Let me again admit my ignorance on this subject. I realize that my lack of understanding is a constant source of frustration to you and Rod. So I’ll make this comment and then I’ll leave this particular subject alone until I get a better grasp on it.
Here we go… Let me try to come at it from your point of view. If nature can, without explaining the origin of physical laws, generate those laws to which the universe must conform, why is it a stretch to think that there are certain moral laws that are naturally generated to which those who have the ability to grasp might conform also. In other words, why is it impossible for naturalism to have generated moral laws that the involved intellect of humans are discovering?
It just seems that there would be a way to get from philosophical naturalism to moral law without injecting God but I could be wrong.
I certainly realize the objection. I personally agree with what Rod said a post or so ago that for there to be a “moral law” it would (in both our minds)necessitate the supernatural. The self-evident existence of Moral Law has converted more than one atheist or agnostic. But my overall point was to say that the existence of Moral Law would have to necessarily be philosophically a huge challenge to the non-believer.
But this line of reasoning doesn’t do much to further my overall point about God existing, so I don’t mind dropping it at all.
-Do I believe we’re an animal?
Well, I have addressed this but I’m probably too wordy in my replies.
This all depends on how broadly you define the terms we’re using. Yes in one sense we’re animals, we’ve got a lot in common with other parts of creation including certain sections of our DNA strands. We’re all carbon-based life forms, so yeah, we’re animals.
But as you began to define the concepts of humanness more specifically then our differences are so great that they defy comparison. The human complexity of the list you gave in your previous post in comparison with any animal is absolutely light-years apart. You got a little offended when I compared hitting a coconut with a rock and a laptop but that’s still the comparison.
There is not solid definition of what it means to be a human in regard to being distinct from animals. But no one really debates that humans are significantly distinct we just debate why we’re significantly distinct. And we debate about what those distinctions mean in regard to understanding ourselves, the animal life around us and how we behave.
So, to answer your question, yes and no.
-Finally, I get so wrapped up in exploring certain trains of thought that I’m sure I forget to tie up certain lose ends. Maybe you could point out some of the other questions I’ve not addressed. I’m be happy to tackle them from a theistic point of view for you.
Another quick reply:-
“Man seems to be the only being that experiences and attempts to find a framework to express spiritual concepts. Indeed, by any measure we now posses, we’re the only creatures that behave in ways that are a direct result of believing in a higher power.”
Again, another unverifiable assumption. We can’t know *what*, if anything, other animals believe. We can observe what they do and the behaviours they exhibit, but we can’t know what they believe.
“Man is almost universally spiritual. I think Rod gave a figure of 4 percent of the worlds population being non-spiritual but I’d say the 96% still qualifies as “almost” universal. Essentially every culture has developed a framework of supernatural belief even if individual within that culture have rejected it.”
I explained that in my last post, and thinking about it more I’d revise that 4% of non-spiritual people heavily upwards maybe to between 33.3% and maybe as high as 50%. Think about it, how many people, even among the nominally religious and church-going communities just go because it’s what’s done and give it no further thought considering it utterly irrelevant to ‘real life’.
“You said that religion entails worship of some sort, I don’t think that we see worship of any sort in the animal kingdom.”
At the risk of anthropomorphising animal behaviours, two examples that *could* contain a worshipful component are wolf-howls and whalesong, both contain elements that we are far from understanding. And regarding whalesong, the complexities there are so great that the sheer amount of data they could contain is staggering.
The overall point is that this would be one of the ways humans are unique and distinct. I know Rod has provided a natural explanation for the evolution of religion so this isn’t a silver bullet or anything, it’s just an answer to your question of ways humans are substantially different from other forms of life.”
I’ve answered that too, as well as providing an explanation of why I believe it’s a dubious assumption that it’s a behaviour unique to humans. An explanation that, so far, you haven’t commented on.
“It’s not foolish at all to discount the possibility of animal spirituality at all. There are a number of things about animals that we all discount the possibility of without being absolutely sure. It’s like the superhero who is invisible but only when nobody is looking. Maybe animals do many extraordinary things but only can do them when we’re not paying attention.”
Or, more likely, we’re not understanding what we’re seeing because of our own assumptions. The more we study other animals the more behaviours we seem to have in common. And, for those animals who are closer to us in structure and genetics, it does seem illogical to discount such a possibility without evidence and when they exhibit behaviours that could form part of a kind of spirituality.
“why is it a stretch to think that there are certain moral laws that are naturally generated to which those who have the ability to grasp might conform also. In other words, why is it impossible for naturalism to have generated moral laws that the involved intellect of humans are discovering?
It just seems that there would be a way to get from philosophical naturalism to moral law without injecting God but I could be wrong.
I certainly realize the objection. I personally agree with what Rod said a post or so ago that for there to be a “moral law” it would (in both our minds)necessitate the supernatural. The self-evident existence of Moral Law has converted more than one atheist or agnostic. But my overall point was to say that the existence of Moral Law would have to necessarily be philosophically a huge challenge to the non-believer.”
Again, the existence of a universal moral law is far from self-evident and is therefore far from a huge challenge to the non-believer. For myself, I see no evidence whatsoever that morality (orother similar social constructs, for that matter) exist anywhere other than in our minds and a socially evolved morality fits and explains the observed behaviours of humanity far better than a universal morality does. In fact, it just seems another way to claim moral superiority over others.
“This all depends on how broadly you define the terms we’re using. Yes in one sense we’re animals, we’ve got a lot in common with other parts of creation including certain sections of our DNA strands. We’re all carbon-based life forms, so yeah, we’re animals.”
In every sense, we’re animals.
“But as you began to define the concepts of humanness more specifically then our differences are so great that they defy comparison. The human complexity of the list you gave in your previous post in comparison with any animal is absolutely light-years apart. You got a little offended when I compared hitting a coconut with a rock and a laptop but that’s still the comparison.”
Does that mean an infant is less human than an adult? I’m sorry, but to my mind the only way to define the concept of humanness is in terms of species.
Again, so we’re more clever, by our measures, but still animals. So far nothing at all to suggest we aren’t. Go back far enough and we’re nothing more than a group of clever apes who survived because the smart ones were better able to survive to mate and rear offspring because they were able to use their brains to compensate for the fact that, relative to the animals we were competing with, we were small, slow and weak with *very* dull senses. And nothing at all to suggest that our cleverness means we have any greater value to the universe than a cockroach does.
“-Finally, I get so wrapped up in exploring certain trains of thought that I’m sure I forget to tie up certain lose ends. Maybe you could point out some of the other questions I’ve not addressed. I’m be happy to tackle them from a theistic point of view for you.”
I’m afraid I’ll have to leave that to Rod as I’m a bit rushed this morning.
Pingback: Quote of the moment « Rodibidably
moot,
I’ve read the discussion with yourself and uncertain. Some very good points on both sides I think, although I tend to agree with uncertain more then you (not that you’d be surprised).
I would like to make one last point about the intelligence of animals, which is a “funny” quote from Carl Sagan:
“It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English — up to fifty words used in correct context — no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese.”
Obviously this does not mean animals are smarter than humans, but I do think it helps to show (along with a large amount of other evidence) that animals are more intelligent than we typically give them credit for.
“I’m kidding of course but If I do understand what I’m reading correctly 10,000 BC was the Mesolithic Period and there were all sorts of things we don’t see in animals, like agriculture and pottery. There’s even evidence that they made beer according to Wikipedia.”
My point was not that we were identical to other animals 6000 years ago, just that MOST of your examples were not applicable during this time frame.
Yes, even then we were already different than other animals, but that at this time we were VERY
close in most aspects then.
The tools we used at this time were not much different than those used by animals today. If you think about how far we have come in the last 6000 years, the differences between us now, and us then are MUCH larger than us then, and animals now.
As for agriculture being unique, this has been seen in ants actually; although I’m unsure of any other examples in the animal world.
“I’m saying that if you define it broadly enough of course you’ll find similarities but that’s not a fair representation of the difference.”
Again, just to be clear, my point is this:
Humans today have more differences with humans 6000 years ago, then humans 6000 years ago have with animals today.
I am not trying to imply that in another 6000 or even 20000 years that we’ll be having a conversation with our dogs and cats, just that that differences between humans and other animals is not as vast as you may think.
“I think the discussion needs to define “significance”. I’m simply using significance as my basis for morality. Uncertain seemed to take issue with that. But I still think intrinsic human worth is a good moral foundation.”
I thought god was your basis for morality, not human “significance”.
If we can agree that god created ALL animals (for the sake of argument), and we can agree that it’s possible for humanity to misinterpret god’s will (I believe you’ve conceded this many times already) then it’s POSSIBLE that animals are closer to humans in god’s view than you want to believe.
Obviously from my perspective, we are nothing more (or less) than a “cousin” to chimps and the other great apes, so I would say that we are just an animal that made a drastic evolutionary leap in intelligence.
“We find that through history man has not always been very altruistic, these failures such as slavery and genocide seem to have stemmed from forgetting the intrinsic human value that reside within all man.”
I’d say that’s an understatement, but…
“And restoring the balance came when we once again recognized that value. It seems that the distance between human value and morality is shorter and straighter than between morality and human reproduction.”
According to most evangelicals today, we are MUCH further from “god’s will” today than we were as a society 50 – 200 years ago. Obviously this may not be YOUR personal view, but you must acknowledge that the most vocal people on “your” side of the religion debate, see current society as being MUCH further away from a biblical ideal than it was in the past, and we’re “falling” further away all the time.
Assuming you can agree with this (and if not, I’d be happy to give specific examples such as our “acceptance” of homosexuality, etc), then how is it that we’re FURTHER away from god’s ideal today, and yet during the time they feel is more in line with god’s vision, we were accepting of sexism, racism, and slavery?
Re: the Francis Collins quote, I don’t see how this quote goes against the idea that we are 98% (and that’s a low estimate) similar to chimps. If anything, I’d say that he is claiming that the genetic similarity is expected, and he does not seem to hold a position as to it’s validity or lack of validity.
“So pointing out these sorts of similarities doesn’t lessen the idea that we are significant, they simply are evidence of it.”
If the similarities don’t take away in your view, then why have you spent at least 3 or more posts trying to give examples of the differences? Why not just accept the similarities, and say they don’t matter because god made us special? If the similarities are irrelevant in your view, I don’t understand the “need” to attempt (not very successfully in my mind, but that’s another issue) to discredit the similarities.
“However I think the danger in denying human significance leaves us more philosophically able to justify things that are wrong.”
I don’t deny that we are a VERY advanced animal, I just state that we are still, “just” an animal.
“Humans may be biologically wired to behavior certain ways”
If you believe that we were created by god, how do you explain the “biological wiring”? If we have true free will, then god would not predispose us to certain actions, correct?
“but they’ve shown a certain tendency to frequently “cheat”.”
Yes, this is true, as I’ve gone into a number of times.
“We are certainly creature who feel like we often require philosophical justification for our behaviors.”
We do tend to want to justify our actions, and one point I have made M<ANY times, is that we use god / religion / faith AS that justification.
“So something that leaves us more philosophically capable of doing wrong seem inherently dangerous.”
I’m unsure of what you’re trying to refer here? Genetics? Evolutionary pressures? Naturalism?
Naturalism says nothing about what we SHOULD do, it only speaks about how we got to where we are, and what is possible. Our social morality tells us about what we should do.
“I realize the irony of my above paragraph. These are some of the objections you’ve leveled at religion.”
Yup. Double yup.
“But we essentially have the same problem. Some religions may leave people in a the philosophical position that causes them to behave in destructive ways.”
I’d say ALL religions lead to this, since at their very nature religions are not to be questioned, and allow for the ultimate justification for ANY action.
“All I’m saying is that philosophical naturalism has a similar problem. I completely realize you won’t agree with that, but there it is.
I don’t understand how you think naturalism has an effect on our actions?
“Suffice it to say that from my position it seems like you have to employ some needlessly complex explanations to explain the way people really behave.”
Which part of the explanation do you find convoluted, or do you not understand? Perhaps this has to do more with my explanation than the underlying concepts.
“I think a simpler explanation is the one I offer but I realize that this is something about which we don’t agree.”
I’d argue that any explanation that brings in the supernatural is already by definition more complex than any explanation that is purely natural.
“By the way, an important piece of your argument is accepting the gene as the unit of selection instead of the group. I’m not sure (and I could be wrong) but I haven’t seen a consensus on that particular point within the scientific community.”
There are very few people left who accept the idea of group selection as the true unit of selection.
Dawkins may take the idea of gene selection further than some, but the underlying idea of group selection has very little (if any) credible scientific acceptance these days. The true alternative these days is more about gene vs individual (not group) selection.
The point that Dawkins, and others who follow the idea of gene selection, make is that gene selection is that genes use the individual as a vehicle, and work together with other genes inside that vehicle
in what appears to be individual selection.
If you have specific examples of people who disagree with the idea of the gene as the unit of selection (and who do accept evolution) then I’d be interested in reading their ideas.
“The hypothetical about Manson and the kitten. I still think you have to go with Manson.”
You’d save the life of Charles Manson? I actually find that quite interesting. I would guess you’re fairly unique among the “faithful”. Obviously in the US we are in favor of the death penalty (which I personally oppose), and we are a country that is run, primarily, by christian conservatives.
“What I meant by naturalism and absolutes is this. We find rules, we mess around with those rules and we expect those rules to apply the same way in a variety of situations. We use mathematics is almost every scientific field. We expect 2 plus 2 to almost always equal four. That’s what makes it so useful. If 2 and 2 only made four in biology but not astronomy it would be much of a rule. In this way naturalism expects absolutes.”
I would say that science expects absolutes, and naturalism, in large part, is based on the best scientific evidence available.
If I shuffle a deck of cards 100 times, and sometimes those cards shuffle like expected, and sometimes they don’t shuffle at all, and sometimes they turn into a rubber chicken, it’s going to cause havoc in my life.
If the laws of the universe did not remain consistent, odds are that life would never have been able to happen.
“We don’t know why the speed of light is a constant but we base our conclusion using the law of the constant speed of light as an absolute.”
Actually many people have ideas on not only the cause, but the reason (http://www.vttoth.com/LIGHT/light.htm for one example).
“We discover the age of a specific fossil because we assume the rate of radioactive decay will be a constant rather than fluctuate over the course of history.”
If you do actually believe this, then you MUST be an old earth creationist, correct?
So have humans existed for the 4.7 billion years the earth has existed? Or did god, at some point in history, step and in and create us after millions (billions) of years had passed?
“We don’t always know why these absolute laws are absolute but they are and that’s how we come up with ideas and theories…
“Naturalism expects absolutes in regards to the rules that nature will apply to itself.”
These are true.
“By the way naturalism doesn’t “reject the supernatural” it just doesn’t make any claims about that which is out of it’s realm of expertise.”
This would depend on who you ask I’d think. At its very core, naturalism says that anything that can interact with the universe in any way can be measured and understood (maybe not today, but at some point in the future), and must obey the laws of physics. Anything that does not SEEM to obey the laws of the universe is something we don’t currently understand correctly, and does in fact have a natural explanation.
“Naturalist philosophy, a religion that you and Uncertain practice (I know you’ll hate that last sentence) is something that rejects the supernatural.”
A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term “religion” refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
Naturalism does not fit in the definition of a religion.
Unless of course you want to say that somebody can have multiple religions at the same time (there are christians who are ALSO naturalists), and therefore any belief at all (or lack of belief) is by this definition a religion. In this case the very word religion becomes synonymous with belief, and loses all of its current meaning.
“By the way, I thought I’d explained how there can be a universal morality and still find “relatively minor” differences in various cultures.”
Slavery, sexism, racism, cannibalism, acceptance of state sponsored murder, etc are HARDLY “relatively minor” differences.
“When I say absolute morality I mean that things like human life, stealing or slavery are always issue that are either right or wrong.”
Then why does god never openly, unambiguously, and emphatically CONDEMN slavery? Reading the bible, god seems MUCH more concerned with who you have sex with, what you eat, and what days of the week you work than he does slavery, which today is considered to be one of the most deplorable (if not THE most deplorable) action ever taken by mankind.
“So, in my world-view, the fact that human life is supremely valuable is an absolute. How we apply that fact morally will change, to some degree, with culture but it will never stop being a huge consideration in morality.”
In your understanding, is killing somebody allowed under the “rules” of god’s morality?
If so, under what circumstances, and how does this NOT break the 10 commandments and/or the “golden rule”?
“What patterns do you see emerging?”
Some of the patterns are overall among all believers, not just you.
THE primary one in my view is something that I am just as guilty of as others, and that is the idea of premises and assumptions. I have tried in most cases to cover my bases by saying things like “going off the assumption…”, but I certainly have my own preconceived ideas that I have let slip into some of the arguments, and had to clear up misconceptions caused by these.
The next one that I have often found prevalent among believers is the idea of Lateral Arguments, and this is the one I have noticed you specifically be “guilty” of more than others (although that is due to the length of time, and the number of posts you’ve been involved with).
Basically what happens is that you make a specific point, and then either I or uncertain (or both) counter your “point”, and you move on without acknowledging the counter argument.
One recent example of this would be your “point” that we have the ability to destroy the world.
Perhaps I misunderstand your “point”, but I took this to mean (essentially): “look how powerful we are, we can destroy a planet by war or just by pollution”.
I mentioned in my (super long) reply that in fact, we can destroy a whole lot of life, but we could NEVER destroy ALL life on the earth, much less the earth itself.
I have not (yet) read below this reply, but as this is the second post by you since I made my counter, and you have (seemingly) ignored this, it tends to detract from your overall debate. I am not trying to be critical, because I am enjoying this debate, and I find you to be a very good “opponent”, I’m just pointing out one thing specifically I’ve noticed you do numerous times.
I’m sure I have been guilty of this as well, although I have specifically tried to respond to every “point” made by ever commenter in this thread.
The Logical Fallacies post was actually one I had been planning since before I had even written THIS post, and there is at least one more (probably two more) follow-ups to come in the next week or so.
I actually have 6 websites open in my browser right now about logical fallacies to help me finish writing up the rest of my post (as you MAY have noticed, I tend to get a bit wordy at times).
“Let me try to deal first with the things about which I’ve not responded.”
LMAO, just after I say this is the thing you’re most guilty of, the next line from you I read is this. That’s kinda funny.
However, I still maintain that you have a habit of making a point, and (not always, but often enough) ignoring the counter point, and moving on to another topic/point.
“Man seems to be the only being that experiences and attempts to find a framework to express spiritual concepts. Indeed, by any measure we now posses, we’re the only creatures that behave in ways that are a direct result of believing in a higher power.”
And yet god created ALL of the creatures, not just man. Sucks that my poor dog is going to hell, but at least I’ll be there with her. 🙂
Also, if you do believe the bible, then mankind was not even the first creature to worship god, the angels were.
“Man is almost universally spiritual. I think Rod gave a figure of 4 percent of the worlds population being non-spiritual but I’d say the 96% still qualifies as “almost” universal. Essentially every culture has developed a framework of supernatural belief even if individual within that culture have rejected it.”
Yes, 96% is ALMOST, but it’s certainly NOT universal.
As well, you have many DIFFERENCES in that spirituality, monotheism, polytheism, spiritualism (not god as a being, but god as a concept).
I do agree with you though, in that I at least don’t see examples of spirituality in animals other than humans, but I also have not seen examples of genocide or slavery, so I’m not sure that something being unique to humanity should be always be counted as a positive thing.
“The overall point is that this would be one of the ways humans are unique and distinct.”
Humans are unique, just like every species is unique from every other species. But I would even take that one step further to say that we are the “most” evolved species on the planet. However, this is where we would diverge; you’d say we are unique because god made us special in his image, and I would say even with our extra abilities over other animals, we are still at our most basic, “just” another animal.
“Maybe animals do many extraordinary things but only can do them when we’re not paying attention.”
I’d actually argue that animals do MANY extraordinary things that both uncertain and IO have brought up, but you tend to dismiss them a tad more readily than many people who spend their lives studying these things.
“But I still remain unconvinced that it’s out of the boundaries of methodological naturalism to allow of the existence of moral laws just like it allows for the existence of physical laws.”
In a naturalistic view, where would you suggest those moral absolutes come from, if not the evolutionary model that I have described?
Also, assuming we could agree that there could possibly exist some moral absolute in a naturalist world, would ALL animals be subject to these morals, or just humans?
And one other point to make is that the laws of nature are things which are universal laws (like the speed of light in a vacuum). These are things which ALWAYS (not mostly, or almost always, but ALWAYS) acts in the same fashion. I could measure the speed of light, and somebody from Africa could 10,000 years ago, and some alien could 2 million years from now, and the speed will ALWAYS match. Morality is obviously not universal. I know you’ll say that society reflects the absolutes, but if the reflections can be so varied, how do we know what the underlying “truths” really are?
“If nature can, without explaining the origin of physical laws, generate those laws to which the universe must conform, why is it a stretch to think that there are certain moral laws that are naturally generated to which those who have the ability to grasp might conform also. In other words, why is it impossible for naturalism to have generated moral laws that the involved intellect of humans are discovering?”
I’d say there are a few points you’re missing.
First of all, if the physical laws of the universe were different than they are, then very likely life would not have been possible, and we would not be having this discussion. The same can not be said of an “absolute” morality.
Second, I would say that why must we bring in the idea of a moral absolute, when an evolved morality is such a simpler, easier explanation (Occam’s Razor and all).
Third, physical laws are very cleanly defined, while morality is a very subjective subject
. Where would this morality come from? Without some sort of intelligence behind it, who is to say what is moral and what is not. Evolutionarily we can say that societies that do not frown on killing each other are much less likely to survive than those that do not condemn killing. But without a supernatural intelligence guiding it, why would a moral absolute “condemn” killing, and why would this morality only be relevant to some species but not others (black widow spiders for example)?
As well, my comments to the previous statement are also quite relevant to this particular question, but I don’t want to repeat myself, so scroll up about half an inch for those.
“It just seems that there would be a way to get from philosophical naturalism to moral law without injecting God but I could be wrong.”
The biggest problem is WHERE did this morality come from? And for what reason? With physical laws we can say “if X was different, then this would not happen, and that would cause this, which would cause this, which would impede the creation of intelligent life. Universal absolute morality has no such chain of events.
The Anthropic Principal states that the physical laws of the universe are the way we see them because if they were any different we would not be here to observe them.
The Anthropic Principal would not apply to something as subjective as morality.
“I personally agree with what Rod said a post or so ago that for there to be a “moral law” it would (in both our minds)necessitate the supernatural.”
I’m open to an idea of morality that is not supernatural, and is yet universal, but I personally can not think of any way this is possible. Obviously my lack of being able to come up with it does not mean it can’t be so, but to really consider it further, I’d need some type of explanation for how it is possible.
“The self-evident existence of Moral Law has converted more than one atheist or agnostic.”
I’d also argue that the inconsistency of faith has convert many theists in the other direction.
It’s been said many times that there are no atheists, just deniers (it’s something I’d disagree with strongly, but that’s another thing). I’d say that the opposite is actually true. There are no atheists that are “converted” only people who were attempting to deny their own true beliefs, finally coming to grips with their beliefs. I see faith as something more akin to sexuality, you either are heterosexual or you’re homosexual, you don’t change your mind. At least this was my personal experience, perhaps others have had different experiences, but those I’ve talked to either always believed, and were searching for the right path, or never believed, but searched because they thought they were supposed ot believe.
“But my overall point was to say that the existence of Moral Law would have to necessarily be philosophically a huge challenge to the non-believer.”
The problem with this is that I see no evidence of an ABSOLUTE moral law; I do however see evidence of evolved societal morality.
“Do I believe we’re an animal?
Well, I have addressed this but I’m probably too wordy in my replies.
This all depends on how broadly you define the terms we’re using.”
Well as your comment on the fossil record indicates, you seem to be a young earth creationist. But this is something I’d like to verify before I delve further into this topic.
“human complexity of the list you gave in your previous post in comparison with any animal is absolutely light-years apart.”
And the idea I mentioned of humanity 6000 years ago being closer to animals now than humanity now is to humanity 6000 years ago?
But again, this discussion could be drastically altered by your answer to the “old earth” vs “young earth” creationist question.
I’m not going to be able to hit all the the responses and I assure you I’m not doing it intentionally. If I fail to respond it’s not because I’m trying to avoid it. If anything, I most intrigued by the most challenging questions. I totally understand why it seems I’m employing a sort of “lateral argument” strategy in this debate. I sympathize with you because I get frustrated myself when people employ this tactic against me. By way of explanation, I tend to just run with certain ideas rather than try to deal with each line of discussion. Most posts are about ten different arguments and I tend to focus on the ones that seem to have potential. But I’ll make a good-faith effort to respond to you and Uncertain point by point. You certainly have done that over the course of this debate.
By the way, at this point we could practically compile this into a book. I’m probably under-estimating how boring this discussion would be to other people but if it were edited and organized a bit it might make pretty interesting reading.
I do have a hectic week and weekend bearing down on me but I’ll do a point by point response at the first available date.
For the record I don’t think I could consider myself a young earth creationist at all. There seem to be too many probably that require a suspension of belief to hold that view. My comment about radioactive decay was from another bit I was reading about something I don’t remember now what it was. Sorry if that threw you off track.
whoops – “…too many problems…”
moot,
As I thought, you are an old earth creationist (which as an aside, I find this to be a much more rational position that young earth creationism).
Please correct me if I am wrong on anything that you believe (or accept as truth). I am QUITE curious as to where we differ on some of the basics of history.
The universe is (roughly) 14.7 billion years old
The earth is (roughly) 4.5 billion years old
Life began on the earth (roughly) 3.7 billion years
The first “modern” humans originated in Africa (roughly) 200,000 years ago
Humans were in Europe and Asia (roughly) 40,000 years ago
Humans made it to the Americas (roughly) 14,500 years ago
Up until roughly 10,000 years ago, humans lives as hunter-gatherers
The first civilizations appeared in Mesopotamia (roughly) 6,000 years ago
As an old earth creationist, you also must believe the story of Genesis is allegory and not an actual historical account of creation (i.e. creation did not happen over the course of 144 hours).
I want to confirm these points before I continue down this line, just so that I can be certain we are on the same page with these essential facts of history.
BTW, I was planning a “recap” post when this one reached 500 comments, but since it still seems to be going strong, I figured I’d wait and see if it can hit the 1000 mark (or until I finish posting the 7 or 8 posts i have already begun, but need to finish writing), then post a (somewhat) concise recap of all of the points made by all sides up through that point.
I was hoping to have you (moot) act as an “editor” to ensure I don’t disparage any of the believer “points”.
My idea was a post that lists all of the “themes” we have covered, and each point / counter-point made by both sides (with no extra commentary by me, at least not until the comments for the post)…
Sounds like a cool idea. I think it would be fascinating if not a huge amount of work to compile it into a coherent dialogue that a wider audience could digest.
I really think a larger point would be to show that this discussion can be civil and that dumb, rash and ignorant responses in defense of either side only serve to reinforce the opposite position.
Umm…about the old earth stuff. St. Augustine actually addressed some of these issue is 300 AD. Obviously he was in no way swayed by the Evolution/Creation debate. Even then he concluded that the Genesis account better fit the concept of allegory. So, even from this (Christian)side of things, it’s a rational conclusion to assume that Genesis isn’t a play by play of creation. This was essentially the view held by C.S. Lewis who is highly regarded in Christian evangelical circles. That being said most of the rank and file seem to rabidly defend a pretty literal handling of Genesis.
However for the sake of full disclosure, I haven’t fully developed my beliefs about most of the list you offered. I’m not saying I dismiss the science that says the earth is 4.5 billion years old but that I just haven’t firmed my ideas up. I haven’t before been in a position where I was called on to have an opinion about the subject and I just bit my lip when someone said the earth started in 4004 BC.
However I will agree that labeling Genesis 1 and 2 “allegory” is still slight disturbing and uncomfortable for me. I’m not saying it’s wrong I just wonder then if Genesis 1 and 2 can be allegorical, when and how do you flip back to literal?
I’m currently reading an excellent book by the previously mentioned Francis Collins. He is a theist but, as the head of the Human Genome Project, he’s a firm believer in evolution. He totally discounts Young Earth Creationism and Intelligent Design in favor of what he calls “BioLogos” which is a weird way of saying “Theistic Evolution”. His book is the first time I’ve heard a compelling defense of full-on evolution from a believer.
So, to make a short story long, for me evidence of macro-evolution isn’t firm enough for me to go to the dark side. And if that is the reason the earth is considered 4.5 billion years old then I’ve got to see more evidence. But I don’t have a particular intellectual problem with that number. Either way the jury is still out for me.
How’s that for a non-answer!?
moot,
Even without thinking of evolution, there are many reasons to date the earth and the universe in BILLIONS of years (as opposed to thousands or even millions).
“Even then he concluded that the Genesis account better fit the concept of allegory.
I’m not saying it’s wrong I just wonder then if Genesis 1 and 2 can be allegorical, when and how do you flip back to literal?”
For me this is a HUGE issue, but it’s actually not the one I wanted to get into right this moment. Sufficed to say, my question here would be essentially, if we take it as fact that SOME of the bible is not meant to be taken literally, then how as a flawed species, do we know WHICH parts. But we can get back to that after this particular issue I wanted to get into for a bit.
Here we go:
Let’s say the universe IS in fact 14.7 billion years old (give or take)
And the earth is 4.5 billion (again, give or take a bit)
And life began 3.7 billion years ago (give or take)
And “modern” humans (as we know them) began 200,000 years ago
Assuming you accept those facts as true:
Is your position that god, every so often, steps in and creates entirely new species from scratch (since you reject macro-evolution)?
And do you ALSO believe that god has done this countless times (let’s be conservative and say 10,000 times, and all other species are examples of micro-evolution which you do accept), and that ONE, and ONLY one, of those times, he imbued his “new” creation as being special, and gave them a sense of morality?
Is this “essentially” what you believe?
Jumping back in very quickly:-
“I do agree with you though, in that I at least don’t see examples of spirituality in animals other than humans,”
That’s not actually what I was saying at all.
What I was arguing was that, given the cognitive and behavioural traits which seem to underpin spirituality in humans and that many of those same traits have been observed in other species it seems illogical to dismiss the possibility that other species (particularly those mammals relatively close to humanity in evolutionary terms) may have a spiritual sense as well.
And, for that matter, that given the range of behaviours that humans link with religion and spirituality, it seems problematic at best to look at a particular behaviour in another species (or, for that matter, a member of our own) and say definatively whether or not it has a religious or spiritual component.
“but I also have not seen examples of genocide or slavery, so I’m not sure that something being unique to humanity should be always be counted as a positive thing.
“The overall point is that this would be one of the ways humans are unique and distinct.”
Humans are unique, just like every species is unique from every other species. But I would even take that one step further to say that we are the “most” evolved species on the planet. However, this is where we would diverge; you’d say we are unique because god made us special in his image, and I would say even with our extra abilities over other animals, we are still at our most basic, “just” another animal.”
Agreed, completely.
And, Moot, I’m still waiting for a response to the points raised in my last post.
uncertainhope,
Sorry I skipped over responding to your posts a bit here the last week or so. I figured that since you and I agree (mostly) the little time I have spent this week due to time constraints, was better served answering moot, but I am keeping track of your points as well, and hope to respond to all of the ones that I can.
“And this is why you need to find a good book on this subject”
I agree, there are a number of books that go into this subject with “less controversial” authors than Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris (Austin Dacey’s “The Secular Conscience” for one).
“As for gene vs group as the unit of selection:- yes and no, as evolutionary principles guide both.”
I’d have to disagree here a tad. One of Dawkins’ primary points that is what SEEMS to be individual or group selection is actually, upon further review, ALWAYS a case of gene selection.
Or to put it another way, group selection and individual selection are sub-types of gene selection, where in all cases, the gene is in “control”.
And yes, I understand, this assumes Dawkins is correct, but from the evidence we have it seems that Dawkin’s ideas are quickly becoming the consensus and the “truth” is something quite close to the ideas that Dawkins proposes.
Re: your response to the “Naturalism expects absolutes” section, I’d have to agree pretty much 100% with what you said there, but i already expanded on that a bit further in my reply to moot directly.
“Society can obscure the truth of these things but can’t change the truth of these things.”
moot,
This is a VERY true statement, and can/should/will hopefully/could be applied to areas where truth CAN be known, where the evidence exists, you know, like evolution. 😉
Although, I also agree with uncertain’s reply, mine is jut a slightly more sarcastic one.
“the fact that human life is supremely valuable is an absolute”
moot,
EXCEPT when god deems it ok to take life??? If you’re going to use the word absolute it should keep the true definition, and ALWAYS be applicable, not just under SOME circumstances or to some groups.
Man had killed man MANY times under direct orders from god. If human life is “supremely valuable” and this is an “absolute”, then god should NEVER make us break that rule, as he does in the bible.
I’m not talking about god “himself” killing people in the flood or allowing people to die, but only about god ORDERING humans to take other humans’ lives.
How much of an “absolute” can it be, if it can be broken? And who is allowed to decide WHEN it’s ok to break it?
Re: “As to (human) spirituality…”
To quote Keanu Reeves: “Woah!”
Although, actually the “if you seriously try to imagine a universe without your mind in it in some shape or form, you really can’t” part is easy. If you believe in the concept of the multi-verse, you can exist in multiple universes, and not exist in multiple universe, simultaneously.
The multi-verse idea actually leads to all kinds of mind bending ideas (including feasible “time travel” of a sort), but it does allow one to comprehend a universe, and in fact THIS universe existing without your own mind in any form. Although this is usually where I get a headache and whine a bit.
“basic reasoning abilities”
Check
“the ability to understand abstract concepts or symbols”
Check
“an inner emotional life (Including, but not limited to: fear, curiosity, and compassion)”
check
“a sense of self”
Check
BUT, where I would disagree, is that I think you’re missing a few other small things (evolutionary pressures and curiosity being central among them).
“Now I’m not saying that animals (all or any) do have a spiritual life, but based on the above and on the other human behaviours we’ve listed in the animal kingdom, it seems foolish to discount the possibility.”
Here is where I would say that it’s POSSIBLE that other animals (on earth) are spiritual, but I’d find this to be an extraordinary claim, and would want to see extraordinary evidence. I say this because in the 6000 years of recorded history, we have no evidence for this phenomena, and to overturn this much time, I’d say we need to demonstrate more than just the possibility, but show examples that are unambiguous.
I don’t discount the chance that animals are spiritual, but I personally don’t think it’s likely because we just don’t have evidence to support this idea (currently).
“thinking about it more I’d revise that 4% of non-spiritual people heavily upwards maybe to between 33.3% and maybe as high as 50%”
The 4% I mentioned previously is people who when questioned about their religion ACTIVELY responded “Atheist”.
As you mention, this does not count those who claim a religion, but do not actively believe in that faith (or any faith), but I would find 50% hard to believe. My personal guess would be 15%-30%, but I’ve not read any definitive studies.
“I believe it’s a dubious assumption that it’s a behaviour unique to humans”
As I mentioned to moot, for the two of you to see eye-to-eye on animal vs human behaviors, it may be best to look at humanity 6,000 (or even 10,000 or 200,000) years ago, not humanity today.
“The more we study other animals the more behaviours we seem to have in common.”
Yes, and this is a VERY important issue, much more research is still needed.
“it does seem illogical to discount such a possibility without evidence and when they exhibit behaviours that could form part of a kind of spirituality.”
While I agree we should not discount it, I do think we should not ASSUME it either. I do agree with the basic premise of it being a reasonable possibility, but I would not put the odds at 50/50.
“What I was arguing was that, given the cognitive and behavioural traits which seem to underpin spirituality in humans and that many of those same traits have been observed in other species it seems illogical to dismiss the possibility that other species (particularly those mammals relatively close to humanity in evolutionary terms) may have a spiritual sense as well.”
Strong emphasis on “illogical to dismiss the possibility”.
As long as the emphasis is on this, I agree with you. While I don’t see the evidence in support of spirituality in other animals, I agree that we can NOT dismiss this out of hand. On the other side of the argument though, we also can not ASSUME spirituality in other animals without much more evidence than we currently have.
I don’t mean this to come across as hostile towards this idea at all, just that I think you may be overstepping the evidence a bit in order to make a point with moot, and I’m trying to make sure you limit yourself to what we KNOW (or at least have a consensus of opinion on what is likely), not what MAY be possible.
Like I mentioned before it’s a little bizarre to be debating the existence of spirituality in animals. It’s akin to the how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin thing in Christianity.
You’ve said I’m making unverifiable assumptions. I’m not really making assumptions at all. We can all agree that nothing we can recognize as spirituality as we know it exists in the animal realm. That’s doesn’t eliminate the possibility of discovering gophers praying and salamander temples but that we don’t have any reason to expect it either.
This really goes back to something that was dealt with at the beginning of this page. You can’t prove a negative. I can’t prove (as atheists so like to claim)that the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist but (also like the atheist) we’re going to currently work on the assumption that it doesn’t.
I feel like I’m repeating myself here (Ironically you accused me of not answering this subject.) But I think your line of argument runs afoul of the rules of logic.
You gave examples of whale-song or wolf-howls. I realize that it might be exciting for you to think that is reflective of a supernatural belief in animals but aren’t you leaping across more simple and likely ideas? That rather than leaping to the idea of some sort of animal worship it’s a form of communication. So I visit a foreign country where I don’t speak the language. If I hear them speak I don’t assume, “Wow this must be some form of worship! They must have complex ideas of the the supernatural!” I don’t even assume, “Hmm this could be evidence of a spiritual belief system” It’s more likely that they’re just talking sports.
I know why you want to claim that spirituality isn’t singular to humans but it’s just not a argument that can currently be compelling. Maybe someday, but for now this is something that’s pretty distinct to humans.
The problem is your ideology wants this to be true so it’s easier to assume it’s true (or that we don’t know) than assume it’s not. This lack of objectivity is a fallacy of which Christians are often guilty. So you’re in the position of having to apply selectively the rules of logic or change your ideas of God’s existence.
I’m not trying to be hostile at all. But if the standard for knowledge is truly methodological naturalism then we currently don’t employ the ability to assume animals and humans are similar in this spiritual aspect.
Furthermore your response to this particular line of reasoning means that I’ll not be able to have a debate with you. Any singularity I’ll point out that seems to be unique to humans you’ll just respond, “Well we don’t know animals don’t do that.” So I don’t see that this line of discussion will get any further unless you’re willing to admit that we can’t assume similarity that we have no evidence to assume.
Listen to Rod on this one. I want to continue this overall discussion about God and the evidence but the logic you’re employing to find spirituality in the animal world is a dead end.
-Regarding universality of spirituality.
You raised Rod’s figure of 4% to 50%. I totally and utterly disagree with that. Regardless of how seriously someone takes their religious beliefs an overwhelming majority of people at least claim to be religious, believe in a higher power or the supernatural. You can make assumptions about the validity of a persons faith but you can’t assume statistics that defy real statistics.
-Finally evolved morality and social morality.
I’ve got some ideas about how better to explain this but with a deadline breathing down my neck I’m going to have to save them for after this weekend. It’ll be good, I’ll have the two of you praying in no time!
I got a breather here I thought I’d try a quick response to you Rod.
I think we’re still laboring under different definitions of absolutes. I’ve tried to explain that, in my view, these absolutes we’re talking about are not in their application but a truth that is then interpreted and applied.
You want to make what I’m saying a rule that is evenly applied regardless of the situation or circumstances. That’s not what I’ve been saying at all.
But even if it were this sort of ham-handed, black or white absolute that I were advocating we know there are fringes to the rules when rules find themselves in conflict with one another. But these gray areas do not negate the importance of the overall rule.
The fact that it’s illegal to speed is an example of an absolute in the way that I’m talking about. If I’m speeding it’s highly likely I’ll be pulled over and ticketed. However, I’ve been pulled over for speeding on multiple occasions and rather than being ticketed, I’ve been spared and only received a stern warning.
Now because the enforcer of the rule made an exception on this one occasion doesn’t mean the rule doesn’t exist. Or that I should expect to be let off every time I speed. The rule still exists even when it’s selectively applied.
Or say I’m speeding because my child is severely injured and I’m attempting to get her to the hospital. Because I had a good reason to make an exception to follow the rule in this case again doesn’t mean the rule doesn’t exist.
Interestingly in both scenarios it’s the same overall truth that give the police officer cause to pull me over and gives me cause to break the rule. The police officer pulls my speeding butt over because to drive at that rate of speed has been deemed dangerous to my life and the lives of those with and around me. The reason I speed to get to the hospital is because I highly value the life of my daughter.
So – because gray areas exist doesn’t not mean that the rule does not exist. And because there may be legitimate ways the rules may be broken again does not mean the rule doesn’t exist.
I hope this clarifies my position when I use the term “absolute”.
Again, rushed and replying quickly:
Rod, my emphasis is indeed on the illogical to dismiss the possibility part of the debate there.
Moot,
“You gave examples of whale-song or wolf-howls. I realize that it might be exciting for you to think that is reflective of a supernatural belief in animals but aren’t you leaping across more simple and likely ideas? That rather than leaping to the idea of some sort of animal worship it’s a form of communication. So I visit a foreign country where I don’t speak the language. If I hear them speak I don’t assume, “Wow this must be some form of worship! They must have complex ideas of the the supernatural!” I don’t even assume, “Hmm this could be evidence of a spiritual belief system” It’s more likely that they’re just talking sports.”
Indeed, you asked for examples of worship and I provided two behaviours that *could* form a part of that, I wasn’t saying that I believed they did. But, a point I missed (I’d just had my breakfast and so was half asleep at that point – that’s my excuse and I’m sticking to it) at the time is that while worship is a necessary component of religion it isn’t an essential component of spirituality which was what we were talking about. Religion and spirituality being two very different and distinct things.
What I’m basically saying is that we have no grounds to assume (especially as regards the higher mammals) that we are the only spiritual animals and given the increasing number of behaviours we seem to have in common with other animals, it seems an unsafe assumption to make.
“The problem is your ideology wants this to be true so it’s easier to assume it’s true (or that we don’t know) than assume it’s not. This lack of objectivity is a fallacy of which Christians are often guilty. So you’re in the position of having to apply selectively the rules of logic or change your ideas of God’s existence.”
Nope, I’m not assuming it’s true at all, nor does my ideology want it to be true. What I’m saying and I’ll say this again, is that I believe, based on the cognitive and behavioural traits that it has already been established humanity has in common with other animals, that it’s illogical to assume that we’re the only animal with a spiritual sense.
I have no idea how you’d verify whether other animals have a spiritual sense or not. And as far as I’m aware there’s been absolutely no research done on that topic thus far.
“Furthermore your response to this particular line of reasoning means that I’ll not be able to have a debate with you. Any singularity I’ll point out that seems to be unique to humans you’ll just respond, “Well we don’t know animals don’t do that.” So I don’t see that this line of discussion will get any further unless you’re willing to admit that we can’t assume similarity that we have no evidence to assume.”
I suspect on something as nebulous and difficult to pin down as spirituality, that may be the case, but if you want to bring in other, more concrete behaviours where the answer is more clear . . .
“Listen to Rod on this one. I want to continue this overall discussion about God and the evidence but the logic you’re employing to find spirituality in the animal world is a dead end.”
Again, I’m *not* trying to find spirituality in the animal kingdom, my point was, and remains, that it’s illogical to make the assumption that there is none.
“You raised Rod’s figure of 4% to 50%. I totally and utterly disagree with that. Regardless of how seriously someone takes their religious beliefs an overwhelming majority of people at least claim to be religious, believe in a higher power or the supernatural. You can make assumptions about the validity of a persons faith but you can’t assume statistics that defy real statistics.”
Sorry, I should have made it more clear that the number there was an off-the-cuff estimate, I’m not assuming statistics that defy real statistics. And the figure I suggested was between 33.3% and 50%.
The point I was making was the disconnect between the numbers of people who claim a religion, are active within it and who actively practice it, as opposed to the people who are members just because it’s what’s done.
I completely agree with the new Sagan quote at the top of the page. Carl Sagan probably meant it differently than I’d interpret it but I suppose it works on both levels.
Uncertain, this last weekend was Memorial Day Weekend. It’s ostensibly for the honor of those soldiers who have lost their lives in the service of this nation but it’s often a long weekend to have huge Barbecue parties. So we’ve (I’m assuming Rod has been celebrating too) been away from the debate eating hamburgers and bratwurst as part of our
patriotic duty.
Anyway… I’ve got a bit of a soliloquy that might helps us provide some necessary grounding for this debate.
-Definition of Religion
Your discussion about spirituality in animals brings up a necessary point. Even (or should I say, especially) apart from the discussion of animal worship, we really need to define religion. We tend to caricaturize it a bit by focusing on the more fringe elements in any faith but it would probably be really helpful to clearly define what we mean when we toss around terms like “religion” and “worship”.
Most dictionaries seem to define it as a system of beliefs and practices often centered around supernatural or moral claims. I think that is generally fair but it leaves out concepts like Zen Buddhism, which does not believe in God and Hinduism which does not believe in the supernatural.
I think in a broader sense a religion is a set of beliefs that explain ones views on the meaning of life, who we are and what’s important. That may be too broad for you and Rod because that definition would be expansive enough to include philosophical naturalism.
But let me point out that philosophical naturalism would essentially say, “The material world is all there is, we are here by accident and when we die we decompose, so the important thing is to do what makes you happy and not let others impose their beliefs on you.”
Even though this narrative isn’t explicitly religious it is implicit in that it provides an idea of our existence, an account on the meaning of life and a recommendation for how to live based on that world-view. Thus it is a set of assumptions about the nature of things. And, while I know we might disagree on the definition of the word “faith” it is a set of assumptions made in faith because we don’t know everything. Thus philosophical naturalism is, by my broad definition, a sort of religion.
We all have to make a few basic assumptions about the nature of things and these ideas form and contribute to our continued understanding of the material and the spiritual.
The reason I’m arguing that it’s important to at least broadly consider philosophical naturalism as a religion or world-view is to help us realize that as much as we’d all like to be objective we all approach these “big” questions with a set of preconceptions. These preconceptions inevitably color our conclusions and even our way of examining some of these issues.
-The problem with any religion.
Rod, has constantly made the point that religion has caused much harm. Hitchens, of course, has said “religion poisons everything”. The truth of the matter is…I agree. But the problem isn’t limited to a belief in the supernatural. Let me explain.
Religion, generally speaking, tends to create a sort of intellectual slippery slope. The reason for this is that it takes that lack of objectivity and tendency toward preconceived notions I spoke about in the last section and essentially removes that element of doubt from our assumptions. So rather than have assumptions that we realize are fallible we are the purveyors of truth that is beyond reproach. Religion often removes a sort of intellectual check and balance from our ideas. Let me emphasize that this tendency is as much true with philosophical naturalism as it is belief in the supernatural. Naturalism simply has the added benefit of appearing intellectually objective when that isn’t necessarily the case.
Therefore it is easy for one “religion” (Remember how broadly I’m defining it) to stereotype another. Once that happens it’s only another step to marginalization of that religion. Once that sort of marginalization occurs oppression, abuse and violence are knocking at the door. Religion in the supernatural sense has inarguably been guilty of following this downward spiral through-out history. But I would argue that any belief system, supernatural or not, is capable of the same thing.
For example, we’ve argued about Communism and the resulting genocide of that idea on a national scale being the result of atheism or not. But that’s not really the point. The horrible human slaughter at the hands of Communist dictators was the result of this issue I’m talking about – essentially letting a “world-view” run unchecked. I think it has less to do with what one believes and more to do with forgetting that we could be wrong.
So Islam, atheism or Christianity that forgets to give itself regular reality-checks are all in danger of becoming oppressive and even deadly.
– In praise of doubt.
None of the three of us are probably in danger of starting a holy war or trying to exterminate all religion (just yet) but I think we have to constantly remind ourselves that our ideas are colored by our beliefs. Thus we can all look at the exact same natural phenomena, I say “Wow, look at what God did, Rod says, “It’s evolution amazing?” and Uncertain says, “Something cool happened, although I’m not really sure what.” It’s because we’ve all filtered that phenomena through our colored lenses of preconception. But we each think that we’ve approach this criteria with the “right” set of preconceptions.
If we can remember that we’re all slightly fallible we’ll be doing good. I think that’s truly being as open-minded as it’s possible for a human to be.
Thus doubt becomes an essentially element to clearly understanding anything. Agnosticism, by its definition, should come with a sort of built-in sense of doubt. Atheism, thrives on the doubt of the supernatural but occasionally forgets to doubt itself. Christianity, has the biggest problem in that it often turns doubt into a sort of minor sin. That should be the case at all. Real Christians should embrace and wrestle with doubt regularly. Doubt, in these sense that we recognize we don’t have all the answers, is never condemned in the bible. In fact it’s often applauded and rewarded.
It’s when any of these system of belief, or religions, forget to explore their doubt that’s when they become dangerous and probably wrong.
moot,
Hope everybody had a good long weekend. Guess we’re headed right back into the discussion right away.
“It’s akin to the how-many-angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin thing in Christianity.”
Personally I prefer the idea of “can jesus microwave a burrito so hot that even he can’t eat it?”…
If he can’t do it then he’s not all powerful; if he can do it then he’s not all powerful.
“I’m not really making assumptions at all.”
Actually, basically all of your ideas on human superiority have been based on the assumption that god imbued us with this specialness. If for jsut a moment, you take the approach (hypothetically at least) that god did not create humans as special, and think of what type of evolutionary process would make humans “special” in this way perhaps you’ll come to a closer understand of the other view. You might not agree with it, but you should hopefully understand it better.
“We can all agree that nothing we can recognize as spirituality as we know it exists in the animal realm.”
Actually, we can agree that we have not observed it, not that it does not exist. Just as I can not discount the chance of god, or you can not discount the chance of Vishnu, or a Hiundu person can not discount the chance of Allah, etc, it’s also not a good idea to dismiss the chance of this. All we can say is that it has not been seen yet, and based on the amount of data we have the chances are low, OR the experience of spirituality takes a form that we are not aware of in other animals.
“You can’t prove a negative. I can’t prove (as atheists so like to claim)that the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist but (also like the atheist) we’re going to currently work on the assumption that it doesn’t.”
I think you know my reply here, so I’ll save it for another time… But nice to see we agree (to a point).
“But I think your line of argument runs afoul of the rules of logic.”
Actually my understanding (and this is a guess) is that uncertain is stressing the point, not because he believes it to be “true”, but to make his point about assumptions, and the differences/similarities between humans and other animals.
In this case I think uncertain may be taking it a tad far, but I don’t think he’s using a logical fallacy in the strictest sense.
“I know why you want to claim that spirituality isn’t singular to humans but it’s just not a argument that can currently be compelling. Maybe someday, but for now this is something that’s pretty distinct to humans.”
Personally the point that I would say is much more important is:
Is this uniqueness (or seeming uniqueness) really a big deal. Humans are the only species that I am aware of that participate in genocide, slavery, and pedophilia, are those examples of human’s being special in god’s eyes.
“The problem is your ideology wants this to be true so it’s easier to assume it’s true (or that we don’t know) than assume it’s not.”
As I said, I think this is more to make the point that human uniqueness is not as clear cut as you might think.
“This lack of objectivity is a fallacy of which Christians are often guilty.”
It’s so nice to see both sides willing to admit the shortcoming of their side. And as soon as I find a flaw in “my side”, I’ll admit it. 😉
“Furthermore your response to this particular line of reasoning means that I’ll not be able to have a debate with you. Any singularity I’ll point out that seems to be unique to humans you’ll just respond, “Well we don’t know animals don’t do that.” So I don’t see that this line of discussion will get any further unless you’re willing to admit that we can’t assume similarity that we have no evidence to assume.”
Try for a minute to try the thought experiment that god does not exist (or that god is the “creator” type who then sits back and watches his creation, but has not interfered since the Big Bang), then try to determine what exactly would have made humans unique in the manner in which you consider us to be special. Perhaps this may help come to a better understanding between the two sides.
“You raised Rod’s figure of 4% to 50%.”
Actually I just read somewhere that says while the polls are showing 4% as “actively” claiming no belief in god, that when questions on specifics the number is actually at least 12% worldwide (slightly less then my random guess of 15%).
“I think we’re still laboring under different definitions of absolutes. I’ve tried to explain that, in my view, these absolutes we’re talking about are not in their application but a truth that is then interpreted and applied.”
The problem is not OUR application of absolutes, but god’s. You can logically make the argument that WE as a fallible species screwed up, but you can NOT assume that an infallible deity changes his mind occasionally. And yes, I know, you’ll claim “we can not understand the mind of god”, but if this is the case, we can NEVER understand the mind of god, and thus we can not condemn homosexuality, slavery, genocide, sexism, or any of a whole host of other things that any rational person would condemn.
If killing being bad is an ABSOLUTE, then god should not kill, and god should not order mankind to kill (which he does in the bible numerous times).
To say any different is to attempt to “have it both ways”.
“You want to make what I’m saying a rule that is evenly applied regardless of the situation or circumstances.”
Only when you say god made it an absolute and then god himself broke that rule. God being infallible (by the christian definition) is incapable of doing this if he TRUELY made it an absolute.
“So – because gray areas exist doesn’t not mean that the rule does not exist. And because there may be legitimate ways the rules may be broken again does not mean the rule doesn’t exist.”
Again, I have no problem with humans breaking man made rules. I have a problem with an all powerful, all knowing, perfect deity breaking his own rules (or telling mankind it’s ok to break them) which are “absolutes”.
“I completely agree with the new Sagan quote at the top of the page. Carl Sagan probably meant it differently than I’d interpret it but I suppose it works on both levels.”
Glad you enjoy the quote. The way I understand Sagan’s point, he was claiming that anything we think of as spirituality, is a construct of some scientific process. Sagan, among other things, was a secular humanist.
“I’m assuming Rod has been celebrating too”
I went to Annapolis with my wife for a little break from the ordinary.
“Most dictionaries seem to define it as a system of beliefs and practices often centered around supernatural or moral claims.”
Sounds like a reasonable definition.
“I think that is generally fair but it leaves out concepts like Zen Buddhism, which does not believe in God and Hinduism which does not believe in the supernatural.”
You’re saying that concepts like Chi and reincarnation are natural???
“I think in a broader sense a religion is a set of beliefs that explain ones views on the meaning of life, who we are and what’s important. That may be too broad for you and Rod because that definition would be expansive enough to include philosophical naturalism.”
The problem with this definition of religion is that it leaves open the capability for one person to have MANY different religions at the same time or for every person to have their own individual religion.
For example: I believe in evolution, if that is part of my religion, then NOT believing in it would be part of yours. So then ,if somebody else in your church does believe in evolution, then either you both have two religions, or you and this other person have two separate religions from each other.
Keep in mind, this is only ONE issue I have with calling naturalism a religion, there are others as well, but this is a pretty big one that is at the forefront of calling “science”, “atheism”, “naturalism”, “humanism”, etc a religion.
“We all have to make a few basic assumptions about the nature of things and these ideas form and contribute to our continued understanding of the material and the spiritual.”
I agree with this statement, but I do not agree that these assumptions automatically constitute a religion.
“The reason I’m arguing that it’s important to at least broadly consider philosophical naturalism as a religion or world-view is to help us realize that as much as we’d all like to be objective we all approach these “big” questions with a set of preconceptions. These preconceptions inevitably color our conclusions and even our way of examining some of these issues.”
Remove the words “religion or”, and I’d agree with this as well.
“Rod, has constantly made the point that religion has caused much harm. Hitchens, of course, has said “religion poisons everything”. The truth of the matter is…I agree. But the problem isn’t limited to a belief in the supernatural.”
Religion is not the SOLE problem, the problem as I see it, is that religion allows us to justify ANYTHING, as being “god’s will”. In my opinion, this inevitably leads to massive problems, as we’ve seen throughout history.
In my “ideal” world, religions would still exist, as a way to help those who need guidance, BUT ONE MASSIVE DIFFERENCE, religions would have to respect the rights of other religions to exist, and NEVER be used as justification for the actions of it’s followers, or to discriminate against any group or individual.
“Religion, generally speaking, tends to create a sort of intellectual slippery slope. The reason for this is that it takes that lack of objectivity and tendency toward preconceived notions I spoke about in the last section and essentially removes that element of doubt from our assumptions. So rather than have assumptions that we realize are fallible we are the purveyors of truth that is beyond reproach. Religion often removes a sort of intellectual check and balance from our ideas.”
*claps*
“Let me emphasize that this tendency is as much true with philosophical naturalism as it is belief in the supernatural. Naturalism simply has the added benefit of appearing intellectually objective when that isn’t necessarily the case.”
Can you give me an example of how belief in naturalism leads to a slippery slope?
“Once that happens it’s only another step to marginalization of that religion. Once that sort of marginalization occurs oppression, abuse and violence are knocking at the door. Religion in the supernatural sense has inarguably been guilty of following this downward spiral through-out history. But I would argue that any belief system, supernatural or not, is capable of the same thing.”
Again, can you give an example of how a naturalist philosophy would lead towards this type of outcome?
“For example, we’ve argued about Communism and the resulting genocide of that idea on a national scale being the result of atheism or not.”
There has never been any reasonable argument to say that Stalin’s actions were “driven” by atheism, sop I’m not sure how this “point” has any validity at all. To blame his actions on his atheism would be like blaming Hitler’s actions on his being a brunette, or Pol Pot’s actions on his having brown eyes. Correlation does NOT equal causation. EVERY SINGLE rational discussion/debate on Stalin has shown many reasons for his actions, and not once has that reason been seen as atheism.
“The horrible human slaughter at the hands of Communist dictators was the result of this issue I’m talking about – essentially letting a “world-view” run unchecked.”
I’d agree that the actions were the result of run-away power left unchecked, but I’d strongly disagree that it had ANYTHING to do with the lack of belief in deities.
“I think it has less to do with what one believes and more to do with forgetting that we could be wrong.”
I TOTALLY agree with this!!!
However, the one thing we would disagree on is that I believe that religion fosters this type of view on the world as a natural result of the type of belief (an all-powerful deity), while other belief systems do not automatically foster this same result.
“In praise of doubt”
I assume you have read the story of “Doubting Thomas”; please explain what you think the point of that particular story is, (FYI, most people, myself included, would say that the point is that blind faith is a virtue).
“I think we have to constantly remind ourselves that our ideas are colored by our beliefs.”
I agree! In fact, this was the original purpose of this post, to allow people to see that no matter how strongly you believe something, there are others JUST AS CERTAIN in their beliefs, which completely contradict your own.
Nice to see at least a few people got this. 🙂
“Doubt, in these sense that we recognize we don’t have all the answers, is never condemned in the bible. In fact it’s often applauded and rewarded.”
I’d argue that in many cases the bible says we should blindly follow the word, without evidence.
That said, everything else in this paragraph, and the previous one, I wholeheartedly agree with.
“It’s when any of these system of belief, or religions, forget to explore their doubt that’s when they become dangerous and probably wrong.”
It’s easy to lose doubt when one believes they are getting their rules from god.
BTW, you seem to have missed my previous post:
BTW (Part 2),
I thought you might be interested. I went to a baseball game last week with a good friend (who is a believer). We got into a brief discussion on god and the bible. His brother (ore was it brother-in-law?) is a teacher in a seminary, and he is going ot have his brother and myself over for dinner some time soon to discuss many of the same topics we have been discussing here. In fact I gave my friend this blog URL to give to his brother, to “prepare” for our dinner. I’ll let you know how it goes, but either way should be interesting. My grandfather lived next door to the archbishop of Atlanta when I was a kid, and I’ve had a number of these same discussions with the arch-bishop when I was a kid, so I doubt I’ll be converted, but who knows, stranger things have happened.
—–
uncertainhope,
“Rod, my emphasis is indeed on the illogical to dismiss the possibility part of the debate there.”
Pretty much as I figured, I just wanted to clarify.
Replying quickly again, so my apologies if I miss anything out:-
““I think we have to constantly remind ourselves that our ideas are colored by our beliefs.”
I agree! In fact, this was the original purpose of this post, to allow people to see that no matter how strongly you believe something, there are others JUST AS CERTAIN in their beliefs, which completely contradict your own.”
Indeed.
“However, the one thing we would disagree on is that I believe that religion fosters this type of view on the world as a natural result of the type of belief (an all-powerful deity), while other belief systems do not automatically foster this same result.”
Agreed, but with the qualification that the above effect seems to tend to be significantly worse in religions that claim to be the ‘One True Way’ than in the more flexible religions.
““I think in a broader sense a religion is a set of beliefs that explain ones views on the meaning of life, who we are and what’s important.”
My understanding is that, without the spiritual and worshipful aspects present in religion, a set of beliefs explaining ones views on the meaning of life is more properly described as a philosophy.
A small semantic difference, but an important one, I think.
““Furthermore your response to this particular line of reasoning means that I’ll not be able to have a debate with you. Any singularity I’ll point out that seems to be unique to humans you’ll just respond, “Well we don’t know animals don’t do that.” So I don’t see that this line of discussion will get any further unless you’re willing to admit that we can’t assume similarity that we have no evidence to assume.”
Try for a minute to try the thought experiment that god does not exist (or that god is the “creator” type who then sits back and watches his creation, but has not interfered since the Big Bang), then try to determine what exactly would have made humans unique in the manner in which you consider us to be special. Perhaps this may help come to a better understanding between the two sides.”
Indeed.
I’d also like to point out that by characterising my argument as “Well we don’t know animals don’t do that” you’re ignoring a key part of my point. I’m not just saying that ‘we don’t know they don’t do that’, I’m saying that (and pay special attention to the part in italics because that’s the important bit):-
We don’t know they don’t have a sense of spirituality and based on the cognitive and behavioural traits which seem to underpin spirituality in humans and considering that many of those same traits have been observed in other species it seems to be an unsafe assumption to say that man is without question the only animal with a spiritual sense.
“Actually my understanding (and this is a guess) is that uncertain is stressing the point, not because he believes it to be “true”, but to make his point about assumptions, and the differences/similarities between humans and other animals.”
Yep. The clue is the number of times I’ve used the word ‘assumption’ with qualifiers like ‘unsafe’ and ‘illogical’.
“But let me point out that philosophical naturalism would essentially say, “The material world is all there is, we are here by accident and when we die we decompose, so the important thing is to do what makes you happy and not let others impose their beliefs on you.””
Actually, all I’d say is that all any form of naturalism would say is: “The material world is all there is, we are here and when we die we decompose.” Anything else you add to it can be slanted to suit any position you want to take.
As for doubt and questioning assumptions, I agree, but then considering the importance I tend to put on the importance of testing beliefs and constantly refining ones view of the world, I would, wouldn’t I?
I love the “can Jesus microwave a burrito” argument, that’s hilarious. I’ll be using that to mess with some fellow Christians. And I’m definitely interested to hear how the dinner with the seminary professor.
-Animal Spirituality
As fun as this discussion of animal spirituality is…it’s seems like we’re sort of arguing the same point while my emphasis is on the fact that we can’t assume similarity and your emphasis is on the fact that we can’t assume difference. I’m not sure we’re going to get much farther than that.
Uncertain, I would be interested in hearing you respond to Rod’s points of human uniqueness in regards to “genocide, slavery and pedophilia”.
For my part I’ll work on developing some other lines of reasoning on human distinction but as I said before, for me, even if humanity is not unique in any one specific way the vast differences are enough to warrant a unique spot in the world. The fact that we are having this discussion is an example of the complexity of which humans are capable.
-Absolutes
Rod, you said that I “cannot assume that an infallible deity changes his mind occasionally.” In fact the bible gives us a couple of instances where it specifically says that God changes his mind. As early as Genesis 6:6, “The LORD was grieved that He had made man on the earth, and His heart was filled with pain.” There are a number of passages that seem to indicate that God, for whatever reason, altered his plans.
You seem to want to pit “absolute” and “infallible” against one another but I’m not sure we’re working with the same definitions of either of those terms.
I already gave you a better definition of “absolutes” to illustrate how something can be an absolute and still be applied in a variety of ways and allow for “gray areas”.
The infallibility of God doesn’t mean that a rule can’t be selectively applied. In fact Christianity is built on the very premise that an absolute isn’t “absolute”. We believe that the sin we commit and should be guilty of, can be forgiven.
In fact the infallibility of God would mean that absolutes, on occasion, would have to be selectively applied. We all experience moral dilemmas. Situations within which two moral laws seem to be in conflict. If that’s true that would inevitably require the breaking of one in order to keep the other.
The Gospels are full of examples of Jesus trying to get people to understand these concepts. For example Jewish law demanded no one work on the Sabbath, yet Christ would, in violation of the “absolute” heal on the Sabbath. His actions caused the religious leaders to go into fits of anger at his flippant disregard of the rules but He was trying to point out that the keeping of one rule shouldn’t mean the violation of a more important rule. In other words it was better to help someone and so do a little work on the Sabbath than perfectly keep the Sabbath. Although there might be two rules in conflict here, one clearly outranked the other. Christians have earned the reputation they have by often demanding a “lesser” rule be kept in violation of a “greater” rule. So on behalf of all Christians everywhere, I’m sorry about that. The point is infallibility and absolutes don’t by necessity have to be in conflict.
-Religion and Philosophical Naturalism.
You agreed with my initial definition of religion which stated that it is “a system of beliefs and practices often centered around supernatural or moral claims.” Remove the words “…supernatural or..” from the definition and do you still agree with it? Because I think that my original definition covers philosophical naturalism in the sense that naturalism has some ideas about morality even if it feels that it’s only socially defined.
Either way, I don’t particularly care if we call philosophical naturalism a religion or not, my premise is the same. The rules of doubt and objectivity apply to any philosophy as they do to any other religion.
Now Rod you asked, “Can you give me one example of how belief in naturalism leads to a slippery slope?” Let me emphasize that I’m speaking of philosophical naturalism, not specifically naturalism, but yes I think I can give you plenty of examples.
Philosophical naturalism has certainly marginalized Christianity. Now, and let me clearly state this, this marginalization of Christianity may be warranted in the sense that Christians have certainly been guilty of the same behavior or have often lead the assault against common sense and reason. But I know of someone on a college campus that is studying sociology and in discussions of ethics any attempt to interject God or Christianity is totally maligned and ridiculed. Rather than allowing an idea to be discussed or dismissed on its own merits, and in a respectful way, it’s dismissed with a roll of the eyes or more often with a sort of subdued but seething anger. This response usually causes the believer to completely avoid the discussion of their own beliefs for fear of being completely stereotyped by their peers. When this stereotyping happens then any given Christian is assigned all the faults and wrongs of theist world-wide.
Here we’re not talking about someone who is trying to dogmatically force ideas and beliefs on the rest of the class but someone who is afraid to mention that they actually believe God is relevant to these discussions for fear of the intense and negative response such an invocation with receive.
I completely realize that Christians have “shot themselves in the foot” so to speak. We have been more than guilty of the same sort of aggressive dismissal of anything that didn’t include God. The scales were once unfairly balanced in our direction. But when philosophical naturalism is allowed to be turned loose and be so dismissive of ideas that surely merit discussion or debate it seems that it has become guilty of this very sort of intellectual slippery slope I previously talked about. In some cases it’s lost the ability to occasionally doubt itself. And like I said before the ability to develop our ideas with a modest amount of doubt is “undoubtedly” a healthy practice.
-Christianity and doubt.
Both of you argued that theism is more likely to result in this sort lack of self-doubt than other philosophies. I don’t know that I’d agree with that. I’d argue the problem is more with human nature than any particular belief system. We don’t need much justification to assume we’re more right than anyone else. We manage to assume we’re right on a variety of issues that have nothing to do with God. Issues as varied as the call an umpire makes in a little league baseball game (an issue I’ve seen parents come to blows over)or politics. Invoking God may just be a short-cut to that inevitable conclusion. However I truly think a careful examination of the Bible would not give one the idea that they can circumvent their doubt.
It’s ironic you brought up the story of “Doubting Thomas” because rather than that being a praise of “blind faith” I think that’s an example of the sort of appropriate doubt I’m talking about.
In John 20 where this story occurs you never once see a condemnation of Thomas for being skeptical about Jesus being alive. Thomas was every bit the methodological naturalist, he said, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hands in his side, I will not believe it.” He wanted to observe and experiment! But never in that passage does Jesus condemn Thomas for his doubt, in fact when Jesus shows up he offers Thomas the very criteria he was asking for.
Now there may be passages I’m not aware of but as far as I know the bible never seems to award “blind faith” but rather seems to hold doubt in relatively high regard. I can give you passages if you’re interested.
My point is that Christianity in it’s fullness provides for and even expects an element of doubt. This doubt is an important part in our Christianity if for no other reason than it keeps us humble.
uncertain,
“Agreed, but with the qualification that the above effect seems to tend to be significantly worse in religions that claim to be the ‘One True Way’ than in the more flexible religions.”
Yes, this is true. There are a number of religions that take a more “all paths lead to god” type of philosophy, and those would be SIGNIFICANTLY less likely to lead towards problems of this sort.
“My understanding is that, without the spiritual and worshipful aspects present in religion, a set of beliefs explaining ones views on the meaning of life is more properly described as a philosophy.”
Makes sense to me. Although I’m not certain the term philosophy is completely accurate either. I’m not certain what word I would use myself, but philosophy might be pretty close in my mind.
—–
moot,
“we are here by accident”
This is a common misunderstanding actually. While we were not “designed”, the eventual result of evolution, given the right conditions will always be intelligent life. Saying we are an accident, is similar to the Straw-Man argument that many christians try to use of a twister through a junk yard creating a 747. This is close enough to the truth to make christians think they have made an intelligent point, but far enough away from the truth to make scientists shake their heads in disbelief at the ignorance it contains.
“so the important thing is to do what makes you happy”
When have I (or Dawkins, Dennet, Hitchens, or Harris) ever said anything even CLOSE to this?
This is most CERTAINLY a Straw-Man based on a complete lack of understanding of naturalism. A world run by “heathens” would not devolve into anarchy where people go around raping dogs, and killing children for the fun of it. As I’ve mentioned MANY times, morality exists in a purely naturalistic world view as well.
“and not let others impose their beliefs on you”
I’d say the most important part of this would be not to attempt to impose your beliefs on others.
If you’re naive enough to be taken in by the con, then it’s your fault, but the con itself is what should not be allowed.
Again, to be clear, I don’t mind people believing in a personal god; I can’t stand the missionary type delivery of that god to others.
“the “can Jesus microwave a burrito” argument”
It’s the stoner’s version of “can god create a boulder so heavy even he can’t lift it. I just prefer the burrito one, cause it comes off a bit more flippant, but it makes the exact same point.
“For my part I’ll work on developing some other lines of reasoning on human distinction…”
Again, I would urge BOTH of you to look at the idea of humans 6000 years ago vs animals today, not the idea of humans today. I think that if you look at it in this way, without all the trapping of modern technology in the way, you’ll see a more apt comparison.
“In fact the bible gives us a couple of instances where it specifically says that God changes his mind.”
This was one of my FIRST problems ever with christianity. Bear with me for a minute, ok:
god is perfect
god is not capable of making mistakes (infallible)
god knows EVERYTHING (omniscient)
god is inherently good (he’s not going to do something just to “screw with us”)
god’s morals are the same as our own morals (essentially)
If a being (entity, deity, whatever you wish to classify god as) is all of these things then HOW is it possible to “change” his mind. Before he made the original decision, or thought or choice, he ALREADY knew the outcome, thus by choosing it and later changing his mind, he knew in advance the first choice was wrong.
If I KNOW that doing A will lead to B, and I don’t want B to happen, then I won’t do A.
If I do A anyways, and then show remorse for B happening, this remorse is at best insincere, and more likely a blatant, outright lie.
To put it another way, if you know the result of EVERY action that has happened, is happening, will happen, and COULD possibly happen, then you should know the “correct” course of action from the start. To make a mistake, ANY mistake, PROVES that one of the basic assumptions about god MUST be wrong.
“I already gave you a better definition of “absolutes” to illustrate how something can be an absolute and still be applied in a variety of ways and allow for “gray areas”.”
Your definition applies to mankind, not to an all knowing, all powerful deity incapable of mistakes.
“We believe that the sin we commit and should be guilty of, can be forgiven.”
Actually as a christian, you believe that we are BORN with sin. A creation of god, made IN HIS IMAGE, is born flawed and sinful by your belief system.
“Situations within which two moral laws seem to be in conflict.”
But if one knows EVERYTHING, and knows every POSSIBLE outcome then one knows the “best” course of action at all times, and to later change your mind would be admitting a mistake in the earlier choice, a mistake which by the very definition of god, is impossible.
“The Gospels are full of examples of Jesus trying to get people to understand these concepts…”
Again, you are talking about MAN not being held up to perfect standards, while I am talking about god himself not being able ot meet his own standards.
“Remove the words “…supernatural or..” from the definition and do you still agree with it?”
No because then you’re left with either 6 billion plus unique religions, or you’re left with each person on the planet holding countless “nano” religions.
Each person has their own experiences, and no matter how similar their lives or beliefs may be, they will invariably be differences between them.
If every single belief about morality is a religion then you’re left with millions, if not billions, of religions. An in this case, the idea of “religion” loses all meaning.
As a simple example, you are christian; do you hold the EXACT SAME beliefs on EVERY ASPECT of morality of every other person that goes to your church?
If not, then by your definition, you two are of different religions.
“The rules of doubt and objectivity apply to any philosophy as they do to any other religion.”
This part I do whole heartedly agree with. Just as I’m sure that you cringe when Pat Robertson is sen as the “face of christianity” by many, I also cringe when I see some boneheaded atheist making an ass out of themselves by their stubborn refusal to look at all sides of an argument. the very purpose of this post was to help people see that no matter HOW certain you are of your own beliefs, that others are JUST as strongly certain of theirs, and this needs to be addressed openly before it leads to more problems.
“I know of someone on a college campus that is studying sociology and in discussions of ethics any attempt to interject God or Christianity is totally maligned and ridiculed. Rather than allowing an idea to be discussed or dismissed on its own merits, and in a respectful way, it’s dismissed with a roll of the eyes or more often with a sort of subdued but seething anger.”
It would depend entirely on the context. For instance, if in a biology class, studying evolution, if somebody were to mention creationism, I would think they SHOULD be ridiculed. But if that same person mentioned creationism is philosophy, history, or literature class, I’d think it was a perfectly valid thing to bring up.
without more information of the specifics, it’s hard to say who is right in this particular situation, but there is a very real chance it’s your friend bringing up topics that are not appropriate to the discussion.
“But when philosophical naturalism is allowed to be turned loose and be so dismissive of ideas that surely merit discussion or debate it seems that it has become guilty of this very sort of intellectual slippery slope I previously talked about.”
I’d say that it depends on the topic at hand honestly. I would not presume to tell an art history major anything about Rembrandt, and if I did, I would expect ot be dismissed as an ignorant buffoon.
And on the other side, I think that when a believer tries to push their belief system (creationism) into a scientific issue where it clearly does not belong (evolutionary biology), then I see no problem with the scientists dismissing the believers input as trivial nonsense.
“Both of you argued that theism is more likely to result in this sort lack of self-doubt than other philosophies.”
Actually the point that I am making is that when you HONESTLY believe that god is on your side, it allows you freedom to do anything that you think is “god’s will”.
There is a quote I heard once, that basically said: to get a man to give up his life for land is done through fear, to get a man to give up his life for country is done through pride, but to get a man to give up his life for god is done with no effort.
Basically when you believe that you’re doing god’s will, you tend to value life less than others.
If you KNOW in your heart that if/when you die you’ll go to heaven, you’re not scared of death, and in many cases welcome it.
If you KNOW that when you die you’ll decompose and nothing further will happen to you, you’ll do almost anything to avoid death.
Regarding the Doubting Thomas story:
This is a common mistake that many christians make. The point of the story was NOT that Thomas was right in his doubt, but in jesus’s comment to Thomas after Thomas had seen the wounds:
(I’m paraphrasing here) Thomas you believe now, and this is great, but how much greater is it for those who have not seen, and yet still believe.
PLEASE, talk to a biblical scholar about this one, because YOUR SIDE takes this as being an example of blind faith as a virtue.
Most of the “laymen” christians either don’t understand the point, or were mislead as to the point, but the scholars of the bible understand this to be supporting belief without evidence (i.e. faith).
—–
moot and uncertain,
Let’s for a moment look at something I am finding highly amusing.
Currently we have a believer in the christian god, a “hard core” atheist, and an agnostic.
Normally one might assume the atheist and the christian would be the farthest apart, with the agnostic playing “peace keeper”, but in our situation, it seems that I’m actually the one in the “middle ground”, at least on the issue of spirituality.
Does this strike anybody else as humorous?
Whatever one calls their world-view (religion, philosophy, etc.) it’s still crucial to maintain an element of self-doubt to retain an modicum of humility and objectivity. I think that the tendency to assume we’re more right than those with whom we disagree is a human problem not specifically a religious problem.
Everyone, regardless of belief, is capable of stereotyping those who don’t share their ideas. I’m sure you can’t point to the gross stereotypes of the atheist at the hands of Christians. Similarly we can point to ludicrous caricaturizations of Christians by those who are dismissive of Christianity. It’s too easy to lay this sort of behavior at the feet of a single world-view be it atheism or theism. It’s a human problem that evidences itself in racism, politics and pretty much anywhere two humans find themselves in conflict.
-The “Rock so Big”/Burrito so Hot” argument.
I’m certain you understand that this argument is a logical fallacy, right? It’s funny because it’s nonsensical but it still stumps sincere believers. I just want to make sure you didn’t think this is really a legitimate argument.
-The “God Changing His Mind” Dilemma.
Really the problem is much bigger than “Does God really change his mind?” And it doesn’t require the long list of divine qualities to be problematic. You really only need one, omniscience. If God is truly a know-it-all then he’d never make a mistake that would require a change of mind. So this problem is deep and complex.
However there are a couple problems with the dilemma as well.
First of all, a change of mind is not necessarily reflective of a mistake. If I decided to have scrambled eggs after first deciding to have cereal, doesn’t imply the original choice to have cereal was a mistake. Neither does it imply that I wasn’t aware of my options or choices. In other words I can know all and still change my mind.
Secondly, in the biblical world-view God is not alone as a free-will agent. He must contend with some incredibly fickle elements of creation otherwise known as humans. If we truly are given a chance to exercise our own will then God will by necessity need to adjust his interaction with us accordingly, if for not other reason that to maintain our illusion of free-will. If our free-will is, in fact, not an illusion is no surprise that God’s plans must be adjusted to honor our ability to make choices.
– The absolutes and the gray areas.
My definition fits God as much as anything else. You keep saying that it doesn’t apply to God but I need to you explain in further detail what you mean. I don’t see the incompatibility.
– Being born in sin.
I don’t believe that at all, in fact I think that this idea of “original sin” is very dangerous. There are entire strands of Christianity that reject this idea. The bible seems to back me up on this. I know why some Christians have a misconceptions but I do know what I believe and why I believe it.
– The issue of the marginalization of the Christian.
The specific situation I know of isn’t going to be of great use to our discussion. I know the person I’m talking about and I know they’re not a “Fred Phelps” type Christian. However you don’t and you aren’t required to take my word for it.
Let me just say that the situation to which I’m referring is a sociology class not a biology or any other “hard” science”. The issues they discuss are a ethical or philosophical in nature. I do understand that Christians have inappropriately in interjected archaic ideas into classrooms without regard for the facts. I’ve repeatedly acknowledged that Christians in many cases have brought the disregard of philosophical naturalists upon themselves. But my overall point is that, in may cases, the shoe is now on the other foot.
Even in cases where a believer has honest questions and is willing to converse and learn as soon as the fact that they’re a believer arise a new tone is interjected into the conversation.
Here’s a quote from someone with whom I was conversing about my problems with evolution. This wasn’t a classroom and they weren’t a professor.
“The point with my comment was just to mock you for being an idiot. I made my point, and I have no illusions that you will wake up and be interested in anything intellectually honest – so, have a nice day.”
Now we’ve been having a conversation for a number of months now and I am interested in honest debate. That comment, and others like it, was written in that same dismissive spirit about which I’m talking. I can give you entire conversations if you’re interested. There’s more and from a wider variety of sources.
Know you can say, “That’s simply one guy, not everyone is like that.” That’s true. You and Uncertain have certainly been patient and agreeably disagreeable. But, to large extent, philosophical naturalism has risen up and taken the place of the Christianity of the 19th century and is equally dismissive of those who don’t fall in line.
I’ve said before, I’m sure that we’ve brought this on ourselves, but that doesn’t make it right.
-The Doubting Thomas story.
It’s funny that you say my perception of the story is a common mistake many Christians make. My long experience in the church has given me evidence of the opposite, many Christians, without thinking assume Thomas was bad because he doubted.
Regardless the text doesn’t really support the conclusion you’re offering. (How ironic is it that we’re debating Biblical interpretation!) Jesus said “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” I don’t see where he saying it’s better to not see the evidence and believe but rather that people will believe and be blessed without sticking their finger in Jesus’ hands. But there’s still plenty of evidence it simply won’t be first-hand.
It is a bit funny that the atheist holds the more moderate position in this “animal spirituality” debate. But I suspect that Uncertain is a bit more of a soft atheist or a hard agnostic than someone who truly fits the bill of “agnostic.” However I’m willing to take his word for it.
moot,
Still waiting to hear your reply to two earlier questions I posed (in post: https://potomac9499.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/an-open-question-to-all-believers/#comment-751 ):
Given that you agreed that science has a pretty decent idea on the age of things (like the universe, the planet, and the human species):
Is your position that god, every so often, steps in and creates entirely new species from scratch (since you reject macro-evolution)?
And do you ALSO believe that god has done this countless times (let’s be conservative and say 10,000 times, and all other species are examples of micro-evolution which you do accept), and that ONE, and ONLY one, of those times, he imbued his “new” creation as being special, and gave them a sense of morality?
“Whatever one calls their world-view (religion, philosophy, etc.) it’s still crucial to maintain an element of self-doubt to retain an modicum of humility and objectivity.”
I agree 100%
“I think that the tendency to assume we’re more right than those with whom we disagree is a human problem not specifically a religious problem.”
Again, I agree, BUT the point I keep trying to make is that religion more than other world views or philosophies has a built in mechanism for not being critical of your preconceptions, since they are often times seen as being “god’s will” not your own.
“Everyone, regardless of belief, is capable of stereotyping those who don’t share their ideas.”
Agree 🙂
“I’m sure you can’t point to the gross stereotypes of the atheist at the hands of Christians.”
Mostly based out of shear ignorance, but yeah…
“Similarly we can point to ludicrous caricaturizations of Christians by those who are dismissive of Christianity.”
People like Pat Robertson make it SOOOOOOOOO easy…
“It’s too easy to lay this sort of behavior at the feet of a single world-view be it atheism or theism. It’s a human problem that evidences itself in racism, politics and pretty much anywhere two humans find themselves in conflict.”
I agree that ALL sides are guilty of this. Where I think religion differs is in the ability to cause actions based off those caricaturizations (i.e. kill the infidel).
“I’m certain you understand that this argument is a logical fallacy, right?”
Yes, I’m aware it’s not a VALID argument, but it is one that a surprisingly large percentage of christians don’t know how to respond to, and it’s one I only use to make light of things, it’s not something I would use as a legitimate part of a debate.
“First of all, a change of mind is not necessarily reflective of a mistake. If I decided to have scrambled eggs after first deciding to have cereal, doesn’t imply the original choice to have cereal was a mistake.”
The problem is that god ALREADY knew the outcome before anything ever happened. If one assumes, as christians do, that god knows EVERYTHING, then god knew in advance of his choices that he would later change his mind, and he made the original choice anyways. It’s not a case of deciding that you’re more in the mood for eggs, it’s knowing in advance you’re going to choose eggs, but pouring the bowl of cereal, putting the milk in it, and telling your children that cereal is the ONLY food allowed to be eaten for breakfast, then some time later saying “Just kidding, eggs are ok; I was just fucking with you”.
“He must contend with some incredibly fickle elements of creation otherwise known as humans. If we truly are given a chance to exercise our own will then God will by necessity need to adjust his interaction with us accordingly, if for not other reason that to maintain our illusion of free-will. If our free-will is, in fact, not an illusion is no surprise that God’s plans must be adjusted to honor our ability to make choices.”
But once again, according to the christian world view, god knew your choices before you were ever born. There is no need for him to react to choices that man makes with his free will, god knew the choice you’d make before the universe existed.
If you assume the account of Adam and Eve in Genesis is accurate, then god KNEW (not guessed, but KNEW 100% for a fact) that Adam and Eve would eat the fruit. He also knew that when he created the angel Lucifer, that Lucifer would one day attempt to overthrow him and take over heaven, and then eventually become Satan. And yet, god created Eden KNOWING that he would kick them out, and he created Satan KNOWING that he would banish him to hell for eternity.
“If our free-will is, in fact, not an illusion is no surprise that God’s plans must be adjusted to honor our ability to make choices.”
Not if god knew the results of our choices before the choice is made. Either he knows EVERYTHING, and thus can make plans accordingly from the VERY BEGINNING, or he does not know everything, and thus he loses his omniscience.
You can’t have an ALL knowing god, that changes plans because something happens that he was unaware would happen.
“The absolutes and the gray areas.”
If you or I say that to kill is ALWAYS wrong, and then we kill to protect our family, it means we were not wrong, it was not ABSOLUTE.
If an all powerful, all knowing deity says to kill is ALWAYS wrong, then by definition it has already thought of every possible scenario where one might be required to kill and determined in advance, that in those situations killing is STILL wrong. This is a TRUE absolute, since god takes everything into account by virtue of knowing everything, and being infallible.
When this all powerful, all knowing deity then breaks his OWN RULE, and kills (Sodom and Gomorrah, the flood, telling people to surround a town and then kill every person and animal in that town, etc) then I see a big problem.
“Being born in sin.”
This is a tricky one, since various branches believe this and others do not. For those that do believe it I see it as a tremendous flaw. For those that don’t, this is irrelevant to the discussion.
However, I do think that even if you don’t believe we are born into sin, you still believe that a PERFECT, GOOD deity created the desire for pedophilia in some percentage of humanity. If god is the creator of everything, he is the creator of our desires, and in some percentage of people, one of those desires is to have sex with children.
I am a computer programmer, and I am by NO MEANS perfect, but I have yet to create an application that has the desire to rape children. Yes this is a bit tongue in cheek, but I think this puts me “one up” on god.
“The issue of the marginalization of the Christian.”
I do agree that both sides are guilty of this, and I agree this is a problem. The specific example MAY be a good example of this, but it’s irrelevant. Many people on both sides are too dismissive of the other side (hell, check some of the old comments from people in this post for examples).
Yet again, I’ll point out the difference I see between religion and other world views. All world views can tend to marginalize people that don’t agree with it, but religion is SPECIFICALLY suited towards acting on those ideas of others because it easily becomes “god’s will” to take action.
“Even in cases where a believer has honest questions and is willing to converse and learn as soon as the fact that they’re a believer arise a new tone is interjected into the conversation.”
Part of this “tone” I think is a reaction to the preconceived notion of where the discussion may head.
If you recall our first interaction was on your blog where you made a post that “Atheism is intellectually dishonest” (or some nonsense to that effect). I quickly pointed out the many flaws in your argument, and you graciously accepted that your choice of wording (if not your original premise) was flawed. I think it would have been VERY natural for me to dismiss your comments on this blog at that point based on the previous post from your blog, however we have managed to have a very good discussion for the last 2-3 months or so.
In all honesty, my view of you at THAT time was of a typical ignorant christian spouting off a random piece of garbage they heard from their minister some recent Sunday.
Now my view of you has changed, to the point where I think you talk to your minister during the week as well. 🙂
“The Doubting Thomas story”
When jesus says “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” do you take this as jesus telling Thomas that DOUBT is good, or that FAITH is good?
Yes, jesus was willing to show Thomas the wounds, but if you read that line, he is CLEARLY saying that those who beleive WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF EVIDENCE (i.e. faith) are blessed.
Yes there may be other passages that put doubt and skepticism as virtues, but those would only serve to fuel my argument that the bible is not consistent, and would do nothing to argue against my point that the bible (and thus christianty) hold blind faith as a virtue.
“But there’s still plenty of evidence it simply won’t be first-hand.”
There is evidence for christianity, just as there is for islam, and buddhism, and hinduism, and a host of other religions, and we BOTH agree they can’t ALL be correct, and OBVIOUSLY the evidence for any single one is not strong enough to capture the “hearts and minds” of a majority of people on the planet, so how is one to choose WHICH evidence to look at, or WHICH religion to follow?
Myself I look at the scientific evidence, since that is the least in dispute (at least by rational people) and the most thoroughly tested.
I know I always say this, but responding quickly:-
“As fun as this discussion of animal spirituality is…it’s seems like we’re sort of arguing the same point while my emphasis is on the fact that we can’t assume similarity and your emphasis is on the fact that we can’t assume difference. I’m not sure we’re going to get much farther than that.”
Indeed.
“Uncertain, I would be interested in hearing you respond to Rod’s points of human uniqueness in regards to “genocide, slavery and pedophilia”.”
For the most part, we’re not unique in those behaviours. Allowing that a certain amount of anthropomorphism is inevitable in any comparisons made here I’ll look at genocide first:-
Just looking at the behaviour alone, the efforts of a group of predators to drive off or kill any other competing species from their hunting grounds looks a lot like genocide. Or the way a male lion, if taking over the Pride of a rival, will kill any offspring of the previous male in an effort to give his own offspring the best chance at survival.
Pedophilia is a bit more difficult as I don’t know of any documented examples of that behavior in animals besides humans, but I’d say, based on the following, it’s probable that such behaviour does exist. Pedophilia is one of a group of sexual disorders identified as paraphilias and characterised as “any of several persistent, intense sexual interests, fantasies, or urges involving nonhuman objects, pain or humiliation, children, or nonconsenting individuals.” And given that there *have* been numerous examples of animals focusing on, shall we say, inappropriate sexual partners even to the exclusion of available partners of their own species, it seems reasonable to surmise that animals are prone to paraphilia-like disorders just as we are.
Slavery is a bit more problematic, but *could* be seen in the way some species use others for their own benefit or in the way dominant pack animals limit those of lower rank in what they eat and in their oppurtunities to breed. (I’m aware that I’m reaching a bit there.)
“For my part I’ll work on developing some other lines of reasoning on human distinction but as I said before, for me, even if humanity is not unique in any one specific way the vast differences are enough to warrant a unique spot in the world. The fact that we are having this discussion is an example of the complexity of which humans are capable.”
The problem with that logic is that *all* life is, in its own way, just as unique as humanity is.
“I already gave you a better definition of “absolutes” to illustrate how something can be an absolute and still be applied in a variety of ways and allow for “gray areas”.”
But you used another human created ‘absolute’ to do it that varies from culture to culture and, within a culture, according to situation. Again, still nothing to support the existence of an objective absolute morality as opposed to a socially evolved one.
“I don’t particularly care if we call philosophical naturalism a religion or not, my premise is the same. The rules of doubt and objectivity apply to any philosophy as they do to any other religion.”
Agreed, but a part of the problem is that very rarely do religions apply doubt and objectivity to themselves.
“But when philosophical naturalism is allowed to be turned loose and be so dismissive of ideas that surely merit discussion or debate it seems that it has become guilty of this very sort of intellectual slippery slope I previously talked about. In some cases it’s lost the ability to occasionally doubt itself. And like I said before the ability to develop our ideas with a modest amount of doubt is “undoubtedly” a healthy practice.”
Indeed.
“Both of you argued that theism is more likely to result in this sort lack of self-doubt than other philosophies. I don’t know that I’d agree with that.”
Agreed with you on the human nature part, but the above isn’t quite what I argued, which was that belief systems (*any* belief systems) that cast themselves as ‘The One True Way’ tend to be significantly *more* prone to that sort of behaviour, whether they are theistic or not and there are plenty of theistic belief systems that don’t make that claim.
Rod,
“Again, I would urge BOTH of you to look at the idea of humans 6000 years ago vs animals today, not the idea of humans today. I think that if you look at it in this way, without all the trapping of modern technology in the way, you’ll see a more apt comparison.”
Indeed, I think I already commented that if you go back far enough homo sapiens is merely a small, weak ape with relatively dull senses whose only advantage over the other animals it was in competition with was its cleverness.
“It would depend entirely on the context. For instance, if in a biology class, studying evolution, if somebody were to mention creationism, I would think they SHOULD be ridiculed. But if that same person mentioned creationism is philosophy, history, or literature class, I’d think it was a perfectly valid thing to bring up.
without more information of the specifics, it’s hard to say who is right in this particular situation, but there is a very real chance it’s your friend bringing up topics that are not appropriate to the discussion.”
Indeed.
“Let’s for a moment look at something I am finding highly amusing.
Currently we have a believer in the christian god, a “hard core” atheist, and an agnostic.
Normally one might assume the atheist and the christian would be the farthest apart, with the agnostic playing “peace keeper”, but in our situation, it seems that I’m actually the one in the “middle ground”, at least on the issue of spirituality.
Does this strike anybody else as humorous?”
Yep.
Moot,
“It is a bit funny that the atheist holds the more moderate position in this “animal spirituality” debate. But I suspect that Uncertain is a bit more of a soft atheist or a hard agnostic than someone who truly fits the bill of “agnostic.” However I’m willing to take his word for it.”
It depends on your definition of ‘agnostic’. As the term was originally coined it was stated as a logical method following the principles: “Follow your reason as far as it will take you” and “Do not pretend that conclusions are certain when they are not”. These days it seems to have degenerated to being considered a sort of religious or philosophical “Meh”.
“Everyone, regardless of belief, is capable of stereotyping those who don’t share their ideas.”
Agreed.
““But there’s still plenty of evidence it simply won’t be first-hand.”
There is evidence for christianity, just as there is for islam, and buddhism, and hinduism, and a host of other religions, and we BOTH agree they can’t ALL be correct, and OBVIOUSLY the evidence for any single one is not strong enough to capture the “hearts and minds” of a majority of people on the planet, so how is one to choose WHICH evidence to look at, or WHICH religion to follow?
Myself I look at the scientific evidence, since that is the least in dispute (at least by rational people) and the most thoroughly tested.”
Agreed (although the rational people comment seems a bit inflamitory), and judging by the strength and nature of the evidence for the various religions we see around us, I see more support for a naturalistic explanation for religion than for a theistic one. And so we come back to neither the existence or nature of god being provable or disprovable.
Sorry about not responding to the “date of the earth” strand. I do realize there are a number of really good indicators of the earth’s age. But most of this is outside of my very limited range of expertise.
But I do understand that the Cambrian Explosion is a very interesting phenomena that has yet to be fully explained. Either way none of this would affect my view on humanity too much. If I believe God exists how much more of a stretch is it to believe he made humans “exceptional”?
-The self-doubt idea.
I do believe that Christianity is the “one true way” yet I’m still able to keep myself from blowing up infidels, I must be an anomaly. I’m being facetious of course. The fact remains that any unchecked ideology has the ability to “cause actions based off those caricaturizations”. People have been killed for political, racial and other equally stupid reasons.
I do think that this self-doubt would keep us from making too many assumptions about what a person with whom we disagree might say. It should cause us to keep our ears and minds open.
My original blog title was when I was working with a too “black or white” version of the word “atheist”. I think that to a similar degree some of your problems with Christian ideas is because you may be working with a too black or white definition of some of our key concepts.
By the way, I get all my talking points from my minister. He’s standing over my shoulder right now as I write to make sure I’m not guilty of heresy or he’ll smite me. 🙂
-The God Changing His Mind.
Interestingly both of you have accused Christianity of having a too “black or white” view of things. But when I explain how that isn’t necessarily so, you’ve insisted that it must be that way.
You’re defining words like “absolute”, “infallible” or “faith” (often contrarily to Christian definitions) and then condemning Christianity and the Christian God based on your definitions. It’s easy to dismiss an idea when the opposition is defining the very idea to which they are opposed.
Believe it or not these dilemmas are ones that Christians have been aware of for centuries and have developing very compelling explanations to deal with them.
This is true of the concept of absolutes as well as God’s foreknowledge. I seems suspiciously like the classic straw-man argument, where you get to define and then knock down the opposing ideas.
Let me try to more clearly define these concepts, at least as much as I understand them.
We teach that God is omnipotent but obviously that doesn’t mean God can do anything. The concept of omnipotence has to do with power, not ability per se. In fact, there are many things God can’t do. He can’t make square circles. He can’t create a morally free creature who couldn’t choose evil. He can’t instantly create a sixty-year-old man (not one that looks sixty, but one that is sixty). None of these, though, have to do with power. Instead, they are logically contradictory, and therefore contrary to God’s rational nature.
We also say that God is omniscient but that is not to say that God has set the future in stone by His own omnipotence. There is a difference between God knowing the future and God decreeing every future event by fiat such that it will then take place. That why we believe human choices have consequence and purpose and by extension the existence of evil and thus pedophiles.
-Doubting Thomas.
Again you’re creating a false dilemma, it’s like the old, “So have you stopped beating your wife” joke.
When Jesus says, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” It doesn’t have to be a comment on doubt or blind faith. The issue was not the doubt of every believer to ever exist but Thomas’ doubt. There would be believers (including me) whose belief in the resurrection would have to rest on evidence other than “seeing” or “sticking my finger in the the wounds”. But it’s not to say that there would be no evidence at all and that I had better believe anyway. Verse 31 in that same chapter states that these things “were written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.” They’re attempting to offer evidence not to coerce us into blind faith.
-Naturalism is more rational than religion?
You may not be quite have been saying what I’m responding to here, so take the following with a grain of salt.
You made the final point that the evidence isn’t compelling enough to convince a majority of the world that Christianity is right. If that itself is enough to call Christianity into question then it’s enough to call atheism into question as well.
I’ve heard Dawkins make the same argument that essentially the rational mind tends to be a naturalist and (by extension is more likely to be an atheist.)
There were actually two pretty well known studies that dispute that claim. In 1916 the psychologist James Leuba conducted the first survey asking scientists if they believed in a God who actively interacts with humanity. The study found that in 1916 40% said they did, 40% said they did not and 20% were not sure.
Now I realize that was almost 100 years ago, so today, with all the new ideas and naturalistic revelations the percentages must have changed in favor of the atheists, right?
However in 1997, Edward Wilson and Larry Witham repeated the survey asking the very same question of scientist. They reported this in the journal Nature and they found that the numbers hadn’t changed significantly in 80 years. (It’s in the April 3rd, ’97 issue, if you’re interest.) Even Gould, again an atheist, didn’t agree with Dawkins’s ideas. He said, “Either half my collegues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs – and equally compatible with atheism.”
So to say that the philosophical naturalism is more “rational” that a specific religion isn’t quite the whole story.
I’m sure I’ve forgotten something but as I’m late as it is, this will have to do.
uncertain,
Based on your interest in animal behaviours, if you have not read this post already, you’d probably be interested in:
Also, one of the Podcasts I listen to (Skeptics Guide To The Universe) was interviewing somebody this week about E-Coli bacteria, and he mentioned that we have seen examples of altruism in bacteria. That one seemed interesting to me, because we typically think of bacteria as non-thinking organisms that work PURELY on instinct, but this would go towards showing more complexity than most people have previously assumed.
“although the rational people comment seems a bit inflamitory”
Well I was thinking of creationists trying to push their religious beliefs into science classes in schools across this country. IMO this is one of the WORST possible things we could do to our schools, since we are already falling behind other countries in many areas of education, and this would push us even further behind. I personally know of no rational arguments for creationism that have not already been discredited thoroughly multiple times
, but I guess there could exist some of which I am unaware.
—–
moot,
“But I do understand that the Cambrian Explosion is a very interesting phenomena that has yet to be fully explained.”
There are aspects we still don’t yet know, but we have yet to “fully explain” gravity yet, and that happens today, not 500+ million years ago.
However, even the questions still remaining do not call into question the basic timing of events I described previously.
So I’m still curious, do you think that god created life, sat around a while, create other forms, sat around, created more forms, etc. Eventually he created mankind, and made man special, but continued every so often creating new species of animals at random?
I’m quite curious, because the young-earthers are much easier to
classify, since they believe it all happened at once. The old-earthers have many varied versions, and I’m trying to grasp your version. For example, there are many christians (including the official
position of the catholic church under pope John Paul was that god created all the species and used evolution as the method of creation. Since you reject evolution, but accept the age of the earth, your position seems to be a sort of hybrid between those two beliefs.
“If I believe God exists how much more of a stretch is it to believe he made humans “exceptional”?”
What I’m curious about is not the creation of humans as exceptional, but the idea that god created new species time and time again over the course of billions of years, and only ONE time during all those new creations, he made the species “special”.
“The fact remains that any unchecked ideology has the ability to “cause actions based off those caricaturizations”. People have been killed for political, racial and other equally stupid reasons.”
This is true. I’m not arguing against the idea that ALL philosophies can cause bad actions, the point I am making is that religion has the built in idea that a supreme deity is ordering something, and it”s much easier to argue against a politician than it is against “god’s will”.
“I do think that this self-doubt would keep us from making too many assumptions about what a person with whom we disagree might say. It should cause us to keep our ears and minds open.”
One would sincerely HOPE that this is what would happen, but history has shown this is not always the case.
“Interestingly both of you have accused Christianity of having a too “black or white” view of things. But when I explain how that isn’t necessarily so, you’ve insisted that it must be that way.”
The issue is not that ALL christians have too black and white a view of things, but that the overwhelming majority of the VOCAL christians have this black and white view.
Obviously you are more moderate than somebody like Pat Robertson who blames Katrina on American acceptance of homosexuality and Ellen DeGeneres (who is from New Orleans). But there is a very large group of very vocal christians who are “hell bent” on getting a young earth creationist idea of religion pushed into science classes in our schools, who want to oppress homosexual couples, who want to change the constitution of the US to include religious dogma, etc…
Just as I believe the most vocal people against isalamic extremist should be moderate muslims, I also believe that the most vocal group against jack-asses like Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps should be moderate christians. In my opinion you have allowed these racist, homophobic, sexist, bigoted, extremists to hijack the public perception of your religion.
“You’re defining words like “absolute”, “infallible” or “faith” (often contrarily to Christian definitions) and then condemning Christianity and the Christian God based on your definitions.”
Actually, I am defining them the same was the catholic church does (I was raised catholic), and the way that the typical vocal right-wing christian
does in the US today.
If you’d prefer we can use Websters definitions, but I don’t think this will help your cause (the definitions are quite lengthy, but if you’d like me to post them I can, but they go along with EXACTLY the same ideas I’ve been saying).
“Believe it or not these dilemmas are ones that Christians have been aware of for centuries and have developing very compelling explanations to deal with them.”
Actually I am aware, and the resulting “conclusions” that the churches have come up with fall under the heading of “Special Pleading” (which is another Logical Fallacy, that will be in Part 3 of my posts about that topic).
“I seems suspiciously like the classic straw-man argument, where you get to define and then knock down the opposing ideas.”
I can see how you might come to this conclusion, but even as a believer, you must admit that the VAST MAJORITY of vocal christians in the US are not in agreement with you on these issues. For them god is 100% infallible, and is 100% omniscient, and anything we see is a preconceived outcome ordained by god.
“We teach that God is omnipotent but obviously that doesn’t mean God can do anything. The concept of omnipotence has to do with power, not ability per se. In fact, there are many things God can’t do.”
MOST of the vocal christians in the US would STRONGLY disagree with that last sentence.
My view on it would be that you are defining god in such a way that he can not violate the laws of the universe (physics, chemistry, etc); and if you define god in such a way, then where is the NEED for god in the universe at all, if god himself is constrained by the universe.
“He can’t create a morally free creature who couldn’t choose evil.”
I’d like to get back into the idea of where did the DESIRE for evil come from? For instance why does a pedophile have a desire to have sexual contact with a child? Not why does he choose to (that’s free will)
, but why would god imbue a person with these desires.
“None of these, though, have to do with power. Instead, they are logically contradictory, and therefore contrary to God’s rational nature.”
Essentially you’re saying that god must follow the logical laws of the universe, and my reply again, is if god is so constrained BY the universe, then where is the NEED for god IN the universe?
“We also say that God is omniscient but that is not to say that God has set the future in stone by His own omnipotence. There is a difference between God knowing the future and God decreeing every future event by fiat such that it will then take place.”
I agree, the christian view is not that god set the actions in stone, but he does already KNOW what the action will be before it happens. And by ANY logic you wish to employ, if you KNOW the outcome of something before it happens, that outcome can not cause you to change your mind on something.
“That why we believe human choices have consequence and purpose and by extension the existence of evil and thus pedophiles.”
I agree that free will says we are responsible for our actions. I never argued against this. My issue is the idea of god knowing the results before hand, and STILL changing the rules based on certain events.
According to your beliefs god KNEW in advance he would wipe out most species in the flood (unless that is allegory, in which case we’re back to the idea of HOW do we know what is history, and what is just a morality tale). He also knew IN ADVANCE that Adam and Even would eat from the tree, and that Lucifer would attempt to overthrow him, and that he would wipe out Sodom and Gomorrah, etc… He KNEW all these things would happen, and yet he did nothing to stop them before hand. And in the case of lucifer/satan, god, being an all good deity, created the “ultimate source” of all evil.
“Verse 31 in that same chapter states that these things “were written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God.””
So we’re to believe this book over all other books? Again we’re back to the idea of HOW is somebody supposed to know objectively WHICH faith’s book is true? If somebody came to you tomorrow and said, I’ve never heard anything about any religion on the planet, please tell me why yours is the true one, and the others are false, you’re going to give them the EXACT SAME “evidence” that a muslim or hindu, or catholic, or jew, or scientologist gives. You’re going to give them anecdotal evidence form your life (and the lives of people you know), and you’ll give them a book that you claim is written by the “TRUE” god. This doesn’t prove your specific religion is wrong, but it also shows that objectivly, there is no difference between religions, other than your faith in your own religion.
“You made the final point that the evidence isn’t compelling enough to convince a majority of the world that Christianity is right. If that itself is enough to call Christianity into question then it’s enough to call atheism into question as well.”
It’s actually enough to call ALL preconceptions into doubt, including evolution. In my view, people should look at the evidence themselves and come to their own conclusion on what seems to have the best evidence to support it. Barring that (since no person can study every subject to the degree needed to form an opinion) people should be able in many cases to accept the consensus of opinion from qualified professionals in the field.
“So to say that the philosophical naturalism is more “rational” that a specific religion isn’t quite the whole story.”
I’ve said all along there are religious beliefs that are rational and reasonable.
Young Earth creationism is not one of those, but certain versions of old Earth creationism are rational and reasonable attempts to understand the world.
That’s not to say I think Old Earth Creationism is correct, but just that some versions of it are reasonable.
-The process of Creation.
It’s clear the much of the process for the development of the variety of species is still unknown. We may discover these processes in the future but, for now, they remain in the realm of best guess.
For me then to outline exactly how I believe God might have brought the existence of these species about is a bit premature. I can’t give you definite answers.
-Religion being an unchecked ideology.
You wrote, “…the point I’m making is that religion has the built in idea that a supreme deity is ordering something, and it’s much easier to argue against a politician than it is against god’s will.”
But we’ve already established that there are countless religions and even more countless factions within those religions. It doesn’t seem like it’s been hard at all for religions to argue against one another or, for that matter, for those outside religion to dismiss it altogether. Rather than an unchecked ideology this has been one of religions weaknesses.
-Public perception of religion.
Unfortunately Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson don’t call me to edit their speeches or actions. I sincerely wish they did.
-Definitions of infallible, absolute and faith.
Again Christianity has no consensus about some of these ideas. That’s precisely the reason there are so many denominations. But I think I’m giving you pretty useful ideas of these concepts from a legitimate biblical perspective. These words aren’t monopolized by the church but they’re used by the church in order to describe “Christian” concepts. So we can employ a Webster’s definition but that doesn’t help us as much as just using a biblical definition.
Therefore I’ve described absolute, infallible and omnipotent and shown clearly that they don’t carry the definitions you’ve given them. You’ve pointed out that many Christian themselves carry poor (or rather more black and white)ideas of these concepts but the fact that some people have bad ideas doesn’t mean that the ideas themselves are bad.
I’m not defining God in such a way that He cannot break the laws of the universe. That’s pretty much the opposite of what I’m saying. We call the suspensions of those physical laws miracles. God is not contained by the universe and that is precisely what makes him God. I’m saying that the universe is rational because God is rational. You’ve turned that around to say that God is somehow subject to the universe, I’m saying the universe is subject to Him.
-Desire for evil.
You’re saying that an evil desire must be a specifically created thing. That if a pedophile exists it must be because God specifically implanted the sexual attraction to children in that person. I reject that idea entirely. I’m saying that God defines what is right but doesn’t force people to conform.
However, for the most part, the longing God has imbued people with are good. The problem is they try to fulfill them in a way that is not God. I’d rather not think to much about pedophilia (although I understand your point, I’m just nauseated by the subject), so let’s talk about something less disturbing.
A person with homosexual desires at heart generally desires sexual satisfaction and companionship. Both of those things are not wrong at all, in fact they are good things. Those desires are essentially good desires and they are desires that can be fulfilled in a wholesome way. So it’s not the desire itself that is wrong in the the manner in which one chooses to satisfy that desire.
A desire for comfortable surroundings is not an “evil” desire. And there are legitimate ways to earn money and provide for oneself and ones family. However an ambition for those things that causes one to steal or to hurt others to achieve those things is wrong. Again it’s not the basic desire that is evil but the manner in which that desire is satisfied.
Hopefully, by extension, you’re understanding my overall point and how it applies to the issue of pedophilia.
-Again with the Omniscience.
The bible in Colossians clearly states the the plan to send Christ was conceived long before even the creation of the world. This implies that God knew before He created the tree or Eve what the outcome of this would be. You feel like it’s a cop-out but again, unless free-will is an illusion God has to legitimize our choices by creating options.
-Believe the Bible over other books.
You accused me of giving anecdotal evidence to confirm the validity of the bible. I could be wrong but we have had the discussion of the veracity of scriptures before and I don’t think that I’ve ever used “anecdotal evidence” to support my conclusions.
That being said, “anecdotal evidence” flawed as it may be is one of the most compelling sources of information that we have in our everyday relationships. We want to hear “what works” from our friends and co-workers. They convince of the goodness of a certain product, restaurant or movie based on their experience with those things. Each of those issue is a far cry from believing in the supernatural but don’t dismiss the idea of anecdotal evidence out of hand.
The reason it doesn’t work in most circumstance is because there is not trust relationship between two people on a blog. But anecdotal evidence is much more powerful than we give it credit for when it comes to to family and friends.
All that being said, I still don’t think I’ve employed anecdotal evidence to convince you of the truth of the bible at any point in this discussion.
Let me wrap up with a quote from you that I agree with “…People should look at the evidence themselves and come to their own conclusion on what seems to have the best evidence to support it.”
Yep, however we do need a consensus about what we consider evidence or proof.
I certainly wish there were an argument for the existence of God that was airtight. I would love it to be so logical and empirical that no person whose faculties are operating properly could deny it. That would, of course, be “strong rationalism” and it’s not a standard we impose on much of anything. (Even Dawkins admits that Darwinism isn’t defensible in the light of “strong rationalism” I’ll give you the quote if you want it.) There are, however, good and compelling reasons to believe. It just that we can always find reasons not to believe. The question is – which is more compelling? We both have developed different answers to that question. But rationality or irrationality is not really the issue.
moot,
“The process of Creation” and “the process for the development of the variety of species” are two VERY different subjects.
The beginning of life has NOTHING AT ALL to do with evolution. I want to make sure you understand this, these are two totally different subjects.
To combine them would be as if I said something like: “Theoretical Astro-Physics – Understanding Shakespeare’s witting is a tough thing to for me to do”.
“For me then to outline exactly how I believe God might have brought the existence of these species about is a bit premature.”
I did not ask about the MEANS of creation of new species, for my question it could be evolution or “poof there it is”, the question was not about HOW.
To help, I’ll try to clarify them for you:
Is your position that god, every so often, steps in and creates entirely new species from scratch (since you reject macro-evolution)? This could be done by any MEANS, but according to what you’ve said of your beliefs, you SEEM to be saying that every so often he just creates a whole new species which never existed before and is unlike anything that ever existed before.
And do you ALSO believe that god has done this countless times (let’s be conservative and say 10,000 times, and all other species are examples of micro-evolution which you do accept), and that ONE, and ONLY one, of those times, he imbued his “new” creation as being special, and gave them a sense of morality? Again, I’m not concerned with the METHOD of creating these species, he could use evolution, or cook them up in a Crockpot, or snap his finger, or create them from clay or…; what I am asking is that of the (at least) 10,000+ times that a new species came into being, that ONE TIME, and ONLY ONE TIME, god made that particular species “special” in some way (morality, superior intelligence, the ability to go to heaven, an immortal soul, consciousness, spirituality, free will, made in “his” image, etc).
On this same subject, I’m curious, as somebody who denies evolution, and the science behind it, WHAT is it about evolution that you think is incompatible with god? Why in YOUR VIEW, could god not have used a combination of micro and macro evolution as the method for creating new species throughout history?
And what type of scientific evidence would it take for you to be convinced that both micro and macro evolution are correct, and that humans are related to all other animals on the planet through evolution? A more complete fossil record? A “‘new’ new testament” that describes evolutionary process? Ben Stein’s approval?
“Rather than an unchecked ideology this has been one of religions weaknesses”
We both agree that ANY ideology left unchecked can cause great harm.
The point I am making (again) is that when you beleive that your thoughts and actions are condoned (or are explicitly ordered) by an all powerful deity (whether that deity is god, jesus, allah, ra, vishnu, fsm, etc) then you have a higher degree of likelihood that people will ACT on that runaway ideology.
People are inherently much more likely to kill for, or to die for their idea of god than they are anything else.
“Unfortunately Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson don’t call me to edit their speeches or actions.”
That would be an easy job: Control-A … Delete
“Again Christianity has no consensus about some of these ideas.”
True, but the most vocal members of any group are the ones who give the world an opinion of that group.
If Fred Phelps does NOT stand for what christians stand for, then it should be christians front and center condemning him every time he opens his mouth. If I was a catholic, protestant, baptist, etc I would make DAMN SURE that I attended as many counter demonstrations against Phelps to show that his beliefs are NOT the beliefs of “most” christians.
To be fair, I also think muslims should be the first people condemning islamic suicide bombers, and I should be one of the first one condemning some jack-ass atheist who runs around spouting nonsense and if it is part of atheistic beliefs.
A few other question on “infallible, absolute and faith”
In YOUR view, what does “infallible” mean to you. Can god make a mistake? Can ANYTHING happen which god does not LET happen?
Re: “omniscience”, when god created adam and even, did he ALREADY know they would eat of the fruit? When he created Lucifer did he already know that Lucifer would try to overthrow him and become Satan? If so, and if Satan is the antithesis of god, then why did he still create him?
Re: “absolutes”. If god makes something an “absolute” (like water is ALWAYS made up of hydrogen and oxygen) can this “absolute” EVER be broken, and under what circumstances? And if an “absolute” can be broken under SOME circumstances, who is to say when those circumstances present themselves? how are we to know that something that is “normally” forbidden, can be done in THIS case?
And re: “faith”. In the story of Doubting Thomas, in your view did Thomas have faith BEFORE jesus let him touch the wounds? And did the “others” that jesus spoke of who “did not need to see” have faith? And if yes to both, who’s faith was stronger, Thomas’ or the “others”?
Re: “Desire for evil”
I’m curious of YOUR opinion of homosexuality… Do you think people are BORN heterosexual or homosexual? Or is it a choice?
Did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual? Do you have equal opinions of males and females in terms of sexual attractiveness? If not, then do you have a stronger sexual desire for one sex over the other?
If you have a stronger desire for one sex, then where did that desire come from? Were you born with it? Did you learn it? Did you get it from society?
You say that re: homosexual people: “Those desires are essentially good desires and they are desires that can be fulfilled in a wholesome way.”
If you think homosexuality is wrong, and a person is not physically attracted to people of the opposite sex, then HOW would you propose they fulfill their sexual desires in “a wholesome way”? By becoming a catholic priest? (yes, that was low, but they deserve it)
Based on your answers to those questions, I think I can delve into the idea of desire being a “specifically created thing”.
“You accused me of giving anecdotal evidence to confirm the validity of the bible.”
Actually I said if you were to explain to somebody why your religion is the “true” religion, how somebody would go about it is by: , you’re going to give them the EXACT SAME “evidence” that a muslim or hindu, or catholic, or jew, or scientologist gives. You’re going to give them anecdotal evidence form your life (and the lives of people you know), and you’ll give them a book that you claim is written by the “TRUE” god. This doesn’t prove your specific religion is wrong, but it also shows that objectively, there is no difference between religions, other than your faith in your own religion.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but if so, please explain how you would respond to my scenario, and how your response would be DIFFERENT from somebody of another religion.
If somebody came to you tomorrow and said, I’ve never heard anything about any religion on the planet, please tell me why yours is the true one, and the others are false
“We want to hear “what works” from our friends and co-workers. They convince of the goodness of a certain product, restaurant or movie based on their experience with those things.”
If your best friend in the world came to you and said, “dude, you have to see this movie, it’s the greatest movie of all time”, and you went to the movie, and felt that is sucked, does this mean that your friend lied, or that his “evidence” for this being a good movie was lacking, or biased on his own subjective opinions?
Anecdotal Evidence can be used in some circumstances in our everyday lives (when my fiends recommend something, I usually give it a try), but it can NEVER be used as Scientific Evidence.
“Yep, however we do need a consensus about what we consider evidence or proof.”
I agree with this. In most cases, I would say that the consensus of scientific (or expert) opinion on a given subject is MOST TIMES, going to be the best evidence possible for the typical person with regards to the typical subject.
There are some subjects I am VERY interested in, and i want to see the actual physical evidence for myself out of curiosity, but on MOST subjects, I’m willing to accept that if most “experts” agree then I’m willing to accept it as true until further evidence shows it not to be so.
For instance, I’m not a big fan of “classic literature”, and I can’t stand Shakespeare (the stories are ok, but the I hate the Old English writing), but I’m willing to accept that William was a great author because it’s not a subject I really care enough about to really look into the “evidence” myself.
However if somebody were to tell me that Roger Clemens is the greatest right handed pitcher of all time, I’d want to see their “evidence” for myself, since I am a huge fan of baseball and baseball statistics, and because I am of the opinion that he is NOT the best.
“I certainly wish there were an argument for the existence of God that was airtight.”
If god existed, and wanted his presence to be known unequivocally, then it would be known.
Since there is debate about his existence, the only two logical conclusions to draw are that EITHER he does not want us to KNOW for certain (or does not care if we KNOW for certain), or that god does not exist.
The debate itself is evidence that god’s existence can not be proven.
“Even Dawkins admits that Darwinism isn’t defensible in the light of “strong rationalism””
Yes, even gravity can not be PROVEN 100% in a “strong rationalism” type of proof. I’m comfortable in the belief that when I jump up, I won’t keep flying away, and I will return to the ground.
“But rationality or irrationality is not really the issue.”
For an overall belief in god, yes, I’d agree.
But for certain specifics that many “believers” talk about (such as a 6,000 year old universe) “irrationality” IS EXACTLY the issue.
You know, I hadn’t really thought about this until you posed the question the way you did but my objection to macro-evolution isn’t a scriptural one. Nor have I see “expelled” so it’s not a result of Ben Stein. For me I would like to things like the fossil record more clearly and fully filled.
Even many of those that subscribe to the evolutionary theory have problems with things like macro-evolution, although they believe that it will eventually be resolved within the framework of that theory.
So it’s not a spiritual objection. But that leaves one of three problems. Either I’m too dumb to completely understand the science (quite likely, scientists are explaining it poorly or the theory isn’t quite compelling enough to be fully convincing.
As far as Fred Phelps and Pat Roberts hijacking Christianity I think it’s better to treat them as irrelevant than to give the reason to feel “persecuted” and “oppressed” by counter-demonstrating. That would just add fuel to the fire of nuts like that. They’d eat it up.
-Infallible and other definitions.
Can God make a mistake? Well that’s a matter of opinion isn’t it? Saying something is a mistake is to know all the details of a decision. I could look at the appendix or the tonsils and say, “Whoops, God you kind of goofed that one up.” But that would imply I had a level of knowledge that I don’t. Science is discovering purposes for these things we thought were simply “vestigial organs”. So for me to say God did something wrong would mean that I know enough about the circumstances to make that call.
Can anything happen that God does not let happen? In a manner of speaking, no. But that doesn’t imply God is directly responsible for every action with which He doesn’t agree. Again the free will thing…
Omniscience – I think I stated in the last post that God knew before He created the world that He’d be sending Christ to die for the forgiveness of sins. This would imply that God knew before he created Adam and Eve that they’d sin. Same goes for Satan. Again if we truly have free will then that would require some self-imposed restraint from God.
Absolutes – Yes absolutes can be broken. If what I’ve been saying about moral absolutes is true then I’d obviously believe that moral absolutes can be broken.
Furthermore natural absolutes can also be broken, but only by God who has the power to control nature. We in the Christian world call those suspensions of natural laws miracles.
Faith – No I don’t believe Thomas had faith before Jesus gave him the evidence. For Thomas his faith rested on the evidence Christ gave him. Also we have faith based on evidence but obviously not based on the same evidence that Thomas had. This doesn’t particularly make Thomas faith greater than mine although it probably is.
Desire for evil – I knew I shouldn’t have used the illustration of homosexuality, it’s just going to get us off track.
My point is that we have created desires that are good. But when we choose to attempt to satisfy them in an evil way that’s the problem. The basic desire is not wrong, it’s the manner in which we choose to deal with that desire.
I don’t mind having the homosexual discussion as long as we separate it from my previous point. My point was to answer your question about pedophiles and where they get their desire.
By the way if, homosexuality is a evolved trait and all our morality is based on reproduction, where does homosexuality fit in?
Anecdotal evidence for the bible –
I think with anyone I’d start with the things we discussed, textual criticism and things like that. I’m not particularly swayed by anecdotal evidence myself so I don’t use it to convince someone that’s skeptical. You’re right anecdotal evidence is about as far from science as you can get. But sometimes we’d use it to “prop” up a scientific conclusion.
“If God existed and wanted his presence to be known unequivocally, then it would be known.” I agree with that sentence completely. So, evidently one part of that statement isn’t true. You conclude that God doesn’t exist. I conclude that He doesn’t want his presence to be unequivocally known (heavy emphasis on the “unequivocal” part of that statement.)
I think that the debate can give us compelling reasons to think God exists. That’s why a critical rationality approach would be the best way to know a God describe in the bible.
When the Russians sent a cosmonaut into space he came back and declared that he’d found no god. C.S. Lewis said that that was like Hamlet (A Shakespeare reference!) going into the attic of his castle looking for the great bard himself. If there is a God, he won’t be another object in the universe that coule be put in a lab and analyzed with emperical methods. He would relate to us in the way a playwright relates to the character his in play. We, the characters might me able to know quite a lot about the playwright but only to the degree that the author chooses to reveal himself. Therefore in no case can we prove the existence of God as if were an object wholly in our universe like oxygen or an animal.
But there are reasons for faith. We’ve hit on a number of them over the course of this discussion but they’ve often been dismissed with the “strong rationality” argument, but of course we agree that strong rationality is not something we impose on anything else.
While there may be no “silver bullet” in the argument for God’s existence there are a large number of very good arguments. Some we find compelling and other’s not so much but the accumulated arguments can be pretty formidable
Absolutes –
moot,
“For me I would like to things like the fossil record more clearly and fully filled.”
So what type of examples would you want in the fossil record?
Examples of species that are a cross between dinosaurs and bird?
5, 10, 20, etc examples of fossils that show a link between humans and other primates?
An example of a ocean based mammal with leg bones?
My advice would be to go to a local college in your area (college, not high school) and ask the biology professor your specific concerns that you have, and see what their answers are.
Short of that, I’d suggest checking out a blog devoted to these concepts
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
And VERY specifically: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/
I know you won’t accept everything that you hear/read, but at least it may answer some of the questions you don’t seem to have the correct answers to right now, and show you some of the MANY examples of evolution that do exist, and can not be explained away by Ben Stein and other creationists.
“Even many of those that subscribe to the evolutionary theory have problems with things like macro-evolution, although they believe that it will eventually be resolved within the framework of that theory.”
The problems that REAL scientists have with evolution are not quite what you may think. There are many disagreements as to the methods of evolution, but the idea that life began with single cell organisms and evolved into the diversity of life that we have today is universally accepted among all scientists not clouded by a book that ALSO claims Pi = EXACTLY 3 “he [Hiram on behalf of King Solomon] made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about”
Personally I would be a TAD bit more suspect of getting my scientific information from a book that is soo obviously flawed scientifically and mathematically.
“Either I’m too dumb to completely understand the science”
Based on our on-going conversation, I doubt this, but anything is possible. I would say a more likely scenario that this would be an attempt (conscious or subconscious) to fit all the evidence you have seen according to certain preconceived ideas.
“scientists are explaining it poorly”
Very possible. This is a very dense subject with some excruciating minutia, but there are some very good websites, podcasts, blogs, etc that go into the subject in great detail, but keep the language relatively simple.
I’d also recommend checking out the following link on this site, which has some YouTube videos that go into evolution and other subjects: https://potomac9499.wordpress.com/2008/02/21/made-easy-series/
“or the theory isn’t quite compelling enough to be fully convincing.”
This I would say is the least likely scenario. I hope you’ll check out some of the links I provided (and if you need more, I’m happy to give you some more recommendations), and I think you’ll see the evidence is much stronger than you seem to believe.
“As far as Fred Phelps and Pat Roberts hijacking Christianity I think it’s better to treat them as irrelevant than to give the reason to feel “persecuted” and “oppressed” by counter-demonstrating. That would just add fuel to the fire of nuts like that. They’d eat it up.”
While I want to agree with this in theory, the problem is that Pat Robertson is NOT irrelevant in the US today. Phelps I agree is a nut-job and should be ignored, but unfortunately Robertson has a good deal of “pull” with a large number of people in this country.”
“Saying something is a mistake is to know all the details of a decision.”
God does know “all the details of a decision”, so to rephrase the question, by your beliefs can god make a decision that HE would consider to be a mistake? For example, does god “regret” making Lucifer, Hitler, Dahmer,
Manson, Fred Phelps, etc.
“Can anything happen that God does not let happen? In a manner of speaking, no. But that doesn’t imply God is directly responsible for every action with which He doesn’t agree. Again the free will thing…”
By this logic, even with free will taken into account, god still allowed Lucifer to attempt to take over heaven, and allows pedophile priests to rape young boys in “his church”.
“Yes absolutes can be broken. If what I’ve been saying about moral absolutes is true then I’d obviously believe that moral absolutes can be broken.”
I’d stop using the word “absolute” then if I was you, since something that can be broken at will is by definition NOT an absolute.
As well, if a moral “absolute” can be broken at times, then how are we are fallible humans to know when they can/should be broken
, and when they must be upheld?
“No I don’t believe Thomas had faith before Jesus gave him the evidence.”
So if the only way for Thomas to have faith in jesus was to SEE the wounds himself, then how are we to say that any less evidence should be enough for somebody who did not know jesus personally as Thomas did?
“This doesn’t particularly make Thomas faith greater than mine although it probably is.”
Actually I’d say this makes your faith much stronger than his, since you have less evidence to base your beliefs on than Thomas did.
“I knew I shouldn’t have used the illustration of homosexuality, it’s just going to get us off track.”
But homosexuality is one thing I’d REALLY like to get into briefly.
The old Testament says that to eat shellfish is a sin.
It also states that you should stone your child to death if they disobey you.
And of course, on this subject, it states that to engage in homosexual behaviour is a sin.
But of course christians love to point out that “the rules changed” when jesus came to earth.
So when jesus says love your neighbor as yourself, he basically says that stoning children is a bad thing, so that one is taken care of.
Where does jesus remove the prohibition on eating shellfish? I’ll go out on a limb as say that somewhere north of 95% of christians have enjoyed lobster, crab, and/or shrimp. So unless these people are going to hell, jesus MUST have removed the prohibition on shellfish, correct? I’ll save you the work, he never mentions anything about shellfish.
So this would lead one to perhaps believe that if jesus does not specifically say it’s still bad, then it must be considered ok since he came to the earth, correct?
So then unless jesus expressly forbids homosexuality then this should follow with the same acceptance as shellfish has today, so we should look in the New Testament and find the passage where jesus forbids homosexuality. Oh wait, he NEVER mentions homosexuality. Not even once! So how is it that we KNOW that we can not stone our children, but we can eat shellfish, and we can not show love to a committed partner?
“The basic desire is not wrong, it’s the manner in which we choose to deal with that desire.”
So with pedophilia the desire to have sex with a child is good??????????
“I don’t mind having the homosexual discussion as long as we separate it from my previous point. My point was to answer your question about pedophiles and where they get their desire.”
But you never really said where the desire comes from. You said that you wanted to get away from pedophilia because it was too creepy, so I switched to another sexual proclivity that does not have the same stigma.
I also think the homosexuality discussion is an important one with regards to many religions, yours specifically.
“By the way if, homosexuality is a evolved trait and all our morality is based on reproduction, where does homosexuality fit in?”
How and why would homosexuality be related to morality? We have seen examples of homosexuality in over 1000 different species. Why would humanity be any different than every other species?
For one example: https://potomac9499.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/homosexual-necrophilia-in-the-mallard-duck/
I would also like to hear your answers to my previous questions on this, as I feel this subject is a big (well, let’s use the word problem) with christianity in the US today.
“I think with anyone I’d start with the things we discussed, textual criticism and things like that.”
So if you knew NOTHING about any religion, and were told about the textual criticisms of the bible, would this convert you?
“That’s why a critical rationality approach would be the best way to know a God describe in the bible.”
Emphasis on would, unfortunately for your position, I don’t think the evidence exists.
“But there are reasons for faith. We’ve hit on a number of them over the course of this discussion but they’ve often been dismissed with the “strong rationality” argument, but of course we agree that strong rationality is not something we impose on anything else.
While there may be no “silver bullet” in the argument for God’s existence there are a large number of very good arguments. Some we find compelling and other’s not so much but the accumulated arguments can be pretty formidable”
There are reasons for and against faith. One one hand, it is hard to fathom anything existing without something creating it, but this also becomes a problem with god himself, as in “what created the creator”. The simpler explanation is that a simple process started (and we don’t yet understand exactly how) and this became more complex over time. The less likely scenario is that an infinitely complex being has always existed, even before the beginning of time itself, and created everything, including time.
In my opinion, and the opinion of a large and ever growing group, the evidence is either ambiguous, irrelevant, or just not compelling.
Hey Rod,
Sorry this is so delay, I’ve been (and still am) out of town. But I had a minute and wanted to respond the best I could.
First however I wanted to deal with something previously brought up by uncertain. He (she) isn’t here anymore but I think you might have felt similarly about the issue.
It was in regards to the “what’s the difference between animals and humans” questions. While there may be hundreds of things that seem different but we’re just not sure if animals do them or not. However there is one thing we know for sure animals do not do. It may sound wierd but I think it’s significant. Animals do not wear clothes. That’s one certain difference.
Whatever the reasons we’ve developed a shame of our naked bodies that is something that is pretty distinct and different from animals.
I’m not sure I can speak for God but no I don’t think He regrets making the terrible people you listed. However couldn’t this dilemma be turned on us? If we have a chance to kill someone like that don’t we have a moral obligation to do so? If we condemn God for making that mistake aren’t we also condemning ourselves to some degree?
The “free will thing” is the very reason Lucifer did what he did and pedophile priests do what they do. We trace that back to them perpetrators for the crime not God.
“So if the only way for Thomas to have faith in jesus was to SEE the wounds himself, then how are we to say that any less evidence should be enough for somebody who did not know jesus personally as Thomas did?” I’m not saying the only path to faith is Thomas’ path. We have abundant evidence upon which we ground our faith.
“Actually I’d say this makes your faith much stronger than his, since you have less evidence to base your beliefs on than Thomas did.” Again with the misconception of faith.
Christians who misunderstand their own theology say the rules “changed” the bible itself doesn’t actually say that. However the requirements of the Old Testament were too much for anyone to keep perfectly. The Old Testament was a constant reminder of human imperfection. Christ theology teaches that our salvation comes through faith in Christ who perfectly kept the law. So, while I can’t possible keep the written requirements of the law perfectly I can find perfection in the person of Christ.
This is why it’s dangerous to rely on the Old law for a moral guideline. I try not to pick and choose which Old Testament requirements I hold over peoples heads and which I ignore. That’s not the way it works at all.
So the issue of shellfish and homosexuality in the old testament take a backseat to a connection to Christ.
However with the issue of homosexuality, it is mentioned in the New Testament. It’s in Romans 1 to be sure and in 1 Corinthians as well.
“The basic desire is not wrong, it’s the manner in which we choose to deal with that desire.”
“So with pedophilia the desire to have sex with a child is good??????????”
Nope, that’s obviously not what I’m saying. The desire to have sex is not wrong. We pervert that when we direct or satisfy that desire in evil ways.
“How and why would homosexuality be related to morality?” If the basis for morality is reprodcution then it obviously would be a moral issue, even for an evolutionsist. Homosexuals cannot reproduce with each other.
“We have seen examples of homosexuality in over 1000 different species. Why would humanity be any different than every other species?”
Given that some animals will mount anything I’m not sure that you can call what animals are doing specifically homosexual behavior.
I would also like to hear your answers to my previous questions on this, as I feel this subject is a big (well, let’s use the word problem) with christianity in the US today.
“So if you knew NOTHING about any religion, and were told about the textual criticisms of the bible, would this convert you?”
I’m not sure how to answer that. It’s tough to know what might convince me if I didn’t beleive. We can set certain standards but it’s really difficult to know what would actually sway our opinions and ideas.
There definitely are reasons to beleive. And I don’t think interjecting the concept of God into a “first cause” scenario is a irrational thing to do. I realize that “God did it” is often an excuse to stop looking but not for the real beleiver. There have been and continue to be smart men who, depsite their beleif, continue to excercise their open-minds and their curiosity to the big questions. But like we’ve established before science, by it’s very nature, can’t even ask some of the big questions much less answer them. Therefore it’s not unreasonable to delve into the world of faith and theoloy to work out some of those issues.
Anyway, I’ll try to keep on top of these posts. My time got completely away from me there for a while. But I’m still interested in the discussion.
moot,
Sorry for the delay in my own reply… But welcome back to the conversation; no worries about missing out for a while, life happens, and as hard as it may be to believe, for
some people, posting on Rodibidably is not their top priority…
Animals do not wear clothes. That’s one certain difference.
Obviously my first thoughts about this comment are from an evolutionary perspective.
First of all, you have the original reason for clothing, which was protection from the elements. Humans are one of the few species that have attempted to live in virtually every environment on the planet. Since this has happened in a relatively short time frame (geologically and evolutionarily speaking) the human form has not had the time to adapt to the environment, and thus we have come up with our own adaptations (clothing, technology, etc) to make up for not having natural abilities.
Secondly, I would say that clothing is a relatively new thing in humans, roughly 100,000 years ago. So by your logic, the day before the first human skinned an animal and wore it, they person was an animal, and the day after, they were a human. This seems to be a very odd way to define humanity.
And finally, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudity
Whereas some tribes and family-groups including some Togolose and Nilo-Saharan (e.g., Surma people) still commonly parade fully naked or without any covering below the waist (especially at massively attended stick fighting tournaments, where well-exposed young men can hope to catch the eye of a prospective bride)
As we see here, this is actually not ALWAYS the case, so if you are to use nudity vs. clothing as the difference between humans and animals, then you must consider these tribes to be less than human???
I’m sure that Uncertain will have much more to say on this subject, but I wanted to mention the first few things that came to my mind.
Whatever the reasons we’ve developed a shame of our naked bodies
The reason for the shame is simple, religion.
But I think the primary reason for clothing originally was not shame, it was practicality to allow living in colder environments than we were otherwise capable of living in at the time.
that is something that is pretty distinct and different from animals
While not true of all animals, the vast majority of animals that would be capable of wearing clothing already have hair/feathers/fur that cover their bodies, by and large, and thus have no need for clothing to survive in their habitat.
I’m not sure I can speak for God but no I don’t think He regrets making the terrible people you listed
Let me guess, free will. So in cases of things like gay marriage, abortion, and other items that the christian right believe in, god has the same morality as us. But in cases of genocide, pure evil, cannibalism, pedophilia, etc, it’s convenient that god allows us to do as we please, because otherwise one might be forced to reconsider their preconceived ideas of god’s morality.
I’m sure you don’t see this the way I do, but I hope you can at least see a BIT of the contradiction of claiming that in SOME cases, we can understand the mind of god, and god’s moral code, but in other cases those same people who are so certain of homosexuality being wrong, or abortion being a sin, claim that we can not understand god, that he is beyond our comprehension.
I’m not trying to say that we should be able to understand god (assuming of course god exists), what I am claiming, is that we MUST be consistent one direction or the other.
EITHER we can not understand god’s wishes, or we can and thus we can judge god’s morality.
However couldn’t this dilemma be turned on us? If we have a chance to kill someone like that don’t we have a moral obligation to do so?
I’m 100% opposed to the death penalty, so I don’t think this dilemma works on me. However, the god of the bible is OBVIOUSLY not opposed to the death penalty.
According to the bible itself, god killed over 2.2 million people (and that does NOT count the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc, it only counts the times the specific names, or numbers of his victims are listed).
If god is in favor of the death penalty (and I’d say that 2+ million people counts as pro-death) and god has the same moral code that we have, then it’s surprising that he allows pedophiles free rein over his creation.
If we condemn God for making that mistake aren’t we also condemning ourselves to some degree
If a person believes in the death penalty, then yes, I’d say they should be in favor of killing a baby Adolf Hitler or Manson or Dahmer, or any and every pedophile to ever live.
Hindsight is 20/20, and given the chance to stop the holocaust, or the rape of a child, etc, they should be willing to do whatever it takes, based on their interpretation of morality.
I’m not saying they would be justified in this action (I’d personally find it abhorrent), I’m just saying that to remain consistent, they should be willing to take the life of a child, to stop a future act by that child.
The “free will thing” is the very reason Lucifer did what he did and pedophile priests do what they do. We trace that back to them perpetrators for the crime not God
If my 10 year old child commits a crime, I as their parent am held responsible for their actions.
In the christian view, to compare us to a 10 year old child, as compared to god, would be a HUGE compliment to us, of which we are not deserving.
And according to your faith, god KNOWS what crimes we will commit, before we commit them. And as an imperfect being, created by him, some share of the responsibility for our actions are his to bear.
Again, it’s all about consistency, which is once again lacking in the religious beliefs of christianity (and other faiths).
I’m not saying the only path to faith is Thomas’ path. We have abundant evidence upon which we ground our faith.
I’d argue that the evidence is obviously not as strong as it could be, based on the fact that the overwhelming majority of the population of the planet does NOT accept that jesus was god. If you take the highest estimates, there are roughly 2 billion people on earth who consider themselves christian. There are roughly 6.6 billion people total.
It doesn’t take much effort to see that the evidence is not good enough for more than 66% of people on the planet.
And this does not even take into account the various factions within christianity that disagree with each other over many MAJOR aspects of christianity (catholics, protestants, mormons, etc).
There is a quote from Bill James, and although he is referring to baseball, I think this quote fits well on this discussion:
“The world is vastly more complicated than anyone can understand. Therefore everyone has understandings of it, and only fools imagine that those understandings are so complete that they’re immediately exclusive.”
This is a theme very similar to my own beliefs, and it is one that I think most religious people overstep greatly.
I believe that on the off chance that some version of god DOES exist, that this “god” is something which we, as a relatively naive and ignorant species, are incapable of understanding. And to claim a perfect understanding, which most christian denominations claim, is immeasurable hubris.
Again with the misconception of faith.
Again, I am using the typically understood dictionary definition, and you are using a completely different definition, that is not the typically understood one in American society today.
However with the issue of homosexuality, it is mentioned in the New Testament. It’s in Romans 1 to be sure and in 1 Corinthians as well.
So Paul’s letters are the sole basis of christianity’s homophobia? Even though jesus himself said to love one another as yourself, when Paul says (to quote Fred Phelps)
“god hates fags”, then 2 billion people feel justified in their homophobia, and bigotry. Good thing Paul was not a fallible person, who may have introduced his own prejudices into his letters.
The desire to have sex is not wrong. We pervert that when we direct or satisfy that desire in evil ways.
The problem is, that with these people (pedophiles) the desire is obviously not just about sex, or else they would find adults to have sex with. Pedophilia, like all types of rape, is about power. So for the underlying desires to be ok as you state, you either don’t understand the psychology behind these actions, or you are condoning the desire for power over helpless children.
I’ll assume you’re not aware of the countless studies that show this type of perversion is much more about power than sex.
But even if we leave pedophilia out of the equation, and focus on homosexuality, we have observed homosexual tendencies in thousands of species in nature. If god is so opposed to this type of relationship, it’s quite surprising that we’d find it in virtually every species we have studied.
Given that some animals will mount anything I’m not sure that you can call what animals are doing specifically homosexual behavior.
I’d suggest you look into the scientific research a bit more before commenting on the subject, since it’s quite strongly documented, including monogamous homosexual relationships.
There definitely are reasons to believe. And I don’t think interjecting the concept of God into a “first cause” scenario is a irrational thing to do.
You may be surprised, but I actually agree with BOTH of these statements.
I agree there are reasons to believe, I just don’t think these reasons are good enough, and I think they raise more questions than they answer.
I also agree that it’s not irrational to claim that “god” created the laws of the universe, and “set off” the big bang. As I’ve said previously in these comments, I think this is a very reasonable position for a believer to take. My only issue with it is I don’t think god is a necessary place holder, I think it’s also very reasonable to say there are many unanswered questions, and we can leave them open until more information comes available.
I realize that “God did it” is often an excuse to stop looking but not for the real believer.
I agree with the sentiment of this, but I’m not sure it’s completely true. One only needs to look at the legions of ignorant “young earthers” to realize that a huge number of people in this country are happy just remaining blissfully ignorant despite overwhelming evidence that the universe is (roughly) 14.7 billion years old (not 6500 years).
There have been and continue to be smart men who, depsite their beleif, continue to excercise their open-minds and their curiosity to the big questions.
Agreed, there are many brilliant minds on both sides (theism and atheism) of this one issue, but you must also admit there are a large number of pseudo-intellectuals claiming to be doing science, but who are honestly doing nothing more than promoting blind ignorance among the masses.
But like we’ve established before science, by it’s very nature, can’t even ask some of the big questions much less answer them.
I’m not sure how much of this I’d agree with actually. Morality can be explained scientifically. The origins of the universe can be explained. The origins of life can be explained, etc…
We may not have all the answers to these, and other, questions yet, but we have fairly good ideas, leading us down the path of discovery.
The other questions, such as the meaning of life can not be answered, because there is not always an answer to questions that are not based on the reality of the universe (i.e. if there is no god, and we are the product of evolution, then obviously there is no meaning to this existence.
Therefore it’s not unreasonable to delve into the world of faith and theology to work out some of those issues.
If believing that god is watching out for you, makes you happy, then I’m all for it.
However, if you are going to live your life hating people who are different, because an ancient book says it’s ok, I think there is a gigantic issue.
Man, summer is a busy time of the year for me. My job (and the occasional vacation)keeps me hopping through June, July and August. Sorry about this taking so long.
My point with wearing clothes was more to Uncertain’s point. Obviously he’s not been with us for a while but his point seemed to be that there was nothing humans do that didn’t have a counterpart in the animal world. Before Uncertain kept saying we couldn’t know if animals thought or behaved certain ways. We do know for certain that animals do not wear clothing. So I wasn’t trying to make it the defining characteristic of what it is to be human, it’s just an example of a distinction. The fact that some humans choose to go without clothing (in very few and exceptional cases) doesn’t negate the fact that most humans (and no animals) choose to wear clothing.
Of course I believe there are a multitude of distinctions it’s just that this one is incontrovertible. It’s one we can observe.
Likewise I think it’s oversimplifying to say that the reason people are often embarrassed, or otherwise uncomfortable, with their own nudity is religion. Because people, regardless of religion, seem to have this “shame” in common. Similarly people who have “thrown off the shackles” of religious thought still wear clothes.
-Homosexuality.
I certainly most people are looking for the same thing in relationships. They are essentially looking to be highly valued by another human being. I think that’s basically true for most heterosexual or homosexual relationships.
However I still think homosexuality is problematic for the evolutionist. If, at the core of it, our decisions are driven by the need to reproduce then homosexual behavior falls outside the guidelines. Finding homosexual behavior in the wild doesn’t really explain anything. It just would mean that maybe the desire to reproduce isn’t quite as foundational as you’d like it to be.
So it feels like there is a fundamental contradiction here. You’ve asserted that human morality is essential gene selection or the desire to reproduce even if it’s by extension but then you’ve said that homosexual behavior is natural and found in nature. But yet homosexual behavior is by definition a behavior that can’t lead to reproduction whether human or animal. So then our moral decision can’t all be about the ability or likelihood of reproducing. Or maybe homosexuality is the “cheating” that Dawkins’ talks about.
You mentioned that with pedophilia and rape the desire isn’t sexual at all. It’s essentially a desire for power. How do we fundamentally know homosexuality is any different? And why would we classify it differently?
Anyway. I know I haven’t addressed everything from you previous letter. I’m not ignoring it I’m just trying to keep this a little more focused.
I would like to wrap up by point out that obviously belief in God doesn’t necessarily lead one toward bigotry and hate. I would even argue that those who believe in Christianity and practice hate are hypocritical in the sense they must violate the basic tenets of their beliefs to do such things. Despite the fact that Bible speaks against things like homosexuality it never gives anyone the right to marginalize or terrorize someone who doesn’t agree.
moot,
You’re right, summer makes it tougher to devote time to long replies like these. I know our discussion has tended to be quite wordy on both sides, and those type of comments take a bit of time to formulate.
BTW, I’d like to see your reply to a a short post I did today:
It’s a simple, one, not designed to get into a philosophical debate like this one has done, but as your answer will be quite different to my own, I’d like to see how you reply.
“his point seemed to be that there was nothing humans do that didn’t have a counterpart in the animal world.”
I think you’re still missing my point, which is to compare humans in the past with animals, not the current technologically advances society we have become.
As an old-earth creationist, you do acknowledge the age of the world at billions, rather than thousands of years.
Going with this time frame, there was a time when humans wore no clothing (even if you follow the biblical view, Adam and Even were naked in the garden of eden).
Yes there are differences (more of them than Uncertain seems to have acknowledged), but there are also an even greater number of similarities (more than you have acknowledged).
Even if you want to follow a creationist idea of the creation of species, including mankind; if you look at history, the differences are not nearly as vast then as they are now.
“We do know for certain that animals do not wear clothing.”
There are actually examples of animals that wear what could be considered decoration, as an attempt to get the attention of a mate.
But as far as I know, there are no example of animals using clothing as a mechanism to survive in some environment.
The biggest flaw I see in your logic though, is if you stick to something simple like “clothing” being the distinction, then you are excluding some population of humans who don’t wear clothing, and if in the future, some species of animals are found to wear a type of clothing, you’d either have to include them in your view of humanity, or it would completely dissolve your argument.
I tend to see humanity as a very well adapted (and much more importantly, adaptive) species of animal.
“So I wasn’t trying to make it the defining characteristic of what it is to be human, it’s just an example of a distinction.”
I don’t think anybody, Uncertain included, would argue there are no differences. I think the point he tried to make is that those differences are relatively minor on the grand scale.
With your belief that humans are somehow special in god’s view, you may tend to overstate those differences in your own mind. And a purely naturalistic person (as Uncertain seems to lean) may tend to understate those differences. The truth is that there are some major differences, but at the very core, if you look at history, most of those differences have come in the VERY recent past (10,000 years or so).
“The fact that some humans choose to go without clothing (in very few and exceptional cases) doesn’t negate the fact that most humans (and no animals) choose to wear clothing.”
My issue with this is one we’ve gone over before. If something is an absolute (or in this case a defining characteristic) then it should be universal. Something like the speed of light is ALWAYS the same; Energy/Matter can NEVER be created or destroyed (only changed from one to the other); etc…
Here we have a characteristic that seemingly defined a group, but not all members of that group. It would be like me saying all smart people are Irish. Except when they’re not Irish.
“Likewise I think it’s oversimplifying to say that the reason people are often embarrassed, or otherwise uncomfortable, with their own nudity is religion.”
According to your own faith, Adam and Eve put on clothes in front of god because of embarrassment. The bible teaches that one SHOULD be ashamed of the naked body.
It may not be the ONLY reason for shame (I’ve seen many people that SHOULD be ashamed of their bodies), but it’s certainly in the mix…
“Similarly people who have “thrown off the shackles” of religious thought still wear clothes.”
It’s actually illegal is most places to not wear clothes. I think that’s a fairly convincing reason for me to not walk around with my junk hanging out, despite my lack of “shackles” (although they might make a nice accessory).
“However I still think homosexuality is problematic for the evolutionist.”
There are MANY writings out there explaining homosexuality from an evolutionary perspective. I know I’ve mentioned a few of them previously (Selfish Gene, etc), but if you’d like specific passages, I can pull a few books off my shelves this weekend and quote from them.
Also, one of the podcasts I listen to (This Week In Science) mentioned a recent study showing that the fertility of women related to homosexual men seems to be significantly higher. The likely explanation is that whatever factor in the gestational development of men that can leads towards homosexuality also leads towards increased fertility in women. From an evolutionary perspective, this would be a trade off, allowing women a better chance to reproduce, with a slightly smaller pool of potential fathers.
Many people have done this subject much more than I can do it justice in a simple reply, but this is a topic I do plan a fully in depth post on at some later time (probably in the fall hen my schedule is normal).
“Or maybe homosexuality is the “cheating” that Dawkins’ talks about.”
In one sense, it actually is. Dawkin’s “cheating” is any type of action that is in the best interest of the individual, at the potential expense of reproduction in the future.
Where as altruism is the expected result of natural selection, selfishness (of the individual, not gene) would be “cheating” the system, for short term gain.
In this case, a homosexual relationship would be that short term gain.
“You mentioned that with pedophilia and rape the desire isn’t sexual at all. It’s essentially a desire for power.”
Granted this is out of my area of expertise, but from everything I have seen, heard, and read, this is the current understanding of this type of behavior.
“How do we fundamentally know homosexuality is any different? And why would we classify it differently?”
Well for starters, one is a consensual act between adults.
Where would the “power” aspect come from? In fact, if anything, in a homosexual male relationship, the males involved would theoretically have “less” power over their mate, than in a heterosexual relationship.
I sincerely hope you are not trying to equate homosexuality with rape and pedophilia here, and that you can CLEARLY AND WHOLLY see the difference. This is one subject I take quite seriously, since my best friend is gay. And to lump her in with criminals, is thoroughly disgusting and insulting to me.
“I would like to wrap up by point out that obviously belief in God doesn’t necessarily lead one toward bigotry and hate.”
I agree.
However, as I’ve stated many times, when you have the belief that god is on your side, or god wants something to happen, it allows a type of fervor that in unequaled in any other arena, and is easily abused, as history has shown.
“I would even argue that those who believe in Christianity and practice hate are hypocritical in the sense they must violate the basic tenets of their beliefs to do such things”
I’d argue that in many cases they do not actually believe what they claim to believe, and in many cases use their religion as a shield, or a justification for their actions, and words.
Fred Phelps comes to mind. I find it hard to beleive that he ACTUALLY believes that jesus is a loving caring god with the hateful speech that he spews forth, but perhaps I am wrong and he actually finds a way in his sick twisted mind to reconcile the two.
“Despite the fact that Bible speaks against things like homosexuality it never gives anyone the right to marginalize or terrorize someone who doesn’t agree.”
I agree!!!
There is an offer for you to get some money if you could prove your point. Why don’t you take it?
How to Make $250,000
You can find Dr. Hovind’s offer at :http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k
Unfortunatly, that “offer” is worded in such a way as to never be winnable.
Since he makes part of the test to show that evolution “is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence” it could never be won. All Hovind needs to say, no matter the evidence, is that “god” made it LOOK that way.
I’d be interested to hear your “reasons” for faith in a supernatural being without any emperical evidence to support the claim (i.e. answer the question posed in this post).
Apologies for vanishing from the debate there, but there has been an ongoing problem with one of my neighbours that has left me with little energy and enthusiasm left over for debate – however interesting the subject may be.
I still don’t feel much like it, but figured I should say why I’d dropped out.
uncertainhope,
No problem at all, I’m sure moot and I both understand. Hopefully when things go back to normal you can join us again, perhaps for the “summary” post I plan to do some time later this month.
Pingback: Thoughts on “Revealing the Atheist Stereotype” « Rodibidably
I believe in DNA, protons, electrons, neutrons, molecules, atoms, life, death, friends, enemies, war, peace, and America. My favorite pet theory is a sun is the other side of a black hole hole and for me this makes more sense than a bunch of “gases” and such that were attracted at some point but seem to continue to spout energy contrary to their so-called “attraction.” I’m me and this is what I believe. I enjoy the morals and philosophies of religion as long as I don’t have to leave my children alone with those people things are gravy.
DNA – yup
protons – yup
electrons – yup
neutrons – yup
molecules – yup
atoms – yup
life – yup
death – yup
friends – yup
enemies – yup
war – I try not to believe in this, but it’s tough
peace – yup
America – WELL, that all depends…
If God did not answer prayer, how would you explain this life incident?
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGIWYur9vr8
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHVS3pu9mHo
empy,
Well I’d like to question him personally to answer specifics about his story, but off hand I’d say a combination of luck, coincidence, confirmation bias (focusing on the things that confirm his preconceived views of the world and ignoring those that go against that world view).
People’s memories are fallible. We remember things that never happened, and we change events in our memory. This is a well known phenomena, which is why many people have been wrongfully convicted in courts of crimes, only to later be exonerated by evidence that contradicts the eye witness testimony.
Personally, without corroborating evidence, I see nothing “special” in his story. It’s quite easy for somebody to unintentionally (or intentionally) exaggerate events in their lives. Without some evidence to back up his claims, they are nothing more than claims. And as Carl Sagan said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
—–
Do you believe god answers prayers REGARDLESS of one’s religion? In other words, do you HAVE to be a christian to have your prayers answers?
How do you explain the life of Ghandi or other people who have accomplished amazing things, while believing in other religions/gods…
Do you believe god is “all good”, “all powerful”, and “all knowing”?
If YOU had the ability to stop a child from being raped, would you do it?
If YOU knew somebody who had the ability to stop a child from being raped, and they did not stop it, would you view them as immoral?
Do you view god as immoral?
Also, if you don’t mind, could you please answer the original question: How certain are you that your version of the “truth” (truth of god, religion, the world, the universe, etc) is the correct one, and more importantly, how do you know what that “truth” is?
Jeff,
You are saying that Dr. Sean is making extra ordinary claims. Are you saying that he did not die? Are you saying that doctors did not declare him dead? Are you saying that doctors did not make every effort to revive his stopped heart? Are you saying that his wife did not pray? Are you saying that the whole thing was just a dream or simply an exhagerated thing?
I had the privilege to have lunch with the parents of the doctor couple who have had this experience when I was in Dubai last month. Dr.Grace Jacob is a practising gyno in the American Hospital in Dubai. She is the monther-in-law of Dr. Sean who had this death to life experience. We know for sure what happened. No one can challenge it.
You asked me three questions again. Those three questions were asked earlier and answered as well. There is no point in repeating what was said. You say all my experiences in prayer for a whole life time is not valid for any one else. I am glad that you accept that my experiences in prayer are valid at least for me! Thus surely I know I am on the right path. May the Lord open your eyes to see the light of the gospel. God bless!
You are saying that Dr. Sean is making extra ordinary claims.
If he claims that most people who are “dead” for more than 30 minutes don’t survive.
And he also claims that he was “dead” for 55 minutes and did survive.
Then obviously that is an extraordinary claim…
Are you saying that he did not die?
No. I’m saying I can’t take just his word on it. I’d want to see evidence.
Are you saying that doctors did not declare him dead?
No. I’m saying I can’t take just his word on it. I’d want to see evidence.
Are you saying that doctors did not make every effort to revive his stopped heart?
No. I’m saying I can’t take just his word on it. I’d want to see evidence.
Are you saying that his wife did not pray?
I don’t know if she did or not. Praying is not “extraordinary”. Praying having an actual effect is. There have been MANY studies into the effectiveness of prayer. None have shown any effect… In fact:
Are you saying that the whole thing was just a dream or simply an exhagerated thing?
No. I am saying that without evidence to support the claim, that exaggeration (either unintentionally or as part of a conscious fraud) is ONE of many possibilities.
I had the privilege to have lunch with the parents of the doctor couple who have had this experience when I was in Dubai last month. Dr.Grace Jacob is a practising gyno in the American Hospital in Dubai. She is the monther-in-law of Dr. Sean who had this death to life experience.
Congratulations on who you know and where you’ve been. That 100% irrelevant.
We know for sure what happened. No one can challenge it.
You’re the one making the extraordinary claim. I’m simple asking that you provide evidence.
You asked me three questions again. Those three questions were asked earlier and answered as well. There is no point in repeating what was said.
As I recall you gave me 3 questions to answer, which I did. And you refused to accept those answers, despite other christians telling you that my answers fit your questions.
I recall one of your questions was something to the effect of “show me one person who has accomplished as much as me without the power of jesus”, to which I replied Ghandi. I don’t recall your other questions off hand, but they were similarly asked and appropriately answered. You attempted to “change the goal post”, but you NEVER gave a satisfactory explanation as to why you were unwilling to accept my answers to your three questions, and blew off anything that did not fit your preconceived notion that you are somehow special.
If you did answer some questions from me, frankly I don’t remember off hand. If you could point me to what your answers were, I’d appreciate it, otherwise, I’d ask you to please answer again, because I can find no coherent answers from you on virtually anything…
You say all my experiences in prayer for a whole life time is not valid for any one else. I am glad that you accept that my experiences in prayer are valid at least for me!
That’s not quite what I said (as I recall). What I said (or probably said, as I don’t feel like searching through hundreds of comments right now) would be something to the effect of “anecdotes are not scientific evidence, not are they reliable”. But if your life experiences convince you, then odds are I won’t be able to change your mind. I would have probably also suggested looking into the topic of confirmation bias.
Thus surely I know I am on the right path.
Many people are DEEPLY convinced by their faith. The 19 people who flew 4 planes into buildings on 9/11 were 100% convinced that they were doing god’s work. I assume you’d disagree with them.
May the Lord open your eyes to see the light of the gospel. God bless!
Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you saying this type of shit to be highly offensive. It shows that you have this asinine belief that “your way is the only way” and that because I don’t agree with your pathetic fairy tales, that I am somehow less than you.
I’m tired of christians saying this condescending bullshit, and frankly, it makes me want to tell you to go fuck yourself.
However if you’d like to show some respect for others, then feel free to continue in the conversation. But be aware that unless you’re willing to answer questions, and think about your answers, I just don’t think I’m in the mood to deal with the same type of crap that you pulled last time you were here (changing names, refusing to listen to others, ignoring when I explain the concept of anecdotal evidence to you multiple times, etc).
Jeff,
You said in your blog,”I think the trouble with being a critical thinker or an atheist, or a humanist is that you’re right. And it’s quite hard being right in the face of people who are wrong without sounding like a fuckwit. People go “do you think the vast majority of the world is wrong”, well yes, i don’t know how to say that nicely, but yes.” Did you not?
Did I understand you correctly? Did you mean that you atheists are right and all others are wrong? ok. But then, when some one else makes a similar statment, you say it is a sign of hubris! Is that your logic?
I said things strongly because I have lived out a whole life trusting in the God of the Bible and my statements are based on my life long experiences in prayer. But you are saying all others are wrong based on your observations and data available to you. You say that such and such a research proves that prayer does not have any efficay. But obviously those researches have not dealt with experiences of people all over the world who stand by their answers to prayer. Jeff, tell me, can you measure the velocity of ocean waves in a test tube?
You blame me for changing names. Jeff, you must understand that it was you who came to my site asking me to comment in the initial place. Then you did the same thing in a second site of mine where I use a differnt user name. But if you had read the blog you would have known it is one and the same person. Please be kind enough and please do not make rash judgments. Thanks.
I am glad that you are willing to accept truths based on facts. Then surely one day you will agree with me with out doubt.
I know the quote at the top of the page… It’s a line from a comedian, Tim Minchin…
Did I understand you correctly? Did you mean that you atheists are right and all others are wrong? ok.
I believe that atheism is correct, yes.
But then, when some one else makes a similar statment, you say it is a sign of hubris! Is that your logic?
When somebody else continually makes comments unsupported by evidence, and despite being asked repeatedly for that evidence, they get on my nerves after a while.
In our previous discussions you asked me three questions, which I answered. Then despite other christians telling you that my answers fit your criteria, you refused to acknowledge that your questions had been answered. This showed a lack of “good faith” on your part to be part of a serious discussion.
Right now, I’m tired of dealing with the type of person who is unable to carry on a productive debate, and from my recollection of our last encounters, you are unable.
I said things strongly because I have lived out a whole life trusting in the God of the Bible and my statements are based on my life long experiences in prayer.
And you refuse to acknowledge that you COULD be wrong. You’ve refused to acknowledge that others have done just as much as you, if not more, without your god. You’ve refused to understand what anecdotal evidence means. You’ve refused to understand the concept of confirmation bias.
Frankly, it has seemed that you are incapable of understanding anything that does not agree with your already held beliefs.
But you are saying all others are wrong based on your observations and data available to you.
Yes
But unlike you, if shown EVIDENCE that contradicts my views, I’m open to changing my views.
You say that such and such a research proves that prayer does not have any efficay. But obviously those researches have not dealt with experiences of people all over the world who stand by their answers to prayer.
READ THE STUDIES.
READ ABOUT CONFIRMATION BIAS.
READ ABOUT ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE.
Jeff, tell me, can you measure the velocity of ocean waves in a test tube?
Do you think all of science is done with test tubes? Are you REALLY that ignorant?
You blame me for changing names. Jeff, you must understand that it was you who came to my site asking me to comment in the initial place. Then you did the same thing in a second site of mine where I use a differnt user name. But if you had read the blog you would have known it is one and the same person.
It’s been a while, and I don’t recall it happening that way, but I’ll take your word on it.
But it was me who pointed out your multiple names, not you. If I was posting in one place under multiple names, I’d make sure to point out that it’s one person, to avoid confusion. You seemed perfectly happy to allow others to think it was two different people.
Please be kind enough and please do not make rash judgments. Thanks.
I don’t think my judgment of you is rash. I think I put up with your inability to comprehend simple concepts for far too long, and I’m just not in the mood to deal with it again. IF (and only if) you’re able to hold a rational conversation, then I’m all for continuing this talk. But if you’re unable to understand simple concepts, I’m just not in the mood to hit my head against a wall with you again.
I am glad that you are willing to accept truths based on facts.
I believe everybody should feel this way.
Then surely one day you will agree with me with out doubt.
I’m doubtful. But if you can show the evidence to support your views, I’d have to change my mind…
Here is the newspaper report about the incident.
Miracle man responds to wife’s heartfelt plea to liveLucky man: CATHY O’LEARY MEDICAL EDITOR
By all accounts Dr Sean George is amedical miracle, returning from thedead to amaze colleagues whobattled for almost an hour to revivehis lifeless heart.The 39-year-old specialist fromKalgoorlie Hospital says he owes hislife to pleas from his wife to stayalive for the sake of their young sonand the medical staff who refused togive up even when they believed hisheart attack had killed him.His remarkable story began fourmonths ago as he drove home toKalgoorlie with his female internafter a clinic session in Esperance.He felt minor chest pains which hethought was bad indigestion buteventually pulled into a GP clinic inKambalda where he used an ECG todiagnose a heart attack.Soon after, he went into cardiacarrest and blacked out, leaving hisintern and clinic staff to a gruellingmarathon of resuscitation, using4000 chest compressions and 13electrical shots to try to jump starthis heart.By the time his wife Sherry Jacob,also a doctor, and emergencyphysicians from Kalgoorlie arrived,staff had worked on him for almost55 minutes with no sign of life.“Normally you wouldn’t try toresuscitate anyone for more than 30minutes because even if they were tosurvive there would be large risk ofbrain damage, but they kept goingon me,” Dr George said.“When the other doctors arrived,I was cold and blue and they told mywife they were very sorry but I wasdead and she should say hergoodbyes to me and the resuscitatingwould be stopped. My wife held myhand and prayed for a miraclebecause I was only 39, she was 38and we had a 10-year-old sonMichael. I suddenly gasped for airand my heart beat came on.”Dr George was given clot-bustingdrugs but remained comatose andbreathing through a ventilator andhis blood pressure was critically low.Doctors remained pessimistic abouthis recovery because his heart hadstopped for so long.After his Royal Flying Doctorflight to Perth was delayed an hourby a freak hail storm, Royal PerthHospital doctors carried out anemergency procedure to clear aseverely blocked artery on the rightside of his heart.Cardiologist Sharad Shetty said hewas not confident his patient wouldpull through. “We did what wecould but there was still the risk thateven if he survived he would havesuffered irreversible brain damage,”he said. “But two days later heopened his eyes and was talking.”Dr George was discharged twoweeks later and after sessions ofdialysis to re-boot his kidneys, hereturned to work two months ago.Ironically, he is back at RPH forthree weeks work in its acuteassessment unit.“I feel very lucky because the careI received saved my life,” he said. “Ihad the worst circumstances yet stillhad a good outcome. Some peoplesay I’m a miracle man.”
Dr.Sean George is a Specialist Physician and an Advanced Life Support Instructor himself. And the whole incident has happened in a GP surgery in Australia and it is well documented and can be independently verified. Here is the id of Dr.Sean George. tgsean@yahoo.com .
Here is the newspaper report about the incident
A newspaper report is not evidence. Especially when it seems that 90% of the article is from an interview with the man in question, and not medical professionals.
The one part that does come from a medical professional “We did what we could but there was still the risk that even if he survived he would have suffered irreversible brain damage” seems to imply that it’s certainly not a miracle. He says a “risk”, which implies that there is also a reasonably understood chance that the medical procedures would work. This would imply that medical professionals have seen this type of thing work before, showing that it happening again, is not a miracle, but one of a number of expected outcomes.
If, as you claim, this can be independently verified, that’s fine. But from what you’ve shown me here, even if everything in this newspaper is correct, it’s still not evidence of a miracle or prayer working; it’s evidence of modern medical procedures doing what they are intended to do…
Jeff, You are perfectly right that a newspaper report is not evidence! But I gave you source from where you can varify for yourself what actually happened.
Then you said, “But from what you’ve shown me here, even if everything in this newspaper is correct, it’s still not evidence of a miracle or prayer working; it’s evidence of modern medical procedures doing what they are intended to do”…
Do you really mean to say that the medical correspondent chose a wrong caption for this report? If so, was she not degrading the modern medical science when she said “Miracle man responds to wife’s heartfelt plea to liveLucky man”? Then do you think she is qualified to be a medical corresppondent for a leading newspaper in West Australia?
Reply
But I gave you source from where you can varify for yourself what actually happened.
The “source” you gave me is the person who the incident happened to. Yes I can call him up and ask for details, but as I ALREADY said, from what you’ve shown me here, even if everything in this newspaper is correct, it’s still not evidence of a miracle or prayer working; it’s evidence of modern medical procedures doing what they are intended to do.
Why would I waste my time verifying something, that even if true, does not prove a miracle?
Do you really mean to say that the medical correspondent chose a wrong caption for this report?
A misleading headline in a newspaper story. OH MY. That’s NEVER happened in the history of the world…
Oh wait, that happens ALL THE TIME.
I don’t even know how to respond to this level of disconnect from reality.
Things are called “miracles” all the time that have very easy understood explanations. Look at the “miracle on the Hudson” for one example. This was called a “miracle” by tv, radio, newspapers, etc. And yet it was due to the SKILL of the pilot, doing what he was trained to do, not some supernatural force.
If you believe that EVERY headline you read is scientifically accurate, your life must be REALLY fucked up, since one day eggs are going to save your life, and the next day they’ll kill you…
I really just don’t know how to reply to somebody who is so far removed from reality.
In my attempt to separate Religion and God from spirituality I have
faced a huge backlash from ALL SIDES … I find the positions taken in an
intellectual debate, regardless of which side one is on, is all religious
fanaticism; including Atheism. There are many wonderful people on this
planet all with unique experiences and upbringings which molds ones beliefs.
Who cares what one believes? All we need to care about is cause
and effect. Religion is a net-negative dividing the world today, and the
Atheism revolution is just another ideology that creates “closed-minded”
fanatics.
I invite you to join with me in an effort to rise above our petty human
tendencies to argue and fight, to recognise our inner spiritual sensations
as guiding us in the best path to a healthy and happy life. Until we accomplish
this individually we remain prisoners and “closed-mined” in our
indoctrination … be it religious or atheistic.
We can lead the way in setting the right example of how spiritually minded people
of differing religious and non-religious views can unite together through Love and
slowly change the dynamics of our divided world. I invite you to join me as a leader
in this cause of Love. http://the-spiritual-quest.org/
Some might say if you offend everybody then you are on the right track.
Others might say if you offend everybody you’re just an offensive prick.
I don’t know you well enough to pick one over the other.
Being an atheist does not exempt one from being a dick. There are dicks in every group of a large enough size. As for calling the specific arguments you’ve hear “fanaticism”, without more information I can’t tell if it’s you or them in the wrong.
Yes… And?
As long as people use their beliefs to justify horrific actions like shooting doctors, flying planes into buildings, stopping loving couples from marrying each other, etc, I care…
For most people I agree. But many people find positives from their faith/religion. If a goal is to get rid of religion we must ensure we replace these positives.
You’ll need to supply evidence to make such an asinine claim. While there are close minded people in every group, to claim that not believing in god makes one close minded says more about the vastness of your ignorance than it does about atheism.
So you spend your entire comment insulting both believers and atheists, but you claim to want to move beyond pettiness and fighting?
Do you REALLY not see the hypocrisy?
OR, we could embrace secular humanism… And not rely on our own flawed perceptions as being infallible…
And of course you’re back to the unfounded claim against that which you clearly have no true knowledge of.
Sorry, but I’d have to see some evidence that you’re not as big of an ignorant blowhard as you come across here before I waste my time looking further in to your ideas.
Now I’d like to ask you a simple question…
Why did you comment here?
You failed to answer the question posed at the top.
You failed to comment on any of the ongoing discussion.
You failed to add anything insightful.
So WHY did you comment?
Why did you comment here? …and to answer the question posed at the top.
I think religion as a source of enlightenment has run its course. Religion / dogmatic points of view create isolation and separate people and is the root to evils in the world. Evils like shooting doctors, flying planes into buildings, stopping loving couples from marrying each other, etc, … I sense a dogmatic argumentative tone in your blog similar to the religious people in the world, this motivated my un-insightful comment.
Let me try and express myself. While I tend to agree with your positions my hope was to reach a more sensitive side within you, seriously. I think a civil approach and an open acceptance of human views within civilization is what needs to change. But, I too fall into the same trap; as you rightly pointed out my hypocritical comments above. My hope is that people like us can rise above this human tendency and leverage the spiritual component to better our world.
My lofty hope I guess was to actually leverage your strong analytical argument even higher by adopting the spiritual approach; meaning recognizing and sensing people’s feelings. To open the minds of those who are closed by dogmatic religious views, I believe we strengthen our argument by leveraging spiritual qualities in presenting an alternative secular argument. The only strength behind the religious viewpoints are the love, respect, consideration, etc. Albeit isolated only to those who share their perspective.
“If a goal is to get rid of religion we must ensure we replace these positives” … Eliminating religion is unlikely and not what I seek. But rather expanding the discussion to opening the minds of others to see that our strong dogmatic views create more conflict than harmony. I think what matters most for all of us is what will bring genuine peace and acceptance of all. We are all capable of reaching the highest spiritual state, enlightened, educated and reasonably happy while trying to make a positive contribution to society and to our fellow man.
There will always be the masses of mankind that will remain far behind … You have a great tool to change the world. Your intellect and reasoning ability are captivating; I must admit. My request is that you adopt a softer more spiritual side to your argument to add to your marvelous arsenal of weapons in combating ignorance. Your strong information wins the discussion on it’s face. I suggest that perhaps you may lose some by the tone, sometimes it’s not what you say but how you say it. Thus the spiritual power of men like Ghadi, Jesus, Martin Luther King, etc. will be added to your already brilliant posts… Thanks for what you do here!
My hope is that we can find common ground to reach those in our world who are held hostage by religious / dogmatic views that isolate and divide our world; that leave the masses in spiritual darkness. You Jeff are stong a leader … lead well!
The question at the top was:
How certain are you that your version of the “truth” (truth of god, religion, the world, the universe, etc) is the correct one, and more importantly, how do you know what that “truth” is?
You NEVER even attempted to answer that.
Yes it is probably true that you may “sense a dogmatic argumentative tone in [my] blog”. However when people want to tell my best friend that she can’t marry because she loves the “wrong” person according to their holy book, I feel I have a right to be argumentative. As long as people justify their own actions on their interpretation of a bad work of fiction, or as long as people attempt to push their religious beliefs into the lives of others, I feel that not only do I have a right to be argumentative, but I have a responsibility to fight back.
While your ideas may be good ones, they are not quite on topic. It’s as if you had a diatribe pre-written and posted it here because you saw that what you wanted to say was in some vague way related to the topic here. This does not mean your ideas are wrong, just that your motive in posting was not to “join” a discussion already in progress, but to get on your soapbox about your own pet theory.
Some of your ideas seem worthy of discussion, but your way of presenting them leaves a lot to be desired.
I am new to blogging … I read and read the ongoing posts on your blog and frankly don’t even know how I stumbled upon it. So yes my comments were made in ignorance of the initial posting. I will answer your provocative question, “How certain are you that your version of the “truth” (truth of god, religion, the world, the universe, etc) is the correct one, and more importantly, how do you know what that “truth” is?”
I am uncertain about most things. I maintain an evolving understanding on these deep matters, although my indoctrination was from a religious perspective. I believe that where there is design and order there is an intellect or intelligence behind that. If I parked a brand new car in the middle of a field and it was left untouched for 50 years, what would happen? I believe the car would be severely dilapidated while the trees and plants will flourish remaining virtually the same if not in an improved condition. If the car were spotless looking new I would not believe that it was untouched. That maintenance system of nature I subscribe to a sustaining life force. Call it Mother Nature, God, Spirit, Source, Energy, Allah, Buddha, Jesus, Jehovah … I call it the Creator but I am not dogmatic on the designation. In that I consider myself a believer not an Atheist.
That said … I find it unrealistic that the Creator is a personality that manages life like a puppet-master of the Universe. I believe that we as conscious intellects are also creators. Everything on this planet that is not living started as a thought in a human mind. I am intrigued to learn all I can about life and what it offers. However the plight and drive of humankind today I believe is a spiritual quest. I believe most humans want to live a happy fulfilled life. Our vexation and miseries are mostly man made.
Frankly I have no answers on the right God or the true religion, but I STRONGLY BELIEVE we need to become spiritual. By that I mean attentive to feelings of others with a hope to unite people around themes of love, peace, acceptance, kindness, joy, etc. I believe that the measure of TRUTH is cause and consequence. Whatever brings a person to these spiritual characteristics is holistic and right by nature. Whatever works against these ideals is working against ourselves and our community and by nature is destructive. Call the positive God and the negative the Devil or Satan, to use religious terms. I believe these dynamics are part of our nature. We individually are in control of the God characteristics and the Devil characteristics and we create our own reality by managing these conflicting internal spiritual sensations.
Thanks for your tolerance and the chance to soap box this view to you and your audience. I welcome your fiery feedback.
Even here you answer WHAT you believe, while failing to touch on the question asked, HOW you know it to be the “truth”. What you believe is frankly boring, and nothing new. But I am curious HOW you know it to be “truth”.
As for what you believe, I’d recommend reading The Blind Watchmaker, so you lose your juvenile view of what evolution claims.
As for my “fiery feedback”, well you’ve still failed to answer the question I originally posed, so honestly you’re boring me now, and it’s hard to be passionate while finding somebody boring.
Let me simplify my answers and see if they help you understand to your satisfaction …
“How certain are you that your version of the “truth” (truth of god, religion, the world, the universe, etc) is the correct one,”? … My answer … Frankly I have no answers on the right God or the true religion.
How do you know what “truth” is?” … TRUTH is cause and consequence. Or a better word would be science. Scientific conclusions however are what we believe them to be. For millennium the scientific perception was the world was flat, based on the evidence as perceived at that time. Science is only “today’s truth” which creates tomorrow’s doubts and eventually leads to our future advancements. Absolute truth does not exist in our world!
What I am about 99% confident in is that the sun will rise tomorrow and that you and I will die sometime within the next 100 years without ever solving these questions.
This debate is hurting our world and will lead to its demise unless smart people, I mean you … can change the tenor of the debate from right and wrong to acceptance, love and growth. You have the skill sets to merge the power of a scientific intellectual thinker with the holistic spiritual message of men like Ghandi and Jesus!! Can you make such an exercise exciting and not boring? I hope you can because that is what’s needed in our diverse world today.
I think You have that ability … so I will watch from the sidelines and admire your skill sets, as I am boring, that unfortunately comes with age. I think you have what it takes; but if you could humble yourself a bit and steal plays from the other side’s playbook you’ll be even more persuasive. You can unite both sides of this intense life-long argument and bring real change into people’s lives … Keep up the good work of shedding light to your generation!
It’s not about simplifying your answer, it’s about the fact that you failed to answer the question asked (until now).
You claim you have no answers on “the right God or the true religion”, but that in itself already implies that a god does exist.
How certain are you of this? And how do you know this to be the case?
“Absolute truth does not exist in our world!”
Math… 1+1 = 2 regardless of humanity’s existence.
Science… Hydrogen is the lightest of all the atoms, regardless of whether a person knows it or accepts it.
Truth exists. Mankind’s understanding may or may not be flawed, but the truth of many thing exists.
“the holistic spiritual message of men like Ghandi and Jesus”
I find jesus’ message (or at least the teachings attributed to him) to be abhorrent. There was no “hell” in judaism before christianity. According to the bible it was jesus who created the idea of eternal punishment if you don’t believe in the “right” religion. Sorry, but there is no chance I could ever teach that, it’s a vile concept.
… “you failed to answer the question asked (until now).” … If you look closer the answer was in the previous post albeit a bit wordy … A side note your page is very slow to load you may want to lose the snow flakes.
”You … implies that a god does exist. How certain are you of this? And how do you know this to be the case?” … I am certain that I exist, I am certain that other humans exist and the connection between us is spiritual, meaning God like or Satan like qualities … see my previous post.
“Absolute truth does not exist in our world!” Math… 1+1 = 2 regardless of humanity’s existence. … I stand corrected on this point, I made the false connection between the God reference and “the truth”. … “Truth exists. Mankind’s understanding may or may not be flawed, but the truth of many things exists.” On this I too agree.
“I find jesus’ message (or at least the teachings attributed to him) to be abhorrent. There was no “hell” in judaism before christianity. According to the bible it was jesus who created the idea of eternal punishment if you don’t believe in the “right” religion … a vile concept.”.
With your remarks regarding the Christian Doctrines I agree … Jesus was not a Christian … he was a man who preached love and acceptance for all. He broke many of the Jewish laws and customs and had scathing rebukes against the religious leaders. I’m surprised you’re not more in tune with Jesus the man.
Jesus was just a man … he was not God or divine just a spiritual man like Ghandi with a message of love and acceptance. Jesus message was powerful and sweeping the world at that time. After his death which was orchestrated by the Religious leaders his message was hijacked and corrupted with the very teachings like hell and eternal punishment. While some of Jesus’ followers are religious fanatics, Jesus was not! He was just a man, I believe a good man like Ghandi. (No need to Opine on this conclusion I very well could be wrong) For lots of ammunition against Christian dogma (The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop)
My request was not that you adapt their religious message, but adapt their style of presentation. You can be a big soft pillow or a hard sharp edged rock, the pillow lulls people to comfort the sharp rock causes pain and discomfort. You may attract more readers with blows of sharp rocks. You’ll actually win more hearts and minds to help change our world by being a bit more “pillow like”. Most people want to do what’s right and holistic for fellow humans and I include you in this group.
From what I could tell, you previously said WHAT you believe, not how you “know” it to be true.
That is due to the number of comments on this specific thread. All other pages load quickly, so it’s unlikely the “snow” affects the performance.
Yes, you exist.
Yes, other humans exist.
Yes there are connections between people (family, love, friendship, etc).
But how does that lead to a “god”?
So SOME of what the bible claims jesus said, you reject. And some things it claims he said you agree with.
How do you know which things jesus said (assuming that an actual person existed upon who these stories were about and/or at least given credit to)?
You claim not to know the truth, but you certainly make many statements that contradict your claims of not being dogmatic in your beliefs.
But how does that lead to a “god”? … No reference to god … They are spiritual qualities or internal sensations. These exist in us all, we have to manage these qualities however one defines them.
Religion defines them as “God” Qualities – love, kindness, patience, tolerance, goodness, friendly, good, etc …“Satan” Qualities – anger, frustration, stress, depression, anxiety, hate, etc.
No reference to god
Previously you said:
Are you now backing away from that?
As for your “god qualities”, you left out homophobia, genocide, rape, incest, slavery, misogyny, and many other of “god’s” qualities from holy books including the bible, koran, torah, etc…
“Call it Mother Nature, God, Spirit, Source, Energy, Allah, Buddha, Jesus, Jehovah … I call it the Creator” … I am not dogmatic on what to call it; I consider myself a believer not an Atheist. What noun do you use to attribute to the perpetuation of life on its planet? …. Evolution, chance, nature, science, luck, whatever term you use with that I agree! I know I exist and therefore whatever one believes makes it possible is alright by me. I exist and so by that fact I accept whatever explanation is put on it since I cannot make one explanation superior to the other based on the available evidence.
Then you need to take a 2nd look at the evidence. I’d start with The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution…
I accept your beliefs and conclusions based on your life experience and the evidence you have explored. How can you and I bring acceptance, love, consideration and enlightenment to others? You have the analytical abilities and hopefully you’ll open up to consider the technique of being a soft pillow when reasoning with others. Thanks for this inspiring dialog … keep searching, keep exploring, open up to all possabilities. Perhaps we’ve only just begun unlock the next evolutionary chain of events for the human population?
But you should most certainly NOT accept anything based on the life experiences of anybody. You should accept things based on evidence and data. And for the record, any person’s experiences are called anecdotes, not data.
I’d prefer to bring knowledge before love.
I’d rather bring appreciation of science than consideration.
I don’t think anybody has ever compared me to a “soft pillow”, and I am very certain, I’ve never viewed myself (or wanted to view myself) that way…
I’m open to all ideas, but not all possibilities. Certain things just won’t happen, and holding out hope for them is a waste of time and resources.
This line, along with the video you linked are quite reminiscent of The Secret and What The Bleep Do We Know. Both were utter and complete bullshit, with no grounding at all, in reality.