The separation of church and state is in place to protect the minority and maintain religious freedom in America. Catholic priest, Father Jonathan Morris, believes we should all submit to Christianity because it is most popular.
Praying to imaginary people is not offensive to me. Asinine yes, but not offensive. But forcing people to be submitted to these religious acts is completely unconstitutional. I have to believe people of other religions would find it very offensive to pray to a different god than their own.
But the school did vote, so I guess that makes it okay:
Tags: Catholic, Christianity, Constitution, Constitutional, FOX News, Graduation, Lawsuit, Prayer, Religion, School, Separation of Church and State, Sued, Vote
March 15, 2010 at 10:00 am |
And there are those that criticize me for saying religious people should not be allowed to vote. Clearly they would begin oppression of anyone not like them in the first hour of having any power. In their eyes, it’s okay to make people pray. The minority has no say in this instance, says the priest. If they manage to get control of government, the minority would become glbt, women, Muslims, and anyone that falls foul of interpretations of the Bible. They *WANT* to oppress everyone right now. We’re fucked if they get the legal backing to do so.
March 15, 2010 at 10:23 am |
And then there is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIXiNX71coc
March 15, 2010 at 12:18 pm |
Democracy is wonderful. Maybe next week their school could vote on whether the cafeteria should offer free candy and beer.
March 15, 2010 at 4:23 pm |
Yes, it’s all good and well to think that religious people will be moral and just when deciding things like educational curriculum for the common good of society… but you would be wrong. Dead wrong. It’s unconstitutional, illegal, immoral and yet they still try to oppress others, mangle the truth, and twist the circumstances to ensure their personal magic skydaddy ideology is pushed to the top of the heap, above all others and at the expense of their future, my future, your future. They are hell bent on proving they’re right… without evidence or common sense on their side. Can we call them mentally disturbed and in need of medical attention yet?
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/03/its-like-theyre-proud-of-being-ignorant-cont/37484/
March 15, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
I noticed when she asked if it was a Muslim pray the priest came back with if it is a Muslim community it is ok. He acted like he was answering the question but just dodged it. I think most christians are afraid to truthfully answer a question like that when talking about the Constitution. I always like using the example where the majority vote to make people with a select name slaves. Would the person with that name think it was right? I doubt most that talk like the priest did really know enough about the 1st amendment or have never really went deeply into it.
March 16, 2010 at 9:59 am |
I cannot speak for all Christians. Neither can our friend the priest here in this video clip. As for me, I oppose forced prayers of any kind in schools. I don’t mind a moment of silence in which people can meditate, pray to whomever, take a nap, or study. BeAttitude is right, the separation of church and state is there so that no one is forced to be a part of a state religion. It is to protect the minority from being oppressed by the majority. The State has no right to speak to religion, and religion does not have the right to force itself into the role of the state.
That is the thing with democracy. If everything is decided by “every person gets one vote” and there are no balances put into place, then the majority will always oppress the minority whether that majority is liberal or conservative, Christian or Atheist.
As for this nonsense of not allowing people to vote because you disagree with their ideology that Mr. Z is proposing, I have to part company there. I would agree that if Christians could do anything they wanted politically, then oppression would soon follow. The same is true of any group, religious or not. But disenfranchising any group from having a voice because you disagree with their position is also oppression. You have in effect said, “as long as you pretty much agree with me, then you should have a right to vote…otherwise you should just shut up because if you should win any elections you will change the things in ways I don’t like.”
Surly the shoe has been on the other foot. Surly some well meaning, but ignorant Christian has said something to the effect that “Atheists should not be allowed to vote because they will oppress Christians and try to prevent us from practicing our faith.” This is equally ignorant. And to be honest I can almost understand the fearfulness on the Atheist’s side more than the Christian side. If Christians believe what we claim to believe, then what the state does or doesn’t do should have little to do with us. We are told to live in peace with others in as much as is in our power, and to let go of the things that are out of our control. I won’t say folks who don’t do this are “no real scotsmen”, but they are definitely missing the boat on a lot of what scripture has to say.
Separation of Church and State means that the church cannot control the state and vice versa. But if you are honestly interested in freedom, then everyone has to be able to bring his or her morals and values, religious or not, to the voting booth. And there has to be a system of checks and balances in place so that the minority can continue to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s what we’re working with. And for what it’s worth, as a Christian (and I’m sure that most Atheists or other religions would agree), I oppose oppression anywhere I see it…even if it’s folks from the same belief system that I hold to that are doing the oppressing.
March 16, 2010 at 10:50 am |
Andrew, yours seems a sane world view. At least I think you see how pushing religious dogma to the education system, among other things, is oppression of those who do not believe in such dogma. If it were that all Christians and religious folk were so sane.
I’ve used the word sane for a reason. It’s not without reason that some would think religious folk are not sane. The point about not allowing them to vote follows that thinking. I do understand that it sounds bizarre to say that, but if they were pronounced unstable or mentally incapacitated, would they be allowed to vote? Can you see where I’m going with this?
The site: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Plea+of+temporary+insanity
“The insanity defense is used by criminal defendants. The most common variation is cognitive insanity. Under the test for cognitive insanity, a defendant must have been so impaired by a mental disease or defect at the time of the act that he or she did not know the nature or quality of the act, or, if the defendant did know the nature or quality of the act, he or she did not know that the act was wrong. The vast majority of states allow criminal defendants to invoke the cognitive insanity defense.”
By most definitions, certain sects of Christianity, and individuals in all sects meet the definition of cognitive insanity. The fact that this condition is sustained over many days/months/years is indicative of much. Sure, that’s arguable, but I think the end result is worth the argument. If we take it that ‘normal’ is belief in the supernatural, something has gone wrong. This is where checks and balances need to be addressing the problem, not at the voting polls. Again, I know it sounds like a hard line stance, but I see the problem there, not in the voting booths. I simply think that voting rules should be applied a bit more liberally.
I cannot express with words the anger that wells inside me when I read in the news of the Texas State Board of Education’s decisions to twist religious dogma into the training of young minds. They came for the children and I said nothing, they came for …. you get the picture. All non-Christians should be outraged and running toward the state capital with pitchforks and torches. This monster must be killed. Indeed, good Christians should be outraged. If religion gets hold of the government, there is no guarantee that it will always be Christianity. The current trend of immigrants (legal or no) is not Protestant faith, but Catholic, or non-Christian. Population stats indicate that Protestants will be outnumbered in the near future. It’s in everyone’s best interest to stop this madness now.
If you firmly believe in Santa Claus it will cause others to clearly doubt your grip on reality, and you may not pass the test of mental capacity to vote. This seems harmless until you consider that voting for a candidate based on their belief in Santa Claus causes a dangerous facade in politics if enough people vote that way. Voting to train young minds to believe in Santa Claus empowers this facade and strengthens it. It carries on until you simply can’t be successful in business or politics unless you believe in Santa Claus. That would be insane, right? Are you seeing where I’m coming from yet?
March 16, 2010 at 11:46 am |
Mr. Z, I can see where you are coming from. I truly can. If you don’t mind, I’ll go through your post and answer a few things point by point.
First I agree that it is insane to push dogma on anyone. I think this is true of Christians, and this is also true of others be they liberal, conservative, Christian, Atheist, Buddhist, Taoist, Wiccan, or whatever. I love discussion. I have no time for denouncement. Rob Bell (a pastor I like) uses an illustration I will augment for this conversation. If we see our position as a brick wall, and each point of our position is a brick, then when anyone challenges any point, then the whole wall starts to crumble, so we have to argue every point to the nth degree. But if we see our points as springs on a trampoline, then the points are important, but if you take one away, or it is challenged, or it isn’t fully understood, then we can still jump. After all, the point of the trampoline is the joy of jumping. You defend walls, you invite others to jump on a trampoline.
I see your point regarding mental instability and voting. However there are two points I disagree on. One is that logistically I don’t see how this could be enforced short of a totalitarian government that makes you pass some sort of mental test in order to vote. Beyond that, who gets to choose what opinions and beliefs are rational and which are not? Because that is my second point of disagreement. I don’t believe that Christianity is a “leap of faith” religion. I don’t believe that it is irrational, nor do I believe it is rooted in the supernatural. It is not the same as believing in Santa Claus. This is not the forum for detailing all the reasons, the character limit of blog replies makes this a difficult task, but I would be glad to continue that conversation if you like. Basically I would argue this. Many argue that the universe began from impersonal energy, plus chance, plus time. From this somehow humanity and personality arrive on the scene. From this we are to find morality arrive. True, many argue that morality is really just what is socially expedient, but that argument breaks down when a society is functioning on principals that they disagree with. So to me, the true leap of faith, the truly irrational position, is the one that says we “ought” to do anything without any basis for the “ought”.
Now, you make a very beautifully valid point that if Christianity takes power, what we are left with looks little to nothing like Christianity. I think we see that anytime Christians move away from God and towards politics. This has been the problem with religion from day one. And in my world-view this is why God decided to put skin on and move into town so-to-speak. Not to negate anyone’s religious moral code, but to paraphrase Mark Twain, “You may have learned the words, but let me teach you the tune.” The morals aren’t bad, but you don’t need religion for morals. You can do good without a belief in God. In my belief God is not interested in forcing people to just be good or else. And God any Christian who treats God as some dude who looks like Santa Claus in a robe is missing the point. If God is something you have to force yourself to believe in by some irrational leap of faith, in spite of your intellect, then I have no use for that God. As Galileo said, “I don’t believe that the God who made us with intellect and reason intends us to forgo their use.”
March 16, 2010 at 1:49 pm
Andrew, when I say that the Bible and the God defined therein fail the test of reason and logic, I said so without explanation. I can think of no better person to quote than Mark Twain in voicing why I say this. Much better than quoting him, here is a link to a collection of his quotes:
http://www.twainquotes.com/God.html
March 16, 2010 at 1:52 pm |
I love Twain. And as a former Satanist, I really loved his quotes on God. And Carlin. They both have very clever ways to word their beliefs. I’m about to head to work, but I’ll check out the quotes tonight or tomorrow.
Enjoying the conversation.
-a
March 16, 2010 at 12:41 pm |
Andrew, I agree with you except on a couple of point.
First, my stand on the voting issue is to bring to the fore the objective view that belief in supernatural beings is insanity.
Your views on Christianity are sadly not shared by many Christians in the world. Certainly not those who want to see children indoctrinated in public schools. Education is not my only problem with religion. While I go through life taking it much as it is presented, there are too many instances of religions whining about their rights and needing preference from the government and others. They use what leeway has been given to try to get all to accept their view of the world. This is dangerous.
Your personal beliefs in what cannot be proved to exist are your problem and belong only in your home and place of worship. Imagine if atheists were to go door-to-door trying to convince people of the insanity of religion? There are a few really good examples of taking current law and custom to the logical extremes where it seems to become offensive to religious foik. Live and let live only works when all parties agree. The Bible itself instructs adherents to go and spread the word. Ooops.
All that said, it seems _your_ version of Christianity is hardly offensive. Shame there are so many versions of it that are. In this case we talk about Christianity as it is the religion that has the most affect on my life. I feel as strongly about other religions too.
To believe that the universe was created for mankind by a supernatural all powerful being invalidates the Bible if your reasoning is logical. The Bible and most of its proponents fail the test of logic. Without evidence of a creator god, there is simply no reason to believe in such without admitting to yourself that it’s a leap of faith. That leap takes you from accepting what is known to believing in what is not known to be true. I can see no valid or logical reason to make this leap of faith.
Do you believe in Horus or Mithra? Look them up.
Religion, when looked at objectively, is simply mass insanity. Our propensity to _want_ to believe drives us to believe in things that simply are not true. Authors like Dan Brown exploit this human trait. So did Constantine.
I’m not against anyone believing in whatever they want really. I’m just against them doing things that materially affect my life as a result of such faith. The discovery of the magnetosphere and its role in protecting life on Earth has some material affect on my life, as do other scientific discoveries. The difference there is that such discoveries are not based on faith, but on observation. I may not be too comfortable with huge solar coronal mass ejections, but whether I believe they happen or not, by observation we know they do, and will. School children should know about such things so that huge blackouts don’t come as a great surprise, or that they won’t be seen as an act of God. Indoctrinating people to believe in things for which there is no evidence is counterproductive to mankind, wasteful of life, and a disservice to our fellow humans.
Life simply is. The best we know at this moment in time is that it started with a big bang and over time the universe coalesced into what we see today through the application of the natural laws. Life on this planet is. Explanation of its origin is a gray area though evolution, as observed, and archaeological evidence suggests that life evolved from the very simple forms of proteins to what we see today. Nothing in mankind’s sphere of observation suggests that a creator god must have come to Earth and created life. Without reason to look for a creator god, it makes no sense to assume one exists. The assumption that one exists is brought to us today from a time when lightning was not understood; when the Earth was thought flat and the sun thought a perfect sphere, and all the universe revolved around the Earth. If we can shed a lot of superstitions from that time, why must we hold on dearly to this creator god part?
This question strikes at the very nature of God in man’s life; an explanation for that which is otherwise inexplicable. The more that we learn about humans and mammalian brains, the more we have observable evidence that questions the existence of God.
I’ll stop there for now, but I’m enjoying this discussion.
March 16, 2010 at 1:37 pm |
Mr. Z,
First, let me say that I am also enjoying the discussion. And I want to thank you for discussing. Most people seem to think the first three letters in discuss are “dis” and treat discussion as a series of attacks. I believe that people can disagree, even about fundamental truths, and still work toward the same goals. This is evidenced within Christianity, and also without. All that being said, I’ll answer some of your points.
First point. You mention that my views of Christianity are not shared by many. I disagree. My views hold very closely to orthodox Reformed Christianity that can be traced backwards to Schaeffer, back to Aquinas, back to Paul, and back to Jesus. The problem here is not that there aren’t many. The problem is that the crazies all have megaphones and sandwich board signs and stand on street corners screaming. The crazies have fake news broadcasts and are puppets for Right-wing political action groups. The Christians who believe as I do don’t stand on street corners screaming. They are having quiet conversations at the corner pub with a friend they love and have relationship with. To associate the majority of Christians with the ones who speak the loudest is similar to equating all African-Americans with Louis Farrakhan. Hate speaks loudly, but Love will win.
To the point that belief in a supernatural force is insane. I agree wholeheartedly. I don’t believe that God is supernatural. I don’t believe that the existence of a personal creator God is unnatural. I can say without intellectual embarrassment that I believe that observation of reality logically necessitates a personal creator God. It is my belief that to separate God from the equation, but to still hold to concepts like dignity, truth, love, honesty, or any other things of “ought-ness” is the thing that requires an irrational leap of faith.
I do not believe in Horus nor Mithra. I do know of them, and I know of their similarities to Jesus. I could name more for you. Ceasar was seen also as a “son of God” who died and rose again. Who would bring the “kingdom of god” to Earth. If Jesus was a story, then he was blatantly plagiarized and was just one of a million similar stories. I do not believe in Horus nor Mithra as fully realized deities. However, I do believe that true things about them are true things about God. All Truth is God’s Truth. And by the same token many Christians turn Jesus into an idol also. They remove all content from the person of Jesus, and use him, as Schaeffer says, as a contentless banner that can be carried around and used to justify things that go completely against anything Jesus ever taught. Pat Robertson is a shining example.
Also you mention that scientific discoveries are not based on faith but upon observation. Here we have to define “faith.” Faith is not the same thing as “blind faith” nor a “leap of faith.” The scientist requires true faith in the exact same way as the Theologian. The scientist uses the scientific method to determine the way things typically work. The honest theologian should do the same. Observe the world around, and if the real world around us contradicts our presuppositions, then it is required that we re-examine our presuppositions. If a Christian believes that the world is 6000 years old, but observation tells us it is older, then we are forced (if we are to be honest) to reconsider our presupposition that Genesis 1 and 2 are meant to be interpreted as literal history. If a scientist believes the world is flat, but observation teaches us otherwise, then we must honestly reconsider our presuppositions there as well.
Religion in the sense of “belief in God” is not mass insanity. But religion in the sense of “jumping through hoops to try and convince a God you can’t know to quit being pissed at you” is absolutely mass insanity, and it is this that people like Brown and Constantine and Robertson, and Falwell are making their millions from.
As you say “Life simply is.” The most fundamental question according to Sartre is therefore, “why is there something instead of nothing?” Theology and Philosophy are attempts to answer these questions. Other types of science are not answering this question because that is not what they are designed to do. You don’t ask a botanist to find a unified theory, nor to perform experiments which test string theory. In the same way, no matter how brilliant the mind may be, you don’t ask an astrophysicist to preform an experiment that proves God exists.
The problem with discussions of “what is” is similar to discussions of the Bible. Many Christians will tell you, “I just do what the Bible says.” or “I’m not going to be swayed by the opinions of man, I just listen to what the Bible says.” Similarly we have discussions of reality in which we insist, “I’m just telling you what is real.” or “I am only interested in what I can prove by science.” The problem is that every single person comes to the table with presuppositions that skew the results of what they observe. To claim that we alone (or our group, religion, philosophy, etc) have the “real” reality, and everyone else is missing what we see is just not true.
You believe that scientific observation points more and more to objective facts that question God’s existence. I look at those same facts and see them pointing more and more to confirming God’s existence. We both come to the table with our own set of presuppositions. The only intellectually honest, logical, and scientific way to approach the question is to move from what we can all agree on and discuss what the greater implications may be (as we are doing here).
I think it is ultimately most important before we move into the greater questions to look at our fundamental presuppositions. It’s very difficult to discuss what is “true” before we know whether or not we ultimately agree about what “truth” is. Not what is “the” truth, but what “truth” itself is. Is there such a thing as objective truth? If there is, is any aspect of objective truth knowable? If there is no such thing as objective truth, or if truth exists but is not knowable, then it seems to me the rest of the conversation is babble. But if there are some things that are true, and some that are not, then we have some content to discuss. And from there we are in a pretty good position to begin to discuss the nature of reality without all the B.S. that clouds our ability to see that reality.
March 16, 2010 at 1:59 pm |
One other point I forgot to address. You mention the Christian command to spread the word as an “oops.” I don’t think it is an “oops.” Honestly it’s no different than having a blog to discuss atheism. How some Christians hear “Go and teach all nations” and from that get “…and kill them if they don’t agree” is beyond me. Spreading the word that God put on skin and offers hope to the world is not the same as trying to force people to believe what you believe on the threat of death and destruction.
The word is “teach” all nations. This implies a willingness to learn. And in face, there are other places where Jesus says, “tell them the good news, and if they don’t want to hear it, shake the dust from your sandals as you leave.” We are not commanded to coerce, bully, and force people to agree. We are told to spread the good news, and leave people alone if they don’t want to hear it. The rest is not up to us. Convicting others of sin, making them believe, changing hearts and minds, none of this is the job of the Christian. This is all God’s job. We are just told to let people know what’s up. The rest is between them and God.
Okay, off to work. loving the conversation. I’ll hit you up for more discussion tonight or tomorrow.
Love,
-Andy
March 16, 2010 at 4:06 pm |
Andrew, for the love of all that is good in the universe, I’m enjoying this as well. You seem to be my kind of Christian, the kind I can politely disagree with and carry on living life. I hope that you do stay and comment from on this blog, I think it is precisely your world view that needs to be more vocal among theists. It is certainly in alignment with the world view of the founding fathers of the USA, and if you must believe in a deity, I find this format to be not offensive or corrosive to the common good. A tip of the hat to you.
Clearly, you are correct in comparing religions to the ‘squeaky wheel gets the oil’ proverb. While I grant the point about Farrakhan it dismays me that more like yourself do nothing to distinguish good from bad forms of Christianity. Yes, a problematic situation but dismaying just the same. I’ve got to say that your expressions of how Christianity is misinterpreted and misused gave me the biggest laugh I’ve had all week.
Andrew said: “To the point that belief in a supernatural force is insane. I agree wholeheartedly. I don’t believe that God is supernatural. I don’t believe that the existence of a personal creator God is unnatural. I can say without intellectual embarrassment that I believe that observation of reality logically necessitates a personal creator God. It is my belief that to separate God from the equation, but to still hold to concepts like dignity, truth, love, honesty, or any other things of “ought-ness” is the thing that requires an irrational leap of faith.”
This, friend, this brings us to the more enjoyable aspects of religious discussion. Debating the logic or reasoning of the Bible and the more ‘vocal’ portions of the Abrahamic faiths is, well, like exercise. To discuss the reasons for religion, now that is the reason to exercise. Why are we here? Why is there something rather than nothing. Existential angst, the proprietor of all the good and all the bad that mankind has offered up to the universe.
Andrew said “All Truth is God’s Truth. And by the same token many Christians turn Jesus into an idol also. They remove all content from the person of Jesus, and use him, as Schaeffer says, as a contentless banner that can be carried around and used to justify things that go completely against anything Jesus ever taught. Pat Robertson is a shining example.”
If only the likes of Pat Robertson would try out martyrdom?
Yes, a point of order; word definitions are important. Using faith in the context of science is misleading due to the more general definition of faith. Science, for the purposes of discussion here, we might agree trusts that observable phenomena will behave as they do unendingly unless something interferes. This is trust built from repeatability and observability. Faith on the other hand is ‘complete trust’ and generally defined as complete trust in that for which there is no evidence. There is a fine area where definitions can be made to seem the same, but to communicate effectively, we must keep them separate. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith We can agree that even the story says Christ has visited only once, and that God only visited with certain humans. This lacks a certain kind of repeatability and observability, thus lacking in the trust part unless you make a leap of faith and trust the story and its authors to be genuine.
For myself, I am willing to change my world view should evidence be found that logically demands that I do. Every week my world view is enhanced or stretched by science. What we now know of our solar system by far eclipses what we knew when I watch men walk on the moon. My worldview changes.
Andrew said “Religion in the sense of “belief in God” is not mass insanity. But religion in the sense of “jumping through hoops to try and convince a God you can’t know to quit being pissed at you” is absolutely mass insanity, and it is this that people like Brown and Constantine and Robertson, and Falwell are making their millions from.” and I reply: I cannot agree more. The sense of God that you describe here is a benign philosophy, and on its merrits will gather more adherents. There is nothing to make me believe that the ‘I’m god, you’re god, we’re all god’ philosophy is not possible. The unified theory mysticism of suggesting there is something in the universe that we are as yet unaware of, and it might explain some phenomena when we understand it is also not disprovable, so is open to be shown to be true. In fact, the two dovetail together well. Both dispense with mythical beings and magic, and hope for some evidence in future knowledge that there is an explaination for what we do not yet understand. This is IMO in alignment with my world view.
Andrew said “As you say “Life simply is.” The most fundamental question according to Sartre is therefore, “why is there something instead of nothing?” Theology and Philosophy are attempts to answer these questions. ” And this is the meat of what needs discussion. To the basic objective observation, there is yet no evidence of anything more than ‘life is’. We have evidence that points to the big bang, evolution, and other mysteries not yet laid bare. None of these have God’s fingerprint on them that science can see. IMO the logical stance is to not assume there are fingerprints on the universe till we can see them scientifically. I hold no grudge against those who think it not possible that all this is for no particular purpose. I only question what that purpose should then be? I follow up the answer with why should I believe that?
Andrew said “You believe that scientific observation points more and more to objective facts that question God’s existence. I look at those same facts and see them pointing more and more to confirming God’s existence. We both come to the table with our own set of presuppositions. The only intellectually honest, logical, and scientific way to approach the question is to move from what we can all agree on and discuss what the greater implications may be (as we are doing here).”
Agreed. The honesty of my view is that the universe is what it is. I have no reason to believe that it was created for mankind by a creator god. When I see evidence of that, my world view must change. To assume there is a creator god and look for evidence to show this as truth is skewing the science of it. Of course, there is no grand rule book that says there is only one way to seek the answers for the big questions. I simply choose to side with the science/atheist point of view.
“I think it is ultimately most important before we move into the greater questions to look at our fundamental presuppositions. It’s very difficult to discuss what is “true” before we know whether or not we ultimately agree about what “truth” is. Not what is “the” truth, but what “truth” itself is. Is there such a thing as objective truth?”
To me, truth is simply that which is scientifically observed to be. In truth, mankind is viscious and violent.
“If there is, is any aspect of objective truth knowable?” It is knowable in as much as it can be observed and repeatedly observed to be unchanging. Truth for humanity does not yet explain its existence.
” If there is no such thing as objective truth, or if truth exists but is not knowable, then it seems to me the rest of the conversation is babble. But if there are some things that are true, and some that are not, then we have some content to discuss. And from there we are in a pretty good position to begin to discuss the nature of reality without all the B.S. that clouds our ability to see that reality.”
On this I totally agree. Truth in the abstract form, is knowable but there is reason to doubt that complete knowlege of truth is within our grasp, the grasp of those currently alive. We have seen and know enough of it to inspire the continued search. In this, I find purpose in life – life being the generality of humankind. Scientifically there is no purpose known past the need to continue our specific genetic lineage. Philosophically purpose can be found in many things but I find the expansion of knowledge as the greatest of these. The Abrahamic faiths seem dead set against that great purpose.
This will sound rough and easy to argue against as it is still fomenting in my head. The question of what is a soul? What is consciousness? These questions beg an answer. Science offers insights. We do not morally judge homosexual behaviors in animals, yet we do so of humans. We do not see prejudice in the animal kingdom the same way we see it in humanity. White dogs do not enslave black ones. It occurs to me that we should judge one another in much the way that we judge animals, and how they judge each other. The dichotomy in how we treat other humans and how we treat animals is a testament to the idea that we’re probably doing it wrong. I’m not turning into a tree hugging beatnik, just point to the issue and asking what the meaning of this is. Have we put ourselves above our station? It seems there is reason to think that this might just be the case. In either case, it is worth discussing. Without the discussion there is no expansion of knowledge.
March 17, 2010 at 12:15 am
Alright. Good stuff here. Let’s start from the start.
I like the idea of moving the discussion to “why are we here? is there a God” before moving into “is the God of the Bible/Christianity the real God.” Seems rather important to answer the first question first. In my opinion that is one of the biggest mistakes that Christians make. So often we try to convince people that the Bible is true before determining if the person we are talking with even believes in objective truth. And we try to talk about the God of the Bible before we talk about whether there is a God at all. So I am glad to see this conversation moving the cart behind the horse.
Now, to answer the section of your post on faith. If you’ll pardon my saying this, it seems like you may have chosen the definitions from the webster’s dictionary that best suit your position. The link you sent also says that possible definitions of “faith” include “belief and trust in, and loyalty to God” and also (closest to what I personally mean when I use the word) “belief in something, especially with strong conviction.” This is what I mean when I use the word faith. The definitions you singled out are what I would call “blind faith.” But the belief with strong conviction definition does not require blindness. It is more in line with scientific reason.
Von neumann’s catastrophe of the infinite regress is a term used in quantum physics. Basically it states that our measurements are only as accurate as the instruments we design to take the measurements. And we can put other instruments in place to measure the flaws, but those instruments will also have their own flaws…through infinity. So, the only way to finally end the infinite regress is to make what I would call a “faith” statement that says, “I think we have measured closely enough that it is rational to hold this position. Even to hold this position with strong conviction.” Faith in this sense still allows for doubt. In fact doubt is absolutely necessary to faith in this sense. Faith without doubt is “blind faith” and I have no use for that. If anyone’s God can’t handle a question mark, then that’s not much of a God.
Next, I’m not sure if I implied that I hold to an “I’m God, You’re God, we’re all God” mentality. I do not. I believe in a personal God who created humanity as image bearers of God (not necessarily physically, but that’s a subject for another time). We are not God, but can be adopted children of God. But again, this is getting ahead of our discussion a bit. Just wanted to clarify the point before moving on. For now, let’s get back to our “why is there something instead of nothing” discussion.
You say, “Agreed. The honesty of my view is that the universe is what it is. I have no reason to believe that it was created for mankind by a creator god. When I see evidence of that, my world view must change. To assume there is a creator god and look for evidence to show this as truth is skewing the science of it. Of course, there is no grand rule book that says there is only one way to seek the answers for the big questions. I simply choose to side with the science/atheist point of view.”
To this I reply that there are reasons to believe that the universe and all that is in it was created by a personal God. I agree that assuming a creator God and looking for evidence to prove it is not scientific. Neither is assuming no creator and looking for evidence to prove that theory. The scientific theory is to take what we can observe and draw conclusions from that. It is my belief that evidence of a divine personality are present in many areas. For example, in the fact that something is here rather than nothing. In the existence of Morality (we can discuss the details of morality, but I mean generally that there is a sense of “ought-ness” that is typically very similar from culture to culture). In the delicately balanced ordered chaos of nature itself. And in the fact that humanity exists with some sort of personality that does separate us from animals and machines.
However, I am obviously coming from a place of faith in God, and you are coming from a place of atheism. We have both been very clear on our presuppositions. No one comes to the table with a clean slate. Every scientist has a hypothesis. Measures are put into place to try to keep our beliefs from skewing what we observe, but the truth is that we will find what we look for. And even if we could just sit and observe without presuppositions, we will still interpret the results through the lens of our particular worldview. So the question still comes down to what worldview you put your trust in.
This brings me to the next point. You say that you put your trust in what is scientifically observable. And then you state as an absolute fact that “man is viscous and violent.” I agree, humanity does have the ability to be cruel and violent and evil. but humanity also has the ability to create art and beauty, music and poetry, to revel in love, and enjoy nature. So we are back to the original question. If we are simply the product of impersonal energy, plus chance, plus time, then what is it that separates us from animals and machines? I don’t say that we are better than animals, but we are surely different. You aptly point out that we don’t judge animals on the basis of morality (particulars of morality such as homosexuality, racism, etc notwithstanding), but we judge ourselves on these issues. You mention that we may have put ourselves above our station and might possibly need to view ourselves more like animals. But I don’t think we can actually do that in real life. Animals are not capable of moral culpability for their actions. They are behaving as their nature tells them to behave. But if we are simply animals of a different sort, then we should have no moral culpability either. If we are simply another animal, then when someone kills someone else for having sex with his mate, then that’s just nature. When wars are fought over limited resources like land and food and oil, and the dominate animal of the species wins by destroying the weaker, then that’s just nature. If we truly believe that morality is subjective and that we are just another animal, then we need to stare unflinchingly at the logical conclusion of that belief. But in reality there is another standard that we ought to be held to. It is my belief that that standard comes from a knowable personal God.
Now this brings me to an earlier point you made. You mention that truth is knowable, but not fully knowable. I believe the same. And I think this also applies to God. We are finite, and God is infinite (or if you prefer…truth is infinite). So, in the category of being finite, we cannot grasp all there is to grasp of God nor truth. However, I believe that God is personal (and therefore Truth is coming from a personal being), so in the sense that we are also personal, we can have real substantial knowledge of God and Truth. Even if it is incomplete knowledge, it is real and substantial knowledge.
I agree with you that the pursuit of knowledge is one of the things that gives us purpose. To that I would add the pursuit of beauty and harmony. Ultimately I think what gives life purpose is the pursuit of Love. Knowledge is a form of loving a thing…to seek to understand is to love. This is why I disagree that the Abrahamic religions are against knowledge. They are not. Granted there are some (possibly many) who adhere to these religions that are against questioning. They want the rules to be handed to them. Many have realized like the character from Flannary O’Connor that the best way to avoid Jesus is to avoid sin. If they can get the rules, and follow them without question, then they won’t have to do the dirty work of answering difficult questions, and learning to love. These are the people who Jesus called “you brood of vipers.” He called them this because they had perverted the religion of Abraham. They had turned it into the backwards, legalistic monster that we see so often in churches today. But there is still a baby in that bathwater. And I’m looking forward to continuing to siphon out that nasty muddy water with you as we look for where the baby is.
March 16, 2010 at 11:27 pm |
Sorry to intrude on this conversation but I wanted to interject a thought on a couple of things that you have said Mr. Z.
At one point you said that “belief in supernatural beings is insanity” and then a little later you said “The best we know at this moment in time is that it started with a big bang and over time the universe coalesced into what we see today through the application of the natural laws.”
Consider this:
The definition of the word Supernatural is this : of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
Let me focus on the “unexplainable by natural law” part.
You mention the big bang. As far as we know, and has been strengthened over the years through empirical scientific observation, this event was the beginning of the universe. When the Big Bang occurred all space, matter, and time came into existence, as stated by Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Before the Big Bang there was no space, time, or matter. Nothing. (there are of course the theories of multiverses or parallel universes or whatnot, but for the sake of there being a complete lack of empirical evidence here I will not consider them here) What also came into existence at the Big Bang were the natural laws that govern the universe. A natural law can be defined as a principle or body of laws considered as derived from nature. Can there can be laws of nature if there is no nature? Today these natural laws are what scientists use to make empirical observations about the universe.
So, you claim that to believe in the supernatural is to be insane. The Bible speaks of many supernatural events, or miracles. One of which was the beginning of the universe (I’m not debating whether Genesis is to be read literally or allegorically, only that it speaks of God creating the universe). Allow me to pose this question: If all of the natural laws of this universe are a part of the universe and did not exist at the singularity (the moment just before time, space, and matter came into existence), then how can you explain the Big Bang using science? (I realize that science does not currently have an explanation for the cause associated with the origin of the universe, but for the sake of an argument based on logic I am posing this question) For there are no scientific laws (or natural laws) to which science can refer for an empirical explanation. Science can only make observations after nature exists and much of today’s efforts are in learning about the early moments of the universe by using super colliders.
Does this then, by definition, make the Big Bang a “supernatural” event? That which cannot be explained by natural law?
“By faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at God’s command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen.” Hebrews 11:3
March 17, 2010 at 12:22 am |
Lewis, no need to apologize. What you pose is absolutely a good point and a good question. One not lost on science itself. As I have eluded here and in other posts, I choose to agree with science and the atheist point of view. In my philosophical journey of life, this question arose also. In my younger days I was happy to say ‘well, it must have been God who made the big bang happen’ and left it at that for the time. It seems logical enough if you believe that there is reason to believe in a God in the first place, but that is merely god of the gaps thinking.
Later I came to the conclusion that in the 70+ thousand years of humanity, the balance of our species attempts to explain the two big questions can be summed up as ‘we created gods’. The questions being; Why are we here? What is our purpose for being? Humanity has invented many gods to explain what is otherwise inexplicable. Why should this one myth be anymore right than any of the others? I can see no reason to believe that it is more right, and in fact is just as wrong.
Science does not pose to answer those questions, only to observe and understand the natural world. In doing so, the big bang represents a problem. It would appear that we can not explain or yet understand what laws were in effect at the time of the big bang. We do not know if time or space existed prior to the big bang and in fact before the big bang it is unknown what existed. Speculation says that whatever it was, it was supernatural or beyond the natural laws. Should we discover the cause of the big bang I’m rather certain that the definition of natural laws will change. The fact that we do not scientifically know what happened prior to the big bang or what caused it is not reason enough to assume a supernatural being did it.
Lewis said: “Does this then, by definition, make the Big Bang a “supernatural” event? That which cannot be explained by natural law?” and I answer ‘it would appear so, so far’. Because what happened before the big bang is not yet known, we can only speculate and theorize. We can neither say that god did it, nor that god did not. This does not mean that I agree with you as posing the question of whether a god could have done it or not necessarily means that we have some reason to believe there is a god. Since there is no convincing scientific evidence that there is a god, there is no point saying god could have commanded the big bang to happen. The thought that there must be a god because we cannot explain the big bang yet is simply laughable, it’s god of the gaps thinking.
Without evidence of a creator god, fingerprints or something, there is no reason to believe there is such a being, never mind that the universe was created by such a god. Two suppositions stacked one on the other do not make a truth. To satisfy yourself with ‘god did it’ has been shown to simply be a way to ignore all other possibilities. An ignorance that should insult our intellect and spurn us to try even harder to learn more. Using a lack of knowledge on any given topic to justify the existence of a god is, sorry to say, intellectually lazy, among other things.
Without scientific knowledge of what caused the big bang or what existed before it, and a marked lack of guidance from any divine being, it is still left up to mankind to find meaning in and for existence. Lack of knowledge about the true nature of the solar system centuries ago did not change the truth of its true nature. It simply allowed some to claim god did it, among many other drastically wrong conclusions about the universe. Some portions of Christianity posit that their God caused the big bang. I ask: “Well, Christianity was quite wrong about the nature of the universe for more or less its entire existence, why would I think you right about the big bang being god made?” The track record for Christianity on explanations of the universe has been miserably bad, dead wrong, wildly self serving. Why now would I simply accept that this time you might be right?
I do agree that the big bang and what was before it poses problems for the natural laws and how we understand the universe using them, but there is no reason to give up on science and say god did it. You still must choose to believe with blind faith that god did it, or choose to believe that we don’t yet know and continue to search for the answers to the big questions, each in our own ways. Lack of scientific knowledge does not prove your idea of a creator god is right. It is merely lack of knowledge.
March 17, 2010 at 12:50 pm |
Mr. Z, if you consider this concept a “god of the gaps” concept and nothing but an intellectual copout then do you also agree that the statement “Life simply is” is as well?
March 25, 2010 at 11:33 am |
The Big Bang , Lews, is no more a supernatural event than the existence of God. IT IS A BIG UNKNOWN, just like our very own bodies once were, just like space once was, just as the cure for some diseases once were, and just as the true contents of the interior of our very own sun, or how Alpha Centauri looks close up.
That is all. Nothing supernatural about unknowns at all. No need to attach any sort of “magical” or “faith-based” conclusion or explanation to anything.
Nor is there any particular benefit in deciding that the supernatural explanation is the answer in itself.
Why is practically every religion or pseudoscience so adamant about using mysticism as a response?
Do they fear being singled out for ignorance? I certainly had no problem with saying “I don’t know”… but the faithful seem to be a lot more fearful of these 3 words than I. <_<
March 17, 2010 at 12:34 am |
Lewistherinpm, you make a good point.
I meant to mention that earlier, but in the whirlwind of words that point got lost. thanks for bringing it back up.
Mr. Z, you did mention that, “We can agree that even the story says Christ has visited only once, and that God only visited with certain humans. This lacks a certain kind of repeatability and observability, thus lacking in the trust part unless you make a leap of faith and trust the story and its authors to be genuine.”
We can also agree that George Washington only lived during certain years. He crossed the Delaware at some point. But this is also not repeatable nor observable. We take it as history, not natural science. And it does not require an illogical leap of faith. It requires being able to look at the histories being written and to determine if it is reasonable to believe that they happened as the historians claimed they did. And it requires being able to tell what genre the authors were writing in. Some wrote songs about George Washington. These were not literal truth, but contained truths about him. Some wrote historical facts about Washington. The challenge with the Bible is determining which parts are which genre. But being able to re-create history in a laboratory is not one of the criteria for determining its validity.
March 17, 2010 at 12:51 am |
Andrew, quickly; if God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent we can expect that his visits can be repeated, and not a one time historical deal. Not so much with a mortal human. No one expects that Mr Washington could or should visit us again.
I’m going to take my time in replying to your other post. I want to bring in some other thoughts which are not centered on religion or Christianity but on the answers to the big questions and staring unflinchingly into the natural conclusion you eluded to. I’m happy to have heard you mention animals and machines in the same sentence. It’s a nice segue. Please pardon my delay in response.
March 17, 2010 at 7:37 am |
Mr. Z, yes we can expect that his visits *can* be repeated. And I believe that they will be repeated. In fact that is the culmination of the Bible. God brings heaven to Earth and takes up permanent residence here. And by definition the omnipresent God is here already. I have some kind of wacky theories involving M-Theory about how this is possible, and some M-Theory related end-times theories as well. But I can’t prove any of them, and they are really more just for fun than actual theology or philosophy. But still I think this is similar to germs. Germs were around long before anyone discovered the microscope. It is my belief that God is also among us. I also believe that we have the tools to find. I think, to use a metaphor, we are looking with a telescope at something that requires a microscope. We keep looking “out there” for something that is “in here.” If that makes any sense.
Please do take your time responding. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. And yes, it is absolutely no accident that I mention animals and machines in the same breath. These are part of the logical progression from a chance view of the world. Follow the thread and it leads us to be animals…follow it a bit farther and we are robots.
Really looking forward to discussing those points with you, and others. Glad we are starting at the start. It’s not often you find anyone on either side of the fence who is willing to look at these subjects instead of trying to discuss the things that follow from these ideas. So often it’s like trying to build a house by putting in the windows before we have a foundation or any walls. Thanks for working on the foundation first.
Love,
-Andrew
March 17, 2010 at 1:07 pm |
“Alright. Good stuff here. Let’s start from the start.”
Agreed, is there a god goes before which version of god is the right one.
Disclaimer: I’m not a professional, just an earnest amateur. If ever I seem to be misquoating freshman philosophy books it’s because I’ve come to know what I know on my own rather than building on what a college professor gave me. Finding out that some historical character has already stated what I’ve come to realize is not an uncommon thing for me. I know right now, this is going to get long winded and I apologize for that before you get into it. I’m going to forego the standard point by point response, and simply try to organize this coherently and attempt to cover all the points made thus far. I need to write this in a book soon. Apologies for any disjointed presentation here.
Can I get you to pause and explain in more detail what you mean by personal God? You mentioned coming from satanism. I personally am a evangelical preacher’s son. I mentioned that I/you/we are god as that is close to what you seemed to intimate. We should clear up terminology confusion without hesitation.
I did not pick and choose the definitions, faith is commonly applied to religion as stated in the link, and not to the scientific method. By continuing that common usage we avoid confusion. We can, if you wish, agree to use blind-faith where this is what is meant and assume that faith is meant as ‘belief with strong conviction’ for the purposes of our discussion. Before anyone points out my pendantism over definitions elsewhere, here we are stumbling over only one definition and it is much more expedient to simply define away the gray area of non-common usage for the purpose of communications and get on with the disucssion.
The scientific method does not look for evidence to prove there is no creator god. It is others who take scientific evidence to show there is no god. Pure science point of view is that god is a hypothesis; neither false nor true, lets see what we can find. So far there is no scientific evidence that points to a god of any sort other than mythological. There is nothing unfair in that statement.
On infinite regress, true, we can only be certain as far as we can measure. This problem spurned the LHC in order to measure more closely what we observe. Many hopes are pinned on being able to see more finely. We wait to see if theories and hypotheses are true or not, or if they will remain as they currently are for the time being. When you get to the end of your measuring capability it is only fair to say that what we can see shows us X, and beyond that we cannot be certain but it seems reasonable to assume Y because of A,B, and C.
This truth that by being the observer, we taint the evidence of what is observed has some weight to it, and this drives me always to ask why like a sugar fueled 6 year old. why why why why why why. In life I find that what I call ‘failure mode analysis’ is fairly prudent in the why why why method. When something breaks, you learn more about it than if it is not broken. The point at which it breaks, what is required to cause it to break, the reasons such might be applied etc. So, I personally try to eliminate presuppositions. Why believe there is a god to start with? Why believe there is no god to start with? Both questions imply something in the other direction. So, what does the world show me? There is a lot of people that believe in a god, but this is not proof that one exists. There is a lot of people that do not believe in a god, but this is also not proof that a god does not exist. On to the why. Why do they believe as they do? Analyze the answers in that failure mode and ask more questions. Dig as deep into the problem and evidence as your test equipment will allow, and look for better ways to build test equipment.
I would argue (eloquently so) that ‘the delicately balanced ordered chaos of nature itself’ is an perceptual artifact of infinite regress, and the chaos is ordered by natural law. We currently do not fully understand aerodynamics and how to manipulate it. We have trouble with defining climate systems for lack of understanding. The red spot and cloud movements on other planets is not fully understood. We do not fully understand the movements of the fabric of space. There is much we do not understand about what we know. Chaos is a description of something we do not understand how it works yet. Watching a busy ant mound is watching chaos, even if we know that they have an ordered purpose to their movements, it’s just beyond casual comprehension. That sense of ‘ought-ness’ could be referred to hereafter as common or general ethics, or simply ethics.
Here we run headlong into the real problem of philosophy and religion. Aquinas posits that there must be a primary cause, yet this is supposition, a conclusion drawn from philosophical rather than evidentiary discourse. From this supposition springs many failed argument. The conclusion that because we exist, something or more specifically, someone must have caused it is an unproven theory that remains without evidence to its positive benefit. It is supported hypothesis that we are simply a different species of animal. Between homosapiens and apes is a gap that is smaller than the gap between carp and dolphins. Perhaps not the best example, but the point is made. Are zebras and shetland ponies different for some reason outside of raw nature? Is it unconcievable that homosapien are merely an evolved ape? The difference here is that some suppose we are special because we are different, and some will say we are different because we are ‘special to God’. Indeed we are both special and different among the species of life that we currently know about. The supposition that we are different because we are special to God is just supposition.
When we describe mankind as cruel and violent etc., the inference is that this is the primary or base character and loving, artistic, compassionate etc. are secondary character. In failure mode cruel and violent etc. is the predominant character. Yes, we love stories of humanity’s propensity to resist that character, yet only a small portion of humanity does so. We can look at ethnic cleansings, genocides, wars, and even the Christian Bible for examples where this base character is not only predominant and expected, but blessed by God and our better nature. I find it fair to say cruel and violent is our base character. This we have in common with predatorial animals.
Evolution points to all life on this planet stemming from the same cesspool of proteins; that homosapiens evolved from apes and so forth. There is very little difference between mankind and animalkind so far. Observations of animal and human behavior show a similarity that is frightening to those who don’t want to see the truth. I don’t mean that a dog is like a man. I mean that if looked at from a distant and objective viewpoint we can see uncanny similarities between canine social behavior and homosapiens social behavior; between great apes social behavior and homosapiens social behavior. We can even see examples of simians mimicking homosapiens and examples of personal interactions with homosapiens. One might call this semi-domestication, but this is only possible if the animal sees homosapiens as part of their social grouping. We see examples of simians and orangutangs learning to communicate with humans. My dogs get excited at the knowledge that they will be leaving the property by any means of transportation. They are learning English and to communicate with us. Even miming the use of a steering wheel gets them excited. They tell us when they want to go out, when they are hungry. We communicate as best we can given the hurdles to such. Elephants have a long memory, mourn their dead. Dolphins have protected humans from shark attacks. Predatory animals often hunt in groups to improve the chance of food for the community, helping one another. Females of most species protect their young from danger. At times groups of females work together to protect and provide for the young. Primates play and interact in much the way humans do, showing they understand the concept of fairness. All of these and more show that animals can not only communicate, but that they have ethical values. A full explanation would be laborious here. Remember that ethics is not morality. But since we’ve brought morality into the lab, lets either agree that morals refers to religious based ethics and ethics is outside of religion, or have a discussion about the difference in meaning. I assume that you are using them interchangably, but I must protest at such. They are similar, but not interchangable. Christian morality requires adherence to the laws of the Christian Bible. Ethical behavior does not. Morality is the religious expression of ethics with some extra and whacky laws thrown in for gold card members. Please, lets agree on that. I believe that http://www.merriam-webster.com/netdict/ethics and http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/ clearly support my understanding of the differences.
Quick summary:
The big two: Why are we here? What is our purpose?
Is there a God or higher power or supernatural force at work in the universe?
By observing the world, we tend to taint our observations due to our existant worldview, so we must take care to see all possibilities that we can.
On God:
We can agree that God et al as defined by the worlds religions is infinite and thus unknowable. Man cannot know the mind of God without God directly telling man. Attempts to explain the mind of God by man are explosivley failed. But is there some force at work in the universe that we are as yet unaware of? By definition the answer must be ‘we do not know yet’. There is room to theorize that things like dark matter, string theory, M-theory et al might help to explain phenomenon that we have no other explanation for: events between twins, channelling, ghosts, and on and on. We do not have test equipment to prove or disprove these things despite popular tv shows. God is not an explanation in view of lack of any evidence either way. Lack of evidence does not imply divine action. It merely implies lack of appropriate testing.
In view of lack of knowledge, we can either seek further or accept theories as fact and stop seeking true knowledge. Seeking further knowledge does not require religion, and in fact is hindered by it. Lets look at what we have on the lab table so far and see what ‘why’ questions we can and should be asking.
Why do humans and animals have so much in common?
Why are we different than animals?
Is our mourning of the dead different than such behavior in animals? Is death really different for humans?
Is our protecting the young different than such behavior in animals? Is respect for life really different for humans?
Is our violence to protect food supplies different than such behavior in animals? Does the scale with which we wage war differentiate us from animals, or merely mean we are better at it than other animals?
Is our position at the top of the food chain because we are special to God or are we at the top because we are different than other animals; because our evolutionary path has given us advantages over all other animals?
Why are we special? We can talk with each other. So can animals with each other. We can express ideas and pass them on. So can animals, either by direct learning or via evolution. We can use and build tools. So do other animals. We’re just better at it and better equipped than most animals to use tools as we know them.
If evolution gave us a better brain and generalized limbs, why are humans the only animal to have them. Evolution gave many animals specialties: gecko, iguana, boars, cattle… each animal has some distinct feature that was key to its survival in the environment it lived in.
Why is mankind generalist and not specialized? Mankind is specialized. We all have blood, but different types. We all have skin, but different qualities. We all inherited special qualities that at some point assisted us in surviving in the environment.
Evolution gave us the ability to understand and use tools, build better tools, communicate abstract ideas and amass knowledge.
Evolution also gave us things we don’t use so much: tails, wisdom teeth, tonsils and others. It is no stretch to see that expanded brains can also be a result of evolution.
It’s foolish to think that evolution is done with homosapiens. We are a work in progress. If it were not for the speed of evolution, this would be self evident on the larger scale, and not deemed possible only in small ways. The introduction of fast food to Japan has changed the Japanese people in observable ways. Bra makers rejoice. It won’t be long before there are Japanese basketball players in the NBA. There is more evidence, but this is getting long.
We are special animals but there is no reason to believe that there is divine intervention, and plenty of reason to believe that there has been no divine intervention in the form of lack of evidence. There is every reason to belive that religions were invented by humans, and that ‘spiritual’ feelings are just an artifact of how the human brain works, a happenstance of evolution. Sentience and consciousness remain undefined despite decades of serious exploration. The soul, as confused as the term is from religions, is not defined. Consciousness is not defined well enough to know if animals have it as well. Are the sentient? Do they have a soul? How do we know? How can we test for a soul? We do not understand what is between our own two ears well enough to know what we are. Seeking an outside explanation is a natural human behavior. This can be seen as indicative of failure in thinking. I cannot explain myself so there must be an external answer, and we make them up to explain what we do not understand. Mythologies, god of the gaps, and more.
The question is not what is the purpose of such special animals, but now that we know we are special, what should we do? and WHAT are we? What is it that makes us as we are?
In searching to create Artificial Intelligence (AI) we seek answers to these very questions. Creating AI is the flip side of the coin that is the big two questions. How do we make decisions, why do we make them? What of our behaviors are inherited? Which are learned? Why is there inherited behaviors? Is the desire to believe in ghosts and gods hardwired into us? Inherited? Is it an artifact of sentience? Science is probing these very questions. There are no definitive answers yet, but we are getting clues. They do not point to divine intervention.
Having said all that, I follow with this, and direct it at nobody in particular:
You can take the Mayan calendar and end time prophecies and many things, roll them around and surmise that there must be a god, OR, you can roll them around and say they are superstitions of ingorant mammals, OR, you can say “Well, that’s an interesting event or theory” and continue looking for evidence of what is really happening in the universe. Continue to amass knowledge, to build tools, explore the universe and take it as it is. Whether this reality is merely a dream or any other philosophical construct, it is the only reality that I will get in my short lifetime. I AM mortal and I will die. What I do with my life is up to me. I can squander it or attempt to be productive. I do not need a deity to guide me in this. I do not need commandments. I join the social pacts of society based on ethical values and work within it. There are few other choices. United we stand, divided we fall and all that.
If mankind has been given these special abilities via evolution, we owe it to ourselves and our children to exploit them to their full potential. We have not yet done so. There is no end in sight for how far they might be exploited.
If mankind has been given these speical abilities via divine intervention, there is no higher form of appreciation than to exploit them to their full potential. We have not yet done so. There is no end in sight for how far they might be exploited.
In this, mankind has a purpose .. without the need for a God. If we stare unflinchingly into the evidence and do not balk at the thought that we are animals, there is no shame. We are slowly becomming gods and magicians. In this we have reason to rejoice and celebrate our place in that great play that is the universe. If how we interact with other humans is important, then how we interact with the universe at large is doubly so. Religions allow us to feel good about ourselves, but do not promote growth or betterment of humankind. They allow us to be cruel and violent, to treat some better than others, to ruthlessly rule over other beings and animals. Religions are repugnant and vile in my worldview. They are the chains that hold us back from achieving even half of our potential. If there is a higher force at work in the universe, either we will find it, or it will come for us. Until either of those happens (real evidence) there is no convincing evidence to believe in such, only speculation and ‘feelings’ that it is right. So clear the lab bench, stop cluttering it with holy texts and prophecies from superstitious mammals barely more advanced than neanderthals and animals. Make room for new tests, new experiments. Lets get on with what can clearly be seen as a purpose or reason to live.
If belief in a personal God gets you through your day and helps you to assist in mankinds efforts in the great play, so be it. Just don’t tell me that you know the truth of the universe without being able to prove it. Without evidence it remains a theory. So get on with testing it or creating equipment to test it. Don’t ask me to simply accept it. When faced with evidence, even the religions of the world back down from their theories on God and the universe. Speculation and theories are good, but it’s evidence that we need. Christianity is a nonproductive activity in this view, as are other religions. Show me a religion that promotes exploitation of our special abilities and I’ll come to a meeting.
March 17, 2010 at 8:48 pm |
Lots of stuff to dig into there. Been tied up doing taxes today. I’ll ask your patience as I work towards a reply. I really appreciate what you’ve got here. We have a lot of common ground to spring from.
March 17, 2010 at 9:50 pm |
There is little point in rushing a good conversation, it’s not a race
March 26, 2010 at 7:57 am |
How many students have objected to the school prayers, graduation prayers, prayers before football games, etc? I can think of several prominent cases, and yet students have to keep fighting these battles over and over again. When will grownups start obeying the laws that dictate separation of church and state? A school payed for with my tax dollars =/= religious academy.