This is a serious question, elicited by recent posts, events on this blog. Can we regard religious believers as having the use of their faculty of reason? Or - to use Chris Hedges' words is religion "a superficial, primitive and dysfunctional condition detrimental to reason".
Here is the core of the issue: all the most energetic manifestations of religion, from speaking in tongues, to witnessing, to full immersion baptisms, are reflections of a total belief in whatever prompts the action. The rational brain must then succumb to the dynamic that elevates the importance of belief over all else. If this is so, and multifacted arenas in the real world show it to be, then belief, any belief, must be the antithesis of reason.
The tragedy of organized religion, especially a certain form of mindless Christian fundamentalism, is that it is evidently succeeding in institutionalizing such brain conformity. It is happening to such an amazing extent that one can now visit any fundamentalist church anywhere in the country and hear the exact same words every single Sunday - not only from the ministers, but from their congregations! To accomplish this, it is clear that all individual thinking (and by extension, reason) has been suspended.
The tragedy of such a Hive Mind is vastly compounded when these ardent believers later seek and ascend to positions of political power in society. They then are empowered to initiate programs antithetical to the welfare of rationalists, secularists in terms of negative legislation (such as outlawing abortions, or certain books as "blasphemous")
It is, therefore, in the best interests of a viable society to seek ways and means of minimizing the power of beliefs to shape policies.
But before going on to deal with the larger context of belief, let us ask if a religious brain is capable of reason at all?
In fact, there are some that are. In a previous blog entry I referred to the priest conducting a seminar in Alaska, who disputed that infallibility could be true, and also that Heaven and Hell could exist. He further went so far as to assert the miracles as stated could not have transpired.
When I asked him to elaborate on each of those points, he did so with perfect reason at his command.
For example (I still retained the notes from that encounter), in the matter of papal infallibility, the priest noted that - "no one, no human, is able to put forward propositions which inherently cannot be erroneous."
The reason, he observed, is because no human brain is complete or perfect. Every brain contains a residue of imperfection which causes memory to go awry, or the drawing of false conclusions based on incomplete facts. To therfore assert that one special person is "infallible" - even in faith or morals, implies that this person possesses a perfect brain - with total comprehension and no imperfections.
On the matter of Heaven and Hell, I received a very similar reasoned argument to one I'd heard some three years earlier while debating an Anglican priest.
As he put it: "IF God is infinite, that also means omnipresent. This means there can be only one Being, not many. If there were many different types of Being - say one for devils and Hell, one for Heaven and good guys, one for those in purgatory....then Being is no longer infinite. It is broken up and separated into parts- divided from each other.
So unless one puts 'Hell inside God', as it were, there can be no Hell. There can only be one type of afterlife existence, not many. That one type must be intertwined with God's total Being."
Those were pretty much the same words used by the Anglican priest who referred to his doctrine as one of "Universal Salvation".
I was so entranced by this padre's use of reason, I put the case of miracles to him, such as recorded in the bible - and bid him challenge those too. He didn't disappoint.
In his words:
"An abundance of allegorical and mythological literature exists, and it is quite conceivable that accounts of miracles are part of the mythic tradition. I think that believers risk serious error by presuming miracle stories to be rigorous historical accounts. An inspirational message need not be diminished in any way because it is framed in metaphorical terms."
This, of course, makes good sense and is reasoned out. It makes more sense than to accept a rotting, 3 day old corpse could be brought back to life! Or the chemical composition of water literally altered to yield wine. And yet this is what the typical fundamentalist's brain deems accurate!
One can, in fact, propose four basic criteria to assess whether any given arguments - say made in favor of miracles - conform to rationality, or are disguised forms of superstition:
i)Ockham’s Razor, which inheres at the heart of scientific hypothesizing. That is, given two competing hypotheses the one with the fewest ad hoc assumptions is closest to the truth.
ii)The probability test of philosopher David Hume- that reads: "No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish."
iii)The ignotum per ignotius test for logical fallacy. Ignotum per ignotius means “invoking the LESS well understood to explain the not well understood.”
iv)The fundamental principle for all exotic claims: “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence”.
Let’s now apply these to a number of cases to see how they work. I will start with the claim for “soul”. Given two hypotheses – one which uses simple observations of consciousness (e.g. See Daniel Dennett’s ‘Consciousness Explained’) and one which posits “soul” in addition, which is to be preferred? Obviously, that which excludes “soul”, since it unnecessarily complicates the issue. In addition, invoking “soul” violates the ignotium per ignotius test. Indeed, religionists have not even offered an operational definition for “soul”, and until they do so there is small likelihood they can provide extraordinary evidence for it!
What about “God”? All the same aspects apply. Consider the question posed by the late astronomer Carl Sagan in the “Cosmos” episode, ‘The Edge of Forever’. He asks: “How did the universe begin?” He interjects, “Some will say ‘God made it’, but then WHO made God?” He argues that rather than inviting an “infinite regress” of cause, the simplest action was simply to leave “God” out of the causal nexus. Thereby we satisfy all the principles (i)- (iii).
Is Sagan justified? Consider that adding “God” into the mix doesn’t enhance cosmological data or predictions one iota. Nor does it refine the tensor equations. Clearly it amounts to a redundancy.
Lastly, consider the claim of a miracle: Jesus “walking on water”. Prof. Hugh Schonfeld has a simple explanation for this: a mistranslation of the Hebrew word “al” which can mean “by” or “on”. So, when a scribe really wrote “walking by the water” it was translated to “walking on the water”.
Now let us apply the Hume test (ii). Is the Schonfeld claim of mistranslation MORE or LESS miraculous than a man actually violating the law of gravity and walking on water? It doesn’t require a lot of thought or effort to see that the mistranslation of a passage of the New Testament is LESS miraculous (or if you prefer, less improbable) than that a man actually, literally walked on water.
In this way, one can see how a basis for implicit atheism can come to be.
Of course, to a died in the wool believer these will all appear like so much nonsense. But that is because the brain of a (fundamentalist) believer only regards absolutes as sense. The trouble is that the use of reason shows on many levels that the world cannot be and is not predicated on absolutes. Every major natural law discloses this, from Einstein's principle of relativity, to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, to Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorems.
Clinging to beliefs because "they are in the bible" thus shows that ardent religiosity is probably a superficial, fear-driven psychological means of alleviating chronic stress and anxiety created by an insecure societal environment. Later, in a different blog piece, I will show that indeed such belief dependence addiction is rampant in the U.S. - precisely because our nation offers so few protection and support systems - say compared to advanced secular European nations. For this reason some have opined that IF the U.S. ever did pass a universal health care law it would mark the beginning of the end for crazed religious fanaticism and belief. Thus, put elementally: "Insecurity breeds religion, security fosters non-theism"
And now I present a little test of reason for any believers. If they can post a solution to it, I will happily make another exception to my claim that most religous brains are incapable of reasoned thought, or logic:
Three Fundamentalist Christians: Brandon, Brianna and Betsy, are to debate three Atheists: Gunnar, Gunther and Guatama.
On the eve of the debate: ‘Evolution is a Fact, Not Fiction’, Brianna becomes seriously ill and must drop out.
The Christians are given the choice of competing or forfeiting.
If they compete, to make the debate fair- they have the choice of two options:
a) They will each be able to increase their respective times by a ratio 3:2 over the Atheist team to compensate for the missing member.
b) Or, they can elect to remove one member of the Atheist team.
Other sub-conditions, however, also apply:
If the Christians opt for (a) they will only be able to use one bible quotation as a basis for argument. Assuming it is used, that quotation’s oral recitation cannot last longer than one minute duration. It must also be chosen at the time of the debate, not before. If the recitation of the quote goes one second over time, the Christians forfeit.
If the Christians opt for (b) they will be allowed to use two bible quotations in the same way, and allowed two minutes for each recitation. They will be allowed to select the quotation ten minutes before the debate. However, the Atheist team will be allowed to eliminate one or other quotation at the time it is introduced in debate with no time for the Christians to read it or use it before elimination. They will then be left with the quote remaining.
IF, the Atheist side chooses to eliminate one quotation, then the Christian team must revert to option (a). It can no longer use option (b).
If their team reverts to option (a) it must cede at least five extra minutes to each Atheist for his closing statements.
In order to avoid this, the Christian side will be allowed to change the debate title to Evolution is Fiction, Not Fact’
However, IF the Atheist team can cite a single fact of evolution, which has a validated basis, the Christian team:
i) not only loses the debate summarily but also
ii) must forfeit all its remaining debates for the year.
Which option should the Christian team choose to get the best result, and exactly how should they expedite it?
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Is Any Honest Dialog Possible?
After spending a good three hours yesterday doing my level best to answer in good faith Pastor Mike's 10 questions (actually, more like 20 with the sub-questions added!) I now find today I am accused of "prejudging" and bias. In other words, Mike doesn't take my responses as honest or sincere answers.
What I had expected, and I guess I really shouldn't have based on our previous sterile exchanges, is at least an acceptance of what I was providing as genuinely reflective of my position - and hence treating them with some degree of respect. But alas, no. I am instead depicted as somehow dishonest because (according to Mike) I am allowing my "prejudices" to enter.
Well, how about Mike's, as one commentator observed? Is this not a two-way street? Mike asked for "honest answers" and I delivered them. What more does he want? I suspect, he would not be satisfied unless I went on bended knee and said to him: "Forgive me, Master Mike, I have been WRONG....so WRONG...all this time! God really exists, your KJV holds 100% truth ....and I have been insincere and biased in my responses!"
The true fact is that we can never ever ever see eye to eye, or have a reasoned debate on God and religion. The reason is that logic does not enter into Mike's world, though he insists it does. In fact, his world is founded on absolute belief, so that there would never be a time he would agree with anything I said or wrote.
For Mike, unless the bible is referenced - and not just any bible, but the KJV- then the claim or argument is ill-founded. It is "biased" in some way. This means that in order to garner his serious approval and attention I will have to base all initial statements and premises on what his KJV asserts in some quotation, somewhere.
This is not going to happen, ever.
By comparison with Mike's closed-minded stance, expecting ME to yield or be cursed as having "bias", I recall my involvement in a Catholic religious seminar in Alaska in 1986. It was in February that I began to participate in a series of Catholic dialogs held at the Hess Complex Student Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
More to the point, I was prepared to play the role of the fox among the chickens, contradicting and criticizing Catholic doctrines whenever they were mentioned or discussed. At each seminar, I’d interjected points that brought up issues of ambiguity and raised doubts while always challenging basic church doctrine. Amazingly, while many of the (young) attendees found this disconcerting and disreputable (that an unbeliever was among them and allowed so much voice), the priest himself was pleased to have me!
He actually encouraged me to attend every seminar - held twice weekly- and challenge the students. As he told me:
"If we are afraid to think, and are unable to offer reasoned responses to your criticisms, then our faith is built on quicksand, nothing more."
That priest was intelligent and wise enough to know or realize that discussion is not a one-way street, and one dare not yelp "Bias" until he can damned well prove it. At the very least, yelping it is the last refuge of a palsied rhetorician who has no real answers.
More to the point, I found the priest agreeing with me on a number of my points, to the consternation of his seminar! For example, he disputed that there could be a doctrine such as infallibility. He agreed also, that while there might be an afterlife, there was certainly no "heaven" or "hell". At that point, I wondered if I had gone through Alice's looking glass and was actually speaking to a fellow unbeliever!
But the biggest surprise of all was when he agreed with me that none of the claimed miracles in the bible could have been historical facts. As he put it:
"They were introduced by over eager authors to try to make a point about the special nature of Jesus. They used these miraculous events to attempt to do it"
In the course of that two week open seminar, I came away with the belief that real engagement with religious believers was possible provided they exercised an open mind and they themselves did not enter the exchange with preconceived notions of where to find truth. The point the priest was making to his seminar, was that not all truth was to be found in Catholic doctrines, dogmas or the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. My scientific -based criticisms also had to be reckoned in.
For example, believing the only truth can be in a 2000 -year old book. That Alaskan padre would have laughed at that. Long and hard. I believe he also might have opined that anyone who accepted such a tautological definition of truth was probably not well read outside his good book, and probably afraid to search for answers beyond it.
By the same token, during a Barbados religious debate (in May, 1991) with my long time Christian friend, John, I actually got him to concede during an extended argument that God could not possibly be omnipotent or omniscient. And, IF he was, he was more an evil clown than any kind of being to be worshipped. My friend, dedicated Christian though he was, realized under intense logic and scientific pressure (with aspects of theodicy tossed in) he could not rely on absolutist definitions. HE had to yield, or look like a fool.
But for Mike, it's absolutist truth he believes in fully. The trouble is that his belief that truth can be so circumscribed then leads him to reject the truths found by science or logic. In his narrow cosmos, unless logic is founded ab initio on the premise that God exists, it isn't valid. Unless one acknowledges that his KJV has the answers, he isn't "honest".
Thus, there is no point or profit in continuing these exchanges. I do not believe Mike is serious about them, or at least about receiving answers and then truly processing them and arguing from logic.
If I am to be labeled each time as "prejudging" or using crazy reasoning, we are at moot dead ends.
And I wasted three hours of my time yesterday for absolutely nothing.
No, I take that back. It wasn't a total waste as it provided the basis for two separate blog entries!
What I had expected, and I guess I really shouldn't have based on our previous sterile exchanges, is at least an acceptance of what I was providing as genuinely reflective of my position - and hence treating them with some degree of respect. But alas, no. I am instead depicted as somehow dishonest because (according to Mike) I am allowing my "prejudices" to enter.
Well, how about Mike's, as one commentator observed? Is this not a two-way street? Mike asked for "honest answers" and I delivered them. What more does he want? I suspect, he would not be satisfied unless I went on bended knee and said to him: "Forgive me, Master Mike, I have been WRONG....so WRONG...all this time! God really exists, your KJV holds 100% truth ....and I have been insincere and biased in my responses!"
The true fact is that we can never ever ever see eye to eye, or have a reasoned debate on God and religion. The reason is that logic does not enter into Mike's world, though he insists it does. In fact, his world is founded on absolute belief, so that there would never be a time he would agree with anything I said or wrote.
For Mike, unless the bible is referenced - and not just any bible, but the KJV- then the claim or argument is ill-founded. It is "biased" in some way. This means that in order to garner his serious approval and attention I will have to base all initial statements and premises on what his KJV asserts in some quotation, somewhere.
This is not going to happen, ever.
By comparison with Mike's closed-minded stance, expecting ME to yield or be cursed as having "bias", I recall my involvement in a Catholic religious seminar in Alaska in 1986. It was in February that I began to participate in a series of Catholic dialogs held at the Hess Complex Student Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
More to the point, I was prepared to play the role of the fox among the chickens, contradicting and criticizing Catholic doctrines whenever they were mentioned or discussed. At each seminar, I’d interjected points that brought up issues of ambiguity and raised doubts while always challenging basic church doctrine. Amazingly, while many of the (young) attendees found this disconcerting and disreputable (that an unbeliever was among them and allowed so much voice), the priest himself was pleased to have me!
He actually encouraged me to attend every seminar - held twice weekly- and challenge the students. As he told me:
"If we are afraid to think, and are unable to offer reasoned responses to your criticisms, then our faith is built on quicksand, nothing more."
That priest was intelligent and wise enough to know or realize that discussion is not a one-way street, and one dare not yelp "Bias" until he can damned well prove it. At the very least, yelping it is the last refuge of a palsied rhetorician who has no real answers.
More to the point, I found the priest agreeing with me on a number of my points, to the consternation of his seminar! For example, he disputed that there could be a doctrine such as infallibility. He agreed also, that while there might be an afterlife, there was certainly no "heaven" or "hell". At that point, I wondered if I had gone through Alice's looking glass and was actually speaking to a fellow unbeliever!
But the biggest surprise of all was when he agreed with me that none of the claimed miracles in the bible could have been historical facts. As he put it:
"They were introduced by over eager authors to try to make a point about the special nature of Jesus. They used these miraculous events to attempt to do it"
In the course of that two week open seminar, I came away with the belief that real engagement with religious believers was possible provided they exercised an open mind and they themselves did not enter the exchange with preconceived notions of where to find truth. The point the priest was making to his seminar, was that not all truth was to be found in Catholic doctrines, dogmas or the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. My scientific -based criticisms also had to be reckoned in.
For example, believing the only truth can be in a 2000 -year old book. That Alaskan padre would have laughed at that. Long and hard. I believe he also might have opined that anyone who accepted such a tautological definition of truth was probably not well read outside his good book, and probably afraid to search for answers beyond it.
By the same token, during a Barbados religious debate (in May, 1991) with my long time Christian friend, John, I actually got him to concede during an extended argument that God could not possibly be omnipotent or omniscient. And, IF he was, he was more an evil clown than any kind of being to be worshipped. My friend, dedicated Christian though he was, realized under intense logic and scientific pressure (with aspects of theodicy tossed in) he could not rely on absolutist definitions. HE had to yield, or look like a fool.
But for Mike, it's absolutist truth he believes in fully. The trouble is that his belief that truth can be so circumscribed then leads him to reject the truths found by science or logic. In his narrow cosmos, unless logic is founded ab initio on the premise that God exists, it isn't valid. Unless one acknowledges that his KJV has the answers, he isn't "honest".
Thus, there is no point or profit in continuing these exchanges. I do not believe Mike is serious about them, or at least about receiving answers and then truly processing them and arguing from logic.
If I am to be labeled each time as "prejudging" or using crazy reasoning, we are at moot dead ends.
And I wasted three hours of my time yesterday for absolutely nothing.
No, I take that back. It wasn't a total waste as it provided the basis for two separate blog entries!
Monday, September 7, 2009
In Answer to Pastor Mike (II)
Alas, these answers may not be quite the ones originally intended. My computer briefly freaked out on me, and when the document (that had been pre-saved) was retrieved, most of the original answers had 'vamanosed'. Whatever. Here are the answers in their 2nd incarnation (which is about 50% shorter than what I had orginally).
6 ) If all Christians believed that the Bible was entirely allegorical, what would you argue in support of your position ?
Your question is unclear. What position do you mean? That the bible is not allegorical? That the bible’s validity is independent of its allegorical nature? That it is not based on the existence of God? That whether or not the bible is allegorical there is still factual God existence? If the last, this is a non-sequitur, for the same reasons I applied to religion being a separate issue from proof or evidence of a deity. (See last part)
The reason is that one can avail onself of scrolls, archaeological and other evidence to test the veracity of biblical claims. One cannot do the same for God.
7 ) Do you believe in extra-terrestrials ?
I believe there is a very high probability that extraterrestrials exist, given more than 10 billion solar-like stars in the Milky Way alone, with planets circling them- and we know planets can imply beings. The Sim Lite Astrometric Observatory has already found more than 370 other planets orbiting other stars. It is only a matter of time before we locate and identify at least one other world with intelligent life.
8 ) How is it that we live in such an exquisitely fine-tuned universe?
Even assuming that the universe could have popped out of nothingness, why should it have been such an orderly and hospitable one? Is there a scientific, testable answer for this question that does not simply appeal to imagination ?
The fine tuning is actually highly exaggerated. What this so-called fine tuning shows more than anything is that we inhabit an accidental universe. That the constants of nature comport with and somehow enable us to live here and now is purely a coincidence. To make a huge thing of it is to inflate our human importance and to imagine that because we no longer inhabit the center of the universe (as many ancients believed) we are now at some kind of creative center. Not so.
What the anthropic principle shows more than anything is that – like the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics- we must be wary of selection effects. We must be wary of insinuating ourselves into our physics or astrophysics.
As for being “orderly”, this is a misperception based purely on our inhabiting a relatively habitable and “hospitable” planet (ignoring all the tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions etc). If one moves out further this apparent order vanishes. At the largest scales it ceases to exist.
Barely 7% of the cosmos (according to the latest cosmological findings from an array of data) can be regarded (potentially) as being matter in its normal everyday form, and hence - subject to "mechanical" forces and arranged in what some may ascribe "mechanical order".
Even for this fraction, more than 99% is in the form of PLASMA - meaning hot, ionized gas.The remaining 93% of the cosmos is in the form of either dark energy (70%) or dark matter (23%). The first is currently causing the cosmic expansion to accelerate by virtue of a repulsive force that can be accounted for fully within the scope of Einstein's general theory of relativity. Eventually, all gravitational bounds will be sundered by this dark energy as all parts of the cosmos drift apart from each other and die.
As for testability, precision measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), including data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), have recently provided further evidence for dark energy. The same is true of data from two extensive projects charting the large-scale distribution of galaxies - the Two-Degree Field (2DF) and Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS).
Bottom line the only order exists in one little remote corner of the cosmos that we know of, with possibly other minute corners scattered throughout the cosmos.
9 a)Does life really have no point other than what you pretend for your own sake ? Will you say, like atheist philosopher Albert Camus, that the only serious question is "suicide ?"
Okay as I have noted already in other exchanges with you, merely because the atheist acknowledges no ultimate purpose (e.g. for his life or the cosmos) that does not mean he has no purpose! What you forget is that we have the mind and means to craft a purpose on our own, not beholden to some imaginary deity or subjugated to it.
Thus, the implicit despair embedded in Camus quote is uncalled for. Any sentient atheist at any time can forge his or her own purpose, independent of others. This in fact is the norm and people do it anyway. They don’t make a big deal out of it! ("Hey, George, do you have a purpose in life? Oh no? Ya gonna off yourself then?") Everyone in his or her work or activity implicitly executes a purpose they have created. Anyone engaged in any creative activity, from doing a painting, to sculpting, to writing a song or poem, likewise.
For some, it is their work, for many others it may be volunteering in some way. For me it is writing assorted books to offer insight and my experience to others, whether in astronomy, or math or philosophy. (My next book is geared to help them do math)
Thus, suicide is not an option, because I assign my own meaning to my life, I do not wait for others to do it for me – or for an almighty to confer purpose.
9b) What values and purpose can atheist parents instill in their children ? Should they be honest with them, or should they borrow ideas from some non-atheistic belief system so as not to disappoint ?
Atheist parents are no different from others, except that the behavior they seek from their children is not predicated on god-ism or religion or the "ten commandments", but on simply doing good, acting good – because then others will be encouraged to reciprocate for you. At the same time, if one acts poorly or selfishly to others, one can expect those sort of behaviors in turn. What goes around and all that.
As William Provine notes in his article Evolution and the Foundation of Ethics (MBL Science, Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 25, 1988.)
“young people should be encouraged to think rationally and critically concerning ethics, not out of fear of some divine force, but to protect their own long-term self-interest”.
Any persistent observer of human social interaction will note that the vast majority of people are law-abiding and decent folk who naturally practice a common-sense, utilitarian ethics similar to what has been described. (See also my answer to (1) in Part I) For proof, one need only look as far as the upstanding Atheist or agnostic who inhabits every community and who - though he disdains a deity, nevertheless treats his fellows with compassion and respect. No supernatural law or commandment ordains this behavior. Instead it is the conscious and deliberate recognition that the promotion of the welfare of others is directly linked to the one's own welfare.
Unfortunately, what the religionists have done is to take the natural code of ethics most people follow and embellish it with a blizzard of superstitious precepts and injunctions. These are superstitious since, inevitably, they are linked to the supposed dictates of a supernatural "being" who will not hesitate to "punish" those who disobey "him".
10 a) The trend of archaeology is toward validation, not denial, of what it is possible to confirm in Scripture. Even non-biblical manuscripts support various key details of Christian theology. The burden of proof is generally on the one seeking to deny historical records.
Again, this is too open-ended, generic and ambiguous. How about giving specific examples instead of generalities? What trend in archaeology and pointing to WHAT biblical event? Give the paper it was proven in, the authors and so on.
No one seeks to ab initio “deny” anything, only demand that those who claim some biblical event is demonstrated by archaeology to prove it. A first step, and most obvious, is radiocarbon dating. If the archeological find hasn't been dated it is likely specious, or fraudulent.
So any example we ask for has to be supported by the appropriate radiocarbon isotope measurements and dating to prove the said finding can be regressed to the hypothetical biblical date. For example, if Nazareth really existed before the 4th century then what specific paper shows the radiocarbon dating earlier – much earlier – than that? And which points specifically to the same location of Nazareth as assumed around 0-33 CE?
10b) What alternative explanation do you offer to the New Testament documentation and the tradition of the church, and what support do you have for your theory ?
What you are asking here would take a whole book in itself to address, not just a blog response. Again, the best answer I can give to anyone interested is to get hold of Oxford scholar Geza Vermes book, ‘The Authentic Gospel of Jesus’ which addresses in full the exegetical basis for NT criticism, and the assorted Logia.
In Vermes’ conclusion, with which I concur, Yeshua’s (Jesus’) mission was all about the Jews, not Gentiles.
As he notes (op. cit, p. 415):
“The religion revealed by the authentic message of Jesus is straightforward, without complex dogmas, mythical images or self-centered mystical speculation. It resembles a race consisting only of the final ‘straight’ – demanding from the runners their last ounce of energy and with a winners’ medal prepared for all the JEWISH participants who cross the finishing line.
At this juncture, one may wonder how a religious genius of the caliber of Jesus could have been such a narrow-minded chauvinist. But the Jewish eschatology of that age was exclusive, and maybe Jesus was simply a child of his time. On the other hand, he may have embraced the prophetic idea manifest in the second half of the Book of Isaiah according to which entry of the Jews into God’s Kingdom would persuade the Gentiles to join them. If so, Jesus could easily imagine that on completion of his exclusively JEWISH mission, God would step in and take care of the rest of mankind.
Compared with the dynamic religion of Jesus, Christianity seems to belong to another world. With its mixture of high philosophical speculation on the triune God, its Johannine Logos mysticism, and Pauline Redeemer myth of a dying and risen Son of God, with its sacramental symbolism and ecclesiastical discipline substituted for the extinct eschatological passion- with its cosmopolitan openness combined with a built-in anti-Judaism- it is hard to imagine how the two could have come from the same source.”
Note this is just the conclusion and must NOT be used as the basis to attack the point-response. To attack the response you need to first read the book, not just the conclusion. The reason is obvious. Without the actual reading of the book you will not see how or why Vermes reached his conclusion. In effect, any attacks then made on the conclusion alone will be hollow, artificial and banal.
10b) Is it because of the miracles that you doubt the Scriptures ?
That is part of it, not least because they all violate one natural law or other, including: law of gravity (walking on water), law of conservation of mass-energy (multiplying a few loaves & fishes to feed 5000), and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (bringing Lazarus back from the dead, changing water to wine)
Bear in mind the scriptures are merely the ruminations of those who wrote them, whose charge (from St. Paul) was to convert unbelievers into believers. So naturally they would invent or insert anything, even “miracles” to do so.
10c) If Jesus really were God in the flesh, how would you expect Him to confirm that fact?
Easy. Do what any electron can do from quantum mechanics. Convert himself into two people-individuals at once, and let them exist and talk -walk side by side for an indefinite time. Then each work a specific miracle - say causing the levitation of the whole population of New York. The come back together again.
6 ) If all Christians believed that the Bible was entirely allegorical, what would you argue in support of your position ?
Your question is unclear. What position do you mean? That the bible is not allegorical? That the bible’s validity is independent of its allegorical nature? That it is not based on the existence of God? That whether or not the bible is allegorical there is still factual God existence? If the last, this is a non-sequitur, for the same reasons I applied to religion being a separate issue from proof or evidence of a deity. (See last part)
The reason is that one can avail onself of scrolls, archaeological and other evidence to test the veracity of biblical claims. One cannot do the same for God.
7 ) Do you believe in extra-terrestrials ?
I believe there is a very high probability that extraterrestrials exist, given more than 10 billion solar-like stars in the Milky Way alone, with planets circling them- and we know planets can imply beings. The Sim Lite Astrometric Observatory has already found more than 370 other planets orbiting other stars. It is only a matter of time before we locate and identify at least one other world with intelligent life.
8 ) How is it that we live in such an exquisitely fine-tuned universe?
Even assuming that the universe could have popped out of nothingness, why should it have been such an orderly and hospitable one? Is there a scientific, testable answer for this question that does not simply appeal to imagination ?
The fine tuning is actually highly exaggerated. What this so-called fine tuning shows more than anything is that we inhabit an accidental universe. That the constants of nature comport with and somehow enable us to live here and now is purely a coincidence. To make a huge thing of it is to inflate our human importance and to imagine that because we no longer inhabit the center of the universe (as many ancients believed) we are now at some kind of creative center. Not so.
What the anthropic principle shows more than anything is that – like the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics- we must be wary of selection effects. We must be wary of insinuating ourselves into our physics or astrophysics.
As for being “orderly”, this is a misperception based purely on our inhabiting a relatively habitable and “hospitable” planet (ignoring all the tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions etc). If one moves out further this apparent order vanishes. At the largest scales it ceases to exist.
Barely 7% of the cosmos (according to the latest cosmological findings from an array of data) can be regarded (potentially) as being matter in its normal everyday form, and hence - subject to "mechanical" forces and arranged in what some may ascribe "mechanical order".
Even for this fraction, more than 99% is in the form of PLASMA - meaning hot, ionized gas.The remaining 93% of the cosmos is in the form of either dark energy (70%) or dark matter (23%). The first is currently causing the cosmic expansion to accelerate by virtue of a repulsive force that can be accounted for fully within the scope of Einstein's general theory of relativity. Eventually, all gravitational bounds will be sundered by this dark energy as all parts of the cosmos drift apart from each other and die.
As for testability, precision measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), including data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), have recently provided further evidence for dark energy. The same is true of data from two extensive projects charting the large-scale distribution of galaxies - the Two-Degree Field (2DF) and Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS).
Bottom line the only order exists in one little remote corner of the cosmos that we know of, with possibly other minute corners scattered throughout the cosmos.
9 a)Does life really have no point other than what you pretend for your own sake ? Will you say, like atheist philosopher Albert Camus, that the only serious question is "suicide ?"
Okay as I have noted already in other exchanges with you, merely because the atheist acknowledges no ultimate purpose (e.g. for his life or the cosmos) that does not mean he has no purpose! What you forget is that we have the mind and means to craft a purpose on our own, not beholden to some imaginary deity or subjugated to it.
Thus, the implicit despair embedded in Camus quote is uncalled for. Any sentient atheist at any time can forge his or her own purpose, independent of others. This in fact is the norm and people do it anyway. They don’t make a big deal out of it! ("Hey, George, do you have a purpose in life? Oh no? Ya gonna off yourself then?") Everyone in his or her work or activity implicitly executes a purpose they have created. Anyone engaged in any creative activity, from doing a painting, to sculpting, to writing a song or poem, likewise.
For some, it is their work, for many others it may be volunteering in some way. For me it is writing assorted books to offer insight and my experience to others, whether in astronomy, or math or philosophy. (My next book is geared to help them do math)
Thus, suicide is not an option, because I assign my own meaning to my life, I do not wait for others to do it for me – or for an almighty to confer purpose.
9b) What values and purpose can atheist parents instill in their children ? Should they be honest with them, or should they borrow ideas from some non-atheistic belief system so as not to disappoint ?
Atheist parents are no different from others, except that the behavior they seek from their children is not predicated on god-ism or religion or the "ten commandments", but on simply doing good, acting good – because then others will be encouraged to reciprocate for you. At the same time, if one acts poorly or selfishly to others, one can expect those sort of behaviors in turn. What goes around and all that.
As William Provine notes in his article Evolution and the Foundation of Ethics (MBL Science, Vol. 3, No. 1, p. 25, 1988.)
“young people should be encouraged to think rationally and critically concerning ethics, not out of fear of some divine force, but to protect their own long-term self-interest”.
Any persistent observer of human social interaction will note that the vast majority of people are law-abiding and decent folk who naturally practice a common-sense, utilitarian ethics similar to what has been described. (See also my answer to (1) in Part I) For proof, one need only look as far as the upstanding Atheist or agnostic who inhabits every community and who - though he disdains a deity, nevertheless treats his fellows with compassion and respect. No supernatural law or commandment ordains this behavior. Instead it is the conscious and deliberate recognition that the promotion of the welfare of others is directly linked to the one's own welfare.
Unfortunately, what the religionists have done is to take the natural code of ethics most people follow and embellish it with a blizzard of superstitious precepts and injunctions. These are superstitious since, inevitably, they are linked to the supposed dictates of a supernatural "being" who will not hesitate to "punish" those who disobey "him".
10 a) The trend of archaeology is toward validation, not denial, of what it is possible to confirm in Scripture. Even non-biblical manuscripts support various key details of Christian theology. The burden of proof is generally on the one seeking to deny historical records.
Again, this is too open-ended, generic and ambiguous. How about giving specific examples instead of generalities? What trend in archaeology and pointing to WHAT biblical event? Give the paper it was proven in, the authors and so on.
No one seeks to ab initio “deny” anything, only demand that those who claim some biblical event is demonstrated by archaeology to prove it. A first step, and most obvious, is radiocarbon dating. If the archeological find hasn't been dated it is likely specious, or fraudulent.
So any example we ask for has to be supported by the appropriate radiocarbon isotope measurements and dating to prove the said finding can be regressed to the hypothetical biblical date. For example, if Nazareth really existed before the 4th century then what specific paper shows the radiocarbon dating earlier – much earlier – than that? And which points specifically to the same location of Nazareth as assumed around 0-33 CE?
10b) What alternative explanation do you offer to the New Testament documentation and the tradition of the church, and what support do you have for your theory ?
What you are asking here would take a whole book in itself to address, not just a blog response. Again, the best answer I can give to anyone interested is to get hold of Oxford scholar Geza Vermes book, ‘The Authentic Gospel of Jesus’ which addresses in full the exegetical basis for NT criticism, and the assorted Logia.
In Vermes’ conclusion, with which I concur, Yeshua’s (Jesus’) mission was all about the Jews, not Gentiles.
As he notes (op. cit, p. 415):
“The religion revealed by the authentic message of Jesus is straightforward, without complex dogmas, mythical images or self-centered mystical speculation. It resembles a race consisting only of the final ‘straight’ – demanding from the runners their last ounce of energy and with a winners’ medal prepared for all the JEWISH participants who cross the finishing line.
At this juncture, one may wonder how a religious genius of the caliber of Jesus could have been such a narrow-minded chauvinist. But the Jewish eschatology of that age was exclusive, and maybe Jesus was simply a child of his time. On the other hand, he may have embraced the prophetic idea manifest in the second half of the Book of Isaiah according to which entry of the Jews into God’s Kingdom would persuade the Gentiles to join them. If so, Jesus could easily imagine that on completion of his exclusively JEWISH mission, God would step in and take care of the rest of mankind.
Compared with the dynamic religion of Jesus, Christianity seems to belong to another world. With its mixture of high philosophical speculation on the triune God, its Johannine Logos mysticism, and Pauline Redeemer myth of a dying and risen Son of God, with its sacramental symbolism and ecclesiastical discipline substituted for the extinct eschatological passion- with its cosmopolitan openness combined with a built-in anti-Judaism- it is hard to imagine how the two could have come from the same source.”
Note this is just the conclusion and must NOT be used as the basis to attack the point-response. To attack the response you need to first read the book, not just the conclusion. The reason is obvious. Without the actual reading of the book you will not see how or why Vermes reached his conclusion. In effect, any attacks then made on the conclusion alone will be hollow, artificial and banal.
10b) Is it because of the miracles that you doubt the Scriptures ?
That is part of it, not least because they all violate one natural law or other, including: law of gravity (walking on water), law of conservation of mass-energy (multiplying a few loaves & fishes to feed 5000), and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (bringing Lazarus back from the dead, changing water to wine)
Bear in mind the scriptures are merely the ruminations of those who wrote them, whose charge (from St. Paul) was to convert unbelievers into believers. So naturally they would invent or insert anything, even “miracles” to do so.
10c) If Jesus really were God in the flesh, how would you expect Him to confirm that fact?
Easy. Do what any electron can do from quantum mechanics. Convert himself into two people-individuals at once, and let them exist and talk -walk side by side for an indefinite time. Then each work a specific miracle - say causing the levitation of the whole population of New York. The come back together again.
In Answer to Pastor Mike (I)
In his most recent comment, Pastor Mike has asked a number of questions and entreated me to give "honest" answers. This I intend to do. Let me also add, while I am thinking of it, that Pastor Mike has as much right to post here as anyone else. If his views and convictions diverge from ours this is to be expected, as his life experience and exposure has proceeded along a different direction. I welcome his comments, as well as arguments to any blog entries I have.
At the same time, I do make it known here and now I am not seeking "debate" with him, or prolonged argument or conflict. I merely (as one blog poster) noted, have had recourse to use some of his material on his site(s) for my own blog subjects. In response to those blog entries, and if Pastor Mike has any questions or counter arguments, I am quite willing to see and address them. But again, not to have a prolonged debate.
Anyway, as to his questions and my answers. Since he has asked a lot of questions, I have divided them into roughly equal segments, with the end segment appearing tomorrow.
Pastor MIKE: These are SERIOUS questions , that I would like HONEST answers to . Thank You! 1 ) Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality? In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment ?
It isn’t a case of relativism or absolutism in morality but whether the concept of moral naturalism is valid, and whether the evidence supports it. Moral naturalism presumes a secular and scientific approach to morality so that the issue of whether a God exists becomes immaterial. (Which is just as well because the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven)
Thus, given a scientific grounding (the only objective one which we – humans- have available- one can adopt an investigative approach that is naturalistic, i.e. all effects have natural causes that can be subjected to analysis.
The latest research published in numerous places, discloses that human moral sentiments and the recognition of moral principles evolved naturally- primarily through the agency of natural selection. There were two main phases of this evolution: i) brain expansion, and ii) cultural-social expansion.
In (i), the normative human brain evolved over a period of about 1 million -1.5 million years from an organ of roughly 1000 cc volume and 0.9 kg mass, to an organ of roughly 1500 cc volume and 1.4 kg mass. The primary change entailed a massive growth of the neocortex in relation to the paleo-cortex or reptilian brain regions (such as the amygdala, limbic system) left over from earlier stages.
This evolutionary brain change marked the first potential for behavioral change in ancient-primitive humans. Whereas before, the primacy of reptilian needs, and drives was paramount, this became muted under the influence of the neocortex. The neocortex then became the center for the growth of human language and thought, including abstract thought. This abstract thought also incorporated notions of what was “right” and “wrong”.
This was possible because the emergence of full human consciousness via the neocortex made it possible to perceive that earlier reptilian – dictated behaviors, e.g. killing another tribe’s chief and seizing his mate, was not the thing to do. It effectively made the other tribe one’s own tribe’s enemy with costly results.
As natural selection of the brain in the social context continued, more changes arrived. This largely emerged via group selection acting on specific populations. Thus, if a tribal member took a chunk of meat from a child’s mouth he would be ostracized by the tribe, and shunned. Shame and guilt resulted. As this extended to many more behaviors….e.g. seizing a tribal companion’s wife and having sex with her, the sense of shame and guilt was reinforced…as was the capacity for tribal punishment.
In no uncertain terms, then, it became known among tribes which behaviors were accepted and which were not. No god intervened to do this or to set out tribal laws, humans did it themselves.
Those tribal members who then conformed their behaviors to the tribe’s ideals then derived from their compliance a sense of feeling good, and a sentiment of righteousness or pride resulted. Those who flouted tribal customs or laws, conversely, earned only negative emotions engrained in deep shame or guilt. Often times, to remain as part of the tribe, they would have to suffer temporary banishment, or be shunned….no verbal or other interaction permitted.
In this way, human natural morality became established. Not by the force of divine fiat, or absolute edict, but by the evolutionary force of natural selection – operating first on the brain and then on human tribal interactions, given the appearance of new, larger brains.
Now, since evolution has not ceased, but continues, then it follows that the brain phase and level of moral interaction we behold now is not the final or ultimate form. We can surmise that in 1 or 2 million years (as the late Carl Sagan theorized in his ‘Dragons of Eden’) all the remaining reptilian regions of the brain will disappear, or no longer have any pronounced effect on human moral decisions.
This means that the human moral decisions (and by extension, laws) perceived with today’s human brain, cannot be the same as those perceived in the far future with a modified human brain. It stands to reason, therefore, that human morality must EVOLVE with the brain, and not be fixed or final. If it cannot be fixed or final, it cannot be absolute…since to be so would imply that a specific morality or moral perception tied to THAT brain stage must remain applicable to all stages of evolution.
Thus, cultural or social mores must also evolve – they can never be absolute or final. The laws or morals accepted by a given society today will not necessarily be those accepted 100,000 or 1 million years hence… because the brain’s basis for ascertaining them will have altered.
2 ) Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science ?
Obviously, it must be based on actual scientific evidence, and testing. For example, the THEORY of celestial mechanics allows me to use the detailed equations of dynamics (e.g. Kepler’s equation) to calculate the position of Mars in 2013. This calculation in turn means I can find Mars in the sky exactly at the position when I look.
If the science was taken on “faith” this could not occur. The fact that Mars is actually visible where it is predicted to be must mean that the motions of Mars conform to specific natural laws.
Taking it in reverse, the Mars Viking lander in 1976, would never have made it to the Red Planet based on “faith”. It was only after the computations from celestial mechanics disclosed it to be at such and such location, that the Mars rocket could be launched to arrive at that location.
Thus, celestial mechanics works! It isn’t based on any “faith”. The mathematics proves that it works.
In a similar way, when I take the mass of an element, say radium, and I know its half-life, then I know that after so much time (measured in half lives) its total mass will decrease according to a given process of decay. At the end of so many half –lives I can then measure the mass left and make deductions from it.
3 ) Is absence of proof the proof of absence ?
Actually “proof” is too strong a term. In science we do not look for proof so much as we look for evidence. In the real world, things are only proven in a relative sense, not for all time….unless in the realm of abstract mathematics. For example, Newton’s theory of gravitation while “proven” for relatively small scale domains (a falling object on Earth) was found to break down when extended – as Einstein showed in his General Relativity. (E.g. the advance of Mercury’s perihelion by about 43” per century could not be predicted by Newton)
In the same way, Bohr’s quantum theory was replaced by Max Born’s in which quantum probability waves replaced electrons circling atom nuclei as if in a miniature solar system.
In terms of evidence, we demand it be of high QA and fully replicable. It also has to be in some sense predictable. As Carl Sagan once put it: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” But he also said:
“Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence” which most people (i.e. science skeptics) forget or give short shrift to.
Thus, if you make any kind of extraordinary claim, you will need extraordinary evidence to back it up.
4 ) What does the atheist position offer people ? How has it improved your life? Why will it improve others’ lives ?
First, atheism is not a “position”. It is really predicated on a philosophy. That philosophy asserts that all of reality is reducible to natural elements and processes and we must live our lives accordingly. Not looking for some heavenly deliverance….from death or our worldy problems, but from our own resources and those of our cohorts. Once one ceases to look for solutions to the ‘next life’ he or she is more fully able to deal with the real world problems emerging in THIS life, such as overpopulation, global warming etc.
As to atheism “improving one’s life” – I do not believe that to be a necessary purpose, offshoot or function. If I wish to improve my life I take up jogging, or join a book blub maybe, enhance my cooking and the quality of the food I eat, join a social club to increase social contacts.
Atheism instead offers a fuller more real perception of life. It offers life without the blinders, blinkers, or rose colored glasses. I am thereby able to see or perceive things for which others’ unjustified (in my mind) faith blunts or deflects attention from. For example, IF people truly believe there is an afterlife they will be less invested in caring for the world-planet we have now. Thus problems like overpopulation, famine, global warming will be of minor or no concern to them. After all, they can look forward to their next life!
Since this is how I view atheism’s role, then it follows I do not see it as the panacea to “improve” anyone’s life. There are definite and specific routes for improving one’s life, whether its psychological or physical milieu. I already mentioned them. Atheism is for those who wish to drop the feel good metaphysics of make belief ontologies and accept the world and life as it is. That is, there is one life to live, there are no souls, no afterlives, and no deities to appeal to.
I do not claim here that atheism is for everyone, or that everyone ought to pursue it. It is only for the mentally tough –minded who can accept that their lives terminate when they cease breathing, or more accurately, their brain EEG goes flat.
5 a) When you attempt to use logic to conclude facts about religion, are you starting at the conclusion (God is not real), or are you starting at true premises? Be honest.
Okay, you want honesty you shall have it. First, religion and God are two separate things. One can in fact argue about the deficiencies of religion without even addressing the issue of the existence of God. I believe it was the philosopher Joseph Campbell who once remarked (in his book The Power of Myth): that “Religion is a defense against the experience of God”
So even he recognized the domain of religion is not necessarily identical with questions of God. I believe the reason is that as an organized construct of humans religions often serve to divide more than to seek common cause or vision. Meanwhile, “God” as formulated in the ideal sense, is more accepted as an ultimate unifier. At the same time, spirituality and belief in the divine can exist without being based in a religion. The latest Pew religion survey shows this occurring on a major scale in the USA. Many are leaving their born into religions and either joining others, or more often, adopting a generic spiritual path that is not contingent on a religion.
Thus, my point is that to “conclude facts about religion” is not contingent on concluding anything about God. Or about God being real. One can show all religions’ essential falsity merely by their existence, since logically 1100 religions cannot all be true. Hence, it follows they each refute the claims of each other without me even entering.
OTOH, one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, so it follows that arguing about God cannot begin with either the premise of existence or non-existence. We (atheist) merely say that as positing God amounts to an extraordinary claim, then the burden is on the positers, or claimants to make their case. In the absence of hard evidence, this means at least providing the necessary and sufficient conditions for its existence.
5 b) If you are starting at true premises, then what are they ? And how are they true ?
See my detailed explanation above. Obviously if religion and God entail distinct (and arguable) counter-factual sets of premises, then the arguments related to one are not necessarily related at all to the other.
Thus, one is entitled to query the validity of this or that religion, THEN query the existence of God - presumed to issue from the necessary and sufficient conditions that said religion allows. Indeed, I would contend that to even logically argue God's existence, a firm definition must be given if the n-s conditions aren't.
Wheras no such preliminaries are needed to argue the validity of a religion, since all one needs are it revelatory sources or source material which can them become subject to scientific (e.g. radiocarbon dating) testing, analysis and so on.
More to come with Mike's remaining questions, tomorrow.
At the same time, I do make it known here and now I am not seeking "debate" with him, or prolonged argument or conflict. I merely (as one blog poster) noted, have had recourse to use some of his material on his site(s) for my own blog subjects. In response to those blog entries, and if Pastor Mike has any questions or counter arguments, I am quite willing to see and address them. But again, not to have a prolonged debate.
Anyway, as to his questions and my answers. Since he has asked a lot of questions, I have divided them into roughly equal segments, with the end segment appearing tomorrow.
Pastor MIKE: These are SERIOUS questions , that I would like HONEST answers to . Thank You! 1 ) Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe in absolute morality? In other words, do you believe that cultures, or even individuals, can define their own rules on what is moral and what is not, or do you believe that every action has one unique, absolute, and true moral assessment ?
It isn’t a case of relativism or absolutism in morality but whether the concept of moral naturalism is valid, and whether the evidence supports it. Moral naturalism presumes a secular and scientific approach to morality so that the issue of whether a God exists becomes immaterial. (Which is just as well because the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven)
Thus, given a scientific grounding (the only objective one which we – humans- have available- one can adopt an investigative approach that is naturalistic, i.e. all effects have natural causes that can be subjected to analysis.
The latest research published in numerous places, discloses that human moral sentiments and the recognition of moral principles evolved naturally- primarily through the agency of natural selection. There were two main phases of this evolution: i) brain expansion, and ii) cultural-social expansion.
In (i), the normative human brain evolved over a period of about 1 million -1.5 million years from an organ of roughly 1000 cc volume and 0.9 kg mass, to an organ of roughly 1500 cc volume and 1.4 kg mass. The primary change entailed a massive growth of the neocortex in relation to the paleo-cortex or reptilian brain regions (such as the amygdala, limbic system) left over from earlier stages.
This evolutionary brain change marked the first potential for behavioral change in ancient-primitive humans. Whereas before, the primacy of reptilian needs, and drives was paramount, this became muted under the influence of the neocortex. The neocortex then became the center for the growth of human language and thought, including abstract thought. This abstract thought also incorporated notions of what was “right” and “wrong”.
This was possible because the emergence of full human consciousness via the neocortex made it possible to perceive that earlier reptilian – dictated behaviors, e.g. killing another tribe’s chief and seizing his mate, was not the thing to do. It effectively made the other tribe one’s own tribe’s enemy with costly results.
As natural selection of the brain in the social context continued, more changes arrived. This largely emerged via group selection acting on specific populations. Thus, if a tribal member took a chunk of meat from a child’s mouth he would be ostracized by the tribe, and shunned. Shame and guilt resulted. As this extended to many more behaviors….e.g. seizing a tribal companion’s wife and having sex with her, the sense of shame and guilt was reinforced…as was the capacity for tribal punishment.
In no uncertain terms, then, it became known among tribes which behaviors were accepted and which were not. No god intervened to do this or to set out tribal laws, humans did it themselves.
Those tribal members who then conformed their behaviors to the tribe’s ideals then derived from their compliance a sense of feeling good, and a sentiment of righteousness or pride resulted. Those who flouted tribal customs or laws, conversely, earned only negative emotions engrained in deep shame or guilt. Often times, to remain as part of the tribe, they would have to suffer temporary banishment, or be shunned….no verbal or other interaction permitted.
In this way, human natural morality became established. Not by the force of divine fiat, or absolute edict, but by the evolutionary force of natural selection – operating first on the brain and then on human tribal interactions, given the appearance of new, larger brains.
Now, since evolution has not ceased, but continues, then it follows that the brain phase and level of moral interaction we behold now is not the final or ultimate form. We can surmise that in 1 or 2 million years (as the late Carl Sagan theorized in his ‘Dragons of Eden’) all the remaining reptilian regions of the brain will disappear, or no longer have any pronounced effect on human moral decisions.
This means that the human moral decisions (and by extension, laws) perceived with today’s human brain, cannot be the same as those perceived in the far future with a modified human brain. It stands to reason, therefore, that human morality must EVOLVE with the brain, and not be fixed or final. If it cannot be fixed or final, it cannot be absolute…since to be so would imply that a specific morality or moral perception tied to THAT brain stage must remain applicable to all stages of evolution.
Thus, cultural or social mores must also evolve – they can never be absolute or final. The laws or morals accepted by a given society today will not necessarily be those accepted 100,000 or 1 million years hence… because the brain’s basis for ascertaining them will have altered.
2 ) Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science ?
Obviously, it must be based on actual scientific evidence, and testing. For example, the THEORY of celestial mechanics allows me to use the detailed equations of dynamics (e.g. Kepler’s equation) to calculate the position of Mars in 2013. This calculation in turn means I can find Mars in the sky exactly at the position when I look.
If the science was taken on “faith” this could not occur. The fact that Mars is actually visible where it is predicted to be must mean that the motions of Mars conform to specific natural laws.
Taking it in reverse, the Mars Viking lander in 1976, would never have made it to the Red Planet based on “faith”. It was only after the computations from celestial mechanics disclosed it to be at such and such location, that the Mars rocket could be launched to arrive at that location.
Thus, celestial mechanics works! It isn’t based on any “faith”. The mathematics proves that it works.
In a similar way, when I take the mass of an element, say radium, and I know its half-life, then I know that after so much time (measured in half lives) its total mass will decrease according to a given process of decay. At the end of so many half –lives I can then measure the mass left and make deductions from it.
3 ) Is absence of proof the proof of absence ?
Actually “proof” is too strong a term. In science we do not look for proof so much as we look for evidence. In the real world, things are only proven in a relative sense, not for all time….unless in the realm of abstract mathematics. For example, Newton’s theory of gravitation while “proven” for relatively small scale domains (a falling object on Earth) was found to break down when extended – as Einstein showed in his General Relativity. (E.g. the advance of Mercury’s perihelion by about 43” per century could not be predicted by Newton)
In the same way, Bohr’s quantum theory was replaced by Max Born’s in which quantum probability waves replaced electrons circling atom nuclei as if in a miniature solar system.
In terms of evidence, we demand it be of high QA and fully replicable. It also has to be in some sense predictable. As Carl Sagan once put it: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” But he also said:
“Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence” which most people (i.e. science skeptics) forget or give short shrift to.
Thus, if you make any kind of extraordinary claim, you will need extraordinary evidence to back it up.
4 ) What does the atheist position offer people ? How has it improved your life? Why will it improve others’ lives ?
First, atheism is not a “position”. It is really predicated on a philosophy. That philosophy asserts that all of reality is reducible to natural elements and processes and we must live our lives accordingly. Not looking for some heavenly deliverance….from death or our worldy problems, but from our own resources and those of our cohorts. Once one ceases to look for solutions to the ‘next life’ he or she is more fully able to deal with the real world problems emerging in THIS life, such as overpopulation, global warming etc.
As to atheism “improving one’s life” – I do not believe that to be a necessary purpose, offshoot or function. If I wish to improve my life I take up jogging, or join a book blub maybe, enhance my cooking and the quality of the food I eat, join a social club to increase social contacts.
Atheism instead offers a fuller more real perception of life. It offers life without the blinders, blinkers, or rose colored glasses. I am thereby able to see or perceive things for which others’ unjustified (in my mind) faith blunts or deflects attention from. For example, IF people truly believe there is an afterlife they will be less invested in caring for the world-planet we have now. Thus problems like overpopulation, famine, global warming will be of minor or no concern to them. After all, they can look forward to their next life!
Since this is how I view atheism’s role, then it follows I do not see it as the panacea to “improve” anyone’s life. There are definite and specific routes for improving one’s life, whether its psychological or physical milieu. I already mentioned them. Atheism is for those who wish to drop the feel good metaphysics of make belief ontologies and accept the world and life as it is. That is, there is one life to live, there are no souls, no afterlives, and no deities to appeal to.
I do not claim here that atheism is for everyone, or that everyone ought to pursue it. It is only for the mentally tough –minded who can accept that their lives terminate when they cease breathing, or more accurately, their brain EEG goes flat.
5 a) When you attempt to use logic to conclude facts about religion, are you starting at the conclusion (God is not real), or are you starting at true premises? Be honest.
Okay, you want honesty you shall have it. First, religion and God are two separate things. One can in fact argue about the deficiencies of religion without even addressing the issue of the existence of God. I believe it was the philosopher Joseph Campbell who once remarked (in his book The Power of Myth): that “Religion is a defense against the experience of God”
So even he recognized the domain of religion is not necessarily identical with questions of God. I believe the reason is that as an organized construct of humans religions often serve to divide more than to seek common cause or vision. Meanwhile, “God” as formulated in the ideal sense, is more accepted as an ultimate unifier. At the same time, spirituality and belief in the divine can exist without being based in a religion. The latest Pew religion survey shows this occurring on a major scale in the USA. Many are leaving their born into religions and either joining others, or more often, adopting a generic spiritual path that is not contingent on a religion.
Thus, my point is that to “conclude facts about religion” is not contingent on concluding anything about God. Or about God being real. One can show all religions’ essential falsity merely by their existence, since logically 1100 religions cannot all be true. Hence, it follows they each refute the claims of each other without me even entering.
OTOH, one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, so it follows that arguing about God cannot begin with either the premise of existence or non-existence. We (atheist) merely say that as positing God amounts to an extraordinary claim, then the burden is on the positers, or claimants to make their case. In the absence of hard evidence, this means at least providing the necessary and sufficient conditions for its existence.
5 b) If you are starting at true premises, then what are they ? And how are they true ?
See my detailed explanation above. Obviously if religion and God entail distinct (and arguable) counter-factual sets of premises, then the arguments related to one are not necessarily related at all to the other.
Thus, one is entitled to query the validity of this or that religion, THEN query the existence of God - presumed to issue from the necessary and sufficient conditions that said religion allows. Indeed, I would contend that to even logically argue God's existence, a firm definition must be given if the n-s conditions aren't.
Wheras no such preliminaries are needed to argue the validity of a religion, since all one needs are it revelatory sources or source material which can them become subject to scientific (e.g. radiocarbon dating) testing, analysis and so on.
More to come with Mike's remaining questions, tomorrow.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Misconceptions of Intelligent Design
Over the past ten or so years I’ve debated a number of proponents of Intelligent Design or ID, in various venues. One thing they all have in common is the acceptance of certain serious misconceptions which are casually invoked as a basis for argument. Let’s take a look at 3 of the major ones:
1) ID is a bona fide scientific theory.
Not even close. First, a proper theory must at least identify the claimed “designer”, to formulate a positive hypothesis. But ID’ers haven’t done that. Is it some kind of deity? (If so, they are definitely in the realm of religious dogma). Is it a highly advanced species of space alien from Tau Ceti, or Zeta Reticuli? Is it an invisible, inter-dimensional “essence”? They won’t say!
Second, a genuine theory must set up its own positive formulations of the natural world based on its own observations. It can’t just dwell on the deficiencies of evolution and call itself an independent theory. It would be analogous to me picking supposed holes in Einstein’s General Relativity – then asserting I’ve formed my own theory of space-time. No, I haven’t, I just have a collection of issues with Einstein’s theory!
Third, a valid theory makes its own predictions, as evolution has – just click on the link below for ‘29+ Evidences of Macro-evolution’:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
A valid theory also applies tests for its own falsification. But so far as I know, ID proponents have never attempted tests of falsification. Again, how can they, when they are not even sure what it is they are falsifying? A God? An Alien? An Inter-dimensional Being? Also, in their own yen to be absolutely right, the very concept of falsifying what they have proposed would be totally alien to them.
2) Evolution cannot be valid since it is based on random chance
This, unfortunately, is a bugbear that bedevils almost every debate between ID’ers ad evolutionists. Often too, the latter group falls into the trap laid by the former – by speciously conceding evolution is indeed predicated on chance. But in fact not! Biologist and author Richard Dawkins once referred to this as “the single most unfortunate misunderstanding of Darwinism – that it’s a theory of chance”. I suspect the misconception arises because one input for natural selection is mutation, and it is largely governed by random chance. (I.e. Up to 60% or more of mutations may be caused by external factors such as cosmic rays interacting with DNA. But who can say when or at what frequency these interactions occur?) However, natural selection itself is anything but random.
We can see this simply by doing simple experiments, as with fruit flies, and examining the emergence of specific traits over generations – governed by gene frequency. It can be seen that over time there is a genetic "favoritism", as it were, for certain traits or characteristics to be passed on or selected out of a group of competing traits in the gene pool. Thus, what natural selection does is to consolidate particular random mutations into a more stable, adaptive adjustment – governed by deterministic factors and inputs.
3) No evolutionist has ever created life in a lab
This is totally irrelevant and a non-sequitur because the demand imposed is excessive, beyond the bounds of acceptable testability. It would be analogous to demanding a cosmologist create a mini-explosion to mimic the Big Bang in a physics lab, and suck the whole physics lab up in it! In addition, it conflates the theory of the genesis of life, with evolution by natural selection.
What it shows more than anything, is the gross lack of understanding of the principles of evolution. Because no one who understands natural selection or mutation would confuse either with creation of life!
The key fact is that only natural selection explains in a unitary manner the emergence of so many disparate species and variable speciation in widely separated geographical areas. Creation would have to rely on millions of separate special creative events which introduces many levels of complexity.
As is well known from the Ockham's Razor principle: "That hypothesis which makes the fewest ad hoc assumptions is most likely the correct one".
ID'ers and their creationist brethren make far too many!
1) ID is a bona fide scientific theory.
Not even close. First, a proper theory must at least identify the claimed “designer”, to formulate a positive hypothesis. But ID’ers haven’t done that. Is it some kind of deity? (If so, they are definitely in the realm of religious dogma). Is it a highly advanced species of space alien from Tau Ceti, or Zeta Reticuli? Is it an invisible, inter-dimensional “essence”? They won’t say!
Second, a genuine theory must set up its own positive formulations of the natural world based on its own observations. It can’t just dwell on the deficiencies of evolution and call itself an independent theory. It would be analogous to me picking supposed holes in Einstein’s General Relativity – then asserting I’ve formed my own theory of space-time. No, I haven’t, I just have a collection of issues with Einstein’s theory!
Third, a valid theory makes its own predictions, as evolution has – just click on the link below for ‘29+ Evidences of Macro-evolution’:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
A valid theory also applies tests for its own falsification. But so far as I know, ID proponents have never attempted tests of falsification. Again, how can they, when they are not even sure what it is they are falsifying? A God? An Alien? An Inter-dimensional Being? Also, in their own yen to be absolutely right, the very concept of falsifying what they have proposed would be totally alien to them.
2) Evolution cannot be valid since it is based on random chance
This, unfortunately, is a bugbear that bedevils almost every debate between ID’ers ad evolutionists. Often too, the latter group falls into the trap laid by the former – by speciously conceding evolution is indeed predicated on chance. But in fact not! Biologist and author Richard Dawkins once referred to this as “the single most unfortunate misunderstanding of Darwinism – that it’s a theory of chance”. I suspect the misconception arises because one input for natural selection is mutation, and it is largely governed by random chance. (I.e. Up to 60% or more of mutations may be caused by external factors such as cosmic rays interacting with DNA. But who can say when or at what frequency these interactions occur?) However, natural selection itself is anything but random.
We can see this simply by doing simple experiments, as with fruit flies, and examining the emergence of specific traits over generations – governed by gene frequency. It can be seen that over time there is a genetic "favoritism", as it were, for certain traits or characteristics to be passed on or selected out of a group of competing traits in the gene pool. Thus, what natural selection does is to consolidate particular random mutations into a more stable, adaptive adjustment – governed by deterministic factors and inputs.
3) No evolutionist has ever created life in a lab
This is totally irrelevant and a non-sequitur because the demand imposed is excessive, beyond the bounds of acceptable testability. It would be analogous to demanding a cosmologist create a mini-explosion to mimic the Big Bang in a physics lab, and suck the whole physics lab up in it! In addition, it conflates the theory of the genesis of life, with evolution by natural selection.
What it shows more than anything, is the gross lack of understanding of the principles of evolution. Because no one who understands natural selection or mutation would confuse either with creation of life!
The key fact is that only natural selection explains in a unitary manner the emergence of so many disparate species and variable speciation in widely separated geographical areas. Creation would have to rely on millions of separate special creative events which introduces many levels of complexity.
As is well known from the Ockham's Razor principle: "That hypothesis which makes the fewest ad hoc assumptions is most likely the correct one".
ID'ers and their creationist brethren make far too many!
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Correcting Pastor Mike....Again
For a while the debates and arguments concerning Pastor Mike and I had abated, but I see on his 'False Doctrines' page (under 'Atheists') some really scurrilous aspersions cast on my atheist brethren and myself which must perforce be addressed. and thereby consigned to the dust bin of the illogical. I do not intend to go through all the unusubstantiated and unsupported claims and judgements but will confione attention to one or two remarks made.
Starting off he writes:
Some might think that atheists would be content with simply not believing in God and leave the theists to themselves. After all, if God doesn't exist then what's the big deal? Why not let the theists believe in God the way a child believes in the tooth fairy? To the atheist, neither exists. So why bother?
This actually has been addressed a number of times before, but people may have short memories. What Pastor Mike conflates here, is that tooth fairies have no real world effects while belief in God assuredly does.
No one sees "tooth fairists" going out and lurking in Malls or parking lots, waiting for some unsupecting citizen to pass, then pouncing on him or her and attempting to "witness". I.e. cite chapter and verse of scripture to convince the wayfarer his soul is at risk and he or she had better act expeditiously to save it.
In earlier exchanges with Mike, for example, I elaborated on exactly why witnessing constitutes psychological terror and not "free speech".
What is the purpose? It is to entice people to “be saved” in order to avoid consequences of death. A fiery eternal residence in HELL... Consider this question which Pastor Mike offers as an example to a prospective witness is to pose to his “marks”……errrrrr…..recipients:
“IF YOU WERE TO DIE TONIGHT WHERE DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD BE?”
Hello! What the blazes is this, a trick question!
There is only ONE correct answer: you are no place. Your consciousness no longer exists, since your brain is dead- so there is no “YOU” anywhere to be found other than in a newly cooling corpse that will soon be rotting unless special measures are taken (in the case of burial, using special preservatives to feed into the veins, and otherwise – burning the body in cremation).
Here we detect the thrust and underlying meme of the question. Translated to the target’s sub-conscious: “Death is a terrifying experience and as soon as you die there is a supernatural part of you that will TORTURED forever and ever unless it is SAVED!”
But this is bare bollocks on a number of fronts.
First, death is not a terrifying experience unless one succumbs to Pastor Mike’s claims that it is! Death is wholly natural. Unless old beings are removed by death, so new beings can take their place the world will: a) become vastly over-crowded – soon ending with not enough food available for all the multiplying (undying) species, b) Since no new genes are introduced into any species, since there is no death, then species’ genomes will not change. Thus, NO evolution will occur!
Thus, death is an essential element of the natural world in controlling the numbers of species and populations that can occupy the planet at one time or one era, and in enabling the basis for further evolution of new species.
There is NO supernatural part of anyone, no “soul” that can be tortured, no matter what the religious hare brains may say. IF there were a soul it would have been exposed by now to the light of evidence and drawn scrutiny. But it remains as inaccessible and unreal as the “God” these people propose.
Thus, the psychological terror inheres in taking a perfectly NATURAL act, and transmogrifying it into a fearful, fretful possible transition to HELL. In this way, the natural human fear of death is metastasized and magnified out of all proportion to its actual import – leaving the person in near despair unless they are prepared to surrender control of their minds to the “witnesser”.
Emmett McLoughlin has noted that this sort of dynamic is responsible for hurling more people (all believers) into insane asylums and institutions than any thing else – even drug use! He estimates in one of his essays (‘Let the Statistics Tell Their Sad Story’) that more than one in every two now languishing in insane asylums or prisons are there because they succumbed to an inordinate fear of death.
Yet this is what Pastor Mike and his minions seek to sow!
All of this pivots on the belief or acceptance that their God-man (Jesus) is unique and that only absolute belief on him as Savior can spare a dying soul from Hell. But this is hogwash, since Jesus is not unique, even as a God –man!
Oxford scholar Geza Vermes in his own great work (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus) notes that the words “Son of God” are not even uttered by Jesus himself as a self-reference. They are only muttered by others, and then in mocking fashion – as when a Roman soldier referred to the “Son of God” while whipping him. Some references fond in Matthew are later additions, inserted there to try to compel belief in the FICTION that Jesus was a Son of God.
Given all this, the inescapable fact is that witnessing is: a) fraudulent (in that it isn’t based on true historical fact) and b) is psychological terror in that it takes a natural event – death- and ratchets it into a possible “eternal door” to horror in some afterlife UNLESS one surrenders one’s mind and will to the Christian zealots.
As we have seen in India, this practice has aroused so much ire in the Hindi population, that they have taken to burning down the churches and homes of all evangelical witnesses. Is this what the good Pastor wants here? We would hope not.
On another front, or other fronts, religious belief fuels absolutism and this breeds insane and irrational actions. Let me hasten to say here that NO single religious believer can assert HIS way is superior, or better, ....since they all aid and abet psychotic acts. Case in point, it was the belief in 72 virgins that drove the 19 9-11 hijackers to plow their planes into the Twin Towers and kill thousands. This was done by their religious belief.
Meanwhile, Christian beliefs have already been responsible this year for the murders of two abortion providers, in Washington state and Kansas. The murderers were driven to their dastardly deeds by the absolute conviction of their own righteousness. Not even a hint they could be wrong. (Or to quote the words of one poor wretch, ca. 1400, tied at the stake just before the Inquisitor torched him...."Pray consider, Sir, that you MIGHT be wrong!")
But you see, to the staunch absolutist there is no such consideration. He is right, absolutely right. This is what prompted author and philosopher Jacob Bronowski ('The Ascent of Man') to write: (On pointing to the remnants of the gas chambers and ovens at Auschwitz:
'This was done by dogma. This was done by absolutism. When people believe they have the absolute truth without any doubt, this is what they are capable of"
Apart from the outright murders, and insanity, organized believers have the potential to get at weak politicians and convince them to repeal laws that now benefit most of the rational people. Laws such as keeping prayers out of our public schools (as it is we are losing enough time teaching evolution), and prohibiting abortion. Thus, making a comeback for hangers and brutal do-it-yourself butchery.
Oh, the religious will say they are not after that at all, but in fact, when they organize politically and browbeat politicos to do their righteous bidding, they are!
No tooth fairy believers do such things. NO tooth fairy believers murder people who try to keep their teeth, or tell those who don't believe in them that they are destined for eternal, toothless hell.
Thus, Pastor Mike argues from false analogy. He is comparing chalk and cheese with predictable results.
He goes on to write:
Even though many atheists don't care if people believe in God or not, others feel obligated to fight what I have often heard them label as "oppressive religious bigotry." To this end, many of them are active in politics, social groups, the internet, and even use lawsuits to change society into a more atheistic temperament. They often consider Christians as a threat to freedom, common sense, and a good life. This kind of statement is quite common in atheist circles. It is inflammatory, illogical, and paranoid.
Again, for the Pastor's benefit, we are active in political life because in this country, we HAVE to be! You snooze, you lose! If we were politically disinterested we would see Roe v. Wade overturned overnight or piecemeal. Raped women and girls would have to seek out back alleys to get relief.
We'd have prayer and bible teaching back in schools, and sucking up so much precious time that science education would descend ten further notches down. And instead of being behind Singapore and Malaysia as we are now, we'd be way behind Botswana or even Sudan.
To the extent Christians attempt to dilute school teaching by interjecting insidious religion, and prevent abortions, and prevent atheist speech - like placing our posters on buses- they ARE a threat to freedom, common sense and a good life. Make no mistake. and anyone who doubts it needs to see the movie 'The Handmaid's Tale' about when the U.S. is turned into a full blown theocracy.
You will have nightmares for years.
Mike goes on:
Many atheists I've spoken , including my oldest brother , Phil , tell me that I cannot think logically, that I am deluded, and that I believe in myths. They tell me that I am bound by foolish antiquated beliefs and need to abandon my religious bigotry and become a 'free thinker' like them. In other words, they don't want me to think the way I do.
Totally misrepresenting what we are saying! In fact, the last thing I want or demand is for Mike to become a freethinker like me. What I prefer is that he think for HIMSELF, but do so rigorously- and at the end of this thinking - decide what in fact is best for HIM- while leaving ME and my fellow atheists out of his picture.
Thus, if HE finds the KJV bible absolutely true and fulfilling all needs, fine, but concede this is valid for HIM! Not for everyone on the face of Earth.
Because once he overextends that, then his reasoning does break down, and zealotry replaces logic.
Now, when I consider Mike's beliefs "foolish or antiquated" I do not do so in an absolute universal sense (as if to say they can have no value for anyone) - but only that they have no value for ME. I have studied all or most of what he believes now, had to at Loyola, but have now put those aside, like a suit that no longer fits.
As for belief in "myths" - yes, that is what I regard 2000 -year old bible tales as. NONE have been validated in any scientific way, and to me - that is the only ultimate criterion for objective truth. It is the best option we humans have right now, at this time. (Minus workable time machines to venture anywhere, any time in the past).
If Mike can prove to me, for example, that the town of Nazareth existed befor 400 CE I will happily turn my ear toward his sermons and pay more attention. But he can't.
Forget for the moment that the name borne by the earliest followers of Yeshua (nee: Jesus) was “Nazoreans’ - NOT “Christians” – And Yeshua was known as “the Nazorean”. This is a sectarian term of which the Hebrew is ‘Notsrim’ and is NOT connected directly with a place called “Nazareth” or with the messianic “Nezer” branch from the roots of Jesse.
Nazoreans’ members proclaimed themselves the “preservers of the true faith of Israel”- but this claim was also made by the Samaritans, inhabiting Samaria (Shomron) who represented themselves as the ‘Shamerine’ – the custodians or keepers of the original ISRAELITE religion, as opposed to the Judeans (Jews)
In his article ‘Where Jesus Never Walked’. (American Atheist, Winter 1996-97, p. 34) Frank Zindler notes “Nazareth” is not mentioned once in the entire Old Testament, nor do any ancient historians or geographers mention it before the beginning of the 4th century. As Zindler points out:
“The Talmud, though it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth. Josephus, who wrote extensively about Galilee (a region roughly the size of Rhode Island) ….mentions Nazareth not even once – although he does mention by name 45 other cities and villages of Galilee. This is even more telling when one discovers that Josephus does mention Japha, a village which is just over a mile from present-day Nazareth!”
(snip)
"Although the New Testament tells us very little about our mythical municipality, it does tell us enough to allow us to conclude that present day Nazareth couldn’t be the biblical city referred to say, in the fourth chapter of Luke”
Like the White Queen whom Alice met in ‘Through the Looking Glass’, Christian pilgrims have always been able to believe six or more mutually contradictory, impossible propositions every morning before breakfast. Unlike the White Queen, however, the Christians have been able to maintain such belief after breakfast as well.”
Starting off he writes:
Some might think that atheists would be content with simply not believing in God and leave the theists to themselves. After all, if God doesn't exist then what's the big deal? Why not let the theists believe in God the way a child believes in the tooth fairy? To the atheist, neither exists. So why bother?
This actually has been addressed a number of times before, but people may have short memories. What Pastor Mike conflates here, is that tooth fairies have no real world effects while belief in God assuredly does.
No one sees "tooth fairists" going out and lurking in Malls or parking lots, waiting for some unsupecting citizen to pass, then pouncing on him or her and attempting to "witness". I.e. cite chapter and verse of scripture to convince the wayfarer his soul is at risk and he or she had better act expeditiously to save it.
In earlier exchanges with Mike, for example, I elaborated on exactly why witnessing constitutes psychological terror and not "free speech".
What is the purpose? It is to entice people to “be saved” in order to avoid consequences of death. A fiery eternal residence in HELL... Consider this question which Pastor Mike offers as an example to a prospective witness is to pose to his “marks”……errrrrr…..recipients:
“IF YOU WERE TO DIE TONIGHT WHERE DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD BE?”
Hello! What the blazes is this, a trick question!
There is only ONE correct answer: you are no place. Your consciousness no longer exists, since your brain is dead- so there is no “YOU” anywhere to be found other than in a newly cooling corpse that will soon be rotting unless special measures are taken (in the case of burial, using special preservatives to feed into the veins, and otherwise – burning the body in cremation).
Here we detect the thrust and underlying meme of the question. Translated to the target’s sub-conscious: “Death is a terrifying experience and as soon as you die there is a supernatural part of you that will TORTURED forever and ever unless it is SAVED!”
But this is bare bollocks on a number of fronts.
First, death is not a terrifying experience unless one succumbs to Pastor Mike’s claims that it is! Death is wholly natural. Unless old beings are removed by death, so new beings can take their place the world will: a) become vastly over-crowded – soon ending with not enough food available for all the multiplying (undying) species, b) Since no new genes are introduced into any species, since there is no death, then species’ genomes will not change. Thus, NO evolution will occur!
Thus, death is an essential element of the natural world in controlling the numbers of species and populations that can occupy the planet at one time or one era, and in enabling the basis for further evolution of new species.
There is NO supernatural part of anyone, no “soul” that can be tortured, no matter what the religious hare brains may say. IF there were a soul it would have been exposed by now to the light of evidence and drawn scrutiny. But it remains as inaccessible and unreal as the “God” these people propose.
Thus, the psychological terror inheres in taking a perfectly NATURAL act, and transmogrifying it into a fearful, fretful possible transition to HELL. In this way, the natural human fear of death is metastasized and magnified out of all proportion to its actual import – leaving the person in near despair unless they are prepared to surrender control of their minds to the “witnesser”.
Emmett McLoughlin has noted that this sort of dynamic is responsible for hurling more people (all believers) into insane asylums and institutions than any thing else – even drug use! He estimates in one of his essays (‘Let the Statistics Tell Their Sad Story’) that more than one in every two now languishing in insane asylums or prisons are there because they succumbed to an inordinate fear of death.
Yet this is what Pastor Mike and his minions seek to sow!
All of this pivots on the belief or acceptance that their God-man (Jesus) is unique and that only absolute belief on him as Savior can spare a dying soul from Hell. But this is hogwash, since Jesus is not unique, even as a God –man!
Oxford scholar Geza Vermes in his own great work (The Authentic Gospel of Jesus) notes that the words “Son of God” are not even uttered by Jesus himself as a self-reference. They are only muttered by others, and then in mocking fashion – as when a Roman soldier referred to the “Son of God” while whipping him. Some references fond in Matthew are later additions, inserted there to try to compel belief in the FICTION that Jesus was a Son of God.
Given all this, the inescapable fact is that witnessing is: a) fraudulent (in that it isn’t based on true historical fact) and b) is psychological terror in that it takes a natural event – death- and ratchets it into a possible “eternal door” to horror in some afterlife UNLESS one surrenders one’s mind and will to the Christian zealots.
As we have seen in India, this practice has aroused so much ire in the Hindi population, that they have taken to burning down the churches and homes of all evangelical witnesses. Is this what the good Pastor wants here? We would hope not.
On another front, or other fronts, religious belief fuels absolutism and this breeds insane and irrational actions. Let me hasten to say here that NO single religious believer can assert HIS way is superior, or better, ....since they all aid and abet psychotic acts. Case in point, it was the belief in 72 virgins that drove the 19 9-11 hijackers to plow their planes into the Twin Towers and kill thousands. This was done by their religious belief.
Meanwhile, Christian beliefs have already been responsible this year for the murders of two abortion providers, in Washington state and Kansas. The murderers were driven to their dastardly deeds by the absolute conviction of their own righteousness. Not even a hint they could be wrong. (Or to quote the words of one poor wretch, ca. 1400, tied at the stake just before the Inquisitor torched him...."Pray consider, Sir, that you MIGHT be wrong!")
But you see, to the staunch absolutist there is no such consideration. He is right, absolutely right. This is what prompted author and philosopher Jacob Bronowski ('The Ascent of Man') to write: (On pointing to the remnants of the gas chambers and ovens at Auschwitz:
'This was done by dogma. This was done by absolutism. When people believe they have the absolute truth without any doubt, this is what they are capable of"
Apart from the outright murders, and insanity, organized believers have the potential to get at weak politicians and convince them to repeal laws that now benefit most of the rational people. Laws such as keeping prayers out of our public schools (as it is we are losing enough time teaching evolution), and prohibiting abortion. Thus, making a comeback for hangers and brutal do-it-yourself butchery.
Oh, the religious will say they are not after that at all, but in fact, when they organize politically and browbeat politicos to do their righteous bidding, they are!
No tooth fairy believers do such things. NO tooth fairy believers murder people who try to keep their teeth, or tell those who don't believe in them that they are destined for eternal, toothless hell.
Thus, Pastor Mike argues from false analogy. He is comparing chalk and cheese with predictable results.
He goes on to write:
Even though many atheists don't care if people believe in God or not, others feel obligated to fight what I have often heard them label as "oppressive religious bigotry." To this end, many of them are active in politics, social groups, the internet, and even use lawsuits to change society into a more atheistic temperament. They often consider Christians as a threat to freedom, common sense, and a good life. This kind of statement is quite common in atheist circles. It is inflammatory, illogical, and paranoid.
Again, for the Pastor's benefit, we are active in political life because in this country, we HAVE to be! You snooze, you lose! If we were politically disinterested we would see Roe v. Wade overturned overnight or piecemeal. Raped women and girls would have to seek out back alleys to get relief.
We'd have prayer and bible teaching back in schools, and sucking up so much precious time that science education would descend ten further notches down. And instead of being behind Singapore and Malaysia as we are now, we'd be way behind Botswana or even Sudan.
To the extent Christians attempt to dilute school teaching by interjecting insidious religion, and prevent abortions, and prevent atheist speech - like placing our posters on buses- they ARE a threat to freedom, common sense and a good life. Make no mistake. and anyone who doubts it needs to see the movie 'The Handmaid's Tale' about when the U.S. is turned into a full blown theocracy.
You will have nightmares for years.
Mike goes on:
Many atheists I've spoken , including my oldest brother , Phil , tell me that I cannot think logically, that I am deluded, and that I believe in myths. They tell me that I am bound by foolish antiquated beliefs and need to abandon my religious bigotry and become a 'free thinker' like them. In other words, they don't want me to think the way I do.
Totally misrepresenting what we are saying! In fact, the last thing I want or demand is for Mike to become a freethinker like me. What I prefer is that he think for HIMSELF, but do so rigorously- and at the end of this thinking - decide what in fact is best for HIM- while leaving ME and my fellow atheists out of his picture.
Thus, if HE finds the KJV bible absolutely true and fulfilling all needs, fine, but concede this is valid for HIM! Not for everyone on the face of Earth.
Because once he overextends that, then his reasoning does break down, and zealotry replaces logic.
Now, when I consider Mike's beliefs "foolish or antiquated" I do not do so in an absolute universal sense (as if to say they can have no value for anyone) - but only that they have no value for ME. I have studied all or most of what he believes now, had to at Loyola, but have now put those aside, like a suit that no longer fits.
As for belief in "myths" - yes, that is what I regard 2000 -year old bible tales as. NONE have been validated in any scientific way, and to me - that is the only ultimate criterion for objective truth. It is the best option we humans have right now, at this time. (Minus workable time machines to venture anywhere, any time in the past).
If Mike can prove to me, for example, that the town of Nazareth existed befor 400 CE I will happily turn my ear toward his sermons and pay more attention. But he can't.
Forget for the moment that the name borne by the earliest followers of Yeshua (nee: Jesus) was “Nazoreans’ - NOT “Christians” – And Yeshua was known as “the Nazorean”. This is a sectarian term of which the Hebrew is ‘Notsrim’ and is NOT connected directly with a place called “Nazareth” or with the messianic “Nezer” branch from the roots of Jesse.
Nazoreans’ members proclaimed themselves the “preservers of the true faith of Israel”- but this claim was also made by the Samaritans, inhabiting Samaria (Shomron) who represented themselves as the ‘Shamerine’ – the custodians or keepers of the original ISRAELITE religion, as opposed to the Judeans (Jews)
In his article ‘Where Jesus Never Walked’. (American Atheist, Winter 1996-97, p. 34) Frank Zindler notes “Nazareth” is not mentioned once in the entire Old Testament, nor do any ancient historians or geographers mention it before the beginning of the 4th century. As Zindler points out:
“The Talmud, though it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth. Josephus, who wrote extensively about Galilee (a region roughly the size of Rhode Island) ….mentions Nazareth not even once – although he does mention by name 45 other cities and villages of Galilee. This is even more telling when one discovers that Josephus does mention Japha, a village which is just over a mile from present-day Nazareth!”
(snip)
"Although the New Testament tells us very little about our mythical municipality, it does tell us enough to allow us to conclude that present day Nazareth couldn’t be the biblical city referred to say, in the fourth chapter of Luke”
Like the White Queen whom Alice met in ‘Through the Looking Glass’, Christian pilgrims have always been able to believe six or more mutually contradictory, impossible propositions every morning before breakfast. Unlike the White Queen, however, the Christians have been able to maintain such belief after breakfast as well.”
In the end, Mike is the one who is "paranoid" about atheists. In truth, all we desire is to live and let live, and not interfere in anyone else's life or domain.
I promise Pastor Mike here and now, if he and his ilk will refrain from insinuating themselves into my life and affairs - and those of my fellow unbelievers- we will refrain from doing so in his and that of his followers.
What could be simpler? But if we are to refrain, and HE and his are to allowed to do whatever...from witnessing, to putting prayer back in schools, to stopping abortion.. then conflict can be the only outcome. The days of the passive, quiet little atheist are over and done with.
Those interested in reading my latest atheist book, Dialectical Atheism, can now purchase it at lulu.com:
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/dialectical-atheism/7608047
It contains assorted altercations, debates I have been involved in - both here in the U.S. and overseas.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Are Today's College Students Too Coddled?
NOTES: From Harrison College Physics course I taught, 1987-91.
I was entertaining that question, after I found an article in one of my file boxes the other day: 'College Daze', by Charles Murray (FORBES, Sept. 1, 2008). In the article, Murray essentially argues that college-university as any kind of "apprenticeship" for adulthood is vastly overrated. Most colleges, indeed, are now more in loco parentis nanny operations, to ensure little Jill or Junior doesn't get too stressed out from overwork, and - more importantly - they have adequate social connections, support systems to keep their brains from meltdown.
A special pet peeve of Murray's is that the "demanding professor is close to being extinct". He points out the example that many tests, exams have to be given as make-ups because the little ones came down with fevers, had 104F temperatures, and were unable to leave home. (Well, in the case of an actual H1N1 epidemic I can perhaps see that, but not when it is invoked as a matter of course).
I saw this myself in my one and only brief foray into U.S. higher ed in 1992 (this was soon after returning to the U.S. from 20 years in Barbados).
While in Barbados I taught at Harrison College, a college prep and advanced level institution that also offered the equivalent of the first two years at university. Thus, it would be comparable to U.S. community colleges.
At Harrison College, I taught mainly A-level Physics. This would be comparable to university level 'General Physics' with Calculus. To give interested readers an idea, I append a sheet from my course lecture notes - this one on the discharge of a capacitor.
Homework problems were always challenging, and included a mix of questions from the textbooks used (College Physics by Zemansky and Young, A-Level Physics by T. Duncan) and my own questions. The passing mark was generally 60%, which in the Barbados system was equivalent to a D-low C. Virtually no one ever racked up an 80%, far less 90%. It simply was not on. And we didn't have little Juniors or Jills going into meltdown mode because of it.
To attain a 90%, for example, one would typically have to get 9 problems out of 10 done correctly with working shown fully. Correct answers minus the working garnered 1 out of 10 points. If that. Usually, therefore, A's were scarce, though I did allow IF a student scored at least an 80% overall in my course, he had well earned an A.
The exams and tests themselves contained no formulas, as appears to be the case in the U.S. freshman college physics' environment. The only additional information given consisted of a short table with values of assorted physical constants which might be needed.
There were also none of these idiotic student evaluation forms. This meant that grade inflation could not occur, because teachers-lecturers could not be blackmailed into going soft at the threat of receiving bad evaluations which become part of their permanent record.
When I started teaching at the local community college (at the time, in Maryland) it was a different story. At the outset I suspected something amiss, when the instructor whose physics class I was taking over (he was going on sabbatical) told me he never ever gives below a B.
First thought in my mind? WTF! How can you say in advance you will never give below a B, unless you know in advance all your students will earn B-level work? It didn't make sense. But, once I began teaching, it did.
Five days into the course (and we were still on the easiest part to do with basic thermal physics, temperatures etc.) a kid came to me after the first homework and informed me he tends to "see red" when he gets a paper back marked up in red ink. I basically told him, look kid, if your mental state is that weak - getting frazzled just at the sight of red ink (which I do need to make corrections) you had best leave this course. He left four days later.
To be fair here, the class of about 12 students consisted mostly of people 22 and older who were also part -time working folks. I had no problem with that, since I was once a working person too (teaching at a community college in Barbados) while completing my thesis for the Masters in Physics. My problems arose when assorted class members tried to use the excuse of their real world obligations to fob off their class assignments, including labs and homeworks.
As they discovered, these sort of excuses wouldn't work - I didn't care if they had to put in five ten hour overtimes in a week. If the combination of doing college physics in tandem with a full time job was too much, it was time to amscray from college and stick to work. There would be no special passes given, or any benedictions for missing assignments.
Of course, the class average began to crater, and one student even had the nerve to threaten me: "Remember there are teacher evaluations to come". I told the kid to do what he had to, but if I coughed up an A or B merely because of a threat I'd no longer be able to look myself in the mirror. And I was the person that I had to live with.
On the good side, there were a core of four students who diligently did the work, and they were rewarded for their pluck: one A and three Bs. The rest earned Cs and Ds. That was what they earned, that was what they got.
The final exam, their last shot at glory, saw the low fliers begging me to put all the equations needed on the exam question sheet. I informed them I'd do no such thing. As it was I agreed to allow for five equations, merely because their prior teacher did it. I told them all other equations - if needed- could be deduced or inferred from what were given.
The smart kids got it and did well, the losers.....errrr....low fliers, didn't. 'Nuff said.
As predicted, my student evaluations came back and were as bad as they threatened. As it turned out, it didn't matter anyway, since I'd been hired at a much better job writing technical drafts and regulatory documents for a radiotherapy software corporation. But, I realized then - as Murray did in his piece - that college teaching is for the birds. You can't teach properly if you are always under siege by students or being blackmailed into giving grades higher than merited.
Murray's other beef was with the way college students are now treated virtually like little invalids in their campus housing situations. As he notes:
"It used to be that the girls had house mothers to do bed checks and the guys might have a proctor living on the dorm corridor, and otherwise students were on their own. No longer. Colleges now have large bureaucracies of 'res life staff' charged with responding to any scrape our little darlings might suffer".
Which is true, since this is the scene as I recall it from college in the 1960s. (Loyola University in New Orleans, Biever Hall - for men, later Buddig Hall -for women). We had one dorm monitor per floor. There were no "meetings" with any dorm mates or other floor mates, because the university was wise enough to know you can't force social interaction. If other students on the same floor actually chose to become your friend, that was a different matter. The whole notion that a student required some extra (beyond room mate) assistance to get his or her bearings and stay moored, was ludicrous. If any such dorm students would have expressed yearnings like that at the time, we'd have thought them retarded.
"Wait. Are you a college student, or a kindergartner?"
One more thing. We learned much outside the classroom by the give and take of direct argument and interaction via the classic 'bull sessions'. I recall many a night staying up until well past three a.m. to debate with fellow students the ethics (or lack thereof- Does the end justify the means?) of fighting the VietNam War, and elaborate discussions to do with Platonic ethics as it relates to Church Canon law.
Today the bull session is a thing of the past, replaced by electronic mommies known as computers, which enables students to avoid direct, energizing and intellectually demanding face-offs, in favor of detached interactions in.,........Twitter, or Facebook.
At that time (60s), the whole notion of using an electronic platform as surrogate parent, or to make electronic "friends", would have aroused the utmost laughter, and contempt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)