In a recent paper ('Causality in Quantum Mechanics', Physics Letters A), David T. Pegg attempts like many others before him (e.g. Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen) to attempt to impose some faux "causality" on quantum mechanics without realizing what he is doing.
The claim is that it is "shown explicitly how the causal arrow of time that follows from quantum mechanics has already been inserted at a deeper level by the choice
of normalisation conditions".. However, there is no "causal arrow of time" that follows from QM, nor does it appear with assigned normalization conditions.
The major disagreement I have is Pegg's claim that:
"Causality results in the preparation device outcome being represented by a
positive operator with unit trace and the measurement device outcome being represented by a positive operator that is an element of a set whose elements sum to the unit operator"
However, consider the vacuum state for spontaneous inception of the cosmos, and the conditions that bear on it.
First, the entropy of the universe is now defined in terms of a "holographic principle" that reckons in the Planck length and quantum fluctuations. It is defined(Lawrence B. Crowell, Quantum Fluctations in Spacetime', p. 125):
k_B[KL_p^2/ 3)^-1 + (ln 2)/2]
Given this, and the condition of zero net mass energy, the spontaneous and acausal inception of the cosmos is actually the simplest formulation for its origin. Even the smallest fluctuation in the vacuum whereby
delta E ~ h/ delta t
leads to an instantaneous local deviation in mass-energy and the explosive origin of a cosmic expansion predicated on negative pressure. (See previous blog entry). As noted by Crowell (op. cit., p. 134):
"A net zero cosmology is the most economical one that can emerge from the vacuum state".
Even more important (ibid.):
"Since K is a measure of the number of Q-bits ....a cosmology with N x Q-bits will exhibit Poisson statistics."
As anyone who has used Poisson statistics knows, these are divergent from the semi-classical probability equations employed by Pegg(Eqns. 1- 10)
Returning to the trace, let the event horizon of the vacuum bubble be defined by
rS(g) = 2 ct
Where r ~ L_p, the Planck length (L_p = {Gh/2 pi c^3}^1/2) and S(g) is the action
then we will have the cosmological constant applicable to de Sitter space: K =
(n – 1)(n – 2)/ [2 q^2]
where q is a scale factor, and n denoted the dimension (4) of the volume under consideration.
Now for S(g) ~ t^1/2, R (the scalar curvature of de Sitter space) = 0, so S(g) = 0
However, the above happens because the Einstein tensor (T_ik) has trace = 0 in the early universe. The ‘trace’ is the sum of the diagonal elements of a tensor, e.g.
Tr(M) = 0
where M =
[1 0 0 0]
[0 -1 0 0]
[0 0 1 0 ]
[0 0 0 -1 ]
Now, if the "preparation device outcome" is none other than the net zero mass vacuum state on quantum fluctuation, such that dx ~ dL/ L (where L is the length scale of the volume, viz. dL >= (L*L_p^2)^1/2, then Tr(M) will apply to good approximation, and the causality assumption is finito. The question is WHY? A clue is provided by Seth Lloyd in his monograph 'Programming the Universe'(p. 118):
"What's going on is that quantum mechanics, unlike classical mechanics, can create information out of nothing"
Thus, what has transpired, is that the holographic fluctuation has not only incepted an inital mass-energy dE ~ H/ dt -> E/c^2 but also information! The information inception occurred acausally precisely because the Hilbert space states are different for a vacuum fluctuation than for ordinary QM.
To fix ideas, while the expectation value [E(Q,A)] of an observable represented by a bounded operator A, on separable Hilbert space H is given by:
[E(Q,A)] = tr (Q, A) where Q is a statistical operator, this presumes the ensemble representation is deterministic or 'causal' if for all g in G:
f_A(g) in S(A)
where S(A) is the spectrum of A with respect to the algebra L(H).
but the condition does not apply in the case of quantum fluctuations on L_p.
For this reason other avenues are being pursued - for example, using Riemann's Zeta function Z(E) in terms of divergent, infinite Dirichlet series that can be transformed into finite sums such as:
Z'(1/2 + iE) ~ 2 exp {- i pi N(E)} SIGMA_m=1 to (E/2 pi)^1/2 m^-1/2 cos(E lnm - pi N(e))
in conjunction with Gutzwiller's trace equation, and a more germane representation for the trace:
Tr G(E) ~ Tr G_o(E) ~ d/ dE {ln Z (E)
This quantity, for example, will replace the Tr's in Peggs equations (1)....(10) etc. and also take into account the Poisson statistical nature attached to the fluctuations, whereby:
delta N = [N]^1/2 and delta V ~ G[V]^1/2
where delta N is the flucutation of Q-bits arising, and delta V the corresponding fluctuation in volume.
But omitting all the recondite probability formulations such as Pegg presents, the most compelling argument for a self-incepted cosmos may well be evidence we already behold in the type 1a supernova data. As Crowell observes (ibid.)
"The recent discovery that the universe is accelerating outward is the latest of important results, which indicates the universe could well be a net zero (mass-energy). This then indicates that the observed universe is the result of a fluctuation in the quantum gravity vacuum"
It is important to note here that the preceding does not mean that the universe spontaneously creates mass-energy within its normal space-time. So, it does obey the first law of thermodynamics such that dU = - dW + dQ, where U, W and Q denote the internal energy, the work done on the system, and the heat absorbed by it. Assuming a closed cosmology, dE= 0. The main point here is that the universe absorbs work by virtue of the negative pressure (p = -rho) acting on it, as opposed to a positive pressure that does work. Thus, for consistency one needs:
dW = - p = rho (energy density) and dQ = rho_vac c^2.
Again, the negative energy assures us that the zero point energy of the quantum vacuum will "tunnel through" to create an unstoppable expansion on fluctuation.
The best evidence yet for an acausal cosmos and acausal origin.
More on this, as well as dismantling Pegg's other claims, in the next blog entry.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
A Foray into Quantum Logic and Acausality
It is generally widely accepted that quantum mechanics opened up an entirely new field of logic, which we know as quantum logic. Hence, new rules and postulates arose for which the logical classical definitions hitherto invoked are inadequate.
E.g.: Two statements p and q, are contrary if they cannot both hold, i.e. if:
~ (p / q)
Two statements: p, q are contradictory, if:
[p -> (q) ] , [ (~p) -> ~q]
and so on.
However, the fundaments of quantum mechanics (validated by experiment) diverge from this. Quantum mechanics can be regarded as a non-classical probability calculus resting upon a non-classical propositional logic. More specifically, in quantum mechanics each probability-bearing proposition of the form "the value of physical quantity A lies in the range B" is represented by a projection operator on a Hilbert space H.
Neumann [1932], showed that each physical system can be associated with a (separable) Hilbert space H, the unit vectors of which correspond to possible physical states of the system. Each "observable" real-valued random quantity is represented by a self-adjoint operator  on H, the spectrum of which is the set of possible values of Â. If e is a unit vector in the domain of A, representing a state, then the expected value of the observable represented by A in this state is given by the inner product . The observables represented by two operators A and B are commensurable if and only if A and B commute, i.e., AB = BA.
However, non commutation is also possible, and indeed even expected, hence the emergence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which is really a statement regarding non-commutativity. This can be expressed in quantum mechanics, using the momentum (p) and position (x) measurements via the Poisson brackets:
[x, p] = -i h/ 2 pi
where h is the Planck constant of action.
If two variables a, b commute, then one has:
[A, B] = (A*B - B*A) = 0
if not, then:
[A,B] = (A*B - B*A) = -1
and we say a and b are 'non-commuting'.
(You may observe one aspect at any one time, but not the other).
In term's of Bohr's (Complementarity) Principle, the variables x (position) and p(momentum) are regarded as "mutually interfering observables".
This is why only one can be obtained to precision, while you lose the other.
The binary{0,1}-valued observables may be regarded as encoding propositions about properties of the state of the system. Thus a self-adjoint operator P with spectrum contained in the two-point set {0,1} must be a projection; i.e., P^2 = P. Such operators are in one-to-one correspondence with the closed subspaces of H. Indeed, if P is a projection, its range is closed, and any closed subspace is the range of a unique projection. If e is any unit vector, then = ||Pe||^2 is the expected value of the corresponding observable in the state represented by e. Since this is {0,1}-valued, we can interpret this as the probability that a measurement of the observable will produce the "affirmative" answer 1. In particular, the affirmative answer will have probability 1 if and only if Pe = e; that is, e lies in the range of P
What all this means is that the “universality” of a concept is a moot issue. It has no meaning or significance in the setting of quantum mechanics and quantum logic. Since a typical closed subspace (say representing a quantum ideation in the brain – for which we already know quantum mechanics applies, cf. Stapp, ‘Mind, Matter and Quantum Mechanics’, 1993, p. 42) has infinitely many complementary closed subspaces, this lattice is not distributive.
What are we to make of this? Mainly that the empirical success of quantum mechanics calls for a revolution in logic itself. This view is associated with the demand for a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics. Now, since philosophy has not progressed to a non-distributive, non-classical form – it therefore can have squat to say about ultimate reality. It is in effect a non-player. Or perhaps more accurately, an ersatz player.
To be more specific, the formal apparatus of quantum mechanics reduces to a generalization of classical probability in which the role played by a Boolean algebra of events in the latter is taken over by the "quantum logic" of projection operators on a Hilbert space. The usual statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics demands we take this generalized quantum probability theory quite literally -- that is, not as merely a formal analogue of its classical counterpart, but as a genuine doctrine of chances.
Let me give an example of how classical logic breaks down. Take the case of a single electron fired at a two-slit screen and ending up on the other side - impinging on a 2nd screen. (Figure 1 - at top of article)
Prior to reaching the screen the electron exists in a superposition of states or "wave packets". Is this description statistical, or individual? This depends. The wave function has a clear statistical meaning when applied to a vast number of electrons. But it can also describe a single electron as well. In the example just cited, all the energy states refer to the same electron. However, if all electrons are identical, the statistical and individual descriptions coincide.
Without making this post too long, it is found (in > 90% of cases) in numerous trials that the electron goes through both slits of screen (1) at the same time to reach the final screen. Thus, one is not able to say (designating the slits in the intervening screen as A, B respectively, and C as the final screen):
If A then C
OR
If B then C
But rather BOTH A and B, then C
A decidely non-Boolean result.
The point emphasized here is that this deviation means that in specific spheres (mainly in science, specifically in modern physics) conventional logic and thinking are of little or no use. As you can see, it breaks down in this example. A number of researchers, authors, for example Hilary Putnam, have argued that the distributive law of classical logic is not universally valid. (Putnam, H.: 'Is Logic Empirical?' in Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 5, Dordrecht-Holland, 1968.
A more complex application might be to the premise or claim that "no primary cause can be physical". The trouble is, that this assumption is based on a classical system of logic that is binary and uses binary {1,0} or (yes, no) operators. Thus, since a careless person- perhaps attempting to execute a "proof" of a creator, will assert all physical entities must be caused, he will make the classical error of applying this to the cosmos' origin.
But what if instead of classical mechanics and its deterministic provisions, quantum mechanics is incorporated, say at the level of quantum gravity? Can the proposition still hold? T. Padmanabhan in his ‘Universe Before Planck Time – A Quantum Gravity Model, in Physical Review D, (Vol. 28, No. 4, p. 756) showed that it is irrelevant. As irrelevant as regarding the electrons in Fig. 1 as hard tiny "marbles".
Without going into all the complex mathematics entailed, Padmanabhan employed integrals related to the “action” (J) as a function of time. He proceeded by solving for the expansion factor S(t) using two separate energy equations, one of which (2.15 in his paper)bears a remarkable resemblance to the basic quantum wave potential equation. Moreover, his potential energy term is remarkably similar to that for the quantum harmonic oscillator - with some critical differences (substituting for the frequency f, and thence angular frequency omega = 2 pi f, a conformal quantum variable, alpha).
The most masterful section in his paper is III. ‘Geometry of the Quantum Universe’ wherein spacetime itself is taken to be in a particular quantum state U(q, t). He then assumes “stationary states” (given by the variable Q) for the early universe that are independent of time and for which all the dynamics “are contained in S(t)” (ibid., p. 28). The form of the expression for his “energy content” of the universe, E (t) also bears a remarkable structural similarity to the equation given earlier for total energy in an expanding cosmos. (Except other variables such as ‘Q’ appear)
The conformal factor Padmanabhan uses is alpha, which is a purely quantum mechanical parameter, defined from his equation (2.24):
alpha = S^ 6 (t) omega^2 (t)
thereby fixing the state of the universe to be compatible with a harmonic oscillator of frequency alpha. (Which we know has solutions in terms of Hermite polynomials H_ n(q)) To make a long story short, and leave out lots of formalism, he then considers a series of different solutions for the respective energy equations, including for an “open”, “flat” and “closed” model cosmos. It’s found all the spacetimes are non-singular (e.g don’t have an associated singularity or infinity) and start with some minimum value of expansion factor. “Classical” (non-quantum) limits are achieved by setting alpha = 0, thus S(t) = 0.
Physically, it is found that the conformal factor (alpha) contributes a negative energy density. Negative energy density may be cast in a relatively simple form of an equation of state, viz.:
w = (Pressure/ energy density) = -1
This is consistent with Einstein's general theory of relativity - which one could say approaches the status of a 'basic law of physics'. In this case, the existence of a negative pressure is consistent with general relativity's allowance for a "repulsive gravity" - since any negative pressure has associated with it gravity that repels rather than attracts. (See, e.g. 'Supernovae, Dark Energy and the Accelerating Universe', by Saul Perlmutter, in Physics Today, April, 2003, p. 53.) Of course, simple algebra applied to the above also shows that the energy density would have to be negative, e.g. energy density = - (pressure).
The point is, the metric and treatment is feasible since non-trivial and matterless solutions exist. Thus, the cosmos can be incepted and proceed to expand because of the negative-energy density of the conformal factor.
It is also this basis that provides the dynamic scaffolding for the instantaneous formation of the universe by a possible quantum fluctuation that arises when a particular threshold is crossed near alpha = 0 (from quantum to classical domains) As Padmanbhan shows in his paper, such a cosmos from “nothing” is perfectly justified in the context of the model, and follows from the basis of the equations, the light cone, scale factor restrictions and so on.
This means the limits at spontaneous inception must definitely be for acausal determinism and quantum cosmology, NOT classical – including classical causality.
What Padmanabhan has accomplished, in a way, is using quantum logic under very specific conditions (defined by his conformal variable, alpha) and subject to rigorous mathematical analysis, to establish that a physical entity (cosmos) can arise "uncaused" in the normative, classical logical sense. By "uncaused", of course, I mean in the same context (roughly) as pair production incepted by an energy variation, subject to the energy-time uncertainty relation.
Thus, given a primordial vacuum state, with conformal quantum variable alpha, one can have an "explosion" arising from the negative energy density and inception of the universe.
Is it possible or feasible to prove Padmanabhan wrong in his context, and in a general way show quantum logic is subsumed by classical? (And hence that a spontaneously incepted cosmos is nonsense?) Sure, just crank your brain up and demonstrate for us that any non-Boolean, non-distributive – ortho-complementary lattice can be transferred into a Boolean (e.g. binary {1,0}) and distributive one.
Good luck on that, you'll need it!
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
The Idiocy of Atheism - by Pastor Mike
Okay, it seems my Pastor bro insists that I have "reneged" on my word - to post his blog response, if for some reason he encounters technical difficulties. Not to be one to break my word, I hereby post his response here in full - as he sent it in email. I will, however, NOT be responding to it. If anyone wishes to - they can.
Addendum (9-10-09)
As I have awarded Pastor Mike prime blog space, not just ordinary comment real estate, I have decided to annotate his piece with appropriate footnotes, where I deem appropriate. These are intended mainly as clarification, or corrections, if I feel some openly misleading remark or reference has been made, and it has no sources to back it up. All footnotes so added will be denoted so (1) in bold, and the note will follow closely after the text. No other editing will be done, whether correcting errors in spelling, grammar or syntax. The piece rests exactly as it was sent to me.
The idiocy of atheism :
First of all , Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. Atheists tend to put a lot of stock in the emperical method (1) and in logic. One cannot disprove God exists using the emperical method.
(1) Actually, the empirical method is a part of the inductive method which is used in science, not by atheists per se. The atheist simply adopts the inductive methods used by science and lets science take the lead. "Empirical method" merely means one aspect of doing science, for which direct experiments can be performed and data obtained. The data must still be shown to exhibit correlations, or some other concrete or statistical relationship. After that, quantitative models are derived and these led to the formal statement of a hypothesis.
Needless to say, no sane atheist asserts this direct experimentation method can be used to "disprove God" since the entity being alleged is non-physical, and hence not subject to empirical measurements, such as recording its density, volume or temperature. In addition, no sane atheist ever sets out to "disprove" God because as I have noted many times before that amounts to proving a negative. A logical impossibility.
You might reply: But I can't disprove a giant purple frog on Mars controls the universe, either. Granted, one can never disprove any given thing exists. The atheistic position denying God's existence, if based on the emperical method, is absurd. (2)
(2) Again, it is Mike rendering the absurdity not the atheist. The atheist never asserts what Mike claims we do. We do not say we can "disprove" an existent because that is proving a negative, whether giant purple frog on Mars or God or demons. Thus, Mike puts words and claims into our mouths and ends up with his absurdities.
Why do I say that ? In order to prove the assertion No God exists experimentally, one would need to comprehensively know all of reality. Comprehensive knowledge of reality is called omniscience. One would need to be omniscient in order to prove there is no God, but if one were omniscient one would, by definition, already be God! So, based on emperical methodology, the only one capable of disproving the existence of God would be God himself ! (3)
(3) Mike confuses and conflates many things here with predictable results. Again, since the postulated entity 'God' is deemed supernatural or non-physical then no sane scientist or atheist would ever presume to prove it exists. (Any more than a giant twenty- dimensional invisible turkey in Mike's living room). Thus, no atheist claims comprehensive knowledge of anything. All the atheist asserts is that, since the entity as posited has never clearly manifested itself, the probability of its existence is vanishingly low. And once again, NO atheist makes the claim he can "disprove the existence" of God because that is proving a negative.
But some would say you can indeed assert something does not exist if its existence is logically self contradictory, such as a square triangle. By definition it cannot exist. It is illogical for something to be a square and to also be a triangle. Again, granted, but this line of reasoning assumes logic and real meaning exist and are our basis for knowledge --something an atheist has no right to assert ! The existence of God is not only logically possible, it is philosophically essential (4)
(4) Mike treads on dangerous ground here again, mixing himself up even more than readers. His use of analogy is also false. For example, in the field of algebraic homology, three-dimensional tetradehedra can be resolved into triangles which in turn can be reduced to measures called complexes and simplexes, some of which have square sides. (Which are then divided - see also my blog entry on algebraic homology). The problem for Mike is that his purview is so limited it is impossible for him to perceive there might be existents outside his limited frame of knowledge.
He also avers the existence of God to be "logically possible" but makes no effort to show it. When he states it is "logically essential" he is then bound to provide its ontological basis in terms of the necessary and sufficient conditions for it to exist - but he punts. He avoids doing it. Clearly he is unable to distinguish what is logically possible from what is logically essential.
(I'll get to that more later below.) One cannot prove logic exists (5) unless one first presupposes a God in whom reason and meaning are transcendentally rooted, otherwise these categories are mere philosphical prejuduces. Atheism is inherently self-contradictory.
(5) Again, he puts his cart before his horses. He maintains that no logic or reason can exist without God, yet he offers no necessary or sufficient conditions for it to exist. We are just to take his word. The only thing contradictory in the above passage is Mike's own thinking. He denies the very process (logic) that can scrutinize his imaginary being and expose its logical irregularities. He does this on the basis that the imaginary being must exist before logic can be applied, since logic is the source of the imaginary being. This, of course, commits the post hoc propter hoc logical fallacy. It's like saying I cannot use algebra to solve a complex compound interest problem until I first identify the Twelve-dimensional flying spaghetti monster - on whom all algebra depends.
The evidence for the existence of God is there for all to see, only we refuse to see it. (6) King David wrote: "The fool says in his heart there is no God. " (Psalm 14:1) In other words, Atheism is irrational. Apart from God there is no basis for truth or ethics. Now , I concede ,
(6) The Pastor is clearly in love with tossing around the term "evidence" but he never ever provides it. The 'fool hath said' dealie gets trite after a time. Mike seems to believe it qualifies as some kind of cogent argument, but in the end it marks the logical violation we call "appeal to authority".
Beyond dispute there are moral atheists. I sincerely believe that you , Phil are a very moral person - as I've mentioned in prior posts . I've also known atheists / agnostics who are more ethical than some people claiming to believe in a god. This is not the issue. The question is, why be ethical ? Can an adequate basis for morality be found given atheistic premises ? Think about it. Unless God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right and wrong.(7) If God did not give the Ten Commandments to Moses at Sinai, thereby establishing a moral standard above human creation, we are merely left with humanly devised scruples.
(7) This is baseless presupposition. And, in fact, can easily be shown to be false. As Kai Neilsson has asked in his book Ethics Without God: "Is an act good because God did it, or is it good independent of such action?"
For a genuine ethical basis, any human action must be totally independent of whether a god did it (in scriptures) or ordains it. It must be good on its own merits.
A first test, as Neilsson observes, is ethical choice predicated on a humane standard. Consider: if a human parent knows his child is trapped in a burning house, s/he will try to save it however s/he can. There is no way the human parent will simply walk out and allow 'fate' or "free will" of the child to make the decision. If the human parent has an ounce of common decency s/he must intervene.
Now, consider an analogous event, the case in 1994 when eight small girls fled into a church to escape a tornado in southern Alabama. They furiously prayed for deliverance, but the twister struck the church (God's alleged 'home') and killed all eight. Being omnipotent, God also had the power to deflect said twister and let it tear up some nearby forest or woodsheds- as opposed to its church with people inside.
Did it? No it did not! It permitted the tornado to demolish the Church and many of those children within it. All innocents. All dead. Those who would defend such a deity - but who would hold a human parent accountable for negligence or manslaughter by allowing their child to perish in a house fire (when the child coujld be saved) - disclose inchoate ethics. To wit, demanding a vastly lower ethical standard of behavior for their deity than for fellow humans.
Those who beg the question with theo-babble ("we cannot fathom the ways or mind of God") are no better, and do no better. In many ways, they're worse, because they lack even the courage to face their own logic.
Thus it follows, even from the most generic examples (presupposing a supernatural, omnipotent force) that human ethics trumps divine ethics on its face. If it does so, then it must also trump any and all human extensions of divine ethics. Whether in the ten commandments, canon law or wherever.
Hence, it follows that human ethics and ethical standards can exist independently of invoking any divine or religious fluff, affiliations or baggage.
If humanity is left to create its own ethical standards, we are left with only three options to base ethics upon: 1) collective tradition, 2) human survival, or 3) personal preference.
Those who argue that morality is properly based upon what society as a whole deems moral have a big problem. What one society says is moral another says is immoral. Nazi Germany held that it was morally good and beneficial to exterminate the Jewish people. The Allies saw the Nazis as evil and fought against them. Who was right ? If one believes God gave the law You shall not kill (murder), the answer is obvious.
Any society that advocates murder is evil. How can an atheist respond ? Most would admit the Nazis were evil, but according to what standard ? Were the Nazis evil just because the Allies said they were evil or were they in fact evil ?(8)
(8) Mike bites off way more than he can chew here and introduces historically misleading statements, and inaccuraces. In fact, the Nazis and Hitler - were CHRISTIANS! In Hitler's own book, Mein Kampf, for example, he writes that "FAITH is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude."(Source: Mein Kamp, Houghton Mifflin, 1943, p. 267)
Hitler even went further, arguing that any attack against religion "strongly resembles the struggle against the legal foundations of the state" and "end in worthless nihilism". In other words, he argued that to attack religion was to attack the state. No surprise then that on acceding to the Chancellorship, one of Hitler's first tasks was to round up all atheists and communists and dispatch them to concentration camps (Source: 'Hitler Nemesis', 2002, by Ian Kershaw, p. xxiv)
Hitler's most famous statement to do with his allegiance to religion was made in his Reichstag speech of 1938 in which he declared: " I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." (Source: 'The Hitler State: The Foundation and Development of the Internal Structure of the Third Reich', 1981, by Martin Broszat)
As for the Third Reich itself, its very workers' platform principle declares it to stand "for Positive Christianity". (Source: Brosazt, op. cit.)
So, if Mike wants to blame the Nazis and their heinous deeds on anyone, he needs to look at Christians. And also how Christian morality - NOT atheism - supported their horrific planks, and laws.
One can try to argue that it isn't just what a few societies say that matters, but what the majority of human societies agree upon. This does provide a better basis, since God has given us a conscience, but it has been corrupted by rebellion.
At one time most human societies placed less value on female offspring than on males. In many societies female infants were left to die. In some places this exists today. This is morally wrong, no matter if the whole of human society were to say otherwise ! Basing morality on human society does not provide an adequate answer.
What of an evolutionary model for morality ? Why not posit that whatever benefits human survival is moral ? To some this may be appealing, but first ask some questions. Why, based upon atheistic assumptions, should we logically value human survival ? What difference does it all make ? Why is life valuable ? Isn't belief in human survival itself a moral assumption, a value judgement that has no basis in an atheistic world view ?
Furthermore, consider what an ethic based solely on survival could lead to: the elimination of those perceived to have less survival value. The Nazi movement, based upon an evolutionary eugenic ideal of developing a super race, destroyed those deemed by them inferior or unsuitable.(9) Reproduction was to be limited to those deemed most fit. Mankind, when left to its own devices to develop its moral basis, commits systemized murder and oppression.
(9) Again, Mike confuses issues. Life can be asserted as valuable simply because sentient or conscious life is rare in the universe. After all, only the Earth is known to harbor it. Thus, a first secular ethical stance seeks to value life - not because a god says so, but because sentient life appears rare in the cosmos. Again, the Nazi state and its structure were founded on "positive Christian" principles and ideals. (See sources identified in (8)) The aim of developing an Aryan race was actually motivated by the desire to field a super-Christian, militant population that in future would never succumb to communism, or atheism. This theme and thread actually went back more than 500 years and was called the "People's Movement" or Volkische movement. By this movement Jews had been mistreated and abused for centuries, including during the infamous Passion Play at Oberammagau where Jews had been depicted for centuries as "Christ Killers".
Consider the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the horrible situations we have witnessed in Rwanda and Bosnia. Both atheists and "religious" people so easily justify murder. Just because we have also seen horrors committed by those claiming to believe in some sort of god doesn't disprove my point. I'm not advocating just any old god ! It is still true that when any society abandons the God-given law, You shall not murder, horror results. (10)(10)
(10) Of course, Mike conveniently leaves out all the murders committed in so called "just wars". Or, is he against war? If not, then he is hypocritical. Certain murders are okay with him, as along as they are against the right enemies! (Like Hitler sending his SA and SS to slaughter atheists and communists)
What of basing morality on one's personal preferences ? What of just saying you can know what is wrong by following your heart ? What a dippy idea this is ! Jeffrey Dahmer's heart led him to murder and cannibalize his fellow humans ! (11)Basing morality on feelings is the ultimate in irrationality. This puts moral judgement on the level of personal taste. Dahmer might have thought you suitable to his taste !
(11) Again, the Pastor lets his wild emotions take him over the cliff. Dahmer was diagnosed as having schizophrenia, as well psychosis. He often experienced violent headaches as well as hallucinations of demons chasing him. Dahmer is the perfect example of what former Franciscan priest Emmet Mcloughlin referred to in his essay 'Let the Statistics Tell Their Tragic Story' noting how religiously implanted threats (e.g. of Hell and Satan) and their reinforcement could trigger psychosis.
The point is that Dahmer was in no mental condition to "follow his heart" or his mind in making judicious moral decisions. So to set up Dahmer as a moral case or example is nothing short of idiotic.
I've met many atheists who are judgmental of "religious" people who have committed great atrocities, but upon what basis ? Does this make any sense ? Atheistic assumptions irresistibly lead to the conclusion that morality is nothing more than a matter of personal or societal preference. (12) Based upon an atheistic philosophy, the very appropriate disdain for the despicable murderers of humanity makes about as much sense as a dog lover's disdain of those who prefer cats ! How silly.
(12) Again, atheist morality is not based on personal preference at all, but on existing norms of self-interest and general welfare which require no overt god or religious intervention. In terms of said "baggage", what the religionists have done is to take the pragmatic and natural code of (humane) 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".
Ethics without god then, is ethics elevated to its highest consistent standards without the need for baffling with bullshit.
A very good article for the basis of a godless morality:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/human/morality.htm
Unless there is a moral standard beyond individual or societal preference, there is no logical basis for condemning atrocity. I challenge any atheist to give me a basis for ethics beyond mere personal preference, social custom, or survival. You simply cannot do it ! (13)
(13) Anyone can check out for themselves the above link, or Kai Neilsson's book, Ethics Without God to show how easily Mike is proven wrong.
Post-modern philosophers have come to the conclusion that there is no hope of finding morality or meaning based on materialistic presuppositions. They are quite right. It is a good thing that many atheists are too decent and too inconsistent to live out the irresistible moral conclusions of their philosophy !
Another thought: we even transgress the scruples we ourselves invent. Is this logical ? No, but this is consistent with the Biblical view of mankind, which says we are by our nature law-breakers and rebels who don't want to believe in the true God. (14a) Thank God there is an amnesty program for rebels and atheists ! (More on that later.)
Paul, wrote in Romans 1:18-22 , " For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousnes ; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, "
God's existence is clearly seen in what He has made. The intricate brilliance of the created order reveals the mind of an infinitely intelligent Designer just as surely as a great work of architecture or a complex piece of technology reveals the mind of its designer.(14b) Furthermore, our own consciences and sense of justice, though corrupted by our rebellion, still tell us there is right and wrong and a God who has a perfect moral standard.
(14a) The very notion of 'natural lawbreakers' is moronic and self-defeating, since by accepting it one essentially undermines and invalidates ALL standards of law, and the recongition of true moral behavior. It means, basically, we are already guilty just by virtue of being born into the world - and we haven't even emitted a first loud squall yet! What nonsense is this? Of course, Mike then ties it to unbelief, so that the natural lawbreaker can never escape his morass unless he professes belief somewhere along the line. The right and ability to question divine fiat, or what fundies like Mike take as such, is not to be questioned. This is ludicrous!
(14b) Mike imputes "design" but gives no evidentiary basis for it. Where? In the confines of the limited world we inhabit? The universe occupies more than this tiny world. The Earth is not even a microscopic part of the Milky Way galaxy, far less cosmos! At the large scale more than 73% of the universe is dark energy, and another 22% dark matter. Neither can be accessed for order. There is simply no major scope for "design" to emerge in the (mostly) dark cosmos. One cannot take one corner and look at it, and then say the whole cosmos is "designed". That is illogical. It is like me getting my wife to look at one corner of our kitchen floor and saying - "See, the floor's clean!' - when the other 99% is filthy.
The truth is, if you are an atheist, it is not because it makes sense, it is because you don't want to face up to the fact that there is a God out there to whom you are accountable. You don't like God and are trying to hide from Him.(15)
(15) Here Mike is interjecting his own emotions into what atheists think or feel. In fact, atheists feel neither positive or negative about God. No more than the Easter Bunny. People may claim both exist, but never show any evience beyond their same old tired rhetoric. Yawn.
But you don't have to feel this way . How do we know God exists ? Unless we begin with the assumption that he does, we can't know anything else exists ! Unless we presuppose that God created us with the ability to know things through sensory experience and reason, we have no philosophical basis for trusting either. Philosophically speaking, unless we know a wise God gave us our senses, how can we know everything isn't an illusion? (16)
(16) Distracting non sequitur. Since we can detect most aspects of reality without the use of our senses. Fortunately modern physics observations don't depend on human sense perceptions- but rather on highly refined inanimate detectors that have been put through rigorous QA checks, and cross-confirmations via independent experiments. Also, eigenvalues or whatever, can be used in sub-experiments to generate REAL outcomes. If the detector signals were spurious( or "unreal") or "illusions", in other words, no real outcomes (say a particular polarization of an electro-magnetic wave) would be possible.
For example, mathematically, we employ what are called 'Stokes parameters' to check on this. These are particularly important in a field like radio astronomy. If they were delusions or out of touch with reality - we'd not have the refined radio observation maps we do - say of the quasar, C-273.
In optical astronomy, ditto. No actual human eyes ever observe cosmic phenomena any more. We use spectro-photometers and special automated cameras (with computer controlled color-correcting filters) to obtain photographs of galaxies, planets, comets etc.
In like manner, if these optical mechanisms didn't work - neither would our celestial mechanics. But I can use the Keplerian equations, e.g. for the eccentric anomaly ( E = M + e sin (M) ) and others (radius vector, true anomaly etc.) to exactly determine the future position of any planet. Using such equations tonight I can know exactly where Jupiter will be (right ascension, declination) on Aug. 23, 2054.
Just as my celestial mechanics computations - which I did on May 1, 1970, showed where Venus would be exactly on June 30, 1985. (Less than 0.0000001 arcsec difference - most of that due to using a hand calculator rather than computer).
Hence, my point: arguing over sensory perceptions as influencing what we can know of reality is gibberish. Arguing that we may be basing data on illusions is even more off the beam. Once that (predicted) planet shows up in my telescope at exactly the position forecast to be, all bets of "influence" or "in your head" are off. Vamanos!
Perhaps the most airtight evidence that our perceptions aren't being perverted is in nuclear energy: fusion and fission. The A-bomb and H-bomb remain the best manifestations yet that Einstein's E = mc^2 wasn't merely a mental abstraction. It had unmistakable consequences in the real world - e.g. the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- not open to interpretation! Bottom line: If Mike insists we can't be sure anything is an 'illusion', then we can't be sure Mike is also not just an illusion. And the noise and symbols appearing (apparently) from him may just as well be echoes from the ether.
As for reason, we can't prove the validity of reason without using reason ! We must assume what we are trying to prove in order to prove it. All human reasoning is circular (17) , but when we leave God out of the circle we are left like a dog chasing its tail without any hope of catching it ! Without beginning with the philosophical presupposition that a God who has spoken to mankind exists, we are doomed to reason in circles with no way of knowing how to discern truth.
(17) Actually, only Mike's reasoning is circular, as he shows here. But what can anyone expect when he attempts to posit Jeffrey Dahmer as a source of some self-styled morality of the "heart" or tries to connect the Nazis and their 3rd Reich to atheists when they were mostly Christian.
As for positive proof, there is the communication of God to mankind. Moses received the Law at Sinai. This was attested by great miracles witnessed by millions. The Hebrew prophets foretold the rise and fall of nations and spoke of the coming of a Messiah. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Bible ( Isaiah 53, Micah 5:1, Jeremiah 31:31-34 ) . His resurrection is historically documented, having been witnessed by the early Messianic Jewish believers who recorded their testimonies and were willing to die for what they knew to be true.(18)
(18) None of this is true. Mike plays with facts and history. John Dominic Crossan, Bart Ehrman (a former fundamentalist) in his book, 'Misquoting Jesus' as well as Hugh Schonfeld ('The Passover Plot') have all shown that the testimonies can't be trusted and there are other more natural explanations. As one put it (Schonfeld): "That a man presumed dead for three days could get up and walk from his grave shows he was never dead in the first place."
The logical violation committed here is ignotum per ignotius, or opting for the least well understood explanation over the less well understood one.
But remember , if you persist in your atheism, one day you will stand before God and you will have no doubt in your mind concerning His existence , " Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. " ( Philippians 2:9-11 ) . His awesome reality will be undeniable to you, even though you STILL won't want to believe it !
Frankly, atheism is boring, but knowing, enjoying, and serving God gives life purpose and excitement. I continue to pray you will one day find that out - before it's TOO LATE !!(19)As I mentioned in my last blog , ETERNITY IS A LONG TIME TO BE WRONG !! ( END OF MY E-MAIL ) :
(19) Amazing how much energy this guy consumes in writing his responses given he claims atheism is "boring". And....Ah yes, when all else fails to convince, trot out the threats. Believe now or else! You will burn! This gets old really fast, and you'd think bible punchers like my bro would come up with something better, but they never do. In the end this is all they have left in their kit bag: threats to beat us over the head with. All of which discloses their ultimate failure in the realm of reason. It is also a tacit recognition of the fraudulent nature of their arguments, and their transparency. Since, IF the arguments were truly cogent and convincing, they'd not have to resort to base threats of damnation.
The only one truly "boring" individual on this blog is Pastor Mike.
Addendum (9-10-09)
As I have awarded Pastor Mike prime blog space, not just ordinary comment real estate, I have decided to annotate his piece with appropriate footnotes, where I deem appropriate. These are intended mainly as clarification, or corrections, if I feel some openly misleading remark or reference has been made, and it has no sources to back it up. All footnotes so added will be denoted so (1) in bold, and the note will follow closely after the text. No other editing will be done, whether correcting errors in spelling, grammar or syntax. The piece rests exactly as it was sent to me.
The idiocy of atheism :
First of all , Atheism tends to exalt reason, but it is actually irrational. Atheists tend to put a lot of stock in the emperical method (1) and in logic. One cannot disprove God exists using the emperical method.
(1) Actually, the empirical method is a part of the inductive method which is used in science, not by atheists per se. The atheist simply adopts the inductive methods used by science and lets science take the lead. "Empirical method" merely means one aspect of doing science, for which direct experiments can be performed and data obtained. The data must still be shown to exhibit correlations, or some other concrete or statistical relationship. After that, quantitative models are derived and these led to the formal statement of a hypothesis.
Needless to say, no sane atheist asserts this direct experimentation method can be used to "disprove God" since the entity being alleged is non-physical, and hence not subject to empirical measurements, such as recording its density, volume or temperature. In addition, no sane atheist ever sets out to "disprove" God because as I have noted many times before that amounts to proving a negative. A logical impossibility.
You might reply: But I can't disprove a giant purple frog on Mars controls the universe, either. Granted, one can never disprove any given thing exists. The atheistic position denying God's existence, if based on the emperical method, is absurd. (2)
(2) Again, it is Mike rendering the absurdity not the atheist. The atheist never asserts what Mike claims we do. We do not say we can "disprove" an existent because that is proving a negative, whether giant purple frog on Mars or God or demons. Thus, Mike puts words and claims into our mouths and ends up with his absurdities.
Why do I say that ? In order to prove the assertion No God exists experimentally, one would need to comprehensively know all of reality. Comprehensive knowledge of reality is called omniscience. One would need to be omniscient in order to prove there is no God, but if one were omniscient one would, by definition, already be God! So, based on emperical methodology, the only one capable of disproving the existence of God would be God himself ! (3)
(3) Mike confuses and conflates many things here with predictable results. Again, since the postulated entity 'God' is deemed supernatural or non-physical then no sane scientist or atheist would ever presume to prove it exists. (Any more than a giant twenty- dimensional invisible turkey in Mike's living room). Thus, no atheist claims comprehensive knowledge of anything. All the atheist asserts is that, since the entity as posited has never clearly manifested itself, the probability of its existence is vanishingly low. And once again, NO atheist makes the claim he can "disprove the existence" of God because that is proving a negative.
But some would say you can indeed assert something does not exist if its existence is logically self contradictory, such as a square triangle. By definition it cannot exist. It is illogical for something to be a square and to also be a triangle. Again, granted, but this line of reasoning assumes logic and real meaning exist and are our basis for knowledge --something an atheist has no right to assert ! The existence of God is not only logically possible, it is philosophically essential (4)
(4) Mike treads on dangerous ground here again, mixing himself up even more than readers. His use of analogy is also false. For example, in the field of algebraic homology, three-dimensional tetradehedra can be resolved into triangles which in turn can be reduced to measures called complexes and simplexes, some of which have square sides. (Which are then divided - see also my blog entry on algebraic homology). The problem for Mike is that his purview is so limited it is impossible for him to perceive there might be existents outside his limited frame of knowledge.
He also avers the existence of God to be "logically possible" but makes no effort to show it. When he states it is "logically essential" he is then bound to provide its ontological basis in terms of the necessary and sufficient conditions for it to exist - but he punts. He avoids doing it. Clearly he is unable to distinguish what is logically possible from what is logically essential.
(I'll get to that more later below.) One cannot prove logic exists (5) unless one first presupposes a God in whom reason and meaning are transcendentally rooted, otherwise these categories are mere philosphical prejuduces. Atheism is inherently self-contradictory.
(5) Again, he puts his cart before his horses. He maintains that no logic or reason can exist without God, yet he offers no necessary or sufficient conditions for it to exist. We are just to take his word. The only thing contradictory in the above passage is Mike's own thinking. He denies the very process (logic) that can scrutinize his imaginary being and expose its logical irregularities. He does this on the basis that the imaginary being must exist before logic can be applied, since logic is the source of the imaginary being. This, of course, commits the post hoc propter hoc logical fallacy. It's like saying I cannot use algebra to solve a complex compound interest problem until I first identify the Twelve-dimensional flying spaghetti monster - on whom all algebra depends.
The evidence for the existence of God is there for all to see, only we refuse to see it. (6) King David wrote: "The fool says in his heart there is no God. " (Psalm 14:1) In other words, Atheism is irrational. Apart from God there is no basis for truth or ethics. Now , I concede ,
(6) The Pastor is clearly in love with tossing around the term "evidence" but he never ever provides it. The 'fool hath said' dealie gets trite after a time. Mike seems to believe it qualifies as some kind of cogent argument, but in the end it marks the logical violation we call "appeal to authority".
Beyond dispute there are moral atheists. I sincerely believe that you , Phil are a very moral person - as I've mentioned in prior posts . I've also known atheists / agnostics who are more ethical than some people claiming to believe in a god. This is not the issue. The question is, why be ethical ? Can an adequate basis for morality be found given atheistic premises ? Think about it. Unless God exists, there is no eternal and transcendent standard for right and wrong.(7) If God did not give the Ten Commandments to Moses at Sinai, thereby establishing a moral standard above human creation, we are merely left with humanly devised scruples.
(7) This is baseless presupposition. And, in fact, can easily be shown to be false. As Kai Neilsson has asked in his book Ethics Without God: "Is an act good because God did it, or is it good independent of such action?"
For a genuine ethical basis, any human action must be totally independent of whether a god did it (in scriptures) or ordains it. It must be good on its own merits.
A first test, as Neilsson observes, is ethical choice predicated on a humane standard. Consider: if a human parent knows his child is trapped in a burning house, s/he will try to save it however s/he can. There is no way the human parent will simply walk out and allow 'fate' or "free will" of the child to make the decision. If the human parent has an ounce of common decency s/he must intervene.
Now, consider an analogous event, the case in 1994 when eight small girls fled into a church to escape a tornado in southern Alabama. They furiously prayed for deliverance, but the twister struck the church (God's alleged 'home') and killed all eight. Being omnipotent, God also had the power to deflect said twister and let it tear up some nearby forest or woodsheds- as opposed to its church with people inside.
Did it? No it did not! It permitted the tornado to demolish the Church and many of those children within it. All innocents. All dead. Those who would defend such a deity - but who would hold a human parent accountable for negligence or manslaughter by allowing their child to perish in a house fire (when the child coujld be saved) - disclose inchoate ethics. To wit, demanding a vastly lower ethical standard of behavior for their deity than for fellow humans.
Those who beg the question with theo-babble ("we cannot fathom the ways or mind of God") are no better, and do no better. In many ways, they're worse, because they lack even the courage to face their own logic.
Thus it follows, even from the most generic examples (presupposing a supernatural, omnipotent force) that human ethics trumps divine ethics on its face. If it does so, then it must also trump any and all human extensions of divine ethics. Whether in the ten commandments, canon law or wherever.
Hence, it follows that human ethics and ethical standards can exist independently of invoking any divine or religious fluff, affiliations or baggage.
If humanity is left to create its own ethical standards, we are left with only three options to base ethics upon: 1) collective tradition, 2) human survival, or 3) personal preference.
Those who argue that morality is properly based upon what society as a whole deems moral have a big problem. What one society says is moral another says is immoral. Nazi Germany held that it was morally good and beneficial to exterminate the Jewish people. The Allies saw the Nazis as evil and fought against them. Who was right ? If one believes God gave the law You shall not kill (murder), the answer is obvious.
Any society that advocates murder is evil. How can an atheist respond ? Most would admit the Nazis were evil, but according to what standard ? Were the Nazis evil just because the Allies said they were evil or were they in fact evil ?(8)
(8) Mike bites off way more than he can chew here and introduces historically misleading statements, and inaccuraces. In fact, the Nazis and Hitler - were CHRISTIANS! In Hitler's own book, Mein Kampf, for example, he writes that "FAITH is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude."(Source: Mein Kamp, Houghton Mifflin, 1943, p. 267)
Hitler even went further, arguing that any attack against religion "strongly resembles the struggle against the legal foundations of the state" and "end in worthless nihilism". In other words, he argued that to attack religion was to attack the state. No surprise then that on acceding to the Chancellorship, one of Hitler's first tasks was to round up all atheists and communists and dispatch them to concentration camps (Source: 'Hitler Nemesis', 2002, by Ian Kershaw, p. xxiv)
Hitler's most famous statement to do with his allegiance to religion was made in his Reichstag speech of 1938 in which he declared: " I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's work." (Source: 'The Hitler State: The Foundation and Development of the Internal Structure of the Third Reich', 1981, by Martin Broszat)
As for the Third Reich itself, its very workers' platform principle declares it to stand "for Positive Christianity". (Source: Brosazt, op. cit.)
So, if Mike wants to blame the Nazis and their heinous deeds on anyone, he needs to look at Christians. And also how Christian morality - NOT atheism - supported their horrific planks, and laws.
One can try to argue that it isn't just what a few societies say that matters, but what the majority of human societies agree upon. This does provide a better basis, since God has given us a conscience, but it has been corrupted by rebellion.
At one time most human societies placed less value on female offspring than on males. In many societies female infants were left to die. In some places this exists today. This is morally wrong, no matter if the whole of human society were to say otherwise ! Basing morality on human society does not provide an adequate answer.
What of an evolutionary model for morality ? Why not posit that whatever benefits human survival is moral ? To some this may be appealing, but first ask some questions. Why, based upon atheistic assumptions, should we logically value human survival ? What difference does it all make ? Why is life valuable ? Isn't belief in human survival itself a moral assumption, a value judgement that has no basis in an atheistic world view ?
Furthermore, consider what an ethic based solely on survival could lead to: the elimination of those perceived to have less survival value. The Nazi movement, based upon an evolutionary eugenic ideal of developing a super race, destroyed those deemed by them inferior or unsuitable.(9) Reproduction was to be limited to those deemed most fit. Mankind, when left to its own devices to develop its moral basis, commits systemized murder and oppression.
(9) Again, Mike confuses issues. Life can be asserted as valuable simply because sentient or conscious life is rare in the universe. After all, only the Earth is known to harbor it. Thus, a first secular ethical stance seeks to value life - not because a god says so, but because sentient life appears rare in the cosmos. Again, the Nazi state and its structure were founded on "positive Christian" principles and ideals. (See sources identified in (8)) The aim of developing an Aryan race was actually motivated by the desire to field a super-Christian, militant population that in future would never succumb to communism, or atheism. This theme and thread actually went back more than 500 years and was called the "People's Movement" or Volkische movement. By this movement Jews had been mistreated and abused for centuries, including during the infamous Passion Play at Oberammagau where Jews had been depicted for centuries as "Christ Killers".
Consider the atrocities of Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and the horrible situations we have witnessed in Rwanda and Bosnia. Both atheists and "religious" people so easily justify murder. Just because we have also seen horrors committed by those claiming to believe in some sort of god doesn't disprove my point. I'm not advocating just any old god ! It is still true that when any society abandons the God-given law, You shall not murder, horror results. (10)(10)
(10) Of course, Mike conveniently leaves out all the murders committed in so called "just wars". Or, is he against war? If not, then he is hypocritical. Certain murders are okay with him, as along as they are against the right enemies! (Like Hitler sending his SA and SS to slaughter atheists and communists)
What of basing morality on one's personal preferences ? What of just saying you can know what is wrong by following your heart ? What a dippy idea this is ! Jeffrey Dahmer's heart led him to murder and cannibalize his fellow humans ! (11)Basing morality on feelings is the ultimate in irrationality. This puts moral judgement on the level of personal taste. Dahmer might have thought you suitable to his taste !
(11) Again, the Pastor lets his wild emotions take him over the cliff. Dahmer was diagnosed as having schizophrenia, as well psychosis. He often experienced violent headaches as well as hallucinations of demons chasing him. Dahmer is the perfect example of what former Franciscan priest Emmet Mcloughlin referred to in his essay 'Let the Statistics Tell Their Tragic Story' noting how religiously implanted threats (e.g. of Hell and Satan) and their reinforcement could trigger psychosis.
The point is that Dahmer was in no mental condition to "follow his heart" or his mind in making judicious moral decisions. So to set up Dahmer as a moral case or example is nothing short of idiotic.
I've met many atheists who are judgmental of "religious" people who have committed great atrocities, but upon what basis ? Does this make any sense ? Atheistic assumptions irresistibly lead to the conclusion that morality is nothing more than a matter of personal or societal preference. (12) Based upon an atheistic philosophy, the very appropriate disdain for the despicable murderers of humanity makes about as much sense as a dog lover's disdain of those who prefer cats ! How silly.
(12) Again, atheist morality is not based on personal preference at all, but on existing norms of self-interest and general welfare which require no overt god or religious intervention. In terms of said "baggage", what the religionists have done is to take the pragmatic and natural code of (humane) 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".
Ethics without god then, is ethics elevated to its highest consistent standards without the need for baffling with bullshit.
A very good article for the basis of a godless morality:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/human/morality.htm
Unless there is a moral standard beyond individual or societal preference, there is no logical basis for condemning atrocity. I challenge any atheist to give me a basis for ethics beyond mere personal preference, social custom, or survival. You simply cannot do it ! (13)
(13) Anyone can check out for themselves the above link, or Kai Neilsson's book, Ethics Without God to show how easily Mike is proven wrong.
Post-modern philosophers have come to the conclusion that there is no hope of finding morality or meaning based on materialistic presuppositions. They are quite right. It is a good thing that many atheists are too decent and too inconsistent to live out the irresistible moral conclusions of their philosophy !
Another thought: we even transgress the scruples we ourselves invent. Is this logical ? No, but this is consistent with the Biblical view of mankind, which says we are by our nature law-breakers and rebels who don't want to believe in the true God. (14a) Thank God there is an amnesty program for rebels and atheists ! (More on that later.)
Paul, wrote in Romans 1:18-22 , " For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousnes ; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, "
God's existence is clearly seen in what He has made. The intricate brilliance of the created order reveals the mind of an infinitely intelligent Designer just as surely as a great work of architecture or a complex piece of technology reveals the mind of its designer.(14b) Furthermore, our own consciences and sense of justice, though corrupted by our rebellion, still tell us there is right and wrong and a God who has a perfect moral standard.
(14a) The very notion of 'natural lawbreakers' is moronic and self-defeating, since by accepting it one essentially undermines and invalidates ALL standards of law, and the recongition of true moral behavior. It means, basically, we are already guilty just by virtue of being born into the world - and we haven't even emitted a first loud squall yet! What nonsense is this? Of course, Mike then ties it to unbelief, so that the natural lawbreaker can never escape his morass unless he professes belief somewhere along the line. The right and ability to question divine fiat, or what fundies like Mike take as such, is not to be questioned. This is ludicrous!
(14b) Mike imputes "design" but gives no evidentiary basis for it. Where? In the confines of the limited world we inhabit? The universe occupies more than this tiny world. The Earth is not even a microscopic part of the Milky Way galaxy, far less cosmos! At the large scale more than 73% of the universe is dark energy, and another 22% dark matter. Neither can be accessed for order. There is simply no major scope for "design" to emerge in the (mostly) dark cosmos. One cannot take one corner and look at it, and then say the whole cosmos is "designed". That is illogical. It is like me getting my wife to look at one corner of our kitchen floor and saying - "See, the floor's clean!' - when the other 99% is filthy.
The truth is, if you are an atheist, it is not because it makes sense, it is because you don't want to face up to the fact that there is a God out there to whom you are accountable. You don't like God and are trying to hide from Him.(15)
(15) Here Mike is interjecting his own emotions into what atheists think or feel. In fact, atheists feel neither positive or negative about God. No more than the Easter Bunny. People may claim both exist, but never show any evience beyond their same old tired rhetoric. Yawn.
But you don't have to feel this way . How do we know God exists ? Unless we begin with the assumption that he does, we can't know anything else exists ! Unless we presuppose that God created us with the ability to know things through sensory experience and reason, we have no philosophical basis for trusting either. Philosophically speaking, unless we know a wise God gave us our senses, how can we know everything isn't an illusion? (16)
(16) Distracting non sequitur. Since we can detect most aspects of reality without the use of our senses. Fortunately modern physics observations don't depend on human sense perceptions- but rather on highly refined inanimate detectors that have been put through rigorous QA checks, and cross-confirmations via independent experiments. Also, eigenvalues or whatever, can be used in sub-experiments to generate REAL outcomes. If the detector signals were spurious( or "unreal") or "illusions", in other words, no real outcomes (say a particular polarization of an electro-magnetic wave) would be possible.
For example, mathematically, we employ what are called 'Stokes parameters' to check on this. These are particularly important in a field like radio astronomy. If they were delusions or out of touch with reality - we'd not have the refined radio observation maps we do - say of the quasar, C-273.
In optical astronomy, ditto. No actual human eyes ever observe cosmic phenomena any more. We use spectro-photometers and special automated cameras (with computer controlled color-correcting filters) to obtain photographs of galaxies, planets, comets etc.
In like manner, if these optical mechanisms didn't work - neither would our celestial mechanics. But I can use the Keplerian equations, e.g. for the eccentric anomaly ( E = M + e sin (M) ) and others (radius vector, true anomaly etc.) to exactly determine the future position of any planet. Using such equations tonight I can know exactly where Jupiter will be (right ascension, declination) on Aug. 23, 2054.
Just as my celestial mechanics computations - which I did on May 1, 1970, showed where Venus would be exactly on June 30, 1985. (Less than 0.0000001 arcsec difference - most of that due to using a hand calculator rather than computer).
Hence, my point: arguing over sensory perceptions as influencing what we can know of reality is gibberish. Arguing that we may be basing data on illusions is even more off the beam. Once that (predicted) planet shows up in my telescope at exactly the position forecast to be, all bets of "influence" or "in your head" are off. Vamanos!
Perhaps the most airtight evidence that our perceptions aren't being perverted is in nuclear energy: fusion and fission. The A-bomb and H-bomb remain the best manifestations yet that Einstein's E = mc^2 wasn't merely a mental abstraction. It had unmistakable consequences in the real world - e.g. the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- not open to interpretation! Bottom line: If Mike insists we can't be sure anything is an 'illusion', then we can't be sure Mike is also not just an illusion. And the noise and symbols appearing (apparently) from him may just as well be echoes from the ether.
As for reason, we can't prove the validity of reason without using reason ! We must assume what we are trying to prove in order to prove it. All human reasoning is circular (17) , but when we leave God out of the circle we are left like a dog chasing its tail without any hope of catching it ! Without beginning with the philosophical presupposition that a God who has spoken to mankind exists, we are doomed to reason in circles with no way of knowing how to discern truth.
(17) Actually, only Mike's reasoning is circular, as he shows here. But what can anyone expect when he attempts to posit Jeffrey Dahmer as a source of some self-styled morality of the "heart" or tries to connect the Nazis and their 3rd Reich to atheists when they were mostly Christian.
As for positive proof, there is the communication of God to mankind. Moses received the Law at Sinai. This was attested by great miracles witnessed by millions. The Hebrew prophets foretold the rise and fall of nations and spoke of the coming of a Messiah. Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Bible ( Isaiah 53, Micah 5:1, Jeremiah 31:31-34 ) . His resurrection is historically documented, having been witnessed by the early Messianic Jewish believers who recorded their testimonies and were willing to die for what they knew to be true.(18)
(18) None of this is true. Mike plays with facts and history. John Dominic Crossan, Bart Ehrman (a former fundamentalist) in his book, 'Misquoting Jesus' as well as Hugh Schonfeld ('The Passover Plot') have all shown that the testimonies can't be trusted and there are other more natural explanations. As one put it (Schonfeld): "That a man presumed dead for three days could get up and walk from his grave shows he was never dead in the first place."
The logical violation committed here is ignotum per ignotius, or opting for the least well understood explanation over the less well understood one.
But remember , if you persist in your atheism, one day you will stand before God and you will have no doubt in your mind concerning His existence , " Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. " ( Philippians 2:9-11 ) . His awesome reality will be undeniable to you, even though you STILL won't want to believe it !
Frankly, atheism is boring, but knowing, enjoying, and serving God gives life purpose and excitement. I continue to pray you will one day find that out - before it's TOO LATE !!(19)As I mentioned in my last blog , ETERNITY IS A LONG TIME TO BE WRONG !! ( END OF MY E-MAIL ) :
(19) Amazing how much energy this guy consumes in writing his responses given he claims atheism is "boring". And....Ah yes, when all else fails to convince, trot out the threats. Believe now or else! You will burn! This gets old really fast, and you'd think bible punchers like my bro would come up with something better, but they never do. In the end this is all they have left in their kit bag: threats to beat us over the head with. All of which discloses their ultimate failure in the realm of reason. It is also a tacit recognition of the fraudulent nature of their arguments, and their transparency. Since, IF the arguments were truly cogent and convincing, they'd not have to resort to base threats of damnation.
The only one truly "boring" individual on this blog is Pastor Mike.
Is the Religious Brain Capable of Reason?
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?
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?
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)