Why I don’t believe in God.
Sadie Lou has set me a challenge – to actually show my reasoned argument for my non-belief in God. So here goes with a bit of background first:
I grew up in a non-believing household so had nobody to teach me to believe in God from an early age. Being the people they are, my parents (despite being Catholics themselves) sent me to Church of England schools all my life where religion was very much a side issue – so I only picked up the barest of religious education from my school days. I was exposed to the stories, both from the Old and New Testament, but they never really meant much to me. So for the first half of my life I admit that I was largely ignorant about the whole idea of God.
The stories in the Bible have always been just that to me – stories, myths and morality tales. It was certainly not anything to ‘believe’ in, nothing to be part of or to change my life for. It was an old book considered by many to be important. But it was still just a book. I never considered it to be of any relevance to me.
I never needed to fill gaps in my knowledge or in human knowledge with anything else other than ignorance. I never felt that there was anything wrong with saying “I/we don’t know – yet”. I’m not sure if you could describe it as an ‘instinct’ as such but I’ve never felt the need to add extra layers of complications to things. To me I automatically assume a natural explanation. I never thought that God or angels or anything else supernatural for that matter moved the planets, or made the tides work or the wind blow. I never assumed that life was somehow ‘designed’ by an actual ‘designer’ even before I learnt about evolution and the rest of science. God, to me, was never part of the equation. Like Laplace, I never had a need of that hypothesis.
Can I actually prove beyond reasonable doubt that God does not exist? No, I can’t – at least not here and not now, though maybe someday.
Why then don’t I believe in Him?
I see no need for Him to exist. He is not a necessary/needed part of the Universe.
Everything that exists either has a natural explanation or will have – I see no God in the ‘gaps’.
There’s the classic ‘Problem of Evil’ issue. How can a loving God preside over a place like Earth? (This question really confounds me).
As far as I can tell there is no single piece of evidence to point to the existence of God, none that I have come across myself or any convincing argument provided by people who actually believe in Him. To make myself clear, I don’t mean insufficient evidence I mean NONE.
The Bible certainly isn’t proof of any kind. It’s an old book written, edited and compiled by many people about during the last 2 millennia. It’s the history, mythology & morality tales of a mainly illiterate desert people in the Middle East. There are many such works from all over the world. Why is the Bible the ‘right’ one? That just doesn’t make sense.
Taking all of the above – Why should I believe in God? Why should I even entertain the possibility of His existence? Is absence of proof a proof of absence? No it isn’t. But how much lack of proof do we need to consider the existence of something to be so unlikely as to, in effect, not exist? I think I have enough lack of proof.
66 comments:
CK:
It's my experience that most theists who have thought about it at all believe because of some variation of the argument from design, whether it's that evolution can't explain organisms, that the first replicator was too improbable, or that the constants of the Universe seem "fine-tuned."
The other big reason is that they have had what they believe is a mystical experience.
JA: Thanks for that. I pretty much have that opinion too.
As you know [grin] I don't believe in any kind of design - either biological on Earth or of the Universe at large. As far as I know I've never had a 'mystical' experience. I have, however, had a out-of-body experience as a very sick child & some VERY strangely coherent dreams.. but I'm guess that they don't count.
Everyone has had "mystical" experiences. It's just that we rational types don't consider them mystical:-)
I'm sure if you think hard there's been co-incidences (I was just thinking of my poor sick mother when out of the blue she phoned), strange sounds (I was alone in an old bulding and I could hear "footsteps" coming towards me), visions of dead people (I was imagining how my wonderful dead father would feel as I got ready for my wedding then out of the corner of my eye I saw a hand waving at me in the miror), or unexpected help (I was devestated after losing y purse, then a complete stranger asked what was wrong & gave me £10). We just put it down to random acts of kindness (I do them too sometimes), overactive imaginations, co-incidence or probability.
I may have to do my own post on this too - although it may alienate most of my readers:-)
cyberkitten: Can you outline what process of reasonable argument you went through (with yourself or others) to arrive at a faith position? If its too complicated or personal we can put it to one side for now (until I post that piece adressing the issue). But I would like to know how you can arrive at a belief in God through reason - because I sure can't [grin].
Mrs. Aginoth: Everyone has had "mystical" experiences. It's just that we rational types don't consider them mystical:-)
I have a busy day today as it is my son's birthday (he's 9) and I'm having my parents over for dinner to celebrate. I'll be in church this morning.
I wrote something last night that I want to translate here as soon as I can. It has more to deal with the two quotes I posted in this comment and less to do about what I read in your original post.
Thanks for taking me up on this. I hope we can have a lengthy discussion, if not today, then tomorrow.
Sadie
P.S.
I'm not going into this conversation with the hopes of making converts--if anyone is thinking that. So let's just check that at the door.
Okay, I have a quick second to lay down my first order of business. I'd like to dispell the lofty notion that atheists are somehow more rational than Christians.
We can not say that ALL atheists are rational and ALL Christians are irrational. Why? Because if you looked at MY life in an ubiased, objective manner, you would see that I make very rational choices based on my ability to be logical, methodical, practical and make good use of common sense.
I am organized, punctual and I live my life this way not because I want to make things complicated but so that I can make my life easier and less stressful.
I see mothers who make their lives so much harder than it needs to be simply because they lack common sense--which I find in Christian and Atheist homes alike.
We can not conclude that because I believe in the God of the bible, I am an irrational person and that because some of you here at this blog do not believe in the God of the bible, you are rational. I would have to suspend all rationality to assume that based on that one difference in us.
Do you understand that?
To believe in this assumption is to be irrational. So if any of you are going to continue to adhere to the ridiculously wild assertation that I am irrational based on my spiritual beliefs and you are not based on yours--then I don't want to waste too much of MY time dealing with irrational, headstrong ideolgy.
Agreed?
Thanks Sadie Lou - and happy birthday to Ryan. Hope you all have a fun/good day.
I look forward to the conversation when you're less busy. BTW - It never crossed my mind that any kind of conversion was on the cards...
Sadie Lou said: We can not say that ALL atheists are rational and ALL Christians are irrational.
Indeed. I'm not sure if I ever did. I'm not entirely certain if it is actually possible to be totally rational. As I've said (several times) before I believe that humans are irrational by nature. Though of course some people are more irrational than others. Of course if a person is too irrational they often end up institutionalised and labelled as 'crazy'. Anyway, I was never really talking about the whole person here. We don't know enough about each other to throw labels around.
It is certainly my opinion that a belief in God is an irrational belief. You disagree with my opinion and I'm fine with that. I'm certainly not calling you an irrational person because of it. I'm sure that pretty much everyone has irrational beliefs - including me. After all, I may be basically a biological machine but I'm not a robot or a computer.
I hope that clears things up a bit more.
Sadie Lou - even the most rational among us have irrational beliefs and make irrational decisions. Mostly, we have irrational beliefs due to the process of socialization. Socialization is the means by which cultures and subcultures pass there mores on to the next generation. The process is extremely powerful, begins immediately after birth, and is continued, through indoctrination and social pressure, for the rest of ones life.
This is the reason that almost everyone believes that their particular religious view is the only possible correct view, while the vast majority of the worlds citizens, who believe differently, are clearly wrong. It is why we believe our culture to be superior to all others. And Arabs believe Islamic culture is. And the Japanese theirs!
The process of socialization colors everything about who we are and how we act. Some of us, by our inquisitive nature, are somewhat less gripped by the process, but to a certain extent, we are all shaped by our cultures and subcultures. Were we all Vulcans, we'd see that most of what people believe to be "truth" is just so much flotsam and jetsam. But we are not purely logical creatures, And unless/until we take another step up the evolutionary ladder, we are doomed to be this odd mix of the rational and irrational, the logical and illogical.
I very much feel as you do about the bible and have never understood how people can take this book, written by MEN..and translated bu other men..etc., etc., and say.."This Is The Ultimate Truth"...It obviously gives them comfort to believe this...and I understand that...but don't try to foist this 'belief; on me...you know?
I wish I could remember the exact quote that Freud said about religeon...it was something like--Religeon is the neurosis of the masses...(Not exactly correct..but close, I think--maybe someone else will know this...)
Anyway, it's very very interesting...I do thinkthere is a "Higher Power" of sorts...You know? I mean when I see a blade of grass growing up between two slabs of cement...well, there is, I'm sure, some scientific explanation, but it sure looks like this amazing miraculis thing to me....!
miraculous!!!!
My dpelling is definitly not a "gift from God"! (LOL)
SPELLING!!!! I'll stop.
OOL said: I wish I could remember the exact quote that Freud said about religeon...it was something like--Religeon is the neurosis of the masses...(Not exactly correct..but close, I think--maybe someone else will know this...)
This from About.Com:
According to Sigmund Freud, religion is a mass neurosis and exists as a response to deep emotional conflicts and weaknesses. A by-product of psychological distress, Freud argued that it should be possible to eliminate the illusions of religion by alleviating that distress. This approach is laudable for getting us to recognize that there can be hidden psychological motives behind religion and religious beliefs, but his arguments from analogy are weak and too often his position is circular
I actually don't have much time for Sigmund. I think he was FAR too wrapped up with sex to say much of anything useful. I think Marx said it better when he said that 'Religion was the opiate of the masses'.
I shall give my views on a possible reason religion exists at a later date (maybe next Sunday).
At least we are on the exact same page about some things. I wholeheartedly agree with just about everything Great White Bear said about culture playing a HUGE role in how people identify themselves.
Cyberkitten--
I know you didn't mean to come across as labeling Christians irrational in general but I have trouble understanding where you draw the line. You say that belief in God is irrational, Christians, largely, are ignorant--reading your comments and the comments of others is a lesson in frustration as I feel systematically degraded to the level of second class citizen compared to the "higher knowledge" of everyone else who doesn't share my beliefs--if that makes sense.
At least we have reached a point where I feel relatively safe to carry on a discussion about my beliefs.
I feel the biggest difference between the Christian and the atheists is the nurturing or supression of faith.
We all excersice faith to some digree. Many choices we make for the short term or long term are based, in part, on faith.
I think it is highly simplistic to rely on what can be seen in order to form an opinion on it's value, merit, or most importantly, it's existance.
I cannot see my conscience. I can not see other people's conscience but that doesn't mean the conscience doesn't exist.
I cannot see my love for my children. I can see manifestations of my love for my children but as far as "true love" selfless, unconditional love--I can not proove to you that this type of love exists unless I showed you some kind of physical manifestation of it--perhaps after I gave my life for my children in an act of sacrifice? Throwing myself in front of a speeding car headed straight for my children?
Even then, is this the greatest expression of love we can physically see in order to prove it?
Why must we, as humans, be so simplistic as to only believe what we can see or prove?
cyberkitten--can you answer this for me?
CK,
Seems to me you're basically saying that atheism is to you what religion is to a lot of other folks - a belief system inherited from childhood which you see no particular reason to challenge as it continues to make sense to you. This is an attitude I have absolutely no criticism of (we would be very poor people if we rejected everything our parents gave us), but it is no more "rational" than coming to religion the same way surely?
JA,
"It's my experience that most theists who have thought about it at all..."
Then count me among the minority. I've always fully accepted that the universe can in principle be explained fully naturally and that "the God of the Gaps" is no argument at all, and as for the "argument from design" - don't get me started on that one:-/
So why believe? Purely and simply it's a matter of faith, either you have it or you don't. For me personally, the universe simply makes more sense if one assumes the existence of a deity who set the thing in motion.
Or to put it another way - yes, I fully accept there is probably no evidence that could convince an unbeliever on purely logical grounds (that is why it's called "belief" after all) - the question I suppose is whether we are prepared to accept those are the only grounds available to us. And I'm sure I've phrased that very badly, but I have faith that y'all understand what I'm trying to say anyway:-)
Sadie lou said: I feel systematically degraded to the level of second class citizen compared to the "higher knowledge" of everyone else who doesn't share my beliefs.
I'm certainly not in the business of degrading you. I am merely expressing an opinion. I have the greatest difficulty in understanding how people can believe in God - and you are not the only person who has tried (and failed) to explain it to me. I 'get' some of the reasons around the belief - fellowship, comfort in hard times, guidence on issues and so forth - but the 'core' for want of a beter phrase illudes me.
Sadie said: At least we have reached a point where I feel relatively safe to carry on a discussion about my beliefs.
I'm glad about that. Thanks for saying that and staying around. I appreciate it. We have very different world views and a lot of space between us for misunderstanding so it's good that you feel safe enough to work you way through things with me/us.
Sadie said: I think it is highly simplistic to rely on what can be seen in order to form an opinion on it's value, merit, or most importantly, it's existance.
Actually I think it's the only way to go about things. How do you know that dragons don't exist, or aliens abducting people, or ghosts or mermaids? Do you believe in any of those? Sure there are things that don't 'exist' as physical objects but that doesn't mean that the supernatural exists as well. There is a 'thing' called the conscience and the 'thing' we call love. But they're not really 'things' in the same sense as a rock or a plant. They're ideas, concepts. You're right that there is nowhere we can point to and say "There is the conscience, there is love" which doesn't mean that they don't exist - but you can't infer from that to God or anything else for that matter.
Sadie finally said: Why must we, as humans, be so simplistic as to only believe what we can see or prove?
Because that's a very good way to be fairly certain about things. How is it possible, for example, to choose between the Bible and the Koran? What criteria could you possibly use to make that decision? Did you choose a variety of Christianity because you where born in a Christian country? Would you be a devout Muslim if you had been born in Iraq or Iran? If so, what does a persons religion actually say?
random said: Seems to me you're basically saying that atheism is to you what religion is to a lot of other folks - a belief system inherited from childhood which you see no particular reason to challenge as it continues to make sense to you.
Technically speaking Atheism is the 'lack' of a belief system.. but there is some truth in what you say.
It's quite possible that if my parents had been practicing Catholics that I would be too. Growing up in a religious household tends to result in being religious. It was my lack of religious training or indoctrination that gave me the time and space to start to figure things out for myself. I never had to go through the apparent trauma of losing my faith because I never had any.
random also said: but it is no more "rational" than coming to religion the same way surely?
I don't know how people 'come to religion' - that part is still pretty much a mystery to me. Granted it is very difficult as a child growing up in a religious household to do anything other than absorb & accept its families faith and growing up in a religious community means never really having to question it.
Religion is based on faith, on revealed knowledge, on authority. Atheism is quite, quite different. There IS a metaphysical underpinning to science (for example), a belief that the Universe IS understandable but that's as far as it goes. There is no 'revealed' knowledge and no 'authority' that cannot be overturned by new theories and new data. That's not the case with any religion I know of. That's what I mean when I say that belief in God is irrational. It doesn't use reason to get there. At least not reason the way I understand it.
Damn, I go out for the evening and miss all the fun!
Sadie-Lou I also want to make it clear that I was not trying to say atheists are more rational than christians, but that we rationalise our experiences in a different way. i rationalise an unexpected movement out of the corner of my eye while thinking about dead relatives as a tree leaf blowing in the wind, or my mind "playing tricks" on me. You (may) rationalise it as a sign from God, or a ghost etc. As it's a very personal ewxperience that can not be repeated for others, it's de facto a personal belief that colours our view of what happened.
As I've said before, you can not rationalise belief. It is belief. otherwise it would be knowledge:-) we all have our reasons, which we consider rational, but they are still only personal reasons.
Random, just for the record, before I put up my post, I came to atheism from a completely different social upbringing than CK. I would like to think that I have moved forward from my parents rather biased and dogmatic beliefs, as i hope my children will move forward some more. How would anything ever improve/change if we all just accept our parents world view as correct?
My, my. So much discussion. It is a question that man has been wrestling with since the beginning (whatever your definition of that is).
For the vast majority of my life, I was an evangelical atheist. Not only did I not believe, I didn't think anyone should. I wanted to spread the word. I was offended by anything religious and by the word "God." Even the word "atheist" irritated me because it identifies my as a non-believer, but from where I was coming from, it meant I was a non-believer in something that didn't exist in the first place, so why give it a term?
Today, I am not so sure. I am agnostic. Although I can't prove it, I do believe there is a God. Something that had me confused all those years is that for me to believe, I had to have some proof - some kind of evidence. Today I know that beliefs have nothing to do with truth. They are subjective and individual and may have no basis in reality.
However, I did need some "evidence" to get me to open my mind. One single event got me over that hump. It was not by any means conclusive, but it sure got me thinking. After some time, things started to fall into place. I also no longer believe in coincidence, but my "rational" thinking told me it could be just chance. With no proof either way, I can believe what I want.
My faith may in fact be nothing more than some kind of self-hypnosis, a way of unlocking that which is good in me and enabling me to change my life because of a wholly biophysical phenomenon at the neurological level. I don't believe that, for if I did, my faith in something greater would be negated, but I am willing to grant that my beliefs could be wrong.
So what does it matter? What I believe hurts no one and has changed my life more than I ever imagined. It is not church based; it is my own creation based on the events in my life and fills in some dark chasms in my understanding and ability to cope in the world. Am I right or wrong? It doesn't matter!
~Mike
Thanks for that Mr Althouse. Awesome story too. [gulp].
De nada. These (post a, post b, and post c)are also relevant, if you're interested. I try to leave out some of the "God" (and other) stuff in my writing and just concentrate on the principles that apply. I believe there are certain aspects of being human - from whatever source - that apply to us all. The selflessness, the sacrifice, the charity, the service, the compassion... the list goes on, are what make us special. I can relate those things without going into what created or substantiates them. Again, it doesn't matter how these qualities are delivered, only that they are embraced.
What an incredibly lively discussion! I knew it would be and that's why I came back!
I just wanted to say to you CK that I hold very little brief for Sigmund, myself....When I consider that he based ALL, (well, almost all) of his theories about sex and woman on three...Count Them..three patients! I think I was reminded of the fact that he said somrthing because of this wonderful exchange of thougghts and feelings about beliefs...In Gods, and NOT in God!
Great Sunday things to think about...
And Mr. Althouse's syory is very profound to me...I'm not sure I would have come out of that experience with much more of myself than before it happebed. Amazing story, and like I said, profound to me.
Thanks CK for all this!
I wonder if there's anything I can really add to this... but as a philosophy graduate is a subject that fascinates me so perhaps you will forgive me if I express my own humble opinion here.
First off I do not beleive in God, however, I would hesitate to describe myself as an atheist in the sense it is being used here. Unlike some I do have a deep beleif and sense of spirituality, I just don't beleive it comes from an external source (or is representative of or answerable to an external source). Perhaps the best description I've come up with is a non-practicing buddhist... which is pratically paradoxical but then so is this whole argument.
If you have faith evidence is uneccessary. if you have evidence you no longer have faith you have proof...
I also struggle fundamentally with the question of evil, would an all powerful god allow evil to exist - particularly when carried out in 'his' name? If so is 'he' truely good? If he cannot prevent it is 'he' truely a god? And if it is left to our own free will and evil is our choice and our responsibility then so is good - credit shouldn't be claimed if its all down to us.
If God's only role then is to judge how 'virtuous' or not we were (and without even going down the should everyone be held to the same standerds of behaviour regardless of circumstances and the period/environment in which they lived side road) this is where I really lose it - a mass murderer who asks for forgivness can be spared? an unchristened child is sent to endless purgatory? An what if we're all wrong and the true god is Ra? The ancient egyptians are fine but everyone else is a bit stuck regardless of the kind of lives we lived???
Regardless of why you carry out an action I beleive the only way you can be judged (in this life or any other) is on your actions and intentions. And then I feel the karmic cycle has it right - if you were a bad person its a bit of a waste to spend eternity punishing you - why not let you seek your own redemption by trying again?
(end rambling and slightly disconnected argument)
Thanks for indulging me :-)
What a great string of posts. I'm just sorry that I appear to have come in at the end!
The single point that I would like to pick up on (otherwise I'll bore you all to death!) is the comment by CK - 'It's quite possible that if my parents had been practicing Catholics that I would be too.'
This is the case with the vast majority of believers of all kinds of religions the world over. The number of converts from one religion to another or from no belief to belief is comparatively small although when it does happen extemism is very often the result. Very few, statistically, people make a choice about their belief systems.
Sorry that should of course read 'extremism'.
Thanks for your commeny(s) Dave. Not the end of the debate yet.... [grin]
Actually we'll never know if I would've become a Catholic or not (technically I AM a Catholic having been baptised into the faith & all that - does that mean I'm 'saved'?) Maybe my personality would've shrugged my Catholicism off at a later date. I'm not sure where my enquiring mind came from (though certainly NOT from my parents!) and such enquiries that I would probably have undertaken may have destroyed my earlier faith based indoctrination.
Where's access to an alternate universe when you need one...? [chuckle]
I need to go back and read everything but I really want to add my final point here. The way I reasonably and rationally came to realize that the God of the bible was the truth was in the message.
We are a self centered people; all of us.
Almost every good attribute you recognize in other people, patience, hospitality, charity, humbleness, respectful, nurturing, is an attribute that puts other people's needs before their own.
The message of the bible and the central message of Christ, is to stop focusing on one's self and begin to put others first.
Selfish behaviours and self-centeredness is the root of all that is wrong with our world.
Murder
Stealing
War
Lying
Cheating
Gossip
Slander
Adultry
Alcoholism
all of these things are a representation of the worst kind of selfishness. The person commiting these acts are putting their own needs before the needs of anyone around them.
Christ commands that the most important commandments from the Lord are loving your God and loving your neighbors.
That's it, really.
and without the "loving your God" there is no "loving your neighbor".
Some people will challenge me and say," I give to charity, I help the poor"
but in the bible, it doesn't end there. God takes it to a bigger level; a difficult level. He asks us to pray for our enemies. He asks us to give when we ourselves are poor. He asks us to submit to our authorities even when the authorities suck. and on and on.
This is how I know when other religions have it wrong; when their message is a little about selflessness but a lot about self.
My rational and reasoned conclusion is that without God, I gratify myself whatever the cost. Allowed to continue on that path and I would nurture my own self gain to what end?
With God, the possibilities are endless. My life has meaning because I give it over to Christ--it isn't my own.
It makes all the sense in the world.
Sadie Lou said: The message of the bible and the central message of Christ, is to stop focusing on one's self and begin to put others first.
I don't know enough about the Bible to argue that but - surely you can live a (largely) selfless life without it or without God. I fail to understand the need for a religion in order for a person to be & do good. I also don't know enough about other religions to question your assertion that:
"This is how I know when other religions have it wrong; when their message is a little about selflessness but a lot about self."
Do you have any other religion in mind? Is Christianity to only selfless religion? I'd be very surprised if it was.
I knew you were going to say that you don't need God to stop being self centered. That's why I said, the bible takes it so much further than I am usually willing to go. It's easy to love people that deserve to be loved but I don't know anyone that wants to love their enemies, yet God asks this very thing of us. Is it important to love our enemies? Of course it is. Imagine what this worl would be like if we put shoe leather on this concept of loving our enemies and this is just one example of something difficult God asks of us.
If man wrote the bible, I can assure you that this "loving your enemies" would be the first thing to go...it wouldn't have even been written in the first place.
(I wrote a post this morning in response to this post and a post that Q wrote if you're interested)
also, the other religions:
I was thinking of Mormons--they rely heavily on individual works and effort to reach heaven. and once they get to heaven they get to be little gods that rule little planets.
I was also thinking of Buddism: self enlightenment/nirvana
You really should read Q's post on this called Cure for the Soul.
Sadie - Are you saying that you believe in God because the Bible (or at least the New Testement) tells you to be selfless?
That's it...? Strangely I was expecting more.
It's really not that complicated.
I was aware that I was heading for a broken marriage and estrangement from my kids and family. I was beyong selfish, I was destructive.
Modern counceling wasn't helping. I would be okay for awhile and then return to my wreckless behaviour.
The message of the bible seriously opened my eyes to the sad fact that I will always be this way if I don't get help. Jesus promises help. It's not even by my own efforts that I change--He works in me until I am complete (in heaven). It's a win-win situation and I see results. I am still a selfish person but I am able to resist the pull to self gratify.
It's is that simple.
I couldn't do it by sheer will power.
At the risk of appearing heartless, here we have yet another person who 'found' God and used that to become a 'good' person. As said above:- 'The number of converts from one religion to another or from no belief to belief is comparatively small although when it does happen extremism is very often the result.' Religion is so often used as a crutch, I am happy to believe that most of what is spoken about by Sadie is right and proper behaviour and yes it is described in the Bible, but is that so surprising. The bible is hardly likely to say hate ones enemies, be selfish etc etc. I just don't need the idea of a God to know that I should lead a good life, I hope that I have control of my own mind. By the way on the 'forgiving ones enemies' tack why is the Christian Right in the states so in favour of the death penalty?
dave--
You don't appear heartless. Your reluctancy is very common. I didn't "find" God. I was dead in my sin until He reached out to me. A dead person isn't capable of anything.
I am not a "good" person. I don't sit here at my computer to try to convince you that I am a good person because i am a Christian.
I am also not religious.
Religion is the organization that tells people what to do. It is usually man-ceneterd since it was man that formed "religion".
I am simply a follower of Christ. I go to a building where other followers of Christ meet but we, the believers, are the church--not the building.
I don't use "religion as a crutch" because I take responsibility for my own actions and failures. I don't displace blame onto anyone but myself for my life choices--which is what I see a lot of secular reasoning do.
it's society's fault
it's your parent's fault
it's your spouse's fault
etc
Why is the 'Christian Right' into the death penalty? Because we are all of us flawed. We seek personal gain before anything else--yes, even Christians. The death penalty allows us to seek revenge on our enemies--"let God sort it out"
but that ideology is wrong--yet it's the hardest thing to face. If some @sshole were to kill my children, would I be able to forgive them or would I want to send them to their maker?
I don't have to answer that.
Sadie Lou said: I couldn't do it by sheer will power.
I'm glad that you found something that worked for you... though as a reason for belief in God it doesn't translate very well....
Good luck with your continued selflessness & thanks for your continuing contribution to this Blog. I appreciate how difficult it can be at times.
though as a reason for belief in God it doesn't translate very well....
I know. Because you see the world as largely screwed up and you think that somehow, since I purpose to believe in God along with legions of others--it's somehow God's fault that the world is flawed. A belief in God obviously doesn't change anything because the world is so screwed up so obviously--God isn't the answer.
I'm sorry but that is so retarded.
Obviously--it's US that is so flawed. We can't follow the basic of instruction. Not only can we not follow Christ's teachings to the letter but we can not even get past the part about believing in Him.
How can anything change? I certainly contribute the sad state of the world because am I wholeheartedly following Christ? No.
I'm not off in Africa serving the hungry and denying myself comfort. I'm sitting in my warm, 1,600 sq. foot house eating whenever I want and just TALKING about living for God.
That's why the world is still flawed, friend. And I have to give an account, same as you.
Thanks for listening to me as ranting as I get.
Sadie lou said: it's somehow God's fault that the world is flawed.
Nope. The problems of the world have nothing to do with God. Remember, I don't believe in Him.. so I can hardly blame Him can I? [grin]. Human problems are caused by humans. If we fought a little less and co-operated a little more.. well, the world would be a little bit better place to live in/on.
Sadie lou also said: A belief in God obviously doesn't change anything because the world is so screwed up so obviously--God isn't the answer.
Many, many people believe in various Gods & various flavours of the same God. Does this 'solve' anything...? Apparently not. Do we live in anything (and I do mean anything) approaching a perfect world because of God - no we don't. We're not talking about a minority belief here trying to make the world a better place against all the odds, fighting the good fight etc.. We're talking about the vast majority of people who believe in a divine power - so why is the world in such a mess...?
Sadie lou also said: That's why the world is still flawed, friend. And I have to give an account, same as you.
Except I don't believe that I do have to give an account. I guess we'll find out soon enough - or not if I'm right.
Sadie finally said: Thanks for listening to me as ranting as I get.
Not a problem. Better out than in & all that.
I've said it before, but I think most Atheists start out as believers, even though in my case, I had a secular upbringing, my parents both believed. Usually we are exposed to God being a fact at an early age. Cyberkitten, your experience may be different by the sound of it. But we are surrounded by those who assume God is fact from day one.
In fact, I go along with the God gene theory. The religious tend to have larger families and I wouldn't doubt that there is an element in our brains that makes us automatically accept the idea of God in most cases.
I don't believe in God because I observed, questioned and thought my way out of it. I agree with you on your assessment of God's non existence. I just came about it a different way.
BEAJ said: Cyberkitten, your experience may be different by the sound of it. But we are surrounded by those who assume God is fact from day one.
I consider myself very lucky that I didn't grow up in a believing household - though, as far as I know, that's the experience of most of the people I've known. To be honest, religion isn't that big a deal over here (more of which in a later post) and I think that being a believer here must be quite tough. You're certainly going to get laughed at to your face at some point. I've seen it happen. I came to full-on atheism slowly through my own path and my own investigations, made easier by the fact that I didn't have to ditch any belief beforehand..
BEAJ also said: I wouldn't doubt that there is an element in our brains that makes us automatically accept the idea of God in most cases.
There is something in that. Partially its due to the fact that human children are sponges and will just soak up the ideas and beliefs around them. Partially its just accepting what your parents tell you - at least until you get old enough to say 'No'. I also think there is something in the human condition that makes us open to religious ideas... but more on that later too. [grin]
what do you say about people raised in an agnostic home that become believers?
(such as myself)
Sadie Lou said: what do you say about people raised in an agnostic home that become believers?
(such as myself)
People become believers for many reasons. It could be a particular event, meeting a particular person, some kind of breakdown... Lots of possible reasons - and about as various as the people themselves....
pardon my french but 'duh'. *smiling* People DO become believers for many reasons, it just sounded like you were so thankful you 'escaped' being raised in a believing home as if that was the main reason people feel drawn to God. We've been raising our children with a belief in God but we are constantly leaving room for private exploration and investigation--just like an agnostic household. It doesn't have to be 'brainwashing'.
There is far too much to respond to here. I just want to throw out there that there are certain human qualities that are generally acknoweldged to be "good," even by "bad" people. This acknowledgement could come from a higher being, "God," evolutionary biology (as a survival mechanism), genetics, environment, culture, etc, etc, etc. The fact is that, although refered to as "spiritual qualities" by some, they are qualities nonetheless.
How one comes to embrace and nurture these virtues is of little consequence. My emphasis is on behavior, this is what I wish to encourage. I am not interested in everyone or anyone subscribing to my belief system or lack thereof. It doesn't matter. It neither validates nor invalidates what I have come to believe on my own. I my opinion, the discussion on the existence of God is entirely moot.
Just mt .02,
~Mike
Sadie Lou said: it just sounded like you were so thankful you 'escaped' being raised in a believing home.
Yes. I am - thankful that is. I might have been saddled with a belief I (with the advantage of never actually having it) believe to be false. Or I might have had to expend a great deal of time and emotional energy getting rid of a belief that my family gave to me - either deliberately or not.
My parents certainly did not bring me up as an atheist. They just had absolutely no interest in religion - which gave me an open space to come to my own decision. There was probably some subliminal low level stuff going on.. I honestly can't remember.
However, all 3 of us were baptised.. and I do remember dragging my father to church (this confirmed recently by my mother) as a very young child because I liked the pomp and circumstance so much. I can't remember what 'flavour' of church we visited - whether Protestant or Catholic - though I'm guessing Catholic. I still love to visit churches whenever I'm on holiday & am also a fan of religious art. I've actually spent a whole day in the Vactican (having to be dragged away by my friend) and have visited the 2nd largest mosque outside of the middle east.. Religion both fascinates and confounds me.. as I may've said before...
...in any event, we are polar oppsites as I wish I would have had more of a God-centered upbringing. I might have used my life differently in the past had I known I was accountable for my SELFISH actions.
:)
Boy, and I thoughtt Sadie had opened a can of worms on her blog, you have prodded a much bigger response. Discussions of a religious nature tend to do that, don't they? You said: "To me I automatically assume a natural explanation. I never thought that God or angels or anything else supernatural for that matter moved the planets, or made the tides work or the wind blow. I never assumed that life was somehow ‘designed’ by an actual ‘designer’ even before I learnt about evolution and the rest of science."
I was raised in an athiest household. The only mention of God around our house was when my mother swore. I remember asking my mother once when I was a child, if you don't believe God exists, then why are you always swearing at him? I think I ran off before my mother's anger could travel from her eyes to her hands. ;-) Even though there wasn't a faith in God in our home, I was always spiritual and felt part of something bigger than my understanding. I began attending church alone sometime around 7-8 yrs. of age. I merely had to cross the street with the other neighborhood children and did so, much to my mother's consternation wondering where she went wrong with me. The church, the bible, other people, other doctrines, could never fully encompass what my gut told me was true, so I left the church. I still believe in a God, some purpose, a divine watchmaker. I believe all the laws of nature were written by a law maker. I don't believe all these laws are accidents of space, time and matter.
Sadie I don't think you need a religious upbringing to be taught that selfishness is wrong & ultimately bings unhappiness. A simple grounding in social morals will do the job just as well without recourse to a higher being judging you.
V V said: I believe all the laws of nature were written by a law maker. I don't believe all these laws are accidents of space, time and matter.
Why? Why can't those Laws be purely natural? Are you thinking of the Anthropic Principle?
Sadie Lou said: "I was also thinking of Buddism: self enlightenment/nirvana"
Apologies for pulling you back to this comment but I think it bears discussion - Buddhism does focus on personal enlightenment and behaviour yes but it does so as a part of the external world - it fundamentally 'preaches' that buddhists act in a positive manner,the path to enlightenment is based on acting and thinking in a positive manner. That as individuals we can affect our own behaviour, our own practices and through living in a way that does not cause harm, that promotes peace and generosity buddhists seek to enrich others as well as themselves.
I would hesitate to describe that as 'selfish' the point (for me) is taking individual responsibility for the things you can affect, can change rather than necessarily looking externally for the answers. Similarily, the reward/punishments for good/bad behaviour are felt and found by each individually rather than imposed.
I am not a practicing Buddhist and I'm sure someone who is could describe the path better but I do not feel that Buddhists are trying to 'buy their way in' to nirvana, more that they are seeking to be worthy of it within themselves.
CK said: "Are you thinking of the Anthropic Principle?" I think I might be, though I don't remember it being called that. I'm not saying that accidents of time, space, matter couldn't happen and just randomly support life. It's just as likely as my belief in order and a lawmaker. It's just for me, when I look at the world, I see too much order, even in seeming chaos. So I lean toward an intelligent creator of some sort. There's no way to prove it, and I'm okay with that. My instincts just guide me toward belief in something bigger, grander, and with a plan. For all I know, there could be an intelligent creator out there and earth and life on it could just have been an experiment from long ago that the creator has since lost interest in and abandoned. But once life and natural law was created, it had a way of continuing on its own. It reminds me of episodes of The Twilight Zone in which people were trying to figure out who they were, where they were or what was the meaning of life, only for the audience to see at the end that they were either puppets in a box or trapped inside a snowglobe and their reality was only a small fraction of the bigger reality. Going back to the notion of "selfishness" that Sadie was discussing on her blog, we are arrogant creatures assuming there is a purpose to our lives, that anything we are must be grand or part of some greater Creation, when we might be nothing more than an experiment or an accident. Count me as one of the selfish ones who believes I was created by an intelligence that had plans for me. :-)
V V said: It's just for me, when I look at the world, I see too much order, even in seeming chaos.
I see quite a lot or order in the Universe too - though not too much to need explanation by an 'itelligent designer'. It all seems pretty natural and explanable to me.
V V said: For all I know, there could be an intelligent creator out there and earth and life on it could just have been an experiment from long ago that the creator has since lost interest in and abandoned. But once life and natural law was created, it had a way of continuing on its own.
The subject of much bad SF & several theological/philosophical debates [grin]
V V said: when we might be nothing more than an experiment or an accident.
I tend more to the 'accident' hypothesis myself - as in unplanned. That's why I also don't believe that there is any overarching purpose to either the universe or life on Earth.
And much good SF I may add:-)
Congrats on 50 commenets CK. I think you may have hit on the blog equivelent of a lightening rod (pun intended)
53 comments now... [grin]. That's a new record for me... though strangely my last comment record (of 52) was on the 'Grand illusion' of religion..
Also yesterday I broke my highest daily hit rate too....
Religion is always good for a chin-wag. My politics posts however.... [chuckle] Diferent crowd I guess..
rca--
thanks for that comment. However, I would offer for your approval that the enlightenment process is based on your own merits and achivements. Christianity preaches that you do not get to heaven on your own works. Faith without works is dead, yes but heaven is not achieved through your own worth. We are and will always be "unworthy". It is through GRACE that we accomplish anything.
Sadie Lou - its the reverse of the argument that If I act in a selfish manner, if I beat my wife and steal from work and cheat on my taxes but go to church every sunday can recite the scriptures and offer confession on my death bed I will still go to heaven. Catholicism in particular preaches that all sins can be forgiven, ok there's a principle there but basically it means someone who has done evil, who is evil can be absolved and allowed into paradise at the last moment, where as on a christian model someone who is loving, gentle, selfless, honest & brave may be rejected because they worshiped in the 'wrong' manner.
For Buddhism it is about grace, one's own grace - ultimatley all we can affect is our own actions and the idea is that by taking responsibility, by living to a code that allows the individual to become worthy in this life they can truly find nirvana both here and beyond rather than sneaking in because we knew the right password but without deserving at all.
Buddhism doesn't start with the principle of sin - it starts with a notion of growth, we are not looking to repent our mistakes we are looking to not commit those mistakes.
It is rooted in the individual because we are individual, loving your enemy is about being a good person, the act of forgivness enriches us and our enrichment affects those around. The 8 key principles for Buddhism (as I understand them) can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path
If you read them its based on behaving a correct manner, not expecting someone else to absolve you.
if I beat my wife and steal from work and cheat on my taxes but go to church every sunday can recite the scriptures and offer confession on my death bed I will still go to heaven.
Not true at all.
Man, it astounds me to end the FICTION people will believe about God. If you read the bible, you would note the hipocracy represented in what you said.
God knows the hearts of man. An outward appearence of repentance but an inner rebellion is still rebellion.
Do you honestly think God can be tricked by someone asking for forgiveness but then doing nothing to change their ways?
Please.
Sadie, don't know about your church, but the denomination I grew up in certainly believes thats true. They also believe you could be a good, virtuos, born again believer your entire life, commit one little sin and die immediately afterwards, and be doomed to an eternity in hell.
People believe this fiction because it is part of evangelical doctrine!
I don't want to go off on some tangent about Catholics but that particular faction has some doctrines totally assbackwards.
I can say, with confidence, that all man-made religions are imperfect. It is unreasonable to judge the merit or worth of Christ based on the human representitives alone.
That would be like judging the worth or merit of a person you don't know based on what some people say about that person.
Go talk to that person's "real" friends and you'll hear a completely different story, ya know?
It's the same with the Bible. I always suggest that people read it for themselves to get a clear representation.
I have read it, but it didn't say much to me.
Oh, you probably mean the new stuff - i've only read bits of that:-)
It's quite clear that if you lead a truely awful, evil & sinful life for 80 years, then find God & Jesus, and honestly repent all your evil doings, right in your heart of hearts, you still get into heaven. 80 years of bad stuff, 1 day of real repentance = saved.
It's quite clear that if you lead a truely awful, evil & sinful life for 80 years, then find God & Jesus, and honestly repent all your evil doings, right in your heart of hearts, you still get into heaven. 80 years of bad stuff, 1 day of real repentance = saved.
God's ways are not our ways.
Thankfully.
Because if it were up to me, 80 years of being evil and one day of reckoning wouldn't buy you a ticket on the bus. It's a good thing it works in the other direction though because imagine if you HAD to be "good" in order to "get into" heaven. I wouldn't have a snowball's chance in--well, you know.
*wink*
I think you should have to be good. Not perfect, none of us are perfect but you should try to define yourself by your actions towards others. And I mean good in a true sense, not in terms of adhereing to mans rules but to a moral standerd, being fair and honest, generous and kind, thinking of others and being prepared to make sacrifice yourself be the small or large for the benfit of those around you. Miniture ex. I love comics (I know shoot me now) and Marvel had a new graphic novel out that I really wanted but when I went shopping with my bro on Sunday it was a choice between buy the novel for myself or by him lunch. So i bought him lunch. You dont have to change the world but each action counts.
Sadie Lou said...
We can not say that ALL atheists are rational and ALL Christians are irrational.
While I'll buy the first, I'll have to disagree that I can't say the second. All Christians are irrational. All Christians are humans, all humans are irrational, QED. If that isn't enough, here's more proof!
There is, however, a matter of degree. One can be basically rational and still have irrational beliefs. (Indeed, I would argue that it is impossible NOT to be free from irrational beliefs whether one is basically rational or not.) With Christianity, there are many shades of irrationality. I met a guy who believed that he regularly spoke with angels and they told him to do things. I did not press him for exactly what it was they told him to do. By the bye, we were both in a mental asylum when we met. Neither of us were on staff, nor were we "just visiting" unless by "just visiting" you mean "sticking around until they gave us back our identification, wallets, etc. and let us through the locked doors with embedded-mesh glass windows to go of our own free will."
So, let me assert that I have better acquaintance than most with the degrees of rationality with which religiosity is practiced. I will further assert (offering as evidence only my assertion that the statements which follow are generally verifiable with no other resource than unfiltered web access) that I have researched the topic more thoroughly than most, from both the philosophical side of view and from a scientific point of view.
Both Sadie Lou and Cyberkitten say that stated that they grew up in homes that were not particularly religious. The religiosity of the home in which one is brought up turns out to be a poor indicator of what one's religiosity will be upon becoming an adult. In fact, genetics seems to play an important role. This could explain why the United States, having been largely founded by sufferers of religious persecution and therefore "religious extremists" by someone's definition, is home to a high level of religiosity today.
The same could be said about large regions of the Middle East, where traditions of alms have long preserved the lives of those in suffering, but, because alms in the Middle East are seldom given to non-Muslims, evolution takes its toll. There have also been periods when "infidels" have been persecuted--and I am not saying that the Koran preaches intolerance any more than I am saying that the New Testament preaches the slaying of non-"whites" (funny, because most true "whites"--albinos--in the United States are of African descent), though these books have both been the cause of death through religious strife--further reducing the number of people who had no tendency toward at least overt religiosity. Religion has been shown to have beneficial health effects among believers, and chief among these would be "not getting slain by people who think that non-believers should be slain."
The Christian world has also went through many times when being not only Christian, but the right kind of Christian was required to continue breathing. The Muslim world has its share of heretics, too, particularly because two forms of Islam--Shi'a at about 15% and Sunni at about 85%--constitute about 99% of the faithful, which makes just about every Muslim a heretic to a large portion of the Muslim world. Basically, in the 600sCE (aka 600sAD by Christians) when Mohammed died, a legal process where a bunch of holy rollers got together and mulled over who the next leader would be selected some guy whose name wasn't "Ali", while another bunch of holy rollers said that Mohammed's cousin Ali had been named by Mohammed to be the next leader so the legal process of the first group was not valid. The fight has gone on ever since. In no place is this radical divide so obvious as Iraq--which has the largest split of the two sects of any nation in Islam--where this 14-century-old conflict has been allowed to come into full bloom thanks to the Christian Torturer himself, George W. Bush. Thanks, George.
But I digress. I was trying to talk about shades of rationality in religion. Obviously, any mention of GWB has nothing to do with rationality.
There is much debate about whether or not intelligence (or related indicators such as amount of education, SAT scores or financial success) affects religiosity. One of the basic problems is that a lot of people believe that "intelligence" is not a single, discrete thing which one can reliably measure. Being as I personally do very well on tests of all kinds, I tend to cast those who don't think that intelligence can be measured into a "sour grapes" kind of light, thereby proving their assertion (since I cannot know how high they score on intelligence tests). In any case, those who think that being smart is needed to get into later stages of rigorous disciplines such as Math, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, and (ahem) Political Science can rely on studies which show these groups to be much less religious than the populations as a whole. Biologists are obviously much inferior because a significant percentage of them believe in some sort of god (51%), though this might have something to do with self-identification error because the foundations that tout "intelligent design" sometimes call themselves "biologists"--but not "paleobiologists" because the latter group would study things before the creation of the Earth 10,000 years ago.
You might be asking yourself, "Why does Ken say the Earth was created 10,000 years ago?" I hope you are. I did not mean to be overly subtle on that one. It turns out that, in the United States, somewhere between 20% and 46% of people interviewed claimed that they believed the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. (I can't find the link for the 46% figure right now--the only thing online I could find quickly said 45%--and can't be bothered to pore over all of my writings to find that last percent, but have faith in me, it was true within the past century).
(According to my personal experience, which must, of course, be taken to be representative of all parts of space-time which really matter...) When presented with a lengthy description of how the distances from Earth of the lights in the sky was calculated, then descriptions of how the speed of light is calculated, real, living 7,000-year-old-Earthers (they weren't really 7,000 years old, but you get the idea) seemed to believe that these measurements were reasonable. When then asked, knowing that some light sources are calculated to be millions of light years distant (and the meaning of a light year being made distinct from one being "like a regular year, but with fewer calories"), how the light from these distant stars could have come to us if the world was only 7k years old, these experts were confounded. That's right: they did not know exactly how God did it, but it was clear that God had done it or we would not be able to look up and see them.
Some Orthodox Jews were studied. In the most extremist Orthodox Jews, secular education beyond the minimum necessary to be able to function in secular society is forbidden, but some Orthodox Jews allow it and some find that the "minimum" is a college degree. In striking contrast to the rest of American society, those who had college degrees were more likely to say that "evolution is false and scientists are lying to cover it up", that "the world is less than 10,000 years old", and similar barbarisms. One would think that they were all getting their degrees from Liberty University.
While I call myself an atheist, I'm really more of an agnostic. I just call myself an atheist to avoid confusion on the part of Christians who might think that, as an agnostic, I am not denying the existence of the "God of Abraham." I am.
You can talk about the "Evil Problem" or the "Logic Problem" (inherent contradictions in the combined assumptions of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence: "Can omniscient God, who Knows the future, find The omnipotence to Change His future mind?"), the contradictions in the Old Testament, the contradictions in the New Testament and contradictions between the Old _ and New _, the documented Jesus as myth (admittedly a controversial subject, but take a look around and you can find several exegesises of the Jesus myth--on both sides of the question--but the evidence seems to me to fall on the side of Jesus being either a metaphor or an outright myth), the historical inaccuracies in the Bible, or blablabla... The list is almost unending. For me, the dividing line was when God sent bears to eat 42 kids because they had made fun of a bald man. I mean, I still kept looking at things after I read that--back when I was a Christian of Christian parents and had undertaken to read the Bible as an act of piety (or so that I could smart-mouth people who talked about the Bible who had never actually read it, take your pick: I was already a smart-mouth whenever opportunity presented itself or could be manufactured without extensive effort)--but the bias was pretty well set. If you don't believe me about the bears, the kids and the bald man, pick up your favorite translation and read 2 Kings 2:23-24. (No link on this one: work for it.) An atheist link already supplied above also goes through the Quran and the Book of Mormon. (There's no need to go through the Torah separately because it is just the Hebrew translation of the Pentateuch, i.e., the first five books of the old testament.)
Whether or not a being or beings which might be perceived as a god if we could, in fact, perceive it/them is a matter that I do not feel can be evidentially determined, especially since, by definition, the evidence would not exist. Frankly, the pagan, Roman, and Greek views of having a pantheon where each god has his own bailiwick and the gods argue among themselves... That sort of worldview holds some appeal for me. I don't believe it, but it has an aesthetic appeal.
The idea of a personal God is right out. If your god(s) cares where I put my penis, I am pretty sure he isn't rational. I mean, my sex life these days is pretty boring, but even in days where my penis had lots of help leaving my underwear, Divine Penile Scrutiny is just absurd. You can believe in irrational gods if you want to, but don't try to explain how such beliefs can be rational.
I will concede that religiosity has been shown to have tangible health effects (even aside from the benefit of not being hung, stabbed or stoned for having a lack of the right kind of religiosity) and that people who pray, especially in groups, tend to report a greater general satisfaction with their lot in the universe. (This does not mean that praying actually accomplishes anything mentioned in the prayer. The latest evidence is against that.)
So, I'll agree that religion has a useful function even if it is basically hokum for yokels. If one simply must practice religion--purely for health reasons, or otherwise--I recommend Yoism. Penn, Teller and Stephen Colbert are Yoan Saints, so you know that it has lots of laughs and yucks in it, and laughter has also been shown to be beneficial health-wise. This mix of humor and religion like having sex with hot identical twins!
One last ejaculation from my lengthy virtual finger: thanks for your attention and I hope you got a chuckle or other entertainment out of this comment.
Sadie Lou said...
We can not say that ALL atheists are rational and ALL Christians are irrational.
While I'll buy the first, I'll have to disagree that I can't say the second. All Christians are irrational. All Christians are humans, all humans are irrational, QED. If that isn't enough, here's more proof!
There is, however, a matter of degree. One can be basically rational and still have irrational beliefs. (Indeed, I would argue that it is impossible NOT to be free from irrational beliefs whether one is basically rational or not.) With Christianity, there are many shades of irrationality. I met a guy who believed that he regularly spoke with angels and they told him to do things. I did not press him for exactly what it was they told him to do. By the bye, we were both in a mental asylum when we met. Neither of us were on staff, nor were we "just visiting" unless by "just visiting" you mean "sticking around until they gave us back our identification, wallets, etc. and let us through the locked doors with embedded-mesh glass windows to wander where our feet would take us."
So, let me assert that I have better acquaintance than most with the degrees of rationality with which religiosity is practiced. I will further assert (offering as evidence only my assertion that the statements which follow are generally verifiable with no other resource than unfiltered web access) that I have researched the topic more thoroughly than most, from both the philosophical side of view and from a scientific point of view.
Both Sadie Lou and Cyberkitten say that stated that they grew up in homes that were not particularly religious. The religiosity of the home in which one is brought up turns out to be a poor indicator of what one's religiosity will be upon becoming an adult. In fact, genetics seems to play an important role. This could explain why the United States, having been largely founded by sufferers of religious persecution and therefore "religious extremists" by someone's definition, is home to a high level of religiosity today.
The same could be said about large regions of the Middle East, where traditions of alms have long preserved the lives of those in suffering, but, because alms in the Middle East are seldom given to non-Muslims, evolution takes its toll. There have also been periods when "infidels" have been persecuted--and I am not saying that the Koran preaches intolerance any more than I am saying that the New Testament preaches the slaying of non-"whites" (funny, because most true "whites"--albinos--in the United States are of African descent), though these books have both been the cause of death through religious strife--further reducing the number of people who had no tendency towards at least overt religiosity. Religion has been shown to have beneficial health effects among believers, and chief among these would be "not getting slain by people who think that non-believers should be slain."
The Christian world has also gone through many times when being not only Christian, but the right kind of Christian was required to continue breathing. The Muslim world has its share of heretics, too, particularly because two forms of Islam--Shi'a at about 15% and Sunni at about 85%--constitute about 99% of the faithful, which makes just about every Muslim a heretic to a large portion of the Muslim world. Basically, in the 600sCE (aka 600sAD by Christians) when Mohammed died, a legal process where a bunch of holy rollers got together, mulled (no relation to “mullah”) over who the next leader would be and selected some guy whose name wasn't "Ali". Meanwhile another bunch of holy rollers said that Mohammed's cousin Ali had been named by Mohammed to be the next leader, so the legal process of the first group was not relevant. The fight has gone on ever since. In no place is this radical divide so obvious as Iraq--which has the largest split of the two sects of any nation on the planet--where this 14-century-old conflict has been allowed to come into full bloom thanks to the Christian Torturer himself, George W. Bush. Thanks, George.
But I digress. I was trying to talk about shades of rationality in religion. Obviously, any mention of GWB has nothing to do with rationality.
There is much debate about whether or not intelligence (or related indicators such as amount of education, SAT scores or financial success) affects religiosity. One of the basic problems is that a lot of people believe that "intelligence" is not a single, discrete thing which one can reliably measure. Being as I personally do very well on tests of all kinds, I tend to cast those who don't think that intelligence can be measured into a "sour grapes" kind of category, thereby proving their assertion (since I cannot know how high they score on intelligence tests). In any case, those who think that being smart is needed to get into later stages of rigorous disciplines such as Math, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, and (ahem) Political Science can rely on studies which show these groups to be much less religious than the populations as a whole. Biologists are obviously much inferior because a significant percentage of them believe in some sort of god (51%), though this might have something to do with self-identification error because the people in foundations that tout "intelligent design" sometimes call themselves "biologists" (but not "paleobiologists" because the latter group would study things before the creation of the Earth 10,000 years ago).
You might be asking yourself, "Why does Ken say the Earth was created 10,000 years ago?" I hope you are. I did not mean to be overly subtle on that one. It turns out that, in the United States, somewhere between 20% and 46% of people interviewed claimed that they believed the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. (I can't find the link for the 46% figure right now--the only thing online I could find quickly said 45%--and can't be bothered to pore over all of my writings to find that last percent, but have faith in me, it was true within the past century).
(According to my personal experience, which must, of course, be taken to be representative of all parts of space-time which really matter...) When presented with a lengthy description of how the distances from Earth to the lights in the sky (i.e., stars, galaxies, nebulae, etc.) was calculated, then presented with a lengthy description of how the speed of light was first calculated, real, living 7,000-year-old-Earthers (they weren't really 7,000 years old, but you get the idea) seemed to believe that both these measurements were reasonable. When then asked, knowing that some light sources are calculated to be millions of light years distant (and the meaning of a light year being made distinct from one being "like a regular year, but with fewer calories") how the light from these distant lights could have come to us if the world was only 7k years old, these experts were confounded. That's right: they did not know exactly how God did it, but it was clear that God had done it or we would not be able to look up and see them. This conclusion was independently reached by several of the aforementioned 7,000-year-old-Earthers, so this analysis at least bears the empiricist's goals of “repeatability”and “independent verifiability”.
Some Orthodox Jews were studied. In the most extremist Orthodox Jews, secular education beyond the minimum necessary to be able to function in secular society is forbidden, but some Orthodox Jews allow it and some find that the "minimum" is a college degree. In striking contrast to the rest of American society, those who had college degrees were more likely to say that "evolution is false and scientists are lying to cover it up", that "the world is less than 10,000 years old", and similar barbarisms. One would think that they were all getting their degrees from Liberty University.
While I call myself an atheist, I'm really more of an agnostic. I just call myself an atheist to avoid confusion on the part of Christians who might think that, as an agnostic, I am not denying the existence of the "God of Abraham." I am.
You can talk about the "Evil Problem" or the "Logic Problem" (i.e., the inherent contradictions in the combined assumptions of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence: "Can omniscient God, who Knows the future, find The omnipotence to Change His future mind?"), the contradictions in the Old Testament, the contradictions in the New Testament and contradictions between the Old _ and New _, the documented Jesus as myth (admittedly a controversial subject, but take a look around and you can find several exegesises of the Jesus myth--on both sides of the question--but the evidence seems to me to fall on the side of Jesus being either a metaphor or an outright myth), the historical inaccuracies in the Bible, or blablabla... The list is almost long as the old “in the beginning, is now, and as it ever shall be”.
For me, the dividing line was when God sent bears to eat 42 kids because they had made fun of a bald man. I mean, I still kept looking at things after I read that--back when I was a Christian of Christian parents and had undertaken to read the Bible as an act of piety (or so that I could smart-mouth people who talked about the Bible who had never actually read it, take your pick: I was already a smart-mouth whenever opportunity presented itself or could be manufactured without extensive effort)--but the bias was pretty well set. If you don't believe me about the bears, the kids and the bald man, pick up your favorite translation and read 2 Kings 2:23-24. (No link on this one: work for it.) An atheist link already supplied above also goes through the Quran and the Book of Mormon with equal thoroughness and skepticism. (There's no need to go through the Torah separately because it is just the Hebrew translation of the Pentateuch, i.e., the first five books of the old testament.)
Whether or not a being or beings which might be perceived as a god if we could, in fact, perceive it/them is a matter that I do not feel can be evidentially determined, especially since, by definition, the evidence would not exist. Frankly, the pagan, Roman, and Greek views of having a pantheon where each god has his own bailiwick and the gods argue among themselves... That sort of worldview holds some appeal for me. I don't believe it, but it has an aesthetic appeal.
The idea of a personal God is right out. If your god(s) cares where I put my penis, I am pretty sure he isn't rational. I mean, my sex life these days is pretty boring, but even in days where my penis had lots of help leaving my underwear, Divine Penile Scrutiny was just absurd. You can believe in irrational gods if you want to, but don't try to explain how such beliefs can be rational.
I will concede that religiosity has been shown to have tangible beneficial health effects (even aside from the benefit of not being hung, stabbed, stoned or fed to lions for lack of the right kind of religiosity) and that people who pray, especially in groups, tend to report a greater general satisfaction with their lot in the universe. (This does not mean that praying actually accomplishes anything mentioned in the prayer. The latest evidence is against that.)
So, I'll agree that religion has a useful function even if it is basically hokum for yokels. If one simply must practice religion--purely for health reasons or otherwise--I recommend Yoism. Penn, Teller and Stephen Colbert are Yoan Saints, so you know that it has lots of laughs and yucks in it, and laughter has also been shown to be beneficial health-wise. The conjoined health benefit of humor and religion like having sex with hot identical twins!
One last ejaculation from my lengthy virtual finger: thanks for your attention and I hope you got a chuckle or other entertainment out of this comment.
Sadie Lou said...
We can not say that ALL atheists are rational and ALL Christians are irrational.
While I'll buy the first, I'll have to disagree that I can't say the second. All Christians are irrational. All Christians are humans, all humans are irrational, QED. If that isn't enough, here's more proof!
There is, however, a matter of degree. One can be basically rational and still have irrational beliefs. (Indeed, I would argue that it is impossible NOT to be free from irrational beliefs whether one is basically rational or not.) With Christianity, there are many shades of irrationality. I met a guy who believed that he regularly spoke with angels and they told him to do things. I did not press him for exactly what it was they told him to do. By the bye, we were both in a mental asylum when we met. Neither of us were on staff, nor were we "just visiting" unless by "just visiting" you mean "sticking around until they gave us back our identification, wallets, etc. and let us through the locked doors with embedded-mesh glass windows to wander where our feet would take us."
So, let me assert that I have better acquaintance than most with the degrees of rationality with which religiosity is practiced. I will further assert (offering as evidence only my assertion that the statements which follow are generally verifiable with no other resource than unfiltered web access) that I have researched the topic more thoroughly than most, from both the philosophical side of view and from a scientific point of view.
Both Sadie Lou and Cyberkitten say that stated that they grew up in homes that were not particularly religious. The religiosity of the home in which one is brought up turns out to be a poor indicator of what one's religiosity will be upon becoming an adult. In fact, genetics seems to play an important role. This could explain why the United States, having been largely founded by sufferers of religious persecution and therefore "religious extremists" by someone's definition, is home to a high level of religiosity today.
The same could be said about large regions of the Middle East, where traditions of alms have long preserved the lives of those in suffering, but, because alms in the Middle East are seldom given to non-Muslims, evolution takes its toll. There have also been periods when "infidels" have been persecuted--and I am not saying that the Koran preaches intolerance any more than I am saying that the New Testament preaches the slaying of non-"whites" (funny, because most true "whites"--albinos--in the United States are of African descent), though these books have both been the cause of death through religious strife--further reducing the number of people who had no tendency towards at least overt religiosity. Religion has been shown to have beneficial health effects among believers, and chief among these would be "not getting slain by people who think that non-believers should be slain."
The Christian world has also gone through many times when being not only Christian, but the right kind of Christian was required to continue breathing. The Muslim world has its share of heretics, too, particularly because two forms of Islam--Shi'a at about 15% and Sunni at about 85%--constitute about 99% of the faithful, which makes just about every Muslim a heretic to a large portion of the Muslim world. Basically, in the 600sCE (aka 600sAD by Christians) when Mohammed died, a legal process where a bunch of holy rollers got together, mulled (no relation to “mullah”) over who the next leader would be and selected some guy whose name wasn't "Ali". Meanwhile another bunch of holy rollers said that Mohammed's cousin Ali had been named by Mohammed to be the next leader, so the legal process of the first group was not relevant. The fight has gone on ever since. In no place is this radical divide so obvious as Iraq--which has the largest split of the two sects of any nation on the planet--where this 14-century-old conflict has been allowed to come into full bloom thanks to the Christian Torturer himself, George W. Bush. Thanks, George.
But I digress. I was trying to talk about shades of rationality in religion. Obviously, any mention of GWB has nothing to do with rationality.
There is much debate about whether or not intelligence (or related indicators such as amount of education, SAT scores or financial success) affects religiosity. One of the basic problems is that a lot of people believe that "intelligence" is not a single, discrete thing which one can reliably measure. Being as I personally do very well on tests of all kinds, I tend to cast those who don't think that intelligence can be measured into a "sour grapes" kind of category, thereby proving their assertion (since I cannot know how high they score on intelligence tests). In any case, those who think that being smart is needed to get into later stages of rigorous disciplines such as Math, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, and (ahem) Political Science can rely on studies which show these groups to be much less religious than the populations as a whole. Biologists are obviously much inferior because a significant percentage of them believe in some sort of god (51%), though this might have something to do with self-identification error because the people in foundations that tout "intelligent design" sometimes call themselves "biologists" (but not "paleobiologists" because the latter group would study things before the creation of the Earth 10,000 years ago).
You might be asking yourself, "Why does Ken say the Earth was created 10,000 years ago?" I hope you are. I did not mean to be overly subtle on that one. It turns out that, in the United States, somewhere between 20% and 46% of people interviewed claimed that they believed the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. (I can't find the link for the 46% figure right now--the only thing online I could find quickly said 45%--and can't be bothered to pore over all of my writings to find that last percent, but have faith in me, it was true within the past century).
(According to my personal experience, which must, of course, be taken to be representative of all parts of space-time which really matter...) When presented with a lengthy description of how the distances from Earth to the lights in the sky (i.e., stars, galaxies, nebulae, etc.) was calculated, then presented with a lengthy description of how the speed of light was first calculated, real, living 7,000-year-old-Earthers (they weren't really 7,000 years old, but you get the idea) seemed to believe that both these measurements were reasonable. When then asked, knowing that some light sources are calculated to be millions of light years distant (and the meaning of a light year being made distinct from one being "like a regular year, but with fewer calories") how the light from these distant lights could have come to us if the world was only 7k years old, these experts were confounded. That's right: they did not know exactly how God did it, but it was clear that God had done it or we would not be able to look up and see them. This conclusion was independently reached by several of the aforementioned 7,000-year-old-Earthers, so this analysis at least bears the empiricist's goals of “repeatability”and “independent verifiability”.
Some Orthodox Jews were studied. In the most extremist Orthodox Jews, secular education beyond the minimum necessary to be able to function in secular society is forbidden, but some Orthodox Jews allow it and some find that the "minimum" is a college degree. In striking contrast to the rest of American society, those who had college degrees were more likely to say that "evolution is false and scientists are lying to cover it up", that "the world is less than 10,000 years old", and similar barbarisms. One would think that they were all getting their degrees from Liberty University.
While I call myself an atheist, I'm really more of an agnostic. I just call myself an atheist to avoid confusion on the part of Christians who might think that, as an agnostic, I am not denying the existence of the "God of Abraham." I am.
You can talk about the "Evil Problem" or the "Logic Problem" (i.e., the inherent contradictions in the combined assumptions of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence: "Can omniscient God, who Knows the future, find The omnipotence to Change His future mind?"), the contradictions in the Old Testament, the contradictions in the New Testament and contradictions between the Old _ and New _, the documented Jesus as myth (admittedly a controversial subject, but take a look around and you can find several exegesises of the Jesus myth--on both sides of the question--but the evidence seems to me to fall on the side of Jesus being either a metaphor or an outright myth), the historical inaccuracies in the Bible, or blablabla... The list is almost long as the old “in the beginning, is now, and as it ever shall be”.
For me, the dividing line was when God sent bears to eat 42 kids because they had made fun of a bald man. I mean, I still kept looking at things after I read that--back when I was a Christian of Christian parents and had undertaken to read the Bible as an act of piety (or so that I could smart-mouth people who talked about the Bible who had never actually read it, take your pick: I was already a smart-mouth whenever opportunity presented itself or could be manufactured without extensive effort)--but the bias was pretty well set. If you don't believe me about the bears, the kids and the bald man, pick up your favorite translation and read 2 Kings 2:23-24. (No link on this one: work for it.) An atheist link already supplied above also goes through the Quran and the Book of Mormon with equal thoroughness and skepticism. (There's no need to go through the Torah separately because it is just the Hebrew translation of the Pentateuch, i.e., the first five books of the old testament.)
Whether or not a being or beings which might be perceived as a god if we could, in fact, perceive it/them is a matter that I do not feel can be evidentially determined, especially since, by definition, the evidence would not exist. Frankly, the pagan, Roman, and Greek views of having a pantheon where each god has his own bailiwick and the gods argue among themselves... That sort of worldview holds some appeal for me. I don't believe it, but it has an aesthetic appeal.
The idea of a personal God is right out. If your god(s) cares where I put my penis, I am pretty sure he isn't rational. I mean, my sex life these days is pretty boring, but even in days where my penis had lots of help leaving my underwear, Divine Penile Scrutiny was just absurd. You can believe in irrational gods if you want to, but don't try to explain how such beliefs can be rational.
I will concede that religiosity has been shown to have tangible beneficial health effects (even aside from the benefit of not being hung, stabbed, stoned or fed to lions for lack of the right kind of religiosity) and that people who pray, especially in groups, tend to report a greater general satisfaction with their lot in the universe. (This does not mean that praying actually accomplishes anything mentioned in the prayer. The latest evidence is against that.)
So, I'll agree that religion has a useful function even if it is basically hokum for yokels. If one simply must practice religion--purely for health reasons or otherwise--I recommend Yoism. Penn, Teller and Stephen Colbert are Yoan Saints, so you know that it has lots of laughs and yucks in it, and laughter has also been shown to be beneficial health-wise. The conjoined health benefit of humor and religion like having sex with hot identical twins!
One last ejaculation from my lengthy virtual finger: thanks for your attention and I hope you got a chuckle or other entertainment out of this comment.
Argh. My apologies for the multiple postings--please delete all but the last (and feel free to delete this one, as well). It was unintentional.
Post a Comment