Update and Open Thread
I can’t believe there are still people showing up here. Your tenacious dedication to the site is appreciated. The move date is now less than two weeks away. I would guess that I’ll be posting again by the first week of June. In the mean time, talk amongst yourselves.
~I AM~
May 5th, 2006 at at 9:24 am
You’re a tease.
May 5th, 2006 at at 9:31 am
Good luck with the move. Can’t wait for the calendar. Have you thought about any other series, maybe an “Apocrypal a week” kind of thing…or probably something better than that.
May 5th, 2006 at at 10:05 am
You don’t fool me. I know you are really holding out for more money in your film deal.
May 5th, 2006 at at 1:05 pm
Well, I’ve always liked this site, that’s why I keep coming back. It’ll be all good when you have the time to post again.
So if we are to talk amongst ourselves, I think I’ll suggest a topic.
Assuming all supernatural religion is false, does the fact that an argument or belief, is at its core, based upon a supernatural religion make that belief false or worthless? Is there some value to religiously based moral arguments, even though they are based on a (by hypothesis) false religion?
Just some food for thought.
And now I’m going to go back and study for finals. Because it’s oh so much fun.
May 5th, 2006 at at 2:56 pm
Skinny,
Short answer no. Long answer: Finding a single flaw in a scientific theory doesn’t invalidate the entire theory. The inverse is equally true, finding a basically bogus system of belief doesn’t mean it doesn’t contain valid information. For example, at least 5 of the 10 commandments are well worth living by. It doesn’t matter that a sky fairy used his magic power to put them on a rock for an old man. Since all fiction is ultimately a reflection of some aspect of life, religious texts are too.
Of course, I could be wrong, I’ve been wrong before.
May 5th, 2006 at at 4:36 pm
So maybe people can believe things that are true, even though the *reason* they believe in that thing is false? It would be like an unjustified true belief, for those epistomologists (sp?) out there.
That makes sense. The reasons people believe things do not have the effect of making those things false. If I believe the world is round *because* a flying green monkey told me so in a dream, the fact that that is an insane reason to believe something does not mean the world is *not* round. So if I believe that “killing is wrong” *because* God said so in the Bible, that may be a stupid reason to believe something, but that does not mean that killing is not wrong.
But what about more ambigious moral statements, such as “gays should not marry because (A) marriage is between a man and a woman, because God said so and (B) moreover, God hates gays, so we shouldn’t give them special treatment or rights.”
Just about everyone thinks murder is wrong, religious or irreligious. There are reasons *independant of* religion that make murder wrong. That is why the fact that people believe murder is wrong for false reasons does not make murder wrong. But there is not as much agreement on whether gays should marry. Are there reasons *independant of* religion that make gay marriage wrong?
Myself, I think that the *only* reason you would be against gay marriage is a religious reason. I can’t think of any non religious moral system that would have a problem with gays marrying. Maybe I just haven’t thought about it hard enough. If you can think of some Kantian or Utilitarian (or other) reason gays shouldn’t marry, let me know. I would be curious to hear your argument.
But if there are no good reasons *independant of* religion for gay marriage to be wrong, then the only reason gay marriage would be wrong would be because of religious reasons. Since all (supernatural) religions are false then all reasons gays shouldn’t marry are false.
To forestall any institutional arguments, I am concerned here only with arguments against gay marriage in principle. There are valid, institutional reasons to disagree with gay marriage being legal because Supreme Court of State X said so. You may not like judges having that power, whether you think gays should marry or not. My bottom line is I don’t think there are any non-religious reasons to be against gay marriage *in principle*. Or if you don’t like the idea of gay marriage, just replace everything above dealing with gay marriage with “against gays in general.”
May 5th, 2006 at at 11:56 pm
skinnydwarf, I totally agree with you. I was just discussing morality (and how personal choices that do not affect others cannot be considered immoral if you take religion out of the argument) on my new blog.
May 6th, 2006 at at 1:23 am
Skinny,
I have met atheists that have argued that marriage is an important pillar of society that contributes to stability and maintenance of the human species. These people maintian that the reason marriage is important is because the human race is produced, nurtured and socialised to function succesfully in their society by their family unit. As you would be aware children of sole parents can become disadvantaged if a parent is struggling on their own to care for them and provide an income for their existence, not to mention not having the role model of the absent parent to guide them. Therefore it is reasoned to give humans the best possible nurturing, role models, socialisation and financial support to grow to successful adulthood and maintain the human race and the stability of the human race to standards of civilised human society there must be a committed relationship to raise and produce children, this is called marriage. Of a necessity marriage is a heterosexual relationship because gay relationships cannot produce children. It is thought that if the marriage relationship was open to groups other than heterosexual couples likely to produce and nurture children in family units, it would lose it’s special cultural purpose of providing a stable committed relationship that produces and nurtures the human species according to principles of a civilised society. I think it is a pretty fair argument really we all grew up in family units, and we have all seen the hurt and destruction that children sometimes suffer if there is a breakdown of the primary heterosexual relationship and family unit and the affect that has on the next generation and society as a whole. Though not perfect, marriage is an institution of society that is designed to contribute to the stability and continuity of the human species, by necessity therefore it must be heterosexual to work and keep the high status of it’s principles of civilisation in order to benefit the human race.
May 6th, 2006 at at 3:23 pm
Skinny,
i don’t think there is a value in any false belief, unless you are weak minded and it is the only thing that you can understand that keeps you sane.
But for anybody who is capable of higher thought, it is essential that we don’t follow any belief without critically thinking about it, That has a value all it’s own. i don’t believe anything I hear any more, with out critically thinking about it. Damn near all of the information that hits my ears in a day is coming out of the mouth of some moron. Blah balahbalah, all day.
I would quickly be lulled into a braindead state of mental ennui. Jesus hates gays….yeah that sounds right, If you smoke pot your little brother will die…..yeah that sounds right. George Bush is protecting us….yeah uh huh. Sure, why not.
Question everything, Reject everything that doesn’t add up, then your foundations will be strong, aloowing further intelletual developement. If you leave so misfit delusion in there, you’ll only be able to get so far.
May 7th, 2006 at at 7:10 pm
Assuming all supernatural religion is false, does the fact that an argument or belief, is at its core, based upon a supernatural religion make that belief false or worthless? Is there some value to religiously based moral arguments, even though they are based on a (by hypothesis) false religion?
In my view, there is as much value to religiously based moral arguments as there is to secular based moral arguments - that is to say, none. Yes, I’m a moral relativist. I think morality as a word is only coherent in the context of “to me.” So, if there are 6 billion people on the planet, there are 6 billion different moral codes, all equally correct (or incorrect).
In my view, nothing at all intrinsically is right or wrong. It’s all a matter of opinion. And, of course, I have some very strong moral opinions; but, I never fail to recognize that they are only opinions and not facts.
May 7th, 2006 at at 8:34 pm
Frances:
Yeah, I worry about the problem of moral realism myself. I don’t think there is any morality outside of human experience; there is nothing out there in the world we can use to tell what is right and wrong.
It’s a hard problem. Some people think that the choices society makes are what determines what is right and wrong, and morality is defined as laws & social mores. Putting aside the problems of defining “society” (is your town society? your state? the USA? Western Civilization?) and what it thinks is right and wrong, the previous statement is itself a moral statement. To evaluate this statement, and whether it was right or wrong, would you look at society? You see the problem with defining morality. You can come up with a moral system, but then if you ask “Is this the right system?” you run in circles.
I generally follow utilitarian ethics. I think government should be guided by Utilitarian principles, but individual people should follow a set rules.
Because you cannot weigh all the consequences of your actions every time you make a decision, people should follow rules that generally increase utility. Every act that follows these rules may not, by itself, be the perfect utilitarian thing to do, but in the aggregrate a society of people who do the right thing most of the time is better than a society where noone does anything because they cannot figure out if what they are doing is the right thing or not.
But I don’t think Utilitarianism is the true moral code. I think there *should* be a moral code, because I think the world would be better with one than without one, and I think it should be Utilitarianism. But that is a moral idea, so it really gets us nowhere.
If this post does not make any sense, it is because I (like many people way smarter than me) haven’t been able to solve the problem of moral realism. If a god existed to tell us what the right thing to do was, it sure would simplify things. Of course, no gods exist, and even if they did, we would still have the Euthyphro problem.
May 9th, 2006 at at 8:20 am
Hey folks,
If we’re talking moral relativism, we’re talking nonsense. There is a difference between difficulty in coming up with a morally sound decision, and the actual moral involved. In other words, morality sometimes seems to be relative, but only because of lack of information, or because we fail to think things through to it’s core. Just my thought.
May 9th, 2006 at at 9:11 am
Hey folks,
If we’re talking moral relativism, we’re talking nonsense. There is a difference between difficulty in coming up with a morally sound decision, and the actual moral involved. In other words, morality sometimes seems to be relative, but only because of lack of information, or because we fail to think things through to it’s core. Just my thought.
No, you are talking nonsense. Each person’s morality is relative. That’s why you have Christians who are against abortion and for abortion. Who are against the death penalty and for the death penalty. It’s all relative. Christian just all use the same book (more or less) to justify their decision, but it’s still relative.
May 9th, 2006 at at 10:52 am
Severalspeciesof:
Do you think there are moral laws that can be discovered, that exist in nature? How would we discover them? Or do you believe in a supernatural religion, where God tells you what morality is? Where, exactly, does morality come from?
There are several places morality could come from:
God. God does not exist, so that is out.
Some higher plane of existance, or the world of the Forms. None of these exist, so that is out.
Nature. Show me how you would discover moral laws through empiricism.
Yourself. Morality just becomes the definition of subjective at this point, and the whole point of morality is that there are standards that you *and other people* are supposed to follow. So I don’t think this is the solution.
Society. However, different societies think different things are moral/immoral, so there is reason to believe they are not all working from single standard (otherwise you would expect more congruence between what some societies think is moral/immoral), so there might not be one. At best, you will be able to find a few moral standards that all societies agree on, but they are going to be very limited. Even simple standards everyone here probably agrees on, like “murder is wrong” will not be totally supported. Sure, most societies think murder is wrong, but some think it is just fine, depending on who you are killing. Infidels, unbelievers, different races, you name it and some society thinks its ok to kill them. Before you say “but we can tell which standards are the right ones, those societies are just *wrong* about what is moral,” note that you are making a moral judgment. What is your moral judgment based on? If you say society, you are running in circles, because we were trying to figure out what was universal about morality across societies. It is hard to see how society can be the grounding of moral values.
Grounding morality is society is probably the best bet though, if only because all the other options are so bad. However, what morality is at that point becomes very subjective, just not as subjective as grounding morality in individual values. This is because, as noted above, societies disagree. Is homosexuality evil? Not in every society, so is it really evil? Should people be free to choose their religion, or should the state impose it on them? Societies differ on which of these is right. I think people should be free to choose religion or not religion, I think that is the right thing to do, but not every society agrees with me. What am I going to use, above society, to show that I am right? All the supernatural options are out, and I have a hard time believing morality can be found out there in the world, in nature.
And note that grounding morality in society means that *morality does not exist outside of human experience*. This has the effect of meaning that there cannot be any timeless moral codes. Sure, some moral codes have *lasted* a long time, like “murder of people like us is wrong,” but presumably all societies could change their mind, and then that moral rule would change.
Anyone have any other suggestions of where morality could come from, or where my analysis is wrong?
Just some food for thought.
May 9th, 2006 at at 11:58 am
In a discussion of morality, the only absolute, is that everyone believes that their view of morality is absolutely right, and those that differ are absolutely wrong.
May 9th, 2006 at at 1:09 pm
In a discussion of morality, the only absolute, is that everyone believes that their view of morality is absolutely right, and those that differ are absolutely wrong.
While you may have just been making a joke, if you were not, I think you are wrong. While your statement is probably true in most cases, I don’t think it is true in all cases. There are plenty of people who don’t claim to have the true answer to morality.
Although, maybe you could say that those who claim there *is not* a true answer are asserting that they are absolutely right, and anyone who thinks that there *is* a true answer is absolutely wrong.
May 9th, 2006 at at 1:10 pm
My bad. That last post was mine, but I wasn’t thinking and put LBBP in the “name” field. I’m going to blame my craziness on finals.
May 9th, 2006 at at 5:04 pm
Although, maybe you could say that those who claim there *is not* a true answer are asserting that they are absolutely right, and anyone who thinks that there *is* a true answer is absolutely wrong.
That is essentially what I mean. No matter what your conviction on absolute versus relative morality, there will always be someone else that disagrees with you, even if your opinion is that this is an unknowable subject.
May 9th, 2006 at at 5:35 pm
Social scientist,
I’m sorry for not replying to you earlier, I did not see your post until today. I’m not sure why. I’m going to blame that on finals, too.
You make a good point, but I would reply that gay marriage would not stop heterosexuals from marrying. And, while marriage is often a basis for procreation, it is not always. Marriage is partly a public affirmation of a couples love for one another, and partly a property transfer. In many societies today, and in Western society in the past, marriage was largely looked at as an economic or diplomatic alliance.
So if marriage is *not* primarily about procreation, why should we deny it to those who cannot procreate? It will not stop heterosexuals from marrying, so society will not collapse. It is not totally tied to procreation, as history and the thousands of marriages w/o kids will tell you. I contend that allowing gays to marry does not really devalue heterosexual marriage anymore than other non-procreative marriages do. If marriage is really about procreation, should we not allow those who are sterile from marrying, or should we ask if people intend to have children before they get married?
As to your argument about it being best for the children to deny gays the right to marry, the social science does not support the idea that children who grow up w/gay parents are any worse off than children who grow up w/straight parents. In fact, many children of gay parents may be better off than some children of heterosexual parents- by necessity they will almost always be children the parents wanted to have.
May 9th, 2006 at at 6:54 pm
Yeah, I worry about the problem of moral realism myself. I don’t think there is any morality outside of human experience; there is nothing out there in the world we can use to tell what is right and wrong.
It’s a hard problem. Some people think that the choices society makes are what determines what is right and wrong, and morality is defined as laws & social mores. Putting aside the problems of defining “society” (is your town society? your state? the USA? Western Civilization?) and what it thinks is right and wrong, the previous statement is itself a moral statement. To evaluate this statement, and whether it was right or wrong, would you look at society? You see the problem with defining morality. You can come up with a moral system, but then if you ask “Is this the right system?” you run in circles.
I generally follow utilitarian ethics. I think government should be guided by Utilitarian principles, but individual people should follow a set rules.
Because you cannot weigh all the consequences of your actions every time you make a decision, people should follow rules that generally increase utility. Every act that follows these rules may not, by itself, be the perfect utilitarian thing to do, but in the aggregrate a society of people who do the right thing most of the time is better than a society where noone does anything because they cannot figure out if what they are doing is the right thing or not.
But I don’t think Utilitarianism is the true moral code. I think there *should* be a moral code, because I think the world would be better with one than without one, and I think it should be Utilitarianism. But that is a moral idea, so it really gets us nowhere.
If this post does not make any sense, it is because I (like many people way smarter than me) haven’t been able to solve the problem of moral realism. If a god existed to tell us what the right thing to do was, it sure would simplify things. Of course, no gods exist, and even if they did, we would still have the Euthyphro problem.
Rather than utilitarianism, I embrace an individualist moral code. Moral things are those that fulfill my values, while immoral things are those that take me away from my values. Moreover, since I only own myself (not other people), it is also immoral for me to interfere in anybody else’s pursuit of value fulfillment. Basically, I consider morality to be linked with individual value fulfillment.
But, that’s not a “correct” moral code. Someone could also say morality has to do with how an individual’s behaviors affect society at large. Or, someone could say morality has to do with how an individual’s behaviors affect the environment. All three are equally plausible, since there is no hard evidence from which to work.
Morality is defined on a person-by-person basis, and every definition is equally correct (or incorrect). In that sense, morality is wholly relative, except in the context of “To Me.”
May 10th, 2006 at at 9:36 am
“Morality is defined on a person-by-person basis, and every definition is equally correct (or incorrect). In that sense, morality is wholly relative, except in the context of “To Me.””
What’s This? Morality is NOT defined on a person-by-person basis AND is equally correct or incorrect. If that were the case, then on what basis would you defend this statement: “Murder is perfectly acceptable at all times” …if the person expressing that statement actually believed it? How could EVERY definition be equally correct or incorrect?
Is slavery wrong or right? If a person believes that slavery is good, is that person morally correct?
May 10th, 2006 at at 12:59 pm
To build upon what Severalspecisof was saying:
Frances said that: “Morality is defined on a person-by-person basis, and every definition is equally correct (or incorrect). In that sense, morality is wholly relative, except in the context of “To Me.””
People are going to disagree about morality means, someone will think “X is right” and someone else will think “Not X is right.” These cannot both be true, unless you think that there are different moralities for different people, all of which are legitimate.
This is not an insane position, but it is different from what people usually use the term “morality” to mean. People use morality to mean that people cannot just do what they think is right and have it be right. People want to use morality to guide their own behavior *and the behavior of others*.
If you define morality to mean “whatever someone thinks is right for me,” you are not using the word the way others use it. You are basically coming from a completely different set of assumptions about morality than most people. How do you defend those assumptions? I am not trying to attack you, I am not saying “how can you possibly defend those assupmptions, they are evil.” I am truly asking why you think those assumptions are justified.
May 10th, 2006 at at 6:41 pm
What’s This? Morality is NOT defined on a person-by-person basis AND is equally correct or incorrect. If that were the case, then on what basis would you defend this statement: “Murder is perfectly acceptable at all times” …if the person expressing that statement actually believed it? How could EVERY definition be equally correct or incorrect?
Is slavery wrong or right? If a person believes that slavery is good, is that person morally correct?
“Morality” is only coherent in the context of “to me.” Some examples:
To me, murder is immoral.
To me, slavery is moral.
To me, kidnapping is immoral.
To me, theft is moral.
All of these statements are equally correct (or incorrect) because there is no way to measure, gauge, test or quantify morality. There isn’t even a coherent universal definition.
Morality deals with the consequences of an individual’s behaviors…in the context of what? That individual? Society? The environment? If morality deals with how an individual’s behaviors affect the environment, then murder could be conceived as morally acceptable so long as the body was used to fertilize a plant.
“Morality” makes no more sense than “spirituality.”
May 10th, 2006 at at 8:11 pm
To me, murder is immoral.
To me, slavery is moral.
To me, kidnapping is immoral.
To me, theft is moral.
All of these statements are equally correct (or incorrect) because there is no way to measure, gauge, test or quantify morality.
If there is no way to measure, gauge….etc. then morality doesn’t exist, everything then becomes amoral or without value. Are you saying that you value nothing?
May 10th, 2006 at at 8:15 pm
Severalspeciesof,
You’re missing the point. Frances is saying that he does value things, but the things he value is relative. What’s so hard to understand?
May 11th, 2006 at at 12:30 am
I just wanted to drop a quick note about a new blog that has just opened up called… Out of Christianity. It is a community that is inviting anyone that is coming or has come Out of Christianity to share there story and engage in discussion of their journey.
We were once not only Christians, but youth pastors, evangelists, nuns, and music ministers, yet we’ve left the Christian faith.
In order to create a ’safe’ environment that is free from the evangelism that we used to engage in ourselves, we’re asking that Christians respect this forum as being off limits to try and ’save’ those of us that have already been set free. It didn’t take long for this request to be violated by the ambitious Christians who were out to rescue the backsliders :-), so we’re moderating all comments.
You can read ‘Your Invitation’ to catch the vision of what our purpose is and read some of our stories.
Thanks.
Aaron
May 12th, 2006 at at 8:49 am
Let me start over.
If , by what one means ‘relative morality’ means that, given the EXACT SAME condition(s) one person can say something is wrong (immoral) and another person says it is right (moral) and no one then can call either of them to task because each persons’ morals are relative because of culture, society, whatever… IT JUST AIN”T SO. They both can’t be correct.
Example: I see someone wearing the color red. I hate the color red. I despise it. I get livid, outraged, etc. etc. I do so because it’s against my religion. And my religion says I need to do something about it (what that something is isn’t clear, too many contradictions, yada yada…) I shoot and kill that person.
Is it right or wrong to do so?
If moral relativism means that there is no clearcut answer….please explain how that can be?
May 12th, 2006 at at 1:04 pm
Severalspeciesof,
Here’s a real world example:
Hindu’s believe that cows are sacred. They view it as morally reprehensible that you eat hamburgers. Does that mean you are wrong to eat a hamburger? Does it mean that Hindus are wrong for not eating hamburgers?
May 12th, 2006 at at 2:21 pm
The kind of morality where everyone’s morality is “right,” only makes sense if you use morality in a way that most people do not use the word. Because your definitions of the word “morality” are so at odds with each other, you are almost talking about two different subjects.
Those who view morality as a single guide for *everyone* to behave (a universal morality) talk about one subject. There are others who deny that that a universal morality exists, and simply think that the only true morality is that there is no universal morality are talking about a different subject.
Thoughts?
Speaking of different subjects, I just finished my last final, so I’m done my first year of law school. Woot!
May 12th, 2006 at at 2:30 pm
Frances,
You said above that “‘Morality’ makes no more sense than “spirituality.’” Are you saying that objective morality does not exist, and that is why you think it is individual?
I can understand why you might think objective morality does not exist, I happen to agree- I do not think there is an objective morality. That is what I mean about there being no morality outside of human experience. Thinking that morality is individual is not an insane position. As I said above, the best bet for a grounding of morality is probably society, but that is pretty subjective itself because there is little agreement on morality across societies. It makes sense to fall back on an individual morality, to avoid this subjectivity problem. I don’t think that is the right answer *because* it is so at odds with what morality, as most people use the word, is supposed to mean. I think we should try and match the meaning most people give to the word. Ater all there is no form of the word morality that exists out there in formworld- it’s just another word, which means whatever meaning people give to it.
May 14th, 2006 at at 5:25 am
Morality is such a wierd and complex thing, its variables make it, at best, nebulous. Is a certain ‘loose’ morality nothing more than a social meme, that keeps the group functional? Maybe better definitions would be ’subjective’ and ‘contextual’ morality. For instance, killing another person is wrong. Yes? Agree? But what if that person was trying to kill you? Still correct? Theft is wrong. Yeah? Even robbing the robbers to give to those who really need it? Hmmm…
Here’s a real life example. I’m an antiques dealer. Recently I came across a valuable item going very cheap in a charity shop. I bought it, and sold it, using the proceeds to run urgent repairs on the family car. My SIL, a born again Kristian, finds it morally uncomfortable that I did this. She believes that instead of going around buying these things, I should tell the shops the true value, and that I’m ripping them off. Yet, selling junk is how I make a meagre living, and it’s taken 15 years of study and experience for me to aquire the knowledge to do this. She helps at Sunday school in her church, yet I consider indoctrinating small children tantamount to abuse, especially as she is denying them the secular upbringing and adult choices that she enjoyed herself. I consider this utterly poisonous. But… Which of us is right? Her, me, both, or niether?
Hmmmm….
May 14th, 2006 at at 5:19 pm
Frances,
You said above that “‘Morality’ makes no more sense than “spirituality.’” Are you saying that objective morality does not exist, and that is why you think it is individual?
I can understand why you might think objective morality does not exist, I happen to agree- I do not think there is an objective morality. That is what I mean about there being no morality outside of human experience. Thinking that morality is individual is not an insane position. As I said above, the best bet for a grounding of morality is probably society, but that is pretty subjective itself because there is little agreement on morality across societies. It makes sense to fall back on an individual morality, to avoid this subjectivity problem. I don’t think that is the right answer *because* it is so at odds with what morality, as most people use the word, is supposed to mean. I think we should try and match the meaning most people give to the word. Ater all there is no form of the word morality that exists out there in formworld- it’s just another word, which means whatever meaning people give to it.
Yes, I think objective morality does not exist. I think morality is strictly a matter of opinion. “Morality” is much too gooey a term to be objective. After all, morality cannot be measured, tested, gauged or quantified. It’s an utterly unscientific term.
May 15th, 2006 at at 8:11 am
Hindu’s believe that cows are sacred. They view it as morally reprehensible that you eat hamburgers. Does that mean you are wrong to eat a hamburger? Does it mean that Hindus are wrong for not eating hamburgers?
Here lies the problem…
In the above example there are at least two levels going on. First level: Cows are sacred. I know this to be false (prove to me otherwise if you object: sacredness is a positive position) This fact, that cows are not sacred, makes eating of hamburgers NOT morally reprehensible, for the specific reason of sacredness.
Second level: Hindus can still choose not to eat hamburgers, but not for sacred reasons. The morality lies not in the specific act of eating, but the context behind the act of eating (or not eating).
May 15th, 2006 at at 8:13 am
Carl Rove indicted!
May 15th, 2006 at at 6:26 pm
I Am, can you get rid of my last comment.
May 17th, 2006 at at 12:29 pm
Hi,
I’m a Christian and I have a comment about atheism.
There have always been three people: the scientist, the artist and the priest. To excel in any of these fields requires aptitude in that area. A painter may have an exceptional artistic aptitude which allows him to pain masterpieces but he may have a very low mathematical and logical aptitude. No matter how hard the scientist tries to explain the theory of relativity to the artist, he doesn’t understand it. Now if the artist is extremely arrogant he may insist that what the scientist is telling him is nonsense because he doesn’t want to accept that he has a very low scientific aptitude. In the same way, no matter how hard the artist tries to teach the scientist to paint he may never be able to paint anything inspiring or decent because the scientist may have a very low artistic aptitude. If the scientist is arrogant he may insist that art is nonsense. And finally, the priest may try his best to explain to the scientist or artist about spiritual matters but if they are lacking in spiritual aptitude then they may insist it is nonsense. The same is true of a priest who thinks science or art are nonsense.
Mankind is intellectual, emotional and spiritual. There is no denying these three aspects of man. All of human history shows the existence of doctors, poets, and spiritual guides. And it has always been the case that those who excel in one area tend to deny the importance of the others. The scientist tends to believe that intellect is all important. The artist tends to believe that emotion is all important. The priest tends to believe that the spirit is all important. It’s just human nature to want to believe that what you are good at makes you special and important.
You will find that most atheists are very intelligent intellectuals. Many atheists are very proud that a great number of scientists are atheist or agnostic. They believe that it’s because they are so much more intelligent than the ordinary person that they have been able to realize that this idea of God is nonsense.
But maybe there is another explanation. Maybe highly intellectual people tend to have very low emotional and spiritual aptitudes. It’s commonly known that intellectuals tend to be more socially awkward and underdeveloped (nerds). An intellectual may understand quantum mechanics yet not understand very basic social rules that almost everyone understands. Why is that?
I think you and many atheists are very intelligent, logical and rational. However, I also think that you have an extremely underdeveloped spiritual aptitude. I’m sure you will say that spiritual aptitude is nonsense. Atheism is and has always been a small minority of the population. And the reason atheism is unpopular is not because the majority of people are stupid. Maybe it’s because the atheist minority are people who fall in the low end of the spiritual aptitude bell curve.
Most people look up at the night sky and are filled with awe and know in their inner most being that there is a God. The atheist does not.
Maybe it’s because you are so smart that you understand what most people cannot. Or maybe it’s because you’re so spiritually dumb that you can’t understand what comes easily to most people.
The crux of the issue is that most people don’t and will never believe that this universe of flowers, sunsets, laughter, and beauty are byproducts of unintentional accidental mindless random processes. Is it because you’re so smart that you believe this or is it because you’re so “dumb?” I leave that up to you to ponder.
May 17th, 2006 at at 12:43 pm
Lory Jean-Baptiste,
sweeping generalities like the ones you’ve made: “…There have always been three people: the scientist, the artist and the priest…” fail to encapulate the artistic atheists, the scientific spiritualist, and the spiritual atheist.
Being an atheist means one thing: you believe that god does not exist. Period. Being an atheist does not preclude one from being “spiritual”. It doesn’t mean that your “spiritual aptitude” is low. Those statements are patently false, unless you solely base spiritual aptitude on belief in god. To which I would ask, which god(s) do I need to believe in in order to qualify for average to high spiritual aptitude.
May 17th, 2006 at at 12:47 pm
The crux of the issue is that most people don’t and will never believe that this universe of flowers, sunsets, laughter, and beauty are byproducts of unintentional accidental mindless random processes. Is it because you’re so smart that you believe this or is it because you’re so “dumb?” I leave that up to you to ponder.
Oh puhleeze. To quote our friend, Big Heathen Mike, this is also the universe of:
May 17th, 2006 at at 1:07 pm
The artist can make items of beauty to enrich our environment. The scientist makes discoveries, that can lead to inventions, that make our lives easier. The priest asks for money, lives off the gullibility of the masses, and tells them how to live their lives, all the while, threatening them with purgatory if they don’t obey. Sure, many priests earn their keep as emotional counselors or administrators. But ultimately, the act of preaching produces nothing but guilt or self importance.
If I’m dumb in “spirituality”, well at least that means I have an aptitude for something that actually produces something. If your curious I would describe myself as an artist that wants to be a scientist, but lacks the patience.
May 17th, 2006 at at 1:11 pm
Oh, and what about everybody else? The factory worker, the mechanic, the nurse, the executive, the administrator, the secretary, the fire fighter, the cop, the garbage collector, the race car driver, the construction worker….
May 17th, 2006 at at 2:12 pm
Lory Jean-Baptiste on May 17, 2006 at 12:29 pm said:
There have always been three people: the scientist, the artist and the priest.
This is nonsense, and has no place in an intellectual argument. You are grouping all humans into three broad groups, which don’t even exist, and trying to draw conclusions from that. Your starting point is erroneous (the idea that there are three types of people), and therefore your conclusions are erroneous. There is more to man than intellect, emotion and “spirit,” whatever that is. Sure, there may have always been artists, scientists and priests, but neither is necessary to mankind. I can imagine a world with none of these, or only some. They are not necessary for mankind to exist.
Man is an animal, a biological being developed by evolutionary processes. It is not necessary for man to be any of these three things.
It sounds nice to make statements like the one above, but they are meaningless. I understand what you are getting it, but it just isn’t anything close to a real argument.
Lory Jean-Baptiste said:
Mankind is intellectual, emotional and spiritual. There is no denying these three aspects of man. All of human history shows the existence of doctors, poets, and spiritual guides.
I am denying it right now. I deny that man is necessarily a spiritual being. I am not spiritual, and neither are millions of others. We are still human. Spirituality is a contingent property of man, not a necessary one. Imagine a man who is not spiritual (no doubt such people exist), he is still a man. Therefore spirituality is not a necessary property of man. The fact that there are billions of spiritual people does not mean that man is necessarily spiritual. It just means that those billions choose to be spiritual. If they were not, they would still be human. Or do you think that those who are not spiritual are not human?
I deny man is necessarily a scientific being. There were people before science. I deny that man is necessarily an artistic being. Sure, art goes back millenia- but art is not necessary for man.
The fact that man has an intellect is responsible for these three aspects of man. These three aspects of man are not necessary for man to exist, however.
Lory Jean-Baptiste said:
And it has always been the case that those who excel in one area tend to deny the importance of the others. The scientist tends to believe that intellect is all important. The artist tends to believe that emotion is all important. The priest tends to believe that the spirit is all important. It’s just human nature to want to believe that what you are good at makes you special and important.
Again, you are grouping all people into three arbitrary groups. What evidence do you have, besides your assertion that there are only three types of people, that these are the only types of people? That all people fall under these types? That these types even exist? Sure, there are scientists, priests & artists which exhibit some of the qualities you assert here. But they have other qualities as well. There is no such thing as a pure scientist, or artist, or priest. These concepts do not exist. There are only people.
Your argument falls apart, because your starting point is so erroneous. It is simply not true that there are only three types of people, or that man has three necessary qualities. The necessary qualities of man are those that define him as a species, and science art and spirituality are not the defining marks of man as a species. Perhaps brain capacity is one of them, and that is what gives rise to the potential for science, art & religion. So it may be that man will always have these qualities. But you can have brain capacity with neither of these things.
If noone ever thought of the concept of “god,” then there would be no spirituality. That is unlikely, the brain capacity of man leads him to explore and ask for explanations for the phenomena around him. The earliest explanations were spiritual ones. But man has learned more since then, he has come up with better explanations- scientific ones. The scientific explanations are superior because they are more internally consistent, and can be tested.
These scientific explanations have been tested, and many have withstood very rigorous testing. Science can predict what will happen in the future - if a theory successfully predicts the future, there is strong reason to believe that theory is at least close to the truth.
I believe that the only thing which exists is the physical world. The absolute best way to learn about the physical world is science. No other method of investigation has produced as good results. When is the last time religion led to a technological revolution? Did religion put a man on the moon? I am not denying that many of the greatest scientists have also been religious- but it was the scientific method of gathering empirical evidence and testing theories which led to their discoveries, not religion.
I can sit in my room and pray all I want, do all the religious ceremonies I can, but it will tell me nothing about the world outside that room, or what is inside my head. If I want to learn about the physical world (the only thing that exists) I should turn to science, not religion. Science will give me answers about the physical world, religion will just tell me what others have thought, or what I think about a nonexistant being.
Lory Jean-Baptiste, I know you think you are making a good argument. But your grouping of man into three groups simply does not make sense. Everything which follows from that (your ideas about a spiritual capacity lacking in atheists, for instance) has no basis. If it were true that there were three types of people, then your ideas might make sense. But I have shown, I think, that there is at least strong reason to doubt that these three types are necessary for man.
Just try and imagine a world without spirituality. I know that might be a depressing world- but it is a possible one. I can imagine a world where there are no priests, and no spirituality in man. Lots of people in that world might be very depressed, because they have no afterlife to look forward to. But the people would still be people.
You yourself probably know some people who are not spiritual. There are people who believe that only the physical world exists, that there is no god and there are no spiritual beings, that science is the only way to learn about the physical world. Imagine a world populated with these people. It is not impossible. Therefore, spirituality is not a necessary part of man. Spirituality is not a necessary part of any single man, therefore it cannot be necessary for humanity as a whole.
What makes man man are his physical characteristics, those biological characteristics that make him different from monkeys and dogs. These are the defining characteristics of man. Because of this, the starting point of your argument is erroneous, and the whole thing falls apart.
I know I may have repeated myself here a bit. But I am just trying to attack these starting points from many different angles and in different ways, to show you why they are false.
May 17th, 2006 at at 2:18 pm
Above I said:
“I can sit in my room and pray all I want, do all the religious ceremonies I can, but it will tell me nothing about the world outside that room, or what is inside my head.”
Reading this over, it may be misunderstood. I meant to say that doing ceremonies and praying will only tell me about what is inside the room (because I am in it and can see it) and what is inside my head (because I presumably can think alot while praying, and learn about my mind). I didn’t mean to say that sitting in a room will not tell me anything about my mind.
May 18th, 2006 at at 1:45 am
I really do not understand what an atheist actually believes… What is it about this belief tradition that grants the right to change national policy? As someone stated earlier, there undoubtable truths in Hebrew and Christian scriptures. Why then is it so hurtful? I simply thought I’d ask. I don’t know if I’ll ever get back to this site, but if I do I’d like to hear your responses.
Thanks.
May 18th, 2006 at at 2:01 am
Ó Seasnáin:
An atheist does not believe in God. That is it. Many atheists have other beliefs sometimes associated with atheism, such as naturalism (in an ontological sense), but the only belief necessarily associated with atheism is a lack of belief in god.
What are you talking about changing national policy? To what are you referring to?
May 19th, 2006 at at 1:52 pm
The scientist, artist and priests were just examples used to explain my point. No, there are not only three types of people in the world. What I mean to say is that there are, as far as I know three kinds of conscious experience. There are physical, emotional, and spiritual experiences. When I talk about a scientist, artist, and priest, I’m giving examples of people who are considered to have an exceptional perception in these areas. Let me explain.
A marksman may have exceptionally acute vision which allows him to see farther than the average person. So, in this narrow sense, he sees the physical world better. But it’s not just the eyes that see, the intellect can also see. No one has ever seen an atom with their eyes but we can see atoms with our intellect. Hence, someone with an extraordinary intellect like Einstein may have a very acute perception of the unseen physical world.
Now there is more to the human experience than physical experiences. We also have emotional experiences. Your friend calls you and tells you his mother just died. Instantly, you know how painful it must be for him. You can even feel some of his pain yourself. If you were purely an intellectual being you couldn’t possibly understand what his emotions are. The only way to understand them is by having experienced them. And it is your experience of emotion which allows you to understand your friend’s feelings. But we also know that not everyone has the same aptitude for understanding their own emotions and the emotions of others. Some people are extremely rational and would say to this friend, “I don’t understand why you’re so upset.”
My point is that certain things have to be experienced to be understood and that not everyone has the same aptitude for understanding these various experiences.
I’m just suggesting that you apply a little skepticism to your atheism. Maybe your atheism is not a result of great intellect but rather the result of an underdeveloped spiritual aptitude. It’s very difficult to prove that rainbows exist to a blind man who doesn’t want to believe they exist.
If man doesn’t have a spiritual dimension then why are there so many religions? Why are there so many believers? Why are there so many churches and mosques and temples? It seems to me that the atheist who denies man’s spiritual aspect is living in a state of denial.
Let’s say the universe we experience is “unintended.” It was not and is not directed by a being who intended it. It’s accidental or random or whatever but it’s not intended. Then our own thoughts and actions which are a part of the universe must also be unintended. Whatever is true of the nature of the universe as a whole must also be true of its parts.
So the atheist says the universe is unintended which implies his own thoughts his own atheism and the theism of others are all the consequences of unintended or random mindless processes. By denying God the atheist also denies his own existence as a conscious being of intention.
The theist believes in a universe where the fundamental substance is a being—God. Therefore, in a universe where consciousness and intention are fundamental and primary the idea of beings like ourselves who are conscious and intentional fits in. However, in the atheist world view where the universe progresses without intention being of consciousness and intention don’t fit. The only resolution is to deny consciousness and intention or bury the issue in intellectual obfuscation.
I’ve never understood how anyone could actually believe that all their feelings and experiences are a result of mindless unintended physical processes. It seems silly to defend such a point because if it’s true then even the argument is pointless because it’s not really “your” argument. There is not “you.” There are just mindless unintended processes and laws which explain away everything—even you.
My best explanation as to why someone would believe such a thing is that some people lack a spiritual aptitude. More specifically it’s the convergence of a low spiritual aptitude and a great intellect. Sort of what Nietzsche would call an “inverse cripple.” The atheist’s disproportionately great intellect (in contrast to his spiritual aptitude) cripples him—blinds him to the idea of God.
Atheism is not the advancement that some may think. It’s more a regression to a more primitive state. Insects are atheists too. They don’t have any awareness of self or any awareness of any being greater than themselves. They are very rational in that sense.
Religion encourages people to awaken to greater awareness. Not just physical and emotional awareness but also spiritual awareness. Atheism encourages people to regress to a state of mere physical awareness—a flattening of the world to a single intellectual dimension—a logical, rational, and almost robotic state of self denial. For if the atheist is right and there is no God, the universe is mindless and unintended then there is no self either. The atheist says that all our thoughts, dreams, and feelings are a result of mindless unintended processes. That statement when examined honestly is much more incredulous than all the Easter Bunnies, Santa Clauses and pantheon of gods in the universe.
Either the atheist is so acutely intelligent that he sees that there is no reason to believe in God or he is so deficient in spiritual faculty that he see what is obvious to majority of people.
May 19th, 2006 at at 4:18 pm
For if the atheist is right and there is no God, the universe is mindless and unintended then there is no self either. The atheist says that all our thoughts, dreams, and feelings are a result of mindless unintended processes. That statement when examined honestly is much more incredulous than all the Easter Bunnies, Santa Clauses and pantheon of gods in the universe.
I know no atheist that would agree with your gross misinterpretation of our world view. I think for myself, my actions are my own. God has nothing to do with it. The biological complexity of my brain allows me to think and perceive. Randomness drives the mechanisms that make that complexity possible, but does not drive the thoughts themselves.
Your view of the universe requires a God that is greater than or equal to the entire universe. In the words of philosopher Archie Bahm’s translation of Tao Te Ching, “Nature can never be completely described, for such a description of nature would have to duplicate nature.” You may say, “yes, that is correct, God created the universe and therefore is greater than all of it.” That world view requires the duplication of everything that exists to accommodate the existence of God. Seems rather inefficient to me.
Even if you allow that God is the universe and therefore knows all etc… Then man is part of that universe and thus part of God and not a lesser being but rather a part of greater whole. This sounds nice and all, but it hardly fits the megalomaniac described in the Old Testament.
Conversely, I see the universe as a highly complex system that developed out of a very simple origin. At the first moments of the big bang, the universe was extremely uniform. When considered as information, the universe required only one bit to describe the initial singularity. As it developed, the complexity grew and the universe expanded rapidly. Eventually, the complexity of the universe grew to the point where intelligence emerged. What we call “consciousness” is a direct result of attaining sufficient complexity to perceive our environment and say, “I think therefore I am.”
So where did all of this complexity come from? I would be lying if I said I knew with absolute certainty, however the most likely candidate is an aspect of quantum mechanics known as quantum fluctuations.
Quantum fluctuations are ubiquitous, and they tend to appear most prominently at the points where the universe is most sensitive. For example, we all get our DNA from our mother and father, but the exact sequence of DNA that makes each of us unique, is produced by a process of recombination in which portions of each parents DNA are selected randomly. The selection process is driven by chemical and thermal fluctuations that can be traced back to the randomness of quantum mechanics. This is just one example, there are many more. The net result is a constant influx of random information into the universe, from which, complex systems spring up unbidden.
Does your computer randomly produce “mindless unintended processes”? OK, maybe sometimes it seems that way… But, if you build a computer then load no software, then turn it on, what will happen? Nothing. But, if you start randomly typing instructions, eventually the computer will produce some sort of output. Most likely it will be garbage. But, if you keep at it, eventually something interesting will happen. This is not quite the same thing as the infinite army of monkeys hitting the keys on an infinite array of typewriters. Because, whereas the probability of the monkeys typing Hamlet for example, is nearly infinite, the likelihood of typing a random command into a computer that produces an interesting result, is comparatively large. The randomness introduced by quantum fluctuations is more similar to commands typed into a computer (the universe) than random strikes at a keyboard.
The computers we build today are not yet as complex as the neural network of our brain. To simulate consciousness will require a computer that is essentially a duplicate of a human brain. When we do, we will perhaps have concrete verification of the nature of consciousness. I am willing to bet that such a simulation will be capable of all the thoughts, emotions, hallucinations, and dreams of any human. As such, it will question it’s existence. Unlike humans, when questioning it’s origin it will have an easy answer for there will be a person standing there saying, “I made you.” People do not have that luxury. For if the Christian God exists, he has made his creation then ducked around the corner to see what it will do, tormenting humanity with threats of purgatory if we don’t believe while denying us any concrete proof.
Religion is the manifestation of the desire to know where we came from. Religion is not ubiquitous because we know the answer, but rather because we do NOT. Anyone that says they know is lying, but at a fundamental level people are desperate for the answer. Religion says, “we know the answer.” Science says, “we are looking for the answer.” Not only is science more useful, it’s more honest. Unfortunately, most people would rather hear a comforting lie, than an unsatisfying truth.
May 19th, 2006 at at 9:17 pm
I know no atheist that would agree with your gross misinterpretation of our world view. I think for myself, my actions are my own. God has nothing to do with it. The biological complexity of my brain allows me to think and perceive. Randomness drives the mechanisms that make that complexity possible, but does not drive the thoughts themselves.
I think what you are saying is that you are not a simple conglomeration of particles. You are a very complex conglomeration of particles. Complexity changes nothing about your nature.
A hand puppet is simple and modern age robotic puppet is complex but they are both just puppets. Your reasoning is if you make something complex enough then poof it becomes conscious and breaks free from the mindless random processes and develops intention.
The problem with your world view is that you believe that everything including yourself is complex matter. And if that is the case you are just a complex set of random unintentional processes. Any attempt to avoid this conclusion is merely intellectual sleight-of-hand—complexity magically becoming consciousness and intention.
The theist world view makes more sense. Here the fundamental reality is a conscious being. And because it is the fundamental building block of our world view consciousness doesn’t require explanation in our world view. However, if your world view makes unconscious and unintentional matter the fundamental substance then you are forced to try to “explain” consciousness.
I’ll admit both world views leave some things unexplained. In the theist world view we do not understand how one conscious being can produce other conscious beings. In the atheistic world view we cannot understand how unconscious matter can produce consciousness. However of the two problems the atheist is the most perilous because it must explain how matter can produce something categorically different–consciousness. Moreover, the atheist worldview says that conscious itself can be explained because it evolved. And if consciousness can be explained then you, your thoughts and feelings can be explained. In other words “you” don’t exist. You can be explained away.
Theism doesn’t claim that consciousness evolved and doesn’t suffer from this problem.
May 20th, 2006 at at 5:55 pm
Lory Jean-Baptiste on May 19, 2006 at 1:52 pm said:
I’m just suggesting that you apply a little skepticism to your atheism. Maybe your atheism is not a result of great intellect but rather the result of an underdeveloped spiritual aptitude. It’s very difficult to prove that rainbows exist to a blind man who doesn’t want to believe they exist.
I don’t claim my atheism is a result of a great intellect. Anyone of any intellect can be an atheist.
I have thought long and hard on the problem of the existance of God, and I have come to the conclusion that he does not exist. The main reason for this lack of belief is that I am not convinced by any of the so called evidence and arguments for His existance. The main reasons to believe in God- ie, life and the existance of the universe, I believe are adequately explained by science. I think the existance of the Universe is perhaps the best reason to believe in a supernatural being, because presumably the universe must have come from somewhere. But why is it crazy to believe in an eternally existing universe? I don’t think it is- to add an eternally existing creator before the universe seems unnecessary. Not only is there no evidence for such a creator, we could not have any evidence of such a creator- the evidence would be exactly the same as that of the Big Bang. Adding God as the creator of the universe is unnecessary, and there is no evidence for the existance of such a being.
If man doesn’t have a spiritual dimension then why are there so many religions? Why are there so many believers? Why are there so many churches and mosques and temples? It seems to me that the atheist who denies man’s spiritual aspect is living in a state of denial.
A more plausible explanation than a “spiritual dimension” of man for the existance of religions was one I hinted to above. People are curious, and want to learn about their environment. The earliest explanations for phenomena were magical and religious explanations, but we have since developed superior explanations- scientific ones. We no longer have a need for religion to explain physical phenomena. Some people, however, are not aware of these superior explanations, or do not sufficiently understand them, and so they still need religion to explain the world around them.
Religion also fulfills some other roles- it provies comfort for people and is a means of some to control others. It gives some people a feeling of superiority over others. Religions still exist because they still provide comfort (it is not a happy thought that death is truly the end) and because people still use religion to control others. Some people use religion to feel better than others. I don’t think these types of people are in the majority, but they do exist.
There are many reasons for religion to still exist other than a “spiritual” dimension to man. Do you have other evidence for the existance of a “spiritual dimension”? The existance of many religions has alternate explanations, ones which I find more plausible.
Let’s say the universe we experience is “unintended.” It was not and is not directed by a being who intended it. It’s accidental or random or whatever but it’s not intended. Then our own thoughts and actions which are a part of the universe must also be unintended. Whatever is true of the nature of the universe as a whole must also be true of its parts.
So the atheist says the universe is unintended which implies his own thoughts his own atheism and the theism of others are all the consequences of unintended or random mindless processes. By denying God the atheist also denies his own existence as a conscious being of intention.
You lost me here. Why is it impossible for intention to arise from an unintended universe? Why could not sub parts of an unintended universe develop intention?
Now, if you want to get all deterministic on me, that’s fine. The problem of determinism and free will is a hard one. Myself, I don’t think there is free will the way people want it to be, because we live in a determinstic universe. So you might be right here- intention does not exist, it is an illusion. This is depressing, but it does not mean that God exists.
The theist believes in a universe where the fundamental substance is a being—God. Therefore, in a universe where consciousness and intention are fundamental and primary the idea of beings like ourselves who are conscious and intentional fits in. However, in the atheist world view where the universe progresses without intention being of consciousness and intention don’t fit. The only resolution is to deny consciousness and intention or bury the issue in intellectual obfuscation.
I don’t deny consciousness. But I think free will might be an illusion. Depressing, true, but I don’t turn to a fictional God to make myself feel better.
I’ve never understood how anyone could actually believe that all their feelings and experiences are a result of mindless unintended physical processes. It seems silly to defend such a point because if it’s true then even the argument is pointless because it’s not really “your” argument. There is not “you.” There are just mindless unintended processes and laws which explain away everything—even you.
Again, true, there is no “me” in the sense of non-physical will. But if consciousness is an illusion, at least it is a nice illusion. I still enjoy myself.
My best explanation as to why someone would believe such a thing is that some people lack a spiritual aptitude. More specifically it’s the convergence of a low spiritual aptitude and a great intellect. Sort of what Nietzsche would call an “inverse cripple.” The atheist’s disproportionately great intellect (in contrast to his spiritual aptitude) cripples him—blinds him to the idea of God.
Atheism is not the advancement that some may think. It’s more a regression to a more primitive state. Insects are atheists too. They don’t have any awareness of self or any awareness of any being greater than themselves. They are very rational in that sense.
Now your getting all ad hominem on me. I don’t think of myself as a cripple, or a primitive.
Religion encourages people to awaken to greater awareness. Not just physical and emotional awareness but also spiritual awareness. Atheism encourages people to regress to a state of mere physical awareness—a flattening of the world to a single intellectual dimension—a logical, rational, and almost robotic state of self denial. For if the atheist is right and there is no God, the universe is mindless and unintended then there is no self either. The atheist says that all our thoughts, dreams, and feelings are a result of mindless unintended processes. That statement when examined honestly is much more incredulous than all the Easter Bunnies, Santa Clauses and pantheon of gods in the universe.
I don’t find it more incredulous than Easter Bunnies, etc. You are trying a “reducto ad absurdum” argument- basically you are saying “your argument has absurd consequences (atheism implies the death of free will & self) so it must be wrong.” The problem with that type of argument is that one mans absurd conclusion is another mans valid deduction. I have taken my arguments to these conclusions, and though it is depressing, I see no error in them, and so I do not deny these conclusions.
Either the atheist is so acutely intelligent that he sees that there is no reason to believe in God or he is so deficient in spiritual faculty that he see what is obvious to majority of people.
I deny the existance of a spiritual faculty. I think there are better explanations for the existance of religion than a spiritual faculty. Do you have any other evidence for such a faculty?
A little aside: When I was young, I thought God existed. Not the Christian God, but I thought that the existance of religion around the world had to mean something- so many people could not be wrong. I thought “there is a God which exists, which presents himself to different people in different ways- as Zeus to the Greeks, Jesus to the Christians, etc.” Later on, as I learned more about science, religion and philosphy, I came to doubt this belief. I realized that the fact that many people believe something is not, independantly, a good reason to believe that thing is true. There needs to be alternate evidence. After all, many people once believed the world was flat, but we know this is false. Similiarly, the existance of many religions is not a good reason, by itself, to believe in the existance of something behind those religions. You need more evidence.
May 20th, 2006 at at 6:20 pm
Two points:
First, I don’t mean to say that consciousness and intention do not exist. Sort of.
What we perceive as consciousness and intention does exist. After all, we perceive these things. I perceive my consciousness (ie, I am thinking about my friend coming over right now), and I perceive intention (I intend to type this sentence, and my fingers type it). It is just that while I perceive these things, I also know that ultimately I am made up of matter in motion. My brain is just made up of energy and matter. There is no external soul that exists outside of causality directing my actions. This has the consequence that there is no free will, intention or consciousness in the way some people want to think of it- as something existing outside causality.
That does not mean consciousness and intention don’t exist- as LBBP said above, they arise from complexity. I see no problem with this explanation. Consciousness and intention are simply complex processes arising from complex systems. This is perfectly possible in a universe without a God. It is perfectly possible for intention and consciousness, as we perceive them, to exist in a universe without a God. It is just that because ultimately we are all just matter in motion, there is no “free will” as some people would like. I wish there was free will, where I was an agent existing outside of causality guiding the actions of my body, but I wishing won’t make it true.
Second, science is superior to theism, because science provides better explanations. Science explains and predicts, and often to predictions bear out, giving us evidence that the explanation is at least close to the truth.
What true predictions has theism made? Jesus was supposed to return a generation after his death, at least according to the gospels. He hasn’t. That prediction turned out false. Of course, this is but one example, I don’t mean to disprove all theistic predictions this way. After all, science makes mistakes sometimes, too. A hypothesis might not be borne out by experiment. That does not mean science is not the way to truth about the physical world. But science has made many predictions which have turned out to be true- it has great explanatory power. This is not the case, I believe, with theism.
I want to ask the theists present: what predictions has theism made about the world that have turned out true? In other words, what evidence is there to believe that theistic explanations are at least close to the truth?
May 21st, 2006 at at 12:16 am
Lory Jean-Baptiste:
Better then, to be a hand puppet, & have meaning, than to have no meaning, and a limp sock?
& what is wrong w/that, exactly?
Oh, riiighhht. Better to be a puppet. At least an invisible being cares about you.
Hey, you’re the magical thinker engaging in cognitive dissonance. I think you’re projecting here.
Uh-oh. Here we go. Codependence as philosophy.
Of which you have no proof of.
Magical thinkers always go for the easy answers, don’t they?
Who’s forcing whom? It’s been explained pretty well already.
It’s called evolution.
Flunked Sex Education class, did we?
The differential being, that you want somebody to be behind it all. I don’t. Sometimes, poopoo occurs.
Whatchoo mean ‘we’, kemosabe? Go lecture on the Hovind circuit, wouldja?