Archive for ‘Theology’

April 24th, 2009

Filtering reality

A belief in gods as real and existent beings is a preconception which acts as a filter for reality, a parental control for information you encounter.

Before the theist can examine any evidence of a natural origin to the universe or humanity they already have decided that god created all this, that reality is intended to reflect the glory of god, that god is a fact and that the stories in their holy book are accurate and true. That’s a massive filter to force reality to strain through, a clear and obvious preconception. It’s placing a precondition on information before they encounter it. It places the conclusion before the evidence is presented. If we so choose we can refuse to acknowledge any evidence that doesn’t conform to a constraining precondition, or we can choose to follow the evidence where it leads.
bias
If I ever found evidence of a god that could withstand honest, open, critical scrutiny, if I could submit it for examination and study and the conclusion was that there was no other possible explanation for this evidence than that it was clearly the product of a god, I would be the first to start posting about it, talking about it and showing that evidence to the world. Why wouldn’t I? I’m obviously not reluctant to state my opinions. If I ever become convinced there’s a god or gods I will not be shy about saying so.

I’ve already met and rejected several of the current nominees for the position of god around today. I’ve been interested in the mystical and spiritual since I was in my teens. Some god as yet undetected, unknown, not featured in any religious text, may come along in the future and I’ll believe. I’d like to think that it would be belief based on more concrete knowledge than current religious belief is. We may someday find evidence for the supernatural. (Often when I read books on quantum physics I wonder why a religion hasn’t suggested that the quantum world is the supernatural realm they’ve been talking about.) I enjoy contemplating the quantum world. I like having my view of reality both broadened and sharpened.

I won’t say I don’t have my own preconceptions. But none demand the degree of conformity that religious belief does. If I were convinced any current theistic viewpoint was valid and chose to share it, I am free to do so. Can a person convinced that a god exists honestly say the same?

April 14th, 2009

Ye therefore shall be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect

No one has ever overcome every human weakness, it’s simply not possible. Perfection isn’t even a concrete concept. Theists themselves admit they don’t become perfect because of their belief, they don’t become saints.

So what difference has religious belief made to human behavior? It introduced the idea that some of our common behaviors were bad, evil, an affront to its god. It introduced guilt and shame. Religions make being a human a bad thing.envelope-small

Religions invent superhuman gods as personifications of what we wish we could be; everlasting, error free, beyond reproach, spotless and pure. Religion preys on our ability to sense our imperfections, our awareness of our stumbles and falls throughout life. Theism has to knock its followers down first so it can claim the win when it helps them back up again. All us humans are essentially the same, imperfect and subject to forces both natural and social beyond our control. All religious belief does is offer a refuge from the feelings of guilt and imperfection religious belief itself created.

Religious belief poisons minds, then offers an antidote that doesn’t cure the symptoms but only promises that the poison won’t kill you, not really dead.

January 12th, 2009

The world’s only immortal animal

Turritopsis nutricula is a hydrozoan, and it’s considered by scientists to be the only animal that cheated death.

Solitary organisms are (according to current belief) doomed to die, after they completed their life cycle. Hydrozoa are a huge class of predatory animals that live mostly in saltwater, closely related to jellyfish and corals. Eggs and sperm from an adult jellyfish (medusa) and they then develop into polyp stage. Medusae evolve asexually from polyps.

Still, our Turritopsis nutricula managed to find a way to beat that. What these little folks do is they revert completely to a sexually immature, colonial stage after they reach sexual maturity. (Source-ZMEscience)

hydrozoa

I realize the article doesn’t go into enough depth on this, but suppose this behavior can be documented well enough to accept as plausible and possible. How does that impact our old belief that death comes to us all?

Death, the great equalizer. Nothing is certain but death and taxes. Death is the great reward, the deep sleep. For ages it has been the one certainty we could all agree on. We may not have the slightest clue what is going on in life, but we cannot deny that at the end of it all, every single living thing dies. Or does it?

Here’s a case where biology suggests a conflict between reality and the perception that every living thing dies. Maybe we’ve been wrong.

Isn’t it amazing that a simple polyp may possess the ability to do something that humans have wanted to be able to do for our entire history. A simple polyp can do something that religion has promised humanity since antiquity but never been able to bring to pass. All the promises, all the rewards, await us after death. We still all die. I think it’s safe to say that every person alive right now will die. But not this polyp.

On the other side of the aisle, how does this impact scientific presumptions? The presumption of death is pretty widespread. This might add a dimension to “life” that we have dismissed as impossible up to now.

Now that we understand how this process works, will we start to find other living things that practice immortality?

November 5th, 2008

“Atheists believe god doesn’t exist” (common theist misconception)

That in which I don’t believe cannot provide the basis for a belief system. If I believe in anything, it’s that which can withstand scrutiny and skepticism. The claim that gods exist and further, that any particular god exists, are extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. None has been provided.

Faith requires me to look at reality, which makes sense viewed through my everyday perceptions, in a way that doesn’t make sense on so many levels. I choose to no longer accept the unsubstantiated presumption that gods exist.

If I say “god does not exist”, I’m not speaking in the same absolutist frame of mind common among those who presuppose a condition to be real based on nothing more than emotions and tradition. The possibility that gods exist, based on all that’s known about gods, and further that any particular god exists to the exclusion of all the others is so infinitesimally small it’s not worth admitting a possibility exists. The odds of my hitting the lottery are far better than the odds that the Christian god exists as portrayed by its followers. The chance that I’m a child of god is on a par with the chance that I’m a child of extraterrestrials.

I’ll never know so much I could ever rule out anything absolutely. Religious belief presumes the absolute existence of its deities. To allow that they might not exist is the first step to breaking free of the shackles of presumptive belief.

I’m willing to admit that there is, however small, a possibility that a god just like yours exists just as you personally perceive your god to be. I also admit the possibility that reality is a natural process unfolding within us and around us totally unmindful of our presence is far greater and able to withstand critical examination. Theists, true believers, cannot in good faith accept even the slightest possibility that their beliefs may be mis-perceptions of reality.

Who is free to consider all possibilities? Who can more accurately call themselves free thinkers?

Isn’t the non-existence of gods as much a presumption as the belief they exist? Sure, but it’s a presupposition that invites disproof. It’s a flexible presumption. The presumption that gods exist (not can exist but do exist in one form or another) is inflexible and discourages and ignores disproof.

July 30th, 2008

Free Thinking: Anathema to Muslims and the CCC

PZ Myers has posted a follow-up to the amazing Cracker Desecration controversy.

An organization of the Catholic leadership has now condemned my actions. This is sad news: it’s clear that at least this tier of the Catholic hierarchy is as deranged as the wackaloons flooding my mailbox.

We find the actions of University of Minnesota (Morris) Professor Paul Myers reprehensible, inexcusable, and unconstitutional. His flagrant display of irreverence by profaning a consecrated Host from a Catholic church goes beyond the limit of academic freedom and free speech.

Hmmm. Who is the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy to decide the limits of freedom? Flagrant irreverence towards a cracker ought to be fair game, I should think…and that’s all this action was: irreverence. You cannot demand that all members of a pluralist society be reverent towards any random humdrum article that a guy in a dress declares holy.

The same Bill of Rights which protect freedom of speech also protect freedom of religion. The Founding Fathers did not envision a freedom FROM religion, rather a freedom OF religion. In other words, our nation’s constitution protects the rights of ALL religions, not one and not just a few.

Man, that is a tired old argument — usually you see that fine-grained parsing of the words of the bill of rights from right-wing sources, trying to distort the meaning. Do they really think a bunch of high-minded Enlightenment dudes dedicated to the principle of liberty were thinking, “We need a clause here that could be used to compel people to be a member of a church—we’ll just give them the freedom to choose which church they’ll be forced to join”? That’s insane. I am free of religion. I am free to make that choice, just as everyone is free to choose to be Catholic.

And my personal choice not to believe in the silliness of religion is not an infringement on the rights of any religion.

The freedom of religion means that no one has the right to attack, malign or grossly offend a faith tradition they personally do not have membership or ascribe allegiance.

This is the funniest statement in the whole declaration.

Freedom of speech means I do have the right to malign and make fun of any religion I want. I can’t interfere with your right to practice your religion, but that hasn’t happened — all I’ve done is laugh at you.

That last clause, though…do they seriously believe that only Catholics are allowed to criticize Catholics, and that this restriction is enshrined in the constitution? That’s a fine catch, that catch-22. So only Catholics can malign the faith, but if they do, then they can be kicked out of the faith, which means they can’t criticize it anymore. That sounds like a ripe piece of theological logic to me.

Be sure and read the comments following the above post.  They illustrate that many of us see through this nonsensical attempt to impose religious attitudes on our entire society.

The CCC is reacting no differently than the Muslims who cannot abide cartoons of Muhammad or other instances of blasphemy:

Taslima Nasreen is not alone in receiving death threats for her challenge to the authority of religion and of the state. Nor are Muslims the only ones invoking ‘blasphemy’. The Prime Minister of Mauritius bowed to pressure and banned The Rape of Sita, Lindsey Collen’s book about sexual violence against women, after Hindu fundamentalists objected to the title. While Sita is a very common woman’s name in Mauritius, it is also the name of the revered wife of the god-king Rama in the Hindu epic Ramayana, who symbolises the ideal Hindu wife – pure, chaste and virtuous. The Prime Minister declared that the book was ‘blasphemous’ and an ‘outrage against public and religious morality’. He also called on the Commissioner of Police to take action against the author. Lindsey Collen continues to demand her full rights as a citizen and has made full use of police services to investigate the threats she is receiving.

Persecution and harassment of Lindsey Collen and Taslima Nasreen by Hindu and Muslim fundamentalists respectively is an obvious attempt to suppress the individual’s right to criticise religious beliefs and practices. Their cases highlight the way in which even secular authorities will use religion to silence dissenting voices by invoking the blasphemy law to censor women who oppose the Government. Secular authorities are willingly sacrificing basic human rights to pander to fundamentalist forces.

Other examples of individuals experiencing harsh censorship, threats to life and accusations of blasphemy are Paul William Robert, a Canadian, who received death threats for writing a novel containing quotations from the Koran. He has gone into hiding after being stabbed by an unknown assailant. Increasing numbers of women in Algeria have been killed because of their association with secularist causes. Fundamentalists have vowed to target women who do not cover their heads in public, and two unveiled Algerian women, aged 19 and 20, were killed by gunmen while waiting at a bus stop. This is one case of hundreds of women’s deaths. Editors, journalists and publishers are also targets of attacks by religious fundamentalist groups worldwide.  (Source)

These Catholic and Muslim idiots want to put an end to dissenting voices.  They demand respect for their outdated and nonsensical superstitions.  It makes them crazy that they can’t outlaw “blasphemy” across the globe.

They are afraid.

They’re afraid of the light of reason.  They’re afraid that exposing the ridiculous nature of their beliefs will cause the faithful to question their religion.  Once that happens, people will come to the conclusion that they can think for themselves.  And that could easily spell the end of religious belief.

Religions thrive in the dark.  They employ mystery to keep the faithful enthralled.  Their extreme reactions in the face of dissent and disbelief expose their fear of free thinking.

signature

June 20th, 2008

My group thinks, therefore we are

It’s unfortunate that many people prefer to let their religion or their nationalism or any sort of group think community (any group, including rationalist and humanist groups) tell them what to think.

Neither I nor atheism is a religion. I do not think that my particular point of view is superior to anyone else’s nor is it going to apply to anyone else. It has developed, evolved, over the course of my life in response to the experiences I’ve had. I am aware that I hold several contradictory opinions. I make no apology for them.

Telling others they should think as I do is as anathema to me telling them what they can and can’t think. None of us has the right to tell another what to think. We explain our point of view as best we can and leave it for them to ponder it or ignore.

I’ve had other atheists insinuate, and in one case come right out and say, that I’m not atheist enough. Their attitude is that there’s a right way and a wrong way to be atheistic. How absurd. I could disbelieve in gods but believe that stuffed teddy bears were alive and be an atheist. That’s one of the things that separates atheism from theism, the lack of a standard statement of belief. There’s no atheistic dogma to which we all pledge our allegiance.

Some atheists contend that a philosophy of life that doesn’t include gods alone is insufficient reason to be an atheist. A true atheist must also believe that Jesus was an allegory based on preceding models. A true atheist must also believe that it’s significant whether or not Hitler was a Catholic (and that it mattered to him). If you don’t present an argument every time you see a theist mention that Hitler was an atheist you’re not really “one of us”. And you have to mention that Einstein was at best a deist as were the founding fathers. I’m sure I’m missing a few other examples of the articles of the unfaith.

It wouldn’t matter a bit if it were discovered that Adolph was a raving atheist. It wouldn’t matter in the least if Alfred was an Orthodox Catholic. I don’t consider myself an ambassador for the non-existent Christ. It’s an interesting historical mystery, but in the overall scheme of things it matters not if Jesus was a guy who got the best postmortem PR of any man in history or if he was nothing more than another god-man story based on earlier mythology. My rejection of the arguments theology offers has nothing to do with whether Jesus existed or not. Was Moses real or myth? Who cares?

Do you see my point? Even atheism can turn into a system similar to theism if it starts to add point after point of commonality to the bare-bones definition of an atheist. Those who attempt to do this are being unreasonable. Atheism is the product of being able to think for yourself. I can say with near certainty that no one comes to the conclusion that they don’t believe in gods until they reach a point where they change their own minds about theology. They have started to think for themselves and are learning how to ignore the voices coming at them from every side trying to tell them what to think. It’s not easy and the rewards dubious. I recommend it, but with reservations.

Think for yourself. And I’m just saying that. You have to decide whether or not you’ll pay attention and give it some thought.

signature

June 15th, 2008

Fine Tuning, debunking ID

Probably the most important conclusion we can draw is that even if the universe were intentionally created, we can discern nothing about that creator that we cannot discern of the physical universe. We cannot say anything about this supposed creator other than it is the sort of creator who would create this particular universe in all its details.

We cannot determine if this being wants to be worshipped or ignored. We can’t tell if it is friendly, hostile or completely indifferent to human, or even terrestrial life. Just believing that such a creator exists gives us absolutely no additional justification for believing that any religious scripture is inspired by this creator. (Indeed the idea that a being capable of creating such a vast universe, of actually creating physics itself, would choose to communicate with its creation by the agency of schizophrenic prophets and parasitic priests in some a remote corner of the ancient world seems vastly less plausible than that all religions are entirely human social constructs.)

We cannot even determine that the existence of life itself was a goal of this creator or a side-effect. Indeed, the relative insignificance of terrestrial life argues for the side-effect interpretation. The mold in the grout in my bathtub is more “significant” by many orders of magnitude to all of human civilization than is terrestrial life to the ~9.2×1021 light-year3 observable universe: that specific patch of mold has more justification for believing that all of human civilization has been created specifically and intentionally for its benefit than we have for believing that the entire observable universe has been created for the benefit of all terrestrial life.

In short, the Fine Tuning argument is speculative, probabilistically meaningless, and, even if true, doesn’t establish anything interesting. I think it’s safe to say that, after Pascal’s Wager, it’s the second worst apologetic ever. (The Barefoot Bum)

A well written and thought out exposure of one of the major weaknesses in the arguments for Intelligent Design. The whole concept of ID is poorly supported by any kind of evidence. It displays its religious roots by being illogical and internally inconsistent.

My primary argument against ID is that no one can provide an objective, absolute standard for the concept of “design”. What appears to one person to be a design appears to another as simply a pattern or even a disorganized mess. Until the ID crowd can suggest what they mean by design and offer examples of absolute design, their suggestions can be dismissed easily as nonsense.

June 10th, 2008

Why are we here?

Trying to extract meaning or purpose from nature is what philosophy is all about.

meaning of life

Trying to impose meaning or purpose on nature is what theology is all about.