Entry 669, on 2008-01-09 at 21:47:26 (Rating 4, Religion)
I often sit in strange places writing blog entries. As I was sitting in a mall writing the blog entry of 2008-01-08 a rather odd character came up to me and asked what I was doing. I said I was writing a blog entry and explained what a blog entry, is but then things moved on to what was I writing about. I said I was writing about Christianity but that I was an atheist myself.
The discussion then became a lot more involved and I had to defend the validity of my writing on a subject I didn't believe in. I pointed out that often the best overview comes from someone who isn't closely involved with the subject. How can anyone fairly describe a belief system they are totally tied up with? And if someone studies a subject, finds it has little veracity, and then doesn't believe in that subject, surely they are no less qualified in commenting on it.
I went on to defend atheism against various points, none of which were really very convincing. But the saddest question I had to answer was: "if evolution is true and humans evolved from apes and monkeys why are there still apes and monkeys?" I don't know how many times I have had to deal with this and it reveals so many misunderstandings that I feel saddened every time I hear it.
Evolution doesn't say that humans evolved from apes as they are today and it doesn't say humans evolved from monkeys at all. Apes and humans both evolved from a common ancestor which was neither ape nor human. Both apes and humans have continued to evolve since they split. The most recent split was about 5 million years ago when humans and chimps split from a common ancestral line.
But the implication that biologists would believe something which was so easily refuted is even more amazing. Do these people not think that biologist might have thought about that question? They obviously think people who believe evolution are either fools or liars. I suppose the same claim could be made against creationists, but in that case they clearly are fools - at least from the point of view of their belief in something which is clearly untrue.
And the claim that scientists doubt evolution is also untrue. Less than 5% of the senior scientists in America are Christians and less than 1% of biologists doubt evolution. Clearly, it is only ignorant people who doubt it. The more ignorant the person is the more likely they are to believe religious explanations of the world instead of scientific ones. This isn't surprising when religion relies on faith for its foundation instead of the truth (or the best approximation to the truth science can gain because real truth doesn't really exist).
Another point the person I was debating with seemed to miss was that there are many religions which all seem to be mutually incompatible. I admitted that I could never be 100% sure I was right and he claimed he was 100% sure. But when I pointed out that suicide bombers are also very convinced of their religious beliefs he finally realised that absolute certainty doesn't imply truth. In fact only people who are prepared to admit that they can never be absolutely certain of anything are likely to have the honesty to even get close to the truth.
My religious friend said he would go away and think about what I said (which was a good response on his part if he really means it) so if I ever meet him again it will be interesting to see if he has changed his mind on anything.
Comment 1 (1012) by sbfl on 2008-01-13 at 19:07:08:
Ha ha, another imaginary muppet OJB met (like that guy on the internet several months back that at the end of their imaginary conversation, started worshiping OJB!)
Since it's the holiday season, and I haven't been to this blog in a while, thought I would start off 2008 with something light (hat-tip Barnsley Bill):
An atheist was walking through the woods.
"What majestic trees!"
"What powerful rivers!"
"What beautiful animals!"
He said to himself.
As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him. He turned to look, and saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charging towards him.
He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder and saw that the bear was closing in.
He looked over his shoulder again, and the bear was even closer. He tripped and fell on the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw and raising his right paw to strike him.
At that instant the Atheist cried out, "Oh my God!"
Time Stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest was silent.
As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky.
"You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident." "Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer?"
The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian?"
"Very Well," said the voice.
The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head and spoke:
"Lord, bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty through Christ our Lord. Amen."
Comment 2 (1014) by OJB on 2008-01-13 at 19:54:01:
Well actually both these people were real and I reported the exchanges accurately. Not only that, but they were both fairly intelligent and thoughtful. You shouldn't assume that anyone who can see the sense in my arguments is a "muppet".
OK, your little story is kind of nice, but I have heard of it before. You will have heard the same sort of idea stated that "there are no atheists in fox holes". Well there are, and the implication that atheists really believe god exists and will turn to him in a crisis isn't true. And the exclamation "Oh my God" is just words and shouldn't be taken too seriously!
I do understand that your story was intended as a frivolous contribution though, and wasn't meant to prove anything, so I'll just leave it there.
Comment 3 (1022) by WF99 on 2008-01-19 at 11:44:06:
"(like that guy on the internet several months back that at the end of their imaginary conversation, started worshiping OJB!)"
Little old me? :-)
Comment 4 (1023) by OJB on 2008-01-19 at 12:27:49:
I'm not sure if it was you he was referring to. There was someone a while back who changed their mind about quite a lot because of what I said. He had only ever seen one side of the evolution vs creation argument and was surprised to see that the "theory" of evolution is practically a fact.
But sbfl doesn't seem to think changing your mind when evidence is presented is a good thing. He seems to look down on anyone who does change when the opposite should be true: if you change as a result of evidence being presented that's a good thing.
Comment 5 (1038) by WF99 on 2008-01-24 at 14:07:41:
I've been doing some thinking: your opinions in our past discussions have made a lot of sense. But don't you ever wonder about the repercussions for you - your family - if you turn out to be wrong?
Comment 6 (1039) by OJB on 2008-01-24 at 16:18:37:
This is the old "Pascal's Wager" thing, right? I'm sure that if I pretended to believe in god but didn't really he would see through my dishonesty and I can't force myself to believe something I find to be unbelievable. I have never told anyone else (including my family) what to think and I think they are quite capable of deciding for themselves.
It seems to me that any real god would value someone who has the honesty to stand up for his beliefs instead of taking the easy way out and just believing because it was "safer". I'm also sure he would forgive anybody who didn't believe because he/she was lead astray by someone like me. If god wasn't perceptive or forgiving enough to act that way then he isn't worth my support anyway.
Comment 7 (1040) by OJB on 2008-01-24 at 19:53:02:
And another thing... the idea that a god would hide his presence and then punish anyone who doesn't believe in him is ridiculous. What sort of childish game is that? In fact, what sort of god would require people to worship him anyway? Its pathetic!
And Hell is just an invention of the early Christian church. It isn't mentioned in the Old Testament (I know this is debated) and if Jesus even existed, I doubt whether he mentioned it either. Clearly it was added to scare people into believing in the new religion. I don't get manipulated by bullies (well, at least I try not to).
If there is a god I am confident that he has no resemblance whatsoever to the gods described by organised religions. But all the evidence indicates there is no god, and logic shows that a god almost certainly doesn't exist.
And, because I'm not religious, I'm far more moral than many believers. I am prepared to be a good person because its the right thing to do, not because an old book or a god tells me what to do. I am moral because I've figured out what's right for myself, not because I'm scared a god will punish me.
Honestly, I really can't see a lot of merit in religion at all.
Comment 8 (1041) by WF99 on 2008-01-25 at 12:18:53:
OJB said: This is the old 'Pascal's Wager' thing, right?
WF99 responded: Actually, no. It's something I've been worrying about lately.
OJB said: It seems to me that any real god would value someone who has the honesty to stand up for his beliefs instead of taking the easy way out and just believing because it was 'safer'.
WF99 responded: The beliefs I've been brought up with teach that God values everyone - when a person dies without accepting Christianity, it is decided that he is an enemy of God ("If you're not for me you're against me", or that's the gist of it) and God lovingly determines that since you don't want Him, you should get what you want and be completely separated from him forever. He values you enough to give you your own choice for destruction. Wow, I just now realized what bullshit that is.
OJB said: I'm also sure he would forgive anybody who didn't believe because he/she was lead astray by someone like me.
WF99 responded: Well, if Christianity is true, you'd be punished, but the one who led you astray would be punished tenfold (I believe). But the root of it is the doctrine of election; basically, not a single person is capable of choosing God on their own, so he ("in his infinite wisdom") chooses to predestine certain people to accepting Christianity and entering Heaven, while the rest do not get this favor, apparently because it wouldn't be for the greater good. So, there's really nothing you can do. Of course, if the attitude of "there's nothing you can do" follows you throughout your life (as it is an act of indecisiveness, and therefore refusal), you've played into the hand of being destined for Hell. I really can't make sense of it all.
OJB said: If god wasn't perceptive or forgiving enough to act that way then he isn't worth my support anyway.
WF99 responded: I see where your coming from, but, if a god really does exist, it really doesn't matter in the long run if you support it or not.
OJB said: And another thing... the idea that a god would hide his presence and then punish anyone who doesn't believe in him is ridiculous.
WF99 responded: This is where most counter that nature is God revealing himself. At any rate, it brings up the fine-tuned universe idea again.
OJB said: What sort of childish game is that?
WF99 responded: Also something I've been considering. The only ones who truly know what's beyond death's gates (not including the "life after death" experience people) are the ones who aren't coming back -- it really doesn't seem too fair.
OJB said: In fact, what sort of god would require people to worship him anyway?
WF99 responded: We have free will - it's not required; you'll just burn eternally if you don't. I don't really understand that.
OJB said: And Hell is just an invention of the early Christian church. It isn't mentioned in the Old Testament (I know this is debated).
WF99 responded: Hmm. I never really thought about that.
OJB said: Clearly it was added to scare people into believing in the new religion. I don't get manipulated by bullies (well, at least I try not to).
WF99 responded: That may or may not have been the original purpose of the doctrine, but I believe that (most) modern-day Christians aren't trying to bully anyone into accepting their beliefs, but earnestly believe in danger and are sending warnings. Of course, hearing someone say that there's a major car pile-up ahead (on a deserted road) is far different from witnessing the wreck and then choosing to avoid it.
OJB said: If there is a god I am confident that he has no resemblance whatsoever to the gods described by organised religions.
WF99 responded: I really do wish that I could be confident in something. I really do.
OJB said: And, because I'm not religious, I'm far more moral than many believers. I am prepared to be a good person because its the right thing to do, not because an old book or a god tells me what to do. I am moral because I've figured out what's right for myself, not because I'm scared a god will punish me.
Food for thought. Thanks.
Comment 9 (1042) by OJB on 2008-01-26 at 14:26:08:
Well its sort of like Pascal's Wager because its the idea that its good to believe in god just to play safe. Of course, that idea has never stood up to much scrutiny. But the whole problem with the idea of whether we should believe in god or not is that we don't really have a choice. I can't force myself to believe something that is obviously not true. Its not because I'm evil or ignorant or rebellious - its just the way I think. Why would god punish me for that (assuming he existed, of course)?
I love it when people suddenly realise that something is bullshit. It shows that they are actually thinking about it. The fact is that most religious belief is bullshit. Even the great thinkers have been guilty of this. For example, even Thomas Aquinas' proof of god is rather easy to refute. And a lot of religious belief does make no sense. For example the trinity is clearly nonsense. The church backed themselves into a corner and had to make up some bullshit to get themselves out, but they really just made things worse.
Nature being god revealing himself is pretty weak. It is just as easy to say nature is Darwinism revealing itself, or nature is quantum theory revealing itself, or nature is the Invisible Pink Unicorn revealing herself. The fact that believers have to resort to such weak arguments says a lot about the real evidence for their beliefs.
God and free will just cannot be reconciled. If god is omniscient and omnipotent then we don't have free will. And even if that problem could be overcome what sort of free will is that really? Its like saying "you have the choice whether you join the Nazis or not, but if you don't we''ll kill you".
Did you ever read my blog entry on how religion is a meme? Its like beliefs (not just religion) are self serving parasites which infect peoples' minds. It explains why some beliefs don't result in an advantage to the individual, for example they might be celibate or commit suicide. But those acts encourage more people to take up the belief and that ensures it survives. Its ironic that Darwinism explains religion so well - maybe that's why many religious people are so scared of it.
I just cannot understand the idea that many religious people think they need religion to be moral. The complete opposite seems to be true when you think about it. And that disposes of the idea that religion is good even if its not true.
I presume you belong to a church so do you ever discuss my thoughts with your pastor, minister, etc? I'd be interested to hear what they think because one of the reasons I do this blog is to test my idea against what believers think. Maybe they might even like to join the debate here. I honestly think I could put up a good argument against any believer no matter how knowledgeable they are. OK, that sounds arrogant, but its true. I do have the advantage of being right, of course!
Comment 10 (1045) by SBFL on 2008-01-29 at 01:43:01:
Oh dear. Another imaginary fundy nutter OJB uses to tell himself he's right!! "How can anyone fairly describe a belief system they are totally tied up with?" Like atheism? Or perhaps the possibility that someone has studied and been involved with a subject matter now means they cannot possibly be allowed to comment on it based on their experience?
What an idiot I must have been to study mathematics at University, now I learn from OJB that I cannot 'fairly describe' it! Sorry OJB can't go along with your logic on this one. Do people develop biases? yes of course. But this applies to every subject matter on the planet... human nature and all that. Be it politics, religion, philosophy, etc. Me thinks your own bias is showing brightly in this post!! Cheers.
Comment 11 (1051) by OJB on 2008-01-29 at 11:31:53:
Please justify your assumption that this person is a "imaginary fundy nutter".
Atheism isn't a belief system. How can *lack* of belief in anything be a belief system? Its just that we refuse to believe in anyone else's belief system. And maths isn't a belief system either. Here's a way you might understand the difference: a belief system is something someone clings to mainly through emotion and faith. An area of expertise (maths for example) is something which is an interesting or useful intellectual exercise. Labelling someone as an atheist (just because we believe in one less god than you do) and saying that's a belief is nonsense.
Everyone does have bias but only certain areas of knowledge have ways to minimise the effect of that bias. Science has mechanisms built in which detect and remove bias. Religion is all about encouraging bias - that's all faith really is. The two are quite different, don't you think?
Comment 12 (1069) by SBFL on 2008-01-30 at 00:45:14:
Your whole post and your description of him. Sorry, can't be bothered pulling out all the quotes and putting "i" tags around them. It's pretty clear.
Sorry you're not going to get away with it that easily. Lack of (religious) belief is in itself a belief by its very definition. However don't want to get into semantics. My point being that it is ridiculous to assume one cannot comment on a "research area", "subject matter" or "train of thought" - call it what you will - just because they are in knowledge of it to whatever degree. This includes religious belief or any belief system for that matter. You have bias - it is blatantly obvious in your blog. I have bias - it is blatantly obvious in my comments. We all do - it's called OPINION. What is it with the left always wanting to inherently shut down free speech and diverse points of view. (Electoral Finance Act anyone?)
Anyway, while we all have our little biases built up over our lifetime, I believe it is important to be open to others views as well. One doesn't have to agree, but one should listen. They will be richer for it. I also have time for those who can acknowledge others point-of-view, even if they disagree. There is nothing worse than a hardliner. They are so boring!
Comment 13 (1077) by OJB on 2008-01-30 at 12:41:48:
OK, this person is not imaginary. He's just someone who turned up on the blog - just like you. I have never had any indication that he is either nutty or really a fundy either. You're just wrong on this one!
You say lack of belief is a belief by definition! I would like to see you justify that one too! Sounds like the opposite to me: lack of belief is lack of belief by definition! :)
People can comment on their own beliefs but their comments will usually be more biased than someone who isn't emotionally, spiritually, financially, etc involved with that belief. For example, who do you think would give a less biased overview of Naziism: Hitler or a neutral historian?
Yes, I have already said everyone has biases and I have already mentioned how some systems seek to remove that bias while others seek to enhance it. Did you understand that point?
One of the reasons I enjoy this blog (and Internet discussion forums, etc) is that I do hear opposing views. And I do listen carefully to them and give them due credit. I value your opinion even though I disagree with almost everything you say! But I find hard-liners quite entertaining - at least in small doses!
Comment 14 (1078) by WF99 on 2008-01-30 at 12:54:06:
Wow, I've been called a lot of things, but never an "imaginary fundy nutter". You really only need to check out the archives of Owen's blog for verification - why would Owen use his "fundy nutter" to comment on year-old blog posts (on the subject of video games, no less)?
"But the whole problem with the idea of whether we should believe in god or not is that we don't really have a choice. I can't force myself to believe something that is obviously not true. Its not because I'm evil or ignorant or rebellious - its just the way I think."
I really wasn't trying to propose an argument to convince you or anything - of course you don't find any merit in religion whatsoever. But there's still an inkling in *my* head (upbringing, I suppose) that tells me that there's a chance that Christianity is true, which makes me all the more concerned.
I'm not trying to bore you, but I need to get some of my thoughts off of my chest, and you're pretty much the only person to whom I can do so (see below). I can coast from day to day without worry (I can distract myself with "crap to pass the time", to quote a Stephen King character). But at nights, I'm afraid that I will go to Hell someday, that a god has predestined me to. It drives me, literally, desperate at times. I just want something to latch onto that makes sense.
Sorry for boring you there, but I wish I could be convinced of something.
"Nature being god revealing himself is pretty weak. It is just as easy to say nature is Darwinism revealing itself, or nature is quantum theory revealing itself, or nature is the Invisible Pink Unicorn revealing herself. The fact that believers have to resort to such weak arguments says a lot about the real evidence for their beliefs."
Yes, but what about the find-tuned universe theory?
"I presume you belong to a church so do you ever discuss my thoughts with your pastor, minister, etc?"
No, I haven't. Almost everything in my life (school, church, family, extra-curricular activities) is Christian-oriented, so I'm really afraid that if I announce a hint of doubt (which would obviously come out if I even opened up the discussion), everything in my life will crumble.
Comment 15 (1081) by OJB on 2008-01-30 at 13:31:28:
WF99, I can see that your belief is an important part of your life and I really don't want to cause you unnecessary grief. If this discussion is really causing you so much confusion and unhappiness then please just don't come back. I'm sorry, I can't tell you that you're right and your god exists and your church is right - I really just can't be dishonest. I could be wrong about god but I can't pretend I'm wrong if I really think I'm right (hope that makes sense).
If your belief is that important to you then discussing it with someone like me is not a good idea. On the other hand, I do know of people who have freed themselves from their church and suffered through some pain at the time but are now very happy they did make the break. I can't tell you what do do here and I don't want to be responsible for messing up your life just because of what I see as an intellectual discussion.
Comment 16 (1085) by WF99 on 2008-01-30 at 14:05:00:
I agree that this is an intelligent discussion, and it's not your fault that you make sense. But I think that I haven't been too clear in this discussion:
I'm not asking you to convince me that Christianity is true; I'm asking for conviction that my future has been (favorably) sealed, or that there's nothing to worry about.
It's not my "belief" that's important to me; it's confirmation that I won't go to Hell or that there's nothing to worry about. In hindsight, even before my religion wasn't too important to me; I just didn't think about it.
However, you're probably right in that this subject shouldn't be pushed any further.
Comment 17 (1087) by OJB on 2008-01-30 at 16:38:40:
No one can honestly tell you that your future is favourably sealed. The promise that Christianity offers for a safe future is appealing to some people but its just a fairy tale. I know its tough, but its better to face hard facts than believe a comforting lie.
I don't mind continuing this discussion as long as you want to. I just don't want to make things too bad for you. Even if Christianity is fake its still an important part of your life.
Comment 18 (1095) by WF99 on 2008-01-31 at 11:07:52:
I wish it could be that easy for me personally. It's harder to "face hard facts" because I've always believed those facts to be false.
I honestly don't regret any of the discussions we've had. I'd rather be concerned about a problem than ignorant of its existence.
In the way of debating people in my life, I have given you my pastor's YouTube account, correct? You could do so there, though I'd appreciate it if you left our ties out of the conversations.
At any rate, I don't think that I've gotten a clear-cut answer to the initial question that sparked this discussion: do you ever worry?
Comment 19 (1097) by OJB on 2008-01-31 at 11:25:43:
I never worry about going to Hell any more than you would worry about the retribution of the Greek gods and being sent to Hades. The chance of the Christian God being real and acting the way he's described in the Bible is so infinitesimally small that its practically zero.
I'm not saying that there is no god, but if there is the old myths in the Bible have about as much relevance to him as primitive man's theory that the Sun is a god being pulled by a chariot does to modern astronomy.
I think the only reason you even contemplate taking such a silly story seriously is the propaganda you have been forced to suffer from your church for many years. Take that away and there's nothing left.
Comment 20 (1100) by WF99 on 2008-02-01 at 14:10:46:
A bit of thinking: it's not that I don't want to "face hard facts" (no afterlife). It's that I'd rather not "face harder facts" (horrible afterlife). You're probably right in that I only see plausibility in the "harder facts" due to my upbringing (looking back, my father frequently brought up Pascal's wager).
The time probably will come when I'll be forced to make a decision. The only problem is that I'm content with being confused; if only there wasn't a deadline!
Comment 21 (1101) by OJB on 2008-02-01 at 15:23:57:
The key phrase here is "you're content with being confused". If you are content then why change? I am practically 100% sure Christianity isn't factual, but I'm not so certain it isn't a reasonably good thing anyway. So you could still continue with your Christian lifestyle even if its not true. Personally, I think its both untrue and not good, but as I said, I'm not so certain about the second thing.
Comment 22 (1102) by WF99 on 2008-02-02 at 10:45:18:
I'm content with it, but I know that one day I'm going to die and when that happens I think that there may be a possibility that being confused won't turn out well. Whether or not that's true brings me back to the issue of being confused. I'd rather not touch it, but of course I'll have to.
Comment 23 (1103) by OJB on 2008-02-02 at 19:51:16:
Now I'm confused too! It seems to me that you are worried about being punished by a god just because you are doing what you think is right. And the only reason you even take this god seriously at all is because of some nonsense that you have been taught by his followers.
Propaganda inflicted on young people is effective and very cruel. I really don't see that a church scaring kids with stories about Hell to ensure their obedience is any better than a political party, military group, or any other group using propaganda to further its own ends.
I wasn't the victim of this sort of thing when I was young so its hard for me to know what it must be like, but I think you should break free and do what you think is right. Most people don't believe in your god, and even among those who do many won't live up to his expectations, so if you are going to Hell its sure going to be crowded with great people! As for the people in Heaven. I think I'd rather avoid them!
Comment 24 (1107) by WF99 on 2008-02-03 at 12:10:21:
Since this discussion is getting steadily personal, I've sent you an e-mail and would like to continue there, if that's all right.
Comment 25 (1108) by WF99 on 2008-02-04 at 11:23:48:
It seems to me that you have a misunderstanding of what Hell is doctrinally. In Hell, it is believed that God withholds all of his attributes and gifts of kindness from the condemned, meaning:
- No contact with other people.
- No light, only darkness.
- No sight, as a result of no light.
- No gravity.
- Despair, anguish, and mental torment.
- No fainting.
- Etc.
On top of this, God is angry because you've rejected him, therefore, add on top of that:
Few people, even Christians, have a grasp of what Hell is supposed to be, but this is what I've gathered throughout my life.
Comment 26 (1109) by OJB on 2008-02-04 at 11:49:40:
Yes, that's the sort of way I imagined it to be - if that's a God of love, I'd hate to say what a nasty one would be like! Why did you think I had a misunderstanding on this?
Comment 27 (1110) by WF99 on 2008-02-04 at 13:59:44:
Your post implied that you'd be able to communicate with people in Hell.
Comment 28 (1111) by OJB on 2008-02-04 at 14:10:19:
Ah I see... good point. I do find it hard to take the subject too seriously. But how do you reconcile the image of a loving god (Christians always seem to be mentioning this) with the image of a hideous monster capable of torturing his own creations for just following the natural intelligence he gave them?
Comment 29 (1112) by WF99 on 2008-02-04 at 14:38:36:
Since his creation rejected Him, he's naturally pissy. Or he's just, and must punish rebellion. Or he's letting you reap natural consequences. I dunno. Those three are the most popular, though I don't see how you can reconcile any of them.
In the way of "natural intelligence", human intelligence was originally designed to be dependent on God, so you can't have any intelligence without him. "In trying to become wise, they became fools", or something like that.
Comment 30 (1113) by OJB on 2008-02-04 at 14:48:29:
Do you think its fair, in any normal meaning of the word, for a god to make up some rules which are nearly impossible to follow, then punish an intelligent, independent entity for eternity in the most horrendous way for not following those rules? of course not. Hell is obviously an invention of the church designed to scare people into joining them.
As for the second paragraph of gobbledegook, does that even mean anything? What is natural intelligence, for a start? And intelligence depends on god? How? And if trying to become wise makes us more foolish why did god give us the ability at all? And if god gave us free will, why does he punish us for using it? Like most theology, when you analyse what it means it just doesn't make sense!
Comment 31 (1114) by WF99 on 2008-02-05 at 12:20:42:
No I can't, and no, I don't think it does. By the way, did you receive the reply to the e-mail that I sent to you?
Comment 32 (1115) by OJB on 2008-02-05 at 12:57:22:
Well done for examining these ideas objectively. Many religious people go on believing the same things for their whole life and not realising they are actually nonsense. I don't think I got a reply to my most recent email to you (4 February 2008 8:54:37 AM NZDT).
Comment 33 (1116) by WF99 on 2008-02-05 at 13:59:52:
Well, I've decided to continue the conversation here, rather than in e-mail. So, in response to the last two points you made (not actual quotations):
- "Be grateful and enjoy that you're alive and conscious at all." I know that, and I often wonder to myself why even exist (I can be very philosophical at times). But that doesn't mean that I don't go through life without the occasional unwelcome thought, "This is going to end".
- "That's a pretty selfish attitude, though." Though my very nature is that of an isolationist, I do try to help where I can (donating, volunteering, etc.). But why do we feel the compulsion to help others? Why are humans the only species that want to make big impacts, whereas most animals live for the moment and let the weak die off?
Comment 34 (1117) by OJB on 2008-02-05 at 14:39:27:
Yes, the idea of why we exist, why the Universe exists, or why anything exists is deeply philosophical and may not even have an answer. But invoking a god to answer the question doesn't help because we then have the problem of why god exists. We really just have to accept that we may never know. In fact the question might be meaningless.
Some other species do help weaker members of their community - its not unique to humans. And it can be easily explained in social Darwinism terms, by the way.
Comment 35 (1118) by WF99 on 2008-02-07 at 14:40:14:
Okay, perhaps my question was missing the mark. What I meant was: why does anything feel the compulsion to think of anyone else at all? Or, for that matter, of themselves? Expanded into, what makes us sentient of anything?
Comment 36 (1119) by OJB on 2008-02-07 at 19:51:35:
You asked "why does anything feel the compulsion to think of anyone else at all". I'm still not sure I understand the question. Want to try re-wording it?
Comment 37 (1160) by WF99 on 2008-02-16 at 14:27:57:
I'm not being very clear here; all of my thoughts are muddled, but I'll try to reiterate. Why do we care about others? Why do we (including animals, etc.) feel the desire to help anyone else? "Expanding social evolution" just seems meaningless.
Why are we even conscious and sentient to anything, by the way? I've been thinking about the complexity of aspects of the universe -- genetics, the construct of a cell, astronomy -- and it just doesn't seem possible for random chance to have constructed it. Of course, that's no conclusive proof for a god (which doesn't preclude the Christian God), but it's something I can't wrap my mind around.
Comment 38 (1161) by OJB on 2008-02-16 at 20:46:43:
We care about others because we are a social species and we rely on other people for their help. We support our family because they are genetically related to us. Social evolution is a fact. It explains the behaviour of social species like bees. Humans also have culture and that makes our behaviour far more complex than other animals.
If there is one message about evolution I would like to tell people its this: evolution isn't just random chance. Its a selection process which selects the best genetic variation which is (mainly) created randomly.
Creationists often compare evolution to a hurricane going through a junk yard and making a 747. But its not like that at all. Imagine all the raw materials for a 747 existing in the junk yard. Now have billions of hurricanes come through and randomly put bits together. Now throw away the bits that don't work and repeat with the bits that do work... trillions of times. Eventually you will get a 747. How could you not?
Comment 39 (1163) by WF99 on 2008-02-19 at 08:24:43:
Okay, it's fact. That doesn't change that it feels empty to me.
I've always heard that it's like throwing a broken watch into the ocean and having a functioning watch wash up on the opposite shore. Your defense works for species traits -- but what about the astronomical position of the stars, planets -- the "fine tuned universe". What about that?
Comment 40 (1198) by SBFL on 2008-02-29 at 01:41:12:
You said "You say lack of belief is a belief by definition! I would like to see you justify that one too! Sounds like the opposite to me: lack of belief is lack of belief by definition! :)"
Reread my comment, what I said was "Lack of (religious) belief is in itself a belief by its very definition." You seem to assume belief = religious belief. But you should check the dictionary. Why does 'belief system' have to be religious?
Okay so the person you refer to is not imaginary - will take your word on that one. If it was WF99 you should have said so. He is an apologist and one who parries to your every whim - well not every but most.
"People can comment on their own beliefs but their comments will usually be more biased than someone who isn't emotionally, spiritually, financially, etc involved with that belief." Well how do you suppose to measure this and to what degree? Pretty pie-in-the-sky comment really.
"I have already mentioned how some systems seek to remove that bias while others seek to enhance it. Did you understand that point?"
No. What systems? Atheism? (can't be, not a belief system is it?) On the whole bias comes down to the individual, not the 'system'.
"One of the reasons I enjoy this blog (and Internet discussion forums, etc) is that I do hear opposing views. And I do listen carefully to them and give them due credit." - Agree (though not so sure about the due credit bit!!!)
Comment 41 (1209) by OJB on 2008-02-29 at 12:23:50:
To WF99: Maybe it does feel empty. I guess it comes down to whether you prefer a pleasant myth or what is really true. But I should point out that most atheists lead full and happy lives while still accepting the truth.
The broken watch analogy suffers from the same problems as the junkyard one. It should be fairly clear from what I have said above why it doesn't work.
Could you clarify what you mean by the astronomical position of stars and planets? Apart from Earth being in the "goldilocks zone" there's nothing unusual there that I know of.
I have discussed the fine tuned Universe in several different blog entries because its a really interesting topic. Instead of going through it all again, have a look here and here and here.
Comment 42 (1210) by OJB on 2008-02-29 at 12:37:55:
To SBFL: OK, I see your point. I guess you could say that, in the wider sense of the word belief, being an atheist is a belief that following the evidence is the best course. But that really confuses rather than clarifies the issue because we are talking about an unreasonable belief (or a better word would be faith) in a religion and a simple following of common sense laws of logic and science in atheism. The two aren't equal in any way.
If I wanted a fair overview of Naziism would I ask Hitler? If I wanted a fair appraisal of the Republican party's performance would I ask George Bush? It seems to me that an unbiased person from outside the organisation involved would be less biased.
I said "systems" not "belief systems" (see, I can play that game too). Science clearly aims to remove bias: experiments are often double-blind, there's peer review, and criticism of any theory is expected and welcome. How does that compare with religion?
One thing I have always been meaning to ask you SBFL: what are your beliefs (I hate that word now). Are you a practicing Christian, a Catholic maybe? Who do you usually vote for. Do you accept evolution, Big Bang, etc? Let's see how your beliefs (there it goes again) stand up to scrutiny!
Comment 43 (1218) by SBFL on 2008-02-29 at 22:26:49:
An "unreasonable belief" by your standards no doubt. I support advances in science but it can't explain everything. It also makes mistakes. There is some way to go and I look forward to it. Well they are equal as "belief systems". Very different though, I agree.
Okay that is clearer now. If I wanted a fair overview of atheism then, I should not speak to an atheist? Actually it is not as simple as saying someone is part of a belief so their opinions don't count. Someone on the outside could be as equally but oppositely unfair. How to define neutral? What I prefer is a moderate (on either side of the belief), someone who can listen to the variety of views and make pragmatic conclusions. Lets not use examples of hardliners (Hitler, Bush!).
Correct, you did, but what is the difference? Okay so science removes bias apparently, maybe true, but people don't, followers = people. Welcome to the world of politics. There are many within the same religious church that have differing views, there are many within the science community that have differing views. See the comparison now?
Hmmm, now I am being asked to expose my final barriers of protection!!! Ah, transparency is all good. Yes, I am a practicing Catholic, but I am merely that, no theologian by any means. I initially voted left in my younger years (not Labour) but since 2002 have voted centre-right and I consider myself centre-right re political persuasion. I like to debate with those either side of me (ie centre-left and right) but struggle with interest debating with those too far away (hard right, hard left). I see moderates as more open minded, extremists as close-minded. Yes, I accept evolution and big bang though open to new theories should they present themselves. Though the former is more or less proven, the latter still referred to as a theory. As you know I have little time for Christian fundamentalists who take a purely literal approach to the Bible.
Comment 44 (1226) by OJB on 2008-03-01 at 11:01:09:
Unreasonable belief is belief not backed up by evidence in the real world. It is belief based on the authority of sources with no objective credibility. It is belief which defies questioning and correction. Reasonable belief, on the other hand, is belief based on observed facts, common sense, and self correcting logic and empirical methods.
Ideally I would not talk to anyone who is part of a system if I wanted an unbiased and fair view. Of course, any opinion is worthwhile if it can be backed up with facts.
Science does successfully remove false beliefs. I know that scientists are people and far from perfect, but the system helps eliminate aberrations caused by their mistakes. A religious system maintains a fixed set of beliefs and ignores facts by relying on faith instead.
Comment 45 (1238) by SBFL on 2008-03-05 at 22:39:30:
I don't assume faith and science to be conflicting. Like I said I believe in both (broadly speaking).
Have addressed this one on another thread. Basically you are saying you yourself cannot be trusted to comment on your belief system - atheism. Maybe so, but your experience, learning and knowledge must count for something. Many can see the pro's and con's of an 'idea' that is their own and can comment fairly on it.
'Science' is just as much afflicted by bias and vested interests as you would have us believe 'religion' is. Lets just pick up a newspaper, oh another "Global Warming" headline....what was it you said "Science does successfully remove false beliefs." Well done Science with this one.
Comment 46 (1240) by OJB on 2008-03-06 at 08:44:52:
My topic for today will be the war between science and religion so I won't comment here.
Let's just say that all opinions count, especially when backed up with evidence, but we should be cautious of opinions on a belief system put forward by people who are already deeply committed to that system.
Oh no. Please don't tell me you are a global warming denier!
Comment 47 (1244) by SBFL on 2008-03-10 at 01:04:41:
Already commented on your new post before coming back here. Your argument there was flawed in my view. Well not so much flawed, as it was too generalistic.
As you are already committed to your belief system....
No, I'm not. Still ambivalent on the subject, because science has yet to be conclusive on the subject matter. Surely you are not a global warming advocate, considering scientific opinion is divided on the matter. Bit of a contradiction if you were!!
Comment 48 (1255) by OJB on 2008-03-10 at 11:30:48:
Well actually scientific opinion isn't divided, unless you mean that a few percent of scientists having some reservations means divided (in which case everything is). There is an overwhelming consensus that global warming is both real and significantly caused by human activity. Do some research in the journals if you don't believe me.
The so-called division of opinion has been fabricated by business and political groups. It doesn't exists to any significant extent in science any more than the fake crisis in evolution does.
Thanks for reading this blog post. Please leave a message below.
You can leave comments about this entry using this form.
To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add. Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry. The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.
BLOG PAGE