I'll make this quick because if I dwell on it for too long my head will explode.
Tomorrow night Barack Obama and John McCain are going to spend an entire evening giving a command performance for Rick Warren -- pastor, author of those insipid Purpose Driven Life books, one-man evangelicatainment phenomenon and a guy who's bested only by Elvis and Jesus himself in the minds of NASCAR America.
Warren promises to ask tough questions of the two candidates as they attend his personal "Compassion Forum," held at the Saddleback "mega-church" in California.
And just what topics will he be grilling them on?
"I'm going to ask them questions about character, competence, about values, vision, virtue, about their convictions in leadership, about their experience. And I'm going to deal with their personal life - because character matters. Their personal life does matter as a leader. God says so."
So just for planning purposes, should anything actually important come up -- you know, war, terrorism, unemployment, $4.50-a-gallon gas, home foreclosures, Russian tanks rolling through Georgia -- you'll know where to find the next leader of the free world.
He'll be shooting the shit with Pastor Rick, discussing how 2,000 year old superstition guides him and bragging about how much he loves Jesus in an effort to nail down that all-important "fucking idiot" vote.
Because God says so.
Related (since I'm too damn frustrated and exhausted to get into this in any more detail):
(He Blinded Me Without Science/8.12.08)
(WWJD? WTF?/11.29.07)
(Faith No More/6.8.07)
Friday, August 15, 2008
The Warren Commission
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
33 comments:
here we go with the righteousness again. a country of righteous fucksticks. why, why, why?
the good news, no pun intended, is that i still think most people find discussions in that sort of a forum to be way less relevant than what is (or not) in their bank accounts or how their going to continue with a standard of living their used to.
thank god. ; ) i think votar needs to chime in with... (go ahead, say it)
er... they're, not their.
Why do mega-churches have the most meta minds? I wonder if Pastor Rick (PRick?) will make a fuss that McCain is an avowed adulterer and Obama is not. Nah, personal life is only so important.
So sad that in the year 2008 that any politician demean him or herself by appearing at this sort of event. I know whereof I speak, I grew up believing all the nonsense people like this Pastor Rick (and by the way, what a name) spew forth on a regular basis.
I'm no expert on Warren, but from the little I've read about him he sounds considerably more--what's the word?--sane than Pat Robertson and some of his brethren. Considering the craptastic job the network "journalists" did during the primary debates--and that includes St. Russert--I'd say there's a good chance this will be the best-moderated meeting of the two (presumptive) candidates. And boy do I wish I was kidding.
I just re-read the topics du jour for tomorrow. Let's change "good chance" to 50-50. At least he's including questions about competence.
I'd seriously consider selling my soul for a debate modded by the Comedy Central crew.
I like how he settled the debate about the significance of a leader's personal life by throwing in, "God says so." That really sets the stage for an intelligent, sophisticated discussion. Maybe David Berkowitz can tell us what satanic dogs think, if God is busy that night, rewarding prayer with R.B.I's, or ordaining the next Tony awards.
That's the answer to everything with these idiots: God says so. It's bulletproof non-logic.
hmm? wha....?
Oh, yeah.
Retards
Don't count on me for anything before the first cup of morning coffee.
Hey true story:
My dad, bless his 66 year old heart, takes medication for chronic pain that makes him a little, let's say, sleepy. During my last visit with him a couple of weeks back, he turned to me over his bagel and lox, and asked through the fog, "So, are you gonna vote for La Bamba, or that other guy?"
Since my retired parents got their own computer with internet access, one of my regular responsibilities now is to debunk the Obama is a baby-eating Satanist muslim who hates America and wipes his ass with the flag emails they keep finding in their inbox.
So, yeah, unfortunately it is possible for a certain segment of the population to be susceptible (through no fault of their own) to believing in the relevance of a debate between the two candidates for the Presidency of the United States of America -- the most powerful job on the planet -- moderated by the glorified modern equivalent of a traveling carnival sideshow barker.
(Direct all requests for sample doses of my dad's medication here. )
That thing just never gets old.
As long as we're letting people moderate debates because they're popular authors with rabid followings, why not have Steven King run one?
"Gentlemen, thanks for coming. I'm not going to waste your time, so let's jump right in. What do you plan to do about the unspoken threat that dwarfs terrorism and the energy crisis? What are you going to do about the Children of the Corn?"
We could learn the presidential candidates' views on important topics like telekinetic teenagers, stealing holy Indian land for pet cemeteries, lawnmower men, and, of course, demon clowns (I will not vote for a candidate if he's pro demon clown. I won't do it, and Chez, I urge you not to do it either.)
John McCain's Zombie Preparation plan? Attempt to blend. He'll moan a few times, have a couple bites of brain, do you really think the zombies will question his being a rotting mound of long dead flesh? They may even elect him to be THEIR president.
Barack Obama's plan if it turns out that Cell phones are causing the transformation? Government issued bluetooth headsets with zombification protecting features.
We might even get a discussion of actually relevant stuff like prison conditions at old Shawshank, and whether the Ben E. King or Clash song should come to mind when someone mentions Stand By Me.
I doubt we'd learn LESS than we will from Rick Warren's "Compete to see who can say the most superstitious stuff about my buddy Jesus" debate.
What I find amazing about the whole we want a leader with values stuff, is why there hasn't been more outrage about the war in Iraq. At this point it is clear that the war was not simply done out of flawed work, but was planned to go no matter what. Where is all the outrage of the religious people? How come the mega churches aren't marching in the streets demanding that our men and women return home or at least out the war zone?
and if I missed those stories please provide some links.
Otis, Because the mega-church goers understand and support our true, underlying, long-term extra special mission in Iraq: preparing and transforming it into Promised Land they've been told to expect it to be after the Rapture.
A radioactive wasteland upon which a giant golden spaceship named "New Jerusalem" will land.*
Oh and kudos @ anon. 11:11am, that's some retardedly funny shit right there.
* (Think I'm kidding about that?)
Look, I can take a joke as much as the next guy, and I think this is a circus sideshow myself...
...but why the bitter hostility about being guided by a "2,000 year old superstition"?
I mean, are Jesus' teachings so fucking bad? As a golden rule type thing or a philosophical one, what exactly did Jesus teach or espouse 2,000-some years ago that was so fucking awful?
I mean, let's not blame the basic religion for the millions of idiots who misinterpret, misapply and misunderstand it while purporting to uphold it.
(C'mon, you didn't think I could AVOID commenting on this somehow?)
The problem I see, Deacon, is that Jesus' teachings were fine on an individual basis, but have no relevance in a national debate. It is fine to propose a personal moral guideline for individuals, but it doesn't hold up as a policy for a nation.
Thus, you may find out that McCain believes in the teachings of Jesus, but you wouldn't want him to run the country by those guidelines, so why is his personal belief discussed? If I thought for one moment that Obama would turn the other cheek if Mexico invaded the U.S. I wouldn't support him.
Note that this does not approach the believability of Jesus, which I find is nil. It's simply a matter of usefulness in this campaign. In contrast, both Obama and McCain refused to participate in a proposed science debate, moderated by leading scientists. THAT would have been worthwhile.
Well as long as there is an open question on the table...
It is very easy to blame basic religion for the millions of idiots who misinterpret, misapply and misunderstand it while purporting to uphold it.
Belief, by definition, is the acceptance of something as the truth which can never be proven, which does not stand up to the test of demonstrability. It is therefore a private and internal process which has no applicability to the real world. Knowing this, on the one hand we can say that it is no one's business what superstitions either McCain or Obama cling to in the privacy of their internal thoughts, and it is embarrassing to watch either one of them prostrate themselves before this or any other religious leader, cynically seeking some sort of disingenuous approval. On the other hand, knowing the rabidly xenophobic nature of most religions, and the mechanisms that are built into them that REQUIRE the particular belief to be spread to the "unsaved," unfortunately for many of us who hope for a day where reason and civility inform our leaders' decisions, knowing as much as possible about which version of prehistoric idolatry they cling to is crucial.
This is the mistake that shocked religionists make every time this subject comes up: "What's so bad about the teachings we believe?"
The answer: all of the great things we are capable of as human beings, we are able achieve without surrendering our intellect to this otherwise private and fundamentally primitive mental phenomenon. All the good things that various "holy books" teach are not otherwise untrue without the existence of these books, or an acceptance of the behavior they require.
Religion requires two traits from its converts that are oddly juxtaposed. First, the gullibility to accept without question a set of ancient allegations (rooted in traditions that emerged when desert-wandering peasants feared lunar eclipses) that everyone knows can never be demonstrated to be true; and second, an intellectual insecurity that demands that any hint of criticism has to be crushed with overwhelming dominance.
Speaking only for myself, what may seem like bitter hostility aimed at religion, is something that hews closer to simple embarrassment that people are still rattling feathers and bones at the sky, praying for rain and miracles. To paraphrase John Lennon, imagine a world without all of this lunacy.
It's said that when Pierre de Laplace figured out that planetary orbits are stable and presented his findings to Napoleon, the latter asked, "Why is there no mention of God in your discovery?" To which Laplace responded, "He simply wasn't necessary." The theory made just as much sense without him.
Look, guys, I totally GET that Jesus (nor any religious belief) isn't particularly relevant to the national debate. Shit, Jesus himself send render unto God what is God's and unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. Christ understood that politics and faith, the temporal and spiritual, were two separate things.
And lest there be any confusion, I am not in the business of trying to convince atheists that God exists.
What bothers me is when it goes from some light-hearted ribbing about Christian beliefs to what I perceive, at least, as being a snotty attitude toward the "lesser" folk who believe in God.
Why isn't it enough to simply point to the idiots and waggle your fingers at THEM? And maybe that's indeed what you're trying to do.
But what it FEELS like is that you are trying to adopt a very superior attitude that NOT believing in God is oh so superior to believing in God. And therefore that all believers are a wellspring of stupidity and ignorance.
I don't see that. The world is full of idiots, and I frankly don't believe that eliminating religion would put a dent in the idiocy level. Stupid is stupid. Ignorant is ignorant. Remove religion and people will rally behind something else to validate and support their idiocy.
I love John Lennon's shit as much as any of you, but the "imagine there's no heaven/imagine there's no hell" won't change anything in human nature.
Intellect and faith are two separate things. And they are not, by the way, mutually exclusive.
Being atheist doesn't make one stronger, faster and better than the guy who prays to God. (Apologies to Steve Austin's studly cybernetic self for stealing and modifying his tagline)
I use my brain for the things of this world; I use my faith for the things that are of the spirit. Faith gives me strength in many areas of life, but I don't try to warp and twist my life to fit my faith.
I am in the world, and must function in it, but I am not supposed to be OF the world and simply put all my eggs in the temporal basket.
I don't ask you to share my faith, because you can't share what you don't believe in...and I can't make you believe.
What I ask is that you shed whatever underlying conceits you have that turning one's back on spiritual faith will increase your intelligence.
Being highly intelligent can be very good for talking yourself out of faith because demanding that everything have a logical explanation pretty much rules out God.
Being highly faithful can inhibit one's intellect if one is so fearful of the things of the world that one doesn't learn and use one's cranial contents to their fullest.
But there are plenty of idiotic atheists and plenty of whip-smart religious folks to go around.
Again, perhaps I am reading too much into Chez's post or the comments thus far, or perhaps I missed some key points one or more of you have made. But it seems to be that there is a level of arrogance going on here that is uncalled for.
And at the risk of repeating myself, I can take a joke. I still chuckle at Chez's zombie Jesus post. But what I'm feeling now is folks looking at me and mine like we're a bunch of fucking...dare I say it given the brouhaha the past couple days around here...retards.
We aren't.
Good morning, retards. :)
Hey deacon it's all good. But you risk falling into the trap that religionists have been building around themselves for millenia. Those of us who have outgrown the reliance on superstition to inform our understanding of the world are simply confused by the great many of you who seem to have not yet thought it through enough. Since this tradition is a very personal one to you, you perceive our confusion as a threat. It's okay; unlike the MANDATE of religion, no one on this side of the table is trying to convert you. The facts are already self-evident, all you have to do is look.
My girlfriend's seven year old daughter blamed the t.v. weatherman when it threatened to rain on the Fourth of July fireworks. I'm not better than her, or smarter. She just doesn't yet know how atmospheric climatology works. She'll learn, and then she'll stop asking if the rain is the weatherman's fault. If, after having been taught how weather actually works, she continued to blame the weatherman for rainy days, we would seek counseling for her.
Another anecdote (because hey, why not): My ex-girlfriend's mother was an elderly woman born in Cuba. She had a sixth-grade education and a very difficult life. By no means, at all, was she a stupid person. In her room was a table set up in the corner with a collection of miscellaneous trinkets (coins, statues, pictures of catholic saints, buttons, flowers, etc.) She maintained this shrine because she comes from a tradition that holds that these objects exhibit some kind of spiritual significance. Her need to embrace this belief was harmless, but arguably unnecessary. It was easy for me to look the other way and keep my opinion to myself, but at no time did I ever render a judgment as to her intellect. She simply had a strange habit, taught to her by a tradition that propagates strange habits.
I personally know Christians who would waste a lot of breath condemning that woman as a witch and an idolater. I am always fascinated when the most vocal critics of the adherents to an utterly irrational belief are other adherents to an utterly irrational belief.
Asking that the waggling finger be pointed at the "true idiots" ("look elsewhere, that superstition over there is more deserving of your scorn than my superstition over here"), and misinterpreting a curiosity about this vestigial reliance on unprovable assertions as an attack on one's intellect, misses the point completely. Actually, it amplifies the point: how can obvious intellect (such as you, deacon, exhibit) be reconciled with such an irrational acceptance of assertions so demonstrably at odds with reality?
If I didn't like you so much (and I'm sincere about that, Mr. blue), and because I abhor internet flame wars as the sandlot tantrums that they always are, I'd be less diplomatic and level the response I usually have at the ready: butch up. A crude way of saying that taking offense at reasonable criticism of the tenets of the traditions you were asked to accept without question, says much about your confidence in them. Is such an opportunity for self-examination so threatening? In the face of these doubts, isn't a careful re-thinking of the solidity of these beliefs warranted?
Put two people in a locked room, both of whom declare that they know The Truth about some thing or another, each of whom are saying something different. AT BEST, I have no better than a 50% chance of choosing which person is telling me The Truth. Now add a third person. My odds have just dropped to 33%. Keep going. Stop when you get to 6 billion people (and hope that the room is well ventilated). The chance that anyone knows The Truth has faded into statistical impossibility, even assuming the formation of subsets of the population who declare identical versions of it. My solution: leave the room. It's a nice sunny day outside. Maybe I don't need to know the answer so badly, and all the loud bickering and territorial pissing has become annoying and embarrassing. And unnecessarily dangerous.
A (not so) brief word on the notion of arrogance. On one side of the table is the argument that one is required to accept as Truth a set of assertions that everyone knows cannot be proven (the antithesis of Truth), that those who do not accept these assertions are "sinners" who are "damned," whose behavior contrary to those unprovable assertions must be policed, controlled, forbidden, and eliminated wherever and however possible. On the other side of the table is the recognition of the improbability that a supernatural intelligence causes rainbows, helps one football team win the Superbowl, steers hurricanes into New Orleans to drown sinners, or informs the decisions made by the President of the United States of America. The participants on this other side marvel at the beauty and terror of the natural world, but do not need a separate, parallel mental process (to borrow your description of it), to reach beyond the known but ever-expanding limits of this world to find convenient and artificial explanations for it. On this side of the table is science that --although it doesn't and probably can not have all the answers -- is systematically dismantling the unprovable assertions on the other side, much to the vocal outrage of their steadfast adherents. To put it simply, on this side of the table are those of us paradoxically both bold and humble enough to say "I don't know" and leave it at that. I don't know, deacon. The fact is, neither do you, nor does Chez, nor does the President, nor does The Pretender at the Vatican, nor does Rick Warren (though it is possible that his bizarre misshapen goattee is in fact a sentient alien intelligence sending puppet-master tendrils into his brain). Nor do any atheists, incidentally. Nor does anyone, anywhere, ever. Again speaking only for myself, I take the only truthful position available: I don't know (but I'm willing to try to learn). When one finally comes to this acceptance, it is both liberating and terrifying. I'm as scared as you are; I just embrace my fears rather than invent an improbable bedtime story to quell them.
This side takes no absolute position because it's obvious that it is impossible to do so, and demands no loyalty to one, and wants only a harmonious existence unmolested by those on the other side who are instructed to restrict human behavior, quash intellectual curiosity, and spread primitive superstitions to replace and eliminate the noble human search for demonstrable explanations for the things that happen in the universe.
Which of these two seems the more arrogant?
I certainly don't level the arrogance claim at atheists alone. Far from it.
Are there more people with arrogance on the faith side than the atheist side? Yes, but then again there are more people who believe in some sort of god or who just have that vague "I don't know but probably" feeling than there are atheists, last I checked.
So, law of averages say that the larger group will produce more morons and assholes.
;-)
Thing is, I like most of y'all around here, too, Votar, so I'm not walking around with a chip on my shoulder.
I just don't understand why, so often, the mere practice of religion is seen as some sort of failing, as if the person who has faith is deficient and would be so much better off if they just turned atheist?
Because you see, I don't see atheism as a failing. I see it as a belief system. Just as I see any religion other than Christianity as a belief system and not a failing. It's just that atheists don't put any of their beliefs in the unseen unless they're onto that UFO abduction kick or something.
There are several people who vote Republican and who classify themselves as conservative whom I would count as friends. Despite the fact I think they are wrong. But I don't classify them as deficient. Nor do I classify atheism as deficient even though I think it's incorrect on many points.
And perhaps that "deficiency" claim is not what you or Chez or anyone else here is trying to put across. But I think it is an easy trap to fall into. Because when one doesn't believe there is a god of any sort, it is easy at times to lump all the believers in with the primitives of aeons past and write them off as touched in the head, weak or whatever else.
We aren't going to come to any answers here, certainly, nor did I plan on doing so. This all started off because I orignally worried that Chez was knocking the adherence to a 2,000-year old set of behavioral and philosophical tenents as somehow bad in and of itself, whereas I think he (and a lot of non-atheists as well) are really just hopping mad that a spiritual forum was the FIRST place we get to see McCain and Obama go head to head.
In the process, it morphed, and I vented some of my concerns about having my beliefs labelled as an inherent failing of my character.
But hey, whatever. I'm not sitting here feeling persecuted or anything. People need to call me out on arrogance or laziness at times and here and there I feel I need to put up the same warning flags for other folks. I just don't want to see anyone getting on a perch from which they will look down with scorn at some other group as a whole.
We joke about faith. We joke about folks who like NASCAR and/or country and western music. We joke about people who worship or desire Sarah Jessica Parker. That's always going to be part of life and in particular part of this blog.
But sometimes, especially when we get too comfortable about making jokes about a particular group and keep doing so on too regular a basis...well, we can start believing the jokes too much. And then we get caught up in our own conceits and bigotry.
It's human nature, baby....
I kinda have to side with ol' Deacon there. It does get a bit insufferable sometimes.
Not that I would want Chez to change from his usual grumpy ass self. Just kinda beware going into that same zone your targets do: that the world is simply binary.
Before, Chez questioned the effect of the current us-vs-them mentality of the political realm. Maybe we should all consider that it might not just be there.
I feel strongly about this and see no reason to pull my punches. I love the debate -- and believe it or not, I really do listen and learn. But I think I've made it pretty clear in the past that I don't in any way dislike Christians as a rule, or anyone who subscribes to faith-based religion for that matter. Kind of like Votar, who I've been friends with for about 20 years, I just don't like the belief system and think it's done more harm that good in our world. I've said this before on this site ad nauseam, so I won't rehash.
@votar: "This side takes no absolute position because it's obvious that it is impossible to do so, and demands no loyalty to one, and wants only a harmonious existence unmolested by those on the other side who are instructed to restrict human behavior, quash intellectual curiosity, and spread primitive superstitions to replace and eliminate the noble human search for demonstrable explanations for the things that happen in the universe.
You're setting up a straw man and knocking it down.
Christians, as well as other religionists, understand the workings of nature, and are not threatened by scientific explanations.
You seem to suggest that we are.
Also, you seem to take some perverse delight in characterizing us as religious fanatics, opposed to science, and scientific explanations for things heretofore attributed to God by the primitive mind.
Scientific pursuit of "demonstrable explanations for the things that happen in the universe" will not disprove the existence of God, but it may have the unintended consequence of establishing His existence, or let's say the existence of "intelligent design."
And for God's sake, pursue your science. I don't see Christians or other religious groups objecting, except some in the case of stem cell research.
And in that narrow case not all Christians are opposed.
Before I get to heart of my comments, let me assure you: I don't care what you believe, but obviously you care what I believe.
You said "...this side...unmolested by those on the other side who are instructed to restrict human behavior..."
What human behaviors are being restricted?
Are you advocating an "anything goes" society?
Are you an anarchist? It seems that this society has served you well, you get to carp here without fear of imprisonment.
And said:
"...quash intellectual curiosity..."
Who has quashed your "intellectual curiosity..."?
Now if you wish to perform vivisections on live human subjects, your intellectual curiosity should be quashed.
If you wish to kill young men (Jeffrey Dahmer style) and satisfy your intellectual curiosity as to the taste of human flesh, then your "intellectual curiosity" should be quashed.
And said:
"...and spread primitive superstitions..."
Do you mean by "primitive superstitions" a belief in God?
Why should you care what "primitive superstitions" are spread? Who is stopping you from "spreading" what you choose?
I know of no one who is objecting to what you believe, nor are they interested in keeping you quiet.
Spread your beliefs. Counterattack if you choose. Nuke us with your worship of the scientific method; let the WMD's of your superior intellect tear down the walls of our primitive superstitions, and blast the hell out of our belief in a supernatural God.
You have my permission, and my blessing.
One last thing: I don't accept God on the basis of belief.
This seems to be the claim of atheists and agnostics, a claim that goes unchallenged more often than it should.
You insult my intelligence with that line, and the intelligence of many others who know God.
God for many is more real than this physical universe that you accept as real, and believe can be explained, and cracked open like an egg for all to see, using the scientific method.
Science will never get to the bottom of it all. It starts with the wrong premise.
God is a Spirit. You will never know Him by using your scientific method, or the rarefied reasoning of your mind.
As Spirit, God doesn't make Himself known from the outside in, but from the inside out.
You will never know Him with your physical senses. Just as you need the proper receiver to pick up radio waves, you need the proper receiver to "pick up" God. That receiver is called "spiritual sense," a sense that you clearly have not developed.
I don't believe in God. I accept Him as an indisputable fact. I know that He exists. Why? Because He reveals Himself from within as a movement and a rest.
I hear His voice, feel His presence, and see His Glory everywhere, from the inside out.
I fear you're not going to find Him here in the world of relativity, where one thing defines itself in relation to something else.
God dwells in the absolute. I know, the absolute (God) doesn't exist.
Now, some of you atheists would say that I'm delusional, that you can't believe the mind, that it's unreliable, suspect, and fraught with error, and false imaginings.
You don't say!?
Where would you be if suddenly you lost all your senses--touch, taste, sight, hearing, smell?
I know, you'd find yourself existing in a delusional world, bereft of your physical, matter-based, material reality and universe that you hope to unravel the secrets of using the Holy Grail of science: the scientific method.
Oh, Well. I'll hold to my delusions, and let you have yours.
Respond if you wish, but an adhominem attack will be met with silence.
Wow, Domino -- no offense, because I appreciate the time you took to comment and the thought you put into it -- but you're just spouting oodles of nonsense.
The idea that science will somehow prove the existence of God or his "intelligent design" is the ultimate form of grasping at straws. It's just ludicrous.
Why does it matter what someone believes, no matter how seemingly off-base it is and incongruous with the evidential standard in place for every other belief we have (the ones most of us agree upon)? Because there has to be a standard for truth that can be used to measure our reality -- and because people act on their beliefs, which means that (and you brought it up) if you believe in God and life-is-a-precious-gift-from-him-that-begins-at-conception, you will be more likely to vote down those who push for stem cell research, a scientific advancement that could help millions. (I won't even bother going into the fact that standing in the way of stem cell research is, yes, immoral.)
As for your beliefs in general, you've basically already stated that they and the opinions and theories that spring from them are bulletproof -- that no amount of evidence, or lack thereof, will change your mind. The fact that you can't see how crazy that is is astonishing, but I'll admit that it automatically disarms anyone arguing with you. That other side is trying to use logic and reason; you're sticking your fingers in your ears, turning up your nose and just saying that you "know."
In the end, you've really offered up a whole lot of metaphysical platitudes which essentially prove nothing. Not a damn thing.
I'm going to wax philosophical for a moment, mostly for shits and giggles, because I'm really not trying to "prove" anything here.
First, God doesn't want to be provable. Kind of put the kibosh to the whole "faith" thing. So, while I agree with much of what First Domino says, science proving God isn't going to happen. Science occasionaly providing a peek at God for a fleeting moment or uncovering things that were thought to be myths (like cities and peoples in the Bible that archeologists have shows really did exist), yes that can happen. But science proving God? Never.
And here is where the crux of it all lies between atheism and theism: Strong faith is unassailable because the faithful don't require proof. That frustrates atheists because they see it as a sort of denial of reality.
At the same time, Christians see the fact that atheists won't "open their hearts and spirits" (bear with me Chez...like I said, waxing philosophical). So, Christians also see a lot of denial going on, a hardening of the heart or closing off of the willingness to step out on faith.
Ergo, arguments one way or the other will never sway either side. I remember that one of the most interesting Christian books I read was "The Case for Christ" because the author was that rare case of an atheist becoming a believer. His path started by seeing what a newly minted faith had done to his previously eitehr agnostic or atheist wife in terms of making positive changes (while not turning her into a mindless automaton) and that started his quest, in which he had an open heart but was also looking for the "hard facts" that would help him decide if faith was totally foolish.
But, again, he saw something that made him consider that there was a spiritual realm separate from our physical/temporal one. Without that spark, the journey never starts.
And that's why Jesus talked about being the light that isn't hidden under a bushel and similar platitudes. The spirit cannot be proven. It can be felt, but not put under a microscope. Christians need to show by example but sadly, the vast majority either show nothing at all or they show hypocrisy and pettiness.
So, it ends up being like the shirts some kids used to wear when I was in college: "It's a black thing. You wouldn't understand."
What seems plain and obvious to a Christian is pure foolishness from an atheist's persepective.
But it does make for interesting discussion at times, don't it? Anyway, I went on longer than I intended, but partly because The First Domino is a periodic commenter over at my place, and it seemed rude not to come back at least one last time to this post after perhaps opening the door at my blog for some extra folks commenting around here that might not have otherwise.
Yeah. Wow, I'll give this a shot. No guarantees.
Recently James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici produced a documentary that revealed (together also, admittedly, with a great deal of sensational hype and pure speculation) some of the reasonably sound scientific research underway into some of the more outlandish claims recorded in the bible, such as Noah's flood, the parting of the Red Sea, and similar references.
Disclaimer: this documentary is one isolated example of many, some of which perhaps have more credibility. Because many christians find the questions it raises threatening, I am aware of the very vocal efforts to debunk it. I'm only mentioning it as a reference point for a much broader discussion; I actually don't care if any of its subject matter is revealed to be true or hyperbole, I'm only using this example to point out that research such as this suggests a few things:
First, maybe -- just maybe -- the stories that were eventually consolidated, translated, truncated, edited, revised, and republished into what we now call the Bible, have some element of truth rooted in events that can be explained without introducing the idea of a supernatural influence. Does research like this "disprove God?" Certainly not. But it does point out -- as scientific analysis almost always seems to do -- the possibility (and, often, the probability) of an alternative explanation.
Second, pure science makes no absolute declarations, in stark contrast with religion. Pure science asks questions and considers alternative ideas, and tests them, and modifies them, and rejects them in cases where they do not survive scrutiny. Again, in sharp contrast with religion.
Third, scientific thought employs a process that builds new avenues for exploration on the foundation of tested ideas that came before them. It is a process of growth, like the branches of an infinite fractal matrix that will never cease so long as there are humans capable of learning. Religion looks no further than the limits of the traditions already put in place, and warps all subsequent observations to fit those definitions ("oh, it doesn't really mean seven days, literally! We'll just tweak that interpretation a bit... presto! All fixed... Oh, and hey, they don't mean ALL the animals fit on the boat, those inconvenient dinosaurs all DROWNED, see?..."). To do otherwise risks dismantling the accepted "truth" of the assertions upon which it is based, and for a system of behavioral absolutism, this is intolerable, and must be discredited at all costs. For example, when archaeologists find evidence of an earthquake in the rocks at the Red Sea, religionists celebrate another shining example of science revealing the apparent handiwork of god. Those of us unfettered with this extra burden of making nature obey these old fables, merely see another example of a reasonable explanation for what must have been an extraordinary event in the lives of the semitic tribesmen who lived in that location when it occurred, who passed on the story of that event using the only metaphors they could understand at the time.
Tradition, especially oral tradition arising from a time before the existence of written alphabets, becomes wildly inaccurate over time. I'm able to accept the possibility of an explanation of prehistoric events that don't rely on a supernatural intervention; you are required by the nature of your religion to reject such possibilities as blasphemy. I didn't make these rules, the people who indoctrinated you did. This doesn't make you stupid or primitive. Maybe gullible.
When science and reason are useful to help buttress the otherwise unprovable assertions of religion, it's all "hey, we understand the workings of nature, and are not threatened by scientific explanations." But when science and reason introduce doubt and alternatives, oh, the hand-wringing!
In the interest of fairness, I took a look at deacon's blog and read through a few of the posts there and the comments attached to them. Naturally, one in particular caught my attention. The subject was strippers (because of course it would...).
With all due respect, it is astonishing the mental gymnastics you will go through in order to wrestle with the question of whether watching a woman dance in the nude is a "sin." Paragraph after paragraph of Bible quotes, alternative theories about what the apostle Paul might have meant when he said this or that, a bibliographical reference for further research....
Wow. Why is any of that necessary? Wait, don't answer, we're chewing up too much bandwidth as it is. We've grown past the need for these frightened condemnations of the basic functions of our existence. The point is, look at the anxiety (and unhappiness, and shame, and fear, and...) this artificial set of behavioral rules has imposed on so many generations of people. Does freeing myself of these rules make me an anarchic moral relativist? Hardly. Because here's the point that our friend Domino can't (or won't) make room for:
I can be a "good" person not because I was told I have to be, but because I am evolved enough to know how to behave properly. And save the tired old "well, who gets to decide what's 'good'?" argument. We all know what I'm talking about.
It's necessary, unfortunately, to dispel a few of the concerns Domino raised about me in his/her understandably emotional comment.
It may comfort you to know that I'm not an anarchist, cannibal, or a pederast. (Come on... really? REALLY??)
It may surprise you to learn that I have had experiences on occasion in my life that can not (yet) be explained in rational terms -- things that I know, with certainty, you have been taught are "of the devil." Unlike the mandated narrow focus of religion, I am open and curious about such things, not fearful and dogmatic. And it seems necessary to remind you that I am not, in fact, an atheist. You're not paying attention to the premise I'm trying to help you understand. You misuse concepts like "know," "accept," "indisputable," "fact," and "believe." This is common among those who have been indoctrinated, as this technique blurs those definitions liberally in order to demonstrate the apparent "truth" of an assertion. It's a parlor trick. As such, I don't blame you. It's not your fault.
I'm not a scientist. I just play one on t.v.
I actually look forward to the day when empirical research results in the unintended consequence of establishing god's existence. So far it has not, so I don't share your confidence that it will.
I don't, in fact, care what you believe. I don't seek you out to voice such a concern. I don't spread my beliefs... because I don't rely on beliefs or feel the need to convince others to do so. You've come here to join our discussion. Welcome to it.
As much as I'm itching to do so, I can not refute here the mistaken declarations that religion has not already been shown to be an agent that seeks to quash intellectual curiosity, restrict human behavior, and spread primitive superstitions. What little we already know of ten thousand years of human civilization overwhelmingly demonstrates this. There's just no way to do that argument justice here, I'm already a little uncomfortable having consumed so much of my good friend's blog in the attempt to do so, and frankly, it has already been demonstrated that the natural response to be expected is an emotional outburst that will continue to miss the point anyway.
"You say to-MAY-toe, I say To-MAH-toe; you say po-TAY-toe, I say po-TAH-toe..."
Anyway, Votar, it's hard to tell how much of that was aimed specifically at Domino and how much at me (aside from the very obvious reference to my blog), so I'm just going to bow out of all this after one last comment, since I'm sure plenty of people are already sick of how much we've all already milked out of it:
You pose the implicit question of "Why do I bother to go through 'mental gymnastics' about strippers or anything else on my blog."
Shit. I don't know. Because it's my schtick. It's what I believe in. Why is there a place on the Web devoted to naked women sitting their bare asses on frosted cakes and farting? If there is a place for that, I feel there is a legitimate place for me.
;-)
Chez makes a mockery of mockery. A good chunk of the blogs on my blogroll, like The Field Negro and Raving Black Lunatic, talk about issues of race. Pajiba reviews the hell out of stuff.
You might as well ask why there are blogs where people post about their knitting hobbies.
Different strokes, dude, different strokes.
Chez said: "The idea that science will somehow prove the existence of God or his "intelligent design" is the ultimate form of grasping at straws. It's just ludicrous."
No offense taken, but you're misrepresenting my position, apparently to substantiate your retort: "'intelligent design' is the ultimate form of grasping at straws. It's just ludicrous.'"
(i) Science will never get to the bottom of it all.
(ii) You will never know Him with your physical senses.
(iii) I fear you're not going to find Him here in the world of relativity
It matters not to me if science proves the existence of God or not. I don't look to science to prove to me what I already know is true.
And:
"Because there has to be a standard for truth that can be used to measure our reality..."
And you would like for science (or more specifically the "scientific method") to be that standard.
Then we can use science--cold, accurate, indisputable, dispassionate, numerically-based, and, I might add, devoid of passion and compassion--to determine who has superior genes, and kill off the other less fortunates.
Or we can use science to determine who has a genetic predisposition to certain diseases, not insure them, and allow them to die, before they can corrupt the gene pool.
Who would want those people to live?
And: "...if you believe in God and life-is-a-precious-gift-from-him-that-begins-at-conception, you will be more likely to vote down those who push for stem cell research..."
You're right life is a "precious gift", but you're wrong about it beginning at conception. The religionists nor science have the "skinny" on this.
Human existence begins at conception. Your life didn't. It had no beginning. You predated this incarnation, but you and your precious science have no clue, but that doesn't stop you from standing in judgment of those who say it begins at conception.
If you take your life here as a rare, but extraordinary opportunity to interact with the world around you, wouldn't you wish to give (from your perspective) this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to others, to make of it what they will.
Only the most selfish, and self-serving among us would say otherwise, and we know who they are.
And you said: "you will be more likely to vote down those who push for stem cell research, a scientific advancement that could help millions."
I brought up stem cell research as a way to defuse your argument, but the temptation to go there was more than you could bear.
Now, that you have: I'm not opposed to stem cell research. I've already asserted that life does not begin at conception, merely human existence.
But given that, we should not cavalierly disrespect the beginning of human existence just because we believe that we can further "scientific advancement that could help millions."
Many scientific advances have a down side, and this could be one those. Consider my previous argument of how it might be abused and misused.
The human mind is prone to finding ways to use modern technologies to destroy itself.
The atom bomb: nuclear energy can generate electricity, destroy the planet, or descend it into a "nuclear winter".
Satellites that can send signals to televisions can be used to spy, and target. The Internet that can be used to bring people closer together, or to tear them apart (al-Qaeda, and hate groups).
The list is almost endless.
It's not clear yet whether genetic science (and the mapping of the human genome) will be a blessing or a curse, perhaps both for a time.
And you said:
"(I won't even bother going into the fact that standing in the way of stem cell research is, yes, immoral.)"
Sorry. Science is not "immoral" but amoral. Hell, I almost forgot, we want science and the "scientific method" to be our new morality, our new God.
You'd have us believe that the old God, and His Ten Commandments, and His Sermon on the Mount is passé, it doesn't lend itself to this "modern age."
Modernity, I posit, is killing us, its polluting our minds, as well as our world--global warming is a greater threat than we're willing to collectively believe.
What price progress!
What price science, and the scientific method, born in the prolific minds of great thinkers to be used by the "fatal flaw" in that same intellect--a detest for self, human life, and a penchant for self-destruction.
I'm afraid that that "primitive mind" that hold to a belief in a supernatural God, has not advanced far enough toward a society of Highly Evolved Beings, beings that will use scientific discoveries for nothing more than the betterment of man rather than his mutual destruction.
And you said: "That other side is trying to use logic and reason; you're sticking your fingers in your ears, turning up your nose and just saying that you 'know.'"
I know my backyard. Do you? Of course not, you've never been to my back yard. You can postulate that I have one, but you can't be certain of it, and if I say I have one, you'll have to take in on belief, if so inclined.
I can use logic and reason to persuade you that I have a backyard, but if you haven't seen it, you won't necessarily believe it.
It's the same with God. I, too, can use logic and reason to advance my position, but until you know God for yourself, the backyard that you've never seen, will always fall into the category of denial or supposition.
Tell me: what has the wonderful human mind, and it's unmatched intellect actually created on its own, without turning to the principles that already exist throughout our world?
We have the internal combustion engine that propels vehicles along, a technology (and the potential for the combination of certain physical principles that have existed for millennia, I might add, if not from the inception of the planet) we find indispensable in today's modern world.
Intelligent design and "reverse engineering." I like that word." . You are licensed to use this software, but it may not be reversed engineered."
What if God had etched this on the whole of His creation? "You are licensed to use this creation, but it may not be reversed engineered."
That would have put an end to this whole debate.
Science is nothing more than humans "reverse engineering" what is already here, codifying principles, establishing theories, and formulating concepts, to understand their physical world.
Tell me, please, if the world that we know was designed and structured in a manner that lacked intelligence, that was put together haphazardly and is a product of "chance," how is it that we can reverse engineer it to such an extent that we can replicate our findings?
There's no order in chaos!
A thousand monkeys banging away on a thousand typewriters for a million years are not going to produce anything close to Shakespeare's Macbeth, or Hamlet.
Why? Insufficient intelligence to do what chance alone cannot achieve. But you would have me believe that the universe, more meticulously designed than anything man can accomplish, was the product of chance.
And you describe my position as: "it's just ludicrous." *sigh*
We expect more from a product
designed by Bill Gates and company, his Windows operating system, for example, that we agree adheres to an "intelligent design," one that can be "reversed engineered," but when it comes to our own universe (with scientists spending hours and hours reversing it), we're more likely to chalk it up to chance, than a God/Mind with an intelligence at least matching the intellectual capacity of Bill Gates.
And we who know God are called arrogant?
Further, astrophysicists are not certain that the rules (physical laws) that exist here are universal throughout the universe.
They have encountered some rather bizarre behavior "out there" that can't be explained using concepts that so neatly explain our world.
Let me reiterate: God is Spirit. Spirit undergirds all that you see in your physical universe.
You can reverse engineer it, but you won't find God (the Principle of all principles) lurking in the background, but He will be there, smiling back at you.
I don't usually write responses this long, but wanted to cover all bases.
Namaste
@votar: "...the possibility (and, often, the probability) of an alternative explanation."
Well, now. Trial lawyers make a good living concocting "alternative explanation[s].
"Second, pure science makes no absolute declarations, in stark contrast with religion. Pure science asks questions and considers alternative ideas, and tests them, and modifies them, and rejects them in cases where they do not survive scrutiny. Again, in sharp contrast with religion."
You're the one that established this insane and I might add inane comparison to substantiate science, at the expense of religion.
"Religion looks no further than the limits of the traditions already put in place, and warps all subsequent observations to fit those definitions..."
Another human failing, but I'm afraid that you're doing the same by putting everything (all truth) in a box called the "scientific method," and insisting that that must be the ultimate test of all things true and factual.
We're in two different realms. You're comparing apples to oranges. If you establish the rules, you will win the argument each and every time.
"When science and reason are useful to help buttress the otherwise unprovable assertions of religion, it's all "hey, we understand the workings of nature, and are not threatened by scientific explanations." But when science and reason introduce doubt and alternatives, oh, the hand-wringing!"
Let the games begin! I don't believe that most religious people give a hoot whether science disprove to science satisfaction that the Biblical flood occurred, or that the plagues that descended upon Pharaoh from God can be explained as a result of natural occurrences.
I'm sure that they would say that God's omnipotence does not exclude Him using whatever is at His disposal to assert His will.
"Those of us unfettered with this extra burden of making nature obey these old fables, merely see another example of a reasonable explanation for what must have been an extraordinary event in the lives of the semitic tribesmen who lived in that location when it occurred, who passed on the story of that event using the only metaphors they could understand at the time."
It must be comforting to be so certain of one's position, especially since you or the scientists of our times weren't there to explain what was going on to these primitive minds
"I can be a 'good' person not because I was told I have to be, but because I am evolved enough to know how to behave properly. And save the tired old "well, who gets to decide what's 'good'?" argument. We all know what I'm talking about."
Don't be so sure that you know me so well, and my tolerance for the positions of others.
I'm glad that you're good person, by your own definition. And you're right, I don't know what you're talking about.
Are you referencing the Judeo-Christian concept of good, obeying the law of the land good (also based on Judeo-Christian concepts), or are you deciding on your own your boundaries of right and wrong, and good and bad.
The concept of good and bad only exists relative to some standard of conduct, it cannot exist within a vacuum. Nothing exists within a vacuum.
You'll have to establish that benchmark for me otherwise you're asking me to accept on faith that you are a "good person."
A position I'm sure you don't wish to take, even inadvertently.
It may comfort you to know that I'm not an anarchist, cannibal, or a pederast. (Come on... really? REALLY??)
Didn't say you were: merely making a point. I really didn't expect you sit on it, just "get it."
You brought up "pederast;" an unconscious Rorschach test response to my saying satisfying an "intellectual curiosity" for the taste of flesh?
"It may surprise you to learn that I have had experiences on occasion in my life that can not (yet) be explained in rational terms -- things that I know, with certainty, you have been taught are 'of the devil.'"
Wouldn't surprise me at all. But I bet it leaves you in a quandary, bent as you are on seeking a rational, scientific, knowable explanation for all phenomenon.
You're not far removed from the religionists: you're absolutely certain that a rational explanation other than a supernatural one exists for what you experienced, one that will resolve this conflict (reason versus experience).
Weren't you just now wagging your finger at the religionists seeking to reconcile (tweaking is the word you use?) scientific discoveries with their beliefs?
And please don't tell me that somehow your quest is somehow more "righteous" than theres.
"And it seems necessary to remind you that I am not, in fact, an atheist."
Help me out here. I certainly don't wish to mischaracterize someone's belief system.
Deists? Agnostic? Gnostic? Where do you stand in the grand scheme of things?
Did I miss a category?
"You misuse concepts like "know," "accept," "indisputable," "fact," and "believe." This is common among those who have been indoctrinated, as this technique blurs those definitions liberally in order to demonstrate the apparent 'truth' of an assertion. It's a parlor trick. As such, I don't blame you. It's not your fault."
Sorry to disappoint you again. I used my words measuredly, precisely, and for maximum effect.
My assertions come from my own experiences, as I make no claims that I haven't proven at least to my own satisfaction.
I don't think that its written that I have to prove them to others. The anecdotal experience that you alluded to earlier, that you couldn't pigeonhole in a rational way, has become for me a daily occurrence, solidifying into a certainty (a knowing) that defy all other explanations.
And it's light-years ahead of your science, and beyond its ken.
So I'll define it anyway that I please. Unlike you, I'm not afraid to step outside the box.
You're not as free as you think.
"I actually look forward to the day when empirical research results in the unintended consequence of establishing god's existence. So far it has not, so I don't share your confidence that it will."
Wrong again: I'm not confident! I never said I was. I expressed mucho doubt that scientists will have the cajones to reveal that they have, if and when they do.
They wouldn't want their peers to look askance at them by postulating the existence of God.
"I don't, in fact, care what you believe. I don't seek you out to voice such a concern. I don't spread my beliefs... because I don't rely on beliefs or feel the need to convince others to do so. You've come here to join our discussion. Welcome to it.",
Thanks for the invite. We're both in agreement then: Neither of us rely on beliefs, and have no need to convince others of our position.
That's a good place to start a friendship. You did call me "friend." Did you mean it, or were you just using the term facetiously?
Anyhoo!
"...and frankly, it has already been demonstrated that the natural response to be expected is an emotional outburst that will continue to miss the point anyway."
No "emotional outburst[s]" here. I put away children toys a long time ago. It may surprise you, but I get your point(s), not all of them missed their target.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid we'll never have a full meeting of the mind. We come from diametrically opposed positions.
But then that's the plight of most humans. "There's no collision greater than a meeting of minds." That's because such a meeting is a rarity in our world.
I never expect it, and I'm rarely disappointed.
Namaste
This is where I remember the age old saying, "Never try to teach a pig to sing -- it wastes your time and annoys the pig."
We'll have to agree to disagree on, well, pretty much everything.
Chez, I have friends working on a transgenetic swine with some DNA from Wayne Newton and polycarbon biomimetic materials to approximate a laryx.
They are certain you will be please with the results.
No Las Vegas singers were harmed in the experiment, by the way...
deacon, as always, "it's all good." I wasn't aiming specifically at the purpose or nature of your blog, but rather at the phenomenon I witnessed there of these kind of Council of Nicaea explorations of the nuances of the things you've been taught to believe. I find these struggles interesting to observe, since they point out pretty clearly that, despite the absolutist position you're required to take, not a single one of you solidly understands which way to go with it, without at least some equivocation. Billions of people in a locked room, indeed.
Domino, congratulations, you set a new record for missing the point by the widest margin possible. I can't help now but think you're doing it on purpose, as you seem pretty smart. Props to you for using a few of my own favorite hotbutton words like facetious, and Namaste. MAJOR deduction, however, for typing the word Anyhoo, unless you are a twelve year old girl and this is your MySpace page. In any case, I got cross-eyed about halfway through your list of bizarre, extreme, sensationalist examples of the evils of science, the rambling non-sequitors, the cute grade-school locker room humor level Rorschach test reference, and the silly cliches, quotes, and catch-phrases.
I declare a draw and retire from the field. Feel better?
Hey, watch the swipe about "Anyhoo" Votar...my regular contributor Miz Pink uses it. She'll kill ya, man...
;-)
All right, really, NOT trying to get in the last word...I'll follow you off the field, Votar, just as soon as I pick up some of the equipment we left there...
Post a Comment