Dead Sea Scrolls - some interesting parallels

Tiny Frog has this little tidbit up about the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran people that predated the Christians. Of course this is a skeptical, non-believer point of view on the topic so this is what he has to say:

For unbeliever, Christianity borrowed many religious practices from this group, and that fact had almost disappeared from history. I suppose the believer might argue that the Qumran group had some pre-revelation from God. Although, that doesn’t really explain the different uses of Baptism, why the contents of the “Blessed be” text would be different, and why they (as a group) didn’t accept Jesus despite this “pre-Revelation”. A second explanation for the believer might be that the parallels are coincidence, but that doesn’t seem very likely.

Interesting thought.

As I have said many times, I am a Christian, but not normally what people think as "Christian" I think the best compliment I have ever gotten was from Jeph Porter saying "I think the world needs more Christians like you". I have two things related that that, the first is an entry about a coffee shop experience I had on my other blog. The main one is an article I found on NPR about Patrick Henry College. I have read about it in great book I read called Thy Kingdom Come. This hijacking of the faith is an issue that is very close to me. It scares me when people do terrible things and then site my God as their motivator. I stand by the idea that religion works best when on the fringes of society. I just think a lot of people are missing the point, or I am missing it in a large way.

An attempt at classification

Evolving Thoughts has this post attempting to classify the various types of religion in the world. A good read; a bit dry, but it does a good job I think.

Happy Birthday!

October 23, 4004 BC

Let there be light!

Today the Earth is 6010 according to Bishop Ussher's chronology.

Graphs Prove I'm Smarter Than You

Interesting that Kuwait and the U.S. don't fit the pattern. Thoughts? Aren't we not suppose to make assumptions based on correlation? Nathan? That's a psychological thing right?

We Are Unitarian Jihad!

There is only God, unless there is more than one God.

What do you mean?

Here's an interesting piece by the always interesting Greta Christiana. This time she tackles the criticisms of a meaningful life and how some people argue that you can't have meaning in your life without God.

It's another to say, "People who don't like contra dancing are wicked and sinful and will be tortured and burned forever unless they change their evil, non-contra-dancing ways."

God and the Environment

NPR had an article today about a community in the Philippines and how they reacted after a typhoon. This article also talks about a pro environment view that is coming up in an unusual place, the church. It is not that unusual to me, I have been taught the idea of stewardship of the earth while at a small Christian college, but some may be surprised that not all Christians are trying to tear down the world to put up a mega-church. here is a taste

In Genesis, God gives man dominion over the earth. Jovic says many Christians have interpreted that to mean people can use the earth in any way they like. He says people in the Philippines have abused their power less than the residents of many other countries but that, even so, they need to do more for the earth. And he sees signs that it's happening."

From Crackle: Mr. Deity and the Evil - Episode 1


Follow that link to check out the rest of the episodes. Watch for the influence of the idea of modern man misinterpreting the bible. Sort of an interesting take on the philosophy of the idea.

Creationist Museum

There are two more posts from Weatherly about the AIG Museum. Check out what he says here and here.

Dinosaurs are a Myth!!

So, there has been a little bit of talk about evolution here recently, which in a blog like this isn't surprising, and this caught my attention. That link is to Tiny Frog, where he does a short summary of this essay. Which, is quite long so read it at your own risk. But I guess basically the guy is saying that Dinosaurs are part of a giant hoax by ALL paleontologist to lead the world away from God. Apparently all the bones and bone fragments we've found are put together from a hodgepodge of other animal bones. (never mind the unique skulls/claws/various other bones we've found)

So if it seemed quite queer to you that man all of the sudden started finding bones in the ground this would be a read for you. I'll file this under, Bat Shit Crazy Christians

p.s. isn't that a sweet dinosaur picture

Evolution

I love this.

Are You Ready For Some DIIIIISCOOOOOOURSE!?!?!

The Gambler's Fallacy as it relates to theology.

Go.

PZ Meyers responds to Sam Harris

Earlier I wrote about Sam Harris telling atheist we should stop using the word atheist to describe ourselves. I still agree with that point of view and actually this response by PZ Meyer is exactly the kind of infighting it can cause.

You say you never thought of yourself as an atheist before. And there, I think, is the major rebuttal to your own thesis. It doesn't matter that you don't call yourself an atheist. Sam, they're going to call you an atheist anyway. Your friends might be willing to accede to your wishes and stop calling you an atheist, but your enemies won't, and the media, which has promoted you as an atheist, probably won't … and if they do, you'll vanish from your influential position rather quickly. You don't get to choose what other people will call you.

Sure he's got a point, but I think the essential thing here is not caring what other people call you and committing yourself to reason so that eventually someday labels like "Atheist" won't matter. People are called lots of things they are not, it doesn't mean they have to accept that because someone else calls them that. Terrorist call me "white devil" but I don't nod my head and go okay I'm a white devil. This is really about being an individual and not being part of a group. The whole idea being reason and dis-belief is making your own decisions. And I think Sam is trying to discourage GroupThink (if I can coin my own doublespeak, unless it already is one, I don't remember).

A group does provide streagth and presence, but at the same time it demands a set of belief's that in the case of non-belief not everyone agrees with. It reminds me of this passage in the Humanist Declaration:

Secular humanism is not a dogma or a creed. There are wide differences of opinion among secular humanists on many issues. Nevertheless, there is a loose consensus with respect to several propositions. We are apprehensive that modern civilization is threatened by forces antithetical to reason, democracy, and freedom. Many religious believers will no doubt share with us a belief in many secular humanist and democratic values, and we welcome their joining with us in the defense of these ideals.

It's a fine line to walk. And I think Sam is just trying to keep us on that line.

Weatherly's view on Young Earth Creationists

I am going provide a link to the blog of an old professor of mine. In his post titled "out day in the museum part one" he talkds about his trip to the over-hyped Creationist Museum. Be warned, the author talks like a bible college professor(because he is one) so there may be some rhetoric that one may not be familiar with. What I like about what he says is his emphasis on Chrisitian unity, and the fact that the peopel at Answers in Genesis are crazy (he says it with more tact).

When most people think of Christians they think of that type of a Christian, a young earth creationist. As I have posted before I do think that way, and I love the fact that our earth is very very very (billions of times) old. It should be noted that most of the content of the museum reflects the view of the leader of AIG, Ken Hamm. I have listened to what he has to say and can tell you not to waste your time. I do not believe in a 6 day creation (and neither do most of the Christians I know) so please think about that before you pigeon hole Christians you meet.

I may in a later post talk more about my thoughts on this subject, but until then you can enjoy Dr. Weatherly's thoughts.

http://seldomwrong.blogspot.com/2007/10/our-day-in-museum-part-one.html

Reading List

Here is a short list of books that we recommend for anyone to read. They are books that have helped us in our understanding of the world around us or inspired us to think about something in a way we hadn’t before. If you’ve read any of these books you’ve no doubt enjoyed them as we have, or perhaps not. But if you see a book you haven’t read, which are many for me, please take the time to read it. Also feel free to suggest more books and I will add them to the list.

The Bible - God(?)
The Dhammapada - Buddha(?)
Tao Te Ching - Lao Tzu
Siddhartha - Herman Hesse
Damien - Herman Hesse
Moses and Monotheism - Sigmund Freud
The Fountainhead - Ayn Rand
Timeline - Michael Crichton
Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars - Kim Stanley Robinson
No god but God - Reza Aslan
Living Buddha, Living Christ - Thich Nhat Hahn
The Virtue of Selfishness - Ayn Rand
Mere Christianity - C.S. Lewis
Letter's From the Earth - Mark Twain
The Humanoids - Jack Williamson
Rabbit Run - John Updike
The Planet that Wasn't - Isaac Asimov
Slaughterhouse Five - Kurt Vonnegut
A Clockwork Orange - Anthony Burgess
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest - Ken Kesey
Candide - Voltaire
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - Robert M. Pirsig
Island - Aldous Huxley

Wonder why a particular book is on this list? Ask!

The G Spot

Searching for God in the Brain

via Scientific America:

The doughnut-shaped machine swallows the nun, who is outfitted in a plain T-shirt and loose hospital pants rather than her usual brown habit and long veil. She wears earplugs and rests her head on foam cushions to dampen the device’s roar, as loud as a jet engine. Supercooled giant magnets generate intense fields around the nun’s head in a high-tech attempt to read her mind as she communes with her deity.

The Carmelite nun and 14 of her Catholic sisters have left their cloistered lives temporarily for this claustrophobic blue tube that bears little resemblance to the wooden prayer stall or sparse room where such mystical experiences usually occur. Each of these nuns answered a call for volunteers “who have had an experience of intense union with God” and agreed to participate in an experiment devised by neuroscientist Mario Beauregard of the University of Montreal. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), Beauregard seeks to pinpoint the brain areas that are active while the nuns recall the most powerful religious epiphany of their lives, a time they experienced a profound connection with the divine. The question: Is there a God spot in the brain.

This is kind of counter to what I think we've been talking about but probably interesting. I think they've tried to do this before, but with no real results. They probably talk about it in the article, but I didn't read it all, its like six fucking pages. I'll read it later and comment.

Another blog I'm adding to my RSS feeder

Revolution in Jesusland

via their about page...

This blog is a plea to the progressive movement, to take another look and get to know the diverse and complex world of evangelical Christianity in its own terms. Here you’ll find interviews, commentary, analysis and other dispatches from all over “Jesusland.” This tour will explore everything from the workings of the local church, to the evangelicals’ vibrant, decentralized national leadership training infrastructure to theological questions such as, “How in the world DO they read the Bible literally?” and “Do they really think I’m going to hell?”

worth checking out

Sam Harris: OnFaith

Sam Harris is increasingly becoming one of my favorite people when it comes to the subject of faith and belief. This article is another in his series over at the Washington Post that deals with faith. This week’s is a transcript of sorts from a speech he made at the Atheist Alliance meeting. It's probably one of the better things I've read recently on the philosophies of non-belief.

He basically argues that atheist should not be calling themselves atheists because it pigeonholes them into a category that can be argued against. A lot like Nathan I where talking about with science as a category. In fact there seems to be a trend here to make this site science vs. religion. When it is anything but. Perhaps that is mostly my fault. I have my own prejudices and I’m unfairly using this site as a forum to air some grievances. But in an effort to correct that I think that this article is a good read for both sides of the fence. He argues that it is foolish of “atheist” to discredit the experiences many claim to have that they would otherwise write off as non-scientific.

Something however it does bring up is this fundamental need to label ourselves. How can one possible be nothing! Its possible to avoid a category but it seems like that is just a slow spiral until you finally settle like a bird on a branch. It’s trivial I know, but I find this struggle coming up every time I look at the facebook/myspace profile option asking what your religious orientation is. Sure there is the Atheist, Agnostic or Other option, but do I fit into any of those? I mean to be honest my state of belief is constantly in flux! How could I ever settle on just one? Well, Sam brings up a good point, and it’s a point well addressed in the first part of Jonathan Miller’s A Brief History of Disbelief. How is the absence of a belief, a belief?

Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn’t really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as “non-racism” is not one. Atheism is not a worldview—and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves.

I think that is some root of a lot of the issues people have with reasonable people (as Sam insist we call them). And a lot of what Nathan is getting at when he talks about God and science being separate. But to me the only reason they are separate is because one is not true. (I’ll let you guess which one I’m talking about). But that doesn’t discount the people who have had “religious” experiences. It just means that those experiences aren’t what they thought.

One problem with atheism as a category of thought, is that it seems more or less synonymous with not being interested in what someone like the Buddha or Jesus may have actually experienced. In fact, many atheists reject such experiences out of hand, as either impossible, or if possible, not worth wanting. Another common mistake is to imagine that such experiences are necessarily equivalent to states of mind with which many of us are already familiar—the feeling of scientific awe, or ordinary states of aesthetic appreciation, artistic inspiration, etc.

Pretty good stuff check it out.

Sign me up!

The Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Apparently some kids at MSU are really into it. I first heard about the FSM way back when Intelligent design was getting big, with Kansas and what not. It was a response to ID. They claimed that if ID said that an intelligent creator made everything, well then that very well could be The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Sounds about right to me.

A Comment

My first response begins with your second paragraph. I think you miss read what I was trying to say (or I miss typed). I was not saying that science needs to prove there is no god, I was saying that this question is what it is asked to do, and that is not fair. It can't be done was the point I was getting at. Your point about the null hypotheis was what I was trying to make. That there is a disconnect with science and the philosophy of religion.

Ok, sorry I miss quoted you. Let the record show that Jeph made the sudoku comment. I think we are both in agreement here. I may have cleared up my point in this paragraph. The first paragraph was used to build the point in the following. I'm sorry I was confusing.

I must be hitting something here Jeph, because your next critique was kinda harsh, but not when you see that I was not making the point you thought I was. The point I was trying to make is that these things very closely related, trust in the process and faith. You are right, they are not the same, but they are similar. I was stating this to show two things. The first is a basic assumption some uneducated make: science is infailiable. Included in the lecture that inspired the original post was a talk of when science fails. You may forget Jeph that psychology, an arguable soft science, is a science. I understand the basics, I have to use them. I was pointing out that science does not answer everything, and some people hide behind that as some hide behind religion. The second point was a "see we are not that different". I think this point may be explained better talking about my final paragraph.

Well, I guess I will start by saying sorry for writing my conclusion poorly. I don't think I made the points I was going after, but I have to dispute some things that you said. First, science is a category. It is a category of tool that we use to describe and explain the observable world. This is a category. What is immune to this, nothing is immune, just not testable(yet in some cases). There are things that we do not know about, that is where theoretical science comes in. The mind, for example, is still a huge mystery. We know a lot, yes, but we dont know all that much (anti-depressants for example, but that is a later discussion). I think there are also questions about human nature that we do not know. We make hypotheses about why, but causality in human actions and emotions are hard to figure out. They are not immune to science, but science has no tool sensitive enought, (agian yet). Faith is like this, science can help us make guesses, but the fact is, maybe the main fact of what I was writing was that it is a philosophy. I thought the idea of this blog was to discuss faith with challenging ideas. Saying that we must only use science for the concept of god is using the wrong tool. It is like taking a ruler to see how how much I weigh. (160 by the way). Science is great, I'm a fan, but I think in the same way you are angry about people saying "we won't ever know, you have to have faith", I am angry with people saying, "science is right, there is no god" A better statement is that there is no measurable god. Or maybe that our measurements are not to the point that they can measure god. Again with psychology (a science) one can talk a lot about observable behavior, but not know the cause of this. God is more of a "cause" type question. Something to be addressed in a different way than the scientific method. How do we know there is a god? Measureably, maybe there is no way. But in the same way as psychology one can look at the observable; changed lives, people acting not out of self intrest, maybe even that potential of man itself, and ask the questions "why?" what is the reason for it. What is the cause. Now I know one may bring up humanist ideas here, but there are other things, people dont always act in a humanist theory manner, there needs to be thought put into the deep casuality of different human acts. Again this may be too large for what I'm trying to say at this moment, and I'm guessing I'm not putting it exactly how I want.

I'm sorry I was not clear in the first post Jeph, and this may have made it worse. The fact is science is not the be all end all. I think that is just as arrogant as a Christian saying "just have faith" They are different (one of my original, but not well put, points of the first post) but there is an overlap that should breed more sensitivity to why faith is here, and maybe even show that it is not outlandish to think of a god. Science is not the answer to all of humanities troubles. If that were true than the closer we get to knowing about the universe the closer utopia is. (that may have been the second point of the orignial post).

Battle of the Split-up Paragraphs #1!

I'm going to be one of those guys and do one of those things where I break this down paragraph by paragraph. It will help me address each point better. And after all if I'm not being efficient what's the point? Jesus, I should move to Japan. Anyway...here we go.

P.S. I'm taking the gloves off Nathan.

The God of the Overlap
Posted by Nathan on Wednesday, October 03, 2007

I have a great Statistics teacher. He is well educated, and open to many ideas. I walked with him after class and had a small, but very good discussion about science and faith, and the overlap and differences between the two. He is a self-proclaimed "non-religious" man, and believe it or not he was very accepting of my views, and when we departed with a hand shake i did not explode.

Glad to hear you made it through that encounter okay. Most of the times these "non-religious" types go right for the soul. It's usually through the eyes, but I'm sure you know that seeing as you survived to talk about it.

This conversation did get me thiking about things. Just to begin, non of these are the thoughts of my professor, these are mine alone. We were discussing the basics of science, the idea that in any experiment you test the null hypothesis. That is if you think something (like reading more) affects something else (less anxiety levels) you do not test that idea. Instead you test that there is no relation (or null relation). This makes the whole conversation about faith very different. Scientifically for one to prove that god does exist then one must disprove that god does not exist. This could work the other way around too, but the fact remains that there is no way to do that. god is something outside science, I'm not saying that there can't be things in science that may point to something bigger, but inherently this is a philosophical question not a scientific one.

Well first I want to address the latter part of the paragraph before I go back and look up what the hell a null hypothesis is. You say that science must prove that there is no God. I've read a lot on the subject and the general feeling among atheist is that we do not need to prove this because that is like asking you to prove that you don't have cancer. Well you might say, I'll just go to the doctor and get a check up and I'll show you my clean bill of health! Ha, foiled you Jeph! Well in essence that's what we've done with the universe, we've given it a check up and found no evidence for God, just like hopefully the doctor will find no evidence of cancer in your body. Now I know, we don't know nearly as much about the universe as we do about the body and some might claim that God could still be out there but until that happens its like you getting that clean bill and parading around telling everyone you have cancer soliciting money and sympathy from them for something that doesn't exist, but based on the fact that your doctor didn't quite know everything about your body so he could be wrong therefore you have cancer. What it really boils down to is that atheist and non-religious people are not making any extraordinary claims as Christians are. The idea that my proving to you that nothing exist is somehow more important than you proving to me that a God exist in another dimension called heaven outside the known realm of our knowledge is absurd. If anything its a variation of the old PeeWee Herman gag, "I know you are. But what am I?" You can't shift the responsibility of prove to the side that requires none.

Okay, after wikipedianing Null Hypothesis this is my take.

I don't believe you can apply this to the God debate. It seems that it requires two sets of data sets. Well, there is no data for the hypothesis that God is true. You can assume that both, there is no God and there is a God, are true and then claim that one must be proven wrong in order for the other to be true but how do you prove "there is a God" wrong when you have no data available to do that? I think what this is is just another attempt by Christians to take established science and convientitly ignore parts of it to fit their opinions. Kind of like the second law of thermodynamics debate. Okay onward....

What does not work is the God of the Gaps idea. Science can't be certain, so it works off of what is highly unlikely to be. If something is deemed highely unlikely to be true then science works as if it is not true, until it is shown wrong. Like minott has pointed out, a large game of sudoku. So if god is a philosophical question, then there shouldn't be a God of the Gaps idea. This is putting in the philosophy where it should be science.

First off, the sudoku game idea was mine, so take it back. Second, saying that science works from the assumption that something is true, is not correct. A hypothesis in its simplest form makes no assumption about itself. It does however provide outcomes that are both true and false. The latter being falsifiability, which is a very important part of science. If something cannot have a possible false outcome than it is not scientifically testable. For example "all men are mortal" Well, there is no way to test this because you would have to live forever to test it and even then you wouldn't know when to stop testing. By contrast "all men are immortal" is falsifiable by the presence of one dead person. Wikipedia it for more info, but its important and even has been used as an argument against God, because there is no way of testing it. And I will agree, a lot of times philosophy of God is charaded as science.

But the real debate comes where there is an overlap. Science has its own form of faith( I will call it trust for distiniction's sake). The esssence of science trusts, many things: the other scienctist are telling the truth, that facts will be checked, that what is highly unlikely is truely falst. They are more like assumptions. I'm not science is untrue, do not think that, but there is a trust inherent in it. This can then bridge the gap to faith(in the philosophical sense) as we try to think either back in time, or in universal workings. The string theory for example is appealing, because if you but your trust in it, ther appears these constants that make mathmatical formulas work. This is incredably appealing, and beautiful in the full sense of the word. The things is there is an idea of another demension that leads to these beautiful working of numbers. The presence of this demension is what the trust of the string theory is in. That demension can not be proven or disproven(at least as of yet).

Well here we are again, the whole faith game. I thought I put that baby to rest. But I will stress my points again. The difference between faith in God and trust in science are the reasons you expressed. "Other scientist are telling the truth, the facts are checked". And yes they are assumptions but they are well supported assumptions. Something belief in God cannot claim to have. String theory is an interesting topic to bring up, I've actually noticed you doing it before. Yes it is highly theoretical and impossible to test, in fact that is one large reason most scientist have abandoned it like they've abandoned the idea of God, but it was and is based on sound scientific principals. Through experimentation and calculation we are lead down a path that leads us to many possibilities, one being string theory. That is not faith that is deduction my dear Watson. And really string theory will only remain a vague idea until we gain the ability to test it. I must saying something about this debate though that is kind of insulting. Scientist invest their lives to pursue these answers. Investing so many hours and years to make sure they are finding the truth. And there is a trust between scientist, but there is also a well laid system that all but eliminates most of the trust that is even necessary. If a scientist presents an idea it must be duplicated by other scientist before it is considered fact. So if someone is just making stuff up it will be very obvious. So it is insulting to say that these are just assumptions as if some loaf was sitting around making things up off the top of his head. In fact the people leveling these insults are usually those very people.

So, I guess my point is (after a long winded thought, sorry you had to read this). Is that in the essence of faith and science there is a disconnect, they are different. One can not come at questions of faith in the same manner as science. But there there is this larger sense of science that has a trust(faith) built in that gives an overlap. If anyone says faith is illogical, and that they believe in science, then they don't understand what they are saying. There is a faith in science, and this overlap cause speculative dispute (and this blog).

Okay, well last one I better make it good. The idea that faith and science are different ascribes some kind of category to science. And I don't believe science can be put in a category. It is the tool that allows us to understand categories in the first place. What else on Earth besides "faith" is immune to science? Nothing! It is how we explain things. To say that faith is disconnected from science is just like saying it doesn't exist. And after all how can they be disconnected if they overlap? And if science has a trust/faith thing going on isn't it then just the same trust/faith that is given to belief? No one is saying "faith" is illogical they are saying that it is illogical to have faith without science. This blog after all is a crude scientific attempt to get to the root of the questions of faith. There very idea of this blog is to put faith/belief/god in a scientific point of view. I do believe there is something to the spirit of faith but I don't believe it is completely separate, if it was how would I experience it? How would I know it was even real? I'll stress again, if you say that faith is untestable and unfalsifiable then you are just saying that it isn't true. Or for all intensive purposes might as well not be because we will never know. (Now don't say 'well that's it exactly Jeph, we won't ever know you have to have faith'. Because I will say that if we can't know God by our methods how will he ever reveal himself to us? And remember Christian's claim he does all the time.)

UPDATE: Just so happens that right when I post this over at Tiny Frog they posted a similar argument. All though it is more of a critique of what others have said and he takes a less hardline approach to it. It's interesting however.

The God of the Overlap

I have a great Statistics teacher. He is well educated, and open to many ideas. I walked with him after class and had a small, but very good discussion about science and faith, and the overlap and differences between the two. He is a self-proclaimed "non-religious" man, and beleive it or not he was very accepting of my views, and when we departed with a hand shake i did not explode.

This conversation did get me thiking about things. Just to begin, non of these are the thoughts of my professor, these are mine alone. We were discussing the basics of science, the idea that in any experiment you test the null hypothesis. That is if you think something (like reading more) affects something else (less anxiety levels) you do not test that idea. Instead you test that there is no relation (or null relation). This makes the whole conversation about faith very different. Scientifically for one to prove that god does exist then one must disprove that god does not exist. This could work the other way around too, but the fact remains that there is no way to do that. god is something outside science, I'm not saying that there can't be things in science that may point to something bigger, but inherently this is a philosophical question not a scientific one.

What does not work is the God of the Gaps idea. Science can't be certain, so it works off of what is highly unlikely to be. If something is deemed highely unlikely to be true then science works as if it is not true, until it is shown wrong. Like minott has pointed out, a large game of sudoku. So if god is a philosophical question, then there shouldn't be a God of the Gaps idea. This is putting in the philosophy where it should be science.

But the real debate comes where there is an overlap. Science has its own form of faith( I will call it trust for distiniction's sake). The esssence of science trusts, many things: the other scienctist are telling the truth, that facts will be checked, that what is highly unlikely is truely falst. They are more like assumptions. I'm not science is untrue, do not think that, but there is a trust inherent in it. This can then bridge the gap to faith(in the philosophical sense) as we try to think either back in time, or in universal workings. The string theory for example is appealing, because if you but your trust in it, ther appears these constants that make mathmatical formulas work. This is incredably appealing, and beautiful in the full sense of the word. The things is there is an idea of another demension that leads to these beautiful working of numbers. The presence of this demension is what the trust of the string theory is in. That demension can not be proven or disproven(at least as of yet).

So, I guess my point is (after a long winded thought, sorry you had to read this). Is that in the essence of faith and science there is a disconnect, they are different. One can not come at questions of faith in the same manner as science. But there there is this larger sense of science that has a trust(faith) built in that gives an overlap. If anyone says faith is illogical, and that they beleive in science, then they don't understand what they are saying. There is a faith in science, and this overlap cause speculative dispute (and this blog).

The Potential Man

A couple of weeks ago Nathan and I had lunch at Small Bar on Division. It was a warm Sunday afternoon and we met for a fellowship. The purpose was not to discuss religion or God, but being that this was the first time we had seen each other since the start of this blog it was an inevitable topic.

I don’t remember the specifics of a lot of our conversation because most of it was a slow dance down to the point of contention in our belief systems. I believe it sprang from a discussion about Nathan’s post on science and my response. Which was more or less defining the aims of science verses the aims of religion. And it is my flaw to unfairly associate belief in a higher power (God) with religion. I don’t know if I see it as a flaw though, because in my point of view the two are inseparable, a veritable chicken and the egg. But other’s will tell you, Nathan perhaps, that they can be taken apart. And that point of contention eventually lead us down an interesting path, at least from my point of view.

As you do when talking abstract philosophy you tend to walk on stilts that look ridiculous to anyone not in the conversation so I hope that by diving into this you can follow.

We where talking about what the idea of God does for humankind. And I’m going to obviously rely on my impressions and ideas mostly because I honestly can’t remember much of Nathan’s. Sorry buddy but I’m more important to me then you are. Anyway, he can fill in the gaps in the comments. Okay, enough wasted time here I go.

In my opinion the purpose of God (one of perhaps, I have a lot longer to live so this list might grow) is to provide an example of good for humans to live up to. An almighty Father, both vengeful and just who practices unconditional love but simultaneously holds a hard line for the rules is the general picture of God I was taught to believe in. Of course this is the “character of God”, as Nathan calls it and not the God of the Bible, which in that case this description is sugar coated, and can be contradicted by actually reading the Bible, but then again that’s by opinion. So the character of God is the perfect example we should all strive for.

And I agree, depending on your definition of the character of God. I was telling Nathan, as I’ve told other people, and alluded to in previous comments, that I can have a conversation with a believer such as Nathan and understand their concepts as long as I view the word god as the power within me that allows me to experience the character of god. (Note the lower case) And that is a lot of reasons why this blog exist. I recognize similar feelings and experience without God that many ascribe to God. Thus leading me to think there is something else at work there.

And that’s where my head was as I sat over a pizza that that stupid ignorant Christian Nathan so kindly bought and shared with me in a time when I was broke and hungry. And it made me think, what is it that I am living for? I’ve long given up on the idea of a meaning to life, but should I rethink that?

The meaning of life is a term that expects and answer from an outside point of view I think. It almost demands a deity to hand us a card as in Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life, and read the answer like a talk show host would. I would argue it is the desire to transfer responsibility that springs this way of thinking. But science and reason has told us that every experience is derived from the mind, so why not the meaning of life? So it dawned on me that the meaning of life is for us to choose. That’s why there can be no one answer, and why the giant computer in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy chose 42. Isn’t it just like a machine to chose a number? And on that note, the question is probably up to us as well, but I’ll let the philosophical implications of that go for now.

But moving even beyond that we talked further about God as the ultimate good example. And the crux of our difference in opinion was exposed. See Nathan accepts that a Father God created us and watches us with love and awe. And we as his children are to be like him and to serve him. In a nutshell anyway, sorry if the mushy language mucks it up. And I believe that that ultimate good example is our own potential as individuals and as a species. I argued that by having the examples of history we can project our potential into the future and thus live our present lives to bring about the best possible version of that. Nathan however argues that it is necessary to have a separate God and thus a solid definition of good, and as a result evil. But I would go further and say that our definition of good has never been solid. In fact if you take the Ten Commandments I’m sure you can find examples in cultures around the world where each one is consider the antonym of the stated law in the Bible. (Wouldn’t that be a fun challenge?)

And even if it can be shown to be universally accepted as wrong to covet your neighbors donkey it still doesn’t diminish the fact that morality is created by community. How many times have we seen small groups commit strange acts that seem perfectly normal to them?

Now in theory the idea of an unfixed good is a good idea (is it? Ha!). But this goes back to the basics, no evidence for a God has been shown. I, and others like me, cannot rely on lack of evidence. But can a Christian really even claim an unfixed God? Hasn’t the morality of God changed over time? Even by rejecting the dogma of religion and forming your own individual view of God aren’t you shifting the morality of God? The same God that the majority would claim to this day was sending all homosexuals to hell? It is very clear that the morality of God is changing with our times. That’s why women can wear pants!

So overall, my point is the potential of humankind being our beacon in the distance. And at various times in history the ship we have sailed towards the beacon is the ship of God and religion. But as we get closer to the point in the distance we need to realize that that ship is ours and the point of light is not the kingdom of God, but our own kingdom here on Earth.

Did you follow that analogy? Well I want to say it again anyway. I think it can be shown that everyone strives for the potential of humankind even if they claim that they are striving to be like God. The harm comes in when people sacrifice what’s best for a fictional God over what’s best for humankind. It leads to stagnation and back peddling. The power of the mind to create, explore, love and express ideas is not the product of God but the product of our minds.

Okay, I’m going to stop being preachy, but I can’t help getting excited about my own personal potential and how it contributes to our race. And conversely getting frustrated by snags along the way.

So let me know what you think. Do you agree? Am I way off base? Am I standing on stilts still? Is this just a form of humanist dogma? I don’t know, let me know.

This Made Me Giggle.

Kurt Vonnegut --

I am honorary president of the American Humanist Association, having succeeded the late, great, spectacularly prolific writer and scientist, Dr. Isaac Asimov in that essentially functionless capacity. At an A.H.A. memorial service for my predecessor I said, "Isaac is up in Heaven now." That was the funniest thing I could have said to an audience of humanists. It rolled them in the aisles. Mirth! Several minutes had to pass before something resembling solemnity could be restored.
I made that joke, of course, before my first near-death experience -- the accidental one.
So when my own time comes to join the choir invisible or whatever, God forbid, I hope someone will say, "He's up in Heaven now." Who really knows? I could have dreamed all this.
My epitaph in any case? "Everything was beautiful. Nothing hurt." I will have gotten off so light, whatever the heck it is that was going on.