Tara Stiles: Generation X: Praying To No One?

Tara Stiles: Generation X: Praying To No One?

Interesting article, not sure what my thoughts are on it. I wonder if this is shocking to anyone really. Having been decidedly in the "not praying" camp for some time I don't find this shocking and honestly I'm not sure I find it rewarding either. I try not to take relish in another point of view's demise (some of you are laughing at that I'm sure). But either way I just wanted to know if anyone had any thoughts on this. Do you think this matters? Is it really that big of a deal?

Rick Warren vs. Daniel Dennett

I'm a big fan of the TED talks there are some amazing talks on here on a variety of subjects and if you haven't taken the time to view some of them, do yourself a favor and indulge. I found these two videos particularly neat. Rick Warren is of course the evangelist and preacher who wrote the monumentally famous The Purpose Driven Life here's his full bio on TED. He makes some interesting points in the talk and I can see why he's a compelling speaker and an inspiration to many modern Christians.

But Daniel Dennett, an outspoken atheist and humanist, seemed to find fault in what Pastor Warren had to say and challenged him in his response talk. I find it very interesting, and tend to agree with Dennett. I wonder what you think?

A Look Into Jewish Traditions

This weeks episode of Speaking of Faith on Public was a great listen. I was driving home and was tired of the 3 CDs I had and turned to public radio. Keeping the Sabbath Holy is why NPR stations normally play this program on Sunday mornings and I was lucky enough to be driving at Sunday and tune it at the right time. There are so many things I didn't know and Scott-Martin Kosofsky is very insightful and learned. So if you have time learn a little something new.

Jesus Made Me Puke (Rolling Stone)

The excerpt I read made me want to share this with you, I'll be reading the whole thing and let you know what I think. You do the same.

Jesus Made Me Puke: Matt Taibbi Undercover with the Christian Right

Whoring out the Faith.

You know I don't think people ever learn. After being fully embarrassed to call myself a christian as the Creation Museum was being built, I now find another reason to blush. In Tennessee there is a Bible theme park proposed. This would be "historical" as the men in charge of the project say. I just say this is ridiculous, and I think all the readers know why. The article even quotes the supports as comparing people who do not support the project to telling a bookstore to stop selling the bible because they are making money off of it. This is crazy. Selling a manuscript that is a crux to a faith is very, very, VERY different than a million dollar theme park that will probably be poorly done, and a financial disaster. I say wait ten years, and if the creation museum has not been turned into the headquarters for an insurance company, or the largest strip club in Ohio, then talk about this. But even then I say this is a stupid idea.

FIX: linking issue

Sorry about that kurfuffle(sp?) When I picked a new design for the site a while back I didn't look into the way it colored links, but all should be good now. If you see a link it will look like this now.

Review of Language of God

I finished a great book call "The Language of God" by Francis S. Collins the head of the human genome project. This was a book that mainly describes the authors view of theistic evolution (not intelligent design) or as he calls it biologos. His views are probably the closest to mine. He also gives some compelling arguments against things that Dawkins has said, and how Dawkins thinks he owns Darwin. More that those arguments, his argument against creationism and the AIG group is pointed and witty. This book may not be for the evangelistic atheist (see below post) but it was a good read for one who knows that it is stupid to place science and faith against each other. I, like Collins, see science as a way to bring more awe to my understanding of God, and my faith is a driving force to encourage science as well as the amazing mind for discovery that mankind has.

Also there are tons of links in this. For some reason Jeph does not have them highlighted, but run your cursor over this and find the many places I take you.

Evangelistic Atheism

I longed to produce a large article about why there is not much different between evangelistic christianity and evangelistic atheism. Well, John Gray has done it better than I could have ever hoped for in an article for the guardian. It is incredibly long, but I read all of it, so you should take time to sit and read it. If one is even reading this blog then there is probably and interest in this subject, and seeing how I am sure there are more atheist readers, I think a critical view of this type of atheism is important. The only critique I have is in the closing paragraphs of the article. After pointing out that atheism can claim acts of immoral atrocities, he then states briefly how religion is still bad (or really implies it). I would just like to point out that there is a difference in the doctrines that I believe make up my faith, and how people who have stolen the name of my faith act. But I guess that can be a subject for a later post. You have a lot of reading to do in that article, so get to it.

Who Would Jesus Vote For?

This article is a little long, but that is because it is from a real magazine. So get ready to read four good pages. This says a lot about voting and religion that I would say. Good stuff. (oh, and the answer, if you are asking me, is Obama. At least that is who I voted for).

RESPONSE: New Monasticism

This is just some of my thoughts on the article Nathan mentioned in the previous post

I find this whole movement pretty interesting and kind of exciting. I have to agree with these people that the mega-church culture is sort of out of control. While some people find benefit in it, having an alternative is always good.

But my first reaction was to think that these people where going backwards, reverting to older forms of worship in Monasticism, the "lice...on God Almighty's fur coat" as Martin Luther called it according to the article. (Which BTW having grown up Lutheran, Marty is only now becoming a more interesting figure now that all the good bits about him are coming to light).

But as I continued the article they made a point that these people are still retaining normal jobs, rarely ever taking a vow of celibacy and more or less refraining from the isolation and solitude that has become some clique when one thinks of "monks". Which leads me to wonder why they even choose the term New Monasticism?

I can't really knock what they are doing, they have established a community of like minded individuals to help and support them while at the same time dedicating themselves to public service. I would be hard pressed to say it wouldn't be good for most people to take up this position. But at the same time where does the Monasticism come in? I guess they live in a community and admire certain Saints and Catholic Church figures, but if I think a particular line in a Grateful Dead song is inspired and worth remembering does that make me a Dead Head?

To be quite honest, I hope not.

It doesn't wholly matter because for the large part I like what is going on here. I have to laugh when you have quotes from regular "Protestants" accusing these people of getting "into bed with the apostate Catholic Church". Or jumping with fear that they might be breeding a "interspiritual, interfaith, one-world religion, where it all blends together." Is that so bad!?

So I say more power to them, I don't really agree with basics of your religion, but as long as you are finding support with each other and helping those around you, how can I complain?

Although, the article does end rather amonously with a quote from William Shea, director of the Center for Religion, Ethics, and Culture at the College of the Holy Cross, "...but I would hold back and ask, where might this lead?"

One word, Waco.

You know that's what he means.

New Monasticism

Check it out on my blog.

Something I've Been Thinking About

I'm not very far in The God Delusion, but so far it's pretty enjoyable. But, it's reignited a debate I've been having withing myself, and I figure here's a good of a place as any to bring it to others.

The question is of specificity. Specifically, the word "atheist." I wonder if those who are actually atheists don't want a different word?

The word itself is centered around "theist," obviously, but it seems strange to me to be labeled so explicitly by what you are not. Would "humanist" not be better? It's the way I feel like I'm leaning, but I feel like my reasoning for it is less of a "not theist" position and more of a "pro people" ideal.

Words are what English majors think about.

The cover is shiny.

I just started reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. Shenanigans to follow.

Playing the Victim

Read story here and here

In a nut shell:

A controversial Christmas card reading “O come all ye faithless” has been strongly criticized by Christians as an “ill judged and insensitive joke.” Borders book stores began giving away the card free with every copy of Richard Dawkins’ well known atheist work, The God Delusion, this Christmas.

Favorite quote:

He [Rev. Johnathan Edwards] continued, “Christians have always been used to being punch bags but I would have hoped that, in a society in which we are seeking to show respect to all people and beliefs, we might have grown out of this kind of nonsense.”

My Thoughts:

Yes, Rev. I would hope that in a society in which we are seeking to show respect to all people and beliefs, including atheist, we might have grown out of this kind of nonsense. Nonsense like getting all huffy when someone makes a lame joke about faith, in general. And why are the Christians the only ones getting mad? Why aren't we hearing more Hindu outrage? Jewish indignation! Is there a Jihad on Borders yet?

I mean, seriously...its a fucking joke that some people find funny. If you don't find it funny don't take the damn card. I would hope that in a society in which we are seeking to show respect to all people and beliefs, we could just fucking get over it. If you really believe all the stuff that makes you a Christian, is a little card going to shake your faith that much that you have to boycott a book chain? The attitude I get here is that Rev. Edwards expects everyone else to respect Christian beliefs but he can go poo poo on whomever he wants. And that's not what I call "respect to all people and all beliefs".

I can understand being upset, but basically pressuring Borders to stop giving away the card because it offends Christians is disrespectful to non-believers.

And by the way, what Christian is buying The God Delusion anyway? Sounds likes someone's feeling a little guilty.

Chained Letters

So my mother sends me the most amazing mail, what's the keyboard shortcut to insert sarcasm? I guess you'll have to infer it. Anyway, I've taken it upon myself to try and combat a wee bit of ignorance that comes my way. Not to say my mom is ignorant, she's a very smart lady in her own way. I had to get it from some where.

Anyway here's the most recent e-mail I got from her and my response.


I received this from a friend who had a choice to make. It said that I
had a choice to make too.

I've chosen. Now it's your turn to choose.

The story goes that some time ago a mother punished her five year old
daughter for wasting a roll of expensive gold wrapping paper. Money was
tight and she became even more upset when the child used the gold paper
to decorate a box to put under the Christmas tree.

Nevertheless, the little girl brought the gift box to her mother the
next morning and then said, "This is for you, Momma."

The mother was embarrassed by her earlier over reaction, but her anger
flared again when she opened the box and found it was empty. She spoke
to her daughter in a harsh manner.

"Don't you know, young lady, when you give someone a present there's
supposed to be somethinginside the package?"
She had tears in her eyes and said, "Oh, Momma, it's not empty! I blew
kisses into it until it was full."

The mother was crushed. She fell on her knees and put her arms around
her little girl, and she begged her forgiveness for her thoughtless
anger.

An accident took the life of the child only a short time later, and it
is told that the mother kept that gold box by her bed for all the years
of her life.

Whenever she was discouraged or faced difficult problems she would open
the box and take out an imaginary kiss and remember the love of the
child who had put it there.

In a very real sense, each of us, as human beings, have been given a
Golden box filled with unconditional love and kisses from our children,
family, friends and GOD. There is no more precious possession anyone
could hold.

And my response:

So....this story is basically: a mom yells at her daughter during a stressful period in her life (holiday, money tight etc.) like any normal human would, and like any parent should do to imbue their child with a sense of right and wrong, I think its called parenting. And then she feels bad for previous yelling because the little girl did something "cute". Which is to say she probably didn't regret yelling at her (assuming she's a sound parent and realized that her daughter does need to learn not to waste things. And I'm sorry but a box full of kisses is a waste, unless they are of the Hershey variety) but in reality she hated seeing her daughter being so cute and upset at the same time, because no parent wants their child to be upset and the very fact that they can be so cute is one of the main reasons why they don't want that; so you see her conundrum. And then, what I'm sure would be just another mishap along the busy stressful Christmas season and maybe would be recounted at her wedding or other social gatherings where this is much nostalgia floating around is thrust into rock hard symbolism by this little girls accidental death (accidental to assure us she wasn't murdered). Like any mother she is upset and toppled into grief, but low and behold she has this golden box of "kisses" that now couples with the dire wish to have her daughter be alive becomes a personification of her dead daughter forcing her to ritualistically remove a "kiss" from the box whenever she feels down, not just about her daughter mind you, but any problem that she is facing. Be it another stressful time in her life, troubles with her relationships, or just having trouble getting the lid off the coffee maker she pulls a "kiss" from this box. This is what we commonly call, insane. I can understand thinking of the nice thing your daughter did for you whenever you feel down, or just thinking about your daughter and what a joy she was in your life when you are down, but saving an empty box and pulling invisible kisses out of it is crazy and this woman needs help. And then it caps off with, "In a very real sense each of us has a golden box full of kisses" What? Is this a metaphor now? I thought this lady had a real box? But wait, in a "real" sense we have a box full of kisses?

Okay, obviously I could go on, but what is the point of this story? Jerk your heart strings? Or to tell us to believe in imaginary things, because it will make it all better. I guess maybe it is. But from a certain point of view it seems really stupid. And I'm sure you can tell what my point of view is.


Harsh? No? Maybe not.

Let's Try This Again...

I don't mean to rip here, its just I am a little disappointed in the fact that I can't find much stuff about Christmas that doesn't leave some loop hole open for the existence of Christ, even if that is a stretch. So I'm going to post a few videos that make up what is the first part of a full documentary Zeitgeist. A good doc over all, even if I am not %100 on everything they say in parts two and three, this first part on religion is pretty spot on and hard to argue with. It covers the whole Dec 25th thing also. So without further ado:

The TRUE Meaning of Christmas

Seems like this time of year you see a lot of people talking about the "true" meaning of Christmas. This is usually fodder for preachers and moralist bemoaning the consumerism of our culture and somehow thinking that we have forgot about Jesus. Which I can say for certain, we have not. But it always makes me think, do these people really know what they are talking about? They certainly don't want people to remember the TRUE true meaning of Christmas do they? No I think not, because in that story Jesus is only a minor character. So, for your holiday cheer I present a very good documentary that I watched last year on YouTube. (note, it has been a year since I watched it, so the term "good" may not be in order here. I'll re-watch it and let you know what I think.)

UPDATE: Okay, I watched it all, and WHOA, I forgot about the turn around that comes at the end there. Turns out that whoever produced this video actually thinks that by pointing out the Pegan Origins of Christmas that they are actually making their case for Christ stronger. Up until that last video its all good though...I'm going to find another one however that is better.

The Origin of Christmas Part 1




The Origin of Christmas Part 2



The Origin of Christmas Part 3



The Origin of Christmas Part 4

Mint Chocolate CoCo thoughts

Not really about mint chocolate coco, but more about drinking it and thinking about other things.

I'm currently reading Island by Aldous Huxley and it is a welcome relief just coming from the depths of Ayn Rand. Where she preaches the empowerment of the self and the literal worship of the dollar, Huxley seems to find that ever-elusive middle ground that Buddha spoke of. And as much as Rand is right with her selfish philosophy, she is ultimately falling into the same trap as most religions and political orientations that she demonizes do. You can’t replace one extreme for another and expect it to be any better. And the flip side of this coin is: If some of what Ayn Rand is talking about it true, some of what she demonizes must also be true. In other words, and more attuned to my personal feelings, some of religion/belief must be true. Something doesn’t exist without a benefit, that’s natural selection. And like it or not religion and belief have stuck around.

Huxley’s Island is an interesting book so far. It takes a peek at a world that is by all accounts doing things right. They exist as sort of a Buddhist/Hindu state that takes a non-traditional approach to most everything in their lives; most of it really having to do with rearing and raising children. They have a sort of “adoption” program that works on a need base. Children live with their biological parents, but have a network of adopted parents, more like godparents in our society, that they can go to when a situation at home gets tense. And this is encouraged, not only to spread the burden of parenting but also to ensure the child has a well developed pallet of influence. Quite a good idea I think, and it goes further. Children are conditioned Pavlov style to feel no fear towards animals and other people through a series of repetitive introductions, (this is a good bird, good bird, good bird etc.). In school they are encouraged to meditate and those who are better able to be hypnotized are identified and encouraged to develop their talent for its benefits in helping one learn faster by ingesting knowledge in a hypnotic trance which allows one to learn faster and better. And they are also identified so they are made aware of their abilities so they are better able to know when someone is attempting to manipulate them, future Darrin Browns if you will. Another important part of the rearing process is the understanding that life isn’t all easy. Children on Pala, the Island the book's title refers to, are taken on rock climbing adventures and other outdoor activities to teach them the struggles of life, and when they are only twelve or fourteen they star working. So much of the way we live our lives has to do with how we were raised really; most problems that hamper people later in life are left over from childhood. Wouldn’t it be great if we’d been taught how to deal with life at an early age?

But by far the largest aspect of Pala life is the ritual ingestion of moksha, a hallucinogenic medicine designed to facilitate a religious experience. But the people on Pala don’t believe in any deity, like Buddha himself, they only believe in the power of the individual spirit (there’s Ayn Rand speaking, but she forgets the next part) and the collective spirit. The give offerings to Shiva (that’s a Hindu god I’m pretty sure) and praise her, but it is all a symbolic representation of the struggle that goes on inside all of us. And from what reading I have done of Buddha and other eastern religions, this is the general idea.

And that is a very powerful notion to me. Christianity, Islam, and to a certain extend Judaism, have slipped into this insane idea that there religion is speaking factually. They actually believe that god flooded the entire globe and had Noah put two of all of the millions of species onto one boat. It’s a nice story but I think if taken literally it loses all its power. Rather, when its taken symbolically it gains a power that touches each and every person. There’s a great website called Back of the Bible, by Jay Pinkerton. He reviews the “minor” prophets of the Old Testament with hilarious results. One in particular is the book of Hosa, which in a nut shell is the story of a prophet who marries a hooker…fuck, I’ll let Jay explain it he’s better at it than me anyway.

The Book of Hosea chronicles the story of — spoiler — the prophet Hosea. According to Hosea, the Lord God comes to him with explicit instructions that he marry a prostitute. No, really. Hosea speedily complies and shacks up with the prostitute Gomer (presumably unrelated to the Pyle family), who—in a move uncommon to the profession—spits out a shitload of kids. Hosea does his best with his new-car-smell harlot wife, buying her lots of nice things and making love to her with regularity. Despite Hosea's sex-and-purchase-based love strategy, though, she continues to harlot around like it's going out of style.

Following several decades of faithless marriage between Hosea and village bicycle Gomer, God reveals his reason for demanding all the hooker-sex in the first place. The union, it turns out, makes for a perfect metaphor for the Lord's relationship to Israel. In forsaking their covenant by exploring other religions (golden calves, Ba'al and whatnot), Isreal is like the faithless whore Gomer, and God the exasperated spouse. You hussy, Israel.

So this obviously has to be a metaphor, a story that was told by some other prophet to the people about their wicked ways, and it seems Israel can do nothing but be wicked in the Old Testament, which makes you think that prophets are just a bunch of whinny doom spitters. But that’s beside the point.

What is the point? I think what I’m trying to get at with this post here in a round about way is that I feel like I am starting to get to a point where I can see the benefits of religion in someone’s life. Buddha said a healthy mind needs a healthy body, well I think the mind needs more than just rational and skepticism (both important mind you!). The element of religion is that missing link, and the dogma of it is just a tool to make it more fun and meaningful. But the awareness of its purpose is absolutely necessary. I can worship the flying spaghetti monster to get piece of mind, and you can worship Jesus for the same piece of mind. When you start to believe that a guy named Jesus actually walked the Earth and actually took two shots of metal to the wrists just because you said a naughty word or looked at a nice pair of tits, it becomes a problem. Because then people want to hurt people who don’t believe the same thing they do. When you are aware that your religion is just as ridiculous as the next and what you are really worshiping is something inside yourself, in an attempt to find the middle ground, this whole business becomes a lot easier to swallow. Its like discovering that asparagus is good for you, and suddenly eating it doesn’t seem as horrible as it did when you were a kid.

I’m still working out the whole organized religion aspect of all this. What benefit does a standardized set of rules have over individual defined rules? If you worship Jesus, can I worship a deity that is a robot from Mars and get the same benefit? I suppose the answer lays somewhere in the aspect of the checks and balances that a community provides. But at the same time that community needs to be open to change, which unfortunately a lot of churches and religions aren’t. Again, it’s the middle ground, this time between leading and following.

I guess no one ever said it was easy, no matter what religion or lack of you subscribe to.

Creationism is TRUE!

I'm a convert...

New Layout...

What do you say? It needs some tweaks, but I like it better.

Any thoughts? Also remember if you ever have any links or things you think would be good for the site let me know....(this is of course addressed towards the authors on this site, I don't really know if anyone else reads this blog, but we've had a view visitors)

So yeah...

If that doesn't put the baby to bed...

NEXUS Magazine: Forged Origins of Christianity.


Quite a read actually. Lots of sources and well put.

What the Church doesn't want you to know
It has often been emphasised that Christianity is unlike any other religion, for it stands or falls by certain events which are alleged to have occurred during a short period of time some 20 centuries ago. Those stories are presented in the New Testament, and as new evidence is revealed it will become clear that they do not represent historical realities. The Church agrees, saying:
"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted."
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)

Seriously, read the rest. In the words of Borat: Very Nice!

I think we knew this...

The Blog Readability Test rates us at Genius.




So yeah....awesome guys.

Neil deGrassa Tyson

Why do %15 of the National Science Foundation believe in God?



Pretty good talk on religion and its implications on science. A nice way to express the harm it truly is having on science when it is imposed.

The Blind watchmaker...making a watch

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.

Sam Harris: OnFaith

I guess this is a series of articles he's been publishing. This one is interesting, all though it seems kind of obvious, considering what we've been discussing here already. But it does include this gem. (I just love list)

How to Believe in God
Six Easy Steps

1. First, you must want to believe in God.
2. Next, understand that believing in God in the absence of evidence is especially noble.
3. Then, realize that the human ability to believe in God in the absence of evidence might itself constitute evidence for the existence of God.
4. Now consider any need for further evidence (both in yourself and in others) to be a form of temptation, spiritually unhealthy, or a corruption of the intellect.
5. Refer to steps 2-4 as acts of “faith.”
6. Return to 2.

One thing I'm starting to notice and get a bit annoyed by with these guys (Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, etc.) is the fact that they have to say the same stuff over and over again. I'm pretty sure it annoys them as well but sometimes I just wish we could move on and talk about stuff that matters. But then again maybe this is the stuff that matters?

Doubts are natural

I think doubting your faith is natural, stagnation allows no view point to thrive. I don't know how compleately I agree with Rev. Honey, but he has some great, well put points. This is from the TED coference a while ago. There are newer videos on tons of subjects, and I'm sure Jeph will direct you to the Richard Dawkins stuff. Enjoy.


http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/112

Also...

This subject seems real interesting to me. The Singularity. A culmination of technology and science to some kind of new stage of living? I'm going to look into it some more and make a comment.

Here's a concept...

Black Sun Journal, has a nice piece on a pastor who "understands" atheist.

Books!

I was thinking it would be a good idea to put together a reading list. Just a list of books that you have read that have personally helped shape your belief. They can be classics or niche books doesn't matter, but I know I would be interested in broadening my perspectives. So I'll start with a few of my favorites and you can respond in the comments and I'll try and put something together.

So I going to list the books that I feel have been really instrumental in shaping the way I think, and then I'll throw in a few I just like.

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 (Long story, you probably shouldn't read this book just ask my why its on the list)
Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars - Kim Stanley Robinson (again sounds weird but I have my reasons)

That's a short list, I'm sure there are more I just don't have my bookshelf in front of me. I'll amend this later.

Blog Doubble Header: Game 2 Rant about science.

This one will probably be a little shorter. Want I want to comment on is the fact that I dont think science has it all together, or is infaliable. I am going to start this by stating that I am not a scientist, and have had limited knowledge on this subject, limited but related to what I'm going to talk about. Please comment on this, and hold me accountable for my ignorance.

Science is the tower athiest tend to stand on (maybe a tower the size of a soapbox). This is their ace in the hole. Science is changing, but always right. And for some people points to no god. In previous blogs there has been mentioned the fact that if you dont know something you shouldn't make stuff up about it.

Here comes my opinion. When it comes to science out side of observation, it looks more like a faith. Faith is the ace in the hole for religion, but I think science becomes a faith at certain levels. Observation is the best method of science, you see something, make a hypothesis, test it, and there comes some answers( over simplyfied, I know, but work with me). So then there are things we can not observe, like the creation of the universe. I'm still with science right now, dont get me wrong.

As science is pushing to discover what happened, they have to rely on formulas, and theories based on things observed now, but they can not observe it then. Even the idea of half-life is based on a uniform deterioration, which has no evidence for or against.(don't get me wrong here, i trust half-lifeing, but it is not iron clad).

In a very secular physics class I took we talked a lot about universe formation, and let me tell you, it takes some faith for that. To boil it down, we weren't there, so all we have are guesses, and they are well informed, but again this seems to contradict the "only talk about what we know" type idea. In addition, I listened to a lecture about string theory. I can't even beging to talk about it, other than it is a guess that makes formulas make more sense, but there is no way to prove it. This is very faith-like.

I know I may sound ignorant, but please, challenge me on this. My main point is that science is not perfect, scientist will tell you that. When it comes down to it there is a faith leap you have to take with science too. Even the big bang brings mater to a 1 ccm highly dense space. Scientist will say that mater was always there. This sounds a lot like the always there claims of a god. If mater is eternal, then why is it crazy to have an eternal god? This is not a large leap. I know I may sound small minded, but listen, I trust science, but there are some things I think we need to question. Skepticism is key to getting a greater undrstanding of our universe.

Blog Doubble Header: Game 1 Evolution and God sittining in a tree...

Well, I think I should introduce some of my beleifs. As most people know, the hottest button to push for an athiest or a christian is the creation button. I personally do not have that button, or at least it does not ellicit a strong reaction from me.

In trying to find a "title" or "classification" for what I beleive I guess the clossest thing is theistic evolution. I see no condratiction between scriptures (the Judeo-Christian in my case) and Science ( evolution and natural selection in this case).

Dobzhansky, a Russian Orthodox, wrote a famous 1973 essay entitled Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution espousing evolutionary creationism:
"I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's, method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way... Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts... the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness."

I think this sums up my views pretty well. I am coming from spending two years in a private Christian college and two years in two different public Universities. I think science is true (at least what hasn't been proven wrong yet) and I love trying to figure out the intricacies of our world. I think we hear a lot about why evolution makes sense, so I will make a small comment on the scriptural basis of what I think.

We can start in Genesis. It is widely thought that there are multiple authors to this first book. There is a stylistic difference between the creation account and the rest of the book. This automatically sets it appart as different. In addition this is written with a poetry style, like a song. Genesis does speak of a 6 day creation, but one must always put a text in context. The context of the begining of Genesis is the first written beleifs of a new, mono-theistic religion. Around that time there was reigonal poly-theistic religions, worshiping a sun god or a water god. This book starts with a radically different idea. It shows an all powerful God who controls water, sun, sky, everything. It is a God that puts mater into order from chaos.

To focus on this as a "literal" story shortchanges the reader from the meaning. The God in Genesis is a creator god, that is fact, but it is a God that is not like what was out there, an all powerful God. This was different for the time, we may take it for granted, but this was radical. Genesis shows a God that knows the intricacies of this world. I could probably go into more detail about what this shows about the character of God, but I shall save that for another time.

The point I am trying to make is that Genesis was written as a religious doccument to a poly-theistic audience. This is not a book about how the world really came to be, but who is behind it. Science excites me, and has many other Christian Scientist(Scientist who are Christian that is, ones that take both serisously, and seperate). The more we find out about the world, the more powerful and detail focused God appears.

I know there are many arguements that can be started, justifying a God in general, but all I am trying to say is that Science does not disprove God, and God does not push out science. These are two different things that can both be true.

Comment Up

My good friend Minott and I have been going back and forth in the comment section (a habit I think will continue) So I think I'm going to bring out those comments onto the main page from time to time for those of you who don't often look at the comment section. Here you go starting with the original post:

Pope: Creation vs. evolution clash an ‘absurdity’

"This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

Read the rest here

There always seems to be a way to fit God into everything. The problem here is that evolution creates a situation that doesn't need God, inventing him is pointless and unnecessary. Occam's razor people.

minott said...

I'm not entirely sure that Occam's Razor can be applied to this situation as neatly as you'd like it to, Mister Porter. If you would argue that God (either big 'g' or small) is "beyond necessity," you may find yourself in an indefensible position.

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him." - Voltaire.

This is one of the very few examples where circular reason proves a point. Many points, actually. Right now, I just want one.

I absolutely cannot agree that the idea of a higher power, in whatever forms that may take through all of recorded history, is "beyond necessity" in the understanding of our existence. If it were, you would also have to include art, poetry, music, language, and all the other amazing things humans do. For some reason, psychologically, humans need something abstract to hold on to. These things are aesthetic, and while they have no absolute value to our continued existence (such as food, shelter, reproduction, and such), you have to admit that there is SOMETHING that requires man as a whole to engage in such conjecture.

In this, of course, I speak mostly of the little 'g,' as a study of the Christian God is, of course, much more elaborate and apologetic endeavor.

I guess to summarize my longwindedness, consider:

If the concept of an abstract 'power' was not absolutely necessary for any reason to humanity, how would you explain the fact that nearly every single original civilization on the planet had some (or many different) ideas regarding "the supernatural?"

((also: I say "nearly every" only to protect myself, as I can not think of one that didn't have a belief system of some sort, though I would not be surprised if, through diligent search, one found proof otherwise. Also, I put "supernatural" in quotes because I hate that word, and the concept, because it is intrinsically paradoxical. Ask me about it sometime.))

September 17, 2007 3:56 AM

Jeph Porter said...

But I think Occam's Razor does apply and you're only helping me to prove that.

Art is an abstract thing that doesn't have anything to do with the physical aspects of survival, yes. So are you suggesting that God or belief falls into that same category? Maybe it achieves the same goal but here is where Occam's Razor comes in, if we already have art, why do we need to invent God?

We have a medium to express our higher mind, art, why do we need to believe in God? Unless belief is a form of art?

I guess ultimately I can see your point, but even if I were to agree that belief in God where a necessary part of survival, that doesn't make it anymore real.

September 18, 2007 4:54 PM

minott said...

4am posts for-the-win.

Anyway, couldn't it be argued that one of the functions of art (broad use of the term) is to draw out the real from the abstract? That the interplay of ideas could create something, in essence, "real"?

I think what I meant isn't that "belief in God" is essential for man's survival. I especially don't mean it in the sense of the God of the Abrahamic religions. Five billion people seem to be getting along fine without it.

What I'm trying to clarify is an emphasis on the BELIEF over the IN GOD. I would very readily argue that it is feasible that belief could fill the same 'role,' as it were, as art. Just as our physical bodies hunger for nourishment, so do our minds hunger for stimulation.

It may be that, while belief in a higher power of whatever sort isn't necessary (as evidenced by, well, evidence), it's not unnecessary either.

To differentiate, I'm not talking at all about whether one should (or should not) believe in the Christian God, or Vishnu, or whatever the hell Scientology is all about, or animism, or _________. I only want to point out that it's likely an indefensible position to say that it is unnecessary (in the strict philosophical sense) for any human to believe in __________.

September 18, 2007 5:21 PM

Jeph Porter said..

Just for arguments sake

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

You'll notice that the third largest group is non-believers, 1.1 billion people that seem to be getting along fine without belief in _________.

Sure you could argue that they still belief in something! Science, humanity, nature something like that and you would be right. But it makes the point that the nature of our definition of belief, per this blog, is limited to belief in a religious and dogmatic deity of some kind.

I think this is a good example of how a lot of these arguments are based simply on how one defines words, or rather what limits one places on the definition of those words.

I wonder if I should put together a glossary of terms for this site and in what context we indent to use them.

September 20, 2007 9:23 AM

minott said...

standardized language is a crutch.

i demand gladiatorial combat.

September 20, 2007 9:51 PM

feel free to comment....