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.
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.
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.
Carnival of the Godless
A collection of atheist minded essays over at Ain't Christian
This blog is starting to lean a little to much to my side, if anyone reading this (if anyone actually does) get a hold of Nathan and tell him to get his butt in gear.
This blog is starting to lean a little to much to my side, if anyone reading this (if anyone actually does) get a hold of Nathan and tell him to get his butt in gear.
Surviving God (re-post)
Originally posted at my other blog Dirty Cricket
I’m pretty sure everyone wants to believe in God in some form or another, even if it’s just a strong sense of belonging or purpose. But I find myself among the ranks of those who have a practical mind and cannot find a place to fit God. All the main points are clearly laid out in many books by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. See Ben’s recent post about it.
But I don’t want to go into the practical side of it, because I’ve already conceived myself that there is no God, at least no evidence for the God of the Bible, or the Torah or the Koran or any other holy book on this planet. The fact is those are all made up by a lot of (sometimes) well meaning people just trying to make life a little easier, or get themselves a little ahead in a time when those sort of things could fly. But they can’t now. And I’m sorry to be harsh, but if you still believe that when you die you will be ushered to the pearly gates of heaven where God waits to give you all the luxuries you never had on Earth, you’re in for a surprise.
But then again if you really do believe that, then you probably think I’m in for a surprise.
But that’s really the point of contention here, and kind of what I’ve got on my mind. Faith. I know people, including the pope himself, who believe science and all its wonderful discoveries to be true and accurate and still believe in God. See they always want to take science one step further. Those of a religious mind view scientist as lost children with a candle in the dark who are just shy of seeing God. If they would only shine there light just a little further God would become apparent.
But we keep shinning and shinning and still no God, God of the gaps, if you will. The point is, if you already believe God exist then you’re going to see him in everything. But if you don’t then you won’t see him in anything. Most scientists like to comply with Ockham’s razor, the idea that if there is no evidence for something then don’t make it up. Especially when there are perfectly reasonable answers available. And even if there aren’t you still shouldn’t just make stuff up.
The problem of course is people aren’t comfortable with the idea of lack of knowledge. And that’s reasonable because if you don’t know something you’re vulnerable to that unknown something. I’m pretty sure most things we do in our life come down to that one fundamental desire – to survive.
Freud said it was sex, but sex is just an attempt to survive, beyond you granted, and into the next generation but it is survival. People have always invented things to better insure their survival, houses, cloths, refrigerators guns and religion. But where as the former provide physical forms of survival religion falls into the same category as government and politics; the Elk’s Club and the YMCA. An institution created to give stability to life. Our religious institutions provide a peace of mind to people who are worried about where their next meal is going to come from, or whether or not they are going to get sick and die. Is it a coincidence that we are one of the most religiously zealous countries and at the same time the only country in the civilized world that doesn’t have nationalized health care? If the government isn’t going to take care of us who is? God? Do you think it’s a coincidence that the Axis of evil contains some of the poorest nations on Earth? Religion gives people hope, people that have hope in nothing else.
But we don’t live in a world that is void of hope. Somewhere along the line, perhaps when we started to crawl out of our intellectual shells and view the world for what it really was, God lost his relevance and now he is struggling to survive in a world that doesn’t need him for hope. Preachers lay claim to moral authority and truth based on ancient text. All the while threatening those of us who don’t buy it with hell fire, here on Earth or otherwise. But they have no authority over the truth, truth is created in the minds of men and men are changing their minds.
And the concept of faith is something religion has laid claim too as well. As if having faith exclusively meant having faith in God. Faith is that element of throwing sand in the face of logic and carrying on as a means of survival. It is neither good nor bad, it is a human defense mechanism. I have faith that mankind will abandon religion and come to its full potential someday, without any evidence for this other then circumstantial. And I have this faith because it is what keeps me going. If I lost all hope then I would have no reason to live. But this power of faith comes from me and from my brothers and sisters of the human race. We don’t need God. We can survive him.
I’m pretty sure everyone wants to believe in God in some form or another, even if it’s just a strong sense of belonging or purpose. But I find myself among the ranks of those who have a practical mind and cannot find a place to fit God. All the main points are clearly laid out in many books by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. See Ben’s recent post about it. But I don’t want to go into the practical side of it, because I’ve already conceived myself that there is no God, at least no evidence for the God of the Bible, or the Torah or the Koran or any other holy book on this planet. The fact is those are all made up by a lot of (sometimes) well meaning people just trying to make life a little easier, or get themselves a little ahead in a time when those sort of things could fly. But they can’t now. And I’m sorry to be harsh, but if you still believe that when you die you will be ushered to the pearly gates of heaven where God waits to give you all the luxuries you never had on Earth, you’re in for a surprise.
But then again if you really do believe that, then you probably think I’m in for a surprise.
But that’s really the point of contention here, and kind of what I’ve got on my mind. Faith. I know people, including the pope himself, who believe science and all its wonderful discoveries to be true and accurate and still believe in God. See they always want to take science one step further. Those of a religious mind view scientist as lost children with a candle in the dark who are just shy of seeing God. If they would only shine there light just a little further God would become apparent.
But we keep shinning and shinning and still no God, God of the gaps, if you will. The point is, if you already believe God exist then you’re going to see him in everything. But if you don’t then you won’t see him in anything. Most scientists like to comply with Ockham’s razor, the idea that if there is no evidence for something then don’t make it up. Especially when there are perfectly reasonable answers available. And even if there aren’t you still shouldn’t just make stuff up.
The problem of course is people aren’t comfortable with the idea of lack of knowledge. And that’s reasonable because if you don’t know something you’re vulnerable to that unknown something. I’m pretty sure most things we do in our life come down to that one fundamental desire – to survive.
Freud said it was sex, but sex is just an attempt to survive, beyond you granted, and into the next generation but it is survival. People have always invented things to better insure their survival, houses, cloths, refrigerators guns and religion. But where as the former provide physical forms of survival religion falls into the same category as government and politics; the Elk’s Club and the YMCA. An institution created to give stability to life. Our religious institutions provide a peace of mind to people who are worried about where their next meal is going to come from, or whether or not they are going to get sick and die. Is it a coincidence that we are one of the most religiously zealous countries and at the same time the only country in the civilized world that doesn’t have nationalized health care? If the government isn’t going to take care of us who is? God? Do you think it’s a coincidence that the Axis of evil contains some of the poorest nations on Earth? Religion gives people hope, people that have hope in nothing else.
But we don’t live in a world that is void of hope. Somewhere along the line, perhaps when we started to crawl out of our intellectual shells and view the world for what it really was, God lost his relevance and now he is struggling to survive in a world that doesn’t need him for hope. Preachers lay claim to moral authority and truth based on ancient text. All the while threatening those of us who don’t buy it with hell fire, here on Earth or otherwise. But they have no authority over the truth, truth is created in the minds of men and men are changing their minds.
And the concept of faith is something religion has laid claim too as well. As if having faith exclusively meant having faith in God. Faith is that element of throwing sand in the face of logic and carrying on as a means of survival. It is neither good nor bad, it is a human defense mechanism. I have faith that mankind will abandon religion and come to its full potential someday, without any evidence for this other then circumstantial. And I have this faith because it is what keeps me going. If I lost all hope then I would have no reason to live. But this power of faith comes from me and from my brothers and sisters of the human race. We don’t need God. We can survive him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (RSS)
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
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
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
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
standardized language is a crutch.
i demand gladiatorial combat.
September 20, 2007 9:51 PM