Quoited from Pevensie15: "Eugenics was done by ignorant atheists, who should have read the Bible!"
Ignorant assertion for the win!
I already replied to him on his blog, but as usual he completely ignores my points, probably because the kid has nothing even resembling a cogent answer.
Now, Aj there has raised what is really an obnoxious lie common to the fundamentalist Christian position. Eugenics was certainly an outgrowth from the ideas of evolutionary theory, but that does not make it inherently atheistic. Studies of various hominids yielded information regarding things like general skull measurements and other empirical qualities that led people to start applying those measurements as benchmarks regarding what races were more evolved than others. This was done worldwide, from bible believing American Christians, the British, The Chinese, Japanese, etc. Its association with the Nazi agenda simply hastened its departure from acceptable science.
Were there Atheists involved? Hell yes. Was it racist? Damned straight. Denying that would be revisionist claptrap like claiming Hitler wasn't a Christian (forgive my Godwin* breach). Now, I've pretty much come to expect this from current fundamentalists since they generally only know what they're taught which is usually a very white-washed version of history painting Christianity as some kind of heroic underdog despite being the establishment for about 1500 years in the west.
The second part of what AJ says really bothers me and shows palpable ignorance of the Tanakh. The bible supports outright genocide of non-believing neighbor nations and encourages erradication and/or enslavement. You know what, AJ, you're right. Reading the Bible would have stopped them from starting Eugenics. It would have encouraged outright slaughter rape and enslavement instead. Good point!
Of course, we all know that those Christians involved in Eugenics weren't true Scotsmen... err Christians. Right?
*Thanks ExPatMatt and Beamstalk
Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Atheism. Show all posts
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Intelligent Design and the Echo Chamber
I'm sure I'm not the first one to write on this, but I can't help but making note; It seems to me a very odd phenomenon that the only people who argue for the idea of intelligent design are religious. And beyond that, not only are they all religious, but they are almost all evangelical Christians, with a few fringe Jews like Ben Stein. The fact that this is almost an exact match to the same group of evolution deniers (other than the muslims) is rather telling when you look at it from a scientific and sociological perspective.
The largest part of this group is what is commonly called an echo chamber. They all tell each other what they want to hear while bouncing their own ideas back at each other and keeping any dissenting opinoin out. But this group never looks outside the chamber to make the obvious conclusion: If we're the only ones who don't believe something and we all happen to share one certain belief system, perhaps its not the other side that's closed-minded.
Of course, that would be an admittance of severe cognitive dissonance that the average fundamentalist simply cannot accept. It's world-shattering in their view after all. But when we look at modern evolutionary theory which is generally accepted by (non-fundamentalist) Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Shinto etc. you have to look at that and wonder how the recalcitrant deniers of evolution can possibly make their case when they are basically the lone voice of dissent. If their absurd dating was correct certainly someone outside the echo chamber would have come up with something supporting it, but that's never the case. And then, of course, the ones outside the echo chamber are considered to be either consipiratorial, or just plain closed-minded.
I think its important to avoid an echo chamber mentality, wchich is why I listen to dissenting media quite a bit. I like to make sure I'm analyzing the other side which gives my personal convictions a stronger basis through reasoning. For example, I hate Michael Savage. I think he's an ignorant alarmist who is riding solely off of sensationalism. But I listen to him because every once in a while an interesting point pops up that I can't reasonably dispute. Then i research the claim and see how valid it really is. If it is, I've learned something. I may come a to a different conclusion than that asshat, but I did learn something. When you're in the Echo Chamber its rarely learning something new. Its regurgitation of what you already believe, and what you want to hear.
I think that's valuable for many skeptics and rational thinkers. Many of us do fall into the same problem, but to a less severe degree. Luckily, particularly with evolution, the facts and science are very much on our side. But that's not always been the case, and while most of us are open-minded to new theories and ideas, but we need to keep it that way.
And that doesn't mean giving pseudoscientific garbage a fair shot. Homeopathy, ID and such are pretty much objectively garbage. But even so when a reliable source presents dissent we need to (and usually do) listen.
The largest part of this group is what is commonly called an echo chamber. They all tell each other what they want to hear while bouncing their own ideas back at each other and keeping any dissenting opinoin out. But this group never looks outside the chamber to make the obvious conclusion: If we're the only ones who don't believe something and we all happen to share one certain belief system, perhaps its not the other side that's closed-minded.
Of course, that would be an admittance of severe cognitive dissonance that the average fundamentalist simply cannot accept. It's world-shattering in their view after all. But when we look at modern evolutionary theory which is generally accepted by (non-fundamentalist) Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Shinto etc. you have to look at that and wonder how the recalcitrant deniers of evolution can possibly make their case when they are basically the lone voice of dissent. If their absurd dating was correct certainly someone outside the echo chamber would have come up with something supporting it, but that's never the case. And then, of course, the ones outside the echo chamber are considered to be either consipiratorial, or just plain closed-minded.
I think its important to avoid an echo chamber mentality, wchich is why I listen to dissenting media quite a bit. I like to make sure I'm analyzing the other side which gives my personal convictions a stronger basis through reasoning. For example, I hate Michael Savage. I think he's an ignorant alarmist who is riding solely off of sensationalism. But I listen to him because every once in a while an interesting point pops up that I can't reasonably dispute. Then i research the claim and see how valid it really is. If it is, I've learned something. I may come a to a different conclusion than that asshat, but I did learn something. When you're in the Echo Chamber its rarely learning something new. Its regurgitation of what you already believe, and what you want to hear.
I think that's valuable for many skeptics and rational thinkers. Many of us do fall into the same problem, but to a less severe degree. Luckily, particularly with evolution, the facts and science are very much on our side. But that's not always been the case, and while most of us are open-minded to new theories and ideas, but we need to keep it that way.
And that doesn't mean giving pseudoscientific garbage a fair shot. Homeopathy, ID and such are pretty much objectively garbage. But even so when a reliable source presents dissent we need to (and usually do) listen.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Arrogant Atheists Indeed
Atheists, probably more than any other demographic, get tarred with the epithet of arrogance. Its no mystery why this is the case, particularly with such outspoken famous atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens who are so unapologetically atheistic (or antitheistic in Hitchens' case) that their confidence comes across as arrogance to those who do not share their views. Their being British doesn't help them in the States as British people are regrettably already too often smeared with an unjust label of intellectual snobbery.
But let's look at the bigger picture on rality. Atheism is a skeptical view at its heart. Atheists (at least intelligent atheists) do not claim a perfect knowledge of any of the following:
1: Is there a god and/or gods?
2: What Caused the Universe to Spring Into Being?
3: What Happens After We Die?
Atheists try and answer as best we can, and to that end we end up with plenty of "likely's" "probably's" and "I thinks" which is in stark contrast to the surety of the monotheists who claim to -know-. Now, this is not universal. Many monotheists simply claim it is what they believe, and hedge in many of the same ways as we atheists do. But the ones who claim to know, like Ray Comfort for example, are all too willing to call atheists arrogant (or insane*) for what we know to the best of our ability through reasoning and science, while they claim to know with absolute surety on the basis of their own personal convictions and no real evidence outside of a highly flawed book dating anywhere from 1400-2500 years ago (pick your poison).
And we're the arrogant ones. Ok, right, gotcha. There area arrogant people on all sides of the fence and in all walks of life. But when it comes to theological views (or lakc thereof) it certainly isn't the atheists whose beliefs are on their own arrogant. The only reason the theists consider it arrogant is because it offends their religious sensibilities that we not only don't believe in their sky daddy, but are loud about it, and proud of our atheism. I guess when you have a good argument it can seem arrogant.
*Dawkins has certainly said the same of theists, so this doesn't really offend me, but the theist grounding for such an assertion is so weak that it is basically laughable.
But let's look at the bigger picture on rality. Atheism is a skeptical view at its heart. Atheists (at least intelligent atheists) do not claim a perfect knowledge of any of the following:
1: Is there a god and/or gods?
2: What Caused the Universe to Spring Into Being?
3: What Happens After We Die?
Atheists try and answer as best we can, and to that end we end up with plenty of "likely's" "probably's" and "I thinks" which is in stark contrast to the surety of the monotheists who claim to -know-. Now, this is not universal. Many monotheists simply claim it is what they believe, and hedge in many of the same ways as we atheists do. But the ones who claim to know, like Ray Comfort for example, are all too willing to call atheists arrogant (or insane*) for what we know to the best of our ability through reasoning and science, while they claim to know with absolute surety on the basis of their own personal convictions and no real evidence outside of a highly flawed book dating anywhere from 1400-2500 years ago (pick your poison).
And we're the arrogant ones. Ok, right, gotcha. There area arrogant people on all sides of the fence and in all walks of life. But when it comes to theological views (or lakc thereof) it certainly isn't the atheists whose beliefs are on their own arrogant. The only reason the theists consider it arrogant is because it offends their religious sensibilities that we not only don't believe in their sky daddy, but are loud about it, and proud of our atheism. I guess when you have a good argument it can seem arrogant.
*Dawkins has certainly said the same of theists, so this doesn't really offend me, but the theist grounding for such an assertion is so weak that it is basically laughable.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
A Bit About Me
I realized when i wrote my reveiew of ginG chapter 11 that I pretty much never talk about who I am here, but I guess i probably should, to give everyone an idea of where I'm coming from when it comes to atheism and religion.
For the basics I was raised, as I have stated previously, in a Mormon household. That said, it was not terribly cultic as far as things go. While many of the doctrines were in force our family was overall pretty lax when it came to the prohibitions on caffeiene and such (alcohol was a huge no though). We were a convert family, so its not terribly odd that we were never really perfectly adapted to that lifestyle or the amount of indoctrination that some were.
Anyhow, it was an interesting way growing up. I can honestly say that for quite some time I actually believed pretty much everything that was said about Joseph Smith, the history of the church, and whatnot. It was ironically their intense teenage indoctrination program, which they call "seminary" that broke me of the spell. Seminary was basically 4 years of deep scriptural study with a preapproved church curriculum.
In addition to being a Mormon, I was also a history nut, and too many things in the Book of Mormon just didn't work. The main one that tipped me off was mention of Horses in the Americas B.C.E. From there it was just downhill, andby the time I turned 16 I didn't really believe in all the crap anymore, and shifted away into an agnostic/deist stance for awhile, and "came out" to my parents about my agnosticism the month before I turned 18. Going to university changed my perspective even more, and after a brief stint of disingenous paganism and pantheism I went full on Atheist. Having throughly researched history I'd realized that my pantheism was only half right; religions were all equal, they were just equally false.
From there I somewhat lost interest in religion until I picked up The God Delusion last November, and since then the entire subject of positive atheism and active, "out" atheism has drawn me in, and I've been going ever since. And now we're here.
I know, pretty dull stuff, but if anyone has any quesitons about mormonism or anything else up here, feel free to ask!
For the basics I was raised, as I have stated previously, in a Mormon household. That said, it was not terribly cultic as far as things go. While many of the doctrines were in force our family was overall pretty lax when it came to the prohibitions on caffeiene and such (alcohol was a huge no though). We were a convert family, so its not terribly odd that we were never really perfectly adapted to that lifestyle or the amount of indoctrination that some were.
Anyhow, it was an interesting way growing up. I can honestly say that for quite some time I actually believed pretty much everything that was said about Joseph Smith, the history of the church, and whatnot. It was ironically their intense teenage indoctrination program, which they call "seminary" that broke me of the spell. Seminary was basically 4 years of deep scriptural study with a preapproved church curriculum.
In addition to being a Mormon, I was also a history nut, and too many things in the Book of Mormon just didn't work. The main one that tipped me off was mention of Horses in the Americas B.C.E. From there it was just downhill, andby the time I turned 16 I didn't really believe in all the crap anymore, and shifted away into an agnostic/deist stance for awhile, and "came out" to my parents about my agnosticism the month before I turned 18. Going to university changed my perspective even more, and after a brief stint of disingenous paganism and pantheism I went full on Atheist. Having throughly researched history I'd realized that my pantheism was only half right; religions were all equal, they were just equally false.
From there I somewhat lost interest in religion until I picked up The God Delusion last November, and since then the entire subject of positive atheism and active, "out" atheism has drawn me in, and I've been going ever since. And now we're here.
I know, pretty dull stuff, but if anyone has any quesitons about mormonism or anything else up here, feel free to ask!
Friday, April 10, 2009
The Sincerest Form of Flattery
Apparently this has been around for a couple of years, but is new to me. Seriously though. Couldn't think of anything more original? Its pretty much an exact imitation of the Atheist Out Campaign. It smacks of despair, and a lack of creativity. And lets be honest, the Out Campaign really isn't that "creative" to begin with, but at least it was the original.
Like being an "out" Christian is an oddity anywhere in the English speaking world to begin with.
Like being an "out" Christian is an oddity anywhere in the English speaking world to begin with.
Sunday, April 5, 2009
A discussion I've been having...
Complete tool posts:
I reasonably reply countering the standard absurdities of Pascal's wager:
He irrelevantly retorts:
I reply once again:
He once again replies, hypocritcally this time, sure to point out that he is not a hypocrite despite the obvious hypocrisy of claiming Pascal's wager is gold for Christians but BS for Muslims:
Finally I give up, since this guy is clearly an idiot lacking any ability to reason.
If God really does exist and He created hell as home for sinners, then can you afford to be wrong about whether or not you will end up there? If one person believes in God and that He created hell as a home for sinners and is therefore terrified over the possibility of ending up there, and another person does not believe in God or hell and therefore lives comfortably, how can you tell which one is correct? Can you afford to be wrong? If God does exist and created hell as the destination for sinners, then not believing in Him or in hell has absolutely no effect on their existence. What if you are wrong? If a Christian is wrong, then they are wrong for their lifetime but if an atheist is wrong, then they are wrong for eternity. Are you willing to make that gamble? Are you willing to challenge the Creator of the Universe? Is it easier to believe that nothing created everything or that creation must have had a creator? You know that your house exists, it is a building and must have had a builder. Perhaps you were that builder. You know that the cars on the road exist, they too had a creator, Ford/Chevy/Dodge/Honda/etc. You know that sun exists, you can feel its warmth and see its light every day, it too was created. So is it really so hard to believe that God created everything? You know the answer.
I reasonably reply countering the standard absurdities of Pascal's wager:
Pascal's wager has never been a good case.
First of all, you have narrowed things down to only two possibilities ignoring all others. This is what is known as a false dilemma. What if the muslims are right? A muslim could present the exact same argument to you and you would think it absurd, would you not? But according to them you would be going to hell. Can you really afford that risk? Of course you can.
And this could go for any religion. Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Norse traditional, Roman pantheistic. In the end why is it your deity, of all those that have ever been created by man that would have to be right? WE skeptics and atheists believe that because there is no good evidence of deity, let alone the identity of which if any exist, why should we worship or follow any? If it is a just God then infinite punishment for temporal crimes is not reasonable, which makes an eternal Hell that much less believeable.
I have listened to and read many apologetics, but Pascal's wager is extremely weak. I would recommend building a foundation on something much more substantial than threat and intimidation, which believe it or not is exactly what the threat of hell is.
He irrelevantly retorts:
The "threat" of hell is a warning, much like road signs, it is meant to keep you from harm. I can think of no greater harm then to spend eternity seperated from all that is good. You can choose to ignore the warning signs and continue on your way, but sooner or later it will be too late and you fall off the cliff. So my question remains. How long are you willing to ignore the warnings? There was a man once who, during a massive flood, climbed up on his roof and decided to wait for a God to rescue him. After a short while, a boat came by and the occupants asked the man to come and join them and be safe from the flood. The man refused, saying that he was trusting God to save him and they went on by. After some more time passed, and the water has raised even higher, another boat happened by and again the occupants urged the man to join them and escape the flood. Again the man refused, insisting that God would save him. By now the water was almost over the roof and the man was getting nervous. Suddenly a helicopter came along but the man still refused to be rescued because he thought he would know when God would save him and a short time later, the man drowned. When he stood before the Lord, he asked, why did you not come and save me? The Lord answered, I sent you two boats and a helicopter, why did you not trust Me?
Eternal Critic said: If a muslim presented the same argument to you, you think it absurd would you not? and If it is a just God, then eternal punishment for temporal crimes is not reasonable which makes an eternal hell that much less believable.
First off, I would be completely contradicting my faith and message if I agreed with you and I do not agree. The message itself is valid and powerful no matter who presents it. Even for muslims, it is those who do not honor and worship God who are the infidels bound for hell. They honor and respect Christians and Jews, at least those who trully follow the Qu'ran and not the extremists who pervert it. My beliefs may differ slightly but I will still be going to heaven because I trust in and follow God.
Secondly, it is exactly because God is holy and just that He must punish sin and make no differenciation of it. Sin is sin and it must be punished. If you go before a judge, convicted of a crime and you say to the judge, jusdge, I know I have been found guilty but since you are a good and fair judge, I believe you should let me go, being that you are so good and fair. What do you suppose that judge would say to you? They might give a slight chuckle but they would likely say, "because I am a good and fair judge, I cannot let you go free. I must see that justice is served and if I let you go free it would show me to be corrupt." And that is based on our standards. God holds much higher standards than that because He is perfectly Holy and Just. You can claim that His ways are unfair and unreasonable all you want but it makes no difference. We are without excuse and will all have to face Him on judgment day, where He will test even our thoughts and seperate the goats from the lambs.
I reply once again:
You actually completely ignored the important part of the question. If a Muslim presented you with the argument: "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammed is his prophet. If you do not accept this and follow the tenets of Islam and submit to Allah's will you will be damned for eternity in Jahannam. If you do accept this you could spend all eternity in a heavenly paradise. What have you got to lose? If you choose not to believe, and are right, you lose nothing, but if wrong you lose everything! If you believe in Allah and his prophet and are wrong you lose nothing, but if you are right gain everything.
This is the exact same argument put from a Muslim's perspective. And because I know you won't accept that argument, why do you think someone should accept yours other than because that's what -you- believe? I'm not sure who taught you about Islam, but there is no ambiguity in Islam that you would be going to hell for not being a believer.
As for your claims of fair judgement you again avoid the actual question. How does one make eternal judgement on temporal crimes? If I stole a tee-shirt (random example) I would be punished based on the severity of the crime. If I steal a car, my punishment will be summarily more severe. Why would it be just to jusge a petty thief the same for all eternity as (forgive my Godwin) Hitler. Or, that being switched around, why should a great philanthropist who has contributed to the benefit of mankind and done many good works and little wrong (nobody being perfect) be punished for all time solely on not believing in something he has no good evidence for while a serial murderer in prison for multiple life sentences should be saved on the basis of one single belief in an ephemeral, unproven concept. If that's justice, any crime should be a capital crime punishable by execution.
He once again replies, hypocritcally this time, sure to point out that he is not a hypocrite despite the obvious hypocrisy of claiming Pascal's wager is gold for Christians but BS for Muslims:
In regards to Eternal Critic's comments: That is not what you said originally since you mentioned nothing of Allah or Muhammad which actually was not the basis of my original post to begin with. I will reitterate that if I rejected my argument because someone else made it, I would be a hypocrit and my argument invalid. But you are right in that I would not accept the argument as you presented it. As for your argument about fair judgment I would remind you to stop insisting on your own ideas about is fair. Sin is sin and has no place in the presence of God. HE does not tolerate sin no matter how small WE think it is, and no matter how unjust WE feel HE is. He is Holy and just and will punish ALL sin. As humans, we make our own judgments about making the punishment fit the crime but WE ARE NOT GOD!! He also gave us a precious free gift in that Christ died to take our punishment for us so that we would not have to spend eternity in hell seperated from HIM! This is GRACE and it is given to us by FAITH through CHRIST alone and not by works that any may boast but a free gift from God.
Think of it this way, if I am convicted of murdering someone for instance. The evidence is irrefutable and the case has been tried and I am found guilty. I know that I am guilty and so did the jury. The judge asks me if I have any last words before he passes my sentance. In a last ditch effect to appeal to his goodness, I say "judge, I know you to be a good and fair judge and I believe that because of that you should let me go since I have learned my lesson and it will never happen again. You are so good and fair so I think you will agree that I should be allowed to go free as this would show how good and fair you are. How do think that judge would respond? They would probably laugh at such audacity and then make it perfectly clear that it is because they are good and fair that they must see justice served. They would be corrupt if they let anyone go unpunished if they were guilty. The world seems to think that God is TOO GOOD to punish them for their sins but is exactly this,God's goodness, that will condemn them. Sin must be punished and the punishment is seperation in hell for eternity. Apart from trusting and following Christ as savior there is no escaping that punishment. But since Christ became that punishment for us and defeated death, we can go free in Him for He loved us so much.
Finally I give up, since this guy is clearly an idiot lacking any ability to reason.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Atheism is not Nihilism
How many times have we atheists heard it said that atheists do not believe in a purpose to life, or in any kind of moral code? In other words, those who so vehemently condemn atheism often believe that atheism and Nietzsche's vision of nihilism are basically the same thing. Here I will outline some key (and obvious) differences between the two "isms."
Nietzsche viewed nihilism primarily as a philosophy of hopelessness, despair, and complete apathy. In my opinion this is an oversimplification of nihilistic philosophy, but a decent rough approximation of some of the adherents of nihilism, and also of how atheists are viewed by many (particularly fundamentalist) theists.
Moral nihilism posits that morality is nonexistent. That there is no inherent good or evil and that actions are personal in nature and reflect individual preference rather than a common value set. Its easy to see where this can be construed as an anarchistic, or apathetic view. The writings go much deeper, but this is the most basic point. Let us compare that with an atheistic view of morality. It is similar, but not the same as the nihilistic one. Atheism is primarily an individualistic philosophy in regards to morality; it does not necessitate a nihilistic world view, neither does it preclude one. An atheist is above all an individual, and morally tend to largely reflect the society that they grew up in. I have often seen legalistic views, as well as views that are focused on the what is best for the society as a whole. That said, there is no defining aspect in atheism that decrees a particular world view.
Existential nihilism is a bit trickier. Existential nihilism at its most basic premise is that life has no purpose. Life is, in and of itself fairly meaningless, and worthless, lacking any inherent value. Here, atheism and nihilism almost always diverge. Atheists mostly believe that life does have value in what we do with it; that what we do in our lives determines its value, and that having only one life, it would be a shame to waste it in apathy or doing nothing of value. Neither philosophy takes a god-given goal for life as granted, but atheism takes its (individualistic) approach towards making the individual life meaningful to society and the world at large.
This view comes largely (in my opinion)from the early 20th century view that nihilism was the opposite of Christianity. By extension the common belief is that atheism, being a rejection of God (vainly assumed to be the Christian God) not only rejects the existence of God, but also rejects anything it stands for i.e morality, charity, etc (ignoring all the terrible things about God we also reject). Yes, atheism rejects the god hypothesis, but does not reject our humanity, ethics, or personal moral principles. This, I think is why so many atheists today like the terms "rationalist" or "free-Thinker"; it separates them from the label that is so commonly used as derogatory.
So, remember. An atheist who is not nihilistic is not one who lays in bed mourning over what a waste life is and how pointless existence is. If we were, we would not have such vocal proponents as we have today, nor would the advancement of science and humanity be such a common goal among us. So remember, while nihilism is almost always atheistic, the reverse is not the norm, or even common.
Nietzsche viewed nihilism primarily as a philosophy of hopelessness, despair, and complete apathy. In my opinion this is an oversimplification of nihilistic philosophy, but a decent rough approximation of some of the adherents of nihilism, and also of how atheists are viewed by many (particularly fundamentalist) theists.
Moral nihilism posits that morality is nonexistent. That there is no inherent good or evil and that actions are personal in nature and reflect individual preference rather than a common value set. Its easy to see where this can be construed as an anarchistic, or apathetic view. The writings go much deeper, but this is the most basic point. Let us compare that with an atheistic view of morality. It is similar, but not the same as the nihilistic one. Atheism is primarily an individualistic philosophy in regards to morality; it does not necessitate a nihilistic world view, neither does it preclude one. An atheist is above all an individual, and morally tend to largely reflect the society that they grew up in. I have often seen legalistic views, as well as views that are focused on the what is best for the society as a whole. That said, there is no defining aspect in atheism that decrees a particular world view.
Existential nihilism is a bit trickier. Existential nihilism at its most basic premise is that life has no purpose. Life is, in and of itself fairly meaningless, and worthless, lacking any inherent value. Here, atheism and nihilism almost always diverge. Atheists mostly believe that life does have value in what we do with it; that what we do in our lives determines its value, and that having only one life, it would be a shame to waste it in apathy or doing nothing of value. Neither philosophy takes a god-given goal for life as granted, but atheism takes its (individualistic) approach towards making the individual life meaningful to society and the world at large.
This view comes largely (in my opinion)from the early 20th century view that nihilism was the opposite of Christianity. By extension the common belief is that atheism, being a rejection of God (vainly assumed to be the Christian God) not only rejects the existence of God, but also rejects anything it stands for i.e morality, charity, etc (ignoring all the terrible things about God we also reject). Yes, atheism rejects the god hypothesis, but does not reject our humanity, ethics, or personal moral principles. This, I think is why so many atheists today like the terms "rationalist" or "free-Thinker"; it separates them from the label that is so commonly used as derogatory.
So, remember. An atheist who is not nihilistic is not one who lays in bed mourning over what a waste life is and how pointless existence is. If we were, we would not have such vocal proponents as we have today, nor would the advancement of science and humanity be such a common goal among us. So remember, while nihilism is almost always atheistic, the reverse is not the norm, or even common.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Christian Radio, and Why I Listen to it
In the mornings I fairly regularly listen to my local Christian radio station. Now, this may seem somewhat masochistic of me, and at times it -is- terribly painful to do. That said I have found that it can be an incredibly valuable resource when learning about how they actually think.
Apologists are their own thing. They, mostly, train themselves to fight a completely irrational battle and try to use reason. They really do. Whether it seems that way to us skeptics and non-believers is open to debate, and certainly the individual in question, but by and large the arguments they use can be very persuasive to those who do not have a strong opinion, or are not well educated on the subject at hand.
Regular fundies on the radio are another thing altogether. These guys don't know good arguments, are almost all completely based in the take it one faith camp, and most were raised in their church and have it so deeply ingrained in them that they are implacable. And this makes for some much more interesting listening. I've heard a million apologists, but these guys say what they actually think, and some of the vomit they spew is so laughable as to be very convincing of Dawkins' allegation of delusion.
Take this morning for example. After a mass-broadcast of some Alistair Begg drivel this morning the local announcer made note that (paraphrasing) "We know Jesus was the christ because of the people he touched." I think about that, and the obvious problems are innumerable. What about Muhammed? Or Siddhartha? Both of them touched thousands and their religions have explanded to gross proportions. Wouldn't that make them true?
Clearly this is an example of preaching to the choir, but it is ubiquitous on the Christian radio stations. And people listen to this, and eat it up. They actually discuss things like the "academic freedom" they want in our public schools, and how we live in a Christian nation. They actually believe that what they call the traditional (nuclear) family is not something that's existed in practicality for only roughly a century.
It is more than a bit disturbing, and I encourage others to listen, just to see what they say. Because apologists, Ray Comfort exempted, are generally not condescending, or outright contemptuous towards their opponents, but the rank and file have no such filter, and very little restraint.
Apologists are their own thing. They, mostly, train themselves to fight a completely irrational battle and try to use reason. They really do. Whether it seems that way to us skeptics and non-believers is open to debate, and certainly the individual in question, but by and large the arguments they use can be very persuasive to those who do not have a strong opinion, or are not well educated on the subject at hand.
Regular fundies on the radio are another thing altogether. These guys don't know good arguments, are almost all completely based in the take it one faith camp, and most were raised in their church and have it so deeply ingrained in them that they are implacable. And this makes for some much more interesting listening. I've heard a million apologists, but these guys say what they actually think, and some of the vomit they spew is so laughable as to be very convincing of Dawkins' allegation of delusion.
Take this morning for example. After a mass-broadcast of some Alistair Begg drivel this morning the local announcer made note that (paraphrasing) "We know Jesus was the christ because of the people he touched." I think about that, and the obvious problems are innumerable. What about Muhammed? Or Siddhartha? Both of them touched thousands and their religions have explanded to gross proportions. Wouldn't that make them true?
Clearly this is an example of preaching to the choir, but it is ubiquitous on the Christian radio stations. And people listen to this, and eat it up. They actually discuss things like the "academic freedom" they want in our public schools, and how we live in a Christian nation. They actually believe that what they call the traditional (nuclear) family is not something that's existed in practicality for only roughly a century.
It is more than a bit disturbing, and I encourage others to listen, just to see what they say. Because apologists, Ray Comfort exempted, are generally not condescending, or outright contemptuous towards their opponents, but the rank and file have no such filter, and very little restraint.
Monday, March 30, 2009
God and the US of A
From time to time, usually from atheist circles we run across what I call nit-picking atheism. The little things, like a nativity scene or "In God we Trust" on the money. Or a lunatic calling The Atheist Experience to complain that a living waters ministry bumper sticker offends him and should be illegal.
Honestly, I couldn't care much less about most of these things. I mean, the pledge of allegiance deal, yeah, I dislike mostly because "under God" was a later addition, but some things really are kind of trivial. "In God We Trust" for example. Its innocuous, trivial, and barely worthy of note. This is in stark contrast to, say, ten commandments displays in court houses, which shows a bias. Money isn't biased in and of itself, only the holders can be.
Would i be sad to see all these things change to perfect adherence to the establishment clause? No, not at all. But do I think its worth fighting about? Not really. I think once Atheism is better known, and not considered by many to be a league of immoral reprobates who hate God, it might be worth addressing some of these things. But really, some of these things are so insignificant that its ridiculous to waste the time of people, oganizations, and the courts about them.
Honestly, I couldn't care much less about most of these things. I mean, the pledge of allegiance deal, yeah, I dislike mostly because "under God" was a later addition, but some things really are kind of trivial. "In God We Trust" for example. Its innocuous, trivial, and barely worthy of note. This is in stark contrast to, say, ten commandments displays in court houses, which shows a bias. Money isn't biased in and of itself, only the holders can be.
Would i be sad to see all these things change to perfect adherence to the establishment clause? No, not at all. But do I think its worth fighting about? Not really. I think once Atheism is better known, and not considered by many to be a league of immoral reprobates who hate God, it might be worth addressing some of these things. But really, some of these things are so insignificant that its ridiculous to waste the time of people, oganizations, and the courts about them.
Friday, March 27, 2009
A discussion begun elsewhere
The Stranger Said:
I replied:
The Stranger Wrote Again:
I replied:
We'll see if it continues.
"What evidence do you find to be the strongest in favor of atheism? Note, NOT what evidence you find strongest against Christianity. I want to find out why you think you have the strongest position not why you think ours is weak."
I replied:
"Well, I'll keep Occam's razor out of it, because I'm sure you won't accept that. However, as is, I see that currently, in the last few centuries the human understanding of the universe has expanded so greatly that I find it implausible that a deity exists. It doesn't matter what deity. We know to an approximate the age of the earth, and how life evolved on the planet exempting abiogenesis, and that I expect we'll have an answer to in my lifetime.
Our science in general has stremlined, and works very well, and none of it requires the assumption of a god to be true. Even the big bang doesn't require deity.
If nothing as best we can reason requires a deity, the most reasonable conclusion is that there is none. Do I have "proof" of no deity? No, of course not. Its unfalsifiable. The same could be said of the Invisible pink Unicorn, or Russell's teapot."
The Stranger Wrote Again:
"Thanks for the information, I really appreciate your candor (as well as your calm manner). Let's view the evidence then. You say that the universe is aptly described by the laws of science so I'll use some laws to prove to you, scientifically, that the existence of God is necessary given our current understanding of the laws.
Before I do so, I'd like to make sure you understand that I'm not against you but for you. And also, as my Rhetoric professor said, "He convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still." I'm not trying to convince you, but to persuade you. This entails more than logic but I'll start with logic and go from there.
1. If the universe is truly essential then it has been in existence since eternity past.
2. If the universe has been in existence since eternity past then it has been expending energy constantly.
3. If the first and second law of thermodynamics are true (For reference: First law; matter cannot be created nor destroyed. Second law: In a closed system energy loses heat) then the universe has been a closed system losing heat for this entire time.
4. If the universe were infinitely full of energy then there would be no void of space, only an infinite amount of energy in every particle.
5. The universe has finite energy within an infinite period of time.Therefore, the universe must either be finite or the universe must be getting energy from an infinite source.
Second proof.
1. If the universe is then contingent on an infinite source then this infinite source must influence the universe in more than as a battery.
2. The universe has within it intelligent creatures.
3. There is no recorded instance of non-intelligence provoking intelligence.Therefore, the infinite source is not merely actively sustaining the universe but is also intelligent itself.I look forward to your response."
I replied:
Note: If you wish to continue this, please come over to my blog polyatheistic.blogspot.com . While i appreciate having a gracious host not censoring things, my site is unmoderated, so messages require no approval.
First you make a poor assumption that the universe is essential. We know it had a beginning, therefore whether it is "essential" or not is up to debate.
You have also fallaciously concluded that the universe has infinite energy in order to make your second "proof". Most reputable cosmologists believe the universe will have an end at some point in the very distant future. As a paraphrase, although not a cosmologist, Christopher Hitchens put it quite succinctly with "nothing is the next big thing."
You also make the fallacious conclusion that "There is no recorded instance of non-intelligence provoking intelligence." This is patently false. Clearly mutation and natural selection can provoke intelligence within a species and these processes are not proven to be guided by any higher intelligence.
You're making alot of assertions, and what you need is actual evidence. Beyond that, you cannot prove that such a thing would be a deity. Even were it eternal and intelligent, that doesn't make it an individual or individuals. But then, its not possible to prove it isn't an individual, but I will err on the side of Occam here. A natural process is simpler and does not require an explanation that scientists can never possibly know the answer to. That said you will always come back to "who created the creator?" And saying its eternal is a cop out assertion without evidence of what the creator is, let alone how it exists. "
We'll see if it continues.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
god is not Great Chapter 6: Arguments from Design
Chapter six addresses one of the most common issues that causes division between theists and atheists. This should of course be clarified that it is mostly Young Earth Creationists who tend to make this a problem. The arguments from design, of course, state that certain levels of complexity in the universe, be it in the form of the living cell, a star, an eye, or the fact that conditions in the universe are conducive to life.
These ideas are compelling to some, but do not tend to convince most skeptics, and as Hitchens shows, if somewhat inexpertly, the science does not require the assumption of design. After some anecdotes Hitchens gets to his point starting with the eye, which has long been inaccurately described by YEC's as nearly impossible to have evolved. This is, as Hitchens argues, patently absurd due merely to the obvious evolution that we see in eyes, from planarian eyespots all the way to the most advanced eyes in vertibrates.
In this very section, though, I have to commend Hitchens somewhat as he uses a common creationist quotemine that creationists use against evolution's proponents and turns it around on them exposing it as a fraud:
But Hitchens makes further arguments against the design hypothesis by noting how if we are designed it was by a very poor designer, using the eye again as an example citing it is in fact upside down and backwards, which seems quite inefficient.
Something he does later in the chapter is point out a favorite fallacious argument of Ray Comfort, which he seems to think trumps any belief against creation:
Hitchens doesn't go the way I would have here, and instead of exposing the fallacy of comparing things we know were created with something that we have no proof was created he opts to explain that even if something is created it still follows evolution. He uses the examples of aircraft technology evolving gradually through trial and error. I'm not sure I like this example, particularly as at this very same time he declares that "speculation about who designed us to be designers becomes as fruitless and irrelevant as the question of who designed that designer."
He spends much of the rest of the chapter simply discussion the evolutionary theory of those such as Stephen Jay Gould. A bit of discussion of the Cambrian explosion as well as explaining the capriciousness of evolution, including its lack of pointed direction.
All in all, the chapter was interesting and informative, but did suffer from Hitchens' lack of being a scientist, and a tendancy to branch off into tangents.
These ideas are compelling to some, but do not tend to convince most skeptics, and as Hitchens shows, if somewhat inexpertly, the science does not require the assumption of design. After some anecdotes Hitchens gets to his point starting with the eye, which has long been inaccurately described by YEC's as nearly impossible to have evolved. This is, as Hitchens argues, patently absurd due merely to the obvious evolution that we see in eyes, from planarian eyespots all the way to the most advanced eyes in vertibrates.
In this very section, though, I have to commend Hitchens somewhat as he uses a common creationist quotemine that creationists use against evolution's proponents and turns it around on them exposing it as a fraud:
He continues the quote thusly:"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree."
It is a common quotemine at this point, and one most atheists know pretty much on sight. But I would argue it is good to have it exposed as mining Darwin is such a common tactic, and was used even as recently as Ben Stein's documentary Expelled in particularly bad taste to link evolution with the Holocaust."When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."
But Hitchens makes further arguments against the design hypothesis by noting how if we are designed it was by a very poor designer, using the eye again as an example citing it is in fact upside down and backwards, which seems quite inefficient.
Something he does later in the chapter is point out a favorite fallacious argument of Ray Comfort, which he seems to think trumps any belief against creation:
"Do you know of any building that didn't have a builder
Do you know of any painting that didn't have a painter?
Do you know of any car that didn't have a maker?
If you answered YES for anyof the above, give details."
Hitchens doesn't go the way I would have here, and instead of exposing the fallacy of comparing things we know were created with something that we have no proof was created he opts to explain that even if something is created it still follows evolution. He uses the examples of aircraft technology evolving gradually through trial and error. I'm not sure I like this example, particularly as at this very same time he declares that "speculation about who designed us to be designers becomes as fruitless and irrelevant as the question of who designed that designer."
He spends much of the rest of the chapter simply discussion the evolutionary theory of those such as Stephen Jay Gould. A bit of discussion of the Cambrian explosion as well as explaining the capriciousness of evolution, including its lack of pointed direction.
All in all, the chapter was interesting and informative, but did suffer from Hitchens' lack of being a scientist, and a tendancy to branch off into tangents.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Absurdities in Genesis:
This is a comic that is listed under "kids" at Answers in Genesis. This site is already infamous among pretty much everyone who does not believe in a literal biblical creation story, and even more in Atheist circles.
This is obviously a particularly flammable straw man representation of any atheist. No atheist who knows his subject would ever argue like this for various reasons I will only go into on this entry if asked. What I really wanted to note was the placement of bigotry in a section marked "kids."
Christians complain all the time that atheists mock their beliefs, misrepresent their arguments etc. This complaint is commonly mirrored from the atheist side, and for good reason both sides are often right here. This kind of misrepresentation though, is exactly why people like Richard Dawkins consider youth religious indoctrination to be child abuse. They are teaching through comics not only a bad argument, but by teaching this bad argument are encouraging the children who read it that Atheists are in fact stupid.
Now, I know we have our comics, and groups, and blogs targeting Christianity, and they almost invariably say we don't understand real Christianity, regardless of the fact that many of us do. The same goes in reverse again, but when you're advertising to children your preconceived bigotries there is a problem. How different is that from a comic saying, say, Christians eat babies, which was then given away in pamphlets to children at a muslim sponsored event? People would be outraged. It would be a scandal. Is it any wonder there is so much bad blood when we train our children from a young age to misrepresent another's position or think of some views as stupid for absurd reasons?
It is one thing for an adult to an audience of adults to reason out why their faith is right or wrong rationally (admittedly i have yet to find any rational explanation for theism), and another entirely to warp their minds in the formative stages. And this goes to both Theists and Atheists.
Let's let our children learn to reason and experience, and then decide for themselves. I have no delusion that this will change anyone's mind, but still, had to say it.
This is obviously a particularly flammable straw man representation of any atheist. No atheist who knows his subject would ever argue like this for various reasons I will only go into on this entry if asked. What I really wanted to note was the placement of bigotry in a section marked "kids."
Christians complain all the time that atheists mock their beliefs, misrepresent their arguments etc. This complaint is commonly mirrored from the atheist side, and for good reason both sides are often right here. This kind of misrepresentation though, is exactly why people like Richard Dawkins consider youth religious indoctrination to be child abuse. They are teaching through comics not only a bad argument, but by teaching this bad argument are encouraging the children who read it that Atheists are in fact stupid.
Now, I know we have our comics, and groups, and blogs targeting Christianity, and they almost invariably say we don't understand real Christianity, regardless of the fact that many of us do. The same goes in reverse again, but when you're advertising to children your preconceived bigotries there is a problem. How different is that from a comic saying, say, Christians eat babies, which was then given away in pamphlets to children at a muslim sponsored event? People would be outraged. It would be a scandal. Is it any wonder there is so much bad blood when we train our children from a young age to misrepresent another's position or think of some views as stupid for absurd reasons?
It is one thing for an adult to an audience of adults to reason out why their faith is right or wrong rationally (admittedly i have yet to find any rational explanation for theism), and another entirely to warp their minds in the formative stages. And this goes to both Theists and Atheists.
Let's let our children learn to reason and experience, and then decide for themselves. I have no delusion that this will change anyone's mind, but still, had to say it.
Monday, March 16, 2009
god is not Great chapter 3: A Brief Digression on the Pig
As this is a brief chapter, my review of it will be similarly short.
As the title suggests, the chapter discusses the pig in the context of religion, as well as a brief discussion of other dietary restrictions. I get the feeling that this chapter has little real purpose other than as a bit of amusement on the part of Hitchens although he does take some of the issues seriously, as well he should.
He discusses in brief the genetic similarities between humans and pigs as well as the interpretations of why they pig might be so maligned by (in particular) Jewish and Muslim scripture. Sadly there is little of real interest here until the end when he discusses the problem of fanatical pig hate from muslim groups, particularly demanding the removal of innocuous pigs such as in A.A Milne's Winnie the Pooh, or the Three Little Pigs, Ms Piggy, etc ad nauseum. My favorite was that apparently George Orwell's Animal Farm is banned in muslim countries despite the pig being basically the villain.
I suppose he does make his point here. When your religion starts dictating these kinds of things, i.e attacking classic literature, or taking offense at something natural's very presence is absurdity, and downright intolerant. Anyone is free to have their beliefs, but to impose their morals and personal prejudices on the public, unless it is provable that it is to the public benefit and non-dogmatic is unacceptable. Here I must agree that even in dietary restrictions religion -can- poison anything. I'm not saying it alwasy does, but the potential is certainly evident.
As the title suggests, the chapter discusses the pig in the context of religion, as well as a brief discussion of other dietary restrictions. I get the feeling that this chapter has little real purpose other than as a bit of amusement on the part of Hitchens although he does take some of the issues seriously, as well he should.
He discusses in brief the genetic similarities between humans and pigs as well as the interpretations of why they pig might be so maligned by (in particular) Jewish and Muslim scripture. Sadly there is little of real interest here until the end when he discusses the problem of fanatical pig hate from muslim groups, particularly demanding the removal of innocuous pigs such as in A.A Milne's Winnie the Pooh, or the Three Little Pigs, Ms Piggy, etc ad nauseum. My favorite was that apparently George Orwell's Animal Farm is banned in muslim countries despite the pig being basically the villain.
I suppose he does make his point here. When your religion starts dictating these kinds of things, i.e attacking classic literature, or taking offense at something natural's very presence is absurdity, and downright intolerant. Anyone is free to have their beliefs, but to impose their morals and personal prejudices on the public, unless it is provable that it is to the public benefit and non-dogmatic is unacceptable. Here I must agree that even in dietary restrictions religion -can- poison anything. I'm not saying it alwasy does, but the potential is certainly evident.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
god is not Great, Chapter 2: Religion Kills
Alright, today we move on to Chapter 2 of god is not Great, Christopher Hitchens' literary rant against religions of all stripes.
Chapter 1 gave us a good background of our author, while chapter 2 brings some of his charges that "religion poisons everything" home even further. early in the chapter he addresses an interesting question that was asked of him by Denis Prager: He was asked if he was in a strange city in the early evening with a group of people approaching, "would (Hitchens) feel safer, or less safe, if (he) was to learn that they were just coming from a prayer meeting." His emphatic no, demonstrated through the window of Hitchens' personal experience and knowledge was well played, and gave a good idea of why he feels as he does about religion. He goes through lists of places where such an experience could be more dangerous than any regular potential murderer.
He also cites numerous examples of where problems were only exacerbated by religious fervor, and particularly fundamentalism in various areas of the world. He uses mostly the obvious examples, such as Israel and the Middle East, as well as Pakistan and India. I don't particularly disagree with him on any point he made here. Without religious hatreds India would probably still be one country, and Israel would probably have been able to resolve its issues with its Muslim neighbors.
That's where I somewhat start to disagree though. Yes, they probably could have reslved things. But while religious fervor is certainly the largest thing spurning these conflicts onward, it is by no means the only one. There's also a cultural problem, which is simply an issue where the divergent cultures are not terribly compatible. What becomes a real problem though is deciding exactly how much of these cultural differences are religious in nature, which Hitchens I believe does insufficient thought on.
Regardless, Hitchens points out these commonly known religious issues, but also delves into other religious conflicts closer to home. As I've mentioned previously Hitchens is a friend of Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, and target of his very own fatwah; one of very few (public) attempts for a government head to put a hit out on a foreign national. Multiple people who have worked with Rushdie have died simply by association, and yet around the world the most vocal religious leaders have sided with the Ayatollah Khomeini, or said (effectively) that he should have expected it. Not, that it was reprehensible, and completely overblown, but basically that if he gets killed for it he shouldn't be surprised.
Here, once again, I agree but i don't. The (very real) threats against Rushdie were very clear, and very dangerous. They were a complete abuse of power, and barbaric in their intention, and fundamentalist in their making. That said, Hitchens has a clear Bias, claiming Rushdie as a friend. Yes, religion was absolutely the motivation for the hit called, and that is absolutely unacceptable. At the same time, free speech is a dangerous thing and we need to be ready to take the consequences of what we write. But a novel should never be grounds for murder. There should never, in fact, be any grounds for murder. Religion does exacerbate things, and has caused much death and strife in the world.
In all, this chapter was very interesting, and had alot of good interpretation. I wish Hitchens used more sources in his writing and had other opinions to cite, but one has to realize that this book is basically an opinion piece, not a researched academic paper. For what it is, I am enjoying it immensely.
Chapter 1 gave us a good background of our author, while chapter 2 brings some of his charges that "religion poisons everything" home even further. early in the chapter he addresses an interesting question that was asked of him by Denis Prager: He was asked if he was in a strange city in the early evening with a group of people approaching, "would (Hitchens) feel safer, or less safe, if (he) was to learn that they were just coming from a prayer meeting." His emphatic no, demonstrated through the window of Hitchens' personal experience and knowledge was well played, and gave a good idea of why he feels as he does about religion. He goes through lists of places where such an experience could be more dangerous than any regular potential murderer.
He also cites numerous examples of where problems were only exacerbated by religious fervor, and particularly fundamentalism in various areas of the world. He uses mostly the obvious examples, such as Israel and the Middle East, as well as Pakistan and India. I don't particularly disagree with him on any point he made here. Without religious hatreds India would probably still be one country, and Israel would probably have been able to resolve its issues with its Muslim neighbors.
That's where I somewhat start to disagree though. Yes, they probably could have reslved things. But while religious fervor is certainly the largest thing spurning these conflicts onward, it is by no means the only one. There's also a cultural problem, which is simply an issue where the divergent cultures are not terribly compatible. What becomes a real problem though is deciding exactly how much of these cultural differences are religious in nature, which Hitchens I believe does insufficient thought on.
Regardless, Hitchens points out these commonly known religious issues, but also delves into other religious conflicts closer to home. As I've mentioned previously Hitchens is a friend of Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses, and target of his very own fatwah; one of very few (public) attempts for a government head to put a hit out on a foreign national. Multiple people who have worked with Rushdie have died simply by association, and yet around the world the most vocal religious leaders have sided with the Ayatollah Khomeini, or said (effectively) that he should have expected it. Not, that it was reprehensible, and completely overblown, but basically that if he gets killed for it he shouldn't be surprised.
Here, once again, I agree but i don't. The (very real) threats against Rushdie were very clear, and very dangerous. They were a complete abuse of power, and barbaric in their intention, and fundamentalist in their making. That said, Hitchens has a clear Bias, claiming Rushdie as a friend. Yes, religion was absolutely the motivation for the hit called, and that is absolutely unacceptable. At the same time, free speech is a dangerous thing and we need to be ready to take the consequences of what we write. But a novel should never be grounds for murder. There should never, in fact, be any grounds for murder. Religion does exacerbate things, and has caused much death and strife in the world.
In all, this chapter was very interesting, and had alot of good interpretation. I wish Hitchens used more sources in his writing and had other opinions to cite, but one has to realize that this book is basically an opinion piece, not a researched academic paper. For what it is, I am enjoying it immensely.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Roger Scruton: Pathos piece
This is taken from an article on the American Spectator, the quote in particular, including the cuts are as cut by Stephen Law. Full text can be found here.
"Like so many modern ideologies, the new humanism seeks to define itself through what it is against rather than what it is for. It is for nothing, or at any rate for nothing in particular."
The new humanism "seems to have no consciousness of what is clearly announced between the lines of the text [ON THE ATHEIST BUSES], namely that there are no ideals higher than pleasure."
The BHA's "publications imply that there is only one thing that stands between man and his happiness, and that is the belief in God. "
The BHA is the British Humanist Association, and according to the whackaloons on the right wing they don't stand for anything. Now, if you want a discussion of the philosophical problems with this, I'll recommend you go to Stephen Law's blog. What I'm here to discuss is just the pathos of this.
This article is not really an argumentative piece. Its a pieve consisting entirely of pathos. There is nothing here that any Atheist, secularist, or agnostic would be convinced by. Clearly the piece was written for Spectator, well known as a right wing site, to further polarize against the growing tide of non-christianity. In essence, much like Ray Comfort he's making unsubstantiated claims simply in order to help convince his audience they are in the right and not alone; nothing terribly novel, every demographic does it for better or worse.
Possibly most annoying in this piece is Scruton's unending appeals to Jebus as the fundamental rock of morality, as if morality via threat was really a good thing. But by and large they eat it up! The comments show a disgusting amount of hatred for atheism and secularism. One person did bring up a good point though, and its one I don't think about too much, but it is true nonetheless. Atheists are treated in the United States as second class citizens.
To be fair, its not just Atheists. In many ways Women, black people, Muslims, Jews... well, any nonchristian really, is subjected to some discrimination. And they wonder why we don't like their attitudes, and the way they interfere in politics with their religious bronze-aged morals.
The recent decline of Christianity is telling us that the acceptance of atheism in the mainstream is coming, but I dont think it could come too soon.
"Like so many modern ideologies, the new humanism seeks to define itself through what it is against rather than what it is for. It is for nothing, or at any rate for nothing in particular."
The new humanism "seems to have no consciousness of what is clearly announced between the lines of the text [ON THE ATHEIST BUSES], namely that there are no ideals higher than pleasure."
The BHA's "publications imply that there is only one thing that stands between man and his happiness, and that is the belief in God. "
The BHA is the British Humanist Association, and according to the whackaloons on the right wing they don't stand for anything. Now, if you want a discussion of the philosophical problems with this, I'll recommend you go to Stephen Law's blog. What I'm here to discuss is just the pathos of this.
This article is not really an argumentative piece. Its a pieve consisting entirely of pathos. There is nothing here that any Atheist, secularist, or agnostic would be convinced by. Clearly the piece was written for Spectator, well known as a right wing site, to further polarize against the growing tide of non-christianity. In essence, much like Ray Comfort he's making unsubstantiated claims simply in order to help convince his audience they are in the right and not alone; nothing terribly novel, every demographic does it for better or worse.
Possibly most annoying in this piece is Scruton's unending appeals to Jebus as the fundamental rock of morality, as if morality via threat was really a good thing. But by and large they eat it up! The comments show a disgusting amount of hatred for atheism and secularism. One person did bring up a good point though, and its one I don't think about too much, but it is true nonetheless. Atheists are treated in the United States as second class citizens.
To be fair, its not just Atheists. In many ways Women, black people, Muslims, Jews... well, any nonchristian really, is subjected to some discrimination. And they wonder why we don't like their attitudes, and the way they interfere in politics with their religious bronze-aged morals.
The recent decline of Christianity is telling us that the acceptance of atheism in the mainstream is coming, but I dont think it could come too soon.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
I feel clever
My parody response reponse to Ray Comfort's arguments. Originally posted on Amazon.com
Theists are those who pretend there is a god and a hell, because they can't imagine some way to be moral without being threatened by the great sky daddy with eternal punishment if they aren't. They really know there is no God or Hell, but are so outraged by their lack of an ability to supply themselves with a moral compass that they decide to hate the obvious scientific conclusions, and happily pretend there is such an improbable, despotic being reigning over their morality.
Theists are those who pretend there is a god and a hell, because they can't imagine some way to be moral without being threatened by the great sky daddy with eternal punishment if they aren't. They really know there is no God or Hell, but are so outraged by their lack of an ability to supply themselves with a moral compass that they decide to hate the obvious scientific conclusions, and happily pretend there is such an improbable, despotic being reigning over their morality.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
god is not Great Chapter 1 Putting it mildly
Ok, so here we are at chapter one of the book, and in all fairness its very cursory and says very little as far as content goes. It starts by giving an explanation of Hitchens' background as a youth in England, as well as his early atheism, although he did not know it as such. He was in fact a more than competent scriptorian, and like all students in England at that time went to a religious school.
In all, there was very little of note to this section other than that Hitchens clearly did not become an atheist due to any kind of negative experience or trauma. It was, to him (so he implies) a natural conclusion to come to.
He saw the entirety idea of worship and subservience as ridiculous, and completely unwarranted. This is one of those points on which Christians differ most heavily from atheists, beyond the whole belief in a god. Atheists in general view the biblical God as something of an egomaniacal tyrant. Even were he to exist, and even if he created us, many atheists, myself included, believe that the list of immoral, unjust, and sadistic actions of this God completely preclude him from being worthy of worship. But I digress.
Hitchens mentions various things which he declares atheists find abhorrent, listing thngs such as sacrifice and rtual, and such materially wasteful things. I actually have to dispute this as a bit too much of a generalization as there are atheists like myself who find ritual a fascinating and often beautiful thing, even if we find the actual action serves no purpose and is just a living anachronism.
He goes on to mention that there is some magnificence in the bodies of apologetic works citing Blaise Pascal of the eponymous wager as an example while countering with what he considered a dull writer in CS Lewis. Both interesting choices considering how much fundamentalists today adore Lewis' works (despite a false trilemma in his most famous argument) in apologetics, and how commonly dismissed Pascal's wager is (and was eventually by Pascal himself) by today's skeptics and seekers. (For those not familiar with the wager it is basically thus: I lose nothing by not believing in God and acting accordingly and could in fact gain everything by obeying his laws. Poke holes at your leisure). That said he does target them both as absurd and goes on to give examples of absurdities in religious belief from Aztecs to modern monotheists. In all the list is minor and far from comprehensive, however this being the equivelant of an introduction I expect more further in.
The most biting complaint he lists for the chapter though are his targeting of surety. The idea that someone knows with absolute certainty that God exists, and most particularly that if one does exist it is -their- God. He notes that nobody knows, and nobody can know, which admits a bit of agnosticism to himself, but I agree no atheist of a rationalist bent should ever consider themselves 100% scientifically sure of the non existence of God. On the same vein it would also be the height of arrogance to claim the opposite.
He closes with an interesting statement that he "would not prohibit it even if (he) thought (he) could." He does not believe that while we yet have questions that is even a possibility. I'm not sure agree with him, but I agree with the sentiment and look forward to seeing how things continue forward. His thesis at this point seems to be that as he quotes last in the chapter and uses as the book's subtitle, that "religion poisons everything."
We'll see if and how he elaborates on this point when I get to Chapter 2: Religion Kills.
In all, there was very little of note to this section other than that Hitchens clearly did not become an atheist due to any kind of negative experience or trauma. It was, to him (so he implies) a natural conclusion to come to.
He saw the entirety idea of worship and subservience as ridiculous, and completely unwarranted. This is one of those points on which Christians differ most heavily from atheists, beyond the whole belief in a god. Atheists in general view the biblical God as something of an egomaniacal tyrant. Even were he to exist, and even if he created us, many atheists, myself included, believe that the list of immoral, unjust, and sadistic actions of this God completely preclude him from being worthy of worship. But I digress.
Hitchens mentions various things which he declares atheists find abhorrent, listing thngs such as sacrifice and rtual, and such materially wasteful things. I actually have to dispute this as a bit too much of a generalization as there are atheists like myself who find ritual a fascinating and often beautiful thing, even if we find the actual action serves no purpose and is just a living anachronism.
He goes on to mention that there is some magnificence in the bodies of apologetic works citing Blaise Pascal of the eponymous wager as an example while countering with what he considered a dull writer in CS Lewis. Both interesting choices considering how much fundamentalists today adore Lewis' works (despite a false trilemma in his most famous argument) in apologetics, and how commonly dismissed Pascal's wager is (and was eventually by Pascal himself) by today's skeptics and seekers. (For those not familiar with the wager it is basically thus: I lose nothing by not believing in God and acting accordingly and could in fact gain everything by obeying his laws. Poke holes at your leisure). That said he does target them both as absurd and goes on to give examples of absurdities in religious belief from Aztecs to modern monotheists. In all the list is minor and far from comprehensive, however this being the equivelant of an introduction I expect more further in.
The most biting complaint he lists for the chapter though are his targeting of surety. The idea that someone knows with absolute certainty that God exists, and most particularly that if one does exist it is -their- God. He notes that nobody knows, and nobody can know, which admits a bit of agnosticism to himself, but I agree no atheist of a rationalist bent should ever consider themselves 100% scientifically sure of the non existence of God. On the same vein it would also be the height of arrogance to claim the opposite.
He closes with an interesting statement that he "would not prohibit it even if (he) thought (he) could." He does not believe that while we yet have questions that is even a possibility. I'm not sure agree with him, but I agree with the sentiment and look forward to seeing how things continue forward. His thesis at this point seems to be that as he quotes last in the chapter and uses as the book's subtitle, that "religion poisons everything."
We'll see if and how he elaborates on this point when I get to Chapter 2: Religion Kills.
Friday, March 6, 2009
god is not Great: Author
Our author, Christopher Hitchens is a famous Atheist, as well as a columnist for Vanity Fair. He is outspoken about his distaste for religion as is obvious by my previous entry and is known to be friends with the likes of Richard Dawkins and Salman Rushdie. He is a vehement opponent of Israel, and feels they are an occupation ruling over the Palestinian people, although he is also an ardent supporter of combatting muslim extremists.
Despite what would seem to be a very anti-conservative stance he also ardently supported the invasion of Iraq, and supports a continued presence. He has expressed belief that the war on terror will continue well after he is dead.
That said, he is also an ardent opponent of torture, and in one recorded session for vanity fair willingly was waterboarded as a demonstration. I have located that video and have posted it at the end. Hitchens was fully convinced that this was not merely an interrogation technique, but certainly torture. He only alsted about 18 seconds. So, he's definitely willing to go out on a limb, and is not just an armchair reporter.
I haven't delved much into his views on(against) religion yet, but I am assuming there will be plenty more to discuss once actually diving into his book. NOw this is all cursory, and more can likely be found at sites like wikipedia. But this is the basic, basic rundown of the man as I've seen.
god is not Great: Intro
I just purchased the book and I'm going to post the table of contents here for everyone who's interested. Before I do say, I have to say that it is an interesting collection of titles. If the book is even half as interesting as said titles it will have been totally worth it.
Chapter 1: Putting it mildly
Chapter 2: Religion kills
Chapter 3: A Short Digression on the Pig;
or, Why Heaven Hates Ham
Chapter 4: A Note on Health,
to Which Religion Can Be Hazardous
Chapter 5: The Metaphysical Claims of Religion Are False
Chapter 6: Arguments From Design
Chapter 7: Revelation:
The Nightmare of the "Old" Testament
Chapter 8: The "New" Testament Exceeds the Evil
of the "Old" One
Chapter 9: The Koran Is Borrowed From Both Jewish
and Christian Myths
Chapter 10: The Tawdriness of the Miraculous
and the Decline of Hell
Chapter 11: "The Lowly Stamp of Their Origin":
Religion's Corrupt Beginnings
Chapter 12: A Coda: How Religions End
Chapter 13: Does Religion Make People Behave Better?
Chapter 14: There Is No "Eastern" Solution
Chapter 15: Religion as an Original Sin
Chapter 16: Is Religion Child Abuse?
Chapter 17: An Objection Anticipated
The Last-Ditch "Case" Against Secularism
Chapter 18: A Finer Tradition:
The Resistance of the Rational
Chapter 19: In Conclusion:
The Need For a New Enlightenment
So. There you have it, the body of work in Hitchens' god is not Great. It is eminently clear that this book may offend some people, and does not care where you are from, or which religion you belong to. I appreciate this, and look forward to reading it. Though I look forward to starting in on the book itself, I intend to make my next post on GING to be about the author himself. As this is largely his opinions and conclusions I feel it appropriate to delve into our polemecist before looking at his work.
A fair question
I've been asked more than once why I hate religion, and in particular hate christianity. Usually this is asked by people I'm in debate or discussion with, and often just implied, not actually asked.
The actual answer is: I don't hate religion; I hate fundamentalist religion, and unreasoned religion.
Now, fundamentalist religion is an obivous target for Atheists and freethinkers simply because they often take irrational faith as a virtue, and are usually the most stringent defenders of their dogmas to the point of insanity. Biblical literalists, for example, drive me up the damned wall when the only evidence they use for their claims are from their book that they say is true because -it- says its true. Fundamentalists also tend towards an exclusivity that is harmful to societies by creating division. When only you can be right, everyone else has to be wrong. Evolutionary theory is an example of a constant pet prey for Young Earth lovers who willfully make themselves ignorant to the evidence against them. Fundamentalist Islam is also terrifying and, sadly, despite everything the lay members try and do to clean up their image, violent and oppressive.
And this extends to any conversion centered exclusive, "one true religion." Be it Islam, Christianity, Mormons, or whoever. It doesn't matter. I've never felt threatened or insluted by Jews, or Pagans (of any type), or Buddhists, or Hindus. Of course none of them feels the need to tell me I'm going to Hell because I'm not following the tenets of a God who has little to no evidence of existence.
People are, and should be free to practice what they like, but when they take it into the public sphere its fair game. If that means you get called out on biblical inconsistencies and get laughed at for quoting bible verses thinking they're going to convince someone who believes the bible is mythology, so be it.
So, no. I don't hate religion. But I really wouldn't be sad if it went away.
The actual answer is: I don't hate religion; I hate fundamentalist religion, and unreasoned religion.
Now, fundamentalist religion is an obivous target for Atheists and freethinkers simply because they often take irrational faith as a virtue, and are usually the most stringent defenders of their dogmas to the point of insanity. Biblical literalists, for example, drive me up the damned wall when the only evidence they use for their claims are from their book that they say is true because -it- says its true. Fundamentalists also tend towards an exclusivity that is harmful to societies by creating division. When only you can be right, everyone else has to be wrong. Evolutionary theory is an example of a constant pet prey for Young Earth lovers who willfully make themselves ignorant to the evidence against them. Fundamentalist Islam is also terrifying and, sadly, despite everything the lay members try and do to clean up their image, violent and oppressive.
And this extends to any conversion centered exclusive, "one true religion." Be it Islam, Christianity, Mormons, or whoever. It doesn't matter. I've never felt threatened or insluted by Jews, or Pagans (of any type), or Buddhists, or Hindus. Of course none of them feels the need to tell me I'm going to Hell because I'm not following the tenets of a God who has little to no evidence of existence.
People are, and should be free to practice what they like, but when they take it into the public sphere its fair game. If that means you get called out on biblical inconsistencies and get laughed at for quoting bible verses thinking they're going to convince someone who believes the bible is mythology, so be it.
So, no. I don't hate religion. But I really wouldn't be sad if it went away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
