The are a lot of problems with the "argument from fine tuning" but here is one I haven't seen before.
If we assume there is/was a creator god, could it only have created potential worshipers in a universe that relies on natural forces with the values we currently observe?
The argument from fine tuning suggests that because life as we know it could not exist if the fundamental forces of nature were slightly different, then the most likely cause that the values came to be what they are, was an intelligent tuner. But this also suggest that a creator god could not have done things differently. Why not? That certainly cramps the meaning of omnipotent. Or if a god could have done things differently then why couldn't an alternative nature also have done things differently?
There are better, more direct refutations out there. But it seems odd to suggest that
(1) neither a creator god nor nature could have produced a different universe that would support life therefore a creator god is more likely ...or
(2) a creator god could have produced a different universe that would support life but an alternative nature could not have produced a different universe that would support life, therefore a creator god is more likely ...or
(3)both a creator god or an alternative nature could have produced a different universe that would support life therefore a creator god is more likely.
None of these arguments is particularly persuasive on their own. And when the alternatives are also considered each seems even weaker.
Showing posts with label god. Show all posts
Showing posts with label god. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Ten Commandments, Remarkably Undivine
People continue, unchallenged, to cite the Ten Commandments of the Old Testament as the herald and pinnacle of human morality. The Ten Commandments is strong evidence that Yahweh was either made up by frustrated uneducated old men or that the creator of the universe has the mentality of a frustrated uneducated old man.
1. I am your god Have no gods before me. (Not “the” god but “your” god. Are there other gods to have before you? Research on “Who wrote the Bible” explains this one. You should look into that.)
2. Make no graven image (No statuary? It’s easy to see how important that is. Right, Barbie?)
3. Take not my name in vain (OMFG. WTF. Petty and insecure? Or is it just crowd control?)
4. Keep the Sabbath holy (Why is it OK to allow any unholy (or less holy) days? Is it because if you’re not in temple they can’t squeeze or control you.)
The first four protect only the religion and religious leaders. NO ONE is harmed by ignoring the first four commandments. And Jesus said you could ignore number 4 if you had a good reason. So he contradicted his timeless god-self. Furthermore, when asked which of the commandments we should keep to, Rabbi Jesus doesn’t mention any of the first four. Hmm. (Matthew 19:17-19, Luke 18:20, Mark 10:19)
5. Honor Mom and Dad (Vague and unconditional)
6. Don’t kill (Potentially good but doesn’t protect non-Israelites or sinners)
7. Philander not. (Good advice, bad commandment. Also, the bible suggests the severity of the offense depends only on who is doing it. Male adulterer: bad. Female adulterer: Kill the whore!)
8. Don’t steal (also doesn’t include stealing from non-Israelites, especially if you’ve killed them)
9. Don’t lie (the ultimate irony… Did god commit the first lie in Genesis 2:17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”)
10. Don’t covet (Don’t desire what other people have? That’s just un-American and also hypocritical coming from a privileged shaman class or an entity that created everything from nothing.)
It is disgusting that anyone considers the Ten Commandments to be worthy of consideration, let alone reverence. This most exalted and timeless example of the “moral” superiority of the abrahamic religious systems could be vastly improved by most modern educated adults.
What about rape or statutory rape? What about slavery, which is actually acceptable throughout the rest of bible? What about non-lethal violence? What about domestic violence? Why is it that violating any one of the commandments is punishable by death depending on interpretation and who is in charge? Contemptible are the Ten Commandments and the backward blood-thirsty archaic desert dwellers that made them up.
What would you add, remove or change from the Ten Commandments?
1. I am your god Have no gods before me. (Not “the” god but “your” god. Are there other gods to have before you? Research on “Who wrote the Bible” explains this one. You should look into that.)
2. Make no graven image (No statuary? It’s easy to see how important that is. Right, Barbie?)
3. Take not my name in vain (OMFG. WTF. Petty and insecure? Or is it just crowd control?)
4. Keep the Sabbath holy (Why is it OK to allow any unholy (or less holy) days? Is it because if you’re not in temple they can’t squeeze or control you.)
The first four protect only the religion and religious leaders. NO ONE is harmed by ignoring the first four commandments. And Jesus said you could ignore number 4 if you had a good reason. So he contradicted his timeless god-self. Furthermore, when asked which of the commandments we should keep to, Rabbi Jesus doesn’t mention any of the first four. Hmm. (Matthew 19:17-19, Luke 18:20, Mark 10:19)
5. Honor Mom and Dad (Vague and unconditional)
6. Don’t kill (Potentially good but doesn’t protect non-Israelites or sinners)
7. Philander not. (Good advice, bad commandment. Also, the bible suggests the severity of the offense depends only on who is doing it. Male adulterer: bad. Female adulterer: Kill the whore!)
8. Don’t steal (also doesn’t include stealing from non-Israelites, especially if you’ve killed them)
9. Don’t lie (the ultimate irony… Did god commit the first lie in Genesis 2:17 “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”)
10. Don’t covet (Don’t desire what other people have? That’s just un-American and also hypocritical coming from a privileged shaman class or an entity that created everything from nothing.)
It is disgusting that anyone considers the Ten Commandments to be worthy of consideration, let alone reverence. This most exalted and timeless example of the “moral” superiority of the abrahamic religious systems could be vastly improved by most modern educated adults.
What about rape or statutory rape? What about slavery, which is actually acceptable throughout the rest of bible? What about non-lethal violence? What about domestic violence? Why is it that violating any one of the commandments is punishable by death depending on interpretation and who is in charge? Contemptible are the Ten Commandments and the backward blood-thirsty archaic desert dwellers that made them up.
What would you add, remove or change from the Ten Commandments?
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
More "F" word
(This is taken unedited from comments I made elsewhere. Where it lacks context or reiterates earlier postings... that's why.)
Faith is unworthy of reverence. Faith, on any consequential scale, is absolutely deserving of despite. It’s only a state of mind, but then again so are bigotry and hubris.
If the religious and non-religious could stop using the world faith to describe reasonable naturally-supported expectations then there would only be one reason to object to its usage. And the rest of the crap could stand or fall on its own merit. If the twenty or so church marquis I pass on a regular basis are any indication, equivocation is a siren song to christians. They eat that shit up. So if non-believers seem overly reticent about broad usage of the “F” word it is a well founded concern rather than unreasonable anxiety.
One stumbling block we are going to run into is semantics. Subtle (and not so subtle) differences in the definition and proper range of usage will (and seemingly have) lead to disagreements based on misunderstandings. As a proponent of secularism and as an anti-theist I’ve come to expect this from supporters of superstitious and religious orthodoxy. But we are not evaluating “faith” for its poetic value so there is no honest benefit to leaving the door open for further equivocation.
* Faith is a belief or convicted decision made in the absence of adequate objective evidence.
There are occasions when expedient decision making is required. This is usually a matter of urgent need and limited resources (time and information being considered resources). This is not faith, unless you’d like to consider faith to be synonymous with desperation. When inaction and indecision equate to increased risk of suffering even a gamble or poorly informed guess is reasonable. In the cost/benefit analysis of “Known bad” vs. “Unknown alternative” wherein the “known bad” is severe enough, most people will brave the unknown.
There is a degree of uncertainty is every aspect of life. But the natural world, especially the civilized world at peace, is fairly predictable. We develop expectations and they are generally met. Gaping sink holes under the street seldom collapse our driving surfaces under us. But it does happen. Is it reasonable to expect it is going to happen to you at any moment? Is it more reasonable to expect that while this could happen to you it probably never will? We can make a fairly well informed decision in such matters (local geology, history lacking sink holes and undermining, competent geologists and civil engineers) and develop reasonable expectations. We might even call it trust, informed trust. To call this faith belittles the faith of the religious. There is nothing preventing you or anyone from calling this faith, except (I hope) intellectual integrity.
In situations where objective evidence is missing and there is no impending peril it is better to admit ignorance. We may operate under assumptions but if we don’t recognize that that is what we are doing we are likely to reinforce our ignorance. Where the resources exist to make informed decisions, relying on faith is willful ignorance, absolutely. If someone is too lazy to seek and consider objective evidence regarding a matter they clearly consider important… it is mildly tragic. When they think their ideas are important enough to share with others but are still too lazy to seek and consider objective evidence… it is disgusting.
*Faith may also be a belief or convicted decision made contrary to objective evidence, sometimes overwhelming evidence.
This type of faith goes beyond willful ignorance. This is delusional fanaticism. It can even be self-inflicted. Outside of “spiritual” matters and Cubs fans this is recognized as psychological affliction. And here we return squarely to the realm of beliefs based on wishful thinking and fear. This is faith at its purest (as in undiluted) ugliest form. This is the faith that too often rationalizes incivility, inhumanity and atrocity. This is the faith wherein a preconceived belief negates any contrary evidence *a priori*. This faith is a weapon, loaded and looking for a target. Most people will stop short of violence to themselves or others. But few people have difficulty condemning non-conforming culture... evidence and facts be damned.
> “Faith in vows made to others, and by
> others”
Why do these deserve faith? If they are deserving of trust (trust that you give and/or trust that you feel), that is, if they have earned trust, it’s not faith. If they are not deserving of trust neither are they deserving of faith.
> “in talent, ability, skill”
If there were anything to this then no one would ever practice. Faith is meaningless. Reasonable expectation based on previous performance is meaningful.
Positive outlook does not have a statistical influence on recovery rates. It just makes us more sympathetic to the patient. Everyone seems to think it does but studies do not back it up.
Self confidence is more reliable as a manifestation of reasonable expectations than it is as a manifestation of faith. A lack of self confidence may also be described as faith in inability. A lack of self confidence is a self fulfilling prophecy in that it deters effort. Faith or over confidence is also detrimental in that early failures tend to deter further efforts. Reasonable expectations and the knowledge that real challenges generally require tenacity are much more reliable.
All of these examples fail for the same reasons. Placing trust in something or someone that doesn’t deserve it is a gift or a gamble. Placing trust in something or someone that has earned it is evidence-based reasonable expectation.
Faith, religious or otherwise, should be despised. Using the word “faith” to describe what should be reasonably expected is an indirect, possibly unintentional, endorsement of uninformed epistemology. Willful ignorance should be mocked, not praised. The quality of a belief cannot and should not be measured by conviction of believer. To suggest otherwise is dishonest and irresponsible.
I like fiction too but I don’t see the point in celebrating the excuse a girl used to explain how her full-term baby was born 7 months (I’m guessing) after her marriage… two thousand years ago. Not even if she had a note from Epstein's Mother's deity.
Faith is unworthy of reverence. Faith, on any consequential scale, is absolutely deserving of despite. It’s only a state of mind, but then again so are bigotry and hubris.
If the religious and non-religious could stop using the world faith to describe reasonable naturally-supported expectations then there would only be one reason to object to its usage. And the rest of the crap could stand or fall on its own merit. If the twenty or so church marquis I pass on a regular basis are any indication, equivocation is a siren song to christians. They eat that shit up. So if non-believers seem overly reticent about broad usage of the “F” word it is a well founded concern rather than unreasonable anxiety.
One stumbling block we are going to run into is semantics. Subtle (and not so subtle) differences in the definition and proper range of usage will (and seemingly have) lead to disagreements based on misunderstandings. As a proponent of secularism and as an anti-theist I’ve come to expect this from supporters of superstitious and religious orthodoxy. But we are not evaluating “faith” for its poetic value so there is no honest benefit to leaving the door open for further equivocation.
* Faith is a belief or convicted decision made in the absence of adequate objective evidence.
There are occasions when expedient decision making is required. This is usually a matter of urgent need and limited resources (time and information being considered resources). This is not faith, unless you’d like to consider faith to be synonymous with desperation. When inaction and indecision equate to increased risk of suffering even a gamble or poorly informed guess is reasonable. In the cost/benefit analysis of “Known bad” vs. “Unknown alternative” wherein the “known bad” is severe enough, most people will brave the unknown.
There is a degree of uncertainty is every aspect of life. But the natural world, especially the civilized world at peace, is fairly predictable. We develop expectations and they are generally met. Gaping sink holes under the street seldom collapse our driving surfaces under us. But it does happen. Is it reasonable to expect it is going to happen to you at any moment? Is it more reasonable to expect that while this could happen to you it probably never will? We can make a fairly well informed decision in such matters (local geology, history lacking sink holes and undermining, competent geologists and civil engineers) and develop reasonable expectations. We might even call it trust, informed trust. To call this faith belittles the faith of the religious. There is nothing preventing you or anyone from calling this faith, except (I hope) intellectual integrity.
In situations where objective evidence is missing and there is no impending peril it is better to admit ignorance. We may operate under assumptions but if we don’t recognize that that is what we are doing we are likely to reinforce our ignorance. Where the resources exist to make informed decisions, relying on faith is willful ignorance, absolutely. If someone is too lazy to seek and consider objective evidence regarding a matter they clearly consider important… it is mildly tragic. When they think their ideas are important enough to share with others but are still too lazy to seek and consider objective evidence… it is disgusting.
*Faith may also be a belief or convicted decision made contrary to objective evidence, sometimes overwhelming evidence.
This type of faith goes beyond willful ignorance. This is delusional fanaticism. It can even be self-inflicted. Outside of “spiritual” matters and Cubs fans this is recognized as psychological affliction. And here we return squarely to the realm of beliefs based on wishful thinking and fear. This is faith at its purest (as in undiluted) ugliest form. This is the faith that too often rationalizes incivility, inhumanity and atrocity. This is the faith wherein a preconceived belief negates any contrary evidence *a priori*. This faith is a weapon, loaded and looking for a target. Most people will stop short of violence to themselves or others. But few people have difficulty condemning non-conforming culture... evidence and facts be damned.
> “Faith in vows made to others, and by
> others”
Why do these deserve faith? If they are deserving of trust (trust that you give and/or trust that you feel), that is, if they have earned trust, it’s not faith. If they are not deserving of trust neither are they deserving of faith.
> “in talent, ability, skill”
If there were anything to this then no one would ever practice. Faith is meaningless. Reasonable expectation based on previous performance is meaningful.
Positive outlook does not have a statistical influence on recovery rates. It just makes us more sympathetic to the patient. Everyone seems to think it does but studies do not back it up.
Self confidence is more reliable as a manifestation of reasonable expectations than it is as a manifestation of faith. A lack of self confidence may also be described as faith in inability. A lack of self confidence is a self fulfilling prophecy in that it deters effort. Faith or over confidence is also detrimental in that early failures tend to deter further efforts. Reasonable expectations and the knowledge that real challenges generally require tenacity are much more reliable.
All of these examples fail for the same reasons. Placing trust in something or someone that doesn’t deserve it is a gift or a gamble. Placing trust in something or someone that has earned it is evidence-based reasonable expectation.
Faith, religious or otherwise, should be despised. Using the word “faith” to describe what should be reasonably expected is an indirect, possibly unintentional, endorsement of uninformed epistemology. Willful ignorance should be mocked, not praised. The quality of a belief cannot and should not be measured by conviction of believer. To suggest otherwise is dishonest and irresponsible.
I like fiction too but I don’t see the point in celebrating the excuse a girl used to explain how her full-term baby was born 7 months (I’m guessing) after her marriage… two thousand years ago. Not even if she had a note from Epstein's Mother's deity.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Some thoughts on the "F" word
"We are most superstitious when we are least in control." I believe it was Andy Thomson who said that.
Faith should be despised as a venom inflicting insidious credulity.
The definitions of "god" change as needed by the believer. It is essentially impossible to disprove god because any attempt nearing success prompts the believer to "move the goal." That which defies observation is at a neutral buoyancy between "indisputable" and "incredible." Every person has an array of motives driving their epistemology. Just as we may find some people's behavior confusing, we tend to interpret their thoughts and motives through subjective filters. What we want and what we fear seem to be most influential. Likewise, the existence of a superghost is supported through selection bias, wishful thinking and, of course, fear.
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for." ~inane christian babbling
If you encounter this platitude issue the following correction:
"Wishful thinking is the substance of things hoped for." ~me And then you can debate the subtle differences between the two statements or the complete lack of difference.
"Faith" is an insidious social tool that preys on our desire to belong... our desire to be civil. In all non-religious matters we are told: caveat emptor... "Let the buyer beware." But how often are we made to feel guilty with phrases like, "Don't you trust me?" "What are you afraid of?" For some reason it is uncouth to suggest to someone they haven't earned your trust.
Side note, old joke: How does someone from Los Angeles say "Screw you?" Answer: "Trust me."
We are told to be wary of salesmen, to convict only in the absence of reasonable doubt and "Don't believe everything you read." But with religion the rules are reversed. For "spiritual" matters belief is touted as superior in the absence of evidence. It's not hard to understand why. "Evidence" that supports supernatural claims is at best subjective and suspiciously incomplete.
"What Can Be Asserted Without Evidence Can Be Dismissed Without Evidence" ~Christopher Hitchens
And yet, the believer puts stock in the lack of evidence DISPROVING the existence of whatever supernatural phenomenon they cling to. It doesn't seem to matter that every alternate supernatural claim shares equal footing through the same stale argument. It seems quite possible for anyone to believe anything. The main steering point seems to be self-preservation. In order to believe in flying pizzas or to disbelieve in gravity it is useful to have an alternate explanation and essential to have a reason to do so. If you can overcome those two hurdles you could probably convince people of ancient space warlords, magic underwear or an intangible eternal essence of self.
This is why skepticism is so important. It is not just in legal matters, financial matters, physics and used-car purchases. If there is an omnipotent deity that wants to interact with us it would be a fairly important issue. Why would we go with the least reliable, most abuse-able epistemology? Who is making these claims? Why should we believe them? Why should we believe their claims? Is it trust? Faith? Tradition? Fear? Desire? These are all horrible reasons to accept something as true. These are the weaknesses that grifters and charlatans rely on. You do get the "benefit" of being able to believe in something that is otherwise unbelievable.
It is only by faith that we may be fooled.
Sometimes the word "faith" is misapplied when what is meant is "trust." For instance, "I have faith in my friends." If that faith is based on a track record of reliable behavior then that's not really "faith." If that faith is based on a history of unreliable or consistently detrimental behavior then it should be called "faith." It should also be called "sick."
Most people who try to justify their faith in something supernatural do so by crediting (confirmation bias) welcome events to that supernatural entity. As mentioned before: subjective, incomplete evidence. Unwelcome events? For some reason the entity gets no blame. The distribution of welcome and unwelcome events across cultures and belief systems is suspiciously uniform. If there is a supernatural influence casting benevolence upon the world it doesn't seem to matter if you believe in it.
There is a certain comfort to be gained in a single tidy supernatural explanation for everything you don't understand. And it is a lot less embarrassing than admitting you don't understand the myriad details of how the world works. In light of reality, empiricism, demonstrable facts and technological progress faith has become an embarrassment and a burden. People can, may and shall believe whatever Determinism or their freewill dictates. But as long as people continue to value faith over evidence, regardless of quality, regardless of quantity, people will continue to thank god for the airbag or medical treatment that saved their life. As much as I enjoy irony, the injustice makes me cringe.
When someone says, "You gotta have faith," ask them not to use the "F" word around you because it is perverse.
Faith should be despised as a venom inflicting insidious credulity.
The definitions of "god" change as needed by the believer. It is essentially impossible to disprove god because any attempt nearing success prompts the believer to "move the goal." That which defies observation is at a neutral buoyancy between "indisputable" and "incredible." Every person has an array of motives driving their epistemology. Just as we may find some people's behavior confusing, we tend to interpret their thoughts and motives through subjective filters. What we want and what we fear seem to be most influential. Likewise, the existence of a superghost is supported through selection bias, wishful thinking and, of course, fear.
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for." ~inane christian babbling
If you encounter this platitude issue the following correction:
"Wishful thinking is the substance of things hoped for." ~me And then you can debate the subtle differences between the two statements or the complete lack of difference.
"Faith" is an insidious social tool that preys on our desire to belong... our desire to be civil. In all non-religious matters we are told: caveat emptor... "Let the buyer beware." But how often are we made to feel guilty with phrases like, "Don't you trust me?" "What are you afraid of?" For some reason it is uncouth to suggest to someone they haven't earned your trust.
Side note, old joke: How does someone from Los Angeles say "Screw you?" Answer: "Trust me."
We are told to be wary of salesmen, to convict only in the absence of reasonable doubt and "Don't believe everything you read." But with religion the rules are reversed. For "spiritual" matters belief is touted as superior in the absence of evidence. It's not hard to understand why. "Evidence" that supports supernatural claims is at best subjective and suspiciously incomplete.
"What Can Be Asserted Without Evidence Can Be Dismissed Without Evidence" ~Christopher Hitchens
And yet, the believer puts stock in the lack of evidence DISPROVING the existence of whatever supernatural phenomenon they cling to. It doesn't seem to matter that every alternate supernatural claim shares equal footing through the same stale argument. It seems quite possible for anyone to believe anything. The main steering point seems to be self-preservation. In order to believe in flying pizzas or to disbelieve in gravity it is useful to have an alternate explanation and essential to have a reason to do so. If you can overcome those two hurdles you could probably convince people of ancient space warlords, magic underwear or an intangible eternal essence of self.
This is why skepticism is so important. It is not just in legal matters, financial matters, physics and used-car purchases. If there is an omnipotent deity that wants to interact with us it would be a fairly important issue. Why would we go with the least reliable, most abuse-able epistemology? Who is making these claims? Why should we believe them? Why should we believe their claims? Is it trust? Faith? Tradition? Fear? Desire? These are all horrible reasons to accept something as true. These are the weaknesses that grifters and charlatans rely on. You do get the "benefit" of being able to believe in something that is otherwise unbelievable.
It is only by faith that we may be fooled.
Sometimes the word "faith" is misapplied when what is meant is "trust." For instance, "I have faith in my friends." If that faith is based on a track record of reliable behavior then that's not really "faith." If that faith is based on a history of unreliable or consistently detrimental behavior then it should be called "faith." It should also be called "sick."
Most people who try to justify their faith in something supernatural do so by crediting (confirmation bias) welcome events to that supernatural entity. As mentioned before: subjective, incomplete evidence. Unwelcome events? For some reason the entity gets no blame. The distribution of welcome and unwelcome events across cultures and belief systems is suspiciously uniform. If there is a supernatural influence casting benevolence upon the world it doesn't seem to matter if you believe in it.
There is a certain comfort to be gained in a single tidy supernatural explanation for everything you don't understand. And it is a lot less embarrassing than admitting you don't understand the myriad details of how the world works. In light of reality, empiricism, demonstrable facts and technological progress faith has become an embarrassment and a burden. People can, may and shall believe whatever Determinism or their freewill dictates. But as long as people continue to value faith over evidence, regardless of quality, regardless of quantity, people will continue to thank god for the airbag or medical treatment that saved their life. As much as I enjoy irony, the injustice makes me cringe.
When someone says, "You gotta have faith," ask them not to use the "F" word around you because it is perverse.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Deity asks: you feelin' me?
How might one respond to the claim...
Always keep in mind that you will almost never win an argument WHILE it's happening. You may influence onlookers. And your partner (a term which some may find preferable to "opponent") may give honest and earnest consideration to your points upon review. That being said, how might we respond?
Seek clarity. Theists tend to dodge by changing the subject or definition when their suppositions are deflating. Here too, any direct assault will be like squeezing a wet watermelon seed. In seeking clarity regarding the "I feel" pseudo-evidence try to establish why the claimant believes that statement is meaningful.
A possible question to ask: "Should I (or anyone else) believe because of what you feel?" If the answer is "yes" then we might ask why this single perception of presence countermands the presence perceived by adherents of non-abrahamic faiths both today and historically. If the answer is "no" then we might ask how they can recognize that their perception of presence is insufficient second-hand evidence but as the object of the unreliable subjective experience they feel justified in accepting it as irrefutably divine.
The senses can be fooled and the psyche may be led astray.
The same experience of "divine presence" is available through every faith system, electromagnetic bombardment of the brain, neural chemical imbalances, physical brain damage, intoxicants, mental illness and the good ole natural high (usually brought on by awe, wonder or enthusiasm). That such a feeling is so commonly a result of religious fervor should not be considered "inspirational" as much as it is should be considered "embarrassing."
In every other realm of the human experience, loss of bodily function or mental faculty is either tragic or comical. But we've bound this psychological handicap to culturally accepted intangible forces that defy all objective observation. Somehow this disguises our pitiful and primitive misunderstanding of the world (and of ourselves) with a euphoric facade of exalted cosmic self-importance.
What is "felt" does not indicate substance. What is "felt" can only influence valuation. If you don't believe me just ask every girl I thought I was in love with as a teenager.
"I believe in God because I feel his presence."
Always keep in mind that you will almost never win an argument WHILE it's happening. You may influence onlookers. And your partner (a term which some may find preferable to "opponent") may give honest and earnest consideration to your points upon review. That being said, how might we respond?
Seek clarity. Theists tend to dodge by changing the subject or definition when their suppositions are deflating. Here too, any direct assault will be like squeezing a wet watermelon seed. In seeking clarity regarding the "I feel" pseudo-evidence try to establish why the claimant believes that statement is meaningful.
A possible question to ask: "Should I (or anyone else) believe because of what you feel?" If the answer is "yes" then we might ask why this single perception of presence countermands the presence perceived by adherents of non-abrahamic faiths both today and historically. If the answer is "no" then we might ask how they can recognize that their perception of presence is insufficient second-hand evidence but as the object of the unreliable subjective experience they feel justified in accepting it as irrefutably divine.
The senses can be fooled and the psyche may be led astray.
The same experience of "divine presence" is available through every faith system, electromagnetic bombardment of the brain, neural chemical imbalances, physical brain damage, intoxicants, mental illness and the good ole natural high (usually brought on by awe, wonder or enthusiasm). That such a feeling is so commonly a result of religious fervor should not be considered "inspirational" as much as it is should be considered "embarrassing."
In every other realm of the human experience, loss of bodily function or mental faculty is either tragic or comical. But we've bound this psychological handicap to culturally accepted intangible forces that defy all objective observation. Somehow this disguises our pitiful and primitive misunderstanding of the world (and of ourselves) with a euphoric facade of exalted cosmic self-importance.
What is "felt" does not indicate substance. What is "felt" can only influence valuation. If you don't believe me just ask every girl I thought I was in love with as a teenager.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Transcendent B.S.
This is a response to Reza Aslan’s OpEd at newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices. I assume this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reza_Aslan) is the same Reza Aslan. I like his name so much I had assumed it was a pseudonym. I also like his writing style. I imagine it’s very influential to anyone like-minded or uninformed. But while he brings up some good points he manages to suggest that the subjective “evidence” for spirituality, transcendence and the supernatural are equal to or greater than the objective and subjective evidence against them. So I thought I’d point out a few points he managed to get…
Wrong.
There are "new atheists" who have never been burdened by unqualified subjective supernatural explanations of the aspects of consciousness that are popularly thought of as spirituality or transcendence. But vast numbers of "new atheists" are apostates who have first-hand awareness of the religious experience.
Wrong again.
The histories of philosophical and theological study do not support the validity of the supernatural any more than do the histories of tarot, astrology or voodoo. The supernatural is entirely dependent on a lack of understanding of natural relationships and causes. As our understanding of the natural world has increased, natural explanations have had a nasty habit of debunking supernatural beliefs. So too, improved understanding of neuro-physiology removed any objective reason to suspect that "spiritual transcendence" is anything more than brain function. Stimulating the brain naturally/artificially (electromagnetically, via brain damage or chemically... as opposed to supernaturally) results in the same experience as that induced by religious fervor. This is not coincidence or mere correlation. There is a cause and effect here. Artificially stimulating the brain doesn't induce a spiritual episode, it induces the perception of a spiritual episode. When a "spiritual" episode is induced by religious fervor the same brain function is taking place. Do supernatural occurrences have the same effect on the brain as artificial stimulation? Does artificially induced perception of spirituality merely open a window in the brain to let transcendence in? Is brain function is a side effect of supernatural influence? If so, and we take away the side effect, where is the spirituality? There's nothing left.
There are arguments to be made on behalf of "spirituality." But every argument that mitigates natural explanations (which we can observe and measure) also may be used equally well or better against supernatural explanations (which we can't observe for some strange reason).
So right, you're wrong.
Additionally Aslan supposes that the ubiquity of "spiritual" or "transcendent" experiences is evidence of the supernatural. And I have to admit that this is subjective evidence. But it is also evidence that no religious doctrine can claim authority. If there is a supreme supernatural entity being accessed through spirituality then apparently every religion, as well as deism and agnosticism have equal access, contrary to the claims of at least the big three religions. So thank you Reza for debunking judaism, christianity and islam.
And would you believe: Wrong?
Is the supernatural knowable or not? (not = unknowable)
Does the supernatural influence the natural or not?
Is the influence of the supernatural observable (objectively attributable) or not?
If the answer is "no" then there is no point in pursuing the supernatural even if it is real. If the answer to any one of these questions is "yes" then the answer to all of them is "yes." If the answer is “yes” then the supernatural is subject to scientific investigation. Well, it could be that the supernatural can only be known through subjective intuition and/or unassailable prophets. But even then, observations and predictions should be possible. But for some reason attempts to observe supernatural influences either rely on bias or result in random (non-confirmational) results. Supernatural influence is exactly as reliable as random chance. So even if the answer were "yes," even if it is real, the supernatural is moot.
Fundamentally wrong.
If there is anything new about "new atheists" it is their motivation. As a movement, atheists are responding to the growing influence of religious fundamentalist. While most religious people are "watered-down" or moderate about which cherry picked specifics deserve their faith, it is the believers who submit more of themselves to faith that grab the reigns* and pull the rest along. The very nature of faith is to believe without evidence, or worse: despite evidence. Beyond the topic of religion faith is recognized as being unreasonable or ideological. But in a religious or spiritual context, it is somehow considered admirable. It is the less reasonable, more faithful people who are motivated to represent their groups. These faithful are the people who drive their groups’ agendas. And it is the most faithful who taint civil progress with archaic superstition and dogma. It is these people who disrupt secular politics and education with claims of moral superiority and magic origins. They have become better organized, better funded and more intrusive with their "spirituality." The only thing new about "new atheists" is their new-found motivation from necessity.
The term "atheist fundamentalism" is either an oxymoron or redundant. Atheism is an absence of belief in god(s). For purposes of this argument I would even allow a substitute definition: belief in the absence of god(s) (assuming we all understand the distinction). This definition is the sole and fundamental belief of atheism. What does the fundamentalist atheist believe that the non-fundamentalist atheist does not? Their belief is the same. Their interpretation of their belief is the same. If their behaviors differ it is not because one follows a more fundamental or literal interpretation of the sole belief. Attempting to liken verbose atheism to bible literalism is a disingenuous ad hominem distraction. In short, it’s dishonest.
*(Yes, I know how to spell “reins.” The homonym was too good to ignore.)
Wrong.
There are "new atheists" who have never been burdened by unqualified subjective supernatural explanations of the aspects of consciousness that are popularly thought of as spirituality or transcendence. But vast numbers of "new atheists" are apostates who have first-hand awareness of the religious experience.
Wrong again.
The histories of philosophical and theological study do not support the validity of the supernatural any more than do the histories of tarot, astrology or voodoo. The supernatural is entirely dependent on a lack of understanding of natural relationships and causes. As our understanding of the natural world has increased, natural explanations have had a nasty habit of debunking supernatural beliefs. So too, improved understanding of neuro-physiology removed any objective reason to suspect that "spiritual transcendence" is anything more than brain function. Stimulating the brain naturally/artificially (electromagnetically, via brain damage or chemically... as opposed to supernaturally) results in the same experience as that induced by religious fervor. This is not coincidence or mere correlation. There is a cause and effect here. Artificially stimulating the brain doesn't induce a spiritual episode, it induces the perception of a spiritual episode. When a "spiritual" episode is induced by religious fervor the same brain function is taking place. Do supernatural occurrences have the same effect on the brain as artificial stimulation? Does artificially induced perception of spirituality merely open a window in the brain to let transcendence in? Is brain function is a side effect of supernatural influence? If so, and we take away the side effect, where is the spirituality? There's nothing left.
There are arguments to be made on behalf of "spirituality." But every argument that mitigates natural explanations (which we can observe and measure) also may be used equally well or better against supernatural explanations (which we can't observe for some strange reason).
So right, you're wrong.
Additionally Aslan supposes that the ubiquity of "spiritual" or "transcendent" experiences is evidence of the supernatural. And I have to admit that this is subjective evidence. But it is also evidence that no religious doctrine can claim authority. If there is a supreme supernatural entity being accessed through spirituality then apparently every religion, as well as deism and agnosticism have equal access, contrary to the claims of at least the big three religions. So thank you Reza for debunking judaism, christianity and islam.
And would you believe: Wrong?
Is the supernatural knowable or not? (not = unknowable)
Does the supernatural influence the natural or not?
Is the influence of the supernatural observable (objectively attributable) or not?
If the answer is "no" then there is no point in pursuing the supernatural even if it is real. If the answer to any one of these questions is "yes" then the answer to all of them is "yes." If the answer is “yes” then the supernatural is subject to scientific investigation. Well, it could be that the supernatural can only be known through subjective intuition and/or unassailable prophets. But even then, observations and predictions should be possible. But for some reason attempts to observe supernatural influences either rely on bias or result in random (non-confirmational) results. Supernatural influence is exactly as reliable as random chance. So even if the answer were "yes," even if it is real, the supernatural is moot.
Fundamentally wrong.
If there is anything new about "new atheists" it is their motivation. As a movement, atheists are responding to the growing influence of religious fundamentalist. While most religious people are "watered-down" or moderate about which cherry picked specifics deserve their faith, it is the believers who submit more of themselves to faith that grab the reigns* and pull the rest along. The very nature of faith is to believe without evidence, or worse: despite evidence. Beyond the topic of religion faith is recognized as being unreasonable or ideological. But in a religious or spiritual context, it is somehow considered admirable. It is the less reasonable, more faithful people who are motivated to represent their groups. These faithful are the people who drive their groups’ agendas. And it is the most faithful who taint civil progress with archaic superstition and dogma. It is these people who disrupt secular politics and education with claims of moral superiority and magic origins. They have become better organized, better funded and more intrusive with their "spirituality." The only thing new about "new atheists" is their new-found motivation from necessity.
The term "atheist fundamentalism" is either an oxymoron or redundant. Atheism is an absence of belief in god(s). For purposes of this argument I would even allow a substitute definition: belief in the absence of god(s) (assuming we all understand the distinction). This definition is the sole and fundamental belief of atheism. What does the fundamentalist atheist believe that the non-fundamentalist atheist does not? Their belief is the same. Their interpretation of their belief is the same. If their behaviors differ it is not because one follows a more fundamental or literal interpretation of the sole belief. Attempting to liken verbose atheism to bible literalism is a disingenuous ad hominem distraction. In short, it’s dishonest.
*(Yes, I know how to spell “reins.” The homonym was too good to ignore.)
Sunday, March 28, 2010
God is: 1. Incapable, 2. Indifferent or 3. Fictional (choose all that apply)
“Without a god in this universe the world would be full of evil.”
“Without belief in god people would just live their lives according to themselves.”
These claims are not new. The fallacies of these and similar statements have been and are continually exposed and dismissed. Countless cultures managed to function socially (as opposed to individuals living “according to themselves”) before the Romans conquered Israel. Countless cultures managed to function socially without any awareness of the mythology of the Hebrews. Most cultures have managed roughly the same evil-to-good ratio without yawei or Jesus. There is no objective reason to think that without believing there is a god in the universe “the world would be full of evil.”
But maybe they are referring to god’s existence rather than belief therein? Evil does exist in the world. (I hope we can agree on this premise. If it is not obvious to someone that there is evil in the world there is little hope of reaching them with demonstrable facts, let alone logic.) The definition of “evil” is a slippery and a possible point of equivocation. But whether we define “evil” as “a metaphysical force that erodes morality,” “that which causes physical or emotional harm” or “malicious intent,” the same conclusion is inevitable. Let us assume (as has been suggested) that a god capable of influencing how “full of evil” the world is, actually exists. Evil does exist so this god is either incapable, unwilling or both to reduce evil to zero.
Metaphysical evil. If evil is a malevolent force, independent of humanity, then it falls entirely under the purview of such a god. Humans could not eliminate or create this kind of evil. The quantity (or absence), quality and placement of such a metaphysical evil would be the responsibility and fault of the god. Whether the god directly created the evil or merely created the possibility/potential for metaphysical evil, attempts to direct blame at mankind for metaphysical evil make as much sense as blaming mankind for any other supposed metaphysical manifestation. Ghosts? Souls? Dualistic consciousness? If the god is capable and willing to reduce metaphysical evil then why does metaphysical evil exist at all? There are four possibilities: 1. The god is incapable of reducing/eliminating metaphysical evil. 2. The god is unwilling to reduce/eliminate metaphysical evil. 3. The god is a fictional construct. 4. Metaphysical evil is a fictional construct. At LEAST one of these possibilities is true.
Harm. This is basically natural evil. Plenty of people point to volcanoes, earthquakes, tornados, tsunami, hurricanes, sickness, death, hunger… as evidence that there is no omniscient omnipotent sympathetic intervening god. Some will even include our fragile emotional reliance on moderately benevolent circumstances and order (as opposed to chaos.) But the claim is that without god the world would be full of evil. If we are talking about natural evil, once again the responsibility and fault go to the supposed creator. If humans were created then their creator is to blame for their nature and potential. If the universe, Earth and life were created then their creator is to blame for their nature and potential. Once again we must consider: 1. The god is incapable of reducing/eliminating natural evil. 2. The god is unwilling to reduce/eliminate natural evil. 3. The god is a fictional construct. 4. Natural evil shouldn’t even be called “evil” though the described phenomena do exist… because they can.
Malicious intent. Let’s broaden “malicious intent” to include selfish indifference along with cruelty for the sake of cruelty. This kind of evil is uniquely human. Certainly in nature we’ve seen predators sate their hunger via the suffering and death of another animal. We’ve seen cats toy with their prey. But we are reluctant to name this imposed ill “evil” in the absence of conscious self-awareness. When we have the capacity to sympathize with another being and still intentionally allow or cause them to suffer is this not evil? Certainly we prioritize, rationalize and justify our choices before and after the fact. But if this is not evil then what is? If we assume humans were created we can credit the creator with giving us the potential for intentional conscious evil. But given that we have consciousness, we have sympathy, we have choices, we must take the lion’s share of responsibility for our malice. I wouldn’t characterize the world as being FULL of malice or self-interest. Although both spite and egoism are very common. But we also have cooperation and altruism. Could there be altruism and cooperation without god? These are the traits by which we categorize creatures as being social. Behavior that benefits the group increases the likelihood that the group will have descendants, descendants that also have social tendencies. While we may credit/blame a god for our potential to do good and evil we must take responsibility for our decisions to cooperate or harm. Does the balance of good and evil rely on the existence of a god? There is no objective reason to believe it does. 1. Incapable? 2. Unwilling? 3. Fictional?
It has been suggested that sincere prayer will lead us to revelation, epiphany and the holy spirit. I’ve already done that. Thankfully, the delusion wore off. The world works fine and doesn’t need a supernatural entity to explain how or why. And even if it did need supernatural explanations the available mythologies (religions) are inadequate at best. The more popular mythologies are generally self-contradicting, especially christianity. And why is it not suspicious to everyone that the same feeling of transcendence is available no matter which religion a person chooses? How can a Tibetan monk, a muslim, a baptist, a catholic, a lutheran, a voodoo priest, a jew, a rastafarian, a hindu (and the list goes on) all receive what christians call the gift of the holy spirit? Alternate religions may call it something different. And they too know it to be Truth. How is it different? That’s funny; they said the same thing about yours. It is a subjective knowing. It is a conclusion based on (and reliant on) what is felt internally. How is it that all religions can provide the same feeling of transcendence? Is it that none but one religion is correct and the others are tapping into something internal and natural rather than external and supernatural? Is it that all religions tap into the same supernatural source and that our natural understanding is too simple to see all religions are true? Or is it that they are all false, all rely on the same internal human foibles and provide nothing that isn’t already in us?
I cannot tell you what you won’t hear; show you what you won’t see. You will make excuses, rationalize and generally find a way to believe what you want to believe. But if there is a god, it did an excellent job of making itself deniable and irrelevant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)